ADOLESCENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF REJECTION STATUS AND POTENTIALLY
REJECTING SITUATIONS
Tracie R. Baker
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green
State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
December 2011
Committee:
Marie S. Tisak, Advisor
Helen J. Michaels
Graduate Faculty Representative
Kenneth M. Shemberg
John Tisak
ii
ABSTRACT
Marie S. Tisak, Advisor
The peer rejection literature’s focus on sociometric measurement has neglected the
potential relevance of how adolescents interpret rejection information. Part 1 of this study
explored peer rejection from the viewpoint of 315 adolescents (M age = 17.14, SD = .70) in
terms of 1) how often they perceived they were the recipients and initiators of rejection, and 2)
the behaviors that communicated rejection. Rejecting and accepting behaviors were compared to
not nice and nice behaviors to obtain a better understanding of the nature of peer rejection from
the perspective of adolescents. Categories accounting for the rejecting behaviors listed were
Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Social Aggression, Negative Impression, and Social
Hierarchy, with socially aggressive behaviors being listed most frequently. There was both
similarity and distinction in the behaviors that were listed as rejecting versus not nice.
Additionally, rejecting and not nice behaviors were consistently reported as occurring less
frequently than accepting and nice behaviors. A series of 2 (gender of participant: male or
female) X 2 (recipient: participant or peer) X 2 (recipient gender: boy or girl) mixed ANOVAs
were conducted; dependent variables included rates of rejection (and acceptance, not nice, and
nice behaviors) and whether each behavioral category was mentioned. Main effects and
interactions including gender, recipient, and recipient gender are discussed.
Part 2 explored individual and contextual differences in the processing of rejection
information. Specifically, participants were given one of three scenarios that involved an
intentional, unintentional, or ambiguous exclusion. They responded to items about how the
characters would be impacted emotionally. A series of 3 (scenario type: ambiguous, intentional,
unintentional) X 2 (gender: male or female) X 3 (rejected status: never rejected, sometimes
iii
rejected, often rejected) ANOVAS were conducted. Adolescents perceived greater emotional
impact when the exclusion appeared intentional. Contrary to expectations, often rejected
participants did not differ on perceived emotional impact from less frequently rejected
participants in the ambiguous condition. There was evidence that adolescents who felt more
frequently rejected expected that the recipient would be sadder when the exclusion appeared
intentional. Additional findings, limitations, directions for future research, and clinical
implications are discussed.
iv
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Patrick and Laurie Baker.
Thank you for always believing in me and supporting me in every way you were able as I
pursued my goals.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I thank my advisor, Dr. Marie Tisak, for her wisdom, guidance,
patience, and encouragement during the completion of this project. I learned a great deal
throughout this process and can truly say she has helped me become a better and more
independent researcher. I additionally thank my dissertation committee: Dr. Kenneth Shemberg,
Dr. John Tisak, and Dr. Helen Michaels. Their insight, attention to detail, interest in the topic,
and flexibility throughout the process was greatly appreciated.
To the Brunswick City, Fairless Local, Jackson Local, North Canton City, and Perry
Local Schools: without the gifts of time and support from the principals, teachers, parents, and
students in these districts, this project never would have been possible.
I would also like to thank all members of the Clinical and Developmental Psychology
faculty at BGSU who have contributed to my scientist-practitioner education. Finally, I would
like to thank my colleagues, family, and friends who gave me the encouragement, space, and
time I needed to create a product I am proud of.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................
1
Defining Peer Rejection among Adolescents ............................................................
2
Moving Beyond the Behavior in Rejection Interactions............................................
5
The Present Study: Part 1...........................................................................................
7
Interpretations of Social Information Related to Rejection ......................................
9
The Present Study: Part 2...........................................................................................
12
METHODS
………............................................................................................................
14
Participants
............................................................................................................
14
Procedure
............................................................................................................
14
Measures
............................................................................................................
15
Ratings of Rejecting, Accepting, Nice, and Not Nice Behaviors ..................
15
Nice, Not Nice, Accepting and Rejecting Behavioral Categories .................
17
Coding of Nice and Accepting Behaviors ....................................................
17
Coding of Not Nice and Rejecting Behaviors................................................
18
Exclusion Scenarios ......................................................................................
18
……... ............................................................................................................
21
Comparison of Nice versus Not Nice and Accepting versus Rejecting Behaviors ..
21
Comparison of Nice versus Accepting and Not Nice versus Rejecting Behaviors ...
22
Ratings of Nice Behaviors .........................................................................................
23
RESULTS
Nice Behavioral Categories by Participant Gender, Recipient Gender, and Recipient 24
Helping ..........................................................................................................
25
vii
Sharing ..........................................................................................................
25
Benevolence ..................................................................................................
25
Companionship .............................................................................................
26
Inclusion ........................................................................................................
26
Ratings of Accepting Behaviors ................................................................................
26
Accepting Behavioral Categories by Participant Gender, Recipient Gender, and
Recipient ........................................................................................................
27
Helping ..........................................................................................................
27
Benevolence ..................................................................................................
27
Companionship .............................................................................................
27
Inclusion ........................................................................................................
28
Ratings of Not Nice Behaviors ..................................................................................
29
Not Nice Behavioral Categories by Participant Gender, Recipient Gender, and
Recipient .......................................................................................................
29
Physical Aggression ......................................................................................
30
Verbal Aggression ........................................................................................
30
Social Aggression .........................................................................................
30
Negative Impression .....................................................................................
31
Ratings of Rejecting Behaviors .................................................................................
31
Rejecting Behavioral Categories by Participant Gender, Recipient Gender, and
Recipient ........................................................................................................
32
Physical Aggression ......................................................................................
32
Verbal Aggression ........................................................................................
32
viii
Social Aggression .........................................................................................
33
Negative Impression .....................................................................................
33
Social Hierarchy ............................................................................................
33
Part 2: Rejected Status ...............................................................................................
34
The Degree of Likelihood that the Excluding Character Dislikes the
Excluded Character............................................................................
34
The Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel Sad ...................
35
The Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel Angry ...............
35
The Degree to Which the Excluding Character Should Feel Guilty..............
36
Rejecting Status .........................................................................................................
36
The Degree of Likelihood that the Excluding Character Dislikes the
Excluded Character............................................................................
37
The Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel Sad ...................
37
The Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel Angry ...............
38
The Degree to Which the Excluding Character Should Feel Guilty..............
39
……............................................................................................................
40
Recipient and Gender Differences .............................................................................
43
DISCUSSION
The Emotional Impact of Exclusion as a Rejecting Behavior According to Never
Rejected, Sometimes Rejected, and Often Rejected Adolescents .................
46
The Emotional Impact of Exclusion as a Rejecting Behavior According to Never
Rejecting, Sometimes Rejecting, and Often Rejecting Adolescents .............
48
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................
49
Directions for Developmental Research ....................................................................
52
ix
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................
54
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................
58
APPENDIX A. LETTER TO PRINCIPALS........................................................................
65
APPENDIX B. PARENT CONSENT LETTER ..................................................................
67
APPENDIX C. STUDENT ASSENT LETTER ..................................................................
69
APPENDIX D. DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................
71
APPENDIX E. RATINGS AND BEHAVIORS QUESTIONNAIRE ................................
72
APPENDIX F. SCENARIOS FOR FEMALE PARTICIPANTS .......................................
78
APPENDIX G. SCENARIOS FOR MALE PARTICIPANTS ............................................
81
APPENDIX H. HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ............................
84
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Categories and Descriptions of Nice and Accepting Behaviors……………………
85
2
Categories and Descriptions of Not Nice and Rejecting Behaviors ..........................
86
3
Mean (and Standard Deviation) Rates of Nice, Not Nice, Accepting, and
Rejecting Behavior for Male Participants .....................................................
4
Mean (and Standard Deviation) Rates of Nice, Not Nice, Accepting, and
Rejecting Behavior for Female Participants .................................................
5
93
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Inclusion as a Nice Behavior by Recipient
Gender and Recipient ....................................................................................
11
92
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Sharing as a Nice Behavior by Participant
Gender and Recipient Gender .......................................................................
10
91
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Sharing as a Nice Behavior by Recipient
Gender and Recipient.....................................................................................
9
90
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Female Respondents Mentioning Each
Nice Behavioral Category..............................................................................
8
89
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Male Respondents Mentioning Each
Nice Behavioral Category..............................................................................
7
88
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Nice Behavior by Participant Gender,
Recipient Gender, and Recipient ...................................................................
6
87
94
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Male Respondents Mentioning Each
Accepting Behavioral Category.....................................................................
95
xi
12
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Female Respondents Mentioning Each
Accepting Behavioral Category.....................................................................
13
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Companionship as an Accepting Behavior
by Participant Gender and Recipient Gender.................................................
14
98
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Inclusion as an Accepting Behavior
by Participant Gender and Recipient Gender.................................................
16
97
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Companionship as an Accepting Behavior
by Participant Gender and Recipient .............................................................
15
96
99
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Not Nice Behavior by Participant Gender and
Recipient Gender ........................................................................................... 100
17
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Male Respondents Mentioning Each
Not Nice Behavioral Category....................................................................... 101
18
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Female Respondents Mentioning Each
Not Nice Behavioral Category....................................................................... 102
19
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Verbal Aggression as a Not Nice Behavior
by Recipient and Recipient Gender .............................................................. 103
20
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Social Aggression as a Not Nice Behavior
by Recipient and Recipient Gender ............................................................... 104
21
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Male Respondents Mentioning Each
Reject Behavioral Category ........................................................................... 105
22
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Female Respondents Mentioning Each
Reject Behavioral Category ........................................................................... 106
xii
23
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Verbal Aggression as a Rejecting Behavior
by Recipient and Recipient Gender .............................................................. 107
24
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree of Likelihood that the Excluding
Character Dislikes the Excluded Character by Scenario Type, Gender,
and Rejected Status ........................................................................................ 108
25
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluded
Character Should Feel Sad by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejected
Status ............................................................................................................ 109
26
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree of to Which the Excluded
Character Should Feel Angry by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejected
Status ............................................................................................................ 110
27
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluding
Character Should Feel Guilty by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejected
Status ............................................................................................................ 111
28
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree of Likelihood that the Excluding
Character Dislikes the Excluded Character by Scenario Type, Gender,
and Rejecting Status....................................................................................... 112
29
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluded
Character Should Feel Sad by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejecting
Status ............................................................................................................ 113
30
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluded
Character Should Feel Angry by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejecting
Status ............................................................................................................ 114
xiii
31
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluding
Character Should Feel Guilty by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejecting
Status ............................................................................................................ 115
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1
Page
Mean degree to which the excluded character should feel sad by scenario
type and rejected status .................................................................................. 116
2
Mean degree to which the excluded character should feel angry by gender
and rejected status .......................................................................................... 117
3
Mean degree to which the excluded character should feel sad by scenario
type and rejecting status................................................................................. 118
1
INTRODUCTION
As the developmental literature on social relations has progressed, it has become
increasingly apparent that being accepted by peers is critical to well-being and social growth
(McDougall, Hymel, Vaillancourt & Mercer, 2001). Through their study of peer rejection, an
active dislike by peers, researchers have come to an agreement that being rejected by the peer
group is related to a range of negative behaviors and emotions (McDougall et. al, 2001). Despite
these associations with maladjustment, rejection is something that nearly everyone experiences.
For instance, when asked to recall and describe a rejection experience that hurt their feelings,
90% of adolescent participants generated an example (Sunwolf & Leets, 2004). Fifteen percent
reported that they were rejected often and 62% reported elevated levels of distress in response to
being left out of a group. Additionally, 84% of participants were able to remember and describe
a time when they had rejected a peer (Leets & Sunwolf, 2005).
The most common way peer rejection is defined in the literature is as a social status label.
Social status, according to Bagwell, Coie, Terry and Lochman (2000) “is a group-oriented
concept that indexes the degree to which an individual is liked and disliked by the general peer
group” (p. 281). Sociometric techniques designed to identify rejected children are typically used
to identify which children in a classroom are both liked the least (i.e., least accepted) and
disliked the most by peers (for examples, Asher, 1990; Bagwell et al., 2000; Coie & Cillessen,
1993; Hymel, Bowker & Woody, 1993; McDougall et al., 2001; Parker & Asher, 1987; Rys &
Bear, 1997). The “rejected children” are then compared to children of non-rejected status
(Dodge et al., 2003; McDougall et al., 2001).
This sociometric methodology has yielded much information about rejected children. For
instance, rejected children are likely to be aggressive, withdrawn, or a combination of these two
2
main behavioral correlates of rejection (McDougall et al., 2001). Rejected children have also
displayed long-term academic problems (e.g., work habits, academic achievement), general
psychopathology outcomes, externalizing problems, and internalizing problems (Bierman &
McCauley, 1987; McDougall et al., 2001; O’Neil, Welsh, Parke, Wang & Strand, 1997;
Osterman, 2000). Additionally, though the directions of causality have not been determined,
rejection has been linked to depression, sadness, loneliness, jealousy, guilt, shame, low selfesteem, poor self-concept, embarrassment, and social anxiety (Asher, Parkhurst, Hymel &
Williams, 1990; Bierman & McCauley, 1987; Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin, Hymel &
Bukowski, 1995; Hymel, Franke & Friegang, 1985; Leary, Koch & Hechenbleikner, 2001;
Nolan, Flynn & Garber, 2003; Sandstrom & Zakriski, 2004).
Despite the recent advances in the literature, peer rejection remains under-explored. For
instance, much of the peer rejection literature represents male school-aged children. Therefore,
the understanding of peer rejection as experienced by adolescents of both genders is remarkably
limited. This is a notable weakness in the literature, as adolescence is a time when friendship
and belonging become particularly important and are linked to positive mental health and
interpersonal competence (Buhrmester, 1990). Therefore, adolescents’ perceptions of whether
they are accepted socially by peers may be particularly important during this time period.
Additionally, past research on peer rejection has largely neglected to explore how adolescents
themselves view and make sense of rejection. Accordingly, this study will present a view of
rejection that is reflective of adolescents’ perceptions of their social experiences.
Defining Peer Rejection among Adolescents
Conceptualizing peer rejection only as dislike from the peer group has its disadvantages.
For instance, defining rejection with sociometric nominations tells nothing about the subjective
3
experience of rejection, such as whether the child or adolescent feels rejected (McDougall et al.,
2001). As Buhs (2005) stated, existing models of rejection fail to consider the full range of peer
maltreatment experienced by rejected children, which may range from passive ignoring to
physical victimization. Although the study of the adjustment of sociometrically rejected children
remains important, information about what peer rejection looks like and what cognitive and
affective elements are needed in order to get a more complete understanding of rejection are
necessary for the literature to progress. As written by Sunwolf and Leets (2004), “It is apparent
that when researchers speak of rejected children as a type of child (such as artistic children or
introverted children), the rich dynamics of rejection as an interpersonal communication event,
performed by more than one person, may be obscured. We still know little about the rejection
event itself and how it is constructed and experienced through communication” (p. 348).
To study peer rejection on a closer level, one may define it behaviorally in terms of a
dyadic interaction (McDougall et al., 2001). In a dyadic interaction, an adolescent might be the
recipient of a rejecting behavior by a peer. A behavior might occur once (e.g., a friend doesn’t
invite a peer to a party) or it could be part of a series of rejecting behaviors (e.g., an adolescent is
turned down for several dates). Therefore, rather than measuring the popularity of the
adolescent, the actual rejecting behavior is what is attended to.
Recent research has contributed to defining rejection at this closer level by questioning
adolescents about these interactions that involve rejection. More specifically, Sunwolf and Leets
(2004) studied the strategies that adolescent (age 13-19) peer groups use to communicate
rejection. They asked participants to “Think of a time when a group of people excluded you and
it hurt your feelings. What did someone in that group do or say (behavior and/or words) that let
you know you would not be included?” Behaviors and words extracted from the participants’
4
responses were classified into 5 strategies: Ignoring, Disqualifying, Name-Calling, Blaming, and
Creating New Rules. According to Sunwolf and Leets (2004), Ignoring included behaviors
where a peer’s presence was not acknowledged. Some examples that fit under this category were
walking away from a peer who was trying to join a group or inviting other students to a party in
front of a peer who they did not invite. Disqualifying included focusing on a flaw of a peer as an
excuse as for why the peer could not join the group. For example, an adolescent might tell peers
that they don’t have enough skills to play a sport with them. Name-calling, or cruelly referring
to a peer’s ethnicity or physical appearance, fell within the category “insulting.” Blaming
included telling peers that nobody likes them or that they are not cool enough to join. Finally, an
example of Creating New Rules occurred when a peer told another peer that there was no room
in an activity for additional people (when that would not be true had another peer attempt to gain
entry into the group). (Other examples of behaviors included in these five categories are in
Sunwolf & Leets, 2004).
Excluding a peer is only one example of how rejection can occur. A fuller range of
behaviors that communicate rejection to adolescents has not been explored. However, an
observational study with preschool children identified categories such as excluding a child or
terminating an interaction, denying a child access to classmates or resources, being physically or
verbally aggressive, exercising dominance over another child, expressing disapproval toward a
peer, and using a third party (e.g., tattling, making a negative comment to another child) (e.g.,
Asher, Rose & Gabriel, 2001). The generalizability of these observations in young children to
adolescent social behavior is unclear. However, there has been evidence of continuity in peer
behavior categories from childhood to adolescence, despite different actual behaviors (e.g.,
5
Tisak, Tisak & Galliger, 2007), indicating potential relevance of general categories of social
behavior between early and later social development.
Therefore, although identifying “rejected children” by determining which children are
disliked by peers is the most popular method of studying peer rejection, there have been attempts
to broaden the definition by studying the behaviors that communicate rejection. However,
identification of behaviors alone is not likely to lead to a distinctive understanding of rejection.
Moving Beyond the Behavior in Rejection Interactions
By studying rejection behaviorally rather than categorically, overlap with other concepts
such as aggression is likely to occur. As illustrated by Asher et al.’s (2001) categories, verbally
and physically aggressive behaviors are ways that rejection may be communicated to a rejectee.
Buhs (2005) and Coie (2004) also describe physical aggression (e.g., overt bullying), verbal
aggression (e.g., teasing), and relational aggression as ways by which rejection is manifested.
Relational aggression refers to “behaviors that are intended to significantly damage another
child’s friendships or feelings of inclusion by the peer group” (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, p. 711).
For example, excluding a child from a group and discussing a child negatively with peers so
those peers will not like that child are relationally aggressive behaviors that might also serve to
reject. Not all rejection is a form of relational aggression, however. Acts of aggression against a
child do not always indicate that an adolescent is disliked by the perpetrator or serve to exclude.
Therefore, present and future research must explore the cognitions behind rejection in
addition to the behaviors themselves. In addition to exploring the feeling of being rejected by
peers, it is important to explore rejection from the viewpoint of those rejecting. It is relevant to
note that very little is known about adolescents’ perceptions of rejecting others. For example,
while constructs such as prosocial behavior (e.g., helping, sharing, benevolence) and negative
6
social behavior (e.g., physical aggression, verbal aggression, relational aggression) have been
seen as being at two dimensions of morality (Tisak, Tisak & Goldstein, 2006), it is less clear
whether rejection is regarded as a negative social behavior by children and adolescents.
However, questions about perceptions of the morality of rejection have recently been raised.
According to social domain theory, morality includes fairness, justice, and the welfare and rights
of others, which suggests that exclusion might be seen as wrong in a moral sense (Killen, 2007).
Accordingly, children’s evaluations of exclusion based on group membership have been studied
(Killen, 2007; Killen, Henning, Kelly, Crystal & Ruck, 2007; Killen & Stangor, 2001; Theimer,
Killen & Stangor, 2001). These studies have shown that children used moral reasoning to come
to the conclusion that it is wrong to exclude peers based on gender and race. There has also been
evidence that ethnic background, social experience, and age are related to interpretations of
interracial motives for excluding peers (Killen et al., 2007). Specifically, Killen et al. (2007)
found that non-white children identified non-race based reasons for exclusion (e.g., lack of
shared interests) among interracial groups to be more wrong than did white children (with this
pattern decreasing as age increases), and that non-white children were more likely to think that
racial exclusion was occurring in the vignettes that did not state that the exclusion was due to
racial reasons.
Despite these advances in the exclusion literature, whether children feel that exclusion or
rejection is wrong in the absence of the suggestion of intergroup or intergender discrimination is
unknown. As previously discussed, rejection can be communicated through aggressive actions,
and aggressive actions are regarded as negative social behaviors (Asher et al., 2001; Buhs, 2005;
Coie, 2004; Tisak et al., 2006). However, the possible intentions behind these behaviors (e.g., to
reject) were not considered in coming to this conclusion.
7
Aside from the comparison of rejecting/accepting behaviors to negative/prosocial
behaviors, little research to date has explored 1) how often adolescents believe they reject others,
and 2) the behaviors that adolescents recognize that they use to communicate their dislike toward
peers.
As the following section outlines, the first overarching goal of the present study was to
obtain adolescents’ perceptions of the rate in which they are rejected and reject others, and to
form categories of behaviors that communicate their rejection of male and female peers. The
rate and behavioral categories of accepting behaviors, which are at the opposite end of the
rejection continuum, were examined as well. Finally, the similarities and differences between
acceptance/rejection and more general prosocial/negative social behavior were explored. To
address this question, Tisak et al.’s (2007) method of categorizing and rating how often they
experience nice and not nice behaviors was used to categorize and rate prosocial and negative
social behaviors.
The Present Study: Part 1
The first aim of the present study was to investigate the rate at which rejecting and
accepting behaviors occur from the adolescent’s point of view. It was expected that adolescents’
perceptions of rejecting and accepting behaviors would follow a similar pattern of school-aged
children’s perceptions of not nice and nice behaviors; that is, it was thought that accepting
behaviors would be rated as occurring more often than rejecting behaviors (Tisak et al., 2007).
The second goal was to investigate developmental and gender differences in the rate that
rejecting and accepting behaviors occur. Gender was examined in the following ways: First,
adolescents responded to questions in which they were rejecting and accepting to both samegender and opposite-gender peers. Second, adolescents responded to questions in which they
8
were the recipient of rejecting or accepting behavior from same-gender and opposite-gender
peers. Because the nature of gender differences surrounding peer rejection in an adolescent
sample is unclear, no specific hypotheses were made on gender differences.
In addition, the rate at which not nice and nice behaviors occur from an adolescent’s
point of view was investigated. This provided a basis of comparison for rejecting and accepting
behaviors. In other words, this study examined whether reports of not nice and nice behaviors
followed a similar pattern to those of rejecting and accepting behaviors. Additionally, by
investigating not nice and nice behaviors, this research built upon past research that examined
perceptions of negative and prosocial behavior in a school-aged sample to perceptions of
negative and prosocial behavior in an adolescent sample (Tisak et al., 2007). From a schoolaged child’s point of view, prosocial behaviors were found to occur more often between samegender peers than opposite-gender peers, and negative behaviors were found to happen more
often in opposite-gender dyads (Tisak et al., 2007). This study made it possible to investigate
whether these findings extend to a high-school sample.
With regard to the types of rejecting and accepting behaviors that occur, this researcher
expected to see instances of both overlap and of distinction between rejecting and not nice
behaviors, and between accepting and nice behaviors. As previously mentioned, in a schoolaged sample, nice categories that have emerged are sharing and helping, while not nice behaviors
that emerged included verbal, physical, and relational aggression (Tisak et al, 2007). It was
expected that similar categories of nice and not nice behaviors would emerge within the
adolescent sample. Based on rejection categories identified in the literature (Asher et al., 2001;
Sunwolf & Leets, 2004), it was expected that rejection would include aggressive examples to
those in the not nice category, but would also include more passive forms of rejection (such as
9
ignoring). This researcher also expected accepting behaviors to overlap with nice behaviors, but
to have distinguishing characteristics as well. It was anticipated that these findings would
indicate that rejection and acceptance are distinct concepts from not nice and nice behaviors, but
cannot be characterized as such by behaviors alone.
In sum, the nature of rejection was explored from the adolescents’ point of view.
Rejection was defined by two different measures: 1) the rate by which adolescents reported they
felt rejected, and 2) the rate by which adolescents reported that they intended to reject. Because
it was expected that behavioral categories alone were unlikely to demonstrate how adolescents
understand rejection, the interpreting of certain social information related to rejection was
examined in more detail. Specifically, the next section explores potential contextual factors
(e.g., characteristics of the interaction) and individual differences (perceived level of being
rejected and of rejecting others) associated with what adolescents believed the emotional impact
of the interaction would be.
Interpretations of Social Information Related to Rejection
Little is known about how adolescents interpret social information related to rejection.
As mentioned earlier, the same behavior performed in two different situations might be intended
to reject in one situation, but not the other. For instance, if an adolescent tells a peer that she is
not able to meet at a school event due to another commitment, it could mean that she does have
another commitment and that she would go to the school event if she were able. However, it
might also be a way to communicate the lack of desire to spend time with the classmate, which
has been recognized as a construct by which to measure rejection (e.g., Bagwell et al., 2000). It
is likely that the contextual information available to the adolescent informs an adolescent’s
judgment of whether a behavior is rejecting. Additionally, it is possible that two adolescents
10
may come to different conclusions about whether rejection is present when faced with the exact
same contextual information. Is rejection as relevant if the recipient of rejection does not feel
rejected? It is possible that the direct consequences being rejected might not be felt emotionally,
for instance, if one does not feel rejected. When correlating sociometric status to indices of
adjustment, it is unknown whether adjustment is directly related to feeling rejected, or whether
the adjustment is associated with another problem that accounts for both the adjustment and the
rejection.
According to the social information processing model, the early stages of processing
social information are encoding social cues and interpreting these cues (Crick & Dodge, 1994;
Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge, Coie, Pettit & Price, 1990; Dodge et al., 2003). Past rejection
research has indicated that children who are rejected often are less accurate in reading social cues
and solving social problems (Asarnow & Callan, 1985; Crick & Ladd, 1990; Dodge & Feldman,
1990; Gifford-Smith & Rabiner, 2004). Additionally, aggressive-rejected children overestimate
their peer status, athletic competence, academic competence, and social competence (GiffordSmith & Rabiner, 2004; Lopez, 2006). These may indicate that rejected children in particular
have difficulty interpreting social information (though it is not clear whether being rejected
directly or indirectly leads to faulty information processing, or whether faulty ways of
interpreting social information leads to rejection). What it does not indicate is whether those
who feel rejected process social information differently than those who do not feel rejected.
One way to measure how children and adolescents interpret rejection interactions is to
present vignettes that involve a peer interaction and question the child about aspects of interest.
For example, in their study on children’s reasoning about responses to aggression, Rogers and
Tisak (1996) presented situations involving aggression to children and asked them how the
11
victim and the witness should react and how they would probably react, and the legitimacy of
retaliation. A way to apply this method to rejection is to present a scenario to participants with
an interaction that involves a potential rejecting interaction and asking participants questions to
determine whether rejection was the intent. More specifically, participants may answer
questions about whether the behaviors communicate dislike.
In addition to studying adolescent’s judgments about whether a behavior is rejecting, a
scenario methodology may provide valuable information about adolescents’ perceived impact of
rejection. Although prior research has shown that rejection is correlated with a range of
adjustment problems (see Asher et al., 1990; Bierman & McCauley, 1987; Boivin & Hymel,
1997; Boivin et al., 1995; Hymel et al., 1985; Leary et al., 2001; Nolan et al., 2003; Sandstrom &
Zakriski, 2004), little research has directly examined emotional reaction to rejection interactions.
However, research has indicated that the potential impact of even an interaction must not be
underestimated. In a laboratory study, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco and Twenge (2005) found
that when college students were told that other research participants did not want to work with
them, these students displayed self-defeating behaviors like eating more cookies or giving up
sooner on a frustrating task than students were not told that no one wanted to work with them.
One aspect that Baumeister et al. (2005) did not explore that will be explored in the present study
is whether children and adolescents who rated themselves as being rejected often responded
differently to exclusion.
In sum, the impact of a rejection interaction is one area of social processing that is
understudied. This includes how emotionally influential adolescents believe the social situation
will be. Individual differences (i.e., the degree to which adolescents feel rejected themselves, the
12
degree to which adolescents feel they reject others) and situational differences (e.g., the
ambiguity of the situation) were explored in Part 2 of the proposed study.
The Present Study: Part 2
The second aim is of the present study was to conduct an investigation on how
adolescents interpret information related to peer rejection. It was investigated whether
adolescents who rated themselves as being rejected often interpreted social information specific
to rejection differently then children who did not feel rejected as often. Specifically, it was
investigated whether adolescents who reported being rejected often believed that the exclusion
would have a stronger impact on the excluded adolescent.
Likewise, this researcher investigated whether adolescents who reported they often
rejected others interpreted social information differently than adolescents who reported that they
did not reject others often. As with the prior set of analyses, it was explored whether adolescents
who often rejected other adolescents were more or less likely to interpret an exclusion interaction
as more or less impactful for the excluding and the excluded adolescent. Because prior research
has not examined such cognitions of the rejector, no specific predictions were made.
In the aggression literature, intentional (clearly intended to provoke), nonintententional
(clearly intended not to provoke) and ambiguous scenarios have all been used (Tremblay &
Belchevski, 2004). In the aggression literature, it was found that that people who endorsed
higher levels of trait aggression tended to respond angrily in intentional and ambiguous
situations moreso than unintentional situations (Tremblay & Belchevski, 2004). As previously
stated, not much research has been conducted on adolescents’ interpretations of rejection
situations. However, children high in rejection sensitivity (i.e., “the disposition to defensively
expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection”) have been found to lead to interpreting
13
ambiguous stimuli as rejecting (Asher et al., 2001; Levy, Ayduk & Downey, 2001; Purdie &
Downey, 2000, p. 339). Because of the possible link between perceived rejection and the
rejection sensitivity construct, this researcher expected that those adolescents who perceived that
they were often rejected would rate the rejection as more emotionally significant, particularly in
the ambiguous scenario. It was not clear whether participants who reported rejecting others
more often would be more attuned to possible rejection, so no specific predictions were made.
14
METHODS
Participants
Participants were 315 adolescents (M age=17.14, SD=.70) from five suburban and rural
high schools located in the Midwest. There were 101 males and 214 females. Participants were
mostly in the 11th (45.4%) and 12th (54%) grades (while 2 were in 10th grade). The majority of
participants were White (89.8%); the remaining were Native American (3.49%), AsianAmerican (2.5%), Black (2.2%), and Latino/Hispanic (1.9%).
In regards to their parents’ marital status, 70.5% were married, 20% were divorced, 5.4%
were never married, 2.5% were separated, and 1.6% was widowed. Additionally, 73% of
participants lived with both parents, 10.2% lived with their mother only, 6.7% lived with a
mother and stepparent, 4.1% lived with their father only, 3.5% lived with another relative, and
2.5% lived with their father and a stepparent. Only 58.3% of participants indicated that they
knew their family’s yearly income. Of these participants, 69% of families made over $50,000
per year, 11% made $40,000-50,000 per year, 10% made $30,000-40,000 per year, and 9% made
under $30,000 per year.
Procedure
Letters were mailed to principals to request their school’s participation in the study (see
Appendix A). Follow-up phone calls and emails were directed toward the principal to verify that
the letter was received and give the principal an opportunity to ask questions. As an incentive
for participation, schools were offered a teacher appreciation breakfast. Participants were
offered a snack during the questionnaire administration, a chance to win one of six $10 gift
cards, and a class pizza or breakfast party if they were in the classroom with the highest
percentage of returned consent forms.
15
Every principal who gave their consent for participation requested that data collection
take place in psychology classes; psychology teachers were then contacted to arrange for a date
for the researcher to introduce the study to students and distribute parent consent forms (see
Appendix B). Signed consent forms were collected by teachers and returned to the researcher
prior to the scheduled data collection session so questionnaire packets could be prepared. On the
day of their data collection session, students who returned their consent forms were given an
opportunity to provide their own assent (see Appendix C). Students who did not return a parent
consent form or did not wish to give their own assent were permitted by the teacher to go to the
school library, complete other schoolwork at their desk in the classroom, or work on a word
search provided by the researcher. Approximately 77% of the students who were given a
consent form obtained parental permission to participate and were present on the day of their
data collection session. Participating students received a packet of questionnaires to complete in
the classroom within a 45 minute time frame. This researcher distributed and collected the
packets from all participants and was available to answer questions during the completion of the
questionnaires. Each participant completed a standard demographics form that included
information about their gender, age, ethnicity, year in school, parents’ marital status, parents they
live with, and socioeconomic status (Appendix D).
Measures
Ratings of Rejecting, Accepting, Nice, and Not Nice Behaviors
A questionnaire was administered to assess the rate of rejecting, accepting, nice, and not
nice behaviors that occurred between adolescents (Appendix E). The questionnaire was adapted
from Tisak et al. (2007). Participants responded about four types of situations: being rejecting,
accepting, nice, and not nice with both male and female peers. Therefore, responses indicated
16
how often male and female adolescents were rejecting (and accepting, nice and not nice) to
same- and opposite-gender peers, and how often same- and opposite-gender peers were rejecting
(and accepting, nice and not nice) to them. Each question was based on a 4-point Likert scale
(i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4) where 1 indicated “never” and 4 indicated “all of the time.” For rejecting and
accepting behaviors, participants answered the following questions:
1. How often do you do things to reject female classmates?
2. How often do female classmates do things to reject you?
3. How often do you do things to accept female classmates?
4. How often do female classmates do things to accept you?
Additionally, for the not nice and nice portion, participants were presented with the following
questions:
1. How often are you not nice to female classmates?
2. How often are female classmates not nice to you?
3. How often are you nice to female classmates?
4. How often are female classmates nice to you?
Each of the eight questions was asked a second time, but “female classmates” was replaced
with “male classmates.”
Some students received questionnaires that asked about Nice/Not Nice behavior first, and
other students received questionnaires that asked about Rejecting/Accepting behavior first; the
order in which the questions were presented was randomly distributed.
17
Nice, Not Nice, Accepting and Rejecting Behavioral Categories
If participants indicated that they were at least sometimes nice/not
nice/accepting/rejecting (a rating of 2), for each question, they were also asked on the
questionnaires to describe:
“What are some of the things you do to reject/accept male/female classmates?”; “What
are some of the things that male/female classmates do to accept/reject you?”; “What are some of
the nice/not nice things that you do to male/female classmates?”; and “What are some of the
nice/not nice things that male/female classmates do to you?”
Coding of Nice and Accepting Behaviors
A list was created that consisted of the nice behaviors that were listed by one-third of the
participants. Once the lists were developed, categories were identified that accounted for all of
the behaviors on the list. These categories were similar to the nice categories reported by Tisak
et al. (2007), which were Helping, Sharing, and Benevolence. The categories that emerged in the
present study were Helping, Sharing, Benevolence, Companionship, and Inclusion. Table 1
defines and provides examples of behaviors in the categories. Participants received a “1” for a
category if they mentioned a behavior that fell into that category, and a “0” for a category if they
did not. The responses were recorded separately for each of the following questions: “What are
some of the nice things you do to female classmates?”; “What are some of the nice things female
classmates do to you?”; “What are some of the nice things you do to male classmates?”; “What
are some of the nice things male classmates do to you?” Because there was not a limit to how
many nice behaviors a participant was permitted to list, participants often received a “1” in more
than one category.
18
This procedure was repeated for accepting behaviors. The categories that emerged were
Helping, Benevolence, Companionship, and Inclusion (see Table 1 for descriptions).
Coding of Not Nice and Rejecting Behaviors
A list was also created that consisted of the not nice behaviors that were listed by onethird of the participants. Once the lists were developed, categories were identified that accounted
for all of the behaviors on the list. For the not nice behaviors, categories that emerged were
Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Social Aggression, and Negative Feedback/Impression,
as shown in Table 2. These categories were also similar to the Not Nice categories identified in
Tisak et al. (2007), which were Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, and Social
Manipulation. Participants received a “1” for a category if they mentioned a behavior that fell
into that category, and a “0” for a category if they did not.
This procedure was repeated for rejecting behaviors. The categories that emerged were
Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Social Aggression, Negative Feedback/Impression, and
Social Hierarchy (see Table 2 for descriptions).
Exclusion Scenarios
In addition to the social behavior ratings and behavioral categories questionnaire, each
participant received one of three exclusion scenarios (see Appendices F-G). The three conditions
were randomly distributed among students; 107 (36 male, 71 female) students received a
scenario where it was “ambiguous” whether rejection had occurred, 102 (31 male, 71 female)
students received a scenario with an “intentional” rejection, and 106 (34 male, 72 female)
students received a scenario with an “unintentional” rejection. Female students received a
scenario involving female characters (Appendix F) and male students received a scenario
involving male characters (Appendix G). This control for peer gender is consistent with
19
previous research on peer rejection, which has largely asked students to rate same-gendered
peers only (Underwood, 2004). It also may minimize confounds related to adolescents
interpreting the interactions as romantic rejection, which may become more relevant among
many opposite-sex dyads than same-sex dyads.
To explore the degree to which participants believed the interaction would impact the
characters emotionally, participants were asked two questions about the feelings of the excluded
character and one question about the feelings of the excluding character. First, participants rated
the likelihood that the excluding character dislikes the excluded character on a 6-point Likert
scale (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) ranging from “Not at all Likely” to “Completely Likely.” Next, they
rated the degree to which the excluded character should have felt sad when the excluding
character joined a group without the excluded character on a 6-point Likert scale (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6) ranging from “Not at all Sad” to “Completely Sad.” Third, they rated the degree to which
the excluded character should have felt angry when the excluding character joined a group
without the excluded character on a 6-point Likert scale (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) ranging from “Not
at all Angry” to “Completely Angry.” Finally, they rated the degree to which the excluding
character should have felt guilty when this character joined a group without the excluded
character on a 6-point Likert scale (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) ranging from “Not at all Guilty” to
“Completely Guilty.”
Participants were put into one of three rejected status groups. First, the average was
computed for the rate by which participants were rejected by female peers and male peers.
Participants with a score of 1 were put in the “never rejected” group (N = 82), participants with a
score from 1.5 to 2 were put into the “sometimes rejected” group (N = 194), and participants
with a score higher than 2 were put into the “often rejected” group (N = 37). This procedure was
20
repeated to place each participant into a rejecting status group, except the average was instead
computed for how often they reject male and female peers. There were 91 participants in the
“never rejecting” group, 165 in the “sometimes rejecting” group, and 37 in the “often rejecting
group.
21
RESULTS
Comparison of Nice versus Not Nice Behaviors and Accepting verses Rejecting Behaviors
A series of paired t-tests were run to determine how the rates of nice and accepting
behaviors compared to the rates not nice and rejecting behaviors. It was expected that
participants would rate nice and accepting behaviors as occurring at a higher rate than not nice
and rejecting behaviors. Means for the rates of nice, not nice, rejecting, and accepting behaviors
for male participants can be found in Table 3. Means for the rates of nice, not nice, rejecting,
and accepting behaviors for female participants can be found in Table 4.
Male participants reported a higher rate of nice and accepting behaviors than not nice and
rejecting behaviors toward peers. For instance, they reported a higher rate of being nice to girls
(M = 3.41, SD = 0.57) than being not nice to girls (M = 1.50, SD =0.54), t(99) = 20.44, p < .001.
Similarly, they reported a higher rate of accepting girls (M = 3.19, SD = 0.60) than rejecting girls
(M = 1.60, SD = 0.62), t(99) = 15.65, p < .001. They also reported a higher rate of being nice to
boys (M = 2.98, SD = 0.67) than not nice to boys (M = 1.70, SD = 0.59), t(99) = 12.03, p < .001.
Finally, they reported a higher rate of accepting boys (M = 3.05, SD = 0.71) than rejecting boys
(M = 1.73, SD = 0.65), t(100) = 12.09, p < .001.
Additionally, males reported that peers’ behavior toward them was more positive than
negative. For instance, they reported a higher rate of girls being nice to them (M = 2.82, SD =
0.70) than being not nice to them (M = 1.63, SD = 0.65), t(99) = 11.12, p < .001. They also
reported a higher rate being accepted by girls (M = 2.88, SD = 0.62) than being rejected by girls
(M = 1.77, SD = 0.65), t(99) = 11.17, p < .001. Likewise, boys were reportedly nice (M = 2.76,
SD = 0.69) to males at a higher rate than not nice (M = 1.73, SD = 0.60), t(97) = 9.60, p < .001.
22
Boys accepted male participants (M = 2.97, SD = 0.73) at a higher rate than they rejected them
(M = 1.71, SD = 0.64), t(99) = 11.11, p <.001.
Females also consistently reported nice and accepting behaviors at a significantly higher
rate than not nice and rejecting behaviors. They reported that they were nice to girls (M = 3.24,
SD = 0.59) at a higher rate than they were not nice to girls (M = 1.70, SD = 0.50), t(211) = 25.19,
p < .001. They also reported that they accepted girls (M = 3.02, SD = 0.71) at a higher rate that
they rejected girls (M = 1.63, SD = 0.60), t(212) = 19.09, p < .001. Likewise, they reported that
they were nice to boys (M = 3.16, SD = 0.58) at a higher rate than they were not nice to boys (M
= 1.65, SD = 0.55), t(210) = 24.87, p < .001. Also, they accepted boys (M = 2.97, SD = 0.70) at
a higher rate than they rejected boys (M = 1.62, SD = 0.58), t(211) = 19.64, p < .001.
As with males, females reported that peers’ behavior toward them was more positive than
negative. They reported that girl peers were nice to them (M = 2.85, SD = 0.60) at a higher rate
than not nice (M = 1.84, SD = 0.54), t(210) = 16.67, p < .001. Girls accepted female participants
(M = 2.78, SD = 0.65) at a higher rate than they rejected them (M = 1.74, SD = 0.62), t(212) =
14.55, p < .001. Females also reported that boys were nice to them (M = 2.80, SD = 0.68) at a
higher rate than boys were not nice (M = 1.76, SD = 0.60), t(211) = 14.54, p < .001. Boys
accepted female participants (M = 2.71, SD = 0.71) at a higher rate than they rejected female
participants (M = 1.73, SD = 0.64), t(211) = 13.31, p < .001.
Comparison of Nice versus Accepting and Not Nice versus Rejecting Behaviors
A series of paired t-tests were also run to determine whether there were significant
differences between the rates of nice and accepting behaviors, and between not nice and rejecting
behaviors. There were many instances in which there were no significant differences between
23
rates of nice and accepting behaviors, and between rates of not nice and rejecting behaviors.
However, there were several significant differences that are described below.
Males reported that they were nice to girls (M=3.41, SD = 0.57) at a higher rate than they
accepted girls (M = 3.19, SD = 0.60), t(99) = 3.50, p < .001. Similarly, females reported that
they were nice to girls (M = 3.24, SD = 0.59) at a higher rate than they accepted girls (M = 3.02,
SD = 0.71), t(213) = 4.01, p < .001. While male participants reported that they accepted boy
peers (M = 3.05, SD = 0.71) at a higher rate than they were nice to boy peers (M = 2.98, SD =
0.67), t(96) = 2.76, p = .007, female participants reported that they were nice to boy peers (M =
3.16, SD = 0.58) at a higher rate than they accepted boy peers (M = 2.97, SD = 0.71), t(212) =
3.39, p < 001. Males also reported that girls rejected them (M = 1.77, SD = 0.65) at a higher rate
than girls were not nice to them (M = 1.63, SD = .64), t(99) = 2.20, p = .03. In contrast, females
reported that girls were not nice to them (M = 1.84, SD = 0.54) at a higher rate than girls rejected
them (M = 1.74, SD = 0.62), t(210) = 2.42, p = .02.
Ratings of Nice Behaviors
To examine gender and recipient differences in the rate of nice behaviors, 2 (gender of
participant: male or female) X 2 (recipient: participant or peer) X 2 (recipient gender: boy or girl)
mixed ANOVA was conducted. Recipient and recipient gender were the repeated measures.
There were significant main effects for recipient’s gender, F(1, 932) = 28.07, p < .001 and the
recipient, F(1, 932) = 175.43, p < .001; specifically, girls (M = 3.07, SD = 0.65) were more often
recipients of nice behavior than boys (M = 2.95, SD = 0.67), and peers (M = 3.20, SD = 0.61)
were more often recipients of nice behavior than participants (M = 2.81, SD = 0.66). There were
two-way interactions between the recipient and the recipient’s gender, F (1, 932) = 11.56, p <
.001, and between the participant’s gender and recipient’s gender, F (1, 932) = 10.45, p = .001.
24
There was also a three-way interaction for the participant’s gender, recipient’s gender,
and recipient, F (1, 932) = 7.87, p = .005; follow-up analyses focused on this interaction (see
Table 5). Male participants reported that they were nice to girl peers (M = 3.42, SD = 0.57)
more frequently than girl peers were nice to male participants (M = 2.82, SD = 0.70); t(200) =
7.82, p < .001. Additionally, male participants reported that they were nice to girl peers (M =
3.42, SD = 0.57) more often than female participants reported that they were nice to girl peers (M
= 3.24, SD = 0.59); t(313) = 2.44, p = .02. Female participants also reported that they were nice
to girl peers (M = 3.24, SD = 0.59) more frequently than girl peers were to female participants
(M= 2.85, SD = 0.59); t(425) = 8.70, p < .001. Finally, female participants reported that they
were nice to boy peers (M = 3.16, SD = 0.58) more often than male participants reported being
nice to boy peers (M = 2.98, SD = 0.66); t(311) = 2.44, p = .02. The model accounted for 59% of
the variance.
Nice Behavioral Categories by Participant Gender, Recipient Gender, and Recipient
Table 6 contains the means and standard deviations of male respondents who mentioned
each behavioral category for nice behaviors, broken down by recipient and recipient gender.
Table 7 contains the means and standard deviations of female respondents who mentioned each
behavioral category for nice behaviors, also broken down by recipient and recipient gender.
Helping, Benevolence, and Companionship were the behavioral categories mentioned most
frequently. To examine gender and recipient differences in the categories of nice behaviors, a 2
(gender of participant: male or female) X 2 (recipient: participant or peer) X 2 (recipient gender:
boy or girl) mixed ANOVA was conducted for each nice behavioral category. The findings are
described below.
25
Helping
As seen by the means in Tables 6 and 7, there were not any significant differences in the
frequency of helping behaviors across participant gender, recipient gender, and recipient. The
overall mean for male participants mentioning helping behaviors was 0.52 (SD = 0.50) and the
overall mean for female participants mentioning helping behaviors was 0.54 (SD = 0.50). The
model accounted for 63.3% of the variance.
Sharing
There was a significant main effect for the recipient’s gender, F(1, 872) = 6.35, p = .01);
females (M = 0.14, SD = 0.34) were more often the recipients of sharing behaviors than males
(M = 0.11, SD = 0.32). There were also two significant two-way interactions. First, there was a
significant interaction between recipient’s gender and recipient, F(1, 872) = 8.39, p = .004 (see
Table 8). Specifically, sharing was mentioned more frequently with girl peer recipients (M =
0.16, SD = 0.36) than with boy peer recipients (M = 0.10, SD = 0.30); t(609) = 2.75, p = .006.
However, when the participant was the recipient of sharing behaviors, there were no significant
recipient gender differences. Second, there was a significant interaction between the
participant’s gender and recipient’s gender, F(1, 872) = 13.20, p <. 001 (see Table 9). Male
participants mentioned more sharing behaviors when girls were recipients (M = 0.24, SD = 0.43)
than female participants mentioned when girls were recipients (M = 0.13, SD = 0.36); t(280) =
2.52, p = .01. The model accounted for 56.8% of the variance.
Benevolence
There were significant main effects for the participant’s gender, F(1, 879) = 28.64, p <
.001 and recipient’s gender, F(1, 879) = 14.92, p < .001. Females (M = 0.59, SD = 0.49)
26
reported benevolent behaviors more often than males (M = 0.45, SD = 0.50), and the recipients
of benevolent behaviors were more often girls (M = 0.59, SD = 0.49) than boys (M = 0.50, SD =
0.50). The statistical model accounted for 57.4% of the variance.
Companionship
There was a significant main effect for recipient, F(1, 879) = 11.62, p < .001; participants
reported that peers were the recipient of companionship behaviors (M = 0.45, SD = 0.50) more
frequently than participants were the recipient of companionship behaviors (0.38, SD = 0.49).
The statistical model accounted for 56.4% of the variance.
Inclusion
There was a significant interaction between recipient gender and recipient, F (1, 879) =
9.06, p = .003 (see Table 10). Including behaviors were reported more frequently when there
was a girl peer recipient (M = 0.15, SD = 0.36) than when there was a boy peer recipient (M =
0.09. SD = 0.29); t(613) = 2.52, p = .01. When the participant was the recipient, there were no
significant recipient gender differences. The statistical model accounted for 45.3% of the
variance.
Ratings of Accepting Behaviors
Participants were also asked how often they were accepting toward male and female
peers and how often their peers were accepting toward them. A 2 (gender of participant: boy or
girl) X 2 (recipient: participant or peer) X 2 (recipient gender) mixed ANOVA was conducted,
with recipient and recipient gender being the repeated measures. The results indicated
significant main effects for participant’s gender, F(1, 935) = 23.03, p < .001 and the recipient
F(1, 935) = 54.22, p < .001. Males (M = 3.02, SD = 0.68) reported a higher rate of accepting
behavior than females (M = 2.87, SD = .71), and the peer (M = 3.04, SD = 0.69) was more
27
frequently the recipient of accepting behaviors than the participant (M = 2.80, SD = 0.69). The
statistical model accounted for 61% of the variance.
Accepting Behavioral Categories by Participant Gender, Recipient Gender, and Recipient
Table 11 lists the percentages of male respondents who mentioned each accepting
behavioral category, broken down by recipient and recipient gender. Table 12 lists the
percentages of female respondents who mentioned each accepting behavioral category, broken
down by recipient and recipient gender. To examine gender and recipient differences in the
categories of accepting behaviors, a 2 (gender of participant: male or female) X 2 (recipient:
participant or peer) X 2 (recipient gender: boy or girl) mixed ANOVA was conducted for each
accepting behavioral category. The findings are described below.
Helping
There was a main effect for participant gender, F(1, 825) = 10.57, p = .001; females (M =
0.26, SD = 0.44) reported helping behaviors more frequently than males (M = 0.18, SD = 0.39).
The model accounted for 58.9% of the variance.
Benevolence
There was a main effect for participant gender, F(1, 825) = 6.90, p = .01; females (M =
0.37, SD = 0.48) reported benevolent behaviors more often than males (M = 0.31, SD = 0.46).
The model accounted for 55% of the variance.
Companionship
There were main effects for the participant’s gender, F(1, 825) = 5.58, p = .02 and
recipient, F(1, 825) = 4.17, p = .04. Females (M = 0.58, SD = 0.49) reported companionship
behaviors more frequently than males (M = 0.53, SD = 0.50), and the recipient of companionship
behaviors was more frequently the participant (M = 0.59, SD = 0.49) than the peer (M = 0.54, SD
28
= 0.50). There were also two significant two-way interactions. First, there was an interaction
between the participant’s gender and the recipient’s gender, F(1, 825) = 13.40, p < .001 (see
Table 13). Females mentioned companionship behaviors when the recipient was a boy (M =
0.63, SD = 0.48) significantly more often then when the recipient was a girl (M = 0.57, SD =
0.35); t(363) = 2.65, p = .009. Males, on the other hand, reported more companionship behaviors
more frequently when the recipient was a girl (M = 0.65, SD = 0.48) than when the recipient was
a boy (M = 0.59, SD = 0.38); t(169) = 3.18, p = .002. The second significant interaction was
between the participant’s gender and recipient, F(1, 825) = 4.88, p = .03 (see Table 14). Male
participants reported significantly more companionship behaviors when they were the recipients
(M = 0.61, SD = 0.41) than when peers were the recipients (M = 0.48, SD = 0.61); t(164) = 2.55,
p = .01. For female participants, there was no significant difference in the mention of
companionship behaviors by recipient. The model accounted for 54.8% of the variance.
Inclusion
There was a main effect for recipient gender F(1, 825) = 11.65, p < .001; girls (M = 0.42,
SD = 0.29) were the recipient of inclusion behaviors more often than boys (M = 0.30, SD = 0.46).
There was also a significant interaction between participant gender and recipient gender, F(1,
8.65) = 8.65, p = .003 (see Table 15). Female participants mentioned including behavior more
frequently when the recipient’s gender was girl (M = 0.39, SD = 0.36) than when the recipient’s
gender was boy (M = 0.09, SD = 0.28); t(375) = 8.99, p < .01. For males, there was no
significant difference in including behaviors by recipient gender. The model accounted for
53.8% of the variance.
29
Ratings of Not Nice Behaviors
As with the ratings of nice and accepting behaviors, to examine gender and recipient
differences in the rate of not nice behaviors, a 2 (gender of participant: male or female) X 2
(recipient: participant or peer) X 2 (recipient gender: boy or girl) mixed ANOVA was conducted.
Recipient and recipient gender were the repeated measures. There was a significant main effect
for participant gender, F(1, 930) = 12.34, p < .001; female participants (M = 1.74, SD = 0.55)
reported a higher rate of not nice behaviors than male participants (M =1.64, SD = 0.60).
Additionally, there was a main effect for recipient, F(1, 930) = 14.64, p < .001; participants (M
= 1.76, SD = 0.48) reported that they were the recipients of not nice behaviors at higher rate than
peers (M = 1.65, SD = 0.26). Finally, there was a significant interaction between the gender of
the participant and the recipient’s gender (see Table 16). Specifically, the rate of not nice
behavior was significantly higher when the participant was male and the recipient’s gender was
boy (M = 1.72, SD = 0.59) than when the participant was female and the recipient’s gender was
boy (M = 1.56, SD = 0.60); t(400) = 7.57, p < .001. In addition, the rate of not nice behavior was
higher when the participant was a female and the recipient gender was girl (M = 1.77, SD = 0.52)
than when the participant was male and the recipient gender was girl (M = 1.71, SD = 0.58);
t(846) = 6.63, p < .001. The statistical model accounted for 55.1% of the variance.
Not Nice Behavioral Categories by Participant Gender, Recipient Gender, and Recipient
Table 17 contains the means and standard deviations of male respondents who mentioned
each behavioral category, broken down by recipient and recipient gender. Table 18 contains the
means and standard deviations of female respondents who mentioned each behavioral category,
broken down by recipient and recipient gender. Verbal Aggression and Social Aggression were
30
the behavioral categories mentioned most frequently. To examine gender and recipient
differences in the categories of nice behaviors, a 2 (gender of participant: male or female) X 2
(recipient: participant or peer) X 2 (recipient gender: boy or girl) mixed ANOVA was conducted
for each not nice behavioral category. The findings are described below.
Physical Aggression
As seen in Tables 17 and 18, physical aggression was not a category often mentioned by
this sample of adolescents. Additionally, there were not any significant differences in the
frequency of physical aggression across participant gender, recipient gender, and recipient. The
overall mean of physical aggression mentioned by males (M = 0.06, SD = 0.23) was not
significantly different from the overall mean of physical aggression mentioned by females (M =
0.03, SD = 0.17). The model accounted for 58.0% of the variance.
Verbal Aggression
There was a significant main effect for the recipient, F(1, 485) = 4.91, p = .03.
Specifically, the recipient of not nice behaviors was more frequently the participant (M = 0.58,
SD = 0.49) than the peer (M = 0.49, SD = 0.50). There was also a significant interaction between
recipient gender and recipient, F(1, 485) = 8.99, p = .003 (see Table 19). Specifically, for girl
recipients, verbal aggression was reported more frequently for the participant as the recipient (M
= 0.55, SD = 0.39) than the peer as the recipient (M = 0.42, SD = 0.49); t(294) = 3.96, p < .001.
For boy recipients, there was no significant difference in verbal aggression by recipient. The
model accounted for 58.9% of the variance.
Social Aggression
There were significant main effects for gender, F(1, 485) = 66.30, p < . 001 and recipient
gender F(1, 485) = 76.15, p < .001. Female participants (M = 0.65, SD = 0.48) listed social
31
aggression more frequently than male participants (M = 0.34, SD = 0.48). Additionally, girls (M
= 0.71, SD = 0.45) were more frequently the recipient of social aggression than boys (M = 0.41,
SD = 0.49). There was also a significant two-way interaction between recipient and recipient
gender, F(1, 485) = 8.22, p = .004 (see Table 20). For girl recipients, social aggression was
reported more frequently for the peer as the recipient (M = 0.70, SD = 0.46) than for the
participant as the recipient (M = 0.63, SD = 0.37); t(294) = 3.85, p < .001. For boy participants,
there was no significant difference in social aggression by recipient. The model accounted for
63.3% of the variance.
Negative Impression
There was a significant main effect for recipient, F(1, 485) = 7.39; p = .007; the recipient
of a negative impression or negative feedback was more frequently the peer (M = 0.08, SD =
0.27) than the participant (M = 0.03, SD = 0.18). The model accounted for 52.8% of the
variance.
Ratings of Rejecting Behaviors
To examine gender and recipient differences in the rate of rejecting behaviors, a 2
(gender of participant: male or female) X 2 (recipient: participant or peer) X 2 (recipient gender:
boy or girl) mixed ANOVA was conducted. Recipient and recipient gender were the repeated
measures. As with the analyses for not nice behaviors, there was a significant main effect for
recipient, F(1, 934) = 10.62, p < .001. Participants reported that they were rejected by peers
(M=1.73, SD=0.56) significantly more often than they rejected peers (M=1.63, SD=.52). There
were no gender differences in the rate of being rejected by and rejecting both male and female
peers. The statistical model accounted for 57% of the variance.
32
Rejecting Categories by Participant Gender, Recipient Gender, and Recipient
Table 21 contains the means and standard deviations of male respondents who mentioned
each behavioral category, broken down by recipient and recipient gender. Table 22 contains the
means and standard deviations of female respondents who mentioned each behavioral category,
broken down by recipient and recipient gender. Verbal Aggression and Social Aggression were
the behavioral categories mentioned most frequently. To examine gender and recipient
differences in the categories of nice behaviors, a 2 (gender of participant: male or female) X 2
(recipient: participant or peer) X 2 (recipient gender: boy or girl) mixed ANOVA was conducted
for each not nice behavioral category. The findings are described below.
Physical Aggression
As seen in tables 21 and 22, it was very rare for participants to list physical aggression as
a rejecting behavior. The overall mean for male participants mentioning physical aggression as a
rejecting behavior was also 0.00 (SD = 0.07) and the overall mean for female participants
mentioning physical aggression as a rejecting behavior was 0.00 (SD = 0.06). Therefore,
analyses on gender, recipient gender, and recipient differences were not conducted.
Verbal Aggression
There were significant main effects for participant gender, F(1, 437) = 8.07, p = .005 and
recipient gender, F(1,437) = 20.38, p < .001 for verbal aggression as a rejecting behavior. Male
participants (M = 0.23, SD = 0.42) listed verbally aggressive behaviors more frequently than
female participants (M = 0.14, SD = 0.35). Boys (M = 0.23, SD = 0.42) were more often the
recipients of verbal aggression than girls (M = 0.10, SD = 0.30). There was also a significant
interaction between recipient gender and recipient, F(1, 437) = 5.63, p = .02 (see Table 23).
33
Verbal aggression was reported more frequently when the recipient was the peer and the
recipient’s gender was boy (M = 0.15, SD = 0.35) than when the recipient was the peer and the
recipient’s gender was girl (M= 0.09, SD = 0.29); t(324) = 5.14, p < .001. However, when the
participant was the recipient, there were no significant recipient gender differences in verbal
aggression. Additionally, for girl recipients, verbal aggression was listed more frequently when
the participant was the recipient (M = 0.21, SD = 0.32) than when the peer was the recipient (M =
0.09, SD = 0.29); t(263) = 3.95, p < .001. However, for boy recipients, there was no significant
difference in verbal aggression by recipient. The model accounted for 63.4% of the variance.
Social Aggression
There was a significant main effect for recipient gender, F(1, 437) = 13.61, p < .001; girls
(M = 0.84, SD = 0.37) were more frequently the recipient of social aggression as a rejecting
behavior than boys (M = 0.69, SD = 0.46). The model accounted for 55.7% of the variance.
Negative Impression
As was seen on Tables 21 and 22, there were no significant gender and recipient
difference in the use of negative impressions or negative feedback as a rejecting behavior. The
overall mean for male participants was 0.11 (SD = 0.31) and the overall mean for female
participants was 0.09 (SD = 0.28). The model accounted for 50.4% of the variance.
Social Hierarchy
As was seen on Tables 21 and 22, there were also no significant gender differences in the
use of social hierarchy in rejection. The overall mean of social hierarchy as rejection for male
participants was 0.08 (SD = 0.27) and the overall mean for female participants is 0.12 (SD =
0.33). The model accounted for 54.3% of the variance.
34
Part 2: Rejected Status
In the second set of analyses, the goal was to understand, from the participant’s point of
view, 1) the degree of likelihood that the excluding character dislikes the excluded character, 2)
the degree to which the excluded character should feel sad, 3) the degree to which the excluded
character should feel angry, and 4) the degree to which the excluding character should feel
guilty. For each of the dependent variables, a series of 3 (scenario type: ambiguous, intentional,
unintentional) X 2 (gender: male or female) X 3 (rejected status: never rejected, sometimes
rejected, often rejected) ANOVAS were conducted. The goal was to understand how the main
effects and interactions in the model predict the degree that participants believed that the
scenario would impact the characters emotionally.
The Degree of Likelihood that the Excluding Character Dislikes the Excluded Character
Table 24 shows the means and standard deviations for the degree of likelihood that the
excluding character dislikes the excluded character by scenario type, gender, and rejected status.
There was a significant main effect for the scenario type, F(2, 294) = 30.48, p < .001. Post hoc
Tukey’s HSD tests showed that participants who responded to the intentional rejection scenario
(M = 3.50, SD = 1.23) reported a significantly higher likelihood that the excluding character
dislikes the excluded character than those who responded to the ambiguous (M = 2.42, SD =
1.11) and unintentional (M = 2.13, SD = 0.99) scenarios; these were significant at .05. There
were no significant main effects or interactions involving gender or rejected status. The model
predicted 24.1% of the variance.
35
The Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel Sad
Table 25 shows the means and standard deviations for the degree to which the excluded
character should feel sad by scenario type, gender, and rejected status. Again, there was a
significant main effect for scenario type, F(2, 292) = 6.93, p = .001. Post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests
showed that participants who responded to the intentional rejection scenario (M = 3.26, SD =
1.45) reported a significantly higher degree to which the excluded character should feel sad than
those who responded to the ambiguous (M = 2.73, SD = 1.27) and unintentional (M = 2.82, SD =
1.38) scenarios; this was significant at .05. Additionally, there was a main effect for gender, F(1,
292) = 8.48, p = .004; females (M = 3.11, SD = 1.38) reported that the character should be
significantly more sad than did males (M = 2.54, SD = 1.33). There was also a significant
interaction between scenario type and rejected status, F(4, 292) = 2.63, p = .03 (see Figure 1).
Specifically, often rejected participants who responded to the intentional exclusion scenario (M =
3.93, SD = 1.58) reported that the excluded characters should feel significantly sadder than often
rejected participants who responded to the unintentional exclusion scenario (M = 2.22, SD =
1.39), t(34) = 2.28, p = .03. The model accounted for 12.8% of the variance.
The Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel Angry
Table 26 contains the means and standard deviations for the degree to which the excluded
character should feel angry by scenario type, gender, and rejected status. As with previous
analyses, there was a main effect for scenario type, F(2, 295) = 15.71, p <.001. According post
hoc Tukey’s HSD tests, participants who responded to the intentional exclusion scenario (M =
2.96, SD = 1.41) reported that the excluded character should feel significantly more angry than
participants who responded to the ambiguous (M = 2.33, SD = 1.28) and unintentional (M = 2.30,
36
SD = 1.28) scenarios; the significance level was .05. There was also a significant main effect for
gender, F(1, 295) = 8.98, p = .02; females (M = 2.71, SD = 1.36) reported that the excluded
character should feel significantly more angry than did males (M = 2.14, SD = 1.27). There was
also a significant interaction between gender and rejected status, F(2, 295) = 4.10, SD = .02 (see
Figure 2). Females who were never rejected (M = 2.75, SD = 1.43) reported that the excluded
character should feel significantly angrier than did males who were never rejected (M = 1.62, SD
= 0.88), t(80) = 6.46, p < .001. The model accounted for 15.1% of the variance.
The Degree to Which the Excluding Character Should Feel Guilty
Table 27 lists the means and standard deviations for the degree to which the excluding
character should feel guilty by scenario type, gender, and rejection status. Again, there was a
significant main effect for the scenario type, F(2, 293) = 6.56, p = .002. Post hoc Tukey’s HSD
tests showed that participants responding to the intentional exclusion scenario (M = 3.42, SD =
1.46) reported that the excluding character should feel significantly more guilty than participants
who responded to the unintentional exclusion scenario (M = 2.81, SD = 1.32); this was
significant at .05. Additionally, there was a main effect for gender, F(1, 293) = 10.30, p = .002;
females (M = 3.42, SD = 1.40) reported that the character should feel significantly more guilty
than males did (M = 2.63, SD = 1.34). There were no significant main effects or interactions
involving rejected status. The model accounted for 11.1% of the variance.
Rejecting Status
The ANOVAS described above were rerun, but this time rejected status was replaced
with rejecting status. A series of 3 (scenario type: ambiguous, intentional, unintentional) X 2
(gender: male or female) X 3 (rejecting status: never rejects, sometimes rejects, often rejects)
mixed ANOVAS were conducted. Again, the goal was to understand how the main effects and
37
interactions in the model predict the degree that participants believed that the scenario would
impact the characters emotionally. The model was run for the following dependent variables: 1)
the degree of likelihood that the excluding character dislikes the excluded character, 2) the
degree to which the excluded character should feel sad, 3) the degree to which the excluded
character should feel angry, and 4) the degree to which the excluding character should feel
guilty.
The Degree of Likelihood that the Excluding Character Dislikes the Excluded Character
Table 28 shows the means and standard deviations for the degree of likelihood that the
excluding character dislikes the excluded character by scenario type, gender, and rejecting status.
There was a significant main effect for the scenario type, F(2, 274) = 30.80, p < .001. Post hoc
Tukey’s HSD tests indicated that the participants who responded to the intentional exclusion
scenario (M = 3.52, SD = 1.23) reported that the excluding character dislikes the excluded
character significantly more than participants who responded to the ambiguous (M = 2.45, SD =
1.09) and unintentional (M = 2.11, SD = 0.97) exclusion scenarios; these were significant at .05.
There were no significant main effects or interactions involving gender or rejecting status. The
model explained 26.6% of the variance.
The Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel Sad
Table 29 shows the means and standard deviations for the degree to which the excluded
character should feel sad by scenario type, gender, and rejecting status. Once again, there was a
significant main effect for scenario type, F(2, 272) = 6.36, p = .002. Post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests
indicated that participants who responded to the intentional exclusion scenario (M = 3.31, SD =
1.45) reported that the excluded character should be significantly sadder than participants who
responded to the ambiguous (M = 2.77, SD = 1.30) or unintentional (M = 2.84, SD = 1.40)
38
scenarios; these were significant at .05. Secondly, there was a significant main effect for gender,
F(1, 272) = 6.83, p = .001. Female participants (M = 3.15, SD = 1.38) reported that the excluded
character should be significantly sadder than did male participants (M = 2.57, SD = 1.38). In
addition, there was a significant interaction between scenario type and rejecting status, F(4, 272)
= 3.83, p = .005 (see Figure 3). Often rejecting participants who responded to the intentional
exclusion scenario (M = 3.15, SD = 1.39) reported that the excluded character should be
significantly sadder than did often rejecting participants who responded to the unintentional
exclusion scenario (M = 2.22, SD = 1.39), t(34) = 2.28, p = .03. In addition, never rejecting
participants who responded to the intentional exclusion scenario (M = 3.41, SD = 1.24) reported
that the excluded character should feel significantly sadder than never rejecting participants who
responded to the unintentional scenario (M = 1.81, SD = 1.04), t(91) = 2.17, p = .03. The model
accounted for 15.6% of the variance.
The Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel Angry
Table 30 shows the means and standard deviations for the degree to which the excluded
character should feel angry by scenario type, gender, and rejecting status. There was a
significant main effect for scenario type, F(2, 275) = 7.56, p < .001. Tukey’s HSD tests
indicated that participants who responded to the intentional exclusion scenario (M = 2.98, SD =
1.41) reported that the excluded character should be significantly more angry than participants
who responded to the ambiguous (M = 2.39, SD = 1.30) and unintentional (M = 2.32, SD = 2.78)
scenarios; these were significant at .05. There was also a significant main effect for gender, F(1,
275) = 4.10, SD = 0.04). Female participants (M = 2.74. SD = 1.35) reported that the excluded
character should feel significantly more angry than did male participants (M = 2.16, SD = 1.29).
39
There were no significant main effects or interactions involving rejecting status. The model
accounted for 15.2% of the variance.
The Degree to Which the Excluding Character Should Feel Guilty
Table 31 shows the means and standard deviations for the degree to which the excluding
character should feel guilty, by scenario type, gender, and rejecting status. Again, there was a
significant main effect for scenario type, F(2, 273) = 7.36, p < .001. Post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests
indicated that participants who responded to the intentional exclusion scenario (M = 3.47, SD =
1.47) reported that the excluding character should feel significantly more guilty than participants
who responded to the unintentional exclusion scenario (M = 2.80, SD = 1.33); this was
significant at .05. There was also a significant main effect for gender, F(1, 273) = 9.44, p = .002.
Female participants (M = 3.32, SD = 1.42) reported that the excluding character should feel
significantly more guilty than did male participants (M = 2.62, SD = 1.36). There were no
significant main effects or interactions involving rejecting status. The model accounted for
14.0% of the variance.
40
DISCUSSION
The first objective of the present study was to explore the nature of rejection from the
viewpoint of adolescents. This included examining the rate at which rejecting behavior occurs
from the adolescents’ points of view, identifying categories of rejecting behaviors, and
understanding gender and recipient differences. Additionally, accepting behaviors were studied
as behaviors at the opposite end of the rejection continuum. Nice and not nice behaviors were
further examined to understand how the acceptance and rejection continuum compares to the
broader prosocial and negative behavior continuum.
As in Tisak et al.’s (2007) research with elementary school-aged children, participants in
the present study reported a higher rate of nice than not nice behaviors. This pattern was
repeated with accepting and rejecting behaviors; regardless of the gender of the participant, who
the recipient was (i.e., participant or peer), or the gender of the recipient, adolescents reported
higher rates of acceptance than rejection. It was clear that, despite the universality of rejection
reported in past research (Leets & Sunwolf, 2005; Sunwolf & Leets, 2004), most students felt
that they shared and received more acceptance and kindness from peers than rejection and
unkind behaviors. While there is a possibility that social desirability was associated with
elevated reports of nice and accepting behavior, the probability of this was minimized by
participants not connecting their names to their questionnaires or having any relationship with
the examiner beyond the assessment session.
The behavioral categories for nice and not nice behaviors that emerged in this sample of
adolescents were similar to those that emerged in Tisak et al.’s (2007) research with the sample
of elementary school-aged children, indicating that there was a degree of continuity across
developmental levels. Helping, sharing, benevolence, companionship, and inclusion were
41
identified as the nice behavioral categories in the present study, while the nice behaviors reported
in Tisak et al.’s (2007) research were categorized into the categories of helping, sharing, and
benevolence. Accepting behaviors in the present study fell in the helping, benevolence,
companionship, and inclusion categories. These findings indicated several important points
about nice versus accepting behaviors. First, the behavioral categories of the accepting
behaviors were very similar to the categories of nice behaviors reported by the participants.
Helping, benevolence, and companionship were identified as ways to be nice to peers and also
indicate acceptance. Secondly, however, there were also several differences. For example,
sharing behaviors were not listed as accepting behaviors by participants. Additionally, inclusion
behaviors were rarely listed as nice behaviors, but often listed as accepting behaviors. Hence,
there was both similarity and distinction between nice and accepting behaviors.
The categories that emerged for not nice and rejecting behaviors told a similar story.
Physical aggression, verbal aggression, social aggression, and negative impression (e.g., forming
negative opinions about another person or that person’s behavior that are either shared or kept
silent) were categories that emerged; these were similar to the categories of physical aggression,
verbal aggression, and social manipulation that were identified in Tisak et al. (2007). Unlike
with the sample of school-aged children, however, physical aggression was not a frequently
mentioned behavior among adolescents; this was likely because physical aggression decreases
with age (Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2006; Nangle, Erdley, Carpenter & Newman, 2000).
Categories similar to not nice behaviors emerged for rejection, but as with the nice and accepting
categories, there were several differences between not nice and rejecting behaviors. First, there
was an additional category that emerged and was labeled “social hierarchy.” This category was
developed to account for responses from participants that indicated that there was not an
42
intention to reject, but that there were circumstances such as wanting to spend time with one
clique rather than another, or finding some activities more appropriate to share with their same
gender rather than the opposite gender. For instance, a participant wrote, “It’s not really
rejection - it’s more like everyone has their group of friends so you just stick with the same
people.” While these responses could have been classified as social aggression, they were
missing the aggressive intent that was suggested by the exclusionary behaviors in the social
aggression category (e.g., “Don’t let them in my group or invite them to do things”). The second
difference was that, while the majority of not nice behaviors fell into the verbal aggression and
social aggression categories, most rejecting behaviors fell in the social aggression category. This
was not surprising because exclusionary behaviors were part of that category and exclusion is
commonly used to define rejection in studies that view rejection as the behavioral interaction
rather than a sociometric label (Leets & Sunwolf, 2004; McDougall et al., 2001; Sunwolf &
Leets, 2005). Therefore, there were areas of similarities between not nice and rejecting
behaviors, but there were also differences, as expected.
In sum, adolescents believed that accepting behaviors occurred more frequently than
rejecting behaviors, just as they believed that nice behaviors occurred more often than not nice
behaviors. Additionally, while there were differences in nice versus accepting and not nice
versus rejecting behavioral categories, there were also categorical similarities. These similarities
may indicate that rejection could be understood as being at the same end of the continuum as not
nice behaviors (Tisak, Tisak & Goldstein, 2006), though additional research on morality and
rejection will need to be conducted to determine whether this is the case. Further similarities and
differences between and within nice, not nice, accepting, and rejecting behaviors will be
explored below, as recipient and gender differences are discussed.
43
Recipient and Gender Differences
Who the recipient was (e.g., participant or peer) often made a difference in the reported
rates of nice, not nice, rejecting, and accepting behaviors. Specifically, participants reported that
they were nicer and more accepting toward their peers than those peers were toward them.
Further, participants reported that they were also the recipients of not nice and rejecting
behaviors more frequently than their peers. Because there isn’t any reason to believe that this
sample of adolescents is actually more frequently rejected than peers, the discrepancy may
indicate that not nice and rejecting behaviors may be unintentional at times or that adolescents
might not be aware of the effect that their behaviors have on others. It may also indicate that
acknowledging not nice behavior and rejection toward others is dissonant with the type of people
adolescents want to be, given that not nice and exclusionary behaviors may go against morality,
which includes fairness, justice, and the welfare and rights of people (Killen, 2007). They may
rather see themselves as nice and accepting.
Additionally, gender played an important role in understanding nice, not nice, rejecting,
and accepting behaviors in adolescence. First, adolescent girls were more often the recipient of
nice behaviors than boys, regardless of the gender of the initiator. This pattern held true for the
behavioral categories of sharing, benevolence, and inclusion. This was inconsistent with the
finding of Tisak et al. (2007) that school-aged children were nicer to peers of their own gender.
In the present study, male participants even reported being nice to girl peers more frequently than
females were to girl peers, indicating a developmental difference between elementary schoolaged children and adolescents. Interactions indicated that these gender differences (e.g., girls
were more often the recipient of sharing and inclusion behaviors than boys) were sometimes
apparent only when the peer was the recipient and the participant was the initiator.
44
The gender of the recipient made less of a difference in accepting behaviors, with the
following exceptions. First, girls were more often the recipients of inclusion than boys when the
participant was a female. Alternatively, males reported that boys and girls were included
equally. There were also interesting findings for companionship behavior as an indicator of
acceptance. Female and male participants each reported companionship behaviors (e.g., talking
and spending time together) were used to communicate acceptance more with a recipient of the
opposite gender. It is possible that spending time with and getting to know opposite sex peers
may be an important indicator of romantic acceptance (which was not addressed directly in this
study). Additionally, male participants felt that they were more often the recipients of accepting
companionship behaviors than were peers; this recipient difference was not significant for
females. This last finding was an exception to the overall pattern of peers being the more
frequent recipients of nice and accepting behaviors than participants when recipient differences
were present.
Gender and recipient differences for not nice behaviors were reflective of participants’
perceptions that they are more often the recipients of negative behaviors than peers. Males
thought that boys (which include both male participants and their boy peers) were the recipients
of not nice behaviors more frequently than females thought that boys were the recipients of not
nice behaviors. In contrast, females thought that girls (which include both female participants
and their female peers) were the recipients of not nice behaviors more frequently than males
thought that girls were recipients of not nice behaviors. When girls were the recipients of verbal
aggression as a not nice behavior, female participants thought that they were on the receiving end
more frequently than their girl peers, while male participants thought that verbal aggression
occurred equally when they were recipients versus the boy peers were recipients. As for social
45
aggression as a not nice behavior, girls were more frequently the recipient than boys.
Additionally, social aggression for girls was reported more frequently when the peer was the
recipient than when the participant was the recipient; this was also inconsistent with the findings
that participants generally acknowledged themselves as the recipients of not nice behavior more
frequently than peers.
In the case of rejection, there was no finding that one gender was rejected more
frequently than the other; this is inconsistent with adolescents’ feelings that those of their own
gender are the more frequent recipients of not nice behavior. However, when verbal aggression
was used as a rejecting behavior, boy peers were more often the recipient than girl peers. When
girls were the recipients of verbal aggression as a rejecting behavior, female participants felt as
though they were more often the recipients than peers. Additionally, girls were more often the
recipient of social aggression as a rejecting behavior than boys.
Taken together, these findings indicate, at the very least, that decoding whether one is
accepted or rejected is complex. There were a range of nice behaviors and not nice behaviors;
these sometimes indicated that one was accepted or rejected, and they sometimes did not. For
instance, the results for companionship looked very different when mentioned as a nice behavior
versus an accepting behavior. As a nice behavior, there were no gender differences; however,
when used as an accepting behavior, it was more frequently used with opposite gender peers.
Also, participants may have either been underestimating the rate by which they rejected peers or
overestimating the rate by which they were rejected, given the findings that not nice and
rejecting behaviors were more frequent with the participant as the recipient. The diversity of
behaviors that were categorized, ranging from very observable (e.g., teasing) to very subtle (e.g.,
46
having a negative impression of a peer that is not spoken) provide opportunities for error in
interpreting social information.
The second part of this study was an investigation of whether adolescents who perceived
that they were often rejected rated rejection as more emotionally significant than adolescents
who reported they were rejected less frequently, particularly in the ambiguous scenario.
Exclusion scenarios were chosen as a rejection situation because exclusion had already been
identified as a rejecting behavior in previous research (Asher, Rose & Gabriel, 2001; Leets &
Sunwolf, 2005; McDougall et al., 2001; Sunwolf & Leets, 2004). It was thought that
understanding the degree to which the participant felt that the excluding character disliked the
excluded character, the degree to which the excluded character should have felt sad or angry, and
the degree to which the excluding character should have felt guilty would provide insight in the
way adolescents think about exclusion.
The Emotional Impact of Exclusion as a Rejecting Behavior According to Never Rejected,
Sometimes Rejected, and Often Rejected Adolescents
It was expected that frequently rejected adolescents would respond differently to the
scenarios than adolescents who reported less frequent rates of being rejected. There were several
instances where this was the case. First, often rejected participants who responded to the
intentional rejection scenario reported that the excluded character should have felt significantly
sadder than often rejected participants who responded to the ambiguous and unintentional
excluded scenarios. This was consistent with Asher et al.’s (2001) report that consistently
rejected school-aged children have been found to be more severely emotionally impacted by
rejection. However, often rejected participants who responded to the intentional exclusion
scenario did not report a higher likelihood that the excluded character was disliked, that the
47
excluded character should have felt more angry, or the excluded character should have felt more
guilty. Therefore, from the perspective of adolescents, it appears that the expected emotional
impact of the intentional exclusion on the often rejected adolescent is sadness more than anger.
Gender was often significantly related to the emotional impact that adolescents reported
the scenario would have. Female participants reported that the excluded character should feel
sadder, the excluded character should feel angrier, and the excluding character should feel
guiltier than did male participants. Even females who reported that they were never rejected
reported that the excluded character should feel significantly angrier than did males who were
never rejected. Therefore, it appeared that the emotional impact of exclusion might be greater
for females, regardless of their own experiences with being rejected.
Contrary to expectations, often excluded adolescents did not respond differently to the
ambiguous scenario than did never rejected or sometimes rejected adolescents. This was
inconsistent with research that found that people with higher levels of trait aggression responded
more angrily in ambiguous scenarios and that those high in rejection sensitivity were more likely
to interpret ambiguous stimuli as rejecting (Asher et al., 2001; Levy, Ayduk & Downey, 2001;
Purdie & Downey, 2000, p. 339; Tremblay & Belchevski, 2004). It should be noted that there
were consistently significant main effects for the emotional impact of the situation for the
intentional exclusion scenario versus the unintentional and ambiguous scenarios. However, the
emotional impact of the ambiguous scenario never differed from the emotional impact of the
unintentional scenario; it is possible that the scenario read similarly to an unintentional scenario
to all participants.
48
The Emotional Impact of Exclusion as a Rejecting Behavior According to Never Rejecting,
Sometimes Rejecting, and Often Rejecting Adolescents
There were no hypotheses made for the differences between the interpretations of often
rejecting versus less frequently rejecting adolescents because little is known in the literature
about the rejecting adolescent. The only finding that involved rejecting status was with the
degree to which the excluding character should feel sad. Often rejecting participants who
responded to the intentional exclusion scenario reported that the excluded character should feel
sadder than did the often rejecting participants who responded to the unintentional exclusion
scenario. This was an interesting finding; it is not clear why these participants reject more often,
while believing that the emotional reaction of the rejected individual is significant. Also, never
rejecting participants who responded to the intentional exclusion scenario also reported that the
excluded character should feel significantly sadder than never rejecting participants who
responded to the unintentional exclusion scenario. It is possible that sensitivity to the possible
emotional impact of rejection, perhaps due to their own experiences of feeling frequently
rejected, plays a role in their efforts not to reject peers.
49
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This study contributed to the literature on peer rejection in several ways. First, it added
to the research on adolescents, which is an understudied population in the peer rejection
literature. Secondly, it contributed to the growing body of research that is acknowledging that
rejection is more than a sociometric status label, and that understanding rejection behaviors is
relevant to this research area (Asher, Rose & Gabriel, 2001; Buhs, 2005; Leets & Sunwolf, 2005;
McDougall et al., 2001; Sunwolf and Leets, 2004). This study also looked at rates of rejection
and rejection behavioral categories from the perspectives of the participants as both the rejecters
and the rejected. Fourth, this study aimed to better understand rejection as it compares to the
related social concepts of acceptance, nice, and not nice behavior. Finally, this study was among
the first to explore the perceived emotional impact of peer rejection based on the rejection status
and rejecting status of an adolescent.
However, there were also important limitations. The first limitation was with the
diversity of the sample. The majority of participants were Caucasian, middle-class individuals
who were from suburban and rural settings. A more racially and economically diverse sample is
needed to ensure that findings generalize to a wider population. Additionally, due to principals
only offering access to students in psychology classes, most students in this study were juniors
and seniors. It is recommended that future research includes a wider age range so developmental
differences can be studied.
Secondly, future research should focus on whether specific rejection behaviors are related
to differences in psychological adjustment. Even with so many studies geared toward emotional
adjustment as a correlate of rejection, it is still unknown whether it is actually the behaviors that
were used to communicate rejection (e.g., being bullied) or simply not being accepted that is
50
related to rejection (Asher et al., 1990; Bierman & McCauley, 1987; Boivin & Hymel, 1997;
Boivin, et al., 1995; Hymel, et al., 1985; Leary, et al., 2001; Nolan, et al., 2003; Sandstrom &
Zakriski, 2004). From the results of this study, it does appear as though characteristics of the
interaction determine how sad participants think that the recipient should feel; frequently rejected
adolescents who responded to the intentional rejection scenario reported the highest degree to
which the excluded character should feel sad. However, additional research should aim to
understand emotional reaction to a wider range of rejection behaviors than exclusion.
Another limitation of the present study was with the exclusion scenarios. As previously
discussed, it did not appear that the ambiguous scenario was much more ambiguous than the
unintentional exclusion scenario to the participants. A more ambiguous scenario might elicit
more differences in adolescents’ interpretations of the interaction. Additionally, to have a more
in depth understanding of adolescents’ interpretations of the exclusion scenarios, the study of
additional dependent variables is recommended. Additional dependent variables may help to
better understand areas such as the morality of rejection from the adolescents’ perspectives, or
how participants feel about the rejected or rejecting character.
A fourth limitation was with the breakdown of the never rejected, sometimes rejected,
and often rejected (and the never rejecting, sometimes rejecting, and often rejecting) groupings.
Because the majority of participants reported that they “sometimes” are rejected (or reject) and
few reported that they “often” or “always” are rejected by (or reject) peers, the groupings were
very disproportionate. The often rejected group was very small, particularly since there were
three exclusion conditions (though the 17% of participants who reported being often rejected in
this study was comparable to the 15% who reported that they were often rejected in the work of
Sunwolf & Leets, 2004). It was also not clear whether the large “sometimes” group was truly
51
homogeneous in terms of rejected status and rejecting status. Perhaps measuring the rate of
rejection on a scale with more levels would allow for more variation in rate responses.
It is still not understood what characteristics of the social situation are connected with
distress when rejection is present; the present study did not address this directly. For instance,
emotional adjustment problems may be correlated with the embarrassment of being teased, the
fear for personal safety, the annoyance of being hassled, or the sting of not being socially
accepted. In a longitudinal study that followed children from kindergarten to 6th grade, Buhs,
Ladd, and Herald (2006) found that chronic peer exclusion, rather than chronic peer abuse (e.g.,
being teased, bullied, or picked on) was a stronger predictor of class participation problems and
poorer academic progress. This indicated that exclusion and abuse are distinct forms of
maltreatment that each has unique relationships with engagement and adjustment problems;
additional research is needed to better understand the specific aspects of rejection that lead to
distress and other adjustment problems.
Further, in the present study, alternative ways to categorize the rejection behaviors may
provide additional insight into the behaviors that communicated rejection; for instance, there
may be some benefit to further breaking down the social aggression category (as it contained a
range of behaviors from exclusion to nonverbal behavior such as eye rolling).
Finally, there is currently a lot of media attention on the use of technology (e.g., social
networking sites) to bully or reject peers. Interestingly, adolescents did not mention activity on
social networking sites as a not nice or rejecting activity. It is possible that using the word
“classmates” in the questionnaire restricted the range of behaviors that participants generated, in
that they were less likely to include behaviors that occurred outside of the classroom setting.
52
Perhaps the use of “peers” or “teenagers” may capture a wider range of behaviors that do not
occur at school.
Directions for Developmental Research
As previously stated, in the cases of nice and not nice behavior, there was some
continuity across developmental levels. The behavioral categories that emerged in the present
study were similar to the behavioral categories in Tisak et al. (2007)’s work with school-aged
children. This demonstrated a degree of stability in how school-aged children and older
adolescents described nice and not nice behaviors. This may indicate that, when the social
development research on adolescents is sparse, the foundation built by child development
researchers is a good starting point for the initiation of adolescent research. However, even more
interesting are the developmental differences that this study demonstrated. For example, the
adolescents in the present study did not frequently list physically aggressive behaviors; the
decline of physically aggressive behaviors with age was not yet observable across the two age
groups in the school-aged sample (Tisak et al. 2007). Additionally, in the adolescent sample,
boys were more frequently nice to girls (rather than peers of their own gender). In order to fully
understand the developmental evolution of nice and not nice behavior, it will be important to
study the rates and behavioral categories of prosocial and negative behavior with adolescents in
middle school and the earlier years of high school.
In the case of rejecting behaviors, there was also evidence of continuity across
developmental levels. Specifically, Asher et al.’s (2001) observational study with preschool
children found that rejection was communicated in ways such as exclusion, tattling, talking
negatively about peers, and denying a peer access to other classmates; these behaviors would
have fallen into the social aggression category in the present study. Additionally, verbal
53
aggression and physical aggression were observed in Asher et al.’s (2001) preschool sample as
rejecting behavioral categories; in the present study, verbal aggression was sometimes identified,
and physical aggression was very rare. Therefore, there is evidence of evolution over time.
Little is known, however, about how rejection is communicated from kindergarten through early
adolescence, and further research with these developmental levels is recommended. Also, there
is not any research known to this researcher that examines how school-aged children and early
adolescents interpret rejection (i.e., come to the conclusion that rejection has occurred and
perceive how the rejected child will feel); further research is recommended in this area.
As previously discussed, the sociometric method has been widely used in the peer
rejection literature, but does not provide information about whether a child or adolescent feels
rejected and what emotions are associated with feeling rejected. This argument should not be
taken as devaluation of the sociometric method, which has generated much information about
children of different social statuses. Rather, it should be understood as an assertion that there are
many aspects of peer rejection that have not been explored in the developmental literature and
that there are ample opportunities for exciting new directions. For instance, it is recommended
that future research combines sociometric research with perceptions of rejection status to answer
research questions such as whether actual rejection status and perceived rejection status have
unique relationships with adjustment (e.g., whether there is a relationship between perceived
rejection status and adjustment once actual rejection status is accounted for). Additionally, more
longitudinal research is needed to help determine whether there are causal links between
rejection and maladjustment and to understand the effects of rejection over time.
54
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The social world can be complex and confusing to navigate. Regardless of whether an
adolescent is the recipient of unkind behavior, or if the initiator of an interaction dislikes a
recipient, the recipient’s interpretation of behaviors is an important factor to consider. Behaviors
that were listed as indicating rejection ranged from overt teasing to nonverbal behaviors such as
rolling one’s eyes to possibly undetectable actions such as forming a negative impression. As
previously mentioned, often rejected adolescents are prone to misinterpret how accepted they are
(Asarnow & Callan, 1985; Crick & Ladd, 1990; Dodge & Feldman, 1990; Gifford-Smith &
Rabiner, 2004; Lopez, 2006). While working with adolescents, counselors should be sensitive to
the difficulty in interpreting cues and be aware that behaviors alone cannot be trusted to reveal an
initiator’s intent to reject. Because of this, adolescents may be prone to misinterpreting cues for
rejection and acceptance, and the counselor may also not know whether an adolescent who feels
rejected is truly rejected.
However, regardless of whether an adolescent is truly frequently rejected, there is
evidence that feeling frequently rejected holds some relevance. In this study, participants who
felt like they were rejected often reported that the excluded character in the intentional exclusion
condition should have felt sadder than did adolescents who felt rejected less frequently. This
may indicate that adolescents who feel like they are rejected more frequently will have a stronger
emotional reaction to rejection than adolescents who feel like they are rejected less frequently.
These adolescents may need more support than the average adolescent when they do face
possible rejection. Girls may be another group who need additional support when rejection is
perceived, as females in this study thought that the rejected adolescent should feel sadder and
angrier, and the excluding character should feel guiltier, than did males. This becomes
55
particularly relevant when one considers that relationship factors (such as relationship loss and
affiliative needs) have been linked to the onset of first major depressive episodes, and that
depression becomes more common in females than males during adolescence (Cyranowski,
Frank, Young & Shear, 2000; Monroe, Rohde, Seeley & Lewinsohn, 1999). It is recommended
that treatment providers consider that, while working with some adolescents who feel frequently
rejected, cognitive interventions may hold more power than the social skills training that is
indicated for adolescents who peers identify as rejected. Examples of cognitive interventions to
use are to teach adolescents to identify possible alternate intentions for the initiator’s behavior
and to teach them to be careful not to disregard signs of acceptance from peers. Just as behaviors
that indicated rejection were sometimes subtle, accepting behaviors were often subtle as well; by
not recognizing possible signs of acceptance, adolescents may miss out on opportunities to
reciprocate appropriately.
The results of this study also have implications for group intervention programs.
Generally, adolescents think that not nice behaviors and rejection are more frequent coming from
their peers than from themselves. Perhaps programs and interventions to reduce negative social
behavior in the schools should focus more on increasing awareness of one’s own behavior. It is
possible that adolescents are not always sensitive to the messages that their behaviors send to
peers. The present study presented some evidence that adolescents who are more attuned to their
rejecting behaviors (e.g., those who perceive they reject others frequently and those who
perceive they are rejected more frequently) thought that the recipient should feel sadder after
being excluded; it is possible that these adolescents are more sensitive to rejection. Additionally,
while this study displayed that most adolescents felt that they experienced at least some
rejection, the overall rate of feeling accepted was higher. Research has indicated that more
56
protective factors results in lower perceived bullying and that having a best friend serves as a
protective factor for rejection-sensitive adolescents (Anderson, Rawana, Brownlee & Whitley,
2010; Bowker, Thomas, Norman & Spencer, 2011; Buhrmester, 1990). It is possible that
prosocial and accepting behaviors serve as protective factors for rejection (though this was not a
research question in the present study). It is recommended that programs identify ways to use
exposure to prosocial and accepting behaviors to the adolescent’s emotional benefit, though
additional research is necessary to determine whether these do buffer negative emotional
reactions to rejection. For instance, adolescents may be trained to use more overt nice and
accepting behaviors with peers for the benefit of adolescents who may not feel accepted by their
peer group.
In sum, while many studies on peer rejection seek to understand the link between being
disliked and having adjustment problems, it is also important to consider how situations that
involve rejection impact adolescents based on their perceptions of their own social standing.
This study contains evidence that there are a range of behaviors that may indicate rejection in
some situations, but do not indicate rejection in other situations, and that some of the behaviors
that indicate rejection are quite subtle. This leaves opportunity for misinterpretation of social
interactions. There is further evidence that adolescents who believe they are frequently rejected
understand the emotional impact of rejection (e.g., sadness) as greater than adolescents who are
less frequently rejected when the rejection appears to be more intentional. Therefore, it is thought
that, for adolescents who believe they are rejected often, rejecting behaviors such as exclusion
may have a different impact based on how they are executed or, perhaps, what the adolescent
interprets the excluding adolescent’s intention to be. These findings indicate a need for
57
additional exploration on how perceived social standing and interpretations of social stimuli
relates to an adolescents’ adjustment.
58
REFERENCES
Anderson, C.G., Rawana, E.P., Brownlee, K. & Whitley, J. (2010). An investigation of the
relationship between psychological strengths and the perception of bullying in early
adolescents in schools. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(4), 470-481.
Asarnow, J.R. & Callan, J.W. (1985). Boys with peer adjustment problems: Social cognitive
processes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(1), 80-87.
Asher, S.R. (1990). Recent advances in the study of peer rejection. In S.R. Asher and J.D. Coie
(Eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Asher, S.R., Parkhurst, J.T., Hymel, S. & Williams, G.A. (1990). Peer rejection and loneliness
in childhood. In S.R. Asher and J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood (pp. 253273). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Asher, S.R., Rose, A.J. & Gabriel, S.W. (2001). Peer rejection in everyday life. In M. Leary
(Ed.), Interpersonal Rejection (pp. 105-142). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bagwell, C.L., Coie, J.D., Terry, R.A., Lochman, J.E. (2000). Peer clique participation and
social status in preadolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 280-305.
Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Ciarocco, N.J. & Twenge, J.M. (2005). Social exclusion
impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bierman, K.L. & McCauley, E. (1987). Children’s descriptions of their peer interactions: Useful
information for child clinical assessment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16, 1918.
Boivin, M. & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and self-perception: A sequential model.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 135-145.
59
Boivin, M., Hymel, S. & Bukowski, W.M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer
rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in
childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765-785.
Bowker, J.C., Thomas, K.K., Norman, K.E. (2011). Mutual best friendship involvement, best
friends’ rejection sensitivity, and psychological maladaptation. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 40(5), 545-555.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during
preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61(4), 1101-1111.
Buhs, E.S. (2005). Peer rejection, negative peer treatment, and school adjustment: Self-concept
and classroom engagement as mediating processes. Journal of School Psychology, 43,
407-424.
Buhs, E.S., Ladd, S.H. & Herald, S.L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that
mediate the relationship between peer group rejection and children’s classroom
engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 1-13.
Coie, J.D. (2004). The impact of negative social experiences on the development of antisocial
behavior. In J.B. Kupersmidt and Dodge, K.A. (Ed.), Children’s Peer Relations: From
Development to Intervention (pp. 243-267). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Coie, J.D. & Cillessen, A.H.N. (1993). Peer rejection : Origins and effects on children’s
development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 89-92.
Coyne, S.M., Archer, J., & Eslea, M. (2006). “We’re not friends anymore! Unless…”: The
frequency and harmfulness of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 32, 294-307.
60
Crick, N.R. & Dodge, K.A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social informationprocessing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74101.
Crick, N.R. & Dodge, K.A. (1996). Social-information processing mechanisms in reactive and
proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993-1002.
Crick, N.R. & Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological
aggression. Child Development, 66, 710-722.
Crick, N.R. & Ladd, G.W. (1990). Children’s perceptions of the outcomes of social strategies:
Do the ends justify being mean? Developmental Psychology, 26, 612-620.
Cyranowski, J.M., Frank, E., Young, E, Shear, K. (2000). Adolescent Onset of Gender
Difference in Lifetime Rates of Major Depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57,
21-27.
Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., Pettit, G.S. & Price, J.M. (1990). Peer status and aggression in boys’
groups: Developmental and contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289-1309.
Dodge, K.A. & Feldman, E. (1990). Issues in social cognition and sociometric status. In S.R.
Asher and J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood (pp. 119-155). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Dodge, K.A., Lansford, J.E., Burks, V.S., Bates, J.E., Pettit, G.S., Fontaine, R. & Price, J.M.
(2003). Peer rejection and social-information processing factors in the development of
aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74(2), 374-393.
61
Gifford-Smith, M.E. & Rabiner, D.L. (2004). Social cognitive and emotional processes: Social
information processing and children’s social adjustment. In J.B. Kupersmidt and Dodge,
K.A. (Ed.), Children’s Peer Relations: From Development to Intervention (pp. 61-79).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hymel, S., Bowker, A. & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children:
Variations in peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains. Child Development, 64,
879-896.
Hymel, S., Franke, S. & Friegang, R. (1985). Peer relationships and their dysfunction:
Considering the child’s perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3, 405415.
Killen, M. (2007). Children’s social and moral reasoning about exclusion. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 16(1), 32-36.
Killen, M., Henning, A., Kelly, M.C., Crystal, D., Ruck, M. (2007). Evaluations of interracial
peer encounters by majority and minority US children and adolescents. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(5), 491-500.
Killen, M. & Stangor, G. (2001). Children’s social reasoning about inclusion and exclusion in
gender and race peer group contexts. Child Development, 71(1), 174-186.
Leary, M.R., Koch, E.J. & Hechenbleikner, N.R. (2001). Emotional responses to interpersonal
rejection. The consequences of childhood peer rejection. In M. Leary (Ed.),
Interpersonal Rejection (pp. 145-166). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Leets, L. & Sunwolf (2005). Adolescent rules for social exclusion: When is it fair to exclude
someone else? Journal of Moral Education, 34(3), 343-362.
62
Levy, S.R., Ayduk, O. & Downey, G. (2001). The role of rejection sensitivity in people’s
relationships with significant others and valued social groups. In M. Leary (Ed.),
Interpersonal Rejection (pp. 251-289). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lopez, E.E. (2006). Aggressive and nonaggressive rejected students: An analysis of their
differences. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 387-400.
McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (2001). The consequences of
childhood peer rejection. In M. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal Rejection (pp. 213-247). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Monroe, S.M., Rhode, P., Seeley, J.R., & Lewinsohn, P.M. (1999). Life events and depression
in adolescence: Relationship loss as a prospective risk factor for the first onset of major
depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108(4), 606-614.
Nangle, D.W., Erdley, C., Carpenter, E.M. &Newman, J.E. (2000). Social skills training for
aggressive children and adolescents: a developmental-clinical integration. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 7(2), 169-199.
Nolan, S.A., Flynn, C. & Garber, J. (2003). Prospective relations between rejection and
depression in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4),
745-755.
O’Neil, R., Welsh, M., Parke, R.D., Wang, S. & Strand, C. (1997). A longitudinal assessment of
the academic correlates of early peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 26, 290-303.
Osterman, K.F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367.
63
Parker, J.G. & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are lowaccepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357-389.
Purdie, V. & Downey, G. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent girls’ vulnerability to
relationship-centered difficulties. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 338-349.
Rogers, M.J. and Tisak, M.S. (1996). Children’s reasoning about responses to peer aggression:
Victim’s and witness’s expected and prescribed behaviors. Aggressive Behavior, 22,
259-269.
Rys, G.S. & Bear, G.G. (1997). Relational aggression and peer relations: Gender and
developmental issues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 87-106.
Sandstrom, M.J. & Zakriski, A.L. (2004). Understanding the experience of peer rejection. In
J.B. Kupersmidt and Dodge, K.A. (Ed.), Children’s Peer Relations: From Development
to Intervention (pp. 101-118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sunwolf, L. & Leets (2004). Being left out: Rejecting outsiders and communicating group
boundaries in childhood and adolescent peer groups. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 32(3), 195-223.
Theimer, C.E., Killen, M. & Stangor, C. (2001). Young children’s evaluations of exclusion in
gender-stereotypic peer contexts. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 18-27.
Tisak, M., Tisak, J. & Galliger, C. (2007). Who is nice and not nice? Children’s views of
themselves and their same- and opposite-gender peers. Unpublished Manuscript.
Tisak, M.S., Tisak, J., & Goldstein, S. (2006). Aggression, delinquency, and morality: A socialcognitive perspective. In Killen, M. and Smetana, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Moral
Development (pp. 611-629). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
64
Tremblay, P.F. & Belchevski, M. (2004). Did the instigator intend to provoke? A key moderator
in the relation between trait aggression and aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior,
30, 409-424.
Underwood, M.K. (2004). Gender and peer relations: are the two gender cultures really all that
different? In J.B. Kupersmidt and Dodge, K.A. (Ed.), Children’s Peer Relations: From
Development to Intervention (pp. 21-36). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
65
APPENDIX A
Letter to Principals
Dear Principal:
My name is Tracie Baker and I am a doctoral student at Bowling Green State University. I
would like to invite your students to participate in a research project about perceptions of peer
relationships in teenagers.
What is it for?
 This study will help us to better understand adolescents’ perceptions of their peer
relationships. Results in the study will be helpful to educators and mental health
professionals who work with students dealing with peer rejection. Additionally,
students may find it to be a good educational opportunity to see how psychology
research with human subjects works.
How will my students’ rights be protected?
 In addition to having parental consent, students will also have the opportunity to
decide whether they want to participate after hearing more about the study. If they do
not want to participate (or change their mind after they start filling out the
questionnaires), they can stop at any time without having to explain why and with no
adverse consequences. If they are not able to go back to their classroom immediately
after deciding that they do not want to participate, they will be allowed to complete a
word search instead of completing the questionnaire packet.
 Students’ responses will be confidential; the researcher will not tell anyone how
individual students answered. Consent forms and questionnaires will be stored
separately in a locked file cabinet and only the researchers connected to the study will
have access to the questionnaires. The study has been approved by the Bowling
Green State University Human Subjects Review Board. We do not feel that students
will encounter any risks in this study that are greater than risks encountered in daily
life.
What are the incentives for participation?
 Participating schools will receive a teacher appreciation breakfast. Breakfast items
such as pastries and fruit will be delivered to the teacher’s lounge of all participating
schools for all teachers to enjoy.
 One classroom will win a class party (e.g., donuts and fruit or a pizza party) if their
classroom has the highest percentage of returned consent forms among the
participating schools.
 Six $10 gift cards will be awarded by a random drawing and students will be able to
choose between a gift card from Itunes, Target, or Borders.
 All participating students will receive a snack (e.g., granola bar or candy) as a thank
you for participating if this is permitted by school officials.
66
I am attaching a copy of the questionnaire packet and consent forms to help you make your
decision on whether this might be an appropriate activity for your students. If you have any
questions about this research, please feel free to contact me or my research advisor, Dr. Marie S.
Tisak, at the email addresses or phone numbers below. If you have any questions or concerns
about your students’ rights as research participants, you may contact the Bowling Green Human
Subjects Review Board, Bowling Green State University, (419) 372-7716, [email protected].
Researcher:
Tracie Baker, M.A.
Graduate Student, Psychology
419-308-5460
[email protected]
Advisor:
Marie S. Tisak, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology
419-372-2273
[email protected]
67
APPENDIX B
Parent Consent Letter
Dear Parent:
My name is Tracie Baker and I am a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. I
would like to include your child in a research project about peer relationships of teenagers. This
research project is my dissertation and will help me receive my Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology.
If your child is able to help, he or she will fill out a questionnaire packet at school. Participation
should take no more than 30-45 minutes. Interested students will be taken to another classroom
during a class period that is okay with their teachers, and they will have the chance to decide
whether they want to participate after they hear more about the study. If they decide they do not
want to participate, they will be able to stop without anyone getting upset with them. They may
decide to stop at any time, even if they already started the questionnaires, and there will be no
negative consequences for them.
Once students are done participating, they will not be contacted again unless they are the winner
of a prize. Three $20 gift cards will be awarded by a random drawing and students will be able
to choose between a gift card from Itunes, Target, or Borders. Also, one classroom will win a
class party (e.g., donuts and fruit or a pizza party) if their classroom has the highest percentage of
returned consent forms.
Your child’s responses will be confidential; the researchers will not tell anyone else how your
child answered. Consent forms and questionnaires will be stored separately in a locked file
cabinet and only the researchers connected to the study will have access to the questionnaires.
The study was approved by the Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board.
We do not find that there are any risks in this study that are greater than risks encountered in
daily life. We do not expect that any of the questions will make students feel badly, but if they
do, they will be encouraged to contact their school counselor. Taking part in this project is
completely up to you and your child, and no one will hold it against you or your child if your
child does not participate or wishes to stop participating in the study at any time for any reason.
If you have any questions about this research before giving your child permission to participate,
please feel free to contact me or my research advisor, Dr. Marie Tisak, at the email addresses or
phone numbers below. If you have any questions or concerns about your or your child’s rights
as a research participant, you may contact the Bowling Green Human Subjects Review Board,
Bowling Green State University, (419) 372-7716, [email protected].
Researcher:
Tracie Baker, M.A.
Graduate Student, Psychology
419-308-5460
[email protected]
Advisor:
Marie Tisak, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology
419-372-2273
[email protected]
68
Please check your decision below:
Perceptions of Peer Relationships in Adolescence
_____ I agree to allow my child to participate in this research study. I have read the attached
consent form and I want to participate. Any questions that I have about this study have been
answered to my satisfaction.
_____ I do not agree to allow my child to participate in this research study.
___________________________________________
Child’s Name (please print)
___________________________________________
Parent/Guardian’s Name (please print)
___________________________________________
Parent/Guardian’s Signature
____________________
Date
69
APPENDIX C
Student Assent Letter
STUDENT ASSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY
Perceptions of Peer Relationships in Teens
You are being invited to participate in a research study. Below you will find answers to some of
the questions that you may have.
What is it for?
 My name is Tracie Baker and I am a student at Bowling Green State University at
Bowling Green, Ohio. This study will help me finish my Ph.D. in psychology.
 This research study is to find out more information about teenagers’ relationships
with other teens in school.
Why me?
 I am looking for interested teenagers who are in 9th through 12th grade in high schools
in Ohio.
What Will I Have to Do?
 If you would like to participate, then you will fill out a survey about your
relationships with other teens in school. You will also read a short story and
complete a brief survey about your opinions on the interaction between the characters
in the story. This survey will take 30-45 minutes to complete and you will do it in
class.
 Once you turn in the survey, you will be done participating. I will not contact you
unless you are the winner of a prize.
 I do not expect that this survey will cause you any pain or discomfort. However,
some people have had some negative social experiences and it is possible that
answering questions about them might make you feel badly. If you do feel upset or
bothered, please contact your school counselor or talk to your parents.
Did My Parents Say It Was Okay?
 Your parents signed a form saying that it is okay for you to participate.
Who Will Be Helped By This Research?
 This study will help us learn more about peer interactions from the viewpoints of
teenagers. The information that you give will help researchers understand how YOU
and other teenagers see positive and negative interactions.
 3 lucky students will win $20 gift cards. If you win, you can choose to get a gift card
from I-Tunes, Borders, or Target.
70
What If I Want to Stop? Will I Get In Trouble?
 You can stop participating at any time and you will not get into trouble or make
anyone upset.
 This project will not affect your grades or your ability to participate in other school
programs in any way. Also, even if you stop participating, you will still be entered
into the prize drawing.
Are There Any Other Choices?
 If you do not want to participate, you can work on the word search or other class
work instead.
By signing below, I am saying that I have read this form and have asked any questions that I may
have. All of my questions have been answered so that I understand what I am being asked to do.
By signing, I am saying that I am willing and would like to participate in this study. I also have
received a copy of this form to keep.
________________________________
Signature of Child/Student
___________________
Date
Please print your name neatly: ________________________________
Would you like to be entered into the drawing for a gift card (circle one)?
Yes
No
If you win, would you like to be contacted by (check one):
_____Phone [Phone Number: (_______ )_______-_________]
_____Email [Email address: ______________@_________._________]
71
APPENDIX D
Demographics Questionnaire
Instructions: Please answer the questions in the spaces provided.
1. What is your gender? (check one)
_____Male
2. What is your birthday? Month__________
_____Female
Date__________
Year__________
3. How old are you? _______
4. What school do you go to? _________________________________________________
5. What is your grade level in school? (check one) _____9th _____10th
_____11th
th
_____Other (if you answered “other,” please explain: ______________________)
_____12
6. What is your ethnicity? (check one)
_____Black/African-American
_____Asian-American
_____Latino/Hispanic
_____White/Caucasian
_____Native American
_____Other (please
explain: __________
_________________)
7. What is your parents’ marital status? (check one)
_____Married
_____Divorced
_____Widowed
_____Never Married
_____Separated
8. Which parent(s) do you live with most of the time? (check one)
_____Mother only
_____Father only
_____Mother and step-parent
_____Father and step-parent
_____Both mother and father
_____Other (please explain: _________________)
72
APPENDIX E
Ratings and Behaviors Questionnaire
Sometimes teens are rejecting to their female classmates and sometimes they are accepting.
1. How often do you do things to reject female classmates? (Please circle one..)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the things you do to reject female classmates?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. How often do female classmates do things to reject you? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the things that female classmates do to reject you?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. How often do you do things to accept female classmates? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the things you do to accept female classmates?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
73
4. How often do female classmates do things to accept you? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the things that female classmates do to accept you?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Sometimes teens are rejecting to their male classmates and sometimes they are accepting.
1. How often do you do things to reject male classmates? (Please circle one..)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the things you do to reject male classmates?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. How often do male classmates do things to reject you? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the things that male classmates do to reject you?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
74
3. How often do you do things to accept male classmates? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the things you do to accept male classmates?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4. How often do male classmates to things to accept you? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the things that male classmates do to accept you?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Sometimes teens are nice to their female classmates and sometimes they are not nice.
1. How often are you nice to female classmates? (Please circle one..)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the nice things that you do to female classmates?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
75
2. How often do female classmates do nice things to you? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the nice things that female classmates do to you?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. How often do you do “not nice” things to female classmates? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the “not nice” things you do to female classmates?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4. How often do female classmates do “not nice” things to you? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the “not nice” things that female classmates do to you?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
76
Sometimes teens are nice to their male classmates and sometimes they are not nice.
1. How often are you nice to male classmates? (Please circle one..)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the nice things that you do to male classmates?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. How often do male classmates do nice things to you? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the nice things that male classmates do to you?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. How often do you do “not nice” things to male classmates? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the “not nice” things you do to male classmates?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
77
4. How often do male classmates do “not nice” things to you? (Please circle one.)
never
sometimes
a lot of times
all the time
If you answered sometimes, a lot of times, or all the time, please answer the next question.
What are some of the “not nice” things that male classmates do to you?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
78
APPENDIX F
Scenarios for Female Participants
SCENARIO 1: AMBIGUOUS
Instructions: Please Read the following short story and answer the questions that follow.
It is time to choose groups for the big project in science class. There is no limit to how many
students are allowed to be in a group. Carol wants to be in a group with Sue (because she
normally talks to Sue before class). 3 other girls ask Sue to join their group and Sue says yes.
Carol waits for them to invite her, but they do not. Carol isn’t in a group, so she is assigned a
group by the teacher.
1. How likely is it that
Sue does not want Carol
in the group?
2. How likely do you
think it is that Sue
dislikes Carol?
3. Please write the
possible reasons why
Sue joined a group
without Carol in the
space provided.
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
5
6
Mostly Completely
Likely
Likely
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
5
6
Mostly Completely
Likely
Likely
4. How sad should
Carol feel when Sue
joins a group without
her?
5. How angry should
Carol feel when Sue
joins a group without
her?
6. How guilty should
Sue feel when she joins
a group without Carol? (
7. How much is it
Carol’s fault that Carol
did not have a group?
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Sad
Sad
Sad
Sad
5
Mostly
Sad
6
Completely
Sad
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Angry
Angry Angry
Angry
5
Mostly
Angry
6
Completely
Angry
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Guilty
Guilty Guilty
Guilty
5
Mostly
Guilty
6
Completely
Guilty
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Carol’s
Carol’s Carol’s
Carol’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
5
6
Mostly Completely
Carol’s
Carol’s
Fault
Fault
8. How much is it Sue’s
fault that Carol did not
have a group?
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Sue’s
Sue’s
Sue’s
Sue’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
5
Mostly
Sue’s
Fault
Reasons:
______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
______________________________________________
6
Completely
Sue’s
Fault
79
SCENARIO 2: INTENTIONAL
Instructions: Please Read the following short story and answer the questions that follow.
It is time to choose groups for the big project in science class. There is no limit to how many
students are allowed to be in a group. Carol wants to be in a group with Sue (because she
normally talks to Sue before class). 3 other girls ask Sue to join their group and Sue says yes.
Carol asks to join and Sue tells her no because the group would be too large. Carol isn’t in a
group so she is assigned a group by the teacher.
1. How likely is it that
Sue does not want Carol
in the group?
2. How likely do you
think it is that Sue
dislikes Carol?
3. Please write the
possible reasons why
Sue joined a group
without Carol in the
space provided.
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
5
6
Mostly Completely
Likely
Likely
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
5
6
Mostly Completely
Likely
Likely
4. How sad should
Carol feel when Sue
joins a group without
her?
5. How angry should
Carol feel when Sue
joins a group without
her?
6. How guilty should
Sue feel when she joins
a group without Carol?
7. How much is it
Carol’s fault that Carol
did not have a group?
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Sad
Sad
Sad
Sad
5
Mostly
Sad
6
Completely
Sad
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Angry
Angry Angry
Angry
5
Mostly
Angry
6
Completely
Angry
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Guilty
Guilty Guilty
Guilty
5
Mostly
Guilty
6
Completely
Guilty
1
Not at all
Carol’s
Fault
1
Not at all
Sue’s
Fault
5
6
Mostly Completely
Carol’s
Carol’s
Fault
Fault
5
6
Mostly Completely
Sue’s
Sue’s
Fault
Fault
8. How much is it Sue’s
fault that Carol did not
have a group?
Reasons:
______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
______________________________________________
2
3
4
A little Somewhat Moderately
Carol’s Carol’s
Carol’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
2
3
4
A little Somewhat Moderately
Sue’s
Sue’s
Sue’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
80
SCENARIO 3: UNINTENTIONAL
Instructions: Please Read the following short story and answer the questions that follow.
It is time to choose groups for the big project in science class. 4 students are allowed in each
group. Carol wants to be in a group with Sue (because she normally talks to Sue before class). 3
other girls ask Sue to join their group and Sue says yes. Carol asks to join, and Sue tells Carol
that the group is too large, but she can join if the teacher allows them to have 5 members. The
teacher says no and Sue apologizes. Carol isn’t in a group, so she is assigned a group by the
teacher.
1. How likely is it that
Sue does not want Carol
in the group?
2. How likely do you
think it is that Sue
dislikes Carol?
3. Please write the
possible reasons why
Sue joined a group
without Carol in the
space provided.
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
5
6
Mostly Completely
Likely
Likely
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
5
6
Mostly Completely
Likely
Likely
4. How sad should
Carol feel when Sue
joins a group without
her?
5. How angry should
Carol feel when Sue
joins a group without
her?
6. How guilty should
Sue feel when she joins
a group without Carol?
7. How much is it
Carol’s fault that Carol
did not have a group?
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Sad
Sad
Sad
Sad
5
Mostly
Sad
6
Completely
Sad
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Angry
Angry Angry
Angry
5
Mostly
Angry
6
Completely
Angry
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Guilty
Guilty Guilty
Guilty
5
Mostly
Guilty
6
Completely
Guilty
1
Not at all
Carol’s
Fault
1
Not at all
Sue’s
Fault
5
6
Mostly Completely
Carol’s
Carol’s
Fault
Fault
5
6
Mostly Completely
Sue’s
Sue’s
Fault
Fault
8. How much is it Sue’s
fault that Carol did not
have a group?
Reasons:
______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
______________________________________________
2
3
4
A little Somewhat Moderately
Carol’s Carol’s
Carol’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
2
3
4
A little Somewhat Moderately
Sue’s
Sue’s
Sue’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
81
APPENDIX G
Scenarios for Male Participants
SCENARIO 1: AMBIGUOUS
Instructions: Please Read the following short story and answer the questions that follow.
It is time to choose groups for the big project in science class. There is no limit to how many
students are allowed to be in a group. Christopher wants to be in a group with Seth (because he
normally talks to Seth before class). 3 other boys ask Seth to join their group and Seth says yes.
Christopher waits for them to invite him, but they do not. Christopher isn’t in a group, so he is
assigned a group by the teacher.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. How likely is it that
Not
at
all
A
little
Somewhat
Moderately
Mostly
Completely
Seth does not want
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
Christopher in the
group?
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. How likely do you
Not
at
all
A
little
Somewhat
Moderately
Mostly
Completely
think it is that Seth
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
dislikes Christopher?
Reasons:
3. Please write the
______________________________________________
possible reasons why
Seth joined a group
_______________________________________________
without Christopher in
the space provided.
______________________________________________
4. How sad should
Christopher feel when
Seth joins a group
without him?
5. How angry should
Christopher feel when
Seth joins a group
without him?
6. How guilty should
Seth feel when he joins a
group without
Christopher?
7. How much is it
Christopher’s fault that
Christopher did not have
a group?
8. How much is it
Seth’s fault that
Christopher did not have
a group?
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Sad
Sad
Sad
Sad
5
Mostly
Sad
6
Completely
Sad
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Angry
Angry Angry
Angry
5
Mostly
Angry
6
Completely
Angry
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Guilty
Guilty Guilty
Guilty
5
Mostly
Guilty
6
Completely
Guilty
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
5
Mostly
6
Completely
Chrisopher’s Christopher’s Christopher’s
Christopher’s Christopher’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
Christopher’s
Fault
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Seth’s
Seth’s
Seth’s
Seth’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
5
6
Mostly Completely
Seth’s
Seth’s
Fault
Fault
82
SCENARIO 2: INTENTIONAL
Instructions: Please Read the following short story and answer the questions that follow.
It is time to choose groups for the big project in science class. There is no limit to how many
students are allowed to be in a group. Christopher wants to be in a group with Seth (because he
normally talks to Seth before class). 3 other boys ask Seth to join their group and Seth says yes.
Christopher asks to join and Seth tells him no because the group would be too large. Christopher
isn’t in a group so he is assigned a group by the teacher.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. How likely is it that
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately Mostly Completely
Seth does not want
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
Christopher in the
group?
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. How likely do you
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately Mostly Completely
think it is that Seth
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
dislikes Christopher?
Reasons:
3. Please write the
______________________________________________
possible reasons why
Seth joined a group
_______________________________________________
without Christopher in
the space provided.
______________________________________________
4. How sad should
Christopher feel when
Seth joins a group
without him?
5. How angry should
Christopher feel when
Seth joins a group
without him?
6. How guilty should
Seth feel when he joins a
group without
Christopher?
7. How much is it
Christopher’s fault that
Christopher did not have
a group?
8. How much is it
Seth’s fault that
Christopher did not have
a group?
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Sad
Sad
Sad
Sad
5
Mostly
Sad
6
Completely
Sad
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Angry
Angry Angry
Angry
5
Mostly
Angry
6
Completely
Angry
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Guilty
Guilty Guilty
Guilty
5
Mostly
Guilty
6
Completely
Guilty
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
5
Mostly
6
Completely
Chrisopher’s Christopher’s Christopher’s
Christopher’s Christopher’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
Christopher’s
Fault
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Seth’s
Seth’s
Seth’s
Seth’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
5
6
Mostly Completely
Seth’s
Seth’s
Fault
Fault
83
SCENARIO 3: UNINTENTIONAL
Instructions: Please Read the following short story and answer the questions that follow.
It is time to choose groups for the big project in science class. 4 students are allowed in each
group. Christopher wants to be in a group with Seth (because he normally talks to Seth before
class). 3 other boys ask Seth to join their group and Seth says yes. Christopher asks to join, and
Seth tells Christopher that he can join if the teacher allows them to have 5 members. The teacher
says no and Seth apologizes. Christopher isn’t in a group, so he is assigned a group by the
teacher.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. How likely is it that
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately Mostly Completely
Seth does not want
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
Christopher in the
group?
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. How likely do you
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately Mostly Completely
think it is that Seth
Likely
Likely Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
dislikes Christopher?
Reasons:
3. Please write the
______________________________________________
possible reasons why
Seth joined a group
_______________________________________________
without Christopher in
the space provided.
______________________________________________
4. How sad should
Christopher feel when
Seth joins a group
without him?
5. How angry should
Christopher feel when
Seth joins a group
without him?
6. How guilty should
Seth feel when he joins a
group without
Christopher?
7. How much is it
Christopher’s fault that
Christopher did not have
a group?
8. How much is it
Seth’s fault that
Christopher did not have
a group?
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Sad
Sad
Sad
Sad
5
Mostly
Sad
6
Completely
Sad
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Angry
Angry Angry
Angry
5
Mostly
Angry
6
Completely
Angry
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Guilty
Guilty Guilty
Guilty
5
Mostly
Guilty
6
Completely
Guilty
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
5
Mostly
6
Completely
Chrisopher’s Christopher’s Christopher’s
Christopher’s Christopher’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
Christopher’s
Fault
1
2
3
4
Not at all A little Somewhat Moderately
Seth’s
Seth’s
Seth’s
Seth’s
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
Fault
5
6
Mostly Completely
Seth’s
Seth’s
Fault
Fault
84
Appendix H
Human Subjects Review Board Approval
This project was approved for data collection with human subjects by the Bowling Green State
University Human Subjects Review Board on February 20, 2009. The Project Number is
H09D183GE7.
85
Table 1
Categories and Descriptions of Nice and Accepting Behaviors
Behavioral Categories
Description
Helping
Behaviors that involve performing physical actions to aid
peers who are in need, providing emotional support, or
working together (e.g., “Help with schoolwork,” “Help me
get through a bad day,” “Help them if they need help or
advice,” “Work together on a project.”)
Sharing
Behaviors that involve offering one’s belongings or
resources, or performing a thoughtful gesture to benefit a
peer (e.g., “Loan supplies,” “Let them borrow my notes,”
“They give me gifts,” or “They carry my books in the
hallway.”)
Benevolence
Contributing to a positive atmosphere by being friendly,
respecting others, giving compliments, using humor, and
acknowledging peers (e.g., “Acting kind,” “Treating me
with respect,” “Compliment their outfits,” “Make inside
jokes,” “They smile at me.”)
Companionship
Spending time together and getting to know each other by
conversing or doing activities (e.g., “Hang out with them,
“We have conversations,” “I get to know them better”).
Inclusion
To allow a peer to participate in a group or
activity, or to refrain from evaluating negatively (e.g.,
“Invite to be in my group,” “Talk to any female classmates
despite stereotypes,” “Include the loner”).
86
Table 2
Categories and Descriptions of Not Nice and Rejecting Behaviors
Behavioral Categories
Description
Physical Aggression
Behaviors that could harm a peer’s body (e.g., “Bump in
the halls,” “Hit them.”)
Verbal Aggression
Behaviors that involve using unkind or angry comments
made directly to the peer, including teasing (e.g., “Go off in
their face,” “They yell at me,” “Name-calling,” “Argue.”)
Social Aggression
Behaviors that are intended to hurt peers through
manipulative actions such as ignoring, excluding,
gossiping, or nonverbal behaviors (e.g., “Ignore when they
need help,” “Make rude comments behind their back,” “I
may give them a dirty look or talk sarcastically.”)
Negative Impression/Feedback
Behaviors that involve evaluating peers unfavorably or
giving unfavorable feedback to a peer (e.g., “Judge,”
“When they make me mad, I will tell them how I honestly
feel,” “They don’t like me because I’m from a place that
they don’t understand.”)
Social Hierarchy
Associating only with members of one’s own clique
or of a certain gender (e.g., “I tend to stick with my friends
and talk to them more,” “I like to work in groups with guys
more than girls.”)
87
Table 3
Mean (and Standard Deviation) Rates of Nice, Not Nice, Accepting, and Rejecting Behaviors for
Male Participants
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Nice
3.41 (0.57)
2.82 (0.70)
2.98 (0.67)
2.76 (0.69)
Not Nice
1.50 (0.54)
1.63 (0.65)
1.70 (0.59)
1.73 (0.60)
Accepting
3.19 (0.60)
2.88 (0.62)
3.05 (0.71)
2.97 (0.73)
Rejecting
1.60 (0.62)
1.77 (0.65)
1.73 (0.65)
1.71 (0.64)
Note: For the majority of items, 101 male participants responded. 100 male participants
responded about being not nice to girls, girls being not nice to them, being nice toward boys,
accepting girls, girls accepting them, and boys accepting them. 98 male participants responded
about boys being nice to them
88
Table 4
Mean (and Standard Deviation) Rates of Nice, Not Nice, Accepting, and Rejecting Behaviors for
Female Participants
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Nice
3.24 (0.59)
2.85 (0.60)
3.16 (0.58)
2.80 (0.68)
Not Nice
1.70 (0.50)
1.84 (0.54)
1.65 (0.55)
1.76 (0.60)
Accepting
3.02 (0.71)
2.78 (0.65)
2.97 (0.70)
2.71 (0.71)
Rejecting
1.63 (0.60)
1.74 (0.62)
1.62 (0.58)
1.73 (0.64)
Note: 214 female participants responded about being nice to girls, accepting girls, girls accepting
them, and accepting boys. 213 female participants responded about girls being nice to them,
being nice to boys, boys being nice to them, rejecting girls, girls rejecting them, boys rejecting
them, and boys accepting them. 212 participants responded to the remaining items.
89
Table 5
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Nice Behavior by Participant Gender, Recipient Gender,
and Recipient
Participant Gender:
Recipient Recipient Gender:
Peer
Males
Boys
2.98 (0.66)
Females
Girls
Boys
Girls
3.42 (0.57)
3.16 (0.58)
3.24 (0.59)
Participant
2.76 (0.69)
2.82 (0.70)
2.80 (0.68)
2.85 (.59)
Note: N=100 for male participants’ nice behavior toward boy peers; N=98 for boy peers’ nice
behavior toward male participants; N=101 for male participants’ nice behavior toward girl peers;
N=101 for girl peers’ nice behavior toward male participants; N=213 for female participants’
nice behavior toward boy peers; N=213 for boy peers’ nice behavior toward female participants;
N=214 for female participants’ nice behavior toward girl peers; N=213 for girl peers’ nice
behavior toward female participants.
90
Table 6
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Male Respondents Mentioning Each Nice Behavioral
Category
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Helping
0.48 (0.50)
0.48 (0.50)
0.55 (0.50)
0.59 (0.49)
Sharing
0.25 (0.43)
0.15 (0.36)
0.10 (0.30)
0.10 (0.30)
Benevolence
0.56 (0.50)
0.45 (0.50)
0.39 (0.49)
0.41 (0.49)
Companionship
0.41 (0.49)
0.36 (0.48)
0.40 (0.49)
0.29 (0.46)
Inclusion
0.16 (0.37)
0.10 (0.30)
0.09 (0.29)
0.18 (0.38)
Note: 97 responded about their nice behaviors toward girls, 94 responded about girls’ nice
behavior towards them, 96 responded about their nice behavior towards boys, and 90 responded
about boys’ nice behavior towards them.
91
Table 7
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Female Respondents Mentioning Each Nice Behavioral
Category
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Helping
0.54 (0.50)
0.54 (0.50)
0.52 (0.50)
0.56 (0.50)
Sharing
0.12 (0.32)
0.10 (0.30)
0.10 (0.30)
0.15 (0.36)
Benevolence
0.64 (0.48)
0.63 (0.48)
0.53 (0.50)
0.57 (0.50)
Companionship
0.43 (0.50)
0.40 (0.49)
0.52 (0.50)
0.40 (0.49)
Inclusion
0.14 (0.35)
0.10 (0.30)
0.09 (0.29)
0.10 (0.30)
Note: 205 responded about their nice behaviors toward girls, 213 responded about girls’ nice
behavior towards them, 209 responded about their nice behavior towards boys, and 195
responded about boys’ nice behavior towards them.
92
Table 8
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Sharing as a Nice Behavior by Recipient Gender and
Recipient
Recipient
Peer
Recipient Gender:
Boys
Girls
0.10 (0.30)
0.16 (0.36)
Participant
0.13 (0.27)
0.13 (0.28)
Note: N=301 when the recipient is the peer and the recipient gender is boy; N=86 when the
recipient is the participant and the recipient gender is boy; N=310 when the recipient is the peer
and the recipient gender is girl; N=186 when the recipient is the participant and the recipient
gender is girl.
93
Table 9
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Sharing as a Nice Behavior by Participant Gender and
Recipient Gender
Recipient Gender
Boys
Participant Gender:
Males
Females
0.12 (0.26)
0.10 (0.30)
Girls
0.24 (0.43)
0.13 (0.26)
Note: N=84 for male participants when the recipient gender is boy; N=97 for male participants
when the recipient gender is girl; N=208 for female participants when the recipient gender is
boy; N=185 for female participants when the recipient gender is girl.
94
Table 10
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Inclusion as a Nice Behavior by Recipient Gender and
Recipient
Recipient
Peer
Recipient Gender:
Boys
Girls
0.09 (0.29)
0.15 (0.36)
Participant
0.15 (0.26)
0.10 (0.25)
Note: N=305 when boy peers are the recipients; N=86 when boy participants are the recipients;
N=310 when girl peers are the recipients; N=199 when girl participants are the recipients.
95
Table 11
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Male Respondents Mentioning Each Accepting Behavioral
Category
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Helping
0.20 (0.40)
0.18 (0.39)
0.17 (0.38)
0.17 (0.38)
Benevolence
0.33 (0.47)
0.29 (0.46)
0.34 (0.48)
0.27 (0.44)
Companionship
0.46 (0.50)
0.65 (0.48)
0.48 (0.50)
0.54 (0.50)
Inclusion
0.40 (0.49)
0.32 (0.47)
0.34 (0.48)
0.33 (0.47)
Note: 93 responded about their accepting behaviors toward girls, 93 responded about girls’
accepting behavior towards them, 89 responded about their accepting behavior towards boys, and
83 responded about boys’ accepting behavior towards them.
96
Table 12
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Female Respondents Mentioning Each Accepting
Behavioral Category
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Helping
0.24 (0.43)
0.24 (0.43)
0.23 (0.42)
0.31 (0.46)
Benevolence
0.36 (0.48)
0.35 (0.48)
0.36 (0.48)
0.41 (0.49)
Companionship
0.51 (0.50)
0.53 (0.50)
0.63 (0.48)
0.64 (0.48)
Inclusion
0.46 (0.50)
0.43 (0.50)
0.29 (0.46)
0.26 (0.44)
Note: 206 responded about their accepting behaviors toward girls, 199 responded about girls’
accepting behavior towards them, 197 responded about their accepting behavior towards boys,
and 181 responded about boys’ accepting behavior towards them.
97
Table 13
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Companionship as an Accepting Behavior by Participant
Gender and Recipient Gender
Recipient Gender Participant Gender:
Males
Females
Boys
0.59 (0.38)
0.63 (0.48)
Girls
0.65 (0.48)
0.57 (0.35)
Note: N=78 for male participants when the recipient gender is boy; N=93 for male participants
when the recipient gender is girl; N=197 for female participants when the recipient gender is
boy; N=168 for female participants when the recipient gender is girl.
98
Table 14
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Companionship as an Accepting Behavior by Participant
Gender and Recipient
Recipient
Peer
Participant Gender:
Males
Females
0.48 (0.41)
0.58 (0.41)
Participant
0.61 (0.41)
0.60 (0.39)
Note: N=86 when the participant was male and the peer was the recipient; N=80 when the
participant was male and the participant was the recipient; N=193 when the participant was
female and the peer was the recipient; N=173 when the participant was female and the
participant was the recipient.
99
Table 15
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Inclusion as an Accepting Behavior by Participant Gender
and Recipient Gender
Recipient Gender
Boys
Participant Gender:
Males
Females
0.31 (0.36)
0.09 (0.28)
Girls
0.40 (0.49)
0.39 (0.36)
Note: N=78 for male participants when the recipient’s gender was boy; N=93 for male
participants when the recipient’s gender was girl; N=209 for female participants when the
recipient’s gender was boy; N=168 for female participants when the recipient’s gender was girl.
100
Table 16
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Not Nice Behavior by Participant Gender and Recipient
Gender
Recipient Gender
Boys
Participant Gender:
Males
1.72 (0.59)
Females
1.56 (0.57)
Girls
1.71 (0.58)
1.77 (0.52)
Note: N=101 when the participant is male and the recipient gender is boy; N=100 when the
participant is male and the recipient gender is girl; N=212 when the participant is female and the
recipient gender is boy; N=212 when the participant is a female and the recipient gender is girl.
101
Table 17
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Male Respondents Mentioning Each Not Nice Behavioral
Category
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Physical Aggression
0.04 (0.21)
0.04 (0.20)
0.07 (0.25)
0.07 (0.25)
Verbal Aggression
0.62 (0.49)
0.55 (0.50)
0.68 (0.47)
0.82 (0.39)
Social Aggression
0.40 (0.50)
0.59 (0.50)
0.27 (0.45)
0.17 (0.38)
0.08 (0.28)
0.00 (0.00)
Negative Impression
0.04 (0.21)
0.04 (0.20)
Note: 45 responded about their not nice behaviors toward girls, 51 responded about girls’ not
nice behavior towards them, 60 responded about their not nice behavior towards boys, and 60
responded about boys’ not nice behavior towards them.
102
Table 18
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Female Respondents Mentioning Each Not Nice Behavioral
Category
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Physical Aggression
0.01 (0.12)
0.02 (0.14)
0.03 (0.18)
0.06 (0.24)
Verbal Aggression
0.35 (0.48)
0.37 (0.48)
0.50 (0.50)
0.70 (0.46)
Social Aggression
0.80 (0.40)
0.78 (0.41)
0.56 (0.50)
0.45 (0.50)
0.09 (0.29)
0.02 (0.15)
Negative Impression
0.08 (0.27)
0.05 (0.23)
Note: 137 responded about their not nice behaviors toward girls, 148 responded about girls’ not
nice behavior towards them, 119 responded about their not nice behavior towards boys, and 135
responded about boys’ not nice behavior towards them.
103
Table 19
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Verbal Aggression as a Not Nice Behavior by Recipient and
Recipient Gender
Recipient
Peer
Recipient Gender:
Boys
0.56 (0.50)
Girls
0.42 (0.49)
Participant
0.63 (0.34)
0.55 (0.39)
Note: N=179 when the recipient is the peer and the recipient gender is boy; N=39 when the
recipient is the subject and the recipient gender is boy; N =182 when the recipient is the peer and
the recipient gender is girl; N=114 when the recipient is the subject and the recipient gender is
girl.
104
Table 20
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Social Aggression as a Not Nice Behavior by Recipient and
Recipient Gender
Recipient
Peer
Recipient Gender:
Boys
0.46 (0.50)
Girls
0.70 (0.46)
Participant
0.42 (0.33)
0.63 (0.37)
Note: N= 182 when the recipient is the peer and the recipient gender is boy; N=39 when the
recipient is the participant and the recipient gender is boy; N=182 when the recipient is the peer
and the recipient gender is girl; N=114 when the recipient is the participant and the recipient
gender is girl.
105
Table 21
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Male Respondents Mentioning Each Reject Behavioral
Category
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Physical Aggression
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0.02 (0.14)
0.00 (0.00)
Verbal Aggression
0.21 (0.41)
0.14 (0.35)
0.23 (0.43)
0.32 (0.47)
Social Aggression
0.79 (0.41)
0.79 (0.41)
0.73 (0.45)
0.68 (0.47)
Negative Impression
0.06 (0.24)
0.12 (0.33)
0.13 (0.34)
0.11 (0.31)
0.04 (0.19)
0.07 (0.26)
Social Hierarchy
0.08 (0.28)
0.12 (0.33)
Note: 48 responded about their rejecting behaviors toward girls, 57 responded about girls’
rejecting behavior towards them, 52 responded about their rejecting behavior towards boys, and
56 responded about boys’ rejecting behavior towards them.
106
Table 22
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Female Respondents Mentioning Each Reject Behavioral
Category
Initiator:
Participant
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Recipient:
Girl Peer
Participant
Boy Peer
Participant_
Physical Aggression
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0.02 (0.12)
Verbal Aggression
0.04 (0.21)
0.09 (0.29)
0.11 (0.31)
0.29 (0.46)
Social Aggression
0.83 (0.38)
0.88 (0.33)
0.83 (0.38)
0.60 (0.49)
Negative Impression
0.07 (0.26)
0.05 (0.23)
0.07 (0.26)
0.10 (0.30)
0.13 (0.34)
0.16 (0.36)
Social Hierarchy
0.13 (0.34)
0.10 (0.30)
Note: 113 responded about their rejecting behaviors toward girls, 128 responded about girls’
rejecting behavior towards them, 113 responded about their rejecting behavior towards boys, and
129 responded about boys’ rejecting behavior towards them.
107
Table 23
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Verbal Aggression as a Rejecting Behavior by Recipient
and Recipient Gender
Recipient
Peer
Recipient Gender:
Boys
0.15 (0.35)
Girls
0.09 (0.29)
Participant
0.26 (0.35)
0.21 (0.32)
Note: N=165 when the recipient is the peer and the recipient gender is boy; N=41 when the
recipient is the participant and the recipient gender is boy; N=161 when the recipient is the peer
and the recipient gender is girl; N=104 when the recipient is the participant and the recipient
gender is girl
108
Table 24
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree of Likelihood that the Excluding Character
Dislikes the Excluded Character by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejected Status
Scenario
Gender
Ambiguous
Intentional
Never
Sometimes
Often
Male
2.67 (1.22)
2.50 (1.14)
1.80 (1.30)
Female
2.35 (1.17)
2.43 (1.07)
2.43 (1.13)
Male
3.40 (1.35)
3.00 (1.10)
3.60 (1.89)
Female
3.67 (1.33)
3.52 (1.23)
3.90 (1.29)
1.75 (1.04)
2.24 (1.00)
2.20 (0.84)
Unintentional Male
Status:
Female
2.05 (1.28)
2.23 (0.87)
1.50 (1.00)
Notes: N = 106 for the ambiguous exclusion scenario, N = 101 for the intentional exclusion
scenario, and N = 105 for the unintentional exclusion scenario. There were 101 males and 211
females. 82 participants were in the never rejected group, 194 participants were in the
sometimes rejected group, and 36 participants were in the often rejected group.
109
Table 25
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel
Sad by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejected Status
Scenario
Gender
Ambiguous
Intentional
Never
Sometimes
Often
Male
2.00 (0.87)
2.45 (0.91)
2.20 (1.30)
Female
2.88 (1.58)
3.04 (1.30)
2.43 (1.27)
Male
2.20 (1.13)
2.69 (1.45)
3.60 (2.51)
Female
3.78 (1.48)
3.26 (1.29)
4.10 (1.00)
1.75 (1.16)
3.15 (1.42)
2.20 (1.10)
Unintentional Male
Status:
Female
2.70 (1.66)
3.02 (1.18)
2.25 (1.89)
Notes: N = 106 for the ambiguous exclusion scenario, N = 101 for the intentional exclusion
scenario, and N = 103 for the unintentional exclusion scenario. There were 100 males and 210
females. 82 participants were in the never rejected group, 192 participants were in the
sometimes rejected group, and 36 participants were in the often rejected group.
110
Table 26
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel
Angry by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejected Status
Scenario
Gender
Ambiguous
Intentional
Never
Sometimes
Often
Male
1.33 (0.50)
1.95 (1.05)
2.60 (1.52)
Female
2.41 (1.37)
2.72 (1.31)
1.86 (1.21)
Male
2.20 (1.14)
2.63 (1.54)
3.40 (2.07)
Female
3.72 (1.02)
2.79 (1.34)
3.40 (1.51)
1.25 (0.46)
2.10 (1.14)
2.60 (1.52)
Unintentional Male
Status:
Female
2.15 (1.39)
2.60 (1.29)
2.40 (1.52)
Notes: N = 106 for the ambiguous exclusion scenario, N = 101 for the intentional exclusion
scenario, and N = 106 for the unintentional exclusion scenario. There were 101 males and 212
females. 82 participants were in the not rejected group, 194 participants were in the sometimes
rejected group, and 37 participants were in the often rejected group.
111
Table 27
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluding Character Should Feel
Guilty by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejected Status
Scenario
Gender
Ambiguous
Intentional
Never
Sometimes
Often
Male
2.00 (1.12)
2.64 (1.14)
2.20 (1.64)
Female
2.24 (1.39)
3.30 (1.41)
3.33 (1.51)
Male
2.70 (1.25)
3.06 (1.57)
3.80 (1.92)
Female
3.78 (1.59)
3.41 (1.20)
3.90 (1.91)
1.63 (0.52)
2.71 (1.23)
2.80 (1.64)
Unintentional Male
Status:
Female
3.05 (1.64)
3.00 (1.27)
2.40 (0.55)
Notes: N = 105 for the ambiguous exclusion scenario, N = 100 for the intentional exclusion
scenario, and N = 106 for the unintentional exclusion scenario. There were 101 males and 210
females. 82 participants were in the not rejected group, 193 participants were in the sometimes
rejected group, and 36 participants were in the often rejected group.
112
Table 28
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree of Likelihood that the Excluding Character
Dislikes the Excluded Character by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejecting Status
Scenario
Gender
Ambiguous
Intentional
Never
Sometimes
Often
Male
2.20 (0.92)
2.67 (1.14)
1.80 (1.30)
Female
2.73 (1.28)
2.32 (0.94)
2.43 (1.13)
Male
3.29 (1.50)
3.19 (1.05)
3.60 (0.89)
Female
3.44 (1.19)
3.65 (1.32)
3.90 (1.29)
1.88 (1.13)
2.17 (0.92)
2.20 (0.84)
Unintentional Male
Status:
Female
1.79 (1.03)
2.31 (0.92)
1.50 (1.00)
Notes: N = 96 for the ambiguous exclusion scenario, N = 97 for the intentional exclusion
scenario, and N = 99 for the unintentional exclusion scenario. There were 92 males and 200
females. 91 participants were in the never rejecting group, 165 participants were in the
sometimes rejecting group, and 36 participants were in the often rejecting group.
113
Table 29
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel
Sad by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejecting Status
Scenario
Gender
Ambiguous
Intentional
Never
Sometimes
Often
Male
1.90 (0.88)
2.56 (0.92)
2.20 (1.30)
Female
3.05 (1.50)
3.12 (1.34)
2.43 (1.27)
Male
2.43 (1.51)
2.56 (1.41)
3.60 (2.51)
Female
4.08 (1.19)
3.00 (1.26)
4.10 (0.99)
2.25 (1.58)
3.12 (1.45)
2.20 (1.10)
Unintentional Male
Status:
Female
2.37 (1.16)
3.16 (1.38)
2.25 (1.89)
Notes: N = 96 for the ambiguous exclusion scenario, N = 97 for the intentional exclusion
scenario, and N = 97 for the unintentional exclusion scenario. There were 91 males and 199
females. 91 participants were in the never rejecting group, 163 participants were in the
sometimes rejecting group, and 36 participants were in the often rejecting group.
114
Table 30
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluded Character Should Feel
Angry by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejecting Status
Scenario
Gender
Ambiguous
Intentional
Never
Sometimes
Often
Male
1.40 (1.52)
2.06 (1.11)
2.60 (1.52)
Female
2.91 (1.54)
2.59 (1.21)
1.86 (1.21)
Male
2.57 (1.81)
2.31 (1.30)
3.40 (2.07)
Female
3.40 (1.29)
2.88 (1.27)
3.40 (1.51)
1.38 (0.74)
2.17 (1.15)
2.60 (1.52)
Unintentional Male
Status:
Female
1.84 (1.12)
2.71 (1.31)
2.40 (1.52)
Notes: N = 96 for the ambiguous exclusion scenario, N = 97 for the intentional exclusion
scenario, and N = 100 for the unintentional exclusion scenario. There were 92 males and 201
females. 91 participants were in the never rejecting group, 165 participants were in the
sometimes rejecting group, and 37 participants were in the often rejecting group.
115
Table 31
Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Degree to Which the Excluding Character Should Feel
Guilty by Scenario Type, Gender, and Rejecting Status
Scenario
Gender
Ambiguous
Intentional
Never
Sometimes
Often
Male
2.10 (1.10)
2.50 (1.20)
2.20 (1.64)
Female
3.50 (1.60)
3.35 (1.30)
3.33 (1.50)
Male
3.00 (1.63)
3.06 (1.43)
3.80 (1.92)
Female
4.04 (1.30)
3.18 (1.27)
3.90 (1.91)
1.75 (0.46)
2.61 (1.24)
2.80 (1.64)
Unintentional Male
Status:
Female
2.63 (1.16)
3.18 (1.47)
2.40 (0.55)
Notes: N = 95 for the ambiguous exclusion scenario, N = 96 for the intentional exclusion
scenario, and N = 100 for the unintentional exclusion scenario. There were 92 males and 199
females. 90 participants were in the never rejecting group, 165 participants were in the
sometimes rejecting group, and 36 participants were in the often rejecting group.
Mean Degree to which the Excluded
Character Should Feel Sad
116
4.5
4
3.5
Ambiguous
Intentional
Unintentional
3
2.5
2
1.5
Never
Sometimes
Often
Rejected Rejected
Rejected
Figure 1. Mean degree to which the excluded character should feel sad by scenario type and
rejected status.
Mean Degree to with the Excluded
Character Should Feel Angry
117
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
Males
Females
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
Never
Rejected
Sometimes
Rejected
Often
Rejected
Figure 2. Mean degree to which the excluded character should feel angry by gender and rejected
status.
4.5
4
3.5
Ambiguous
Intentional
Unintentional
3
2.5
2
Often
Rejecting
Sometimes
Rejecting
1.5
Never
Rejecting
Mean Degree to which the Excluded
Character Should Feel Sad
118
Figure 3. Mean degree to which the excluded character should feel sad by scenario type and
rejecting status.