acta ethologica

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 101–113 | Cite as

Specifying social structures in preschool classrooms: descriptive and functional distinctions between affiliative subgroups

  • António J. Santos
  • Brian E. Vaughn
  • Kelly K. Bost
Original Paper

Abstract

Preschool children attending Head Start programs (N = 586, 296 boys and 290 girls, between 3 and 5 years of age, over 95% African–American) were observed to determine physical proximity to peers as well as rates of visual attention given and received. Sociometric data were used to derive peer acceptance scores, peer friendships, and sociometric status classifications. Three subgroup types (high mutual proximity (HMP), lower mutual proximity (LMP), and ungrouped children) were identified through complete linkage hierarchical clustering and chi-square procedures from the proximity data. HMP subgroups tended to be larger, to have higher sociometric acceptance scores, and children in these subgroups had more reciprocated friendships than was true for the other subgroup types. Significant within-group preferences and out-group biases were observed for both HMP and LMP subgroups using measures of visual attention and sociometric choice data, but these were more marked for HMP subgroups. Results are consistent with previous ethological studies of affiliative structures in preschool classrooms and also show that methods of data collection and analysis from social ethology and child psychology research traditions are mutually informing.

Keywords

Peer relations Affiliative structure Stratification 

References

  1. Asher SR, Dodge KA (1986) Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Dev Psychol 22:444–449 doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.4.444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bost KK, Vaughn BE, Washington WN, Cielinski KL, Bradbard MR (1998) Social competence, social support, and attachment: demarcation of construct domains, measurement, and paths of influence for preschool children attending head start. Child Dev 69:192–218 doi:10.2307/1132080 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronson WC (1981) Toddlers’ behaviors with agemates: issues of interaction, cognition, and affect. Ablex, Westport, CTGoogle Scholar
  4. Bukowski WM, Newcomb AF, Hartup WW (1996) The company they keep: friendship in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cairns RB, Cairns BD (1995) Lifelines and risks: pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cairns RB, Perrin JE, Cairns BD (1985) Social structure and social cognition in early adolescence: Affiliative patterns. J Early Adolesc 5:339–355 doi:10.1177/0272431685053007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cairns RB, Gariépy J-L, Kinderman T (1990) Identifying social clusters in natural settings. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Developmental Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  8. Cairns RB, Leung MC, Buchanan L, Cairns BD (1995) Friendships and social networks in childhood and adolescence: fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child Dev 66:1330–1345 doi:10.2307/1131650 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farmer T, Rodkin PC (1996) Antisocial and prosocial correlates of classroom social positions: the social network centrality perspective. Soc Dev 5:174–188 doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1996.tb00079.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gest SD, Graham-Bermann SA, Hartup WW (2001) Peer experience: common and unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status. Soc Dev 10:23–40 doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gest SD, Farmer TW, Cairns BD, Xie H (2003) Identifying children’s peer social networks in school classrooms: links between peer reports and observed interactions. Social Development, 12:513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris JR (1995) Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychol Rev 102:458–489 doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartup WW (2005) Peer interaction: what causes what? J Abnorm Child Psychol 33:387–394 doi:10.1007/s10802-005-3578-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawley P, Little T (1999) On winning some and losing some: a social relations approach to social dominance in toddlers. Merrill-Palmer Q 43:185–214Google Scholar
  15. Hay DF, Nash A, Pedersen J (1983) Interaction between six-month-old peers. Child Dev 54:557–562 doi:10.2307/1130042 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howes C, Phillipsen L (1992) Gender and friendship: relationships within peer groups of young children. Soc Dev 1:230–242 doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1992.tb00126.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howes C, Phillipsen L (1998) Continuity in children’s relationships with peers. Soc Dev 7:340–349 doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Legendre L, Legendre P (1983) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. McCandless BR, Marshall HR (1957) A picture sociometric technique for preschool children and its relation to teacher judgments of friendship. Child Dev 28:139–147 doi:10.2307/1125876 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rubin KH, Bukowski W, Parker JG (1998) Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In: Damon W (ed) Handbook of child psychology, Vol 3. (N. Eisenberg, Volume Ed). Social, emotional, and personality development, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 619–700Google Scholar
  21. Santos AJ, Strayer FF (1997) A socio-structural analysis of preschool children’s affiliative behavior. Advances in Ethology 32Google Scholar
  22. Santos AJ, Vaughn BE, Bonnet J (2000) L’influence du réseau affiliatif sur la répartition de l’attention sociale chez l’enfant en groupe préscolaire. Rev Sci Edu 26:17–34Google Scholar
  23. Sherif M, Harvey OJ, White JB, Hood WR, Sherif CW (1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the robbers cave experiment. Institute of Group Relations, Norman, OKGoogle Scholar
  24. Siegel S (1956) Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR (1962) Numerical taxonomy. Nature 193:855–860 doi:10.1038/193855a0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strayer FF (1980) Current problems in the study of dominance. In: Omark DR, Strayer FF, Freedman D (eds) Dominance relations: an ethological view of human conflict and social interaction. Garland STPM, New York, pp 443–452Google Scholar
  27. Strayer FF, Strayer J (1976) An ethological analysis of social agonism and dominance relations among preschool children. Child Dev 47:980–989 doi:10.2307/1128434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Strayer FF, Santos AJ (1996) Affiliative structures in preschool play groups. Soc Dev 5:117–130 doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1996.tb00075.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vaughn BE, Waters E (1980) Social organization among preschooler peers: dominance, attention and sociometric correlates. In: Omark DR, Strayer FF, Freedman D (eds) Dominance relations: an ethological view of human conflict and social interaction. Garland STPM, New York, pp 359–380Google Scholar
  30. Vaughn BE, Waters E (1981) Attention structure, sociometric status, and dominance: Interrelations, behavioral correlates, and relationships to social competence. Dev Psychol 17:275–288 doi:10.1037/0012-1649.17.3.275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vaughn BE, Martino D (1988) Age related Q-sort correlates of visual regard in groups of preschool children. Dev Psychol 24:589–594Google Scholar
  32. Vaughn B, Santos AJ (2007) Why they don’t all get along: an evolutionary/ecological account of aggressive behavior and trait aggression in human children and adolescents. In: Hawley PH, (ed) Aggression and adaptation: the bright side to bad behavior. Matowa, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 31–63Google Scholar
  33. Vaughn BE, Azria MR, Krzysik L, Caya LR, Bost KK, Newell W et al (2000) Friendship and social competence in a sample of preschool children attending head start. Dev Psychol 36:326–338 doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.326 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vaughn BE, Colvin TN, Azria MR, Caya L, Krzysik L (2001) Dyadic analyses of friendship in a sample of preschool age children attending head start: correspondence between measures and implications for social competence. Child Dev 72:862–878 doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00320 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Waters E, Garber J, Gornal M, Vaughn BE (1983) Q-sort correlates of soil competence. Dev Psychol 19:550–560Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag and ISPA 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • António J. Santos
    • 1
  • Brian E. Vaughn
    • 2
  • Kelly K. Bost
    • 3
  1. 1.Unidade de Investigação em Psicologia Cognitiva do Desenvolvimento e da EducaçãoInstituto Superior de Psicologia AplicadaLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Human Development and Family StudiesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  3. 3.Department of Human and Community DevelopmentUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations