Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Childrens Perceptions of Same- and Cross- Sex Peers Social Behavior and Social Status Noel A. Card, University of Arizona Acknowledgements: Todd Little.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Childrens Perceptions of Same- and Cross- Sex Peers Social Behavior and Social Status Noel A. Card, University of Arizona Acknowledgements: Todd Little."— Presentation transcript:

1 Childrens Perceptions of Same- and Cross- Sex Peers Social Behavior and Social Status Noel A. Card, University of Arizona Acknowledgements: Todd Little (informal co-author of present paper) Patricia Hawley & Ernest Hodges (coauthors on IJBD article)

2 Introduction and rationale The importance of studying childrens interpersonal perception –Possible links to social goals, information processing, and behaviors. –Allows for understanding of development of later interpersonal perception.

3 Introduction and rationale The importance of studying childrens interpersonal perception Previous research studying childrens interpersonal perception –Malloy, Sugarman, Montvilo, & Ben-Zeev (1995) Relative actor, partner, and relationship variances in different domains across 1 st to 6 th grades. –Card, Romero, & Wiseman (2004) Relative variances in perceptions of aggression and victimization among middle school children. –Card, Hodges, Little, & Hawley (2005) Gender effects in perceptions of various types of aggression and social status.

4 Introduction and rationale The importance of studying childrens interpersonal perception Previous research studying childrens interpersonal perception Conceptual expectations regarding gender differences and interpersonal perception: –In-group / out-group processes –Separate worlds hypothesis (Maccoby)

5 Goals of study Extend upon Card et al. (2005) by testing process model of gender differences –Proposed mediational model in which gender differences in perceptions of social behavior account for gender differences in perceptions of social status. Gender -Sex of perceiver -Sex of target -Within/across sex Perceptions of Social Behaviors -Aggression -Prosocial behavior Perceptions of Social Status -Social preference -Perc. popularity

6 Method Sample –N=374 6 th graders in 17 classes (M age = 10.5 years) –Approximately equal number of boys (n=194) and girls (n=180) –Northeastern US: 68% White, 22% African American, 5% Hispanic Measures – only Peer Nomination Inventory relevant –Aggression (8 items from 4 form / function combinations; range 0 – 100): –Prosocial behavior (2 items; range 0 – 100): –Social preference (liking – disliking; range = -100 – 0 - 100): –Perceived popularity (popularity – unpopularity ; range = -100 – 0 - 100)

7 Results – Group-level IV to DV (sex perceived social status) –Repeated-measures ANOVA (nom sex, targ sex, interaction) of mean levels across 17 groups –Both aspects of social status showed similar sex differences: Nominator effects: No significant differences Target effects: Girls were more liked and perceived as more popular than were boys. Interaction: Higher social preference and perceptions popularity within sex than across Boys nominations of…Girls nominations of… NominatorTargetN X T BoysGirlsBoysGirls Social Pref. 18.80.6-1.923.5nsgirlswithin Perc. Popularity 4.12.00.16.3nsgirlswithin Note: Rightmost column show group with higher means when effect is significant (p <.05)

8 Results – Group-level IV to Mediator (sex perceived behaviors) –Repeated-measures ANOVA (nom sex, targ sex, interaction) of mean levels across 17 groups –Both perceived behaviors showed similar (though not identical) sex differences: Nominator effects: Girls perceived higher rates of aggression and prosocial behavior than did boys. Target effects: Girls were seen as more prosocial than boys. Interaction: Higher perceptions of both aggression and prosocial behavior within sex than across Boys nominations of…Girls nominations of… NominatorTargetN X T BoysGirlsBoysGirls Aggression 4.31.72.65.4girlsnswithin Prosocial 7.23.72.915.6girls within Note: Rightmost column show group with higher means when effect is significant (p <.05)

9 Results – Group-level Mediator to DV (social behaviors social status) –Regressions of group-mean social status onto group-mean behaviors (across 17 groups) –Group-levels of social preference not predicted by perceptions of social behaviors. –Group-levels of perceived popularity positively predicted by both perceived aggression and prosocial behavior Social Pref/Perc. Popularity Aggressionns.44 Prosocialns.55 Note: Values are standardized regression coefficients of social status (top) onto two behaviors (left).

10 Results – Group-level IV to DV, controlling mediators (sex social behaviors perceived social status) –Two effects met initial criteria for mediation: Target effects in perceived popularity (girls > boys) were mediated by target effects in perceptions of prosocial behavior (girls > boys). Interaction effects in perceived popularity (within > across) were mediated by interaction effects in perceptions of prosocial and aggressive behaviors (within > across) NominatorTargetN X T Social Pref. -- Perc. Popularity --ns

11 Results – Group-level Summary of effects –Only evidence of mediation is that perceptions of prosocial behavior mediate prediction of perceived popularity from target sex (girls > boys) and sex interaction (within > across). –Direct effects (not mediated by perceptions of social behaviors) on social preference from target sex (girls > boys) and sex interaction (within > across). Nominator Sex Target Sex N X T (within/across sex) Perceived Aggression Perceived Prosocial Social Preference Perceived Popularity

12 Results – Assimilation (actor variance) IV to Mediator (sex perceived behaviors) –Repeated-measures ANOVA (nom sex, targ sex, interaction) of actor variances across 17 groups. –Both perceived behaviors showed similar sex differences as did social status measures: No main (sex of nominator or target ) effects. Interaction: Greater degree of assimilation in views of cross-sex individuals social behaviors. Boys nominations of… Girls nominations of… NominatorTargetN X T BoysGirlsBoysGirls Aggression 5810912278ns across Prosocial 4642241455ns across Note: Rightmost column show group with higher means when effect is significant (p <.05)

13 Results – Assimilation (actor variance) Mediator to DV (social behaviors social status) –Computed bivariate actor-actor covariances among variables, which were then used to compute regression coefficients. Regression coefficients were then aggregated across 17 groups. –Actor variance in social preference associated with actor variance in perceived prosocial behavior. –Actor variance in perceived popularity associated with actor variance in both perceived aggression and prosocial behavior. Social Pref/Perc. Popularity Aggressionns.13 Prosocial.35.44 Note: Values are standardized regressions of social status (top) onto two behaviors (left).

14 Results – Assimilation (actor variance) IV to DV, controlling mediators (sex social behaviors perceived social status) –Two effects met initial criteria for mediation: Target effects in perceived popularity (girls > boys) were mediated by target effects in perceptions of prosocial behavior (girls > boys). Interaction effects in perceived popularity (within > across) were mediated by interaction effects in perceptions of prosocial and aggressive behaviors (within > across) NominatorTargetN X T Social Pref. -- ns Perc. Popularity -- ns

15 Results – Assimilation (actor variance) Summary of effects –Only sex of nominator X target interactions was related to magnitude of assimilation in social behaviors and status (greater assimilation across than within groups). –Across-group (versus within-group) assimilation in perceptions of social behaviors accounted for (mediated) across-group assimilation in perceived popularity (but not social preference). Nominator Sex Target Sex N X T (within/across sex) Perceived Aggression Perceived Prosocial Social Preference Perceived Popularity

16 Results – Consensus (partner variance) IV to DV (sex perceived social status) –Repeated-measures ANOVA (nom sex, targ sex, interaction) of partner variances across 17 groups. –Both aspects of social status showed similar patterns: Girls exhibited higher degrees of consensus than did boys. Sex of target was not related to degree of consensus For both measures of social status, there was greater consensus across sex than within. Boys nominations of…Girls nominations of… NominatorTargetN X T BoysGirlsBoysGirls Social Pref. 1857791041206girlsnsacross Perc. Popularity 2236541931216girlsnsacross Note: Rightmost column show group with higher means when effect is significant (p <.05)

17 Results – Consensus (partner variance) IV to Mediator (sex perceived behaviors) –Repeated-measures ANOVA (nom sex, targ sex, interaction) of partner variances across 17 groups. –Both perceived behaviors showed similar sex differences: No significant nominator or target sex differences. Interaction: Higher consensus of both aggression and prosocial behavior within sex than across. Boys nominations of… Girls nominations of… NominatorTargetN X T BoysGirlsBoysGirls Aggression 1483437277ns within Prosocial 73021132308ns within Note: Rightmost column show group with higher means when effect is significant (p <.05)

18 Results – Consensus (partner variance) Mediator to DV (social behaviors social status) –Computed bivariate partner-partner covariances among variables, which were then used to compute regression coefficients. Regression coefficients were then aggregated across 17 groups. –Partner variance in social preference associated with partner variance in perceived prosocial behavior. –Partner variance in perceived popularity associated with partner variance in both perceived aggression and prosocial behavior. Social Pref/Perc. Popularity Aggressionns.33 Prosocial.45.48 Note: Values are standardized regressions of social status (top) onto two behaviors (left).

19 Results – Consensus (partner variance) IV to DV, controlling mediators (sex social behaviors perceived social status) –Two effects met initial criteria for mediation: Interaction effects predicting consensus in social preference and perceived popularity remained significant after controlling for consensus in aggression and prosocial behavior. This might be expectable given that sex interaction had opposite direction of effects for consensus in social behavior (within > across) versus social status (across > within) NominatorTargetN X T Social Pref. -- Sig Perc. Popularity -- Sig

20 Results – Consensus (partner variance) Summary of effects –Only sex of nominator X target interactions was related to magnitude of assimilation in social behaviors and status (greater assimilation across than within groups). –Across-group (versus within-group) assimilation in perceptions of social behaviors accounted for (mediated) across-group assimilation in perceived popularity (but not social preference). Nominator Sex Target Sex N X T (within/across sex) Perceived Aggression Perceived Prosocial Social Preference Perceived Popularity + + + + + - -

21 Results – Uniqueness (relationship variance) IV to DV (sex perceived social status) –Repeated-measures ANOVA (nom sex, targ sex, interaction) of relationship variances across 17 groups. –Girls exhibited higher degrees of unique perception than did boys in both social preference and perceived popularity. –For social preference (but not perceived popularity), there was a greater degree of uniqueness in social preference within than across sexes. Boys nominations of…Girls nominations of… NominatorTargetN X T BoysGirlsBoysGirls Social Pref. 11285179341430girlsnswithin Perc. Popularity 468372544589girlsns Note: Rightmost column show group with higher means when effect is significant (p <.05)

22 Results – Uniqueness (relationship variance) IV to Mediator (sex perceived behaviors) –Repeated-measures ANOVA (nom sex, targ sex, interaction) of relationship variances across 17 groups. –Unique perceptions of aggression were not related to sex. –Unique perceptions of prosocial behavior showed more variability when girls were nominators, when girls were targets, and for perceptions within sex. Boys nominations of… Girls nominations of… NominatorTargetN X T BoysGirlsBoysGirls Aggression 885185115ns Prosocial 317309252618girls within Note: Rightmost column show group with higher means when effect is significant (p <.05)

23 Results – Uniqueness (relationship variance) Mediator to DV (social behaviors social status) –Computed bivariate intrapersonal relationship covariances among variables, which were then used to compute regression coefficients. Regression coefficients were then aggregated across 17 groups. –Relationship effects of perceptions of aggression were uniquely linked to relationship effects in perceived popularity. –Relationship effects of perceptions of prosocial behaviors were uniquely linked to relationship effects in social preference. Social Pref/Perc. Popularity Aggressionns.12 Prosocial.35ns Note: Values are standardized regressions of social status (top) onto two behaviors (left).

24 Results – Uniqueness (relationship variance) IV to DV, controlling mediators (sex social behaviors perceived social status) –Two effects met initial criteria for mediation: Both the main effect of nominator sex and the interaction of nominator X target sex on unique variance in social preference were mediated by unique perceptions of prosocial behavior. NominatorTargetN X T Social Pref. ns--ns Perc. Popularity --

25 Results – Uniqueness (relationship variance) Summary of effects –Although there were several effects, only two pathways met criteria for moderation Nominator sex and N X T interaction were mediated by prosocial behavior in predicting unique perceptions of social preference. Note that target sex was not initially associated with relationship variance in social preference. Nominator Sex Target Sex N X T (within/across sex) Perceived Aggression Perceived Prosocial Social Preference Perceived Popularity


Download ppt "Childrens Perceptions of Same- and Cross- Sex Peers Social Behavior and Social Status Noel A. Card, University of Arizona Acknowledgements: Todd Little."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google