Children’s Perceptions of Same- and Cross-Sex Peers’ Social Behavior and Social Status

1. Children’s 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 children’s 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 children’s interpersonal perception • Previous research studying children’s interpersonal perception • Malloy, Sugarman, Montvilo, & Ben-Zeev (1995) • Relative actor, partner, and relationship variances in different domains across 1st to 6th 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 children’s interpersonal perception • Previous research studying children’s 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 6th 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

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

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

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)

11. Perceived Aggression Social Preference Perceived Prosocial Perceived Popularity 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)

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.

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.

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)

15. Perceived Aggression Social Preference Perceived Prosocial Perceived Popularity 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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

20. Perceived Aggression Social Preference Perceived Prosocial Perceived Popularity 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) + -

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.

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.

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.

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.

25. Perceived Aggression Social Preference Perceived Prosocial Perceived Popularity 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)