Socially withdrawn children: Actual versus perceived peer acceptance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the present study was to examine and directly compare actual peer acceptance and perceived peer acceptance in peer-identified withdrawn, aggressive, and nondeviant children. The children also rated how important it was for them to be liked by each of their peers. It was hypothesized that withdrawn children would underestimate their degree of acceptance in the peer group and would rate importance of peer acceptance higher compared to aggressive and nondeviant children. Children's self-reported social anxiety was also explored as a way of examining its effect on their perceptions of how they thought they were perceived by their peers. Participants included 479 children from Grades 3, 5, and 7 from middle-class elementary and junior high schools in the Western Quebec School Board. These children completed a peer assessment measure of social behaviour, a self-report measure of social anxiety, and sociometric rating measures of peer acceptance ("actual" peer acceptance, "perceived" peer acceptance, and "importance" of peer acceptance). Using a peer assessment measure of social behaviour, three groups of children were identified: (1) withdrawn (n = 68); (2) aggressive (n = 70); and (3) nondeviant (n = 242). When directly comparing children's actual versus perceived peer acceptance, contrary to our hypothesis, results showed no significant difference for withdrawn children. Conversely, aggressive children perceived themselves to be significantly better liked by their peers than they actually were, while results showed that nondeviant children were significantly better liked by their peers than they perceived themselves to be. The results also showed that aggressive children believed it was significantly less important for them to be liked by their peers compared to withdrawn children. Moreover, withdrawn children had significantly higher scores on social anxiety (i.e., social anxiety total score, and social avoidance and distress specific to new peers or situations and general situations) than aggressive or nondeviant children. Implications of the present findings and directions for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".