Loneliness and Peer Relations in Young Children

Author(s): Jude Cassidy and Steven R. Asher

Source: Child Development, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Apr., 1992), pp. 350-365
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131484 .
Accessed: 01/10/2013 08:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Loneliness and Peer Relations
in Young Children

Jude Cassidy
The Pennsylvania State University

Steven R. Asher
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

CASSIDY,JUDE, and ASHER, STEVEN R. Loneliness and Peer Relations in Young Children. CHILD
DEVELOPMENT, 1992, 63, 350-365. Recent studies indicate that feelings of loneliness and social
dissatisfaction can be reliably assessed with third- through sixth-grade children, and that children
who are sociometrically rejected by their peers are significantly more lonely than other children.
The present research was designed (a) to examine whether loneliness could be reliably assessed
in a population younger than previously studied, (b) to learn whether young children who are
poorly accepted by peers report elevated levels of loneliness and social dissatisfaction, (c) to
assess whether young children understand the concept of loneliness, and (d) to examine the
behavorial characteristics of lonely young children. Kindergarten and first-grade children (N =
440) responded to a questionnaire about feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction in school.
A subset of children (N = 46) were individually interviewed to assess their understanding of
loneliness. To assess sociometric status and behavior, peers were asked to respond to various
sociometric measures and behavioral assessment items. Teachers also provided behavioral infor-
mation about children using a newly developed instrument. Results indicated that nearly all
children understood loneliness, that loneliness was reliably assessed in young children, and that
poorly accepted children were more lonely than other children. In addition, children who re-
ported the most loneliness were found to differ from others on several behavioral dimensions.

Children's abilities to form close rela- As part of this concern for children with
tionships and to function successfully within peer relationship problems, attention has
the peer group are increasingly viewed as been directed toward learning whether re-
important indicators of social competence jected children experience greater feelings
(Asher & Parker, 1989; Berndt & Ladd, 1989; of loneliness and social dissatisfaction than
Hartup & Sancilio, 1986; Sullivan, 1953; other children. It is now clear that for chil-
Youniss, 1980) and as reliable predictors of dren in the range of 8-12 years of age, lone-
adjustment in later life (Kupersmidt, Coie, liness is a meaningful construct and can be
& Dodge, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1987). Ac- reliably measured (e.g., Asher, Hymel, &
cordingly, considerable attention has been Renshaw, 1984; Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Bu-
focused recently on children whose peer re- kowski & Ferber, 1987; Hayden, Tarulli, &
lations are problematic and who are highly Hymel, 1988; Marcoen & Brumagne, 1985).
disliked by their peers (see Asher & Coie, Furthermore, several investigations examin-
1990, for reviews). ing third- through sixth-grade children have

This research was supported by an NIMH Postdoctoral Training Grant to the Consortium
on Family Process and Psychopathology, by grant HD05951 from the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development to the second author, and by a grant from the W. T. Grant
Foundation to the second author. Portions of this paper were presented at the meetings of the
Society for Research in Child Development, April 1989, Kansas City. These data were gathered
as part of a larger project designed and conducted in collaboration with Ross D. Parke. This
project could not have been conducted without the generous assistance of the principals, teach-
ers, and students of the Champaign and Urbana public school systems. The authors wish to thank
Gladys A. Williams, who provided thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The
authors also gratefully acknowledge the help with data collection and data analysis provided by
Ed Anderson, Julia M. Braungart,Carol M. Bruene, Virginia M. Burks, Pam Dell Fitzgerald,
Jennifer Noel, Ben Wallace, and Gladys A. Williams. Requests for reprints or copies of measures
should be addressed to Jude Cassidy, Department of Psychology, 514 Moore Building, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
[Child Development, 1992, 63, 350-365. ? 1992 by the Society for Researchin Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/92/6302-0007$01.00]

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cassidy and Asher 351
indicated that children who are disliked by 1989) and may not be as aware of their actual
peers report more loneliness than children status among peers. Furthermore, the rela-
who are better accepted (Asher & Wheeler, tively informal structureof kindergartenand
1985; Crick & Ladd, 1988; Williams & first grade may provide the child with many
Asher, 1991). opportunities for social interaction, thereby
As noted elsewhere (Asher, Parkhurst, preventing rejected children from fully rec-
ognizing their rejected status.
Hymel, & Williams, 1990), the possibility
that loneliness would accompanypeer rejec- Because this study assessed loneliness
tion is quite plausible given the difficulty in a group younger than previously studied,
rejected children have in relating to other it was importantto ensure that the children
children in school. Although rejected chil- in this study had a valid understanding of
dren rate the importance of getting along the concept of loneliness. To address this, a
with others as highly as do other children subsample of participants were individually
(Taylor & Asher, 1988), it is clear that they asked a series of questions about the defi-
are less successful in initiating interactions nition of loneliness, its causes, and its alle-
(Putallaz & Wasserman, 1990). Even when viation. Children's responses to these in-
interacting, rejected children do not remain terviews were transcribed and coded to
engaged with other children very long, but examine whether young children had an ap-
move from interaction to interaction more propriate definition of loneliness. This we
frequently than do other children (Ladd, defined as an understanding that loneliness
1983). Problems lie not only in the behavior involves both the circumstance of aloneness
of rejected children, but also in how their and the feeling of sadness or some other type
peers behave toward them. Several observa- of depressed affect. (See Peplau & Perlman,
tional studies have found that, compared 1982, for evidence that this definition paral-
with other children, rejected children re- lels those provided by adults.)
ceive fewer positive initiations and more
negative treatment from peers (e.g., Dodge, Two different methods of assessing so-
1983; Gottman, Gonso, & Rasmussen, 1975). ciometric status were used in the present
Rejected children also have reputational study. First, following the widely used Coie
problems that constrain their opportunities and Dodge (1983) limited-choice nomina-
for friendship; given an ambiguous situa- tion procedure, children were classified into
tion, rejected children are less likely than popular, rejected, neglected, controversial,
others to be "given the benefit of the doubt" and average groups based on scores derived
by their peers (Hymel, 1986; Hymel, from positive and negative sociometric nom-
Wagner, & Butler, 1990). inations. Previous research with 8-12-year-
old elementary school students has found
Until now, studies of childhood loneli- that rejected children report elevated feel-
ness have not been conducted during the ings of loneliness compared to average stu-
early childhood years, partly because some dents, but that neglected children do not
theorists have doubted the existence of lone- differ in loneliness from average students
liness in young children (e.g., Weiss, 1973). (Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Crick & Ladd,
The present research, designed to examine 1988). Of interest in the present study was
loneliness among a population younger than whether this pattern would replicate with
previously studied, had two principal goals. younger children. If so, it would contribute
First, we were interested in whether loneli- to emerging evidence that sociometrically
ness in school could be reliably assessed rejected but not neglected children are a risk
with kindergarten and first-grade children. group (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990;
Second, we were interested in whether so- Rubin, Hymel, LeMare, & Rowden, 1989).
ciometrically rejected children in this age
group would report more school-based lone- Sociometric status was also assessed by
liness than children in other status groups. having children rate, on a 5-point rating
Although previous research with older stu- scale, how much they like to play with each
dents provides the basis for expecting re- classmate (Ladd, 1981; Oden & Asher, 1977;
jected children to be the most lonely status Singleton & Asher, 1977). This method has
group, there are reasons why the link be- been widely used in studies of elementary
tween loneliness and rejection may not be school students, including research with
strong with young children. Younger chil- first-gradestudents (Putallaz, 1987). Rating-
dren tend to have inflated views of their scale sociometric measures have the advan-
competence in a variety of areas (Harter, tage that each child's score is based on the
1983; Nicholls, 1979; Stipek & Mac Iver, ratings of all classmates. This results in

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
352 Child Development
scores with greater reliability than that typi- reports. Our peer-report measure, a nomina-
cally found using limited-choice nomination tion procedure, was similar to measures
measures (Asher & Hymel, 1981). The used in previous studies (Coie & Dodge,
greater reliability associated with rating- 1983; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982;
scale sociometric measures is particularly Dodge & Coie, 1987). Our teacher-report
evident with younger children (Asher, Sin- measure was developed particularly for this
gleton, Tinsley, & Hymel, 1979). In the pres- study because no brief measure existed that
ent study, children were classified as low-, tapped the four dimensiions in which we
average-, or high-accepted based on the av- were interested (prosocial, aggressive, shy/
erage rating they received from their class- withdrawn, and disruptive behavior). We as-
mates. It was expected that low-accepted sessed the validity of this new measure by
children would report greater loneliness examining how teacher ratings of behavior
than average- or high-accepted children. related to peer assessments of behavior and
The present study was also designed to children's sociometric status.
to examine the behavioral characteristics of
very lonely young children. The relation of Method
loneliness to behavioral characteristics in
childhood has as yet received little atten- Subjects
tion. Studies examining loneliness in adult- Subjects were 452 children (230 boys,
hood have indicated that lonely adults be- 222 girls) from seven kindergarten and 15
have differently from others along several first-grade classrooms. These 5-7-year-old
dimensions. Some studies have involved children came from four public schools in a
moderate-size Midwestern community. Sev-
self-reports by lonely and nonlonely adults,
and others have involved observations in enty percent of the children were Caucasian,
25% African-American, and 5% Asian. Most
laboratory settings. Lonely adults are more children came from working- and middle-
likely than nonlonely adults to exhibit shy class families. All children whose parents
behavior and other indices of "inhibited so-
ciability," limiting social contact by spend- gave permission participated; the permis-
sion rate was greater than 80% in each class-
ing more time alone, making friends less room. Because of repeated school absences,
easily, dating less often, and initiating fewer 12 of the 452 children did not complete the
interactions (Horowitz, French, & Anderson,
loneliness questionnaire. One sociometric
1982; Jones, Freemon, & Goswick, 1981;
Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). Similarly, measure, the negative nomination measure,
was not administered in five of 22 class-
high-lonely adults, relative to low-lonely
rooms, in accordance with teacher prefer-
adults, have been found to show a greater ence. Thus, in analyses involving this mea-
lack of such prosocial behaviors as demon-
sure, the sample size was 352. A subset of
strating an interest in others and using effec- 46 children (25 girls, 21 boys), selected to
tive interpersonal problem solving (Chel-
include children from a range of sociometric
une, Sultan, & Williams, 1980; Horowitz & status groups, was interviewed to assess
French, 1979; Horowitz et al., 1982; Jones,
children's understanding of loneliness.
Hobbs, & Hockenbury, 1982). In the present
study, in order to parallel previous literature Procedure
with adults, we were interested in learning The study was conducted in the spring
whether lonely children differed from others of the school year. Children were inter-
along the two behavioral dimensions of in- viewed individually outside their class-
hibited sociability and prosocial behavior. rooms by one of four female graduate stu-
We were also interested in two dimensions dents, all of whom had extensive prior
not examined in the adult literature on the experience working with children. Socio-
behavioral correlates of loneliness-aggres- metric measures were administered first, fol-
sive and disruptive behavior-which are of lowed by a series of behavioral nomination
great interest to researchers, teachers, and items, and, finally, by the loneliness and so-
clinicians. For this reason, and because they cial dissatisfaction questionnaire. Children
have been found to be important correlates were assured of the confidentiality of their
of children's sociometric status (Coie et al., responses, and appeared to enjoy their par-
1990), we included these two dimensions. ticipation. Children responded readily and
without difficulty to the questions. The en-
This interest in children's behavioral
tire interview lasted 15-20 min per child.
characteristics prompted us to gather behav-
ioral data from more than one source, and Each teacher received the behavior rat-
we obtained both peer reports and teacher ing questionnaire after all the children in

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cassidy and Asher 353
her class had been interviewed. She was for breakfast?"; "Do you like ice cream?";
asked to fill out the questionnaire as soon as "Do you like to do homework?"). Once it
possible and to return it through the mail. was clear that children understood the task,
Teachers were paid $10 for their partici- the experimenter read aloud each question-
pation. naire item and recorded the responses. Ta-
ble 1 lists the questionnaire items. Research
Approximately 4-6 weeks after the first with older children has revealed one princi-
assessment, the subset of 46 students were
interviewed individually about their under- pal factor on which all loneliness and social
dissatisfaction items load (Asher et al., 1984;
standing of loneliness. Asher & Wheeler, 1985).
Measures
Loneliness and social dissatisfaction.- Sociometric measures.-Sociometric
The 24-item Loneliness and Social Dissatis- measures were administered using individ-
faction Questionnaire designed by Asher et ual photographs of each child in the class.
al. (1984), and subsequently revised by Photographs were used to overcome any po-
Asher and Wheeler (1985) to focus on the tential memory problems that might occur
school setting, formed the basis of the mea- by relying on names only (Asher et al., 1979;
sure used in the present study. In the previ- see McCandless & Marshall, 1957).
ous versions, children were presented with The first sociometric measure was a
a series of statements and asked to indicate,
5-point rating-scale measure on which chil-
using a Likert-type scale, the extent to which dren rated how much they liked to play with
the statement was a true description of them- each classmate. Children were taught to use
selves (i.e., ranging from "that's not true at a 5-point rating scale consisting of five faces
all about me" to "that's always true about
ranging from a large frown through a neutral
me"). In the adaptation used here, there was expression to a large smile. The training pro-
a shift from a format in which children were cedure is described in Singleton and Asher
required to respond to statements to a format (1977). Once it was clear that the children
in which they were required to respond to understood how to use the rating scale, they
questions. Children responded to each ques- were shown the photographs, one by one, of
tion by answering "yes," "no," or "some- each classmate, and were asked to indicate
times." As in the earlier versions, questions on the 5-point scale "How much do you like
focused on children's feelings of loneliness to play with this child?" The experimenter
(e.g., "Are you lonely at school?"), feelings recorded the children's responses. A child's
of social adequacy versus inadequacy (e.g., score first was computed by calculating the
"Are you good at working with other chil-
average rating received from same-gender
dren at school?"), subjective estimations of
peers. Next, to permit comparison of scores
peer status (e.g., "Do you have lots of friends across classrooms, average-rating scores
at school?"), and appraisals of whether im- were converted to standard scores, using
portant relationship provisions are being means and standard deviations for each gen-
met (e.g., "Are there kids you can go to when der group in each classroom. These standard
you need help at school?"). Interspersed scores were used to classify children as
with these items were eight additional "fil-
high-, average-, and low-accepted. Children
ler" items focused on children's hobbies or whose average rating was 1 SD or more
preferred activities (e.g., "Do you like mu- above the mean were identified as high-
sic?"; "Do you watch TV a lot?"). These accepted. Children whose average rating
items were included to help children feel was 1 SD or more below the mean were
more open and relaxed about indicating identified as low-accepted. Children not in
their attitudes about various topics. Al- one of these two extreme groups were iden-
though we had intended to include modified tified as average-accepted.
versions of all 24 items from the earlier ques-
tionnaires, one item was inadvertently omit- The second sociometric measure in-
ted due to a clerical error. The omitted item volved both positive and negative nomina-
was to have read, "Is it hard for you to get tion questions. For the positive nomination
along with other kids at school?" Because of procedure, children were asked to name the
this omission, the questionnaire adminis- three children with whom they most liked
tered here contained 15 principal items and to play. The experimenter displayed all of
eight filler items. Before the questionnaire the children's photographs in random order.
was administered, children were trained to The child was first asked, "Of all these chil-
use the response format and were given sev- dren, point to the child you most like to play
eral practice items (e.g., "Do you have toast with." The experimenter removed the se-

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354 Child Development
TABLE 1
FACTOR LOADINGS AND ITEM-TO-TOTAL SCORE CORRELATIONS FOR EACH ITEM OF THE LONELINESS AND
SOCIAL DISSATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

Item-to-Total
Factor Score
Loading Correlation
1. Is it easy for you to make new friends at school? .............................. .25 .34
2. Do you like to read? ........ .......... .20 a
3. Do you have other kids to talk to at school? ..................................
..................................... .41 .39
4. Are you good at working with other kids at school? ............................ .35 .34
5. Do you watch TV a lot?a ................. . ............... -.07 a
6. Is it hard for you to make friends at school?b ................. 49 .55
7. Do you like school?a ......................................
................. .38 a
..................................................................
8. Do you have lots of friends at school? ................. ......... .............. .48 .44
9. Do you feel alone at school?b .48
10. Can you find a friend when you......................................58
need one? ....................43 .38
11. Do you play sports a lot?a .....................
....................................... .10 a
12. Is it hard to get kids in school to like you?b 44 .44
13. Do you like science?a .......................................
................ .26 a
.................................................................
14. Do you have kids to play with at school? ........................................ .52 .41
15. Do you like music?a ....................... .12 a
.................
16. Do you get along with other kids at school? ....................... 48 .39
17. Do you feel left out of things at school?b ............................................ ................ .45
52
18. Are there kids you can go to when you need help in school? ............ .32 .26
19. Do you like to paint and draw?a .06 a
20. Are you lonely at school?b .................................................
.................. 58 .48
21. Do the kids at school like you? .......................................................
................................... .61 .47
a
22. Do you like playing card games?a ................. .06
.......................................
23. Do you have friends at school? .................... . ............... .36 .29
.....
NoTE.-Administration instructionsare available from the authors.One question was inadvertently omitted in
the present study. This question ("Is it hard for you to get along with the kids at school?"b)should follow question
19.
a Filler
items, focusing on hobby or interest items.
b Items for which response order was reversed in scoring.

lected photograph and repeated the proce- formula. A social preference (SP) score was
dure until three children viere chosen. The computed as the ML score minus the DL
experimenter then gathered all the photo- score, and a social impact (SI) score was
graphs and laid them out again in a different computed as the sum of the ML and DL
random order for the negative nomination scores. The SP and SI scores were then stan-
procedure. The child was then told, "Some- dardized within each classroom. Each child
times there are children in our class who we was classified as fitting into one of the fol-
really do not like to play with very much. Of lowing five groups: (a) popular, consisting
all these children, point to the child who you of all children receiving an SP score greater
really do not like to play with." The proce- than 1.0, an ML score greater than 0, and a
dure continued as in the positive nomination DL score less than 0; (b) rejected, consisting
procedure, until up to three children were of all children receiving an SP score less
nominated. To permit comparison of nomi- than - 1.0, an ML score less than 0, and a
nation scores across classrooms that varied DL score greater than 0; (c) neglected, con-
in size, a proportionscore was computed for sisting of all children receiving an SI score
each child (i.e., the number of nominations less than - 1.0, an ML score less than 0, and
received was divided by the number of a DL score less than 0; (d) controversial,
classmates contributing sociometric data), consisting of all children receiving an SI
and the proportionscores were standardized score greater than 1.0, an ML score greater
within each classroom. These standardized than 0, and a DL score greater than 0; and
most-liked (ML) and disliked (DL) scores (e) average, consisting of all children receiv-
were used to classify children following ing an SP score between -.5 and .5, and an
the Coie and Dodge (1983) computational SI score between -.5 and .5. Children not

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cassidy and Asher 355
falling into one of these groups (those classi-alleviation (e.g., "If you were lonely, what's
fied as "other")were not included in analy- the very best thing someone could do for
ses using this measure. you so you wouldn't feel lonely anymore?").
Responses to this interview were tape-
Peer and teacher assessment of behav- recorded and were coded from verbatim
ior.-On the peer assessment measure, chil- transcripts.Children were considered to un-
dren were asked to consider all classmates derstand loneliness when they indicated
on three behavioral dimensions: aggressive, that loneliness involved both (a) aloneness
shy/withdrawn, and prosocial. For the ag- and (b) sadness or some other form of de-
gressive dimension, children were asked to pressed affect. When the child mentioned
indicate which of their classmates "start only one component, the coder noted which
fights and say mean things." For the shy/ was mentioned. Two independent coders
withdrawn dimension, children were asked with no information about the children
to indicate which of their classmates "act shy coded all transcripts. Intercoder agreement
aroundother kids, play alone and work alone was 100%.
most of the time, and seem afraid to be
aroundother kids." For the prosocial dimen-
sion, children were asked to indicate which Results
of their classmates are "really good to have Five sets of analyses are presented in
in your class because they cooperate, help, this section. First, children's
understanding
and share. They let other children have a of the definition of loneliness is reported.
turn." For each behavioral dimension, chil- Second, the psychometric properties of the
dren were shown, one by one in random or- new loneliness and social dissatisfaction
der, all the photographs of the children in questionnaire are examined. Third, relations
their class, and asked whether or not that between loneliness and children's sociomet-
particular child was "like that." Before ric status are presented. Fourth, the reliabil-
beginning the assessment, several sample ity and validity of the new teacher rating
questions were administered until it was measure are reported. Finally, the behav-
clear that the children understood the proce- ioral characteristics of lonely children are
dure (e.g., "Some children have brown hair. examined.
How about this child? Is she like that?").
Children were asked to respond either "yes" Understanding of Loneliness
or "no." Scores were computed that re- Forty-three of 46 children (93%) re-
flected the proportion of classmates who vealed an understanding of loneliness by
attributed the particular behavior to each referring to both aloneness and sadness in
child. their responses to the interviewer. The
remaining three children (7%) referred
On the teacher assessment measure de- to aloneness but not sadness. Sample re-
signed for this study, teachers were asked to sponses to the question, "Do you know what
rate children on four behavioral dimensions: 'being lonely' means?" included: "When no
prosocial, aggressive, shy/withdrawn, and one's gonna play with you, and you feel
disruptive. Each dimension was assessed us- kinda sad, an' no one will play with you, and
ing three items, for a total of 12 items (see you start feeling lonely"; "When you're
Table 2). In order to minimize potential de- alone, and you feel kinda sad"; "Being
pendency in the ratings teachers provided alone, being sad."
for the different items, each item was pre-
sented on a different page. On each page a Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction
roster of all students' names appeared un- Given that nearly all of the children in-
derneath the item, with a 5-point scale next terviewed demonstrated a basic understand-
to each name. The scale ranged from a "1" ing of the meaning of loneliness, next we
examined children's responses to the ques-
("very uncharacteristic") to a "5" ("very tionnaire
characteristic"). designed to assess feelings of lone-
liness and social dissatisfaction in school.
Understanding ofloneliness.-Children Table 3 presents descriptive information
were individually asked a series of questions about the distribution of children's re-
to assess their understanding of loneliness. sponses to each of the principal items. It can
Questions focused on definitions of loneli- be seen that for over half of the items, more
ness (e.g., "Do you know what being lonely than 10%of the children indicated consider-
means?"), its causes (e.g., "Whatare some of able loneliness. For example, 12% of chil-
the reasons a kid might be lonely?"), and its dren responded "yes" to the question "Are

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 H4•o0
E-4 -- 0 -j

............O
o0
0 0
u u

oOI oOoO oOt

0~.~ -•.04

53
cn4
F-
E .d CCd

H H~ co" •

Q.000 r. 00 ..., co
0 >

0 0
0
Cdd
000
0 U
-4I 134_ 00L
~ 00 ci
it
0
o 10l ,i

vv

14 C
z 00 1
. 0 It c
C', ,1 0,101

CdD

cd 0 -
~1 CJ C4-J
MP.4
P-
0-4 > t
P-4
0
? 0
?:0 :• :Q

-B 13
cd >, P'..4
C) 0 r,() -
Cd P-4
P-4 ;-I
w-a a o ,P-
"--4
-4P -4D
P- 4. -

F F - 0o Fo z

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cassidy and Asher 357
TABLE 3
PERCENTAGEDISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN'S RESPONSESTO LONELINESS
AND SOCIAL DISSATISFACTIONITEMS

RESPONSE

Yes Sometimes No

1. Is it easy for you to make new friends at school? ........................ 62.0 12.5 25.2
2. Do you have other kids to talk to at school? .................................. 92.3 3.2 4.5
3. Are you good at working with other kids at school? .................... 86.1 7.5 6.4
4. Is it hard for you to make friends at school? ................................. 25.7 6.8 67.4
5. Do you have lots of friends at school? ....................................... 83.9 2.7 13.4
6. Do you feel alone at school? ........................................ 12.0 9.5 78.4
7. Can you find a friend when you need one? .................................. 85.0 8.0 7.0
8. Is it hard to get kids in school to like you? ................................... 31.1 11.4 57.5
9. Do you have kids to play with at school? ..................................... 93.9 4.5 1.6
10. Do you get along with other kids at school? ................................. 85.5 10.7 3.9
11. Do you feel left out of things at school? .......................................... 17.0 13.4 69.5
12. Are there kids you can go to when you need help in school? ....... 82.6 6.8 10.5
13. Are you lonely at school? ............................. ................... 11.8 10.9 77.3
14. Do the kids at school like you? 80.1 15.3 4.6
15. Do you have friends at school? ..................................................
............................... ......... 97.3 .9 1.8

you lonely in school?" and a similar number (-.16 and .25, respectively) and for girls
responded "yes" to the question "Do you (-.23 and .30, respectively).
feel alone in school?" Seventeen percent
of children responded affirmatively when Using groups created by the Coie and
Dodge (1983) classification approach (popu-
asked, "Do you feel left out of things at
school?" lar, average, rejected, neglected, and contro-
versial), children of different sociometric
Results of a factor analysis (quartimax status groups were compared. Table 4 pre-
rotation) of the loneliness questionnaire in- sents the means and standard deviations of
dicated that all but one of the principal items loneliness for each group, separately by gen-
and only one filler item ("Do you like der. A 5 x 2 (status group x gender) analy-
school?") loaded above .30 on the principal sis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a signifi-
factor. Factor loadings for each item and the cant effect of status group, F(4,195) = 4.59,
item-to-total correlations are shown in Table p < .001. Follow-up Tukey tests indicated
1. In order to be consistent with previous that rejected children were significantly
research with older children, each child's more lonely than average children, than ne-
score was created using all principal items. glected children, and than popular children.
Cronbach's alpha, a measure of internal reli- No other comparisons were statistically sig-
ability, was .79 for the principal items, indi- nificant. There was no significant main effect
cating satisfactory reliability. for gender, nor was there a significant status
Loneliness and Sociometric Status group x gender interaction.
We next examined connections between In a parallel analysis, we compared chil-
loneliness and the sociometric measures. A dren classified as high-, average-, or low-
total loneliness score was calculated for each accepted based on their mean rating-scale
child. Children's scores could range from sociometric scores. Table 5 presents the
15 to 45, given 15 primary items each on means and standard deviations of loneliness
a 3-point scale. Children's total loneliness for each group, by gender. A 3 x 2 (accep-
scores were found to be significantly corre- tance group x gender) ANOVA indicated
lated with rating-scale scores of acceptance a significant effect of acceptance group,
for all children, r(440) = -.23, p < .001, as F(2,437) = 12.84, p < .001, and follow-up
well as for boys, r(226) = -.14, p < .05, and Tukey tests indicated that low-accepted
for girls, r(214) = -.33, p < .001, separately. children were more lonely than average- or
Loneliness was also significantly correlated high-accepted children, and that average-
(p < .05 in all cases) with both positive and accepted and high-accepted children did not
negative nominations for all children (-.19 differ significantly. There was no significant
and .24, respectively), as well as for boys main effect for gender, nor was there a sig-

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 Child Development
TABLE 4
MEAN TOTAL LONELINESS AND SOCIAL DISSATISFACTIONSCORESAS A FUNCTION OF SOCIAL STATUS
GROUP AND GENDER

STATUS GROUP

GENDER Popular Average Rejected Neglected Controversial

Girls ..................................... 18.3 (3.3) 18.4 (4.7) 23.6 (5.6) 20.6 (4.5) 22.0 (4.6)
n ...................... ............... 33 27 11 29 3
Boys ........................................ 18.7 (4.2) 20.3 (5.8) 22.2 (6.3) 19.0 (4.2) 19.3 (4.5)
n ..................... ................ 15 24 32 19 7

NoTE.-Total N is 200. Standarddeviations are given in parentheses.

nificant acceptance group x gender inter- related to status and gender in ways congru-
action. ent with previous literature. Acceptance
groups were used as the basis for defining
Given that the 15 principal items from sociometric status so that all children could
the loneliness and social dissatisfaction be included in the analysis. A 3 x 2 (accep-
scale focus on several different kinds of di- tance group x gender) multivariate analy-
mensions (e.g., loneliness, perceptions of so- sis of variance (MANOVA) with all three
cial competence, expectations that friend- peer behavioral assessment items as the
ship needs will be satisfied), it becomes dependent variables was conducted. There
importantto assess whether significant find- was a significant effect of acceptance group,
ings again emerge when only the items di- F(6,888) = 41.44, p < .001, a significant ef-
rectly focused on loneliness are used. Ac- fect of gender, F(3,444) = 16.45, p < .001,
cordingly, a subscale was created using the and a significant acceptance group x gender
following three items: "Do you feel alone at interaction, F(6,888) = 2.19, p < .05. A
school?"; "Do you feel left out of things at follow-up series of 3 x 2 (acceptance group
school?"; and "Are you lonely at school?" x gender) ANOVAswas then conducted, ex-
The pattern of relations between loneliness amining each item separately. Acceptance
and sociometric status obtained with the en- groups differed significantly for prosocial
tire scale were once again obtained when behavior, F(2,449) = 126.63, for aggressive
this subscale was used. behavior, F(2,449) = 111.63, and for shy be-
Behavioral Characteristics havior, F(2,449) = 16.96 (all p < .001).
The next majorset of analyses compared Follow-up Tukey tests revealed aggressive
to be more
the behavioral characteristics of lonely and and shy/withdrawn behavior to be
characteristic and behavior
nonlonely children. Prior to this, a series of less characteristic prosocial
of than of
low-accepted
preliminary analyses were conducted to ex- children. These
amine the properties of the peer and teacher average- or high-accepted
findings are consistent with previous liter-
behavior assessment measures.
ature (see Coie et al., 1990, for a review).
Peer assessment.-The first preliminary Significant univariate gender differences
analysis was intended to examine whether emerged for prosocial behavior, F(1,450) =
peer assessments of behavior in this study 28.22, for aggressive behavior, F(1,450) =

TABLE 5
MEAN TOTAL LONELINESS AND SOCIAL DISSATISFACTION SCORES
AS A FUNCTION OF LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCEAND GENDER

ACCEPTANCEGROUP

GENDER Low Average High

Girls ................................................... 23.8 (6.5) 19.5 (4.2) 19.0 (3.8)

n ........................................................ 31 151 32
Boys .......................................................... 20.9 (6.2) 19.3 (4.4) 19.2 (4.3)
n 45 153 28
......................................................
NoTE.-Total N is 440. Standarddeviations are given in parentheses.

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cassidy and Asher 359
39.60, and for shy behavior, F(1,450) = 4.78 tance groups differed significantly on all be-
(all p < .05). Boys were viewed by peers as havioral dimensions in expected ways (for
more aggressive, less cooperative, and less prosocial behavior, F[2,449] = 53.83; for ag-
shy than girls. These differences, too, are gressive behavior, F[2,449] = 47.11; for shy
consistent with previous literature (see Hus- behavior, F[2,449] = 5.85; for disruptive be-
ton, 1983, for a review). Two significant havior, F[2,449] = 43.39; all p < .005).
acceptance group x gender interactions Follow-up Tukey tests revealed aggressive,
emerged: low-accepted boys were viewed as disruptive, and shy/withdrawn behavior to
particularly high on aggressive behavior, be more characteristic and prosocial behav-
F(2,449) = 5.31, p < .01, and as particularly ior to be less characteristic of low-accepted
low on prosocial behavior, F(2,449) = 3.63, than of average- or high-accepted children.
p < .05. In addition, all three peer assess- Significant and expected univariate gender
ment items were significantly intercorre- differences emerged in relation to all dimen-
lated (see Table 6). sions except shy/withdrawn behavior (for
prosocial behavior, F[1,450] = 16.47; for ag-
Teacher assessment.--Next, we con- gressive behavior, F[1,450] = 16.25; for dis-
ducted several preliminary analyses to as- ruptive behavior, F[1,450] = 29.95; all p <
sess the psychometric properties of the new .001). Boys were viewed by teachers as more
teacher rating measure. First, we performed aggressive, more disruptive, and less proso-
a factor analysis of the teacher rating mea- cial than girls. Acceptance group x gender
sure (promaxrotation).Results are shown in interactions emerged for aggressive and dis-
Table 2. Evidence of four distinct factors ruptive behavior, with low-accepted boys
matching those expected emerged, although being rated particularlyhighly on these two
one item ("This child is helpful towardother dimensions, F's(2,449) = 3.46 and 3.92 (both
children") loaded not only (positively) on p < .05), respectively.
the prosocial factor as expected, but also
loaded equally (negatively) on the disrup- Behavioral characteristics of lonely
tive factor. For data analysis, this item was children.-For the next analysis, the behav-
considered part of the prosocial scale. Sec- ioral style of high-lonely children was com-
ond, we assessed the internal reliability of pared with that of low-lonely children. Per-
each subscale, and found each to have satis- forming a median split on loneliness would
factory reliability. Cronbach's alphas are have meant including in the high-lonely
given in Table 2. group many children who were not particu-
larly lonely. Accordingly, children were
Third, we examined the intercorrela- classified as high-lonely if their scores on the
tions among the various behavioral dimen- loneliness and social dissatisfaction scale
sions. Ratings of prosocial, aggressive, and were in the top 20% of respondents (i.e., 1.6
disruptive behavior were strongly inter- and above). The remaining children were
correlated, whereas correlations of each of identified as low-lonely. Results indicated
these three dimensions with shy/withdrawn that high-lonely children, compared to low-
behavior were considerably weaker (see Ta- lonely children, were viewed as less proso-
ble 6). Fourth, we examined the linkage be- cial (by both peers and teachers), more ag-
tween teacher assessments and correspond- gressive (by both peers and teachers), more
ing peer measures, and found all to be shy (by peers but not by teachers), and more
significant (see Table 6). Again, correlations disruptive (only teachers rated this dimen-
related to prosocial and aggressive behavior sion). Table 7 presents findings for these
were strongerthan those related to shy/with- comparisons. High- and low-lonely children
drawn behavior. were also compared when the loneliness
groups were created based on the subscale
Finally, in order to verify that these of the three pure loneliness items described
teacher reports of behavior related to status earlier. Analyses that had been significant
and gender in ways congruent with previous when the loneliness groups were based on
literature,we conducted a 3 x 2 (acceptance the entire loneliness and social dissatisfac-
group x gender) MANOVAwith teacher re- tion scale were again significant.
ports of behavior as the dependent variables.
There was a significant effect of acceptance It is conceivable that the relations be-
group, F(8,886) = 15.16, p < .001, a signifi- tween loneliness and behavior are simply
cant effect of gender, F(4,443) = 7.63, p < due to the relation of each with sociometric
.001, and no significant acceptance group status. To assess this possibility, an analysis
x gender interaction, F(6,888) = 2.19. of covariance (ANCOVA)was performed in
Follow-up ANOVAs revealed that accep- which the relation between behavior and

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 0 . 0 q p

E 4

0 ( *
?
: :

S:O

? d .

V
0• .

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cassidy and Asher 361
TABLE 7
CHARACTERISTICS
BEHAVIORAL OF HIGH-LONELY
ANDLOW-LONELY
CHILDREN

LEVELOF LONELINESS

High Low F
CHARACTERISTICS
BEHAVIORAL (n = 85) (n = 355) (1,438)
Peer measure:
Prosocial ................................................. .68 (.25) .76 (.21) 9.83**
Aggressive ............................................... .34 (.26) .25 (.23) 9.98**
Shy/withdrawn ......................... ............... .29 (.15) .22 (.13) 17.28***
Teacher measure:
Prosocial ..................................... ................. 3.56 (1.11) 4.00 (.95) 14.07***
Aggressive ..................................... ................ 2.05 (1.18) 1.55 (.90) 18.69***
Shy/withdrawn .................................... .... ................ 1.77 (.79) 1.70 (.73) N.S.
Disruptive .................................. ...................... 2.58 (1.36) 2.06 (1.16) 13.09***
NoTE.-Standard deviations are given in parentheses. The peer measure reflects the proportionof classmates
who described the behavior as characteristicof the subject.The teacher measure is based on ratingson 5-point scales.
** p < .01.
***p < .001.

loneliness was examined while covarying fers evidence that young children have a co-
out the influence of sociometric status. Chil- herent concept of their own school-based
dren's average rating on the rating-scale so- loneliness and social dissatisfaction. These
ciometric measure was used as the covariate. findings are made even more meaningful
Analyses were first conducted using the total given that the subset of children inter-
loneliness and social dissatisfaction scale viewed about their understanding of lone-
to derive the high- and low-lonely groups. liness had a basic understanding of the
Results indicated that high-lonely children concept.
were considered by teachers to be less pro-
On the majority of items, a considerable
social, F(1,438) = 4.43, p < .05, more aggres-
sive, F(1,438) = 8.06, p < .005, and more proportion of children (over 10%) expressed
feelings of loneliness or dissatisfaction with
disruptive, F(1,438) = 4.37, p < .05, and by their social relationships at school. It seems,
peers to be more shy, F(1,438) = 10.29, p
< .001, independent of the effects of peer then, that even among very young children
loneliness is a fairly common problem. In-
acceptance. It appears, then, that although
deed, a comparison of the data with previous
controlling for peer acceptance reduced the research with older children suggests that
number of significant relations, several sig-
nificant connections remained. However, feelings of loneliness are comparable or
even somewhat greater among young chil-
when loneliness groups were based on the
dren (Asher et al., 1984; Asher & Wheeler,
pure loneliness items only, no connections
between loneliness and behavior emerged 1985; Zill, in press).
once children's sociometric status was con- As expected, children's reports of loneli-
trolled. ness were linked to social status in meaning-
ful ways, congruent with studies examining
Discussion older children (Asher et al., 1984; Asher &
The findings from this study suggest Wheeler, 1985). The finding that poorly ac-
that the modified loneliness and social dis- cepted children experience the most loneli-
ness suggests that even young children rec-
satisfaction questionnaire presented here is
ognize when they have peer relationship
psychometrically sound for use with chil- difficulties and experience unhappiness as-
dren as early as kindergarten and first grade. sociated with their rejection in school.
The factor analysis revealed a single factor,
suggesting that feelings of loneliness in Recently, attention has been given to
school cohere with perceptions of having the issue of subgroups of rejected children
few friends, being socially incompetent, and (e.g., Coie, 1985; Rubin, LeMare, & Lollis,
not having basic friendship needs satisfied. 1990). Indeed, there is evidence that, in the
The emergence of this single factor, along later elementary school and in the middle-
with the scale's good internal reliability, of- school years, withdrawn or submissive re-

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362 Child Development

jected children may be more lonely than such as feelings of adequacy or appraisal of
aggressive rejected children (Parkhurst & whether important relationship provisions
Asher, in press; Williams & Asher, 1991). are being met. This diversity of item content
The sample size of the present study pre- leads us to stress that we view our measure,
vented us from making this comparison with as its title suggests, as a measure of loneli-
younger children. It is notable, however, ness and social dissatisfaction. The assess-
that, as was the case in studies with older ment in its present form should prove useful
children (e.g., Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Wil- for researchers interested in capturing both
liams & Asher, 1991), the variance in loneli- loneliness and a global sense of dissatis-
ness was greater for the rejected and low- faction with social relationships in school.
accepted groups than it was for the other However, for researchers focused on con-
groups. nections between loneliness and related
constructs (e.g., self-esteem, perceived peer
The present findings also provide addi- acceptance, and depression), the use of only
tional information about the relative risk for items that directly tap loneliness is recom-
loneliness of various nonrejected groups of mended to avoid overlapping item content
children. First, the findings that average (see Nicholls, Licht, & Pearl, 1982; Parker
children and popular children (identified & Asher, in press).
using nomination-based data) did not dif-
fer in loneliness, and the parallel finding Findings from the present study on the
that average-accepted children and high- behavioral characteristics of lonely children
accepted children (identified using the rat- are convergent with the literature on loneli-
ing-scale measure) did not differ, suggest ness and behavior in adults. Lonely chil-
that children do not need to be exceptionally dren, like lonely adults, were more shy and
well liked to avoid feeling lonely. Second, less prosocial than other individuals. In ad-
unlike rejected children, neglected children dition, lonely children were more aggressive
were found to be no more lonely and socially and more disruptive than other children.
dissatisfied than other children. Apparently These relations remained, albeit less consis-
it is children who are actively disliked by tently, when the influence of peer accep-
their peers who experience distress with tance was statistically controlled. However,
their social lives in school. This finding con- findings emerging when the three "pure"
tributes to the growing body of data that loneliness items were used to create the
suggests that neglected children are not loneliness groups suggest caution in inter-
distressed about their social relationships preting links between loneliness and be-
(Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Crick & Ladd, havior in children. The pattern of relations
1988; Parkhurst & Asher, in press; Williams between loneliness and behavior obtained
& Asher, 1991). with the entire scale were once again ob-
tained, but once social status was controlled,
It is important to note that in the present these relations were no longer significant.
study loneliness and social dissatisfaction This suggests the need for additional re-
were assessed in the school context. This re- search on the link between loneliness and
flects our focus on the link between chil- behavior while controlling for sociometric
dren's loneliness and social dissatisfaction status.
in school and their peer status in school. Re-
searchers interested in examining loneliness An additional contribution of this study
in contexts other than the school may wish was the development of a new behavior
to modify the wording of the questionnaire rating measure for completion by teachers.
items. This measure is simple to administer and as-
sesses several behavioral dimensions found
It is also important to keep in mind the to be important in previous peer-relations
diverse item content of the loneliness and research (e.g., Coie et al., 1990). The rela-
social dissatisfaction questionnaire, and to tively brief length means that the measure
consider the extent to which item content will be manageable even for a teacher with
of the present scale focuses specifically on many students. The four expected factors
loneliness. Some items directly measure the were found, and each corresponding sub-
construct of loneliness, and others can be scale had good internal reliability. Further-
viewed as relevant to loneliness given that more, teacher assessments of children's be-
all children interviewed mentioned being havior were related to peer acceptance and
alone as a component of loneliness. How- gender in ways consistent with previous lit-
ever, still other items seem to assess di- erature (Coie et al., 1990; Huston, 1983).
mensions less directly related to loneliness, Finally, expected connections emerged not

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cassidy and Asher 363
only among the teacher scales but also be- developmental perspective (pp. 5-23). Am-
tween teacher and peer assessments of sterdam: Kluwer.
behavior. Particularly good agreement be- Asher, S., Parkhurst,J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams,
tween teachers and peers emerged concern- G. A. (1990). Peer rejection and loneliness in
ing the aggressive and prosocial dimensions. childhood. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.),
Agreement was lower for shy/withdrawn be- Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253-273).
havior, a finding consistent with earlier evi- New York:Cambridge University Press.
dence suggesting that this dimension is dif- Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R., &
ficult for children and adults to agree on Hymel, S. (1979). A reliable sociometric mea-
(Ladd & Mars, 1986; Ledingham & Younger, sure for preschool children. Developmental
1985; Rubin, 1984). Part of the reason for Psychology, 15, 443-444.
this difficulty could be that, from the rater's Asher, S. R., & Wheeler, V. A. (1985). Children's
perspective, shy behavior has fewer per- loneliness: A comparison of rejected and ne-
sonal consequences than aggressive or pro- glected peer status.Journalof Consulting and
social behavior, and is therefore less salient. Clinical Psychology, 53, 500-505.
This reduced salience could lead to less ac- Berndt, T. J., & Ladd, G. W. (Eds.). (1989). Peer
curate reporting of shy behavior. Indeed, relationships in child development. New
this possibility is supported by findings from York:Wiley.
recent research indicating that young chil- Bukowski, W. M. (1990). Age differences in chil-
dren have poorer memories for shy behavior dren's memory of information about aggres-
than they do for aggressive and prosocial be- sive, socially withdrawn, and prosociable
haviors (Bukowski, 1990; Younger & Boyko, boys and girls. Child Development, 61,
1987; Younger & Piccinin, 1989). Perhaps 1326-1334.
the same is true for adults. Bukowski, W. M., & Ferber, J. S. (1987, April). A
To summarize, the findings of the pres- study of peer relations, attributional style,
and loneliness during early adolescence. Pa-
ent study indicate that young children have
a basic understanding of the meaning of per presented at the meetings of the Society
loneliness and can make reliable reports of for Research in Child Development, Balti-
more.
their own loneliness and social dissatisfac-
tion that are related to their acceptance ver- Chelune, G. J., Sultan, F. E., & Williams, C. L.
sus rejection by peers. A variety of research (1980). Loneliness, self-disclosure, and inter-
personal effectiveness. Journal of Counseling
topics can be addressed through the use of
this new loneliness measure for young chil- Psychology, 27, 462-468.
dren. For instance, it can be useful in studies Coie, J. D. (1985). Fitting social skills intervention
to the target group. In B. H. Schneider, K. H.
of variations in classroom climate, in out-
come studies of intervention programs with Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children's
peer relations: Issues in assessment and
young children, in studies assessing the ef- intervention (pp. 141-156). New York:
fects of life crises and normative transitions
on children's functioning, and in continued Springer-Verlag.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities
investigations of the link between peer re- and changes in children's social status: A
lationships and children's affective experi-
ences in school. five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 29, 261-282.
References Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. A.
(1982). Dimensions and types of social status:
Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (Eds.). (1990). Peer re- A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psy-
jection in childhood. New York:Cambridge chology, 18, 557-569.
University Press. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B.
Asher, S. R., & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social (1990). Peer group behavior and social status.
competence and peer relations: Sociometric In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejec-
and behavioral assessment. In J. D. Wine & tion in childhood (pp. 17-59). New York:
M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp. Cambridge University Press.
125-157). New York:Guilford. Crick, N. R., & Ladd, G.W. (1988, March). Re-
Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). jected and neglected children's perceptions
Loneliness in children. Child Development, of their peer experiences: Loneliness, social
55, 1456-1464. anxiety, and social avoidance. Paper pre-
Asher, S. R., & Parker,J. (1989). The significance sented at the meeting of the Southeast-
of peer relationship problems in childhood. ern Conference on Human Development,
In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & Charleston, SC.
R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
364 Child Development
peer social status. Child Development, 54, & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in child-
1386-1399. hood (pp. 17-59). New York: Cambridge Uni-
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-infor- versity Press.
mation-processing factors in reactive and pro- Ladd, G. W. (1981). Effectiveness of a social learn-
active aggression in children's peer groups. ing method for enhancing children's social in-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, teraction and peer acceptance. Child Devel-
53, 1146-1158. opment, 52, 171-178.
Gottman, J. M., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, R. (1975). Ladd, G. W. (1983). Social networks of popular,
Social interaction, social competence, and average, and rejected children in school set-
friendship in children. Child Development, tings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 283-
46, 709-718. 307.
Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on Ladd, G. W., & Mars, K. T. (1986). Reliability and
the self-system. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), validity of preschoolers' perceptions of peer
P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol-
psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personal- ogy, 15, 16-25.
ity, and social development (pp. 275-386). Ledingham, J. E., & Younger, A. J. (1985). The
New York: Wiley. influence of the evaluator on assessments of
Hartup, W. W., & Sancilio, M. F. (1986). Chil- children's social skills. In B. H. Schneider,
dren's friendships. In E. Schopler & G. B. K. H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.),
Mesibov (Eds.), Social behavior in autism Children's peer relations: Issues in assess-
(pp. 61-80). New York: Plenum. ment and intervention (pp. 111-121). New
Hayden, L., Tarulli, D., & Hymel, S. (1988, May). York: Springer-Verlag.
Children talk about loneliness. Paper pre- Marcoen, A., & Brumagne, M. (1985). Loneliness
sented at the University of Waterloo Con- among children and young adolescents. De-
ference on Child Development, Waterloo, velopmental Psychology, 21, 1025-1031.
Canada. McCandless, B. R., & Marshall, H. R. (1957). A
Horowitz, L. M., & French, R. de S. (1979). Inter- picture sociometric technique for preschool
personal problems of people who describe children and its relation to teacher judgments
themselves as lonely. Journal of Consulting of friendship. Child Development, 28, 139-
and Clinical Psychology, 47, 762-764. 148.
Horowitz, L. M., French, R. de S., & Anderson, Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Development of percep-
C. A. (1982). The prototype of a lonely per- tions of own attainment and causal attribu-
son. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), tions for success and failure in reading. Jour-
Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, nal of Educational Psychology, 71, 94-99.
research, and therapy (pp. 183-205). New Nicholls, J. G., Licht, B. G., & Pearl, R. A. (1982).
York: Wiley. Some dangers of using personality question-
Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In E. M. Hether- naires to study personality. Psychological
ington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Bulletin, 92, 572-580.
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Social- Oden, S., & Asher, S. R. (1977). Coaching children
ization, personality, and social development in social skills for friendship making. Child
(pp. 387-468). New York: Wiley. Development, 48, 495-506.
Hymel, S. (1986). Interpretations of peer behav- Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations
ior: Affective bias in childhood and adoles- and later personal adjustment: Are low ac-
cence. Child Development, 57, 431-445. cepted children at risk? Psychological Bulle-
Hymel, S., Wagner, E., & Butler, L. J. (1990). Rep- tin, 102, 357-389.
utational biases: View from the peer group. Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (in press). Friendship
In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejec- and friendship quality in middle childhood:
tion in childhood (pp. 156-186). New York: Links with peer group acceptance and feel-
Cambridge University Press. ings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction.
Jones, W. H., Freemon, J. E., & Goswick, R. A. Developmental Psychology.
(1981). The persistence of loneliness: Self Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (in press). Peer
and other determinants. Journal of Personal- rejection in middle school: Subgroup differ-
ity, 49, 27-48. ences in behavior, loneliness, and interper-
Jones, W. H., Hobbs, S. A., & Hockenbury, D. sonal concerns. Developmental Psychology.
(1982). Loneliness and social skills deficits. Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Loneliness:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, A sourcebook of current theory, research, and
42, 682-689. therapy. New York:Wiley.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Cole, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. Putallaz, M. (1987). Maternal behavior and chil-
(1990). The role of poor peer relationships in dren's sociometric status. Child Develop-
the development of disorder. In S. R. Asher ment, 58, 324-340.

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cassidy and Asher 365
Putallaz, M., & Wasserman, A. (1990). Children's change in children's assessment of intellec-
entry behavior. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie tual competence. Child Development, 60,
(Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 521-538.
60-89). New York: Cambridge University Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of
Press. psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Rubin, K. H. (1984). Relations between peer and Taylor, A. R., & Asher, S. R. (1988). Children's
teacher ratings of social competence. Unpub- goals in game playing situations. Unpub-
lished manuscript, University of Waterloo. lished manuscript, University of Illinois.
Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., LeMare, L., & Rowden, Weiss, R. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of
L. (1989). Children experiencing social dif- emotional and social isolation. Cambridge,
ficulties: Sociometric neglect reconsidered. MA: MIT Press.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21, Williams, G. A., & Asher, S. R. (1991). Behavioral
94-111. subgroups and extremity of rejection among
Rubin, K. H., LeMare, L. J., & Lollis, S. (1990). peer-rejected children in elementary school.
Social withdrawal in childhood: Develop- Manuscript submitted for publication.
mental pathways to peer rejection. In S. R. Younger, A. J., & Boyko, K. A. (1987). Aggression
Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in and withdrawal as social schemas underlying
childhood (pp. 217-249). New York: Cam- children's peer perceptions. Child Develop-
bridge University Press. ment, 58, 1094-1100.
Russell, D. W., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. Younger, A. J., & Piccinin, A. M. (1989). Chil-
(1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: dren's recall of aggressive and withdrawn be-
Concurrent and discriminant validity evi- haviors: Recognition memory and likability
dence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- judgments. Child Development, 60, 580-590.
chology, 39, 472-480. Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social
Singleton, L. C., & Asher, S. R. (1977). Peer pref- development: A Sullivan-Piaget perspective.
erences and social interactions among third- Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
grade children in an integrated school district. Zill, N. (in press). Happy, healthy, and insecure:
Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 330- The state of the American child. New York:
336. Cambridge University Press.
Stipek, D., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmental

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:05:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions