You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Children's Perceptions of Peer Reputations and Their Social Reputations among Peers
Fred A. Rogosch and Andrew F. Newcomb
Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jun., 1989), pp. 597-610
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130726
Page Count: 14
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The influence of social and cognitive developmental processes on the construction of social reputation was assessed by having first-, third-, and fifth-grade (mean age of 7-0, 8-11, and 10-11, respectively) boys and girls (N = 182), identified as to sociometric status, provide free descriptions of their classmates. These descriptions were aggregated by subject (descriptions made by a child) and by target (descriptions made about a child). Discriminant analyses revealed that rejected children were segregated from their peers by negative attitudes and peer ostracism; this social reputation was more distinct for older rejected children than younger rejected children. In contrast, neglected children were perceived in less distinctive reputational terms but, unlike rejected children, were notable for perceiving peers differently. Older children were more likely than younger children to describe the reputations of their peers with complex trait concepts. Sex differences included the following: rejected boys were perceived as having characteristics polar opposite to accepted qualities for girls, whereas rejected girls were perceived as having characteristics polar opposite to acceptable qualities for boys. The social implications of cognitive developmental change and the developmental implications of social differentiation among peers were discussed.
Child Development © 1989 Society for Research in Child Development