close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Popularity among preschool children

код для вставкиСкачать
mm»mtTr m o m
mmomot* Q m h m m
by
Rosemary Lippitt
A dissertation submitted in partis! fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Child Welfare, in the
Graduate College of the State
Wniversity of Iowa
August# 1040
ProQuest Number: 10592864
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality o f this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon th e quality o f th e c o p y subm itted.
In th e unlikely e ven t th at the author did not send a c o m p le te manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to b e rem o ved ,
a no te will indicate th e deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10592864
Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). Copyright o f th e Dissertation is held by th e Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
AOOTOWLEDOTWtf
The writer wleh.ee to acknowledge
her greet indebtedness to Professor Beth &.#
Welisaen for guidance and assistance! and to
the research assistants and preschool teach*
ere connected with the Iowa Child Welfare
Research Station for their conscientious and
competent aid in gathering the data*
- il -
GOHTBKTS
Olmpbcr
X
XX
XXX
XT
V
TX
Page
Aim of the Study . * # * . * * * # ♦
. * * *
1
Related studies# » « * * • • * « # * # *
First Grade to Adulthood Inclusive. #
Related Studies Dealing With the Pre­
school Age # * • * * • • ......... *
4
4
10
Description of Subjects* * . . • * * * *
16
General Procedure# .........
IS
Techniques Deed. * * • * * . * * • « * '
SO
'Popularity Preferences* * * . . * , *
SO
Searing of Preferences * * • * . #
25
Validity of Preferences*.....
SO
Observation Blank of Social Inter­
actions*
............
ST
MerriXl-Faimer Rating Scales* . * . •
39
ConstructiveVDeatructlve Test * * * *
40
Gross Motor Tests • • * * * * * » * •
41
Paper Gutting Test* * •
..........
41
42
Menroua Habits* « « * ...........
Intelligence Test
........... . . ♦
42
Failure Test* » * • • * . * ........
43
Results* . * * * ............
Relationship of Teacher Ranking of
Child Popularity to Other Measures *
Rank Difference Correlation Method* • * » * « « * • * • * • * • •
Comparison of Means of Popular
and Unpopular Subjects. • * * * «
Summary of the Relationship between
Teachers* Estimate of Popularity
and the other Measures* * * * * *
Relationship of Other Measures to
Child Ranking of Popularity* # . . ♦
Relationships between Child Popu­
larity and the Other Measures * *
- ill •
45
46
46
50
53
56
56
00OTOTTS {Continued)
Chapter
Sigulflcanoe of the .Difference
Between the lean® of' the upper,
Popular end Lower Unpopular
third# on the t7 Measure 0 • * « *
Summary of the Relationship Between
Other Measure® .and Child Popular**
iiy * ..........* * .............
Results of to# Measures on Group D. *
Summary of the Relationship Between
the two Seta .of Measures on Croup
60
66
66
70
7111
Summary and B1senssion of results# . , *
Summary . * * • » « «
Methods * . * * * * . * « » * • * *
Results Pertaining to Methodology
of Popularity Preferences * • • «
Results of the Relationship of Pop­
ularity to other Measures for
........
Croups A, B and C « *
Results Pertaining to Croup 0. . .
Discussion of Result® « » * • * » * •
76
appendix..................
Min* . ............. * . . * . . .
int. , , » » • » . . « • » * . . •
3>X. * . . . * ........... . . . *
Active Member ship* * . * ........
Peripheral Membership* * * * * * *
Isolated Flay* • * « • * * * * * •
Code for Recording • * . . * . » •
Dir* * * * * * * ................
C o m p ................
Rea. *
.............
Coiam * ..........
Observation Blank of Social Interact
tlons ........... * * * . * * . . .
Merrill^Falmer Rating Seales * * * . •
Compliance in Routine. * * * * * *
Attractiveness of Personality and
Physical Attractiveness * * « » •
82
82
82
85
83
83
84
86
36
87
37
87
**• i v
**
73
74
76
78
79
88
89
89
91
mmssm
(Continued)
Chapter
PaS®
0 o ijs t r u © t iv e * 0 e ® t r u c t iv e f e a t
. * .
*
94
Procedure• * * * ♦ « . * • • • # •
Reliability and Validity « • . « *
arose Motor foe to • « * * * • • * * .
Reliability* • • # * * * * * • ■ ♦
Paper Cutting f e a t * .......... . * *
Material® * * # * # * * * * . # • • *
Procedure« * * » • ........ . . .
■Scoring*. * * * * * * * • • * * * ' *
Renrona Habits* • * * * * . . . . . *
Failure feat * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Description* * * * * * * * * * * *
Materiala* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Procedure* * * * * * * * *
* * *
Recording and Sewing. * * * * * *
Reliability aid Validity * * * * *
94
97
90
100
101
101
102
102
103
104
104
106
los
100
109
Bibliography . * * ........... * * * * *
112
<+
** V **
1
CHAPTER I
AIM OF THE STUDY
The aim of the study was to determine the con­
comitants
of popularity in preschool children with em­
phasis on the following items: (1) intensity of social
participation; (2) directing, compliant, resistant,
communicative, friendly, and hostile behavior; (3) at­
tractiveness of personality; (4) physical attractive­
ness; (3) co-operation in the routines of the preschool;
(6) mental age; (7) Intelligence quotient; (S) chrono­
logical age; (9) the number of days of attendance at
the preschool during the semester the data were gathered;
(10) the number of observed minutes In which oral nerv­
ous habits were manifested; (11) gross and fine motor
ability; (12) the reaction of the child when faced with
failure; and (13) the constructlve-destructiveness of
the child as measured by Ackerman *s test*
The good fellow, the leader, the isolate are
partly defined by their relation to a particular group
structure; at the same time there are some Individuals
who seem usually to meet with rejection and others ap­
pear to make friends easily in any new group *
Why is
it that some children seem to be unpopular and unwanted
2
members of play groups?
Certainly preschool children
experience acceptance and rejection by their associates,
but seme children continually appear to meet with rejec­
tion and others with acceptance*
The following five
minute record was taken from Group 0 and Illustrates
how a popular and unpopular child may be received by
their associates*
Child A was the most popular child
in the group and Child X was the least popular*
Chil­
dren Of D, E, F, and G were of the middle popular group*
Children 0, B, and E are building a train of
large box-slaed blocks while carrying on a con­
stant stream of conversation* Child X (unpopular)
approaches within six feet of the 11to be train*”
0 stops work and with block in hand says to X,
"You can't come over here* We don11 like you.”
fhen turning to 0 and E, "We don't want him, do
we?” C and I hesitate a moment and respond, "Hot
We don't want him*” D chimes in, ”We don' t like
hl.ui•" E'yella but, "He is a poo-poo, we think
he is a bad boy*” All yell together, "Me is poopooj he is a poo-poo.” They laugh and 0 comes
from behind the structure with a long block in
his hand and flourishes it at X saying, "You get
away from her© you bad ao-en-so* I'll smack you.”
X quiet until now, draws near the building and
kicks at It* E rushes out to hit at X screaming,
"Get away you bad - bad boy* We don't like you."
C and D charge on X with blocks and drive him
away, X leaves and approaches another group* 0,
D, and E continue building the train and discuss­
ing how they dislike X* X approaches F and G
and asks, "What you doing?” F responds, "She
and me are playing house and we don't need a
daddy*" X kicks the table and the dishes that G
3
had Just placed ready for a play meal fall to the
ground# F rather angry hits at X and calls to
the teacher* tsTeacher ©erne quick* X Is breaking
into our house#’* X seems angry and when the
teacher arrives he runs out of the room# At this
moment Child A (popular) arrives upon the scene*
and stands In the room a moment to get his bear­
ings* much as X had done a few minutes earlier#
A*a <*ye® fall upon the train and at that moment
K says
you may play with us. ©aa*t he?H 0
to A, wSee our fine train, A* it*s' almost ready
to start# It*s a streamliner#** The four chil­
dren continue happily#
4
AtTABMlS
ff
™*&K X
JL
KBh&flB S W 0 X E S
first drado to Adulthood Inclusive
jKii&iJffl
wriwSSmfcdwM^^
'ini1Ji7ii^i?i.»tiB ABafiffiiSCS
fhe following studies pertain to an older age
group than preschool* but since they m m & to have a w e
bearing upon the concomitants
Included#
of popularity they are
Popularity of the person is operationally
defined a# the degree to which he is liked by his assoc*
latoa.
Moreno {29) studied groups of children from
kindergarten to eighth grade*
Bach child was asked to
name two children he would prefer to hare as seat neigh*
bora*
Quantitative analysis revealed that kindergarten
and first grade children*, although usually preferring
their own sen* had more bisex choices than any other age
grouping* (25 per cent to 27 per cent}#
Reciprocal
preferences increased in frequency from kindergarten to
eighth grade#
there was 48 per cent agreement between
Child and teacher estimate of the most popular boy and
girl and 38 per cent agreement for the least popular
boy and girl#
lb to 5b per cent of the children were
not chosen oven once by their associates#
5
When Thomas & mI Young
(41) asked
676 college
students to give sex and characteristics of the contem­
poraries best liked end those most disliked* 2*7 times
more names were listed as liked than as disliked*
In
quantitative analysis each m m showed greater prefer­
ence for its own* bat the most liked person tended to
be of the opposite sea#
ihe eh&r&e terla11c most often
listed as typical of the most liked person was intelli­
gence ; however* when, mem preferred women* they placed
beauty above.intelligence*
Other characteristics that
ranked high as typical of the liked person were cheer­
fulness, eonslderafceneas* friendliness and helpfulness*
fbe opposites of these were sometimes listed as charac­
teristics of the disliked person*
However* conceited-
ness was the characteristic most often mentioned as
typical of the disliked person*
Dexter (9) In studying campus popularity found
girls liked girls who were friendly* sweet-tempered*
lively* capable* and who had a pleasing personality*
intelligence did not appear among the upper ten items*
Hutting (30) in having girls list two names they con­
sidered would make good captains for their basketball
team* found that captain choices and popularity votes
6
correlated t w m #70 to
for the various groups#
Hoi«- (IB) found a correlation of #67 ♦ *06 between
child and teacher estimate of child popularity obtained
through votes of who was liked most for grades five to
eight inclusive*
In relating the combined teacher and
child rating of popularity to other factors# he found
that mental age gave a *correlation of *30 to *301 soolo*
economic status *30# and sociability *76*
Sociability
was obtained from the results of systematic scoring of
questionnaires filled out by the children*
found that girls were slightly m m
He also
popular than boys#
and that each sea: tended -to favor its own seas: in biscx
pairs*
Dennings (33) had girls and women of the Hew
fork training school give three choice® every eight
weeks# over a two year period# designating their choice
of lunch companions*
fh# results of these choices she
called leadership instead of popularity# but the me chan-*
lea involved seem similar to what other authors call
Indicators of popularity*
She found that the future
status of an entering girl was beat predieted by the
status of the friends with whom she chose to be assoc-*
iated*
In other words# that entering girl who chose a
most desired girl as her friend or leader was likely to
7
become a leader herself, while the girl who associated
with an unde aired individual tended to remain In the
same category#
Hunter m id Jordan {20} in studying
qualities associated with leadership of college students
found the SI leaders chosen by family record, student
votes, quality of leadership, etc», to he lighter In
weight, to have fewer physical defects, to he superior
In Intelligence and scholastic ability, and to be more
able to resist suggestion than their average classmates#
Studies of the resemblances between friends
have been treated much more extensively than the concom­
itants of popularity*
Most studies deal only with
friendships of reciprocal type, and thus the unpopular
person is likely to be omitted, while the popular is
almost certain to be Included in the study#
Richardson
(3?) In Investigating the mental resemblances between
husbands and wives, stmtmarlsed the material on friend*
ship, similarity and differences for ages ranging from
the preschool age to adulthood*
she concluded from the
summary of researches that at all ages except possibly
the preschool, friends tend more often to be of the same
Intelligence rather than of like chronological age*
She also found a positive although low correlation be*
8
tween friendship and temperament»
partridge (54) studied
friendships that were formed among adolescent boys at
camp*
Me found these boys tended to select friends of
their own mental age and chronological age# but when
reporting who their beat friends were mental,age was
more important than chronological age*
Resemblance ©f
Intelligence between friends was found.to be slightly
higher than resemblance In chronological age by Plntner,
Forlano# and d e s m a n (36)* Almanack (3), Warner (46)#
Williams (46)# Flemming (11)# Jenes- ($4}# and Burks (5).
Besemblance in intelligence* with special emphasis upon
mental age# was found by Furfey (It), Jenkins (02), and
Swage* (40)#
the influence of propinquity upon friend*
ship is emphasised by Purfey (IS)# Se&go© (40) and
Fellettleri (35) *
seagoe (40) in studying- the factors
Influencing the selection of associates for @62 ehil*
dren In grades three to eight asked the child to nemo
a companion he would invite to a party and then gave
him the "Who Is It1* test*
Se&goe (4©) found correlations
of *70 to *80 between friends and home location and *08
for grad* placement#
He concludes that; (a) propinquity
is a strong factor in the selection of associates among
children# and (b) similarity rather than dissimilarity
9
of personal traits to teportanb to Oho ©election of
associates*
Soeio*»economic state© of the parent was
found to bo more similar between friends than between
non^frtonds by Jenkins (22).*
Scholarship was found to
be ttse m m % related factor in friendship© among girls
of ■the seventh, eighth and ninth grades studied by
Wellman (47) * telle the boys were more, alike to height,
Intelligence quotient and chronological age and less
alike in esctroveraion and scholarship*
Resemblances
rather than difference* between friends were found* to
likes and disposition by TJhums1 (4)# to social mater*
ity by Furfey (12)# end to play interests by Jenkins. (22).
2illig (49) found over a two year period to studying
eleven and twelve year old girls that ©quality in age
was important# but that similarity to personality was
the chief factor In determining friendships*
Monroe
(21) found 'grade tod high school youngsters listed that
they wanted a chum to be kindly# agreeable# of same sex#
same age# and of about the same else physically*
Hardy
(10) studied the social states of 409 third grade ehll*
dren over a four year period#
Social status was eval­
uated from teacher ratings# observations# and companion
preferences (each child listed his five best friends)#
Bhm found popular1 ty«*le&dsrship relationship r was *6®
♦ *02 and popularity*c©«*©perafclon r was #03*
Children
who- ware moat liked, upper 20 per cent, were found to
be superior to the average of the group ins intelligence,
eOhool accomplishment, behavior traits and school &bfci«*
tudes, physical appearance, and home situation*
Chil­
dren who were least liked, falling In the lower 2D per •
cent, were below the- average In the above mentioned
Among the studies of preschool aged children
that seemed somewhat related to the problem of conoom^
Itants of popularity were those that pertained toi (a)
spontaneous grouping of children, (b) factors Influenc­
ing friendships, and companionships, and (©) the siml*
lari ties and differences ©f friends*
Spontaneous groupings of preschool children
were studied by Ohsvaleva^Janovskaja (8) , S&lusky (39)
and Hubbard (19)*
Chevalewa^tfanovskaja (8) studied
3430 spontaneous groupings of 270 children ranging in
age from three to eight years and founds (a) boys
formed more groups than girls, (b) unisex groupings
1 1
were apparently preferred although In quantity moat
wore btsoxi to) the participants of most groups differed
to age by more than, one years 27 per cent were of the
same age#
Salusky (39) studied collective behavior of
children to different villages (to the Soviet "Union) j
SO® groupings were obtained for children ranging to age
from 24 to 30 .months#'
Bin©ty-slx per sent of collec­
tives of children from 18 to 31 months lasted only from
1 to ten minutes# while to the older groups, 07 to 48
months age range, 87 per sent of the collectives extended
from 8 to 8® minutes#
tolrty^two per sent of the younger
age ©olleetIves were unisex, while 47 per cent of the
older age growings were composed of children of the
same sex#
Hubbard (19) studied the spontaneous group
formation of IS nursery school children superior to in­
telligence and ranging In age from 21 to 89 months, as
well as a group of day nursery children normal to totelligenee and ranging to age from 1® to 80 months#
All ob­
servations were taken during free play periods and each
child was eempsred with the three children who were most
often his companions#
Correlation obtained between the
chronological age and the mean of the three companions
was *09 and for mental age #41#
12
Investigations of the factors influencing
friendship© of preschool children were carried on by*
Par ten {32}, H&gmsn (15) and Ghallman (7)*
Par ten (52)
observed 34 nursery school children for 60 one-minute
observations while they participated in free play and
founds (a) groups tended to Increase In sis© and dura*
tion with age* (b) two*-thirds ©f the two-chi Id groupings
were of unisex pairs, (c) intelligence quotient did not
seem t© be a significant factor in the determining of
groupsf and (d) chronological age and hem© environment
seemed to be the most important factors in selection
of playmates#
legman (IS) studied companionship of two
groups of preschool children, 15 two year olds and 24
four year olds#
She founds (a) the younger group chose
companions of similar mental age and Intelligence quo­
tient and social reaction Index, and (b) unrelated to
companionship were age, height and weight#
Ohallmau (7)
studied factors other than propinquity that influenced
friendships among preschool children#
His subjects, 33
nursery school children, ranging in age from 27 to 59
months were observed for the number of times each child
was with each other child, to obtain measures of strength
of friendship#
He founds (a) boys have a slight tendency
13
b# f o m stronger friendships with lucre as® 1b age, (b)
anlitx friendship® increase in number with age, (c)
none of the items except age seemed to have influence
on friendships between boys said girls, (d) similarity
In chronological age, sociability and physical activity
have influence on the order given on the friendships
of boys with boys, {©} similarity In social participa­
tion, chronological age, sociability and possibly phyeleal activity influence the formation of friendship be­
tween girls, (f ) similarity In mental age, height,.extraversion, attractiveness of personality, intelligence
quotient and frequency of laughter have no influence on
either boys1 or girls* friendships*
Farten (33) in
studying social behavior took ©0 one-minute observations
of 34 preschool children in free activity*
She found
that these children tended $ (a) to play in groups of
two, but the sise of the group increased with age, (b)
to form unisex groups, (e) to f o m groups irrespective
of intelligence quotient, and (d) to f o m groups of the
same age and heme environment *
&reen (15) studied friend­
ships and quarrels among 40 nursery school children*
Friendship indices were computed by the ratio of the
number of times the child played with another child to
14
the number of opportunities be had to play with that
child, I*©*, the nwtfber of time© they were both present#
Flaying with was operationally defined as co-operative
play rather than parallel*
fh© result© indicated that®
(a) friendship© increased with age, (b) girl© had
slightly more friend© than boys, while boy© formed deep**
©r friendships, and (c) unisex friendships predominated
in tliis age group*
Xh© studies thus far mentioned per**
tainlng to the pi»©school age have delt with observation#*
&1 material*
The following studies have attempted to
measure the popularity of each child from the expressed
opinion of his immediate associates*
C a r r '(6) studied the social and emotional
changes in a group of children of high Intelligence and
used the paired comparison method in obtaining popular**
ity of the IB children Involved In the study*
She found
that the experimental group of six children was superior
in popularity to the control group both In the fall and
in the spring measure, but that the distance between
the two groups had been lessened*
In studying the re**
latlonship between social acceptability and motor achieve**
ment, Thompson (42) found 75 per cent of her four year
old subjects chose a© skipping partners, irrespective
15
of performance* the e M M they had prevtously named
a® liking heat*
Koch (26) studied popularity of preschool
children and related factors*
She obtained popularity
ratings for each of the 17 preschool children from their
immediate associates by means of the paired comparison
method*
This method gives opportunity for equal consid­
eration of all members of a group*
She found that e&hh
sex tended to favor Its own in biceac pairs and that
girls cm the whole tended to be more popular than boys*
In relating other factors t© popularity she founds co­
operation In routines correlated *92 * #02$ the teacher*s
estimate of c M l d popularity correlated
#76 with that
of the children? respect for property rights correlated
#39; chronological age *48 ♦ *13; and intelligence quo­
tient *26 + *16j refusing others ****60 * *10; strikes
others -*0O + #12*
Ifnrelated to popularity were measures
Ofs tendency to smile, to indulge in group play, and
length of nursery school attendance*
16
CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECTS
The subjects were 45 children attending the
Iowa Child Welfare Research Station preschools during
1959 and 1940*
Group A contained 15 subjects, 11 boys
and 4 girls, who were members of a group of 22 three
year olds*
1
The mean intelligence quotient for this
^Due to prolonged absences some of the children
of each preschool group had, to be eliminated from the
study*
group was 155.35 with a range from 113 to 176,
o
and the
^Intelligence test scores were taken from tests
administered within three months of the time of collec­
tion of data# {Rev. St* Binet Form L.)
chronological age raxiged from 41 to 56 months with a
mean age of 4S#66 months* 3 Group B contained 9 four
3e* A* was computed from the mid-point of the time
of collection of the data.
year olds, 7 boys and 2 girls, who were members of a
group of 13*
The mean IQ of this group was 128.33 and
ranged from 108 to 150.
The age range was from 55 to
67 months with a mean age of 60*11*
Group C contained
21 three year olds, 11 boys and 10 girls, and was
chosen from a group of 22 children*
The rang© in IQ
17
for Group 0 was from 102 to 190 with a M a n of 130*07,
and the rang© in C*A# was from 38 to 49 months with a
mean of 43*51 months#
^©n of the Group A children re­
mained in attendane© at these preschools the following
year and were available as four year olds*
These ten
four year olds comprised Group D$ they were mete rs of
a preschool group of 26 which was divided into two sub­
groups of 13 in the school routine*
bers of Group B in each subgroup#
There were 5 mem­
The mean IQ of Group
D was 142*3 with a range from 111 to 176#
The chronolog­
ical age of the B-children ranged from 49 to 61 months
with a mean of 56 months•
The occupational level of the
parents of these children was professional and semiprofessional#
A description of the preschool which
these children attended, in terms of teacher1a philos­
ophy, curriculum, and teaching techniques, Is given by
tfpdegr&ff ®t al# {45}*
18
CH&FTBB IV
m m m h
moommB
All children had been In attendance at the
preschool at least six weeks before the data of this
investigation were gathered#
Observations in the normal
preschool situation were made first, and the testing
program was begun after the children were familiar with
the investigator*^
rn - r - T i,:,.,! n r , , „ ^ r .
The children were not taken In any
...... :r:'.nr ; r r im m w ’.niU M am nnr > n M m iM ir : - t : i i
r~n
n.
~ t
,
-■'* „■ r n r „ iv
""
......r - - .— T- - n
:................... -
*Th© present experimenter gave all th© tests ex­
cept the failure
and Intelligence#
particular order
for testing, but were
approachedwhen
the time seemed opportune* I*©* a child was approached
when changing activity or standing idle*
Results of a
particular test were obtained on a group in as short a
space of time as possible*
Xn ease of absences the
measure was obtained soon after the child returned to
preschool*
This procedure was followed for all the
measures except the intelligence and failure tests*
The former was given
abouts, on which
on the day of th©
the birthday fell*^
month, orthere­
The failure situ-
^Th© tests of Intelligence and failure were ad­
ministered by trained psychometr1sts of the Iowa Child
Welfare Hesearch Station*
19
a fcion was given after th© test of latent gene* *
Ho child
was given more than two tests on any on© day*
tee tests were presented In th© following order
with few exceptions; (1) the Mosaic
test, which provided
®te© results of the Mosaic test have not yet been
analysed* For description of this test see The Amer.
J'. of Psychlat., 9, 1939, 232-236.
good Introductory material* as th© children were attracted
by the brightly colored pieces; (2) the test of fine motor
co-ordination; (3) th© constructive-destructive situation;
(4) popularity pairings; and (S) th© gross motor items*
Observations ©f social behavior and nervous habit© were
taken prior to th© testing and continued to th© end of
the testing program*
Groups A and 8 were tested in the
spring of 1939 during the month© of April and May*
Data
were gathered on groups 0 and D in the winter ©f 1939-40,
from the last of November to the end of January#
tee teacher estimates of child popularity and
Merrlll-F&lmer ratings of compliance with routine, at­
tractiveness of personality, and physical attractive­
ness were obtained at the mid point of th© study of each
group*
20
CHAPTER V
TECHNIQUES m m
Popular!fry Preferences
Faired comparison method was employed in ob­
taining a popularity score for each member of a group
from bis Immediate- associates•
M i s procedure necessi­
tated each child giving M s preference t© one of the
names in each pair with which he was presented*
Th©
list of pairs was continued until every name had been
paired with every other name*
pairings#
This requires n-1 (n~2)
The subject was not called upon to state
preferences in pairs containing M s
own name*
{{fourstone (34) justifies the use of the paired
comparison method for describing objectively the attitudes
of a group toward nationalities and races#
In M s article
treating the application of the paired comparison method
to social attitudes he state** **The same method can un­
doubtedly be used also for describing th© attitude® of
a group toward other social values which are saturated
with prejudice and bias»#*and Is free from the effects
of the personal bias of th© investigator#*1
(p# 433)
Koch (26) utilised th© paired comparison meth­
od in obtaining popularity scores among preschool chil­
dren*
She presented fee pair Inga a© that each pair was
proffered twice, th© order of presentation of the names
In a pair and th© order of th© pairs being reversed*
By these moans she hoped to prevent th© serious marring
of her results by a tendency on th© part of th© child
to repeat the last name of a series#
Thus each child
was given m-1 (n-2) pairings, the reversal technique
requiring that each child be presented each pair of
names twice*
As well as using th© method of reversing the
names, the present investigator took special car© to
assure that the child understood the method and terms
involved in making choices*^
The child, already famil-
% h © subjects of Group A and £ were younger than
those used by Koch in her study and It seemed important
to be sure these young children understood th# method
of making a choice#
law with th© adult, was taken from th© group to a special
room and given preliminary pairing to assure comprehen­
sion of th# task Involved#
Koch used color® or toys as
th© basis of her preliminary pairings*
The present In­
vestigator used several pairs, of toys, one, member of
22
the pair being outstandingly mop© desirable than the
ether, e*g# two red ears, one new and the other broken
and missing its wheel®; two dolls, one intact and the
other missing Its head and legs; two aeroplanes, one
complete and'" the. other missing one wing and wheels!
two doll carriages, one complete and the other with**
out wheels and springs; two n a i l hamers, one ready
to use and the other missing the head; and two bells,
on© complete and on© without a clapper*
fhe child was
presented with' these pairs and asked, wl>o you like this
one best or that ©net*
The toys were reversed so that
the broken toy was designated once first Tend once last* Occasionally the child'would choose the toy designated
as •this* or wth©tB systematically#
In such oases the
child was Questioned further; did he really like the
broken toy and why did he change his choice?
The child
soon grasped the method Involved and would learn to bee**
It&t© and look before choosing the toy#
It was empha-*
sised that he choose the toy because he liked It best
arid because It was the most fun to play with*
Such
pairings were given until the examiner felt sure the
child had thorough understanding of the terms and task
involved In making choices#
Th© child was then presented
23
with th© pairs of names*
Friendly encouragement was
given as* B!ow think,** and *Be sure to say the name of
the child you like bestAw with emphasis placed upon the
word Bbest#w
Often a child spontaneously gave his rea­
son for choosing a name, as HI play with hlm,w
him,**
*1 like
”1 don*t like her so I like him best,1* etc*
Such remarks were always accepted and the child was en­
couraged in this kind of verbalisation*
To promote good rapport and to avoid fatigue,
adjustments were made to fit th® individual needs*
The number of pairings a subject could take in on© sit­
ting varied greatly from subject to subject and from
day to day#
Th© child was watched closely and the num­
ber of pairings limited accordingly#
This was particu­
larly true of Group 0, for th® larger group entailed
many sittings, ten to thirty, and amounted to a total
time of from six to twelve hours per child*
Some chil­
dren seemed to find satisfaction in th© task and refused
to leave before as many as 60 pairing® had been given,
instead of the usual 20*
Such performance was not en­
couraged, but, rather than frustrate the child, it was
accepted, provided th© child seemed really to be Inter­
ested and was giving true preferences#
Hot all the
children showed this enthusiasm*
In such cases the
experimenter explained that she had this work to get
done and they were helping her*
In return for this
help site had purchased some toys they might play with*
Care was taken to prevent the child from feeling that
the pairings were Just a means to the goal of playing
with toys*
Thus some times the toys were played with
at the beginning of the interview and the pairings
presented when the child felt ready to help the ex­
perimenter*
Some children seemed to give the pairings
more consideration if they sat on th® experimenterfs
lap or held a toy In their hands*
In these ways th®
individual needs of the children were met as far as
possible at each sitting*
The teachers were also given the paired com­
parison: choices to determine which children they felt
to be the most popular with the other children*
They
wore asked to Indicate th© child In each pair whom
they believed to be th© more popular with the children,
and were asked not to consider the choice from th©
adult point of view*
ings only once,
Th© teachers were given the pair­
n (n-1)* for adults were not expected
to favor the last or first name of a pair systematically*
To obtain the teacher ranking of child popularity for
each group, the two teacher®1 preference® were combined
and then placed in rank order*
It was felt the combined
scores of two teachers would result in a more valid score
than one teacher*® estimate*
0roiip B m s the exception
to this method, for only one teacher’s rankings were ob­
tained*
Scoring of Preferences
the child preferences in groups k and B were
scored in three ways*
One method was the computation of
the total number of preferences each child received from
all th# pairings, both initial and reversed*
M s
was
the method used by Eoch in her study of popularity (26) *
The second method used just th# Initial set of pairings
and did not Include th® reversals*
In this method th®
pairings were so arranged that a particular name appeared
as the first member of a pair as many times as it appeared
the. last member of a pair*
As boys of this age seem to
favor boys and girls favor girls, the names were presented
first as many times as last in all bixes pairs*
Only
half the total number of pairings were used in this
method*
Th# third method of scoring the preferences
considered only th# pairings la which the child giv­
ing the pairings had been con-
26
©latent, l*e#, th© ©to© name was chosen as being moat
liked both times that the pair was presented*
These
were called eonslstent pairings, and tended to rule out
the pairs In which the child tended to favor the first
or last name ©f a pair*
In order to determine which method ©f scoring
the preferences should be used l«3ufc tbt© finisi axiiStijjjrds of
data, some investigation was directed toward comparison
of these three methods*
Intercorrelations, Spearman
rank difference, were obtained between these three
methods and the teacher ranking of child popularity,
for groups A and B.»
as
the half method seemed least
reliable as far as groups A end 1 were concerned, it
was not computed for 0*
For ®roup 0 inter correlations
were obtained between total, consistent and teacher
rankings of © M i d popularity*
Table 1 gives the inter©errelations between
the three methods of scoring th® child preferences and
teachers estimate of child popularity*
In considering
the correlations between the total method (the prefer**
cnees in the initial and reversed order) and teachers
estimate of popularity, th© correlation value seemed
to decrease with th© siso of the group*
The small
27
group
nine subjects gave a correlation of #54 4 17;
for the group of fifteen subjects* the correlation was
•25 4 17 1 and the group of twenty-on© subjects yielded
a eorreXation of 4*07 4 #14*
Koch obtained a correl­
ation of .76 between teacher estimate of child popularQ
ity and child estimation#
The total score and un&ni^
^Koch^iittt^eeto
tained between teacher and child estimates of popular­
ity In her study may have been due to th© many years
of experience and insightfuln.es© of the one teacher
giving th© rankings for the children in her study#
mews {consistent choices) method correlated #90' 4 #03*
9
•30 4 *09, and *91 4 *03 for Groups A f B and 0 respec­
ula considering the correlations for group B it
is important to remember there were only nine subjects
in that group#
tiwely*
Consistent and teacher estimate of ~child popu­
larity correlated *33 4 *16, *47 4 *23* and #01 4 #14
for groups
B and § respectively*
W h m th© rankings
of the two teachers were separated and compared for
Croups A and 0 the correlations were *79 4 *05 and *64
4 *09 respectively*
Group B had only one teacher*s
ranking* thus there was no inter-teacher correlation
for this group*
23
Table 1
Ihtereorrelations Between the Different Methods of
Scoring the Child Preferences and Teacher Estimate
of Child Popularity
Group A
(H*XS)
Group B
(H* 9)
Group C
(H**2X)
Total with teacher^
SS + ,17
*54 + *17
*07 * ,14
Total with consistent
90 ♦ *G3* .80 + .09* .91 + .03*
Teacher with consistent
55 ♦ ,16
Teacher (1) with teacher (2)
79 + ♦05'*
Total with (a) half
AC
*•1* .72 ♦ .12*
ww »a3* *«*
*1
•*
Total with (b) half
+ .OS*
98 ♦ .OS* .92 mm
Consistant with (a) half
+ .10*
63 ♦ .11* .76 mm
Consistant with (b) half
57 + .12* .78 + .09*
Teacher with (a) half
♦ ,25
54 ♦ .IS* .20 mm
^
Teacher with (b) half
09 + .18
.73 + .31*
(a) half with (b) half
02 + .18
.44 + ,19
Methods
.47 + .23
.01 ♦ .14
.64 + .09*
^
mrnmmm
W HMW
^Indicates the correlations that are greater than four times
their probable error*
Dr, Koch (26) obtained a correlation of *76 between
teacher and total rankings of popularity on a group of 17
children.
29
The total score was divided into the initial
tod reversal pairings to give the-half methods* initial
t») and reversal (b)»
Far further discussion of th®
half method see page 25.
if this method proved satis*
factory lb would be advantageous * for it required only
half the total number of pairings tod thus out the re*
qulred time of giving the pairings in half#
In ©roup A
the half methods (a) and {b) correlated with total #©5
j£ #11 and *98 ♦ *09 while they correlated #69 ♦ #11 and
#57 mm
* #10 with consistent*
The two halves end teacher
estimate of child popularity sorrelsted (a) #54 ♦ *19
and (b) *09 ♦ *XB*
When the two halves were correlated
with each other rho was only »O0 * *18*
these seme correlations for ©roup B*
agree with those of A*
Table 1 gives
On the whole they
As the two half methods showed
sero or negligible correlation with each other tod were
inconsistent in their
relationship with the total meth­
od, they did not seem worth considering for ©roup 0*
When the half methods were thus eliminated, the total
and consistent methods remained for further consider­
ation#
it was expected that consistent choices were
stimulated by real preferences, for this method necess­
itated the child4® choosing of the same name twice,
irrcapeetiw© of position*
In comparing th© rang© in
scores of th©*© two method* th© consistent gave a rela«*
for the se reasons
tlvely wider rang©#
’Thus/th© consistent method seamed
^%a ng© in scores by total 'method were A 146*214*
B ,40*71* 0. 330«*400 and by the consistent method A 31*69
B 7*21, and 6 61*117*
to be ©lightly more advantageous a* a method for scor*
ing the preferences#
It was used in final analysis of
th© data*
Dr* Eoeh, In using the total method, found a
correlation of *76 between teacher and child estimates
of popularity5 data on the present group*,.
did not show this agreement*
b and C f
Th© correlations for
these groups were *23 © *17 for A, ,54 * *17 for B,
add **07 ♦ #14 for G#
These low correlations may have
been prompted by invalid response* on th© child *s part
or th© inability of the teachers to estimate child val­
ues of popularity#
In considering the preferences given
by th© Children of ©roups A, B and 0 as compared with
those obtained by Koch in her study, certain similar
trends are found*
Koch** group gave 46 per cent con­
sistent choices while Groups A, B and C gave 53 per
31
cent* M
per ©ent and 41 per ©ent respectively*
Kooh
found her subjects favored th© last a m i ©f th© pair in
88 par cent oftft© preferences* while th© present groups
favored the last name of the pair 86 per cent* 44 per
sent'tod 58 per ©tot respectively for Groups &p B and 8»
In the' btaex pairs the subjects ©f Koch1a study tended
to favor their ©to sex* boys favored boys in 84 per
sent of toe M a e * pairs and girls favored their own ease
la. 88 percent of the bisex pairs*
In ©roups A, B and
8 boys favored boys to bison pairs §2 per ©out, 84 per
©tot and 84 per ©out respectively* while girls favored
their own son to. 48 per ©out* 71 per ©out tod 57 per
©out of the bison pairs*,
fft.es© discrepancies are per*
haps aceounted for by too number and popularity of
girls to each group*
In Orotip k two popular girls wore
dropped out .of the study on account of prolonged mb**
stoees* toua toe girls left to the study were of lea®
popular rwmfctog#
This might account for toe girls of
t M s group favoring boys*
tor to Group B only two
girls remained and they happened to be very good friends;
thus they tended to choose their own sex to blsex pair*
togs*
In Group 8 where th© boy-girl distribution was
about equal and only on© child was dropped out of the
32
group, the girls favored their own sex in hi sex pairings
in much the earn® way as these of lech*a study, as the
following tabulation shows$
03wmp
(» 15)
Group
B
iW 9}
Group
€
(I 91)
Kooli*s
Group
{S 17)
hast. Hams of tho pair
56#*
44#
59#
68#
favored
Humber of boys In the
11
7
8
11
group
Boys favor boys (in
52#
54#
54#
54#
bisex pairs)
Girls favor girls (in
42#
71#
57#
58#
bisex pairs)
feaehers favor boys
75#
75#
hisex pairs)
*$he total method of soaring these preferences was
used for computing the percentages to enable compare
icon of the results obtained in Groups A f B and 0 with
those obtained on &oehfs group.
fo investigate the validity of the child’*
preferences thirteen subjects of Group 0 were given twen­
ty pairings again a month and a half, after the original
testing*
'These twenty pairings consisted of names of
five children In all possible combinations and in both
the Initial and reversed order* n(n~X}*
In comparing
this ranking of these five children with the former rank­
ing only one child was misplaced in rank order, but this
misplacement was rather a large one* the least popular
child moved up to second place *
Because of the small
33
number of m m ®
this on© displacement reduced th® rank
diffe^flM, correlation to *@4 4 #$0#
Th© ©hang© la rank
order' from th© first to th© second ranking according to
total method la. shown below#
fh© number was too small
to attempt th© consiston ranking#
0
B
When temp B, the ten f « U ar « ^ ease® of
&roup A# were retested nine months later, th© pairings
obtained at'this later date correlated with the first
*50 * #1T in spite of the im t that thee© ten children
were not often together In th© four year old preschool
group*
The routine of the preschool necessitated a
subdivision of the group for nap time, which placed
five of- temp P in one ©leap group and the other five
in the other#
Although the- ten children did m o each
other from time to time, they did not play together
each day#
Summarising the validity and reliability of
th© children*a choice©, there seemed to be evidence
that the popularity ©cores were not due to chance alone,
34
bub that real preferences oa the children** part to
©omm extent prompted their ■choices,
The discrepancy
between child and teacher ranking© of child popularity
did not rest entirely upon inadequate responses on the
o M M fs pert#
Might it not In pert have been due to
teacher estimate, of child popularity?
the fire adults involved In the estimating
of the child popularity were well trained pr©school
teachers.* end had worked In the preschool some months
prior to giving their preferences for child popularity,
In combining the paired comparison preferences of two
teachers* it was felt a more valid estimate was obtained
than fey taking just one teacher *® ranking.#-
The tabula*-
tion on page- 35 shows that teachers favored boys in 73
per cent of the hi sex pairs* in bo to group** when the
teachers gave their estimates of child popularity by
the paired comparison method*
fhe following tabula**
tlon shows that toe children seem to give approximately
an equal mean number of preferences to boys as to girls»
35
Group
Group
A
B
y
lumber of boys
11
2
lumber of girls
4
Consistent Preferences
Mean number boys received
50*90
16*27
Moan number girls received
43*21
16*50
Teacher Preference©
Mean number boys resolved
15*72
Moan number girls received
9*25
o
Group
0
11
10
78*40
85*00
26*18
16*10
*$eaoh#r preferences wore not obtained for Group B
It anything, girls receive a few mere choices* then boys,
as Koch fouod in bear study*
A were dropped out m
the popular girls in Group
account of prolonged absences,
thus it was expected that boys might receive a few more
preferences than girls In that group*
Whether the teachers really showed sex prefer**
eases or not is difficult to say*
fhe teachers may have
been led to think boys more popular than girls by the
fast that boys were higher in social participation than
girls*
Teacher estimate of child popularity and inten­
sity ©f social participation correlate *81 ♦ *06 and
*08 ♦ *09 for Oroups A and Q respectively (See Table 8),
while children *o ranking of popularity, consistent
choices, and social participation correlate *48 * *14
and *0*7 ♦ *14 respectively (See Table 4)*
It is posa-
36
ible that tbis difference to social participation account­
ed for the m i
difference shown by the teachers In their
estimate of popular!ty*
W m n the two teacher estimates of child popu­
larity were compared for Croups A'and B the correlations
were #79 * #00 and *64 ♦ #09 respectively*
Although th#
teachers scored their preferences:independently, they
seemed to show considerable agreement*
It seems most probable that th# discrepancy
between child and teacher estimates of child popularity
was not due to unreliable measures, but that the two
measures were based upon different criteria#
According
to Hals (13) who studied popularity of grade school
children, one -should not expect teacher and child rat­
ings of popularity to resemble each other very closely,
for teacher criteria for judging popularity are bound
to differ from those of th# children*-
In such a ease
it seemed advisable to use both measures of popularity
for final analysis of data*
dhacrm t l m
Blank of Social, Interactions
fhe purpose of the observations was to obtain
data pertaining to social behavior of each child while
in the preschool situation*
fhe items observed wares
(1) Intensity of social participation# a weighted score
derived from the degree to which the child was a group
member# I*©*# each half minute of the 80 observed min­
utes that was spent in isolated play was given a score
of aero# each half minute spent in peripheral play was
given a score of one-half# and each half minute spent
la active or leadership play was given a score of ones
{a) the number of times# during the observations# that
the child gave and received directing# compliant# re­
sistant and communicative actions? (3) the quality of
each interaction (both given and received) whether
friendly# matter-of-fact# or hostilej and (4) the
children played with*
For operational definitions
of these terms# method ©f recording# and th® observa­
tion blank see the appendix# page 38.
Warn observations were taken in ten-minute
records for each child*
It was felt that any smaller
units of observations would prevent the observer from
obtaining information pertaining to intensity of social
33
participation*
Right record# were found to fee a reli­
able sampling as compared to sixteen such records#
Reliability of the sampling end observers, as obtained
between two independent observers for 1$ observations,
is given in'the following tabulation#
the reliability
of the two observers was obtained from the formula
The reliability of the
total number of items fee©rasa
sapling wee obtained fey rank difference correlations
between eight and sixteen observations fear* thirteen
subjects#
Relia­
bility
T tew
Item
of Ob­
server
#90
Intensity of so­
Isolated play
cial participa­
tion
#81
Peripheral play
#82
Aetlve-Xeader play
.dir W -W W e*
Relia­
bility
of Sam­
pling
#91
directed others
Others directed
Complied to others
Was complied to
Refused others
Was refused
#7©
#99
*70
•98
•77
*89
Pireeted others
■Others directed
Compliant behavior
*70
*87
#88
Refusing behavior
*70
Friendly behavior
Hostile behavior
#94
*81
Friendly behavior
Hostile behavior
*80
*86
Child-child conver­
sation
Teacher-child con­
versation
#80
Child conversation
Teacher-child con­
versation
.94
*89
.98
39
;to© observations war© i M e when the children
were engaged in f w « phay, thus allowing optimum oppor­
tunity far social Interactions*
Oar© was taken not to
obtain more than on© record for a child on any ©me day#
Absences and to© school testing program prevented any
systematic order of 'Observation of toe children* but
emphasis was placed upon beginning the observations on
all members of a group the asm© week#:
Half toe obser­
vations were taken indoors and half outdoors* for each
child*-
m b Scales
Mwr^iiirrjtwraaTi
Merrill*^aimer rating scales were used for
ratings of attractiveness of personality* co-operation
in routines* and physical attractiveness*
toes© scales
are so constructed that th© rater may check a few items
©r cults a number*
to© child1© ©core is the mean value
of toe various items checked* a© obtained from two teachers
ratings*
For further description of these scales and
their reliability and validity see toe appendix* pages
89 to 93.
40
C y t r u e 1;ive-DeatTOe.tlye Teat
fte tost of con® true tl ve**&©strue tlv© tendencies
was developed by Ackerman Cl) #
This test confronted
th© child with a realistic play situation in which the
©holes of action was limited to constructive or destruc­
tive behavior* in ten different play units*
Construe-
tiveness is operationally defined for the purpose of
this test as building up of toys* attempting to place
pieces together to form a structure, as for example
placing th# heat on the doll and placing a ear on Its
wheels*
Destructiveness la operationally defined as
breaking down of play units* taking the set of toys
apart ox* trying to break the pieces*
Any investigating
behavior that removes part of the toy is classed as
de atrue tl veriess *
Th© score varies from a minus ten to
a plus ton* and is obtained for the intial approach of
the child to each play unit and by the final appearance
of the toy units when th® © M i d Is finished*
Thus two
scores were obtained* one for the initial behavior and
one for the final eonstructlveness#
For further descrip­
tion ©f the play units and validity and reliability see
the appendix, page 97.
41
Gras® Motor feata
m. ©sbXmate of th© child*s gross motor abil­
ity was obtained by using some of th© McC&akill motor
Items C 27), namely, ascending and descending stops and
ladders*
fh© child was scored on M s performance in
two of the three trials on each Item*
For, further
description of these itarns see the appendix, pages 98
to 100.
dutting feet
$h© objectives in choosing a fine motor test
were to find Items that the child would enjoy at this
age level, that would not show sen differences, that
would disorimiaat© between abilities of three year olds,
and that would not correlate highly with the MeOasklll
(27) ascending and descending stairs and ladder Items*
yakway* a (21) paper cutting test seemed to answer these
requirements#
It required the child t© cut along a
line 1/4 inch wide with blunt scissors*
fhe test had
three degrees of difficulty, a straight line, an S
shaped object, and a star*
For further description
of this test and th© scoring see page 101 of the appen­
dix*
42
Hervoue Habits
The observing and recording of oral nervous
habits
12 were
patterned after Carr*s ( 6 ) revision of
^ G l e o n operational Xy defines oral nervous habits
as thumb^suoking, piecing of teeth, finger or hand
sucking, biting finger-nails and sticking out the tongue#
Olson* s (31) methods#
Each child was observed, for one
minute a day for thirty days#
The presence or absence
of any oral nervous habit within that time <»sampling was
recorded#
The score was the number of minutes in which
oral nervous habits occurred#
For reliability of th©
sampling and observers see page 103 of th© appendix#
©no© feet
The subjects were given th© Hevlsed Stanford
Binet test of intelligence, Form ”Ltt#
The examiners
were experienced testers of the Ohild Welfare Research
Station of the University of Iowa#
The child, already
familiar with the tester, was examined on th© day of
th® month corresponding a® closely as possible to th®
day of the month upon which his birthday fell#
Mental
ages were computed for the midpoint of the period during
•*
which th® data were being collected*
the subject** reaction when confronted with
failure wee measured by the Keister (25) pussle box
test of failure*
The task of the test was to replace
some objects into the box and close the lid*
This
seemed like a simple task to the child, but due to
the shape of the figures and the size of the box it
presented a difficult problem even for an adult, and
thus the child experienced failure#
The observer
reworded" the child'1® overt behavior by cheeking each
half minute for the occurrence of the following be*
havlor Items i attempts to solve alone, asks another
to solve, asks help, destructive behavior, stops try**
lag, succeeds, and rationalises#
Further description
of overt behavior was recorded each half minute under
the headings4 manifestations of anger, whines, cries,
so manifestations of anger, sulks and yells*
observation blank m
See the
page 111 of the appendix#
Since Keister (25) and 0oodmsn (14) classed
their subjects into groups rather than giving them
raw scores, the scoring method was changed for the
present study#
The test seemed to obtain results on
two types of failure behavior, constructiveness and
44
©motional response*
fhese two typos of behavior were
scored separately for droups A, B and 0*
On© seer© was
obtained by subtracting the number of h&lf-minutes the
child spent in nonconatruetive behavior from the number
of half-^minutes the ehild spent in constructive efforts
to solve the puaale*
the second score involved the
emotional manifestations of behavior, and was obtained
by subtracting toe- number of half*minutea the child spent
in showing no manifestations of emotional behavior from
the number ,of half ^minutes spent in manifestations of
anger, crying, etc#
fhe score on each type thus ranged
from a *$© to a *80 ■* For further discussion, of the
test, procedure, and its reliability end validity see
page 109 of the appendix*
0EAFTOI fl
BB8KVL7S
As c h i l d and teacher estimates of child pop­
ularity
me
seemed to be based upon different criteria, it
felt that- analysis of the data to terms of both
popularity rankings should yield different results*
the data were dealt with by two methods to show the
relationship between popularity and the other meas­
ures: Cl) rank' difference correlations were computed
between the two criteria of popularity and the other
measures! (8) Fisher fftfs” were determtoed between the
means of the upper* popular third and lower* unpopular
third of each group*
these comparisons were computed
for each of the three groups separately* and for the
combined groups* according to both measures of popular­
ity*
In Or ©up b yank difference correlations were
used to show the relationship between Initial and final
measures* taken-at a nine months interval* and also to
relate change to popularity to change in other measures
ysaeber Umte&tiM of. gMld., Pepulylty
Ma.auw o s
on m
Mfelw 2 gives the eoamlfttiwtw between teachers*
csfeimsto# of. t o i M popularity ana the other measures*
$ba following * M m * M
correlated positively with teach*
ere1 estimate of child popularity In all three groups $
(1) intensity ©f social participation* (2 ) the number
of times the child directed others| (&) toe frequency
with which toe child was directed by others; and (4)
toe number of times the child was compliant to others*
the correlations between intensity of social parfeielpa**
<%«
tion and popularity were #31 * .06
, *83 ♦ *21. and
18Probable error la given for all correlations.
•68 ♦ .09 for Groups A, B and 0 respectively.
Group
B*a correlation was low. but there were only nine sub­
jects in that group and only one teacher's ranking of
popularity was obtained,
These correlations indicate
that the child who showed a relatively large amount of
active participation In a group waa likely to be pop­
ular as Judged by teachers.
The correlations between
popularity and directing others were not high, but show
1
Table 2
Helationship Between Teachers * Estimate of Child Popularity
and the Other Measures
Measure
Group A
N * IS
Group B
» •9
Group C
N * 21
Constructive-destructive test
Initial approach
-•08 ♦ •IB
Sinai score
,22 ♦ ,17
.05 * .24
•15
^ m+m .25
.25 + .14
*01 + .15
Merrill-Palmer Bating®
Attractiveness of person­
ality
Cooperation in routine®
Physical attractiveness
•25 * *1?
•42 + *16
-•55 + •16
•18
.78 + •08
.95 5 .05
•06 + .14
-.24 + .14
-*27 1 .15
•12 + ,18
•61 ♦ •11
•06 1 *24
•25 ± .22
•58 + *12
*25 ♦ .14
-•15 + ,17
-•25 ♦ *17
-•27 ♦ .22
-*50 * .21
-.07 + .14
-.18 «p+•* •14
•28 + *16
•28 + •16
•05 + *18
•04 ♦ .18
.59 + •20
•20 ♦ .25
.50 1 .17
—•10 .14
*08 + ,14
.32 + .13
.25 + .14
-.08 + •18
.45 + •19
-•08 + .25
•28 ♦ *17
-•17 5 •38
*28 * •25
-.20 m
♦
trn .25
.76 ♦ .05
—*11 + *05
*81 + .06
*55 ♦ *21
.63 + *09
Motor Tests
Gross
Paper cutting
Bailure Test
Gonstiuotivenes©
Saotional manifestations
Preschool attendance
Chronological age
Mental age
Intelligence Quotient
Nervous habits
Communication
Child to child
Child to teacher
Intensity of social parti­
cipation
Social Behavior
Directed others
Was directed by others
Complied to others
Was complied to by other®
Beflised other®
Was refused by others
deceived friendly behavior
Gave friendly behavior
Beceived hostile behavior
Gave hostile behavior
.51 + *16
.40 i .15
*52 +, .15
.18 ± •18
-*18 ± •18
*48 + .14
•45 + .15
.12 + .18
-.28 + *17
*11 1 *18
♦25 +
*55 ?
.60 ±
.20 *
,76 1
-.01 i
.22
.17
.15
.25
.10
.24
•41 ♦ .20
-*04 + .24
-.08 + .25
.28 + .13
.68 +
*53 ♦
.61 1
.63 +
.06 +
.58 1
.04 +
-.21 ♦
•58 +
.59 +
dm*
MW
.08
*10
.09
.09
•14
*12
•14
•14
.12
,09
HN
<r
48
similar trend**
They were #81 ♦ *1©, *23 ♦ *2$, and
*68 * #08 for drenp® A, B, and 8 respectively*
Between
reffistwjaag of directIons end popularity the correlations
were *40 ♦ #18, #88 ♦ *17, and *83 £ *10 respectively
for Oroupe A, S. and C*
Compliant behavior* aa obtained
from observations of the child at play, aeemed to be
more related to popularity than were teacher rating© of
child ©©^operation In routines* the former, compliant
behavior, correlated with popularity *88 * *18, #60 +
*18 and *61 * *09.for the three troupe respectively*
the latter, co-operation In routine®, correlated with
popularity *48 * *15, *78 ♦ #09 and **84 ♦ *14 for the
three ©roupa a,. B and 6*
19a® following measure® seemed to be unrelated
or very ©lightly related to popularity a® rated by
teacher® .1 {1) constructive-destructive behavior as
measured by Acbewan*® test; {2} attractiveness of per­
sonality a© measured by teacher ratings! {8} gross motor
ability a® measured by ascending and descending stairs
and ladder©! (4) the number of oral nervous habits; (8)
intelligence quotient and mental age; (6) the number of
days the child attended preschool during the semester
in which the data were gathered; (7) amount of eommun-
ieatlen with the teacher; {6} the ©mount th© child re­
fused to comply to others; {9} the ©mount of friendly
and'hoe til# social.behavior the child received; (10)
tee m w l
of friendly behavior the child gave to­
other#; (IX) reaction when faced with failures And. (12)
chronological age*
The m a i l age range of each group
may have been somewhat responsible for the low corre­
lations between age end popularity*
Some group differences appeared in th© rela­
tionship of certain of thee# measures to teacher#* rank­
ing of popularity*
In Group & popularity and fin# motor
ability correlated- *61 -* *11, while in Group 1 and 0
the correlation# were low between the## two measures*
In Group B popularity correlated *08 * *08 with physical
attractiveness and *70 mm
* *10 with the number of times
th# child refused to comply in social situations, co­
operation In routine *78 ♦ *GS, while the correlation#
were low between thee# measures for Groups A and G#
Group 0 was th# only group for Which th# correlations
showed a substantial relationship between the following
items and popularity* (1) th# amount of communication
with other children correlated *70 jfc *08; (8) th# num­
ber of times the child was complied to by others eorre-
Xated *63 * *09 j (3) th© amount of hostile behavior th©
child gave t© others correlated *69 ♦ *09; and (4) the
number of times the child directed others correlated
#66 m"m$** #00#
Qomparicon of Means of Popular and Unpopular
'
n^Ol©Cfa',l,rt:rl1,1nlr" ,rfr1W,
'
m f
■ t.-n .-n n -m ,,
■
fable 3 gives th© means of the upper, middle
and lower thirds of each experimental group on th©
basis of teacher ranking of child popularity# fh©
14
level
at which we may be confident that the dlffer^ T h e level of confidence of ,Tttt represents th©
chances In one hundred that on® would get an obtained
value of wbw of this magnitude or greater if the two
aample s were drawn at random from the same population*
©no© between the upper and lower third® was significant
is given just below the mean of th© middle third, Mg*
In aroup A there were significant differences between
th© popular and unpopular groups on the following meaa«*
ures: (1) fin© motor co-ordination, at th© 3 per cent
levelf (2) intensity of social participation at the 1
per eent level; (3) and receiving friendly behavior at
th© 2 per cent level of confidence#
fh© four measures
on which th© popular third were significantly higher
in Oroup B ares (1) personality attractiveness, at th©
Table 3
Comparison of the Means of the Popular* Unpopular and Middle Thirds of the Three Experimental and the Combined Group,
According to Teachers1 Estimate of Child Popularity
Group B
Group A
Measure
Constructive-destructive test
Initial approach
Final score
11
- 2
MS
M2
.57 -
Ml
.50
- 2*5
.0
7.67
4
2
61*0
65.
48.22
71,67
Cooperation in routines
76*0
52*5
Physical attractiveness
66*0
75.42
10$
70.45
8$
£4.9
Merrill-Palmer Eatings
Attractiveness of personality
Motor Tests
Gross
£5.5
Combined Group A-B-C
Group C
M3
ME
M3
- 0.5
1
,0
2
1*88
2.7
2.71
.87
Ml
M2
— 2.4
Ml
- £.71 -
ME
.57 3.71
MS
.75 - 1.56
1.90
1.07
51.35
73.43
63.7
73,45
69.5
59,52
61.49
71.67
41.7
1%
64.0
37,53
66.29
56*29
77,14
70,21
64.70
61.50
75.8
84,53
64.67
47,67
74.86
72.7
79.71
74,36
70.55
71.14
£2.75
10
8*7
11*55
26*71
19*7
20.14
22.15
19.77
18.94
%
11,67
Paper cutting
5.0
4.
5$
5.0
Failure Test
Gonstructiveness
5.0
£.66
5.0
- 7*8
4.
4.0
-12.5
4,0
4.0
3,1
5,95
-11.53 - 1.35
4.14
1.68
5.86
2.92 -
-15.33 - 9,0
7,9
8.67
8,7
54.85
65,44
62*28
60.84
81,19
53.75
Chronological Age
49. £5
47.28
50,5
62
55,5
Mental age
64*4£
65*14
65.55
79,98
77.81
123*0
126,3
135.4
132.20 124.00
9.70
10.39
12.05
95,85
1$
69*42
45.42 116.65
62.62
55.1
47.60
80,03
1$
50,24
108,6
88.9
4$
72.9
110.57
89,79
1%
74.37
18,9
19,2
21.38
12*0
14.9
6.7
17.57
12,0
2
4.4
9.9
3*7
10.19
8.3
21,3
0.0
9.8
8.57
2,4
10.61
5,6
0.9
2,1
1.7
2.34
2.5
1.5
0.9
5$
0,0
15,79
1$
9,6
1%
5,46
1%
5.01
2%
1.74
10,70
10,2
16*29
5$
8.43
1%
5,14
1$
5.57
1%
3
5.7
CO
140.9
03
,
111*
1.8
2,9
1,1
3.10
1.5
0.0
0,4
0,7
1.0
2.85
2.60
5$
1.11
1,67
2,8
5.3
9%
1.0
1,38
5.8
1.8
0.0
0.9
0,0
1.3
1.3
1.67
1,278
1*90
7.14
6,57
103,5
133*14
56.4
89.3
48,5
64
91.4
24,0
10,
9.0
24.0
6.57
4.5
9.67
6.57
Refused others
1*75
.85
Was refused by others
4.8
2.71
Received friendly behavior
7.8
Gave friendly behavior
4.5
1.6
2%
5.5
Nervous Habits
11.25
11.42
14.0
Communication
Child to child
88.0
69.42
62,0
120.0
72,9
28*8
28.42
48.5
71.1
Intensity of Social Participation 120*6
87*6
64,1
101.9
Social Behavior
Directed others
25.18
14.27
14.8
17.5
10*84
Complied to others
9.4
Das complied to by others
Wias directed by others
49,07
66.97
50.87
Child to teacher
47.11
43.7
54.53
140,7
49*07
43.43
56.87
129.
43.43
60.55
58.5
157.77 129,8
58.64
82,2
65.50
150*8
61.54
62.29
65.5
Intelligence Quotient
61,21
82,
Days of Preschool Attendance
3.50
6.36
14.5
- 0.5
.527
4.29
1,15 - 1.31
.29
Emotional manifestations
4*82
13.67
13,67
15.67
9.29
59.57
8.51
4*02
5*10
2*12
$%
Received hostile behavior
11.5
9.
9.
5.1
2.3
4*0
5.1
5.6
0.7
5.5
6*748
3,78
Gave hostile behavior
10.5
7.7
19.8
2.2
S.3
£.1
6,0
7*6
0.3
6,48
7.62
6.45
1 per cent level; co-operation in routine, at the 2
per cent level; (3) physical attractIveness, at the
1 per cent level; and {4} the number of times the child
resisted others* at the § per cent level*
This latter
finding means that the popular child resisted others a
greater number of times than did th© unpopular children*
Significant at th© 1 per cent level* the following items
differentiated the popular and unpopular members of
Group 0; (1) the amount of coinrmrn1ca11on with other
children; (2) the amount the child was directed by
others; and (3) th© amount th© child complied to others
and was complied to by them*
Also in favor of the pop­
ular children of Group C, and significant at the 5 per
cent level* wares (!) gross motor ability; (2) th© fre­
quency with which the child was friendly in social rela­
tions with other children*
Intensity of social partici­
pation was significant at the 4 per cent level in Group
C, and direction of others at the 3 per cent level*
When the upper third® of the three groups
were combined and compared to the combined lower thirds,
there were significant differences at the 1 per cent
level* in favor of the upper third for; (1) intensity
of social participation; (2) the amount of directing
o3
behavior toward others $ (3) th© amount of directing
received| (4) the amount of communication with other
ehil&r©n| and (5) th© amount of complicanc® to others*
Also in favor of th© popular children and significant
at or below th© 5 per cent level are the following! (1)
the amount others complied to th© observed child* (2)
the amount others resisted or refused to comply to the
given subject*
In some oases th© middle mean of the combined
group was greater or smaller than either of the other
means* but th© difference was not significant*
However,
when the difference between the upper and lower thirds
was significant th© middle mean was always smaller than
the upper mean and greater than the lower m e m *
Summary of the Relationship between Teachers1
r'Hstlmat© of Popularity' ana ¥Ei'-ToBbSr "Measures
In summary* the relationships between the 27
measures and teachers * e stimates of child popularity
fall into three main ©l&sstlfl oat Ions* (a) measures clear­
ly related to th© teachers1 estimates, (h) measures
possibly related to teachers* estimates and (e) measures
not related to teachers* estimates In this study*
To
be considered as related to popularity the measures met
54
th® following quailf 1catIons: (1) it correlated p©at«*
tlvely in all throe groups ana In either Group A or
is
Group G
th© correlation exceeded four times the probja
Group B had only nine ease® and for this reason
fee results are not given as much weight as those of
Groups A and 0 for which the findings should he more
reliable,#
able error| (.8) the upper popular third was significant**
ly superior to th® lower {at the b per cent to 1 per
cent level) in Group A or Os and (0) when the combined
upper third© of all three groups were compared to the
combined lower thirds , the difference was significant
at th© 5 per cent to 1 per cent level*
All measure®
that did not show as much relationship as this with
teacher estimate of popularity, but showed some rela*
tionahip, perhaps in one group and not in the others
were classed under {bj*
*£fee measures that showed no
agreement, either positive or negative with popularity
in any on® of the groups, were classed as (c ), unrelated
to teacher®* estimate® of popularity*
the measures that met the requirement® of
classification (a), clearly related to teachers* ©afci*
mat® of popularity, wares (1) intensity of social part­
icipation* (2) the amount th© child directed others*
(5) the amount the subject was directed by others* and
(i) th© amount the observed child complied to others*
and (5) the amount of child-child communication* and (S)
the amount the child was complied to by others*
7*he Measures that seemed to b© related to
teacher estimate of popularity in one or two of the
groups, but not in all three , ol&ssif1eation (b), were %
(1 ) co-operation in routines $ (2 ) physical attractive­
ness* (3) attractiveness of personality* £4} fine and
gross motor ability* (0 ) the amount the child was re­
fused by others* £6 ) refusing to comply in social situ­
ation* (7) mental age* (8 ) the amount of friendly Inter­
actions given and receivedj and £9) the number of hostile
social interactions given and received#
fhe following measures seemed unrelated to
teacher estimate of child popularity, and thus fell in­
to classification (c)j £1 ) Initial and final behavior
on th© construetlve-destruetive test* (2 ) constructive
end ©motional behavior in the face of failure* (3) in­
telligence quotient* (4) chronological- age* (5) the
number of days attended the preschool during' the semester
th®, data were gathered* £6 } th© number of oral nervous
habits manifested* and (7) the amount of communication
between teacher and child*
56
of dther Measures to
fhl# popularity ranking was based on prefer­
ences maul# by preschool children of their associates*
fSm child values underlying these preferences were
most likely result ants of many pleasant and unpleasant
social ojcperlencea*
fhe teacher# on the other hand#
probably searched for some outstanding; behavioral eharae*
teristies upon which to base her Judgments*
From an
adult*s point of view it seemed plausible that the
child who wee the leader or socially an active group
member was popular with the children, and an aggressive
child would appear- more- popular than the quiet retiring
type of child#
With the children, however# such a oh&rac*
teristic as social participation alone was not sufficient
,to reader tee child popular#
It seemed that the child
chosen as popular by M s associates differed in several
respects from the child chosen as popular by the teacher*
Belatlonshlps between Child Popularity and the
teer Measures
,l
nil II I n iw
— i i . n.i . « « . i. ' . i m i i .
r t WU I i i i i u
'immune i m w w w
Table 4 presents th® rank difference eorrela**
tions that were obtained between child estimates of
popularity and the other measures*
The three groups
Table 4
Relationship Between Child Popularity and the Other Measures
Group A
N * IS
Group B
N *> 9
Group C
N * 21
-.69 ♦ .10
-.26 + .17
,40 X .20
.16 7 .23
,18 * *14
,26 7 .15
Constructive-destructive test
Initial approach
llnal score
Merrill-Palmer Ratings
Attractiveness of personality
Cooperation in routines
Physical attractiveness
Motor tests
Gross
Paper cutting
Philure test
Constructiveness
Emotional manifestations
-.55 1 ,15
-.56 4- ,17
Days of preschool attendance
Chronological age
.17
-.30
,06 ♦ .18
— .12 •f
.65 4*
,25
.14
•52 7 .17
.28 X *15
.24 + ,14
.31 7 ,15
.58 1 .12
.36 + ,16
-.54 ♦ .17
.19 7 .25
,09 X ,14
,20 •f .14
,22
.23
-.04 X .34
,13 X .14
•22 + .14
,18 *14
•19 + .15
Mental age
.34
Intelligence Quotient
Nervous habits
.31 * .17
*12 * ,18
Communication
Child to child
Child to teacher
Intensity of social parti­
cipation
Social behavior
Directed others
Was directed by others
Complied to others
las complied to by others
Bsfused others
Was refused by others
Received friendly behavior
Gave friendly behavior
Received hostile behavior
Gave hostile behavior
.15
.07 * .18
-.08 x .18
O
._ .
.45 1 •15
,44 ,15
.00 4. *18
l
Measure
-.21
+
.10 + ,23
-.35 X .21
.28 4* ,21
,38
X ,20
,52 + ♦17
.27 X ,22
-.50 7 .18
.07 * •14
.17 + *14
~ * n •f
.54
X
.14
.09
X .14
.08 + .24
.07 + .14
*31 1 .17
-.28 + .22
.17 7 .23
►*20 ♦ .23
.33 7 .21
.20 ± .23
..55 ■*•.17
.43 7 .19
•.09 7 .23
-.44 i .19
.00 7 .24
.01 + .14
*15 7 .14
.13 7 *14
*08 ♦ *14
-.09 7 .14
•H 7 .14
*09 + *14
■.08 + .14
.00 7 .14
-.03 7 .14
.48
.01 ♦ *18
*01 + .18
.25 i .17
.10 + .18
.39 7 .15
-.04 1 .18
*12 * .18
.17 7 .18
-.14 + .18
aeem to subs twit late Kochto finding that high ae ores
on routine co-operation were more characteristic of
popular toon of unpopular’ children,
The correlations
between .routine co-operation and popularity for Groups
A* B end 0 were- *44 ♦ *16# *65 ♦ *14 ted *@4 ♦ *14 respect
tlvely* .these correlations were not as high, as the tee
Koch obtained for her group* *92 ♦ *02, but were in the
sane general direction*
The correlations between pop­
ularity and ateatouetiwtoees in. the face -of failure
were consistently negative* but-only Group A*s was
16
significant,
*15| Group B*a was -.30 ♦- ,22?
& ■
The tern significant Is used here to indicate
correlations that are greater than four times their
probably error*
1 ,
1
, ,. , , „L-| i r i
and Group 0*a was -.04 4 ,14*
■, " —
—
'
—
These correlations in­
dicate that the popular- child tended to be destructive
In the- face of failure * as compared with the unpopular
child*
The following measures seemed to be unrelated
to popularity* (1 ) final score on the cons tractive-de­
structive tost| (2) fine motor ability? (5) Intelligence
quotient? (4 ) the number of days attending preschool
the semester the data were gathered? (©} chronological
age; (6 ) emotional reaction to failure? (7) the amount
of directing 'given and received? (8 ) amount of communication betooeuefcildrenj (9) the amount of complying
ted being complied fcej (10) the amount of refusing to
©omplyi (11) the number of friendly interactions given
and received? ted (12) 'the number of hostile interactions
given and received*
When the results on ■the three groups were com­
pared some differences "were found to exist#
In Group A
cons true tlvteess, as indicated by initial approach
score, correlated with popularity -*§9 ♦ *10 , i.e., the
popular ehildrenwer© destructive as compared to the
unpopular children*
However in troupe B and G the corre­
lations were low and positive*
In Group 8 popularity
and physical attractiveness correlated *52 * *1?,. but
in Group 0 the correlation was lower and in Group A It
was sere#
The relationship between gross motor ability
and popularity seemed to show inconsistent results*
In Group l the correlation was *88 ♦ *12, while Bt® was
-*64 V *17, and 0f* was *09 ♦ *14*
The relationship
between the amount of teacher-claild interactions and
popularity also varied for the three groups#
Group A
showed no relationship, B showed a negative relation­
ship of ~*S0 ♦ *18, and the data for Group C indicated
60
a positive eerreiatiom of *$4 + *09*
Oreup a was th©
only group to. shew a relationship between popularity
and attractiveness of personality, and between popular*
ity and intensity of social participation; the corre*
lations were *49 * *15 and *48 4 *14 respectively*
Oroup B was the only group in which there was an Indies*
tion of a relationship between popularity and mental
ago) popularity and the amount others refused to comply;
and popularity end manifestation of nervous habits*
The correlation was *88 4 *14 for mental age, *52 4 *17
for attractiveness of personality* <**85 4 *17 for others
refusing to comply,* and *92 e *17 for nervous habits*
aiimiflc&ne© of the Difference Between the leans of
T^.j»^"T«aBgra»
Table 8 gives the means of the measures for
the upper, middle and lower thirds, according to child
ranking of popularity*
When the difference between the
upper and lower thirds was significant at the 10 per
cent to- I per cent level* the "t" has been indicated
below th© middle m e m in fable 8 *
From this table it
was apparent that there was no one measure that showed
a significant difference at or below the 10 per cent
level for all three groups treated separately, but
61
Table 5
Comparison of the Means of the Popular., Unpopular and Middle Thirds of the Three Experimental
and the Combined Groups, According to Child Popularity
Group A
Measure
Constructive-destructive test
Initial approach
Final score
Ml
M2
- 4.0
- 2.4
1%
- 2.8
— 0.4
Group B
MS
id
5.2
3,7
7.2
6,3
S.Q
Combined Group A- B-C
Group 0
M2
MS
~ 3.7 - 1*33 - 2.3
~ 2,0
- 0*9
3*3
3*6
,0
- 1.1
2,80
,06:
2,53
12
M3
id
Ml
M2
- 1*67 ~ £.25
M3
1,06
&%
Merrill-Palmer Ratings
Attractiveness of personality
64.2
55.4
56.0
50*33
46 .3
68.0
72*3
68
70.3
65,20
59,46
65,10
Cooperation in routines
74.0
68.4
65,4
72,7
53.0
47.33
69.7
64,6
85,5
71.73
63.35
61,11
Physical attractiveness
70.6
67*8
72,0
74,0
64.0
58*76
76*4
78,4
72*4
73*98
71.98
69,5
27.0
25.2
4$
5*6
21.6
6.7
11*3
24,6
17.9
23,3
21,75
18.45
20.3
5,8
9.7
12,0
1%
10.7
9,0
4,0
5.7
5*4
5.30
5.16
4.66
12,2 -4,7
-n.3 - 4,5
1,7
2,8?
2,5 ’
1.93 -
,85
4.97
7,2 -11,3
—14,0 “11,5
8,1
10,6
8*0
5.16
2.93
lojc
Motor Tests
Gross
Paper cutting
Failure Test
Construetiveness
4.6
Emotional manifestations
-11.0
0.0
4%
9.2
Days of preschool attendance
59.8
60,8
65,8
CO 52
55*7
53*7
65.0
64.7
59*1
59,80
61*59
60*3
Chronological age
49.6
48,0
48,4
58.0
54,3
61*3
45*1
43,0
42,0
48,30
48.98
48,0
Mental age
66.56
67,1
61,46 79.65
65.16
76.98
54.83
56.9
54*6
64,09
61,88
61.77
Intelligence Quotient
- 5.5
154.2
159,8 127,0 137.3
Bervous habits
11.8
11.6
13.0
Communication
Child to child
75.D
74.4
67,4 101*1
52.0
56.8
52*4
Intensity of social participation 109.9
78.9
Social behavior
Directed others
20.5
Child to teacher
12*5
1£Q,0 127*7
129,7
130*0
130*4
16*7
7,1
7,5
8*7
91,3
69,4
111*7
14,0
82.6 112,
- 2.1
152,70 131.25 128,7
9,67
10*05
11.74
87.1
73.71
96.99
37.4
49.0
85*09
46.1
89,9
95.8
85,11
87.1
13*7
17,13
14*54
15,40
89*3
68,3
83*7
100.9
10%
75,45 92,9
86,4
94*3
65.7
2%
86,3
18,4
13.4
15,8
12,4
22*7
15.4
12,1
10.08
14,2
11,2
14*2
13*3
18.7
11.57
6.85
14*4
11,60
10*59
14.20
Complied to others
5.5
6.8
6.2
4.2
3,5
8,1
6,4
4*4
7*9
5*75
5*04
7,87
Was complied to by others
8.7
8.0
5.0
4*5
11.1
10,7
6,9
4*9
4*9
6.98
7.14
6,05
Refused others
2.8
0,8
2.0
1.5
2.2
1.0
2*5
1*4
5*1
2.40
1,44
£.50
Was refused by others
4.1
5,4
2.2
0.0
1.7
5.1
2.1
3*14
2,90
2,40
2*53
Received friendly behavior
4.0
2.6
4,0
0,7
1.5
4$
0,9
0,0
0.6
1*4
0,9
1,85
1,68
1*80
Gave friendly behavior
4.0
3.2
4.0
0*3
0,9
1.0
0,9
0,4
1,6
1*80
1.44
2.6
Received hostile behavior
9.4
9,2
10*4
2.5
2,7
2.7
3,3
2*4
5*7
5.30
4.71
5.90
Gave hostile behavior
9.4
16.8
8.8
4*4
3,5
2.3
4.6
3.0
5,87
6.15
7,68
5,20
las directed by others
32
62
when th© upper thirds of the three groups were combined
and compared to th© combined lower third© there waa a
difference significant at the 10 per emit level for e©«*
operation la routines*
fhu® there waa a alight Indioa-
tion that the popular children were rated aa being more
co-operative in routine© than were the unpopular*
In considering the group® individually there
were significant difference® at the 1 per cent and &
per cent level® In Group a for intlal and final construc­
tive-destructive scores, in favor ©f higher construe**
tlveneee in the unpopular group*
Hhe popular children
of Group A were superior tb-tbe unpopular in gross
motor ability* significant at the 4 per cent level*
Ale© significant at the 4 per cent level is the reao**
tlon of Group A*® members to failure*
Here again the
unpopular children were more constructive*
Group Bt®
popular children were refused by others in social situ**
ation, significant at the 4 per cent level and ©cooperated in routines significant at the 3 per cent level*
In this same group gross motor ability and teacher
communication were significant at th© 1 per cent and
10 per cent levels respectively*
In Group C the pop­
ular children had more social contacts with the teacher
63
than the unpopiiler third, significant at the 2 par cent
level*
Measures
Summarising the relationship between popular*
ity and the other measures, routine eo-operstion as
measured by teacher ratings seemed to be the one msae*
ore that waa positively related to popularity in all
throe groups and for which the correlation waa four
tinea its probable -error in at least one of the groups *
The following measures seemed unrelated to popularity
ag far as these three groups were concerneds C D the
number of days of attendance during the semester the
data were gathered! {2) chronological age* (3) emo­
tional reactions to failure} (4) the m o u n t of giving
and receiving of directing actions} (5) the amount of
communication with other children} (©) the giving and
receiving of compliant actions in social situation} (7)
the number of social interactions given and received
of both friendly and hostile type; and {8 } the number
of nervous habits manifested*
The following items Showed Inconsistency in
their relationship to popularity, l*e«, In one group
G4
the 'relationship might have been positive* in another
negative*, and In the third there might have been no
apparent TOlatlemsMpi (I) o one true tiv@~d© strue tiv©
behavior in the teat, situation; (2 ) attractiveness of
personality* (3) physical attractiveness* (4) gross
motor ability* (5) the amount of communication with
teacher| and (6 ) the amount of refusing and of being .
refused by others*
The following measures showed con­
sistent low positive ©orrel&bten© with popularity* (1 )
paper cutting ability* (2) Intelligence quotient* (3)
mental age) and (4) Intensity of social participation#
fho constructive approach to failure tended to be neg­
atively related to popularity*
from fable 3 it may be noticed that the diff­
erence between the highest and lowest thirds of the
combined groups* although not significant* tended to
show that the popular children were more- co-operative
in routines* had a higher mental age* and wore of great­
er physical attraction than the unpopular children|
while the middle third seemed to be superior to the
others in showing better emotional reaction to failure*
but tended to be inferior in chronological age* in
oonstruetlvcMCc* end in gross motor ability*
65
Results of the Measures on Group p
Ten of the fifteen three year olds In Group
A, three girls and seven boy®, remained In the pre~
school the following year and were obtained a® four
year olds for a second set of measures#
fhe scores,
taken when the children were members of th© group of
fifteen three year olds, were recalculated to give
inter rankings for these ten subjects and compared by
rank difference correlation® to the scores obtained at
the nine months later date, see fable 6#
the change
in popularity, from initial to final measures, was r©~
la ted to change in scores of th© other measure s by
rank difference correlations*
Unfortunately the number of oases is very
limited, but as far as these ten cases were concerned
some ©f the measures seem to yield consistent results
over the nine months period#
®h© final score on the
cons true tive**des true tive test correlated *76 + *09
between the initial and final measurement, but the
score pertaining to first approach in this test only
correlated #38 ♦ *19 for the two testings*
Du© to a
change in teaching staff, th© two sets of Merrill*-
6 6
fable 6
Comparison of Test and Retest Data After
a Nine Months Interval (N » ID)
Correlation
Constructivedestmotive test
Initial
Huai
Ratings
Personality
attractiveness
Cooperation in
routine
Physical attrac­
tiveness
Motor tests
Cross
Paper cutting
School attendance
*58 —*19
.76 -.09*
•14 — *25*
'59 -.19
75 -.10*
77 -.09*
55 -.16
-< 06 -.88
Failure test
Constructive
Bnotion&l
*78 -*09#
*10 -.25
Intelligence test
.94 -.03.*•
Nervous habits
.10 -.22
Correlation
Communication
Child-child
CMld-teacher
.78 -.11*
.59 -.19
Intensity of social
participation
.50 -.17
Social behavior
Directed others
las directed
Complied to others
Was complied to
Refused others
Was refused
■Received friendly
Gave friendly
Received hostile
Gave hostile
.78 -.09*
.65 -.15*
.55 -.SO
.85 -.SI
-.05 -.28
.61 -.1#
•34 —.20
*51 —*17
.39 -.19
.39 -.19
Popularity rankings
Child estimate
Teacher estimate of
child popularity
.50 -.17
*41 -.19
■^Indicates correlations that are greater than four times their
probable error*
<
f&lmer ratings ware not obtained from th© same te&ehers*
fhe only one of these ratings that showed consistency
from first to final measure was physical attractiveness*
which correlated #76 ♦ *10#
The retest on gross motor
ability agreed with the former measure by a correlation
of *77 * *09* while paper cutting ability only correlated
•55 .* *16 between first end last testing*
The construe**
tiv© ©core on the failure test correlated *78 mm
♦ *09,“
while th© emotional ©cor© correlated only *10
tween the two measurements*
*26 be*
Th© amount of social inter-**
actions that a child made seemed to remain relatively
constant* th© correlation being,*78 * # n f and th© amount
of directing the child gave and received showed relation**
ship of *78 * *09 and *66 ♦ *18 between test and retest
for th© two measures respectively*
The two measures of
intelligence correlated #94 ♦ *03#
The children who
were refused by others when th© first set of data were
gathered seemed to remain high in being refusing behavior
nine months later# for the correlation was #61 + *14*
The measures that seemed to show individual
variation from initial to final testing were* (1) ini**
tl&l approach to th© constructive*^©©truetiv© test}
(2) attractiveness of personality} (8) routine eo-oper-
68
atlon; (4) the limber of days the child attended pre­
school the semester the data were gathered (5) emo­
tional reaction to .failurej (6) the amount of cornmunication between child and teacher| (7) being compliant
and being complied to in social situation®! (8) the
amount of refusing othersj (9) the number of friendly
interactions received and hostile interaction® both
given and received; and (10) the number of minutes in
which nervous habits were manifested#
Intensity of
social participation and the number of friendly inter­
actions given showed some stability* the correlations
being *50 jk #17 and *51 * *17 respectively between Ini­
tial and final measures*
The relationship© between the Intial and final
measures of popularity were both less than four time©
their probably error©! th© teacher estimates of popular­
ity correlated .41 * #19, and the measurement© of child
popularity correlated *50 * *17*
It must be remembered,
however, that the ten children were not grouped together
the second semester a© they had been when the Initial
measures were obtained*
on page 17.
Th© reasons for this were given
G9
When correlations wer© obtained between change
1n popularity and change in the other measures from
Initial to final measures, only a few items were found
to yield relationships of significance#
Th© follow*
ing tabulation gives the correlations that seemed to
be suggestive of relationship between change in the
measure and change in popularity*
Measure
Intelligence quotient
Intensity of social
par tlcipa tion
Refuses ©there
Is hostile to others
Consistent Teacher Estimate
Popularity Child Popularity
#42 * *18
*47 * *18
#47 mm
* *16
.57 + ,16
.45 + .18
Thus the Increase in intelligence was the only measure
that tended to show some agreement with change in both
measures of popularity*
Increase in intensity of so©*
I&l participation and increase in the amount of refus­
ing others showed a possible relationship with Increase
in popularity as rated by the children*
Increase in
hostility to other® showed some relationship to Increase
In teacher estimate of child popularity*
As the other
measures showed only negligible relationships, they have
not been mentioned*
fh© measures that showed correlation® at least
four times their probable error between Initial and
final testings wares (1) final score on the constructivedestructive teatj (3) teachers* rating of physical attrac­
tiveness j (3) gross motor ability; (4) constructive re­
action to failure$ (3) intelligence quotient$ (6) the
m o u n t other children refused to comply to the ohlldf
(V) the amount of communication with children; and. (&)
the m o u n t of giving and receiving of direction®*
Meas­
ure » that show a possibility of some relationship, but
whose correlations were just smaller than four time®
their probable errors were: (1) intensity of social
participation! (2) the amount of friendly behavior man­
ifested; (3) child ranking of popularity; and (4) paper
cutting ability*
fhe measure® that seemed to show no relation­
ship between initial and final measurement wares (1) in­
itial approach to the constructive-destructive test; (2)
emotional reaction to failure! (3) personality attrac­
tiveness j (4) co-operation in routine®! (5) school attend­
ance! (3)
amount of communication between child and
teacher; (7) the amount the child complied and was com-
plied to; {8 } the m m m t of refusing to comply; (9)
tlx# number of friendly Interactions; (10) the number
of hostile Interaction® given and received! and (11)
the number of minutes in which an oral nervous habit
was manifested*
When the change In child estimate of popular­
ity was sorrel ated with the change in each of the other
measures, mono of the correlations were equal to four
times their probable error, hut the measures that were
greater than throe times their probable error were;
(I) the m o u n t the child refused other®, I*a*, the
child who increased in popularity tended to refuse
others more often; (2) Intelligence quotient, the child
increasing in popularity also tended to increase In in­
telligence; and (3) the intensity of social parilolpa*
fcion, i*e»f the child who Inereaseiin popularity became
more of to active group member*
When the change In teacher estimate of popu­
larity was correlated with increase in the other measures,
the two Items that were three times their probable errors
were* (X) hostility to others, the child who increased
in popularity became more hostile; (2) increase in in­
telligence*
Increase in intelligence was the only item
that aeemed to be related to increase In popularity In
both measures of popularity, teacher and child estimate*
dmpraB
v tx x
stmmaby and m s a m ® i m of n m m m
The aim of the study was to determine the con­
comitants of popularity in preschool children*
The subject® ware 4$ chi X&ren attending the
Iowa Child Welfare Easearch station preschools during
1939 and 1940*
0roup A contained 15 three year olds,
Sroup B, 9 four year oldaf and ^reup 0, 21 three year
©Ida*
fhe mean chronological age for the three groups
was 44*4 months and the mean intelligence quotient was
131*9*
fen of 0roup A*s subjects were retested as four
year olds and comprised Oroup B«
Methods
1 * fhe paired comparison method was employed In
obtaining two popularity scores for each child, one
from the child*© associates and one from two preschool
teachers1 judgments of child popularity*
2* Data pertaining to the social behavior were ob­
tained from eight ten-minute observations of each child
taken during free play periods*
ffaa behavioral Item®
observed, were*
Intensity of social participation? and
directing* compliant, resistant, comaunicative, friend*
ly and hostile behavior*
3* $ e m a for attractiveness of personality, co*
operation in routines, and physical attractiveness were
obtained for each subject from the combined ratings of
two teachers*
4« Hi© following individual tests were given each
subjects
Ackerman** test of oonstruetiwe*destractive
tendencies? the Revised Sfeamfor&*Binet test of intelli­
gence , form *&*'? Keister** test of behavior in the face
of failuref the ascending and descending of stairs and
ladders from the MoG&skill motor test? and the paper
cutting items from jfafcway** manual testa*
5* Tim presence or absence of an oral nervous hab­
it was recorded for each of thirty one-minute observe*
tions on each child.
Results Pertaining to Methodology of Popularity
^ ^ e r w c S s rrnn""l111^''rfini:rr'
n
,"';“rm"Trr'rrM^ ^ irin:w""Findings from the different methods of estim*
sting popularity were;
(a) child and teacher estimates
of child popularity seemed to be based upon different
criteria? (b) children tended to favor the last name
of the pair in naming their preference? (e) the chil­
dren showed a alight preference for their own sex, i*e»,
in hi sex pairs the hoys favored hoys, and the girls
favored girls; (d) teachers estimated boys to he-more
popular than girls, while the children estimated the
sexes to he about e«|nai in popularity;' (©) agreement,
although not -perfect, was shown between the two
teachers* estimates of child popularity in the preschool
groups; (f) the total and consistent methods of scoring
the child preferences showed high agreement; (g) the
two halves of the total method of scoring the preferences
showed practically no agreement, although each showed
acme relationship to the total method; (h) twenty pair*
lags were repeated after a six-weeks Interval for each
of thirteen of the subjects of $roup 0 , and when the
initial and final rankings of the five children upon
whom judgments were "made were compared only one child
was displaced; and (1 ) when two popularity rankings ob­
tained on Sroup D, at a nine-months interval, were com*
pared, a positive relationship was found to exist In
spite of the fact that the ten children were not In
the same preschool subgroups *
Result a of the Relationship of Popularity to other
ioWureii^ fdr qffiBffi
1 # VH*«r«« that wore related to teachers’ eatl*
mate of child popularity, significant at the 5 per cent
level or hotter, for the combined groups wares
£a> the
amount and Intensity of social participation} (b) the
.amount of compliant behavior the child manifested and
experienced from others} (c) the amount of directing
behavior the o h l M manifested end experienced from
others} (d) the number of times the child was refused
by others} and (e) the amount- of ehila-ehild communica­
tion*
2 * $we measures that were inconsistently related
(significant for one group, but not for the combined
groups} to both measures of popularity were? (a) the
degree to which the child co-operated in preschool routines, and (b) gross motor ability*
3« The following additional measures were incon­
sistently related to teacher®1 estimate of child popu­
larity:
(a) attractiveness of personality} (b) physical
attractiveness} and (o) the amount of hostile and friend­
ly social behavior the child manifested and experienced
from others*
f€
4 * The following additional measures were incon­
sistently related to child popularity*
(a) constructive
behavior In a play situation and in the face of failure j
and (b) the amount of chtld-tescher communication*
5# The measures that were unrelated to either
measure of popularity were*
(a) paper cutting ability}
(b) emotional reaction in the face of failure} (c) the
number of days the child attended preschool during the
semester of the experiment; td) chronological age; {©)
mental age and intelligence quotient; and (f) oral nerv­
ous habits*
6 * Unrelated to teachers* estimate of child popu­
larity wares
{a) constructive behavior in a play situ­
ation and in the face of failure} and (b) the amount of
communication between the child and teachers*
7# Unrelated to child popularity were:
{a} amount
and Intensity of social participation} (b> attractive­
ness of personality} Co) physical attraetiveness} td)
the amount of child communication} (e) the amount of
directing behavior the child manifested and experienced;
(f) the m o u n t the child refused others} and (g) the
amount of friendly and hostile behavior the child mani­
fested toward others and experienced from them*
1 » The following measures showed relationship (the
rank difference correlations were four times their prob­
able error) between initial and final measures:
(a) fin­
al score on the eon®truetive-deetruebiveness test} (b)
physical attractiveness, as rated by teachers; (e) gross
motor ability} (d> constructive reaction to failure} (e)
intelligence quotient} (f) the amount other children re­
fused to comply to the child; £g) the amount of commun­
ication with children} and (h) the amount of giving and
receiving of directions#
2 # The1 items that showed possible relationship (the
correlations were #00 ♦ *1? or better, but less than
four times the probable error) wares
(a) intensity of
social participation} (b) the amount of friendly be­
havior the child manifested towards others} (c) © M i d
ranking of popularity} and (d) fine motor ability*
3* When change in popularity was related to change
in the other measures over a nine-months interval, none
of the correlattons were four times their probable error,
however the following measures seemed to show some rela­
tionship (the correlations were Just smaller than four
times their probable errors)*
(a) increase in in belli-
gene© seemed related to increase in both measures of
popularity} (b) change In teachersf estimate of child
popularity seemed positively related to manifestation
of hostile behavior, l*e«, the child increasing in
this measure of popularity also Increased in the num­
ber of hostile interactions he manifested" toward others}
and (e} the child increasing in child popularity also
increased in the amount he refused others and Increased
in the amount of social participation*
Discussion of Results
When judging popularity in children, adults
are likely to base their estimates upon behavioral cri­
teria*
The teachers of groups A, B, and 0 seemed to
judge the socially active child as popular and the iso­
lated child as unpopular*
Certainly to be popular a
child needs to be a participant of a group, but the ac­
tive member of a group need not necessarily be the pop­
ular member*
The dictatorial leader might hold the
group forcefully or by sufferance, while another child
might be the real center ©f the group because of his
attraction for others#
The latter type of child is
likely to be more popular than the former*
Thus it is
80
to b© expected that childrens * statement ©f preferences
and teachers* estimate of child popularity would not
show high agreement*
If any one f actor can be said to have been
indicative of child popularity, as far as the groups
of the present study and that of Jtoch*s are concerned,
the Item, co-operation In routines seems to have been
such a factor*
Analyst a of this scale reveals that It
contained many Items pertaining to adjustment and the
degree to which the child entered into the situation*
Items pertaining to quick, unobtrusive adjustment had
a heavy weighting, while items of refusing, dawdling,
silly acts, etc* were given low scores*
Thus It seems
that quick adaptation to the situation without melting
a disturbance Is typical of the most popular child,
and the reverse of this is true of the unpopular child.
The results obtained on Groups A, B, and 0
and that of Koch*s (26) seem to raise some suggestions
for further study*
1 * Might not a measure of ability to adapt in
social situations be one of the best measures for fu­
ture investigation of popularity?
2* To interpret child popularity on© need* to know
more of the criteria upon which such preferences are
baaed*
Might not direct questioning of the child as to
why a popular child was preferred lead to soma eluci­
dation of child values of the popular child?
3* light not further research along the line of
relationship ©f change in popularity to change in other
measures yield information helpful to the guiding of
the unpopular child?
82
txntmx
lin** indicated the time, minute by minute*
Thus each interaction wee recorded under the minute in
which it took place#
to interaction wee operationally
defined as a social ecu tact between tee children*
m e recorded In terms of erne11.units, for m
It
interaction
might be a tern of greeting, a hit, a pat, & demand, etc*
Some examples of interactions were, ttHello#w a boost,
"Come here,®
paste® etc#
"Site m» that,®
nTeacher I want acme
If the child asked for help and was given
it, such behavior was recorded as two interactions, one,
the child asking for help and the other, the person
responding to the demand*
In quick conversation and In
fights there were many interactions recorded in one
minute*
This method of defining interactions and of
recording them seemed suited to this age group, but
might be unsuited to the involved conversations and
activities ©f older children#
Jnt*~ indicated the broad morning of the inter**
action, two types being recordeds behavior of a plus (+)
variety, friendly, or a minus (*) quality, hostile*
83
Friendly behavior was defined a* interactions that were
of «• helpful, affectionate, kind or unselfish nature,
fMk
hostile acta were hindering, cruel, uakind, ua<*
friendly* selfish, or teasing in nature*
toy other type
of interaction, &a matter<*©f~fact, were recorded only
under the directing, compliant, and other columns*
fepl indicated the type of social p&rtioipa**
tlon, I* leadership, J. motive group membership, £ peri«*
pher&l membership, and j[ isolated*
Leadership was &e-*
fined mo being in command of the group*s activity,
planning and guiding the play, m & being certainly the
moot important group member#
was defined as being a
psychologically active group member, one who suggested
and carried out the ideas of the leader, and one who
was important, hut not essential, to the running of the
group#
was defined as an on**
looker or follower of the group, an excess member and
not important to the ongoing activity of the group*
Such a member was not missed from the group when he
left it for another activity#
was defined as being play
which was independent of the group and its activity,
playing alone, and interested la ether activities
than those ©f the group*
Bumplee- of these f e w "types of group member*
ship ares Leadership * Jack was fire*eMef and was direct*
lug and arranging the fire play* active membership *
John was the lire truck driver and took m
active part
in the ftre play,- tut did no directing and little stag*
geatingg peripheral «* Alan stood by the truck and
jumped up and down excitedly, but was not a member of
the group workings, just an on-Iooker; isolated *
Kenneth, interested In M s painting, glanced over at
the excited group play, but his attention soon returned
to M s painting*
t&ese types of group membership were recorded
each 'half minute*
fh& final score, degree of social
participation, was obtained by multiplying the total num­
ber of minutes spent In active and leadership play by
two and adding to this sum the number of minutes spent
in peripheral play, thus giving the Child a score of
aero for each minute of Isolated play, a score of 1
for each minute spent in peripheral play, and a score
35
ot 2 for each minute spent In active and leadership
play*
f his total is need as the score for intensity
of social participation#
In the final analysis* leader**
ship was not differentiated from active play* as the
observers were unable to obtain a good reliability for
this measure#
It seemed very difficult to detect just
when a child was leading and when he was an active non**
leading member of the group«
Children of these ages
seem to slip back and forth from leader to active
member very frequently and thus it was hard to diff­
erentiate the two at these age levels#
Farten {33}
also found It difficult to obtain reliability between
observers for this same item*
the 0r # column was used to Indicate the chil­
dren participating in the group in which the observed
f
child was playing#
Each child was represented by a
letter of the alphabet* and his letter was recorded
If he was playing in the group with the observed child.
A group consisted of children working together on a
common project and not just in physical proximity by
chance*
the children were called a group only when
held together by a common interest* as building play­
ing house* pushing a wagon# playing tag* ©to#
directing* suggesting#
compliant* resistant* and communicative behaviors Each
child of the group was represented by a letter of the
alphabet#
these letters were need in recording an Inter­
action between the observed child .end other children*
to Increase speed the observed child 9s letter was always
omitted from the record*
fhe child doing the action —
directing* resisting* complying* etc** ted M s letter
some first* then a dash (*}# and the letter of the child
being acted upon#
Tima j|- means that child 0 was acting
upon the observed child# and -§ means the observed child
was acting upon 0 »
M r »-indicates directing behavior that was
dictatorial or suggesting in nature*
Such behavior could
be both physical and verbal in character# as the follow­
ing examples*
1 * Verbally attempted to secure material
from another child* use of a direct command.
2 * Forcefully attempted to secure material
from another child*
3# Dictated behavior of companion# verbally
and physically#
4* Forbid# criticised* reproved others by
direct statements*
5* Made demands for attention#
0* Verbally gave ^destructive** approaches
{i*e*# sarcasm* belltting)*
Compi- indicatea compliant behavior*
This
category included such items as* asked for direction
from another| was cmapllant to another1s ascendant or
directing behavior*
Such actions might be done will­
ingly or unwillingly*
.Its#- Indicates resistant or non-oompliant
behavior.
Items wares
1 # M l not comply to directing approaches*
it ,Did what he was requested not to do and
continued doing it*
3* Ignored purposely when other® directed.
4# Purposely hindered another*® attempts to.
direct him*
Oomm*- Indicates communicative behavior* i.e.#
action and statements that were not directing* complying*
resisting# hut seemed' to serve only the purpose of
communication end incidental conversation#
For example:
1# A statement that indicated position*
state of being*
2* m A s m l noises* songs and any sing-song
tune that was apparently for no other purpose
than communication, with others*
$» Physical contacts that were apparently
communicative In purpose# a® a gentle pat# a poke
in fun* an angry pinch or other set to communicate
dislike* yet not directing behavior*
Observation Blank of Social interactions
Maaac
...
Observer
_
,
~~’n~r
Date
Min*
.
Int»
Tls&e
.
1-1
Or#
Mr.
Activity
i
Indoor
Outdoor*
Comp* Boo* Oomau
Merrtll-P&Imer Eating Scales
of
fe obtain scores on attractiveness/personal­
ity, ee«*#per&tien in routines, and physical attractive­
ness, the MsrrllX*Palmer rating scales were used*
These scales were built up from many observation* of
children by means of a cheek list of adjectives and
phrases that were descriptive of child behavior#
fhur-
stone1© (43) method of attitude sealing was used as a
basis for assigning scale values to the items#
The scales arc so constructed that the rater
may check only a few items or several# for the child* s
score is the mean scale value of the various items
checked*
Because considerable variation among raters
was found by Roberts and Ball (38), the average of two
ratings is used as the child *s score on a given scale*
The correlations between raters were from #46 to *85,
most of them being above *60 (38 f p* SV)*
Compliance in Boutins
This scale consists of 31 statements about
the various routines experienced by children in the
nursery school*
There seems to be only a low corre­
lation between this scale and age# except with children
T h e M e r r il l -P a l m e r S c h o o l
71 E A S T F E R R Y A V E N U E
D e t r o it , M ich ig a n
PERSONALITY RATING
SCHEDULE 3
D ate.
N am e--------------------------------D irections for R atin g :
___ ________ —— — -----
R ated b y __________________________________
Check only those statem en ts which you feel are really tru e of th e child. Do n o t guess if you are not
reasonably sure. A few tru e statem en ts are b etter th an m any half-true ones.
COMPLIANCE W ITH R O U TIN E
(-—) ............. A djusts im m ediately to th e daily routine.
(_...)-----------O bjects violently to routine activities.
(-—)..............Always goes through th e daily procedure willingly.
(----)............. U sually goes through th e daily procedure willingly.
(....)---------- H as to be constantly urged to carry o u t routine activities.
............. T akes a long tim e to ad ju st to th e daily routine.
(-—)---- ------ Tries to prev en t other children from carrying o u t th e routine activities.
(—.)
....Quietly enjoys routine activities.
(....)............. Accepts th e routine as a m a tter of course.
(.—) ............. Responds readily to direction in th e d ay ’s routine.
(—.)............. Likes to assist th e ad u lt in routine tasks.
C ooperates or n o t in routine, according to his mood.
(....)......... ....Acts silly a t th e lunch table.
............ Refuses m any foods.
(....)............. O ften cries during nap period.
....Objects to being exam ined by th e nurse.
(....)......... ...Talks an d laughs w ith ad jacent children during rest period or nap.
(....)......
Proceeds as usual w ith routine in th e presence of visitors.
(....)___ ___ Presence of visitors upsets his routine.
(. ..)............. Presence of a specific child upsets his routine.
(....)__ ____ Is em otionally u p set upon leaving parents.
(....)._........... Is businesslike and system atic in endeavoring to carry o ut routine activities.
(....).......... ....Dawdles over routine activities.
(....)—............Carries o u t routine tasks in a haphazard m anner.
(....)........... ...M akes a routine of his play activities.
(....).............. Always cooperates in try in g to keep the schoolrooms n eat and clean.
(....)..............U sually cooperates in trying to keep th e schoolrooms n eat and clean.
(....)............. U sually p u ts things aw ay carefully.
(....).............. Occasionally p u ts things away.
(....)......... ...Seldom cooperates in trying to keep th e schoolrooms n eat and clean.
(....)......... ...N ever p u ts things away.
91
over fear yea** of age*
She correlation between two
ratere was computed to be *63 ♦ ,07 (38, p* 107),
&btracbtw©n#®s @1* Personal i
and Physical
fees© rating® contain 73 and 09 itern© respec­
tively#
They show correlation with age- (9 to 10 years),
*14 ♦ *09 and *48 * *07 {38, p* 119)*
fhe correlation
between these two scales « y found to he *40 4 *07*
■«**>
There seemed to he only a tendency to rate the more in*
t©111gent children higher on these two scales, the corre­
lations being *38 ♦ *09 and *30 ♦ *08 respectively*
Easley {10) compared the teacher1® rankings of physical
attractiveness and attractiveness of personality with
Merrill-falmer ratings on
these items and found for two
teachers1 ratings correlation® of *63
—**
between attractiveness of
ings*
± *08 and #06 ♦ *09
4p©H
CMC
personality rankings and rat~
However, between rankings and rating® of physical
attractiveness the correlations were *51 & *10 and #09 +
*13*
Thu® there seemed to be better agreement between
teacher ranking and Merrlll^i’almer rating on personality
attractiveness than for physical attractiveness*
T h e M e r r il l -P a l m e r S c h o o l
71 E A S T F E R R Y A V E N U E
D e t r o it , M ich ig a n
PERSONALITY RATING
09
SCHEDULE 2
Date_
Name.
R ated by.
D irections for R atin g :
Check only those statem en ts which you feel are really tru e of the child. D o n ot guess if you are not
reasonably sure. A few tru e statem en ts are b etter th an m any half-true ones.
A T T R A C T IV E N E S S O F P E R S O N A L IT Y
.U nusually happy disposition.
.N early always smiling.
-Smile lights up his whole face.
.H as a contagious laugh.
-Almost always seems unhappy.
.Alm ost never laughs or smiles.
.E xtrem ely disagreeable m anner.
-Has an unusually good sense of humor.
.H as a fairly good sense of humor.
-Has a way of m aking an appeal with
his eyes.
H as a pleasing m anner of speech.
-Thoughtful of others.
-Sym pathetic nature.
.Inconsiderate of others.
.N o t affectionate.
.E xtrem ely selfish.
.M oderately selfish.
-Polite.
.Rude.
.M ischievous.
.B rave when hurt.
.Very babyish when hurt.
.T ruthful.
.Very persistent.
.Gives u p readily.
.M akes excuses.
.Seldom cries.
.A good sport.
.A poor sport.
.Dom ineering.
-Deceptive.
-Impulsive.
.Very variable.
-Very stable.
.Rough and ready.
.Forgiving nature.
.Very quarrelsom e.
.Very stubborn.
.W anders around aimlessly.
.Self-conscious.
-Nervous in m anner, overtalkative,
over-anxious, etc.
.Very negativistic.
-Is on th e defensive all th e time.
-H appy-go-lucky.
-Very methodical.
-Confides in adults.
.Intelligently cooperative.
-Often shows off or acts silly.
.Repels friendly advances.
-Sulks when n o t given his own way.
.M akes pleasan t conversation with
adults.
.M akes an effort to help adults.
.Genuinely sorry when he has dis­
pleased an adult.
.Becomes too attach ed to certain
adults.
-Egotistical.
.Repressed.
-Unaffected, spontaneous, natural.
-Unpopular with other children.
-Im aginative.
.Lacks im agination.
-Adapts easily to a new situation.
-Eager to try new things.
.N ot much interested in new activities.
.Seems to have a plan for every m inute.
.Brimming over w ith ideas for activity.
.Fairly enthusiastic in work or play.
.Vivacious.
.Displays no enthusiasm in activities.
.Plays or works vigorously.
-M oderately energetic.
Passive.
.Listless.
.H aphazard m ethods of work or play.
.Extrem ely tim id physically.
-Lacks self-confidence.
T h e M e r r il l -P a l m e r S c h o o l
7t E A S T F E R R Y A V E N U E
DETROIT. MICHIGAN
PERSONALITY RATING
SCHEDULE 5
D ate.
Name.
R ated by.
D irections for R atin g :
Check only those statem en ts which you feel are really true of th e child. D o n o t guess if you are
not reasonably sure. A few tru e statem en ts are b etter th a n m any half-true ones.
PH YSICA L ATTRACTIVENESS
-Good body proportions.
.Poor body proportions.
-Serious deform ity.
-Legs bowed.
.W ell-shaped head.
-Peculiarly shaped head.
-Very wide forehead.
.Very long neck.
-Very short, thick neck.
.Features strikingly beautiful.
.B eautiful features.
.O rdinary features.
.Hom ely features.
.Repulsive features.
.Square jaw.
.Very prom inent cheek-bones.
.B road nose.
.Very long face.
.Very th in lips.
-Very th ick lips.
.P rotru d in g chin.
.Receding chin.
.Crooked teeth.
.Face badly scarred.
.U nusually pleasant facial expression.
.U nusually disagreeable facial expres­
sion.
.Exceptionally beautiful eyes.
.Expressive eyes.
-Very large eyes.
-O rdinary eyes.
-Eyes seem too far apart.
.Very sm all eyes.
.Eyes seem too close together.
.Eyes slightly crossed.
..Expressionless eyes.
..Exceptionally beautiful hair.
..Hair is n e a t and clean.
..Care of hair is neglected.
..Hair extrem ely u n attractiv e.
..Beautiful, sm ooth skin.
..Coarse skin.
.Skin n o t clear.
.Sallow complexion.
.Rosy cheeks.
.Looks very healthy.
.Very th in and em aciated.
.Stands erect.
.Seems to have poor posture.
.W alks w ith ease and grace.
-Has a peculiar walk.
.Soft, musical voice.
.Soft, musical laugh.
.O rdinary speaking voice.
.H arsh voice.
-Loud, harsh laugh.
.W hining voice.
.Very attractiv e clothes.
.M eticulously n eat about clothes.
.W ears ordinary clothes.
-Clothes do n o t fit well.
-Very un tid y about clothes.
.Body and clothes usually clean.
.Hands, face, and neck usually clean.
.H ands and face usually dirty.
.Usually has a d irty neck.
.Body seldom clean.
.Nose is usually running.
.Body always has an offensive odor.
94
fast
fh© test of ©onstimetlvew&Mfmatlvwziwss was
designed to limit to© child* a activity to destructive
©r o©n«brueiiv© behavior«
fh© material a consisted of
tea ©©par©to unite of toys* two male dolls, two female
dolls, two dogs, two houses, two chairs, two cub©
buildings, two- towers, two tables, two automobiles,
and two beds#
fhe toys used in toe present study
were patterned after those used by Ackerman (1 } with
to© cm© except ion that the present study used brightly
painted toys, while Ackerman used a natural wood finish#
fh© toys were painted to add to their interest value
for the children*
Bash toy was made of parts that were
easily put together#
the ten separate play units were set up on
toe floor in a circle*
Bash play unit consisted of
two partes
1 # An intact toy design assembled from sew**
oral parts#
&« m exact duplicate of the above, unassem­
bled, toe parts of which were loosely scattered
about in a disorganised maimer*
Special
was taken, when seleoting fee ehlld for
testing, to he sure he had net just been free tinted end
feet he wan willing to leave hie activity ef fee moment#
Bad fee O M M
just been frustrated in the- preschool, he
might be expected to be more destructive In hie teat
performance than under more normal oircuma fences *
fee
child, already familiar wife the experimenter, was
taken t© the room where fee toys tod been set up*
fee
experimenter then aaid t© the- ehlld, nY m see all thee©
toys,® pointing to the
ten units, HY©m
fees© toys just as yon
like#
and play as you like*®
are toplay wife
Ito may begin any place
fee adult then
sat ina c o m e r
of the room and recorded the behavior, taking ©are ap*»
p&rently to to looking at the notebook whenever fee
child glanced her way#
fee children were used to ©to
servers in fees© preschool groups and paid little atten­
tion to fee experimenter#
If fe© © M i d seemed to have
finished playing and had not yet manipulated some of
the play units, the experimenter ©aid, mBrnm fees® .* You
may play wife them also#*
if fee child said h© was
finished or seemed unwilling to play with the last units,
fee experiment was considered finished*
fens far the
procedure has followed closely feat used by Aekeman*
96
Im recording, Am'tmmm.frn method was used for the
tuanbitetlwe scale*
fhe child* a Initial behavior cm.
each of the tern Item© was recorded*
If the child ap~
proached the dog tmlt and began to construct the un~
assembled dog#'the observer recorded a d f constructive
approach on the dog Item* a© matter whet type of behav*
lor followed this initial step#
lecord was kept of the
changes from constructive to destructive and from destrue*
Cive to constructive activity cm each play unit#
fhe
rather detailed <p*UCetive recording of
on
the wutomfe of Inhibition of.,hesitation the child maul*
fasted seemed w m m m u m y with this age group and was
not recorded,*
fhe children s e w e d guite at ease and
mlnhlMbed. In the test situation#
One child remarked*
after having strewn half the units about the floor,
®¥eu d©nfI care If I break them all up, do you?11 Xn
such cases the experimenter assured the child he might
do as he wished*
Am children of three often seem do*
s tractive In their approach, the question arose whether
the child was just investigating the structure of the
objects when he was first destructive and then construe*,
tlwe#
Heoord was taken of how the child left each play
unit when he had finished the experiment#
fhus In the
97
present study two scores were obtained for each child
on tbs tom play units, an initial* approach and a final
score*
T h m & two scores were kept -separate for each
child in the study#
Minus values of
1
were given for
each initial destructive approach and a plus value for
each constructive*
Urns ■the lowest so ore a child could
receive on the initial or final searing was a minus ten
(-10) and tbe highest# a plus ten (+10)*
In ease the
child did not play with one unit, bbe so ore was based
•on the ether nine, I##*, if a child was eons tractive
on.nine Items rad refused the tenth# he was given a
score of plus nine*.
In studying the reliability and validity of
this test* Ackerman retested a number of children at
■
-\
varying intervals rad found the children Showed much
the eras behavior on the two tests# provided there
had been no alteration of their personalities by proc**
esses of normal growth# by an alteration of environ*
menfc, or by psychiatric treatment.
He does not give
any correlation of reliability for these repeated
teats*
In the present study a correlation of *76 ♦ *09
was obtained, on final a sores of ten oases that were
98
given the retest nine months later*
The initial scores
did not yield a® high a correlation, *38 ♦ #19*
In a
later article, Ackerman( 2 ) presents the results ©f
this teat on 172 cases of children from 5 to S years
of age and state® that the test differentiates the
maladjusted group from the well adjusted*
gross Motor Tests
Scores In gross motor ability were obtained
,(27)
by using two of the MeOaskill/^otor items, ascending
and descending steps and ladders*
The same steps were
used In the present study as MeC&sklll used*
The short
flight of stairs had four steps seven Inches in height
with an eleven Inch tread*
The long flight of steps
had eleven steps of the same height and tread*
The
rail on both flights of stairs was 29 Inches In height*
The subjects were given three trials on ascending end
descending both flights empty handed*
In recording
th© performance of the children, ''marking time11 meant
putting the same foot forward each time, thus placing
both feet on each step at each advance; f,smpp©rttt meant
holding to the rail or the wall while ascending or
descending*
Th® Items in th© stair climbing test are
given with their ©coring on the recording blank, (p*l00 )*
For the ladder ©limbing test two ladders were
used*
On© had twelve rungs with six Inches between the
rungs, the other six rungs twelve inches apart*
The
ladders were placed at approximately a 43 degree angle
each time*
This placement was kept constant by plac­
ing the same ladder rung against the support each time*
The Items of this test and the score weightings are given
On the recording blank*
100
Motor &Qhl&v0mont Record Blank
(Two like performances out of three trials awarded score)
Ascending L&rg® ladder
(
(
i
(
)
)
)
)
1
2
3
4
Mark time
Mark time
Alternate
Alternate
cautious
facility
cautious
facility
descending large ladder
t
c
(
t
i
)
)
)
i
2
3
4
Mark time
Mark time
Alternate
Alternate
cautious
facility
cautious
facility
Ascending Small Ladder
(
(
i
f
)
}
)
)
1
U
3
4
Mark time
Mark time
Alternate
Alternate
cautious
facility
cautious
facility
Descending Small Ladder
(
(
(
(
)
1
)
2
)
)
3
4
Mark- time
Mark time
Alternate
Alternate
cautious
facility
cautious
facility
Reliability
When a total of forty-six retests were given
within a week following the original test, the age range
being from twenty-seven to seventy-two month®, a corre­
lation coefficient of *98 ♦ ,004 was obtained between
the total score® of the two performances (27)*
101
Paper Putting Test
The objectives in ©boosing a fine motor test
wore to find items that th© child would enjoy at this
age level, that would not show sex different©, that
would discriminate between abilities at this age level,
and that would not correlate highly with the MoCasklll
ascending and descending stair and ladder items* Jakway*®
(21)
paper cutting test/seemed to answer these requirement*
She reports no significant difference between sexes at
these ages on this test, although girls seemed to be
slightly superior to boys#
When thirty children were
retested within two weeks ©f their original test, th©
test re-test correlation was #87, with an age range
from 33 months to 09 months#
Materials
Blunt selssors#
writer paper 4 by 0 inches#
Three pieces of heavy type­
On® piece had a straight
line drawn midway across the 4 inch diameter, one had
a letter S three Inches in height, in the center of
th© paper, and on© had a six-pointed star three inches
in diameter in the center of the paper#
black and 1/16 of an inch In width { 21)*
All lines were
1 0 2
Procedures
1# Th© © M i d was handed th© scissors and th©
paper with th© straight line down the center*
Mill© pointing to th© line, the experimentfc©r ©aid,
•Out all th© way down that lino* Stay right on
th© 11n®#n Encouragement was then given it nooos*sary*
2 * fh# © M i d was than given th© paper with
th© S, and was asked, nCan you cut right on that
bl&eS: line ?11 It necessary, he was info mood that
he might out th© paper to reach th© lino#
3* Then th© © M M was given th© star, and
told, 11low cut out this star, staying on th© lines *11
Many children Ilk© to keep their stars, to take
home* In such cases, the investigator kept th©
outside pieces for scoring*
If the child failed {!}, then {2} was not
attempted! if he failed (2), then {3) was not attempted*
Failure meant inability to stay on the line more than
SO per cent of th© time*
Straight
a* Gashes, not on line
b# Cuts on line, but more off than on
e* Gets off line, does not retrace
dm G@ta off Xin®, retraces
e* Ho errors
1
1
2
5
3
Curved line «* S
f* Gets off line, does not retrace
g+ Gets off line, retraces
h* Ho errors
3
4
4
103
Stas*
1 * (lets off Xino* does not retrace
j* Gets off line* retraces
te» lo errors
4
8
0
0
Total
As motor ages were not desired, the perform­
ance rating was kept as a raw score *
lervous Habits
In observing S3© school children, Olson ( 31}
found that habits falling within the oral category
occurred most frequently and were most predictive of
th® total
lation
score of all th® categories, i*©*» thecorre­
of oral habits with the total of theother cate­
gories of nervous behavior was *77, while the correlations
of each of th© other categories' ranged from *10 t© *69*
Olson reported an odd-even reliability of *93 for 14
ten-minute samples of school children (observing the
whole group at a time)*
Th© records of a second per­
son recording simultaneously correlated *76 with Olson 1s
observation*
Carr ( 6 ) found in her study that the- varied
activities of th© preschool child prevented on© from
104
being able to observe all the children at once*
She
observed each child for one minute a day for thirty days
and the presence or absence of an oral nervous habit
within that time sampling was recorded*
The rank-differ-
once reliability coefficient for the revised procedure*
based on the odd^even scores of 20 observations of 12
children during the experiment was *86*
Application
of th© Spearman-Brown prophecy formula increased this
correlation to *91*
Examiners
obtained a coefficient
of agreement for two observers of *90* (p. n o ) .
Failure Teat
M* E. Keister1s (25) puxsl© box test of failure
was given each subject to obtain an estimate of the
child»s reaction in the face of failure*
The combina­
tion of the else of the box and the shape of the figures
made the problem a difficult one even for an adult* yet
it had the appearance of a simple task*
Th© object of
the task was an easy one for th© child to grasp, to replac© all th© items and close th© lid*
It was something
that the child did not hesitate to begin and provided
the child with an obvious feeling of failure, for he was
unable to replace the blocks as he had just seen them#
Materlale
Th© apparatus eon© la ted of a blue lacquered
metal box 8 5/4 inches by 5 1/2 Inches and 1 1/2 inches
deep, with a hinged lid which lay just on top of th©
contents*
Th© box was so constructed that on th© in*
side it was only 1/4 inch deep#
The box contained a
series of nine figures cut from plywood 1/4 inch in
thickness*
The set of figures included a sailboat, an
airplane, a locomotive, a dog, a clock, a little girl,
a flower, a bird, and a mitten, all enameled in attrac­
tive colors*
Procedure
The test was administered to one child at a
time#
The examiner took the child to the experimental
room and seated him opposite her at a low table*
She
showed him the box and said, wSe© this little box has
locks on it and they fasten the lid down tightly#
show you what I have in th© box*”
1*11
Th© examiner opened
th© box, saying, "It is all full of little toys and
they are lying right down flat on th© bottom of th©
box**
She pressed her hand, down on th© toys to show
106
that they ware all lying flat#
fhe examiner then re-
mar ad the bleaks from the box and soar ©read with the
child about the various, forms«
in a moment she ©aid*
“Mow ***«*# you put the blocks back in the box just as
quickly as you ©an, and then fasten the lid#
You will
have to lay them ear©fully all flat on the bottom or
else the lid will not look#
When you get them all put
away you may see the toys X have put sway**
(X'hea©
latter were toys to regain rapport when the test was
completed*}
fh® examiner began timing the child from
the moment he placed the first block in the box#
2>ur*
ing the first minute she said# “You will have to make
a space for each one of the bottom of the box#11 During
the seventh minute she said# “When you get the toys
laid in and the lid locked# you will still have time to
play with the toys in the other box#*
During the twelfth
minute th© child was warned# *fh© time is almost up# —
You have only a little more time to get all the blocks
in#
see if you ean*t do It now**
If the child left any figures out and attempted
to close the lid# or piled any figure® on top of one
another# or merely sat# holding a block# the examiner
said# “Mow you just have to find a place for the
to go# w or# “How you just have to make a space for the
±oh
the dllli was given fifteen minutes in feleh
to solve the problem*
If at martin# during the fifteen
minutes the child solved the problem and succeeded in
loeking the lid with all the objects within the box he
was given ether toys to play with#
if he wee wasueeese*
ful, at the end of the fifteen minutes the examiner <
said, **¥hm time ia up now**~*
try to get the blocks in*
there1# no more time to
We *11 have to put the box
and blocks away now**1 She took the box and. the blocks
from the. child and planed them out of his reach*
in a
moment she said* n¥ou tried hard so I am going to let
you play with these little toys**
from the other box#
.She produced a toy
If the child had obviously not
been trying hard, the examiner said, wBew would you
like to play with this little toy^w
in all oases, and particularly in oases where
the child had become badly upset during the experiment*
al period, the examiner carefully reestablished rapport
with the child before taking him from the experimental
room#
She played wife him, looked at a picture book
wife him, or read him a story*
A record was kept of the child9s performance
in terms of overt behavior#
Wife fee aid of a stop
watch fee observer recorded the behavior in the half*
minute in Which It occurred*
record blank*
see "page 111 for a sample
A check was made for any of the follow*
ing It mas feat occurred any half-minute} mo overt at*
tempt to solve, attempts to solve alone, asks another
to solve, asks help, destructive behavior, stops try­
ing, succeeds, rationalises, dissipates, postponement,
shifts respomsibllity, and blames self or others #
Fur­
ther description of overt behavior was recorded each
half minute as manifestations of anger, whines, cries,
no manifestations of anger, sulks, and yells*
fee present study was unable to use fee scor­
ing method developed by Keister (25) and Goodman (14),
for they classed feelr subjects into groups rather
than giving individual raw scores*
As the test seemed
to obtain information on two types of behavior in fee
face of failure, fee two categories, constructive and
emotional were kept separate in the present study*
One score was obtained by subtracting fee number of
half-minutes the child spent In non-cons tractive
109
attempts to solve the tost from the number of half*
minutes be spent In constructive behavior*
MAttempts
to solve alone11 were considered constructive, and * m
over attempts to solve,” ttasks another to solve,” etc*
were considered non-eonstractive *
Thus tbe score of
©caastractive behavior might range from -SO to *30*
& e second score involved emotional manifestations of
behavior*
Thi® score was obtained by baking the num­
ber of half minutes .the child spent In showing no man­
ifestation of emotional behavior from the number of
half-minutes that were spent in manifestations of anger,
crying, whining, at©*
hike the constructive score,
the range for the emotional Indew was from -SO to *80*
1?hese two scores were not combined because it seemed
that the emotional Items were m o t less objective in
nature and would probably show loss agreement between
observers than would the constructive scores#
fh# tests constituted apparently valid and
reliable measure® of the responses of the joung chil­
dren to failure, as shown by a correlation of *78 be­
tween a test and retest in differentiating groups of
subjects who showed Immature responses, and a rela-
1±0
tion®hlp of #86 between the tests and fee teacher rs
ratings of behavior maturity in fee face of failure*
fee psyehometrlats of fee Iowa Child Welfare Research
Station obtained a coefficient of observer agreement
for the constructive score as *92 and on 240 Items of
emotional behavior as *98#
Expe rimental
Situation
Eeister-Form 1
November 1935
IOWA CHILD WELFARE RESEARCH STATION
1X 1
Observation Blank: — Failure Situations
Child*s Name
Age______ Gr oup________
Recorder
Date
Total Time
Experomental Situation:
Overt Behavior in
Attempts to Solve
No overt attempt
Attempts to solve akn i
Asks another to solve
Asks help
Destructive behavior
Stops trying
Succeeds
Rationalizes
Indifference
Distaste
Postponement
Shift of responsi­
bility
Blame
Other
Running Account of Verbalizations:
Time Interval
Further
Description of
Overt Behavior
112
axsuMtttrar
X# Ackerman, H« W*« Constructive and destructive tend­
encies 1b children# Amer* J* Orthopsyohlat *,
1937, 7, 301-319
2* Ackerman, H* W#$ Constructive and destructive tendencies
In children* An experimental study* Amer* J *
Or thopsychlat*, 1938, 8, 263*885*
3# Almaok, John C*t Tkm influence of intelligence on the
selection of associates* School & So©*,
1922, 16, 529*530#
4* Chinas, F* 0*s A study in youthful friendships* Fed#
Sem* 1902, 9, 881-236* ■"
5* Burks, B* S«i fhe relative influence of nature sad
nurture on mental development. 27th Year
Book, Bat* So©# Stud* Edue* * 1922 Fart I,
219-521*
6 * Carr, Virginias fhs social and emotional changes In
a group of highly intelligent children dur­
ing a program of increased educational
stimulation*. Master of Arts thesis, Univer­
sity of Iowa, 1938*
7* Challman, R# C* * Factors Influencing friendships among
preschool children* Child Develop., 1932,
3, 146-158*
8 * Chevaleva-Janovskaja, E*s lea groupaments spontanea
d*enfants a il’age preaehoolair©, Arch* Psychol.,
1927, 20, 219-233*
9# Dexter, Emily S*i What constitutes campus popularity,
School Sc So©*, 1926, 23, 658-760*
10* Healey, 0*i A study of teacher*© ratings of the attrac­
tiveness of personality and physical attrac­
tiveness of nursery school children* MerrillPalmer School Unpublished Study* 1933.
Accepted as a thesis for the degree of Master
of Arts, Wayne, University*
113
XI*. Flemming* B* -0*1 Beet friends, J f Soc* Psychol*, 1932,
8, X3S5—X B90 *
IE* Purfey, f>* S.* Some fee tore Influencing the selection
of boys1 chums* Appl* Psychol., 192*7, 11,
47—81 *
13* Oressi, E* H* s Friendships and quarrels emong preschool
children* Child OeveXep*, 1933, 4, 237-282.
14* Ooodman, M#s The effect of braining children to face
difficult situations* Master of Arts thesis,
University of Iowa, August,'1938*
13* Ha^san, Elisabeth P*s A study of companionship among
preschool children, Univ. lows Stud*, Stud*
in Child Welfare, 1933, -.Mo*. 4, <*»■♦ 09.
18* Hardy, Martha 0«$ Social recognition of the element
tary school age,■J* See* fsyehol*, 1987,
8 , 308*384*
17* Haufmann, E*f Social structure* of groups of kinderten children* Arner# J. Orthopsyohlat*,
far
988, 8, 407-410*
18* Hftlft, Julp Ohlngs A study of the sociability of ele­
mentary school children* Teach* Coll*,
Columbia UmXv*, Cont* to E&uc•, 1928, Ho*
8.22, Pp. 1-04*
10* Hubbard, Huth M*t A method for studying spontaneous
format! one * Child develop* Monog*,
froup
929, Ho* 1, 70-88*
2Q* Hunter, B* 0* and Jordan, A* H*t An analysis of
qualities associated with leaders among
college students* J* Hduc« Psychol*, 1930,
30, 497-309*
21* Jakway, X* A*: Manual of achievements of preschool
children, Unpublished Master of Art® thesis,
University of Iowa, 1938*
22* Jenkins, Oladys 0*« Factors Involved in children*®
friendships. J. Edue* Psychol., 1931, 22,
440-448*
114
33* Jennings, Helens Structure of leadersMp— develop­
ment and sphere of influence» Soclometry,
1987, 1, Ho* 11 & 2, 99-143*
24* M t i | Harold B** A first study of parent-child
resemblances. ‘
Twenty seventh Tear Book,
Hat* See* Stud* Bduo*, 1928, Parti, 61-72*
S3* Keister, M* K#* The behavior of young children in
failure* Bniv* of Iowa Stud*, Stud* in
Child Welfare, Stud* in preschool E&uc*,
Jan*, 1937, 14, 29-82*
26* Koch, M*t Popularity In preschool children* Child
develop*, 1084, 4, 164-173* ;
27* MeCaokill, C* l>*i A study of common motor achieve­
ments at the preschool age* Master of Arts
thesis, June, 1236*
28* Monroe, Will &«-» Social consciousness In children,
Psychol*, Hew*, 1808, 5, 68*70*
29* Moreno, J» &#t Who shall survive? A new approach.
to the problem of human relations* nervous
Mont* Pis* Monog* Her*., 1984, Mo* S3*
30* Hutting, Euth« Borne characteristics of leadership*
School & Soc*, 1932, 18, 887-890*
31* Olson, Willard 0*t The measure of nervous-habits
in normal children* Minneapolis, Minn*?
University of Minnesota Press, 1990, Pp.
xli, 97*
32* Par ten, M* 8«t Leadership among preschool children*
J* Soc* 8 Abnorrsu Psychol*, 1938, 87, 430440*
.
■■
'c,*
.
38* Farten, M* B*j Social participation among preschool*
J* Abnor* Psychol*, 1983, 27, 248-860*
34* partridge, E* B«x A study of friendships among adoles­
cent boys, J* Oenet* Psychol*, 1988, 43, 472477*
115
88* Pellettieri, A-,- J*t Factors involved la friendshipmaking' among adolescent boys* Washvllle,
Author ,1938*
88* Flntner, R*, Forland, 0*. and Freeman, H*s Personal­
ity and attltudinal .:. similarity among
classroom friends* J* Appl* Psychol*, 1987,
21,. 46—68 #
57* Richardson, H* n*t Studies of .mental resemblances.
between husbands -and"wives and between friends*
Psychol* Bull*, 1950, 36, 104-120*
38# Roberts, K* E# and. Ball, Stutsmans A study of per­
sonality among young children by means of
a series of rating, scales* J* Genet* Psychol*
1956, *8, 70i 79-149*
89* Baluaky, A# .ft**}GoXleotiv© behavior of children at
a preschool age* J# Soc* Psychol*, I960,
1 , .367-867*
40* M a g * , May ¥#« Factors influencing the selection of
associates# «f* Bine* Has*, 1088-1984, 87,
88-84*
41* Thomas, W* F* and young, P* T*i hiking and disliking
persons, J* Boo* Psychol*, 1*88, 9, 169-168*
42* Thompson, B* M*s Motor achievement as a factor in
social acceptability of preschool children*
Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, university
of Iowa*.
45* Thurston©, L* 1* and Chav©, E* J*i The measurement
of attitude, Chicagoi university of Chicago
Press*.1029, Pp*.vXl, 98*
44* Tsui, W* 1.** Motor achievement'©f preschool children#
Master of Arts thesis, University of Iowa,
August, 1937#
45* Updegr&ff, H# et alt Practice in the preschool* Hew
Yorki McGraw-Hill Book Go*, Inc*, 1988,
Pp.xvl, 408#
116
46* Warner* H« I»*e Phelnfluenee of mental level In the
formation of gangs* 3* Appl. Psychol.*
1**0, 7, 284*236,
47. Wellman* Beth* ffae school child* s choice of companions.
jr. Bduo. Rea,, 1926* 14* 126*192.
48* william#, Peal S.t A study of adolescent friendships*
Pod, Sesu* 1932* 30* 342*346.
49. Zilllg* 38.t Schalfruendinner [School girl friendships1.
Sts* Peyehol., 1939* 146* 236*262*
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
0
Размер файла
8 151 Кб
Теги
sdewsdweddes
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа