10 1037@a0019816 PDF

Developmental Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 46, No. 4, 773–790 0012-1649/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019816
Transactional Analysis of the Reciprocal Links Between Peer Experiences

and Academic Achievement From Middle Childhood to Early Adolescence
Marie-Hélène Véronneau and Frank Vitaro Mara Brendgen

Université de Montréal Université du Québec à Montréal
Thomas J. Dishion Richard E. Tremblay

University of Oregon Université de Montréal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This study tested a transactional model of reciprocal influences regarding students’ peer experiences
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(peer acceptance, peer rejection, and friends’ academic achievement) and students’ academic achieve-
ment from middle childhood to early adolescence. This longitudinal model was tested on 452 students
(198 girls), mostly Caucasian and French speaking, who were assessed yearly from Grades 2 through 7.
Structural equation models revealed that, for boys and for girls, higher academic achievement predicted
(a) increases in peer acceptance from Grades 2 through 6, (b) decreases in peer rejection from Grades 2
through 4 (through Grade 5 for girls), and (c) increases in friends’ achievement from Grades 4 through
7. Also, rejection predicted decreases in academic achievement from Grades 3 through 5. These results
suggest that academic achievement is a good predictor of peer group status in middle childhood and that
high-achieving students start selecting each other as friends as they enter early adolescence. These data also
suggest that peer rejection in childhood may disrupt future academic achievement. Possible mediating
mechanisms, as well as peer selection and influences in the context of social development, are discussed.
Keywords: peer relations, friendship, social acceptance, academic achievement, transactional analysis
Development of good academic skills and formation of positive Horsey, 1997; Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000;
peer relationships are critical milestones of successful negotiation Véronneau, Vitaro, Pedersen, & Tremblay, 2008). On the other
of the middle childhood period. On the one hand, academic skills hand, development of positive relationships with other students
in the elementary school years predict later academic achievement and avoidance of rejection by one’s peer group are prognostic of
and psychosocial adjustment in adulthood (Alexander, Entwisle, & several positive outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood
(Nelson & Dishion, 2004; Parker & Asher, 1987; Parker, Rubin,
Price, & DeRosier, 1995; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). In
this study, we explored the hypothesis that positive peer experi-
Marie-Hélène Véronneau, Department of Psychology and Research Unit on ences and academic achievement are more than just correlated
Children’s Psychosocial Maladjustment, Université de Montréal, Montréal, indexes of general youth adjustment (Dishion, 1990). We proposed
Québec, Canada; Frank Vitaro, School of Psychoeducation and Research Unit
that they are reciprocally connected to the extent that positive
on Children’s Psychosocial Maladjustment, Université de Montréal; Mara
Brendgen, Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal,
adjustment in both domains is potentially interdependent and syn-
Montréal, Québec, Canada, and Research Unit on Children’s Psychosocial ergistic, whereas failure in one domain would have cascading
Maladjustment, Université de Montréal; Thomas J. Dishion, Child and Family negative effects on the other domain.
Center, University of Oregon; Richard E. Tremblay, Department of Psychol- Reviews of the literature on the relationship between peer ex-
ogy, Department of Pediatrics, and Research Unit on Children’s Psychosocial periences and academic achievement suggest several developmen-
Maladjustment, Université de Montréal. tal models to explain the significant relationships between aca-
This paper derived from Marie-Hélène Véronneau’s doctoral disserta-
demic achievement and peer relationships (Parker & Asher, 1987;
tion. Its preparation was made possible by a doctoral and a postdoctoral
fellowship awarded to Marie-Hélène Véronneau by the Social Sciences and
Véronneau & Vitaro, 2007; Wentzel, 2005), and one of the most
Humanities Research Council of Canada and by a doctoral fellowship from compelling is the transactional model. This model implies that peer
the Sainte-Justine Hospital Foundation and the Foundation for Research experiences and academic achievement are mutually influential
Into Children’s Diseases. Special thanks to principals, teachers, and parents over time. The idea that individual characteristics and environmen-
who gave their authorization for this study and to participating students. tal factors change over time through an endless series of mutual
We also wish to acknowledge the work of Jacqueline Langlois in preparing influences is, itself, far from new (Cicchetti, 1993; Sameroff,
and managing the data and of Cheryl Mikkola for her editorial assistance
1975). In a recent discussion about using the transactional frame-
in the preparation of this paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marie-
work as a conceptual tool to guide developmental research, Samer-
Hélène Véronneau, who is now at the Child and Family Center, University of off and MacKenzie (2003) added some nuance by introducing the
Oregon, 195 West 12th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401. E-mail: mariev@ idea that specific aspects of the environmental context may either
uoregon.edu gain or lose power as individuals go through different develop-
773
774 VÉRONNEAU, VITARO, BRENDGEN, DISHION, AND TREMBLAY
mental periods. The use of “stage-specific” transactional models to Brownell, 2003). There is evidence that high-achieving children
guide empirical developmental research is relevant to our research tend to affiliate with high-achieving friends and that, in turn,
question, because it will help determine whether the interplay affiliation with high-achieving friends predicts an increase in chil-
between different types of peer experiences and academic achieve- dren’s own academic achievement over time (Wentzel, 2005).
ment varies across different developmental periods (i.e., from However, in contrast with transactional links relevant to peer
middle childhood to early adolescence). experiences at the group level, the transactional links between
Stage-specific transactional models have apparently not yet participants’ academic achievement and friends’ academic
found their way into developmental research on the associations achievement are likely to become stronger in early adolescence
between peer experiences and academic achievement. One likely than they were in middle childhood. This notion acknowledges that
reason is that only longitudinal studies that include multiple mea- adolescents tend to have more freedom to choose their own friends
surements over more than one developmental period can help in and to spend more time alone with them than do younger children,
examining changes in such associations across different stages of which increases the potential for mutual influence (Larson &
development. Until now, only a few studies have examined the Richards, 1991; Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett,
reciprocal links between peer experiences and academic achieve- 1996; Mayseless, Wiseman, & Hai, 1998).
ment over time (X. Chen, Chang, Liu, & He, 2008; X. Chen, Group-level experiences and dyadic experiences could relate in
Rubin, & Li, 1997; Mercer & DeRosier, 2008; Schwartz, Gorman, unique ways to children’s and adolescents’ academic achievement
Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005; Welsh, Parke, Widaman, & O’Neil, through different inter- and intraindividual mechanisms. Figure 1
2001), and to our knowledge, no study has allowed for a test of presents a summary of these possible mediating mechanisms, and
developmental differences based on assessments made over dif- more detailed explanations are provided below.
ferent developmental periods. Our goal in this study was therefore
to use a stage-specific transactional model as a tool to investigate Peer Acceptance
how the links between peer experiences and academic achieve-
ment may differ over two developmental periods, that is, through- Higher peer acceptance has been linked to academic achieve-
out middle childhood and early adolescence, from Grade 2 through ment in several cultures, especially in elementary school-age chil-
Grade 7. dren (O’Neil, Welsh, Parke, Wang, & Strand, 1997) but also in
young adolescents (X. Chen et al., 1997; Hatzichristou & Hopf,
Transactions Between Peer Experiences and Academic 1996). Higher peer acceptance may lead to higher academic
Achievement achievement through mechanisms such as increased school be-
longing and motivation, instrumental aid from the most competent
Peer experiences can be classified into two broad categories: peers, and enhanced self-worth (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1993;
“group experiences” and “dyadic experiences” (Bukowski & Furman & Robbins, 1985; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Wentzel, 2005;
Hoza, 1989; Parker, Rubin, Erath, Wojslawowicz, & Buskirk, Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). In turn, higher achieving students in
2006; Rubin et al., 2006). The first category of peer experiences the elementary grades have been shown to improve their level of
refers to social status within the larger peer group. Two common acceptance in the peer group (Coie & Krehbiel, 1984), perhaps
indicators of peer group relations are peer acceptance, which refers because they are viewed as helpful partners for cooperative school
to the extent to which other children hold positive views and tasks or because of teachers’ explicit praise and liking. Teachers’
feelings about a particular child, and peer rejection, which refers to positive reactions toward high-achieving students may be espe-
the extent to which other children hold negative views and feelings cially important in shaping children’s opinions about classmates in
about a particular child (Bukowski, Sippola, Hoza, & Newcomb, the early school grades, when children are more susceptible to
2000). Peer acceptance and peer rejection are relatively indepen- being influenced by adults’ opinions. High achievement may also
dent dimensions that should be distinguished in the context of promote positive school attitude and self-esteem and thus make
empirical research; some children may indeed receive large num- well-achieving students agreeable companions.
bers of both positive and negative nominations from peers, and Some empirical and theoretical work also suggests that the
both seem to make unique contributions to child adjustment association between peer acceptance and academic achievement
(Bukowski, Pizzamiglio, Newcomb, & Hoza, 1996). Transactional may be stronger among girls than among boys. For instance, a
relationships between academic achievement and group-level peer review by Rose and Rudolph (2006) revealed that girls are more
experiences such as peer rejection and peer acceptance can be inclined to seek support from their peers. As such, being well liked
expected to be especially strong during middle childhood, when a in one’s group of peers may be more beneficial for girls’ academic
major social concern of children is integration into their peer group achievement, because girls are typically more inclined to use their
(Buhrmester & Furman, 1986; Parker et al., 2006; Sullivan, 1953). social resources than are boys. Also, Francis and Skelton (2005)
Status in the peer group may thus be particularly influential for explained that, according to the social constructivist perspective,
students’ adjustment, including students’ academic achievement girls may be more motivated to enact behaviors conducive to
between ages 7 and 10. Children’s perceptions of peers are also higher academic achievement, such as obedience and diligence,
likely to be more susceptible to adults’ influences, including teach- because such “typically feminine” behaviors could help them gain
ers’ and parents’ valuing of high academic achievement (Youniss social approval by their peer group and by society in general. In
& Smollar, 1985), at that age than later on. High academic line with these theoretical speculations, Wentzel and Caldwell
achievement may thus work to increase students’ peer status. (1997) found a positive relationship between peer acceptance in
The second category of peer experiences, dyadic relationships, Grade 6 and academic achievement in Grades 7 and 8 among girls
usually refers to children’s friendships (Gifford-Smith & but not among boys. However, O’Neil et al. (1997) found that
PEER EXPERIENCES AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 775
Figure 1. Summary of the mechanisms that may mediate the associations between different types of peer
experiences and academic achievement.
popular kindergarteners of both genders had higher levels of when these goals and values are largely shared by teachers and
mathematic achievement in Grade 2 than did any other sociometric students.
group. A study comparing the importance of peer acceptance for The association between peer rejection and school achievement
boys’ and girls’ academic achievement across childhood and early might also differ between boys and girls. On the one hand, boys
adolescence, such as the one described in this article, would help could be more emotionally affected by peer rejection because they
resolve these discrepant findings. care more about being popular than girls do (LaFontana & Cil-
lessen, 2010). This emotional reaction to rejection may in turn
affect their academic achievement. On the other hand, because
Peer Rejection girls tend to do better in school than boys do (Francis & Skelton,
2005), lower academic achievement may lead to higher levels of
Peer rejection (or low social preference, defined by a compound
ostracism by the peer group for failing to meet gender expecta-
score of positive and negative peer nominations) has been related
tions.
to decreases in academic achievement in elementary school stu-
dents (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006; DeRosier, Kupersmidt, &
Patterson, 1994; Mercer & DeRosier, 2008), as well as in early Friendships
adolescents (DeRosier et al., 1994; Mikami & Hinshaw, 2006).
The mediators of this relationship may include decreased school The simple presence of friends does not seem to be linked to
interest and academic self-perception, increased internalizing and positive changes in academic functioning in middle childhood and
externalizing symptoms, increased negative behavior and attitudes adolescence (Kingery & Erdley, 2007; Wentzel, Barry, & Cald-
from the teacher, peer abuse, peer exclusion, and subsequent well, 2004; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). However, studies con-
school avoidance and lack of school participation (Buhs, 2005; ducted at the transition from childhood to early adolescence
Buhs et al., 2006; DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009; (Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999; Schwartz, Gorman, Dodge, Pettit,
Dodge et al., 2003; Flook, Repetti, & Ullman, 2005; Klima & & Bates, 2008) suggest that, depending on their personal charac-
Repetti, 2008; Ladd, Herald-Brown, & Reiser, 2008; Mercer & teristics, friends can have either a positive or a negative influence
DeRosier, 2008; Sandstrom, 2004; Wentzel & Asher, 1995). In on one another. Of particular relevance to this study, affiliation
turn, teachers’ negative attitude toward failing students (Taylor, with better adjusted friends appears to contribute to students’
1989) and the development of a negative attitude toward school or academic adjustment in the late elementary and middle school
the rejection of academic goals and values by failing students years (Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2005; Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Cook,
(Finn, 1989) could explain the link from low academic achieve- Deng, & Morgano, 2007; Véronneau et al., 2008; Vitaro, Brend-
ment to higher peer rejection, especially during middle childhood, gen, & Wanner, 2005; Woolley, Kol, & Bowen, 2009). Several
mechanisms could underlie the association between friendships limits on our understanding of the social and intellectual develop-
and academic achievement. Working with friends who function ment of children and adolescents. Do the three types of peer
well in school can make cooperative schoolwork more engaging experiences each play a unique and nonredundant role in this
and promote the development of cognitive skills, especially in model? Do peer experiences and academic achievement tend to
students who reach a level of cognitive and social maturity that predict each other, or does one of these variables stand out as the
allows them to exchange and compare ideas with their friends and main predictor in the model? Are the associations between peer
work through sociocognitive conflicts together (Newcomb & Bag- experiences and academic achievement consistent from middle
well, 1995; Piaget, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978). High-achieving friends childhood throughout early adolescence, or are there clear devel-
may be positive peer models from whom students learn efficient opmental changes in the pattern of associations?
study and coping skills and school-appropriate behaviors. These This study was an attempt to provide answers to these questions.
friends can help facilitate the internalization of positive learning Our first goal in this study was to test the validity of a transactional
goals and provide positive feedback, both of which help students model (Cicchetti, 1993; Sameroff, 1975; Sameroff & MacKenzie,
build high self-esteem and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989; Bissell- 2003) as an explanation for the intercorrelations between peer
Havran & Loken, 2009; Furman & Robbins, 1985; Wentzel, 2005; experiences and academic achievement during middle childhood
Wentzel et al., 2004). High-achieving friends can provide verbal and early adolescence. Although the idealized model in which peer
and nonverbal reinforcement of attitudes and behaviors that are experiences and academic achievement are part of a long chain of
necessary for academic success and can be targets for social uninterrupted reciprocal influences spanning the entire length of a
comparison that encourage students to adopt higher academic student’s academic career is appealing, the reality is unlikely to be
standards (Berndt, 1999; Huguet, Dumas, Monteil, & Genestoux, so simple. Instead, a stage-specific transactional model may be a
2001; Kindermann, 1993). In turn, as past research suggests, more realistic way to describe children’s social and academic
higher levels of academic achievement may precede affiliation development across middle childhood and early adolescence. The
with high-achieving peers. High school students who value aca- second goal was to test for the relative contribution of different
demic success appear to be more attracted to peers who stay types of peer experiences to academic achievement. It seems that
focused on academic tasks, and this preference provides an oppor- peer rejection and acceptance by classmates at the group level and
tunity for mutual help in developing academic skills (Hamm, friends’ academic achievement at the dyadic level may all make
2000). They might also choose friends who can provide academic unique and independent contributions to students’ academic
help and support (Furman & Robbins, 1985; Kindermann, 1993). achievement, but there may also be some overlap in the contribu-
In other words, high-achieving students may seek to maintain or tions of group-level experiences and friends’ characteristics
improve their academic results by building a network of similarly (Vitaro, Pedersen, & Brendgen, 2007). The risk of finding third-
high-achieving friends through selection processes (Kandel, 1978). variable effects in models that omit one of these theoretically
Conversely, high achievers may themselves provide academic important predictors is high; in consequence, both levels of peer
support to their friends, who consequently might improve their experiences must be considered in the same study to capture their
grades. Secondary school students may be more aware of and unique roles.
deliberate in their friendship choices in this regard, but such Taking into account these two main study goals, we hypothe-
homophilic tendencies have also been observed in elementary sized that transactional links would emerge between academic
school students (Cobb, 1972). achievement and group-level peer variables and that these links
Past studies have not identified significant gender differences in should be stronger during middle childhood than during early
the peer socialization processes leading to positive school out- adolescence. We also hypothesized that transactional links be-
comes (e.g., achievement, involvement) among well-adjusted tween participants’ academic achievement and friends’ academic
friends (Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2005; Berndt & Keefe, 1995; achievement would emerge but that they would likely be stronger
Cook et al., 2007). Still, girls tend to be more prosocial than boys in early adolescence than in middle childhood. The review of
are in the context of their interactions with friends (Coie, Dodge, previous work presented in this section also suggests that there are
& Coppotelli, 1982; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Romano, Tremblay, theoretical reasons, and in some cases empirical evidence, to
Boulerice, & Swisher, 2005). In consequence, we might expect anticipate that the relationship between each type of peer experi-
that girls would benefit more from their associations with high- ence and academic achievement could be moderated by gender. In
achieving friends, or contribute more to their friends’ academic particular, we hypothesized that girls would be more likely than
achievement, than would boys. boys to experience peer rejection if they showed lower academic
achievement, because of the stronger social pressures put on fe-
Limitations of Previous Research and Presentation of male students to do well in school. We expected, however, that
This Study boys would be more likely to encounter academic problems fol-
lowing peer rejection, because their social life usually is organized
The existence of reciprocal associations between students’ peer around group-based activities and interactions, so the mediating
experiences and students’ academic achievement seems plausible, mechanisms linking peer rejection and academic achievement may
but, judging from the theoretical and empirical work reviewed be more easily activated in boys than in girls. Also, girls were
earlier in this article, such a transactional model has never been put hypothesized to obtain greater academic benefits from peer accep-
to an empirical test. In fact, the failure to include peer acceptance, tance and from friendships with high-achieving peers than boys do,
peer rejection, and friends’ characteristics simultaneously within because prosocial behaviors are a more important part of peer
the same study, as well as the failure to gather longitudinal data interactions for girls than for boys. That is, girls who are deprived
spanning more than one developmental period, imposes serious of peer support for schoolwork as a result of low peer acceptance
or problems with friends may have more to lose in terms of attended the same secondary school in Grade 7. Class size was
academic achievement than boys do. consistent across all years, as there were about 24 students per
The transactional model tested in our study is presented in classroom and never more than 30. The student composition of
Figure 2. It includes six data points for the main variables, sepa- each class remained the same within any given school year and did
rated by 1-year intervals, covering the period from Grade 2 not change for different academic subjects. No tracking system based
through Grade 7. Although the associations between peer experi- on students’ academic achievement was implemented in the targeted
ences and academic achievement were the main focus in this schools. The majority of the children (92%) were European Canadian.
research, it is important to acknowledge that preexisting individual In Grade 1, 80% of the children were from intact families with both
and social characteristics of the participants may help explain biological parents, 7% lived in blended family households, 12% lived
individual differences in these variables at the first time of mea- in single-parent households (predominantly with their mothers), and
surement. Therefore, family socioeconomic status (SES), which is 1% lived in other family configurations. At the end of the study, 75%
a reliable predictor of academic achievement (Davis-Kean, 2005), of the families were intact. Details about participants’ SES are pro-
and participants’ disruptiveness, which in past studies has been vided in the Measures subsection of this article.
associated with negative peer and school adjustment (e.g., Gra-
Because complete data on all assessments were not necessary

ham, Bellmore, & Mize, 2006; Risi, Gerhardstein, & Kistner,

for testing the model (as explained in the Model Testing subsec-
2003), were included in the model.
tion), all 452 participants who provided valid data on at least one
of the four measures at the first point of data collection for the
Method main study variables (in Grade 2) were included in the main
analyses. On average, out of the six waves of data collection, we
Participants had five valid measures of peer acceptance and peer rejection, four
The target population initially included all students in regular valid measures of academic achievement for the participants, and
first-grade classrooms in any of the eight French-speaking, public three valid measures of academic achievement for participants’
elementary schools located in a small town (population 22,000) in friends. However, some of the processes studied here (such as
the province of Québec, Canada. The 452 children (198 girls, 254 changes in peer acceptance and rejection over time) were hypothe-
boys) who participated in this study were in Grade 1 (mean age ⫽ sized to be shaped in part by repetitive interactions occurring within
7.08 years, SD ⫽ 0.48) at the first time of assessment and in Grade a relatively stable peer group during an extended period of time.
7 (mean age ⫽ 13.08 years; SD ⫽ 0.48) at the last time of Therefore, we also created a “stable” subsample that was used to
assessment. In Québec, the transition to secondary school occurs replicate the results of this study. This stable subsample included 207
between Grade 6 and Grade 7, which corresponds to the last participants (100 girls, 107 boys) for whom at least four out of six data
interval in this study. Because of the small size of the town where points were available for the main variables (i.e., academic achieve-
the study took place, students from all eight elementary schools ment as well as dyadic and group-level peer experiences data).
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7
Accep- Accep- Accep- Accep- Accep- Accep-

tance tance tance tance tance tance
Rejec- Rejec- Rejec- Rejec- Rejec- Rejec-
tion tion tion tion tion tion
Distruptiveness
Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s

academic academic academic academic academic academic
achievement achievement achievement achievement achievement achievement
Family SES
Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’

achievement achievement achievement achievement achievement achievement
Figure 2. Transactional model tested in the current study. Dotted lines were used to represent the paths from
rejection to participants’ academic achievement to enhance visibility. The following paths were included in the
model but are not depicted in the figure to enhance clarity: correlations among concurrent measures (i.e., peer
acceptance, peer rejection, participants’ academic achievement, and friends’ academic achievement as measured
in the same grade level); stability paths over 2-year intervals for peer acceptance, peer rejection, and participants’
academic achievement; and direct links from control variables assessed in Grade 1 to the main variables assessed
in Grade 2. SES ⫽ socioeconomic status.
Measures continuous score of peer acceptance. The same procedure was

performed with negative nominations, yielding a continuous score
All instruments were administered in French. Instruments that
of peer rejection. This measure was administered every year from
were originally in English were translated into French and then
Grade 2 through Grade 7. A logarithmic transformation was per-
translated back into English. The semantic similarity between the
formed on the peer rejection scale because of its positive skewness
back-translated items and the original items in the questionnaires
(ranging from 1.29 to 1.75) and kurtosis (ranging from 1.27 to
was then verified by graduate students enrolled in a psychology
2.66). The original means for the peer rejection scale ranged from
program at an English-speaking university.
⫺0.03 to 0.01, and the original standard deviations ranged from
Participants’ academic achievement. Because of restricted
0.94 to 0.98. The distributional properties of the transformed
access to students’ records in some of the participating schools,
teachers answered the question “How would you rate the global variable were satisfactory (see Table 1).
academic achievement of this student relative to his or her class- Friends’ academic achievement. During the peer-
mates?” by using a scale ranging from 1 (much lower than aver- nomination procedure described previously, children were also
age) to 5 (much higher than average). This information was col- provided with a third classroom roster and were asked to circle the
lected every year from Grade 2 through Grade 7. On the basis of data names of up to four classmates whom they considered to be their
gathered yearly in elementary schools that did not restrict access to best friends. Although the more common procedure is to ask for
students’ records (i.e., about two thirds of the sample, depending on three names (Maassen, van der Linden, & Akkermans, 1997;
the year of assessment), we found a strong correlation between Terry, 2000), we asked for four names because we wanted to
teachers’ ratings and students’ actual grades (r ⫽ .76). capture a more complete picture of their friends’ characteristics.
Peer acceptance and rejection. Participants received a list of The academic achievement measure administered to the teachers
all students in their classroom and were provided with the follow- was used to assess friends’ academic achievement. Across all
ing instructions: “Please circle the names of up to four kids with assessments, on average 88.5% of participants nominated more
whom you like to play the most” (positive nominations). On a than one best friend, so the average level of academic achievement
second list, they were asked to circle the names of up to four across nominated friends was computed. Although some research-
classmates with whom they liked to play the least (negative nom- ers consider that the reciprocity of the relationship (as defined by
inations). The number of positive nominations received by each mutual friendship nominations) is a fundamental criterion of the
participant was standardized within the classroom, resulting in a friendship experience (e.g., Parker et al., 1995; Rubin et al., 2006),
Table 1
Indices of Central Tendency and Distributional Properties of the Study Measures
Control variable N M SD Skewness Kurtosis
SES 337 43.49 11.52 0.39 ⫺0.54

Disruptiveness 365 ⫺0.01 0.96 0.38 ⫺1.07
Participants’ academic achievement
Grade 2 301 3.24 1.02 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.24
Grade 3 373 3.06 1.03 0.09 ⫺0.09
Grade 4 299 3.20 1.04 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.16
Grade 5 271 3.26 1.06 0.04 ⫺0.58
Grade 6 298 3.37 1.05 ⫺0.43 ⫺0.04
Grade 7 254 3.33 1.10 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.51
Peer acceptance
Grade 2 445 0.00 0.97 1.03 1.08
Grade 3 421 0.01 1.00 0.57 ⫺0.23
Grade 4 395 0.00 0.96 0.55 0.01
Grade 5 263 0.02 1.01 0.48 ⫺0.37
Grade 6 288 ⫺0.01 1.00 0.40 ⫺0.41
Grade 7 289 0.06 0.99 0.67 ⫺0.14
Peer rejection
Grade 2 445 0.61 0.40 0.67 ⫺0.16
Grade 3 421 0.59 0.42 0.57 ⫺0.31
Grade 4 395 0.61 0.44 0.38 ⫺0.05
Grade 5 263 0.58 0.43 0.58 ⫺0.25
Grade 6 288 0.62 0.42 0.67 0.03
Grade 7 289 0.59 0.43 0.42 ⫺0.19
Friends’ academic achievement
Grade 2 375 3.49 0.71 0.03 ⫺0.03
Grade 3 292 3.49 0.85 ⫺0.11 0.30
Grade 4 246 3.54 0.76 ⫺0.22 0.27
Grade 5 233 3.56 0.75 ⫺0.07 0.09
Grade 6 242 3.51 0.85 ⫺0.46 0.10
Grade 7 187 3.51 0.85 ⫺0.14 ⫺0.38
Note. SD ⫽ standard deviation; SES ⫽ socioeconomic status.

others have proposed that children who receive unilateral (i.e., Procedure
nonreciprocated) nominations can also be considered as friends of
the children who nominated them (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). In After the institutional review board had approved all instru-
fact, Altermatt and Pomerantz (2003) showed in a sample of fourth ments at each year of data collection, active parental consent was
to sixth graders that best friends’ academic achievement predicts obtained through letters distributed to the students at school. In the
participants’ achievement 1 year later, regardless of friendship spring of each school year, typically in April or May, the peer
reciprocity. On the basis of these results, we considered both nomination procedure was administered by trained research assis-
unilateral and reciprocal friendship nominations as indicators of a tants in the classrooms. During this task, teachers left the class-
friendship relation for this study. On average, across all assess- room and filled out questionnaires about the participating students.
ments, 47.1% of friendship nominations were reciprocated, and Because classroom composition remained the same within a given
76.1% of participants had at least one reciprocated friend. school year even after the transition to secondary school, the same
SES. Parents’ level of occupational prestige was assessed with procedure was used for the Grade 7 assessment. Participants were
the 1981 socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada (Blishen, informed that they had the right to refuse participation and that all
Carroll, & Moore, 1987) when the children were in Grade 1 (in responses would remain confidential.
1988). This index takes into account the education level and
salaries of 514 occupations found in Canada at that time. Scores in
the current sample ranged from 18.63 to 71.77, and the average Results
score (44.15, SD ⫽ 9.76) was very similar to the one reported by
Blishen et al. (42.74, SD ⫽ 13.28) for the Canadian population in Descriptive Statistics, Bivariate Correlations, and
general, based on 1981 Canadian Census data. Missing Data Analysis
Disruptiveness. Grade 1 teachers rated participants’ levels of
disruptive behavior by using the French version of the Social Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and distributional prop-
Behavior Questionnaire (Tremblay, Desmarais-Gervais, Gagnon, erties for all measures. Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations
& Charlebois, 1987). This scale describes 13 aggressive or dis- of gender, the control variables measured in Grade 1 (i.e., SES and
ruptive behaviors (e.g., “This child bullies,” “This child kicks, participants’ disruptiveness), and the initial levels of the main
bites, or hits,” and “This child is restless and cannot stand still”). variables measured in Grade 2 (i.e., participants’ academic
Teachers rated the frequency of each behavior on the following achievement, peer acceptance, peer rejection, and friends’ aca-
scale: 0 (never), 1 (sometimes), or 2 (often). Cronbach’s alpha for demic achievement). Pearson’s correlations were computed for all
this scale was .92. A square root transformation was performed on pairs of variables except for those involving gender, in which case
this scale because of its positive skewness (1.64) and kurtosis point-biserial correlations were computed. Significant relations
(2.44). The original mean for this measure was 3.42, and the involving gender were found. Compared with boys, girls were less
original standard deviation was 4.50. After this transformation, disruptive, had a higher level of academic achievement, had a
total scores ranged from 0 to 4.80 and the distribution properties lower level of peer rejection, and had higher achieving friends.
improved (skewness ⫽ 0.49, kurtosis ⫽ ⫺0.87). The mean for this Gender did not predict the level of peer acceptance, however.
transformed measure was 1.34, and the standard deviation was Gender and SES were unrelated, but there was a marginally
1.28. Because several other variables (i.e., peer acceptance, peer significant negative relationship between disruptiveness and SES.
rejection, and academic achievement) were based on within- Table 3 presents the bivariate correlations among the primary
classroom ratings, it was impossible to run multilevel analyses on study variables (i.e., participants’ academic achievement, peer
the current data. We therefore controlled for possible between- acceptance, peer rejection, and friends’ academic achievement)
classroom variation in disruptiveness scores and for potential across all time points. Because of the relatively strong zero-order
biases arising from this single-rater measure of disruptiveness by correlations between repeated measures of academic achievement,
standardizing teachers’ ratings within each classroom. Table 1 peer acceptance, and peer rejection over intervals exceeding a
presents information on the descriptive and distributional proper- 1-year period, we included 2-year stability coefficients in the
ties of the standardized variable. model for these variables.
Table 2
Bivariate Correlations Between Gender, Control Variables in Grade 1, and the Main Variables
in Grade 2
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Gender —
2. SES (Grade 1) .01 —
3. Disruptiveness (Grade 1) ⫺.28ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.10m —
ⴱⴱ
4. Participants’ academic achievement (Grade 2) .17 .20ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱⴱ —
5. Peer acceptance (Grade 2) .01 .07 ⫺.19ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ —
6. Peer rejection (Grade 2) ⫺.17ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱⴱⴱ —
7. Friends’ academic achievement (Grade 2) .18ⴱⴱⴱ .05 ⫺.18ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ .07 ⫺.16ⴱⴱ —
Note. For the gender variable, 0 ⫽ boy and 1 ⫽ girl. SES ⫽ socioeconomic status.
m
p ⬍ .10. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
780
Table 3
Bivariate Correlations Between the Main Variables Across All Assessments

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Participants’
academic
VÉRONNEAU, VITARO, BRENDGEN, DISHION, AND TREMBLAY

achievement
1. Grade 2 —
2. Grade 3 .63 —
3. Grade 4 .58 .61 —
4. Grade 5 .61 .63 .65 —
5. Grade 6 .60 .55 .56 .72 —
6. Grade 7 .50 .53 .52 .58 .59 —
Peer acceptance
7. Grade 2 .36 .26 .26 .22 .21 .28 —
8. Grade 3 .30 .34 .33 .30 .22 .28 .45 —
9. Grade 4 .18ⴱⴱ .23 .24 .25 .13ⴱⴱ .15ⴱ .34 .40 —
10. Grade 5 .23 .28 .31 .23 .24 .16ⴱ .37 .42 .35 —
11. Grade 6 .13ⴱ .16ⴱⴱ .15ⴱ .14ⴱ .15ⴱ .03ns .23 .33 .30 .32 —
12. Grade 7 .08ns .05ns .06ns .05ns .06ns .03ns .15ⴱⴱ .21 .24 .35 .40 —
Peer rejection
13. Grade 2 ⫺.31 ⫺.25 ⫺.27 ⫺.33 ⫺.20 ⫺.29 ⫺.28 ⫺.28 ⫺.24 ⫺.25 ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ns —
14. Grade 3 ⫺.29 ⫺.39 ⫺.34 ⫺.39 ⫺.33 ⫺.36 ⫺.31 ⫺.50 ⫺.30 ⫺.32 ⫺.29 ⫺.14ⴱ .52 —
15. Grade 4 ⫺.31 ⫺.29 ⫺.31 ⫺.34 ⫺.29 ⫺.34 ⫺.30 ⫺.37 ⫺.47 ⫺.39 ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.23 .47 .50 —
16. Grade 5 ⫺.35 ⫺.36 ⫺.33 ⫺.33 ⫺.22 ⫺.33 ⫺.26 ⫺.41 ⫺.35 ⫺.48 ⫺.26 ⫺.29 .46 .52 .58 —
17. Grade 6 ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.11m ⫺.14ⴱ ⫺.27 ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.21 ⫺.31 ⫺.33 ⫺.40 ⫺.45 ⫺.40 .39 .42 .48 .55 —
18. Grade 7 ⫺.09ns ⫺.07ns ⫺.08ns ⫺.10ns ⫺.10ns ⫺.09ns ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.19 ⫺.21 ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.29 ⫺.36 .17ⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱ .23 .37 .45 —
Friends’ academic
achievement
19. Grade 2 .30 .18 .07ns .15ⴱ .16ⴱⴱ .13m .07ns .08ns .06ns ⫺.04ns .05ns ⫺.06ns ⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.10m ⫺.07ns ⫺.08ns ⫺.04ns ⫺.03ns —
20. Grade 3 .04ns .18ⴱⴱ .13m .15ⴱ .11m .17ⴱ .07ns .06ns .04ns .07ns .04ns .15ⴱ ⫺.08ns ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.01ns ⫺.09ns ⫺.07ns ⫺.12m .10ns —
21. Grade 4 .06ns .06ns .02ns .06ns ⫺.04ns .08ns .01ns ⫺.05ns .00ns .01ns .02ns .09ns ⫺.07ns ⫺.14ⴱ ⫺.12m ⫺.09ns .03ns ⫺.05ns .18ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ —
22. Grade 5 .12ns .16ⴱ .16ⴱ .25 .16ⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .03ns .08ns .07ns ⫺.01ns .09ns .03ns ⫺.05ns ⫺.10ns ⫺.08ns ⫺.06ns ⫺.08ns ⫺.02ns .24 .21ⴱⴱ .06ns —
23. Grade 6 .41 .38 .42 .49 .53 .38 .17ⴱⴱ .25 .15ⴱ .16ⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .05ns ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.27 ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.14ⴱ ⫺.12m ⫺.08ns .19ⴱⴱ ⫺.01ns ⫺.13m .11ns —
24. Grade 7 .47 .41 .47 .54 .50 .60 .13m .20ⴱⴱ .13m .07ns .03ns ⫺.13m ⫺.28 ⫺.35 ⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.07ns ⫺.03ns .09ns .16ⴱ ⫺.12ns .15m .39
Note. All correlations are significant at p ⬍ .001, except where otherwise indicated.
ns
p ⬎ .10. m p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
The proportion of missing data across all variables at all times the interpersonal factors), the FIML method should adequately
of measurement was on average 29.6% (SD ⫽ 15.8%). Because all account for missing data in this study sample.
targeted classrooms were included in this study, missing data Analyses were conducted in three steps, as presented in Table 4.
resulted from individual factors, such as failure to obtain parental Step 1 consisted of testing the fit of the initial transactional model
consent, which was the case for less than 15% of students at any and adjusting the model if necessary to build a more parsimonious
given year; students’ absence when data were collected; or stu- one. In Step 2, we examined whether the model could be replicated
dents’ moving out of town before the end of the study. To examine with the stable subsample of 207 participants described in the
the pattern of missing data within the full sample, we created a Participants subsection. Step 3 consisted of testing the generaliz-
variable representing the number of missing values out of the 27 ability of the model to both boys and girls. The fit indices of
variables included in the model, for each of our 452 participants the different models are presented in Table 4. According to Kline
(M ⫽ 7.69, Mdn ⫽ 6, SD ⫽ 6.51). We then computed correlations (2005), a good model fit should yield a nonsignificant chi-square
between the number of missing values and the score obtained on value, but this test tends to be too conservative with larger sample
each of the variables. As expected, participants with higher levels sizes. In that case, other fit indices are usually preferred for
of risk on all variables had significantly more missing data, with
assessing model fit. Comparative fit index and Tucker–Lewis

several moderate correlations for the measures of academic index values at .90 or more, root mean square error of approxi-
achievement, and relatively small correlations (but almost all sig- mation values at .05 or less, and standardized root mean square
nificant) for other variables. residual values at .10 or less indicate good model fit.
Step 1: Model testing and adjustment. Model 1 refers to the
Model Testing full transactional model depicted in Figure 2. This model was run
Model fit was assessed with structural equation modeling on the 452 participants who were recruited in Grade 2, and the
(Kline, 2005; see our Figure 2 for the initial model). Analyses were genders were combined. Although the chi-square test for Model 1
conducted with Mplus 4.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2006). We used the was significant, the fit of the initial model was acceptable accord-
full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation method ing to other fit indices, except for the Tucker–Lewis index (.87).
to account for missing values because it allows the analysis of This suggests that unnecessary parameters should be removed
samples that present moderate to large amounts of missing data. from the model. Path coefficients that did not reach significance
The FIML method consists of estimating each parameter on the were thus removed in the next model (Model 2). The chi-square
basis of all available information from each participant. As a difference test was not significant, ⌬␹2(40) ⫽ 24.44, p ⫽ .97,
result, even participants with occasional missing data are retained indicating that removing several nonsignificant paths did not affect
in the analysis and contribute to model estimation. This method the fit of the model. In fact, the fit indices for the trimmed model
adequately accounts for data that may not be missing at random, as (Model 2) were generally better than those for Model 1. Because
long as the predictors of missingness are included in the model Model 2 is more parsimonious than Model 1, we decided to use
(Widaman, 2006). Among community-based samples such as the this trimmed model, rather than the full model, to conduct Steps 2
one recruited for this study, participants presenting higher levels of and 3 of our analytic strategy.
behavioral, academic, or interpersonal difficulties are expected to The trimmed model (Model 2) is depicted in Figure 3. To
engage less consistently in data collection than are lower risk enhance the clarity of the figure, we present results concerning the
participants, and this pattern was confirmed for the study sample. different types of peer relationships in separate panels (peer ac-
Because the measures used in our model include proxy variables ceptance in the top panel, peer rejection in the middle panel, and
for a broad range of risk factors (disruptiveness for the behavioral friends’ academic achievement in the bottom panel). Nevertheless,
factors, family SES for the familial factors, academic achievement all paths were estimated in the same analysis, as presented in
for the academic factors, and three types of peer experiences for Figure 2. The numbers in bold are standardized path coefficients
Table 4
Three-Step Analytic Strategy: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Each Model
Model ␹2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR
Step 1: Model testing and adjustment

Model 1 (initial model) 442.32 218 ⬍.001 .91 .87 .05 [.04, .05] .08
Model 2 (trimmed model) 466.76 258 ⬍.001 .92 .90 .04 [.04, .05] .09
Step 2: Replication of the model in a stable subsample
Model 3 (stable subsample) 390.69 258 ⬍.001 .91 .89 .05 [.04, .06] .09
Step 3: Testing gender differences
Model 4 (no constraints) 760.46 516 ⬍.001 .90 .88 .05 [.04, .05] .10
Model 5 (all paths constrained across genders) 847.60 583 ⬍.001 .90 .88 .05 [.04, .05] .11
Model 6 (transactional paths constrained) 778.51 528 ⬍.001 .90 .88 .05 [.04, .05] .10
Note. All models were run with the sample of 452 participants originally recruited in Grade 2, except for Model 3, which was run with a subsample of
207 participants who provided at least four valid assessments for the four repeated measures across the 6 years of the study. Models that are part of the
same step are nested within each other. Results of Model 2 are presented in Figure 3. CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; TLI ⫽ Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA ⫽
root mean square error of approximation; SRMR ⫽ standardized root mean square residual.
.33 .35 .16 .34

.34 (.06) .38 (.06) .16 (.06) .33 (.08)
-.27
-.29 (.06) Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s
Distruptiveness achievement achievement achievement achievement achievement achievement
.64 .36 .42 .64 .36
.65 (.04) .37 (.06) .44 (.06) .62 (.05) .36 (.08)
-.20
-.21 (.05)
-.11 .27 .22 .14 .11 .16 .13
.27 (.05) .21 (.05) .14 (.04) .11 (.05) .16 (.07) .12 (.06)
-1.20 (.61)
.17
.02 (.01)
Family SES
Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer
acceptance acceptance acceptance acceptance acceptance acceptance

.31 .24 .12 .18 .28
.31 (.05) .23 (.05) .13 (.06) .17 (.06) .27 (.05)
.19 .30 .19 .27

.18 (.05) .31 (.07) .20 (.06) .25 (.06)
.33 .35 .16 .34

.34 (.06) .38 (.06) .16 (.06) .33 (.08)
-.27
.64 .36 .42 .64 .36
.65 (.04) .37 (.06) .44 (.06) .62 (.05) .36 (.08)
.48 -.13 -.13
.20 (.02) -.32 (.12) -.31 (.11)
-.11 -.14 -.20 -.16 -.10
.06 (.02) -.08 (.02) -.07 (.02) -.05(.02)
-1.20 (.61)
.17 -.12 -.12
.02 (.01) -.05 (.02) -.05 (.03)
Family SES
Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer Peer
-.13 rejection rejection rejection rejection rejection rejection
.40 .32 .36 .38 .27
-.01 (.00)
.42 (.04) .34 (.05) .34 (.06) .38 (.06) .26 (.07)
.27 .28 .22 .20

.30 (.05) .28 (.06) .21 (.06) .20 (.07)
.33 .35 .16 .34

.34 (.06) .38 (.06) .16 (.06) .33 (.08)
-.27
.64 .36 .42 .64 .36
.65 (.04) .37 (.06) .44 (.06) .62 (.05) .36 (.08)
-.19
-.14 (.04)
.23 .17 .20 .58 .44
-.11 .14 (.05) .46 (.05) .35 (.07)
-1.20 (.61) .17 (.04) .15 (.04)
.17 .12 .14 .25
.02 (.01) .10 (.05) .14(.04) .22(-.05)
Family SES Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’

achievement .12 achievement .24 achievement achievement achievement .14 achievement
.14 (.07) .22 (.06) .14 (.08)
showing the magnitude of the association between the variables. in which the gender constraint was released for each of the cross-
According to Cohen (1988), cutoff values for small, medium, and lagged paths one by one, while the gender constraint was kept for
large effect sizes are .10, .30, and .50, respectively. Below the other transactional paths. Based on chi-square difference tests
standardized coefficients are the unstandardized path coefficients, comparing the fit of each of these models to that of Model 6 (in
with their standard errors in parentheses. Using three panels made which all transactional paths were constrained to be equal across
it impossible for us to present the relationships between concurrent genders), only one of these paths appeared to be significantly
measures for the three types of peer relationships, so they are different between genders, namely, the path from academic
described later in the text. achievement in Grade 4 to peer rejection in Grade 5, ⌬␹2(1) ⫽
Step 2: Replication of the trimmed model in a stable sub- 10.66, p ⬍ .001. This path had shown a statistical trend in Model
sample. The difference between Model 2 and Model 3 is that the 2, and an examination of gender-specific coefficients revealed that
latter was tested with a subsamble of 207 participants who were this path was significant only for girls (further details about this
present during at least four of the six assessments. The adequate fit outcome are included in the following subsection).
indices obtained for Model 3 provide further support for the After this careful examination of gender differences in the key
validity of the results obtained in the trimmed model. Most path
components of the model (i.e., transactional paths), we concluded

coefficients obtained in the model replicated those obtained with that the overall pattern of results was consistent across genders.
the full sample. Therefore, the rest of this article describes the results from the
Step 3: Testing gender differences. This set of analyses trimmed model, in which the genders were combined (Model 2)
involved a two-group analysis that tested whether the trimmed and the one significant gender difference that was found in the
model (Model 2) could be applied equally to male and to female transactional paths was taken into account.
participants. For this purpose, a two-group trimmed model was
first estimated in which all path coefficients were free to vary
across genders (Model 4, “no constraints”). Although the value of Description of Significant Paths
the CFI was slightly lower than .90, other fit indices suggested
preliminary support for the generalizability of this model to boys Control variables. As predicted, individual differences in the
and to girls. A more stringent test of the generalizability of this initial levels of the main study variables could be predicted by
model to boys and to girls was then performed by imposing gender some preexisting behavioral and sociodemographic characteristics
equality constraints on all path coefficients. This allowed us to test of the participants. Participants’ disruptiveness in Grade 1 was a
whether this fully constrained model (Model 5) had a better fit than significant predictor of all variables measured in Grade 2: It was
the unconstrained model (Model 4). Very similar fit indices were negatively related to participants’ academic achievement, peer
obtained for the fully constrained model, but the chi-square dif- acceptance, and friends’ academic achievement, and it was posi-
ference test revealed that the unconstrained model fit the data tively related to peer rejection. Family SES measured in Grade 1
significantly better than did the fully constrained model, was positively related to participants’ academic achievement and
⌬␹2(67) ⫽ 87.14, p ⬍ .05. negatively related to peer rejection in Grade 2. Furthermore, the
To examine whether the difference in the fit of Model 4 and two control variables (family SES and disruptiveness) were neg-
Model 5 was attributable to key components (i.e., the cross-lagged, atively correlated.
transactional paths) or to less essential paths included for control Associations between concurrent measures. Figure 3 shows
purposes (i.e., stability coefficients, correlations among concurrent that significant, concurrent, positive associations were found be-
measures, and correlations between control variables and the main tween participants’ academic achievement and peer acceptance in
variables), we ran one more two-group analysis in which the only Grades 2 and 3. For academic achievement and peer rejection,
path coefficients that were constrained to equality between genders significant negative associations were found in Grades 2, 3, and 6.
were the cross-lagged, transactional paths (Model 6). Again, fit Participants’ academic achievement was concurrently and posi-
indices were very similar to those obtained for Model 4, and the tively related to friends’ achievement at all time points except in
fully unconstrained model (Model 4) did not have a better fit than Grade 4.
this partly constrained model (Model 6), as revealed by the non- Some results could not be included in Figure 3. We found a
significant chi-square difference test, ⌬␹2(12) ⫽ 18.05, p ⫽ .11. significant negative relationship between peer acceptance and peer
Because a nonsignificant chi-square test for the overall pattern of rejection at all times, with standardized coefficients ranging from
transactional processes may not detect significant gender differ- ⫺.16 (unstandardized coefficient ⫽ ⫺.07, SE ⫽ .02) in Grade 2 to
ences for each individual path, we ran an additional set of analyses ⫺.29 (unstandardized coefficient ⫽ ⫺.12, SE ⫽ .02) in Grade 3.
Figure 3 (opposite). Results of the structural equation modeling analysis (Model 2 in Table 4; trimmed model, genders combined). All paths were part
of the same model, but results are presented in three panels to enhance the clarity of the figure. Numbers in bold represent standardized path coefficients;
italicized numbers below represent unstandardized path coefficients with their standard error in parentheses. Dotted lines represent marginally significant
results. The top panel presents results involving participants’ academic achievement and peer acceptance. The middle panel presents results involving
participants’ academic achievement and peer rejection. Additional analyses revealed that the marginally significant path from participants’ academic
achievement in Grade 4 to peer rejection in Grade 5 is significant for girls (standardized path coefficient ⫽ ⫺.33, unstandardized coefficient ⫽ ⫺.13, SE ⫽
.03, p ⬍ .05) but not for boys (standardized path coefficient ⫽ .07, unstandardized coefficient ⫽ .03, SE ⫽ .04, p ⫽ .78). The bottom panel presents results
involving participants’ academic achievement and friends’ academic achievement.
Associations between group-level experiences (peer acceptance stage-specific transactional model of reciprocal associations be-
and rejection) and dyadic experiences (friends’ academic achieve- tween peer experiences and academic achievement is, to our
ment) were either weak or nonexistent. Peer acceptance and knowledge, unique. Our coverage of two important developmental
friends’ academic achievement were unrelated at all times, and periods (middle childhood and early adolescence) through six
peer rejection and friends’ academic achievement were negatively yearly assessments and the inclusion of three types of peer expe-
related in Grade 3 only (standardized coefficient ⫽ ⫺.15, unstand- riences (peer acceptance, peer rejection, and friends’ academic
ardized coefficient ⫽ ⫺.05, SE ⫽ .02). achievement) allowed for a rare assessment of normative devel-
Stability coefficients. As predicted, participants’ academic opmental changes in the contribution of different types of peer
achievement, peer acceptance, and peer rejection were highly experiences to academic outcomes and vice versa. This study also
stable, with significant relationships, mostly in the moderate range, provided an important test of gender differences with regard to the
throughout all 1-year and 2-year intervals. It is noteworthy that pattern of associations between several types of peer experiences
friends’ academic achievement was much less stable, because this and academic achievement at different ages.
variable could be predicted only from the previous year’s measure
in Grades 3, 4, and 7.
Transactions Between Participants’ Academic

Cross-lagged (transactional) associations. As depicted in Achievement and Peer Acceptance

Figure 3, participants’ academic achievement predicted all three
types of peer relationships but not over all intervals. The top panel Results indicated that participants’ academic achievement was a
shows that academic achievement predicted yearly increases in consistent predictor of peer acceptance in the next year from Grade
peer acceptance consistently from Grade 2 through Grade 6. 2 through Grade 6, with an effect size approaching the moderate
The middle panel of Figure 3 shows that lower levels of aca- range over the first interval and small effects thereafter. This
demic achievement predicted later increases in peer rejection from finding is consistent with our hypothesis that peer experiences at
Grade 2 through Grade 4, although the strength of this relationship the group level would be less strongly associated with academic
diminished over time and was nonsignificant by the Grade 4 to achievement in the adolescent years. In fact, the absence of a
Grade 5 interval. Gender-specific analyses, however, revealed that significant path from academic achievement to peer acceptance
the path from Grade 4 to Grade 5 was significant for girls (stan- over the last interval (from Grade 6 to Grade 7) might be the
dardized path coefficient ⫽ ⫺.33, unstandardized coefficient ⫽ logical next step in this pattern. Alternatively, the nonsignificant
⫺.13, SE ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .05) but not for boys (standardized path path found over the last interval may be the result of the transition
coefficient ⫽ .07, unstandardized coefficient ⫽ .03, SE ⫽ .04, p ⫽ to secondary school after Grade 6 and of the immersion in a larger
.78). In contrast to peer acceptance, which did not predict changes peer group where a sizable proportion of students may be unaware
in academic achievement at any interval, higher levels of peer of their peers’ academic standing in the preceding year. Future
rejection predicted decreases in participants’ academic achieve- studies with data extending into the secondary school years will
ment between Grades 3 and 4 and between Grades 4 and 5. The be necessary to test this alternative explanation. It would also be
Sobel test (Sobel, 1986) revealed a small but significant “indirect useful to explore teachers’ praise or expectations of fellow stu-
effect” (standardized path coefficient ⫽ .03, unstandardized coef- dents regarding high-achieving students’ capacity to help them in
ficient ⫽ .03, SE ⫽ .01, p ⬍ .05), suggesting that the relationship school as potential mediators of the links from academic achieve-
between academic achievement in Grade 2 and Grade 4 was in part ment to peer acceptance in middle childhood. Results do not
mediated by peer rejection in Grade 3. Similarly, the Sobel test support, however, the hypothesized reciprocal processes between
suggested that the relationship between academic achievement in peer acceptance and academic achievement, because peer accep-
Grade 3 and Grade 5 was partially mediated by peer rejection in tance did not predict students’ later academic achievement at any
Grade 4, although this relationship was marginally significant interval. It seems plausible that children who are well accepted
(standardized path coefficient ⫽ .02, unstandardized coefficient ⫽ have a very strong social orientation. Building relationships, en-
.02, SE ⫽ .01, p ⬍ .10). The evidence for the opposite process was acting prosocial behavior, and engaging in positive social interac-
not as strong, because the indirect effect involving academic tions may be very rewarding and desirable for popular children and
achievement in Grade 4 as a mediator of the relationship between adolescents, so that they may choose to use their social capital not
peer rejection in Grades 3 and 5 was not significant. to achieve academic success but rather to achieve social and
The bottom panel of Figure 3 shows that participants’ higher interpersonal goals, such as joining school-based clubs or sports
academic achievement predicted the nomination of higher achiev- teams or building and maintaining coherent peer networks in and
ing friends in the next year, from Grade 4 through Grade 7. In out of school. Some support for this idea is presented in a study
contrast to the hypothesized transactional model, however, friends’ with middle school students (Wentzel, 1994), in which a signifi-
achievement did not predict changes in participants’ academic cant relationship was found between peer acceptance and prosocial
achievement at any interval. The overall pattern of results was academic goals (i.e., trying to help classmates with their school-
consistent in the stable subsample. work).
Discussion Transactions Between Participants’ Academic

Achievement and Peer Rejection
This study was meant to address important gaps in our under-
standing of the associations between peer experiences and aca- Results indicated that participants’ academic achievement was a
demic achievement in adolescents. The use of data collected dur- consistent predictor of peer rejection over the first two intervals,
ing a period as extensive as the one in this study to test a spanning Grades 2 through 4. One additional significant pathway
emerged for girls between Grades 4 and 5, but it appears to be a the coefficient over the last interval to a moderate magnitude is
minor gender difference within an overall consistent pattern for probably attributable to the transition to secondary school, when
both girls and boys. In the context of the results obtained for our participants may have had less opportunity to interact with those
peer acceptance variable, these findings further support the hy- students who were their friends in elementary school. Still, the last
pothesis that higher academic achievement helps students achieve two standardized coefficients are much larger than those observed
successful integration into the peer group during middle childhood. between academic achievement and group-level peer experiences
The finding that the path coefficient from academic achievement earlier in elementary school.
to peer rejection became smaller over time (with nonsignificant In contrast to our hypotheses, however, friends’ academic
paths in the last two intervals) is also consistent with the results achievement did not predict changes in participants’ own academic
obtained for peer acceptance. This supports our hypothesis that the achievement. Several plausible explanations exist for this out-
association between peer status and academic achievement come. First, it could be attributable to the limitations of our
changes as students approach adolescence. This process is likely measures. On the one hand, our friendship nomination measure
progressive rather than sharply defined across stages, however. allowed for the nomination of only four best friends. We may have
The validity of developmental explanations for this phenomenon been unable to capture the full network of potentially influential
(e.g., that peers’ negative views of failing students might progres- peers for students who have a large number of friends in school
sively diminish as peers become less influenced by adults’ judg-
and who may not have nominated the same four people every year.
ments) would be interesting to explore in a future study involving
On the other hand, our measure of academic achievement may not
a test of mediation processes.
have been sensitive enough to capture changes in academic
Unlike the findings concerning peer acceptance, the findings
achievement attributable to friends’ influence. This may be espe-
concerning peer rejection supported our hypothesis that transac-
cially true for the later grades, when friends can provide some help
tional processes would emerge between peer rejection and aca-
for the specific subjects in which a student struggles but a global
demic achievement during middle childhood. In fact, peer rejec-
tion predicted a decrease in participants’ academic achievement measure of academic achievement, such as the one we used, may
for two consecutive intervals between Grade 3 and Grade 5. This not capture improvements in students’ grades in one specific
result further highlights the importance of distinguishing peer subject. A second explanation may be that friends who are already
acceptance from peer rejection in empirical research (Bukowski et similar to one another may help each other maintain the charac-
al., 2000). In light of the reciprocal links between peer rejection teristics they share rather than drive significant changes in the
and academic achievement during the middle childhood period, the other’s behavior. For example, Wentzel et al. (2004) found that
potential mechanisms underlying these associations deserve spe- increases or decreases in prosocial behaviors are observable when
cial attention in future studies. These include intrapersonal factors students’ initial level of prosocial behavior is different from that of
such as negative school attitude of low-achieving and rejected friends but not when it is similar. Third, the contribution of
students, as well as their internalizing and externalizing symptoms. friends’ academic achievement to changes in participants’ achieve-
These mechanisms also include interpersonal microprocesses such ment might be significant only for those who have a high-quality
as the negative interactions between low-achieving students and relationship. In other words, friendship quality may play a mod-
their teachers and peers. Perhaps even more important are the erating role and amplify friends’ influence on academic function-
interactions occurring among friends whose association is based ing, as suggested by previous research (Berndt & Keefe, 1995;
on their similarity in terms of being rejected by the peer group. Erath, Flanagan, & Bierman, 2008; Wentzel et al., 2004).
Members of these particular friendship dyads are hypothesized to Some researchers have argued that peer selection and peer
reinforce one another in their motivations to engage in problem influence are two sides of the same coin (e.g., Dishion et al., 1994).
behaviors rather than in positive school activities, but observa- In particular, adolescence is a developmental period when youths
tional methods appear to be necessary to capture such micropro- seek out social contexts within which the probability of social
cesses among deviant peers (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). success is high, a process referred to as niche finding or shopping
(Patterson et al., 1992; Scarr & McCartney, 1983). This process of
niche finding, in and of itself, could help strengthen characteristics
Transactions Between Participants’ Academic
that ensure the potential to continue to select friends who are
Achievement and Friends’ Academic Achievement
similar to oneself. Therefore, being successful academically pro-
It is noteworthy that during the developmental period when the vides an important venue for interacting with other peers who are
links between academic performance and peer processes at also engaging in school, doing homework, and receiving high
the group level faded out (i.e., the transition to early adolescence), grades. From this dynamic developmental perspective, it is possi-
the links from participants’ academic achievement to friends’ ble that peers’ academic functioning plays a stronger role in
achievement became significant. This finding is consistent with participants’ academic functioning only later in development,
our hypothesis about the increased importance of friends in early when groups of similarly high-achieving peers develop and estab-
adolescence. Moreover, the considerable increase in the strength of lish their own dynamics (e.g., Frank et al., 2008). In support of this
the link from participants’ academic achievement to friends’ aca- idea, it is noteworthy that adolescent samples were used in all
demic achievement from Grade 4 to Grade 6 suggests an increas- studies in which a link was found between friends’ academic
ingly active selection of friends who are similar with regard to functioning and participants’ academic functioning over time
academic characteristics, as hypothesized by the confluence model (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Erath et al., 2008; Wentzel et al., 2004),
(Dishion, Patterson, & Griesler, 1994). The decrease in the size of whereas our study ended by early adolescence.
Practical Implications Despite these strengths, the study has some limitations. First,
although two developmental periods were covered (i.e., middle
The finding that peer acceptance and rejection tend to be quite childhood and early adolescence), upward and downward exten-
stable over time, whereas affiliation with high-achieving friends is sions of the time frame would have yielded a more complete
rather unstable, has some practical importance. In fact, it reveals picture of the developmental processes involved. Second, our
that friendship affiliations may be more malleable than social sample size, although relatively large, still provided limited power
status in the peer group. Hence, a good strategy to help children to uncover possible gender differences relevant to outcomes, and
with peer difficulties may be to target their dyadic experiences the occasional missing values may also affect our power to detect
rather than to try to work directly on other students’ perceptions of significant gender differences. Future studies should keep investi-
them, because the former seems to be more amenable to change gating these differences. Third, some of our measures were limited
than the latter. In line with this notion, evidence suggests that for practical reasons. Thus, students’ actual grades could not be
intervening with rejected students within small groups composed used, and teachers’ global ratings had to be used instead. In
primarily of accepted or prosocial peers with whom rejected chil-
addition, the peer nomination procedure had to be limited to four
dren can have dyadic interactions yields significant improvement
nominations of each type (i.e., positive, negative, and best friend-

in students’ level of acceptance among peers and reduction in
ship) because of time constraints, rather than be unlimited as

deviant peer associations (Bierman & Furman, 1984; Lavallee,
recommended by some authors (see the review by Terry, 2000).
Bierman, & Nix, 2005; Mikami, Boucher, & Humphreys, 2005;
Furthermore, limiting friendship nominations to participants’
Vitaro, Brendgen, Pagani, Tremblay, & McDuff, 1999). We pro-
classrooms might have prevented participants from nominating
pose that such a strategy could in turn have a positive impact on
peers whom they truly considered to be their very best friends, if
academic adjustment, judging by the significant paths found from
they did not share a classroom. However, given the age of our
peer rejection to academic achievement.
participants, grade-level nominations would probably have yielded
Although academic achievement proved to be very stable
results very similar to the within-classroom nominations, because
among our study sample across time, this variable nevertheless
seems to be a good target for intervention because teachers and the vast majority of elementary school children select their friends
other professionals can work directly on academic difficulties. Our from among their classmates even when they are given the oppor-
finding that academic achievement predicts peer status during the tunity to nominate friends from outside the classroom (Parker &
elementary school years suggests that this variable can be targeted Asher, 1993). Moreover, the characteristics of children’s class-
even when the goal is to help students improve their peer status. room friends are likely to be very similar to the characteristics of
Coie and Krehbiel’s (1984) experimental study showed that help- children’s other friends from outside the classroom (Kiesner, Nico-
ing children gain higher academic achievement may, indeed, have tra, & Notari, 2005).
a positive impact on their social status. Given the absence of major A fourth limitation is that other types of social experiences that
gender differences in this study’s outcomes, these strategies are could provide a richer understanding of the processes influencing
likely to be beneficial for both girls and boys. students’ social and academic development were not included.
Information about friendship quality might be particularly useful
in this context, because this aspect is likely to interact with friends’
Strengths and Limitations characteristics in predicting academic outcomes (Berndt, 2004;
This study has several strengths. Its longitudinal design, includ- Berndt et al., 1999). The contribution of various aspects of friend-
ing repeated measures of peer experiences and academic achieve- ship to academic achievement, their moderation/interaction ef-
ment over two developmental periods, made it possible for us to fects, and their underlying microsocial processes are important
test a stage-specific transactional model of child development and, areas for future research. Furthermore, the contribution of other
thus, to gain a better understanding of the dynamic interplay peer experiences, including the influence of socially dominant
between social and academic adjustment during middle childhood students in the school milieu (Giordano, 2003), should be included
and early adolescence. The study’s repeated-measure, transac- in future studies. Of particular relevance are the peer experiences
tional design helped exclude alternative interpretations of the occurring at intermediate levels of the structural hierarchy of social
results, such as the possibility that apparent changes are an artifact complexity (Rubin et al., 2006; i.e., higher than dyadic relations
of the stability of peer experiences and their concurrent links with but lower than social status at the group level). These social
children’s functioning. Furthermore, the inclusion of three peer- experiences are especially relevant in the interpretation of results
related variables that represent two levels of social experience (i.e., from the later years of this study, when participants reached
group and dyadic) made it possible for us to identify their unique adolescence and gained awareness of subtle social groupings, such
relationships with academic achievement and variations in their as cliques or crowds. Cliques are intimate peer groups averaging
relative importance across development. Although not all the hy- five individuals (Kindermann, 2007) whose behaviors and atti-
pothesized transactional processes were supported, the nonsignif- tudes tend to be homogeneous (Brown, 1990). Even clique mem-
icant path coefficients in the model are just as informative as the bers who do not perceive each other as friends can spend consid-
significant paths, because the general pattern of significant and erable time together because they have several friends in common,
nonsignificant results can provide useful insights for model build- and they can thereby influence each other. It is noteworthy that
ing and guidance for intervention design. Interventions should some clique members are more central and influential than others
focus on the variables that are empirically related and on the (Bagwell, Coie, Terry, & Lochman, 2000) and can exert signifi-
developmental periods in which transactional processes are most cant power in terms of setting behavioral norms for all the mem-
likely to take place. bers.
Crowds are larger social units that comprise students who do not 2008), may also have positive effects on boys’ and girls’ social life
necessarily interact with each other regularly but who share a (Coie & Krehbiel, 1984).
similar reputation based on their interests, tastes, and behavior. Although the relationship between academic achievement and
These larger, looser social units include students’ actual and po- changes in group-level peer experiences tends to vanish over time,
tential friends who embody norms to which the students may feel the study results suggest that this relationship may set the stage for
pressured to adhere. Although an emergent awareness of crowds students to get easier access to well-functioning friends during the
exists in early adolescents, their influence is hypothesized to peak later elementary school years and during the transition to second-
later as adolescents use them to guide their own initial steps toward ary school. In fact, as they approached early adolescence, partic-
identity development (Brown, Von Bank, & Steinberg, 2008). ipants seemed to be increasingly active in choosing friends who
Academic achievement can be an integral part of crowds’ defining were similar to themselves in terms of academic achievement. In
properties. Crowd affiliation, or the desire to be perceived as a practice, reducing peer rejection in middle childhood may thus be
member of a specific crowd, may thus support students’ goals a valuable part of school-based interventions aimed at promoting
toward academic achievement. In some instances, however, stu- students’ social and academic adjustment (Bierman, 2004; Bier-
dents may underachieve academically as a way to preserve their man & Erath, 2006).
affiliation with a desired crowd, as observed by Steinberg, Dorn-

busch, and Brown (1992) among African American youths. Taking
References
into account the intermediate levels of social complexity may be
especially relevant to boys, whose social interactions tend to occur Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997). From first grade
in the context of larger groups of friends (Parker & Seal, 1996). forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Edu-
The contribution of teachers and significant adults both in and cation, 70, 87–107.
outside of school should also be a key element in studies exam- Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2003). The development of
ining the link between children’s social experiences and school competence-related and motivational beliefs: An investigation of simi-
adjustment (J. J. L. Chen, 2005; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Kiesner larity and influence among friends. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 111–123.
& Kerr, 2004; Mercer & DeRosier, 2008). Equally important,
Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The implications of having
future work should thoroughly investigate the link between chil- high-achieving versus low-achieving friends: A longitudinal analysis.
dren’s social and school adjustment by assessing intervening Social Development, 14, 61– 81.
mechanisms such as those summarized in Figure 1. Bagwell, C. L., Coie, J. D., Terry, R. A., & Lochman, J. E. (2000). Peer
One last limitation relates to the generalizability of this study’s clique participation and social status in preadolescence. Merrill–Palmer
findings to other samples. The study sample was relatively homo- Quarterly, 46, 280 –305.
geneous in terms of ethnicity, culture, and geographic location. All Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of
participants grew up in the special context of a small town in child development: Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1– 60).
which children likely knew a larger proportion of their same-age Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
peers than do children living in big cities. At the same time, the Berndt, T. J. (1999). Friends’ influence on students’ adjustment to school.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 15–28.
participating children were probably able to do activities with their
Berndt, T. J. (2004). Children’s friendships: Shifts over a half-century in
friends outside of school more easily than could children living in perspectives on their development and their effects. Merrill–Palmer
rural areas, where students attending the same school may live far Quarterly, 50, 206 –223.
apart. Consequently, results must be interpreted with caution be- Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Jiao, Z. (1999). Influences of friends and
cause they may not generalize to children from different sociode- friendships on adjustment to junior high school. Merrill–Palmer Quar-
mographic backgrounds. In future studies, special effort should be terly, 45, 13– 41.
devoted to recruiting a more diverse sample in order to enhance the Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’
generalizability of the results. adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329.
Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer rejection: Developmental processes and
intervention strategies. New York, NY: Guilford.
Concluding Comments Bierman, K. L., & Erath, S. A. (2006). Promoting social competence in
early childhood: Classroom curricula and social skills coaching pro-
Despite these limitations, this study makes an important contri- grams. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of
bution to our understanding of the links between peer relationships early childhood development (pp. 595– 615). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
and academic achievement. Although only experimental studies Bierman, K. L., & Furman, W. (1984). The effects of social skills training
can reveal causal relationships between variables, our and peer involvement on the social adjustment of preadolescents. Child
longitudinal–transactional design provided information about the Development, 55, 151–162.
possible direction of effects from middle childhood through early Bissell-Havran, J. M., & Loken, E. (2009). The role of friends in early
adolescence. It seems that academic success represents a key to adolescents’ academic self-competence and intrinsic value for math and
social success in the peer group during middle childhood, whereas English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 41–50.
peer rejection seems detrimental to children’s academic function- Blishen, B. R., Carroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981 socioeco-
nomic index for occupations in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology
ing. In spite of theoretical arguments for hypothesizing gender
and Anthropology, 24, 465– 488.
differences, our findings suggest that such relationships are basi- Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman &
cally the same for boys and for girls. Our findings suggest that G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp.
programs aimed at promoting children’s adjustment, including 171–196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
children’s academic success (e.g., Lavallee et al., 2005; Peters, Brown, B. B., Von Bank, H., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Smoke in the looking
Petrunka, & Arnold, 2003; Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Stoolmiller, glass: Effects of discordance between self- and peer-rated crowd affili-
ation on adolescent anxiety, depression and self-feelings. Journal of academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and
Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1163–1177. proximity of peer rejection. Child Development, 65, 1799 –1813.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1986). The changing functions of friends DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009).
in childhood: A neo-Sullivanian perspective. In V. J. Derlega & B. A. It’s the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping
Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp. 41– 62). New aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and
York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Social Psychology, 96, 45–59.
Buhs, E. S. (2005). Peer rejection, negative peer treatment, and school Dishion, T. J. (1990). The family ecology of boys’ peer relations in middle
adjustment: Self-concept and classroom engagement as mediating pro- childhood. Child Development, 61, 874 – 892.
cesses. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 407– 424. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Griesler, P. C. (1994). Peer adaptations
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and in the development of antisocial behavior: A confluence model. In L. R.
victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 61–
rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement? Jour- 95). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
nal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13. Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S.,
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in Fontaine, R., & Price, J. M. (2003). Peer rejection and social
information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behav-
theory, measurement, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.),

ior problems in children. Child Development, 74, 374 –393.
Peer relationships in child development (pp. 15– 45). New York, NY:
Wiley. Erath, S. A., Flanagan, K. S., & Bierman, K. L. (2008). Early adolescent
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1993). Popularity, friendship, school adjustment: Associations with friendship and peer victimization.
and emotional adjustment during early adolescence. In B. Laursen (Ed.), Social Development, 17, 853– 870.
Close friendships in adolescence (pp. 23–37). San Francisco, CA: Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational
Jossey-Bass. Research, 59, 117–142.
Bukowski, W. M., Pizzamiglio, M., Newcomb, A. F., & Hoza, B. (1996). Flook, L., Repetti, R. L., & Ullman, J. B. (2005). Classroom social
Popularity as an affordance for friendship: The link between group and experiences as predictors of academic performance. Developmental Psy-
dyadic experience. Social Development, 5, 189 –202. chology, 41, 319 –327.
Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement:
Bukowski, W. M., Sippola, L., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (2000). Pages
Questioning contemporary key debates. New York, NY: Routledge.
from a sociometric notebook: An analysis of nomination and rating scale
Frank, K. A., Muller, C., Schiller, K. S., Riegle-Crumb, C., Mueller, A. S.,
measures of acceptance, rejection, and social preference. In A. H. N.
Crosnoe, R., & Pearson, J. (2008). The social dynamics of mathematics
Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Recent advances in the measure-
course taking in high school. American Journal of Sociology, 113,
ment of acceptance and rejection in the peer system (pp. 11–26). San
1645–1696.
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Furman, W., & Robbins, P. (1985). What’s the point? Issues in the
Chen, J. J. L. (2005). Relation of academic support from parents, teachers,
selection of treatment objectives. In B. H. Schneider, K. H. Rubin, &
and peers to Hong Kong adolescents’ academic achievement: The me-
J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: Issues in assessment
diating role of academic engagement. Genetic, Social, and General
and intervention (pp. 41–56). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Psychology Monographs, 131(2), 77–127.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in
Chen, X., Chang, L., Liu, H., & He, Y. (2008). Effects of the peer group
children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educa-
on the development of social functioning and academic achievement: A
tional Psychology, 95, 148 –162.
longitudinal study in Chinese children. Child Development, 79, 235–
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relation-
251.
ships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of
Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Li, D. (1997). Relation between academic School Psychology, 41, 235–284.
achievement and social adjustment: Evidence from Chinese children. Giordano, P. C. (2003). Relationships in adolescence. Annual Review of
Developmental Psychology, 33, 518 –525. Sociology, 29, 257–281.
Cicchetti, D. (1993). Developmental psychopathology: Reactions, reflec- Graham, S., Bellmore, A. D., & Mize, J. (2006). Peer victimization,
tions, projections. Developmental Review, 13, 471–502. aggression, and their co-occurrence in middle school: Pathways to
Cobb, J. A. (1972). Relationship of discrete classroom behaviors to fourth- adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 363–
grade academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 378.
74 – 80. Hamm, J. V. (2000). Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences bases for African American, Asian American, and European American
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. adolescents’ selection of similar friends. Developmental Psychology, 36,
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types 209 –219.
of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, Hatzichristou, C., & Hopf, D. (1996). A multiperspective comparison of
557–570. peer sociometric status groups in childhood and adolescence. Child
Coie, J. D., & Krehbiel, G. (1984). Effects of academic tutoring on the Development, 67, 1085–1102.
social status of low-achieving, socially rejected children. Child Devel- Huguet, P., Dumas, F., Monteil, J. M., & Genestoux, N. (2001). Social
opment, 55, 1465–1478. comparison choices in the classroom: Further evidence for students’
Cook, T. D., Deng, Y., & Morgano, E. (2007). Friendship influences upward comparison tendency and its beneficial impact on performance.
during early adolescence: The special role of friends’ grade point aver- European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 557–578.
age. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 325–356. Jimerson, S. R., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospec-
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and tive longitudinal study of high school dropouts: Examining multiple
social–psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710 –722. predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 525–
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family 549.
income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adoles-
and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 294 –304. cent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427– 436.
DeRosier, M., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994). Children’s Kiesner, J., & Kerr, M. (2004). Families, peers, and contexts as multiple
determinants of adolescent problem behavior [Editorial]. Journal of Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal
Adolescence, 27, 493– 495. adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin,
Kiesner, J., Nicotra, E., & Notari, G. (2005). Target specificity of subjec- 102, 357–389.
tive relationship measures: Understanding the determination of item Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in
variance. Social Development, 14, 109 –135. middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of
Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29,
development: The case of children’s motivation in school. Developmen- 611– 621.
tal Psychology, 29, 970 –977. Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Erath, S. A., Wojslawowicz, J. C., & Buskirk,
Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on A. A. (2006). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: A
changes in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child developmental psychopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. J.
Development, 78, 1186 –1203. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and
Kingery, J. N., & Erdley, C. A. (2007). Peer experiences as predictors of method (2nd ed., pp. 419 – 493). New York, NY: Wiley.
adjustment across the middle school transition. Education and Treat- Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Price, J. M., & DeRosier, M. E. (1995). Peer
ment of Children, 30, 73– 88. relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental psy-
Klima, T., & Repetti, R. L. (2008). Children’s peer relations and their chopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Devel-
psychological adjustment: Differences between close friendships and the opmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp.
larger peer group. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 54, 151–178. 96 –161). New York, NY: Wiley.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation mod- Parker, J. G., & Seal, J. (1996). Forming, losing, renewing, and replacing
eling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. friendships: Applying temporal parameters to the assessment of chil-
Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S. L., & Reiser, M. (2008). Does chronic dren’s friendship experiences. Child Development, 67, 2248 –2268.
classroom peer rejection predict the development of children’s class- Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys.
room participation during the grade school years? Child Development, Eugene, OR: Castalia.
79, 1001–1015. Peters, R. D., Petrunka, K., & Arnold, R. (2003). The Better Beginnings,
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes Better Futures Project: A universal, comprehensive, community-based
in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social prevention approach for primary school children and their families.
Development, 19, 130 –147. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 215–227.
Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship in late Piaget, J. (1977). La Naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant [Origin of
childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. intelligence in the child] (9th ed.). Paris, France: Delachaux & Niestlé.
Child Development, 62, 284 –300. Risi, S., Gerhardstein, R., & Kistner, J. (2003). Children’s classroom peer
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. relationships and subsequent educational outcomes. Journal of Clinical
(1996). Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions with their families Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 351–361.
from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Romano, E., Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., & Swisher, R. (2005). Mul-
Psychology, 32, 744 –754. tilevel correlates of childhood physical aggression and prosocial behav-
Lavallee, K. L., Bierman, K. L., & Nix, R. L. (2005). The impact of ior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 565–578.
first-grade “friendship group” experiences on child social outcomes in Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer
the Fast Track program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behav-
307–324. ioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98 –
Maassen, G. H., van der Linden, J. L., & Akkermans, W. (1997). Nomi- 131.
nations, ratings, and the dimensions of sociometric status. International Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions,
Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 179 –199. relationships, and groups. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg
Mayseless, O., Wiseman, H., & Hai, I. (1998). Adolescents’ relationships (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and
with father, mother, and same-gender friend. Journal of Adolescent personality development (6th ed., pp. 571– 645). New York, NY: Wiley.
Research, 13, 101–123. Sameroff, A. J. (1975). Transactional models in early social relations.
Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2008). Teacher preference, peer rejec- Human Development, 18, 65–79.
tion, and student aggression: A prospective study of transactional influ- Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for
ence and independent contributions to emotional adjustment and grades. capturing transactional models of development: The limits of the pos-
Journal of School Psychology, 46, 661– 685. sible. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 613– 640.
Mikami, A. Y., Boucher, M. A., & Humphreys, K. (2005). Prevention of Sandstrom, M. J. (2004). Pitfalls of the peer world: How children cope with
peer rejection through a classroom-level intervention in middle school. common rejection experiences. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 5–23. 32, 67– 81.
Mikami, A. Y., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2006). Resilient adolescent adjustment Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environ-
among girls: Buffers of childhood peer rejection and attention-deficit/ ments: A theory of genotype to environment effects. Child Development,
hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 825– 54, 424 – 435.
839. Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los (2008). Friendships with peers who are low or high in aggression as
Angeles, CA: Author. moderators of the link between peer victimization and declines in
Nelson, S. E., & Dishion, T. J. (2004). From boys to men: Predicting adult academic functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 719 –
adaptation from middle childhood sociometric status. Development and 730.
Psychopathology, 16, 441– 459. Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005).
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic functioning.
A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306 –347. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425– 435.
O’Neil, R., Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Wang, S., & Strand, C. (1997). A Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their
longitudinal assessment of the academic correlates of early peer accep- standard errors in covariance structure models. Sociological Methodol-
tance and rejection. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 290 –303. ogy, 16, 159 –186.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences conduct problems and improving school readiness: Evaluation of the
in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psy- Incredible Years teacher and child training programs in high-risk
chologist, 47, 723–729. schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 471– 488.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Widaman, K., & O’Neil, R. (2001). Linkages
NY: Norton. between children’s social and academic competence: A longitudinal
Taylor, A. R. (1989). Predictors of peer rejection in early elementary analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 463– 481.
grades: Roles of problem behavior, academic achievement, and teacher Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance,
preference. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 360 –365. classroom behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educa-
Terry, R. (2000). Recent advances in measurement theory and the use of tional Psychology, 86, 173–182.
sociometric techniques. In A. H. N. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Wentzel, K. R. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic per-
Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the formance at school. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of
peer system (pp. 27–53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. competence and motivation (pp. 279 –296). New York, NY: Guilford
Tremblay, R. E., Desmarais-Gervais, L., Gagnon, C., & Charlebois, P. Press.
(1987). The Preschool Behaviour Questionnaire: Stability of its factor Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected,
structure between cultures, sexes, ages and socioeconomic classes. In- rejected, popular, and controversial children. Child Development, 66,
ternational Journal of Behavioral Development, 10, 467– 484. 754 –763.

Véronneau, M.-H., & Vitaro, F. (2007). Social experiences with peers and Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in
high school graduation: A review of theoretical and empirical research. middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal
Educational Psychology, 27, 419 – 445. of Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203.
Véronneau, M.-H., Vitaro, F., Pedersen, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2008). Do Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and
peers contribute to the likelihood of secondary school graduation among group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle
disadvantaged boys? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 429 – 442. school. Child Development, 68, 1198 –1209.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Pagani, L., Tremblay, R. E., & McDuff, P. Widaman, K. F. (2006). Missing data: What to do with or without them.
(1999). Disruptive behavior, peer association, and conduct disorder: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71(3),
Testing the developmental links through early intervention. Develop- 42– 64.
ment and Psychopathology, 11, 287–304. Woolley, M. E., Kol, K. L., & Bowen, G. L. (2009). The social context of
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Wanner, B. (2005). Patterns of affiliation with school success for Latino middle school students: Direct and indirect
delinquent friends during late childhood and early adolescence: Corre- influences of teachers, family, and friends. Journal of Early Adoles-
lates and consequences. Social Development, 14, 82–108. cence, 29, 43–70.
Vitaro, F., Pedersen, S., & Brendgen, M. (2007). Children’s disruptiveness, Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers,
peer rejection, friends’ deviancy, and delinquent behaviors: A process- fathers, and friends. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
oriented approach. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 433– 453.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher Received June 9, 2008
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Revision received December 21, 2009
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing Accepted April 2, 2010 䡲

10 1037@a0019816 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1037@a0019816 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developmental Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 46, No. 4, 773–790 0012-1649/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019816

Transactional Analysis of the Reciprocal Links Between Peer Experiences

Marie-Hélène Véronneau and Frank Vitaro Mara Brendgen

Thomas J. Dishion Richard E. Tremblay

Because complete data on all assessments were not necessary

ham, Bellmore, & Mize, 2006; Risi, Gerhardstein, & Kistner,

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7

Accep- Accep- Accep- Accep- Accep- Accep-

Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s

Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’

Measures continuous score of peer acceptance. The same procedure was

Control variable N M SD Skewness Kurtosis

SES 337 43.49 11.52 0.39 ⫺0.54

Note. SD ⫽ standard deviation; SES ⫽ socioeconomic status.

Bivariate Correlations Between the Main Variables Across All Assessments

VÉRONNEAU, VITARO, BRENDGEN, DISHION, AND TREMBLAY

assessing model fit. Comparative fit index and Tucker–Lewis

Model ␹2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR

Step 1: Model testing and adjustment

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7

.33 .35 .16 .34

acceptance acceptance acceptance acceptance acceptance acceptance

.19 .30 .19 .27

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7

.33 .35 .16 .34

.27 .28 .22 .20

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7

.33 .35 .16 .34

Family SES Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’ Friends’

components of the model (i.e., transactional paths), we concluded

Transactions Between Participants’ Academic

Cross-lagged (transactional) associations. As depicted in Achievement and Peer Acceptance

Discussion Transactions Between Participants’ Academic

nominations of each type (i.e., positive, negative, and best friend-

ship) because of time constraints, rather than be unlimited as

affiliation with a desired crowd, as observed by Steinberg, Dorn-

theory, measurement, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.),

ternational Journal of Behavioral Development, 10, 467– 484. 754 –763.

You might also like