Social Goal Orientation as a Predictor of Children's ... - APA PsycNET

Developmental Psychology 2014, Vol. 50, No. 4, 1116 –1124

© 2013 American Psychological Association 0012-1649/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035040

BRIEF REPORT

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The Company They Keep and Avoid: Social Goal Orientation as a Predictor of Children’s Ethnic Segregation Travis M. Wilson

Philip C. Rodkin

Oberlin College

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

Allison M. Ryan University of Michigan–Ann Arbor This study examined whether social goal orientation (i.e., demonstration–approach, demonstration– avoid, and social development goals) predicts changes in ethnic segregation among 4th and 5th grade African American and European American children (n ⫽ 713, ages 9 –11 years) from fall to spring. Segregation measures were (a) same-ethnicity favoritism in friendships, (b) same-ethnicity favoritism in peer group affiliations, and (c) cross-ethnicity dislike. Social goal orientation was asymmetrically associated with ethnic segregation for the 2 groups. Among African Americans, aspiring to achieve high social status predicted increases in same-ethnicity favoritism and cross-ethnicity dislike. Among European Americans, aspiring to achieve high social status predicted decreases in same-ethnicity favoritism. Keywords: middle childhood, social goal orientation, cross-ethnic peer relations

to the processes of African American and European American children’s ethnic segregation and cross-ethnicity dislike.

Despite increasing racial homogeneity in U.S. schools, many children have opportunities to interact with cross-ethnic peers on a daily basis in elementary classrooms. Navigating these experiences is a key developmental task. Having successful relationships with cross-ethnic peers fosters positive adjustment during childhood, including leadership potential (Kawabata & Crick, 2008) and acceptance among diverse classmates (Wilson & Rodkin, 2011). Studies of intergroup behavior commonly draw upon theories of ethnic prejudice (Dovidio, Glick, & Rudman, 2005) or intergroup moral reasoning (Levy & Killen, 2008). In this study, we assumed a broader scope of the developing person by testing the hypothesis that social goal orientation—a construct not explicitly related to race or ethnicity per se, but essential to peer relations— contributes

Intergroup Attitudes and Behavior During Middle Childhood Children’s intergroup interactions are governed by a confluence of developmental processes, including the acquisition of prejudice, responsiveness to peer status systems, and social identity formation. During middle childhood, children typically express prejudice in subtle forms such as suspicion, fear, avoidance, and expectations or projections of rejection; for this reason, voluntary contact with peers is viewed as the most important index of intergroup attitudes among children (Aboud & Amato, 2008). By 8 or 9 years of age, children also have developed abilities to coordinate multiple intergroup social– cognitive inputs and to be more intentional in their friendship selection (Aboud, 2008).

This article was published Online First December 2, 2013. Travis M. Wilson, Department of Psychology, Oberlin College; Philip C. Rodkin, Departments of Educational Psychology and Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign; Allison M. Ryan, Combined Program in Education and Psychology, University of Michigan–Ann Arbor. We are grateful to the children, teachers, and school principals who participated in and contributed to this project. This research was supported by grants to Philip C. Rodkin from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R03 HD48491-01) and the Spencer Foundation (Small Grant 20050079). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Travis M. Wilson, Severance Hall, 120 West Lorain Street, Oberlin, Ohio 44074, or to Philip C. Rodkin, 232A Colonel Wolfe School, Mail Code 422, 403 East Healey Street, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Children’s Social Status Systems Children’s social status systems are one powerful source of social– cognitive information that influences who befriends (or avoids) whom (Mayeux, Houser, & Dyches, 2011). Due to increases in the frequency of peer interaction and in cognitive maturation, by 9 or 10 years of age, children have a heightened awareness of one’s own social standing among peers (Ladd, 2005). Children’s status systems are multifaceted. Most notable is the distinction between being liked (or accepted) and being popular (see Mayeux et al., 2011). Acceptance is consistently linked to prosocial behavior, having many friends, and making a positive adjustment to school. Popularity is associated with both prosocial 1116


SOCIAL GOALS AND ETHNIC SEGREGATION

and aggressive behavior, as well as with visible markers of prestige such as physical attractiveness. By possessing controversial behavioral profiles and high visibility, popular children often are able to challenge adult authority and influence group norms. African American children are disproportionately perceived by same- and cross-ethnicity peers as popular and cool (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2006; Wilson & Rodkin, 2013). Two factors that may contribute to this trend are African Americans’ comparatively high levels of self-esteem—perhaps due to an emphasis on their own desirable distinctiveness (Gray-Little & Hafdahl, 2000)—and their comparatively early onset of puberty (Slyper, 2006), which may garner attention and status from peers. These dynamics may catalyze attempts for integration by European American children who themselves aspire to attain high status in the peer ecology.

Evidence of Children’s Intergroup Relationships in School Researchers have studied children’s cross-ethnic relationships from preschool to high school (see Graham, Taylor, & Ho, 2009). Robust evidence demonstrates that children of all ethnic groups prefer same- versus cross-ethnicity peers as friends and that ethnic segregation is more pronounced among classroom numerical minorities (e.g., Wilson & Rodkin, 2011). Efforts to understand peer interaction and socialization should consider the variety of relationship contexts within which peer interactions occur (Pfeifer, Brown, & Juvonen, 2007). In the present study, we considered segregation patterns in children’s friendships and affiliative peer groups. Whereas friendships are selective and intimate (Berndt & McCandless, 2009), peer groups have more casual contacts and are identified by reports of both group members and external observers (Gest, Farmer, Cairns, & Xie, 2003). In the social cognitive mapping procedure (SCM; Cairns & Cairns, 1994), used in the present analysis, these reports are consolidated. Friends and peer group affiliates overlap, but some peer group affiliates are not close friends (Kindermann, 2007), and both may exert independent socialization effects (French, Purwono, & Rodkin, 2012). In contrast to the positive bonds of friendship and peer group affiliation, negative aspects of children’s intergroup relationships at school, such as antipathies or peer exclusion, are less commonly studied (Pfeifer et al., 2007). In the present study, we examined children’s dislike for cross-ethnicity classmates as play partners—in addition to their ingroup preferences in friendships and peer group affiliations—from fall to spring of an academic year. Positive ingroup biases may be differentially rewarded with status for African American and European American children. In this sample of fourth- and fifth-grade children in predominantly biracial (i.e., African American and European American) schools, the more segregated were African Americans’ peer group affiliations, the cooler they were perceived to be by both same- and cross-ethnicity peers (Wilson & Rodkin, 2013). Among European Americans, the reverse was true: Ethnic segregation and perceived coolness were negatively associated. These findings call into question how children’s strivings for status—which have been linked to changes in actual status (Rodkin, Ryan, Jamison, & Wilson, 2013)— contribute to the development of children’s intergroup attitudes and affiliations.

1117

Social Goal Orientation and Intergroup Relations Goals play a vital role in marshaling behavior and social interactions. In addition to considering situation-specific goals, scholars construe goals as global constructs that apply to a broad range of social contexts, whereby children enter peer interactions with a relatively stable goal orientation that shapes their responses to proximal social stimuli (Ojanen, Grönroos, & Salmivalli, 2005; Ryan & Shim, 2008). Ryan and Shim (2006) empirically validated a three-factor social goal orientation framework among college students: Social development goals concern improving social skills and developing relationships, social demonstration–approach goals concern gaining prestige (e.g., being viewed as “cool”), and social demonstration–avoidance goals concern minimizing negative social judgments (e.g., avoiding “goofing up” around others). Social goal orientation predicted key indicators of social adjustment. A development goal predicted positive adjustment, whereas a demonstration–avoidance goal predicted negative adjustment. A demonstration–approach goal predicted popularity despite also being associated with some maladaptive behaviors. The threefactor social goal framework since has been validated among students in middle school (Ryan & Shim, 2008) and in elementary school, including the current sample (Rodkin et al., 2013).

Study Hypotheses We expected social demonstration goals to have opposite effects for the two ethnic groups: For African Americans, the demonstration–approach goal would positively predict (and the demonstration–avoidance goal negatively predict) ethnic segregation; for European Americans, the reverse would be true. More generally, we expected demonstration goals to be stronger predictors of segregation behavior than the developmental goal; the effect of the latter is contingent on a child’s desire to have cross-ethnic friendships, which varies considerably, thereby attenuating the association.

Method Study Design and Procedure The study had a longitudinal design with two survey assessments (fall and spring). Participation (81% in the fall, 84% in the spring) required parental/guardian consent and individual assent. (For additional details, see Wilson & Rodkin, 2013.)

Participants Participants attended 33 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in eight elementary schools across three midwestern school districts. The mean ethnic distribution of participating classrooms was 51.1% African American, 40.6% European American, 3.1% Asian, 2.1% Latina(o), and 3.1% other. This study focused on African American (n ⫽ 282) and European American (n ⫽ 213) participants.

Measures Lunch status. Children’s school lunch status (0 ⫽ qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, 1 ⫽ did not qualify) was used as an index of socioeconomic status.

WILSON, RODKIN, AND RYAN


1118

Social goals. In the fall, children completed a measure of social goals adapted from Ryan and Shim (2006, 2008) to be appropriate for elementary school children. Items were rated by children on a 5-point scale (from 1 ⫽ not at all true to 5 ⫽ very true). Six social development goal items concerned a focus on developing social competence. Five social demonstration–approach goal items concerned a focus on demonstrating social desirability. Four social demonstration– avoidance goal items concerned a focus on demonstrating that one is not socially undesirable. For multilevel modeling, items were averaged to create three scales: social development goal (␣ ⫽ .82; M ⫽ 3.72, SD ⫽ 1.08), demonstration–approach goal (␣ ⫽ .80; M ⫽ 3.03, SD ⫽ 1.23), and social demonstration–avoidance goal (␣ ⫽ .70, M ⫽ 3.12, SD ⫽ 1.19). See Appendix (Table A1) for item descriptions and confirmatory factor analysis details. Friendship (fall and spring). Children were prompted to write an unlimited number of names of children in their classroom whom they considered to be their best friends. Peer affiliations (fall and spring). We first asked participants, “Do you hang around together a lot with some kids in your classroom?” Participants who said “Yes” were prompted to check off boxes adjacent to the first names and last initials of peers in their classroom under the heading “My Group.” We then asked, “Besides the group that you’re in, are there other kids in your classroom who hang around together a lot?” Participants who said “Yes” were prompted to write the names of every child in each group they could recall. To collate responses from multiple informants and determine group membership, we used the SCM procedure (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). Peer dislike (fall and spring). Children were prompted to circle an unlimited number of names of children in their classroom whom they liked least (i.e., “These are the kids whom I would LIKE LEAST to play with”). Ethnic segregation (fall and spring). Each child’s patterns of friendship nominations, peer group affiliations, and sent liked-least nominations were used to calculate three ethnic segregation indices at each time point (see Appendix for details). For friendships and peer groups, positive values of the index favor same-ethnicity affiliations, negative values favor cross-ethnicity affiliations, and zero is a neutrality point; the larger the absolute value, the stronger

is the same- or cross-ethnicity favoritism. For like-least nominations, positive values reflect disproportionate like-least nominations toward cross-ethnicity peers, whereas negative values reflect disproportionate like-least nominations toward same-ethnicity peers. Ethnic context of classroom: Percentage of same-ethnicity peers. The percentage of children in the classroom who were either (a) African American (M ⫽ 51.1%, SD ⫽ 16.8%, range: 16%– 81%) or (b) European American (M ⫽ 40.6%, SD ⫽ 12.3%, range: 19%– 64%) was used to measure classroom ethnic context. Percentage of African American classmates was used in multilevel models at Level 2 for African American children, and percentage of European American classmates was used in models for European American children.

Analysis Plan Using multilevel modeling, we estimated individual-level variance in each of three spring measures of ethnic segregation as a function of fall measures of children’s social goals and classroom ethnic composition while controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) and the corresponding fall measure of segregation; we focus on these models in the following section. Fall models are presented in the Appendix (see Tables A2 and A3) but are not discussed.

Results We imputed missing data for all nonparticipating children, using other relevant variables (some not used in this report) as predictors. The final imputed data set included all study measures for 587 children: 315 African American (148 girls) and 272 European American children (119 girls).

Preliminary Analyses In Table 1, descriptive statistics are presented for all individuallevel variables by ethnicity and gender (see table note for details). Bivariate correlations are presented in the Appendix (Table A4). Stability in the three segregation indices from fall to spring was

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics by Ethnicity and Gender for Fall and Spring Semester Measurements African American Variable Fall social goals Development Demonstration-approach Demonstration-avoid Fall segregation Friendship Peer group Cross-ethnicity dislike Spring segregation Friendship Peer group Cross-ethnicity dislike

European American

Boys M (SD)

Girls M (SD)

Overall M (SD)

Boys M (SD)

Girls M (SD)

Overall M (SD)

3.52a (1.11) 3.43a (1.12) 2.97a (1.21)

3.83b (1.08) 3.07b (1.24) 3.01ab (1.24)

3.67 (1.10) 3.26 (1.19) 2.99 (1.23)

3.78b (1.02) 2.84bc (1.16) 3.35b (1.18)

3.75b (1.00) 2.70c (1.26) 3.19ab (1.14)

3.77 (1.01) 2.78 (1.20) 3.28 (1.16)

0.23a (0.64) 0.23a (0.68) 0.06a (0.71)

0.41b (0.52) 0.40a (0.76) 0.08ab (0.70)

0.32 (0.59) 0.31 (0.72) 0.07 (0.70)

0.31ab (0.56) 0.26a (0.62) 0.17ab (0.70)

0.43b (0.53) 0.35a (0.73) 0.29b (0.66)

0.36 (0.55) 0.30 (0.67) 0.22 (0.68)

0.18a (0.61) 0.23a (0.71) 0.17a (0.69)

0.38b (0.55) 0.48b (0.71) 0.22a(0.65)

0.28 (0.59) 0.34 (0.72) 0.19 (0.67)

0.28ab (0.55) 0.30ab (0.72) 0.14a (0.70)

0.36b (0.64) 0.43ab (0.74) 0.12a (0.71)

0.32 (0.59) 0.36 (0.73) 0.13 (0.70)

Note. African Americans: N ⫽ 315 (148 girls). European Americans: N ⫽ 272 (119 girls). Values in a given row that do not have a subscript letter in common differ significantly (analysis of variance Tukey post hoc test; p ⬍ .05).

a– c


moderate to high for both ethnic groups; autocorrelations ranged from .18 to .59 among African Americans (rAA) and from .40 to .54 among European Americans (rEA; ps ⬍ .01). However, autocorrelations for peer group segregation differed significantly across ethnic groups (rAA ⫽ .59, p ⬍ .01; rEA ⫽ .40, p ⬍ .01; z ⫽ 3.05, p ⬍ .01), as did autocorrelations for cross-ethnicity dislike (rAA ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01; rEA ⫽ .42, p ⬍ .01; z ⫽ 3.19, p ⬍ .01). Autocorrelations for friendship segregation did not differ significantly across ethnic groups (rAA ⫽ .47, p ⬍ .01; rEA ⫽ .54, p ⬍ .01; z ⫽ 1.13, ns).


Multilevel Modeling Multilevel models were conducted using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS Version 9.3. Each model had a two-level structure, with children nested within classrooms and a random intercept to account for between-classroom variance. Preliminary models evidenced no significant Gender ⫻ Ethnicity ⫻ Social Goal interaction and no significant Gender ⫻ Social Goal interaction within either ethnic group. There were no meaningful differences between grade levels and no meaningful cross-level interactions between classroom ethnic composition and any individual-level predictor.

Changes in Ethnic Segregation (Fall to Spring) Predicted by Fall Social Goals Ethnicity-by-social goals interactions. In each model, one segregation index was entered as the dependent variable. In sum, seven of nine ethnicity-by-social goal interaction terms reached at least marginal significance, indicating that social goals differentially predicted African American and European American chil-

1119

dren’s segregation indices (see Table A5). Separate analyses for each ethnic group are presented in Table 2. African Americans’ segregation patterns. Among African American children, the demonstration–approach goal predicted increases in ethnic segregation in peer groups (␤ ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .01) and in cross-ethnicity dislike (␤ ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .10). The demonstration–avoidance goal did not significantly predict changes in segregation. The development goal predicted decreases in African Americans’ cross-ethnicity dislike (␤ ⫽ ⫺.14, p ⬍ .01). SES (i.e., lunch status) was negatively associated with changes in peer group segregation (␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .05). Classroom percentage of same ethnicity was negatively associated with changes in African Americans’ friendship segregation (␥ ⫽ ⫺0.55, p ⬍ .05) but was positively associated with changes in their cross-ethnicity dislike (␥ ⫽ 0.64, p ⬍ .05). European Americans’ segregation patterns. Among European American children, the demonstration–approach goal predicted decreases in friendship segregation (␤ ⫽ –.07, p ⬍ .05) and peer group segregation (␤ ⫽ –.08, p ⬍ .05). In contrast, the demonstration–avoidance goal predicted increases in peer group segregation (␤ ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .10). The development goal did not predict any changes in European Americans’ segregation. Classroom percentage of same ethnicity was negatively associated with changes in European Americans’ peer group segregation (␥ ⫽ ⫺1.25, p ⬍ .05) but positively associated with changes in their cross-ethnicity dislike (␥ ⫽ 1.27, p ⬍ .01).

Discussion In this longitudinal study, we inquired into African American and European American children’s social goal orientations, friendship segregation, peer group segregation, and cross-ethnicity dis-

Table 2 Hierarchical Linear Models of Change in Ethnic Segregation (Fall to Spring) as a Function of Fall Social Goals Spring ethnic segregation index Friendship Predictor variable (Fall) African Americans Null intercept Fall segregation Lunch status Female Approach goal Development goal Avoidance goal Classroom % same-ethnicity European Americans Null intercept Fall segregation Lunch status Female Approach goal Development goal Avoidance goal Classroom % same-ethnicity

Peer group

Effect

SE

t

Effect

SE

.262 .383 ⫺.119 .177 .027 ⫺.013 ⫺.038 ⫺0.550

.0526 .0548 .0879 .0643 .0286 .0308 .0282 .2234

4.97ⴱⴱ 6.99ⴱⴱ 1.35 2.75ⴱⴱ 0.94 0.44 1.34 2.46ⴱ

.294 .556 ⫺.186 .149 .072 ⫺.023 ⫺.023 ⫺0.360

.0780 .0449 .0860 .0639 .0277 .0296 .0271 .3875

.323 .505 .000 .047 ⫺.068 ⫺.014 .032 ⫺0.367

.0426 .0622 .0685 .0638 .0294 .0337 .0323 .2799

7.58ⴱⴱ 8.11ⴱⴱ 0.00 0.73 2.33ⴱ 0.41 1.00 1.31

.389 .462 .080 .056 ⫺.079 ⫺.011 .074 ⫺1.25

.0681 .0583 .0820 .0767 .0348 .0401 .0380 .4914

Cross-ethnicity dislike t

Effect

SE

t

3.77ⴱⴱ 12.4ⴱⴱ 2.16ⴱ 2.34ⴱ 2.61ⴱⴱ 0.78 0.83 0.93

.180 .168 .050 .083 .060 ⫺.139 .030 0.637

.0437 .0536 .1074 .0762 .0352 .0374 .0348 .2460

4.13ⴱⴱ 3.13ⴱⴱ 0.47 1.08 1.70† 3.73ⴱⴱ 0.86 2.59ⴱ

5.71ⴱⴱ 7.92ⴱⴱ 0.98 0.73 2.26ⴱ 0.28 1.94† 2.54ⴱ

.108 .378 ⫺.094 ⫺.103 ⫺.039 .035 ⫺.048 1.27

.0614 .0618 .0816 .0766 .0356 .0406 .0389 .3672

1.76† 6.11ⴱⴱ 1.15 1.34 1.10 0.86 1.23 3.46ⴱⴱ

Note. Lunch status: 0 ⫽ free/reduced price, 1 ⫽ not free/reduced price; female variable: 0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female. For African Americans, meta-R2 values were .645 (friendship segregation), .831 (peer group segregation), and .498 (cross-ethnicity dislike). For European Americans, meta-R2 values were .811 (friendship segregation), .801 (peer group segregation), and .709 (cross-ethnicity dislike). † p ⬍ .10. ⴱp ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱp ⬍ .01.


1120


like. The goal to demonstrate one’s social competence most consistently predicted children’s ethnic segregation, but in opposite directions for African Americans and European Americans: Among African Americans, the demonstration–approach goal predicted increases in segregation from fall to spring; among European Americans, it predicted decreases in segregation from fall to spring. These findings are consistent with prior research showing that African Americans are widely perceived by classmates as being cool or possessing social savoir-faire (e.g., Rodkin et al., 2006). To the extent that European Americans and African Americans share this view—and evidence suggests that they do (Wilson & Rodkin, 2013)—it follows that the demonstration–approach orientation would disproportionately motivate children to befriend African American peers, giving rise to opposite patterns of segregation for African American and European American children. The goal to develop one’s social competence, too, evidenced asymmetric findings for the two ethnic groups. Among African Americans, but not among European Americans, the development goal predicted decreases in cross-ethnicity dislike. Perhaps because children with social development goals have high selfefficacy and their self-worth is less compromised by peer disapproval (Ryan & Shim, 2008), African American children with a strong social development orientation are particularly resilient to the challenges inherent in intergroup contact, thereby mitigating psychological needs for negative outgroup biases. Why these dynamics would pertain primarily to African American children remains an open question for further research.

Social Goals and Intergroup Relations in Developmental Context The literature on intergroup attitudes and behavior has made considerable advances in the past half century to situate children’s intergroup relations in developmental context. Whereas early researchers viewed intergroup attitudes as functions of social learning and conformity, contemporary researchers have emphasized how social inputs are filtered through children’s maturationdependent cognitive structures to make sense of the social world (Aboud, 2008). As witnessed in the present study, even by the age of 9 or 10, children evidence clear differentiation in social goal orientation. That goal orientation bears directly on intergroup behavior— even though social goals themselves do not directly pertain to race or ethnicity per se—lends further support for social– cognitive maturation models of intergroup attitudes and behavior. The maturation and operation of social goal orientation occur in social context. Children’s peer status systems are a salient aspect of the social context of elementary schools, and children respond differently to this context, depending in part on their own social goal orientation. Indeed, the perceived social status of cross-ethnic peers may have pervasive influence on children’s intergroup relations at school beyond the scope of this study (see Wilson & Rodkin, 2011). To be sure, children’s intergroup relations are responsive not solely to perceptions of social status or to other generalized beliefs about same- and cross-ethnic peers but also to specific situational cues, such as observed cultural differences in language, in style of dress, and in play (Aboud, 2005). So when considering that a myriad of alternative factors also govern processes of peer affiliation, that social goal orientation consistently

and differentially influences African American and European American children’s intergroup relations is compelling. Intergroup behavior was sensitive to classroom ethnic context as well—and in similar ways for both ethnic groups. When children had fewer same-ethnicity classmates, they had disproportionately more segregated friendships and peer groups. The reverse was true for a negative outgroup bias: When children had more sameethnicity classmates, they disliked cross-ethnicity peers disproportionately more. These findings suggest that the heightened segregation of classroom minority students—a mechanism of self-protection—and the pronounced negative outgroup attitudes of the majority group may be mutually reinforcing processes. The efficacy of interventions designed to promote authentic intergroup contact, well known to mitigate children’s prejudice (Pfeifer et al., 2007), may be attributable in part to their ability to interrupt this vicious cycle.

Future Directions The influence of social goals on intergroup behavior likely overlaps with other aspects of social adjustment at school. Higher levels of a demonstration–approach goal among African Americans may be a proximally adaptive response to discrimination within school settings (Ferguson, 2001), as having “cool” status during middle childhood is associated with lower levels of loneliness, peer rejection, and social anxiety (Graham & Juvonen, 2002). However, espousing a demonstration–approach goal has significant costs as well, including maladaptive responses to peer conflict, poor academic engagement, and low academic performance (Shin & Ryan, 2012). In light of present study findings, whether interventions that encourage children to temper demonstration goals have differential effects for ethnic minority and majority students is a topic worthy of research. Addressing this question, as well as others raised by this report, may reveal how children’s social goal orientation plays a significant role in the creation of inclusive and engaging classroom environments.

References Aboud, F. E. (2005). The development of prejudice in childhood and adolescence. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice (pp. 310 –326). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Aboud, F. E. (2008). A social– cognitive developmental theory of prejudice. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 55–71). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. Aboud, F. E., & Amato, M. (2008). Developmental and socialization influences on intergroup bias. In R. Brown, S. L. Gaertner, F. E. Aboud, & M. Amato (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 65– 85). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Berndt, T. J., & McCandless, M. A. (2009). Methods for investigating children’s relationships with friends. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 63– 81). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P., & Rudman, L. A. (Eds.). (2005). On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470773963 Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.


SOCIAL GOALS AND ETHNIC SEGREGATION French, D. C., Purwono, U., & Rodkin, P. C. (2012). Religiosity of adolescents and their friends and network associates: Homophily and associations with antisocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 326 –332. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00778.x Gest, S. D., Farmer, T. W., Cairns, B. D., & Xie, H. (2003). Identifying children’s peer social networks in school classrooms: Links between peer reports and observed interactions. Social Development, 12, 513– 529. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00246 Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2002). What is segregation?: A comparison of measures in terms of “strong” and “weak” compositional invariance. Sociology, 36, 875– 895. Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2002). Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 173–199. doi:10.1177/0272431602022002003 Graham, S., Taylor, A. Z., & Ho, A. Y. (2009). Race and ethnicity in peer relations research. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 394 – 413). New York, NY: Guilford Press.’ Gray-Little, B., & Hafdahl, A. R. (2000). Factors influencing racial comparisons of self-esteem: A quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 26 –54. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.26 Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. R. (2008). The role of cross-racial/ethnic friendships in social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1177– 1183. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1177 Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on changes in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78, 1186 –1203. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01060.x Ladd, G. W. (2005). Children’s peer relationships and social competence: A century of progress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Levy, S. R., & Killen, M. (Eds.). (2008). Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Mayeux, L., Houser, J. J., & Dyches, K. D. (2011). Likeability and popularity: Distinct constructs with different correlates. In A. H. N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 79 –102). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 679 –716.

1121

Ojanen, T., Grönroos, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s social goals: Links with peer-reported behavior and sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 41, 699 – 710. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.699 Pfeifer, J. H., Brown, C. S., & Juvonen, J. (2007). Prejudice reduction in schools: Teaching tolerance in schools. Lessons learned since Brown v. Board of Education about the development and reduction of children’s prejudice. SRCD Social Policy Report, 21, 3–13. Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2006). They’re cool: Social status and peer group supports for aggressive boys and girls. Social Development, 15, 175–204. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9507.2006 .00336.x Rodkin, P. C., Ryan, A. M., Jamison, R., & Wilson, T. (2013). Social goals, social behavior, and social status in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1139 –1150. doi:10.1037/a0029389 Ryan, A. M., & Shim, S. (2006). Social achievement goals: The nature and consequences of different orientations toward social competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1246 –1263. doi:10.1177/ 0146167206289345 Ryan, A. M., & Shim, S. (2008). An exploration of young adolescents’ social achievement goals and social adjustment in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 672– 687. doi:10.1037/0022-0663 .100.3.672 Shin, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2012). How do young adolescents cope with social problems? An examination of social goals, coping with friends and social adjustment. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 851– 875. doi:10.1177/0272431611429944 Slyper, A. H. (2006). The pubertal timing controversy in the USA, and a review of possible causative factors for the advance in timing of onset of puberty. Clinical Endocrinology, 65, 1– 8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265 .2006.02539.x Wilson, T. M., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). African American and European American children in diverse elementary classrooms: Social integration, social status, and social behavior. Child Development, 82, 1454 –1469. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01634.x Wilson, T. M., & Rodkin, P. C. (2013). Children’s cross-ethnic relations in elementary schools: Concurrent and prospective associations between segregation and social status. Child Development. doi:10.1111/cdev .12020

(Appendix follows)


1122

Appendix


Calculating Fall and Spring Segregation Indices Each child’s patterns of friendship nominations, peer group affiliations, and sent liked-least nominations were used to calculate three ethnic segregation indices at each time point. Friendship and liked-least nominations were unilateral (i.e., did not require reciprocation). Calculating segregation indices was similar for all three constructs; in the following, we illustrate the process for friendship and peer group affiliations and then note how it differed slightly for dislike. To measure friendship and peer group segregation, we used the compositionally invariant odds ratio, alpha, which controls for opportunities present for same- and cross-ethnicity contact in classrooms of varying ethnic composition (Moody, 2001). Measures of segregation that do not maintain compositional invariance, such as strict proportions, yield misleading results (Gorard & Taylor, 2002). For each child, an ethnicity-by-nominations crosstabulation was constructed. In this table, A is the number of same-ethnicity ties, B is the number of cross-ethnicity ties, C is the number of same-ethnicity peers with whom the child did not have ties, and D is the number of cross-ethnicity peers with whom the child did not have ties. Only ties among African American and European American children were considered. The cross-

tabulation yields an odds ratio, namely, ␣ ⫽ AD/BC. Wherever there was a zero value in one or more cells of the cross-tabulation, 0.5 was added to each cell. The formula for friendship and peer group segregation is log ␣ ⫽ log(AD/BC). On this scale, positive values favor same-ethnicity affiliations, negative values favor cross-ethnicity affiliations, and zero is a neutrality point. The larger the absolute value, the stronger is the same- or crossethnicity favoritism. Theoretically, the scale ranges from negative infinity to positive infinity. With the present sample, values of friendship segregation ranged from ⫺1.62 (disproportionate affiliations with cross-ethnicity classmates) to ⫹1.95 (disproportionate affiliations with same-ethnicity classmates); values of peer group segregation ranged from ⫺1.74 to ⫹1.92. For like-least nominations, the odds ratio was inverted, where log ␣ ⫽ log(BC/AD), to maintain a consistent valence across measures of ethnic segregation. Positive values reflect disproportionate like-least nominations toward cross-ethnicity peers, whereas negative values reflect disproportionate like-least nominations toward same-ethnicity peers. Values ranged from ⫺1.96 (disproportionate disliking of same-ethnicity classmates) to ⫹2.37 (disproportionate disliking of cross-ethnicity classmates).

Table A1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Social Goal Structure Social development

Item 1. I like it when I learn new ways to make friends. 2. I like to learn new skills for getting along with other kids. 3. I feel successful when I learn something new about how to get along with other kids. 4. I try to figure out what makes a good friend. 5. I try to get to know other kids better. 6. It is important to me that my friendships get even better over time. 7. It is important to me that other kids think I am popular. 8. I want to be friends with the “popular” kids. 9. It is important to me to have “cool” friends. 10. It is important to me to be seen as having a lot of friends. 11. One of my main goals is that a lot of kids like me. 12. It is important to me that I don’t embarrass myself around my friends. 13. One of my main goals is to make sure that other kids don’t say anything bad about me. 14. When I am around other kids, I mostly just try not to goof up. 15. I try to avoid doing things that make me look foolish to other kids.

Demonstration– approach

Demonstration– avoidance

.81 .79 .70 .64 .60 .43 .80 .77 .72 .57 .44 .65 .62 .61 .54

Note. Fit indices for the three-factor confirmatory factor analysis with the combined sample of African Americans (n ⫽ 315) and European Americans (n ⫽ 272): root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ .061, Tucker–Lewis Index ⫽ .92, comparative fit index ⫽ .93. Correlations between social goal factors (all ps ⬍ .01): (a) r ⫽ .22 (social development, demonstration–approach); b) r ⫽ .51 (social development, demonstration–avoidance); (c) r ⫽ .51 (demonstration–approach, demonstration–avoidance). Indicator loadings for each latent variable were statistically significant and high (.43 ⱕ ␭s ⱕ .81, ps ⬍ .001).

(Appendix continues)


1123

Table A2 Hierarchical Linear Models of Fall Ethnic Segregation as Functions of Ethnicity-by-Social Goals Interactions Fall ethnic segregation index Friendship Predictor variable (Fall)


Ethnicity ⫻ Approach Goal Ethnicity ⫻ Development Goal Ethnicity ⫻ Avoidance Goal

Effect .135 ⫺.086 ⫺.094

SE .0418 .0412 .0439

Peer group t

Effect ⴱⴱ

3.22 1.85† 2.13ⴱ

.118 ⫺.065 ⫺.049

SE .0507 .0555 .0531

Cross-ethnicity dislike t ⴱ

2.33 1.18 0.93

Effect

SE

t

.201 .023 ⫺.148

.0516 .0572 .0543

3.90ⴱⴱ 0.40 2.72ⴱⴱ

Note. Variables entered were gender; ethnicity (0 ⫽ European American, 1 ⫽ African American); lunch status (0 ⫽ free/reduced price, 1 ⫽ not free/reduced price); demonstration–approach, social development, and demonstration–avoidance goals; and the three Ethnicity ⫻ Goals interactions. Meta-R2 values were .599 (friendship segregation), .617 (peer group segregation), and .561 (cross-ethnicity dislike). To summarize: In fall models, demonstration–approach and avoidance goals consistently predicted ethnic segregation and cross-ethnicity dislike differentially for African American and European American children; these models accounted for a large percentage of the variance of each dependent variable. To elaborate on these findings, we present separate analyses for each ethnic group in Table A4. † p ⬍ .10. ⴱp ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱp ⬍ .01.

Table A3 Hierarchical Linear Models of Fall Ethnic Segregation as Functions of Fall Social Goals Fall ethnic segregation index Friendship Predictor variable (Fall) African Americans Null intercept Female Lunch status Approach goal Development goal Avoid goal Classroom % same-ethnicity European Americans Null intercept Female Lunch status Approach goal Development goal Avoid goal Classroom % same-ethnicity

Peer group

Effect

SE

t

Effect

SE

.281 .257 ⫺.192 .074 ⫺.071 .013 ⫺.365

.0548 .0644 .0877 .0282 .0303 .0279 .3223

5.13ⴱⴱ 3.99ⴱⴱ 2.19ⴱ 2.61ⴱⴱ 2.35ⴱ 0.46 1.13

.281 .179 ⫺.116 .064 ⫺.056 ⫺.026 ⫺.404

.0785 .0796 .1078 .0347 .0371 .0341 .4745

.362 .087 .172 ⫺.042 ⫺.022 .076 ⫺.736

.0461 .0617 .0664 .0280 .0326 .0308 .3686

7.85ⴱⴱ 1.41 2.59ⴱⴱ 1.50 0.68 2.46ⴱ 2.00ⴱ

.308 .112 ⫺.063 ⫺.054 .010 .014 ⫺.149

.0613 .0794 .0851 .0359 .0416 .0395 .5292

Cross-ethnicity dislike t

Effect

SE

t

3.58ⴱⴱ 2.25ⴱ 1.07 1.86† 1.52 0.75 0.85

.043 ⫺.019 ⫺.055 .070 ⫺.018 ⫺.071 ⫺.092

.0591 .0802 .1095 .0352 .0379 .0349 .3778

0.73 0.24 0.50 1.99ⴱ 0.47 2.03ⴱ 0.24

5.02ⴱⴱ 1.41 0.74 1.51 0.23 0.36 0.28

.192 .127 ⫺.043 ⫺.104 ⫺.034 .099 1.17

.0538 .0750 .0808 .0342 .0397 .0376 .4178

3.56ⴱⴱ 1.70† 0.53 3.03ⴱⴱ 0.86 2.65ⴱⴱ 2.79ⴱⴱ

Note. Female variable: 0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female; lunch status: 0 ⫽ free/reduced price, 1 ⫽ not free/reduced price. For African-Americans, meta-R2 values were .519 (friendship segregation), .591 (peer group segregation), and .521 (cross-ethnicity dislike). For European Americans, meta-R2 values were .647 (friendship segregation), .739 (peer group segregation), and .678 (cross-ethnicity dislike). In summary, in the fall, there were key distinctions between ethnic groups in associations between social goals and ethnic segregation. The demonstration-approach goal most consistently predicted the three indices of children’s ethnic segregation and in opposite directions for African Americans versus European Americans. In contrast, the avoidance goal was negatively associated with African Americans’ segregation (cross-ethnicity dislike only) but was positively associated with European Americans’ segregation. The development goal was negatively associated with African Americans’ friendship segregation but was unrelated to European Americans’ friendship segregation; however, the latter findings are tenuous, as the Ethnicity x Social Development goal interactions in the combined models were not significant (see Table A3). † p ⬍ .10. ⴱp ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱp ⬍ .01.

(Appendix continues)


1124 Table A4 Zero-Order Correlations Between Study Variables


Variable Fall measurements 1. Development goal 2. Demonstration–approach goal 3. Demonstration–avoid goal 4. Friendship segregation 5. Peer group segregation 6. Cross-ethnicity dislike Spring measurements 7. Friendship segregation 8. Peer group segregation 9. Cross-ethnicity dislike

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

— .27ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.01

.24ⴱⴱ — .42ⴱⴱ .10 .06 .11

.37ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ — ⫺.02 ⫺.02 ⫺.05

.06 ⫺.04 .14ⴱ — .46ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ

.04 ⫺.07 ⫺.03 .40ⴱⴱ — .33ⴱⴱ

⫺.04 ⫺.16ⴱⴱ .01 .32ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ —

⫺.01 ⫺.13ⴱ .06 .54ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱ

.01 ⫺.15ⴱ .06 .39ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ .08

⫺.04 ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.11 .26ⴱⴱ .09ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ

⫺.10 ⫺.08 ⫺.16ⴱⴱ

.02 .12ⴱ .09

⫺.08 ⫺.03 .01

.47ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ .14ⴱ

.43ⴱⴱ .59ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ

.25ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ

— .54ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ

.39ⴱⴱ — .18ⴱⴱ

.19ⴱⴱ .10 —

Note. African Americans, below diagonal: N ⫽ 315 (148 girls). European Americans, above diagonal: N ⫽ 272 (119 girls). ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱp ⬍ .01.

Table A5 Hierarchical Linear Models of Change in Ethnic Segregation (Fall to Spring) as a Function of Ethnicity-by-Social Goals Interactions Spring ethnic segregation index Friendship Predictor variable (Fall) Ethnicity ⫻ Approach Goal Ethnicity ⫻ Development Goal Ethnicity ⫻ Avoidance Goal

Effect .077 .011 ⫺.075

SE .0406 .0452 .0426

Peer group t

Effect †

1.89 0.24 1.77†

.130 ⫺.044 ⫺.118

SE .0454 .0496 .0474

Cross-ethnicity dislike t ⴱⴱ

2.86 0.88 2.48ⴱ

Effect

SE

t

.095 ⫺.151 .096

.0509 .0563 .0533

1.87† 2.68ⴱⴱ 1.79†

Note. Variables entered were the corresponding fall segregation index; gender; ethnicity (0 ⫽ European American, 1 ⫽ African American); lunch status (0 ⫽ free/reduced price, 1 ⫽ not free/reduced price); demonstration–approach, social development, and demonstration–avoidance goals; and the three Ethnicity ⫻ Goals interactions. Meta-R2 values were .681 (friendship segregation), .776 (peer group segregation), and .563 (cross-ethnicity dislike). † p ⬍ .10. ⴱp ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱp ⬍ .01.

Received August 20, 2012 Revision received June 28, 2013 Accepted September 6, 2013 䡲