“Birds of a Feather . . .”: Behavioral Concordances and Preferential Personal Attraction in Children Kenneth H. Rubin, David Lynch, and Robert Coplan University of Waterloo Linda Rose-Krasnor Brock University Cathryn L. Booth University of Washington RuIN, KENNETH H.; Lyncu, Davin; CopLan, ROBERT; ROSE-KRASNOR, LINDA; and BOOTH, CaTH- Rw L. “Birds of a Feather . ..”: Behavioral Concordances and Preferential Personal Attraction in Children. Cai.> DEVELOPMENT, 1994, 65, 1778-1785. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which preferential personal attraction was associated with behavioral similarity among newly acquainted children. Participants included 69 focal children, selected from a sam- ple of 236 7-year-old children who met, for the first time, in same-sex quartets (n = 59) for a free-play session. Within each of these quartets, a “discriminating child” was identified; this child expressed a clear preference for one of his or her playmates over one other of her or his quartet playmates. Preference was determined sociometrically after the children became acquainted during free play. The results indicated that “discriminating” children were more behaviorally similar to preferred playmates than to nonpreferred playmates both in terms of cognitive play style and social participation. Implications of the findings are discussed in terms of the relation to the acquaintanceship process. ‘What is it that attracts one child to an- other? How can one characterize the “mag- nets” that draw a child to an unfamiliar peer and lead to the potential establishment of an affectionate relationship with that peer? These questions have long been the subject of folklorists (“Birds of a feather flock to- gether”) and philosophers (‘‘We like those who resemble us and are engaged in the same pursuits”; Aristotle, 1932, p. 103). More recently, psychologists have suggested likewise that attraction among children guided by concordances or similarities in age (Strayer, 1980), sex (Duck, 1975), and ethnicity/race (Singleton & Asher, 1979). Beyond the physical or surface informa- tion given (e.g., age, sex, race, physical at- tractiveness), relatively little is known about the relations, in early and middle childhood, between other forms of similarity and pref- erential personal attraction (Hartup, 1989). What is known derives generally from data- bases comprised of older children and ado- lescents. For example, Hymel and Woody (1991) found that mid-school-aged children reported liking those who were similar to them in terms of politeness and sense of hu- mor. Gest, Graham-Berman, and Hartup (1991) noted that self-reported similarity in sociability and sensitivity distinguished friend from nonfriend dyads. In adoles- cence, similar attitudes, aspirations, and in- tellect appear to aid in the maintenance of friendship bonds (e.g., Fisher & Bauman, 1988; Kandel, 1978; Smollar & Youniss, 1982). ‘There are two broad limitations to the studies cited above. First, researchers have ‘The study reported herein was supported by a grant from NICHD (grant no. HD 27806). We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Patricia Taylor, Donna Dwyer-O’Connor, Marilyn Dryden, Sheila Meagher, Shannon Gird, Susan Coates, and Sybil Evans (University of Washing- ton) and Kerri Hogg, Loretta Lapa, James Cash, and Xinyin Chen (University of Waterloo} for their help in data collection, coding, and analysis. We thank the mothers and children who made this project possible. Requests for reprints should be sent to Kenneth H. Rubin, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 [Child Development, 1994, 65, 1778-1785. © 1994 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Ine All rights reserved. 0009-3920/94'6506-00 1280 1.00]taken as their respective databases child and adolescent reports or perceptions of similar- ity. Thus, there is a notable lack of behav- ioral observation data concerning the study of preferential personal attraction in child- hood. Second, researchers have focused typ- ically on distinguishing perceptions of simi- larity between already existing friendship dyads and nonfriend dyads (see Epstein, 1989, for a relevant review). Thus, what is known suggests that child and adolescent friends are more similar to one another than are nonfriends. It is important to note that similarity between friends may increase with the length of friendship as children share an increasing number of experiences; moreover, friends may change their attitudes and behaviors to intentionally become more similar, These data concerning similarity be- tween friends are uninformative, however, insofar as the study of preferential personal attraction between initially unfamiliar indi- viduals is concerned. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine whether behavioral concor- dance is associated with preferential per- sonal attraction in. middle childhood. To meet this empirical goal, we explored the possibility that children who demonstrated a clear preference for one previously unac- quainted play partner over another did so selectively on the basis of similar social be- havioral and play styles. There is reason to believe that children would be attracted to those who play similarly to them. During the preschool years, previously unacquainted children who “hit it off” appear to commu- nicate clearly with one another and to dem- onstrate similar play styles (Gottman, 1983). Furthermore, during the middle years of childhood, the ability to find a common ground in play activity is an important ele- ment in friendship development (e.g., Bige- low, 1977). Thus, it seems reasonable to argue that children’s attitudes about play will be reflected in their choices of play a tivities, and that the demonstration of partic- ular play forms will influence a given child’s preference for those peers who play like them over those peers whose play is dissimi- lar to their own. In drawing from the aforementioned re- search extant, it was hypothesized that 7- year-old children who preferred playing with one peer significantly more than with another peer would exhibit social behaviors and play forms that were more similar to those of the preferred peer than to the less preferred peer. This hypothesis of behav- Rubin et al. 1779 ioral concordance was thought to hold even when the focal child was not playing with the preferred peer or the nonpreferred peer. The literature concerning the causes and correlates of peer acceptance indicates that sociometrically popular and socially competent children are more likely than their rejected counterparts to play at higher cognitive levels and to engage in more com- plex forms of social play (e.g., Rubin & Dan- iels-Beirness, 1983). These findings sug- gested an alternate interpretation to the findings anticipated in this study. Following a play session among previously unac- quainted peers, it may be that those children who are able to articulate a distinct prefer- ence for one play partner over another are themselves more socially competent than their age-mates who express no preferential biases. Furthermore, any given child who is chosen preferentially over another by a dis- criminating peer following an initial free- play session may be preferred because she or he engages in higher cognitive levels and more sociable forms of play. If these assump- tions are correct, then it would stand to rea- son that discriminating children and their preferred play partners would have similar play styles. In actuality, we do not believe this alter- native to be the case in this particular study of previously unacquainted peers. It is im- portant to note that most studies of sociomet- tic popularity involve groups of familiar peers (e.g., classmates), each of whom rates the other. In the present study, we were in- terested in the child who, after free play in a quartet, voiced a distinct preference for one previously unacquainted peer over another. Furthermore, most sociometric research has typically focused on the recipients of posi- tive and negative nominations and ratings. In the present study, we were interested in children who make wide distinctions in their sociometric ratings of playmates. To re- iterate, we have hypothesized that when children make these sociometric discrimina- tions, behavioral concordance in free-play patterns will contribute significantly to pref- erential choice of one peer over another. Finally, given that researchers have found friends to play together more often and in more mature fashion than nonfriends (e.g., Doyle, 1982; Hinde, Titmus, Easton, & Tamplin, 1985), we hypothesized also that children would spend more time observing, playing near, talking to, and playing with those new acquaintances who they eventu-1780 Child Development ally (after a play session) reported liking than those who they reported not liking. Method Subjects The original sample was comprised of 236 children (96 females, 140 males) who were participating in a larger study of the relations between the quality of parent-child and peer relationships. The children partici- pated in 59 same-sex, same-age quartets. From these quartets, 69 focal children (42 boys, 27 girls) were selected for further study based on criteria noted below. The participants resided in a large municipality in the northwestern United States. The eth- nic composition of the original sample was predominantly Caucasian (91%). In the se- lected sample, 64 of the 69 children were Caucasian. Demographically, the children came from middle-class family backgrounds (four-factor Hollingshead [1957], M = 47.13, SD = 11.27 [original sample]; M = 48.23, D = 12.02 [selected sample]). The mean age of all the participants was 7.9 (+/~ .15) years. Procedure Play session.—All 236 participants were brought together in same-sex, same-age (+/~ 3 months) quartets (n = 59); the quartet members were unfamiliar to each other prior to the play session. One child in each quartet had participated in an earlier phase of the study that had taken place 3 years previously (e.g., Booth, Rose-Krasnor, & Rubin, 1991). The three remaining members of each quar- tet were recruited for the study via posters placed in community and shopping centers, schools, and food banks. The study was de- scribed to parents as one concerning the play and social development of children. The observational paradigm comprised several segments, including a free-play ses- sion involving four children (20 min), a ses- sion during which each child was required to sort tickets cooperatively (10 min), and a session during which a single remote control vehicle was introduced to the playroom (20 min). For purposes of the present study, only the data from the initial free play session were coded. The free-play session began with the re- search assistant (a female) advising the par- ticipants that their behavior would be video- taped at all times via remote-controlled cameras situated in the playroom. The play- room itself was 4 x 4.5 meters. A variety of age-appropriate toys was made available to the children (toys included Barbie dolls and Barbie “equipment”; Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and “equipment”), board games (“Sorry,” “Trouble”), large cardboard build- ing blocks, drawing paper, markers, and books. The assessment of preferential personal attraction—At the end of the paradigm, each participant was asked individually to rate, on a five-point scale, each of the three children with whom he or she had played. The rated item was: “How much did you like to play with ** (scale format: not at all, 2 = some, 3 = alittle, 4 = a lot, 5 = a whole lot). Of specific interest in this study were children who made wide discriminations on the measure of how much they liked to play with each of the other three members of their quartet. Children for whom at least two of their ratings differed by at least 3 scale points on the five-point scale became dis- criminating children (Ds). The two children in the quartet who were at least 3 scale points removed in D’s assessments were designated preferred (P) for the higher- ranked child and less preferred (N) for the lower-ranked child, ‘Twenty-three of the original 59 quartets were found to contain at least one discrimi nating triad (i.e., one discriminating child and his or her preferred and nonpreferred playmates). If there was more than a single discriminating child in any one quartet, only one of the discriminators was chosen (ran- domly) for purposes of data analysis. Within any given quartet, if two children could be labeled as P or two labeled as N, only one was chosen (randomly) for data analysis. The behavior of the fourth child was not coded except in those cases wherein she or he was engaged in social activity with or parallel play near either D, P, or N. Coding of behavioral data—The be- haviors of all target children were coded us- ing the Play Observation Scale (Rubin, 1989). Briefly, this is a time-sampling (every 10 sec) procedure that allows for the mea- surement of play behaviors within their s cial contexts (group, parallel, solitary). Spe- cifically, the play behaviors coded in this study were as follows: functional-sensori- motor; exploratory; constructive; dramatic; and games-with-rules. Other, nonplay be- haviors included: transitional activities (movement from one activity to another); conversations with peers; unoccupied,and onlooker behaviors. Along with these behavioral codes, the relative proximity of all group members was recorded as being “within” or “beyond” arm's length from one another. Coders were blind as to the status of the children (e.g., discriminator, preferred playmate, or nonpreferred play- mate) whose play they were coding and as to the purpose of the present investigation. When the discriminating child was en- gaging in group play, conversations, or paral- lel play, or when she or he was observing others, the identity of the “target” peer was recorded. Because of budget constraints, only the first and last 5 min of the free-play session were coded, producing a 10-min seg- ment of play coding for each child. ‘The reliability of each of the Play Ob- servation Scale (Rubin, 1989) categories has been established in several earlier studies (e.g. Coplan, Rubin, Fox, Calkins, & Stew- art, 1994; Rubin & Both, 1989; Rubin, Hy- mel, & Mills, 1989). In the present study, interrater reliability between two observers was calculated for 20% of the sample. For the behavioral data (social participation and play), « = .77; for proximity , « = .81, Results Preliminary Analyses ‘A preliminary analysis indicated that there was no evidence of preference on the basis of ethnicity/race. Of the 23 quartets in which there was a discriminator (D), five were of mixed-race composition. In two cases, D and both the preferred (P) and non- preferred (N) children were caucasian. In one case, D and N were caucasian, while P was Asian-American. In another case, D was caucasian and N and P were Asian- American. Finally, in one case, D and P were caucasian and N was African-American. Another preliminary analysis (ANOVA) indicated that there were nonsignificant dif- ferences in socioeconomic status (four-factor index; Hollingshead, 1975) between the dis- criminators (D), the preferred peers (P), and the nonpreferred peers (N). As well, SES scores between D and P and between D and N were nonsignificantly correlated. These data indicated that there was no evidence of preference on the basis of children’s socio- economic status. Discriminating Children’s Play with Preferred and Nonpreferred Playmates In the initial set of analyses, the fre- quency (number of 10-sec intervals) with Rubin et al. 1781 which the discriminator (D) played with the preferred peer (P) was compared with the frequency of his or her play with the nonpre- ferred peer (N). Relevant means and stan- dard deviations for the social participation categories are found in Table 1. A series of t tests indicated generally that D directed significantly more social behavior to P than to N. For example, D was observed to spend significantly more time playing with and/or talking to (social play), t(21) = 2.52, p < 05; playing within arm’s length, ¢(21) = 3.00, p < 01; and playing parallel to, t(21) = 2.58, p < .05, the preferred (P) than the nonpre- ferred (N) play partner. Similarities between the Behaviors of Discriminating Children’s Play With Preferred versus Nonpreferred Playmates The second set of analyses was de- signed to determine whether the behaviors of D and P were significantly more similar than those of D and N. Behavioral similarity between these children was analyzed gener- ally along two dimensions: social partici- pation and cognitive play. The social par- ticipation dimension consisted of solitary, parallel, and group play; the cognitive play dimension consisted of functional, construc- tive, and dramatic play, games-with-rules, and exploratory activity. Games-with-rules occurred very rarely in the play session; con- sequently, further analyses were not carried out for this variable. Correlations between the frequencies of relevant behaviors exhib- ited by D and P, and by D and N, are pre- sented in Table 2. It is important to note that the correlations for all nonsolitary play were computed excluding those time samples dur- ing which the two focal children (D and P, or D and N) interacted (group play) or were in close proximity (parallel play) to one an- other. For example, when correlating the frequency of D’s nonsolitary activity with that of P, D’s nonsolitary play with the re- maining two children in the quartet (i.e., ex cluding play with or near P) was compared with P’s nonsolitary activity with these two children, As revealed in the table, D’s social be- havior was generally more similar to that of P than to N. When not playing with or near each other, the correlations between the par- allel and group play of D and P ranged from 27 to .78; alternately, the correlations be- tween the parallel and group play of D and N were generally negative and/or nonsig- nificant. The cognitive play forms of D and P (when not playing together or in parallel play) were also generally more similar than1782 Child Development TABLE 1 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND { TEST COMPARISONS FOR THE DISCRIMINATING CHILD's (D) BEHAVIOR TOWARD THE PREFERRED (P) AND NONPREFERRED (N) PEER Dto t Value 8.18 2.58" (8.89) 8.30 2.52" (7.50) 10.00 3.00%" (13.80) Note.—N = 23 for all variables in both play sessions. Standard deviations are in parentheses below means. Behavior DtoP Parallel play .. 15.50 (20.40) Group play 16.50 (14.40) Within arm’s length proximity 24.40 (18.60) op < 05. fp < Ol TABLE 2 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE SOCIAL BEHAVIORS OF THE DiscaiMinaTING CHILD (D) AND THE PREFERRED (P) AND NONPREFERKED (N) PEER Behavior (DP) (DN) Solitary play ooo 25 - Parallel play 736 - Group play ... 27 - Functional play ~ 06 - Exploration .. 738+ - Constructive play ... saree - Dramatic play Bite ty < 08. ope OL those for D and N. Interestingly, of the seven correlations computed between the behav- iors of D and P, four were significant; of the seven correlations between D and N, one was positive and significant while another was negative and significant. These data alone suggest that children were more be- haviorally concordant with those for whom they later expressed preference than those for whom they did not show a preference. We next examined whether the magni- tude of the correlations differed between the D-P and the D-N combinations. Given that these correlations always referred to the same sample, ¢ tests for differences between correlations ‘in dependent samples were computed (Steiger, 1980). The results indi- cated that in the free-play session, the D-P correlations were generally higher than the D-N correlations. For example, the D-P cor- relations were significantly greater than the D-N correlations for parallel play, #(21) = 1.74, p< .05; exploratory play, t(21) = 2.62, p =< .001; constructive play, t(21) = 2.34, p < .001, and dramatic play, ¢(21) = 1.85, p< 05. Differences among the Social and Cognitive Play Styles of Discriminating Children, Preferred Playmates, and Nonpreferred Playmates In the next set of analyses, we compared the social and cognitive play styles of di: criminating children, their preferred play- mates, and nonpreferred playmates. First, a series of matched pairs f tests indicated, as predicted, that there were nonsignificant dif- ferences between discriminating children (n = 23) and their playmates (n = 46; preferred playmates and nonpreferred playmates) in terms of the frequencies observed in solitary play, parallel play, group play, exploratory activity, functional play, constructive play, and dramatic play. Thus, discriminators could not be differentiated from their play- mates in terms of their play styles. A second set of analyses compared the social and cognitive play styles of preferred playmates and nonpreferred playmates. Re- sults from a series of matched-pairs t tests indicated that there were nonsignificant dif- ferences among P and N in terms of the amount of time spent in group play, parallel play, solitary play, exploratory activity, con- structive play, dramatic play, and functional play. Thus, as predicted, P and N were indis- tinguishable in terms of their play styles. Rating the Discriminators ‘A final set of analyses was computed in an effort to investigate whether the Ds them- selves were liked more by their preferred playmates (Ps) than their nonpreferred play- mates (Ns). An independent-samples ¢ test indicated that, overall, the Ps liked to play with the Ds (M = 4.22) significantly morethan the Ns liked to play with the Ds (M = 3.39), t(44) = 2.76, p < 01. Interestingly, additional matched-pairs t tests revealed that the Ps did not like to play with the Ds (M = 4.22) more than they liked to play with the Ns (M = 3.82), t(22) = 1.48, N.S. On the other hand, the Ns did express a significant preference for the Ps (M = 3.78) over the Ds (M = 3.39), t(22) = —2.11, p < 05. Taken together, these data suggest that the Ns preferred the Ps to the Ds, while the Ps showed no such personal discriminative preferences. Discussion The results of this study indicate that children who offer a clear and discriminat- ing preference for one previously unfamiliar peer over another demonstrate behaviors concordant with the preferred peer. This concordance is especially marked with re- gard to the cognitive maturity of their play. These findings support those reported in the literature on children’s and adolescents’ friendships and social networks (e.g., Co- hen, 1977; Fisher & Bauman, 1988; Hymel & Woody, 199}; Kandel, 1978). The present findings are unique in that (a) the children in this study were newly acquainted, and (b) concordances were examined in observed behaviors rather than in attitudinal similar- ity or similarity of rated behavioral attri- butes. Most noteworthy was the fact that behavioral concordance was generally ex- hibited when the discriminating child was not playing with his or her preferred play- mate; as such, it can be concluded that chil- dren who display similar behaviors when they are not playing together are more likely to be attracted to each other than children whose play styles differ. It should be noted that in most studies of the acquaintanceship process, the focus has been on the interpersonal behaviors that children actively employ in order to culti- vate positive relationships. During friend- ship formation, for example, these behaviors include: (1) information exchange, (2) the es- tablishment of a common ground activity, (3) self-disclosure, (4) positive reciprocity, (5) the capacity to resolve conflicts, and (6) clarity of communication (Gottman, 1983). Psychological, intrapersonal factors also seem to influence attraction during ac- quaintanceship (see Epstein, 1989, for a re- view). For example, in studies asses ing the similarity-attraction hypothesis, researchers have supported the contention that similar- Rubin et al. 1783 ity of attitudes and beliefs is a strong inter- personal “magnet” (Epstein, 1989). Finally, surface markers of similarity such as age, race, and sex draw children together as po- tential friends (Hartup, 1989). The data drawn from the present study allow the inference that behavioral concor- dances or similarities also may serve to at- tract one child to another. Children were found to prefer peers who behaved similarly to them; this relation between social partici- pation and play styles was observed even when the focal child and his or her preferred playmate were not interacting. It was inter- esting to note that the sole positive correla- tion between the play behaviors of the dis- criminators and the nonpreferred playmates was for dramatic play. Although relevant data were not coded, it may have been that when the discriminators engaged in group-dramatic play (perhaps with the pre- ferred playmate), they were imitated by the nonpreferred children, who themselves engaged in solitary-dramatic play. This possibility might explain the significant correlation between the frequencies of dra- matic play collapsed across the social partici- pation categories for the discriminators and the nonpreferred playmates. A larger time sample of free play, in which there were more instances of dramatic play, would be required to assess this possibility. Importantly, several alternative expla- nations to the present findings were ex- plored and addressed in the data. To begin with, discriminators, preferred children, and nonpreferred children did not differ signifi- cantly in terms of their ethnic composition or socioeconomic status. Moreover, the dis- criminators were not more similar in socio- economic status to their preferred playmates than they were to their nonpreferred play- mates. In addition, the social participation and cognitive play styles of preferred and nonpreferred peers were not significantly different from one another. As well, the so- cial and cognitive play styles of the discrimi- nators did not differ significantly from those of their preferred and nonpreferred play- mates. These findings increase our confi- dence that behavioral concordance is an im- portant and unique factor in the process of preferential personal attraction. It is worth noting that factors not consid- ered herein may have had an impact on pref: erential personal attraction. For example, in- terpersonal cues, both verbal and nonverbal (e.g., facial expressions, body posture), that1784 Child Development signal receptiveness to the playmate may have contributed to children’s initial at- traction to one another. As well, the means by which children initiated social interac- tions (e.g., Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992) may have played a role in attracting children to one another. For example, discriminators may have directed more competent and ac- ceptable social overtures to the eventually preferred playmates than to the nonpre- ferred playmates. These speculations repre- sent testable hypotheses that clearly merit further investigation. It is important to note also that this study concerned the unilateral preference of one child over another. We did not examine behavioral concordances in mutually at- tracted or mutually disliked children. Our goal was simply to discover what may influ- ence a given child to prefer one playmate over another. Interestingly, we found no evi- dence to suggest that the preferred play- mates generally preferred the discriminators over the nonpreferred playmates. And al- though the nonpreferred playmates indi- cated greater liking for the preferred play- mates over the discriminators, the data did not support any premise that they disliked the discriminators (M likability score = 3.3 out of 5). In summary, the literature extant indi- cates that during the mid-years of childhood, sharing common expectations for play activi- ties influences children’s thoughts about friendship (Bigelow, 1977) as well as the ini- tiation of the friendship process. To this end, a given child may be more attracted to an- other who expresses a similar play style than to one who is behaviorally different from her or him. Such personal attraction may lead to coordinated and cooperative play and to friendship initiation. The expression of an individual's be- havior in a social setting, however, is likely to be influenced by others with whom he or she shares the local environment. Thus, children may imitate the behaviors of those to whom they are initially attracted. In order to address this possibility, however, future studies are required in which it would be necessary to initially assess the play styles of unfamiliar children in other settings (e.1 at school) and then attempt to predict whic! children would “hit it off’ when brought to- gether for the first time in a playroom. Finally, relatively little is known about why some children make wide sociometric discriminations while others do not. We did not find any differences among the discrimi- nators and their playmates in terms of socio- economic status, cognitive play style, or so- cial participatory play style. Furthermore, it is not clear to us why only 23 out of 55 quar- tets contained a discriminator. It is clear, however, that behavioral concordance pro- vides an important basis for the process of preferential personal interaction and friend- ship formation during the mid-childhood years. References Aristotle (1932). The rhetoric of Aristotle: An ex- panded translation. New York: Appleton. Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children’s friendship expec- tations: A cognitive developmental study. Child Development, 48, 246-253. Booth, C., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Rubin, K. H. (1991). Relating preschoolers’ social competence and their mothers’ parenting behaviors to early at- tachment security and high risk status. Jour- nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 363-382. Cohen, J. (1977). Sources of peer homogeneity Sociology of Education, 50, 227-241. Coplan, R. J., Rubin, K. H., Fox, N. A., Calkins, S. D., & Stewart, S. L, (1994). Being alone, playing alone, and acting alone: Distinguish- ing among reticence and passive and active solitude in young children. Child Develop- ment, 65, 129-137. Doyle, A. B. (1982). Friends, acquaintances, strangers: The influence of familiarity and ethnolinguistic background on social interac- tion. In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood (pp. 229-252). New York: Springer-Verlag, Duck, S. W. (1975). Personality similarity and friend choices by adolescents. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 351-365, Epstein, J. L. (1989). The selection of friends: Changes across the grades and in different school environments. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child devel- opment (pp. 158-187). New York: Wiley. Fisher, L. A., & Bauman, K. E, (1988), Influence and selection in the friend-adolescent rela- tionship: Findings from studies of adolescent smoking and drinking. Journal of Applied So- cial Psychology, 18(4, pt. 2), 289-314. Gest, S. D., Graham-Berman, S. A. & Hartup, W. W. (1991, July). Social network affiliations and social representations of second- and third-grade children. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Minneapolis. Gottman, J. M. (1983) How children becomefriends. Monographs of the Society for Re- search in Child Development, 48(3, Serial No. 201). Hartup, W. W. (1989). Behavioral manifestations of children’s friendships. In T. J. Berndt & G. W, Ladd (Eds), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 46-70). New York: Wiley. Hinde, R. A., Titmus, G., Easton, D., & Tamplin, ‘A. (1985). Incidence of “friendship” and be- havior with strong associates versus nonasso- Ciates in preschoolers. Child Development, 56, 234-245. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four-Factor Index of Social Status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Hymel, S., & Woody, E. (1991, April). Friends ver- sus nonfriends: Perceptions of similarity across self, teacher, and peers. Paper pre- sented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle. Kandel, D. B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adoles- cent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 306-312. Rubin, K. H. (1989). The Play Observation Scale. Unpublished coding manual, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo. Rubin, K. H., & Both, L. (1989). Iris pigmentation and sociability in childhood: A re-examina- tion. Developmental Psychobiology, 22(7), 1-9. Rubin, K. H., & Daniels-Beirness, T. (1983). Con- Rubin et al. 1785 current and predictive correlates of socio- metric status in kindergarten and grade 1 children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 337— 351. Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., & Mills, R. S. L. (1989). Sociability and social withdrawal in child- hood: Stability and outcomes. Journal of Per- sonality, 57, 239-255. Rubin, K. H., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1992). Interper- sonal problem solving. In V. B, Van Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of social development (pp. 283-323). New York: Plenum. Singleton, L. C., & Asher, S. R. (1979). Racial inte- gration and children’s peer preferences: An investigation of developmental and cohort differences. Child Development, 50, 936- 941. Smollar, J., & Youniss, J. (1982). Social develop- ment through friendship. In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and so- cial skills in childhood (pp. 279-298). New York: Springer-Verlag. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulle- tin, 87, 245-251. Strayer, F. F. (1980). Child ethology and the study of preschool social relations. In H. C. Foot, A. J. Chapman, & J. R. Smith (Eds.), Friend- ship and social relations in children (pp. 235~ 265). Chichester: Wiley.Copyright © 2002 EBSCO PublishingThis document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.