Social Skills and Study Group Acceptance: Research with Higher Education

International Journal of Advances in Psychology (IJAP) Volume 3 Issue 4, November 2014 doi: 10.14355/ijap.2014.0304.02

www.ij-psychol.org

Social Skills and Study Group Acceptance: Research with Higher Education Social Skills and education Daniel Bartholomeu*1, José Maria Montiel2, Michael J. Bernstein3 Department of Educational Psychology - UNIFIEO, 3Department of Psychological and Social Sciences, Penn State University Abington 1/2

Avenida Franz Voegeli, 300 Vila Yara – Osasco/SP – Brasil; 3Penn State Abington, 1600 Woodland Road, Office 236, Abington, PA 19001, USA. 1/2

d_bartholomeu@yahoo.com.br; 2montieljm@hotmail.com; 3 mjb70@psu.edu

*1

Abstract

antecedents of social acceptance and rejection.

This study aimed to investigate relations between social skills and study acceptance-rejection in college students.

One-hundred and twenty-six college students attending at physical education course from a university of the interior of the São Paulo state were studied. The social skills assessment included the Social Skills Inventory (IHS) and the sociometric measure to evaluate students’ rejection/acceptance by their peers in the study. All ethical procedures were attended. Results indicated that acceptance in both situations was not explained by any of the social skills to men. For women, acceptance was explained by the self-exposition to stranger’s measure. This research elucidates some of the social behaviors that can be used in social skills entrainments with men and women to avoid its rejection in the group and maximizes the acceptance.

While researchers have debated various causes, one domain of interest, however, is that of social skills; social skills are related to social acceptance in several studies listed below. Nevertheless, research on this topic using college students is severely lacking in the literature and we believe there is a need for further investigation with regard to social skills in varying school populations. How social acceptance and rejection is explained among different school aged populations even after controlling for other factors is potentially important for our understanding of not only how to predict social inclusion and exclusion, but also how to change behaviors towards increasing acceptance and decreasing rejection. As one domain of research, individuals’ social skills are one important avenue of study in this domain.

Keywords Sociometry; Social Skills; Study Acceptance; College Students

Introduction According to Moreno (1972), sociometry is the mathematical study of psychological properties of a population. Although the term connotes measurement, it is the qualitative structure underlying the quantitative social behavior within a group that is actually assessed.

The complex chain of interrelationships between people are designated in sociometry as a sociometric network. These networks have the social function of forming and constituting social norms. In this sense, affective aspects originate attraction and rejection processes between individuals which is called "tele." In other words, the so-called “tele” comprises a type of empathy explaining the bidirectional flow of attraction or repulsion between two individuals (Moreno, 1972; Martinelli & Sisto, 2006). Despite this, Moreno (1972) has pointed out that sociometric measures are not sufficient to explain the

That social skills play a role in social acceptance and rejection is not itself a novel idea. Bullock, Ironsmith and Poteat (1988) recommend that children who are rejected within their sociometric network be considered as primary candidates for a program of social skills training in order to increase their acceptance in their social groups. The same is suggested by Csapo (2006) in her study on social skills training among socially isolated children in schools.

Research clearly suggests social skills have an impact on social inclusion and exclusion.

However, it is noteworthy that the concepts of social skills and social competence are not necessarily equivalent. Although there are some debate among scholars as to the definition of social competence, there is agreement on the fact that socially competent behavior is produced by a series of specific learned skills subjected to environmental and personal factors.

111

www.ij-psychol.org

International Journal of Advances in Psychology (IJAP) Volume 3 Issue 4, November 2014

Environmental factors affect the relationship of an individual with people nearby, such as parents and peers, especially in adolescence and early adulthood.

For the present study, we consider Caballo’s (2003) concept that socially competent behavior is what people consider appropriate in a specific situation, taking into account both the contents and consequences of behavior.

Goldman, Corsini and DeUrioste (1980) examined how positive and negative sociometric status (e.g., having strong or weak ties with other social targets in one’s sociometric status) was related to observed classroom behavior and performance on two social skills measures and in recognizing facial expressions of emotions. Data were collected in a sample of 38 children and their correlational results showed different patterns for positive and negative choices.

Children who were chosen by their peers to study remained longer in a social interaction situation with peers and less engaged in play with adults. In turn, rejected children were identified as more aggressive by peers, had decreased performance in both social skills measures -- less accurate recognizing of facial expressions of emotions and presenting more deviant behavior in the classroom (e.g., hyperactivity, off-task behavior, aggression). The authors emphasized the need for these measures of acceptance and rejection in social skills studies.

Because of the importance of understanding rejection and acceptance in classroom settings, researchers have also sought to understand dispositional differences in how likely a child is to be rejected or accepted.

Popular and unpopular children differ in their knowledge of how to make friends and establish communication. In the classroom, the most popular children spent less time being inattentive and gave more positive reinforcements to peers (e.g., indicating that others did good work in their studies). Most of studies that investigated the sociometric status and social skills assessed social skills through observed behaviors or self-report techniques. Another observed tendency in the literature was to use social acceptance as a criterion in the validation process of social skills inventories (Gottman, Gonso & Rasmussen, 1975).

Social skills training is related to the production of pro-social behavior which itself is related to social acceptance. Hence, social acceptance is often considered as a criterion for social skills measures to assure their validity.

Other research has examined how various factors

112

related to social skills and social acceptance and rejection impact school aged children. In preschoolers, Eisenberg, Fabes, Bernzweig, Karbon, Poulin and Hanish (2008) found positive relations between constructive coping and attentional control to social skills and peer status. Also, negative affect was negatively related to peer status. Further, emotional intensity was negatively related to girls’ and boys’ social skills and boys’ peer status. These results suggest the possibility of social skills and peer status associations been mediated by other variables such as emotional intensity, coping strategies, and attentional control to social cues and the need to control other characteristics.

While much work has been done on school aged children, research involving sociometric measure in university settings are scarce. However, the work of Horrocks and Wear (1953) is noteworthy in this regard.

The authors examined the relationship between sociometric choices with when these choices were made (i.e. at the beginning and end of the entire University experience, from their first to last course year), as well as with the “type of choice” and group size. In order to classify the “type of choice,” they classified people’s reasons for choosing a partner into “study oriented” (i.e., choosing a partner because they could help with studying) and “social acceptance oriented” (i.e., choosing a partner on needs of being accepted by the group). The sample comprised of 153 college students. They had individuals complete a sociometric questionnaire in which they chose classmates they would either wish to study with or socialize with. Participants were also asked the reasons why they did or did not select certain classmates. The researchers then also collected academic performance measures (e.g., grades). The results indicate that the type of choice and group size had a significant impact on social acceptance and rejection. In small groups (less than 20 students), less leadership was observed and more people were chosen for both study and socializing reasons, indicating that small groups have a better social environment. In addition, students whose main worry was to be accepted by colleagues showed less academic success than students who paid less attention to social needs and more to academic achievement. Socially oriented students had difficulties in planning and implementing strategies to achieve academic success. Nevertheless, these people were also more likely to be leaders on campus, besides a high self-esteem compared to others who were more

International Journal of Advances in Psychology (IJAP) Volume 3 Issue 4, November 2014

focused in academic success, at least in the early years of the university.

Other researchers have also investigated college-aged students. Bartholomeu, Carvalho, Silva, Miguel and Machado (2011) used traditional sociometric measures to investigate relations between social skills and acceptance-rejection among college students. Social skills were measured using the IHS (Inventário de Habilidades Sociais) and after its application, students were asked to indicate three people with whom they would like to study together (first condition) and three people they would not want to join them in a group.

The same question was asked in the “hang out” scenario as well. The authors found no relation between social skills factors and group acceptance (e.g., to hang out or study) for men, but among women, behaviors and strategies of self-exposure to strangers was related to acceptance in both situations; that is, women who demonstrated social skills (e.g., able to make presentations in public, being willing to ask for favors and ask questions of strangers) were more accepted as people with whom other participants would want to study or hang out with in college.

However, women who lacked the knowledge of appropriate standards of relationships and lacked skills to maintain and terminate conversations, react to compliments, address authorities, and and refuse requests were more likely to be the target of rejection in the “hang out” situation. Further, among male participants, rejection in both situations was related to behaviors of poor self-control of aggression, suggesting that the less male individuals were able to control their aggression, the more they experienced rejection in the scenarios.

While this work is indeed valuable for our understanding of the role that social skills play in social acceptance and rejection, the authors employed only social preference in sociometric measures and not social impact or its combinations. The literature review pointed to the lack of studies that relate social skills and acceptance and rejection among adults and college students, and the study of these relations were only identified in children with learning problems, adolescents, and psychiatric patients. That the population of college students has been so understudied in this domain calls for new avenues of work on the acceptance/rejection – social skills relationship, particularly those focusing on the relevance of social acceptance on academic success (Margalit, Tur-kaspa & Most, 2006). Further, the study of Bartholomeu and colleagues (2011) did not use other traditional

www.ij-psychol.org

measures of sociometric status as suggested by Coie and Dodge (1983) as well as by and Newcomb and Bukowski (1983) such as social preference and social impact. Hence, this current study aimed to analyze relations between social skills and sociometric status of college students considering other kinds of sociometric measures.

Method Participants 126 students attending at the Physical Education course in one college of the São Paulo state were studied. Students attended one of two four year classrooms, one of which had 60 students and other with 66. Ages ranged from 18 to 35 years (mean 21 years; SD = 3.37), and most people (68.3%) had up to 21 years. 53% were males.

Instruments 1) Social Skills Inventory-IHS-Del-Prette (Del & Del Prette Prette, 2001a) The Social Skills Inventory is composed of 38 items that describe social interaction situations where the respondent must indicate the frequency of occurrence of each statement on a five-point scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5). Factor 1, Coping Strategies with Rejection Risk, has 11 items that depict situations requiring interpersonal assertiveness. The second factor has seven items and refers to Positive Affect Expression and Assertion of Self-esteem. This refers to the expression of positive affect and affirmation of selfesteem in situations where the risk of interpersonal rejection is minimal. Among the behaviors are praising family, expressing positive sentiment, and defending another person in a group. The third dimension, Conversation and Social Resourcefulness, has seven items involving situations that require conversation social skills and knowledge of the relationships rules. The fourth factor, Self-exposure to Novel or Unfamiliar Situations, has four items that informs about approach strategies to strangers with a higher risk of rejection. Finally, in the Self-aggression to Aversive Situations Dimension Situations Dimension (Factor 5), the three items assume a reaction to aversive stimuli that require good aggression control.

Regarding psychometric properties with college students, factor analysis using the alpha method to 113

www.ij-psychol.org

International Journal of Advances in Psychology (IJAP) Volume 3 Issue 4, November 2014

extract factors and Varimax rotation, showed that the five factors explained 92.75% of variance.

Cronbach's alpha for these factors provide indices between 0.74 and 0.97 (Del Prette, Del Prette, & Baker, 1998). Other validity studies for this test were made and are worth mentioning. Among them, Del Prette, Del Prette and Barreto (1999) studied experimental and control groups and shown differences in the experimental group regarding IHS-Del-Prette scores. Also Bueno, Oliveira and Oliveira (2001) correlated IHS-Del Prette scores and an adjective list to assess personality traits based on the Big Five model developed by Hutz and colleagues (1998). Among the results the factor coping strategies was significantly correlated with extraversion and openness; self-assertion in the expression of positive affect factor were related to socialization and emotional stability. In turn, self-exposure to strangers and new situations factor related to the extraversion and emotional stability. Aggression self-control factor was related to socialization.

In another study, Bartholomeu, Nunes and Machado (2008) analyzed the associations between the scores of the IHS and EFS (Socialization Scale Factor) and significant correlation coefficients between Gentleness, Self-affirmation and the IHS total score were found. Pro-social behaviour was correlated with self-assertion and self-control.

Trust in people was significantly correlated with coping, self-assertion and self-control in social situations.

2)

Sociometric Measure (Moreno, 1972).

The technique is a classic sociometric measure given to the group members to select the people one would like to perform some activity and ordering choices (Brown, 1972; Busto, 1979).

Therefore, the acceptance and rejection for a given activity is estimated to determine group structure.

Hence, the subjects were asked to choose between all of their classmates (within whichever class they were in) with whom they wanted to “study.” They also had to identify the opposite – whom they did not want to join them in study situation. In this study, we considered study activity in college (as already emphasized by Horrocks & Wear, 1953; Papalia & Olds, 2000). We also chose to reduce to three the number of options to facilitate data processing and optimize the information collection.

Bustos (1979) and Moreno (1972) emphasize that

114

many sociometric criteria can be adopted as many human activities and groups exist, since the test´s basic structure is preserved. The structure adopted (three options) was already in other studies as Sisto and colleagues (2004).

Therefore, it was requested in that each student provide three of their colleagues in the classroom with whom they would like to study. The selections were scored such that the first person chosen to study with received a score of 3, followed by the second person with a score of 2, and the third person with a score of 1. With respect to the selections of students made that participants did not want to work with, the person they least wanted to work with received a -3, followed by a -2 for the second person, and a -1 for the third person.

The sum of the rejections produced the rejection score of each student and the sum of the acceptance scores produced the acceptance total score. The sociometric score for each person was established based on the arithmetic sum of each person total acceptance and rejection. The sum of the choices, for example, yielded a continuous score of acceptance for each subject. The same to rejection.

Also, following Coie & Dodge (1983) and Newcomb and Bukowski (1983), we calculated social preference by subtracting standardized values of number of most liked and least liked nominations and social impact by summing standardized scores of most liked and least liked.

Although we have combined these two measures to derive sociometric categories (popular, rejected, neglected, controversial and average), we used social preferences and impact as dependent variables in the model as well.

Procedure All instruments were distributed in the classroom after the teacher´s consent. Participation was voluntary and there was no payment or other inducements to participants. Participants were asked to sign the consent form following the ethical conduct rules in human research (Anhanguera University ethics committee, project approval number 424/2010). All necessary measures to ensure the secrecy and confidentiality of the data were taken. The IHS-DelPrette was first applied and followed the instructions in its manual. The sociometric test was then administered. All participants were debriefed and thanked at the conclusion of the study.

International Journal of Advances in Psychology (IJAP) Volume 3 Issue 4, November 2014

Results and Discussion Initially, we compared the results of the study sample with the IHS normative group. For that, we calculated the z-scores of the participants, considering the mean and standard deviation given by the normative sample by gender. The mean values found in the sample were then compared to the normative group of Del Prette & Del Prette (2001) study, based on the Student t-test.

Mean scores, standard deviation and test results are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF Z SCORES AND T TEST RESULTS TO IHS (N=126).

Dimension

Mean SD

Coping strategies with risk Expression of positive affect Conversation abilities Unknown and new situations exposure Aggressiveness self control

0,19 0,18 0,39 0,28 0,11

0,99 0,90 1,22 0,92 0,76

t

df

p

1,897 1,831 3,700 2,83 1,342

592 592 592 592 592

0,075 0,081 0,000 0,000 0,120

The study sample presented higher mean scores than the normative group in the conversation and social resourcefulness as well as willingness to engage in self-exposure to strangers and new situations.

However, the effect size was not particularly large (less than 0.4 standard deviations). This suggests that despite the differences in these samples scores, they were moderate with large variance. The sociometric test results suggested greater rejection among participants was not uncommon. About 24% of people in the sample were rejected by their peers in classroom.

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for this instrument. There was a tendency to be responsiveness to social acceptance with less variability of social preference measure. Larger variance in social preference measures suggest less group cohesion and rejections. Social impact was more spread along the sample with most of people presenting low social impact to study, indicating the group was not particularly studious themselves and had a lot of average students. Hence, there was no student with high social impact to study situation, indicating good group cohesion overall.

TABLE 2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS TO SOCIOMETRIC MEASURES

Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Study acceptance 2,57 4,27 0 23

Study rejection -2,44 7,05 -44 0

Social Preference 0,12 1,74 -0,95 6,34

(N=126).

Social Impact -0,15 1,44 -6,26 3,02

About 50% of people were chosen as “study partners� in the situation. As for rejection, approximately 65% of people have not been rejected by anyone. This result is

www.ij-psychol.org

consistent with the Horrocks and Wear (1953) who suggested that large groups have a larger number of people chosen and fewer leaders (people with lot of acceptance in the group). Indeed, to study, only one person was very receptive, receiving 23 accepted for this situation, and about three to 15 people have accepted. We then examined the correlation coefficients between measures of sociometric acceptance, number of rejections and IHS. Whereas it is analyzed separately by sex, we also investigated the coefficients of this distinction. With the entire sample, no coefficient was significant. Separately by sex, only one set coefficient is significant and negative for men, among the measures to study rejection and factor 5 (r = -0.25, p = 0.040). For women, there was a positive coefficient and significant between factor 4 and acceptance in the study (r = 0.27, p = 0.047).

Based on these results, there appears to be a difference in the relationship between these two instruments on sex. So we ran regression analyzes between these measures with these separate groups. These analyses were performed to investigate the effects of the dimensions of social skills assessed by the IHS (independent variables) on the acceptance and rejection to study with another person (dependent variables). For this, we used the linear regression method using a backward selection criteria; this procedure inserts all predictor variables in the model initially and retains only those that explain significant variance of the dependent variable. At each step, we analyze the correlations between the residuals of the dependent variable in question after removal of the independent factor. The summary of the models showed significant ANOVA and percentage of variance explained by each sex is shown in Table 3 along with values of F, levels of significance, and degrees of freedom overall.

For these data, it is observed that the model explained little variance in the independent variables, although they were significant. In men, the rejection to study was explained basically by Factor 5 (IHS Self-control of aggression), while in girls, acceptance seemed to be best explained by Factor 4 (Self-exposure to strangers and new situations). Although marginally significant, the model includes the factor 4 and acceptance to study was presented because of this having made a significant regression coefficient, along with other characteristics adjustment (which will be presented in the sequence) that allowed this to be included. This variable was not excluded from the final model provided by regression analysis. Also, we explored 115

www.ij-psychol.org

International Journal of Advances in Psychology (IJAP) Volume 3 Issue 4, November 2014

which social skills variables better explained social preference and impact and have divided this analysis by sex. Among men, aggressiveness self-control was negatively related to social preference to study suggesting that least controlled university students tend to present better social preference to study. Once they are physician students, we could think that studying sports courses could demand more aggressiveness than other themes that do not use physical movement in the learning process and new investigations should be made on this topic to better explain this fact within new evidences on the study´s subject nature.

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS WITH BACKWARD METHOD BY SEX (N=126).

Number

Model

R

Adjusted Standard Squared squared error of df Eta Eta estimate

F

p

Men 1

Study rejection X 0,286 factor 5

0,082

0,067

8,45516 62 5,430 0,023

2

Study Preference 0,300 X Factor 5

0,085

0,070

1,157126 61 5,664 0,020

3

Study acceptance 0,364 X factor 4

0,132

0,081

4

Study Preference 0,253 X Factor 4

0,064

0,046

Women 4,226

54 2,592 0,063

1,17763 53 3,610 0,063

Among women, however, self-exposure to strangers and new situations were the only variables related to social preference to study. We can suggest that social preference to study for women in college must involve social resourcefulness because of the need to present schoolwork to the whole class, demanding selfexposure abilities. This also can be better explained in other resources and must be a particularity of college students and the type of study and academic tasks requested at this level. It’s possible that the social skills that explain social acceptance and rejection to study changes through life development once the type of study and tasks also changes. Social impact was not explained by any of the variables neither for men or women.

Table 4 also provides information about multicollinearity between the predictor variables obtained from the statistical indices of Tolerance and VIF. As can be seen, the data obtained in this regression are adjusted, not denoting multicollinearity.

This is confirmed by the fact that no conditions index 116

was greater than 15. Beta coefficients obtained provide information on the relationship between the variables of the IHS and the peers acceptance/rejection to study.

To Bustos (1979), poor aggression management is related to mutual negative choices or rejections. The good emotional adjustment is not characteristic of rejected people as suggested by Mill (1953). The anxiety and schizoid tendencies and psychopathic personality traits are linked to extreme rejection. Note that poor aggression control is also characteristic of people with these personality traits.

TABLE 4. LINEAR REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS

Non Standardized standardized coefficients coefficients Standard Model B Beta t p Tolerance VIF Error Men (Constant) 0,189 0,203 0,933 0,355 1 Factor 5 X 0,250 -,0291 -2,38 0,020 Preference 0,595 (Constant) 3,745 1,093 3,426 0,001 1 Factor 5 X 1 2 Study 1,345 -0,29 -2,33 0,023 3,133 rejection Women 3 (Constant) 2,339 0,701 3,339 0,002 Factor 2 X Study 0,756 -0,22 0,101 1,000 1,000 1,260 1,668 acceptance Factor 3 X Study 0,473 -0,20 0,167 0,872 1,147 0,664 1,404 acceptance Factor 4 X Study 1,616 0,773 0,30 2,092 0,041 0,872 1,147 acceptance (Constant) -,380 ,187 ,047 1 1 2,037 4 Factor 4 X ,382 ,201 ,253 1,900 ,063 0,86 1 Preference

Aggression has also been identified as a marker of peer rejection in children. Sisto and Bazi (2000) found that girls were more accepted than boys, and students showed less aggression compared to rejected individuals. Indeed, in this study only a few socially skillful behaviors were associated with acceptance and only for girls. In studying situation (model 2), the reduction of factor 5 scores to each rejection is 0.29.

Thus, for men aggression control in aversive situations seems to have an important role in non-rejection by the group to study, since those who are not properly controlled tended to be rejected by the group in general.

This aspect suggests further research, since it is quite unexpected rejection occurs in people who tend to Express themselves properly. Analyzing women's responses to the this subscale items we identified that

International Journal of Advances in Psychology (IJAP) Volume 3 Issue 4, November 2014

certain behaviors occur infrequently in this group as "authorities addressing" (55% give answers, even with regular frequency), "refuse vexatious requests" (55% give answers, even with regular frequency), "respond to compliments" (41% give answers, even with regular frequency), and "end conversations" (41% give answers, even with regular frequency). Problems in communication abilities were also associated with peer rejection in children in the studies of Goldman, Corsini and DeUrioste (1980).

Along with this, each choice to study increased 0.30 the self-exposure to unknown scale factor scores. This factor is characterized by behaviors such as making presentations in public, ask for favors and ask questions to strangers. This seems to be consistent with the acceptance in these situations, since in college, these people can be accepted to study for ease in public speaking because they can express themselves without rejection fear being more uninhibited (Del Prette & Del Prette , 2001). Similar results have been shown in the literature that treats children as the study and LaFontana Cillessen (1999) who indicated that prosocial behaviors are characteristic of popular children.

Final Considerations One of the difficulties identified in the discussion of the results refers to the absence of studies in the literature addressing social skills and its relation with peer rejection and acceptance among college students, as the predominance of these studies have been conducted with children (e.g., Boyum & Parke, 1995; Choi & Myra Heckenlaible, 1998; DeUrioste Corsini & Goldman, 1980; Perry, 1979). However, some work done with the sociometric test in college students provided relevant information to this discussion and should be brought to light. One is that among university groups linked by relaxation activities, people tend to guide their choices based on the similarities and physical attraction, while groups formed by activities that require the exposure of specific academic abilities tend to be formed with the criterion of choosing the academic degree (Colarelli & Boss, 1992).

It is worthy to note that the sample in the present research is small, considering only two groups what is important in sociometric studies since the group membership is what gives meaning to acceptance and rejection. Nevertheless, as mentioned, no researches with college students have been found in literature

www.ij-psychol.org

relating these two variables, and these data are only a potential beginning for this new avenue of research.

New studies should focus in use smaller size groups and larger number of groups, since the group provides the reference context.

In the present work, male participants’ inclusion in either situation was not explained by any facet of social skills. In women, however, their inclusion was explained only by self-exposure to unknown others, something which involves behaviors such as making presentations in public, asking for favors, and being willing to ask questions of strangers. These results are confirmed by Colarelli and Boss’s (1992) study as well as Horrocks and Wear’s (1953) regarding acceptance in a “study situation.” Nevertheless, we did not manipulate the type of choice (decision to study or hang out) and group size. However, our results suggest different kinds of social skills that can be used in social skills training which could aim to improve social acceptance and group cohesion for the purposes of understanding how to improve academic results.

This would be a valuable domain for further researches to explore.

In fact, this research elucidates some of the male and female social behaviors in college that may be employed in social skills training to avoid peer rejection and maximizing acceptance. However, one must be cautious because the models established in the regression analysis did not explain much variance in degree of acceptance and rejection, indicating that there were cases where there were no associations.

Coupled with this, other characteristics, such as personality (Mill 1953, Sisto & collaborators, 2004), may also be associated with the acceptance-rejection link and should be further investigated in other studies.

Finally, signs of study acceptance should be investigated, once this research only addressed social skills by self-report measures and not the students’ perception of the signs that makes people approach and refute social contact. Studies such as Lucas, Knowles, Gardner, Molden and Jefferis (2010) presented primes of acceptance to reduce social avoidance but not to study situations. Also Kim, Choi and Wang (2013) pointed out multilevel factors of individual´s acceptance suggesting that perceived risk, knowledge and affective image are the best predictors of acceptance at the individual level but no situation specificity is done. Hence, further research is required within this field.

117

www.ij-psychol.org

International Journal of Advances in Psychology (IJAP) Volume 3 Issue 4, November 2014

REFERENCES

for assessing the social competence of young children.

Bartholomeu, D., Nunes, C. H. S. S., & Machado, A. A. (2008).

Traços de personalidade e habilidades sociais em universitários. Psico-USF, 13(1), 41-50.

Bartholomeu, D., Carvalho, L. F., Silva, M. C. R., Miguel, F. K., & Machado, A. A. (2011). Aceitação e Rejeição entre pares e habilidades sociais em universitários. Estudos de Psicologia (UFRN), 16(2), 155-162.

Bueno, J. M. H., Oliveira, S. M. S. S., & Oliveira, J. C. S. (2001).

Um Estudo correlacional entre habilidades sociais e tracos de personalidade com universitários. PsicoUSF, 6, 31-38.

Bullock, M. J., Ironsmith, M., & Poteat, G. M. (1988).

Sociometric techniques with young children: A review of psychometrics and classification schemes.

School

Psychology Review, 17, 289-303.

Bustos, D. M. (1979). O teste sociométrico. São Paulo: Brasiliense.

Caballo, V.E. (2003). Manual de Avaliação e Treinamento das Habilidades Sociais. São Paulo. Santos Editora.

Coie, J., & Dodge, K. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status: A five year longitudinal study.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261– 282.

Csapo, M. (2006). Effectiveness of coaching socially withdrawn/isolated children in specific social skills.

220.

Horrocks, J. E., & Wear, B. A. (1953). An analysis of interpersonal choice relationships of college students.

Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 87-98.

Hutz, C. S., Nunes, C. H. S. S., Silveira, A. D., Serra, J., Anton, M., & Wieczorek, L. S. (1998). O desenvolvimento de marcadores para a avaliação da personalidade no modelos dos Cinco Grandes Fatores. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 11, 395-409.

Kim, S.; Choi, S.O.; Wang, J. (2013). Individual perception vs.

Structural context: searching for multilevel determinants of social acceptance of new sicence and technology across 34 countries. Science and Public Policy, 40, 40-55.

Lafontana, K. M., & Cillessen, H. N. (1999). Children’s interpersonal perceptions as a function of sociometric and peer-perceived popularity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160, 225–242.

Lucas, G.M.; Knowles, M.L.; Gardner, W.L.; Molden, D.C.; & Jefferis, V.E. (2010). Increasing social engagement among lonely individuals: the role of acceptance cues and promotion

motivations.

Personality

and

Social

Psychology Bullettin, 36,1346-1359.

Margalit, M.; Tur-Kaspa, H.; & Most, T.(2006). Reciprocal Nominations, Reciprocal Rejections and Loneliness

Educational Psychology, 1, 31-42.

Del Prette, A., Del Prette, Z. A. P., & Barreto, M. C. M. (1999).

Habilidades sociales en la formación del psicólogo: análisis de un programa de intervención.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, 209-

Psicologia

Conductual, 7, 27-47.

among students with Learning Disorders. Educational Psychology, 19, 79-90.

Moreno, J. L. (1972). Fundamentos de la sociometria. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidós.

Del Prette, Z. A. P., Del Prette, A., & Barreto, M. C. M. (1998).

Newcomb, A., & Bukowski, W. (1983). Social impact and

Análise de um inventário de Habilidades Sociais (IHS)

social preference as determinants of children’s peer

em uma amostra de universitários, Psicologia: Teoria e

group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856–867.

Pesquisa, 14, 219-228.

Del Prette, Z.A.P., & Del Prette, A. (2001a). Inventário de habilidades sociais: manual de aplicação, apuração e interpretação. São Paulo. Casa do Psicólogo.

Papalia, D.E., & Olds, S.W. (2000). Desenvolvimento Humano. ArtMed. São Paulo.

Sisto, F. F., & Martinelli, S.C. (2006). O papel das relações sociais na compreensão do fracasso escolar e das

Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R.A.; Bernzweig, J.; Karbon, M.; Poulin,

dificuldades de aprendizagem. In F.F. Sisto & S.C.

R.; Hanish, L. (2008). The relations of emotionality and

Martinelli. Afetividade e dificuldades de aprendizagem:

regulation to preschoolers social skills and sociometric

uma abordagem psicopedagógica (pp. 13-31). São Paulo:

status. Child Development, 64, 1418-1438.

Vetor.

Goldman, J. A., Corsini, D. A., & DeUrioste, R. (1980).

Sisto, F. F., & Bazi, G. A. P. (2000). Escala de agressividade

Implications of positive and negative sociometric status

para crianças e jovens. Relatório Técnico. Faculdade de

118

International Journal of Advances in Psychology (IJAP) Volume 3 Issue 4, November 2014

Educação. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

Sisto, F. F., Oliveira, S. M. S. S, Oliveira, K. L., Bartholomeu, D., Oliveira, J. C. S., & Costa, O. R. S. (2004). Escala de traços de personalidade para crianças e aceitação social entre pares. Interação, 8, 15-24.

Daniel Bartholomeu Psychologist, Master and Doctor in Psychological Assessment in educational context at USF.

www.ij-psychol.org

Currently teaches at Post Graduate Educational Psychology at UNIFIEO/SP

Department

in

José Maria Montiel Psychologist, Master and Doctor in Psychological Assessment in mental health context at USF. Currently teaches at Post Graduate Department in Educational Psychology at UNIFIEO/SP. Michael J. Bernstein is psychologist, PhD in Social Psychology at Miami University. Assistant Professor of Psychology at Pennstate Abington.

119