Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, VoL 12, No. 2, 1984, pp.

277'-288

A Comparison of the Social Status and Social Behavior of Aggressive and Aggressive/Withdrawn Boys 1
Richard M i l i c h 2 University of Iowa Steven L a n d a u

University of South Dakota The purpose o f this study was to clarify contradictory findings concerning the social status o f aggressive youngsters. This was undertaken by dividing kindergarten boys into either Aggressive [A] or Aggressive/Withdrawn [A/W] groups, as proposed by Ledingham [1981]. Both groups were f o u n d to be high on peer-nominated rejection, but the A group was also high on peer-nominated popularity while the A / W group was low. Similarly, both groups were observed to be high in negative peer interactions, but the A group was also high in positive interactions. It was noted that valuable information regarding the social status and social behavior o f aggressive youngsters would be lost if such subgrouping is not undertaken. The relationship between Ledingham's categorizations and others reported in the literature was discussed.

Recently, there has been a rejuvenation of interest in the study of peer relations, encouraged by research documenting that poor peer relations, or peer rejection, is a powerful predictor of negative adult outcome. Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, and Trost (1973) found that sociometric ratings by third-grade peers was a better predictor of adult psychiatric disturbance than a diversified battery including school records, intellectual performance, and self-report data. These rejection-nominations proved to be
Manuscript received in final form September 19, 1983. 'This research was supported in part by NIH grant No. 32992 to the first author. 2Address all correspondence to Richard Milich, Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242. 23'7
0091-0627/84/0600-0277$03.50/0 :c3 1984 Plenum Publishing Corporation

278

Milich and Landau

an even better predictor of poor adult outcome than teacher and clinician judgments. Other investigators have found poor peer relations to predict a variety of negative outcomes, including psychiatric difficulties (Roff, 1963; West & Farrington, 1973), dropping out of school (Ullmann, 1957), juvenile delinquency (West & Farrington, 1973), bad conduct discharges from military service (Roff, 1961), and job dismissals and trouble with the law (Janes, Hesselbrock, Myers, & Penniman, 1979). Apparently, having negative social status as a school-age child places one at great risk for both adolescent and adult outcome difficulties. It has been discussed elsewhere (Milich & Landau, 1982) that research into the antecedents and consequences of poor peer relations might be enhanced if "at-risk" children are targeted as the population of interest. Intuitively, one would speculate that aggressive children are symptomatic of significant peer problems and thus constitute just such an at-risk group. However, results are equivocal, with some studies finding them to experience peer problems (Green, Beck, Forehand, & Vosk, 1980), whereas other studies have actually found them to earn some degree of positive reputation or popularity (Lesser, 1959; Marshall & McCandless, 1957; Olweus, 1978). Two explanations for these ambiguous findings can be suggested. It appears that researchers have been somewhat careless in their efforts to differentiate popularity and rejection measures, even though it has been consistently demonstrated that differences do exist between these two social status variables (e.g., Goldman, Corsini, & deUrioste, 1980). A series of studies (e.g., Glow & Glow, 1980; Gottman, Gonso, & Rasmussen, 1975; Ledingham, Younger, Schwartzman, & Bergeron, 1982; Olweus, 1978) found no relationship between aggression and social status when popularity defined the latter variable. If rejection was considered, however, aggression did relate to social status (Green et al., 1980: Milich, Landau Kilby, & Whitten, 1982). It appears that aggression is consistently associated with high rejection scores, whereas equivocal findings appear when the relationship between popularity and aggression is examined (see Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982, for a discussion of this issue). A second possible explanation for the equivocal relationship between social status and aggression relates to the criteria employed for subject selection. Evidence has recently appeared suggesting that there may be at least two distinct groups of aggressive children and that these groups differ in terms of social status. For example, Ledingham (1981) examined a likability measure from the Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI, Pekarik, Prinz, Liebert, Weintraub, & Neale, 1976) for four identified groups of youngsters: Aggressive (A), Withdrawn (W), Aggressive/Withdrawn

Aggressive/WithdrawnBoys

279

(A/W), and Control (C). Peer-nominated likeability was significantly lower for the A / W group than for either the A or C groups. The latter two groups were quite comparable in their likability scores. The PEI Likability scale, although not a direct measure of peer-nominated popularity, seems most closely related to this aspect of social status. Ledingham did not offer any data bearing on rejection scores among the four identified groups. A second line of evidence, albeit indirect, f o r the social status differences of aggressive youngsters can be seen in a recent study by Cole, Dodge, and Coppotelli (1982). On the basis of popularity and rejection nominations, five groups of children were identified: Popular, Rejected, Neglected, Average, and Controversial. Of particular interest is the distinction between Rejected and Controversial children. The former were defined by high rejection scores and low popularity scores, while the latter received high scores on both social status dimensions. Classroom observations revealed that both groups were high on class disruptions and fighting, but the Controversial group was significantly higher than the Rejected group in terms of observed cooperative behavior and leadership. Thus, although aggressive children were not specifically identified, the Coie et al. data suggest that at least two groups of aggressive boys can be differentiated. These groups are indistinguishable in terms of peer rejection but can be distinguished, as Ledingham (1981) discovered, in terms of popularity. This study was designed to elucidate the relationship that aggression has with social status and social behavior bY comparing popularity and rejection nominations and observed social behavior as they relate to Ledingham's (1981) conceptualization of A and A / W boys. It was hypothesized that the two groups would be indistinguishable regarding peer-nominated rejection and observed negative interactions, but that the A / W group would also be less popular and would be observed engaging in significantly fewer positive social interactions. A second purpose was to further clarify the actual nature of Ledingham's A / W group. Although formed by high scores on both peer-nominated aggression and social withdrawal items, this group may be similar in description to Loney and Milich's (1982) hyperactive/aggressive (H/A) boys. Specifically, Ledingham reports her A / W group to have problems in distractibility and sustaining attention, finishing tasks, and delaying responses. These are all characteristics typically attributed to hyperactive youngsters. To address this question, teacher ratings of hyperactivity were compared for the four groups under investigation. It was hypothesized that the A / W group would be significantly more symptomatic of teacher-rated hyperactivity than either the A, W, or C groups.

280 METHOD

Milich and Landau

Subjects
Subjects were 49 boys attending five kindergarten classrooms in a small (population = 10,000) midwestern community. Only boys were chosen for study as it has been shown that externalizing behavior problems are significantly more prevalent in boys, even at a young age (Crowther, Bond, & Rolf, 1981). The boys ranged in age from 68 to 84 months, with a mean age of 74.6 months. Each subject had been enrolled in his respective classroom for approximately 8 months, thus ensuring adequate familiarity among classmates. The number of boys per class ranged from 8 to 13.

Procedure
Three types of data were collected for these boys: Teacher rankings and ratings, observed social behavior during free-play activity, and peer nominations. Each teacher was requested to rank, from an alphabetized list, each boy in terms of the degree to which other children most like to play with him (Greenwood, Walker, Todd, & Hops, 1979). They were instructed to apply a ranking of 1 to the boy seen as most popular and to continue until all boys were ranked. The ranking were divided by the number of boys in each class and transformed by an arc sine of the square root. Additionally, teachers completed for each boy the 39-item Conners (1969) Teacher Rating Scale (TRS), which was scored for the empirically derived factors of Hyperactivity and Aggression of Loney and Milich (1982). Cronbach's alpha for these factors with the current sample was .82 and .85, respectively. Observed Social Behavior. Using a point-time sampling procedure, the social interaction of each subject was observed over a 6-week period during free-play activities within the kindergarten program. Using the observation procedures employed by Goldman et al. (1980), the following social behaviors of each boy were coded every 10 seconds: Solitary activity (e.g., staring into space), solitary play (e.g., playing alone), positive interaction (e.g., playing together), negative interaction (e.g., snatching a toy from another child), and adult-only interaction (e.g., verbal exchange with teacher). All subjects were observed for a minimum of 80 intervals except for one boy, who was observed, due to illness, for only 52 intervals. The mean number of observation intervals per subject was 88.7. A subject's score for a given behavioral category was the number of intervals that behavior occurred divided by the total number of intervals observed. All

Aggressive/Withdrawn Boys

281

observation variables were transformed by an arc sine of the square root transformation. Five observers, who were kept blind to all questions under investigation, were used. Assignment to kindergarten classrooms was rotated so that each had an opportunity to collect data in all settings. Observers targeted on each subject for a 10-second interval, progressing through all subjects before returning again to the first boy observed. The sequence for this rotation was randomized daily and each observation session lasted for approximately 20 minutes. Training in systematic use of the behavioral categories involved repeated exposure to training tapes of social behaviors of kindergarten children not included for study. At the time of implementation, observers demonstrated mean interobserver agreement of 86.6%0 (ranging from 72.7% for positive interaction to 96.7% for adult-only interaction), and when compared to the trainer's coding of the videotapes, mean observer accuracy was 88.2% for the five observers. During the actual data collection phase, 25 %o of all observations were simultaneously observed by both an observer and the trainer for the purpose of establishing an estimate of the reliability of the coding procedure. Because low base-rate behaviors have the potential to produce spuriously inflated agreement ratios, effective percentage agreement (Hartmann, 1977) was computed. These were calculated by dividing the occurrence of agreements by the occurrence of agreements plus disagreements without the contribution of agreements of nonoccurrence. Effective agreement for the five categories of social behavior ranged from 81% to 96%, with a mean of 89%. Kappas (Cohen, 1960) were also computed, and their resulting values ranged from .88 to .96, with a mean of .92. Peer Nominations. A 12-item peer nomination inventory (see Table l) was used that contained two social status items (Nos. 1, 2), four aggression items (Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8), three social withdrawal items (Nos. 4, 6, 11), and three sociability items (Nos. 9, 10, 12). The withdrawal and sociability items were adapted from the PEI (Pekarik et al., 1976). The present peer nomination procedure is one that has previously shown adequate retest reliability plus good concurrent and predictive validity in a preschool setting (Milich et al., 1982). Prior to the administration of the peer nomination procedure, each boy was photographed from a distance of 1 meter in order to include the head and shoulders. Peer nominations were then obtained from the boys and girls in each kindergarten classroom from whom parental permission had been obtained. The 49 subjects were thus rated by 46 boys and 50 girls. Three kindergarten parents consented to have their son rated but not to participate as rater, thus accounting for the discrepancy between the

282

Milich and Landau

Table I. Items Employed in the Peer Nomination Procedure Point to (or show me) the boy: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. You like the most. You don't like. Who is mean. Who seems to play by himself. Who fights, punches, and hits a lot. Who seems too shy to make friends. Who is bossy and tells the others what to do. W h o gets mad easily. Who is especially nice. Who helps the other children. Who never seems to be having a good time. Everybody likes. Interrater reliability .66 b .74 b .71 b .48 b .74 ~ .14 .78 ~ .75 ~ .51 b .58 ~ .58 ~ .33 ~

"P < .01. bp < .001.

number of rated versus rating boys. Ratings from girls were obtained in order to serve as a check on the reliability of this nomination procedure. The 96 raters were individually interviewed by a male doctoral student in school psychology. Each rater was initially asked to name every boy from the photographs of boys from his/her class. This naming procedure established that the boys to be rated were known to their classmate raters. Then, prior to the administration of the 12 nomination items, two training items (i.e., who is short, who runs fast) were presented to ensure familiarity with the peer nomination procedure. For these training items, and all subsequent items, the raters were asked to nominate first one and then a second boy (i.e., "who else . . .") who best fit the item described. Scores for each of the 12 items consisted of the total number of nominations received, divided by the total number of raters in the class. Separate scores were calculated for boy and girl nominations. Table I presents the boy-girl interrater reliability for the 12 peer nomination items. Except for item 6 (who is shy), all of the reliability coefficients are significant. These results are consistent with those obtained by Milich et al. (1982) and indicate that when boys and girls are requested to nominate only boys for social status and behavioral information, they show significant correspondence in their selection. In the analyses that follow, results are reported using the boy nominations only. Because item 6 failed to show acceptable interrater reliability it was dropped from subsequent consideration. Peer-nominated Aggression, Withdrawal, and Sociability scales were formed by summing the appropriate items for each scale. In order to create the subject groups for the current analyses, the Aggression and Withdrawal scales were dichotomized and each boy in the top two-fifths of each scale

Aggressive/WithdrawnBoys

283

was identified) Four groups of subjects were then created as follows: Aggressive (A; n = 10), consisting of boys who were in the top two-fifths on the Aggression scale and the bottom three-fifths on the Withdrawal scale; Withdrawn (W; n = 9), consisting of boys in the top two-fifths on the Withdrawal scale and the bottom three-fifths on the Aggression scale; Aggressive/Withdrawn (A/W; n = 10), consisting of boys who were in the top two-fifths on each scale; and Controls (C; n = 20), consisting of boys who were in the bottom three-fifths on each scale. RESULTS A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; Hull & Nie, 1981) was undertaken with group status serving as the independent variable and the three teacher measures, three peer nominations, and five behavior observation variables serving as the dependent variables. The MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for group status, F(33, 111) = 2.7, p < .001. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were then undertaken to examine the contribution of each of the dependent variables in differentiating among the four social status groups. Table II presents the means for each group for each dependent variable, as well as the results of each one-way ANOVA and the least-significant-difference post h o c comparisons. In terms of the two social status variables, it is clear that both the A / W and A boys were most symptomatic of peer rejection, but the A boys were also significantly more popular than the A / W boys. Thus, it appears that the A / W group conformed to the traditional group of rejected boys, while the A group was consistent with those controversial boys described by Coie et al. (1982). As such, boys in the A group were identified by their peers as being both popular and rejected. In terms of teacher ratings, both the A / W and A groups were high on rated aggression, thereby supporting the validity of the peer-nominated Aggression scale. 4 Additionally, the A / W group was significantly more
3The relatively small sample size prevented use o f categorization criteria identical to those employed by Ledingham (1981). Instead, inspection of the frequency distributions of the Aggression and Withdrawal scales suggested that the upper two-fifths of each distribution provided an appropriate cutoff point. These frequency distributions are available upon request from the first author. ' T o determine if the teachers differed in their ratings, univariate analyses o f variance were undertaken, with the five classes serving as the independent variable and the hyperactivity a n d aggression factors as the dependent variables. There was a marginally significant main effect for the hyperactivity factor, b(4, 44) = 2.3, P < .I0, while the main effect for the aggression factor was not significant, F(4, 44) = 1.3, p > .05. A series of two factor analyses of variance indicated that the class factor never interacted significantly with group status for any of the dependent variables. Since the focus was on differences a m o n g the four social status groups, the class factor was ignored in all subsequent analyses.

Table 11. A Summary of the Result for the One-Way Analyses of Variance for Peer-Nominated Groups" Groups W (N = 9) A (N - 10) .33 .25 .69 3.33 3.33 .27 .44 .51 .79 .28 .18 .13 .18 .79 .19 .41 .60 3.81 a 1.40 2.88 d 2.98 a 3.54 a .13 .80 4.08 a 2.50 6.64" .61 1.86 A / W > A, W, C A / W , A > C; A > W A, A / W > C W>A A, C > W A/W, A> C .06 11.03' .18 2.36 c A > A/W A / W > A , W, C; A > C C (N 20) Post hoc comparisons .23 .18 .82 2.70
1.00

Dependent variable

A / W (N = 10)

1"(3, 45)

.11

Peer-nominated popularity Peer-nominated rejection Peer-nominated sociability

.46

.33

6.70

3.00 .21 .48 .69 .63 .19 .16

.26 .48 .59

Teacher-rated hyperactivity Teacher-rated aggression Teacher-ranked popularity t' Solitary activity Solitary play Interpersonal positive Interpersonal negative Adult interaction

.70

.23 .18

gr

"Values in the table represent the group means. ~'IIigh scores represent low popularity. ~P < .I0. dp < .05. ~P < .01.

iD

I=

Ill

Aggressive/WithdrawnBoys

285

symptomatic of teacher-rated hyperactivity than the other three groups, having a mean score of at least twice that of any other group. As such, the A / W group, as proposed by Ledingham, seemed to have much in common with the mixed H / A group identified by Loney and Milich (1982). Finally, the teacher-ranked popularity measure appeared to be operating much like the peer-nominated rejection measure, in that both the A / W and A groups were perceived by teachers as having social status problems. In terms of the observed social behaviors, the W boys were significantly high on Solitary Play, a finding that offers validation for the peer-nominated Withdrawal scale. Both the A and A / W groups were high on observed Interpersonal Negative, again validating the peer-nominated Aggression scale. Of special interest, however, was the finding that a group was also significantly high in observed Interpersonal Positive. Not only does this correspond with the Peer popularity nominations but it adds further support to the speculation that there exists a controversial group of youngsters who arc active, visible, and disruptive, and who are seen by their peers as leaders (Cole et al., 1982).

DISCUSSION Our first purpose was to clarify some of the existing confusion regarding the social status of a youngsters, as some studies have found them to have peer status difficulties, whereas others do not. This was accomplished by categorizing subjccts into A and A / W groups, as proposed by Ledingham (1981); and by examining the differential relationship of peer popularity and rejection to these groups. The second purpose was to determine if there is a relationship between Ledingham's classifications and other subgroups reported in the literature, specifically, those of controvcrsial social status (Cole et al., 1982) and those described as hyperactive aggressive (Loney & Milich, 1982). The results support and enhance Ledingham's conceptualization of the distinctions among peer-identified A, W, and A / W youngsters. Whereas Ledingham found the A / W group to be significantly low in peer-nominated likeability, we found them to be both significantly low in popularity and significantly high in rejection. This is especially important in that peer-nominated rejection has consistently been found to predict adverse adult outcome, whereas similar relationships have not been found for peer popularity measures. Further, the observational data indicated that these A / W boys were engaging in negative interactions. Unfortunately, our results cannot address the issue of whether this negative interpersonal behavior causes, or is a result of, their social status difficulties. Perhaps the

286

Milich and Landau

most parsimonious explanation reflects the bidirectional model proposed by Bell and Harper (1977), in that there is a reciprocal relationship between deviant behavior and peer rejection. Each results from, and contributes to, the other in a circular fashion. Although the A / W youngsters were both highly rejected and unpopular, this same pattern did not hold for the A boys. Although rejected by many of their peers, the A boys also received the highest popularity scores. Apparently, some classmates were willing to say they do not like the A boys, while some peers were willing to say they do like them. The observation data may elucidate what is operating with these boys. They are observed engaging in both positive and negative interactions while being significantly low in Solitary Play. As such, they are similar to the Coie et al. description of Controversial youngsters, that is, those who are high in both popularity and rejection, low in shyness, and high in disruptive, assertive, and leadership behaviors. Our results reinforce the point that valuable information concerning aggressive boys may be lost if their status on other dimensions (e.g., withdrawn behavior) is not taken into consideration. If one is considering only aggressive behavior, then the A and A / W boys are indistingushable. However, if one considers either prosocial behavior or popularity, then the failure to make these distinctions may obscure important differences. This may help account for the previously noted confusion in the literature regarding social status of aggressive youngsters. While we found a signficant positive correlation between teacher ratings of aggression and peer-nominated rejection (r = .48, P < .01), these same ratings did not correlate significantly with peer-nominated popularity (r = - .18). The reason for the latter finding is clear- some aggressive boys are popular, others are low in popularity. Therefore, the results one obtained will be greatly influenced by how the aggression sample is defined, and whether measures of peer popularity or rejection are employed. In terms of being at risk for severe psychopathology, Ledingham (1981) considers the peer-identified A / W youngsters to be the most vulnerable. Her description of these children is quite similar to Loney and Milich's (1982) description of H / A youngsters. For example, Ledingham has reported that her A / W boys were distractible, had attentional problems, were unable to delay responses, were more externally reliant and less able to change tasks easily, and were slower to complete work. These are behaviors typically associated with hyperactivity. Our results provide evidence that there is considerable overlap between these two groups of boys, as the A / W youngsters have mean hyperactivity scores at least twice those of the other three groups. However, the same is not true for teacher ratings of aggression, as the A / W and A groups are equally symptomatic. Recently, evidence has appeared suggesting that hyperactivity may be an early manifestation of a vulnerability to schizophrenia (Rieder &

Aggressive/WithdrawnBoys

287

Nichols, 1979; see also, Pelham, 1982). If true, this may account for the presumed similarities between the A / W and H / A boys. However, Nuechterlein (1983) has offered data suggesting that the attentional deficits of children at-risk for schizophrenia differ from those of hyperactive children. However, H / A boys were excluded from this latter sample. This question would appear to be a valuable avenue Of further exploration, especially in terms of the H / A and A / W subgroups. Consistent with previous research (Coie et al., 1982; Ledingham, 1981; Loney & Milich, 1982), we found that there were at least two distinct groups of youngsters, one an immature, disruptive, unpopular, and poorly controlled group, the other a disruptive, but popular, assertive, and controlling group. Apparently this is a desirable distinction in order to have a more valid understanding of the relationship between aggression and social status. Similarly, both Lesser (1959) and Olweus (1978) have provided evidence that the nature of one's aggressive behavior may influence peer status. That current findings correspond with those reported by Ledingham is especially noteworthy since the procedures employed in the two studies differed in several important ways. We used only kindergarten boys as subjects, whereas Ledingham used boys and girls in grades 1, 4, and 7. Ledingham used a group-administered peer nomination procedure, whereas we used an individual interview. There were also differences in the peer-nominated aggression and withdrawal items, as well as in the manner in which the four groups were formed. Despite these differences in procedure, the reliability of the results reflects positively both on the current peer nomination procedure used and on the apparent robustness of the findings. REFERENCES
Bell, R. Q., & Harper, L. V. (1977). Child effects on adults. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. Coie, J, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570. Conners, C. K. (1969). A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 152-156. Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41,438-446. Crowther, J. H., Bond, L. A., & Roll, J. E. (1981). The incidence, prevalence, and severity of behavior disorders among preschool-age children in day care. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9, 23-42. Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, N. P. (1982). Behavioral patterns of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents: The roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal ChiM Psychology, 10, 389-410. Glow, R. A., & Glow, P. H. (1980). Peer and self-rating: Children's perception of behavior relevant to hyperkinetic impulse disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 471-490.

288

Milich and Landau

Goldman, J. A., Corsini, D. A., & deUrioste, R. (1980). Implications of positive and negative sociometric status for assessing the social competence of young children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, 209-220. Gottman, J., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social competence, and friendship in children. Child Development, 46, 709-718. Green, K. D., Beck, S. J., Forehand, R., & Vosk, B. (1980). Validity of teacher nominations of child behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 397-404. Greenwood, C. R., Walker, H. M., Tood, N. M., & Hops, H. (1979). Selecting a cost-effective screening measure for the assessment of preschool social withdrawal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 639-652. Hartmann, D. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103-1I6. Hull, C. H., & Nie, N. H. (1981). SPSS update 7-9. New York: McGraw-Hill. Janes, C. L., Hesselbrock, V. M., Myers, D. G., & Penniman, J. H. (1979). Problem boys i n young adulthood: Teachers' ratings and twelve-year follow-up. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 453-472. Ledingham, J. E. (1981). Developmental patterns of aggressive and withdrawn behavior in childhood: A possible method for identifying preschizophrenics. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9, 1-22. Ledingham, J. E., Younger, A., Schwartzman, A., & Bergeron, G. (1982). Agreement among teacher, peer, and self-ratings of children's aggression, withdrawal, and likability. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 363-372. Lesser, G. S. (1959). The relationship between various forms of aggression and popularity among lower-class children. Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 50, 20-25. Loney, J., & Milich, R. (1982). Hyperactivity, inattention, and aggression in clinical practice. In M. Wolraich & D. K. Routh (Eds.), Advances in developmental and behavioral pediatrics (Vol. 2, pp. 113-147). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press. Marshall, H. R., & McCandless, B. R. (1957). A study in prediction of social behavior of preschool children. Child Development, 28, 149-159. Milich, R., & Landau, S. (1982). Socialization and peer relations in hyperactive children. In K. D. Gadow & I. Bialer (Eds.), advances in learning and behavioral disabilities Vol. 1, pp. 283-339). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press. Milich, R., Landau, S., Kilby, G., & Whitten, P. (1982). Preschool peer perceptions of the behavior of hyperactive and aggressive children. Journal of Abnormal ChiM Psychology, 10, 497-510. Nueehterlein, K. H. (1983). Signal detection in vigilance task and behavioral attributes among offspring of schizophrenic mothers and among hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 4-28. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools. Washington: Hemisphere. Pekarik, E. G., Prinz, R. J., Liebert, D. C., Weintraub, S., & Neale, J. M. (1976). The Pupil Evaluation Inventory: A sociometric technique for assessing children's social behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 83-97. Pelham, W. E. (1982). Childhood hyperactivity: Diagnosis, etiology, nature and treatment. In R. Gatchel, A. Baum, & J. Singer (Eds.) Behavioral medicine and clinicalpsychology: Overlapping disciplines (pp. 261-327). Hillsdale, Ncw Jersey: Erlbaum. Rieder, R., & Nichols, P. (1979). Offspring of schizophrenics. III: Hyperactivity and neurological soft signs. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 665-674. Roff, M. (1961). Childhood social interactions and young adult bad conduct. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 333-337. Roff, M. (1963). Childhood social interactions and young adult psychosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19, 152-157. Ullman, C. A. (1957). Teachers peers and tests as predictors of adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 257-267. West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? London: Heinemann.