THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY, 176(1), 5563, 2015

Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-1325 print / 1940-0896 online
DOI: 10.1080/00221325.2014.1002751

BRIEF REPORT

Childrens Perceptions of Hypothetical Peers With

Undesirable Characteristics: Role of the Peers Desire
to Change, Source of Effort to Change, and Outcome
Mark A. Barnett
Kansas State University

Tammy L. Sonnentag
Xavier University

Taylor W. Wadian and Tucker L. Jones

Kansas State University

Courtney A. Langley
University of Kansas

ABSTRACT. The present study, involving sixth- to eighth-grade students, is an extension of a prior
investigation (Barnett, Livengood, Sonnentag, Barlett, & Witham, 2010) that examined childrens
perceptions of hypothetical peers with various undesirable characteristics. Results indicate that chil-
drens perceptions of hypothetical peers with an undesirable characteristic are influenced by the
peers desire to change, the source of effort to change, and the peers success or failure in changing
the characteristic. The children anticipated responding more favorably to peers who were successful
in overcoming an undesirable characteristic than peers who were unsuccessful. Regardless of the
peers outcome, the children anticipated responding more favorably to peers who tried to change
than peers who relied on the effort of adult authorities to motivate change. The children perceived
successful peers as experiencing more positive affect than their unsuccessful counterparts, especially
if the success was presented as a fulfillment of the peers desire to change their undesirable char-
acteristic. Finally, the childrens ratings reflected the belief that, among peers who failed to change

Received May 9, 2014; accepted December 22, 2014.

Address correspondence to Mark A. Barnett, Kansas State University, Department of Psychological Sciences, Man-
hattan, KS 66506, USA; barn@ksu.edu (e-mail).
56 BARNETT ET AL.

their undesirable characteristic, lacking the desire to change increases the relative likelihood that the
characteristic will be permanent.
Keywords responses to peers, perceptions of peers, social cognition

Children tend to respond in an unfavorable manner toward peers who are perceived as different
or deficient in their appearance, ability, or behavior (e.g., Juvonen, 1991; Nowicki & Sandieson,
2002; Puhl & Latner, 2007). However, relatively little is known of the various factors that may
be associated with childrens rejection of such peers. A prior investigation involving fifth- and
sixth-grade students (Barnett, Livengood, Sonnentag, Barlett, & Witham, 2010) explored the
extent to which childrens anticipated response to hypothetical male peers with an undesirable
characteristic (e.g., being a poor student) is influenced by information that each peer (a) desired
(or did not desire) to change the characteristic, (b) exerted effort (or did not exert effort) to
change the characteristic, and (c) was successful (or unsuccessful) in changing the characteristic.
In general, the children anticipated responding more favorably to peers who were successful in
overcoming an undesirable characteristic than those who failed. However, across both outcome
conditions, the children anticipated responding more favorably to peers who wanted to change
and exerted effort to change (i.e., desire/effort condition) than peers who reported no effort
to change an undesirable characteristic, regardless of whether they had or had not expressed
a desire to change that characteristic (i.e., desire/no effort and no desire/no effort conditions,
respectively).
Although a peers effort to change an undesirable characteristic was found to be especially
important in childrens anticipated response to that peer in the Barnett et al. (2010) study, research
has yet to determine how children perceive peers with an undesirable characteristic whose effort
to change is not self-motivated, but motivated by adult authorities. In an era in which many
parents are intimately involved in scheduling their offsprings experiences and managing their
offsprings problems (helicopter parents; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012; Ungar, 2009), children
may buy into the notion that it is appropriate for adult authorities (e.g., parents and teachers)
to take the motivational lead in helping peers with an undesirable characteristic. If children
tend to hold this belief, then they would be expected to anticipate responding just as favorably
to peers who rely on adult authorities to motivate change in their undesirable characteristic as
peers who personally exert effort to change. Alternatively, and consistent with attribution theory
and research (e.g., Juvonen, 1991; Weiner, 1986), children may tend to perceive peers with an
undesirable characteristic who are reliant on adults to motivate change as lazy, irresponsible,
and as meriting relatively harsh treatment. If children tend to hold this belief, then they would
be expected to anticipate responding less favorably to peers who rely on adult authorities to
motivate change than peers who personally exert effort to change. A major purpose of the present
study, involving sixth- to eighth-grade students, was to determine which of these two competing
expectations would receive empirical support.
As a further extension of the Barnett et al. (2010) study, we examined the role that peers
desire to change, source of effort to change, and outcome play in childrens perceptions of the
affect experienced by peers with an undesirable characteristic. Finally, we explored the impact
that peers desire to change and source of effort to change has on childrens attitudes concerning
whether peers success or failure in altering an undesirable characteristic will persist over time.
 CHILDRENS PERCEPTIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PEERS 57

METHOD

Participants

A total of 63 sixth- to eighth-grade students (40 girls, 23 boys) from a middle school in northeast
Kansas took part in the present study. The participants ranged in age from 11.314.3 years (M age =
12.8 years, SD = 0.90 years). Parental informed consent forms were collected prior to the start of
the study, and all participants were required to provide their own assent prior to participating. The
students took part in one of six group sessions (described below) with 912 participants per ses-
sion. A male experimenter and a female assistant conducted all of the mixed-grade group sessions.

Procedure and Materials

At the start of each session, the experimenter led the students to believe that, as part of a previous
investigation at another school, we had interviewed children about their age, one at a time, on
two separate occasions. During the first interview, we asked the children to describe something
about themselves or their behavior that they or someone else considered a problem. During
this interview, we also asked the children whether they wanted to change that characteristic or
pattern of behavior. In the second interview, we asked the children to report whether (a) they, or
someone else like a parent or teacher, had been trying to change that characteristic or pattern of
behavior during the six months since the first interview and (b) they had noted any change in
that characteristic or pattern of behavior since the first interview six months earlier. The students
were told that the purpose of the present study was to assess their attitudes toward some of the
children who took part in our prior investigation.
Following these introductory comments, the students received six pages, one at a time. On
each page was the summary of the two interviews with a male peer with an undesirable char-
acteristic (i.e., poor student, poor athlete, overweight, aggressive, shy, having the symptoms of
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; descriptions adapted from Barnett et al., 2010). The spe-
cific desire/source of effort/outcome interview summary for a peer with a particular undesirable
characteristic was counterbalanced across the six groups and reflected one of the six interview
patterns presented to the children in each group1:
1. Desire/self-effort/success
2. Desire/self-effort/failure
3. Desire/other effort/success
4. Desire/other effort/failure
5. No desire/other effort/success
6. No desire/other effort/failure
See the Appendix for an example of the wording of the various interview summaries presented
to the children.
After the students read the two interview summaries for each peer, they were asked to rate
the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with eight statements about that peer. The students
made their ratings on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (disagree a lot) to 5 (agree a lot).
Four statements addressed the students anticipated response to each peer: I would like Jacob;
58 BARNETT ET AL.

TABLE 1
Childrens Ratings of Their Anticipated Response to the Peers, the Affect of the Peers, and the Permanence
of the Peers Outcome by Outcome Condition and Desire/Source of Effort Condition: Means and Standard
Deviations

Success Failure
Desire/Self- Desire/Other No desire/Other Desire/ Desire/Other No desire/
effort effort effort Self-effort effort Other effort

Anticipated response to peers

M 3.91 3.54 3.36 3.17 2.80 2.67
SD 0.87 0.83 0.82 0.96 0.81 0.89
Affect of peers
M 4.37 4.25 3.95 2.16 2.14 2.23
SD 0.82 0.78 0.89 0.90 0.77 0.68
Permanence of peers outcome
M 2.70 2.59 2.33 2.52 2.25 2.94
SD 1.34 1.24 1.20 1.35 1.12 1.40

If Jacob needed assistance with something, I would help him; I admire Jacob; Jacob is a
good role model for other children facing a problem ( = .73). Three statements addressed the
presumed affect of each peer during the second interview: During the second interview, Jacob
felt happy, proud, disappointed (negatively keyed; = .69). The final statement addressed the
participants perception of the permanence of the success or failure achieved by each peer: The
outcome that Jacob reported during the second interview is permanent and will not change.
At the end of the session, the experimenter retrieved the completed forms, read a short
debriefing statement to the students, and thanked them for the studends participation in the study.
Several weeks after data collection was complete, a summary of the results of the study was mailed
to the middle school principal and the parents of the studentparticipants who had requested a
copy on the initial informed consent form.

RESULTS

The childrens anticipated response to peers, affect of peers, and permanence of peers outcome
ratings were analyzed in separate 2 2 3 (Gender of Participant Outcome Condition
Desire/Source of Effort Condition) analyses of variance (ANOVAs), with the last two variables
as repeated measures.2 Given that no significant main or interaction effects involving gender
of participant were found in these analyses, Table 1 presents all of the means (and standard
deviations) by outcome condition and desire/source of effort condition, collapsing across gender
of participant.

Anticipated Response to Peers

The children agreed more strongly that they would respond favorably to peers who were successful
in overcoming their undesirable characteristic (M = 3.60, SD = 0.59) than peers who were
 CHILDRENS PERCEPTIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PEERS 59

unsuccessful (M = 2.88, SD = 0.65), F(1, 61) = 63.93, p < .001, p 2 = .51. In addition to this
main effect of outcome condition, a significant main effect of desire/source of effort condition
was found, F(2, 122) = 16.40, p < .001, hp 2 = .21. Regardless of the peers outcome, the children
agreed more strongly that they would respond favorably to peers in the desire/self-effort condition
(M = 3.54, SD = 0.71) than peers in the desire/other effort condition (M = 3.17, SD = 0.57)
or the no desire/other effort condition (M = 3.02, SD = 0.70; post hoc analysis conducted with
pairwise comparisons).

Affect of Peers

The children agreed more strongly that peers who were successful in overcoming their undesirable
characteristic would experience positive affect during the second interview (M = 4.19, SD =
0.61) than peers who failed to overcome their undesirable characteristic (M = 2.18, SD = 0.52),
F(1, 61) = 261.07, p < .001, hp 2 = .81. This main effect of outcome condition was qualified
by a significant outcome condition by desire/source of effort condition interaction, F(2, 122) =
3.51, p < .05, hp 2 = .05. Simple effects post hoc tests revealed that the effect of desire/source of
effort condition was not significant for the failure outcome condition, F(2, 124) = .29, p = .75,
hp 2 = .01, but was significant for the success outcome condition, F(2, 124) = 6.16, p < .01, hp 2
= .09. Among the peers who were successful in overcoming their undesirable characteristic, the
participants agreed more strongly that the peers in the desire/self-effort and desire/other effort
conditions would experience positive affect during the second interview than the peers in the
no desire/other effort condition (post hoc analysis conducted with pairwise comparisons; see
respective means and standard deviations presented in Table 1).

Permanence of Peers Outcome

The childrens responses on this single-item measure yielded a significant outcome condition by
desire/source of effort condition interaction, F(2, 122) = 5.83, p < .01, hp 2 = .09. Simple effects
post hoc tests revealed that the effect of desire/source of effort condition was significant for the
failure outcome condition, F(2, 124) = 7.19, p < .01, hp 2 = .10, but only marinally significant
for the success outcome condition, F(2, 124) = 2.53, p = .08, hp 2 = .04. The children agreed
more strongly that the failure to change of peers in the no desire/other effort condition would
be permanent than the failure to change of peers in the desire/self-effort and desire/other effort
conditions (post hoc analysis conducted with pairwise comparisons; see respective means and
standard deviations presented in Table 1).

DISCUSSION

The childrens more positive anticipated response to peers who were successful than those who
were unsuccessful in overcoming an undesirable characteristic is consistent with the results of
prior research (Barnett et al., 2010; Sigelman & Shorokey, 1986) and the observation that children
tend to stigmatize peers who are perceived as different or deficient in their appearance, ability, or
behavior (e.g., Juvonen, 1991; Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002; Puhl & Latner, 2007).
60 BARNETT ET AL.

The childrens anticipated response ratings reflect the belief that peers with an undesirable
characteristic who rely on the effort of adult authorities to motivate change, such as peers who
exert no effort to change (Barnett et al., 2010), merit a less favorable interpersonal response
than peers who personally exert effort to change their undesirable characteristic. The pattern of
findings across the prior and present studies is consistent with attribution research (e.g., Juvonen,
1991; Weiner, 1986) and demonstrates that individuals whose unpleasant personal circumstance
is associated with laziness and irresponsibility, either through exerting no effort to change or
relying on others to motivate change, are likely to be devalued and treated relatively harshly.
As in the prior investigation, the extent to which the present anticipated response findings were
influenced by using only male peers in the interview summaries presented to the child-participants
cannot be determined. However, given that girls tend to seek help from adults more frequently and
score higher on indices of dependence than do boys (Berk, 2013), female peers who are described
in future research as being reliant on adults to motivate change in an undesirable characteristic
may be perceived as acting in a more gender-appropriate manner, and evaluated less harshly, than
male peers who are described in the same manner. Similarly, dependence on adults is routinely
deemed more acceptable in younger than older children and, therefore, future research involving
younger child-participants or the evaluation of younger peers may yield a more favorable response
to peers who rely on adult authorities to motivate change.
The childrens affect ratings reflect an awareness that peers who have overcome an undesirable
characteristic are likely to experience more positive emotions (and, perhaps, more positive feelings
about themselves) than peers whose undesirable characteristic remains unchanged over time.
However, the children appear to believe that, among peers who are successful in overcoming
an undesirable characteristic, desiring to change and having their wish come rue is the recipe
for heightened positive affect. These findings are consistent with research demonstrating that
people tend to associate affective reactions of happiness and pride with their own and others
successes (Barden, Zelko, Duncan, & Masters, 1980), especially when the successes are attributed
to internal causes (e.g., desire and self-motivated effort; Bar-Tal, 1978).
The childrens permanence ratings appear to reflect the common adult belief that, among
individuals who have been unsuccessful in overcoming an undesirable characteristic, a lack
of desire to change increases the relative likelihood that the characteristic will be permanent
(Lockhart, Chang, & Story, 2002; Wimmer, Wachter, & Perner, 1982). Furthermore, this finding
is consistent with research demonstrating that even young children tend to consider individuals
underlying motivation for their behavior (Rholes, Newman, & Ruble, 1990) and expect such
motivation (and, perhaps, lack of motivation) to produce stable behavioral outcomes (Heyman &
Gelman, 1998).
It should be noted that the patterns of results in the present study varied across the three
dependent measures. Whereas the childrens anticipated response to peers with an undesirable
characteristic was associated with the source of motivation to change, the childrens ratings of
(a) the peers affect (after successfully changing the characteristic) and (b) the permanence of the
peers outcome (after failing to change the characteristic) were associated with the peers desire
to change the characteristic. Although any discussion about the inconsistent pattern of findings
across the three dependent variables must be considered highly speculative, the present results
suggest that information about whether peers are (or are not) personally motivated to change an
undesirable characteristic may play a larger role in childrens reaction to those peers than in their
beliefs about those peers emotional and behavioral responses to their plight.
 CHILDRENS PERCEPTIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PEERS 61

In sum, the children in the present study anticipated responding more favorably to peers who
had overcome an undesirable characteristic than those who had not. However, the children did
not appear to buy into the notion that it is appropriate for adult authorities (e.g., parents and
teachers) to take the motivational lead in helping peers change an undesirable characteristic.
Instead, consistent with attribution theory and research (e.g., Juvonen, 1991; Weiner, 1986), the
childrens ratings reflected the belief that peers with an undesirable characteristic who rely on
the effort of adult authorities to motivate change merit a less favorable interpersonal response
than peers who personally exert effort to change their undesirable characteristic. In addition, the
children perceived successful peers as experiencing more positive affect than their unsuccessful
counterparts, especially if the success was presented as a fulfillment of the peers desire to change
their undesirable characteristic. Finally, the childrens permanence ratings reflected the belief
that, among peers who failed to change their undesirable characteristic, lacking the desire to
change increases the relative likelihood that the characteristic will be permanent. Taken together,
the results of the present study indicate that childrens perceptions of hypothetical peers with
an undesirable characteristics are influenced by the peers desire (or lack of desire) to change,
self-motivated (or other-motivated) effort to change, and success (or failure) in changing the
characteristic. Additional research conducted in more naturalistic settings is needed to further
examine these and other factors that may influence childrens attitudes toward and reactions to
peers who are perceived as different or deficient in their appearance, ability, or behavior.

NOTES

1. As in the prior study (Barnett et al., 2010), two other possible interview patterns (i.e., no desire/self-
effort/success and no desire/self-effort/failure) were not included in the present study because it seemed
unreasonable for a male peer to express no interest in changing a characteristic and, then, to describe the
behaviors he engaged in to change that characteristic.
2. Because of the size of the present sample, it was unfeasible to analyze the impact of the various
desire/source of effort/outcome interview patterns on the childrens perceptions of a peer with a specific
undesirable characteristic. It should be noted that a similar data analysis constraint occurred in the Barnett
et al. (2010) study.

AUTHOR NOTES

Mark A. Barnett is a professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Kansas State

University. His research interests focus on individuals attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that
are associated with their social-emotional development. Tammy L. Sonnentag is an assistant
professor in the School of Psychology at Xavier University. Her research interests focus on the
personal, social, and developmental factors associated with individuals tendencies to stand up
for their beliefs and values. Taylor W. Wadian is a doctoral candidate in the social-personality
Psychological Sciences program at Kansas State University. His research focuses on exploring the
factors that are associated with social stigmatization and prejudice. Tucker L. Jones is a doctoral
student in the social-personality Psychological Sciences program at Kansas State University.
His primary research interests focus on how individuals perceive and respond to various social
interactions in which interpersonal rejection may (or may not) be occurring. Courtney A. Langley
62 BARNETT ET AL.

is a masters student in the social work program at the University of Kansas. Her primary research
interests focus on examining the factors that aid children in overcoming trauma experiences.

REFERENCES

Barden, R. C., Zelko, F. A., Duncan, S. W., & Masters, J. C. (1980). Childrens consensual knowledge about the
experiential determinants of emotion. Journal of Peronality and Social Psychology, 39, 968976.
Barnett, M. A., Livengood, J. L., Sonnentag, T. L., Barlett, N. D., & Witham, R. Y. (2010). Childrens anticipated
responses to hypothetical peers with undesirable characteristics: Role of peers desire to change, effort to change, and
outcome. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 171, 262269.
Bar-Tal, D. (1978). Attributional analysis of achievement-related behavior. Review of Educational Research, 48, 259271.
Berk, L. E. (2013). Child development (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Heyman, G. D., & Gelman, S. A. (1998). Young children use motive information to make trait inferences. Developmental
Psychology, 34, 310321.
Juvonen, J. (1991). Deviance, perceived responsibility, and negative peer reactions. Developmental Psychology, 27,
672681.
Lockhart, K. L., Chang, B., & Story, T. (2002). Young childrens beliefs about the stability of traits: Protective optimism.
Child Development, 73, 14081430.
Nowicki, E. A., & Sandieson, R. (2002). A meta-analysis of school-age childrens attitudes toward persons
with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49,
243265.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Black hawk down? Establishing helicopter parenting as a distinct construct
from other forms of parental control during emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 11771190.
Puhl, R. M., & Latner, J. D. (2007). Stigma, obesity, and the health of the nations children. Psychological Bulletin, 133,
557580.
Rholes, W. S., Newman, L. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1990). Understanding self and other: Developmental and motivational
aspects of perceiving persons in terms of invariant dispositions. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook
of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 369407). New York, NY: Guilford.
Sigelman, C. K., & Shorokey, J. J. (1986). Effects of treatments and their outcomes on peer perceptions of a hyperactive
child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 397410.
Ungar, M. (2009). Overprotective parenting: Helping parents provide children the right amount of risk and responsibility.
The American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 258271.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Wimmer, H., Wachter, J., & Perner, J. (1982). Cognitive autonomy of the development of moral evaluation of achievement.
Child Development, 53, 668676.

APPENDIX

Wording of the Various Desire/Source of Effort/Outcome Interview Summaries

Presented to the Participants: The Poor Student Example

First interview

When Jacob was first interviewed, he told us that he was a poor student. He said that he was a
slow reader and had difficulty with math, science, and English. Jacob said that he got poor grades
on tests and often did not know the correct answer when he was called on in class.
 CHILDRENS PERCEPTIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PEERS 63

Desire: Jacob told us that he would like to become a better student. He told us that he was going
to put in effort and try to become a better student.

No Desire: Jacob told us that he did not care about being a poor student. Jacob told us that he
was not going to try, or put in any effort, to become a better student.

Second interview

Self-Motivated Effort: When Jacob was interviewed again about 6 months later, he told us
that he had been trying to become a better student by working harder on his own at school and
by reading and studying more at home.

Other-Motivated Effort: When Jacob was interviewed again about 6 months later, he told us
that his teacher and parents had made him meet with a tutor after school and had set a reading
and studying schedule for him at home.

Success: Jacob said that now he is getting better grades in math, science, and English and that
his reading skills have improved. Jacob concluded that he has become a better student.

Failure (following Self-Motivated Effort): Jacob said that even though he had tried to improve,
he still has poor grades in math, science, and English and that his reading skills have not improved.
Jacob concluded that he still is a poor student.

Failure (following Other-Motivated Effort): Jacob said that even though his teacher and parents
had made him meet with a tutor after school and follow the reading and studying schedule they
set for him at home, he still has poor grades in math, science, and English and that his reading
skills have not improved. Jacob concluded that he still is a poor student.
Copyright of Journal of Genetic Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.