CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentBullying, Victimization, and AggressionEarly Childhood Education and Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Sociometric types and children's intelligence

Czeschlik, Tatiana, Rost, Detlef H.·1995·British Journal of Developmental Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.2044-835x.1995.tb00672.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study investigates the relation between intelligence and the currently widely used five sociometric types ‘popular’, ‘rejected’, ‘neglected’, ‘controversial’ and ‘average’. The sample consists of N = 5861 children belonging to 317 third‐grade classes. Intelligence was operationalized by a combination of three standardized intelligence tests and a combination of three ratings—corresponding to the three intelligence tests—of the pupils' intelligence by their head teachers. Results show that, regardless of the operationalization of intelligence, there is a positive relation between intelligence and ‘popularity’, whereas ‘rejection’ is negatively related to intelligence. For the other three sociometric types ('controversial', ‘neglected’ and ‘average’) no relation to intelligence can be observed. The discussion stresses the need to control the variable ‘intelligence’ in studies investigating the behavioural and socio‐emotional correlates of ‘popular’ and ‘rejected’ children.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2044-835x.1995.tb00672.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The observed coefficients between cognitive intelligence and peer status are quite low and rarely exceed .35.

    “However, it should be noted that the observed coefficients are quite low and rarely exceed .35 (Czeschlik, Rost, 1995).”

    From The The effects of cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence on children’s sociometric status in a new peer group (2023) · cites this paper as Czeschlik, Rost, 1995

  • Most studies indicate a positive correlation of cognitive intelligence with peer acceptance and a negative correlation with rejection.

    “Most of these studies indicate a positive correlation of cognitive intelligence with peer acceptance (Czeschlik, Rost, 1995; Dundić, Pleić, 2022; LaFontana, Cillessen, 2002; Newcomb, Bukowski, Pattee, 1993; see also Weyns, Colpin, Verschueren, 2021), and a negative correlation with rejection (Czeschlik, Rost, 1995).”

    From The The effects of cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence on children’s sociometric status in a new peer group (2023) · cites this paper as Czeschlik, Rost, 1995

  • The finding that changes in sociometric status are not influenced by cognitive intelligence is inconsistent with the majority of previous findings.

    “The observation that such changes are not influenced by cognitive intelligence is inconsistent with the majority of previous findings (see, e.g., Czeschlik, Rost, 1995; LaFontana, Cillessen, 2002; Newcomb, Bukowski, Haselager, 1993).”

    From The The effects of cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence on children’s sociometric status in a new peer group (2023) · cites this paper as Czeschlik, Rost, 1995

  • The relationship between cognitive intelligence and peer status is usually explained by IQ compensating for deficits in social skills while contributing to better academic performance, which is appreciated by peers.

    “The relationship between cognitive intelligence and peer status is usually explained by the fact that IQ may compensate for deficits in social skills while contributing to better academic performance (more efficient learning, higher cognitive competence, better school grades), which is appreciated by peers (see e.g.: Czeschlik, Rost, 1995).”

    From The The effects of cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence on children’s sociometric status in a new peer group (2023) · cites this paper as Czeschlik, Rost, 1995

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Czeschlik, T., & Rost, D. H.
Affiliations
Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Czeschlik, Tatiana
ORCID
Rost, Detlef H.
Venue
British Journal of Developmental Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-06
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
177-189
ISSN
  • 0261-510X (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-835X
DOI
10.1111/j.2044-835x.1995.tb00672.x
OpenAlex
W2094087221
Cited by
36
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 5885 d)
Locations
British Journal of Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
child intelligence, popularity, rejection, neglected children, peer relationships, third grade, intelligence tests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review