Think back to your days pretending to be a superhero or supermodel, getting together with the girls or boys to play, your best friends, and whether you were popular at school. Now, beginning with play, moving on to the play worlds of girls and boys, then friendships and popularity, and finally tackling bullying—that important contemporary concern—let’s explore each relationship-related topic one by one.

Developmentalists classify children’s “free play” (the non-sports-oriented kind) into different categories. Rough-and-tumble play refers to the excited shoving, wrestling, and running around that is most apparent with boys. Actually, rough-and-tumble play is classically boy behavior. It seems biologically built into being male (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002; Pellegrini, 2006).

183

Pretending: The Heart of Early Childhood

Fantasy play, or pretending, is different. Here, the child takes a stance apart from reality and makes up a scene, often with a toy or other prop. While fantasy play also can be immensely physical, this “as if” quality makes it unique. Children must pretend to be pirates or superheroes as they wrestle and run. Because fantasy play is so emblematic of early childhood, let’s delve into pretending in depth.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND DECLINE OF PRETENDING. Fantasy play first emerges in toddlerhood, as children realize that a symbol can stand for something else. In a classic study, developmentalists watched 1-year-olds with their mothers at home. Although toddlers often initiated a fantasy episode, they needed a parent to expand on the scene (Dunn, Wooding, & Hermann, 1977). So a child would pretend to make a phone call, and his mother would pick up the real phone and say, “Hello, this is Mommy. Should I come home now?”

At about age 3, children transfer the skill of pretending with mothers to peers. Collaborative pretend play, or fantasizing together with another child, really gets going at about age 4 (Smolucha & Smolucha, 1998). Because they must work together to develop the scene, collaboratively pretending shows that preschoolers have a theory of mind—the knowledge that the other person has a different perspective. (You need to understand that your fellow playwright has a different script in his head.) Collaboratively pretending, in turn, helps teach young children the skill of making sense of different minds (Nicolopoulou and others, 2010).

Anyone involved with a young child can see these changes firsthand. When a 2-year-old has his “best friend” over, they play in parallel orbits—if things go well. More likely, a titanic battle erupts, full of proactive and reactive aggression, as each child attempts to gain possession of the toys. By age 4, children can play together. At age 5 or 6, they can pretend together for hours—with only a few major fights that are usually resolved.

Although fantasy play can continue into early adolescence, when children reach concrete operations, their interest shifts to structured games (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002). At age 3, a child pretends to bake in the kitchen corner; at 9, he wants to bake a cake. At age 5, you ran around playing pirates; at 9, you tried to hit the ball like the Pittsburgh Pirates do.

THE PURPOSES OF PRETENDING. Interestingly, around the world, when children pretend, their play has similar plots. Let’s eavesdrop at a U.S. preschool:

BOY 2: I don’t want to be a kitty anymore.

GIRL: You are a husband?

BOY 2: Yeah.

BOYS 1 AND 2: Husbands, husbands! (Yell and run around the play house)

GIRL: Hold it, Bill, I can’t have two husbands.

BOYS 1 AND 2: Two husbands! Two husbands!

GIRL: We gonna marry ourselves, right?

(adapted from Corsaro, 1985, pp. 102–104)

Why do young children play “family,” and assume the “correct” roles when they play mommy and daddy? For answers, let’s turn to Lev Vygotsky’s insights.

184

Play allows children to practice adult roles. Vygotsky (1978) believed that pretending allows children to rehearse being adults. The reason girls pretend to be mommy and baby is that women are the main child-care providers around the world. Boys play soldiers because this activity offers built-in training for the wars they face as adults (Pellegrini & Smith, 2005).

Play allows children a sense of control. As the following preschool conversation suggests, pretending has a deeper psychological function, too:

GIRL 1: Yeah, and let’s pretend when Mommy’s out until later.

GIRL 2: Ooooh. Well, I’m not the boss around here, though. ’Cause mommies are the bosses.

GIRL 1: (Doubtfully) But maybe we won’t know how to punish.

GIRL 2: I will. I’ll put my hand up and spank. That’s what my mom does.

GIRL 1: My mom does too.

(adapted from Corsaro, 1985, p. 96)

While reading the previous two chapters, you may have been thinking that the so-called carefree early childhood years are hardly free of stress. We expect children to regulate their emotions when their frontal lobes aren’t fully functional. We discipline toddlers and preschoolers when they cannot make sense of the mysteries of adult rules. Vygotsky (1978) believed that, in response to this sense of powerlessness, young children enter “an illusory role” in which their desires are realized. In play, you can be the spanking mommy or the queen of the castle, even when you are small, and sometimes feel like a slave.

To penetrate the inner world of preschool fantasy play, sociologist William Corsaro (1985, 1997) went undercover, entering a nursery school as a member of the class. (No problem. The children welcomed their new playmate, whom they called Big Bill, as a clumsy, enlarged version of themselves.) As Vygotsky would predict, Corsaro found that preschool play plots often centered on mastering upsetting events. There were separation/reunion scenarios (“Help! I’m lost in the forest.” “I’ll find you.”) and danger/rescue plots (“Get in the house. It’s gonna be a rainstorm!”). Sometimes, play scenarios centered on that ultimate frightening event, death:

CHILD 1: We are dead, we are dead! Help, we are dead! (Puts animals on their sides)

CHILD 2: You can’t talk if you are dead.

CHILD 1: Oh, well, Leah’s talked when she was dead, so mine have to talk when they are dead. Help, help, we are dead!

(adapted from Corsaro, 1985 p. 204)

Notice that these themes are basic to Disney movies and fairy tales. From Finding Nemo, Bambi, and The Lion King to—my personal favorite—Dumbo, there is nothing more heart-wrenching than being separated from your parent. From the greedy old witch in Hansel and Gretel to the jealous queen in Sleeping Beauty, no scenario is as sweet as triumphing over evil and possible death.

Play furthers our understanding of social norms. Corsaro (1985) found that death was a touchy play topic. When children proposed these plots, their partners might try to change the script. This relates to Vygotsky’s third insight about play: Although children’s play looks unstructured, it has boundaries and rules. Plots involving dead animals waking up make children uncomfortable because they violate the conditions of life. Children get especially uneasy when a play partner proposes scenarios with gory themes, such as cutting off people’s heads (Dunn & Hughes, 2001). Therefore, play teaches children how to act and how not to behave. Wouldn’t you want to retreat if someone showed an intense interest in decapitation while having a conversation with you?

185

Evaluating the Impact of Play

Many educators believe fantasy play is vital to developing our social and intellectual skills (see, for instance, Lindsey & Colwell, 2013). They agonize about the Internet revolution, worrying that hours glued to computers are robbing today’s preschoolers of the vital lessons that play provides (as reported in Lillard and others, 2013). Is pretend play important to developing a full human being?

In reviewing the data, scientists concluded the jury is out (Lillard and others, 2013). Many studies showing play’s value are correlational. So they may be confusing outcomes with causes. If preschoolers who pretend more are advanced socially and cognitively, does pretending cause these benefits, or do these qualities cause children to pretend more? Perhaps it is the myriad of adult activities that go along with fantasy play—talking about emotions, reading to a child—that help preschoolers cope with stress and make sense of the puzzling adult world. But even if it’s not essential to development, pretending is definitely a main feature of childhood. Moreover, during elementary school, boys and girls play in different ways.

[Some] girls, all about five and a half years old, are looking through department store catalogues, . . . concentrating on what they call “girls’ stuff” and referring to some of the other items as “yucky boys’ stuff.” . . . Shirley points to a picture of a couch . . . “All we want is the pretty stuff,” says Ruth. Peggy now announces, “If you come to my birthday, every girl in the school is invited. I’m going to put a sign up that says, ‘No boys allowed!’” “Oh good, good, good,” says Vickie. “I hate boys.”

(adapted from Corsaro, 1997, p. 155)

Does this conversation bring back childhood memories of being 5 or 6? How does gender-segregated play develop? What are the differences in boy versus girl play, and what causes the sexes to separate into these different camps?

Exploring the Separate Societies

Visit a playground and observe children of different ages. Notice that toddlers show no sign of gender-segregated play. In preschool, children start to play mainly in sex-segregated groups (Martin & Ruble, 2010). By elementary school, gender-segregated play is entrenched. On the playground, boys and girls do play in mixed groups (Fabes, Martin, & Hanish, 2003). Still, with friendships, there is a split: boys are typically best friends with boys and girls with girls (Maccoby, 1998).

Now, go back to the playground and look at the way boys and girls relate. Do you notice that boy and girl play differs in the following ways?

BOYS EXCITEDLY RUN AROUND; GIRLS CALMLY TALK. Boys’ play is more rambunctious. Even during physical games such as tag, girls play together in calmer, more subdued ways (Maccoby, 1998; Pellegrini, 2006). The difference in activity levels is striking if you have the pleasure of witnessing one gender playing with the opposite sex’s toys. In one memorable episode, after my son and a friend invaded a girl’s stash of dolls, they gleefully ran around the house bashing Barbie into Barbie and using their booty as swords.

BOYS COMPETE IN GROUPS; GIRLS PLAY COLLABORATIVELY, ONE-TO-ONE. Their exuberant, rough-and-tumble play explains why boys burst on the scene, running and yelling, dominating every room. Another difference lies in playgroup size. Boys get together in packs. Girls play in smaller, more intimate groups (Maccoby, 1990, 1998; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006).

186

Boys and girls also differ in the way they relate. Boys try to establish dominance and compete to be the best. This competitive versus cooperative style spills over into children’s talk. Girl-to-girl collaborative play really sounds collaborative (“I’ll be the doctor, OK?”). Boys give each other bossy commands (“I’m doing the operation. Lie down, now!”) (Maccoby, 1998). Girl-to-girl fantasy play involves nurturing themes. Boys prefer the warrior, superhero mode.

The stereotypic quality of girls’ fantasy play came as a shock when I spent three days playing with my visiting 7-year-old niece. We devoted day one to setting up a beauty shop, complete with nail polishes and shampoos. We had a table for massages and a makeover section featuring all the cosmetics I owned. Then, we opened for business for the visiting relatives and, (of course!)—by charging for our services—made money for toys. We spent the last day playing with a “pool party” Barbie combo my niece had selected at Walmart that afternoon.

Boys’ and girls’ different play interests show why the kindergartners in the vignette at the beginning of this section came to hate those “yucky” boys. Another reason why girls turn off to the opposite sex is the unpleasant reception they get from the other camp. In observing at a preschool, researchers found that while active girls played with the boys’ groups early in the year, they eventually were rejected and forced to play with their own sex (Pellegrini and others, 2007). Therefore, boys are the first to erect the barriers: “No girls allowed!” Moreover, the gender barriers are generally more rigid for males.

BOYS LIVE IN A MORE EXCLUSIONARY, SEPARATE WORLD. My niece did choose to buy Barbies, but she also plays with trucks. She loves soccer and baseball, not just doing her nails. So, even though they may dislike the opposite sex, girls do cross the divide. Boys are more likely to avoid that chasm—refusing to venture down the Barbie aisle or consider buying a toy labeled “girl.” So boys live in a more roped-off gender world (Boyle and others, 2003).

Now, you might be interested in what happened during my final day pretending with the pool party toys. After my niece said, “Aunt Janet, let’s pretend we are the popular girls,” our Barbies tried on fancy dresses (“What shall I wear, Jane?”) in preparation for a “popular girls” pool party, where the dolls met up to discuss—guess what—where they shopped and who did their hair!

What Causes Gender-Stereotyped Play?

Why do children, such as my niece, play in gender-stereotyped ways? Answers come from exploring three forces: biology (nature), socialization (nurture), and cognitions (or thoughts).

A BIOLOGICAL UNDERPINNING. Ample evidence suggests that gender-segregated play is biologically built in. Children around the world form separate play societies (Maccoby, 1998). Troops of juvenile rhesus monkeys behave exactly like human children. The males segregate into their own groups and engage in rough-and-tumble play (Pellegrini, 2006). Grooming activities similar to my niece’s beauty-shop behaviors are prominent among young female monkeys, too (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002; Suomi, 2004).

Actually, we can predict male gender-typed play from measuring hormone levels during the first months of life. Researchers looked at the naturally occurring amount of salivary testosterone in 3-month-old boys and girls (females also produce this classic male sex hormone). Remarkably, both sexes with high concentrations of testosterone displayed more male play behaviors at age two (Saenz & Alexander, 2013).

Moreover girls exposed to high levels of testosterone before birth show more masculine interests as teens and emerging adults (Udry, 2000)! After taking maternal blood samples during the second trimester—the time, you may recall from Chapter 2, when the neurons are being formed—one researcher tracked the female fetuses of these women for the next two decades.

187

Females with high levels of prenatal testosterone, he discovered, were more interested in traditionally male occupations, such as engineering, than their lower-hormone-level counterparts. They were less likely to wear makeup. In their twenties, they showed more stereotypically male interests (such as race-car driving). So, in utero testosterone epigenetically affects our DNA—programming a more “feminized” or “masculinized” brain.

THE AMPLIFYING EFFECT OF SOCIALIZATION. The wider world helps biology along. From the images displayed in preschool coloring books (Fitzpatrick & McPherson, 2010) to parents’ different toy selections for daughters and sons; from the messages beamed out in television sitcoms (Collins, 2011; Paek, Nelson, & Vilela, 2011) to teachers’ differential treatment of boys and girls in school (Chen & Rao, 2011)—everything brings home the message: Males and females act in different ways.

Peers play a powerful role in this programming. When they play in mixed-gender groups, children act in less gender-stereotyped ways (Fabes and others, 2003); with girls, boys tone down their rough-and-tumble activities; girls are less apt to play quietly with dolls when they are pretending with boys. Therefore, the act of splitting into separate play societies trains children to behave in ways typical of their own sex (Martin & Fabes, 2001).

Same-sex playmates reinforce one another for selecting gender-stereotyped activities (“Let’s play with dolls.” “Great!”). They model one another as they play together in “gentle” or “rough” ways. The pressure to toe the gender line is promoted by social sanctions. Children who behave in “gender atypical ways” (girls who hit a lot or boys who play with dolls) are rejected by their peers (Lee & Troop-Gordon, 2011; Smith and others, 2010).

THE IMPACT OF COGNITIONS. A cognitive process reinforces these external messages. According to gender schema theory (Bem, 1981; Martin & Dinella, 2002), once children understand their category (girl or boy), they selectively attend to the activities of their own sex.

When do we first grasp our gender label and start this lifelong practice of modeling our group? The answer is at about age 2 1/2, right after we begin to talk (Martin & Ruble, 2010)! Although they may not learn the real difference until much later (here it helps to have an opposite-sex sibling to see naked), 3-year-olds can tell you that girls have long hair, and cry a lot, while boys fight and play with trucks. At about age 5 or 6, when they are mastering the similar concept of identity constancy (the knowledge that your essential self doesn’t change when you dress up in a gorilla costume), children grasp the idea that once you start out as a boy or girl, you stay that way for life (Kohlberg, 1966). However, mistakes are common. I once heard my 5-year-old nephew ask my husband, “Was that jewelry from when you were a girl?”

In sum, my niece’s beauty-shop activities had a biological basis, although a steady stream of nurture influences from adults and playmates helped this process along. Identifying herself as “a girl,” and then spending hours modeling the women in her life, promoted classically “feminine” sex role behavior, too.

But are the gender norms loosening? U.S. children now feel it’s “unfair” to exclude boys from ballet class (Martin & Ruble, 2010). My students today often describe having had good friends of the other sex in elementary school, something that would never have occurred when I was a child. Do you think our less gender-defined adult world is reducing the childhood pressures to “act like a girl or boy”? Who were your best friends when you were age 7 or 9?

188

This last question brings me friends. Why do children choose specific friends, and what benefits do childhood friendships provide?

The Core Qualities: Similarity, Trust, and Emotional Support

The essence of friendship is feeling similarity (Poulin & Chan, 2010). Children gravitate toward people who are “like them” in interests and activities (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011). In preschool, an active child will tend to make friends with a classmate who likes to run around. A 4-year-old who loves the slide will most likely become best buddies with a child who shares this passion (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006).

In elementary school, children choose friends based on deeper similarities , such as shared morals (McDonald and others, 2014; Spencer and others, 2013). (“I like Josiah, because we think the same way about what’s right.”) As they reach concrete operations, children also develop the concept of loyalty (“I can trust Josiah to stand up for me”) and the sense that friends share their inner lives (Hartup & Stevens, 1997; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). Listen to these fourth and fifth graders describing their best friend:

He is my very best friend because he tells me things and I tell him things.

Me and Tiff share our deepest, darkest secrets and we talk about boys, when we grow up, and shopping.

Jessica has problems at home and with her religion and when something happens she always comes to me and talks about it. We’ve been through a lot together.

(quoted in Rose & Asher, 2000, p. 49)

These quotations would resonate with the ideas of personality theorist Harry Stack Sullivan. Sullivan (1953) believed that a chum (or best friend) fulfills the developmental need for self-validation and intimacy that emerges at around age 9. Sullivan also believed that this special relationship serves as a stepping-stone to adult romance.

The Protecting and Teaching Functions of Friends

In addition to offering emotional support and validating us as people, friends stimulate children’s personal development in two other ways:

FRIENDS PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE DEVELOPING SELF. Perhaps you noticed this protective function in the quotation above in which the fourth grader spoke about how she helped her best friend when she had problems at home. Friends help insulate children from being bullied at school (Scholte, Sentse, & Granic, 2010). Close friends can even mute children’s genetic tendency toward developing depression (Brendgen and others, 2013) or reduce symptoms of ADHD (Becker and others, 2013).

189

FRIENDS TEACH US TO MANAGE OUR EMOTIONS AND HANDLE CONFLICTS. One reason is that friends offer on-the-job training in being our “best”(meaning prosocial) self. Your parents will love you no matter what you do, but the love of a friend is contingent. To keep a friendship, children must dampen down their immediate impulses and attune themselves to the other person’s needs (Bukowski, 2001; Denham and others, 2003).

This is not to say that friends are always positive influences. They can bring out a child’s worst self by encouraging relational aggression (“We are best friends, so you can’t play with us”) and daring one another to engage in dangerous behavior (“Let’s sneak out of the house at 2 a.m.”) Best friends can promote an “us-against-them mentality” and promote a shared, hostile attributional worldview (“It’s their fault you are getting into trouble. Only I can protect you from the outside world”) (Spencer and others, 2013; more about this dark side of friendship in Chapter 9). However, in general, Sullivan may be right: Friends do teach us how to relate as adults.

Friendship involves relating with a single person in a close one-to-one way. Popularity is a group concern. It requires rising to the top of the social totem pole.

Although children differ in social status in preschool, you may remember from childhood that “Who is popular?” becomes an absorbing question during later elementary school. Entering concrete operations makes children sensitive to making social comparisons. The urge to rank classmates according to social status is heightened by the confining conditions of childhood itself. In adulthood, popularity fades more into the background because we select our own social circles. Children must make it on a daily basis in a classroom full of random peers.

Who Is Popular and Who Is Unpopular?

How do children vary in popularity during the socially stressful later elementary school years? Here are the main categories researchers find when they ask third, fourth, or fifth graders to list the two or three classmates they like most and really dislike:

What qualities make children popular? What gets elementary schoolers rejected by their peers?

Decoding Popularity

Especially in elementary school, popular children are often friendly and outgoing, prosocial, and kind (Mayberry & Espelage, 2007). However, starting as early as third grade, popularity can be linked to being relationally aggressive (Rodkin & Roisman, 2010; Ostrov and others, 2013).

Figure 6.3, based on a study conducted in an inner city school, illustrates this unfortunate truth. Notice that relationally aggressive third to fifth graders were more apt to be rated as popular class leaders. But notice that the association between this poisonous interpersonal form of aggression and popularity was much stronger for girls—which offers insights into why we see relational aggression as mainly a girl activity. Yes, relational aggression gains status for both girls and boys. But this behavior earns females more social mileage than males.

190

Relational aggression, as you will see in Chapter 9, is especially effective at propelling social mileage during preadolescence, when rebellion is in full flower and the pressure to form status cliques is intense (Werner & Hill, 2010; Witvliet and others, 2010). The good news is that the study described in Table 6.6 shows being in the popular crowd is different from being personally liked.

When researchers asked fifth graders questions such as those in the table, and then tracked their social status over time, boys and girls whose agenda was being popular (those agreeing with the yellow items) did rise in the social ranks. But as they reached sixth grade, the class increasingly preferred people with the blue agendas—children with caring, prosocial goals. So, behaving in a caring way is important at every age if we look at what really matters: being liked as a human being.

191

Now let’s focus on the third group of kids, fifth graders who checked the red items—children terrified about being embarrassed or socially goofing up. This socially anxious group became more unpopular over time (Rodkin and others, 2013). Who, exactly, do peers reject?

REJECTED CHILDREN HAVE EXTERNALIZING (AND OFTEN INTERNALIZING) PROBLEMS. Actually, the traits that universally land a child into the unpopular, rejected category are externalizing issues. Classmates shun boys and girls (like Mark in the introductory chapter vignette) who make reactive aggression a major life mode as early as age 5 (Hawley and others, 2007; Sturaro and others, 2011). Children with internalizing disorders may or may not be rejected. However, if a child—such as Jimmy in the introductory vignette or the fifth graders who agreed with the red items on the table—is socially anxious, that person is apt to be avoided as early as first grade (Degnan and others, 2010).

Moreover, a poisonous nature-evokes-nurture interaction can set in when a child enters school extremely socially shy. As children pick up on the fact that people are avoiding them, their shyness gets more intense. So they become less socially competent—and increasingly likely to be rejected (and, as you will see, victimized)—as they advance from grade to grade (Booth-LaForce & Oxford, 2008).

A bidirectional process is also occurring. The child’s anxiety makes other children nervous. They get uncomfortable and want to retreat when they see this person approach. In response to your own awkward encounters, have you ever been tempted to walk in the opposite direction when you saw a very shy person approaching in the hall?

REJECTED CHILDREN DON’T FIT IN WITH THE DOMINANT GROUP. Children who stand out as different are also at risk of being rejected: boys and girls (like Moriah in the opening vignette) who don’t fit the gender stereotypes (Lee & Troop-Gordon, 2011); low-income children in middle-class schools (Zettergren, 2007); immigrant children in ethnically homogenous societies (Strohmeier, Kärnä, & Salmivalli, 2010)—any child whom classmates label as “different,” “weird,” or “not like us.”

Exploring the Fate of the Rejected

Is childhood rejection a prelude to poor adult mental health? The answer is “sometimes.” Highly physically aggressive children are at risk for getting into trouble—at home, in school, and with the law—during adolescence and in their adult years (Alatupa and others, 2013; more about this pathway in Chapter 9). Unfortunately, one longitudinal study suggested that women who were unpopular as preteens had high rates of anxiety disorders and depression during midlife (Modin, Östberg, & Almquist, 2011).

But there is variability, especially if a child has been rejected due to being “different” from the group. Consider an awkward little girl named Eleanor Roosevelt, who was socially rejected at age 8, or a boy named Thomas Edison, whose preference for playing alone got him defined as a “problem” child. Because they were so different, these famous adults were dismal failures during elementary school. To get insights into the fleeting quality of childhood peer status, you might organize a reunion of your fifth- or sixth-grade class. You might be surprised at how many unpopular classmates flowered during their high school or college years.

192

You can get bullied because you are weak or annoying or because you are different. Kids with big ears get bullied. Dorks get bullied. . . . Teacher’s pet gets bullied. If you say the right answer in class too many times, you can get bullied.

(quoted in Guerra and others, 2011, p. 306)

Children who are different can excel in the proving ground of life. This is not the case on the proving ground of the playground. As you just read, being different, weak, socially awkward, or even “too good” is a recipe for bullying—being teased, made fun of, and verbally or physically abused by one’s peers.

As I implied earlier, bullying is “normal” as children jockey for power and status in the group. But the roughly 10 to 20 percent of children subject to chronic harassment fall into two categories. The first—the less common type—are bully-victims. These children are highly aggressive boys and girls who bully, get harassed, then bully again in an escalating cycle of pain (Deater-Deckard and others, 2010; Waasdorp and others, 2011). The classic victim, however, has internalizing issues (Crawford & Manassis, 2011). These children are anxious, shy, low on the social hierarchy, and unlikely to fight back (Cook and others, 2010; Degnan and others, 2010; Scholte and others, 2010; also, see my personal confession in the Experiencing the Lifespan box).

Home used to be a refuge for children harassed at school. No more! Facebook, cell phones, and the Internet have made bullying a 24/7 concern.

193

Actually, bullying—of any kind—often demands an appreciative audience. One person (or a few people) does the harassing, while everyone else eggs the perpetrator on by laughing, posting similar comments on-line, or passively standing by. Therefore, children are less apt to bully when their classmates don’t condone this behavior (Christian Elledge and others, 2013; Elsaesser, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2013; Hinduja & Patchin, 2013). Conversely, when bullying is frequent in a given classroom, or the class norm supports relational aggression, everyone is prone to bullying regardless of whether or not people personally believe this behavior is wrong (Scholte and others, 2010; Werner & Hill, 2010).

The fact that the nicest children bully if the atmospheric conditions are right explains why school programs to attack bullying focus on changing the peer-group norms.

Question 6.8

About age 5

Question 6.9

1. The boys are playing in larger groups.

2. Both girls and boys love rough-and-tumble play.

3. The girls are quieter and they are doing more negotiating.

a and c

Question 6.10

Erik can argue that gender-stereotyped play must be biologically built in, as this behavior occurs in primates and appears in societies around the world. He can mention that masculine-type play and interests are programmed by high levels of testosterone. Sophia can say differing gender roles are strongly socialized by parents, teachers, and media messages from a young age. Most important, peers powerfully reinforce traditional “girl” or “boy” behavior as they segregate into same-sex play groups. Children are highly motivated to conform to these “correct” ways of acting or risk being socially excluded.

Question 6.11

Friends can promote negative behavior (third alternative is wrong).

Question 6.12

Being popular refers to being in the in-group. But being in the high-status crowd does not necessarily mean a child is personally well liked by the other kids.

Question 6.13

1. Miguel, a shy, socially anxious child

2. Lauren, a tomboy who hates “girls’ stuff”

3. Nicholas, who lashes out in anger randomly at other kids

4. Elaine, who is relationally aggressive

d. (Unfortunately, relationally aggressive children can be popular.)

Question 6.14

(a) She may be highly aggressive, and is bullied, then victimized. Or, more typically, she is anxious, has few friends, and has trouble standing up for herself. (b) Speak up against the perpetrators while the group is around, or—if the situation involves cyberbullying—post a comment on-line, telling the writer to “lay off X. He is a real prince.”