Publication | Closed Access
Children's loneliness: A comparison of rejected and neglected peer status.
697
Citations
12
References
1985
Year
Social IsolationPopular ChildrenChild PsychologyChild Well-beingHealth SciencesSocial PsychologySociologyPeer StatusControversial ChildrenLonelinessPeer RelationshipAdolescent PsychologyUnpopular ChildrenSocial SciencesSocial-emotional DevelopmentPsychologyChild DevelopmentDevelopmental Psychology
Recent research shows that many children experience extreme loneliness and that unpopular children report higher loneliness than popular peers. This study examined loneliness among two subgroups of unpopular children—those who were rejected and those who were neglected. Researchers compared loneliness levels across rejected, neglected, and controversial children by collecting self‑reported data from third‑ to sixth‑grade participants. Rejection status was associated with the highest loneliness, while popular children reported the lowest, and neglected and controversial children fell in between, confirming that rejected children are at greater risk. Author: RH.
ABSTRACT Recent research indicates that a considerable number of children report extreme feelings of lonelines andthat unpopular children are more lonely than popular children. TJie present study assessed feelings of loneliness/in two subgroups of.unpopular children; those who 'were rejected (low on positive and high on negative peer nominations) and those who were neglected (low on both positive and negative peer nominations).'Dafta on pdular, average, and controversial children were also collected. I3esults from 200 thirdthrough sixVh-grade children 'indicated_ that' rejected children were the most lonely group and that popul9r children were the least lonely. Neglected., average, and controversial.children reported intermediate levels. Overall, the results provided added evidence of , the utility of the distinction between neglected and rejected status and support earlier conclusions' that rejected children are more at-risk than other status groups. (Author/RH)
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1