“The ‘Unpopular’ Children Don’t Flow and Destroy the Atmosphere”: Social Flow in Latency Prevents Peer Exclusion

Hannah Fisher (Grafy); Halabi Rinat

doi:10.29333/ajqr/13599

Hannah Fisher (Grafy) ¹ ^* , Halabi Rinat ¹

More Detail

AM J QUALITATIVE RES, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp. 64-78

https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13599

OPEN ACCESS 118 Views 69 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

Peer exclusion is an undesirable phenomenon with serious implications for the present and future of children experiencing it. Growing peer exclusion and bullying rates in elementary-school-age children, especially on social networks, have been examined from a mostly pathological perspective focused on the rejected child or rejecting group. This qualitative study sought developmental explanations for this phenomenon’s pervasiveness during latency. Twelve focus groups of 140 Israeli children in Grade 5 discussed peer exclusion and other social issues. The data were categorized according to the revised Van Kaam method improved by Moustakas. Three themes from aspects of group flow emerged: reduction in the egocentric position and rise in the group’s importance, flexibility with changing social norms, and ostracism when the children perceive a block in the “flow.” The findings confirmed that at latency age, the importance of social flow increases, and rejection and even bullying play a normative developmental role. This study adds an alternative to the literature explaining peer exclusion as the result of the rejected child’s personality or the group’s destructive dynamic. It suggests viewing peer exclusion as a normative development during latency, helping children develop a “social self” free from their egocentric positions to function with a group.

Keywords: normative development, elementary school, latency period, flexibility, social norm.

References

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
Bernard, S., Harris, P., Terrier, N., & Clément, F. (2015). Children weigh the number of informants and perceptual uncertainty when identifying objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 136, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.009
Brinker, V., Dewald-Kaufmann, J., Padberg, F., & Reinhard, M. A. (2022). Aggressive intentions after social exclusion and their association with loneliness. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-022-01503-8
Cheek, S. M., Reiter-Lavery, T., & Goldston, D. B. (2020). Peer exclusion, popularity, peer victimization, and self-injurious thoughts and behaviors among adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 82, Article 101936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101936
Corriveau, K. H., Kim, E., Song, G., & Harris, P. L. (2013). Children’s deference to a consensus varies by culture and judgment setting. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 367–381.‏ https://doi.org/ 10.1163/15685373-12342099
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass.
Demol, K., Verschueren, K., ten Bokkel, I. M., van Gils, F. E., & Colpin, H. (2022). Trajectory classes of relational and physical bullying victimization: Links with peer and teacher-student relationships and social-emotional outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(7), 1354–1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01544-7
Engeser, S., Schiepe-Tiska, A., & Peifer, C. (2021a). Advances in flow research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53468-4
Espelage, D. L., & Low, S. (2012). Bullying among children and adolescents: Social-emotional learning approaches to prevention. In K. Nader (Ed.), School rampage shootings and other youth disturbances: Early preventative interventions (pp. 205–219). Routledge.
Fisher – Grafy, H, (2023c). Boycott: A Perspective Developmental. Resling [Hebrew].
Fisher – Grafy, H. (2015). Socially Rejected Children: Theory and Therapy, Resling [Hebrew].
Fisher – Grafy, H. (2018). From Social Rejection to a Happy Child at School, Carmel [Hebrew].
Fisher – Grafy, H. (2019). New Perspectives on Happiness and Mental Wellbeing in Schoolchildren. A Developmental-Psychoanalytical Explanation of the Latency Stage, Routledge.
Fisher – Grafy, H. (2020). Latency: Moral Aspects of Social Exclusion [Doctoral dissertation, Bar-Ilan University].
Fisher – Grafy, H. & Halabi, R., (2023a). “You Have No Place in the World”: Social Rejection as a Developmental Mechanism in Middle Childhood—Latency. Contemporary School Psychology volume 27, pages170–181
Fisher – Grafy, H. & Meyer, S., (2023b). "Exploring Intergroup Peer Exclusion: Validation of the Latency Social-Psychological Developmental Questionnaire (LSPD)" Children 10, no. 3: 543. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10030543
Freud, S. (1926). The question of lay analysis: Conversations with an impartial person (standard ed.). Norton.
Fritz, J., Stretton, J., Askelund, A. D., Schweizer, S., Walsh, N. D., Elzinga, B. M., Goodyer, I. M., Wilkinson, P. O., & van Harmelen, A.-L. (2020). Mood and neural responses to peer exclusion do not seem to be altered in resilient adolescents with a history of adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 32(2), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419000178
Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3), 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334
Haun, D. B. M., Rekers, Y., & Tomasello, M. (2014). Children conform to the behavior of peers: Other great apes stick with what they know. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2160–2167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614553235
Horn, S. S. (2006). Group status, group bias, and adolescents' reasoning about the treatment of others in school contexts. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406066721
Inchley, J., Currie, D., Budisavljevic, S., Torsheim, T., Jastad, A., Cosma, A., Kelly, C., & Arnarsson, A. M. (2020). Spotlight on adolescent health and well-being: Findings from the 2017/2018 Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Survey in Europe and Canada; international report, Vol. 1, key findings. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332104
Israeli Ministry of Education. (2020). Israel’s national authority for measurement and evaluation in education. http://rama.education.gov.il/
Kiat, J. E., Cheadle, J. E., & Goosby, B. J. (2018). The impact of social exclusion on anticipatory attentional processing. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 123, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.11.010
Killen, M., & Rutland, A. (2022). Promoting fair and just school environments: Developing inclusive youth. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211073795
Killen, M., Rutland, A., & Yip, T. (2016). Equity and justice in developmental science: Discrimination, social exclusion, and intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 87(5), 1317–1336. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12593
Koller, S. H., dos Santos Paludo, S., & de Morais, N. A. (Eds.). (2019). Ecological engagement: Urie Bronfenbrenner’s method to study human development. Springer Nature.
Levy, S., & Killen, M. (Eds.). (2008). Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood. Oxford University Press.
Mero-Jaffe, I. (2011). “Is that what I said?” Interview transcript approval by participants: An aspect of ethics in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Method, 10(3), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000304
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.
Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014). When do children dislike ingroup members? Resource allocation from individual and group perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12045
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Education at a glance 2022: OECD indicators. https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en
Pels, F., Kleinert, J., & Mennigen, F. (2018). Group flow: A scoping review of definitions, theoretical approaches, measures, and findings. PLoS One, 13(12), Article e0210117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210117
Preti, C., Richetin, D. P., & Fontana, A. (2020). Cognitive and emotional components of rejection sensitivity: Independent contributions to adolescent self- and interpersonal functioning. Assessment, 27(6), 1230–1241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118817866
Rau, C. (2017). Untersuchung Flow-spezifischer psychovegetativer und hormoneller Muster anhand eines experimentellen Paradigmas [Investigation of flow-specific psychovegetative and hormonal patterns using an experimental paradigm] [Doctoral dissertation, Ulm University]. Open Access Repositorium der Universität Ulm und Technischen Hochschule Ulm. http://doi.org/10.18725/OPARU-4545
Reinhard, M. A., Dewald-Kaufmann, J., Wüstenberg, T., Musil, R., Barton, B. B., Jobst, A., & Padberg, F. (2020). The vicious circle of social exclusion and psychopathology: A systematic review of experimental ostracism research in psychiatric disorders. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 270(5), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-019-01074-1
Rodriguez, K. L., Schwartz, J. L., Lahman, M. K. E., & Geist, M. R. (2011). Culturally responsive focus groups: Reframing the research experience to focus on participants. International Journal of Qualitative Research, 10, 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000407
Rohlf, H., Krahé, B., & Busching, R. (2016). The socializing effect of classroom aggression on the development of aggression and peer exclusion: A two-wave multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 58, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.05.002
Rubin, K., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). John Wiley & Sons.
Ruble, D. N., Alvarez, J., Bachman, M., Cameron, J., Fuligni, A., & Coll, C. G. (2004). The development of a sense of “we”: The emergence and implications of children's collective identity. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 29–76). Psychology Press.
Rutland, A., & Killen, M. (2015). A developmental science approach to reducing prejudice and social exclusion: Intergroup processes, social-cognitive development and moral reasoning. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9, 121–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12012
Rutland, A., & Killen, M. (2017). Fair resource allocation among children and adolescents: The role of group and developmental processes. Child Development Perspectives, 11(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12211
Smith, J. A., Spiers, J., Simpson, P., & Nicholls, A. R. (2017). The psychological challenges of living with an ileostomy: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology, 36(2), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000427
Sroufe, A., & Cooper, R. (1988). Development in childhood and adolescence.‏
Sroufe, L. A., Cooper, R. G., DeHart, G. B., Marshall, M. E., & Bronfenbrenner, U. E. (1992). Child development: Its nature and course. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.‏
Tobia, V., Riva, P., & Caprin, C. (2017). Who are the children most vulnerable to social exclusion? The moderating role of self-esteem, popularity, and nonverbal intelligence on cognitive performance following social exclusion. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(4), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0191-3

Citation

Fisher (Grafy), H., & Rinat, H. (2023). “The ‘Unpopular’ Children Don’t Flow and Destroy the Atmosphere”: Social Flow in Latency Prevents Peer Exclusion. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(4), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13599

Fisher (Grafy), H., and Rinat, H. (2023). “The ‘Unpopular’ Children Don’t Flow and Destroy the Atmosphere”: Social Flow in Latency Prevents Peer Exclusion. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(4), pp. 64-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13599

Fisher (Grafy) H, Rinat H. “The ‘Unpopular’ Children Don’t Flow and Destroy the Atmosphere”: Social Flow in Latency Prevents Peer Exclusion. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2023;7(4), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13599

Fisher (Grafy), Hannah, and Halabi Rinat. "“The ‘Unpopular’ Children Don’t Flow and Destroy the Atmosphere”: Social Flow in Latency Prevents Peer Exclusion". American Journal of Qualitative Research 2023 7 no. 4 (2023): 64-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13599

Fisher (Grafy), Hannah et al. "“The ‘Unpopular’ Children Don’t Flow and Destroy the Atmosphere”: Social Flow in Latency Prevents Peer Exclusion". American Journal of Qualitative Research, vol. 7, no. 4, 2023, pp. 64-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13599

Fisher (Grafy) H, Rinat H. “The ‘Unpopular’ Children Don’t Flow and Destroy the Atmosphere”: Social Flow in Latency Prevents Peer Exclusion. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2023;7(4):64-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13599