| Course | PS 210 Psychology of Child and Adolescence |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Peer and social influence paper |
| Length | About 970 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 210 Unit 4
Liked, Disliked, Overlooked or Noticed at Age Ten: A Peer and Social Influence Paper on What Sociometric Research Found in Fourth and Fifth Grade, Kept Apart From What Adults Assume
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 210: Psychology of Child and Adolescence
Instructor Name
February 3, 2026
Liked, Disliked, Overlooked or Noticed at Age Ten: A Peer and Social Influence Paper on What Sociometric Research Found in Fourth and Fifth Grade, Kept Apart From What Adults Assume
The Age and the Question
This paper fixes one age, about ten, when children are in fourth or fifth grade, and asks what research has found about peer standing and peer influence at that age. The age is chosen because children of ten spend a large share of their day with classmates, care intensely about acceptance and have not yet entered the larger and more fluid peer world of middle school. Adults bring several assumptions to this topic: that being popular means being liked, that unpopular children are lonely and lack skills, and that peer influence mainly pushes children toward trouble. Each is held against the evidence below.
How Peer Standing Is Measured
Most research on peer standing in childhood uses sociometric nominations. Children in a class privately name the classmates they like most and like least. Coie et al. (1982) developed a widely used way of turning those nominations into categories. Children who receive many liked-most and few liked-least nominations are classified as popular; many liked-least and few liked-most as rejected; few nominations of either kind as neglected; many of both as controversial; and the rest as average. The method measures how a child is regarded by classmates in one classroom at one time. It does not measure the child's own feelings, and it depends on the group doing the nominating.
What the Research Found
Newcomb et al. (1993) combined findings from many sociometric studies in a meta-analysis. Compared with average children, popular children were more sociable and showed more positive social behavior and less aggression. Rejected children were more aggressive, more withdrawn and less sociable, and showed less cognitive ability on some measures. Neglected children were less sociable and less aggressive than average children, but they did not show the clear difficulties of rejected children. Controversial children showed a mixture: more aggression and also more sociability.
Two findings stand out against adult assumptions. The first is that the children whom classmates actually like tend to be cooperative and kind rather than domineering. The second is that being overlooked is not the same as being rejected; neglected children, on average, were not markedly worse off.
Liked Versus Seen as Popular
A later line of research asked a different question. Instead of asking whom children like, researchers asked whom children consider popular. LaFontana and Cillessen (2002) found that children described peers they saw as popular in mixed terms, attributing to them both attractive qualities and socially dominant, sometimes aggressive, ones, and that perceived popularity was not the same thing as being liked. The adult assumption that popular children are mean is therefore partly right and partly wrong: it may fit children who are seen as popular, but it does not fit the children whom classmates most like, who, in the sociometric research, tend to be kind.
The distinction matters at ten because it is around this age that children increasingly separate being liked from having status, a separation that becomes sharper in early adolescence.
Peer Influence Beyond Pressure
The assumption that peer influence mostly pushes children toward misbehavior is the least supported by this literature. Peer acceptance in middle childhood is associated with positive social behavior, and the same processes of imitation and approval that can spread aggression in some groups spread cooperation, effort and shared interests in others. What children learn from peers depends on which peers they spend time with and what those peers value. Rejection, by contrast, carries real costs: the meta-analytic profile of rejected children includes both aggression and withdrawal, two very different routes into the same low standing.
What the Findings Do Not Show
The sociometric research is largely correlational. It shows that aggression and rejection go together, not which comes first, and the studies reviewed here cannot settle the direction; it is plausible that each feeds the other. It describes classroom groups at particular times, often in American schools, and a child's standing can change when the group changes, for example after moving schools. It also cannot tell an adult what a particular child's standing is or should be; nominations are a research tool, not a classroom practice, and asking children to name disliked classmates raises ethical questions researchers address with care.
A Note on Online Peer Life
Many ten-year-olds now have some peer contact through games, group chats or video platforms, and adults often assume that online contact intensifies peer pressure. The research reviewed in this paper cannot speak to that. The sociometric studies were conducted in classrooms, most of them before children had regular online contact, and their methods measure standing among classmates, not in online groups. A claim about how online peer life affects ten-year-olds would need studies designed for that question, with their own samples, measures and dates, and those findings should not be borrowed from classroom research. What the classroom research does suggest is a question worth asking of any new setting: whether it rewards the kind, sociable behavior that earns acceptance face to face, or the dominance that earns status, since the two are not the same.
Assumptions Revisited
| Adult assumption | What the research supports |
|---|---|
| Being popular means being liked | Partly: children who are liked and children who are seen as popular are overlapping but different groups |
| Unpopular children lack social skills | For rejected children, often; for neglected children, much less clearly |
| Peer influence mostly causes trouble | Not supported as a general claim; peer processes spread both positive and negative behavior |
| A child's standing is fixed | Not supported; standing depends on the group and can change |
Conclusion
At ten, peers matter, and the research shows how. Children who are liked tend to be kind and sociable, rejection is associated with both aggression and withdrawal, being overlooked is less harmful than adults fear, and status and liking begin to separate. Those findings are more useful than the assumptions they replace, because they direct attention to the behavior that earns acceptance rather than to the fear of influence. They also suggest that the most useful question about a child's peers is not whether the child is popular, but whether the child has at least one classmate who reliably likes them.
References
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 557-570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children's perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 635-647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.635
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 99-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99
The Herzing PS 210 Unit 4 instructions
Unit 4 of PS 210 asks students to examine peer relationships and social influence at one age. Expect to fix the age, explain how researchers measure peer standing or influence, report what studies found, and separate those findings from assumptions adults commonly bring. Peer pressure is a topic best handled as a research question; some of its popular version is supported and much is not. Social media can be included if you rely on studies designed for it rather than borrowing classroom findings. Writing about children in a classroom where you work would describe identifiable minors, so use published research and composites instead. A table comparing assumptions with findings is a useful closing device.
How this PS 210 Unit 4 example is built
The paper opens by fixing the age at ten and naming three adult assumptions. A section explains sociometric nominations and the five categories devised by Coie and colleagues, with what the method can and cannot measure. Findings from the meta-analysis by Newcomb and colleagues are reported against the average group, highlighting two results that contradict assumptions. A section separates liked children from those perceived as popular, using LaFontana and Cillessen. Another discusses peer influence beyond pressure. Sections on the limits of the evidence and on online peer life follow, a table revisits the assumptions, and the conclusion states what the findings direct attention to. Each finding is reported relative to the average group.
PS 210 Unit 4 rubric: what full points look like
The rubric for the peer and social influence paper typically rewards a fixed age, a clear explanation of measurement, findings reported accurately with their source, explicit separation of findings from assumptions, and acknowledgment of limits, with writing and APA. The age criterion earns credit because peer life changes quickly across childhood. Measurement scores when the method is explained, including what it does not capture. Findings earn points when reported relative to a comparison group. Separation of evidence from assumption is often the largest criterion. Limits are credited when correlational designs and changing groups are acknowledged. Papers that separate liking from perceived status are often credited for depth.
Common PS 210 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Peer papers lose points when they treat peer pressure as a proven, mostly negative force without evidence. Another frequent weakness is equating popularity with being liked. Students often describe rejected and neglected children as if they were the same. Some report correlations between aggression and rejection as causes. Others borrow classroom findings to make claims about social media. Writing about real children in a school where you work raises serious privacy concerns. If you want to build a paper around one age and a few clear assumptions, one of our writers can set it up with you. Assuming that a child who rarely joins games is rejected is a common slip.
Get a PS 210 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Pass over the Unit 4 instructions, the rubric your PS 210 classroom posts and the age your section works with. We produce a custom example that defines the constructs, holds one age, tests the pressure assumption against evidence and names the sample limits. First custom sample free, written to your instructions and returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 210 papers and psychology samples
- PS 210 Unit 1: Developmental domains overview
- PS 210 Unit 2: Cognitive development paper
- PS 210 Unit 3: Attachment and family paper
- PS 210 Unit 5: School and learning application
- PS 210 Unit 6: Behavioral difficulty case
- PS 210 Unit 7: Adolescent development paper
- PS 210 Unit 8: Case analysis with recommendations
- PS 323 Unit 4: Socialization paper
- PS 350 Unit 4: Long-term memory and encoding paper
- PS 101 Unit 4: Learning and conditioning application
- PS 105 Unit 4: Middle childhood application
PS 210 Unit 4 questions, answered
Is peer pressure a real finding or a stereotype?
Both, in parts. Research does support that peers matter more at some ages than others and that the presence of peers changes certain decisions, but the blunt version, in which an adolescent simply does whatever a group wants, is not what the studies show. Report the qualified finding, attribute it, and say which design produced it rather than asserting either version.
Can the paper cover social media?
If your instructions allow it, yes, with unusual care. That evidence base is young, the platforms change faster than the studies, and findings vary sharply by measure and by population. Cite specific peer-reviewed work rather than news coverage, report effect sizes as the authors report them, and say plainly where researchers disagree. A confident conclusion here is the easiest way to lose points.
I work in a school. Can I write about the children in my room?
Not in a submitted paper. Children you supervise are identifiable to anyone who knows the school, they cannot consent to appearing in your coursework, and your employer holds records about them for reasons that do not include assignments. Your working knowledge can shape which questions you ask of the literature. Any illustration should be composite, marked as constructed, and free of identifying detail.
Where can I find a free PS 210 Unit 4 sample paper?
Every part of the PS 210 Unit 4 peer and social influence paper is free on this page, covering the sociometric categories, the meta-analytic findings, the assumptions table and margin notes. Studying another age group? Forward the prompt and a paper for that age is drafted free, usually within 48 hours.
Is peer pressure a real finding or a stereotype in PS 210 Unit 4?
Partly both. The sample shows peers do influence children, but the research finds that influence spreads cooperation as well as trouble, and that well-liked children tend to be kind.