Developmental Psychology Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1981, Vol. 17, No. 3, 275-288 0012-1649/81 /1703-0275 J00.75

Attention Structure, Sociometric Status, and Dominance:

Interrelations, Behavioral Correlates, and
Relationships to Social Competence
Brian E. Vaughn Everett Waters
Department of Education State University of New York
University of California, Los Angeles at Stony Brook

To evaluate the interrelationships and external correlates of three potential mea-

sures of social competence, children in a preschool class were observed during,
free play throughout an entire school year. Ranks based on distribution of visual
regard among peers, sociometric scores, and competitive dominance interactions
were derived from data collected during each term. In addition, observations of
play behavior and of aggression were collected throughout the year. Attention
rank and sociometric preference were highly correlated and were substantially
stable across terms. Dominance rank was not strongly related to attention or to
sociometric rank and was less stable across time. The stability of the play and
aggression data varied from category to category as did relationships between
these categories and the status measures. Evidence demonstrates that attention
rank is related to social competence and is not a function of disruptive behavior,
activity level, or proximity to adults. Furthermore, a relationship between visual
regard among peers and the social structure of the preschool play group is dem-
onstrated. It is suggested that social competence, broadly conceived, is a more
salient basis for social organization among preschool peers than either the dis-
tribution of attention per se or competition/dominance relationships.

Social competence constructs play an im-
portant role in developmental theory and
research. In addition, assessment and en-
hancement of social competence are gener-
ally given high priority in the design and
evaluation of early education and interven-
tion programs, especially for socially de-
prived or cognitively handicapped popula-
tions (e.g., Anderson & Messick, 1974;
Greenspan, 1979; Kleck, 1976; O'Malley,
1977; Simeonsson, 1978; White & Watts,
1973; Zigler & Trickett, 1978; Lee, Note 1).
Portions of the data presented here were first reported
at the meeting of the Animal Behavior Society, Seattle,
Washington, June 1980.
The authors would like to thank Susan Merrick, Dan-
ise Beale, and Jill Hasselquist who aided in the collection
and tabulation of these data. The cooperation and pa-
tience of the director, teachers, and staff of the nursery
school at the Institute of Child Development are grate-
fully acknowledged. In addition, thanks are extended
to F. F. Strayer and W. W. Hartup who read and com-
mented upon previous drafts of this manuscript.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Everett
Waters, Department of Psychology, State University of
New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York
11794.
275
Despite considerable agreement as to the im-
portance of social competence in theory, re-
search, and clinical interventions, assess-
ment remains problematic. In part, this is
because the domain of social competence is
difficult to define. For example, Anderson
and Messick (1974) listed 29 different cat-
egories of variables that could be relevant
to social competence in young children. Each
of these categories could be assessed in a
number of ways and at various levels of anal-
ysis. Valid and economical assessments of
the construct are difficult to settle upon.
Moreover, analysis of specific components
of social competence such as attention span,
creativity, and knowledge of social norms
does not offer the broadband type of assess-
ment necessary in exploratory longitudinal
research and in many program evaluation
designs. ->
Global ratings, sociometric measures, and I
observations of social dominance relation- /
ships are the most common approaches to
assessment of a broadly defined social com-
petence construct. Each has its advantages
and its limitations. Generally, ratings by
276 BRIAN E. VAUGHN AND EVERETT WATERS

teachers or observers have been easy tn oh- sponses to various questions, and, although
tain and agreement among raters has been research exploring such relationships will
ejsy to acmevej,e.g., Behar & Stringfield, prove extremely valuable, this makes gen-
1974; Kohn (jTRosman, 1972). Unfortu- eralizations across studies employing differ-
nately, ratings of social competence are often ent techniques extremely tenuous at this
influenced by a variety of conceptually in- time. Even closely related questions ("Who
dependent adult-valued variables. These in- do you like?" vs. "Who do you dislike?")
clude intelligence, social class, sex, activity can result in scores with different levels of
level, and manageability. Although it is pos- stability and different patterns of external
sible to control for such halo effects using correlates (e.g., Gottlieb, Semmel, & Veld-
partial correlation or regression techniques, man, 1978; Hartup, Glazer, & Charles-
this requires a considerable amount of ad- worth, 1967). Finally, the more economical
ditional assessment of both the children and a sociometric task, the more cognitive so^
the adjihX Consequently, such procedures pmstication it tends to assume or demand
ate-"fTot oftenmrplemented. , at the subject. Nominations are faster than
Sociometric measures avoid the problem are picture array tasks, but they assume that
of assessing social competence from the the child knows and searches the names of
adult's point of view by eliciting playmate each classmate before nominating them. Pic-
preferences or nominations for each subject. ture tasks allow name recognition to be
The variable measured by these procedures tested, but they still assume that the subject
is more literally popularity/unpopularity searchesthe array thoroughly and that rea-
than it is social competence, but it is rea- sonaoie comparisons are, made among tEe
sonable to assume that social, competence many stimuli. Complete paired comparison
underlies a peer's popularity/unpopularity tasks ensure that each child is compared
to some extent (see Asher & Hymel, in press, with each other child, and because they obr
for a recent review). The primary difficulties tain extensive information from each sub-
that arise in sociometric assessments concern ject, tney are mghly reliable. As a result,
(a) the choice of sociometric instruments paired comparison data tend to have stronger
(e.g., peer nominations, picture-sociometric stability and stronger external correlates
techniques), (b) the choice of the sociometric than do abbreviated tasks (see Hartup,
question ("Who do you like?" vs. "Who do 1970). Unfortunately, they require a great
you dislike?") or nominations for roles in deal of time even in small classes (Vaughn
games, and (c) the social and cognitive skills & Waters, Note 2).
necessary to complete various sociometric Recent applications of ethological theory
tasks reliably and meaningfully. Most socio- and methods to the study of children's
groups have suggested that assessments of
metric tasks used with preschoolers involve dominance hierarchies may offer global,
individual testing of subjects outside the nonintrusive child-based competence assess-
classroom. This involves at least some dis- ments (e.g., Savin-Williams, 1976). The pri-
ruption of class activities or of ongoing play; mary problems with the ethological ap-
furthermore, not all children are attentive proaches concern the extensive data nec-
or willing to participate if the task keeps essary to construct transitive dominance
them away for very long. There is also a hierarchies from observations of dyadic in-
trade-off between the level of participation teractions. In a recent study, Straver and
and the amount (and quality) of information Straver (1976) collected data on agonistic^
that can be collected from each child. If the interactions for over 6 weeks without ob-"
amount of time and/or the level of partici- serving dyadic interactions of this type among!
pation is limited, then only one or a few so- many ot the possible pairs of children. Even
ciometric questions can be employed, re- given the necessary data, however, the re-
sulting in a limit in the amount of information lationship between status based on domi-
collected from each child. nance in agonistic interactions and the con-
Unfortunately, little is known about the cept of social competence remains an
meaning of, or relationships among, re- empirical question. In nonhuman primates,
 ATTENTION STRUCTURE
dominance relationships primarily concern
adult interactions and are known to vary
depending upon the criterion used to assess
the pairwise interactions of the individuals
involved (e.g., access to food, social partners,
sleeping places or other resources, direction
of submissive gestures; Bernstein, 1970; Loy,
1975; Rowell, 1974). In humans, the sub-
jects of such ethological studies are generally
children (e.g., Abramovitch, 1976; Sluckin
& Smith, 1977; Strayer & Strayer, 1976),
not adults, and the emphasis is often upon
a composite of all competitive/conflict in-
teractions (Savin-Willians, 1976). Unfortu-
nately, there are very few data upon which
to evaluate the empirical, competence-re-
lated correlates of dominance assessments
in human children. In view of the relatively
low frequency of actual aggressive interac-
tions in most preschool groups, however, it
seems unlikely that dominance in agonistic
interactions is as salient a basis for social
organization among preschool children as it
may be among adult nonhuman primates
(Vaughn & Waters, 1980).
A new and potentially useful approach to
the assessment of social dominance has been
developed in a series of reports by Chance
(1967), Chance and Jolly (1970), and
Chance and Larsen (1976). In this approach,
social organization is described in terms of
"attention structures." Chance and Jolly
(1970) argue that actual aggressive encoun-
ters are rare even among nonhuman pri-
mates and would afford a costly and inef-
ficient basis for social organization. JQjey^
propose instead that social organization
within primate groups can be characterized
m terms of the deployment of attention^
.among individuals. In an early application
of this approach to the study of preschool
children's play groups, Hold (Note 3) dem-
onstrated that children can be ranked reli-
ably in terms of the amount of visual regard
iga
direcTedToWard them by peers andjthaLthese~
fc
ranks have a variety of behavioral correlates
often attributed to dominance status. In ad^
dltion, Hold reported that attention rank is
significantly correlated with a wide range of
interactive behaviorincluding initiation of
social interactions, organizing and maintain-
ing" play activities among peers, and being
imitated by peersand with low scores on
277
being isolated from peers. The finding that
attention rank is positively correlated with
imitation by peers has recently been repli-
cated by Abramovitch and Grusec (1978).
Furthermore, we (Vaughn & Waters, 1980)
have reported that children high in the ajt-
tention rank also facilitate or maintain play-.
activities among peers more often than do.
lower ranked children These correlates
overlap considerably the domain of social
competence and suggest possibilities for the
assessment of social competence that were
investigated in the present research.
_ Thejjurppses of this report are (a) to pre-
sent the methodology for assessing visual
regard among preschbolxpeers, (b) to eval-
uate the temporal and situational stability
of this measure, (c) to evaluate the conver-
gent and discriminant validity of this mea-
sure in relation to sociometric and compet-
itive/dominance assessments and to a variety
of competence irrelevant behavior, (d) to
compare the play and aggressive behavior
correlates of attention rank, sociometric sta-
tus, and dominance status, and (e) to test
the hypothesis that visual regard among pre-
school peers reflects social organization and
is more than merely a consequence of inter-
active and play contacts. Each of these goals
contributes to the validation of the attention
rank measure as a useful index of social com-
petence.
Method
Subjects and Setting
Children itLajsinglejrescliool class served as subjects
in this study. These children were observed over the
three terms of the school year. At the beginning of the
preschool year there were 22 children in the class rang-
ing in age from 4 years 0 months to 4 years 9 months
(14 male and 8 female). The group size fluctuated over
the course of the year as children dropped from the class
and were replaced; no more than two children, however,
were dropped from or added to the class in any one
term. Twenty children were class members for all three
terms. The class met five mornings a week for 3 to 4
hours. The socioeconomic status (SES) of the children
was heterogeneous, though over half of them came from
professional status families. For each given term, all
children in the class were present for a minimum of 60%
of the behavioral observations and for a minimum of
75% of the class sessions.
Observations were made in a variety of physical set-
tings: inside the classrooms, on the playground, and in
278 BRIAN E. VAUGHN AND EVERETT WATERS

a gymnasium. The classroom was organized in a tra- Therefore, these totals were combined for all analyses
ditional manner with a variety of play areas. The outside reported here. A minimum of 100 observational rounds
play area contained large muscle play equipment, sand- of the class were made during each of the terms. In the
boxes, grassy spaces, and a paved path for riding toys. spring term, 100 observations were made both indoors
The gymnasium was equipped with mats, ladders, and and outside on the playground for purposes of compar-
a variety of other sports apparatus. jison across settings. Rank was determined from the ab-
Children were observed during_free play periods "solute number of looks and glances received from peers
which varied in duration from 45 minutes to 2 hour's, during each term.
depending on the weather, the proposed schedule ^f Sociometric measures. Two different sociometric
events (e.g., field trips), and the inclination of tty- measures of interpersonal preference were administered
teacher. Opportunities for play outdoors were largely at the end of each term: a paired comparison positive
dependent upon the weather. Consequently, the bulk of preference measure and a picture array negative preF
the data was collected indoors, except during the spring erence measure. For the paired comparison technique,
term, when an equal number of observations were made head and torso photographs of each child were made f
both indoors and outdoors for an analysis of situational and duplicated and cards were prepared for each pos-
stability. sible pairing of children in the class [n pairs = (n chil-
dren) X (n children - l)/2]. Children were presented
Measures of Social Status with each pair, one at a time, and asked, "Which of 0
these two children do you especially like?" Each child's
Attention measure. Observations of the frequency
of visual regard among peers were collected throughout picture appeared an equal number of times on the left
the school year. Each child was observed for 10 sec and and on the right sides of the cards, and the order of
the name of each child looked or glanced at was re- presentation was such that a given child would not be
seen twice before all of the other children were seen
corded. A look was defined as an orientation of the face
and eyes toward another child for 2 sec or more. A once (Torgerson, 1958). This task was completed in two
glance was defined as a similar orientation of the face or three 15-minute sessions per child. Care was taken
and eyes toward another child for lessjhan 2 sec. A to make sure that the child knew the names of each
target child was only scored as contributing a single unit classmate prior to the administration of the cards. If a
of visual regard to any other child during a given 10- child's interest and attention appeared to wander from
the task, the session was terminated and resumed an-
sec interval, even though several looks or glances might
other day. One week after the completion of this task,
have been directed toward a single child. Target children
each child was shown a randomly chosen subset of 20,
were scored as contributing looks to as many different
pairs from the complete paired comparison deck. The
children per observation period as they actually looked
average test-retest agreement for these pairs was 75%
or glanced at. Observers were instructed to count only
(range 45% to 100%). A child's rank on this measure^
those looks and glances that were clearly directed toward
was determined from the total number of positive nom-^
another child and not toward a toy or other object held
inations received across peers. -r
or looked at by the other child. Instances when the ob-
server was not confident of the recipient of the target The second sociometric task was a standard negative
child's looks and glances, and instances when the ob- preference task (see Hartup et al., 1967; Moore, Note
server was not sure whether a look or glance was to 4). Each child was presented with an array of head and
another child rather than to a toy or object held by the torso photographs of his/her classmates and asked to
child, were recorded but were not included as data in find a child whom he/she "did not especially like." After Cr
this report. Analyses of these ambiguous instances did a child was nominated, her/his photograph was turned
not reveal significant differences among the children face down and the same question was repeated for a
(i.e., no individual children were more ambiguous in total of three negative nominations. This sociometric
their looking patterns than were their peers) nor were task was usually administered after completion of the 0
there differences among the observers with respect to paired comparison task. Rank status on this measure
the frequency of recording looks and glances as ambig- was determined in the manner suggested by Hartup et
uous. al. (1967). The nominations were weighted according
The order in which children were observed was ran- to order of choice; initial choices were assigned a weight
domly determined with the restriction that each child ot nve, second choices a weight of three, and third
present in class on a given day was observed once before choices a weight of one. Sums were computed for each
any child was observed twice by the same observer. Two child and the totals rank ordered.
observers were responsible for collecting the attention Competition status rank. Following Abramovitch
data throughout the year. Rater agreement as to the (1976) and Strayer and Strayer (1976), competition
recipient of a look or a glance was established and main- status rank was determined in three steps. First, dyadic
tained at 80% throughout the course of the study (based interactions involving competition for objects and lo-
on six rounds of tne class [12U to Ii2 observations] per cations (see abject struggles and displacement in Table
term, and based on the formula, total number of agree- 4) were tabulated and a winner was designated for each
ments/total number of agreements + total number of interaction. Second, a table of all possible pairs of sub-
disagreements). Rater agreement on coding a given in- jects was constructed and the proportion of interactions
stance of visual regard as a look or a glance was also in which each child dominated each other child was
80% (using the same formula). Rank order correlations calculated. Finally, a rank order was derived that max-
between total looks and total glances received were pos- imized transitive relationships. This was done for the
itive_and significant for each^erm (median r = .65). data within each separate term as well as for data pooled
 ATTENTION STRUCTURE
from the indoor observations for the entire year. The
matrix for the pooled data is presented in Table 1.
Linearity and rigidity indices were computed as sug-
gested by Strayer and Strayer (1976). Coefficients of
.81 and .80, respectively, indicate that the data sub-
stantially approximate a transitive linear hierarchy and
account for a large proportion of the observed outcomes
of competitive encounters. Children were most likely tq^
lose in competitive interactions with children rankedl
above them and to win in competitions with children
ranked below mem' ~ Fall-Spring) using Spearman rank-order
Behavioral observations during free play. Obser-
vations of free play behavior were made throughout the
school year. Individual children were observed for a 30-
sec interval (focal individual sampling using modified
Hanson frequencies; see Altmann, 1974)._after which
the observer recorded the presence or abseiKC, of ,be-
liavior in 16 categories of events, interactions, and types
oTpenavioTniieSe observations were made by observers
not simultaneously collecting visual regard observations.
Special emphasis was placed on the quality of pla^L
(seven subcategories) and on aggressive or agonistic in-
teractions (five subcategories, with four of these scored
separafely for initiation or outcome). In the present re-
port, these play and aggression variables are used to
assess convergent validity of the various status rank
measures as indices of social competence.
Three other categories (activity level, visibility, and
proximity to the teacher) are used to assess the dis-
criminant validity of the visual regard measure. Activity^
level relative to children in the immediate vicinity of the
target child was scored as greater (+1), the same (0),
or lower (1) for each 30-sec time sample in the ob-
servations of free play behavior during the Spring term.
Visibility was scored as the number of 30-sec intervals
m whicB a child's behavior might have attracted atten-
tion from peers by virtue of its topography alone. Events
scored in this category included active attempts to at-
tract attention (e.g., standing on play equipment and
shouting), any episode of crying, being taken from the
classroom by an adult for any reason, and other behavior
that observers judged might create a disturbance. Time
near the teacher was scored as the number of 30-sec
intervals in which the child spoke to, was spoken to by,
was in contact with, or was within 5 feet (1.5 m) of the
teacher.
The children were observed in predetermined random
orders with the restriction that no child was observed
twice by the same observer until all of the other children
present on that day had been watched once. The number
of observers ranged from three to five over the course
of the study. At the outset of the observations, interrater
agreement over the entire 16-category list averaged 929k
(range 70% to 100% for single categories). For the seven
subcategories of play, the average interrater agreement
was also 92% (range from 80% to 100%); for the aggres-
sion subcategories, the average interrater agreement was
85% (range from 75% to 100%). For the three categories
of discriminant criteria, rater agreements were 81%,
70%, and 95% for activity level, visibility, and proximity
to the teacher, respectively. Capsule definitions for each
subcategory of play and aggression are presented below
in Table 4. A total of 390 observational rounds of the
class were made over the school year.
279
Results
Temporal Stability
The temporal stability of attention rank,
positive and negative sociometric status, and
competition rank from the indoor assess-
ments was evaluated across terms of the
school year (Fall-Winter, Winter-Spring,
correlations. As indicated in Table 2, the
attention and positive sociometric ranks i j
were highly stable across adjacent terms_and \\
also rronTjhe first to the third term? The
negative preference sociometric and the
, competition ranks were less stable across
adjacent terms. The negative preference so-
ciometric, however, showed a moderate de-
gree of stability from the Fall to Spring
terms (rs = .54), whereas the competition
rank order was quite unstable over this time.
These results suggest that both distribu-
tion of attention among peers and positive
sociometric preferences are established early
in the school year and remain stable. Out-
comes of competitive interactions also sta-
bilize to some degree during the early part
of the year and are moderately stable across
adjacent terms. The ranks vary too much
from term to term, however, to yield signif-
icant correlations from the first term to the
third. Finally, negative sociometric prefer-
ences were especially unstable from the first
to the second term. Since positive prefer-
ences were stable across this period, this lack
of stability is not due to unfamiliarity with ^
the children in the class. The instability of
the negative preference during the early
terms probably reflects the long time nec-
essary to associate relatively low frequency
aversive interactions with particular peers.
Negative sociometric preference is moder-
ately stable from the Winter to Spring terms
(and from Fall to Spring) and would be
somewhat more stable if the more reliable \
complete paired comparison technique were
employed.
Situational Stability
The situational stability of attention and
the competition rank orders was evaluated
across indoor and outdoor assessments dur-
ing the Spring term using Spearman rank-
 K)
oo
0

Table 1
Competition Status Matrix Based on Objective Struggles and on Displacement for the Pooled Indoor Data From the Three Terms
NN" JN BY AM WY VC ZY TR RL TA GE MS JD DK KA JO RY GN HL AN m

NN X +
JN + + + x . + z
BY X + X X X m
AM X X X X X X <
WY X X X X + X >
VC
ZY + +
X
X
X
X
X
X
++ X+ x + ga
TR X X X Z
RL + X X X X + + + X >
TA X X X + + X X X
0
GE X X X X + + x
M
MS + X X X X <
JD X X X + X X X X + g
DK X X X X X X X X X X X W
KA X X X X X X X X X H
JO X X X X X X X X X ^
RY X X + .x x >
GN X X X X X X X X X X g
HL X + X X X X X + X X X ?o
W
AN X X X X X X
Note. X = Row is dominant over column. + = An equal number of competitions won by each contestant.
' The pairs of letters across the top and down the left side of the table are the initials of the contestants.
 ATTENTION STRUCTURE 281

Table 2 with negative sociometric preference tended

Temporal Stability of Status Rank Orders to be negative but was highly variable from
term to term (rs = -.03, -.62, -.24). At-
Fall- Winter- Fall- tention rank and competition rank were not
Measure Winter Spring Spring
significantly correlated during any term;
Attention .81** .86** .84** they were moderately correlated, however,
Positive for the pooled data from the entire year
sociometric .92** .92** .90** (r = .48, p < .05).
Negative
sociometric .16 .46* .54* Positive and negative sociometric scores
Competition .51* .52* .11 were negatively correlated during each term
and in the pooled data. The correlationsjsmLg-
* p < .05. **p< .01. gest betayn_2fl%-and 50% cjjmmonjari-
ance and do noi_nile out the possibility of
order correlations. The correlation between different patterns (as well as direction)^
attention ranks from indoor and outdoor ob- behavioral correlates for the two measures.
servations was .90 (p < .01). The correlation Neither sociometric measure was consis-
between the competition ranks from indoor tently correlated with competition rank.
and outdoor observations was .07 (ns). _

Correlations Among the Rank Measures Temporal and Situational Stability of

Play and Aggression Measures
Rank order correlations among attention
rank, positive and negative sociometric sta- The six play behavior categories and the
tus, and the competition rank from the in- nine aggression and competition categories
door observations during each term and for are defined in Table 4. The total number of
the entire year are presented in Table 3. In occurrences for each category for the entire
brief, attention rank was strongly correlated year (indoors + outdoors) is presented along
with positive sociometric scores throughout with percent agreement among independent
the year (rs = .63, .85, .71). The correlation observers. In addition, the table summarizes
the temporal stability of each behavior cat-
Table 3 egory from the Fall to Winter and from the
Correlations Among Rank Measures by Term Winter to Spring terms (indoor data only),
and Pooled Indoor Data for Entire Year* and the situational stability of each behavior
category across the indoor and outdoor ob-
Positive Negative servations for the Spring term.
Term Attention sociometric sociometric
Play behavior (except for the category
Fall isolate) occurred more often than did ag-
,*
Positive soc. .63** " gressive behavior. As a result, the mean
Negative soc. -.03 -.44* scores for individuals on the play categories
Competition .33 .06 .47*
may be somewhat more dependable than
Winter
<
those for aggression. This implies that cor-
Positive soc. .85** " relations of the aggressive categories across
Negative soc. -.62** -.65** v
Competition .17 -.14 .23 time and situation and with the rank mea-
sures will be somewhat attenuated relative
Spring to the correlations involving the play behav-
Positive soc. .71**"
Negative soc. -.24 -.68** V ior categories (see Waters, 1978, 1980, for
Competition .22 .18 .26 related discussions).
Pooled data
Positive soc. .73** v / Behavioral Correlates of Rank Measures
Negative soc. -.47* -.75** "
Competition .48* .11 .22
Correlations of attention rank, positive
' All rs are Spearman rho. and negative sociometric scores, and com-
* p < .05. ** p < .01. petition rank with the play and aggression
282 BRIAN E. VAUGHN AND EVERETT WATERS

Table 4
Temporal and Situational Stability of Play and Aggression Measures
Rater In- Fall- Winter-
Category Frequency agreement out Winter Spring

Play
Interactive play. Play with peers
initiated and/or directed by
children. 1,030 91% .83** .26 .69**
Talk. Conversation with a peer in the
absence of play or other activity. 919 .80** .63** .74**
Parallel. Playing near a peer who is
involved in a similar activity, but
without interaction. 2,725 89% .64** .07 .32
Independent parallel. Playing near a
peer who is involved in a different
activity, but without interaction. 582 .78** .58** .72**
Independent alone. Engaged in an
activity or game, but neither near
nor interacting with a peer. 693 85% .48* .62** .65**
Isolated. Apart from peers and no
constructive activity. 274 100% .88** .73** .65**
Aggression
Hazing. Teasing and physical, vocal, or
gestural threats, often unprovoked,
seem to be used to "get a rise" out
of the recipient. 362 85% .57** .62** .62**
Initiates hazing. 362 78% .54* .73** .63**
Specific hostility. Physical attacks or
fights leading to submission. May
also include high intensity
arguments not included under
hazing (above). 100 .51* .17 .49*
Initiates specific hostility. 100 .34 .32 .83**
Object struggles. Fights (physical or
verbal) over possession of a desired
object. 219 100% .48* .46* .21
Wins object struggle. Child possessing
object at the end of an object
struggle. 219 100% .29 .43 .48*
Displacement. Removal of one child
by another from a position, either
by threat or physical removal. 153 75% .56** .53* .14
Wins displacement. 153 80% .64** .50* .73**
Game hostility. Aggression or hostile
behavior in the context of a game
(e.g., billy goat gruff pushes a troll
from a bridge, laughs as troll falls). 163 .43 .22 .49*

*p < .05. **/>< .01.

categories for the indoor observations during
the Spring term are presented in Table 5.1
The principal correlates of the attention
measure are interactive play, conversation,
success in competition for location, and
game hostility. Attention rank tends to be
negatively correlated with the noninteractive
play categories (independent parallel play,
independent play alone, isolate). The mod-
erate correlation with initiating hazing was
not replicated in data from the first or second
term.
1
Because the stability of the rank orders and the be-
havior categories tended to increase over the three terms,
and because the situational stability of the competition
rank was low, only the correlations for the Spring-in-
door data are presented here. Complete tables of the
correlations between the behavioral categories and the
status rank orders for each term are available from the
authors upon request.
 ATTENTION STRUCTURE 283

Table 5
Correlations Between Behavior Categories and Rank Measures for Indoor Data From the
Spring Term
Positive Negative
Category Attention sociometric sociometric Competition

Interactive play .77** .70** ^ -.44* .07

Talk .80** .51* ^ -.13 .32
Parallel play .43 .67** ^ -.12 -.07
Independent parallel play -.33 .03 -.21 -.62**
Independent alone -.29 .05 .15 -.24
Isolated -.33 .06 -.17 -.36
Hazing .44* .21 .57** .33
Initiates hazing .44* .06 .64** .58**
Specific hostility .13 -.16 .69** .13
Initiates specific hostility -.11 -.33 .67** .05
Object struggles .41 .31 -.01 .02
Wins object struggle .20 .03 .16 .15
Displacement .31 .06 .37 .04
Wins displacement .49* .12 .39 .53*
Game hostility .58** .31 -.11 .14

* p < .05. ** p< .01.

The positive sociometric measure had sim-
Iilar Interactive play correlates, but no cor-
I relation with the noninteractive play cate-
l gories. The correlations with winning'
displacement competition and game hostility
were lower than for the attention measure,
and there were no significant correlations
with any other aggression category. The neg-
ative sociometric measure correlated most
strongly with hazing, initiating hazing, spe-
cific hostility, and initiating specific hostility.
These categories of aggressive interaction
have been found previously to be related to
socialization and adjustment (Manning, Note
5) and are less related to social competence
than are the other aggression categories.
The competition rank measure was neg-
atively correlated with parallel play and had
small negative correlations with playing
alone or in isolation. These results suggest
a correlation between competition and social
contacts, though not necessarily with inter-
active play. Larger correlations with initi-
ating hazing and winning displacement in-
teractions reflect the relationship between
competition rank and dominance. The cor-
relation with winning displacement inter-
actions and the lack of any correlation with
object struggles or winning object struggles
suggests that by the end of the school year,
dominance relationships may have been suf-
ficiently well established for direct conflicts
to give way to yielding, displacement, and
possibly submission2 (see Omark, Strayer,
& Freedman, 1980, for extended discussions
of the development and functions of domi-
nance hierarchies).
Discriminant Validation of Attention
Rank
To evaluate the attention measure as an
index of social competence, it is necessary
to demonstrate that the measure is not sub-
stantially correlated with behavior that might
influence attention among preschool peers
but that is unrelated to the construct of so-
cial competence. Much behavior could play
a role in this process of discriminant vali-
dation. Activity level, visibility, and time
near the teacher were selected as being es-
pecially important because of their potential
influence on visual regard. The rank order
correlations of attention rank with high ac-
tivity level, visibility, and time near the
teacher were .41, .36, and .25, respectively.
These results indicate that visual regard re-
flected in the attention measure was not pri-
2
Tables of the correlations between the aggression
behavior categories and the competition rank order for
the Fall and Winter terms are available from the authors
upon request.
 284 BRIAN E. VAUGHN AND EVERETT WATERS
marily received in the context of these non-
competence-related activities.3
Additional discriminant validation of at-
tention rank as an index of social compe-
tence arises from further analysis of the be-
havioral context in which looks and glances
are received. It might be hypothesized that
visual regard is primarily received from play
partners as a necessary consequence of the
interactive contacts. If this were so, then
without regard to the quality of play or to
the social competence of the interactants,
children who played more (or were more
sociable) would receive more looks. If most
visual regard were scored in such a context,
then its value as an index of social compe-
tence would be uncertain, though not dis-
proved. In the present study, 7,800 30-sec
observations of free play behavior yielded
1,949 instances of interactive play and con-
versation (see Table 4). Since our coding
scheme allowed the distribution of only one
glance to a given individual during any one
10-sec observation period, 1,949 episodes of
interactive play and conversations could
yield a maximum of 5,847 (3 X 1,949) looks
or glances between partners. On the average,
one look or glance was coded every 10 sec
in our observations of visual regard; thus the
total number of looks and glances distributed
during 7,800 30-sec intervals would be
. 23,400. Yisual regard received from play-
* mates during interactive play or conversa-
tion could account for only 25% of the total
looks and glances given.4
Attention Rank and Attention Structure
As noted above, rank in the attention or-
der was determined on the basis of the fre-
quency of looks and glances received from
peers. Rank ordering on a frequency mea-
sure, however, does not necessarily imply
that there is an attention structure as pos-
tulated by Chance (1967). For example, it
would be possible to rank order the individ-
uals in the class even if visual regard were
distributed on an essentially random basis.
Such a rank order would, of necessity, have
many tied ranks and restricted variance, but
the rank order could still be derived.
To determine the relationship between an
individual's visual regard of peers and his/
her attention rank, we have related the rank
of each child to the rank of the children to-
ward whom he/she directed visual regard.
This was done in three steps. First, every
look or glance from one child to another was
given a score equal to the attention rank of
the child receiving the visual regard. Second,
the mean of these scores was computed for
each child by summing the scores and di-
viding by the total number of looks and
glances given for each child. If the child
looked predominantly at high-ranking chil-
dren, the looking scores would have a higher
mean than if she/he paid more attention to
lower ranking peers. Third, each subject's
mean looking score was compared to the
mean that would have been expected if the
child looked equally often at each of her/his
peers. If children's attention is equally (ran-
domly) distributed among peers, then the
looking scores will not differ from the ex-
pected value (i.e., the values for the class
will be distributed around the expected
mean, some above and some below the ex-
pected value). If more visual regard is paid
to high-ranking children, as predicted from
theories of attention structure, then the
mean looking scores should be consistently
above the expected value. By plotting these
scores along the rank order of the subjects,
we can answer two important questions.
First, is more attention directed at high
ranked children than would be expected by
chance? Second, is rank determined pri-
marily by looks and glances received from
one or two individuals, or is there some con-
sensus of attention in the group as a whole?
The data illustrating the relationship be-
3
A recent re-analysis of the sociometric and attention
data presented in this paper by Langlois and Vaughn
(Note 6) provides further evidence of the discriminant
validity of the attention measure. In their study, Lan-
glois and Vaughn found that although physical attrac-
tiveness was a significant predictor of sociometric status
in this class, it did not correlate significantly with at-
tention received from peers.
Further, although it is not directly relevant to the
issue of discriminant validation for the attention mea-
sure, it is of interest to note that the correlation between
the frequency of being coded as less active than other
children
4
and attention rank was .67.
Although a large number of looks and glances are
received during play from onlookers (as opposed to play
partners), these looks are not necessarily unrelated to
the quality of play or to the competence of the play
partners who are being observed.
 ATTENTION STRUCTURE 285

tween each child's rank in the attention order Discussion

and the distribution of visual regard to peers,
using the data for all 400 rounds of obser-
vation collected over the entire year, are pre-
sented in Figure 1. The horizontal axis is the
value of looks and glances that would be
expected if a child's visual regard were
equally distributed among peers. The mean
looking score for the group is 2.85 (expressed
as a deviation from the expected mean), in-
dicating that on the average children do di-
rect visual regard toward higher ranking
peers more often than would be expected by
chance, r(19) = 3.78, p < .01. In addition,
all of the values for this class are above the
expected value, suggesting that there is a
consensus concerning attention distribution
in the group. These results confirm the ex-
istence of an attention structure within this
class and indicate that the attention measure
reflects more than a simple rank ordering of
the sums of looks and glances received from
peers. To the extent that attention rank is
validated as an index of social competence,
these results are important for the hypothesis
that social competence is an important basis
for social organization among preschool chil-
dren.
The results of this study provide useful
replications of previous research on socio-
metric status, dominance relationships, and
visual regard among preschool peers. In ad-
dition, by relating these measures to one
another and to a range of external correlates,
we have helped to place each measure in a
useful context and have taken steps to clarify
the interpretation of individual differences.
The evidence that both positive and neg-
ative sociometric status can be stable over
several months replicates and extends im-
portant studies by Asher, Singleton, Tinsley,
and Hymel (1979) and by Hartup et al.
(1967). The improved stability, especially
for the positive sociometric preference scores,
suggests that the paired comparison tech-
nique is likely to be psychometrically more
reliable than are traditional picture-board^
sociometric instruments (e.g., McCandless
& Marshall, 1957). The pattern of correlates
of positive sociometric choices reported here
is consistent with those found by Hartup et
al. (1967). Furthermore, the present evi-
dencethat certain categories of aggression

I I I ~r ~r i i i i i i i i i . ri ~iiii
ceo 6
n 5 - -
\
W 4

S . ~~
o 3 -
n
ZQ_ ?
>x
G> 1 -
,1 1 f i il i 1 l l l l t l l i I l l i t i i j f . s i f i j l

fV _i
C/) I
UJ<j ~2 - -

0-4 - -

Sin -6
Z^-7 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
ATTENTION RANK OF CHILD DISTRIBUTING VISUAL REGARD
Figure 1. Relationship between attention rank and rank of peers toward whom attention is directed.
286 BRIAN E. VAUGHN AND EVERETT WATERS
are more salient than others in eliciting neg-
ative preferences-elaborates upon Hartup
et al.'s demonstration that negative socio-
metric nominations are related to delivering
"negative reinforcers."
Our analyses of the competition data, fol-
lowing the procedures suggested by Strayer
and Strayer (1976) and Strayer (1980), sug-
gest that dyadic interactions concerning ob-
jects and space can yield rank orders that
are sufficiently linear and rigid to qualify as
"dominance" hierarchies. These relation-
ships are, however, less stable in groups of
young children than in analogous groups of
juvenile primates.
The correlates of attention rank reported
here replicate findings by Abramovitch
(1976), Hold (1976; Note 3), and Vaughn
and Waters (1980). Rank in an attention
structure is at least moderately related to
rank in a competition hierarchy. Nonethe-
less, the behavioral correlates of attention
rank are substantially different from the cor-
relates of the competition hierarchy. In ad-
dition, attention rank is a strong correlate
of positive sociometric status; the competi-
tion hierarchy is not. The finding that at-
tention rank is a strong correlate of positive
sociometric preference has now been repli-
cated in four different classes in two coun-
tries (Vaughn & Waters, Note 2), suggest-
ing that the result is quite robust. The
evidence that attention rank is established
early in the year and is extremely stable over
the entire school year extends previous find-
ings and suggests that attention rank can be
used as an index of social organization from
very early stages of group formation.
The findings concerning the consistency
of behavioral categories over time and con-
text replicate similar results reported by
Roper and Hinde (1978), especially with
respect to play categories. Evidence that cat-
egories of play behavior are important cor-
relates of group structure suggests that
broad generalizations about social organi-
zation may be possible from observations of
social interactions in children's groups.
Over and above the replications of pre-
vious data, we have taken steps to provide
convergent and discriminant validation of
attention structure rank as a measure of so-
cial competence. Frequencies of interactive
play and conversational skills are often used
as indices of social competence (e.g., Fur-
man, Rahe, & Hartup, 1979). The pattern
of correlations in Table 5 suggests, however,
that the correlates of social competence need
not beTimited to the realm of prosocial be-
havior. Children in this class who received
disproportionate amounts of their peers' at-
tention were involved in many aggressive and
competitive encounters; they did not, how-
ever, necessarily initiate these encounters.
The data suggest that these children were
skilled in meeting aggression in kind, whether
in playful contexts or when objects or posi-
tions were in dispute (thus the correlation
between attention rank and rank in the com-
petitive hierarchy for the pooled data).
These results do more than suggest the va-
lidity of the attention measure as an index
of social competence. They also help us de-
fine the competence construct along lines
that fit the actual behavior of preschool chil-
dren. Further, these results prompt us to
offer the speculation that one of the reasons
these children are watched by their peers,
even those not interacting directly with
them, ig__that_ there is much to be learned
from these children. The finding reported by~
Xbramovitch and Grusec (1978) that chil-
dren ranked high in the attention order are
imitated more often than are other children
lends credence to this speculation.
Over a decade ago, Chance (1967) and
Chance and Jolly (1970) proposed that at-
tention is an important basis for social or-
ganization in monkeys, apes, and humans.
Hinde (1974) has challenged this view and
argued that attention is at best a conse-
quence of existing social organization. We
are inclined to agree with Hinde. Our data
indicate, however, that the distribution of
attention among preschool peers is a pow-
erful reflection of social organization. The
present evidence of competence-related be-
havioral correlates for the attention struc-
ture measure lends support to our hypothesis
that social competence is a more important
basis for social organization than is either
attention or dominance. This hypothesis ad-
dresses a basic issue in the study of social
organization and now deserves high priority
in developmental and comparative research.
 ATTENTION STRUCTURE 287

Reference Notes Gottlieb, J., Semmel, M. L, & Veldman, D. J. Corre-

lates of sociometric status among mainstreamed men-
1. Lee, L. C. Assessing communicative competence via tally retarded children. Journal of Educational Psy-
the repertoire model. Paper presented for the Na- chology, 1978, 70, 396^t05.
tional Panel on Head Start Profiles of Program Ef- Greenspan, S. Social intelligence in the retarded. In
fects on Children, funded by Administration for Chil- N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency:
dren, Youth, and Families, 1978. Theory and research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erl-
2. Vaughn, B. E., & Waters, E. Social structures in baum, 1979.
a preschool playgroup: Reliability, stability, and Hartup, W. W. Peer interaction and social organization.
behavioral correlates. Paper presented at the meet- In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child
ing of the Animal Behavior Society, Seattle, Wash-- psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1970.
ington, June 1978. Hartup, W. W., Glazer, J., & Charlesworth, R. Peer
3. Hold, B. C. L. Soziale Rangordnung in Kinder- reinforcement and sociometric status. Child Devel-
gruppen unter beonderer Berucksichtigung der rang- opment, 1967, 38, 1017-1024.
spezifishen Verhaltensweisen. Unpublished doctoral Hinde, R. A. The biological basis of human social be-
dissertation, Ludwig-Maximillian-Universitat, Mu- havior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
nich, West Germany, 1975. Hold, B. C. L. Attention structure and rank specific
4. Moore, S. A sociometric status test for young chil- behavior in preschool children. In M. R. A. Chance
dren: Manual of instructions. Unpublished manu- & R. R. Larsen (Eds.), The social structure of at-
script, Institute of Child Development, University of tention. London: Wiley, 1976.
Minnesota, 1973. Kleck, R. E. Issues in social effectiveness: The case of
5. Manning, M. Personal communication. June 1975. the mentally retarded. In M. J. Begab & S. H. Rich-
6. Langlois, J., & Vaughn, B. E. Physical attractiveness ardson (Eds.), The mentally retarded and society: A
as a predictor of sociometric choice and attention social science perspective. Baltimore, Md.: University
structure status in preschool children. Unpublished Park Press, 1976.
manuscript, Psychology Department, University of Kohn, M., & Rosman, L. A. A social competence scale
Texas at Austin, 1980. and symptom checklist for the preschool child: Factor
dimensions, their cross instrument generality, and lon-
References gitudinal persistence. Developmental Psychology,
1972, 6, 430-444.
Abramovitch, R. The relation of attention and proximity
to rank in preschool children. In M. R. A. Chance Loy, J. The descent of dominance in Macaco: Insights
& R. R. Larson (Eds.), The social structure of at- into the structures of human societies. In R. Tuttle
tention. London: Wiley, 1976. (Ed.), Socioecology and psychology of primates. The
Abramovitch, R., & Grusec, J. Peer imitation in a nat- Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton, 1975.
ural setting. Child Development, 1978, 49, 60-65. " McCandless, B. R., & Marshall, H. R. A picture so-
Altmann, J. Observational study of behavior: Sampling ciometric technique for preschool children and its re-
methods. Behavior, 1974, 39, 227-261. lation to teacher judgements of friendship. Child De-
Anderson, S., & Messick, S. Social competence in young velopment, 1957, 28, 139-148.
children. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10, 282- O'Malley, J. M. Research perspective on social com-
293. petence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1977, 23, 29-44.
Asher, S. R., & Hymel, S. Children's social competence Omark, D. R., Strayer, F. F., & Freedman, D. G. (Eds.).
in peer relations: Sociometric and behavioral assess- Dominance relations: An ethological view of human
ment. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social- conflict and social interaction. New York: Garland,
competence. New York: Guilford Press, in press. 1980.
Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R., & Hymel, Roper, R., & Hinde, R. A. Social behavior in a play
S. A reliable sociometric measure for preschool chil- group: Consistency and complexity. Child Develop-
dren. Developmental Psychology, 1979,15, 443-444. ment, 1978, 49, 570-579.
Behar, L., & Stringfield, S. A behavior rating scale for Rowell, T. E. The concept of social dominance. Behav-
the preschool child. Developmental Psychology, 1974, ioral Biology, 1974, //, 131-154.
10, 601-610. Savin-Williams, R. C. An ethological study of domi-
Bernstein, I. S. Primate status hierarchies. In L. A. nance formation and maintenance in a group of hu-
Rosenblum (Ed.), Primate behavior (Vol. 1). New man adolescents. Child Development, 1976, 47, 972-
York: Academic Press, 1970. 979.
Chance, M. R. A. Attention structure as the basis of Simeonsson, R. J. Social competence. In J. Wortis (Ed.),
primate rank orders. Man (new series), 1967, 2, 503- Mental retardation and developmental disabilities:
518. An annual review. Vol. X. New York: Mazel, 1978.
Chance, M. R. A., & Jolly, C. Social groups of mon- Sluckin, A., & Smith, P. Two approaches to the concept
keys, apes, and men. New York: Dutton, 1970. of dominance in preschool children. Child Develop-
Chance, M. R. A., & Larsen, R. R. (Eds.). The social ment, 1977,45, 917-923.
structure of attention. London: Wiley, 1976. Strayer, F. F. An ethological analysis of preschool social
Furman, W., Rahe, D. F., & Hartup, W. W. Rehabil- ecology. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Sympo-
itation of socially withdrawn preschool children sium on Child Psychology (Vol. 12). Hillsdale, N.J.:
through mixed-age and same-age socialization. Child Erlbaum, 1980.
Development, 1979, 50, 915-922. Strayer, F. F., & Strayer, J. An ethological analysis of
288 BRIAN E. VAUGHN AND EVERETT WATERS

social agonism and dominance relations among pre-
school children. Child Development, 1976, 47, 980-
989.
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New
York: Wiley, 1958.
Vaughn, B. E., & Waters, E. Social organization among
preschool peers: Dominance, attention, and sociomet-
ric correlates. In D. R. Omark, F. F. Strayer, &
D. G. Freedman (Eds.), Dominance relations: Etho-
logical perspectives on human conflict. New York:
Garland, 1980.
Waters, E. The reliability and stability of individual
differences in infant-mother attachment. Child De-
velopment, 1978, 49, 483-494.
Waters, E. Traits, relationships, and behavioral systems:
The attachment construct and the organization of
behavior and development. In K. Immelman, G. Bar-
low, M. Main, & L. Petrinovich (Eds.), Development
of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press,
1980.
White, B. L., & Watts, J. C. Experience and environ-
ment: Major influences on the development of the
young child. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1973.
Zigler, E., & Trickett, P. K. IQ, social competence, and
evaluation of early childhood intervention programs.
American Psychologist, 1978, 33, 789-798.
Received June 10, 1980

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication

Age Segregation in Children's Social Interactions. Barbara Rogoff (Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112), Shari Ellis, and Cindy C. Cromer.
Age Changes and Changes Over Time in Prosocial Intentions and Behavior Between Friends. Thomas
J. Berndt (Department of Psychology, Box 11A Yale Station, Yale University, New Haven, Con-
necticut 06520).
Young Children's Understanding of a Speaker's Intentional Use of a False Utterance. Brian P. Ackerman
(Department of Psychology, 220 Wolf Hall, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19711).
Apparent Sex Differences in Cooperation/Competition: A Function of Individualism. George P. Knight
(Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85712) and Spencer Kagan.
Illusory Contingency in Children at the State Fair. John R. Weisz (Department of Psychology, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514).
Parental Discipline as Affected by the Sex of the Parent, Sex of the Child, and the Child's Apparent
Responsiveness to Discipline. Richard H. Passman (Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 413, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201) and Raymond K. Mulhern.
Separation of Home Intellectual Environment and Parent IQ as Determinants of Child IQ. Langdon
E. Longstreth (Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, University Park, Los
Angeles, California 90007), Beryl Davis, Linda Carter, Debbi Flint, Jeffrey Owen, Marie Rickert,
and Ed Taylor.
Syntactic Form, Semantic Complexity, and Short-Term Memory as Factors Influencing Children's
Ability to Acquire New Linguistic Structures. Robbie Case (Department of Applied Psychology,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada)
and Meredyth Daneman.
Mean Scores for Kohn Social Competence Found Markedly Different in Two Samples. Raymond Y.
Demers (Department of Family Medicine, 4201 St. Antoine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Mich-
igan 48201) and Rose Skell.
The Importance of Nonshred (E,) Environmental Influences in Behavioral Development. David C. Rowe
(Department of Psychology, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio 44074) and Robert Plomin.
Changes in Interpersonal Distances and Categories of Play Behavior in the Early Weeks of Preschool.
John D. C. Shea (Department of Psychology, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308,
Australia).

(Continued on page 312)