The Current and Future Outcomes of Interpersonal Social Interactions: The Views of Students with Behavioral Disorders

The Current and Future Outcomes of Interpersonal Social Interactions: The Views of Students with Behavioral Disorders

Note - A reformatted version of this article appeared in Behavioral Disorders, 22(3), 141-151, May 1997.

We examined the views of students with behavioral disorders (BD) regarding the current and future outcomes of interpersonal social interactions. A comparative analysis of 60 students with BD and 60 students without BD across positive and negative interpersonal problems with teachers and peers was conducted. In general, there were no significant differences in the views of students with and without BD regarding the current and future outcomes of positive interpersonal social interactions. However, there were significant differences in the views of students with and without BD regarding the current and future outcomes of negative interpersonal social interactions. Students with BD were more likely to support the proposition that students who have negative interpersonal social interactions would experience less negative future outcomes than were students without BD. Research needs are discussed.

The social world of students with behavioral disorders (BD) is distinguished by interpersonal problems (Coleman, 1992; Kauffman, 1997; Steinberg & Knitzer, 1992). Individuals with interpersonal problems generally experience difficulty in life including diminished motivation (Berston, 1960; Elliot & Voss, 1974; Liddle, 1962; Sando, 1952; Snepp, 1953), academic performance difficulties (Elliot & Voss, 1974), and social maladjustment (Asher, Oden, & Gottman, 1977; French, 1988; Ladd, 1983). Additionally, much literature points to the stability of interpersonal problems across settings (Loeber & Dishion, 1984; Mitchell & Rosa, 1981; Patterson, 1979, 1982; Wright, 1983) and from early childhood (e.g., Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986; Farrington, 1983).

Although research on the interpersonal problems of children has yielded important information on the cognitive, social, and vocational outcomes of individuals with interpersonal problems, researchers have not fully explored students’ understanding or views of the current and future outcomes of interpersonal social interactions. This information is important because an understanding of the outcomes of interpersonal problems plays a fundamental part of the extent to which individuals can understand themselves and their environment. Such research could yield important practical information with which to develop interventions for students with BD. For example, a number of scholars have discussed the importance of insight-oriented interventions to help students understand themselves and their environment (Jones, 1992). A better understanding of the extent to which students with BD recognize the outcomes or consequences of interpersonal social interactions could provide teachers and other professionals information with which to develop or refine insight-oriented interventions and to expand or refine social skills curricula approaches for students with BD.

Reviewing studies of children’s social reasoning (e.g., Nicholls & Nelson, 1992; Nucci, 1981; Turiel, 1974) is informative. A number of studies have demonstrated that children make distinctions between concepts of morality and social conventions (Much & Shweder, 1978; Nuccci & Nucci, 1982; Nucci & Turiel, 1978; Nucci, Turiel, & Encarnacion-Gawrych, 1983; Turiel, 1983). Moral concepts pertain to issues of welfare, justice, and rights (e.g., equitable distribution of resources), whereas, social conventions are socially acceptable behaviors that regulate social interactions (e.g., modes of greeting). Children judge actions within the moral domain to be independent of existing rules (e.g., stealing would be wrong even if a rule prohibiting stealing did not exist). Conversely, children judge actions within the social convention domain to be contingent on rules (e.g., wearing a uniform to school should depend on a specific school rule) (Nucci, 1981; Nucci & Turiel, 1978; Turiel, 1974; Weston & Turiel, 1980). These distinctions parallel those made by adults on such matters (Nicholls & Nelson, 1992).

Researchers have begun to explore the relationship of self-understanding and mental health problems such as anorexia nervosa and conduct disorders (Damon & Hart, 1988). Self-understanding encompasses the full array of thoughts and attitudes that an individual uses to define the self and distinguish the self from others (Damon & Hart, 1988). Dependent upon the individual, these thoughts and attitudes may be affected by the student’s physical characteristics (e.g., size) and material possessions, daily activities and capabilities (e.g., interests, academic competence), and social or psychological characteristics (e.g., interpersonal skills, disposition, and philosophical beliefs, moral values).

In 1986 Melcher explored the relationship between self-understanding and conduct disorders. In addition to developmentally immature conceptions of self as connected to social context, Melcher found that the children with conduct disorders had significantly lower developmental scores on questions concerning self over time (e.g., what the self was like in the past, what the self will be like in the future, and what one hopes the self will be like in the future). Children with conduct disorders gave little thought to the future, and when they did project the self into the future, they did so with little concern for the integration of the self into the surrounding social context. That is, children with conduct disorders did not appear to consider characteristics about themselves that would have to change in order to better match a particular social context. These findings suggest that children with interpersonal problems may have difficulty developing a sense of personal identity that allows for future planning to guide current behavior.

Exploring self-understandings of the social relationships of students with BD is important because such students face daunting odds in achieving positive educational and positive long-range success. For instance, it is common knowledge that most students with BD function below their grade level and have histories of repeated failures; and, once on the special education track, less than 10% return to the general education environment (Kauffman, Cullinan, & Epstein, 1987). Currently, research also paints a bleak picture of postschool vocation and community adjustment for students with BD who exit inclusive school programs (Edgar & Levine, 1987; Wagner & Shaver, 1989). Unemployment of these students runs between 30% to 40%; if employed, the work secured is low paying and menial. Few students with BD enter any type of postsecondary training, and many are arrested at lease once in the first 2 years following their exit from school.

Taken together, research on the educational and life outcomes of students with BD and on the relationship between self-understanding and conduct disorders suggests that students with BD may not fully understand how one’s thoughts, attitudes, and actions affect their current and future lives. The purpose of this study was to examine the views of students with BD regarding the impact of positive and negative interpersonal social interactions on current and future life outcomes, specifically intrapersonal (i.e., motivation) and interpersonal (i.e., responsiveness to adults and peers) factors. A comparative analysis of the responses of students with BD and without BD was conducted, and gender and age comparisons were made as appropriate.

1. Participants. Two samples of students enrolled in a medium-sized school district in Washington state participated. The first sample included 60 general education students (10 boys and 10 girls from the 3^rd, 6^th, and 8^th grades) randomly selected from one elementary school (K-6^th grades) and one middle school (7-9^th grades). The mean ages of the 3^rd-, 6^th-, and 8^th-grade students were 8.45 (SD = .60), 11.30 (SD = .47), and 13.45 (SD = .75), respectively.

The second sample consisted of 60 students (54 boys and 6 girls from the 3^rd, 6^th and 8^th grades) receiving special education services under the school-related eligibility criteria for BD. The students were enrolled in eight elementary schools and two middle schools with specialized services for students with BD. Because there were limited numbers of students formally identified as BD, the sample essentially represented the entire population of such students. The mean ages of the 3^rd-, 6^th-, and 8^th-grade students were 9.05 (SD = .91), 11.74 (SD = .88), and 14.02 (SD = .95), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the ages of the students in the first and second samples.

The interview protocol was developed by the first and second authors. The protocol was pilot tested with three students at the 3^rd- and 6^th-grade levels (not included in the present study) to ensure that students could distinguish the critical attributes of the interpersonal social interaction vignettes and answer the outcome questions. The students were able to make the required distinctions, and no adjustments were needed in the interview protocol.

Vignettes. Vignettes were used to introduce four types of interpersonal social interactions to students. The vignettes considered of black and white pictures depicting a particular type of interpersonal social interaction along with an associated description. The vignettes depicted two primary types of interpersonal social interactions (i.e., positive and negative), each of which contained two social agents (i.e., teacher and peer). Thus, students were introduced to four possible types of interpersonal social dyads.

Pictorial cues for the vignettes of the positive and negative interpersonal social interactions were held constant to help students focus on the specific interpersonal social interaction being depicted rather than other factors (e.g., gender of the target student). Photographs for each of the vignettes used the same classroom with the picture taken at the same angle. The same classmates (i.e., four boys and four girls) were involved in the four examples of social interactions, two positive and two negative. Thus, there were two sets of two pictures. One set showed the same boy (i.e., target student) have either a positive or negative social interaction with the same teacher or peer. The other set showed the same girl (i.e., target student) having either a positive or negative social interaction with the same teacher or peer.

Negative interpersonal social interactions portrayed a teacher (or peer) and target student facing each other. The teacher displayed anger (i.e., mouth was open and finger was pointing a the target student), and the target displayed anger (i.e., mouth open and hands downward with fists clenched). Both individuals were standing next to a group of four other students who did not display any emotion (i.e., two focused on an open book on the desktops, and two looked at the teacher or peer and the student).

The pictures depicting the positive interpersonal social interactions portrayed the teacher (or peer) kneeling down next to the target student with both individuals focused on an open book on the student’s desk. The teacher (or peer) and target student were part of a group that included four other students (all were focused on open books on their desktops).

Interview sequence. All of the students were interviewed individually by the first and second authors. The interviews lasted approximately 20 min. and were scripted to ensure consistency in the presentation of the interview. Interviewers began by introducing themselves, describing the general purpose of the study (i.e., "We are interested in finding out what students think would happen to the students who get along with their teachers and friends, and those who do not…"), and asking students their grade and age (i.e., interviewers simply noted the gender of the student). Students were told that there were no right or wrong answers, that the purpose of the interview was to understand what students think. Next, the meaning of each of five Likert responses was discussed (e.g., ? means that you are not really sure of what you think or you do not agree or disagree with the question). The Likert response format is described following the interview sequence description.

The order of the following four paragraphs and associated pictures were presented randomly to control for order effects.

Vignette 1. This student works well with his or her teacher. He or she listens to the teacher, follows the teacher’s directions, and works well with the teacher in the classroom. See how the teacher and the student are working together.

Vignette 2. This student does not work well with his or her teacher. He or she does not listen to the teacher, does not follow the teacher’s directions, and does not work well with the teacher in the classroom.

Vignette 3. This students gets along well with other students in the classroom. He/She plays well with the other students, says nice things to the other students, and works well with the other students in the classroom.

Vignette 4. This does not get along well with other students in the classroom. He or she does not play well with other students in the classroom, does not say nice things to the other students, and does not work well with other students in the classroom.

Next, the interviewer asked the students to explain what they saw as the main differences among the four types of interpersonal social interactions as they were presented. All recapitulated the main differences that had been outlined on a picture-by-picture basis.

After this, the interviewer verbally described tone of the four types of interpersonal social interactions. The order was randomized. The participant was asked to think about the student described as the background information was presented a second time, and to think about what that student might be like. The participant was asked each of the eight questions related to the current outcomes and each of the eight questions focusing on the future outcomes of the four interactions (see Table 1). The eight parallel current and future outcomes questions included three areas:

Students indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the questions on a 5-point Likert-type scale (i.e., (1) big NO, indicating strong disagreement; (2) little no, indicating disagreement; (3) ?, indicating uncertainty; (4) little yes, indicating agreement; and (5) big YES, indicating strong agreement). Students indicating their response by pointing to the response on the scale or by replying (e.g., "big yes"). This format enabled us to interview both elementary and middle school students and is a response format commonly used in developmental psychology (e.g., Nelson, Nicholls, & Gleaves, 1996; Nicholls & Nelson, 1992).

The number of female students with BD was not large enough to analyze gender effects by group. However, mean responses of male and female students (without BD) to each question were analyzed using two-tailed t-tests. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean responses of the boys and girls (e.g., Question 1: t(59)=1.32,p>.05). Thus gender was dropped from further analysis.

To examine the views of students with and without BD regarding the current and future outcomes of interpersonal social interactions, responses to each question under the positive and negative interpersonal social interactions were analyzed with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) by student type (students without BD, students with BD), by grade (3, 6, and 8), and by social agent (teacher, classmates), with the last factor being a within-subject factor. Additionally, to determine whether students were significantly resolute, rather than indecisive or neutral about the outcomes of the positive and negative interactions, the 95% confidence interval for each mean was computed to determine whether it encompassed the midpoint of the scale. Those means in which the midpoint of the response deviated from the 95% confidence interval are underlined in Table 2 and Table 3.

No significant main or interaction effects were obtained. Table 2 presents the mean responses for each question for positive interpersonal social interactions and associated F values for the main and interaction effects. Inspection of Table 2 reveals that both students with BD and those without BD tended to believe that students who had positive social interactions with their teacher and classmates would experience positive current and future outcomes on all dimensions. Specifically, they were inclined to believe that students who had positive interactions with teachers and classmates would be motivated at school or work, be responsive to their teacher or boss, and get along well with their classmates or colleagues. The lack of statistically significant main and interaction effects indicates that students’ beliefs did not differ significantly across the grades and type of social agent or between students with BD and those without BD.

There were significant main effects for student type and social agent for two questions (i.e., get along with teachers and do everything the teacher says) under the current outcomes of negative interpersonal social interactions. There were also significant main effects for student type for each of the eight questions under the future outcomes of negative interpersonal social interactions. There were no other significant main effects or interaction effects. Table 3 presents the mean responses for each question for negative interpersonal social interactions and associated F values for the main effects

In the case of the current outcomes of negative interpersonal social interactions, students without BD and those with BD generally believed that students who had negative social interactions with their teacher and classmates would experience negative outcomes on all dimensions (see Table 3). The significant main effects for student type indicate that students with BD were more likely than their general education peers to have the opinion that students who have negative interpersonal interactions would "get along with their teacher" and "do everything their teacher says." The significant main effects for social agent indicate that both students with and without BD were more likely to believe that students would "get along with their teacher" and "do everything their teacher says" in the vignettes of negative interpersonal social interactions with peers than when there were negative interactions with the teacher.

In the case of the future outcomes of negative social interactions, students without BD generally believed that students who had negative social interactions with their teacher and classmates would experience negative future outcomes (see Table 3). In contrast, students with BD generally believed that students who had negative interactions with the teacher and their classmates would experience positive future outcomes. The significant main effects found for student type on all eight questions indicate that students with BD supported the proposition that even though students had negative interpersonal interactions with teachers and classmates they would be motivated at work, be responsive to their boss, and get along well with their colleagues.

Little or no research has examined the extent to which students with BD are aware of the interpersonal outcomes of positive and/or negative social interactions. This awareness, at least in part, would appear to be fundamental to an individual’s self-understanding (Damon & Hart, 1988) and possibly predictive of the effectiveness with which students handle social exchanges. In the present study, examples of positive and negative social interactions with teachers and peers, all of which might occur in a classroom context, were used to gain the viewpoints of students with and without BD regarding potential current and future outcomes as related to motivation and interpersonal adjustment with authority figures and peers.

In general, both students with and without BD believed that positive interpersonal social interaction would result in positive outcomes and that negative interpersonal interactions would result in negative outcomes. Students also tended to be aware that interpersonal interactions would have an effect on motivation and interaction with authority figures and peers. For example, students with and without BD tended to believe that students who have positive interpersonal social interactions with teachers and peers would not experience motivation problems in school or work. There also tended to be no differences in the responses of children with BD and those without BD regarding the type of social agent (i.e., teacher or peer) who was interacting and future outcomes. The ability of students with positive and negative current interpersonal interactions is consistent with previous research that has found that children make adult-like distinctions regarding moral and social matters (Much & Shweder, 1978; Nucci & Nucci, 1982; Nucci & Turiel, 1978; Nucci, Turiel, & Encarnacion-Gawrych, 1983; Turiel, 1983). Thus, it appears that as a group students with BD are able to distinguish moral and social issues.

Students with and without BD also tended to recognize that positive interpersonal social interactions are relatively stable phenomena across ages. For example, both student groups believed that students who had positive interpersonal interactions would be motivated and have few interpersonal problems with current (teacher) or future (boss) authority figures.

Consistent with studies on other populations, students with and without BD generally regarded the outcomes of negative social interactions to be associated with individuals who have interpersonal problems. That is, these individuals tended to experience difficulty in life including diminished motivation (Berston, 1960; Elliot & Voss, 1974; Liddle, 1962; Sando, 1952; Snepp, 1953), academic performance difficulties (Elliot & Voss, 1974), and social maladjustment (Asher, Oden, & Gottman, 1977; French, 1988; Ladd, 1983).

Students with and without BD differed little regarding their perceptions of the current outcomes of negative interpersonal social interactions. However, students with BD were more likely to believe that students who had negative social interactions would experience interpersonal adjustment problems with authority figures (teachers). Students with and without BD tended to believe that negative interpersonal interactions with teachers would result in greater problems with teachers than if the student had negative interactions with peers. Additionally, both groups tended to believe that students who have negative interpersonal social interactions with their peers would experience motivation and interpersonal adjustment problems. Taken together, the findings are consistent with those of Melcher (1986) who found that children with and without conduct disorders do not differ in their understanding of self in regard to the surrounding social context (i.e., authority figures and peers).

The awareness of students with BD regarding the future outcomes of negative interpersonal social interactions differed from their awareness of the current outcomes of such behavior. Students with BD tended to believe that negative interpersonal social interactions did not affect future intrapersonal problems (motivation) or interpersonal problems (boss and peers) negatively. In contrast, students without BD tended to see that negative interpersonal social interactions would lead to future experiences with motivation and interpersonal problems. The findings of the present study support previous research that found that children with conduct disorders tend to give little thought to the future, and when they do project the self into the future, they do so with little concern for the integration of the self appropriately into the surrounding social context (Melcher, 1986).

Self-understanding is both an individualistic and relational social concept. Self-understanding is individualistic in that it encompasses one’s understanding of their physical and material qualities, interest and capabilities, social characteristics, and philosophical beliefs. Self-understanding is relational in that it encompasses the connections between one’s understanding of oneself with those of others. The present study extended previous research on this latter aspect of self-understanding (Damon & Hart, 1988) by exploring the understanding of the views of children with and without BD in relation to the connection between social interactions and potential current as well as future outcomes.

Two general conclusions can be made regarding the results of this study. First, students with BD, on most accounts, do not differ from their peers without BD in their views of the outcomes of interpersonal problems. Students generally were able to discern potential positive and negative outcomes of different interpersonal interactions. This is consistent with the findings of research on social reasoning which has found that children generally make adult-like distinctions of the critical dimensions of social and intellectual matters (Nicholls & Nelson, 1992). Second, there appear to be clear differences in the views of students with and without BD regarding the future outcomes of interpersonal problems. This finding is consistent with those of Melcher (1986) who found that children with conduct disorders have significantly lower developmental scores on those questions concerning self over time.

The results of this study suggest that professionals working with students with BD should not only focus on the immediate outcomes of interpersonal problems, but also the long-term ones. This is because the results of this study suggest that students with BD make relatively accurate assessments of the potential positive and negative outcomes of different interpersonal interactions. However, students with BD tend to underestimate the outcomes of negative interpersonal interactions. Researchers should attempt to determine why there are differences in students’ view of interpersonal problems. The environmental determinants associated with different views are especially critical. If these determinants could be isolated, interventions could be designed at an early age in order to prevent behavioral patterns associated with BD. For example, because students with BD were able to discriminate between positive and negative social interactions, it would follow that they could be taught to make other discriminations such as how negative social interactions affect the ability to get along with their teacher. Of course, students with BD need to be taught directly how to discriminate which behaviors to use and not to use under a variety of social and educational contexts. This is important because in many instances the problem for these students is not "knowing how do X," but "doing X when it is required." Additionally, because the major difference between students with BD and those without BD is in regard to future outcomes, social skills program should be designed to teach students with BD to predict future outcomes of negative interpersonal social interactions.

Researchers also might explore what type of curriculum approaches enhance the ability of children with BD to understand cause-and-effect relationships. For example, science curriculum aimed at exploring cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world might provide the basis for focused discussions of social relationships as experienced in future work environments. Additionally, lack of understanding vocational opportunities and expectations may account for the response of students with BD. Therefore, building career awareness of the activities and requisite skills necessary to achieve desired future employment may be a curricular issue that should be addressed early with students with BD.

There are several limitations to the present study. First, because the sample was restricted to a single school district, replication of the effects is needed. An additional confound is that the present sample met the school eligibility criteria of BD in Washington, yet these students may differ from those labeled as BD in other states. From our data, there is no basis for cause-and-effect statements to be made; thus we cannot say, for example, that differences in students’ views of social interactions cause BD. However, the determining factors for the differences may be important for future researchers because preventative strategies could be implemented to address these factors. Finally, it may be that using different stimulus cues during the interviews would have led to different responses. For example, students’ response may have varied if the pictorial cues included larger numbers of students (e.g., 10 vs. 4) because the students may have viewed negative social interactions as less personal in nature. Additionally, no developmental trends were identified, yet such trends may be present. It would be interesting to determine if secondary students with BD, for instance, hold views similar to elementary students and/or their peers in general education.

Asher, S. R., Oden, S. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1977). Children’s friendship in school settings. In L. G. Katz (ED.), Current topics in early childhood education (Vol. 1, pp. 32-61). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Berston, H. M. (1960). The school dropout problem. The Clearing House, 35, 207-210.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and career criminals (Vols. I and II). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

Coleman, M. C. (1992). Behavior disorders: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence. New York: Cambridge University.

Edgar, E., & Levine, P. (1987). Special education students in transition: Washington state data 1976-1986. Seattle: University of Washington, Experimental Education Unit.

Elliot, D. S., & Voss, H. L. (1974) Delinquency and dropout. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Farrington, D. P. (1983). Offending from 10 to 25 years of age. In K. T. Van Dusen & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Prospective studies of crime and delinquency. (pp. 17-37). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

French, D. C. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys: Aggressive and nonaggressive subtypes. Child Development, 59, 976-985.

Jones, V. (1992). Integrating behavioral and insight-oriented treatment in school based programs for seriously emotionally disturbed students. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 225-236.

Kauffman, J. M. (1997). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (6th ed.). New York: Merrill.

Kauffman, J. M., Cuillinan, D., & Epstein, M. H. (1987). Characteristics of students placed in special programs for the seriously emotionally disturbed. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 175-184.

Ladd, G. (1983). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school settings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 282-307.

Liddle, G. P. (1962). Psychological factors involved in dropping out of school. High School Journal, 45, 276-280.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who fight at home and school: Family conditions influencing cross-setting consistency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 759-768.

Melcher, B. (1986). Moral reasoning, self-identity, and moral action: A study of conduct disorder in adolescence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Mitchell, S., & Rosa, P. (1981). Boyhood behavior problems as precursors of criminality: A fifteen-year follow-up study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 19-33.

Much, N. C., & Shweder, R. A. (1978). Speaking of rules: The analysis of culture in the breach. In W. Damon (Ed.), New directions for child development: Moral development (pp. 19-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nelson, J. R. Nicholls, J. G., & Gleaves, K. (1996). The effect of personal philosophy on African American students’ orientation toward school: Integratism versus nationalist philosophies. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 340-357.

Nicholls, J. G., & Nelson, J. R. (1992). Students’ conceptions of controversial and noncontroversial knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 224-230.

Nucci, L. B. (1981). The development of personal concepts: A domain distinct from moral or societal concepts. Child Development, 52, 114-121.

Nucci, L. P., & Turiel, E. (1978). Social interactions and the development of social concepts in preschool children. Child Development, 49, 400-407.

Nucci, L. P., Turiel, E., & Encarnacion-Gawrych, G. E. (1983). Children’s social interactions and social concepts: Analyses of morality and convention in the Virgin Islands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14, 469-487.

Patterson, G. R. (1979). A performance theory for coercive family interaction. In R. B. Cairns (Ed.), The analysis of social interactions: Methods, issues, and illustrations (pp. 119-162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). A social learning approach, Vol. 3: Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Sando, R. F. (1952). How to make and utilize follow-up studies of school leavers. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 36, 67-75.

Snepp, D. W. (1953). Why they drop out: 8 clues to greater holding power. The Clearing House, 27, 492-497.

Steinberg, Z., & Knitzer, J. (1992). Classrooms for emotionally and behaviorally disturbed students: Facing the challenge. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 145-156.

Turiel, E. (1974). Conflict and transition in adolescent moral development. Child Development, 45, 14-29.

Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Wagner, M., & Shaver, D. (1989). Programs and achievements of secondary special education students: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Weston, D., & Turiel, E. (1980). Act-rule relations: Children’s concepts of social rules. Developmental Psychology, 16, 417-424.

Wright, J. C. (1983). The structure and perception of behavioral consistency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University, California.

Nancy Marchand-Martella, Assistant Professor, Applied Psychology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney.

CURRENT OUTCOMES

Would he or she be the sort of student who would:

Motivation
1. …get good grades in school?
2. …get their school work done on time?
3. …try hard to understand school things?

Interpersonal Adjustment: Authority Figures
4. …get along with their teacher?
5. …do every their teacher says to do?

Interpersonal Adjustment: Peers
6. …help their classmates to understand things in school?
7. …have a lot of friends at school?
8. …help other students with their school work?

FUTURE OUTCOMES

Would he or she grow up to be the sort of person who would:

Motivation
1. …get awards for doing their job well?
2. …get their work done on time?
3. …try hard to understand work things?

Interpersonal Adjustment: Authority Figures
4. …do everything their boss says to do?
5. …get along with their boss?

Interpersonal Adjustment: Peers
6. …help others to understand things in work?
7. …have a lot of friends at work?
8. …help others do their work?

(1) WOBD=Without behavioral disorders; WBD=With behavioral disorders.
(2) Questions are abbreviated. See Table 1 for complete presentation of questions.
(3) Underlined means differ significantly (p<.05) from the midpoint of the scale.

Return to CECP Home	About the Center	Site Map	Search

	TEACHER		STUDENT		F VALUES
ITEM(2)	WOBD(1) mean (SD)	WBD mean (SD)	WOBD mean (SD)	WBD mean (SD)	Student		Social Agent (C)	AxB	AxC	BxC
ITEM(2)	WOBD(1) mean (SD)	WBD mean (SD)	WOBD mean (SD)	WBD mean (SD)	Type (A)	Grade (B)	Social Agent (C)	AxB	AxC	BxC
	CURRENT OUTCOMES
1. Get good grades.	4.55(3) (0.65)	4.53 (0.60)	4.48 (0.79)	4.61 (0.81)	1.95	2.13	1.40	2.56	1.31	2.10
2. Do schoolwork on time.	4.13 (0.98)	4.41 (0.71)	4.53 (0.77)	4.29 (1.08)	1.08	2.37	1.41	2.79	1.40	2.12
3. Try hard.	4.32 (1.02)	4.41 (1.02)	4.63 (0.61)	4.49 (0.94)	1.67	1.40	1.72	1.38	1.29	0.48
4. Get along with teachers.	4.62 (0.69)	4.61 (0.72)	4.73 (0.55)	4.85 (0.52)	1.94	1.41	2.37	2.13	1.95	2.01
5. Do what teacher says.	4.02 (1.05)	4.10 (1.05)	4.27 (0.70)	4.32 (0.94)	1.11	1.08	2.51	2.48	1.40	1.55
6. Help classmates understand.	4.75 (0.57)	4.80 (0.41)	4.58 (0.72)	4.41 (0.76)	1.40	2.12	3.08	0.41	0.73	1.11
7. Have friends.	4.72 (0.58)	4.64 (0.64)	4.48 (0.71)	4.42 (0.83)	1.13	1.56	3.04	1.61	1.24	0.44
8. Help other students.	4.42 (0.96)	4.46 (0.75)	4.38 (0.94)	4.27 (1.00)	1.57	2.91	1.01	1.08	0.86	1.44
	FUTURE OUTCOMES
1. Get awards.	4.40 (0.81)	4.53 (0.75)	4.23 (1.11)	4.41 (1.00)	1.23	.134	3.36	2.66	1.78	2.77
2. Get work done on time.	4.62 (0.64)	4.61 (0.81)	4.63 (0.58)	4.31 (0.88)	2.53	1.03	1.32	1.56	2.14	1.44
3. Try hard to understand.	4.37 (0.84)	4.85 (0.52)	4.57 (0.74)	4.38 (0.91)	3.52	1.88	2.74	2.34	1.13	2.02
4. Get along with boss.	4.40 (0.81)	4.20 (1.03)	4.30 (0.93)	4.39 (0.85)	1.01	1.36	1.08	0.22	1.23	.056
5. Do what boss says.	4.52 (0.70)	4.47 (0.70)	4.52 (0.79)	4.31 (1.09)	1.12	1.85	1.15	1.45	1.68	1.91
6. Have friends at work.	4.48 (0.79)	4.12 (1.12)	4.37 (0.82)	4.49 (0.75)	1.18	2.23	1.37	1.01	1.72	0.97
7. Help others at work.	4.53 (0.72)	4.41 (0.87)	4.55 (0.77)	4.58 (0.56)	1.45	2.96	1.23	1.49	1.09	0.18
8. Help others understand	4.53 (0.72)	4.34 (0.98)	4.47 (0.75)	4.46 (0.88)	1.04	1.25	1.00	1.59	1.31	1.18

	TEACHER		STUDENT		F VALUES
ITEM(2)	WOBD(1) mean (SD)	WBD mean (SD)	WOBD mean (SD)	WBD mean (SD)	Student		Social Agent (C)	AxB	AxC	BxC
					Type (A)	Grade (B)
	CURRENT OUTCOMES
1. Get good grades.	1.93(3)	1.87	1.95	1.63	3.01	1.39	3.43	2.20	2.71	1.99
	(1.21)	(1.23)	(1.03)	(0.76)
2. Do schoolwork on time.	1.98	1.88	2.05	1.91	1.75	2.64	1.94	0.78	1.43	1.05
	(1.30)	(1.14)	(1.17)	(0.84)
3. Try hard.	2.03	2.07	2.17	1.91	2.03	1.30	3.12	1.99	2.34	2.10
	(1.25)	(1.24)	(1.28)	(1.03)
4. Get along with teachers.	2.03	2.67	1.77	1.44	9.87**	1.32	9.84**	3.12	2.78	3.01
	(1.77)	(1.22)	(1.06)	(0.95)
5. Do what teacher says.	2.02	2.80	1.88	2.96	11.15**	2.30	7.29**	3.43	2.99	3.22
	(1.04)	(1.41)	(1.04)	(0.74)
6. Help classmates understand.	1.88	1.53	1.80	1.72	2.96	1.67	3.51	1.40	1.67	1.63
	(1.06)	(0..95)	(0.93)	(0.86)
7. Have friends.	1.77	1.71	1.67	1.83	2.63	2.05	1.38	1.82	2.06	1.02
	(1.33)	(1.23)	(1.21)	(1.01)
8. Help other students.	1.90	1.52	1.78	1.53	2.20	2.55	1.17	1.23	1.24	1.66
	(1.29)	(1.06)	(1.06)	(.82)
	FUTURE OUTCOMES
1. Get awards.	2.55	3.57	2.45	3.42	18.17***	1.97	1.95	2.27	1.87	2.34
	(1.32)	(1.68)	(1.40)	(1.43)
2. Get work done on time.	3.12	3.48	2.75	3.59	14.30***	3.16	1.98	2.79	2.35	2.22
	(1.37)	(1.51)	(1.34)	(1.11)
3. Try hard to understand.	2.70	3.47	2.28	3.42	27.79***	2.22	2.05	3.02	2.94	1.89
	(0.84)	(0.52)	(0.74)	(0.91)
4. Get along with boss.	2.60	3.50	2.43	3.44	30.587***	2.30	1.26	2.23	1.37	1.96
	(1.33)	(1.53)	(1.24)	(1.23)
5. Do what boss says.	2.77	3.57	2.67	3.49	20.58***	2.21	1.06	2.10	1.85	2.56
	(1.36)	(1.38)	(1.27)	(1.09)
6. Have friends at work.	2.77	3.50	2.35	3.37	25.55***	1.17	2.85	1.23	2.06	1.48
	(1.33)	(1.43)	(1.27)	(1.34)
7. Help others at work.	2.80	3.57	2.48	3.47	19.48***	1.89	1.20	2.53	1.54	2.03
	(0.72)	(0.87)	(0.77)	(0.56)
8. Help others understand	2.47	3.48	2.43	3.08	4.31*	2.10	2.98	2.03	1.77	2.51
	(1.27)	(1.68)	(1.27)	(1.26)