Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

Research on Social Aspects of School Adjustment

239

as self-efficacy and values were taken into account (Wentzel,

1996).

Implications for Future Research

Several themes emerge from the literature on educational

goals and objectives that are relevant for understanding

school adjustment from an ecological perspective. First, an

examination of which goals a student is trying to achieve and

the degree to which these goals are compatible with the ex-

pectations and requirements of the classroom can explain in

part students’ overall success and adjustment at school. Of

concern, however, is that explanations of competence based

on students’ pursuit of socially valued goals assumes that stu-

dents understand how they are supposed to behave and what

it is they are supposed to accomplish while at school. For

some students these expectations are not always immediately

obvious. In particular, young children who are just beginning

school and students who are raised in cultures with goals and

values dissimilar to those espoused by educational institu-

tions might also need explicit guidance with respect to the

goals they are expected to achieve (Ogbu, 1985). 

In addition, teachers do not always communicate clearly

their own goals for their students. In two recent studies of

young adolescents, almost half the students reported that

their current teachers did not have clear classroom rules for

them to follow, nor did they think their teachers had ex-

plained what would happen if rules were broken (Wentzel,

2000; Wentzel, Battle, & Cusick, 2000). Therefore, the more

explicit and clearly defined teachers can make the social ex-

pectations for classroom conduct, the more likely it is that

students will at least understand the goals they are expected

to achieve. The identification of contextual factors as well as

student attributes that make these expectations more or less

salient to students is an important challenge for researchers of

classroom goal pursuit.

It also is worth noting that only a limited number of social

goals have been studied in relation to academic outcomes.

However, a broad array of goals that reflect social concerns and

influences are potentially relevant for understanding students’

academic motivation and general adjustment to school. Ford

(1992) has identified three general categories of goals that re-

quire input from or interaction with the social environment:

integrative social relationship goals, self-assertive social rela-

tionship goals, and task goals. The social relationship goals

identified by Ford are perhaps most relevant to the social moti-

vational issues raised thus far, with goals to benefit the welfare

of others and the social group (integrative social relationship

goals) having been studied most frequently (e.g., Ford, 1996;

Wentzel, 1991a, 1993a, 1994). In addition, a focus on self-

assertive social relationship goals (e.g., obtaining help or re-

sources from others) reminds us of the potential benefits of so-

cial relationships to the individual. An inclusion of these goals

in studies of academic motivation (e.g., Ryan & Pintrich, 1997)

would provide added insight into issues of how individuals de-

rive personal benefits from working and learning with others.

In addition, development and testing of theoretical models

that explain links between social motivation and academic

achievement are needed. At the simplest level, positive rela-

tions between social and academic variables might reflect that

students are rewarded for their social efforts with good grades.

Goals to achieve social and academic outcomes might also be

related in more complex fashion, functioning in an interde-

pendent, hierarchical manner. For instance, goal hierarchies

can develop over time as individuals are taught to prioritize

goals and to associate goals with each other in causal fashion

(Pervin, 1983). With respect to students’ goals, children might

come to school with a basic goal to establish positive relation-

ships with others. Over time, this goal might become linked

causally to more specific goals such as to establish a positive

relationship with teachers. This relationship goal might be ac-

complished by pursuing even more specific goals such as to

behave appropriately, to pay attention, or to complete assign-

ments. Similarly, children might learn that in order to achieve

a rather global goal of demonstrating competence, they first

must achieve subordinate goals such as learning subject mat-

ter, outperforming others, or supporting group efforts (see

Ames, 1992). Therefore, students learn which goals are most

important to achieve and how the attainment of one set of

goals can lead to the attainment of others.

The concept of goal hierarchies also is helpful for under-

standing ways in which beliefs about relations among social

and task-related goals might have an impact on efforts to

achieve academically. For instance, students might pursue

goals to do well at academic tasks in order to achieve a social

goal to please one’s parents or teachers; students might try to

engage in academic tasks because they see this as a way to

achieve goals to cooperate or to comply with classroom rules;

or students might believe that pleasing a teacher by behaving

in socially appropriate ways will ultimately result in accom-

plishing academic goals. For the most part, students who be-

lieve that achieving at learning tasks can be accomplished

solely by social means (e.g., pleasing a teacher) are setting

themselves up for failure. However, cooperative learning ac-

tivities provide contexts wherein students who pursue this

kind of goal hierarchy might experience positive academic

gains (e.g., Damon & Phelps, 1989). Similarly, students who

believe that adhering to socially derived rules and conventions

will lead to task-related accomplishments also are more likely

to be successful than are those who do not. Most academic

240

School Adjustment

activities are governed by procedures and behavioral conven-

tions that facilitate successful completion of tasks.

Furthermore, students might have multiple reasons for try-

ing to achieve academically, some of which are social. There-

fore, in situations in which a learning activity is less than

stimulating or interesting to students, reasons other than an

intrinsic interest in the task might be needed to motivate per-

formance. In such cases, multiple social as well as task-

related reasons for engaging in the task, such as I’ll probably

learn something, it’s what I’m supposed to do, it will get me a

job someday, it will please mom and dad, or it will impress

my friends can provide a powerful motivational foundation

for promoting continued engagement. 

Finally, an identification of specific self-regulatory strate-

gies that enable students to accomplish multiple goals simul-

taneously seems essential for helping students coordinate

demands to achieve multiple and often conflicting goals at

school. For instance, some students who try to pursue multi-

ple goals might be unable to coordinate the pursuit of their

goals into an organized system of behavior, and as a conse-

quence they become distracted or overwhelmed when facing

particularly demanding aspects of tasks that require focused

concentration and attention. Students who are unable to coor-

dinate social goals and academically related goals might opt

to pursue social relationship goals with peers (e.g., to have

fun) in lieu of task-related goals such as to complete class

assignments. Students with effective goal coordination skills

would likely find a way to achieve both goals—for instance,

by doing homework with friends. 

Behavioral Competence: Prosocial and Socially

Responsible Behavior

Behavioral competence at school has been studied most often

with respect to adherence to social rules and expectations re-

flecting cooperation, respect for others, and positive forms of

group participation that govern social interaction in the class-

room. Most generally, positive aspects of behavioral outcomes

are studied in terms of prosocial and responsible behavior,

with behavioral incompetence taking the form of aggressive

and antisocial behavior (Wentzel, 1991c). Interpersonal

competence—especially establishing positive relationships

with peers—also has been a focus of empirical investigations.

Of interest for the present discussion is the degree to

which these social competencies contribute to academic ac-

complishments. Correlational studies indicate that tenden-

cies to be prosocial and empathic (Feshbach & Feshbach,

1987), prosocial interactions with peers (Cobb, 1972; Green,

Forehand, Beck, & Vosk, 1980), appropriate classroom

conduct (Entwisle, Alexander, Pallas, & Cadigan, 1987;

Lambert & Nicoll, 1977), and compliance have been related

positively to intellectual outcomes in the elementary years.

Positive social interactions of preschool children also predict

engagement and positive motivational orientations in the

classroom (Coolahan, Fantuzzo, Mendez, & McDermott,

2000). In a meta-analysis of factors related to early learning

problems, social-emotional factors explained as much or

more variance in achievement as intellectual abilities, sen-

sory deficits, or neurological factors explained (Horn &

Packard, 1985). Similarly, socially responsible decision mak-

ing in adolescents has been related positively to academic

outcomes (Ford, 1982; Wentzel, Wood, Seisfeld, Stevens, &

Ford, 1987). Young adolescents’ prosocial behavior also has

been related positively to classroom grades and standardized

test scores (Wentzel, 1991a, 1993b).

Longitudinal studies also have linked behavioral com-

petence to academic achievements. Safer (1986) found that

elementary grade retention is related to conduct as well as to

academic problems, whereas recurring nonpromotion at the

junior high level is related primarily to classroom misconduct

and other behavioral problems. Adaptive classroom behavior

in elementary school predicts later grades and test scores in

elementary school (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1993) as

well as in high school (Lambert, 1972), over and above early

achievement and IQ. Similarly, Feldhusen, Thurston, and

Benning (1970) found that aggressive and disruptive behav-

ior in the third and sixth grades is a strong negative predictor

of classroom grades in middle school and high school after

taking into account IQ, sex, grade level, and other demo-

graphic factors. Based on a comprehensive review of both

follow-up and follow-back studies, Parker and Asher (1987)

concluded that antisocial and aggressive behavior in the early

grades places children at risk for dropping out of high school.

Interventions that teach children appropriate social responses

to instruction—such as paying attention and volunteering

answers—have led to significant and stable gains in academic

achievement (Cobb & Hopps, 1973; Hopps & Cobb, 1974).

Finally, behaving in prosocial and responsible ways is re-

lated to positive relationships with teachers and peers. Indeed,

teachers’preferences for students are based in large part on stu-

dents’ social behavior in the classroom (e.g., Brophy & Good,

1974; Wentzel, 2000). Likewise, acceptance by peers is related

to prosocial and responsible behavior, whereas rejection is re-

lated to a lack of behavioral competence (Coie, Dodge, &

Kupersmidt, 1990; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993).

Implications for Future Research

Clear and consistent relations between students’ prosocial

and responsible classroom behavior and their academic

Research on Social Aspects of School Adjustment

241

accomplishments have been documented. However, re-

searchers have not focused consistently on why these relations

exist despite ongoing and serious concerns about students’

classroom behavior and how to manage it (see Doyle, 1986).

Nevertheless, there are several ways in which social behavior

can contribute to achievement at school. First, prosocial and

responsible behavior can contribute to academic achievement

by creating a context conducive to learning. Quite simply, stu-

dents’ adherence to classroom rules and displays of socially

competent behavior allows teachers to focus their efforts on

teaching rather than classroom management. Presumably, all

students will learn more when this occurs. In addition, being

socially responsible also means conforming to rules and con-

ventions for completing learning activities; teachers provide

students with procedures for accomplishing academic tasks

and dictate specific criteria and standards for performance.

Students who follow these rules are more likely to excel aca-

demically than those who do not. Finally, constructivist theo-

ries of development (Piaget, 1965; Youniss & Smollar, 1989)

propose that positive social interactions (e.g., cooperative and

collaborative problem solving) can create cognitive conflict

that hastens the development of higher-order thinking skills

and cognitive structures. Empirical research supports this no-

tion in that cooperative learning results in greatest gains when

interactive questioning and explanation are an explicit part of

the learning task (e.g., Damon & Phelps, 1989; Slavin, 1987).

An important issue with respect to these models, however,

concerns the direction of effects. Assuming that causal rela-

tions do exist, is it that behavioral competence influences

learning and achievement or that academic success promotes

behavioral competence? It is clear that bidirectional influ-

ences exist. For instance, negative academic feedback can lead

to acting out, noncompliance, and other forms of irresponsible

behavior. From a developmental perspective, however, anti-

social behavior and a lack of prosocial skills appear to begin

with poor family relationships (e.g., Patterson & Bank, 1989).

Therefore, how children are taught to behave before they enter

school should have at least an initial impact on how they be-

have and subsequently learn at school. In addition, interven-

tions designed to increase academic skills do not necessarily

lead to decreases in antisocial behavior (Patterson, Bank, &

Stoolmiller, 1990), nor do they enhance social skills typically

associated with academic achievement (Hopps & Cobb,

1974). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that at least to

some degree, behavioral competence precedes academic com-

petence at school.

Relations between behavioral and academic compe-

tence, however, might not be as straightforward as this litera-

ture suggests. For instance, Hinshaw (1992) concludes that

aggressive and delinquent behavior are stronger correlates of

underachievement for adolescents than for elementary-aged

children. Moreover, whereas aggressive, externalizing behav-

ior in young children appears to be the result of academic dif-

ficulties, the reverse seems to be true for older children. At

both stages of development, however, Hinshaw argues that as-

sociations are fairly weak, especially when other factors such

as family influences or developmental delays are taken into

account.

Interpersonal Relationships With Peers and Teachers

A final aspect of social competence that appears to be a

valued educational objective is the formation of positive in-

terpersonal relationships with peers and teachers. As with

behavioral competence, positive interpersonal relationships

are necessary for successful group functioning. In addition,

it is likely that having positive and supportive relationships

with teachers and peers contributes to feelings of relatedness

and belongingness that in turn motivate the adoption of other

socially valued goals (Connell & Wellborn, 1991). In the fol-

lowing sections, research on school adjustment as defined by

peer relationships is discussed first, followed by research on

teacher-student relationships. 

Relationships With Peers

Although children are interested in and even emotionally at-

tached to their peers at all ages, they exhibit increased interest

in their peers and a growing psychological and emotional

dependence on them for support and guidance as they make

the transition into adolescence (Steinberg, 1990; Youniss &

Smollar, 1989). One reason for this growing interest is that

many young adolescents enter new middle school structures

that necessitate interacting with larger numbers of peers on a

daily basis. In contrast to the greater predictability of self-

contained classroom environments in elementary school, the

relative uncertainty and ambiguity of multiple classroom en-

vironments, new instructional styles, and more complex class

schedules often result in middle school students turning to

each other for information, social support, and ways to cope.

Therefore, the quality of peer relationships is of special inter-

est as an indicator of school adjustment in middle school and

high school. At all ages, however, peer relationships have been

studied in relation to a range of academic accomplishments.

Peer relationships have typically been defined in three

ways: levels of peer acceptance or rejection, dyadic friend-

ships, and peer groups. Peer acceptance and rejection are often

assessed along a continuum of social preference (e.g., How

much do you like this person?) or in terms of sociometric status

groups (i.e., popular-, rejected-, neglected-, controversial-, and

242

School Adjustment

average-status children). Sociometrically rejected children are

those who are infrequently nominated as someone’s best friend

and are actively disliked by their peers, whereas neglected chil-

dren are those who are infrequently nominated as a best friend

but are not strongly disliked by their peers. Controversial chil-

dren are frequently nominated as someone’s best friend and

as being actively disliked, whereas popular children are fre-

quently nominated as a best friend and rarely disliked by their

peers. In general, when compared to average-status peers (i.e.,

students with scores that do not fall into these statistically de-

fined groups), popular students tend to be more prosocial and

sociable and less aggressive; rejected students tend to be less

compliant, less self-assured, less sociable, and more aggressive

and withdrawn; neglected students tend to be more motivated

and compliant and less aggressive and sociable; and controver-

sial students tend to be less compliant and more aggressive and

sociable (Newcomb et al., 1993; Parkhurst & Asher, 1992;

Wentzel, 1991a; Wentzel & Asher, 1995).

Most researchers interested in peer relationships and acad-

emic achievement have studied sociometric status or peer ac-

ceptance. Their work has yielded consistent findings relating

popular status and acceptance to successful academic perfor-

mance, and rejected status and low levels of acceptance to

academic difficulties (e.g., Austin & Draper, 1984; DeRosier,

Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994; Wentzel, 1991a). Findings

are most consistent with respect to classroom grades

(Hatzichristou & Hopf, 1996; Wentzel, 1991a), although peer

acceptance has been related positively to standardized test

scores (Austin & Draper, 1984) as well as IQ (Wentzel,

1991a). Moreover, results are robust for elementary-aged chil-

dren as well as adolescents, and longitudinal studies docu-

ment the stability of these relations over time (e.g., Wentzel &

Caldwell, 1997).

In addition to measures of cognitive and academic ability,

being accepted by peers also has been related positively to

motivational outcomes, including satisfaction with school,

pursuit of goals to learn and to behave in socially appropriate

ways (Wentzel, 1994; Wentzel & Asher, 1995), and perceived

academic competence (Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993).

In contrast, being rejected by peers has been related to low

levels of interest in school (Wentzel & Asher, 1995) and

disengaging altogether by dropping out (Hymel, Comfort,

Schonert-Reichl, & McDougall, 1996; Parker & Asher,

1987). Peer status also has been related to prosocial and

socially responsible goal pursuit during middle school

(Wentzel, 1991b). When compared with average-status chil-

dren, popular children reported more frequent pursuit of

prosocial goals, neglected students reported more frequent

pursuit of prosocial and social responsibility goals, and con-

troversial students reported less frequent pursuit of responsi-

bility goals.

Peers also exert influence at the level of dyadic relation-

ships, or friendships, and within smaller cliques and groups

(Brown, 1989). In general, when children are with friends, they

engage in more positive interactions, resolve more conflicts,

and accomplish tasks with greater proficiency than they do

when they are with nonfriends (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995).

Research linking friendships to academic achievement is

sparse. However, having friends has been related positively to

grades and test scores in elementary school and middle school

(Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). During

adolescence, stable, reciprocal friendships also appear to have

a greater impact on educational outcomes than do unrecipro-

cated and unstable friendships (Epstein, 1989; Kandel, 1978).

Although almost all of these findings have been correlational, a

recent longitudinal study suggests that the relation of having a

friend to positive academic achievements is stable over 2 years

of middle school (Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).

Having friends also has been related to other aspects of

school adjustment. For instance, children entering kinder-

garten with existing friends and those who are able to make

new friends appear to make better social and academic adjust-

ments to school than do those who do not (Ladd, 1990; Ladd &

Price, 1987). Having friends at school also appears to support

other motivational outcomes such as involvement and engage-

ment in school-related activities (Berndt & Keefe, 1995;

Berndt, Laychak, & Park, 1990; Ladd, 1990; Ladd & Price,

1987; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). In kindergarten, friendships

characterized by nurturance predict positive motivational out-

comes such as liking school and engaging in classroom activ-

ities, whereas those characterized by conflict predict less than

optimal outcomes (Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1996).

For the most part, dyadic friendships in adolescence appear to

exert only minimal overt influence on student motivation (see

Berndt & Keefe, 1996). However, Berndt and Keefe argue that

when influence in adolescence does occur, it is likely to sup-

port positive behavior such as academic studying, making

plans for college, and avoiding antisocial, self-destructive ac-

tions (e.g., Berndt et al., 1990; Epstein, 1983).

A final aspect of peer relationships that has been studied in

relation to academic achievement is group membership. A dis-

tinction between friendship and peer group influence is impor-

tant given that friendships reflect relatively private, egalitarian

relationships, whereas peer groups, although they are often

self-selected, are likely to have publicly acknowledged hierar-

chical relationships based on personal characteristics valued

by the group (Brown, 1989; McAuliffe & Dembo, 1994). In

contrast to peer status, which is measured by unilateral assess-

ments of a child’s relative standing or reputation within the

peer group, group membership is typically assessed by asking

students who actually hangs out in groups with each other or

by identifying clusters of friends who form a group.