Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

Social Influences on School Adjustment

247

findings provide some support for these models. When asked

to characterize teachers who care (Wentzel, 1997), middle

school students described teachers who demonstrate democra-

tic and egalitarian communication styles designed to elicit stu-

dent participation and input, who develop expectations for

student behavior and performance in light of individual differ-

ences and abilities, who model a caring attitude and interest in

their instruction and interpersonal dealings with students, and

who provide constructive rather than harsh and critical feed-

back. Moreover, students who perceive their teachers to dis-

play high levels of these characteristics also tend to pursue

appropriate social and academic classroom goals more fre-

quently than do students who do not (Wentzel, 2002a).

Little is known about how teachers define their roles as so-

cialization agents. In a recent interview study, however, mid-

dle school teachers offered a variety of important things that

they did in the classroom—ranging from instruction to pro-

moting students’ social and emotional development (Wentzel,

2000). For instance, half of the 20 teachers mentioned pro-

moting social-emotional development as an important part of

their job, 40% mentioned instruction and establishing posi-

tive teacher-student relationships, and 33% mentioned class-

room management and the teaching of learning skills. In

addition, a good day for teachers was typically described as

one in which students are motivated and on task, whereas bad

days were those in which classroom management issues and

problems with instruction were prevalent.

Peers as Socializers of School Adjustment

Models of socialization by adults have not been used to un-

derstand ways in which children influence each other’s devel-

opment. In fact, interactions with peers have been viewed

most often as having a potentially negative impact on the

pursuit and achievement of educational goals (Berndt, 1999).

Group work is often seen as antithetical to individual achieve-

ment, and peer norms are generally believed to be antagonis-

tic to those of the school. However, peer acceptance among

school-aged children is based in large part on cooperative,

prosocial, and nonaggressive types of behavior (Coie et al.,

1990), and positive peer interactions tend to promote the de-

velopment of perspective-taking and empathic skills that

serve as bases for prosocial interactions (e.g., Youniss, 1994;

Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Moreover, as noted earlier, posi-

tive relationships with peers have been consistently related to

positive academic outcomes.

Can parenting or teacher models of socialization be used

to understand peer influence? Although empirical evidence is

generally lacking, children—like adults—articulate sets of

goals that they would like and expect each other to achieve.

Specific aspects of peer contexts and interactions that lead

children to pursue these goals are not well understood. How-

ever, peer group membership has been associated with the

development of classroom goals in several ways. For exam-

ple, the larger peer group can be the source for behavioral

standards, as well as the mechanism whereby classroom rules

are monitored and enforced; this is especially the case when

students as a group are held accountable for the behavior of

the group’s members or when teachers use peer group leaders

to monitor the class when they must leave their classrooms

(Sieber, 1979). Students also have been observed to monitor

each other by ignoring noninstructional behavior and re-

sponses during group instruction and by private sanctioning

of inappropriate conduct (Eder & Felmlee, 1984; Sieber,

1979).

Cooperative learning activities can also provide contexts

in which peers hold each other accountable to certain stan-

dards of conduct. Indeed, socially responsible behavior in

the form of helping and sharing knowledge and expertise is

an integral part of the cooperative learning process (Ames &

Ames, 1984; Slavin, 1987). With respect to goal pursuit, the

group enforces individual efforts to achieve common goals

that represent both social and task-related outcomes (see

also Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1988). It should

be noted, however, that peer monitoring of behavior is a

useful motivational tool only insofar as the peer group

has adopted adult standards for achievement and norms for

conduct. As children enter middle school and establishing

independence from adult influence becomes a developmen-

tal task, it is less likely that students will automatically en-

force their teachers’ classroom rules (Eccles & Midgley,

1989).

Students’ Beliefs as Mediating Processes

Of final interest for a discussion of socialization influences is

that differences in the degree to which a student believes that

teachers and peers accept and care about him or her might ac-

count in large part for significant links between the nature of

interpersonal relationships at school and aspects of school

adjustment. Indeed, individuals construct beliefs about them-

selves and their social worlds as they experience and interact

with others. Subjective beliefs concerning acceptance and

support from classmates and teachers represent an important

aspect of social cognitive functioning that might influence

behavior to a greater degree than actual levels of acceptance

and support (see Harter, 1996; Harter, Stocker, & Robinson,

1996; Parker & Asher, 1987). The role of these beliefs in ex-

plaining ways in which teachers and peers exert influence is

explored next.

248

School Adjustment

Research on perceived social support underscores the im-

portant role that students’ perceptions and interpretations of

their peers’ and teachers’ behavior plays in their active pursuit

of appropriate classroom goals. Few studies have examined

sociometric status in relation to students’ own perceptions of

their peer relationships (cf. Zakriski & Coie, 1996). However,

students who believe that their peers support and care about

them tend to be more engaged in positive aspects of class-

room life than do students who do not perceive such support.

In particular, perceived social and emotional support from

peers has been associated positively with prosocial outcomes

such as helping, sharing, and cooperating, and it has been

related negatively to antisocial forms of behavior (Wentzel,

1994). Young adolescents who do not perceive their relation-

ships with peers as positive and supportive also tend to

be at risk for academic problems (e.g., Goodenow, 1993;

Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Phelan et al., 1991). In

addition, perceived social and emotional support from peers

has been associated with pursuit of academic and prosocial

goals (DuBois, Felner, Brand, Adan, & Evans, 1992; Felner,

Aber, Primavera, & Cauce, 1985; Harter, 1996; Wentzel,

1994, 1997, 1998). It is interesting that perceived support

from peers appears to be more strongly related to pursuit of

goals to be prosocial than is perceived support from parents

and teachers (Wentzel, 1998).

Perceived support from teachers also has been related

to positive motivational outcomes, including the pursuit of

goals to learn and to behave prosocially and responsibly,

educational aspirations and values, and self-concept (Felner

et al., 1985; Goodenow, 1993; Harter, 1996; Marjoribanks,

1985; Midgley et al., 1989; Wentzel, 1994). In middle school,

students’ perceptions that teachers care about them have been

related to positive aspects of student motivation such as pur-

suit of social and academic goals, mastery orientations to-

ward learning, and academic interest (Wentzel, 1997). In a

recent study of perceived support from teachers, parents, and

peers (Wentzel, 1998), perceived support from teachers was

unique in its relation to students’ interest in class and pursuit

of goals to adhere to classroom rules and norms. Finally,

Eccles and her colleagues (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles,

1988; Midgley et al., 1989) found that young adolescents re-

port declines in the nurturing qualities of teacher-student

relationships after the transition to middle school; these de-

clines correspond to declines in academic motivation and

achievement. As students proceed through middle school,

they also report that teachers become more focused on stu-

dents’ earning high grades, competition between students,

and maintaining adult control, with a decrease in personal

interest in students (Harter, 1990, 1996). Students who report

these changes also tend to report less intrinsic motivation to

achieve than do students who do not report such changes

(Harter, 1996).

Implications for Future Research

A growing body of evidence suggests that models of socializa-

tion might be well suited for understanding which goals chil-

dren pursue at school and the degree to which these goals have

been internalized and represent personal values. Socialization

models are especially important to consider with respect to the

content of students’ goals, given that successful students must

achieve social and academic objectives that are imposed ex-

ternally by adults. In this regard, it is important to note that

some students reject these goals outright. It is likely that other

students merely comply with these expectations and present

the impression that they are interested in achieving what is re-

quired when in fact they are not (see Juvonen, 1996; Sivan,

1986). Some students, however, are likely to have internalized

adult-valued goals and are committed to achieving them re-

gardless of competing expectations. Therefore, identifying the

precise socialization experiences that lead to these fundamen-

tally different orientations toward learning remains a signifi-

cant challenge to the field.

Several issues remain unresolved with respect to teacher

influences on student goal setting. First, teachers tend to

focus on different issues depending on the age of their stu-

dents. For instance, teachers of early elementary and junior

high school students tend to spend more of their time on is-

sues related to social conduct than do teachers at other grade

levels (Brophy & Evertson, 1978). In addition, the contribu-

tion of various socialization agents to the development and

internalization of goals and values might also change with

age. Whereas parents and teachers might facilitate the learn-

ing and adoption of goals in young children, peers might play

an increasingly important role as children reach adolescence. 

The reward structures that teachers establish in their class-

rooms also might have differential impact depending on stu-

dents’ age and family environment. Ames (1984, 1992) has

identified several classroom reward structures that communi-

cate the value of goals to compete with others, to improve

one’s own personal performance, and to cooperate with group

efforts. However, middle school and high school students

might be more attuned than are elementary-aged children to

evaluation practices that are competitive and normative (see

Harter, 1996; Ruble, 1983). Students from families who stress

mastery over performance might also be less susceptible

to teacher practices that focus on performance and ability

(Ames & Archer, 1987). In addition, teachers are likely to dif-

fer in their promotion of specific classroom goals as well as be-

liefs concerning what it means to be a successful student. For

Social Influences on School Adjustment

249

example, a student who pursues social needs for relatedness

and therefore chooses to adopt classroom goals valued by her

or his teacher might learn that being better than others (pursu-

ing competitive goals) defines success, whereas this same

student might learn from another teacher that progressively

mastering subject matter (achieving individualistic goals) or

perhaps even behaving cooperatively (achieving prosocial

goals) defines success (see Ames, 1984, 1992). Therefore, it is

difficult to predict which students will be most successful

without knowing the content of goals and belief systems being

communicated by individual teachers.

Perhaps one of the more interesting questions with respect

to socialization within peer contexts is the strength of peer in-

fluence compared to that of parents and other adults. Studies of

parents and peers provide evidence that parents can influence

their children to a much greater extent than can peers (Youniss

& Smollar, 1989). Moreover, it appears that the existence or

quality of peer relationships is not destined to influence moti-

vation negatively or positively if supportive relationships with

parents or teachers exist. With respect to practice, these find-

ings imply that although peer influence might be strong, it can

be superseded. In fact, interventions to offset the often nega-

tive influence of peer groups and gangs might be especially

successful if children are exposed to interactions with adults

who can instill a sense of autonomy, mutuality, warmth, and

guidance into their relationships with these children (see

Heath & McLaughlin, 1993). Moreover, peer group member-

ship tends to change frequently, suggesting that influence by a

particular group might also be fairly transient. Therefore, hav-

ing access to adult relationships that are stable and predictable

also should contribute positively to intervention efforts.

With respect to the issue of social support and student pur-

suit of socially valued goals, it is possible that students who

perceive low levels of social support experience psychological

distress that in turn will increase focus on the self and decrease

the likelihood of positive orientations toward learning and so-

cial interactions. In support of this specific focus on emotion

regulation are findings that perceived support from families is

related negatively to depression and depressive affect in young

adolescents (Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Feldman, Rubenstein

& Rubin, 1988; Kaplan, Robins, & Martin, 1983; Wenz-Gross,

Siperstein, Untch & Widaman, 1997). Other studies have

linked psychological distress and depression to interest in

school (Wentzel, Weinberger, Ford, & Feldman, 1990) as well

as to academic performance (Harter, 1990; Wentzel et al.,

1990). Negative emotional states have been related to negative

attitudes, poor adjustment to school (Dubow & Tisak, 1989),

and ineffective cognitive functioning (Jacobsen, Edelstein,

& Hofmann, 1994). The relevance of this literature for

understanding the impact of social relationships on student

outcomes is demonstrated in recent work documenting that

emotional distress can explain (in part) significant relations be-

tween perceived support from peers and young adolescents’in-

terest in school (Wentzel, 1998), as well as between peer

acceptance and adolescents’ prosocial behavior (Wentzel &

McNamara, 1999). Actual levels of peer rejection as well as

peer harassment have also been linked to perceived academic

competence and achievement by way of negative affect (Guay

et al., 1999; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000).

Future research also might focus on identifying additional

student characteristics that predispose students to perceive

relationships with adults and peers in either positive or nega-

tive ways. The literature on peer relationships suggests that

children who are socially rejected tend to believe that others

are out to harm them when in fact they are not, and such

children choose to pursue inappropriate and often antisocial

goals in social situations (see Dodge & Feldman, 1990;

Erdley, 1996). Over time, these children develop peer rela-

tionships marked by mistrust and hostility. Similar research

has not been conducted on student-teacher relationships.

However, it is possible that students who believe that teach-

ers do not like them might also be perceiving and interpreting

these adult relationships in ways that are biased and un-

founded. Therefore, efforts to promote perceptions that peers

and teachers are caring and supportive are likely to be most

successful if students themselves are targets of intervention.

It also is important to extend our understanding of the un-

derlying belief systems that are reflected in a general percep-

tion of social support. In this regard, Ford (1992) has described

a set of context beliefs about social relationships and settings

that have the potential to link generalized perceptions of social

support and belongingness to classroom functioning. Specifi-

cally, Ford argues that within specific situations, individuals

formulate beliefs concerning the correspondence between

their personal goals and those of others, the degree to which

others will provide access to information and resources neces-

sary to achieve one’s goals, and the extent to which social

relationships will provide an emotionally supportive environ-

ment. This implies that students will engage in positive social

and academic activities when they perceive the classroom as a

place that provides opportunities to achieve social and acade-

mic goals; as a safe and responsive environment; as a place

that facilitates the achievement of goals by providing help, ad-

vice, and instruction; and as a place that is emotionally sup-

portive and nurturing. Recent research (Wentzel et al., 2000)

demonstrates that students can define their classroom relation-

ships along these dimensions, with respect to teachers as well

as to peers. Moreover, these dimensions appear to predict stu-

dents’ classroom behavior, their motivation to behave appro-

priately, and their interest in subject matter.

250

School Adjustment

These context beliefs most likely reflect the outcome of

students’ history of interacting with specific teachers and

peers at school. For instance, students who come to school

with strong motives to behave prosocially rather than com-

petitively (e.g., Knight & Kagan, 1977) might develop a gen-

eralized belief that classroom goals are antagonistic to their

personal goals if they have a history of interacting with teach-

ers who have rewarded demonstrations of superiority rather

than equality. Similarly, students might have experienced

teachers who have not taken the time to give them extra help

(Brophy & Evertson, 1978) or who have failed to provide op-

portunities for students to model skills for each other in inter-

active settings (Schunk, 1987). These students also are likely

to perceive the classroom as an unsupportive if not hostile

learning environment. Research that examines the degree to

which negative context beliefs can be changed to reflect a

more positive outlook might provide valuable insights into

ways that the social context of the classroom can be engi-

neered to have a maximum impact on students’ adoption and

pursuit of appropriate classroom goals. 

CONCLUSIONS AND PROVOCATIONS

FOR THE FIELD

Throughout this chapter, I have highlighted the importance of

defining school adjustment within an ecological, systemic

framework. In doing so, I have documented the importance

of social motivational processes, behavioral competence, and

interpersonal relationships not only as critical aspects of

school adjustment, but also as a complex and interrelated set

of outcomes that contribute to academic accomplishments. In

addition, work that underscores the importance of students’

interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers in pro-

moting healthy and adaptive functioning at school has been

described. Although definitions of school adjustment and the

relative importance of various outcomes are likely to vary de-

pending on context-specific values and norms of a classroom,

the literature provides strong support for the notion that gen-

eral levels of adjustment require personal attributes such as

the ability to coordinate multiple goals, motivation to behave

in socially desirable ways, and the social skills necessary to

behave in socially competent ways. In turn, it appears that the

development of these personal attributes can be supported by

developmentally appropriate expectations for behavior, as

well as provisions of emotional and social support, auton-

omy, and consistency and structure on the part of teachers

and peers. 

Beyond these basic observations, however, many interest-

ing and provocative questions remain. In conclusion, therefore,

I would like to raise several general issues in need of additional

consideration and empirical investigation if educational psy-

chologists are to make progress in understanding children’s ad-

justment to school. These issues concern the expectations and

goals we hold for our students, the role of developmental

processes in choosing these goals (and therefore in how we

view healthy adjustment), the development of more sophisti-

cated models to guide research on school adjustment, and re-

search methods and designs.

Defining School Adjustment 

Perhaps our most important task as researchers and educators

is to come to terms with the questions raised at the beginning

of this chapter: What are our educational goals for our chil-

dren? Do we want to teach simply to the test or nurture our

children in ways that will help them become productive and

healthy adults and citizens? By the same token, what are the

goals that children bring with them to school? Do they strive

to excel in relation to their peers, satisfy their curiosities, get

along with others, or simply feel safe? In order to understand

fully children’s adjustment to school, it is imperative that we

continue to seek answers to these questions and identify ways

to coordinate these often antagonistic goals to achieve a

healthy balance of multiple objectives. Indeed, the process of

achieving more adaptive levels of adjustment will always in-

clude negotiations and coordination of the multiple and often

conflicting goals of teachers, peers, students themselves, and

their parents.

Although we as educational psychology researchers are

beginning to understand the basic goals that most teachers

and students wish to achieve, we know little about how and

why students come to learn about and to adopt these goals as

their own. For instance, how do teachers communicate their

expectations and goals to students, and which factors predis-

pose students to accept or reject these communications? We

know that parental messages are more likely to be perceived

accurately by children if they are clear and consistent, are

framed in ways that are relevant and meaningful to the child,

require decoding and processing by the child, and are per-

ceived by the child as being of clear importance to the parent

and as being conveyed with positive intentions (Grusec &

Goodnow, 1994). Do these same factors reflect effective

forms of teacher-student communication—and if so, can we

teach teachers to communicate goals and expectations to

their students in similar ways?

Similarly, we need to focus on understanding student char-

acteristics that facilitate their acceptance of teachers’ commu-

nications. Motivational factors such as perceived autonomy,

competence, and belongingness (e.g., Connell & Wellborn,