Anuario de Psicología The UB Journal of Psychology | 49/2 U niv er sitat de B A RC E L O N A M. Estrella Esturgó-Deu mesturgo@xtec.cat The Relationship between Group Class Integration, CEIP Can Llong Departament de Pedagogia Sistemàtica i Social Socio-emotional Abilities Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Autora de contacto and Disruptive Behaviours Josefina Sala-Roca Fina.Sala@uab.cat Peer Group Integration Departament de Pedagogia Sistemàtica i Social Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 08193 Bellaterra Factors Catalonia, Spain M. Estrella Esturgó-Deu Anuario de Psicología Josefina Sala-Roca N.º 49/2 | 2019 | págs. 85-93 Recibido: 19 de septiembre de 2018 Aceptado: 16 de marzo de 2019 Abstract doi: 10.1344/anpsic2019.49.9 Introduction: School is a socializing environment where a substantial part of children’s socio-emotional development takes place. For many issn: 0066-5126 | © 2019 Universitat de Barce- children, their school years are imbued with experiences of rejection lona. All rights reserved. by their peers and feelings that the teacher also berates them constantly. But the role that social-emotional skills and disruptive behaviours play in these experiences is not clear. Methodology: This study analyses the relationship between integration in the class group, social-emotional skills and disruptive behaviours in a sample of 149 pupils between the ages of 10 and 12 years, using an EQI test, sociometric test, and a teacher questionnaire. Data analysis has been done using statistic descriptive and inferential tests. Results: The results show that socio-empathy and self-as- sessment are the best predictors for reciprocity in peer group relation- ships. Emotional intelligence and disruptive behaviours have a mild effect on peer acceptance and rejection. But there are differences in the rejection factors depending on sex. The most rejected boys are the ones who have poorer emotional intelligence and who overvalue selection by their peers. The most rejected girls are the ones who are less open to the group and make fewer selections. These girls also seem to exhibit lower adaptability than girls more open to the group. Conclusions: In peer acceptance there are multiple factors involved that have synergic effects, creating a loop that could magnify the differences in children’s social abilities and in the construction of their peer social network throughout their development. Keywords Peer acceptance, peer rejection, disruptive behaviours, emotional intelli- gence, sociometric test. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUP CLASS INTEGRATION, SOCIO-EMOTIONAL ABILITIES AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOURS PEER GROUP INTEGRATION FACTORS La relación entre la integración en el grupo clase, las habi- lidades socioemocionales y las conductas disruptivas Resumen Introducción: La escuela es un espacio de socialización donde donde tiene lugar una parte sustancial del desarrollo socioemocional. Para mu- chos niños los años escolares están imbuidas de experiencias de rechazo por parte de los iguales y de continuas reprimendas de sus profesores. Pero no está claro el papel que las habilidades socioemocionales y las conductas disruptivas juegan en estas experiencias. Metodología: Este estudio analiza la relación entre la integración en el grupo aula, las hab- ilidades socioemocionales y las conductas disruptivas en una muestra de 149 estudiantes con edades comprendidas entre 10 y 12 años, utilizando el Eqi test, un test sociométrico y un cuestionario a profesores. Resulta- dos: Los resultados muestran que la socio-empatía y la auto-valoración son los mejores predictores de la reciprocidad en las relaciones de grupo. La inteligencia emocional y las conductas disruptivas tienen un papel moderado en la aceptación y rechazo de los iguales. Pero hay diferencias en el rechazo en función del sexo: Los chicos rechazados son aquellos con pobres habilidades de inteligencia emocional y los que sobreestiman las elecciones que recibirán de sus iguales. Las chicas más rechazadas son aquellas que se abren menos al grupo y realizan pocas elecciones. Estas chicas también parecen tener un menor nivel de adaptabilidad que las chicas más abiertas al grupo. Conclusiones: En la aceptación de los iguales hay múltiples factores implicados con efectos sinérgicos, crean- do una espiral que puede magnificar las diferencias en las habilidades sociales de los niños y en la construcción de su red social a lo largo del desarrollo. Palabras clave Aceptación de los iguales, rechazo de los iguales, conductas disruptivas, inteligencia emocional, test sociométrico. INTRODUCTION S chool is a socializing environment where children Disruptive behaviours are behaviours that make edu- not only learn to read and sum, but also learn a sub- cation processes and peer relationships difficult (Muñoz, stantial part of their socio-emotional development, Carreras, & Braza, 2004). It seems that emotions are an because it is the place where they spend most of their time important factor in disruptive behaviours (Extremera & with their peers. For many children, their school years are Fernández-Berrocal, 2004; Hernandez & Fister, 2001). imbued with experiences of rejection by their peers and Impulsivity and lack of self-control are underlying fac- feelings that the teacher also berates them constantly. The tors. In most cases, they are involuntary and respond to origin of these difficulties of interaction could be explained pupils’ marked impulsiveness and inability to control by deficits in socio-emotional skills, which lead them to themselves (Esturgó-Deu & Sala-Roca, 2010). On some disruptive behaviours and could also motivate the rejec- occasions these behaviours are a symptom of a psycho- tion by peers. And in turn, peer rejection would lead to a logical condition, such as attention deficit disorder or deficit in the socializing experiences which are necessary a behavioural disorder, but in most cases they are not for the development of socio-emotional skills. In fact, linked to any disorder (Antrop, Roeyers, Oosterlaan, & bonds with peers have a positive influence on emotional Van Oost, 2002). adjustment (Oliva, Parra, & Sanchez, 2002). The ability to regulate emotions is necessary to demon- The relationship of socio-emotional skills and disrup- strate appropriate behaviour in the classroom, like re- tive behaviours with peer acceptance has never been stud- specting the turn to speak, listening to explanations, etc. ied together. That is why in this study we analyse whether These competencies are key to adapting one’s behaviour these factors have an impact on integration in the peer to the requirements of group relationships. In this regard, group in six classrooms of children from 10 to 12 years Cook, Greenberg and Kusche (1994) found that children of age. who have more behavioural problems present deficits in 86 ANUARIO DE PSICOLOGÍA | 49/2 M. ESTRELLA ESTURGÓ-DEU emotional understanding, and Cole, Usher and Cargo METHODS (1993) found that disruptive behaviour disorders are sig- nificantly related to greater difficulty in behaviour regu- Participants lation. The sample was made up of 149 pupils aged between 10 Social and emotional competences are also necessary and 12 years of primary education in one state school for group integration. Lopes, Mestre, Guil, Kremenitzer in Catalonia. We selected these ages because Meurling, and Salovey (2012) found some relationship between the Ray and Lobello (1999) found that children from grades ability to manage emotions and indicators of social adap- 5 and 6 make more of a distinction between classroom tation to school. friends and classroom best friends than do younger chil- Having friends and friendship quality are very impor- dren. There were six student groups in total, two from tant for children’s emotional wellbeing. The acceptance Year 4, two from Year 5, and two from Year 6. of others depends on one’s ability to gain membership to the group. In fact, some studies have found that young people who repeatedly experience rejection in primary INSTRUMENTS school are more likely to present externalising problems Questionnaire on disruptive behaviours in adolescence (Laird, Jordan, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2001) and higher absenteeism from school (DeRosier, To identify the children with disruptive behaviour, a Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994). questionnaire with a checklist for teachers was designed. Parkhurst and Asher (1992) found that most rejected The questionnaire consisted of a list with eight kinds of adolescent pupils were aggressive or submissive, com- disruptive behaviours that scientific literature has identi- bined with low levels of prosocial behaviour. The submis- fied. Teachers reported whether their students presented sive–rejected students reported higher levels of loneliness these types of behaviour. and worry about their relationships with others. But oth- The disruptive behaviours included in the question- er factors, such as sex, must also be considered. Morrow, naire were: 1) to disobey teacher’s instructions, 2) to Hubbard, Barhight and Thomson (2014) found some dif- move without permission, 3) to speak loudly when it’s ferences between the sexes in their reaction to peer rejec- not allowed, 4) to interrupt the class frequently, 5) not tion. Girls demonstrated greater emotional reactivity in respect the turn to speak, 6) verbal aggression, 7) physical sadness to social manipulation than did boys, and higher aggression, 8) to damage equipment, 9) other disruptive levels of peer rejection were linked to greater emotional behaviour. reactivity to multiple types of victimisation. Eight experts in emotional intelligence and disruptive While in the review of the literature conducted we behaviours validated the questionnaire. They scored on a have found several studies that indicate the relationship scale of 1 to 4 points the pertinence, univocity and com- between socio-emotional skills and disruptive behaviour, prehension of each item. All got 4 points except 5 items and with integration in the peer group, we have not found which scored 3.5. The agreement level between the ex- any study that assesses the value of this contribution. perts was .87. In this study we aim to analyse in some classroom groups the influence of social skills on integration in the Reuven Bar-On’s EQIyv Test peer group, and disruptive behaviour; at the same time that we value the weight that disruptive behaviours can Like the adult test, the EQIyv (Bar-On & Parker, 2000) have in the peer group acceptance. Specifically, we are provides a general emotional intelligence (EI) score and wondering: scores for five components: intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, affective state, and stress management. The • What are the factors that affect children’s integration test validated by Bar-On & Parker (2000) has a total of in the group? 60 items. In the sample studied, the reliability has been • To what extent do socio-emotional skills and disrup- checked by obtaining alpha scores for EI (.76). Regarding tive behaviours affect children’s integration in the the components, in the present study alphas have been of group of peers within the school environment? .65 for intra-personal components; .76 for interpersonal • Could it be possible that the level of peer group ac- components; .67 for stress management components; .82 ceptance depends on knowledge of the impact on the for adaptability components, and .83 for the affectivity group, or the opening or closing the group? scale. • Are there differences in this relationship depending on the sex of the children? Sociometric test To measure the integration of the boys in the class group we have used a psychometric test that has its origins in the classical sociometric technique developed by Jacob Levy ANUARIO DE PSICOLOGÍA | 49/2 87 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUP CLASS INTEGRATION, SOCIO-EMOTIONAL ABILITIES AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOURS PEER GROUP INTEGRATION FACTORS Moreno in the 1950s. With this technique, social struc- 3. The willingness to create connections with peers or tures are studied through the measure of the attraction to be very selective when it comes to relationships. or repulsion that they feel between them the members of 3.1. Positive expansiveness index: percentage of se- the group. The members of the group are proposed a sit- lections made over the total number of class- uation or hypothetical task that has to be done in groups, mates minus 1. The greater the index is the and are questioned with which members of the group more open to the group the student is. they would like to work and with whom they would not. 3.2. Negative expansiveness index: percentage of The selections made have a high stability, showing that rejections made over the total number of class- it is a reliable instrument. Therefore, for example, Byrd mates minus 1. The greater the index is the more (1951) found that in different retests the stability of the rejection the student feels from the group. measure was in Rho between .76 and .89. 4. Linking with any classmate. In this case, the esti- We utilized a widely used sociometric test (Almar & mator that we would use would be the positive rec- Gil, 1993) to measure the relationships between pupils iprocity index (percentage of reciprocal selections in the class group and each pupil’s degree of integration over the selections made), categorizing the results in that group, to what extent they have a good knowledge in two groups: children who have no reciprocal se- of their connections within the peer group, and what is lections, and those who do. their predisposition to create connections among school- mates. The children were asked about their peers in four ques- RESULTS tions: The results have been structured in five sections: in the If you had to work in a team, first one it is checked if there are differences between sex- Which classmates would you choose? es in the three components studied, and then, consec- Which classmates would you not like to be with? utively, the relationships between disruptive behaviours Which classmates do you think would like to be in your and integration in the class group are analysed, between team? socio-emotional abilities and integration and disruptive Which classmates do you think would not like to be in behaviours, and finally, we analyse which are the varia- your team? bles that predict that a child has at least one partner with whom he/she has a close relationship in the classroom. For each question pupils could list a maximum of 10 (See figure 1.) classmates. As we have said, the sociometric test allowed us to cal- Figure 1. Factors analysed culate different indexes. We have considered seven index- es that we have arranged in three groups to facilitate the analysis: Peer rejection 1. The level of acceptance of classmates, based on two estimators: Disruptive Social 1.1. Popularity index: percentage of selections that behaviors experience a student has received from the class group. 1.2. Antipathy index: percentage of rejections that Socio-emotional a student has received from the class group. skills 2. The degree of knowledge that their social connec- tions have with the group that shows this test has been included in the analysis of the socio-emotional skills: Differences between girls and boys in class group 2.1. Socio-empathy index: percentage of guessed selections over supposed. The value let us know integration, socio-emotional abilities the student’s perception of the position that and disruptive behaviour he/she has inside the group. As the value ap- proaches 100, more realistic is this perception. First of all, we analysed if there were differences between 2.2. Self-assessment index: percentage of supposed girls and boys in the class group, in disruptive behaviours selections over the received selections. If this and in socio-emotional abilities, in order to assess if this value is less than 100, the student undervalues variable should be considered in the analysis. him/herself; if this value is greater than 100, Regarding classmates’ acceptance, boys tend to be the student overestimates him/herself. more unfriendly than girls (M = 19.1 (21) vs. M = 10 88 ANUARIO DE PSICOLOGÍA | 49/2 M. ESTRELLA ESTURGÓ-DEU (10.8); p = .001), but they do not differ statistically from classmates. Then, the 7.2% of the variability observed in girls in popularity. However, girls score more in negative the antipathy index and 4% of the variability in the neg- expansiveness (M = 14 (9.9) vs. M = 10.6 (7.7); p = .021); ative expansiveness index would be associated with the that is to say, they are more selective than boys when ex- presence of disruptive behaviours. Disruptive students are pressing preferences with whom to work. more unpleasant (M = 22.4 (22.3) vs. 11.9 (14.4); p = While there are no differences between girls and boys .001) to their classmates, and at the same time they are in the reciprocity index (percentage of reciprocal selec- also the least selective when choosing a partner (M = 9.1 tions over selections made), it is of concern that 55 chil- (7.7) vs. 13.4 (9.1); p = .015) (Fig. 1). Yes, as we have in- dren (37.4% of the sample) got a 0 in this index (they did dicated before, the analysis shows that boys display more not receive any selection from the partners they wanted disruptive behaviours, score higher in antipathy and lower to work with). And even more worrying is that 5 children in negative expansion than girls, however, the analysis of (3.4%) did not receive any selections. the variance did not find any significant interaction of the Regarding disruptive behaviours, we did observe dif- sex variable with disruptive behaviours when it comes to ferences. Teachers reported that 35% of their pupils pre- explaining the relationships previously highlighted. sented disruptive behaviours. They reported differences The analysis does not find any difference in disrup- according to gender: 41% of the boys and 10% of the tive behaviours between students with or without a close girls presented disruptive behaviours (p = .001). The most partner in class (reciprocity index). (See figure 2.) common disruptive behaviours among children were: speaking loudly when it is not allowed (21.8%); verbal aggression (20.5%); interrupting the class frequently Relationship between socio-emotional skills (19.2%); not respecting the turn to speak (17.9%); dis- and integration obeying the teacher’s instructions (10.3%), and moving without permission (7.7%). In the case of girls, the most Stepwise regression analysis finds some statistically signif- frequent disruptive behaviours are: speaking loudly when icant relationships in peer acceptance with the EQI re- it is not allowed (5.8%); not respecting the turn to speak sults, but they are very weak. The 9% of antipathy index (5.8%); interrupting the class frequently (2.9%); diso- variability is related to the emotional quotient index (p beying the teacher’s instructions (2.9%); moving without < .001), with interpersonal relationship ability being the permission (1.4%), and verbal aggression (1.4%). That only related component. However, the relationship of the is, most of the disruptive behaviours of girls are a product emotional quotient with popularity is even weaker (R2 = of talking a lot. And, although in the case of boys the .03; p = .05). component of speaking is present, there are also more ag- What is more, this relationship seems to affect only gressive behaviours. In all kinds of disruptive behaviours, boys. If the analysis is done segregated by sex, 14% of the the differences between boys and girls are statistically sig- antipathy corresponding to boys is associated with their nificant., except for disobeying teacher’s instructions and results in the emotional quotient (p = .001); especially moving without permission, which are almost meaning- with adaptability components (R2 = .11; p = .018). This ful (p = .07 and p = .08, respectively). quotient is also associated with the 6% of the boys’ pop- We also found differences in socio-emotional skills ularity index (p = .028). assessed in the EQI test. Girls scored higher on interper- The analysis does not find significant relationships be- sonal components (M = 103.8 (13.5) vs. 97.5 (14.9); p < tween the results of the EQI test and the predisposition to .01) and stress management than boys (M = 104.6 (14.1) create connections with peers or to be very selective when vs. 99 (16.8); p < .05). Girls also scored higher on the it comes to relating with others when the analysis is done general quotient of emotional intelligence than boys, but without segregating sexes. But then, when the analysis is this difference did not reach statistical significance (M = made only in boys, it is observed that 11.3% of the varia- 102.1 (13.9) vs. 97.8 (15.6); p = .08). However, we did bility in negative expansiveness would be associated with not find any differences with regard to their knowledge of stress management (β = .336; p = .02); which means that the connections that they have with the group of peers in boys with better scores on stress management would be the classroom (socio-empathy and self-assessment index more selective when choosing a partner to do a group task. of the sociometric test). In the case of girls, the analysis shows that 9.4% of the variability in positive expansiveness is related to the adapt- ability components (β = – .307; p = 0.38); therefore, girls Influence of disruptive behaviours on children’s with the best scores in adaptability components are those integration that choose fewer classmates when doing group tasks. It seems that in class groups knowledge about one’s The analysis of the variance finds some weak relation- position in the group is more crucial. The analysis finds ships between disruptive behaviours and the acceptance that a significant amount of the variability observed in of classmates or the willingness to create connections with the popularity index (R2 = .23) is related to socio-empa- ANUARIO DE PSICOLOGÍA | 49/2 89 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUP CLASS INTEGRATION, SOCIO-EMOTIONAL ABILITIES AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOURS PEER GROUP INTEGRATION FACTORS thy (β = .37; p < .001) and self-assessment (β = -.34; p < and stress management components (95.1 (17.3) vs. .001). Therefore, data pointed out that the more accept- 104.02 (14.6); p = .002). These differences were ob- ed students are the ones who know their position in the served in boys but not in girls. Boys with disruptive group and at the same time those who do not overvalue behaviours have lower scores in intrapersonal compo- their popularity. When regression analysis is made segre- nents (94.6 (13.4) vs. 102.8 (13.7); p = .01); adaptabil- gated by sex, the analysis shows that this relationship is ity (95.6 (16.7) vs. 100.1 (11.1); p = .05), and stress present in both groups, even more intensively in girls (R2 management (94.9 (16.6) vs. 102 (16.4); p = .06), al- = .25) than boys (R2 = .21). though the latter does not reach statistical significance. These variables, socio-empathy and self-assessment, However, no significant differences are observed be- are related in the opposite direction with antipathy, but tween students who present or do not present disruptive this relationship is very weak and they only explain the behaviours either in socio-empathy or self-assessment. 7.5% of antipathy variability (R2 = 0.075; F (2,146) = 5.86; p = .004). But when the analysis is made segregat- Predictors of close pupil relationships ing sex, the relationship between these variables becomes clearer because they are different. Rejected boys overval- The binomial logarithmic regression provides a prognosis ue themselves (self-assessment β = .26; p = .018), but do model of the fact that a pupil has at least one close rela- not have a good insight about their peers’ feelings towards tionship with one of their classmates. The stepwise meth- them (socio-empathy β = -.26; p = .02) (R2 = 0.12). Not- od has been used so that the model assesses which of the withstanding, in girls the antipathy depends more on their variables that had been previously verified were related to openness to or seclusion from others (R2 = .15). The less positive reciprocity. preferences (β = -.42; p = .002) and the more rejections The solution offered by the binary regression is a mod- that girls make (β = .32; p = .015), the more antipathies el that would explain 50.6% of the observed variability in they receive. positive reciprocity and the variables included are (in this Variance analysis did not find any statistic differ- order): positive expansiveness (Exp (B) = 1.21; p < .001), ences between students with and without close part- and socio-empathy (Exp (B) = 1.03, p = .001). Positive ners in the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Fig. 2). expansiveness itself could account for 46.5% of the pos- However, the logistic binary regression finds that so- itive reciprocity variability, and socio-empathy explains cio-empathy is related to 23.7% of the observed variabil- 23.7%. The model is the same for both sexes. ity when having a close partner (B = 1.03; p < .001), and The model has high sensitivity (93.5%) and specificity this percentage increases to 26.3% when self-assessment (80%) and properly classifies 88.4% of children. is added (B = 1; p = .05). Then, students with a close partner in class have better socio-empathy and opinion about their relationships with their peers than students DISCUSSION that do not have a close partner in class. (See figure 3.) Good group acceptance is a requisite of the socialisation process of children. The results of our study show that be- Influence of socio-emotional skills ing able to open oneself to others, and especially having a in disruptive behaviours high level of socio-empathy is needed for an individual to be accepted and integrated into a group. Having a good The 41 students for whom teachers reported some kind perception of one’s individual position in the peer group of disruptive behaviour obtained a lower average in the is important, because this can influence one’s ability to emotional quotient index (EQI) than the other 105 stu- manage behaviour to integrate into the group. dents (M = 93.1 (14.1) vs. M = 102.2 (14.4); p = .001). Having at least one good friend has been highlighted However, binary logistic regression shows that this quo- as a key element for social integration and a protector tient is only associated with 7.5% of the observed varia- in situations of stress and bullying (Adams, Santo, & bility in the presence of disruptive behaviours (p = .001). Bukowski, 2011; Davidson & Demaray, 2007). That is If the analysis is done in segregated ways by sex, it is why, although children can have a good friend outside observed that the influence of socio-emotional abilities the classroom, not having a close partner with whom you would only be observed in the case of boys (11.2% of wish to work and who also wishes to work with you is an variability, p = .005). aspect that should concern teachers and school leaders. When analysing the different components, it is ob- In our study this is the case of 37.4% of the participants. served that the subgroup of students who show dis- And the situation of the five students in the study who ruptive behaviours have significantly lower scores than have not received any selections from any classmate is their peers who do not in: intrapersonal components even more serious. (94.1 (13.8) vs. 100.1 (14.2); p = .02), adaptability Although it only represents 3.4% of the sample (what components (95.7 (16.2) vs. 100.7 (12.6); p = .05), would be near one student per classroom), this is a sit- 90 ANUARIO DE PSICOLOGÍA | 49/2 M. ESTRELLA ESTURGÓ-DEU uation of social isolation that should not be invisible to In the case of boys, the ones who are the most unpleas- adult eyes. ant are those with lower scores in emotional sociability In our study we have found that the skill that is more and intelligence, but at the same time they are not suffi- closely linked to reciprocity with classmates is socio-em- ciently conscious of this and overestimate the number of pathy, that is to say, children’s knowledge of the predispo- peers who would choose them. sition that others have to relate to them. This relationship So, it seems that in peer acceptance there are multi- could have three ways. On the one hand, children who ple factors involved, and probably they have synergic and have close relationships are rightly based on these repeat- feedback effects, creating a loop that could magnify the ed exchanges to assume that their colleagues will choose differences in children’s social abilities and in the con- them. On the other hand, it may happen that children struction of their peer social network throughout devel- who have a better understanding of the emotions of oth- opment. ers (empathy) are the ones who read better which col- leagues have the predilection to work with them. In this References sense, some studies found that taking a perspective would facilitate the acceptance of peers (Oberle, 2018; Will, Adams, R. E., Santo, J. B., & Bukowski, W. M. (2011). The Crone, Lier, & Güroğlu, 2018). And finally, it might Presence of a Best Friend Buffers the Effects of Negative be that children with greater empathy are the ones who Experiences. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1786. Almar, C., & Gil, V. (1993). Sociograma: soporte informático. know how to adjust their behaviour to the rhythms and Madrid: TEA. needs of their classmates and, consequently, they are also Antrop, I., Roeyers, H., Oosterlaan, J., & Oost, P. van (2002). the ones who are the most popular. The three ways prob- Agreement between Parent and Teacher Ratings of Disrup- ably work synergistically. tive Behaviour Disorders in Children with Clinically Diag- The data from this study shows that children are more nosed ADHD. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral As- likely to reject other children who have less emotional in- sessment, 24(1), 67-73. DOI: 1.1023/A: 1014057325752. telligence skills and more disruptive behaviours; although Bar-On, R., & Parker. J. D. A. (2000). Eqi:yv. BarOn Emo- it must be considered that the latter would be partly tional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version. Technical Manual. produced by a low level in emotional abilities. However, New York: MHS. when it is analysed separately by sex, it is seen that this Barcelar, L. (2008). Las competencias emocionales y la solución de relationship mainly takes place with boys, who are also los conflictos interpersonales en el aula. Barcelona: Universitat those with lower levels of emotional abilities, but it is vir- Autònoma de Barcelona (paper). Byrd, E. (1951). A Study of Validity and Constancy of Choices tually non-existent in the case of girls. This could happen in a Sociometric Test. Sociometry, 14(2/3), 175-181. because girls could develop emotional abilities before boys Cole, P. M., Usher, B. A., & Cargo, A. P. (1993). Cognitive and that makes it easier for them to relate to equals. Risk and its Association with Risk for Disruptive Behavior The most rejected girls would be those who would Disorder in Preschoolers. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol- have lower scores in socio-empathy and adaptive skills, ogy, 22(2), 154-164. DOI: 1.1207/s15374424jccp2202_3. and at the same time they are the least open to the group, Cook, E. T., Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1994). The the ones that make the fewest choices. It would be nec- Relations between Emotional Understanding, Intellectual essary to identify the direction of this relationship. Are Functioning, and Disruptive Behavior Problems in Ele- these girls more unpleasant because they are very selec- mentary-School-Aged Children. Journal of Abnormal Child tive when choosing colleagues to work with? Or are they Psychology, 22(2), 205-219. DOI: 1.1007/BF0216790. reserved because they know they are not accepted? In Davidson, L. M., & Demaray, M. K. (2007). Social Support as this sense, Sette, Zava, Baumgartner, Baiocco & Coplan a Moderator Between Victimization and Internalizing-Ex- ternalizing Distress from Bullying. School Psychology Review, (2017) found significant interactions between peer ac- 36(3), 383. ceptance and both shyness and unsociability in the as- DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994). sociation with indexes of socio-emotional functioning. Children’s Academic and Behavioral Adjustment as a Func- They found that at lower levels of peer acceptance, shy- tion of the Chronicity and Proximity of Peer Rejection. ness was positively related to children’s preference for sol- Child Development, 65(6), 1799-1813. DOI: 1.1111/ itary play, whereas children’s unsociability was associated j.1467-8624.1994.tb0085.x. with externalizing problems. In contrast, these relations Esturgó-Deu, M. E., & Sala-Roca, J. (2010). Disruptive Be- were attenuated at higher levels of peer acceptance. haviour of Students in Primary Education and Emotional In a similar line Smith, Van Gessel, David-Ferdon and Intelligence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 830- Kistner (2013) found that girls were clearly more de- 837. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.020 manding when accepting new members, and this became Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2004). El papel de even more sharply marked when accepting individuals of la inteligencia emocional en el alumno: evidencias empíri- cas. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 6(2). Re- the opposite sex. In this vein, Barcelar (2008) found that trieved from: http://redie.uabc.mx/vol6no2/contenido-ex- boys tend to positively accept girls, but girls do not easily tremera.html. accept any boys. ANUARIO DE PSICOLOGÍA | 49/2 91 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUP CLASS INTEGRATION, SOCIO-EMOTIONAL ABILITIES AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOURS PEER GROUP INTEGRATION FACTORS Hernandez, T. J., & Fister, D. L. (2001). Dealing with Dis- Oberle, E. (2018). Social-Emotional Competence and Early ruptive and Emotional College Students: a Systems Model. Adolescents’ Peer Acceptance in School: Examining the Journal of College Counselling, 4(1), 49-63. Role of Afternoon Cortisol. PloS one, 13(2), e0192639. Laird, R. D., Jordan, K. Y., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Oliva Delgado, A., Parra Jiménez, A., & Sánchez Queija, M. Bates, J. E. (2001). Peer Rejection in Childhood, Involve- I. (2002). Relaciones con padres e iguales como predictoras ment with Antisocial Peers in Early Adolescence, and the del ajuste emocional y conductual durante la adolescencia. Development of Externalizing Behavior Problems. Develop- Apuntes de Psicología, 20(2), 225-242. ment and Psychopathology, 13(02), 337-354. Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer Rejection in Mid- Lopes, P. N., Mestre, J. M., Guil, R., Kremenitzer, J. P., & dle School: Subgroup Differences in Behavior, Loneliness, Salovey, P. (2012). The Role of Knowledge and Skills and Interpersonal Concerns. Developmental Psychology, for Managing Emotions in Adaptation to School So- 28(2), 231-241. cial Behavior and Misconduct in the Classroom. Ameri- Sette, S., Zava, F., Baumgartner, E., Baiocco, R., & Coplan, can Educational Research Journal, 49(4), 710-742. DOI: R. J. (2017). Shyness, Unsociability, and Socio-Emotional 1.3102/0002831212443077. Functioning at Preschool: The Protective Role of Peer Ac- Meurling, C. J. N., Ray, G. E., & Lobello, S. G. (1999). Chil- ceptance. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(4), 1196- dren’s Evaluations of Classroom Friend and Classroom Best 1205. Friend Relationships. Child Study Journal, 29(2), 79. Smith, S. D., Van Gessel, C. A., David-Ferdon, C., & Kistner, Morrow, M. T., Hubbard, J. A., Barhight, L. J., & Thomson, J. A. (2013). Sex Differences in Children’s Discrepant Percep- A. K. (2014). Fifth-Grade Children’s Daily Experiences of tions of Peer Acceptance. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy- Peer Victimization and Negative Emotions: Moderating Ef- chology, 34(2), 101-107. DOI: 1.1016/j.appdev.2012.1.002. fects of Sex and Peer Rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Will, G. J., Crone, E. A., Lier, P. A., & Güroğlu, B. (2018). Psychology, 42(7), 1089-1102. DOI: 1.1007/s10802-014- Longitudinal Links between Childhood Peer Acceptance 9870. and the Neural Correlates of Sharing. Developmental science, Muñoz, J. M., Carreras, M. R., & Braza, O. (2004). Aproxi- 21(1). mación al estudio de les actitudes i estrategias de pensamien- to social y su relación con los comportamientos disruptivos en el aula en la educación secundaria. Anales de Psicología, 20(1), 81-91. 92 ANUARIO DE PSICOLOGÍA | 49/2 M. ESTRELLA ESTURGÓ-DEU Figure 2. Peer acceptance and disruptive behaviour popularity antipathy reciprocity positive expansiveness negative expansiveness 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 disruptive behaviours non-disruptive behaviours ➥ Figure 3. Socioemotional skills and having a close friend self-assessment socioempathy stress management afective state adaptability components interpersonal components intrapersonal components emotional intelligence 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0 close partner no close partner ➥ ANUARIO DE PSICOLOGÍA | 49/2 93