Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of School Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jschpsyc

Inclusive classroom norms, children's sympathy, and intended

T
inclusion toward students with hyperactive behavior
⁎
Luciano Gasser , Jeanine Grütter, Loredana Torchetti
University of Teacher Education Lucerne, Switzerland

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Action Editor: Eric Buhs As the classroom represents an important social context for the development of out-group atti-
Keywords: tudes, the current study investigated the role of inclusive classroom norms for students' attitudes
Classroom norms toward hyperactive peers. The study included 1209 Swiss children from 61 school classes who
Sympathy were surveyed in the fifth grade (T1) and in the sixth grade (T2) (MageT1 = 11.55 years,
Attitudes toward inclusion MageT2 = 12.58 years). Students' attitudes toward hyperactive children was assessed by self-re-
Hyperactivity ports on students' sympathy and intended inclusion toward hypothetical children who show
hyperactive behavior. Moreover, students rated their classmates' inclusive attitudes. Analyses
with an autoregressive multilevel path model revealed that inclusive classrooms norms in the
fifth grade predicted students' sympathy and intended inclusion toward hyperactive children in
the sixth grade. The results implicate that group-level analyses are important in order to explain
hyperactive children's peer group problems.

1. Introduction

Hyperactivity refers to poor behavioral inhibition and includes restless, overactive, and impulsive behavior, which are highly
characteristic for children and adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Barkley, 1997). Typically de-
veloping peers perceive such behavior as aversive and, even after short personal contacts, form negative attitudes toward hyperactive
children or adolescents (Pelham & Bender, 1982). Moreover, children and adolescents with hyperactive behavior are much more
likely to experience peer rejection and victimization or to have less reciprocated friendships compared to their typically developing
peers (Hoza, 2007; Waschbusch, 2002). These peer problems have various negative developmental consequences for students with
hyperactive behavior such as a higher risk for academic failure or low social and emotional adjustment (Mrug et al., 2012).
The dominant explanation for the poor social inclusion of students with high hyperactivity refers to the social skill deficit model.
This model claims that students with hyperactive behavior interact ineffectively with peers due to dysfunctional and poor social-
cognitive skills (e.g., hostile attribution bias and poor perspective taking skills), poor emotion regulation skills (e.g., low sympathy
and anger management), and/or inappropriate behavioral responses (e.g., aggressive behavior and low social problem solving skills)
(Hoza et al., 2005). Although interventions at the individual level (i.e., stimulant medication, behavior management, or social skill
trainings) successfully reduce negative behaviors (e.g., less impulsive behavior) and promote positive behaviors (e.g., prosocial
behavior) in students with hyperactive behavior, they are less effective in reducing peer problems (Hoza, 2007). Consequently,
developmental and educational researchers have argued that additional factors at the peer group or classroom level should be
considered (e.g., inclusive classroom norms, teachers' emotional support) (Mikami, Lerner, & Lun, 2010; Mikami & Normand, 2015).

⁎
Corresponding author at: Institute for Diversity in Education, University of Teacher Education, 6004 Lucerne, Switzerland.
E-mail address: luciano.gasser@phlu.ch (L. Gasser).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.005
Received 6 February 2018; Received in revised form 5 October 2018; Accepted 12 October 2018
Available online 02 November 2018
0022-4405/ © 2018 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

From this perspective it is important to learn more about how students' inclusive capacities develop and how stereotypes, negative
attitudes, or exclusionary peer group or classroom norms may contribute to the social exclusion of hyperactive students. However, to
date only little research has investigated the role of peers and group norms for students' inclusive attitudes toward hyperactive
students (Capodieci, Rivetti, & Cornoldi, 2016; Mikami & Normand, 2015). The present study contributes to this literature by in-
vestigating whether inclusive classroom norms contribute to students' attitudes toward children with hyperactive behavior during the
upper elementary grades.

1.1. Attitudes toward hyperactive peers: sympathy and intended inclusion

The attitude concept includes cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). In this study, we
focused on sympathy and intended inclusion in order to measure the affective and behavioral dimension of attitudes toward hyper-
active students. Intended inclusion describes children's willingness to include an out-group member into group activities (e.g., in-
viting a hyperactive child to a birthday party) (Grütter, Gasser, & Malti, 2017). In contrast, sympathy may be defined as the ex-
pression of emotional concern for another person that is based on an understanding of that person's emotional state or personal
circumstances (Eisenberg, 2000). Sympathy may be understood as a general personal disposition as well as an out-group concept,
representing emotional concern for individuals from a stigmatized minority group (Grütter, Gasser, Zuffianò, & Meyer, 2018). Both
out-group sympathy and intended inclusion have been related to the quality of intergroup relations, intergroup helping, or dis-
criminatory behaviors (e.g., Eisenberg, Eggum, & Di Giunta, 2010; Schütz & Six, 1996; Sierksma, Thijs, & Verkuyten, 2014).
Research on students' attitudes toward those with hyperactive behavior (or with ADHD) revealed that, when compared to other
mental health problems (e.g., depression), hyperactive students belong to one of the most stigmatized groups (Gasser, Grütter,
Torchetti, & Buholzer, 2017; Kaushik, Kostaki, & Kyriakopoulos, 2016; Law, Sinclair, & Fraser, 2007; Lebowitz, 2016; O'Driscoll,
Heary, Hennessy, & McKeague, 2012). For example, 11- and 12-year-old children ascribe hypothetical peers with hyperactive be-
havior more negative attributes (e.g., “careless” and “stupid”) than positive attributes (Law et al., 2007). When 10- and 14-year-old
children and adolescents are asked about their emotional reactions to different descriptions of story characters, they report more
anger and fear when thinking about a hypothetical child with hyperactive behavior than when thinking about a typically developing
child (O'Driscoll et al., 2012). Moreover, they express less positive intentions to include hypothetical students with hyperactive
behavior into social, academic, or recreational activities compared to typically developing peers. Similarly, 11- and 12-year-old
children are much more likely to predict peer group exclusion of a hypothetical child with hyperactive behavior than of a child with
academic difficulties (80% vs 44%) (Gasser et al., 2017). While the prediction of exclusion of a child with academic difficulties
depends on the type of group activity (i.e., more exclusion in an academic than a social context), children expect exclusion of a
hyperactive story protagonist independently of the specific group context. In their justifications of the exclusion of the hyperactive
protagonist children mainly refer to concerns about effective group functioning (“the group cannot work well with this child”) and
rarely refer to fairness or welfare principles (“exclusion would hurt this child's feelings”). Importantly, these negative attitudes
toward students with hyperactive behavior seem to increase in late childhood and adolescence (Bellanca & Pote, 2013; O'Driscoll
et al., 2012).
A possible explanation for the negative evaluation of children with hyperactive behavior might refer to attribution biases, i.e.,
that children and adolescents tend to see hyperactive behavior as intentional and controllable (Mikami et al., 2013). Accordingly,
they view children with hyperactive behavior as responsible for their failure to control their behavior. Consistent with this inter-
pretation is the finding that children as well as adolescents mainly refer to psychological or social reasons and rarely refer to
biological reasons when explaining the causes of hyperactive and impulsive behaviors (Smith & Williams, 2005).

1.2. The role of peer group norms for out-group attitudes

The literature on peer group norms distinguishes between descriptive norms (i.e., what most of the peer group will do) and
injunctive norms (i.e., what most of the peer group judge to be acceptable or morally right), which both importantly contribute to the
socialization of children's individual attitudes and social behaviors (e.g., Henry et al., 2000). In this study, we focused on descriptive
peer group norms which can be assessed by either aggregating children's individual social behaviors within the peer group (e.g., peer
nominations of aggressive behavior) (Mercer, McMillen, & DeRosier, 2009) or by assessing children's perceptions of their peers' social
behaviors (e.g., perceptions of classmates' reactions to bullying) (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004).
With age, children are increasingly concerned about how they are viewed and evaluated by their own group (Rutland, Cameron,
Milne, & McGeorge, 2005). Consequently, research from the developmental intergroup perspective revealed that children's per-
ceptions of peer group norms (e.g., peers' inclusive or exclusive orientations) strongly influence their expression of out-group pre-
judices (e.g., Killen & Rutland, 2011; Rutland et al., 2005). For example, children were told to imagine they belonged to a superior
team that participated in a competitive game which either had an inclusive or exclusive group norm toward members from other
teams (out-group). If students perceive their group as exerting exclusionary attitudes toward out-group members, they are more likely
to express intentions to bully individuals from the out-group (Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, Kiesner, & Griffiths, 2008).
However, most of this research focused how students' subjective experience of peer group norms affects students' out-group
attitudes. Thus, the focus lied on how the child perceives group norms and incorporates them into the expression of out-group
attitudes. This research provides important knowledge about the social-cognitive mechanisms that underlie students' conformity (and
resistance) with peer group norms. However, children's subjective perceptions of group norms only partially covary with the shared
peer group norms (Thijs & Verkuyten, 2013), because children may misperceive their peers' behaviors and attitudes (Helms et al.,

73
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

2014) and have tendencies to project their own out-group attitudes onto their peers (Thijs & Verkuyten, 2016). Thus, shared group
norms account for the fact that group norms also have a reality beyond children's subjective perceptions, which are expressed in
intersubjectively shared beliefs about how peers behave (descriptive norms) or should behave (injunctive norms). It is therefore
important to conceptually and methodologically disentangle shared and unshared (i.e., individual) components of children's sub-
jective perceptions of peer group norms and to investigate the unique contribution of these components on students' out-group
attitudes.
While the peer relation literature provides extensive evidence of the effects of peer group norms on children's social and health-
risk behaviors (e.g., Allen, Porter, & McFarland, 2006; Chen, Chang, & He, 2003), less is known about the role of shared peer group
norms on students' out-group attitudes (Poteat, 2007). However, the few existing studies suggest that students within a specific peer
group tend to become more similar to each other regarding their racial, sexual, or national out-group attitudes and discriminatory
behaviors over time; and thus, support the so-called homophily hypothesis within an intergroup context (Kiesner, Maass, Cadinu, &
Vallese, 2003; Poteat, 2007; Poteat, Mereish, & Birkett, 2015). One important explanation for these socialization effects refers to
children's expectations of social rewards (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). Through behavioral and attitudinal conformity, children
prove their loyalty to the group, which is rewarded by improvement of their position in the peer group's social hierarchy. Children
and adolescents conform to peer group norms not only because of social rewards, but also because peer groups exert pressure on
deviant in-group members (i.e. individuals who disagree with exclusionary practices toward out-groups) and threaten them with
social exclusion (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003). This pressure for attitudinal conformity increases in middle and late childhood
(Abrams et al., 2003) and is higher with regard to highly stigmatized out-groups than less stigmatized out-groups (Kiesner et al.,
2003). A potential reason for this phenomenon may be that persons from highly stigmatized out-groups provide in-group members
with salient attitudinal information that serves the in-group to emphasize their distinctiveness and superiority over other out-groups
(Kiesner et al., 2003; Poteat, 2007).

1.3. Classroom norms and inclusion of students with hyperactive behavior

Since students with high hyperactivity represent a highly stigmatized group (Lebowitz, 2016), classroom norms may significantly
influence their social participation in classroom activities. However, only a few studies have directly investigated how classroom
norms influence students' inclusive attitudes or behaviors toward hyperactive peers. Mikami et al. (2015) found only small to medium
correlations in the sociometric nominations of 7- to 10-year-old children with hyperactive behavior between different peer group
contexts (general classroom vs summer day camp). Thus, there exists considerable variability between different peer group contexts,
suggesting that peer group norms can importantly contribute to hyperactive students' social inclusion. For example, disruptive be-
haviors are more likely to provoke social rejection if these behaviors are less normative in the classroom or if teachers' dislike of
students who show disruptive behaviors is evident (Chang, 2004; Chang et al., 2007). Concerning children with hyperactive beha-
vior, inclusive classroom norms and practices may thus shape the perception of these students to not being judged as deviant, which
could be expressed in attitudes that are more inclusive. In line with this idea is the finding that 6-to 10-year-old students with
hyperactive behavior who were educated in cooperative learning classrooms improved their sociometric status compared to hy-
peractive students from control classes without cooperative learning arrangements (Capodieci et al., 2016). Thus, intentionally
enforcing a cooperative classroom norm may positively affect students' inclusive attitudes toward those with hyperactive behavior.
The intervention study Making Socially Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) provides the most direct evidence for the important role
of inclusive classroom norms on the social inclusion of students with hyperactive behavior (Mikami et al., 2013). MOSAIC aims to
train teachers to reduce exclusionary behaviors in the classroom, to model positive relationships with students with hyperactive
behavior, and to publicly highlight these students' strengths (Mikami & Normand, 2015). Students with hyperactive behavior who
were in the MOSAIC intervention group improved their sociometric ratings and received more reciprocated friendships and positive
messages from peers than students with hyperactive behavior in the control group that received a traditional behavioral management
training. As hyperactive children's negative behaviors (e.g., hyperactivity, oppositional or aggressive behavior) were not affected by
the MOSAIC intervention, the improvements in the hyperactive students' social inclusion cannot be reduced to individual social skill
improvements (e.g., less impulsive behavior). Instead, the results highlight the important role of peer group norms for students'
attitudes toward peers with hyperactive behavior.
However, the effect of classroom norms on students' attitudes might differ as a function of students' individual and social
characteristics (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). For example, children who are high in autonomy or self-esteem are more likely to
resist negative peer pressure and to hold their own point of view (Allen et al., 2006). Moreover, students who feel accepted by their
classmates are more likely to adapt their out-group attitudes to the classroom norm compared to students who feel less accepted
(Thijs & Verkuyten, 2013). One reason for this finding might be that accepted children identify more with the class and therefore are
more willing to internalize their classmates' attitudes. Consequently, students who are liked by their classmates might be more likely
to adapt their attitudes toward hyperactive children to the classrooms norm than students who are less liked.

1.4. The present study

In summary, the present study aimed to investigate how inclusive classroom norms contribute to students' sympathy and intended
inclusion toward students with hyperactive behavior based on a short-term longitudinal study. Based on research about the socia-
lizing function of peers for students' academic and social development (e.g., Henry et al., 2000; Werner & Hill, 2010), we expected
that classroom norms in the fifth grade would longitudinally predict students' attitudes (i.e., their intended inclusion and sympathy)

74
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

toward peers with hyperactive behavior in the sixth grade, while controlling for the stability of individual attitudes and perceived
classroom norms. We therefore also accounted for the possibility that individual attitudes at T1 predict classroom norms at T2. This
design enabled us to draw conclusions about the direction of our hypothesis that are more specific (i.e., that classroom norms
contribute to changes in students' attitudes and not conversely). We also tested whether peer-nominated acceptance would moderate
the effect of inclusive classroom norms on children's attitudes. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Allen, Porter, McFarland,
Marsh, & McElhaney, 2005), we expected that inclusive classroom norms would more strongly relate to well-accepted students'
attitudes, because they are more likely to identify with classroom norms.
The study included upper elementary school students from Switzerland who were followed from the fifth to the sixth grade. We
studied these grades because late childhood and early adolescence represent critical periods with regard to peer influences and
socialization within peer groups (Killen & Rutland, 2011; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). In addition, we specifically focused on
attitudes toward peers with hyperactive behavior and not on attitudes toward inattentive behaviors (or both), because hyperactivity
is a perceptually more salient dimension and as such is more likely to elicit stereotypes and prejudice than less visible behaviors (e.g.,
inattentive behavior) (Bigler & Liben, 2006).
Classroom norms are often measured by assessing students' individual behaviors or attitudes and aggregating these individual
measures over all of the students in the classroom (e.g., Stormshak, Bierman, Bruschi, Dodge, & Coie, 1999). In contrast to this
procedure, we used a system-level measure to assess inclusive classroom norms (i.e., a measure that asks students' to indicate their
classmates' sympathetic and behavioral reactions to the exclusion of peers with hyperactive behavior) and aggregated this measure
within classrooms. This decision was based on a distinction made by Marsh et al. (2012) between climate variables and context
variables. For climate variables, the group or the classroom is the referent instead of the individual, while the reverse applies to
context variables. In our operationalization of classroom norms, we therefore focus on students' perceptions of their classmates'
behavior instead of their individual behavior to operationalize children's ratings. Even though, such system-level assessments of
classroom norms might represent a valuable alternative approach for studying classroom effects, only few studies have used measures
for classroom norms with the group as the referent (e.g., Beem, Brugman, Høst, & Tavecchio, 2004; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004).
Since girls express higher sympathy than boys (Gasser, Malti, & Buholzer, 2013), we controlled for students' sex. We also con-
trolled for students' hyperactivity (as diagnosed by clinical professionals), because previous research revealed that children with
hyperactive behavior prefer to affiliate with typically developing peers rather than with peers with hyperactive behavior (Hoza et al.,
2005); and thus, might express negative attitudes toward peers with similar behavior difficulties. Finally, we included the frequency
of children with a clinically diagnosed ADHD in the classroom into the analyses, to control for possible effects of extended exposure to
peers with hyperactive behavior.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and design

This study had two waves of data collection: The first assessment took place at the end of the academic school year in the fifth
grade (spring 2014) and the second assessment took place one year later (spring 2015), when the participants were about to transfer
to secondary school. In the fifth grade, there were 1209 students (49% females) from 61 school classes in Switzerland (ages 10–14,
Mage = 11.55 years, SD = 0.56) and at the second measurement time in the sixth grade (T2), the participants were 1009 students
(50% females) from 54 school classes (ages 11–15, Mage = 12.58 years, SD = 0.56). Schools and classrooms were from cantons of the
German part of Switzerland (mainly Lucerne and Zurich). In most cases, each classroom was from a different school. We only
included classrooms that remained with the same teachers and classmates across the fifth and the sixth grade. In each classroom, at
least one student received additional support from a teacher with special competencies in dealing with special educational needs. The
average number of students per classroom was 20 students (range 14–26 students per classroom), and the number of students with a
diagnosed ADHD (i.e., by a clinician) ranged from 0 to 7.
The parents and teachers were provided with written information regarding the goals of the study. This informational letter was
translated into the four official languages of Switzerland and into the most frequently spoken foreign languages. At T1 and T2, only
1% of the parents refused their consent for the study participation of their child. In addition to parental consent, the students were
asked for their assent to participate in the research. With the guidance of five trained research assistants, the students filled out a
questionnaire for approximately 30–40 min. In the meantime, the class teachers completed a questionnaire on their students' be-
havior during class.
The parents' educational levels were estimated based on governmental data about the school community where the students
resided. At T1, approximately 24% of the parents had completed compulsory education, 50% held a post-secondary diploma, and
20% had achieved a bachelor's degree or higher. Among the students who participated at both time points, 39% were of non-Swiss
nationality (Kosovo: 21%, Portugal: 11%, Serbia: 10%, Germany: 9%, Italy: 7%, Macedonia: 7%, Turkey: 5%, and other nationalities:
30%).

2.2. Attrition and missing data analysis

The analyses of this paper are part of a larger study on teacher and classroom influences on children's social inclusion and
academic achievement during the upper elementary grades (e.g., Gasser, Grütter, Buholzer, & Wettstein, 2018; Grütter et al., 2018).
Of the original sample of 1209 participants, 17% of the students dropped out (mostly due to seven teachers who decided not to

75
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

continue to participate in the study the following year). We analyzed sample attrition using Little's (1988) test in SPSS 23 for Missing
Completely at Random (MCAR; i.e., the missingness of one variable was unrelated to the observed and unobserved variables).
Analyzing the patterns of missingness in our data revealed that it did not meet the strict criteria of MCAR (i.e., Little's test was
significant). Therefore, we analyzed if the main study variables at T1 would predict the students' dropping out of the study at T2. The
results of this logistic regression analysis did not reveal any significant differences in the study variables between the students who
quit the study and the students who remained. Thus, we accounted for the missing data with a maximum-likelihood estimation (ML)
in Mplus 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 2014).

2.3. Measures

The descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability coefficients of the study variables are shown in Table 1. Before we assessed
children's attitudes (i.e., intended inclusion and sympathy) and children's perceptions of their classmates' reactions to social exclusion
(i.e., inclusive classroom norms), we introduced a hypothetical protagonist who showed hyperactive behavior (“Imagine [Klaus/
Maria] is a boy/girl from your class. He/she gets irritated easily and has problems sitting quietly. He/she often interrupts others, even
if he/she is not asked to do so”). Therefore, both the attitudinal and the classroom norm measures had the same out-group referent.
The main difference between the attitudinal and classroom norm measures consisted of the referent of the ratings. For intended
inclusion and sympathy the ratings referred to the self (i.e., self-perceptions), while for the classroom norm measure the ratings
referred to the classmates (i.e., perceived classroom norm). The description of the story protagonist with hyperactive behavior was
adapted from research on children's understanding of disabilities and mental disorders (e.g., Law et al., 2007; Smith & Williams,
2005). To control for sex differences, the sex of the story protagonist was matched with the sex of the participant.

2.3.1. Children's attitudes: intended inclusion and sympathy (T1 and T2)
Following the description of the story protagonist with hyperactive behavior, children rated three questions regarding their
intentions to include this individual into social activities on a four-point scale (1 = “not at all” to 4 = “very much”). The questions
described three different social activities (i.e., playing, spending the break time together, inviting to a birthday party). For example,
the students were asked how willing they would be to invite the story protagonist with hyperactive behavior to a birthday party (for
similar scales and validity information, see Cameron & Rutland, 2006; Grütter & Meyer, 2014, Nowicki, 2006; O'Driscoll, Heary,
Hennessy, & McKeague, 2015; Schütz & Six, 1996). Higher scores represented more positive attitudes toward the inclusion of students
with hyperactive behavior. To assess sympathy, the participants answered three questions regarding their emotional reaction if the
story protagonist had no friends, was being bullied or was being excluded (e.g., “Would you feel sorry for [Klaus] if he had no friends
in school?”). The items were answered on a four-point scale (1 = “not at all” to 4 = “very much”), with higher scores representing
higher degrees of sympathy toward the hyperactive child. This measure was adapted from prior studies which revealed significant
relations with children's inclusive and prosocial behaviors (Gasser et al., 2013; Malti, Gummerum, Keller, & Buchmann, 2009; Zhou,
Valiente, & Eisenberg, 2003). To test whether intended inclusion and sympathy represent two distinct constructs, multilevel con-
firmatory factor analyses were performed for T1 and T2 separately, once with items loading on the two factors and once with all items
loading on one common factor. Model fit was evaluated by the Comparative Fit-Index (CFI, good fit ≥ 0.90), the Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA, good fit < 0.07) and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR, good fit < 0.08)
(Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003). Both the model fit and the Δχ2 test for comparing the nested models confirmed
that the two scales represent distinct constructs and that measurement invariance (MI) over time was given.1 MI means that the
fundamental meaning of the latent constructs is the same over time and ensures a proper interpretation of longitudinal models (Kline,
2010). However, despite the good fit of our latent constructs, our sample size at level 2 was not large enough to control for the
hierarchical data structure and reach convergence while choosing a latent approach (Marsh et al., 2009). Therefore, for T1 and T2,
scale means were formed for sympathy and intended inclusion that showed good reliability (see Table 1).

2.3.2. Inclusive classroom norms (T1 and T2)

The measure to assess inclusive classroom norms was adapted from previous research (Beem et al., 2004; Salmivalli & Voeten,
2004). After we assessed children's attitudes, we asked children to indicate their classmates' reactions to three situations that de-
scribed the social exclusion of the story protagonist with hyperactive behavior. The three situations were described as follows: (a)
“Imagine that all children have to work on math tasks in groups. Klaus/Maria sits at his/her desk and participates in none of the
groups”, (b) “School is over and the children are on their way home. Nobody walks with Klaus/Maria” and (c) “After school some
children bully Klaus/ Maria on the schoolyard”. Following each of these descriptions the children responded to two questions to elicit
their evaluations of their classmates' reactions to the social exclusion of the hyperactive protagonist. The first question focused on

1
The model fit was excellent for the T1 and T2 models with two distinct factors (CFI = 1.00; RMSEA < 0.04; SRMR < 0.02) and poor for the
models with one common factor (CFI < 0.73; RMSEA = 0.30; SRMR > 0.16). The adjusted Δχ2 tests for comparing the nested models confirmed
the superiority of the model with two distinct scales (Δχ2 [1] > 464.60, p < .001). The results from the longitudinal MI analyses (i.e., stepwise
confirmatory factor analyses) showed that scalar invariance for the two variables sympathy and inclusive attitudes was reached (sympathy: Δχ2
[2] = 14.19, p < .001, ΔCFI = 0.002; inclusive attitudes: Δχ2 [2] = 10.96, p = .004, ΔCFI = 0.003). This means that for both constructs, a model
where the factor structure, factor loadings, and intercepts of the same items were constrained to be equal over time fit the data well. All of the items
showed positive and statistically significant factor loadings on their latent factor (range of standardized factor loadings: 0.72–0.95).

76
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables.
M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

1. Sex – – (–)
2. ADHD (T1) – – 0.20⁎⁎⁎ (–)
3. Peer acceptance (T1) 0.24 0.14 −0.05 −0.03 (–)
4. Inclusive classroom norms (individual) 2.38 0.65 0.04 0.03 0.12⁎⁎⁎ (0.84)
(T1)
⁎⁎⁎ ⁎⁎⁎
5. Sympathy (T1) 3.14 0.79 −0.18 −0.05 0.14 0.24⁎⁎⁎ (0.93)
6. Intended inclusion (T1) 2.34 0.76 −0.13⁎⁎⁎ −0.02 0.05 0.18⁎⁎⁎ 0.50⁎⁎⁎ (0.89)
7. Inclusive classroom norms (individual) 2.28 0.52 0.08⁎⁎ 0.04 0.15⁎⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.10⁎⁎ 0.04 (0.87)
(T2)
8. Sympathy (T2) 3.33 0.71 −0.18⁎⁎⁎ 0.00 0.14⁎⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎⁎ 0.35⁎⁎⁎ (0.92)
9. Intended inclusion (T2) 2.44 0.69 −0.08⁎ 0.03 0.04 0.14⁎⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎⁎ 0.33⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.48⁎⁎⁎ (0.85)
10. Percentage of students with ADHD 0.07 0.06 (–)
(classroom) (T1)
11. Inclusive classroom norms (classroom) 2.37 0.16 0.15⁎⁎⁎ (–)
(T1)
12. Inclusive classroom norms (classroom) 2.28 0.21 0.05 0.68⁎⁎⁎
(T2)

Note. T1 = first measurement time; T2 = second measurement time; sex = 0 (female), 1 (male); clinically diagnosed ADHD = 0 (no), 1 (yes).
Reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) are reported on the main diagonal.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001, two-tailed.

their classmates' sympathetic reactions (e.g., “How many children from your class would feel sorry with Klaus/Maria for working
alone in class?”) and the second question focused on their classmates' prosocial and inclusive reactions (e.g., “How many children
from your class would include Klaus/Maria in their working groups?”). Thus, the measure included six questions that were rated on a
four-point scale (1 = “no one” to 4 = “all of them”) with higher scores indicating higher levels of inclusive classroom norms. Again,
multilevel confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test whether the items loaded on distinct sympathy and inclusion norm
scales or on one common classroom norms factor and whether the factor structure and item loadings were invariant between the
levels (Marsh et al., 2012). Between levels, the factor structure and factor loadings were invariant. Although both, the model with one
common factor and the model with two distinct factors fitted well (one factor: CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMRwithin = 0.05,
SRMRbetween = 0.11; two factors: CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMRwithin = 0.05, SRMRbetween = 0.10), model comparison based on
ΔCFI with a critical level of 0.01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) favored the one factor solution (Δχ2 [14] = 72.14, p < .001,
ΔCFI = 0.01). Moreover, the correlations between the two latent factors in the two-factor model (at T1 and T2 and within and
between) were r > 0.86; thus, the one factor solution was indicated. All of the items showed positive and statistically significant
factor loadings on their latent factor (range of standardized factor loadings: L1: 0.59–0.74; L2:0.69–1.00).
To form the scale of the classroom climate variable of inclusive classroom norms, we aggregated students' subjective perceptions
over each classroom, representing their shared perception of the respective classroom environment and centered the variable at the
grand-mean of the sample. We also included students' individual perceptions in order to control for the effects of the unshared
perception of inclusive classroom norms; therefore, we centered the scores of the scale for each student at the group mean (i.e., class
mean) level. This procedure allowed us to disentangle the within-class and between-class effects of students' perceptions of inclusive
classroom norms, respectively (Lüdtke, Robitzsch, Trautwein, & Kunter, 2009).
Aggregating individual ratings is only meaningful if there is significant variation between school classes (Lüdtke et al., 2009).
Regarding our data, this between-group variance (as denoted by the ICC(1) value, Bliese, 2000) was 3% at T1 and 12% at T2,
whereby differences between school classes were significant (T1: F [60, 1127] = 1.59, p < .01; T2: F [53, 947] = 3.55, p < .001).
Prior research confirmed the predictive validity of comparable system-variables, for example with regard to out-group attitudes (Thijs
& Verkuyten, 2013), aggressive and transgressive behaviors (Brugman et al., 2003; Foà, Brugman, & Mancini, 2012; Mancini,
Fruggeri, & Panari, 2006) and bullying behavior (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004).

2.3.3. Peer acceptance (T1)

Children were asked to nominate an unlimited number or classmates whom they liked best (Stormshak et al., 1999). The number
of nominations a child received from classmates was divided by the number of maximal possible nominations that a child could
receive within each classroom (nclassroom − 1).

2.3.4. Percentage of students with clinically diagnosed ADHD

To control for students' own hyperactivity, we asked teachers to indicate which students of their classroom had a clinically
diagnosed ADHD (i.e., diagnosed by a psychiatrist). Since most students with a clinically diagnosed ADHD receive additional support
to participate in classroom activities, teachers in Switzerland are part of annual meetings with school psychologists and parents to
discuss about their progress; thus, teachers are a valid source of information regarding this variable. Seven percent of the students

77
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

L2: Inclusive L2: Inclusive

classroom norms .65*** classroom norms
(classmean) T1 (classmean) T2
.47***
.64***
.88***
L1: Inclusive L1: Inclusive
classroom norms .35*** classroom norms
(individual) T1 .12** (individual) T2 20
.07* .31***
.22***
.00
.18*** L1: Sympathy T1 L1: Sympathy T2 .23***
.27***

L1: .49***
.50*** L2: -.48
-.03
L1: Intended L1: Intended
inclusion T1 .30*** inclusion T2

.10** .07*

L1: Peer -.18***

acceptance T1

-.08**

L1: Sex T1

Fig. 1. The results of the final multilevel path analysis of the relation between perceived inclusive classroom norms (classroom and individual level),
sex, peer acceptance, sympathy and attitudes toward inclusion are shown; non-significant paths are represented by dashed arrows and standardized
estimates are reported on the straight and curved arrows. T1 = first measurement time; T2 = second measurement time; L1 = Level 1; L2 = Level 2;
sex = 0 (female), 1 (male). R2 Level 1: sympathy T2 = 0.14; intended inclusion T2 = 0.11; inclusive classroom norms (individual) T2 = 0.13; R2
Level 2: inclusive classroom norms (classmean) T2 = 0.43; sympathy T2 = 0.22; intended inclusion T2 = 0.77.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

(n = 84) of the total sample were diagnosed with ADHD. To control for exposure to children with ADHD, we created a variable that
indicated the percentage of students with a diagnosed ADHD per classroom. On average, 7% of children in a classroom were di-
agnosed with ADHD (SD = 6%; range = 0–7 students per classroom).

2.4. Data analytic approach

As students were nested into school classes, we adopted a multilevel framework with students at the within-level (L1: Level 1) and
classes at the between-level (L2: Level 2). To analyze our hypotheses, we specified an autoregressive model (see Fig. 1), containing
inclusive classroom norms (T1) at L2 as predictor for individual sympathy (T2) and individual intended inclusion (T2) (see Fig. 1). As
climate effects represent effects of classroom-level variables above and beyond the effect of the corresponding student-level variables
(Marsh et al., 2009, 2012), we controlled for students' individual perceptions of inclusive classroom norms and included this variable
as additional predictor for the two hypothesized paths at L1 (see Fig. 1). In line with the cross-lagged panel model for longitudinal
data proposed by Cole and Maxwell (2003), we controlled for the autoregressive paths (i.e., the stability) of individual sympathy and
inclusive attitudes at T1 on individual sympathy and inclusive attitudes at T2, as well as for the within-time correlations at T1 and T2.
This procedure allows for stronger inference about the direction of causation (Selig & Preacher, 2009). Moreover, to control for the
stability of classroom norms and potential bi-directional relations, we included the autoregressive path of classroom norms at T1 on
classroom norms at T2 (Level 2) and the paths from individual sympathy and intended inclusion at T1 as predictors of individual
classroom norms at T2 (Level 1; see Fig. 1). Furthermore, by including the within-time correlations of classroom norms at T2 with
individual sympathy and intended inclusion at T2, the time-specific covariation was controlled for, allowing to capture the unique
predictive effect of classroom norms at T1 on individual sympathy and intended inclusion on T2.
Due to the multilevel framework, we had to first consider between-group variance (Bliese, 2000). Regarding our data, classroom
membership explained 3% of the total variance in sympathy (T2) and 2% of the total variance in inclusive attitudes (T2). Compared
to the usual range of differences between classrooms (i.e, ICC(1) > 0.10–0.25) in the educational literature, these differences be-
tween classrooms in our study were very small (Hedges & Hedberg, 2007). Nevertheless, since our main focus was on the potential
effect of a classroom-level predictor (i.e., inclusive classroom norms), we controlled for the hierarchical data structure by employing a
multilevel path model in MPLUS (Muthén & Muthén, 2014).

78
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary analyses

To strengthen our findings, we controlled for sex differences, peer acceptance, clinically diagnosed ADHD, and the percentage of
students with ADHD in the classroom as predictors for the three outcome variables at T2 (i.e., sympathy, intended inclusion, and
classroom norms). ADHD (both as individual and as a classroom variable) did not account for any differences in students' attitudes or
perceived norms. Regarding sex differences, the path from sex on sympathy (T2) (β = −0.18, SE = 0.03, p < .001), and on intended
inclusion (T2) (β = −0.08, SE = 0.03, p = .008) were significant, indicating that boys reported lower levels of sympathy and lower
intentions to include a hypothetical hyperactive peer than girls. Regarding peer acceptance (T1), there was a significant effect on
sympathy (T2) (β = 0.07, SE = 0.03, p = .01), whereby children with higher levels of peer acceptance in fifth grade reported more
intended inclusion in sixth grade. In addition, the path from peer acceptance on perceived classroom norms at the individual level
was significant, (T2) (β = 0.10, SE = 0.03, p = .001), indicating that children who had higher levels of peer acceptance in grade 5
perceived a more inclusive classroom norm as compared to the average students in their class in grade 6.
We also investigated whether children who perceived more inclusive classroom norms at T1 reported higher levels of sympathy
and intended inclusion at T2, when they had higher levels of peer acceptance in grade five (T1). Contrary to our expectation, peer
acceptance did not moderate the relation between inclusive classroom norms and children's attitudes toward children with hyper-
active behavior. In order to keep the model simple and to increase the power of our analysis, we only included significant paths in the
final model.

3.2. Final model

The model fit was acceptable: CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMRwithin = 0.05, SRMRbetween = 0.01. At L1, the stability of the
dependent variables (sympathy and intended inclusion) as well as of the individual predictor inclusive classroom norms were
moderate, indicating considerable variability over time within students, whereas at L2, the shared inclusive classroom norms was
highly stable over time (see Fig. 1). The results from the hypothesized model showed that the L1-individual perception of inclusive
classroom norms (T1) predicted sympathy with hyperactive children (T2), and intended inclusion (T2). Moreover, at L2, inclusive
classroom norms (T1) predicted individual sympathy (T2) and intended inclusion of hyperactive students (T2). Therefore, in line with
the primary hypotheses, students in classrooms with a higher inclusive classroom norm longitudinally reported more sympathy for
hypothetical classmates with hyperactive behavior and were more willing to include these hypothetical students in peer activities
(see Fig. 1). Since the effects of classroom norms at L2 on sympathy and intended inclusion refer to the explained variance between
classrooms (i.e., at L2), a large part of the variance between classrooms in sympathy and intended inclusion was explained by the
classroom norms (R2L2 for sympathy T2 = 0.22; R2 L2 for intended inclusion T2 = 0.77). However, because the differences in
intended inclusion and sympathy between classrooms were small (i.e., 2–3%), the effects of classroom norms on our outcome
variables at the classroom level were small too (R2 of between-group variance for sympathy T2 = 0.01; R2 of between-group variance
for intended inclusion T2 = 0.01).

4. Discussion

To date, most research on the social exclusion of hyperactive children has focused on the perspective of the excluded children by
studying their social skill deficits (Mikami & Normand, 2015). Only a few studies have investigated the characteristics of the peers
who might exclude children with hyperactive behavior (e.g., sympathy toward hyperactive children). In addition, only few studies
investigated how group-level concepts (for example, peer group norms) contribute to social competencies that enhance children's
abilities for positive and cooperative relationships with hyperactive peers. Group-level analyses have traditionally been applied to
explain the emergence of social or risk behaviors (e.g., aggressive or prosocial behavior, bullying, drinking) or social exclusion based
on social category characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, nationality, or sexual orientation (Killen & Rutland, 2011; Poteat, 2007;
Thijs & Verkuyten, 2013). However, analyses of group norm effects regarding the exclusion of children with mental and behavior
disorders are still rare.
The main goal of the present study was to investigate the effect of inclusive classroom norms on students' sympathy and intended
inclusion toward children with hyperactive behavior. Consistent with our prediction, shared inclusive classroom norms in the fifth
grade predicted children's sympathy and intended inclusion one year later in the sixth grade (beyond and above the children's
individual perceptions of their classmates' inclusive norms). This finding is consistent with the peer relation literature that provides
strong support for peer group socialization effects for children's social behaviors, such as aggressive and prosocial behaviors (e.g.,
Dijkstra & Gest, 2014; Stormshak et al., 1999) or health-risk behaviors (e.g., Allen et al., 2006). Similarly, classroom or peer group
norm effects have been found with regard to children's development of intergroup attitudes (Jugert, Noack, & Rutland, 2011; Kiesner
et al., 2003; Poteat et al., 2015; Tropp et al., 2016). For example, a cross-sectional study including 9- to 13-year-old Dutch children
revealed that classmates' multicultural attitudes (i.e. appreciation of cultural diversity) significantly predicted positive ethnic out-
group attitudes (Thijs & Verkuyten, 2013).
A possible explanation for the significant effects of inclusive classroom norms on children's attitudes toward hyperactive class-
mates may be that attitudinal conformity is rewarded with higher social status in the classroom (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011).
Therefore, students might adopt the inclusive or exclusive orientations of classmates as a strategy to improve their social position in

79
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

the classroom. In addition, classmates may reinforce inclusionary or exclusionary attitudes through rewards and sanctions. For
example, in classrooms with inclusive norms, children may intervene if hyperactive children are victimized and might sanction the
bullies with social exclusion. In contrast, in classrooms that are characterized by exclusionary norms, children may laugh and applaud
if children joke about, humiliate, and tease hyperactive classmates. They may also isolate children who befriend hyperactive
classmates and thereby sanction peers who support children from out-groups. The deviant talk by which children reinforce antisocial
attitudes in peer groups have been referred to as deviancy training (Dishion, Piehler, & Myers, 2008) and may also explain how
children develop negative out-group attitudes. Due to the maladaptive behaviors of hyperactive children, they may easily become the
target of deviant talk and interactions in their classrooms. Moreover, hyperactive children often have a negative social position in the
classroom (Hoza, 2007). Thus, deviant talk of in-group members about hyperactive classmates may also serve children to enhance
their group boundaries and to demonstrate their exclusivity and superiority over children from out-groups. Future research may shed
light on the various processes that mediate the relation between classroom norms and individual attitudes toward students with
hyperactive behavior.
Contrary to our expectation, we did not find that peer acceptance moderated the relation between inclusive classroom norms and
children's attitudes toward children with hyperactive behavior. Therefore, the association between classroom norms and students'
out-group attitudes was similar for accepted and less accepted children. A possible reason for this finding might be that mechanisms
other than acceptance within the class might be relevant with regard to children's adaptation to classroom norms. For example, as
outlined above children might adapt to peer group norms because they fear social exclusion. Thus, also less accepted children might
conform to classroom norms as a mean to improve their social status in the classroom.
Instead, we found that peer acceptance in the fifth grade positively predicted sympathy toward hyperactive children one year
later. This finding is consistent with previous research revealing that higher peer acceptance longitudinally predicts positive social
and academic adjustment (e.g., Zimmer-Gembeck, Geiger, & Crick, 2005). The current study adds to this literature by showing that
peer acceptance also positively contributes to sympathy. Moreover, we found that higher peer acceptance in the fifth grade predicted
students' perceptions of their classmates' inclusiveness one year later. This finding might be explained by the process of social
projection (Thijs & Verkuyten, 2016), i.e., that accepted children tend to generalize their experience of social inclusion and assume
their classmates positively respond to all children in the classroom.
We also found a significant effect of students' individual perceptions of their classmates' inclusive behavior on their sympathy and
intended inclusion toward hyperactive peers. These individual perceptions are likely to represent “false” assumptions about the
classroom norms, because they capture the non-shared component of the subjective perception of the inclusive classroom. Therefore,
children might change their out-group attitudes not only because of “true” perceptions of classroom norms, but also because they
falsely assume that their classmates have certain attitudes. Helms et al. (2014) found that adolescents consistently overestimate
maladaptive behaviors and underestimate adaptive behavior of popular peer group members and that these misperceptions predict
adolescents' own health-risk behavior. Possible explanations for children's erroneous beliefs about peer group norms might be that
they project their own out-group attitudes onto peers' attitudes (Thijs & Verkuyten, 2016) or that they hold stereotypes about their
peers' attitudes and behaviors (Helms et al., 2014). Teaching strategies that highlight positive expectations about children's prosocial
and inclusive attitudes (e.g., providing frequent positive feedback on students' prosocial behavior) might be effective in enhancing
children's assumptions about their classmates' inclusive orientations.

4.1. Strengths and limitations

This study has several important strengths. Although a few studies have investigated children's or adolescents' stereotypes and
prejudices toward hyperactive children (Law et al., 2007; O'Driscoll et al., 2015), we are unaware of any research that investigated
how children's attitudes toward their hyperactive peers is influenced by group-level characteristics. In addition, this study included a
large sample that was followed using a two-wave longitudinal design. Despite this, several limitations should also be considered when
interpreting the results.
First, the standardized effects of L2-inclusive classroom norms on children's sympathy and intended inclusion toward hyperactive
children seem quite strong, however, given the low variability between classrooms in sympathy and intended inclusion they have to
be considered as relatively small. One possible reason for these small effects might be that attitudes toward children with hyperactive
behavior depend less on the social context compared to other social behaviors or out-group attitudes. This interpretation is consistent
with the findings of Stormshak et al. (1999), which revealed that children with hyperactive/inattentive behavior were rejected by
classmates, independently of the level of hyperactivity (i.e., the frequency of hyperactive behaviors) at the classroom level. In
contrast, children with aggressive or withdrawn behaviors only experienced social rejection in classrooms with low levels (i.e., low
frequency) of overall classroom aggression and withdrawal.
However, it is important to mention that we applied a relatively strict analytical model where we controlled for students' in-
dividual perceptions, within-time correlations, and the stability of student's attitudes and classroom norms over time. Furthermore,
the time lag between the two measurements was one year. It is thus not trivial that we found significant effects of shared classroom
norm variance on students' attitudes, and potentially, smaller effects could cumulate to larger effects over several years. Moreover,
different social contexts than the classroom might influence children's development of attitudes toward hyperactive children as well.
For example, classrooms might be more diverse with regard to their out-group attitudes than suggested by our study. Different peer
groups or dyadic friendships within classrooms might express varying inclusive or exclusive orientations toward out-groups and thus
might predict students' individual attitudes beyond and above the general inclusive classroom norm. In particular, intergroup
friendships represent an important social context for the development of higher levels of intergroup sympathy and inclusive

80
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

intentions (e.g., Grütter et al., 2018). Moreover, also peer and friendship relationships across different classrooms importantly
contribute to the socialization of out-group attitudes (e.g., Poteat, 2007).
Second, we found low intraclass correlations for the classroom norm measure, suggesting that a high proportion of the variance in
children's perceptions can be explained by the individual students and that the classroom explained smaller portions of the total score
variance. Research that included comparable system-level variables (i.e., children's perceptions of classmates' or teachers' attitudes or
behaviors) similarly found low intraclass correlations (Beem et al., 2004; Downer, Stuhlman, Schweig, Martínez, & Ruzek, 2015; Lau
& Nie, 2008; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004; Thijs & Verkuyten, 2013). As mentioned above, children's perceptions of their classmates'
attitudes and behaviors might have a strong individual component, because children may project their personal attitudes onto their
peers. Beem et al. (2004) further concluded that system-level assessments might require complex social-cognitive abilities such as
distinguishing their own experiences from those of their peers and some children might have more difficulties objectively judging
their classmates' social behaviors than others. Finally, students with different social positions and peer group affiliations might have
more or less accurate access to relevant information about their classmates' behavior. Despite this, system-level assessments of
classroom norms might represent a valuable alternative methodological approach to the study of classroom effects, because the focus
lies on children's subjective representation of the classroom environment, which importantly contributes to positive youth devel-
opment (Gasser et al., 2018). Moreover, system-level assessments of classrooms norms allow to disentangle nonshared and shared
components of children's perceptions and therein to investigate how these components uniquely relate to children's social or aca-
demic development (Weinstein, 1983).
A third limitation of this study is that we did not counterbalance the order of the attitudinal and classroom norm measures.
Therefore, we cannot exclude order effects. As children first evaluated their individual attitudes and then evaluated their classmates'
inclusive reactions, it may be possible that children were more likely project their personal attitudes onto their classmates as if we
presented the measures in the reversed order.
Fourth, our study focused on children's self-ratings of sympathy and intentions to include students with hyperactive behavior. As
children are increasingly sensitive to social norms and self-representational concerns (Killen & Rutland, 2011), some children might
provide socially desirable responses which may not reflect their true attitudes toward hyperactive peers. Therefore, future research
should validate the findings with other measures than self-reports that are less susceptible to social desirability effects (e.g., ob-
servations, peer nominations).

4.2. Implications for teachers and school psychologists

This study highlights the role of inclusive classroom norms for students' inclusive attitudes toward students with hyperactive
behavior. In order to promote such inclusive classroom environments teachers can focus on their daily interactions with students and
enhance inclusion by treating students fairly and by expressing high caring orientations (Gasser et al., 2018). Rather than leaving
social and emotional learning to the hidden curriculum, teachers can explicitly and intentionally support children's social and
emotional development. For example, teachers might consistently encourage discussions about hypothetical and real-life social issues
and moral conflicts (Gasser & Althof, 2017). Through cooperative learning in diverse peer groups, children learn to solve social and
academic problems constructively (Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008). The teachers' role might be to model cooperation and to
provide specific instructions and feedback on how to constructively deal with student diversity during group work (e.g., discussing
with students behavioral markers of good listening) (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Ladd, 2016).
Teachers can also use more specific relational strategies in order to enhance the social status of excluded children (Gest & Rodkin,
2011). According to the social reference theory, children are highly attentive to their teachers' relationship with individual students
and perceive the teacher as a normative reference for how specific peer characteristics should be evaluated (White & Kistner, 1992).
Consequently, teachers can intentionally build strong relationships and model positive interactions with hyperactive children in order
to change their peers' attitudes (Mikami & Normand, 2015). For example, teachers can publicly praise and highlight positive behavior
examples instead of criticizing hyperactive children's disruptive behaviors. Finally, by providing high-quality emotional support (e.g.,
creating a positive classroom climate) teachers can create a classroom environment where every child is valued (Gasser et al., 2018).
School psychologists can support teachers by promoting their awareness about their important role in peer group dynamics
(Chang et al., 2007). Moreover, professional development is highly effective if teachers receive specific feedback on their relational
strategies or the quality of their emotional support based on observational data (Mikami, Gregory, Allen, Pianta, & Lun, 2011). School
psychologists may also observe teachers' feedback to individual students (e.g., criticism for failure), in order to improve teachers'
reflections about their differential feedback.

4.3. Conclusion

Developmental researchers have argued that negative biases toward students with hyperactive behavior may impede their social
participation in the peer group (Hinshaw, 2005; Mikami et al., 2013). However, only few studies applied group-level analyses to
explain social exclusion of hyperactive students. The present study showed that inclusive classroom norms longitudinally predict
children's sympathy and intended inclusion toward hyperactive children. Therefore, our findings provide further support for the
claim that treatments that focus on children with hyperactive behavior (e.g., social skill training and/or stimulant medication) may
be insufficient to address the peer problems of hyperactive children (Mikami & Normand, 2015). Group-level characteristics, such as
the inclusive orientation of classmates, also contribute to hyperactive children's social acceptance. Accordingly, teachers should be
trained to improve the inclusive attitudes and capacities of all children in the classroom.

81
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was funded by The Swiss National Science Foundation (13DPD3_124764).

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the undergraduate students who assisted in the data collection and to all the teachers and students who
participated in the study.

References

Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: Children's judgments of normative and deviant in-group and outgroup
individuals. Child Development, 74(6), 1840–1856. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00641.x.
Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., & McFarland, F. C. (2006). Leaders and followers in adolescent close friendships: Susceptibility to peer influence as a predictor of risky
behavior, friendship instability, and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 18(1), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579406060093.
Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., McFarland, F. C., Marsh, P., & McElhaney, K. B. (2005). The two faces of adolescents' success with peers: Adolescent popularity, social
adaptation, and deviant behavior. Child Development, 76(3), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00875.x.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2007). Social psychology (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1),
65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65.
Beem, A. L., Brugman, D., Høst, K., & Tavecchio, L. W. (2004). Students' perception of school moral atmosphere: From moral culture to social competence. A
generalizability study. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405620444000076.
Bellanca, F. F., & Pote, H. (2013). Children's attitudes towards ADHD, depression and learning disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13,
234–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01263.x.
Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. Kail (Vol. Ed.), Advances in child development and
behavior. Vol. 34. Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 39–89). New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80004-2.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. Kozlowski
(Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
21(1), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x.
Brugman, D., Heymans, P. P. G., Boom, J., Podolskij, A. I., Karabanova, O., & Idobaeva, O. (2003). Perception of moral atmosphere in school and norm transgressive
behaviour in adolescents: An intervention study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000272.
Cameron, L., & Rutland, A. (2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children's prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3),
469–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00469.x.
Capodieci, A., Rivetti, T., & Cornoldi, C. (2016). A cooperative learning classroom intervention for increasing peers acceptance of children with ADHD. Journal of
Attention Disorders, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054716666952.
Chang, L. (2004). Classrooms in contextualizing the relations of children's social behaviors to peer acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 691–702. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.691.
Chang, L., Liu, H., Fung, K. Y., Wang, Y., Wen, Z., Li, H., & Farver, J. A. M. (2007). The mediating and moderating effects of teacher preference on the relations between
students' social behaviors and peer acceptance. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 53, 603–630. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2008.
0006.
Chen, X., Chang, L., & He, Y. (2003). The peer group as a context: Mediating and moderating effects on relations between academic achievement and social functioning
in Chinese children. Child Development, 74(3), 710–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00564.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558.
Dijkstra, J. K., & Gest, S. D. (2014). Peer norm salience for academic achievement, prosocial behavior, and bullying: Implications for adolescent school experiences. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 35, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614524303.
Dishion, T. J., Piehler, T. F., & Myers, M. W. (2008). Dynamics and ecology of adolescent peer contagion. In M. J. Prinstein, & K. A. Dodge (Eds.). Understanding peer
influence in children and adolescents (pp. 72–93). New York, NY: Guilford.
Downer, J. T., Stuhlman, M., Schweig, J., Martínez, J. F., & Ruzek, E. (2015). Measuring effective teacher-student interactions from a student perspective: A multi-level
analysis. Journal of Early Adolescence, 35, 722–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614564059.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665.
Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Social
Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 143–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x.
Foà, C., Brugman, D., & Mancini, T. (2012). School moral atmosphere and normative orientation to explain aggressive and transgressive behaviours at secondary
school. Journal of Moral Education, 41(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2011.652520.
Gasser, L., & Althof, W. (2017). Developing teachers' cognitive strategies of promoting moral reasoning and behavior in teacher education (Hrsg.) In D. J. Clandinin, &
J. Husu (Eds.). International handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 387–401). London: Sage.
Gasser, L., Grütter, J., Buholzer, A., & Wettstein, A. (2018). Emotionally supportive classroom interactions and students' perceptions of their teachers as caring and just.
Learning and Instruction, 54, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.003.
Gasser, L., Grütter, J., Torchetti, L., & Buholzer, A. (2017). Competitive classroom norms and exclusion of children with academic and behavior difficulties. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 49, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.12.002.
Gasser, L., Malti, T., & Buholzer, A. (2013). Children's moral judgments and moral emotions following exclusion of children with disabilities: Relations with inclusive
education, age, and contact intensity. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.11.017.
Gest, S. D., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). Teaching practices and elementary classroom peer ecologies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 288–296. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.004.
Grütter, J., Gasser, L., & Malti, T. (2017). The role of cross-group friendship and emotions in social exclusion. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 62, 137–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.01.004.
Grütter, J., Gasser, L., Zuffianò, A., & Meyer, B. (2018). Promoting Inclusion Via Cross-Group Friendship: The mediating role of change in trust and sympathy. Child

82
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

Development, 89(4), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12883.

Grütter, J., & Meyer, B. (2014). Intergroup friendship and children's intentions for social exclusion in integrative classrooms: The moderating role of teachers' diversity
beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(7), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12240.
Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyis, 29(1),
60–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707299706.
Helms, S. W., Choukas-Bradley, S., Widman, L., Giletta, M., Cohen, G. L., & Prinstein, M. J. (2014). Adolescents misperceive and are influenced by high-status peers'
health risk, deviant, and adaptive behavior. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2697–2714. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038178.
Henry, D., Guerra, N., Huesmann, R., Tolan, P., Vanacker, R., & Eron, L. (2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005142429725.
Hinshaw, S. P. (2005). The stigmatization of mental illness in children and parents: Developmental issues, family concerns, and research needs. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 714–734. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1469-7610.2005.01456.x.
Hoza, B. (2007). Peer functioning in children with ADHD. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(6), 655–663. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsm024.
Hoza, B., Gerdes, A. C., Mrug, S., Hinshaw, S. P., Bukowski, W. M., Gold, J. A. et al. Wigal, T. (2005). Peer-assessed outcomes in the multimodal treatment study of
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15374424jccp3401_7.
Jugert, P., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2011). Friendship preferences among German and Turkish preadolescents. Child Development, 82(3), 812–829. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01528.x.
Kaushik, K., Kostaki, E., & Kyriakopoulos, M. (2016). The stigma of mental illness in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Psychiatry Research, 243, 469–494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.042.
Kiesner, J., Maass, A., Cadinu, M., & Vallese, I. (2003). Risk factors for ethnic prejudice during early adolescence. Social Development, 12(2), 288–308. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-9507.00234.
Killen, M., & Rutland, A. (2011). Children and social exclusion: Morality, prejudice and group identity. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwellhttps://doi.org/10.1002/
9781444396317.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Ladd, G. W. (2016). Integrating academic and social-emotional learning in classroom interactions. In K. Wentzel, & G. Ramani (Eds.).
Handbook of social influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motivation and cognitive outcomes (pp. 349–366). New York: Routledge.
Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). Interplay between personal goals and classroom goal structures in predicting student outcomes: A multilevel analysis of person-context
interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.15.
Law, G. U., Sinclair, S., & Fraser, N. (2007). Children's attitudes and behavioural intentions towards a peer with symptoms of ADHD: Does the addition of a diagnostic
label make a difference? Journal of Child Health Care, 11(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493507076061.
Lebowitz, M. S. (2016). Stigmatization of ADHD: A developmental review. Journal of Attention Disorders, 20(3), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1087054712475211.
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404),
1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722.
Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school
characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001.
Malti, T., Gummerum, M., Keller, M., & Buchmann, M. (2009). Children's moral motivation, sympathy, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 80(2), 442–460.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01271.x.
Mancini, T., Fruggeri, L., & Panari (2006). An extension of the school moral atmosphere construct, and its association with aggressive behaviors in secondary school.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173577.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J. S., Abduljabbar, A. S., & Köller, O. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual
and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.670488.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Nagengast, B. (2009). Doubly-latent models of school contextual effects:
Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to control measurement and sampling error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(6), 764–802. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00273170903333665.
Mercer, S. H., McMillen, J. S., & DeRosier, M. E. (2009). Predicting change in children's aggression and victimization using classroom-level descriptive norms of
aggression and pro-social behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 47(4), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.001.
Mikami, A. Y., Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., & Lun, J. (2011). Effects of a teacher professional development intervention on peer relationships in secondary
classrooms. School Psychology Review, 40(3), 367–385.
Mikami, A. Y., Griggs, M. S., Lerner, M. D., Emeh, C. C., Reuland, M. M., Jack, A., & Anthony, M. R. (2013). A randomized trial of a classroom intervention to increase
peers' social inclusion of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(1), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0029654.
Mikami, A. Y., Hoza, B., Hinshaw, S. P., Arnold, L. E., Hechtman, L., & Pelham, W. E. (2015). Cross-setting correspondence in sociometric nominations among children
with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 23(1), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426613518244.
Mikami, A. Y., Lerner, M. D., & Lun, J. (2010). Social context influences on children's rejection by their peers. Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 123–130. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00130.x.
Mikami, A. Y., & Normand, S. (2015). The importance of social contextual factors in peer relationships of children with ADHD. Current Developmental Disorders Reports,
2(30), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-014-0036-0.
Mrug, S., Molina, B. G., Hoza, B., Gerdes, A., Hinshaw, S., Hechtman, L., & Arnold, L. E. (2012). Peer rejection and friendships in children with attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder: Contributions to long-term outcomes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 1013–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9610-2.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2014). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., & Griffiths, J. A. (2008). Effects of group norms on children's intentions to bully. Social Development, 17(4), 889–907.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00475.x.
Nowicki, E. A. (2006). A cross-sectional multivariate analysis of children's attitudes towards disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 335–348. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00781.x.
O'Driscoll, C., Heary, C., Hennessy, E., & McKeague, L. (2012). Explicit and implicit stigma towards peers with mental health problems in childhood and adolescence.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(10), 1054–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02580.x.
O'Driscoll, C., Heary, C., Hennessy, E., & McKeague, L. (2015). Adolescents' explanations for the exclusion of peers with mental health problems: An insight into
stigma. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30, 710–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.03.008.
Pelham, W. E., & Bender, M. E. (1982). Peer relationships in hyperactive children: Description and treatment. In K. D. Gadow, & I. Bailer (Vol. Eds.), Advances in
learning and behavioral disabilities. Vol. 1. Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 365–436). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Poteat, V. P. (2007). Peer group socialization of homophobic attitudes and behavior during adolescence. Child Development, 78(6), 1830–1842. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01101.x.
Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., & Birkett, M. (2015). The negative effects of prejudice on interpersonal relation-ships within adolescent peer groups. Developmental
Psychology, 51(4), 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038914.
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Eds.), (6th ed.).
Social, emotional, and personality development: Vol. 3. Handbook of child psychology (pp. 571–645). New York, NY: Wiley.

83
L. Gasser et al. Journal of School Psychology 71 (2018) 72–84

Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self-presentation: Children's implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development,
76(2), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00856.x.
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behavior in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
28(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000488.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit
measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(May), 23–74. Retrieved from http://www.dgps.de/fachgruppen/methoden/mpr-online/issue20/art3/
mpr130_13.pdf.
Schütz, H., & Six, B. (1996). How strong is the relationship between prejudice and discrimination? A meta-analytic answer. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 20(3–4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(96)00028-4.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental research. Research in Human Development, 6(2–3), 144–164. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15427600902911247.
Sierksma, J., Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2014). Children's intergroup helping: The role of empathy and peer group norms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126,
369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.06.002.
Smith, L. A., & Williams, J. M. (2005). Development differences in understanding the causes, contraollability and chronicity of disabilies. Child: Care, Health and
Development, 31(4), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00532.x.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom
contexts. Child Development, 70(1), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00013.
Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2013). Multiculturalism in the classroom: Ethnic attitudes and classmates' beliefs. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37,
176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.04.012.
Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2016). Ethnic attitudes and social projection in the classroom. Child Development, 87(5), 1452–1465. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12597.
Tropp, L. R., O'Brien, T. C., Gonzalez Gutierrez, R., Valdenegro, D., Migacheva, K., de Tezanos-Pinto, P. et al. Cayul, O. (2016). How school norms, peer norms, and
discrimination predict inter-ethnic experiences among youth. Child Development, 87(5), 1436–1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12608.
Waschbusch, D. A. (2002). A meta-analytic examination of comorbid hyperactive-impulsive-attention problems and conduct problems. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1),
118–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.118.
Weinstein, R. S. (1983). Student perceptions of schooling. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/461319.
Werner, N. E., & Hill, L. G. (2010). Individual and peer group normative beliefs about relational aggression. Child Development, 81(3), 826–836. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01436.x.
White, K. J., & Kistner, J. (1992). The influence of teacher feedback on young children's peer preferences and perceptions. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 933.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.933.
Zhou, Q., Valiente, C., & Eisenberg, N. (2003). Empathy and its measurement. In S. J. Lopez, & C. R. Snyder (Eds.). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of
models and measures (pp. 269–284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Geiger, T. C., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Relational and physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peer relations: Gender moderation and
bidirectional associations. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(4), 421–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431605279841.

84