J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:1359–1363
DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0738-z
BRIEF REPORT
Brief Report: Sociometric Status and Behavioral Characteristics
of Peer Nominated Buddies for a Child with Autism
Jonathan M. Campbell Æ Christine A. Marino
Published online: 9 April 2009
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract We examined social and behavioral correlates
of children selected by their peers to serve as peer buddies
for an unfamiliar child with autism (CWA). Participants
were 293 children from two public elementary schools who
completed social status, behavioral, and peer buddy nom-
ination measures. Peer buddy nominations for a CWA were
related to: (a) perceived unpopularity; (b) being viewed as
helpful and smart; and (c) lacking influence regarding
popularity within the classroom. In contrast, peer buddy
nominations for a typical boy were related to being viewed
as popular, helpful, and self-confident. Students may select
a social niche for CWA based on principles of peer hom-
ophily. Limitations and suggestions for future research are
discussed.
Keywords Autism
Inclusion
Peer buddies

Sociometry
Popularity
Introduction
Within inclusive educational settings, children with autism
(CWA) experience low peer acceptance, companionship,
and reciprocity (Chamberlain et al. 2007). Yet, when
involved in friendships with typical peers, CWA enjoy
relationships characterized by positive social engagement
and experiences that resemble typical dyadic friendships,
which may be due, in part, to contact with typical peers
(Bauminger et al. 2008). To combat social isolation, peer-
mediated interventions have been used to improve the
J. M. Campbell (&)
C. A. Marino
Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional
Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
e-mail: jmcmpbll@uga.edu
social functioning of CWA, such as the use of peer buddies
(e.g., Laushey and Heflin 2000). Teachers typically select
classmates to serve as peer buddies who are compliant with
adult requests, academically strong, and regular school
attendees. Jackson and Campbell (2009) also reported that
teachers select peer buddies who are popular, prosocial,
and considered self-confident leaders in the classroom.
Although peer-mediated interventions, such as the
recruitment of peer buddies, typically target improving
peer interactions, peers are often not involved in the peer
selection process due, in part, to the time involved. Teacher
peer buddy nominations share only modest agreement with
peers’ nominations (Jackson and Campbell 2009), and little
is known regarding social and behavioral characteristics
that peers use to select peer buddies for CWA. We aimed to
extend the knowledge base in this area by examining social
status and behavioral correlates of peer buddy selections
for CWA. We were also interested if peers’ nominations
for a CWA differed from nominations for a typical child.
We predicted that peer buddy nominations for the CWA
would correlate with nominations of being well-liked,
popular and socially skilled and that the correlates would
be somewhat similar for the CWA and typical child.
In order to capture various aspects of the social milieu,
we utilized measures of social status, social influence, and
behavioral characteristics in our search for social correlates
of peer buddy nominations. Our strategy was influenced by
recent re-conceptualizations of popularity which include
both sociometric popularity and perceived popularity.
Sociometric popularity is grounded in the psychological
tradition of measuring social status through sociometric
techniques (e.g., Coie and Dodge 1983), which results in
identification of peers who are well liked, accepted, or
preferred as a friend. Perceived popularity, however, is
aligned with sociology and based on a person’s attainments,
123
1360
attributes, possessions, and activities of social prestige and
influence (Lease et al. 2002). Different behavioral charac-
teristics are associated with each group. Perceived popular
children are often identified as ‘‘cool,’’ socially prominent,
prestigious, and hold a level of dominance within the peer
group; whereas, sociometric popular children are found to
be prosocial and likeable, but not necessarily dominant or
powerful amongst peers (Lease et al.). We reasoned that
both aspects of social status may be important in peers’
decision-making regarding whom to select to facilitate
social entry into a classroom of unfamiliar students.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 293 third-, fourth-, and fifth-graders [144
boys (49.1%), 149 girls (50.9%); M age = 9.50 years;
SD = 1.05] from 15 regular education classrooms from
two elementary schools. Participation rates ranged from 79
to 100% across classrooms (M = 90.14; SD = 6.15). A
detailed description of the participants appears in Jackson
and Campbell (2009).
Procedure
Participants completed nominations of social status,
behavioral characteristics, and social influence using ros-
ters of participating classmates. Students then watched two
videotapes and responded to questions about them. Data
were collected as part of a larger study examining the
effect of an informational message about autism on chil-
dren’s attitudes (Campbell et al. 2004). Each class watched
a videotape of a typical 12-year-old boy actor (‘‘Robby’’;
NO-AUT) and a second tape of the same child displaying
symptoms of autism frequently associated with lower
functioning individuals, including gaze aversion, hand
flapping, immediate echolalia, and body rocking (AUT;
Swaim and Morgan 2001; see ‘‘Appendix’’). Investigators
explained that the child on the videotape might be joining
their class.
The child actor was the sibling of a child with autism and
was asked to portray symptoms frequently displayed by his
brother. Four individuals familiar with symptoms of autism,
a parent of a CWA, a school psychologist, a child clinical
psychologist, and an advanced graduate student in child
clinical psychology, reviewed the CWA videotape and
agreed that the child actor accurately portrayed autistic
symptomatology (Swaim and Morgan). Videotape order was
counterbalanced randomly across classrooms; eight class-
rooms (53.3%) containing 153 students (52.2%) viewed the
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:1359–1363
videotape sequence as NO-AUT/AUT and seven classrooms
(51.6%) with 140 students (46.7%) viewed the sequence as
AUT/NO-AUT.
Measures
Sociometric status. Students nominated three classmates
they ‘‘like to play with the most’’ (LM) and three they ‘‘like
to play with the least’’ (LM; Coie and Dodge 1983). LM
and LL nominations were standardized within classroom
and gender and used to generate social preference (SP;
LMZ–LLZ) and social impact (SI; LMZ ? LLZ) scores. SP
and SI scores were also standardized within classroom and
gender (i.e., M = 0; SD = 1). Coie and Dodge’s classifi-
cation strategy was used to classify children into
sociometric groups: (a) popular, SP [ 1.0, LMZ [ 0, and
LLZ \ 0; (b) rejected, if SP \ -1.0, LMZ \ 0, and LLZ
score [ 0; (c) controversial, SI score [ 1.0, and LMZ and
LLZ [ 0; (d) neglected, if SI score \ -1.0, and LMZ and
LLZ \ 0; (e) average, all other unclassified children.
Perceived popularity and peer buddy nominations.
Students nominated three classmates they believed were
‘‘most popular at school’’ (MP) and three thought to be
‘‘least popular at school’’ (LP). After each videotape,
students were asked: ‘‘who would you pick as a buddy to
help this child fit in with the other kids in your class?’’
Nominations were standardized within classroom and
gender to adjust for differences in nominators across
classes and account for same-gender preferences for
nominations.
Behavioral characteristics and social influence. Partic-
ipants also completed nominations of behavioral
characteristics and social influence using a modified ver-
sion of the Revised Class Play (RCP; Masten et al. 1985), a
widely used measure of peer reputation, behavioral char-
acteristics, and social influence. Consistent with the
original RCP measure, participants were asked to pretend
that they were assigning roles (i.e., 11 RCP items) for an
upcoming class play and to nominate three classmates who
fit each role (e.g., ‘‘This person makes good grades, is
smart, and usually knows the right answer;’’ ‘‘Smart’’
item). The RCP procedure shows good reliability, con-
current validity, and predictive validity (e.g., Masten et al.
1985; Gest et al. 2006), including analysis of single items
which are deemed reliable due to the use of multiple peer
raters (Lindstrom et al. 2007). As with the other peer
nomination measures, RCP nominations were standardized
within classroom and gender (i.e., M = 0; SD = 1).
Manipulation check. To ensure participants viewed the
conditions differently, we included a manipulation check
consisting of a single item: ‘‘How much like other kids in
your class is Robby?’’ with four response options
(1 = ‘‘Very different,’’ 2 = ‘‘Sort of different,’’ 3 = ‘‘Sort
J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:1359–1363 1361

of the same,’’ and 4 = ‘‘Very much the same.’’). Partici- Table 2 Summary of simultaneous regression analysis for variables
pants rated the child in the NO-AUT videotape as more predicting peer buddy nominations for child without (NO-AUT) and
with autism (AUT)
similar (M = 3.16; SD = 1.06) when compared to the
child in the AUT videotape (M = 1.77; SD = 1.01; Variable NO-AUT AUT
t (282) = 18.47, p \ .001). B SE B b B SE B b

Social status
Results Like most .04 .06 .04 .08 .07 .08
Like least -.10 .07 -.10 .11 .07 .11
Sociometric classifications were as follows: (a) popular, Most popular .23 .09 .25** .16 .10 .16
n = 41 (14.0%); (b) rejected, n = 46 (15.7%); (c) average, Least popular .13 .07 .13 .26 .07 .27**
n = 150 (51.2%); (d) controversial, n = 20 (6.8%); and Behavioral characteristics
(e) neglected, n = 36 (12.3%). A 2 (Child Type) 9 5 Cool .10 .08 .11 .03 .09 .04
(Sociometric) mixed-model ANOVA, revealed a main Socially skilled .08 .07 .09 -.01 .09 -.01
effect for Sociometric, F(4, 288) = 4.64, p \ .05; partial Helpful .14 .06 .14* .16 .06 .16*
g2 = .06, and significant Child Type 9 Sociometric Athletic .01 .06 .01 -.03 .07 -.03
interaction, F(4, 288) = 3.43, p \ .01; partial g2 = .05, for Smart .08 .08 .08 .22 .09 .22**
peer buddy nominations (see Table 1 for descriptive data). Values school -.03 .05 -.03 .04 .06 .04
For NO-AUT, Popular children received more peer buddy Social influence items
nominations than Rejected or Average children. For AUT, Leader .12 .08 .12 .00 .09 .00
Popular children received more peer buddy nominations Admire -.10 .08 -.11 .10 .09 .10
than Neglected children. As illustrated in Table 1, Rejected Influence .02 .08 .02 .03 .09 .03
students received more tutor nominations for the child with Control -.02 .07 -.02 -.29 .07 -.29***
AUT (M = .17) than the child with NO-AUT (M = -.33). Self-confident .16 .06 .16** .10 .06 .09
Peer buddy nominations did not differ between the NO-
* p \ .05
AUT and AUT conditions for the remaining sociometric
** p \ .01
categories.
*** p \ .001
Male gender correlated with NO-AUT, r(291) = .44,
p \ .001, and AUT, r(291) = .30, p \ .001, peer buddy
nominations. We conducted two separate simultaneous
regression analyses, one for each condition, to examine F(15, 291) = 12.35, p \ .001, and 28.9% of the variability
relationships between social and behavioral nomination in AUT buddy selections, F(15, 291) = 7.50, p \ .001.
items and peer buddy nominations. We entered all social ‘‘Helpful,’’ ‘‘smart,’’ and ‘‘self-confident’’ were behavioral
status, behavioral characteristics, and social influence characteristics that emerged as significant predictors for
nominations for each model and identified significant pre- both NO-AUT and AUT; however, AUT nominations were
dictors via t test values. As a set, social status, behavioral also predicted by ‘‘like least’’ and ‘‘least popular’’ nomi-
characteristics, and social influence nominations accounted nations while NO-AUT selections were predicted by ‘‘like
for 40.2% of the variability in NO-AUT buddy selections, most,’’ ‘‘cool,’’ and ‘‘influential’’ nominations (Table 2).
NO-AUT and AUT selections were moderately correlated,
r(291) = .31, p \ .001.
Table 1 Means and standard deviations for peer buddy nominations
by sociometric status and presence or absence of autism
Sociometric group No autism Autism Discussion
(NO-AUT) (AUT)

Popular (n = 41) .58 (1.01)a,b .42 (1.03)a Similar to teachers’ peer buddy selections (Jackson and
Rejected (n = 46) -.33 (.92) a
.17 (1.06) Campbell 2009), peers’ nominations were more likely male
Average (n = 150) .07 (.87)b .00 (.91) as is to be expected given the strong same-gender prefer-
Controversial (n = 20) .13 (.74) .08 (.78) ence that students show in middle childhood. Popular
Neglected (n = 36) .03 (.95) -.25 (.77)a students received more peer buddy nominations for an
unfamiliar CWA when compared to Neglected children.
Standard deviations appear in parentheses. Scores are standardized
within classrooms and gender (M = 0; SD = 1). Means with like
Rejected students were nominated more frequently for the
superscripts within columns differed on Tukey post hoc tests CWA versus the typical child. Similar to peer buddy
(p \ .05) nominations for the typical child, nominations for the

123
1362
CWA were associated with prosocial characteristics, i.e.,
showing concern and being helpful toward others. In con-
trast, however, peer buddies for the CWA were perceived
as unpopular and lacking control within the social milieu,
but were seen as smart students who made good grades.
Elementary students seemed to have selected peer
buddies for the CWA with a mixed social and behavioral
profile. On one hand, peer buddy selections for the CWA
demonstrated characteristics that would seem to facilitate
social acceptance within the classroom, such as being
helpful, showing concern, and making good grades. On the
negative side, however, the selected peers’ social standing
does not appear to be conducive to fostering widespread
peer acceptance. We identify two possible reasons for the
low social influence of peer buddies for CWA. First, peers
report negative initial attitudes towards unfamiliar CWA
(e.g., Campbell et al. 2004), which may be associated in
some way with unpopular peers within their own class-
rooms. A second possibility is related to the idea of
homophily, i.e., the tendency for children to be attracted to
and form relationships with others who share similar
characteristics (Farmer and Farmer 1996). Recall that the
task was to identify peers who will help a CWA ‘‘fit in’’
with other students in the class. As such, students may
have matched the CWA with peers of a similar ilk, those
who may experience social difficulties and perhaps mar-
ginalization within the classroom. Peers may have
identified a social niche for the CWA’s entry into the
classroom, a subgroup of peers who are neither popular nor
dominant, but nevertheless, helpful, empathic, and smart.
Affiliation with a small network of peers is clearly a
favorable social outcome for CWA, and peers may have
suggested an appropriate network in their peer buddy
selections.
Our conclusions must be tempered by the analogue
nature of our investigation, which limits the social validity
of our findings. Students informed their peer buddy selec-
tions based on information viewed from videotape as
opposed to making decisions with respect to a ‘‘real’’ CWA
who may be entering their class. We also restricted our
pool of RCP nomination items by excluding negative
behavioral characteristics that may describe peers within
the classroom (e.g., withdrawn; aggressive; odd). In ret-
rospect, including items of this sort would assist in fuller
understanding the behavioral profile of the CWA peer
buddy group. A final limitation involves our lack of
manipulation check regarding whether children understood
that the child viewed in the AUT condition was portraying
symptoms of autism. Although we included a general
manipulation check regarding students’ perceptions of
similarity to classmates, we did not specifically ask about
their understanding of the AUT message included in the
videotape.
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:1359–1363
Appendix
Video Script for Typical Child (NO-AUT Condition)
‘‘This is Robby. He is about the same age as you, and he
goes to school like you do. Robby’s family lives in a town
called Woodmont. Woodmont is a medium sized town that
has schools, churches, shopping malls, movie theaters,
libraries, and most of the other things towns have. Robby
and his family go to the zoo, the shopping mall, and
church. During the summer, they sometimes go to a park or
a lake to enjoy being outdoors. Robby also likes to eat at
McDonald’s.’’
[Voice over ends. Adult female walks into view, toward
Robby, and says, ‘‘Hi Robby, what are you doing, working
on a puzzle?’’ Robby responds, ‘‘Yeah. It’s one I got at the
mall. Its got sharks and fish and stuff on it.’’ Adult female
replies, ‘‘Do you want to go play with one of your friends
when you’re done with the puzzle?’’ Robby responds,
‘‘Sure! That sounds like fun!’’ Adult female state, ‘‘Well it
looks like you’re doing a real good job, Robby.’’ Robby
replies, ‘‘Thanks.’’ Adult female walks out of view, and
voice-over returns].
‘‘Robby likes to do many of the things you do. He likes
to watch television, play with puzzles and put model cars
together. Robby lives in Woodmont now, but his family
might be moving to your neighborhood soon. If they do,
he’ll be starting at your school and may be in your class.’’
Video Script for Child with Autism (AUT Condition)
‘‘This is Robby. He is about the same age as you, and he
goes to school like you do. Robby’s family lives in a town
called Woodmont. Woodmont is a medium sized town that
has schools, churches, shopping malls, movie theaters,
libraries, and most of the other things towns have. Robby
and his family go to the zoo, the shopping mall, and
church. During the summer, they sometimes go to a park or
a lake to enjoy being outdoors. Robby also likes to eat at
McDonald’s.’’
[Voice-over ends. Adult female walks into view, toward
Robby, and says, ‘‘Hi Robby, what are you doing working
on a puzzle?’’ Robby replies, ‘‘Hi Robby working on
puzzle’’ while showing gaze aversion and stereotypic hand
movements and rocking. Adult female replies, ‘‘Do you
want to go play with one of your friends when you’re done
with the puzzle?’’ Robby replies, ‘‘Friend done with puz-
zle.’’ Adult female states, ‘‘Well, it looks like you’re doing
a real good job, Robby.’’ Robby replies ‘‘Good job
Robby.’’ Adult female walks out of view, and voice-over
returns].
‘‘Robby likes to do many of the things you do. He likes
to watch television, play with puzzles and put model cars
J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:1359–1363
together. Robby lives in Woodmont now, but his family
might be moving to your neighborhood soon. If they do,
he’ll be starting at your school and may be in your class.
Robby has autism, which means that there’s something
wrong with his brain that makes it hard for him to look at
other people and talk to them. When he talks, he sometimes
repeats what was said to him instead of answering the
question. And sometimes it seems like he can’t hear, even
though he can. Sometimes Robby waves his hands around,
or spins around or rocks back and forth, or bounces up and
down in his chair. He may even hit or bite himself or other
people and things And Robby has a hard time changing
activities, going from one thing to doing something else.
Robby doesn’t mean to be different or hard to get along
with. He’s not trying to make trouble; he does these things
because he has autism. But people with autism can learn to
do many of the things that people without autism can do,
like talk to and play with other people, go to school, read,
and write, and even get jobs or go to college when they
grow up. They just need some help to learn how to do these
things.’’
References
Bauminger, N., Solomon, M., Aviezer, A., Heung, K., Brown, J., &
Rogers, S. J. (2008). Friendship in high-functioning children
with autism spectrum disorder: Mixed and non-mixed dyads.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1211–
1229. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0501-2.
Campbell, J. M., Ferguson, J. E., Herzinger, C. V., Jackson, J. N., &
Marino, C. A. (2004). Combined descriptive and explanatory
information improves peers’ perceptions of autism. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 25, 321–339. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.
2004.01.005.
1363
Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Involve-
ment or isolation? The social networks of children with autism in
regular classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37, 230–242. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0164-4.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in
children’s social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261–282.
Farmer, T. W., & Farmer, E. M. Z. (1996). Social relationships of
students with exceptionalities in mainstream classrooms: Social
networks and homophily. Exceptional Children, 62, 431–450.
Gest, S. D., Sesma, A., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (2006).
Childhood peer reputation as a predictor of competence and
symptoms 10 years later. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-
ogy, 34, 509–526. doi:10.1007/s10802-006-9029-8.
Jackson, J. N., & Campbell, J. M. (2009). Teachers’ peer buddy
selections for children with autism: Social characteristics and
relationship with peer nominations. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 39, 269–277. doi:10.1007/s10803-
008-0623-1.
Laushey, K. M., & Heflin, J. (2000). Enhancing social skills of
kindergarten children with autism through the training of
multiple peers as tutors. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 30, 183–193. doi:10.1023/A:1005558101038.
Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children’s
social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87–
109. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00188.
Lindstrom, W. A., Lease, A. M., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2007). Peer-
and self-rated correlates of a teacher-rated typology of child
adjustment. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 579–599. doi:
10.1002/pits.20249.
Masten, A. S., Morison, P., & Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). A revised class
play method of peer assessment. Developmental Psychology, 21,
523–533. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.3.523.
Swaim, K. F., & Morgan, S. B. (2001). Children’s attitudes and
behavioral intentions toward a peer with autistic behaviors: Does
a brief educational intervention have an effect? Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 195–205. doi:10.1023/
A:1010703316365.
123