Children

's

Feedback

Preferences

in

Response

to

an

Experimentally

Manipulated

Peer

Evaluation

Outcome

The

Role

of

Depressive

Symptoms

The

present

study

examined

the

linkage

between

pre-adolescent

children

's

depressive

symptoms

and

their

preferences

for

receiving

positive

vs.

negative

feedback

subsequent

to

being

faced

with

an

experimentally

manipulated

peer

evaluation

outcome

in

real

time

Participants

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

ages

to

played

a

computer

contest

based

on

the

television

show

Survivor

and

were

randomized

to

either

a

peer

rejection

-LRB-

i.e.

receiving

the

lowest

total

likeability

score

from

a

group

of

peer-judges

-RRB-

a

peer

success

-LRB-

i.e.

receiving

the

highest

score

-RRB-

or

a

control

peer

evaluation

condition

Children

's

self-reported

feedback

preferences

were

then

assessed

Results

revealed

that

participants

assigned

to

the

negative

evaluation

outcome

relative

to

either

the

success

or

the

control

outcome

showed

a

significantly

higher

subsequent

preference

for

negatively

tuned

feedback

Contrary

to

previous

work

and

predictions

derived

from

self-verification

theory

children

higher

in

depressive

symptoms

were

only

more

likely

to

prefer

negative

feedback

in

response

to

the

negative

peer

evaluation

outcome

These

effects

for

depression

were

not

accounted

for

by

either

state

mood

at

baseline

or

mood

change

in

response

to

the

feedback

manipulation

Depression

is

a

leading

cause

of

disability

across

the

life

span

-LRB-

Murray

Lopez

-RRB-

Whereas

the

point

prevalence

of

major

depressive

disorder

-LRB-

MDD

-RRB-

in

school-age

children

is

relatively

modest

-LRB-

i.e.

between

and

percent

Cohen

et

al.

-RRB-

epidemiological

community

surveys

of

childhood

disorders

suggest

that

to

percent

of

school-aged

children

in

the

general

population

experience

periods

of

elevated

depressive

symptoms

including

depressed

mood

-LRB-

e.g.

Compas

Hammen

Rudolph

-RRB-

Several

studies

have

shown

that

moderate

levels

of

depression

are

associated

with

significant

impairment

in

school

and

peer

functioning

-LRB-

e.g.

Nolen-Hoeksema

Girgus

Seligman

Petersen

Sarigiani

Kennedy

-RRB-

and

may

persist

for

years

in

some

children

-LRB-

Nolen-Hoeksema

et

al.

-RRB-

Moreover

children

displaying

moderate

levels

of

depressive

symptoms

are

at

high

risk

to

suffer

from

severe

recurrent

major

depression

later

in

life

-LRB-

e.g.

Costello

Angold

Keeler

Lewinsohn

Rohde

Klein

Seeley

-RRB-

Taken

together

although

moderate

levels

of

depressive

symptoms

may

not

meet

DSM-IV-TR

-LRB-

APA

-RRB-

criteria

for

MDD

they

are

of

significant

concern

Several

theorists

have

argued

that

feedback

seeking

may

be

implicated

in

the

maintenance

and/or

exacerbation

of

dysphoric

states

including

the

development

of

full-blown

depression

For

instance

Coyne

-LRB-

-RRB-

has

asserted

that

people

high

in

depression

systematically

alienate

their

relationship

partners

through

excessive

reassurance

seeking

This

behavior

is

particularly

likely

to

elicit

negative

reactions

in

others

including

rejection

raising

the

risk

of

becoming

even

more

depressed

when

people

's

feedback

seeking

reflects

their

suspicion

that

they

will

not

receive

such

reassurance

-LRB-

e.g.

constantly

asking

their

partners

if

they

still

love

them

-RRB-

Whereas

Coyne

suggested

that

depressed

people

merely

inadvertently

create

the

social

conditions

that

make

them

suffer

the

more

recently

advanced

self-verification

theory

-LRB-

e.g.

Swann

Swann

Rentfrow

Guinn

-RRB-

posits

that

people

high

in

depression

seek

out

negative

social

feedback

more

actively

as

a

means

of

verifying

their

negative

self-conceptions

Specifically

according

to

self-verification

theory

-LRB-

e.g.

Swann

Swann

Pelham

Krull

Swann

Rentfrow

Guinn

-RRB-

individuals

are

drawn

to

feedback

that

confirms

their

self-conceptions

because

it

tends

to

buttress

their

feelings

of

existential

security

-LRB-

epistemic

concerns

-RRB-

and/or

because

they

want

their

social

interactions

to

unfold

smoothly

and

thus

work

to

ensure

that

others

do

not

form

appraisals

of

them

that

are

overly

positive

or

overly

negative

-LRB-

pragmatic

concerns

-RRB-

Negative

self-views

including

worthlessness

repulsiveness

and

excessive

self-criticism

figure

prominently

in

depression

-LRB-

e.g.

Beck

Ellis

-RRB-

Consistent

with

self-verification

theory

several

studies

among

adults

have

provided

evidence

to

suggest

that

people

higher

in

depression

are

more

inclined

to

actively

seek

out

-LRB-

or

prefer

-RRB-

negative

social

feedback

as

well

as

interaction

partners

likely

to

provide

them

with

such

unfavorable

feedback

For

instance

Swann

and

colleagues

observed

that

depressed

college

students

relative

to

controls

preferred

friends

who

evaluated

them

negatively

were

more

inclined

to

seek

negative

feedback

from

their

roommates

and

preferentially

solicited

unfavorable

feedback

from

their

dating

partners

-LRB-

Swann

Wenzlaff

Krull

Pelham

-RRB-

Moreover

when

presented

with

self-discrepant

-LRB-

i.e.

positive

-RRB-

feedback

adults

high

on

depressive

symptoms

appeared

to

attempt

to

restore

their

sense

of

worthlessness

by

subsequently

seeking

feedback

about

their

weaknesses

from

a

different

evaluator

whereas

adults

low

on

depressive

symptoms

were

more

likely

to

solicit

feedback

about

their

strengths

-LRB-

Swann

Wenzlaff

Tafarodi

-RRB-

Finally

participants

higher

on

depressive

symptoms

relative

to

controls

were

more

likely

to

choose

interacting

with

someone

who

appraised

them

negatively

over

the

opportunity

to

avoid

the

encounter

-LRB-

Swann

et

al.

-RRB-

Contrary

to

research

with

adults

the

investigation

of

how

depression

in

children

is

associated

with

feedback

seeking

preferences

is

still

in

its

infancy

Joiner

and

colleagues

-LRB-

Joiner

Katz

Lew

-RRB-

examined

the

linkage

between

depression

and

feedback

seeking

in

a

sample

of

inpatient

youths

They

found

that

children

who

were

more

depressed

showed

a

greater

preference

for

receiving

feedback

of

a

negative

nature

based

on

responses

to

a

questionnaire

assessing

feedback

preferences

in

four

distinct

self-relevant

domains

-LRB-

i.e.

social

intellectual

athletic

and

physical

attractiveness

-RRB-

As

noted

by

the

authors

an

important

limitation

of

this

study

was

the

unknown

predictive

validity

of

their

feedback

preference

questionnaire

Hence

it

is

unclear

to

what

extent

scores

on

this

measure

converge

with

participants

actual

preference

for

negative

feedback

in

the

face

of

actually

occurring

events

-LRB-

see

Joiner

et

al.

-RRB-

In

the

only

study

to

examine

feedback

seeking

in

children

using

a

community

sample

Cassidy

and

colleagues

used

a

bogus

feedback

paradigm

to

examine

children

's

actual

feedback

preferences

-LRB-

Cassidy

Ziv

Mehta

Feeney

-RRB-

Specifically

participants

provided

personal

information

about

themselves

by

completing

a

series

of

questionnaires

They

were

led

to

believe

that

their

responses

would

be

shown

to

peers

from

a

different

school

who

would

use

this

information

to

answer

specific

questions

of

an

evaluative

nature

about

each

participant

Next

participants

were

provided

the

opportunity

to

select

some

of

the

alleged

answers

to

these

questions

knowing

that

some

answers

would

include

negative

feedback

and

others

would

include

positive

feedback

In

line

with

findings

for

adults

and

children

diagnosed

with

depression

children

displaying

higher

depressive

symptoms

were

more

likely

to

display

a

relative

preference

for

negative

information

about

themselves

A

similar

pattern

of

findings

consistent

with

self-verification

theory

was

observed

for

the

linkage

between

feedback

preferences

and

global

self-representations

as

indexed

by

level

of

general

self-esteem

An

important

contribution

of

the

Cassidy

et

al.

study

is

that

it

provides

evidence

to

suggest

that

the

tendency

for

depressed

individuals

to

prefer

rather

negative

feedback

extends

to

moderately

depressed

children

and

adolescents

as

indexed

by

level

of

self-reported

depressive

symptoms

However

the

study

is

limited

by

its

relatively

narrow

scope

of

inquiry

with

regard

to

the

role

of

depressive

symptoms

First

the

potential

role

of

state

mood

was

not

examined

Whereas

self-verification

theory

claims

that

interest

in

negative

feedback

is

motivated

by

negative

self-views

an

alternative

explanation

for

the

linkage

between

elevated

depressive

symptoms

and

more

negative

feedback

preferences

is

that

due

to

high

levels

of

depressed

state

mood

people

displaying

elevated

depressive

symptoms

are

prone

to

be

drawn

to

all

that

is

negative

including

unfavorable

appraisals

from

others

-LRB-

e.g.

Beck

Beck

Rush

Shaw

Emery

-RRB-

Moreover

enhancing

state

mood

with

adults

by

providing

them

with

experimentally

manipulated

favorable

evaluations

has

been

shown

to

increase

levels

of

subsequent

positive

feedback

seeking

-LRB-

Mischel

Ebbesen

Zeiss

-RRB-

A

second

limitation

of

the

Casssidy

et

al.

study

is

that

the

valence

of

the

evaluative

feedback

was

not

manipulated

Beck

has

asserted

that

depressed

people

seek

unfavourable

feedback

only

insofar

as

their

negative

self-views

have

been

activated

by

a

stressful

negative

event

Work

conducted

by

Swann

and

colleagues

-LRB-

Swann

et

al.

-RRB-

has

shown

that

adults

high

in

depressive

symptoms

respond

quite

differently

with

respect

to

their

feedback

preferences

in

the

face

of

positive

negative

or

neutral

evaluations

Specifically

these

individuals

responded

to

positive

i.e.

self-discrepant

evaluations

with

a

more

pronounced

preference

for

negatively

tuned

feedback

relative

to

a

control

condition

whereas

they

were

not

more

inclined

to

seek

negative

feedback

subsequent

to

receiving

unfavorable

i.e.

self-congruent

evaluations

The

present

study

examined

the

linkage

in

pre-adolescent

children

between

depressive

symptoms

and

feedback

preferences

in

response

to

a

salient

and

ego-involving

emotion-eliciting

event

Specifically

we

examined

these

linkages

in

response

to

both

a

positive

and

a

negative

peer

evaluation

outcome

We

chose

peer

evaluation

as

the

emotion

provocation

stimulus

because

peer

praise

and

peer

rejection

are

common

emotion-eliciting

events

in

childhood

-LRB-

Coie

-RRB-

Moreover

ample

evidence

suggests

that

rejection

ranks

among

the

most

aversive

of

human

experiences

and

is

associated

with

marked

negative

affect

-LRB-

e.g.

Baumeister

Tice

Leary

Tambor

Terdal

Downs

-RRB-

Finally

peer

rejection

figures

prominently

in

the

development

and/or

maintenance

of

several

forms

of

psychopathology

including

depression

-LRB-

e.g.

Nolan

Flynn

Garber

-RRB-

The

reason

for

our

focus

on

pre-adolescent

children

is

twofold

First

the

most

salient

content

of

self-representations

among

pre-adolescents

is

one

's

social

appeal

and

social

skills/attributes

that

influence

interactions

with

others

-LRB-

Harter

-RRB-

Second

in

this

age

group

approximtely

of

children

's

social

activities

involve

peers

-LRB-

Grusec

Lytton

Rubin

Bukowski

Parker

-RRB-

and

peers

as

a

reference

group

are

of

central

importance

in

these

children

's

lives

-LRB-

e.g.

Hay

Payne

Chadwick

Hartup

-RRB-

Toward

this

aim

we

devised

an

experimental

peer

evaluation

manipulation

based

on

the

television

show

Survivor

In

brief

participants

were

led

to

believe

that

they

were

playing

an

Internet

version

of

Survivor

against

four

same-sex

contestants

of

comparable

age

-LRB-

all

of

them

were

computerized

bogus

contestants

-RRB-

from

four

different

schools

in

the

same

area

They

were

informed

that

a

team

of

same-age

peer

judges

consisting

of

eight

boys

and

eight

girls

would

evaluate

all

participants

Specifically

each

juror

would

give

them

a

score

between

and

with

higher

scores

reflecting

higher

levels

of

perceived

likeability

Moreover

the

jurors

would

indicate

what

they

liked

most

and

what

they

disliked

most

about

each

contestant

Participants

were

randomized

to

one

of

the

following

three

peer

evaluation

feedback

conditions

-LRB-

a

-RRB-

success

feedback

-LRB-

i.e.

having

obtained

the

highest

total

score

-RRB-

-LRB-

b

-RRB-

failure

feedback

-LRB-

i.e.

having

obtained

the

lowest

total

score

-RRB-

or

-LRB-

c

-RRB-

control

feedback

-LRB-

i.e.

having

obtained

neither

the

highest

nor

the

lowest

score

-RRB-

These

feedback

conditions

were

designed

to

induce

mood

improvement

mood

worsening

and

no

mood

change

respectively

Subsequent

to

receiving

the

bogus

peer

evaluation

feedback

outcome

children

's

feedback

preferences

were

assessed

The

assessment

of

state

mood

at

pre

and

post-feedback

afforded

the

possibility

to

examine

the

linkages

between

participants

level

of

depressive

symptoms

feedback

valence

-LRB-

changes

in

-RRB-

state

mood

and

subsequent

feedback

preferences

To

increase

the

specificity

of

our

findings

for

depressive

symptoms

we

also

examined

the

potential

role

of

children

's

peer-nominated

social

standing

in

affecting

their

feedback

preferences

In

sum

the

present

study

aimed

to

address

the

following

specific

research

questions

-LRB-

a

-RRB-

Does

the

type

-LRB-

valence

-RRB-

of

peer

feedback

influence

children

's

subsequent

feedback

preferences

-LRB-

b

-RRB-

Are

the

effects

of

feedback

valence

moderated

by

children

's

level

of

depressive

symptoms

-LRB-

c

-RRB-

Do

differences

in

state

mood

at

baseline

account

for

these

potential

effects

of

depression

and

-LRB-

d

-RRB-

Are

the

effects

of

feedback

valence

and

depressive

symptoms

on

subsequent

feedback

seeking

mediated

by

changes

in

mood

from

pre

to

post-feedback

We

hypothesized

that

children

assigned

to

receive

a

positive

peer

evaluation

outcome

would

be

more

likely

to

prefer

subsequent

favorable

feedback

than

those

assigned

to

the

neutral

peer

feedback

condition

whereas

children

assigned

to

receive

a

negative

peer

evaluation

outcome

would

not

be

more

likely

to

prefer

subsequent

negative

feedback

This

set

of

predictions

was

based

on

findings

with

adults

suggesting

that

positively

valenced

feedback

leads

to

a

subsequent

preference

for

positively

tuned

feedback

-LRB-

Mischel

et

al.

-RRB-

whereas

Swann

and

colleagues

-LRB-

Swann

et

al.

-RRB-

found

that

negative

feedback

exerted

no

effect

on

adults

subsequent

preference

for

negative

feedback

We

also

hypothesized

that

level

of

depressive

symptoms

would

qualify

the

relationship

between

our

peer

feedback

manipulation

and

children

's

subsequent

feedback

preferences

such

that

children

higher

on

depressive

symptoms

would

be

more

likely

to

respond

to

positive

i.e.

self-discrepant

evaluations

with

a

preference

for

negatively

tuned

feedback

relative

to

the

control

condition

Finally

we

hypothesized

that

the

effects

of

the

peer

feedback

manipulation

on

subsequent

feedback

preferences

would

be

mediated

by

changes

in

state

mood

from

pre

to

post-feedback

Method

Participants

Participants

were

children

-LRB-

boys

girls

-RRB-

enrolled

in

and

grade

classes

from

two

public

elementary

schools

in

the

Netherlands

They

were

predominantly

Caucasian

-LRB-

-RRB-

ranged

in

age

from

to

years

-LRB-

M

SD

-RRB-

and

were

predominantly

from

a

middle-class

SES

background

For

the

initial

sample

of

children

classroom

teachers

sent

parent

permission

letters

home

with

children

Of

the

letters

returned

parents

-LRB-

-RRB-

gave

their

consent

for

their

children

to

participate

in

the

study

and

-LRB-

-RRB-

declined

We

also

obtained

verbal

permission

to

perform

the

study

from

the

principal

of

the

school

and

each

child

's

teacher

Children

were

informed

that

they

could

discontinue

their

participation

at

any

time

Procedure

In

the

first

of

two

sessions

approximately

one

week

apart

participants

were

administered

the

Children

Depression

Inventory

-LRB-

CDI

Kovacs

-RRB-

in

their

regular

classrooms

during

school

hours

Moreover

participants

social

standing

in

their

peer

group

was

assessed

via

a

commonly

used

procedure

which

asks

children

to

indicate

whom

among

their

classmates

they

like

most

and

whom

they

like

least

-LRB-

e.g.

Newcomb

Bukowski

Pattee

-RRB-

During

administration

of

the

measures

the

classroom

teacher

remained

in

the

room

A

research

assistant

read

the

directions

aloud

and

children

were

encouraged

to

ask

for

help

if

they

had

questions

or

encountered

problems

completing

the

questionnaires

At

the

end

of

the

first

session

which

lasted

approximately

min

children

were

informed

that

later

that

week

they

would

participate

in

a

computer-contest

The

second

session

was

carried

out

in

a

quiet

room

on

the

school

grounds

Participants

were

told

that

their

class

was

selected

to

take

part

in

an

Internet

computer-contest

called

Survivor

In

reality

the

contest

was

a

computer

program

written

in

Visual

Basic

designed

to

present

the

illusion

of

playing

on-line

with

four

other

children

Survivor

contest

Upon

arrival

the

participant

was

seated

in

front

of

a

laptop

computer

equipped

with

a

web-cam

to

have

their

photo

taken

Participants

were

told

that

their

picture

would

allow

all

the

contestants

to

see

what

each

of

the

other

children

looked

like

Prior

to

beginning

-LRB-

Time

-RRB-

participants

completed

a

computer-administered

baseline

mood

measure

i.e.

a

one-item

mood

scale

ranging

from

-LRB-

extremely

negative

-RRB-

to

-LRB-

extremely

positive

-RRB-

In

an

attempt

to

add

both

to

the

credibility

and

the

attractiveness

of

the

contest

the

opening

bars

of

the

hit

Survivor

-LRB-

produced

by

the

band

Destiny

's

Child

-RRB-

were

played

at

the

start

of

the

game

In

addition

an

eye-catching

logo

of

the

American

TV-show

appeared

on

the

computer

display

The

objective

and

rules

of

the

contest

were

presented

on

screen

Participants

were

encouraged

to

read

the

information

which

was

pre-tested

on

comprehensibility

for

children

in

this

age-range

carefully

in

their

own

pace

and

click

continue

to

progress

to

the

next

screen

Participants

were

informed

that

they

would

be

playing

against

four

same-sex

contestants

of

comparable

age

-LRB-

all

of

them

were

computerized

fictitious

co-players

-RRB-

from

four

different

schools

in

the

same

area

and

that

all

participants

would

be

evaluated

by

a

jury

consisting

of

members

eight

boys

and

eight

girls

Specifically

participants

were

explained

that

each

judge

would

give

them

a

score

between

and

with

higher

scores

reflecting

higher

levels

of

perceived

likeability

After

receiving

this

information

the

computer

displayed

a

screen

announcing

that

in

a

moment

pictures

and

names

of

all

judges

would

be

presented

one-at-a-time

The

children

whose

pictures

appeared

were

child

actors

from

two

different

modeling

agencies

in

the

Netherlands

In

a

pilot

study

adults

rated

the

attractiveness

of

children

's

faces

-LRB-

boys

girls

-RRB-

on

a

scale

ranging

from

-LRB-

extremely

unattractive

-RRB-

to

-LRB-

extremely

attractive

-RRB-

For

the

purposes

of

the

present

study

we

selected

the

eight

children

rated

highest

-LRB-

four

boys

M

and

four

girls

M

-RRB-

and

the

eight

children

rated

lowest

-LRB-

four

boys

M

and

four

girls

M

-RRB-

Following

the

viewing

of

these

children

participants

were

directed

through

a

series

of

screens

in

which

they

were

asked

to

answer

a

series

of

questions

that

would

give

the

members

of

the

jury

and

the

other

contestants

information

about

them

Participants

responded

to

questions

about

their

favorite

musical

group

hobbies

future

occupation

things

they

liked

and

disliked

about

themselves

a

number

of

character

traits

-LRB-

e.g.

sense

of

humor

agreeableness

intelligence

trustworthiness

-RRB-

how

they

got

along

with

other

children

and

their

academic

performance

Most

of

the

questions

were

in

a

multiple-choice

format

but

some

-LRB-

e.g.

what

is

your

favorite

musical

group

-RRB-

required

an

open-ended

response

In

view

of

the

potential

risk

that

children

would

respond

to

personal

questions

in

a

socially

desirable

fashion

instructions

emphasized

the

importance

of

responding

to

questions

honestly

To

further

minimize

response

bias

most

questions

were

worded

such

that

the

best

or

optimal

answer

was

unclear

-LRB-

e.g.

what

is

your

favorite

leisure

activity

-RRB-

Participants

were

informed

on

screen

that

their

picture

-LRB-

previously

taken

by

a

web

camera

-RRB-

along

with

the

biographical

information

from

their

answers

to

the

personal

questions

would

be

transmitted

over

the

Internet

and

viewed

by

the

judges

who

would

then

give

them

a

likeability

score

ranging

from

to

Moreover

children

were

informed

that

the

judges

would

also

indicate

what

they

liked

most

and

what

they

disliked

most

of

each

participant

-LRB-

e.g.

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

he

does

n't

seem

to

be

a

nice

person

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

he

is

witty

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

he

is

unattractive

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

he

seems

fun

to

hang

out

with

-RRB-

Subsequent

to

answering

all

the

biographical

questions

participants

were

informed

that

pictures

and

descriptions

of

each

of

the

other

contestants

would

be

presented

one-at-a-time

for

review

Upon

clicking

continue

the

picture

of

the

first

bogus

co-player

was

displayed

together

with

his

or

her

self-description

The

latter

consisted

of

the

alleged

answers

to

the

same

questions

that

the

participant

had

answered

earlier

To

enhance

credibility

of

the

bogus

co-players

actual

self-descriptions

were

taken

from

those

of

same-age

children

participating

in

another

study

These

participants

gave

their

explicit

consent

to

have

this

information

viewed

by

other

children

provided

that

the

alleged

self-description

profiles

would

contain

randomly

combined

personal

information

from

at

least

three

different

children

Participants

progressed

through

the

game

examining

each

of

the

profiles

at

their

own

pace

Following

the

participant

scrutinizing

the

last

profile

a

message

appeared

on

the

screen

indicating

that

the

computer

would

now

for

every

player

add

the

scores

from

the

judges

to

determine

which

player

had

received

the

highest

total

score

and

which

player

had

received

the

lowest

total

score

After

a

s

waiting

period

the

names

of

the

players

with

the

highest

and

the

lowest

score

appeared

in

capital

letters

on

the

screen

In

the

success

condition

the

name

of

the

participant

was

displayed

as

having

obtained

the

highest

total

score

one

randomly

chosen

alleged

co-player

's

name

appeared

as

having

obtained

the

lowest

total

score

Conversely

in

the

failure

condition

the

name

of

the

participant

was

displayed

as

having

obtained

the

lowest

total

score

while

one

alleged

co-player

's

name

appeared

as

having

obtained

the

highest

total

score

In

the

control

condition

the

participant

received

neither

the

highest

nor

the

lowest

score

Five

seconds

after

receiving

feedback

-LRB-

Time

-RRB-

participants

were

re-administered

the

mood

measure

via

computer

Instructions

emphasized

the

importance

of

rating

how

they

felt

right

now

Subsequent

to

completing

this

measure

participants

were

administered

the

feedback

measure

which

assessed

preferences

for

obtaining

feedback

from

jurors

that

had

evaluated

them

favorably

versus

jurors

that

had

evaluated

them

unfavorably

Subsequently

a

computer

screen

appeared

announcing

that

children

would

now

participate

in

another

study

The

participant

was

then

accompanied

to

an

adjacent

room

where

a

female

research

assistant

debriefed

him

or

her

thoroughly

Debriefing

Each

child

was

thoroughly

debriefed

with

the

aim

of

removing

any

lingering

effects

of

the

false

rejection

feedback

while

participating

in

the

Survivor

contest

During

the

debriefing

the

child

was

informed

that

the

judges

the

co-players

and

the

received

feedback

were

entirely

fictitious

and

that

this

deception

was

a

necessary

part

of

the

procedure

At

this

point

it

should

be

noted

that

in

our

previous

work

more

than

participants

were

assigned

to

receive

Survivor-administered

peer

rejection

feedback

-LRB-

Reijntjes

et

al.

-RRB-

including

children

with

elevated

depressive

symptoms

Interviews

with

all

participants

both

immediately

post-feedback

as

well

as

at

one-week

follow-up

indicated

that

the

peer

failure

experience

was

not

too

emotionally

upsetting

For

instance

when

asked

of

the

participants

made

mention

of

any

feelings

of

regret

with

regard

to

participation

and

reported

any

objections

to

the

procedure

On

the

contrary

several

children

spontaneously

reported

to

consider

the

rejection

experience

an

unnerving

but

useful

experience

for

themselves

and/or

their

peers

Still

during

the

investigation

a

registered

clinical

psychologist

was

available

when

needed

Moreover

before

being

dismissed

children

were

interviewed

at

length

about

a

recent

positive

social

experience

in

which

they

felt

positive

and/or

were

successful

In

so

doing

we

aimed

to

maximize

the

remedy

for

children

showing

a

strong

emotional

response

to

the

peer

feedback

Towards

the

end

of

the

debriefing

participants

were

encouraged

to

ask

questions

or

voice

their

concerns

All

children

reported

that

they

understood

the

purposes

of

the

research

as

well

as

the

necessity

of

having

been

deceived

The

credibility

of

the

deception

manipulation

was

also

assessed

during

the

debriefing

by

asking

each

participant

whether

they

had

believed

that

they

were

playing

against

other

children

With

no

exception

participants

indicated

that

they

believed

that

the

game

was

genuine

Finally

all

participants

reported

that

prior

to

participating

they

had

not

talked

with

classmates

about

Survivor

At

the

conclusion

of

the

debriefing

participants

were

urged

to

observe

complete

secrecy

by

not

talking

with

their

classmates

about

Survivor

until

all

the

other

children

had

participated

To

increase

adherence

to

this

instruction

children

were

asked

to

sign

a

non-disclosure

agreement

and

were

then

provided

a

choice

of

one

of

several

possible

small

gifts

for

playing

the

game

-LRB-

e.g.

a

small

tape

recorder

a

gift

certificate

worth

about

dollars

-RRB-

Measures

State

mood

Similar

to

previous

work

among

children

-LRB-

Reijntjes

Stegge

Meerum

Terwogt

Kamphuis

Telch

-RRB-

and

adults

-LRB-

e.g.

Gross

-RRB-

children

rated

their

current

feeling

state

using

a

one-item

global

mood

index

ranging

from

-LRB-

extremely

negative

-RRB-

to

-LRB-

extremely

positive

-RRB-

This

Likert-scale

was

administered

to

assess

participants

state

mood

at

baseline

-LRB-

pre-feedback

-RRB-

and

their

changes

in

state

mood

from

pre

to

post-feedback

The

mean

score

at

baseline

was

-LRB-

SD

-RRB-

Scores

did

not

differ

as

a

function

of

age

gender

or

their

interaction

Children

Depression

inventory

-LRB-

CDI

Kovacs

-RRB-

The

CDI

is

a

self-report

measure

designed

to

assess

the

social

behavioral

and

affective

symptoms

of

depression

in

children

Each

item

consists

of

three

sentences

that

describe

a

symptom

of

depression

in

increasing

degrees

of

severity

The

respondent

chooses

the

sentence

that

best

describes

him

or

her

during

the

past

week

Each

item

set

is

scored

from

-LRB-

symptom

absent

-RRB-

to

-LRB-

symptom

is

present

always

or

most

of

the

time

-RRB-

The

CDI

has

adequate

discriminant

and

convergent

validity

test-retest

reliability

and

internal

consistency

-LRB-

Saylor

Finch

Spirito

Bennett

-RRB-

Coefficient

alpha

in

the

present

sample

using

the

Dutch

version

of

the

instrument

-LRB-

Braet

Timbremont

-RRB-

was

Total

scores

ranged

from

to

the

median

is

The

top

quartile

-LRB-

i.e.

of

the

participants

-RRB-

obtained

a

score

of

or

higher

Eleven

participants

-LRB-

-RRB-

obtained

a

score

of

or

higher

which

is

recommended

as

a

cut-off

point

for

general

screening

-LRB-

Kovacs

-RRB-

Mean

scores

of

this

sample

-LRB-

M

SD

-RRB-

were

similar

to

those

previously

reported

-LRB-

Reijntjes

et

al.

Smucker

Craighead

Craighead

Green

-RRB-

and

did

not

differ

as

a

function

of

age

gender

or

their

interaction

Table

and

standard

deviations

of

baseline

measures

by

conditionFeedback

conditionSuccess

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

Neutral

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

Failure

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

MeasureMSDMSDMSDDepressive

symptoms

Social

acceptance

Age

-LRB-

months

-RRB-

Social

standing

in

the

peer

group

Participants

completed

a

widely

used

nomination-based

sociometric

questionnaire

in

which

they

identified

the

three

classroom

peers

whom

they

liked

most

and

the

three

classroom

peers

they

disliked

most

-LRB-

Newcomb

et

al.

-RRB-

Children

who

declined

participation

in

the

present

study

were

included

in

the

classroom

lists

however

the

data

collected

on

these

children

were

not

used

From

these

nomination

data

two

continuous

scores

for

each

participating

child

were

computed

These

scores

included

-LRB-

a

-RRB-

a

measure

of

preference

by

dividing

the

number

of

times

each

participant

was

nominated

for

the

like

most

question

by

the

total

number

of

participating

children

in

the

class

and

-LRB-

b

-RRB-

a

measure

of

rejection

by

dividing

the

number

of

times

each

participant

was

nominated

for

the

like

least

question

by

the

total

number

of

participating

children

in

the

class

Our

measure

of

social

acceptance

-LRB-

i.e.

social

standing

in

the

peer

group

-RRB-

was

computed

by

subtracting

the

measure

of

rejection

from

the

measure

of

preference

This

figure

was

then

multiplied

by

yielding

scores

ranging

from

to

-LRB-

M

SD

-RRB-

These

scores

did

not

differ

as

a

function

of

gender

age

or

their

interaction

For

the

majority

of

participants

-LRB-

-RRB-

a

positive

social

acceptance

score

was

observed

Based

on

the

widely

used

taxonomy

for

sociometric

classification

-LRB-

Newcomb

et

al.

-RRB-

the

number

of

children

that

were

classified

as

popular

rejected

neglected

controversial

and

average

amounted

to

and

respectively

Self

reported

feedback

preference

Subsequent

to

receiving

the

bogus

peer

evaluation

outcome

participants

responded

to

the

measure

assessing

the

valence

of

feedback

preferences

-LRB-

i.e.

positive

versus

negative

-RRB-

The

specific

dichotomous

probe

included

Which

judges

would

you

prefer

to

get

feedback

from

those

that

hold

a

positive

view

on

you

or

those

that

hold

a

negative

view

on

you

Results

Preliminary

analyses

Exploratory

analyses

revealed

a

departure

from

symmetry

for

the

distribution

of

the

CDI

as

evidenced

by

a

skewness

value

of

We

therefore

performed

a

square

root

transformation

on

the

scores

which

was

successful

in

producing

a

distribution

that

was

no

longer

skewed

-LRB-

skewness

value

is

-RRB-

This

transformed

variable

-LRB-

CDIt

-RRB-

was

used

in

all

analyses

reported

below

Participants

reporting

higher

CDIt

scores

displayed

lower

levels

of

state

mood

at

baseline

-LRB-

r

p

-RRB-

Moreover

higher

CDIt

scores

were

negatively

associated

with

peer

nominated

social

acceptance

ratings

-LRB-

r

p

-RRB-

Equivalence

of

the

experimental

groups

Children

were

matched

on

age

and

gender

and

then

randomly

assigned

to

one

of

the

three

experimental

conditions

Means

and

standard

deviations

for

Time

measures

are

presented

in

Table

To

confirm

that

the

randomization

procedure

resulted

in

comparable

groups

baseline

differences

on

continuous

measures

were

examined

using

one-way

ANOVAs

Results

revealed

no

significant

between-group

differences

Change

in

state

mood

Effects

of

the

feedback

manipulation

Means

and

standard

deviations

for

state

mood

scores

at

Time

-LRB-

baseline

-RRB-

and

Time

-LRB-

immediately

post-feedback

-RRB-

are

presented

in

Table

Two

a

priori

repeated

measures

ANOVA

's

were

performed

to

examine

the

magnitude

and

direction

of

emotional

reactivity

elicited

by

success

feedback

and

failure

feedback

each

relative

to

the

control

-LRB-

neutral

-RRB-

feedback

condition

In

the

first

planned

contrast

state

mood

scores

at

Time

and

Time

served

as

the

dependent

variables

Condition

-LRB-

Success

vs.

Neutral

feedback

-RRB-

served

as

the

between

subjects

factor

and

Assessment

phase

-LRB-

Pre-feedback

vs.

Post-feedback

-RRB-

served

as

the

within

subject

repeated

measures

factor

Interaction

effects

were

followed

up

with

simple

main

effects

analyses

comparing

Time

vs.

Time

scores

for

each

feedback

condition

separately

In

the

second

analysis

the

planned

contrast

comparing

Failure

vs.

Neutral

feedback

was

tested

using

the

same

analytic

approach

as

that

outlined

above

for

the

Success

vs.

Neutral

feedback

contrast

Table

and

standard

deviations

for

state

mood

at

baseline

-LRB-

Time

-RRB-

and

immediately

post

feedback

-LRB-

Time

-RRB-

by

conditionFeedback

conditionSuccess

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

Neutral

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

Failure

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

MSDMSDMSDTime

Time

Note

Due

to

technical

failures

data

were

not

collected

for

participants

-LRB-

randomized

to

the

success

condition

to

the

neutral

condition

and

to

the

failure

condition

-RRB-

Effects

for

success

feedback

The

analysis

comparing

Time

vs.

Time

scores

yielded

a

significant

effect

for

Time

F

-LRB-

-RRB-

p

which

was

qualified

by

a

significant

Time

by

Condition

interaction

F

-LRB-

-RRB-

p

η2

Subsequent

simple

effect

analyses

for

both

conditions

separately

revealed

a

significant

increase

in

state

mood

in

the

success

condition

F

-LRB-

-RRB-

p

η2

but

no

significant

change

in

state

mood

in

the

neutral

condition

p

Taken

together

these

findings

show

that

the

success

feedback

condition

elicited

change

in

state

mood

in

the

expected

positive

direction

whereas

the

control

feedback

condition

elicited

no

emotional

reactivity

Effects

for

failure

feedback

The

analysis

comparing

Time

vs.

Time

scores

yielded

a

main

effect

for

Time

F

-LRB-

-RRB-

p

which

was

qualified

by

a

Time

by

Condition

interaction

F

-LRB-

-RRB-

p

η2

Subsequent

simple

effect

analyses

for

both

conditions

separately

revealed

a

significant

decrease

in

state

mood

in

the

failure

condition

F

-LRB-

-RRB-

p

η2

but

no

significant

change

in

state

mood

in

the

neutral

condition

p

-LRB-

see

above

-RRB-

These

findings

indicate

that

the

failure

feedback

condition

elicited

change

in

state

mood

in

the

expected

negative

direction

Do

depressive

symptoms

social

acceptance

or

gender

moderate

change

in

state

mood

The

potential

moderating

effects

of

depressive

symptoms

social

acceptance

and

gender

on

affective

change

were

examined

using

the

regression

approach

outlined

by

Aiken

and

West

-LRB-

-RRB-

Separate

hierarchical

regression

analyses

were

performed

for

the

success

feedback

condition

and

the

failure

feedback

condition

each

relative

to

the

control

-LRB-

neutral

-RRB-

feedback

condition

In

Step

of

the

first

analysis

state

mood

score

at

Time

was

regressed

on

state

mood

score

at

Time

In

Step

feedback

condition

gender

-LRB-

both

dummy

coded

as

or

-RRB-

social

acceptance

score

-LRB-

centered

-RRB-

and

CDIt

score

-LRB-

centered

-RRB-

were

entered

In

Step

all

three

two-way

interactions

were

entered

including

the

CDIt

by

Condition

interaction

term

Finally

the

three-way

interactions

-LRB-

e.g.

Condition

by

Gender

by

CDIt

-RRB-

were

entered

in

Step

Moderator

effects

for

success

feedback

Change

in

mood

from

pre

to

post-feedback

was

significantly

predicted

by

feedback

condition

-LRB-

see

above

-RRB-

However

neither

depressive

symptoms

social

acceptance

score

nor

gender

moderated

the

relationship

between

feedback

condition

and

mood

change

as

evidenced

by

non-significant

interaction

effects

-LRB-

p

's

-RRB-

Moderator

effects

for

failure

feedback

A

similar

analytic

strategy

as

reported

above

for

success

vs.

neutral

feedback

was

employed

Results

revealed

that

change

in

mood

from

pre

to

post-feedback

was

significantly

predicted

by

feedback

condition

-LRB-

see

above

-RRB-

Again

of

the

three

within-person

variables

examined

moderated

the

relationship

between

feedback

condition

and

mood

change

as

evidenced

by

non-significant

interaction

effects

-LRB-

p

's

-RRB-

Self-reported

feedback

preferences

Effects

of

the

feedback

manipulation

Self-reported

feedback

preferences

for

each

of

the

three

conditions

are

presented

in

Table

Results

are

reported

for

the

total

sample

and

for

the

top

and

bottom

third

as

indexed

by

children

's

score

on

the

CDI

Similar

to

the

analyses

reported

above

we

examined

feedback

preferences

in

response

to

success

feedback

and

failure

feedback

each

relative

to

the

control

-LRB-

neutral

-RRB-

feedback

condition.Table

preferences

across

conditions

broken

down

by

CDI

statusFeedback

conditionSuccess

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

Neutral

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

Failure

-LRB-

n

-RRB-

PreferredPreferredPreferredPreferredPreferredPreferredCDI

statuspositive

-LRB-

-RRB-

negative

-LRB-

-RRB-

positive

-LRB-

-RRB-

negative

-LRB-

-RRB-

positive

-LRB-

-RRB-

negative

-LRB-

-RRB-

Low

-LRB-

Bottom

third

-RRB-

CDI

High

-LRB-

Top

third

-RRB-

CDI

Total

Effects

of

success

feedback

As

displayed

in

Table

there

was

no

significant

effect

for

Condition

Binominal

tests

showed

that

in

both

the

success

and

the

neutral

condition

children

preferred

significantly

more

positive

feedback

than

expected

by

chance

-LRB-

p

's

-RRB-

Effects

of

failure

feedback

A

Fisher-Exact

test

revealed

a

significant

effect

for

condition

p

This

finding

indicates

that

children

randomized

to

receive

a

negative

peer

evaluation

outcome

relative

to

controls

were

significantly

more

inclined

to

subsequently

prefer

negatively

tuned

feedback

However

a

binominal

test

revealed

that

children

in

the

failure

condition

still

preferred

significantly

more

positive

feedback

than

expected

by

chance

p

Do

depressive

symptoms

social

acceptance

or

gender

moderate

feedback

preferences

The

potential

moderating

effects

of

depressive

symptoms

social

acceptance

and

gender

on

feedback

preferences

were

examined

using

logistic

regression

analyses

In

these

analyses

feedback

preference

-LRB-

positive

vs.

negative

-RRB-

served

as

the

binary

outcome

measure

In

Step

of

the

first

analysis

state

mood

at

baseline

-LRB-

centered

-RRB-

was

entered

In

Step

feedback

condition

-LRB-

success

vs.

control

-RRB-

gender

-LRB-

both

dummy

coded

as

or

-RRB-

social

acceptance

score

-LRB-

centered

-RRB-

and

CDIt

score

-LRB-

centered

-RRB-

were

entered

In

Step

the

two-way

interaction

terms

were

entered

including

the

CDIt

by

Condition

interaction

term

Finally

the

three-way

interaction

terms

-LRB-

e.g.

Condition

by

Gender

by

CDIt

-RRB-

were

entered

in

Step

An

identical

analytic

strategy

as

reported

above

was

used

for

the

failure

vs.

neutral

contrast

Moderator

effects

for

success

feedback

Feedback

preferences

were

not

predicted

by

either

state

mood

at

baseline

gender

condition

-LRB-

see

above

-RRB-

CDIt

or

social

acceptance

score

Moreover

all

interaction

terms

including

the

interaction

between

CDIt

and

condition

were

not

significant

-LRB-

p

's

-RRB-

Moderator

effects

for

failure

feedback

Feedback

preferences

were

not

predicted

by

state

mood

at

baseline

gender

or

social

acceptance

score

However

we

observed

a

significant

effect

for

condition

-LRB-

see

above

-RRB-

Moreover

our

findings

yielded

a

significant

effect

for

the

interaction

between

CDIt

and

Condition

-LRB-

p

-RRB-

Subsequent

analyses

revealed

that

children

higher

in

depressive

symptoms

were

significantly

more

likely

to

prefer

negative

feedback

subsequent

to

the

negative

peer

evaluation

outcome

-LRB-

relative

odds

CI

to

p

-RRB-

In

contrast

no

significant

linkage

between

depressive

symptoms

and

feedback

preferences

emerged

in

the

control

condition

-LRB-

p

-RRB-

Are

the

effects

of

feedback

valence

on

feedback

preferences

mediated

by

changes

in

state

mood

from

pre

to

post-feedback

The

proposed

mediation

model

depicted

below

was

examined

following

Baron

and

Kenny

-LRB-

-RRB-

who

asserted

that

a

variable

functions

as

a

mediator

when

it

meets

the

following

three

conditions

-LRB-

a

-RRB-

variations

in

the

level

of

the

independent

variable

account

for

variations

in

the

presumed

mediator

-LRB-

i.e.

change

in

mood

path

A

-RRB-

-LRB-

b

-RRB-

variation

in

the

level

of

the

presumed

mediator

account

for

variations

in

the

dependent

variable

-LRB-

i.e.

feedback

preferences

path

B

-RRB-

and

-LRB-

c

-RRB-

after

controlling

for

paths

A

and

B

a

previously

significant

relation

between

the

independent

and

dependent

variables

-LRB-

i.e.

path

C

-RRB-

is

no

longer

significant

with

the

strongest

demonstration

of

mediation

when

path

C

becomes

zero

-LRB-

Fig.

-RRB-

Fig.

model

of

feedback

preferences

Our

analyses

revealed

that

the

second

condition

for

mediation

was

not

met

as

evidenced

by

a

non-significant

relation

between

changes

in

state

mood

and

feedback

preferences

Taken

together

our

findings

show

that

neither

state

mood

at

baseline

-LRB-

see

above

-RRB-

nor

changes

in

affect

from

pre

to

post-feedback

were

significantly

associated

with

children

's

feedback

preferences

Discussion

The

present

study

sought

to

advance

our

knowledge

on

how

sub-clinical

depression

in

pre-adolescent

children

is

associated

with

self-reported

feedback

preferences

To

our

knowledge

this

is

the

first

study

to

investigate

this

linkage

in

response

to

an

experimentally

manipulated

ecologically

relevant

emotion-eliciting

event

in

real

time

In

so

doing

we

included

both

a

positive

and

a

negative

peer

feedback

manipulation

along

with

the

assessment

of

the

roles

of

state

mood

at

baseline

changes

in

affect

from

pre

to

post-feedback

and

actual

standing

in

the

peer

group

Data

on

participants

immediate

changes

in

state

mood

in

response

to

the

feedback

manipulation

revealed

that

the

Survivor

contest

was

successful

in

eliciting

differential

affective

reactions

in

the

expected

direction

as

a

function

of

feedback

valence

Moreover

our

debriefing

interviews

revealed

that

children

were

involved

in

the

activity

and

that

of

the

participants

reported

being

aware

that

the

feedback

they

received

was

bogus

Taken

together

these

data

suggest

that

the

Survivor

contest

was

successful

in

achieving

its

major

objective

of

providing

a

credible

and

ecologically

relevant

emotion-eliciting

event

Several

interesting

findings

emerged

with

respect

to

the

examination

of

feedback

preferences

subsequent

to

receiving

a

positive

-LRB-

success

-RRB-

and

a

negative

-LRB-

failure

-RRB-

peer

evaluation

outcome

each

relative

to

the

control

feedback

condition

For

instance

contrary

to

findings

reported

by

Mischel

and

colleagues

-LRB-

-RRB-

feedback

preferences

did

not

differ

as

a

function

of

receiving

a

favorable

versus

a

neutral

control

peer

evaluation

outcome

In

contrast

relative

to

the

control

condition

the

negative

peer

evaluation

outcome

lead

to

a

significant

increase

in

negatively

tuned

feedback

preferences

However

it

should

be

noted

that

the

negative

evaluation

outcome

merely

induced

a

relative

preference

for

negative

feedback

as

evidenced

by

the

fact

that

in

all

three

conditions

children

sought

significantly

more

positive

feedback

than

expected

by

chance

What

might

account

for

the

finding

that

the

effects

of

manipulated

feedback

on

subsequent

feedback

preferences

in

the

present

study

are

at

odds

with

those

observed

in

prior

work

One

possible

explanation

may

involve

the

-LRB-

single

and

joint

-RRB-

effects

of

differences

in

the

domain

of

feedback

seeking

the

age

of

the

participants

and

the

specific

measures

that

were

employed

For

instance

Mischel

et

al.

-LRB-

-RRB-

provided

adult

participants

with

feedback

on

an

intellectual

task

and

observed

that

a

favorable

feedback

outcome

increased

subsequent

positive

feedback

seeking

whereas

in

the

present

study

pre-adolescent

children

received

feedback

on

a

social

task

Another

explanation

may

be

that

our

manipulated

peer

evaluation

outcome

differs

from

the

types

of

manipulations

used

in

other

studies

examining

feedback

preferences

It

may

be

that

the

manipulation

employed

in

the

present

study

may

have

been

more

personally

relevant

-LRB-

i.e.

ego-involving

-RRB-

and

hence

elicited

a

different

pattern

of

feedback

preferences

relative

to

exposure

to

less

personally

relevant

feedback

-LRB-

e.g.

impressions

evaluators

had

allegedly

formed

on

the

basis

of

participants

displayed

nonverbal

behavior

while

delivering

a

speech

see

Swann

et

al.

-RRB-

Specifically

it

seems

likely

that

participants

in

the

present

study

were

more

concerned

and/or

distressed

after

being

rejected

based

on

their

personal

and

physical

attributes

relative

to

participants

receiving

a

negative

evaluation

based

on

their

non-verbal

behavior

Consequently

they

may

have

displayed

an

increased

interest

in

-LRB-

preference

for

-RRB-

negative

feedback

which

might

be

considered

more

diagnostic

and

informative

on

learning

why

the

judges

viewed

them

negatively

Our

findings

on

the

linkages

between

the

valence

of

the

manipulated

feedback

outcome

and

subsequent

feedback

preferences

were

not

consistent

with

previous

work

among

adults

In

a

similar

vein

our

results

on

the

relationship

between

depressive

symptoms

and

feedback

preferences

qualify

the

findings

reported

by

Cassidy

et

al.

-LRB-

-RRB-

Specifically

in

the

present

study

the

predictive

role

of

depressive

symptoms

on

subsequent

feedback

preferences

emerged

only

for

children

in

the

negative

feedback

condition

such

that

children

with

higher

levels

of

depressive

symptoms

displayed

a

significantly

stronger

preference

for

negative

feedback

This

depression

effect

was

not

observed

in

either

the

success

or

control

conditions

Interestingly

across

conditions

we

found

that

children

's

actual

standing

in

the

peer

group

was

not

associated

with

feedback

preferences

In

this

context

it

should

be

noted

that

in

the

Joiner

et

al.

-LRB-

-RRB-

study

it

was

also

observed

that

interest

in

negative

feedback

evidenced

symptom

specificity

to

depression

What

might

account

for

the

observed

effects

of

depressive

symptoms

on

children

's

feedback

preferences

in

response

to

the

negative

peer

evaluation

outcome

We

considered

the

possibility

that

the

observed

effects

were

due

to

the

higher

levels

of

depressed

mood

observed

at

baseline

However

our

findings

indicated

that

this

was

not

the

case

Moreover

the

observed

linkage

between

depressive

symptoms

and

feedback

preferences

can

not

be

explained

by

change

in

affect

given

that

change

in

affect

from

pre

to

post-feedback

did

not

mediate

the

single

or

joint

effects

of

feedback

valence

and

depressive

symptoms

on

feedback

preferences

These

findings

converge

with

the

Joiner

et

al.

-LRB-

-RRB-

study

showing

that

interest

in

negative

feedback

among

depressed

inpatient

children

was

not

associated

with

the

emotional

features

of

depression

We

also

considered

the

possibility

that

self-verification

processes

might

account

for

the

observed

linkage

between

depressive

symptoms

and

feedback

preferences

However

our

finding

that

the

linkage

was

present

in

the

failure

condition

but

not

in

the

success

or

neutral

conditions

is

not

in

line

with

self-verification

theory

which

would

predict

depression

effects

across

all

three

conditions

Rather

our

findings

are

more

consistent

with

the

formulation

put

forth

by

Beck

-LRB-

-RRB-

asserting

that

depressed

-LRB-

dysphoric

-RRB-

people

seek

negative

feedback

only

insofar

as

their

negative

self-views

have

been

activated

by

a

potent

stressful

negative

event

Possible

implications

of

our

findings

deserve

mention

The

greater

tendency

for

children

high

in

depressive

symptoms

to

seek

out

negative

peer

feedback

in

response

to

negative

peer

experiences

might

contribute

to

further

negative

evaluations

from

peers

and

thus

serve

to

maintain

or

exacerbate

depressive

symptoms

in

a

cycle

similar

to

that

described

by

Coyne

-LRB-

-RRB-

In

line

with

this

reasoning

considerable

work

has

shown

both

concurrent

and

prospective

linkages

between

heightened

depressive

symptoms

-LRB-

depression

-RRB-

in

children

and

peer

rejection

-LRB-

Panak

Garber

-RRB-

decreased

peer

interactions

-LRB-

Axelson

et

al.

-RRB-

and

less

secure

peer

attachment

-LRB-

Armsden

Greenberg

Armsden

McCauley

Greenberg

Burke

Mitchell

-RRB-

Moreover

in

a

recent

longitudinal

study

Borelli

and

Prinstein

-LRB-

-RRB-

observed

that

a

more

negative

feedback

seeking

style

at

baseline

was

positively

associated

with

more

negative

perceptions

of

best

friendship

criticism

at

one-year

follow-up

and

positively

associated

with

increases

in

depressive

symptoms

over

time

However

this

linkage

was

only

found

for

girls

Several

features

of

the

present

study

deserve

further

comment

First

only

self-reported

feedback

preferences

were

assessed

with

no

attention

given

to

feedback

seeking

behavior

Future

work

should

examine

children

's

feedback

seeking

when

they

are

free

to

choose

how

to

divide

their

time

between

different

sources

of

feedback

information

Second

because

all

significant

results

are

based

on

children

's

self-report

it

is

possible

that

our

findings

are

partly

due

to

shared

method

variance

Third

our

findings

are

based

on

a

community

sample

of

children

rather

than

a

clinical

sample

with

a

diagnosed

mood

disorder

Children

's

mean

scores

on

the

CDI

suggest

that

depressive

symptoms

were

relatively

modest

in

magnitude

It

is

therefore

an

empirical

question

to

what

extent

our

findings

can

be

generalized

to

children

who

meet

criteria

for

major

depressive

disorder

Finally

this

investigation

focused

only

on

children

's

feedback

preferences

in

response

to

peer

evaluation

While

peer

evaluation

has

the

benefit

of

being

both

a

potent

elicitor

of

positive

and

negative

affect

as

well

as

being

ecologically

sound

we

should

not

assume

that

our

findings

are

generalizeable

to

other

relevant

domains

such

as

academic

failure

interpersonal

conflict

and

loss

or

separation

Notwithstanding

these

limitations

the

results

of

the

present

study

extend

our

limited

knowledge

base

on

children

's

feedback

preferences

in

several

ways

First

our

findings

suggest

that

children

respond

quite

differently

with

respect

to

their

feedback

preferences

subsequent

to

positive

or

negative

evaluations

Second

in

line

with

the

Joiner

et

al.

-LRB-

-RRB-

study

our

findings

contradict

the

view

that

the

baseline

feeling

state

of

children

high

in

depressive

symptoms

or

manipulations

of

affect

may

be

involved

in

governing

their

preference

for

more

unfavorable

feedback

Third

our

findings

provide

evidence

to

suggest

that

children

displaying

elevated

depressive

symptoms

may

prefer

favorable

feedback

so

long

as

their

negative

self-views

are

not

accessed

by

a

potent

negative

stressful

event

O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

peers
feedback preferences
depressive symptoms

pre-adolescent children
sociometric status