Children's peer relations : from development to intervention
By J. Kupersmidt, K. Dodge. 2004
187 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Clinical Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5fa2e4f18aa347d59699c244f3c337e37af3b3e2
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Clinical Psychology
- Kenneth H. Rubin
- W. Bukowski
- Antonius H. N. Cillessen
- J. Parker
- Marlene J. Sandstrom
- Amanda J. Rose
- Susan W. White
- K. Berger
Citations in the corpus
- Understanding Popularity in the Peer System (2005, background): “Several decades of research have provided data on the behavioral and adjustment correlates of sociometric status (Kupersmidt & Dodge, 2004).”
- Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment (2006, result): “These findings are consistent with a long tradition of sociometric research documenting the overall healthy trajectory of socially competent children (e.g., Kupersmidt & Dodge, 2004).”
- Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups (2007, background): “…(Hodges & Card, 2003) Children’s Friendships: The Beginnings of Intimacy (Dunn, 2004) Children’s Peer Relations: From Development to Intervention (Kupersmidt & Dodge, 2004) Perhaps even more important, a number of trade books on peer relationships are now available for parents and teachers,…”
- Loneliness, social relationships, and a broader autism phenotype in college students (2007, background): “Negative social outcomes such as diminished friendships and loneliness can have considerable, negative consequences, such as depression and social withdrawal (Sandstrom & Zakriski, 2004; Seepersad, 2006).”
- Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? (2007, background): “…every point of the lifespan, and notes the many reasons that children are accepted or rejected by their classmates, further exploring children’s status as popular, well-liked, controversial, aggressive-rejected, withdrawn-rejected, and neglected (see reviews: Kupersmidt & Dodge, 2004; Ladd, 2005).”