Loading…

Peer-rejected students: An analysis of their self-regulatory mechanisms

•Peer-rejected students are not a monolithic group.•Five groups of these students by self-regulatory mechanisms were identified.•There are differences in self-reg. mechanisms among groups of these students. Self-regulation is an essential factor in school well-being and plays a significant role in p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Children and youth services review 2021-07, Vol.126, p.106030, Article 106030
Main Authors: Hladik, Jakub, Hrbackova, Karla
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•Peer-rejected students are not a monolithic group.•Five groups of these students by self-regulatory mechanisms were identified.•There are differences in self-reg. mechanisms among groups of these students. Self-regulation is an essential factor in school well-being and plays a significant role in peer rejection. The connection between peer rejection and self-regulation varies according to the type and quality of peer interaction (e.g., rejection or acceptance). The nature of interactions with peers influences different self-regulatory mechanisms; therefore, it can be assumed that there will be differences in the mechanisms of self-regulation among peer-rejected students. This study analyzes a group of peer-rejected students from the perspective of self-regulatory mechanisms. The participants consisted of 219 students deemed as peer-rejected. The respondent set was obtained from a randomly selected sample of 1,625 lower secondary students in the Czech Republic. Results based on a cluster analysis enabled the identification of five groups of peer-rejected students, each of which differed in terms of self-regulation skills, emotional regulation, self-regulatory failure, and perceived level of peer rejection. Thus, the respondents were characterized in the following five categories: “the Outsiders,” “the Misfits,” “the Overthinkers,” “the Poker Players,” and “the Trapped Despite the Odds.” Intergroup differences in terms of self-regulatory mechanisms were identified and discussed.
ISSN:0190-7409
1873-7765
DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106030