Given the importance of schools as a socialization context for the development of interpersonal relations, researchers have paid considerable attention to the issue of social acceptance. Peer group acceptance refers to the state of being loved, recognized, or preferred as a friend or playmate by ones peers (De Bruyn, Cillessen, & Wissink, 2010; Sureda, García-Bacete, & Monjas, 2009), and it is often assessed using the peer nomination technique (e.g., Bellmore & Cillesen, 2003; Morrow et al., 2015; Sureda et al., 2009). This procedure can be used to establish the five types of social status defined by Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli (1982): popular, controversial, average, rejected, and neglected. Numerous studies have described the characteristic profile of each of these types and have explored the consequences of high or low acceptance or rejection, the conclusion being that popular children adapt well to school, display prosocial behavior, and enjoy a source of positive self-evaluation (Hutteman, Nestler, Wagner, Egloff, & Back, 2015; Mohanan & Booth-LaForce, 2016; Van Hoorn, Van Dijk, Meuwese, Rieffe, & Crone, 2016) whereas their rejected peers show limited social activity, lower self-esteem, and difficulties adapting school demands (Bierman, 2004; García-Bacete, Sureda, & Monjas, 2010; Martín & Muñoz de Bustillo, 2009; Mohanan & Booth-LaForce, 2016). The interactionist perspective suggests that this is because social status influences the perception of feedback from others, and this information processing is crucial for correct behavioral adjustment to peer group (Crick & Dodge, 1994). In other words, social self-perception contributes to the development of social adjustment.

Social self-perception can be defined as the degree to which peoples judgments of how they are seen by others is correct (Kenny, 1994). However, when considering self-perception it is helpful to make two practical distinctions. On the one hand, a distinction can be made between the accuracy of perceived acceptance or rejection (e.g., childrens beliefs about whether their peers accept or reject them) and bias in the perception of acceptance or rejection, which refers to the magnitude and direction of any inaccuracies in expected acceptance or rejection (Campbell & Fehr, 1990; Smith, Van Gessel, David-Ferdon, & Kistner, 2013). For example, a child may be inaccurate in his or her perceptions of acceptance or rejection by peers, but show no consistent tendency to over- or underestimate acceptance or rejection. A distinction can also be made between generalized and dyadic perception accuracy. Generalized perception accuracy is a persons overall impression of how he or she is seen by others, whereas dyadic perception accuracy refers to that persons predictions regarding how specific others see him or her (Malloy & Cillessen, 2008). For example, a child may have a fairly good idea of the extent to which he is accepted or rejected by the peer group as a whole but be mistaken as regards the specific peers that accept or reject him; this might be the case, for example, of a popular child with low dyadic perception accuracy of acceptance. Therefore, although both types of accuracy are important, a dyadic conception provides more accurate data (Bellmore & Cillessen, 2003; Boor-Klip, Cillessen, & Van Hell, 2014; Cillessen & Bellmore, 1999).

The relationship between social perception and interpersonal relations (Cillessen & Bellmore, 1999) means that young people who perceive they are accepted will have more opportunities to test out their behavioral and social skills and to experience themselves as being accepted by peers (Badalay, Schwartz, & Hopmeyer, 2012; Bellmore & Cillessen, 2003; MacDonald & Cohen, 1995; Stephens, Lynch & Kistner, 2016). Conversely, children who either perceive rejection by others or overestimate acceptance may deprive themselves from interactions that could, in fact, provide them with real feedback, and this maladaptive behavior may then reinforce their sense of being rejected or maintain their erroneous perception (Cillessen & Bellmore, 1999; Lynch, Kistner, Stephens, & David-Ferdon, 2016; McQuade, Achufusi, Shoulberg, & Murray-Close, 2014; Stephens et al., 2016).

In addition to the relationship with social acceptance, research has also explored the association between social self-perception and gender and age. Regarding gender, Boor-Klip et al. (2014) note that the findings are mixed: whereas some studies have found greater perception accuracy among girls (Cillessen & Bellmore, 1999; Stephens et al., 2016), other authors suggest either that girls underestimate and boys overestimate their acceptance by others, or that there are no differences between the two genders (Kistner, David-Ferdon, Repper, & Joiner, 2006; Malloy, Albright, & Scarpati, 2007; Sally, Vannata, Gerhardt, & Noll, 2010). With respect to age, and consistent with the idea that self-perception is a meta-cognitive skill (Flavell, 1988), various studies have indicated that perception accuracy is greater at later stages of development (Malloy et al., 2007).

Adolescence is a period of social reorientation when sensitivity to peers evaluation, acceptance and rejection increases (Dahl, Allen, Wilbrecht, & Suleiman, 2018). Peers become a source of affection and information for early adolescents while they offer intimacy, loyalty, love, and support in late-adolescence (Cantón, Cortés & Cantón, 2011; Papalia & Martorell, 2017). Concurrently, several changes affect brain structures and functions and it turns into faster neural networks which foster socio-cognitive abilities, such as face processing, perspective-taking, mentalising, and social decision-making in late-adolescence (Kilford, Garret & Blakemore, 2016; Kuhn, 2006; Papalia & Martorell, 2017).

These two (cognitive and socio-emocional) brain networks are interrelated and the interactions between cognitive control and affective processing also increase with age, yet areas related to emotional responses develop earlier (early adolescence) than those responsible for decision-making (late adolescence) (Kilford et al., 2016; Papalia & Martorell, 2017). This might be the reason why perception accuracy and bond quality are improved throughout adolescence: the development of cognitive abilities improves the skills required to attribute ideas, beliefs, and feelings as well as to correctly interpret expressions, turning out in adaptive responses.

Given that the majority of studies in this field have been conducted with children and pre-adolescents, the present study focused on a sample of adolescents, since adolescence constitutes a period of rapid development during which social relations acquire greater relevance in the construction of identity. The aim was to analyze bias and both generalized and dyadic accuracy in their perceptions of acceptance and rejection, and to examine the association with age, gender, and sociometric status. The study hypotheses were as follows: (a) both generalized and dyadic perceptions of acceptance and rejection will become more accurate with age, whereas bias will decrease; (b) girls will be less accurate than boys in both their generalized and dyadic perceptions of acceptance and rejection, and will underestimate the degree to which they are accepted; (c) dyadic perceptions of acceptance and rejection will be more accurate than will generalized perceptions; and (d) popular adolescents will be more accurate in their perception of acceptance, while rejected adolescents will be more accurate in their perception of rejection, and both of these groups will show less bias in their perceptions than will the other sociometric groups.

The sample comprised 206 secondary education students (104 girls and 102 boys) recruited from across eight classes (two from each of four academic years, selected randomly). Participants were aged between 12 and 19 years (M = 14.39, SD = 1.64). In terms of sociometric status, the sample could be classified as follows: 14.56% popular (n = 30), 3.39% controversial (n = 7), 54.36% average (n = 112), 11.65% rejected (n = 24), and 16.01% neglected (n = 33).

Sociometric test. Adolescents were administered a questionnaire focused on unlimited peer nominations. The questionnaire was formed by 4 questions, two of them regarding social acceptance, and the other two regarding social self-perceptions. In relation to peer acceptance, one question was asked assessing positive nominations (Which partners do you like the most?) and another one assessed negative nominations (Which partners do you like the least?). Related to social self-perceptions, one question was asked assessing the number of positive nominations perceived (Who do you think will have chosen you as a friend?), and another one assessed the number of negative nominations perceived (Who do you think will have chosen you among the people they like least?). Based on this questionnaire, the following measures was calculated.

Peer acceptance. The sum of the positive and negative nominations (using absolute values) was taken as a measure of social impact for each adolescent, while the difference between the number of positive and negative nominations served as an indicator of social preference. These indicators (social impact and social preference) were then standardized to Z scores and combined in order to define the sociometric status of each participant (Coie et al., 1982): popular (positive social preference and high social impact), controversial (neutral social preference and high social impact), average (average positive preference and social impact), rejected (negative social preference and high social impact), and neglected (low social preference and low social impact). Table 1 shows the interval of scores used to classify the sample.

Table 1
Combination of Z Scores Related to Social Impact and Social Preference which Delimit the Sociometric Status

Generalized perception accuracy. Following the procedure described by Boor-Klip et al. (2014), the accuracy of generalized perceptions of acceptance was calculated by subtracting the real number of positive nominations from the predicted number of positive nominations (using absolute values in both cases). Similarly, the accuracy of generalized perceptions of rejection was calculated by subtracting the real number of negative nominations from the predicted number of negative nominations (again, using absolute values). In this way, a score close to zero indicates greater accuracy, as there would be a stronger correspondence between the number of real and predicted nominations.

Dyadic perception accuracy. Here we calculated for both acceptance and rejection the number of times that a predicted peer name corresponded with that of a real nomination. Dyadic perception accuracy for acceptance was calculated by subtracting the number of positive nominations received from the number of correct positive predictions (using absolute values). Similarly, dyadic perception accuracy for rejection was calculated by subtracting the number of negative nominations received from the number of correct negative predictions (using absolute values). Once again, a score close to zero indicated greater accuracy.

Bias. Bias in perceptions of acceptance was calculated by subtracting the real number of positive nominations from the number of positive nominations that each adolescent predicted he or she would receive. Similarly, bias in perceptions of rejection was calculated by subtracting the real number of negative nominations from the number of negative nominations that each adolescent predicted he or she would receive. A negative score therefore means that the adolescent underestimates the degree of acceptance or rejection, whereas a positive score is indicative of an overestimation. A score of zero indicates the absence of bias.

The parents or legal guardians of the adolescents were first informed in writing of the study objectives and procedure, it being made clear that all data would remain confidential. Once their consent had been obtained (permission was only withheld in one case) we proceeded to administer the tests in the adolescents usual classroom, under the supervision of a member of the research team. The evaluation took place during the third term of the academic year so as to ensure that the adolescents knew one another. The study was approved by the Andalusia Biomedical Research Ethic Committee (CEIBA).

After checking the necessary statistical assumptions (normality, homoscedasticity, and linearity) the data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22. Normality was checked using Shapiro-Wilk test: generalized perception of acceptance and rejection as well as dyadic perception of acceptance and rejection do not show a normal distribution (W = .842, p < .001; W = .692, p < .001; W = .856, p < .001; W = .651, p < .001, respectively). These results support the use of non-parametric analysis.

Differences in the accuracy of both generalized and dyadic perceptions of acceptance and rejection according to age were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U-test and considering two age groups: early adolescence (12-14 years, 56.8%) and middle-late adolescence (15-19 years, 43.2%). A Mann-Whitney U-test was similarly applied to examine differences by gender. Finally, differences in perception accuracy according to sociometric status were analyzed by applying a Kruskal-Wallis H-test to each of the variables, followed by post hoc contrasts using a Mann-Whitney U-test and Bonferroni correction.

Differences in bias according to age, gender, and sociometric status were analyzed using chi-squared tests and considering three categories of bias for acceptance and rejection (underestimation, no bias, and overestimation), two age groups (early and middle-late adolescence), gender (boy/girl), and sociometric status (popular, controversial, average, rejected, and neglected).

Regarding age, we found significant differences between the two groups (early vs. middle-late adolescents) in the accuracy of their generalized perceptions of acceptance, Mann-Whitney U = 4382.00, z = -2.01, p = .026, r = .14. However, no significant differences were observed in the accuracy of dyadic perceptions of acceptance, or in the accuracy of either generalized or dyadic perceptions of rejection. With respect to bias, we found no differences in the perception of acceptance, c²(2) = 1.16, p = .559, or of rejection, c²(2) = 3.27, p = .194. The mean scores and standard deviations for perception accuracy in the two age groups are shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Generalized and Dyadic Accuracy in Perceptions of Acceptance and Rejection according to Age

Regarding gender, we found no differences in the accuracy of either generalized or dyadic perceptions of acceptance, or in the accuracy of dyadic perceptions of rejection. However, girls were significantly less accurate than boys in their generalized perception of rejection, Mann-Whitney U = 4478.50, z = -1.98, p = .047, r = .14. With respect to bias, there were no significant differences between boys and girls in their perception of acceptance, c²(2) = 1.17, p = .555, or of rejection, c²(2) = .37, p = .829.

Sociometric status was associated with significant differences in the accuracy of generalized perceptions of acceptance, c²(4, N = 206) = 22.90, p < .001. Specifically, the Mann-Whitney U analysis showed that popular adolescents were less accurate than their peers classified as average, U = 908.50, z = -3.97, p < .001, r = .33, rejected, U = 150.00, z = -3.75, p < .001, r = .51, or neglected, U = 211.00, z = -4.05, p < .001, r = .51. Significant differences were also observed in the accuracy of dyadic perceptions of acceptance, c²(4, N = 206) = 36.72, p < .001. Once again, the Mann-Whitney U test showed that popular adolescents were less accurate than their peers classified as average, U = 902.00, z = -3.99, p < .001, r = .34, rejected, U = 184.00, z = -3.12, p = .002, r = .42, or neglected, U = 133.50, z = -5.14, p < .001, r = .65. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for perception accuracy according to sociometric status.

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Generalized and Dyadic Accuracy in Perceptions of Acceptance and Rejection according to Sociometric Status

Sociometric status was also associated with significant differences in the accuracy of generalized perceptions of rejection, c²(4, N = 206) = 17.43, p = .002. Specifically, the Mann-Whitney U analysis showed that rejected adolescents were less accurate than their peers classified as average, U = 765.50, z = -3.40, p = .001, r = .29, popular, U = 233.00, z = -2.24, p = .025, r = .31, or neglected, U = 213.50, z = -3.02, p = .003, r = .40. Significant differences were also observed in the accuracy of dyadic perceptions of rejection, c²(4, N = 206) = 30.56, p < .001. Once again, the Mann-Whitney U test showed that rejected adolescents were less accurate than their peers classified as average, U = 776.00, z = -3.49, p < .001, r = .30, popular, U = 209.50, z = -2.76, p = .025, r = .38, or neglected, U = 202.00, z = -3.37, p = .001, r = .45.

Note. Popular (n = 30); average (n = 112); rejected (n = 24); controversial (n = 7); neglected (n = 33).

Regarding bias, sociometric status was associated with significant differences in the perception of both acceptance, c²(8) = 50.875, p < .001, and rejection, c²(8) = 22.885, p = .004. Tables 4 and 5 show the frequency and percentage of bias in perceived acceptance and rejection according to sociometric status. As it can be seen, 86.67% of popular and 71.43% of controversial children tended to underestimate their acceptance whereas 66.67% of neglected ones overestimated their positive nominations. Besides, 58.33% of rejected and 85.71% of controversial children underestimated their rejection and 54.55% of neglected peers overestimated the negative nominations they had been received.

Table 4
Frequency and Percentage of Bias in the Perception of Acceptanceaccording to Sociometric Status

Table 5
Frequency and Percentage of Bias in the Perception of Rejection according to Sociometric Status

Correspondence: jfbaena@uma.es (J. Fernández-Baena).