Peer Relationships And Social Behaviors In Students Of Junior High School For The Deaf

Peer relationship plays a unique and irreplaceable role in children and adolescents’socialization and social adaptation. Schools for the deaf, which have the features of small class sizes, age differences and cross-grade interaction, formed the unique ecological environment. As one of the ecological environment for students, the class environment has extremely important influence on students’ social behavior. It can be said that social interaction and social behavior of deaf students in the field of special education can not be ignored in China. At present, foreign research on the characteristics of deaf adolescents’peer relationship and social behavior has not unanimous conclusion. While few studies of deaf adolescents’peer relationship and social behavior exsited in China, and also not involved in the relations of their peer relationship and social behavior. Therefore, this study researching the peer relationship and social behavior and their relations of students in junior high schools for the deaf has very important significance.In this study, the methods of sociometric nomination, questionnaire and social network analysis were adopted and the subjects were107students from four junior high schools for the deaf. The study reseached the deaf students’characteristics of three levels of peer relationships, including peer acceptance, friendship and peer network, and five types of social behaviors, including active social behavior, prosocial behavior, aggressive behavior, social withdrawal behavior and victimization. Then to further explore the relations of peer relationships and social behaviors, and discover the predictive ability of the three levels of peer relationships on social behaviors. The results showed that:(1) In the study of peer relationships of deaf students, there were no grade differences in peer acceptance, while friendship and peer network existed grade differences. The number of friends of the seventh grade students less than the eight and ninth grades, and the status in peer network lower than the eight and ninth grades. There are significant gender differences in peer relationships. More boys got negative nominantion than girls, and boys’ number of friends and intimate exchanges less than girls’, and boys’ status in peer network lower than girls’.(2) In the study of social behaviors, there are no grade differences in social behaviors, while there are significant gender differences. Prosocial behavior of boys was significantly less than girls, while aggressive behavior, social withdrawal behavior and victimization of boys were significantly more than girls.(3) In the study of the relations between peer relationships and social behaviors, peer relationships could predict social behavior. First of all, in the level of peer acceptance, social preference could very significant positively predict active social behavior and prosocial behavior, and also significant negatively predicted aggressive behavior, social withdrawal behavior and victimization. Secondly, in the level of friendship, the number of friends and friendship quality could not predict all of these social behaviors. Finally, in the level of peer network, in-degree centrality was a very significant positive predictior on active social behavior and prosocial behavior, and a very significant negative predictior on social withdrawal behavior. However, out-degree centrality, betweeness centrality and network density could not predict any type of social behaviors.After the discussions on these results, conclusions are:the grade differences of peer relationships and social behaviors of students in junior high school for the deaf were not significant, but the gender differences were significant, and girls’ peer relationships and social behaviors were better than boys. Peer relationships could predict social behaviors, but the three levels of peer relationships had different functions when predicting social behaviors. The number of friends and friendship quality in the level of friendship were not predictors. Social preference in the level of peer acceptance and in-degree centrality in the level of peer network were the strongest predictors, while the prediction of in-degree centrality was weaker than social preference.