Emotional adjustment and peer relationships: The role of behavioural reputation and classroom social climate

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 1 / 13 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Banerjee R, Wright M, Bianco F (2025) Emotional adjustment and peer relationships: The role of behavioural reputation and classroom social climate. PLoS One 20(9): e0332297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0332297 Editor: Ioannis G. Katsantonis, University of Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Received: December 6, 2024 Accepted: August 28, 2025 Published: September 18, 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Banerjee et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data availability statement: Data, codebook, and readme can be found at https://osf.io/cjzt6/. Funding: Three UK local authorities. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. RESEARCH ARTICLE Emotional adjustment and peer relationships: The role of behavioural reputation and classroom social climate Robin Banerjee 1*, Mark Wright2, Federica Bianco3 1 School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom, 2 School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom, 3 Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy * robinb@sussex.ac.uk Abstract Internalising and externalising difficulties are linked with poor peer relationships, but

there are gaps in our understanding of the reputational and contextual factors that connect emotional adjustment, social behaviour, and social acceptance in the peer group. A sample of 1439 children aged 7–13 years from 60 classrooms provided self-report and peer-nomination data at two time points over one school year. Chil- dren completed a self-report measure of anger, anxiety, and depressive symptoms, alongside ratings of positive and negative peer experiences. They also provided responses to a sociometric survey, which generated scores of social preference as well as behavioural reputation for cooperative, disruptive, aggressive, shy, and leadership qualities. Anger predicted lower social preference via a less cooperative reputation and a more disruptive reputation. Results also showed that anger had a weak connection with greater social preference via a less shy reputation. Anxiety pre- dicted lower social preference via a more shy reputation. Moreover, a more problem- atic classroom social climate, in terms of peer experiences, was found to attenuate the negative peer consequences of the disruptive reputation associated with anger. Results clarify the value of locating internalising and externalising difficulties in the peer context. They advance theoretical conceptions of the social consequences of emotional maladjustment, and indicate the relevance of classroom-level social factors in peer socialisation processes. Introduction Children’s levels of social acceptance and their behavioural reputation amongst their

peers have long received attention in developmental psychology because difficul- ties in these areas are intertwined risk factors for later psychological problems [1,2]. We also know from a large and established body of previous work that high levels

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 2 / 13 of negative emotions may be indicative of internalising and externalising psychopa- thologies, which are associated with lower acceptance within the peer group [3,4]. However, the details of these associations have not been adequately elucidated in longitudinal research, and we are far from a complete understanding of the mech- anisms involved. The present study evaluates hypotheses about differentiated associations between emotional adjustment and peer relationships, with attention to the role played by behavioural reputation and the moderating role of the classroom social climate. We sought to shed new light specifically on the pathways that link children’s emotional adjustment to later peer acceptance [5,6] via their behavioural reputation [7]. In this way, the present research was designed to extend theoretical insights into a social-ecological systems approach to children’s development at school, taking the existing conceptualisation of the complex social system of schooling in teaching and learning [8] into an analysis of emotional, behavioural, and socio-relational expe- rience. Of particular theoretical interest is a consideration of how individual pupils’ emotional experience is associated with their peer groups’ collective views on their behavioural reputation, and an analysis of if and how that pattern of associations may be moderated by variations in the wider social climate of the classroom as a whole. Emotional adjustment and peer relationships

Common internalising psychopathologies such as anxiety and depression are typically associated with feelings of worry and fear and with feelings of sad- ness, respectively [9]. In the case of externalising difficulties, core symptoms of aggressive-disruptive and oppositional behaviour are frequently associated with feel- ings of anger [10]. Difficulty in managing these negative emotions is understood to compromise children’s adaptive functioning in everyday life [11]. One highly relevant aspect of this everyday functioning concerns children’s peer relationships. Despite a broad consensus on the critical role of emotions in social skills [12,13], relatively little research has studied the emotional predictors of peer status, particularly in periods of life beyond early childhood. And while a substantial body of evidence links internal- ising and externalising difficulties with peer problems in middle childhood and pre- adolescence [14–16], we still know relatively little about how the negative emotions associated with internalising and externalising difficulties map onto the behavioural reputation of children, and the extent to which they are accepted within their peer group. Such knowledge would have important implications for intervention and pre- vention efforts. A significant body of research has demonstrated that peer acceptance is under- mined by a reputation for socially withdrawn behaviour or aggressive-disruptive behaviour, or indeed an absence of positive social behaviour characterised by

cooperative and leadership qualities [17,18]. Crucially, theoretical models suggest that these behavioural profiles can be tracked back to variations in children’s experi- ence of negative emotions. Functionalist approaches to emotion locate feelings within social context, representing feelings as signals related to the accomplishment of social tasks and goals [19], whether these involve a desire to escape danger or avoid Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 3 / 13 threat (e.g., anxiety), a response to frustration in achieving a goal (e.g., anger), or a consequence of having to relinquish a goal (e.g., sadness). Thus, we would expect that anger would frequently manifest as starting fights or disrupting group interactions, whereas both worries/fears and sadness would frequently manifest as social withdrawal. In both cases, cooperative and leadership behaviour would seem less likely manifestations of the negative emotion, but some degree of differentiation may be evi- dent here: leadership qualities would be difficult to exhibit in the context of socially withdrawn behaviour, and cooperative behaviour would not sit easily alongside disruptive behaviour [20]. In sum, we propose that a peer reputation for certain pro- files of behaviour can explain the link between the negative emotional experiences and lower levels of peer acceptance [21]. Moderation by classroom social climate Accumulating evidence shows the association between the climate of a school and children and young people’s mental health [22,23]. One of the highly relevant dimensions of this association concerns the social climate of a given peer group, as this may play a very significant role in determining what kind of peer reputation translates into higher or lower peer acceptance. Preliminary evidence for such a role of the peer context comes from studies on the effects of social with- drawal [24] as well as bullying and aggression in relation to popularity [25,26].

In the present study we focused on the social climate of a classroom in terms of the aggregated level of prosocial or victimising behaviour reported by the children in the class. This kind of social climate of a classroom has already been identified as an important moderator of socio-demographic effects on children’s emotional problems and social compe- tence [27]. Extending this ecological analysis of children’s social development, we propose that the translation of internal- ising and externalising profiles into relationship outcomes is similarly dependent on the social climate of the classroom. In particular, we suggest that the negative link between internalising characteristics and peer acceptance is likely to be buffered in a more positive classroom in terms of peer experience (where there is a greater concentration of prosocial and lower concentration of victimising behaviours); the greater prosociality and sensitivity of the social group should serve a protective function for those with internalising difficulties. Analysis at a dyadic level has demonstrated that positive friend- ships attenuated the link between internalising behaviours and victimising peer outcomes [28], but the effect of a positive classroom climate, reported directly by the children themselves, in attenuating the negative link between internalising behaviours and peer acceptance has not been adequately addressed. We expect the opposite pattern for the link between externalising behaviours and peer outcomes. Classroom social

climate can be conceptualised as setting normative expectations for social behaviour, so classrooms characterised by more prosocial and less victimising behaviour should be intolerant of aggressive and disruptive behaviour and therefore strengthen the negative link between externalising behaviours and peer acceptance [29]. Where the concentration of positive social interactions is at a relatively low starting point, however, we could expect the persistence and growth of externalising problems within social groups [30]. The investigation described here would provide data in the UK context on such patterns, previously studied in the USA [24], China [31], and the Netherlands [32]. Furthermore, it adds to the peer report data of children’s own self-reported emotional experiences and perceptions of social life. Crucially, it also uses a longitudinal design to test for the first time the hypothesis that this moderation effect involving children’s peer groups can account for the way in which specific patterns of emotional adjustment, reported by the children themselves, translate into meaningful relational outcomes. Hypotheses We hypothesised that differentiated pathways linking anger, anxiety, and depression with subsequent peer acceptance in the peer group would be explained by concurrent behavioural reputation. Specifically, anger should be associated with more negative peer relations via a reputation for less cooperative, more disruptive, and more aggressive behaviour,

whereas anxious and depressive emotional symptoms should predict less peer acceptance via a reputation for more shy

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 4 / 13 and less leadership behaviour. We also tested the hypothesis that the internalising profile of shy behaviour would be more tolerated (i.e., less likely to predict lower peer acceptance) in classroom environments where the relative frequency of positive peer interactions is higher. In contrast, disruptive and aggressive behaviour were expected to be more tolerated in classrooms with a higher rate of negative reported peer experiences. We focused on the developmental period from middle childhood through to early adolescence, given that peer group acceptance is a major social goal at this time [33] and that this is a potential window of vulnerability ahead of an epidemi- ological rise in clinically significant social and emotional difficulties [34]. In addition, given that both emotional characteris- tics and social behaviour have been closely linked to children’s cognitive appraisals of themselves [35], we controlled for judgements of self-worth across various domains. We also examined whether the pattern of results differed for boys and girls, given the well-known gender difference in both the emotional and the relational domain [36,37]. Method Participants The sample was drawn from a large population of school children in three local authorities (school districts) that were involved in national English or Welsh government projects on mental health and socio-emotional difficulties. Schools from

these local authorities had the opportunity to participate in a programme of longitudinal research on emotional adjustment and peer relations. In total, 94 classes of pupils from 22 primary schools and 4 secondary schools completed the online self-report and sociometric measures described below at the first time point during the first half of the school year, and 60 of those classes completed the measures again at a second time point at the end of the school year. We focus here on the latter 60 classes, comprising 1439 children (50.2% girls) with sociometric data at both time points. The pupils were aged between 7 and 13 years, with the mean and median year group being Year 5 (age 9–10 years). The 60 classes with data at both time points were not significantly different from the 34 classes without follow-up data on any of the self-reported social experience and emotional adjustment measures (all p > .05), except that the former scored higher than the latter on negative peer experiences (p = .002). Measures Emotional adjustment, social experiences, and self-perceptions. This brief online self-report measure comprised 43 items, including five neutral filler items. There were 7 items on anger (e.g., “I feel angry”), 7 items on depressive symptoms (e.g., “I get so upset that I feel like crying”), and 8 items on anxiety (e.g., “I spend time worrying about things”), rated from 0 (‘Almost never’) to 3 (‘Nearly all the time’). All of the above subscales demonstrated satisfactory internal

consistency: anger, ɑ = .81; anxiety, ɑ = .81; depression, ɑ = .82. The items tapped negative emotions associated with internalising and externalising difficulties (see Supporting Information, S1 Appendix). Children also completed 5 items on positive/prosocial peer experiences (e.g., “Other pupils say kind things to me”) and 5 items on negative/victimising peer experiences (e.g., “Other pupils say nasty things about me to other people”), taken from an adaptation of the Social Experience Questionnaire [38] to be measured on the same scale as the other items [39]. Cronbach’s alphas were good, .77 ≤ ɑ ≤ .84. In addition, children completed a brief measure of evaluative self-perceptions, with 6 items broadly addressing each of the subscales from Self-Perception Profile for Children [40] (e.g., “I like the kind of person I am”, “I am good at schoolwork”) rated from 0 (‘Not at all true’) to 3 (‘Very true’) ɑ = .68. Overall mean (SD) scores were 1.90 (.69) for positive peer experiences, .75 (.71) for negative peer experiences, .88 (.62) for anger, .84 (.60) for anxiety, .72 (.63) for depressive symptoms, and 2.10 (.56) for self-worth. The Supporting Information (S1 Appendix) details two pilot studies establishing strong convergence between the anger, anxiety, and depressive subscales and more elaborate existing measures, and a confirmatory factor analysis of the data from the first time point of the present study corroborated the factor structure of the self-reported emotional experiences items, with all items within each subscale loading significantly

onto their respective latent factors (standardised coefficients range from .365 to .689; all ps < .001) and satisfactory model

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 5 / 13 fit, Χ2(200) = 1092.23, p < .001, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04. Note that covariances were specified within two sets of context-specific items (feeling angry, worried, and sad at home; and feeling angry, worried and sad at school). Measurement invariance across gender was also assessed: configural invariance was indicated by satisfactory model fit, Χ2(400) = 1370.31, p < .001, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04, with no significant deterioration when equal loadings were specified, △Χ2(19) = 14.13, p = .776. Given that our planned analysis involved use of composite scale scores for emotional adjustment, each child received a mean score across all items within each emotion subscale (possible range 0–3). In addition, a classroom social climate score was created for each class by subtracting the class’s mean score for negative/victimising peer experiences from the class’s mean score for positive/prosocial peer experience scores (possible range −3–3); higher scores thus indicate a greater relative frequency of positive over negative peer experiences. Preliminary analysis showed that the mean across all 60 classrooms was 1.15 (SD = .36, range .45 to 1.79), and that the scores were not significantly correlated with year group or with the percentage of girls in the class, rs < .13, ps > .05. For multigroup analyses to evaluate the moderating effect of classroom social climate, we compared the 20 classrooms (from 14 schools) displaying the highest difference

between reported positive and negative peer experiences (i.e., positive experiences were considerably more frequent than negative experiences, M = 1.54, SD = .12) with the 20 classrooms (from 12 schools) showing the least difference (M = .75, SD = .18, t(38) = 16.16, p < .001). Behavioural reputation and social acceptance. Based on established approaches to sociometric measurement [21], children also completed an online sociometric survey, involving nominations of up to three classmates for 7 items, including brief behavioural descriptors for the reputation items: most like to spend free time with; least like to spend free time with; cooperative (help other people, share, and take turns); disruptive (not very good at being in a group, and don’t listen to other people); shy (really quiet and always seem to be on their own); starts fights (say mean things to other people, or push or hit them); and leader (often seem to be in charge of things, and good at deciding what to do). The total number of nominations received by each child was tallied and standardised within classroom, i.e., converted into z scores with a mean of 0 and SD of 1 for each classroom. The difference in ‘most-like’ and ‘least-like’ nominations received by each child constituted that child’s social preference scores [21]. Procedure Following ethics approval from the University of Sussex, School of Life Sciences Research Governance Committee (approvals RB0109 and RB0310), head teachers provided written informed consent to take part in the research. Note

that parents received information letters and forms to return if they wished to withdraw their child from participating in the study. Fewer than 5% of participants were withdrawn from the survey administration. In addition, assent was gained from children to complete the two online surveys in their schools’ computer laboratories in 15-minute sessions supervised by school staff. The surveys were completed independently (with audio available for children with literacy needs) and ques- tions were presented one at a time. Children identified themselves and made peer nominations using code numbers. The dataset for our analyses was derived from projects in three UK local authorities where these data were collected in the school year from 1 September 2010–31 July 2011. Surveys were completed once during the first half of the school year (approximately 4 months after the start of the school year), and again at the end of the school year (approximately 6 months after the first time point). Results Table 1 shows the inter-correlations for all measures. Using the Lavaan library in R, with Full Information Maximum Likelihood for handling missing data in all analyses, an initial fully saturated structural equation model evaluated path- ways from all emotional adjustment and behavioural reputation measures at Time 1 to social preference at Time 2, after controlling for social preference at Time 1. Pathways were also included from all emotional adjustment measures,

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 6 / 13 along with self-worth, to all behavioural reputation measures and social preference at Time 1. Gender was included as a covariate, and covariances were included among all predictor variables. We then trimmed the non-significant paths. The model obtained a good fit, Χ2(9) = 15.73, p = .073, CFI = .998, RMSEA = .023, SRMR = .010, see Fig 1. After controlling for self-worth, anger was positively associated with having a reputation for both disruptive behaviour and starting fights, and negatively predicted a cooperative reputation and a shy reputation. Anxiety was positively associated with a shy reputa- tion, but negatively predicted a reputation for starting fights. Finally, Time 2 social preference was positively predicted by a cooperative reputation and negatively by a shy and a disruptive social reputation. Indirect pathways from Time 1 emotional adjustment to Time 2 social preference, via the relevant Time 1 behavioural reputation scores were estimated, using bootstrapping with 1000 samples. To ensure conservative estimates, the direct paths from Time 1 emotional adjustment to Time 2 social preference were included, even if they did not achieve statisti- cal significance. Anger predicted lower social preference via a less cooperative reputation (standardised estimate = −.04, p = .001) and a more disruptive reputation (standardised estimate = −.06, p = .001). Anger also modestly predicted greater

social preference via a less shy reputation (standardised estimate = .02, p = .012). Finally, anxiety predicted lower social preference via a more shy reputation (standardised estimate = −.03, p = .006). Our multigroup analysis compared the 20 most and 20 least socially supportive classrooms, as evaluated in terms of peer experiences. Beginning with an initial saturated model, we placed equality constraints on all paths from Time 1 behavioural reputation to Time 2 social preference, after controlling for Time 1 social preference. This showed that con- straints do not hold across groups, Χ2(5) = 15.94, p = .007. Inspection of the unconstrained saturated model showed that the negative link from disruptive behaviour to Time 2 social preference was robust in the high social climate classrooms but virtually zero in the low social climate classrooms. When the equality constraint was freed for this path, the chi-square returned to non-significant, Χ2(4) = 5.27, p = .261, ∆Χ2(1) = 10.67, p = .001. The model continued to fit well when paths from emotional adjustment to behavioural reputation were set to be equal across the two classroom social climate groups, Χ2(33) = 36.97, p = .291. The final model, with non-significant paths deleted, had excellent fit, Χ2(45) = 44.93, p = .475, CFI = .1.00, RMSEA = .000, SRMR = .026, see Fig 2. Regarding indirect effects, anger predicted lower social preference via a less cooperative reputation regardless of classroom climate (standardised estimate = −.05, p = .002). However, only

in classrooms with a higher concentration of positive peer interactions did anger predict lower social preference via more disruptive reputation (standardised estimate = −.12, p < .001); the indirect effect in classrooms with a relatively lower con- centration of positive peer interactions was non-significant (standardised estimate = −.02, p = .579). Table 1. Correlations among all variables. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Angry -- 2. Anxious .58** -- 3. Depressive .68** .76** -- 4. Self-worth −.34** −.26** −.36** -- 5. Cooperative −.19** −.05* −.11** .16** -- 6. Disruptive .22** .04 .11** −.13** −.37** -- 7. Shy −.05 .15** .10** −.05 .14** −.22** -- 8. Fight .21** −.03 .05 −.09** −.31** .75** −.25** -- 9. Leadership −.05 −.06* −.07** .13** .43** −.10** −.15** −.02 -- 10. Soc Pref T1 −.20** −.14** −.18** .16** .48** −.47** −.05 −.32** .31** -- 11. Soc Pref T2 −.18** −.13** −.17** .13** .39** −.39** −.05 −.29** .25** .60** * p < .05 ** p < .01. Note. Soc Pref = Social preference. Ns ranged between 1296 and 1439 depending on missing data. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297.t001

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 7 / 13 It should be noted that the same pattern was found when gender was included as a further grouping variable. Applying equality constraints on all paths from Time 1 behavioural reputation to Time 2 social preference across both low vs. high social climate classrooms and gender showed that constraints do not hold, Χ2(15) = 29.28, p = .015. However, when the equality constraint was freed for the path from disruptive behaviour to Time 2 social preference, only for low vs. high social climate while maintaining equality across gender, goodness of fit was restored, Χ2(14) = 18.39, p = .190, ∆Χ2(1) = 10.89, p = .001. Discussion The current study is aligned with nationwide developments in promoting social and emotional skills and mental health in UK schools [39,41,42]. In line with this, our results shed light on the interplay among emotional adjustment, peer relations and social climate in the classroom, providing information for future tailored intervention. As hypothesised, children’s levels of anger and anxiety had differentiated links with their behavioural reputation within the peer group: reputations were more disruptive and aggressive and less cooperative and shy in the case of those scoring high on anger, whereas reputations were more shy and less aggressive in the case of those scoring high on anxiety, in line with previous litera- ture [43,44]. All of these effects were evident over and above positive pathways between greater self-worth and greater

social preference via more cooperative and less disruptive behaviours. However, not all of the reputational characteristics appeared to be socially impactful in terms of predicting changes in social preference over the course of the project. In particular, the connection between anger and social preference appeared to hinge upon a reputation for more disrup- tive behaviour and less cooperative behaviour. But surprisingly, an aggressive reputation for starting fights, though more common in those experiencing more anger, was not uniquely predictive of changes in social preference. This perhaps reflects the fact that some aggressive children may be able to establish and maintain positions of social status within peer groups [45]; behaviour that is judged to disrupt social groups, on the other hand, may be more generally problematic and Fig 1. Final model (for entire sample) of associations between emotional adjustment, behavioural reputation, and social preference. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297.g001

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 8 / 13 therefore undermine positive social preference [46]. This effect fits with the unexpected positive pathway between anger and peer acceptance via a less shy reputation. Evidently, all other factors being equal, the social engagement that anger may entail may confer some benefits in terms of opening the door to potential social preference (e.g., being proactive about communicating with others). Unfortunately, in the case of children with high levels of anger, the typical pattern of low cooperative and high disruptive behaviour likely makes it difficult for such benefits to materialise [47]. The observed moderating effect of classroom social climate adds a highly relevant set of considerations. Specifically, in classrooms with a lower concentration of positive peer interactions, the predictive link between a disruptive reputation and subsequently lower social preference was nullified. This result adds important longitudinal support to existing evi- dence that the level of aggression in the classroom moderates the association between students’ aggressive behaviour and social preference, so that as levels of aggression rise in the classroom, the aggressive behaviour of the individual becomes less reliably linked to peer relationship problems [24,31,32]. It could at first glance seem that being in a classroom with more negative peer experiences as reported by pupils could be a protective factor for children with externalising problems, given that it appears to buffer against social rejection, which

is widely known to compromise psychological wellbeing [48,49]. However, the present paper did not measure the quality of the relationships that disruptive children had with classmates. Previous literature showed that the friendships of anti- social children are generally not supportive, are short in duration, and feature bossiness and acrimony [50]. Thus, even if socially positive classrooms allow disruptive children to maintain a good social preference, the quality of those interactions may be highly problematic. In fact, a more significant concern is that in negative classroom ecologies the disruptive behaviour associated with anger evidently can become socially normative and thus tolerable among peers. This could explain the persistence of, Fig 2. Final multi-group (high and low classroom climate) model of associations between emotional adjustment, behavioural reputation, and social preference. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297.g002

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 9 / 13 and potentially even an increasing concentration of, externalising difficulties within some social groups [30]. This result is thereby relevant to educational and clinical applications, as it speaks to the importance of taking into account the peer context of children when treating their externalising problems, in order to avoid problems escalating to clinical levels. Indeed, in contexts where victimising behaviours are virtually as frequent as prosocial behaviour, children’s aggressive behaviour is likely to be socially reinforced by their peer groups, whose social feedback is that this attitude is a usual, tolerated and successful way of interacting [51].With respect to internalising difficulties, the primary reputational driver for the negative association between anxiety and social preference was the presence of shy or socially withdrawn behaviour. As expected, emotional characteristics that inhibit affiliative behaviour are likely to make it difficult to establish positive relationships with peers [52]. Contrary to the hypotheses, however, a more positive classroom social climate, as reported by pupils, was not found to attenuate the link between a shy reputation and lower social preference. We had expected that a generally more prosocial and less victimising classroom would be more sensitive to, and accepting of, those with an internalising profile [27], but our results underline the significant risks of having a disaffiliative behavioural reputation, even

in a classroom that is perceived to be characterised by positive social interactions. Interestingly, an absence of leadership in anxious children’s reputations did not appear to play a role in their level of social acceptance. Perhaps in a similar way to the absence of clear associations between aggression and social prefer- ence, this could underline the potential ambivalence that children have with respect to socially dominant profiles. Those who are seen as leaders and in control of social interactions may not necessarily be preferred interpersonal partners [53]. Contrary to the hypotheses, depressive symptoms did not reveal the same unique pathways to reduced social preference via these reputational characteristics. Although depressive symptoms had significant correlations with various aspects of behavioural reputation as well as with social preference, none of these remained significant once covariation with other negative emotions was included in the model. This suggests that the frequently comorbid negative emotions of anxiety and anger are more likely to drive negative social consequences of depressive symp- toms than the sadness and general negativity tapped by the depressive items. This of course does not diminish the significance of the sadness and hopelessness distinctively associated with depressive experiences, but it does suggest that socially-oriented interventions may need to prioritise the management of comorbid anxious and angry emotions that potentially amplify negative self-schemas by undermining successful social interaction and reducing

social preference [54]. Finally, it is important to note that gender did not serve as a moderating factor. While this was not a substantive focus of the present work, considerable research in the past has focused on gender differences in relation to children’s emotional profiles in the social world [55]. The fact that the patterns of association among emotional experience, behavioural reputa- tion, and overall social preference were constant across gender – after controlling for gender differences in relation to any given construct – suggests that these fundamental links may be more similar for boys and girls than may first be sus- pected. However, it may be the case that there are subtle differences in interpretations of behavioural reputation dimen- sions such as cooperative or disruptive, and this deserves attention in future research. Further work One major direction for future research concerns the study’s restricted window for assessing longitudinal change. Scru- tiny of individual trajectories over a longer period will be essential for answering questions about possible bi-directional associations between emotional adjustment, behavioural reputation, and social preference [56]. Also, there is a lack of clarity regarding the causal links. In this regard, a good explanatory candidate might be variations in adaptive and mal- adaptive forms of emotional self-regulation, relating to skills such as cognitive reappraisal of stressors versus externalising of anger; such aspects of emotion regulation are known to predict social acceptance via behavioural reputation [57]. We

believe that future research should include an assessment of this competence, in order to provide a more thorough picture of the interplay between the emotional experience of the child, his/her behavioural reputation, and social acceptance.

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 10 / 13 A further examination of the antecedents and causal origins of emotional patterns reported by pupils will be also worthy of examination, to better understand reciprocal associations between individual experience and classrooms dynamics. Furthermore, additional research is needed over a longer time frame to elucidate the way in which the observed changes in social preference can reinforce or alter a child’s emotional and behavioural profile. Social information-processing accounts provide a valuable framework for understanding the cognitive processes that might mediate the impact of social experiences on future negative emotions and behavioural responses in subsequent peer interactions [58]. In this kind of extended longitudinal analysis, it may be of particular importance to consider – as we did with gender in the present analysis – the potential moderating role of age, as the patterns of association between emotional experience, behavioural reputation in the peer group, and classroom climate may shift in meaningful ways as children move from early to middle childhood, and then into early and mid-adolescence. It is important to stress that the present results offer some key insights to incorporate into school interventions, partic- ularly the implementation of programmes and initiatives to promote social and emotional learning. One recent analysis of social, emotional, and mental health needs at school [59] has highlighted the importance of a relational, strengths-based

approach to mental health with social and emotional learning at its centre, and the work reported here adds some speci- ficity to this: while interventions may often be targeted at individuals displaying challenging emotional and/or behavioural profiles, our present analyses indicate that consideration of the wider social context needs attention through universal provision, since the social consequences of any given individual characteristic may vary depending on the overall climate of the classroom as a whole. Indeed, further research is also needed to address the potential moderating roles of wider school (e.g., school cli- mate), community (e.g., neighbourhood deprivation), and broader sociocultural contexts (e.g., ethnicity, cultural values) [27,39,60]. A future exploration of the themes of the present study at the individual, dyadic and group level will also enrich the picture of the reciprocal links between individual emotional functioning and social dynamics in the classroom. Equally, individual differences in temperament, other biological predispositions, and family experiences [61,62] are likely to relate to and interact with the variables in the present analysis. Thus, building on the present findings of differentiated pathways linking anger and anxiety with specific reputational and peer relationship outcomes, a richer understanding of externalis- ing and internalising psychopathology will be gained through more fine-grained analyses of these variables in relation to multiple individual and social-contextual factors. Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Pilot studies to validate self-report measure of emotional adjustment. (DOCX) Author contributions Conceptualization: Robin Banerjee, Mark Wright, Federica Bianco. Formal analysis: Robin Banerjee, Mark Wright, Federica Bianco. Investigation: Robin Banerjee, Mark Wright. Methodology: Robin Banerjee, Mark Wright, Federica Bianco. Project administration: Robin Banerjee. Resources: Robin Banerjee. Supervision: Robin Banerjee. Writing – original draft: Robin Banerjee, Mark Wright, Federica Bianco. Writing – review & editing: Robin Banerjee, Mark Wright, Federica Bianco.

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 11 / 13 References 1. Gazelle H, Ladd GW. Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: a diathesis-stress model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Dev. 2003;74(1):257–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00534 PMID: 12625449 2. Ladd GW. Peer rejection, aggressive or withdrawn behavior, and psychological maladjustment from ages 5 to 12: an examination of four predictive models. Child Dev. 2006;77(4):822–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00905.x PMID: 16942492 3. Ettekal I, Mohammadi M, Shi Q. Transactional associations among children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors, teacher and peer relation- ships, and academic performance. J Edu Psychol. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000966 4. Sletta O, Valås H, Skaalvik E, Sobstad F. Peer relations, loneliness, and self-perceptions in school-aged children. Br J Educ Psychol. 1996;66 ( Pt 4):431–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1996.tb01210.x PMID: 9008422 5. LoParo D, Fonseca AC, Matos AP, Craighead WE. A developmental cascade analysis of peer rejection, depression, anxiety, and externalizing problems from childhood through young adulthood. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol. 2023;51(9):1303–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-023- 01053-0 PMID: 37052808 6. Rubin KH, Chronis-Tuscano A. Perspectives on social withdrawal in childhood: past, present, and prospects. Child Dev Perspect. 2021;15(3):160– 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12417 PMID: 34434251

7. Dodge KA. Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development. 1983;54(6):1386. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129802 8. Eccles JS, Roeser RW. School and community influences on human development. In: Bornstein MH, Lamb ME, eds. Developmental science: an advanced textbook. 7th ed. New York: Psychology Press. 2015; 645–728. 9. Zahn–Waxler C, Klimes–Dougan B, Slattery MJ. Internalizing problems of childhood and adolescence: Prospects, pitfalls, and progress in under- standing the development of anxiety and depression. Dev Psychopathol. 2000;12(3):443–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579400003102 10. Achenbach TM, Edelbrock CS. Taxonomic issues in child psychopathology. In: Handbook of Child Psychopathology. Springer US; 1983. 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7136-0_4 11. Garaigordobil M, Bernarás E, Jaureguizar J, Machimbarrena JM. Childhood depression: relation to adaptive, clinical and predictor variables. Front Psychol. 2017;8:821. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00821 PMID: 28572787 12. Calkins SD, Gill KL, Johnson MC, Smith CL. Emotional reactivity and emotional regulation strategies as predictors of social behavior with peers during toddlerhood. Social Develop. 1999;8(3):310–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00098 13. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Bernzweig J, Karbon M, Poulin R, Hanish L. The relations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers’ social skills and sociometric status. Child Develop. 1993;64(5):1418. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131543

14. Brock SE, Nickerson AB, O’malley MD, Chang Y. Understanding children victimized by their peers. J School Viol. 2006;5(3):3–18. https://doi. org/10.1300/j202v05n03_02 15. Kwon K, Willenbrink JB, Hanrahan AR. Peer-assessed emotional expressivity: unique association with status in the peer group. J Early Adoles- cence. 2017;38(7):908–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431617704957 16. Reijntjes A, Kamphuis JH, Prinzie P, Telch MJ. Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse Negl. 2010;34(4):244–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009 PMID: 20304490 17. Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Coie JD. The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Dev. 1993;64(6):1755–72. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb04211.x PMID: 8112117 18. Veenstra R, Lindenberg S, Zijlstra BJH, De Winter AF, Verhulst FC, Ormel J. The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: testing a dual-perspective theory. Child Dev. 2007;78(6):1843–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01102.x PMID: 17988325 19. Campos JJ, Mumme DL, Kermoian R, Campos RG. A functionalist perspective on the nature of emotion. Monogr Soc Res Child Develop. 1994;59(2/3):284. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166150 20. Masten AS, Morison P, Pellegrini DS. A revised class play method of peer assessment. Develop Psychol. 1985;21(3):523–33. https://doi. org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.3.523 21. Coie JD, Dodge KA, Coppotelli H. Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology. 1982;18(4):557–70.

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 12 / 13 27. Hoglund WL, Leadbeater BJ. The effects of family, school, and classroom ecologies on changes in children’s social competence and emotional and behavioral problems in first grade. Dev Psychol. 2004;40(4):533–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.533 PMID: 15238041 28. Hodges EV, Boivin M, Vitaro F, Bukowski WM. The power of friendship: protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Dev Psychol. 1999;35(1):94–101. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.35.1.94 PMID: 9923467 29. Henry D, Guerra N, Huesmann R, Tolan P, VanAcker R, Eron L. Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. Am J Community Psychol. 2000;28(1):59–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005142429725 PMID: 10824274 30. Boivin M, Vitaro F. The impact of peer relationships on aggression in childhood: Inhibition through coercion or promotion through peer support. In: McCord J, ed. Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1995. 183–97. 31. Chang L. The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations of children’s social behaviors to peer acceptance. Dev Psychol. 2004;40(5):691–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.691 PMID: 15355159 32. Hendrickx MMHG, Mainhard MT, Boor-Klip HJ, Cillessen AHM, Brekelmans M. Social dynamics in the classroom: Teacher support and conflict and the peer ecology.J early Adolesc. 2016;53:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.10.004

33. Rubin KH, Bukowski WM, Parker JG. Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, Eisenberg N, eds. Handbook of child psychology Vol. 3: social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658. chpsy0310 34. Ford T, Goodman R, Meltzer H. The British child and adolescent mental health survey 1999: the prevalence of DSM-IV disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;42(10):1203–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200310000-00011 PMID: 14560170 35. Muris P, Meesters C, Fijen P. The self-perception profile for children: further evidence for its factor structure, reliability, and validity. Pers Individ Diff. 2003;35(8):1791–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(03)00004-7 36. Garner PW, Waajid B. Sociodemographic variations in the linkage between emotion regulation and peer victimization. J School Violence. 2018;18(1):121–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1418670 37. Rose AJ, Rudolph KD. A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychol Bull. 2006;132(1):98–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98 PMID: 16435959 38. Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Children’s treatment by peers: victims of relational and overt aggression. Dev Psychopathol. 1996;8(2):367–80. https://doi. org/10.1017/s0954579400007148 39. Banerjee R, Weare K, Farr W. Working with ‘Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning’ (SEAL): associations with school ethos, pupil social experi-

ences, attendance, and attainment. British Educ Res J. 2013;40(4):718–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3114 40. Harter S. Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver; 1985. 41. Brown JS, Learmonth AM, Mackereth CJ. Promoting public mental health and well-being: principles into practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Pub- lishers; 2014. 42. Education Endowment Foundation. Improving social and emotional learning in primary schools. London: Education Endowment Foundation; 2019. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/primary-sel 43. Realmuto GM, August GJ, Hektner JM. Predictive power of peer behavioral assessment for subsequent maladjustment in community samples of disruptive and nondisruptive children. J Child Psychol Psychiat. 2000;41(2):181–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021963099005181 44. Strauss CC, Frame CL, Forehand R. Psychosocial impairment associated with anxiety in children. J Clin Child Psychol. 1987;16(3):235–9. https:// doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1603_8 45. Badaly D, Schwartz D, Gorman AH. Social status, perceived social reputations, and perceived dyadic relationships in early adolescence. Social Develop. 2012;21(3):482–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00646.x 46. Coie JD, Dodge KA, Kupersmidt JB. Peer group behavior and social status. In: Asher SR, Coie JD, eds. Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 17–59.

47. Walker S. Teacher reports of social behavior and peer acceptance in early childhood: sex and social status differences. Child Study J. 2004;34:13–28. 48. Khatri P, Kupersmidt JB, Patterson C. Aggression and peer victimization as predictors of self-reported behavioral and emotional adjustment. Aggr Behav. 2000;26(5):345–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(2000)26:5<345::aid-ab1>3.0.co;2-l 49. Kiesner J. Depressive symptoms in early adolescence: their relations with classroom problem behavior and peer status. J Res Adolesc. 2002;12(4):463–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00042 50. Dishion TJ, Andrews DW, Crosby L. Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Dev. 1995;66(1):139–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00861.x PMID: 7497821 51. Cairns RB, Cairns BD. The sociogenesis of aggressive and antisocial behaviors. In: McCord J, ed. Facts, frameworks, and forecasts: advances in criminological theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications; 1992. 157–91. 52. Kennedy E, Spence SH, Hensley R. An examination of the relationship between childhood depression and social competence amongst primary school children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1989;30(4):561–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1989.tb00268.x PMID: 2768358

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332297 September 18, 2025 13 / 13 53. Babad E. On the conception and measurement of popularity: more facts and some straight conclusions. Soc Psychol Educ. 2001;5(1):3–29. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012780232587 54. Seligman LD, Ollendick TH. Comorbidity of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents: an integrative review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 1998;1(2):125–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021887712873 PMID: 11324302 55. Chaplin TM, Aldao A. Gender differences in emotion expression in children: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2013;139(4):735–65. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0030737 PMID: 23231534 56. Newsom JT. Longitudinal structural equation modeling: a comprehensive introduction. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group; 2015. 57. Blair BL, Gangle MR, Perry NB, O’Brien M, Calkins SD, Keane SP, Shanahan L. et al. Indirect effects of emotion regulation on peer acceptance and rejection: the roles of positive and negative social behaviors. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2016;62(4):415. https://doi.org/10.13110/ merrpalmquar1982.62.4.0415 58. Dodge KA, Coie JD. Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;53(6):1146–58. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1146 PMID: 3694454 59. Banerjee R. Social, emotional and mental health needs in educational settings: Putting wellbeing into socio-relational context. In: Ruebain D, Haines S, eds. Education, disability and social policy. 2nd ed. Bristol: Bristol University Press; 2025. 142–53.