This article was downloaded by: [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ]On: 21 December 2014, At: 04:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Cooperative Games and Children'sPositive BehaviorsAbbie Reynolds Finlinson a , Ann M. Berghout Austin a &Roxane Pfister aa Utah State University , Logan, Utah 84322‐2905, USAPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Abbie Reynolds Finlinson , Ann M. Berghout Austin & Roxane Pfister(2000) Cooperative Games and Children's Positive Behaviors, Early Child Development andCare, 164:1, 29-40, DOI: 10.1080/0300443001640103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443001640103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Early Child Development and Cart, 2000, Vol. 164, pp. 29-40Reprints available directly from the publisherPhotocopying permitted by license only

Cooperative Games and Children's PositiveBehaviors

ABBIE REYNOLDS FINLINSON, ANN M. BERGHOUT AUSTIN*and ROXANE PFISTER

Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-2905, USA

(Received 2 June 2000)

Participants included 39 children, 20 boys and 19 girls, ranging in age from 4 years0 months to 4 years 6 months. Children's behaviors during cooperative and competitivegames were documented using the Observation Checklist of Children's Behavior(OCCB; Grineski, 1989b).

Children participated in a six week treatment period of cooperative and competitivegames. More positive behaviors were observed during cooperative games thancompetitive games. More negative behaviors were observed during competitive games,but only during the first week of competitive games. Teachers' warmth and nurturancewas measured using the CIS (Arnett, 1989), but these scores did not impact children'spositive and negative scores in any statistically significant way. Results are explainedusing Tharp and Gallimore's (1998) work on classroom climate and Gottman ef a/.'s(1997) work on interactional set-points within a classroom.

Key words: Children, behaviours, cooperative games

The ability to care for other people is an important part of social development.Being able to associate with others in positive, nonaggressive, cooperative waysprovides the basis for success in friendships, marriage, and careers (Bay-Haines,Peterson & Quilitch, 1994). People who care for others usually find friends easily.Others, who cannot fit into social groups, may disrupt social interactions and areoften considered socially less competent (Rogers & Ross, 1986).

Positive peer oriented behaviors play an important role in forming healthy socialrelationships (Babcock, Hartle & Lamme, 1995); thus, it is important to investigatethe ways that children's positive social behaviors are encouraged and discouraged.Children in preschool who display a wide range of positive behaviors are inclinedto be liked more by their classmates than children who are aggressive. This is an

*Correspondence: Ann M. Berghout Austin, Department of Family & Human Development,Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-2905, USA

29

© 2000 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association) N.V.Published by license under

the Gordon and Breach Publishers imprint.Printed in Singapore.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

30 A.R. FINLINSON et al.

importantjustification for the present study since the single best childhood predictorof adults' adjustment is how well a child gets along with other children (Babcocket al., 1995).

Among other things, types of play and play materials have been shown to influencepositive social behavior. For example, if a toy requires two or more persons to workcooperatively when playing, the result seems more facultative of positive socialinteraction than toys designed for individual children (Orlick, 1981).

Types of play activities at school or day care also contribute to the developmentof positive social behaviors. Babcock et al. (1995) found that when children's playinvolved the creation of products (i.e., writing, art, woodworking) positive socialbehaviors were displayed four times as often as when children's play was notoriented to product production (e.g., block area, computers, water table). Further,those activities that were product oriented, but not limited to one correct method(i.e., painting, drawing, free writing, clay), encouraged the most prosocial interactionsof all.

Cooperative games, the medium of interest in this study, seem to be a way forchildren to learn and practice positive social behaviors. Because cooperative gamesare based on acceptance and group involvement, children are free to exhibitprosocial behaviors without forfeiting victory (Orlick, 1978). Since the goal structureof cooperative games is based on mutual interdependence, cooperative games givepractice in encouraging and helping others (Bay-Haines et al., 1994). On the otherhand, competitive games achieve a desired goal at the expense of other players.Competitive games create strong motivation to succeed in a milieu where often onlyone individual can succeed and win (Bay-Haines et al., 1994).

Grineski (1989a), observed kindergarten children's positive social behaviors duringcooperative and competitive games. Of the 230 prosocial behaviors recorded, 96%were noted during cooperative games. During competitive games children wererated as anxious and quiet, and at times exhibited behaviors of cheating, pushing,name calling, and accusing.

Following cooperative games, Grineski (1989b) found that children showed higherrates of positive physical contact in free play. This was especially true for childrenwith physically or developmentally challenging conditions. Similar carryover effectshave been documented (Orlick, 1981; Orlick & Foley, 1989; Orlick, McNally &O'Hara, 1978).

Cooperative games thus appear to promote children's positive adjustment anddevelopment in several measurable ways. Throughout the early childhood literature,however, it is clear that teachers also bring specific characteristics of interactive styleand general affect to the early childhood classroom which may also influencechildren's positive social behaviors and even their responses to cooperative andcompetitive games.

Teachers are an important influence on children's activity settings, contributingin obvious and not so obvious ways to classroom tone. According to Tharp andGallimore (1988) and Gottman, Guralnick, Wilson, Swanson and Murray (1997) thecombination of responses of all participating individuals work together to createthe tone of the activity setting. Conceivably, if teachers have more nurturing or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

COOPERATIVE GAMES AND CHILDREN'S POSITIVE BEHAVIORS 31

alternatively, aggressive personal styles, these characteristics may influence measurablereactions to cooperative and competitive games. Thus, this study also sought toassess teachers' possible contributions to children's behaviors during cooperativeand competitive games through measurement of teacher affect and nurturance(Arnett, 1989).

At the same time, few researchers (Grineski, 1989) have examined the behaviorsof the same groups of children during both cooperative and competitive games.In most other studies, groups of children were observed playing only cooperativegames or only competitive games, but not both. To address this issue the presentstudy examined the same children's behaviors during cooperative and competitivegames. Also collected were baseline data on children's positive and negativesocial behaviors, a further addition to existing work. Our hypotheses were asfollows:

Hj: Children will not differ in the display of negative behaviors between competitiveand cooperative games treatments.

H2: Children will not differ in the display of positive behaviors between competitiveand cooperative games treatments.

H3: Children will not differ in the display of negative behaviors in the classroomfollowing competitive and cooperative games treatments.

H4: Children will not differ in the display of positive behaviors in the classroomfollowing competitive and cooperative games treatments.

METHODS

Sample

Participants included all children enrolled in one of two university child developmentlabs (Lab 1 and Lab 2) who had received parental permission to participate (N =39; 20 boys, 19 girls; the parents of one child declined participation). The childrenwere further divided into 4 groups (Groups 1A, IB, 2A, and 2B) where each groupbut one had ten children. Children's ages in groups 1A and IB ranged from 4 years0 months to 5 years 6 months (M = 4 years 7.2 months). Ages in groups 2A and2B ranged from 4 years 1 month to 5 years 5 months (M = 4 years 7.5 months).Thirty-seven of the children were Euro-American. One child was African Americanand one was Arabic.

The children attended school four days a week through the academic term. Theyspent most of their time in self-selected activities, about two hours each day. Twenty-five children (64%) had attended a preschool or day care before their enrollmentin the child development lab for an average of 6 mondis of other preschool activityper child. Fourteen were presently enrolled in another preschool or day care inaddition to the Child Development Lab. The teachers of each class included onehead teacher who was a graduate student, four full-time student teachers, and atleast one part-time student teacher.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

32 A.R. FINLINSON et at.

The children's parents were community members, university students, and universityfaculty members. Most of the children were from first marriage, two-parent homes(92%, N= 36). Fathers' mean age was 34.7 (range = 24-49, SD= 8.06years). Mothers'mean age was 31.51 years (range = 22-44 years, SD = 8.92 years). Fifteen parents (10mothers) were high school graduates; twenty-six (13 mothers) had some collegeeducation; twenty-five (14 mothers) were college graduates, and twelve (2 mothers)had graduate degrees. Using Hollingshead's Four Factor Index of Social Status(Hollingshead, 1975), 33% (13) of the fadiers were higher executives and majorprofessionals (score 9); 21% (8) were skilled workers (score 4). Sixty-four percent(25) of the mothers were semiskilled workers (score 3), and 10% were homemakers(score 0). On the average, each child had two siblings (range = 0 to 5).

Design

The entire study was carried out across a seven-week period designated as weeks0, 1,..., 6. Treatments included 24 minutes of cooperative games vs. 20 minutes ofcompetitive games and a 4 minute debriefing session. Treatments werecounterbalanced by Lab to control for order effects (see Table 1). During weeks0, 3, and 6, the children were not involved in die games treatment, but wereobserved in self-selected activities. Similar to Babcock et al. (1995) self-selected activitiesincluded a selection of both product-oriented and nonproduct-oriented activities.

To summarize, the children were observed in self-directed activities during week0. They received die games treatment one day a week for weeks 1 and 2, wereobserved during diis treatment, and were observed in self-selected activities duringweek 3, a week off from treatment. They were observed in treatment one day eachweek during weeks 4 and 5. They were again observed in self-selected activitiesduring week 6, also a week off from treatment.

Since the order of treatment exposure was counterbalanced, Lab 1 participatedin competitive games First (weeks 1 and 2), followed by cooperative games (weeks4 and 5), while Lab 2 participated in cooperative games first followed by competitivegames (see Table 1).

Table 1 Schedule of Observations During Self-Selected Activities (SSA) and During Treatments(CP1 CP2 CM1, CM2).

NorthNorthSouthSouth

Group

(n)

1234

0

SSASSASSASSA

1

CDAB

2

DCBA

Week

3

SSASSASSASSA

4

ABCD

5

BADC

6

SSASSASSASSA

Note. Treatments:CP1: Cooperative Games 1 (Non-elimination Musical Chairs) and 3 (Partner Hoop)CP2: Cooperative Games 5 (Long, Long Jump) and 7 (Fish Gobbler)CM1: Competitive Games 2 (Musical Chairs) and 4 (Hoop Ball)CM2: Competitive Games 6 (Jump a Long) and 8 (Simon Says)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

COOPERATIVE GAMES AND CHILDREN'S POSITIVE BEHAVIORS 33

The 24-minute game session was considered a regular part of the Child DevelopmentLab curriculum, and the head teachers and two student teachers played the gameswith the children.

Instruments and Games

During week 0 before the games were played, interactional information on thechildren and teachers in each classroom was collected. Instruments utilized werethe Caregiver Interaction Scale (Arnett, 1989), a measure of teacher nurturance,administered at weeks 0, 3, and 6, and The Observational Checklist of Children'sBehavior (OCCB; Grineski, 1989b), a measure of children's positive and negativesocial behaviors, administered during week 0 and every week thereafter for a totalof seven weeks.

Caregiver Interaction Scale

The Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS; Arnett, 1989), a four-point observational ratingscale, was completed for each student teacher and headteacher to control for differencesin teacher's nurturance and affective tone. The 26-item scale has four subscales: positiverelationships, punitiveness, permissiveness, and detachment However, for this study weused The Nurturing Scale derived from a factor analysis of the CIS (Austin, Rodriguez,Lindauer, Norton & Nelson, 1997). The Nurturing scale (a = .93) includes all positivebehavior items and reverse-coded detachment items.

In each classroom, two of five teachers (one head teacher and four students) wererandomly selected to complete the measures for each student teacher. The headteachers were rated by two student teachers, who were also randomly selected. Headand student teachers were trained to administer the CIS by observing and completingthe scale for the head teachers in the morning labs who were not part of the study.The results were discussed, as well as any possible problems in scale administration.Interrater reliability was calculated on item-by-item agreement. In order to bereliable with one another, ratings could differ only by one number on the four-pointscale. Raters continued working together on the rating protocol until their interraterreliability was .90 or above on all items. Additionally, interrater reliability wasmaintained at .90 or above throughout the study.

Observational Checklist of Children's Behavior

The Observational Checklist of Children's Behavior (OCCB; Grineski, 1989b) wasused to count and categorize children's positive and negative behaviors during thegames and self-selected activities for all weeks. During group games, the interactionsof each individual child were observed and recorded for 10 seconds by two femaleundergraduate child and family studies students, trained during a pilot study carriedout prior to this research. Achieved interrater agreement was .90 or above on allitems and maintained at .90 or above throughout the study as determined byinterrater reliability checks every two weeks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

34 A.R. FINLINSON et al.

The observers wore headphones that allowed them to hear a beep every 10seconds, thus indicating to them when they needed to record an observation. TheOCCB checklist used to code observations included the following behavioralcategories:

1. Positive Physical Contact, for example, hugging, holding hands, kissing, pattingsomeone on the back.

2. Positive Verbal Comments: for example, "Wanna play?", "I'll help", "Are you allright?", "That's good".

3. Goal-Related Cooperative Behaviors: Doing things where it is obvious that childrenare working together to accomplish a goal (for example, rolling a ball back andforth, carrying an object).

4. Negative Physical Contact, for example, hitting, pushing, taking a piece of equipment,kicking.

5. Negative Verbal Comments: for example, "That's not good"; "You can't do that";"I don't want to play"; "Let's get away from her."

Each child was observed six times during the data collection session. The orderof observation was random. An observation schedule was developed by randomlydrawing each child's name from a hat.

Cooperative Games and Competitive Games

Treatment included eight games (4 = cooperative, 4 = competitive) used by Grineski(1989b). Each cooperative game was paired by similarity of content with a competitivegame making 4 pairs of games (e.g. non-elimination musical chairs was paired withtraditional musical chairs where a child is eliminated with each round). The gamesselected were deemed to be at an appropriate level for the children and many ofthe competitive versions are played at school and children's parties. Each pair ofgames had been tested previously in a small pilot study in order to determine thebest way to conduct them.

Week 0 of the study began the first week the children attended preschool. As hasbeen typical for other research projects in this lab school, observation chairs wereset up throughout the classroom for data collectors. Since observations in theuniversity lab are routinely made by a number of researchers, the children pay littleattention to the observers. Observers may move about the room when necessary.

RESULTS

Caregiver Interaction Scale

The CIS was used to determine if there were any significant difference in teachernurturance. Using a one-way analysis of variance, teachers did not significantly differin their nurturance with children. Having determined this, the CIS was not usedin further analysis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

COOPERATIVE GAMES AND CHILDREN'S POSITIVE BEHAVIORS 35

Observational Checklist of Children's Behavior

For each of the seven weeks of data collection (weeks 0, 1, 2, ... 6), each child hadfive OCCB frequency count subscores. Three of these were positive behavior scores(positive physical contact, positive verbal contact, positive goal-related contact) andtwo were negative behavior scores (negative physical contact, negative verbal contact).The sum of the two negative scores was subtracted from the sum of the three positivescores, yielding a single OCCB score for each child for each of the seven weeks ofthis study. Each child's seven OCCB scores constituted the dependent measure ofthe study.

Table 2 presents positive and negative behaviors for all weeks of the study. Table3 presents means and standard deviations for OCCB scores by lab and treatmentconditions. Both classes had higher OCCB scores during cooperative games (Lab1 M = 1.03, SD = 2.56; Lab 2 M= .14, SD = 3.08) than during competitive games(Lab 1 M = 0.65, SD = 2.46; Lab M = -0.87, SD = 3.67).

Chi-square was used to test for a relationship between treatment and positive andnegative behaviors. More negative behavior occurred during competitive gamesthan during cooperative games, %2 = 88.58 (4 df, N= 826), p < .001. For cooperativegames, observed = 112, expected = 131.2; for competitive games, observed = 114,expected = 153.1. However, cell frequencies also indicated that during bothcooperative and competitive games, positive behaviors occurred less frequently than

Table 2 Total Positive Behaviors and Negative Behaviors During Treatments, Summing AcrossGroups Within Lab Broken Down by Week.

Group

PretreatmentClass 1 Wk 0Class 2 Wk 0

CooperativeClass 1 Wk 4Class 1 Wk 5Class 2 Wk 1Class 2 Wk 2

Post CooperativeClass 1 Wk 6Class 2 Wk 3

CompetitiveClass 1 Wk 1Class 1 Wk 2Class 2 Wk 4Class 2 Wk 5

Post CompetitiveClass 1 Wk 3Class 2 Wk 6

GRAND TOTAL

Pos/Neg

34.5/1636/21.517.5/12.524/17.5

34.5/36.525/1624.5/27.529.5/14.9

Total Pos

133.550a

83.5*

70.5

41.5

63.562.5

59.5

54

50.565.5551

Total Neg

28.518.510.0

37.5

30.0

11.54.0

52.5

42

6.08.5

221.5

Note.: a/><.018. Lab 1 N= 20, mean = 2.5, SD= 1.338. Lab 2 N= 19, mean = 4.39, SD=2.99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

36 A.R. FINLINSON et al.

Table 3 Means (Standard Deviations) for Positive OCCB Scores Minus Negative OCCB ScoresDuring Cooperative and Competitive Games in Both Labs.

Treatment/Class

Competitive Overall

Class 1

Class 2

Cooperative Overall

Class 1

Class 2

-.09(3.16)

.14(3.08)

Lab

.65(2.46)

-.87(3.67)

1.03(2.56)

.14(3.08)

Male

1.33(2.92)

-.78(3.48)

1.06(2.66)-1.56

(3 64)

Female

.77(2.47)

-.80(3.46)

.32(2.35)

-.25(3.79)

Note. OCCB scores = positive sum — negative sum. The higher the score the more positive behaviorsobserved.

expected. On the other hand, observations during self-selected activities yieldedmore positive behaviors than expected (week 0, observed = 134, expected = 118.8;week3, observed = 126, expected = 103.5; week 6, observed = 116, expected = 95.5).

When positive and negative behavior by class and week were graphed (Figures1, 2, 3 and 4), it was clear that while positive behaviors were seen more often thannegative behaviors for both classes (Figures 1, 2, & 3), more negative behaviorsoccurred during the first week of competitive games for both classes.

Negative and positive behaviors for the first week of competitive games for eachclass were examined in two-tailed t tests for paired samples. For both labs, negativebehaviors occurred significantly more often during the first week of competitivegames than positive behaviors (Lab \,t= 1.73, 19 df, p< .10; competitive ~x= 1.83,sd = 2.83; cooperative M = .80, SD = 1.46; Lab 2, t = -2.48,18 df, p < .02; competitiveM = 1.45, SD = 1.4; cooperative Af = .66, SD = 1.14).

Using the OCCB results discussed previously, Hi, was rejected. However, sincethere were more competitive behaviors than cooperative during week 1 of competitivegames only, we failed to reject H2, H3, and H4.

DISCUSSION

Similar to Grineski (1989a, 1989b) children did exhibit more positive behaviorsduring cooperative games and more negative behaviors during competitive games.Nonetheless, increased negative behaviors were observed during the first week ofcompetitive games only. Thereafter, the children displayed more positive behaviorsthan negative behaviors regardless of the kinds of games being played.

These findings can be explained by the work of Tharp and Gallimore (1988) andGottman et al. (1997). Tharp & Gallimore write that although children are usually

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

COOPERATIVE GAMES AND CHILDREN'S POSITIVE BEHAVIORS 37

not aware of the philosophical goals adults have established for the classroom, thetone of the classroom nonetheless will usually reflect overall goals and philosophy.This interactive tone, referred to by Gottman et al. (1997) as the group's set-point,can be disturbed by external or internal dynamics. If the set-point is stable though,the group will quickly return to it.

The University Lab School is known for its strong prosocial emphasis. Beforestudents teach in the Lab School they undergo extensive preparation so they canparticipate in and contribute to, this philosophical framework. It is not surprisingthat participation in competitive games did yield more competitive behaviors butonly during the initial exposure to competitive games; that is, during the first weekof competitive games only. Thereafter, we believe the prosocial philosophy of theChild Development Lab overrode any additional negative effects from the competitivegames treatment, and the classroom returned to its original prosocial set-point.

Unfortunately this explanation of set-point comes as a post hoc attempt to explainsome puzzling findings. Further research involving classrooms with different prosocialset-points will be necessary to explore more fully set-point theory as it relates toprosocial behaviors during cooperative and competitive games.

It is also important to note that more negative behaviors occurred duringcooperative games than during self-selected activities (Figures 2, 3, and 4). Thoseresults support and extend Babcock's (1995) work by further emphasizing that themilieu created by positive self-directed activities is an important arena for thedevelopment of competence and psychosocial wellbeing.

Class 1 — Class 2

Figure 1 Positive behavior scores for classes 1 and 2 across all treatment conditions.

Pretreatment Cooperative Post-Cooperative Competitive Post-Competitive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

38 A.R. FINLINSON et al.

60-

50

40

30-

20

10-

A

\\

V

Pretreatment Cooperative Post-Cooperative Competitive Post-Competitive

Class 1 Class 2

Figure 2 Negative behavior scores for classes 1 and 2 across all treatment conditions.

Class 1 Class 2

Figure 3 Positive behavior scores for classes 1 and 2 by treatment week.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

COOPERATIVE GAMES AND CHILDREN'S POSITIVE BEHAVIORS 39

Class 1 Class 2

Figure 4 Negative behavior scores for classes 1 and 2 by treatment week.

Acknowledgements

We thank the parents, children, and teachers of the Dale & Adele Young ChildDevelopment Lab for their cooperation. We are grateful to Teresa Bodrero for herassistance throughout the preparation of this work. We thank the AgricultureExperiment Station at Utah State University for their supporting our researchprogram.

References

Alexander, N.P. (1986). School-age child care: Concerns and challenges. Young Children, 42(1), 310.Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day care centers: Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 10, 541-552.Babcock, F., Hartle, L. and Lammc, L.L. (1995). Prosocial behaviors of five-year-old children in sixteen

learning activity centers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9(2), 113–127.Bay-Haines, A.K., Peterson, R.F. and Quilitch, H.R. (1994). Cooperative games: A way to modify aggressive

and cooperative behaviors in young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(3), 435-446.Brown, L. and Grineski, S. (1992). Competition in physical education: An educational contradiction?

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63(1), 17–19.Goffin, S.G. (1987). Cooperative behaviors: They need our support. Young Children, 42(2), 75-81.Gottman, J.M., Guralnick, M.J., Wilson, B., Swanson, C.C. and Murray, J.D. (1997). What should be the

focus of emotion regulation in children? A nonlinear dynamic mathematic model of children's peerinteraction in groups. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Washington, D.C., April, 1997.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

40 A.R. FINLINSON et al.

Grineski, S. (1989a). Children, games, and prosocial behavior: Insights and connections. Journal ofPhysical Education, Recreation and Dance, 14, 21-25.

Grineski, S. (1989b). Effects of cooperative games on prosocial behaviors: Interaction of young children with andwithout impairments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Hollingshead, A.B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Honig, A. (1982). Research in review: Prosocial development in children. Young Children, 37(5), 51–

62.Orlick, T. (1978). The cooperative sports and games book: Challenge without competition. New York: Pantheon.Orlick, T. (1981). Cooperative play socialization among preschool children. Journal of Individual Psychology,

37(1), 54-67.Orlick, T. and Foley, C. (1979). Pre-school cooperative games: A preliminary perspective. In M. Melnick

(Ed.), Sport sociology: Contemporary themes (2nd ed., pp.266-272). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Orlick, T., McNally, J. and O'Hara, T. (1978). Cooperative games: Systematic analysis and cooperative

impact. In F. Smool and R. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives inyouth sports (pp.203-204). WashingtonDC: Hemisphere.

Rogers, D. and Ross, D. (1986). Encouraging positive social interaction among young children. YoungChildren, 41(3), 12-17.

Tharp, R.G. and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life, (Chapters 2, 3, 4). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Zahn-Waxler, E., Radke-Yarrow, M. and Wagner, E. (1992). Development of concern for others.Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126-136.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

4:47

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14