Predicting acceptance and popularity in early adolescence as a function of hearing status, gender, and educational setting.
Deaf boys in mainstream 6th-grade classes face a double social hit—less liked and less popular—because peers read weak communication as unfriendliness.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Xiong et al. (2011) asked 6th-grade kids to name classmates they liked and respected.
The team compared deaf and hearing boys and girls in two settings: mainstream and special schools.
They also rated each child’s social skills and everyday communication to see what drove acceptance.
What they found
Deaf boys in mainstream rooms got fewer “like” votes and were seen as less popular.
Poor pragmatic language and low prosocial acts explained most of the gap.
Deaf girls showed smaller social penalties, and setting mattered less for them.
How this fits with other research
Schwab et al. (2016) widen the lens: any student tagged “special needs” in Germany, not just deaf pupils, reported more peer problems in both inclusive and separate classes.
Su et al. (2026) move from snapshot to pathway: for autistic teens, ongoing peer rejection later feeds anxiety and depression, showing acceptance is not a one-time nicety but a mental-health shield.
Poppes et al. (2010) seem to clash: they found mainstream peers can accept autistic classmates who show low prosocial skills. The difference is focus—P looked at shyness reinterpreted through autism education, while Nina focused on basic communication gaps that peers may not understand.
Why it matters
If you coach a deaf student in a general-ed room, target boy-friendly pragmatics: clear turn-taking, topic shifts, and quick repair when speech is missed.
Pair these lessons with peer education so classmates see communication breakdowns as hearing issues, not rudeness.
Track acceptance with quick sociometric checks; catching slippage early blocks the rejection-anxiety loop shown in later studies.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 5-minute peer training: model how to repeat, rephrase, and wait for a deaf classmate’s response, then prompt two students to practice during group work.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study examined associations of communicative skills, social behavior, and personality with acceptance and popularity as a function of hearing status, gender, and educational setting. Participants were 87 deaf and 672 hearing early adolescents of 52 6th grade classrooms in mainstream and special education. Acceptance varied as a function of hearing status by gender; popularity varied as a function of hearing status and educational setting. Deaf boys in mainstream education were less accepted and popular than their hearing classmates and than deaf peers in special education. Deaf girls in mainstream education were also less popular but not less accepted. Communicative skills varied as a function of hearing status, whereas social behavior varied as a function of educational setting. Deaf mainstreamed children showed less developed pragmatic and strategic communicative skills (monitoring, improvisation, initiating/maintaining) than their hearing classmates, but more social adjustment than deaf peers in special education (more prosocial behavior, less antisocial or withdrawn behavior, and more agreeableness). For acceptance, deaf girls in mainstream education compensated the lack of improvisation with higher levels of prosocial behavior, agreeableness, monitoring, and pragmatic skills, and lower levels of antisocial behavior than deaf boys. Monitoring and pragmatic skills negatively affected a deaf mainstream boy's acceptance. In special education, gender differences in prosocial behavior explained deaf boys' lower acceptance. Popularity was explained by pragmatic skills and improvisation as a function of hearing status. Voter population difference and different social behavior norms are considered as an explanation for popularity differences as a function of educational setting.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2011 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.003