Teachers' peer buddy selections for children with autism: social characteristics and relationship with peer nominations.

Teachers filled out short forms about every child in their class. They picked one classmate they thought would be a good buddy for the student with autism. The researchers then compared the teachers' picks with who the other kids said they liked most.

The study looked at social traits of the chosen buddies. It also checked how well teacher choices matched peer popularity.

Teachers chose boys far more often than girls. The selected buddies were already popular and showed kind, helpful behaviors. Teacher picks and peer favorites overlapped about half the time.

In plain words, teachers went for the nice, well-liked kids when pairing buddies.

Cramm et al. (2009) asked the same question but let the students choose. Peers picked buddies who were helpful and smart, yet these kids were not the popular ones. The two studies sit side-by-side: teachers want star helpers, while classmates want reliable friends.

Watkins et al. (2015) reviewed dozens of peer-mediated studies and found buddy programs work best when the helper fits the job. Their review folds in both teacher and peer selection data, showing either route can succeed if you train the buddy well.

Bao et al. (2017) moved the idea into high school. They built full peer networks instead of one-on-one buddies and still saw more social talk. The social traits teachers liked in elementary—helpful, calm—remained useful markers when picking older network members.

Before you assign a peer buddy, check two lists: who the teacher thinks is prosocial and who the class actually likes. If the same name appears on both, great. If not, weigh the goal: pick the teacher choice for structured tasks, the peer favorite for lunch-bunch style hangouts. Either way, give the buddy a quick script so the partnership feels natural and fair.