Peers
Peers & Youth Culture
Friends
Cliques
Crowds
Peer Popularity and Social Competence
Peer Acceptance
Characteristics of Popular and Unpopular Adolescents
Social Cognition and Social Competence
Peers
Peers & Youth Culture
Friends
Cliques
Crowds
Peer Popularity and Social Competence
Peer Acceptance
Characteristics of Popular and Unpopular Adolescents
Social Cognition and Social Competence
Peer Group Structure
Peers
Crowds
Cliques
Friends
Why study peer groups?
• Adolescents spend a lot of time with their peers
• Hierarchically unique relationship (equal status)
• Piaget thought peers were essential to moral
development
– Realm of negotiation
– Creative co-establishment of rules
– Issues of distributive justice
Four major changes
• Increased time spent with peers
• Functioning with less adult supervision
• Increasing contact with members of
opposite-sex
• Emergence of crowds
– Q: Is this an artifact of the school system?
The Nature of Adolescent
Peer Groups
Causes of Peer Culture
• Factor # 1: Educational system
–
–
–
–
Age Grouping
Isolating children from adult population
Putting large numbers of children together
Exposure to diversity
• Different ethnicities, different backgrounds
Percentage of 14- to 17-year-olds
enrolled in school
Percentage of 14- to 17-year-olds enrolled in
school
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
Causes of Peer Culture
• Factor # 1: Educational system
–
–
–
–
Age Grouping
Isolating children from adult population
Putting large numbers of children together
Exposure to diversity
• Different ethnicities, different backgrounds
• Factor #2: Work/Family life
– Tougher child labor laws
– Both parents working
• Longer hours
• Factor #3: Population shifts
– 1 to 7 ratio of adolescents to adults
The Origins of Adolescent Peer
Groups in Contemporary Society
• Changes in the Population
– Baby Boom created an “adolescent
boom” in the 1960s and early 1970s
– Adolescents comprised over 10% of
U.S. population
• Teenage population is now about
7% of U.S. population
Youth Culture
• Is there a separate youth culture?
– Many have same values as parents rather than
with those of same age
– Young people maintain attitudes/values different
from the rest of society
• Individuality, learning, knowledge
• Consumer behavior
• Music, movies/TV, technology
Problem of youth culture
• Development of counter values
• Coleman: The Adolescent Society (1961)
• Do adolescents (de)value academic achievement?
– Why or why not?
– Should we be concerned?
• Increase in counter-culture activities
– Why would increased peer/decreased adult contact
promote this?
Benefit of youth culture
• Cultivation of universalistic norms
• Technological advancements
– Postfigurative cultures
– Cofigurative cultures
– Prefigurative cultures
Technological Change & Youth Culture
(Mead, 1928)

Postfigurative Culture
•

Cofigurative Culture
•

Youth learn from their elders (e.g.,
traditional methods of farming)
Learning from both elders and peers
Prefigurative Culture
•
Jody teaches her father how to use
the Internet
Peers
Peers & Youth Culture
Friends discuss later with Intimacy
Cliques
Crowds
Peer Popularity and Social Competence
Peer Acceptance
Characteristics of Popular and Unpopular Adolescents
Social Cognition and Social Competence
The Nature of Adolescent
Peer Groups
• Cliques and Crowds
– Cliques are small groups defined by common
activities/friendship and form a regular social group
– Crowds are larger, more vaguely defined groups, based
on reputation
• Jocks, brains, nerds, druggies, toughs, punks,
populars, socies, and so on
• not necessarily friends and do not necessarily spend
time together
Adolescents and Their Cliques:
Similarity among Clique Members
• Cliques typically are
composed of people of:
– same age
– same race
– same socioeconomic
background
– same sex – at least during
early and middle
adolescence
Adolescents and Their Cliques:
Similarity among Clique Members
• Selection or Socialization?
– Antisocial activities, such as delinquency?
– Aggression?
– Alcohol, tobacco, depression?
Cliques (cont’d)
• Shared interests and activities
– Orientation toward school
– Orientation toward the teen culture
– Involvement in antisocial activity
• Deviant peer groups
– Aggressive adolescents gravitate toward each
other
Adolescents and Their Cliques:
Common Interests among Friends
• Three factors are important
for determining clique
membership
– Orientation toward school
– Orientation toward the teen
culture
– Involvement in antisocial
activity
Adolescents and Their Cliques:
Common Interests among Friends
• Role of family in friendship
choice
– Parents socialize certain traits
– Predispose teens toward certain
crowds
– Crowds reward them for the
traits that led them there in the
first place
– Traits are strengthened
• Antisocial peers reinforce
antisocial traits
Adolescents and Their Cliques:
Common Interests Among Friends
• Deviant peer groups
– Aggressive adolescents gravitate toward each other
– Are gangs just deviant peer groups?
• Process of antisocial peer group formation in adolescence begins in the
home during childhood
– Parent-child relationships that are coercive and hostile
Adolescents and Their Cliques:
Common Interests among Friends
• How stable are friendships
over time?
– Moderate stability over the
school year
– More stable during later
years of high school
– Actual composition of
teens’ cliques may shift;
defining characteristics of
the clique, however, do not
Who Do Adolescents Talk To About?
Youniss & Smollar (1985)
Adolescents are more likely to talk
to their friends about opposite sex
relationships, and to their parents
about career goals. How do you
interpret these data?
Preadolescent Cliques
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Friendship Choices Among Fourth Graders (from Moreno, 1934, p. 38).
Triangles represent males, circles represent females.
Opposite sex transitions
• Adolescent interaction with the opposite sex:
• Same-sex cliques (fairly isolated non-clique
interaction)
• Mixed-sex cliques
• Cliques divide off into dating pairs
– Disintegration of cliques, replaced with sets of couples
Time Spent in Other-Sex Groups or Pairs
Mixed-sex Cliques
♂
♀
Crowds
• Larger, more vaguely defined
groups, based on reputation
– Jocks, brains, nerds, druggies
• May or may not spend time
together
• Peak in importance in middle
adolescence
• Vary according to
involvement in adult
institutions vs. peer activities
Crowds as reference groups
• What are crowds?
• Lenses through which adolescents see the world
• Lenses through which adolescents are seen by the
world
• Crowds as Reference Groups
– Crowds contribute to the definition of norms and standards
for such things as clothing, leisure, and tastes in music
The importance of cues
• External cues provide stereotypical
information
– Short vs. long hair
– Clothing style
– Mannerisms
• Q: why are these cues reliable sources of
information?
– Correlational or causal relationship
Dimensions of cliques
• Dimensions of segregation: common
interests
– Orientation towards adult culture
– Orientation towards youth culture
• Selection vs. socialization
Adolescents and Their Crowds
The Social Map of
Adolescence
• Involvement in
institutions
controlled by
adults
• Involvement in
informal peer
culture
Conformity, conformity,
conformity
• The primary message of peer groups:
Conformity
• Why do you think this is?
– When is it (and in what way is it) a good thing?
– When is it (and in what way is it) a bad thing?
Developmental Changes in Crowds
Age Group
Crowd Characteristics
Middle School
(Grades 6-8)
-less differentiated (two main groups – the in-crowd
and the out-crowd)
Early High School
(Grades 9-10)
-become more differentiated
-more influential
Later High School
(Grades 11-12)
-become yet more differentiated
-more niches for people to “fit into”
-less hierarchical and less influential
Keep in Mind…
Adolescents do not always accept the crowd label
attributed to them by peers. They may see themselves
as too distinctly individual to be categorized.
Developmental Changes in Crowds
Brown, Mory, & Kinney (1994)
Importance of crowd affiliation
Crowd Importance Score
5
4
3
2
1
0
11-12
13
14
15
Age
16
18
18-19
Popularity
• Popularity (Status): The degree to which children are liked
or disliked by their peers as a group.
• Measuring popularity: Sociometric techniques
– Nomination technique: “Tell me the names of 3 kids in class that you
like…”
– Rating scale technique: The child is asked to rate each child in the
class on a 5 point scale
– Paired comparison technique: The child is presented with the names
of 2 children at a time and asked which they like more
Status in the Peer Group
Sociometric systems classify children into
five groups:
–
–
–
–
–
Popular
Rejected
Neglected
Average
Controversial.
Peer Acceptance
• 2/3 can be placed in
one of these
categories
Negative
nominations
Few
Many
Positive nominations
Few
Many
Peer Acceptance
• 2/3 can be placed in
one of these
categories
Negative
nominations
Few
Many
Positive nominations
Few
Many
Popular
Popular Children
• Popular children are liked by many peers and disliked
by few peers.
• They are skilled at initiating social interaction with
peers and maintaining positive relationships with
others.
• They tend to be cooperative, friendly, sociable, and
sensitive to others, and are perceived this way by
teachers and parents as well as by other children.
• They tend to be more assertive than aggressive,
getting what they want without fighting with or
hurting others.
Peer Acceptance
• 2/3 can be placed in
one of these
categories
Negative
nominations
Positive nominations
Few
Many
Few
Popular
Many
Controversial
Controversial Children
• “Controversial” children are those who are liked by
some peers and disliked by others.
• They have characteristics of both popular and rejected
children.
• They may be aggressive, disruptive, and prone to
anger, but also cooperative, social, and good at sports.
• They may be viewed by peers as arrogant and
snobbish.
• They may be socially active and good group leaders.
Peer Acceptance
• 2/3 can be placed in one
of these categories
Negative
nominations
Few
Many
Positive nominations
Few
Many
Neglected
Popular
Controversial
Neglected Children
• Some withdrawn children are categorized as
“neglected” because they are neither liked nor
disliked.
• They tend to back away from peer interactions that
involve aggression.
• They tend to be neglected primarily because they are
not noticed by their peers.
Peer Acceptance
•
2/3 can be placed in one of
these categories
Negative
nominations
Positive nominations
Few
Many
Few
Neglected
Popular
Many
Rejected
Controversial
Rejected Children
There are two categories of rejected children:
– Aggressive-rejected children are prone to hostile and
threatening behavior, physical aggression, disruptive
behavior, and delinquency.They engage in “relational
aggression,” spreading rumors about others, withholding
friendship, and ignoring and excluding other children.
– Withdrawn-rejected children (10% to 20% of those in the
rejected category) are socially withdrawn, wary, and
timid. However, not all withdrawn children are rejected.
Popularity and Rejection
in Adolescent Peer Groups
• Three types of unpopular adolescents
– Aggressive
• fights with other students, bullies others
– Withdrawn
• exceedingly shy, timid, and inhibited
• victims of bullying
– Aggressive-Withdrawn
• hostile, but nervous about initiating friendships
Social Rejection
and Self-Evaluations
• Withdrawn-rejected children have less
confidence in their social skills and are more
anxious in peer contexts.
• Aggressive-rejected children lack social skills
and overestimate their social competence.
SOCIAL STATUS
Negative
Nominations
Rejected
Controversial
Average
Neglected
Popular
Positive
Nominations
SOCIAL STATUS
Popularity and Rejection
in Adolescent Peer Groups
• Both boys and girls can be aggressive and popular
at the same time
• Aggression coupled with poor emotion regulation
creates peer problems
Popularity and Rejection
in Adolescent Peer Groups
• Boys are more physically aggressive than girls
• Girls also act aggressively toward peers, but
often engage in relational aggression
– Ruin a reputation
– Disrupt a friendship
Relational Aggression
• Non-physical forms of aggression:
–
–
–
–
Gossiping
Spreading rumors
Snubbing
Excluding
• Covert, indirect form of aggression common
among girls
Rejected Children: Social
Cognition and Social Rejection
• Hostile attributional bias
– Plays central role in aggressive behavior of rejected
adolescent
• Rejected children are more likely than their better-liked peers to
be motivated by “getting even” with others or showing them up.
• They are more likely to attribute malicious intent to others.
• They have more difficulty finding constructive solutions, such
as taking turns.
Victimization and Harassment
• Unpopular youngsters may lack the social skills and
social understanding necessary to be popular with peers
– Easy targets for bullying
– Creates a cycle of teasing, feeling less socially adept, leading to
more bullying
– Blame themselves for their victimization
• Victimization can lead to lower earnings as an adult
because of the cyclical nature of bullying
Victimization and Harassment
• Peer harassment can be experienced
– Directly (as a victim)
– Indirectly (witnessing someone else be victimized)
• Different experiences of victimization have different effects
Peer Status as a Predictor of
Risk: Academic Performance
• Rejected children (especially if they are aggressive)
are more likely than others to have lower grade-point
averages and be viewed as poor students.
• The tendency of rejected children to do more poorly in
school worsens over time.
• Rejected children are more likely than popular
children to be suspended, repeat a grade, or drop out
of school.
• They are more likely to get in trouble with the law.
Relation of Sociometric Status to
Academic and Behavioral Problems
Peer Status as a Predictor of
Risk: Adjustment Problems
• Rejected-aggressive children are more at risk
for:
– Aggression, delinquency, hyperactivity, ADHD, conduct
disorder, and substance abuse (externalizing symptoms)
– Loneliness, depression, obsessive-compulsive behavior
(internalizing symptoms)
• Non–aggressive-withdrawn children are also at
risk for internalizing symptoms.
Externalizing Symptoms Reported by Parents:
Rejected and Aggressive 3rd Grade Boys
Externalizing Symptoms Reported by
Rejected and Aggressive 3rd Grade Boys
Internalizing Symptoms Reported by
Rejected and Aggressive 3rd Grade Boys
Percentages of children rejected by peers
as a function of gender and family income
As can be seen in these data from a longitudinal study, elementary school children from families with low incomes are considerably
more likely to be rejected than are children from middleclass families. (Adapted from Patterson, Griesler, Vaden, & Kupersmidt, 1992)
Predictors of Children’s
Sociometric Status
• Cognitive factors
• Emotion regulation
• Birth order: Last-born children are more popular than
firstborn children
• Intellectual ability: Academic performance correlates with
sociometric measures of popularity
• Physical attractiveness: Relatively attractive children are
more popular
– Unattractive children may be unpopular in part because of their
negative behaviors
• Motor skills
Predictors of Children’s
Sociometric Status
• Chief determinant of popularity during
adolescence: Social skills
– Act appropriately in eyes of peers
– Meet needs of others
– Confident but not conceited
Cognitive Factors for Peer
Relations
• Perspective taking refers to the ability to
adopt the view of another person
• Social cognition refers to the level of thought
used by a child in reference to others
• Social problem-solving skills refer to the
skills needed to resolve social dilemmas
Predictors of Children’s
Sociometric Status
• Unpopular youngsters may lack the social skills
and social understanding necessary to be popular
with peers
• Hostile attributional bias
– Plays central role in aggressive behavior
• Withdrawn kids
– Peer group entry, poor self-esteem, lack of confidence
– Cycle of victimization
Mean of social-cognitive factor
Predictors of Children’s
Sociometric Status
3
2.5
2
Adaptive
Planning
Alternative
Solutions
1.5
1
0.5
0
Negative Peer
Status
Positive Peer
Status
Predictors of Children’s
Sociometric Status
• Predictors of popularity do not seem to change
substantially with age.
• Overt aggression has a less important role in peer
rejection in adolescence than in childhood.
• Withdrawn behavior seems to become a more
important predictor of peer rejection with increasing
age in childhood.
• Social isolation may be forced on some children as
they progress through school, either through their own
disruptive or aggressive behavior or through selfisolation.
Stability of Sociometric Status
• Over short periods of time (weeks or a few months),
children who are popular or rejected tend to remain so.
Children who are neglected or controversial are more
likely to change status.
• Over longer periods of time, sociometric status is
more likely to change. Stability is higher for rejected
children than for popular, neglected, or controversial
children.
Interventions for Unpopularity
Adolescent
Intervention Focus
Neglected
-learning the social skills needed for making
friends
Rejected
-learning how to control and manage anger
and aggressiveness
Constructing Ideas:
Peer Pressure or Friends’ Influence?
Why might friends’ influence be a
more accurate description?

Is friends’ influence largely
toward negative behaviors?
Explain your answer.

From your experience, recall positive and negative
influences your friends have had on you.
Adolescent Conformity
50
Percent Conformity
45
40
35
30
25
7-8
12-13
16-17
Age
Costanzo (1970)
19-21
Mean Scores for Peer Conformity on
Different Types of Behavior
4
Mean conformity score
3.5
3
2.5
Antisocial
Neutral
Prosocial
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3rd
6th
9th
Grade
11-12th
Activity Questionnaire Results
Activity
YourselfYour Best
The Average
Friend
Student
Number of alcoholic
Drinks per week
1.48
1.84
3.52
Number of times
per month drunk
1.02
0.98
3.70
Activity Questionnaire Results
Activity
YourselfYour Best
The Average
Friend
Student
Number of alcoholic
Drinks per week
0.8
1.8
4.4
Number of times
per month drunk
1.0
1.7
4.7
Peer Pressure
You
Average
Your Best Simmons
Friend
Student
Drinks per
Week
3.9
5.7
6.6
Times Drunk
per Month
1.9
2.4
4.6
Peer Pressure
National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY)
Eder (1978, 1995): Perceived Polularity
• Hard to understand what students defined as
being popular, but clear that students were
not all equal
• Visibility was most important
• Strong influence of social class
• Low end of hierarchy
– Unattractiveness, atypical gender behavior,
lower intelligence, unusual behavior