Upload
randolph-day
View
224
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Peers
Peers & Youth CulturePeers & Youth Culture
FriendsFriends
CliquesCliques
CrowdsCrowds
Peer Popularity and Social CompetencePeer Popularity and Social CompetencePeer AcceptancePeer Acceptance
Characteristics of Popular and Unpopular AdolescentsCharacteristics of Popular and Unpopular Adolescents
Social Cognition and Social CompetenceSocial Cognition and Social Competence
Peers
Peers & Youth Culture
Friends
Cliques
Crowds
Peer Popularity and Social CompetencePeer Acceptance
Characteristics of Popular and Unpopular Adolescents
Social Cognition and Social Competence
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?
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Year
Percentage of 14- to 17-year-olds enrolled in
school
Percentage of 14- to 17-year-olds enrolled in school
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
Postfigurative Culture• Youth learn from their elders (e.g.,
traditional methods of farming)
Cofigurative Culture• Learning from both elders and peers
Prefigurative Culture• Jody teaches her father how to use
the Internet
(Mead, 1928)
Peers
Peers & Youth Culture
Friends discuss later with Intimacy
Cliques
Crowds
Peer Popularity and Social CompetencePeer 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
• Selection or Socialization? – Antisocial activities, such as delinquency?– Aggression?– Alcohol, tobacco, depression?
Adolescents and Their Cliques: Similarity among Clique Members
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 aTIFF (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
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.
Importance of crowd affiliation
0
1
2
3
4
5
11-12 13 14 15 16 18 18-19
Cro
wd
Impo
rtan
ce S
core
Age
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.
Positive nominations
Few Many
Negative nominations
Few
Many
Peer Acceptance
• 2/3 can be placed in one of these categories
Positive nominations
Few Many
Negative nominations
Few Popular
Many
Peer Acceptance
• 2/3 can be placed in one of these categories
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.
Positive nominations
Few Many
Negative nominations
Few Popular
Many Controversial
Peer Acceptance
• 2/3 can be placed in one of these categories
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.
Positive nominations
Few Many
Negative nominations
Few Neglected Popular
Many Controversial
Peer Acceptance
• 2/3 can be placed in one of these categories
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.
Positive nominations
Few Many
Negative nominations
Few Neglected Popular
Many Rejected Controversial
Peer Acceptance
• 2/3 can be placed in one of these categories
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
NegativeNominations
PositiveNominations
Controversial
Popular
Rejected
Neglected
Average
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.
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.
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)
• 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
Predictors of Children’s Sociometric Status
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
• 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
Predictors of Children’s Sociometric Status
Predictors of Children’s Sociometric Status
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Negative PeerStatus
Positive PeerStatus
AdaptivePlanningAlternativeSolutions
Mea
n o
f so
cial
-co
gn
itiv
e fa
cto
r
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 self-isolation.
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 From your experience, recall positive and negative influences your friends have had on you. influences your friends have had on you.
Adolescent Conformity
25
30
35
40
45
50
7-8 12-13 16-17 19-21
Age
Perc
ent
Con
form
ity
Costanzo (1970)
Mean Scores for Peer Conformity on Different Types of Behavior
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
3rd 6th 9th 11-12th
Grade
Mean conformity score
AntisocialNeutralProsocial
Activity Questionnaire Results
Activity Yourself Your Best The AverageFriend Student
Number of alcoholicDrinks per week 1.48 1.84 3.52
Number of times per month drunk 1.02 0.98 3.70
Activity Questionnaire Results
Activity Yourself Your Best The AverageFriend Student
Number of alcoholicDrinks per week 0.8 1.8 4.4
Number of times per month drunk 1.0 1.7 4.7
Peer Pressure
You Your Best Friend
Average Simmons Student
Drinks per Week 3.9 5.7 6.6
Times Drunk per Month 1.9 2.4 4.6
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