Exam 3 Flashcards
Importance of Studying Peer Relationships
Interaction Time
- more peer interaction in adolescence
Long-Term Outcomes
- interactions in youth can cause harm later (ex: bad experience causes later anxiety)
Cognitive Changes
- feel that they are being watched/lack of awareness, imaginary audience/personal fable
Judith Rich Harris
- parents vs. peers: peers are more influential in adolescence
Methods of Studying Friendship
- Friendship Nomination
- Cliques
- Observe Interactions
- Quantity vs. Quality
Friendship Nomination
Limits on Number
- can only nominate top x number of friends
Reciprocated or Not
- does the person who is nominated reciprocate the nomination or not
Cliques
- Nomination clusters/groups
- Group is connected/friends
- Not everyone is equally close
- Often features several dyads
Observe Interactions
- Bring dyad into lad
- Give task: discuss conflict, talk, etc.
Quantity vs. Quality
Number of friends vs. quality of friendships
Forms of Friendship Quality
Companionship
- do things/spend time together
Conflict
- less prevalent in high quality relationships
Help/Aid
- helping physically/in person (example: helping a friend move)
Security
- helping emotionally/offering support (example: helping friend through a breakup)
Closeness
- emotional bond, wanting/feeling closeness
Chumships (Harry Stack Sullivan)
- Real friendships are critical for development in childhood
- Intimacy such as connection, venting, etc. are necessary
- Intimacy grows with age
Factors that Influence Formation of Adolescent Friendships
Homophily
- similar interests, attitudes, etc.
Proximity
- typically must live close
- closer proximity = higher quality friendship
Levels of Friendship
Best
- highest level of intimacy and emotional closeness
Close
- hang out + intimacy
- less than best friend but still high
Acquaintance
- lowest level of intimacy/closeness
Gender Differences in Adolescent Friendships
Difference in Time Together
- boys: activity based
- girls: dyads spend time together and converse
Mixed-Sex Groups
- appears in late adolescence
- typically no girl/boy dyads
Other-Sex Friendships
- not very common
Gender Differences in Friendship in Traditional Cultures
Traditional Cultures
- boys: encouraged to have friends and socialize
- girls: given rules and restrictions surrounding friendships and socialization
Effect of Friendships on Adolescents’ Lives and Development
Selection vs. Socialization
- people tend to makes friends with similar people, homophily increases with time
- prior to friendship: very similar
- after friendship: get even closer and more similar
Contagion Effects
- Cliques engage in risk behavior together
Emotional Satisfaction
- higher quality friendships lead to higher emotional satisfaction
Forms of Friendship Support
Informational
- high in security (emotional support)
Instrumental
- being there (physical support)
Companionship
- doing something for 1st time, need for support
Esteem
- encouragement, you can/should do something
Friendship Dissolution
No longer friends @ same level (can be not mutual) due to proximity, gradual change, etc.
Break of trust
- causes big impact, violation of friendship rules
Communicatiom
- lack of talking
Intimacy
- not discussing deep, personal things can cause dissolution
Time Together
- learn that they are different people
- could also be due to a huge violation during time
Antipathetic Relationships
Mutual Antipathies
- two people who dislike each other
Enemies
- dislike —> hatred/malice
Prevalence of Antipathetic Relationships
- Typically people only have one antipathetic relationship
- Every person has experienced it at least once
People Who Adolescents Have Antipathetic Relationships With
- Typically an ex-friend
- Someone with an incompatible personality/relationship
- People they are jealous of
“Youth Culture”
- Looks at the adolescent period as its own separate culture
- Adolescents as a group
“Styles” of Youth Culture
Change through history
- Image
- Demeanor
- Argot
Image
- Physical Appearance Aspects
- Clothing
- ex: changes from 40s-70s-90s
Demeanor
- Form of gesturing, walking, and interacting
- Dancing
- How they spend time with friends
- Changes in decades
Argot
- “Slang” or Language
- How they talk to each other
- Pop culture nuances within language
Why May Youth Culture Exist?
- Allows them to display independence from culture of adults
- Identity development part: figuring out who they are
- Mixed messages they receive because of their age
- Creating own norms separates from kids, moves into adulthood
Peer Nomination
- Who gets the most “votes”
- Who’s the MOST popular
- List kids who are most popular vs. least popular
- Can be in group with people you don’t know
- Students get a code number, participants write numbers down to nominate the student
How is Peer Nomination Used in Researching Peer Culture
Create Score
- “Most Liked” - “Least Liked”: final score of how well-liked they are
- Mean: “Fights”, “Teases”, “Bullies” create mean score for aggression
Possibly Create Groups
- 20 or higher: “popular”
- -20 or lower: “unpopular”
Crowds
- Can be created by self-reported data
- Large groups of people who identify in similar way despite not knowing each other
- Not 5 people unlike cliques, more like 30-200
- Number of crowds get larger as age increases
Groups such as:
- Jocks
- Brains
- Deviants
- Etc.
Crowd Makeups of Early Adolescence
Very few distinguishable crowds as they are just starting to develop their identity
- Cool Kids
- Normals
- Dorks
Crowd Makeups of Late Adolescence
- Many, many different types of crowds
- More likely to be in moratorium phase of finding who they are
- New crowds like goths, deviants, peppies, druggies, etc.
History of Research on Popularity
Popularity = Liked
- View in 1980’s
Psychologists vs. Sociologists
- Psychologists: believe popularity is tied to how well-liked you are
- Sociologists: let adolescents define construct thru conversations about popularity and like-ability, more ethnography studies, found popular kids aren’t well liked, visibility aspect
Sociometric vs. Perceived
- Sociometric: how well-liked are you, higher means you are well-liked
- Perceived: peer-defined status; increased means you aren’t well-liked, but popular
Popularity
- Visibility: people know who they are and know things about them even w/o friendship
- Dominance: more power than others
- Social status: seen to have higher status than others
- Commodity: invisible and limited, not everyone can have it or it wouldn’t exist in same way
- True Status Construct
- Perceived
Social Preference
- Well-liked, not DISliked: many people like you and very few dislike you
- Controversial Status
- Dispositional Trait: everyone can theoretically have it, doesn’t need to be competed over
- Sociometric
Sociometric Status Categories
Participants split up based on nominations of liked and disliked
Popular
- Large # of liked and little to no disliked nominations
Rejected
- Opposite of popular, large # of disliked nominations and few to no liked nominations
Neglected
- Received few nominations
Controversial
- Received large # of liked and disliked nomination
Average
- Everyone else
Characteristics of Sociometric Status Categories
Popular
- Get along well with others
- Good social skills
- Many friends
Rejected
- Aggressive: impulsive, disruptive, aggressive
- Non Aggressive: socially awkward, odd behavior/language
- Stick out in a negative way
Neglected
- Wallflowers: shy, inhibited, introverts
Stability of Individuals in Sociometric Status Categories
Rejected
- Very stable status, tend to stay in category through development even if they aren’t that person anymore
Neglected
- Unstable, can come out of shell and get noticed which leads to change in category
Social Preference Continum
- Most Liked - Least Liked
- Score could be “liked” or “disliked” somewhere between high and low
Social Impact
- Most Liked + Least Liked
- Visibility, people know who they are but may either like or dislike them
Popularity
- Most Popular - Least Popular
- Rare, but can create three categories: popular, average, and unpopular
Characteristics of Popular vs. Unpopular Individuals
Popular
- physically attractive, wealthy/wealth makers, athletes
- Stylish clothes + cool things
Unpopular
- Similar to nonaggressive rejected students
- Visible due to being weird/odd
Stability of Popularity vs. Stability of Social Preference
- Popularity is more stable than social preference
- Girls: popularity is more stable than for boys
- Boys: social preference is more stable than for girls
Development Change in Relationship Between Popularity and Social Preference
Are the same people who are popular well-liked?
- Large overlap in elementary: liked=popular
- Less overlap in middle school: distinction between popularity/social preference begins, some people are popular and liked and some are disliked
- Even less in high school: rare for popular youth to be well-liked
Gender Difference in Relationship Between Popularity and Social Preference
Boys
- Popular & Well-Liked
- Become uncorrelated
Girls
- Popular & Disliked
- Become negatively correlated
- Popular Girls —> Controversial Status: many like them ands many dislike them
Status-Aggression Link
Bi-Directional Effect
- Increased popularity leads to increased aggression
- Increased aggression leads to increased popularity
- Especially for Social Aggression
Why?
- Aggression can be used to maintain status
- Stops those who threaten status from gaining it
- Can obtain status by demeaning others
Other Links Found to Popular Individuals
Risk-Taking
- Substance Use: use “normal” substances more often like weed and alcohol, not illicit drugs like coke or molly
- Sexual Behavior: more sexual partners, have sex earlier than peers which lowers chance of using contraceptive
Academics
- Effect of also being well-liked
- Lower GPA’s and higher truancy rates
- Buffered if high in social preference
Difference in Peer Status in Other Types of Schools
“Military” Academy
- Status = Class/Rank: as you get older, you get more privilege and power over those below you
- In-Class/Rank Unity: unity of status that exists
- Cross-Class Teams: have various competitions
- Similar to Harry Potter
Small Town School
- Sports & Looks: emphasized even more than in urban schools
- Parents Reputation: people know each other better so parents job/place in community could positively/negatively impact reputation of child
- Cross-Status Interaction: more likely to occur, friendships/dating between those who are popular and just average
Church Schools
- Not that different: most similar to large public
- Dress: uniform standards, can include things such as in class solidarity (certain grade gets a specific jacket) or popular kids slightly tweaking uniforms (rolled up skirts + accessories)
Difference in Peer Status in Other Regions of the World
Canada/European Countries
- Similar to U.S.
- Popular kids are aggressive, come from wealth, and are typically disliked
China/Japan
- Academics —> Popularity: excelling academically=popular, peer group looks down on those who do poorly in school
- Other similarities to US, but academic takes cake
Africa/South America
- Language lacks similar term
- Well-known or well-liked
Long-Term Effects of Adolescent Popularity
After High School
- Risk Behaviors: drinking and drug use aren’t isolated to high school, “popular” adolescents continue to use substances more than other individuals
- Workplace Harassment: popular individuals are more likely to engage in aggression and harassment at work when they get older
Issues with Researching and Findings of Popularity in Emerging Adulthood
Hard to Measure
- Where do you do nominations? A dorm? Smaller schools?
- Creates difficult
- Simply must ask college kids who popular kids are
Does it Exist?
- Some say no, popularity is instead a high school thing and adolescent subcultures don’t exist
- Celebrity Status: athletes are popular
- Fraternities/Sororities: some say popularity only exists in there, or that people who are in there are the popular ones
Peer Status Parenting Implication
Should I be worried if my adolescent is popular?
- No clear cut answer, maybe so be on the lookout
- Maybe, but less so if they are also well-liked
- Difficult to know if your child is well-liked which makes it hard to know if you should worry
Aggression
Intentionally harming someone in some way
- depends on context
Overt Aggression
- Easy to identify aggressor/victim
- Physical: hitting, kicking, pushing, any physical harm
- Verbal: name-calling to face, face-to-face insults
Relational Aggression
Indirect Aggression
- shielding aggressor identity but victim is known
- not to face
Social Aggression
- harming someone’s social life (relationship, status, etc.)
Emergence of Relational Aggression
- boys: aggressive
- girls: cause harm to relationships/reputation
Media Influences
- Heathers, Mean Girls
How is Aggression Measured
- Peer Nomination
- Teacher-Reports
- Self-Reports
Peer Nomination
Overt Aggression (physical)
- Initiates/gets into physical fights
- Hit, shove, or push peers
- Dominate or bully people
Relational Aggression
- Excluding others purposefully
- Spreading gossip/rumors with malicious intent
- Ignore others to get their way
Teacher-Reports
- Report bullying/fights
- Mirrors peer-reports
- Not accurate when it comes to relational aggression, peer-reports are better
Self-Reports
- Less likely to be honest
- Relational Aggression: Romantic Relationships (threaten a breakup)
- Victimization: are you a victim/target
Gender Differences of Aggressive Behavior
Boys
- boys use overt aggression more than girls
- also use relational aggression
Girls
- girls don’t always use more relational aggression than guys, often its equal levels
- less overt aggression and more relational aggression
What Causes Gender Differences of Aggressive Behavior
Reinforcements from society such as:
- “boys will be boys”
- girls are “nice”
Relationship Between Overt Aggression and Social Preference
- As age increases, aggression causes you to be disliked
- Not much gender difference
Relationship Between Relational Aggression and Social Preference
- Weak relationship between popularity and relational aggression
- Not much gender difference
Relationship Between Overt Aggression and Friendships
Less/Lower Quality Friendships
- more conflict, less support
Targets = Non-Friends
- people don’t want to befriend a “mean” person which reduces number of friends
Relationship Between Relational Aggression and Friendships
Popular
- increased quality friendships
- social power often goes in hand with relational aggression
- homophily
Disliked
- lower quality friendships
- less effective use of relational aggression
- skill issue
Difference Between Aggression and Bullying
Aggression
- random
Bullying
- targeted/selective
- within aggression
Bully
- Always aggressor, never target
- Rejected + aggressive
Bully-Victim
- Aggressor and target
Victim
- Always target, never aggressor
- Rejected + nonaggressive
- Less friends
Cyberbullying
Repetitive targeting on internet, more relational aggression than overt
Profiles of Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying
- Same people in roles as traditional bullying
- Effects are the same but the bully-victims are a different group
Efficacy of Anti-Bullying Programs
- Not a huge success, some rate good but not perfect
- Effectiveness of program depends on the school and its environment
- If a school + program have matching perspectives, the program is more effective
Aggression and Bullying Policy Implication
Cyberbullying Laws
- Schools often have a say when it comes to physical bullying, but cyberbullying is out of schools hands and is often rather handled by the state
- NV: legal issue
- CA: school issue
Forms of Problem Behavior
- Externalizing
- Internalizing
- Risky Behavior
- Antisocial Behavior
Externalizing
- Outward problem behaviors
- Actively doing something
- Undercontrolled: relaxed parenting, few rules/restrictions
Internalizing
- Emotional/chronic or momentary
- Mental health related
- Overcontrolled: too much parental pressure and involvement
Risky Behavior
- Engaging in behavior, higher risk for negative problem
- Ex: Substance Use: if you drink, higher risk for drinking and driving
Antisocial Behavior
- Against societal norms in a violent way
- Ex: Violence: vandalizing, harming very violently
Brain Development and Adolescent Risk Behavior
Immature Prefrontal Lobes: underdeveloped decision making
- Decision Making vs. Emotional Centers
- 25 is when both are fully developed
- Risk behavior decreases in 20s
Reason for Adolescent Engagement in Risk Driving Behavior
Experience
- Lack ability + knowledge to properly respond to situations
Cognitive Factors
- Personal fable: nothing bad happens to me
Personality Factors
- High sensation/thrill seeking
- Low empathy
Link to Mortality Rate
- Auto fatalities have a strong link to danger
- More risk means more danger
Development Pattern of Substance Use
Alcohol Use During HS
- Increased use by non-college bound
- Less use by college bound
Alcohol Use After HS
- Less use by non-college bound
- Increased use by college bound
Non-College: link between school failure + alcohol use
Different Adolescent Profiles of Substance Use
Experimental Use
- Curiosity, what is ____ like?
Social Use
- Not when alone but with others
Medicinal Use
- Self-medicate
- Using substances to cope w/ problems
Addictive Use
- Withdrawal (physical/mental) w/o substances
Overall Factors Related to Adolescent Substance Use
Age
- Using before 14 causes heightened risk for addictive use
Low Academic Achievement
- Bidirectional link to substance use
Lack of Parental Closeness
- Lack of closeness (not friendship) increases risk
Unstructured Socializing
- Lack of organization and plans increases risk
Contextual Factors Related to Adolescent Substance Use
- Environmental systems impact behavior
- Urban: often engage with illegal substance like meth
- Rural: engage with normal substances like weed and tobacco
- Suburban: in middle, engages with both
Peer Factors Related to Adolescent Substance Use
Friends vs. Peers
- Peer pressure comes from friends more than peers
Popularity
- Increased risk for substance use
- Not dependent
Policies vs. Programs
- Policies: enacted to decrease behavior
- Programs: tools/knowledge to prevent substance use
Public Health Substance Use Policies
- Care about health of all impacted
- Want decreased use
- e.g. restrict sales hours
Harm Reduction Substance Use Policies
- Don’t care about quantity of use, just wan’t decreased harm
- Laws on driving and B.A.C. leads to decreased harm
Efficacy of School-Based Substance Use Prevention Programs
Marketed Programs
- Marketing w/o data
- ex: D.A.R.E
Evidence-Based Programs
- Uses data and works to inform
- Not scary and intimidating
- Teaches refusal skills
Moffit’s Forms of Deliquency
- Life-Course Persistent
- Adolescent Limited
Life-Course Persistent Antisocial Behavior
- Behavior is bad and gets worse through life
- Can be due to neurological problems and high risk environments
Adolescent Limited Antisocial Behavior
- No high risk environment
- Externalizing problems
Dishion Deviant Talk Study
Method
- Measures talk of rule breaking and the depth/time of convo
- Example: long convo about stealing, how it was done, etc.
Results
- Higher in boys than girls
- Higher in persistently antisocial individuals compared to normative
Effects of Early Intervention Programs
Early Iatrogenic Effects are opposite of what you want
Peer Contagion: someone did this, learn how to do it + outdo them
Other reasons: ex. A lot of arrests
Characteristics of Multisystematic Approach to Delinquency Prevention
Prevented by family, school, community, etc.
Resiliency
Ability to avoid risk
Protective Factors Toward Risk/Problematic Behaviors
Intelligence
- Higher intelligence buffers potential for risk
Adult Relationship
- Adult mentor helps to avoid risk
School Climate
- “Parenting style” of school
- Support/rules lead to decreased risk
Religious Effects
- Increased practice/faith can help decrease risk
- Offers support
Deviance Policy Implication #1
Graduate Driver Licensing
- Drivers Ed: certain restrictions can be bypassed if completed
- Driving Curfews: can drive til 9 when 17, increases when 18
- Zero Tolerance: warning/citations, substance/alcohol use causes instance loss of license
Deviance Policy Implication #2
National Minimum Drinking Age Act
- Public Health Policy as it decreases access
- Ties some Federal Funds to change
- Less Traffic Fatalities for those under 20
- Didn’t change quantity of drinking
