LB: Peer Relations, WEEK 6

Question 1

What are peer relationships?

Answer 1

• APA defines a peer as someone who shares a teacher or function with one or more other individuals > e.g. function such as age, sex, occupations or social group membership.
• A peer is also typically an “age mate” who the individual interacts with of similar age
• APA defines a relationship as a continuing + committed association between two or more people where there is an interpersonal link (e.g. marriage) where people in the relationship have some level of influence on the other’s thoughts
• A peer relationship is a social affiliation between a group of individuals who share similar characteristics (age, socioeconomic status, occupation or education). > e.g. classmates, people on the same level of work as you are your peers, even people around the same age but not at the same uni or class can be peers
• Peer relations can include romantic relationships, dyadic relationships (e.g. best friendship), sexually based activities, small group relationships (cliques), large group relationships (peer groups)
• Peer relations differ across the lifespan and peers have an important effect on social development

Question 2

Why look into peer relations?

Answer 2

• Peer relations are a basic part of our human nature > We are social beings: experiences with peers are a meaningful part of human development across the lifespan. > peer interactions also differ from interaction with adults so w/o peers, human development would not be the same > very important
• Peer relations in childhood are a predictor of adjustment and maladjustment in adulthood.
• Evidence indicates that peer experiences are associated with many life outcomes including educational achievement + motivation, addictive behaviours (Almquist & Ostberg, 2013), mental health symptoms(Modin, Ostberg & Almquis, 2011), adult disease risk (Almquist, 2009)
• Peer relationships can thus guide an understanding of development in human behaviour

Question 3

Formation and structure of peer relations

Answer 3

1. Groups of peers: Children interact in the classroom and on the playground, Activities are supervised in early childhood
2. Peer Groups: From early childhood to middle childhood peer groups start to form. Preference for same-sex members
3. Cliques: During childhood cliques are prevalent. Small intimate group of friends
4. Crowds: Decline in cliques for participation in crowds in adolescence. Reputation based, larger collection of individuals who share the same status
5. Less defined peer groups: By Late adolescence peer groups become less defined. Mixed-sex cliques emerge and romantic relationships develop

Question 4

Function of peer relations

Answer 4

• Develop skills: Fine (1987) > Learn how to engage in cooperative activities, Learn about social structures within and across, Learn the skills for leading and following, Learn to mobilise aggression by directing it to those not within the group
• Reinforce identity: Social Identity Development Theory (Nesdale, 2004) > Basic need to belong > association with peers allows the development of a sense of identity
• Effect on the social, emotional and behavioural functioning of people: Peer networks are predictors of individual academic motivation, peer groups contribute to school dropouts, teenage pregnancy, and delinquency

Question 5

Friendships and Peer Relationships

Answer 5

• Peer relationships vary from interaction based relationships to reputation based relationships as well as from weak ties (like acquaintances) to close relationships (like best friendships)
• Friendship is a special form of peer relation; dyadic voluntary close relationship > commonly studied type of peer relationship
• Friendship refers to a close relationship which is voluntary between two people who share mutual feeling of affection + liking
• Peer groups are based on opportunity whilst friendships are based on reciprocity + is affirmed by both people
• During childhood and adolescence, most friendships include the same characteristics including sex, school, year.
• Same-sex friendships are usually considered more intimate than other friendships
• From age 3 children associate with same-sex peers rather than opposite sex (Maccoby, 1998), girls display more intimacy + are more selective in friends friendship than boys > This same-sex preference increases with age
• Friends are more likely similar to the individual themself, and adolescent behaviour correlates with the behaviour of close friends
We don’t know if people choose friends who are similar to themselves or if they become similar to their friends as a consequence of peer influence after becoming friends

Question 6

Developing peer relationships

Infancy and Toddlerhood

Answer 6

• Infants have social limitations but this does not limit infant interaction with peers
• Observations show 12-18 months old infants will spend the most time looking at a peer (Lewis et al. 1975) but stay close to their caregiver. This was the case even when there was an unfamiliar adult in the room > look at the peer because they had similar characteristics
• Toddlers also seem to respond to peers using facial expressions like smiles, frowns and gestures
• During 2nd Year of life, toddlers ability to use language + other skills are used towards organised games with peers + involve imitation
• Researchers also observe that a lot of social interaction by toddlers participate in conflict using toys and resources (object centric conflict) > these toddlers are mainly socially outgoing + initiating (Rubin et al. 1998; Hay & Ross, 1982)

Question 7

Developing peer relationships

Early Childhood

Answer 7

• 24 months to 5 years frequency of peer interaction increases and becomes more complex
• Children engage in different kinds of play behaviours as active or passive participants, uninterested or solitary participants > this is believed to improve their theory of mind because they share meaning through pretend play
• Prosocial caring and helping behaviours increase with age
• Aggression increases until 3 and declines > Prosocial caring and helping behaviours increase with age
• Conflict is present but no longer object centered > conflict arises from difference between views of children’s preferences of peers > seems influenced by an attraction to peers who are noticeably similar e.g. in age and sex
• Behavioural homophily develops here > tendency to be attracted to + be friends with similar behaviour patterns to their own
• During school age years, interaction w/ peers increases + peer group size increases
• Children become more hostile towards each other with relational aggression such as insults, threats and gossip
- Children at this stage are interested in social acceptance + social dominance thus gossip can impact peers as they relate to groups

Question 8

Developing peer relationships

Middle Childhood and Early Adolescence

Answer 8

• Social interaction increases
• Another form of interaction develops here, bullying and victimization > research on bullies show they have a strong tendency towards aggressive behaviours, tolerance for aggressive behaviour + weak tolerance of their aggressive impulses
• Anxious and socially discreet children are usually victims of bullying
• Verbal & relational aggression replaces direct physical aggression
• Increase in positive social behaviour while concerns about acceptance, social dominance increase
• Mid-childhood + early adolescence is also characterised by an understanding of relationships where children have a materialistic and opportunistic view of relationships where those peers who have cool toys and live nearby are characteristics which make their friendship > changes in early adolescence where there is focus on value, emotional attachment + understanding

Question 9

Developing peer relationships

Adolescence

Answer 9

• Here peer interaction takes place with less guidance + a lot of time is spent with peers more so than with parents
• Individuals of the opposite sex are more involved in interaction
• Relationships with similar attitudes, aspirations and intellects reflect more stable friendships
• Romantic relationships begin to develop and increases during adolescence > Early romantic relationships is associated with behavioral and emotional problems alongside lower levels of academic achievement especially in girls > Later involvement in romantic relationship is associated with positive experiences
• Large group decline by late adolescence in favour of smaller groups and romantic relationships as people feel more comfortable in approaching one another in these ways.

Question 10

How do we measure peer relations?

Answer 10

• Measures of peer relations focus on interactions with others and on involvements in relationships and groups > researchers interested in peer interaction will often want to know which individuals engage with each other + what the relationship entails
• Peer relation measurement can also measure the quality of the relationship > quality indicators include stability, closeness, support

Question 11

Measuring peer relations: interviews and surveys

Answer 11

• Used to collect network information with adults, adolescents and older children but not successful with pre-school children
  + Pros of self-report: quick and cost-effective, items developed based on needs and measures the assessment of perceptions of peer interactions
• Cons of Self-report: subject to bias, under or over-report of behaviours and interactions; mostly measure individual tendencies rather than interactions

Question 12

Measuring peer relations: Observations

Answer 12

can be used to investigate specific behavioural aspects of interaction
+ Pros of Observations: provide data on peer behaviour and interaction, can be used to infer patterns of change
- Cons of Observations: Obs yield a lot of data which can be hard manage, limits the maximisation of the data collected > might not get everything

Question 13

Measuring peer relations: Peer rating of likeability

Answer 13

• also measure peer relations > children rate peers on different ratings which are sorted into categories called the socio-metric status groups including popular (generally liked), controversial (some like/some don’t), average (mean likeability + visibility), neglected (low visibility + neither liked or disliked) and rejected (generally disliked)
  • Sociogram > these are built based on information regarding associations between peers such as information discussed in certain lights
  • Sociograms provide a visual representation of interpersonal relations in a group
  • Provide insights into group organisation and function, connections within the group
  • A sociogram can be made based on children’s answers to questions such as who would you most like to play with? Who would you least like to play with? Etc..
  • This method is not as standardised as others but it can be used to investigate social networks + identify peer acceptance and rejection
  • Peer acceptance = how well liked/disliked a child is by members of their peer group. Peer rejection = being excluded by members of someone’s group

Question 14

Why do infants have low peer interaction and relations?

Psychoanalytic theory

Answer 14

• Emphasis on the emotional limitations of infants > this limits peer interaction
• Focuses on mother-child relationship + argues that peer relationship evolves from the mother-child relationship
• Not much attention on children’s relationships with peers, so no significance of peer relations for development.
• Anna Freud & Sophie Dann (1951) à Experiment showed the significance of peer relationships. > children rescued from concentration camps with weak attachments could make strong peer relationships indicating peer relationship does not evolve from caregiver rel

Question 15

Why do infants have low peer interaction and relations?Evolutionary theory

Answer 15

• Focus on gene inheritance, so emphasis on parent-child relationship > infants have limited capacity for peer interaction because parent-child relationships are most important at this time
• Argues peer relations originate from social adaptation however there are few opportunities to meet peers in hunter-gatherer groups
• Experimental studies of macaques show that peers provide a protective function for primate social development > peers can show a protective function for social dev

Question 16

Why do infants have low peer interaction and relations?Attachment theory

Answer 16

• Argues infants focus on parent interactions before peer interactions > peer interaction is limited because of monotropy
• Attachment theory sees the parent as a “safe base” for the child + proposes no effect of peers in later development
However research suggests peers can serve as a secure base for exploration (Gunnar et al., 1984)

Question 17

Why do infants have low peer interaction and relations? Social Learning theory

Answer 17

• Argues infants capacity for interaction are limited by their capacities for learning > but because parents provide modelling and social reinforcement, peer interactions originate from observational learning
• Peer relations influenced by parental models
• The SLT suggests peer relations have later modelling consequences, particularly in children’s development and especially with antisocial behaviour
• However, research shows child response to peers’ cries without prior learning (Sagi & Hoffman, 1976)

Question 18

Why do infants have low peer interaction and relations? Cognitive Developmental theory

Answer 18

• argues peer interactions are limited by infants egocentrism but acknowledge that later in childhood, peers can influence someone’s development through conflict > conflict is something which parent-child relationships don’t tend to offer thus this peer interaction allows improvement in cognitive dev + ToM + understand the view of others
• Peers foster the ability to understand the view of others (Piaget, 1932)

Question 19

Why do infants have low peer interaction and relations?Behavioural Genetics theory

Answer 19

• argues that interactions are fostered by interests infants have in all other humans
• Origins of peer interactions are the biological capacities for interaction > supports that all relationships have consequences
• Harris (1995) downplays the role of parents and emphasises the role of peers > Peer influence is important at a later stage > Interplay between genes and environment
• Provides a better understanding of peer relationships

Question 20

Theory assumptions

Answer 20

• Major development theories assume that:
• Infants have limited capacities for interaction
  •Peer Relationships derive from earlier relationships with caregivers
  •Later Peer relationships are consequential but earlier ones are not
• Social Systems Theories argue that:
  •Infants are attracted to other members of their species and socialise others
  •Infants are able to engage in multiple relationships
  •The peer network of infants is complex
  •Development of infants’ relationships with mother follows a similar timetable to that with peers

Question 21

Group Socialisation Theory, Harris (1995)

Answer 21

• Argued peer group may be more important than parents in shaping our social development > based of personality development
• Argues children are socialised by peers + seek to be like their peers rather than their parents
• Twin studies show that the shared environment has a less substantial effect on development than the non-shared environment > Peers may be more important in shaping our personality
• Criticised still because non-shared EV can refer to interaction between children’s twin and their family home
- Plomin et al., 2016: “Most environmental effects are not shared by children growing up in the same family - the salient experiences that affect children’s development are specific to each child in the family”

Question 22

Summary of theoretical perspectives

Answer 22

• The theoretical views on peer relationships show that researchers did not give much attention to peer relations as a significant feature impacting development
• Combining developmental evidence with theoretical explanations suggest that basic capacities for interaction is present in the first month of life (e.g. non-verbal social interaction using cries)
• Infants increasingly show interest in peers as they grow alongside early forms of prosocial behaviours + cooperation
• Most infants engage in conflict
• Infants learn from each other through modelled actions
• Most developmental theorists emphasise the role of the caregiver + say it is a prerequisite for later peer relations but some researchers suggest peer interactions follow a similar pattern to that of a caregiver infant relationship
• More research needed to understand caregiver-infant prerequisite to peer interaction
• There are also other sources of influence in peer relationships like genes and environmental factors impacting child behaviour (e.g. cognition, temperament, sex)
• Need more longitudinal studies for evidence on consequences of peer relations + interaction

Question 23

Peer Relationships and Achievement

Answer 23

• Studies indicate that peer relationships are related to children’s motivational and academic achievement (Wentzel, 2005).
• Children in positive peer relationships tend to be more motivated and have higher academic achievement.
• Socio-metrically rejected children experience academic difficulty.
• Catling, Mason and Jones (2013) and Berthelon et al. (2019) looked at predictors of success and failure > Catling et al. collected data from first year undergraduate students using questionnaires (assessed many psychological factors)
• Found that peer support was a significant predictor of success + failure > consistent with Berthelon who investigated peer networks > found characteristics + structure of peer group can impact academic achievement
• How does peer interaction impact academic achievement? Communicating goals, academic standards and expectations performance (Wentzel, Looney & Battle, 2003) > continued social interaction about what needs to be done to be accepted
• When peers value learning + expectation are high, motivation to achieve increases > but the degree to which goals and values support academic achievement reduces as student go to higher levels in school > peer may still serve as a behavioural standard for goals + achievement > those who are intrinsically motivated can lead others to form similar attitudes
• Peer relations which are motivating + providing help and assistance are likely to motivate children to adopt goals > Those with supportive peers have greater access to resources which can help achieve academic tasks compared to those who don’t
• Peer groups providing the feeling of emotional support and security foster the adoption of goals + interests that are valued by others > students who believe their peers are supportive of them tend to be more motivated than those who don’t believe this > perhaps because exclusion from peers can lead to loneliness, depression + distress

Question 24

Peer Relationships and Externalising Symptoms

Answer 24

• Externalising symptoms include overactivity, poor impulse control, noncompliance and aggression > peer reputation is a predictor of this
• Children who are disliked by their peers are more likely to exhibit externalising symptoms later in development
• The association between peer reputation and externalising symptoms depend on the type of relations + symptoms measures > most studies show peer rejection is a strong predictor of long term outcomes 7 or even 10 years later in the lifespan
• Studies used to focus mainly on boys dev but recently on girls too > studies on girls dev show different kinds of aggression > boys show aggression by physical aggression while girls show relational aggression
• Youth disliked by peers may be at greater risk at later externalising behaviour like illegal behaviours > because there are social, cognitive and emotional deficits that are intensified by the experience of being disliked
• Research also shows that peer-perceived popularity is correlated with aggression (Rodkin et al., 2000) > found group of aggressive children were rated as popular
• Longitudinal studies show that higher level of peer-popularity is associated with aggressive behaviour > research shows highly popular are highly unpopular kids are more aggressive than others
• This association may be explained because rejected peers may develop inadequate skills which be combine w/ poor academic skills + home environment leading to deviant behaviours > they use their aggression in response to frustration
• Peer perceived popularity aggression may engage in aggression as some kind of goal oriented behaviour

Question 25

Peer Pressure

Answer 25

• Peer pressure can be direct or subtle attempt to influence another person’s behaviour (intentionally or unintentionally) > often associated with adolescence but effects of peer pressure is found in 4-year old children (Haun and Tomasello, 2011)
• Did an experiment where they had to identify if the line is the same as one previously shown when there are confederates giving an obviously wrong answer > wanted to see if majority opinion impacts individuals view even if they know the others are wrong
• Argue children are socially motivated to conform > peers can influence each other towards deviant behaviours and away from deviant behaviours depending on the nature of the group (different groups support different behaviours adaptive or maladaptive)
• Adolescents are more likely to be susceptible to peer pressure (boys more susceptible than girls across culture) > Become more resistant to peer pressure as they get older
- Studies also shows that boys are more susceptible to peer pressure than girls

Question 26

Peer Relations and Risky Behaviour

Answer 26

• Sternberg (2007) explored risk taking in adolescence from a neuroscience + behavioural science perspective > his findings are consistent with behavioural evidence
• Found that the presence of peers can activate social emotional networks in the brain which are associated to reward processing + makes rewarding aspects of risky behaviour more noticeable to adolescents
• Risk may be heightened due to amount of time that children spend with peers
• Number of risk taking behaviours that ppts engaged in during a video driving game increased by 50% in college students but had no affect among adults > may be due to the immature judgement of adolescents which can lead to harmful consequences
• Sternberg argues this is inevitable and little can be done to reduce it however law enforcement strategies could reduce risky behaviour

Question 27

Peer Relations and Health Risk Behaviours

Answer 27

• Peer Rejection is associated with later substance use (Preinstein and La Greca, 2004) > reviewed literature which looked at relationship between peers rejecting/accepting late primary school peers who demonstrated aggressive behaviour and those individuals during secondary school engaging in health risk behaviours like smoking, unprotected sex, alcohol, drugs, commission of crimes and weapons
• Results were inconclusive > sometimes early aggression predicted later health behaviours while other cases show that early acceptance/rejection by peers seemed to independently predict risk behaviour while other times it was a combination of both predicting health risk behaviour
• Also note that most reviewed literature were based on samples of males > later found in females that acceptance/rejection acted as a moderator of major health risk behaviour in those who showed aggression earlier on > females who were aggressive but were accepted by peers were no more likely to engage in health risk behaviours than the average while those rejected were significantly more likely to
• This strongly supports the moderation model of peer acceptance + suggests that work on peer group acceptance of those with aggressive behaviour could prevent engagement in later health risk behaviours
• Dishion and colleagues (1999) > Peer rejection at age 9 is associated with adolescent boy’s use of nicotine, alcohol and marijuana > those showing aggression were more likely to join peer groups with people who had been rejected too + engage in deviant behaviours
• Also found engaging in one type of deviant behaviour would lead to engaging in other kinds of deviant behaviour too
• Early prevention may prevent health risk behaviours
• Zettergren, Bergman and Wangby (2006) > Rejected youth are 8 times more likely to abuse alcohol (to cope with rejection or to fit in with new deviant peer group) not the case with criminal behaviour (rejection is not the sole cause)
• By mid-adulthood the effects of rejection had been mitigated + had no higher incidence of alcohol use
• Prinstein, Meade, and Cohen (2003) > Adolescents who report engagement with sexual activities receive more nominations for popularity
• Found a strong correlation between perception of how much and type of sexual activity peers engaged in, frequency of unprotected sex they engaged in and the students OWN behaviour
• When student perceives that their peer engaged in oral sex, there was a strong correlation to that student also engaging in oral sex > correlation for number of oral sex partners + frequency of protection against STI’s > no significant corr present for sexual intercourse
• Study did not establish causality so future research has to determine if students perception of engaging in oral sex may see the student themselves engage in the same behaviour.