Peers Flashcards
Final Exam
peers
those you interact with who around the same age as you, but not related
friendship
a close mutual, reciprocal, voluntary relationship
- Mutual and reciprocal: you need to choose each other to count as friends (needs to be both ways)
- 75-80% kids have a friend
○ But: 10-20% don’t seem to have a mutual friendship
perceptions of friendship with age
How we define/think of friendships changes as we get older
- increases of ‘time spent with peers’ & ‘perspective taking abilities’ change friendships
perceptions of friendship: 1-2 years
kids have preferences on who they play with
perceptions of friendship: early childhood
3-4 years: able to identify their friends
- live nearby, have nice toys, like to play
○ Based on proximity
- Rewards vs. costs: “this person is my friend because they have good toys”; “this person is my friend because they are nice to me”
§ When they have something to offer to you
perceptions of friendship: middle childhood
start thinking about this mutual dynamic
- shared interests
- take care of/support each other
perceptions of friendship: adolescence
shared interests + shared values
○ Starts to become more abstract
○ Less about what you like to do, more towards what you believe/value
○ Who you engage in self disclosure with
causes of friendship definitions w/ age
- Time spent with peers increases, particularly in childhood and adolescence
○ Deepness of relationship may come from more time together- Perspective taking: underlied by cognitive development
○ Early on: very egocentric (ie what you can give)
○ Later: taking on other people’s perspectives and beliefs
§ You want to be connected to people who’s ideas and interests are similar to yours
- Perspective taking: underlied by cognitive development
function of friendships
- buffer in stressful times
- emotional support
- physical support
- development of social skills
- model and reinforce behavior
- conflict resolution
- social comparison, norms
- stimulation
buffer in stressful times (friendship)
§ If there’s stress, we tend to adjust better if we have friend
§ Moving to a new school
friendship: buffering stressful times EXPERIMENT
When your best friend is not present (in context of negative events): more of a cortisol release
□ Friends can be a buffer against negative events
§ When the friend is present: less cortisol
Model and reinforce behavior (friendship)
Deviancy training: if your friends are doing unhealthy behaviors (drinking, drugs, etc.), children are more likely to model
social comparison, norms (friendship)
- How you stand relative to other people; how your behavior is seen relative to other people
- Can happen through conversations (gossip, talk, etc.)
stimulation (friendship)
enjoyment, entertainment, etc.
○ You hang out with friends because it’s fun, you get entertainment, etc.
general research on friendship and wellbeing
research indicates that having friends appears to be highly beneficial in development
- Predicts better wellbeing
Less time/less friends= less positive wellbeing and outcomes
clique
- smaller, voluntary, friendship-based groups (3-10 people, avg. ~4-5 people)
- shared interests and attitudes; hang out together + make a social group
- tend to have a shared background
- ~50-75% of teems are members of a clique
cliques: trends w/ shared background & demographics
Early childhood: same gender, mixed race
Later adolescence: move to more mix gender groups, tend to be more of the same ethnic/racial group
- initially same gender, move to more mixed genders
- initially mixed race, move to more same race
crowds
reputation-based groups
- More based on what someone’s reputation is
○ Ex: jocks, stoners, drama/theatre kids, band geeks, etc.
less voluntary, more based on external assessments and what the community thinks of you
Ex: not everyone seen as a geek gets good grades, not everyone seen as a jock is good at sports
function of cliques
- context of friendship-
- social group
- sense of belongingness
- for straight teens: can support/guide interests in romantic relationships
cliques to romantic couples: pathway
same gender cliques –> mixed gender cliques –> romantic couples
cliques: influence on dating
- Help to support the development of romantic relationships
○ Very common for early dating in straight teens come out of those friendships
○ Queer folks: date outside of the friendship + outside of a school all together
function of crowds
- locate individuals w/i social environment (you know who your people are)
- establish social norms: gives expectations of how other people behavie OR expectations of how other people expect you to behave
- identity development: how identities are placed onto us shape how we see ourselves
- self-esteem: when teens belong to crows that are seen as higher status crowd, this predicts higher self esteem
peer status
how you’re thought of by peers
sociometric status:
In order to understand relationships, you need to look at multiple components
- look at the component of how people are liked AND disliked
- “name 3 kids you like and 3 kids you dislike”
sociometric status: classes
Popular: Quite liked by others: show up on lots of the liking lists (12-20%)
Rejected: few likes, lots of disliked (12-20%)
Controversial: lots of likes and lots of dislikes (6-12%)
Neglected: nobody likes you, nobody dislikes you (6-20%)
Average: (most common) a few liking lists, a few disliking lists, but not notable on being high or low (30-60%)
popular/likable (peer status)
- skilled at initiating and maintaining positive interactions; get along w/ people
- good at recognizing and regulating emotions (pro-social behavior)
- good at perspective taking
- rated by teachers as cooperative, friendly, helpful, leaders
- assertive, but not pushy (stand up for themselves, but won’t bully other kids)
NOT always the same as ‘perceived popularity’
rejected + subsets (peer status)
associated with:
- externalizing problems (dropping out of schools, violence, etc.)
- internalizing problems (depression, anxiety, substances abuse)
- academic problems (held back, failing, less likely to grad from HS)
subtypes:
- rejected-aggressive
- rejected-withdrawn
- rejected-aggressive/withdrawn
rejected-aggressive (peer status)
seem to be rejected bc they show a lot of aggression
○ Spreading rumors, physical aggression, etc.
Often disliked; kids don’t like people that show a lot of aggression
- instrumental and relational aggression, physical aggression, bullying
rejected-withdrawn (peer status)
don’t know how to approach other people
○ Awkward, uncomfortable, shy but don’t have social skills to encounter others
- difficulty w/ social goals
- internalizing problems more common
rejected-aggressive/withdrawn (peer status)
Withdrawn, but also use aggressive techniques
less stable peer status types
controversial and neglected
- “less stable” means kids move in and out of these statuses across time
controversial (peer status)
- share characteristics of both popular and rejected children
–> can be helpful/cooperative, but also disruptive/aggressive- Have both characteristics
- Can be pro-social
- Snobby, stuck up, pushy
- Stand out in good and bad ways
neglected (peer status)
- timid, shy, lack of social skills
- often not bothered by classification (not bothered by not being noticed)
- Less social
- Can look like rejected-withdrawn
○ Rejected-withdrawn: have a lot of anxiety over their status - If put in social situations, they’re not bad at it, but tend to prefer to be alone
○ Like solitary activities
average (peer status)
- most common
- moderately sociable, average cognitive skills
- Average social skills, academic skills, aggression, etc.
- movement between average and neglected
predictors of peer status
- social skills/social behavior
- temperament
- interpretations –> hostile attribution bias, rejection sensitivity
- parents
- physical attractiveness
- name?
- race?
Hostile attribution bias (predictor of peer status)
tend to attribute things to hostile behavior
- Think people are out to get you, tend to interpret things as aggressive towards them
- Common in rejected status
parents (predictor of peer status)
children model their parents
- Predictor of having more aggressive parents predicting rejected status
physical attractiveness (predictor of peer status)
those who are more attractive are more likely to be liked
name (predictor of peer status)
more common names are more likely to be liked, those w less common names are more likely to be less liked
race (predictor of peer status)
- Black children tend to be less liked
- BUT: tends on the proportion of the school
○ When majority are white: black children are more disliked
○ When majority are black: white children more disliked
- BUT: tends on the proportion of the school
perceived popularity
Perceived popularity: when we give kids a list and say, “who do you think is popular or cool?”
- Small/moderate correlation between being likeable + popular/cool
predictors of perceived popularity? (class discussion)
- Physical attractiveness
- Adherence to social norms
- Controversial (visible and stand out)
perceived popularity: positive and negative traits
- Doing both positive and negative things
- Aggression: relational, instrumental
○ Using power and status
○ Rumors, asserting your status, etc.
why study sociometric status?
DESCRIBE: Understand and describe development
○ Are there differences: is rejection from peers stable/universal across contexts?
PREDICTION: outcomes
○ Psychopathology: depressive symptoms, psychotic status, etc.
○ What rejected statuses predict (school drop-out, antisocial/criminal behavior, etc.)
APPLICATION: what we do with this research to help/better the population
○ If we know rejection is a risk factor, can we intervene to try and reduce some of this rejection + risks associated with it?
studying sociometric status: kids with ADHD
- ~50% of those with ADHD have rejected status
- Predicted with level of ADHD symptoms (attention, following rules, etc.)
- Whether your peers have a lot of stimga around ADHD
○ It means something is wrong/something is bad - Rejected status creates further challenges on top of ADHD ones
- APPLICATION: research looks at how to intervene and try and diminish these outcomes in students w ADHD
○ Also interventions into how to reduce stigma in classmates
perceived popularity vs. “popular” sociometric status
- Moderate correlation w/ popularity + being liked
- Many kids are popular but not necessarily well liked
traits associated w/ perceived populaity
- mix of positive and negative traits
- social skills
- aggression (instrumental and relational)
- self-interested goals
- physical attractiveness
- more variable, based on changing norms
- Different school and community cultures that can lead to what’s considered cool
peer status & culture: study
are there differences in the characteristics linked w/ peer status in the US vs China?
HYPOTHESIS - in china: collectivistic values may lead to more emphasis on prosocial behavior and academic achievement
US vs. China peer status & culture: study conditions
grade 7 in China vs. grade 7 in US
ask students to list names of students they:
- like the most (sociometric)
- think are the most popular (popularity)
- admire, respect, want to be like (respect)
US vs. China peer status & culture: study findings
prosocial behavior and academic achievement linked with likability and perceived popularity across both cultures
–> BUT: more linked for Chinese adolescents, especially for perceived popularity
US vs. China peer status & culture: study conclusion
cultural values may impact peer status, and particularly perceived popularity
- Cultural values have more importance for perceived popularity than for likability
struggle with studying “dating”
Often lack of consistency about what to count as “dating”
average age for teens to start dating
14/15 years
dating trajectory: flowchart
interested in romantic partners –> dating casually; group-based dating –> stable relationships
dating trajectory: by age
- 12ish: report an interest in romantic partners
- 14/15ish: casual, group based dating
○ i.e. your whole group of friends go out to dinner, but the two who are interested in each other would sit next to each other - 16/17/18ish: more stable relationships; emotional intimacy; going out on dates
○ Time spent w/ romantic partner times to displace time with friends/friend groups
who people choose to date
- Early adolescence: status
○ Dating someone bc they’re cool, similar crowd, higher status, etc. - Middle/late adolescence: actual characteristics or traits
○ Kindness, intelligence - Males put more emphasis on attractiveness
influences on romantic relationships
- peer relationships
- family relationships
- family factors –> older siblings, single parents, family instability
- culture
- media
- sexual orientation
peers (influences on romantic relationships)
what we gain from friendships we can put into romantic relationships
family (influences on romantic relationships)
better relationship with parents –> better romantic relationships
family instability (influences on romantic relationships)
predict more and earlier dating
- May because there’s less parental supervision
culture (influences on romantic relationships)
plays a role in who dates + dating style
○ NA: asian american teens are less likely to date
§ Hidden/secret dating: one way teens try to navigate this
○ Latin American/Canadian teens are less likely to date
media (influences on romantic relationships)
teen TV shows, etc.
○ Sets up ideas of dating as well
○ More reality TV shows: more likely to believe in soulmates
sexual orientation (influences on romantic relationships)
○ Most research has looked at straight teens
○ Questions of if there’s as much dating in queer teens
§ Likely to have the same sexual encounters, but less likely to have romantic partners
□ Potentially due to lack of availability/openness of queer teens w/i your peer group
functions of romantic relationship
- Establish autonomy: gives teens a sense of control over their lives
○ You’re not happening within a friend or family dynamic, but your own independent one - Developed intimacy: learning how to be close to another person; to share and affirm to another person
- Sense of belonging: you feel like you have a place and a partner
- Feelings of self-worth
- Status: sometimes being popular was associated w/ dating
- Furthering development of gender and/or sexual identity
○ Exploring a relationship w/ someone can help one to learn about themselves and what they want
early starters (dating)
- earlier timing of dating, atypical sequence
- associated with negative outcomes
timing of starting to date: trajectory
early starter trajectory
- 10-12 years old
- Dating begins quite intimate
- Starts intimate and stays intimate
late bloomer trajectory
- 15-17: start exploring dating
negative outcomes of early dating
Consistent evidence that early dating is linked to less ideal outcomes
- Less advanced development, less socially mature, less imaginative in school
- Poorer behavioral outcomes (drugs & alcohol, dropping out of school)
- Less than ideal power dynamics + large age gaps
late bloomers (dating)
- debate over impact: may be linked to delayed social development, lower self esteem
- cultural norms over when dating should start
research on late bloomers (dating)
- one study: finds lowest externalizing behaviors
- Other studies: risk of less self esteem, delayed social development
- Might need to consider the context and norms there
○ In NA: asian teens start dating later
§ Does this make them a later bloomer or something that’s normal within their cultural norms? - OR is that kids that are struggling socially wait to date later? (don’t know which way the correlation works)
break-ups for teenagers
- Teenagers take break-ups really hard
○ Breakups: most common single trigger of a depressive episode
§ More likely for them to engage in drinking, smoking, drug use
§ Often a challenging experience
dating violene
○ In the US: 40% report experiencing dating violence
○ Boys report more perpetration + more likely to be a victim
○ 1/2 of teens said it was acceptable for a girl to hit her boyfriend, 1/4 teens say it’s acceptable for a boy to hit his girlfriend
○ Leads to mental health challenges, drug and alcohol use, dropping out of school
victims: associated with depression, suicidal ideation, drug use, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school
% of interactions happening online
Now: teens say 1/2 of interactions w peers are happening online
online peer interactions (distinct from face-to-face)
- Increased anonymity
○ You can be someone else/hide your identity - Different social cues
- Different emphasis on physical appearance?
○ Rise of image faced social media
○ Any argue this increases the emphasis on physical appearance and attractiveness - Can be more public, more long-lasting
○ i.e. instagram comments, seeing who people are connected too, etc. - Easier to find similar others
○ Esp in communities/identities that may not be common, popular, or accepted in some places - All-day access to friends
○ Increased amount of access
○ Expectation of constant access - More quantifiable
○ Many online metrics (esp social media) have numbers build into it
○ If asking how many friends someone has in person, it’s hard to quantify
§ But online: you can see followers, friends, # of likes, etc.
defining online friendships + the function
- How to define a friendship online
○ We consider a “friend” someone that we have a mutual liking relationship with, but does this definition translate to online relationships? - Same functions as face to face
○ Connection, social skills + talking, etc.
benefits & risks of online friendships
- Benefits
○ The screen makes people feel like they can disclose more, they can say things, etc.
○ Social support for youth in marginalized identities
○ Many same functions as face-to-face friendships - Risks
○ Online contexts seem to be harder to figure out conflict resolution
§ You can often just walk away/ignore
online friendships: variability
○ Some teens have positive effects when using social media, others have negative effects, etc.
○ May be based on extraversion, how we use social media, etc.
Interaction between offline and online (online friendships)
○ Can’t remove online pair-interactions with offline interactions
○ W/ teens are interacting with: most of the time are people you have face-to-face interactions with
○ Most of the time: moving between offline and online
§ Most of our relationships are interwoven between online and offline; switch back and forth
study: looking at online social interacts for new university students
question: are there different effects across individuals, depending on their in-person social acceptance?
- Defiant activity from the peer group can create more stress and struggle w/ adjustment to university
- ^^ look at how this may be affected by online friends
population and variables: looking at online social interacts for new university students (study)
Population: international & indigenous jumpstart students
Looking @ Facebook and looking at timelines & walls
- Public messaging on each person’s profile page
- Analyzing friends posts on an individual’s timeline
Investigating peer sociometric ratings to get a measurement of the in-person perception
findings: looking at online social interacts for new university students (study)
Good:
- Friends that had more messages + emotional support serves as support
- Fewer psychopathology symptoms
Bad:
- Deviant posts: anything that would look poorly to an employer
–> Lower grades (GPA) in adjustment to university
- Verbal aggression –> less attachment to university
conclusion: looking at online social interacts for new university students (study)
- Students with low face-to-face social acceptance were more likely to experience the bad
- May be because they’re more likely to take things more hostilely/aggressively
- Students w/ strong face-to-face + deviant posts –> stronger attachment to university
THUS:
- What’s posted can have a different effect dependent on your in-person social acceptance
- impact of online friendships may depend on face-to-face relationships
quantifiability and publicness (online peer relationships)
may amplify awareness of status
○ Greater focus on perceived popularity
§ You can see who people are liking, interacting with, friends with, commenting on, etc.
In one survey, 39% report feeling pressure to post content that will “be popular and get lots of comments and likes”
unique functions of online peer relationships
○ Increase link between appearance and status
§ We’ve always seen it’s a factor of peer status, but now is it increasingly so because of the emphasis on that??
○ May be beneficial as an “escape” for rejected/neglected youth
§ Youth who are bullied may be able to find groups or a community online
study: online social rejection
Multiple players passing the ball around to each other
○ The manipulation: the other 2 players will pass it back and forth to each other (simulating social exclusion)
○ –> you have the option to 1) talk to someone who was also excluded or 2) play an individual game
ADOLESCENTS: who choose option 1 see a big recovery in self esteem
§ When you interact w/ someone online, you get a big boost
○ ^^ trend isn’t seen in young adults, but it’s notable in teens and adolescents
