PSY 234 Exam 3

Why it is important to study adolescent peer relationships

-interaction time: increases with peers in adolescence
-long-term outcomes: issues with adolescent peer relationships tend to have long term impacts throughout their lives
-cognitive changes: abstract thinking, egocentrism (imaginary audience)
-judith rich harris: peers have more influence than parents

Friendship nomination

Telling an adolescent to nominate things like their best friend, or top 10 friends, etc.
-limits on number
-have to choose to look only at reciprocated friendships, or both

Cliques (how to study friendships)

Small friendship groups (4-8 people) that have a connection.
-Social network analysis: where are these cliques present? Why is someone a part/not a part of one?
-often doesn't look at reciprocation
-peer contagion: what's the dynamic like?

Observe interactions (how to study friendships)

Bring dyad/pair into the lab and observe them through tasks (like a conversation, physical tasks, etc.)

Friendship quality vs. quantity

-Quantity: nomination --> how many friends do they have?
-Quality: the parts and connections of a friendship rather than the amount of friendships

Forms of friendship quality

-Companionship: spending time together
-Conflict: having disagreements/friction
-Help/aid: physical help for one another (change a tire, give a ride)
-Security: emotional support and help
-Closeness: intimacy bond, want to be around them

Chumships

Friendships that are very important in defining adolescents and their relationships. Higher levels of intimacy than young children
-harry stack sullivan

Formation of adolescent friendships

-Homophily: similarities and interests
-Proximity: physically close to each other (same school, same neighborhood)

Levels of friendship

-Best: high intimacy and emotional closeness. Sharing everything
-Close: not as much intimacy and emotional connection, but very similar amount of time spent together as with best friend
-Acquaintance: companionship/quality time aspect is much lower. Less of an emotional connection

gender difference in adolescent friendships

Time spent together
-Females: more diadic, one-on-one time spent. Conversationally based
-Males: more often clique/group level hang outs. Group-based activities

developmental changes with gender and friendships

Mixed-sex groups: exists in early adolescence, but much more frequent in late adolescence

Other-sex friendships: very rare to see a reciprocated nomination of opposite-sex friendships for best friends

cultural gender differences in friendship

Traditional cultures: more restrictions on female adolescent friendships (who than can hang out with, how much time together, etc.) than males

Selection vs. Socialization (friendships)

Selection: homophily/proximity; occurs prior to friendship

Socialization: occurs after the friendship starts; what behaviors do they similarly exhibit?

Contagion effects (friendships and cliques)

Risk behaviors much more likely with contagion effect; if someone in the clique starts doing something, the others are likely to follow
-investigated cliques specifically

Forms of friendship support

-Informational: support that is emotional in nature (security quality)
-Instrumental: being there for in-person/physical help (help/aid quality)
-Companionship: being there in times of emotional need
-Esteem: praise, encouragement

friendship dissolution

Doesn't happen too often in adolescence, and not like a breakup happens

-break of trust (often no longer friends after)
-communication issues
-intimacy decreases
-time spent together decreases

antipathetic relationships

Mutual antipathies: both nominated for disliking each other

Enemies: previous relationship; often avoiding or hating each other

Prevalence of antipathetic relationships

Start seeing them in late elementary school. Very prevalent by late adolescence
-typically don't have more than 1 at a time

Who do adolescents have antipathetic relationships with?

-Tend to be previous relationships, now actively dislike
-Incompatible person/personality behaviors
-Jealousy: wants to be them/be like them

Youth culture

Adolescents as a group and their "style" of culture
-Creates a group separating them from adults, and creates a stronger identity

Styles of youth culture

-Image: visual component; outward appearance; clothing; tattoos, etc.
-Demeanor: gestures; dancing; dating; how they act with each other
-Argot: how speech changes; dialects; slang; emojis

Peer nomination method

Focuses on categorization (most popular, most liked, etc.) rather than specific relationships like with friendship nomination
-elementary school: nomination in a specific class
-adolescence: whole-school nomination with a list of coded names
-scores put into categories and behaviors and groups are created

Crowds (peer culture)

Connections of mutual interest, but not necessarily an emotional connection-- might not even know each other!
-ex: jocks, brainiacs, deviants, etc.
-develop in adolescence, increases through late adolescence

History of popularity research

-Psychologists, using labs and experiments, explored popularity as the idea of being well-liked and having high status

-Sociologists, using natural observation and ethnographies, found that popularity often doesn't equal being well-liked

Popularity vs. Social preference

Popularity: social status
-visibility (well-known), dominance (influence), social status
-commodity; limited and not everyone has it

Social preference: well-liked, NOT disliked
-controversial status: being both well-liked and disliked so they cancel out
-dispositional: possible for everyone to have high social preference

Sociometric status categories

-popular: high liked, low disliked
-rejected: low liked, high disliked
-neglected: low liked, low disliked
-controversial: high liked, high disliked
-average: anything else

Characteristics of sociometric status categories

-Popular: social skills, good at interacting and getting along with others
-Rejected: "aggressive rejected" --> aggressiveness is why they're disliked; bullying, impulsive, disruptive. "non-aggressive rejected" --> disliked because of oddity experiences; socially awkward, weird
-Neglected: not a lot of nominations; shy, introverted, wallflower

Stability of sociometric status categories

-Rejected: highest stability rate; more likely to stay rejected throughout adolescence; reputation
-Neglected: least stable; often 'grow out' of this or someone falls into it

Social preference vs. social impact

Current use of social preference
-Most-liked to least-liked; sometimes used instead of categories
Social impact
-most liked and least liked

Characteristics of popular adolescents

-Physical attractiveness
-Athletic
-Wealth: socioeconomic status, expensive clothes/car/etc.

Characteristics of UNpopular adolescents

-Socially awkward, weird behavior and quirks
-High visibility because they stick out as weird
-stability of popularity

Stability of popularity vs. social preference

-Status (popularity) is pretty stable; more stable amongst females
-Likability (social preference) is less stable and more subject to change; more stable for males

Relationship of popularity and social preference throughout adolescence

-elementary school: very correlated and overlapping with each other
-early adolescence: starts to separate and have differences amongst adolescents
-late adolescence: almost completely separate from each other with less overlap

Gender difference with popularity vs. social preference

Boys: popular and well liked, becomes uncorrelated (no relationship)

Girls: popular and disliked, becomes negatively correlated (popularity increases as likability decreases)
-popular girls often have controversial status (being both popular and disliked)

Status-aggression link

-Bi-directional effect: increase popularity, increase aggressiveness; increase aggressiveness, increase popularity
-Resource maintenance: you want to gain social status, so you have to be aggressive to get it and keep it
-Effect of knowing you're popular: more aggressive

Other links with popularity

Risk-taking
-substance use: popular adolescents have higher rates of consumption for normalized drugs
-sexual behavior: starting earlier, more sexual partners for popular kids

Academics
-truancy increased, overall lower GPA for kids with high status and dislike

Parenting implication for popularity

"Should I be concerned about my popular child?"
-popularity is defined by visibility, but likability is harder to identify (parental monitoring/closeness?)
Takeaway: maybe, but less so if they're also well-liked.

Peer status in military/boarding schools

-Status comes from class or rank (if military)
-Classes have more rank unity; cross-class teams as well

Peer status in small town schools

-Sports and physical attractiveness is magnified
-Parents' reputations filter down to the kids (both positive and negative reputations)
-Cross-status interactions: much more diversity than other schools; status doesn't predict as well who they interact with because there's less people to choose from

Peer status in church/religious schools

-Not that big of a difference from 'normal' schools
-Dress/clothes: with uniforms, more popular kids might tweak this (hiking up skirts, wearing pins/buttons) or buy more expensive uniforms to stand out

Peer status in other regions

-Canada and Europe: very similar to US
-China and Japan: academics is correlated with popularity and plays a big role in this
-Africa and South America: language lacks similar term for 'popular'; used well-known/well-liked instead

Long-term effects of adolescent popularity

-Risk behaviors: higher rates of use; more long-term use, especially alcohol
-Workplace harassment: aggression from adolescence carries over

Researching popularity in emerging adulthood

Hard to measure in this age group
-dorms? smaller schools?
Does it exist with college students?
-some say no, popularity in college doesn't exist
-some say yes, in Greek life

Overt aggression

In-your-face aggression
-physical and verbal forms

Relational aggression + history

Timeline:
1) indirect aggression: shielding who the aggressor is, rather than overt; not necessarily social or physical. Ex: spreading rumors
2) social aggression: having some sort of social harm inflicted on another person, like self-esteem, status, etc. Often indirect and not physical
3) Relational Aggression: harming someone's relationship's in some way; peer, romantic, and relationships

Measuring aggression

1) Self-report: biased since they're asked to report unwanted behavior
-often used for relational aggression in romantic relationships
-victimization: how often are you a victim of aggressive behavior?
2) Peer nominations:
-overt --> physical fights, hits, shoves, pushes, dominates/bullies
-relational --> excludes, spreads rumors, ignores others
3) Teacher reports:
-validity: aggression is often sneaky
-very good at measuring physical aggressiveness (it's visible)

Gender difference of aggression

Boys: use all forms of aggressive behavior (overt and relational)

Girls: only use relational aggression forms but at the same level as boys; not really any overt aggression
-have to use more 'shielded' forms of aggression

Aggression and social preference

Overt aggression: as we get older, a more negative relationship to social preference

Relational aggression: no relationship to social preference

Forms of aggression and friendships

Overt aggression:
-less and lower quality friendships; conflict is higher
-targeting people who aren't their friends; results in less people coming into their social circle

Relational aggression:
-occurs inside and outside of relationships
-if disliked, lower quality friendships
-if popular, higher quality friendships; often good at concealing themselves as the aggressor

Aggression vs. bullying

Bullying: REPEATED aggression against a victim
-a form of aggression

Bully profiles

1) Bully: individuals that bully people but don't experience victimization themselves
-often aggressive-rejected category
2) Bully-victim: bullies people but are also victims of that same type of behavior
3) Victim: targets of bullying behavior
-often people with noneffective retaliation toward the bully; or non-aggressive rejected category; or people without a lot of friends

Cyberbullying

Repeated and targeted aggression in an online form at a specific individual

Traditional bullying vs. Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying is put under the bullying umbrella
-bullying profiles and effects similar to traditional bullying
-large group of people that got traditionally bullied, then got cyberbullied, and retaliated with their own cyberbullying

Policy implication: cyberbullying laws

-school districts often don't have authority over it because it's mostly not seen and mostly not on school grounds
-often state-by-state policies
-For Nevada, there's a criminal statute for cyberbullying. Schools can't sanction it if it happens off-campus, but there's still a policy outlined in schools

Efficacy of anti-bullying programs

-usually some reduction in bullying after program implementation
-low consistency of efficacy with specific programs; need a match-fit technique

Externalizing problem behavior

Doing something towards the world; aggression, violence, acts toward the outside
-occurs in undercontrolled situations (no rules or regulations from parents)

Internalizing problem behavior

Affects them internally; depression, anxiety
-occurs in overcontrolled situations (overbearing parents, strict, high expectations)

Antisocial problem behavior

Going against societal norms; rulebreaking, vandalizing, violence, etc.

Adolescent risk behavior

Brain development: immature prefrontal lobes which controls decision making and emotional centers

Risky auto driving: highest mortality rate among teens. Why?
-inexperience
-personality; higher in sensation-seeking
-cognitive factors: egocentrism, personal fable (won't happen to me)

Policy implication: graduate driver licensing

-Driver's ed could be mandated, or restrictions on driving lifted if it's completed
-Driving curfews
-Zero tolerance: any form of underage alcohol violation while driving results in license taken away until 21

Substance abuse in emerging adulthood

-College-bound adolescents: higher rates of alcohol use DURING college
-Non-college-bound: higher rates of alcohol use BEFORE college age/graduation

Adolescent profile of substance abuse

-Experimental use: low level, not habitual, just 'trying it out'
-Social use: only at parties, with friends, etc.
-Medicinal use: self-medicating, using substances to deal with issues they're having, both internal and external problems
-Addictive use: psychological or physical dependence on the substance

Risk factors with adolescent substance use

-Age: starting in early adolescence is more of a risk factor
-Academic achievement: substances can result in low academics; can also be used as a coping mechanism for this which creates a cycle
-Lack of parental closeness: higher risk factor
-Unstructured socializing: not having a hang out plan, ends up using substances

Contextual substance use factors

-Normalized drugs (alcohol, cannabis, tobacco): higher in RURAL areas because of access and unstructured socializing
-Elicit drugs (cocaine, meth, etc) higher in URBAN areas, but still overall low levels with adolescents

Peer factors with substance use

-Friends have a much stronger influence on substance use than just peers do
-Peer contagion
-Popularity (status): higher rates of normalized drug use

Public health policies (substance use)

Goal: reduce the amount of substance use that people are engaging in
-ex: restricting access (age, hours of sale); taxation of substances

Harm reduction (substance use)

Goal: reduce the harm that can be associated with substance use, to others and to an individual
-ex: drunk driving laws, turning in needles, police checkpoints

Policy implication: National Minimum Drinking Age Act

-Ties federal funds to states changing their drinking age from 18 to 21; huge incentive for state funding
-Effect on traffic fatalities: reduced for people under 21
-Public health policy, but the effect was harm reduction

School-based substance prevention programs

-Marketed programs, like DARE. Not super effective
-Evidence-based programs: teaches how to overcome these situations (content); active learning and practice (delivery)

Forms of delinquency (antisocial behavior)

-Life course persistent: delinquency started in childhood and persists into adulthood; biological component with this

-Adolescent limited: didn't really start until adolescence; stopped in adulthood; social component

Deviant talk

Not only engaging in the behavior, but talking about it and planning it out.
-length of deviant talk increases for life-course persistent adolescents, especially boys

Early intervention programs (antisocial behavior)

Adolescents coming out of prevention programs actually *increased* in antisocial behavior
-Peer contagion: putting delinquents together into group programs increased deviant talk and the competition of "one-upping" each other
-Court mandated programs: they don't want to participate; and/or these programs are too late and serves as an aftereffect

Resiliency/protective factors

An adolescent may be at risk for negative factors, but because of something (a characteristic, relationship, etc.), this risk is reduced

Protective factors in adolescence

-Intelligence: higher cognitive ability often reduces risk factors
-Healthy adult relationships: parents, teachers, coach, etc.
-School climate: essentially the parenting style for their school; has rules and regulations while still being supportive
-Religious effects: beliefs and practices can be protective factors