L2-CCP- Social influence

Selection processes

The way we select our peers may be through gender, age, etnicity sports behaviors like active selection or by default (same classroom). We are drawn to some positive aspects of antisocial behaviors like being adventures or cool → may attract similar crowds that seek similar thrills which reinforces behavior. Aversion for dissimilar peers and this aversion enhances similarity.

Effects of environmental cues on social interaction

small cues in other people’s behavior makes us adapt or conform to the majority. Done because we want to have a sense of belonging and a fear of exclusion

Socialization processes

Peer contagion, or social influence. Increasing similarity in behavior, emotions, cognitions through repeated interactions. Thus, you enhance also bad behaviors through repeated stimulation by peers. If you see visible rewards from bad behavior it reinforces desire to do the same as wel as gain a reputation which enhances social reward.

Kandel on socialization process

Balancing thru adjusting behavior and/or friendship, thus increasingly similar beaviors but also selection those who are similar to us (homophily). Dissimilar friendships dissolve faster. More cotnact means more similarity.

How does social influence work?

• similarity attraction: choosing those similar to us, or adapting to become more similar to them.

• social influence; positive feedback from bad behaviors perpetuates this behavior, those who observe this reward will also exhibit more of the bad behaviors.

Network data to highlight social network

Mapping and assessing relationship, information ‘flow’ and dependencies between individuals or actors. May include network where the focus lies on one relationship and those involved in that relation (dyadic analysis, used for intimate partner violence). May include ego networks, where the focus lies on only one individual’s perspective on his or her own relationships/networks.

Round robin design

A network data where each individual reports about every individual in the network, focuses on one specific network in its entirety. This can highlight those within the network that plays a central role. Over time, the network becomes less dense as we are more selective of those we keep around

Longitudinal network analysis

reveals that over time, the individuals agression and the friend’s levels of agression may influence how friendships change or how agressive behaviors change depending on what group you involve yourself with.

Sudden spike in antisocial behavior in adolescences in age-crime curve

Due to maturity gap as they are not yet cognitively evolved and adults don’t take them seriously which results in behaviors comparable to adults, like smoking, drinking, which increases social status as its seen as antisocial behavior. Before the age of 12 no data due to not being allowed to prosecution. Peers gain more influence in this period in life, with parents having less. More variance in the type of peers as kids switch to higher education, social mimicry, older kids being role models.

General changes in youth in dark personality

Small decrease in agreeableness, increase manipulation, ego, callous effect and overall ‘dark’ traits. Age may moderate the effect of bad influences, the older we get the less susceptible we become in changing our behaviors or adapting to the curretn friendships.

Social selection vs social influence based on literature review

Social influence: most uniform results for delinquency, social influence significantly increases delinquency. Social selection also plays a role in delinquency but much less compared to social influence. Social influence in general a better predictor for bad behaviors.

Viewpoint A on psychopathic personality on social role

Adolescents with psychopathic traits socially isolated.

Viewpoint B on psychopathic personality on social role

Adolescents with high psychopathic traits not rejected by peers.Have close friendships and form close-knit social networks with peers. Not highly popular though.

How do psychopathic people gain peers?

Violent and delinquent adolescents gain high status among and form friendships with less popular peers, especially youth with low self-esteem, and influence these peers to increase in delinquent behavior. May pray on those who seek validation and feelings of belonging. Abuse this desire to belong for their own gains/manipulation.

Studies on those with low self-esteem.

They show a higher degree of follwing those with a grandiosity complex, will shown an increase in violence as they imitate influential peers to gain status. Thus, mostly social influence effect and no selection effect.

Social influence of partners

Getting married or even getting a job decreases the chance or desire to re-offend as the costs are higher = desistance. Person will not desist if the partner also has a criminal record, if your history of offending is quite high, relationship of a short duration, similarity between partners (show similar criminal desires). For women often default selection as its harder to find a partner who wants to be with them without a criminal record.

Marriage or cohabiting?

Based on research, cohabiting with someone without a criminial record was associated with a decrease in offending. No additional decrease in offending is observed for those who are married and cohabiting.

Why the attraction to ciminals?

Similar to peer influence, for status, immediate rewards like money, similarity attracts, sensse of belonging, but also lack of alternatives especially for females, sometiems forced into crime, or exploiteed by male partner.