Enaluation of Peer Influence

8/18/2019 Enaluation of Peer Influence

1/22

CHILD

SnUDYJOURNAL Volkme

33/No.

4/2003

CHILDREN'S

EVALUATIONS

OF

PEER

INFLUENCE:

THE

ROLE

O RELATIONSHIP TYPE

ND

SOCIAL SITUATION

Brea A. Burton, Glen E. Ray Sheila Mehta

Auburn

University

Montgomery

Second-, third-,

fifth-, and sixth-grade children evaluated

peers portrayed

as

either best

friends or acquaintances

engaged

in

ive different

peer

pressure sce-

narios (e.g., modeling,

positive

reinforcement, negative reinforcement,

expert,

referent).

Evaluations

were assessed in terms of

the

target

peer's behavior

and

affect,

and

the

evaluator s

behavior

and

affect.

Results

demonstrated that

older

children evaluated the

responder

(peer

being

influenced)

as

being more suscepti-

ble to peer pressure

(i.e.,

cheating)

than did

younger

children.

Older

children

also reported

higher incidences

of cheating,

being less upset

evaluating

the vari-

ous

peer

pressure situations, and being more likely to be influenced themselves,

than did younger children.

Gender

differences emerged

with girls being

more

upset

than

boys evaluating

the

various

peer pressure

situations. Further, all

girls

and younger

boys

evaluated

the responder as being more upset

in he best friend

relationship

with the initiator

than in

the

acquaintance

relationship with the

ini-

tiator.

All

children

evaluated

a

peer's

influence to

be strongest in

the referent

peer

influence

scenario.

Findings

are

discussed

in

terms of extending previous

research on negative peer influence and the need

for

consideration

of

context

ef-

fects.

Research convincingly demonstrates that children's peer relationships are

important

to social,

cognitive,

and

physical development (e.g.,

Newcomb, Bu-

kowski, Hartup, 1996). However,

it has also

become clear that

not

all peer

in-

teractions and influence is positive. For example, children influence

each

other to

engage

in

drug abuse, vandalism,

and various

other negative

activities. In

fact,

some researchers

(e.g.,

Brofenbrenner,

1970)

report peer

influence to be

largely

negative, particularly

in the absence

of

adult supervision

(Steinburg,

1986). Fur-

thermore, theories of

deviance

and delinquency have placed considerable empha-

sis on the negative influence

of

peers (e.g., Akers, 1977; Elliot, Huizinga, Age-

ton, 1985; Miller, 1958).

Although

researchers (e.g.,

Brofenbrenner,

1970; Savin-

Williams Bemdt,

1990) have investigated

various

behaviors and

situations

that

lead

to

negative

outcomes, little

research has

addressed children's social-

informational processing (e.g., evaluations)

of peer

pressure situations. The

pur-

pose of

the

present

study was to investigate possible influences on children's

evaluations

of

peer

pressure

situations.

Of

particular

interest

were influences

of

different types

of

peer relationships (e.g., best friends, acquaintances)

and

different

Page 35


2/22

Burton RVy Mebta

Importance

of Evaluations

As

described

in

Ray,

Graham,

and Cohen

(2001), children s

evaluations

of

peer

social behavior

is developmentally

significant

for

both

the

evaluator

and

for

the target

peer(s)

being

evaluated.

Implications

for the

evaluator are twofold.

First,

children

are constantly

observing

and evaluating

the

behaviors

of others on

a daily

basis and subsequently

using this information

when

determining

their ow n

potential

relationship

choices. For

example,

a child

seen initiating

or engaging

in

peer conflict

situations in

the classroom or

on the

playground

will likely be

avoided

by the

evaluator while

a child whose

interactions

are prosocial

and rela-

tively conflict-free

will

be

sought out

as

a potential friend. As

a second implica-

tion for the evaluator,

peers

influence each

other not

only

through

direct ex-

changes and

reinforcement, but

also

through modeling

of others

engaged

in

pro-

social

and conflict situations,

facilitating

the

observer s

ability

to interact

in

socially

competent

ways with

peers.

Implications

for

the

target peer(s)

being

evaluated

center

on issues of

reputa-

tion or social

history. Models

of

children s

social-information

processing

(see

Crick

Dodge, 1994,

for review)

assume

that

children

represent

social

informa-

tion

about other peers

in a knowledge

base and

this in turn,

influences current

and

subsequent

interactions

by the

child.

That

is,

how a child

evaluates

a particular

social situation

will determine,

in part,

how that

child will

respond. Therefore,

whether

the child

is

directly interacting

with peers or is an

observer of

other

chil-

dren s

interactions,

social

information

is

being encoded and

stored to

be used

in

future

interactions

involving

those

target peers.

Thus,

examining

factors

that

in-

fluence

children s evaluations

of

social information

will prove

useful to researchers

investigating

causal

linkages

between

social

cognition

and social behavior.

Negative

Influences

ofPeers

While

childhood is

a time where

fundamental

skills of

social

competency

are

learned,

researchers (e.g.,

Parker

Asher,

1987)

report

that

children

also

learn

roguish, inappropriate

behaviors,

such

as stealing

and

vandalizing from their

peers.

Findings suggest

that

many deviant

activities need

the context

of

a peer

group

for their

initiation as well

as

their maintenance. That

is,

children

usually

do

not behave

mischievously

on their own.

Many

of the pranks

and

disobedient

be-

haviors

children

engage in are

committed

in

parties of two

or

more

(Sutherland

Cressey,

1970).

Kandel

(1978) reported

that children who

are friends

consistently have

similar

attitudes

and engage

in

similar behaviors.

For

example,

if one s friend

uses

drugs,

they will be

more likely

to engage in

illegal drug use

themselves.

While

drug use

may be

one kind

of

negative

behavior

friends

facilitate

in

each

other,

there are

numerous

others

such

as alcohol, cigarette

smoking,

premarital

sex, academic

Page

236


3/22

CHILD TUDYJOURNAL/IVolume 33/No. 4/2003

argue that

friends

influence is a

major factor in

adolescence s alcohol

use,

drug

use, and many other

delinquent behaviors. Further, research demonstrates clear

evidence of the influence

of

intimate friends and friendship

groups on sexual

be-

havior,

the tendency towards

risky

driving

(e.g.,

Millstein,

Petersen, Nightingale,

1993), as

well

as the use

of

cigarettes,

alcohol and marijuana (e.g., Fisher

Bauman, 1988; Kandel,

1978).

Peer influence

is

a common

source

for the involvement in negaive activities

for children

(Berndt,

1996; Kandel, 1978).

Interestingly, Duck

(1996)

demon-

strated that children

do

acknowledge the negative qualides

of

their friends. For

example,

children

report that their friends sometimes annoy them and boss them

around.

These

behaviors are often the source of conflicts between friends

(Hartup,

1992).

Researchers

(e.g.,

Berndt Savin-Williams,

1993; Youniss, 1980)

have

also

demonstrated

that

friends

often

engage

in

rivalry

and

competion

As

children grow

into

adolescence they begin noticing more of their peers personal-

ity and negative characteristics.

As

intimacy

and

companionship

increases, chil-

dren develop

an increasingly sophisticated view of their peer s

personalities,

moods, wishes,

desires, motivations, and

intentions.

In turn, children

use

this

information to manipulate each other

(Duck,

1996). While friends can become

close, best

friends have

more

intimate knowledge

about each other (Berndt

Keefe, 1994; Kandel, 1978;

Cohen,

1983)

and,

thus, potentially more power with

which to manipulate each other.

Prior

research

(Duck,

1996;

Hartup,

1992) has

concluded

that

simple

peer

pressure

is

not

the

primary

means

by

which

friends

influence each other. That is, depending on the gender and the type

of relation-

ship involved, a boy or girl

may

use different peer

pressure strategies (e.g., positive

reinforcement,

expert power).

Sherif and Sherif (1964) believe

there

is

a mis-

guided

assumption that peer pressure is always direct and overt

and suggest,

how-

ever, that

peer

influence

often

operates in a

much softer

fashion.

Indeed,

research

demonstrates

that more socially skillful children learn to use gentler sorts

of pres-

sures

in

close

relaionships to increase their desired outcome (Hartup,

1992).

Tvpes

of

PeerInfluence

Berndt (1996)

suggested that

understanding peer

influence

could be enhanced

by

linking

children s friendship research with social-psychological

theories of in-

terpersonal

influence

such as French and Raven s 1959 classic work on

social

power.

To better understand

the processes involved in negative

peer

influence,

researchers need

to investigate the ways (how)

in which

peers manipulate each

other. Towards this end, the current

study had children

evaluate

five different

types of peer

influence modeled after

French and

Raven s

(1959)

typology of

so-

cial power.

The

first type

of

influence

is

reinforcement

or

reward. Reward refers

to

any-

thing

that

promotes a behavior being repeated in

the

future.

Among friends,

re-

Pa e237


4/22

Bturton

Ray

Mebta

encourage

peers to start

drinking (Graham

et al., 1991)

or to become

involved in

other

negative behaviors.

Whether

a child's

own behavior

was reinforced or a

child witnessed

another

child's behavior

being

reinforced

(modeling),

it becomes

highly

influential in

changing behavior.

More

directly,

friends

sometimes offer

rewards

to others. For example,

a friend

might say, Lets

go to

the

movies.

I'll

pay

for the gas.

Another

common

reinforcement used

among children

is com-

panionship.

A friend

might say,

Let's go to

the mal first

and

then

we can

go eat

like

you

want to.

Reinforcement

is equally seen

in

antisocial

situations. A

friend

might

say,

If you smoke

with us,

we

can l

be

friends

(Berndt

Savin-

WiDiams, 1993).

Another

mechanism

utilized by peers

to

influence

each

other

is

negative

rein-

forcement

(Kopfstein,

1972). Negative

reinforcement

is increasing

the likelihood

of

a

behavioral occurrence

because

the behavior

keeps

something

negative

from

occurring.

Thus,

we engage

in a behavior

to

keep negative

consequences from

happening.

For example,

a

friend

might

say,

If you do

not

sneak

out

with us,

you

can no

longer

be

part

of our club.

Studies (e.g.,

Berndt Savin-Wiliams,

1993; Cohen,

1983)

have revealed

similar findings

concluding that by associating

with

deviant

peers, an

individual

may

themselves

engage in deviant

activities

be-

cause their peers have

facilitated

and reinforced

beliefs

in them

that

delinquent

activity

is not wrong.

It

is

as if peers

become

desensitized

to

the deviant behavior

altogether

due to

their friends'

reinforcement of negative

behavior.

A

third

way

friends

influence

each

other

is

through

modeling.

It

involves the

imitating

of one

person's behavior

to another

person's behavior

as

a

consequence

of direct or symbolic

observation.

Bandura

(1977) demonstrated that

children will

actualy

be

influenced

to

engage

in

particular behaviors simply

by observing

an-

other

child's

behavior

and the consequences

that

follow.

That

is, children are

likely to

engage

in

behaviors

they

see

being

reinforced

(vicarious reinforcement)

in

others

and are

likely not to engage

in behaviors they

see not

being

reinforced

or

being punished (vicarious

punishment)

in others.

Interestingly,

research

has dem-

onstrated that

the modeling

and

reinforcement

required to produce

antisocial

be-

haviors

do not come

from

the family unit, but from

an individual's

peers (Eliot

et

al., 1985).

Further,

a child may

model

anbther's

behavior

because

they

admire and

want

to

be like

them (Berndt,

1996). This

fourth

type

of social power

is

caled

referent

power. O'Connor

(1969)

studied

withdrawn

children

by

showing

them a series of

videos

of

socialy

competent peers interacting.

After

viewing

the videos,

with-

drawn children

became

more sociable

in their interactions

with

other children.

Previous

studies

(e.g., Epstein,

1983; Sherif Sherif, 1964)

likewise

concluded

that

children often try

to become

friends

with

other

children they perceive

as

popular,

athletic,

or outstanding in

some

way. After

these friendships

are formed,

Page

238


5/22

CHILD STUDYJOURNALI

Volume

33/No.

4/2003

may

occur

through

passive

observations

of

one

another

in

conversations.

A child

may say, I think athletes are cool and in

return others may begin to share

similar

views.

The

present

study

also investigated

the

influence

of

expert

social

power.

Here, it

is

believed

that

competent

individuals generaly exert

greater influence

than

those not competent.

It is the power a person

with special knowledge uses

to influence others.

While

one

friend may be

better

at soccer,

another

may be

better

in their scholastic

abilites. When

a

decision

concerning a friend's area

of

expertise appears,

their ideas

may be more highly

valued and in turn,

more influ-

ential

than

the advice of

a

non-expert

friend.

An

analysis

of

the how peer influence

occurs

must

also

include

the

type

of

relationship that exists

between those

involved.

That is,

the orientaion of

the

source

(e.g.,

best

friend, friend, acquaintance, enemy),

rather than

the

content

of

the behavior,

has been shown to be

influential

in changing

behavior (McDavid,

1959)

and influential in evaluating behavior (see Ray, et

al., 2001 for

review).

It

appears that peer influence

has different

effects

in

different

dyadic

relationships.

While there is significant variability

across

different types

of relationships, best

friend relationships may have a unique

impact on

development apart from other

relationships

in

the

child's

broader social network. For

example, if influence de-

rives

from

the

need to please

or be like

a close friend,

one

could infer that

best or

inimate friends would

be more influential

than

general

friendship

groups. Several

studies

have

revealed

such

evidence

(Berndt

Keefe,

1994;

Cohen,

1983;

Kandel,

1978, Morgan

Grube,

1991; Mounts Steinberg,

1995).

Influence in a best

friend relationship can be

a mutual process. Each

child

influences

his or her

friends

and is, in turn, influenced by them. A close, supported, collaborative

rela-

tionship with a

best

friend provides

a degree

of

intimacy and mutual

engagement

that is not

found

in any

other

relationships. Hallinan

(1983)

also

found a friend's

influence may

be strongest based

on

mutual

trust

and shared goals. As a result, a

best

friend may

have

the most

influence

on a child's

behavior and

attitudes

(Mor-

gan

Grube, 1991;

Mounts

Steinberg,

1995; Sullivan, 1953).

The Present Study

In

this

study we examined

children's evaluations of

peers as

a function of re-

lationship

type

(best friends, acquaintances) and peer pressure

scenario

type (e.g.,

modeling, reinforcement).

One

peer, named

Patwas

the

peer

being

influenced

and

was

also

labeled the responder The other

peer, named

Chris

was always at-

tempting to influence Pat and was

thus

also labeled the initiator.

Given previous

research

(e.g.,

Berndt,

1996)

demonstrating

that children's

susceptibility to peer

influence increases

with age,

we

hypothesized

that

older

children (grades

5-6),

would

evaluate

the

responder

as

being

more

likely

to

com-

ply,

and

would also

evaluate

the emotional impact on the responder to

be less

PageW3


6/22

Bunton,

RVy Mehta

predicted that

the closer

the relationship

between

the two

peers (best

friends, neu-

tral

acquaintances)

the more influential,

they

would

be

on

each other.

Thus,

we

predicted

that children

would evaluate

best friends

as being more

influential

than

acquaintances

in terms

of

the

responder's

cheating behavior.

Similarly,

it

was

pre-

dicted

that the

evaluator would

report being

more

likely

to comply

when

evaluat-

ing the

best

friend

relationship

than

when evaluating

the acquaintance

relation-

ship.

A great

deal of

research

documents

the importance

of gender

in children's

social development.

Researchers

have

noted sex differences

in friendship

network

size

(Ray Cohen,

1992),

their

activities

(Huston,

1985),

their

linguistic

styles

(Maltz Borker,

1983), and

their

play

style preferences

(Maccoby,

1988,

1990).

Relevant

to the current

study, Matthys,

Cohen-Kettenis

and

Berkhout,

(1993)

reported that

girls'

evaluations

of

peers

were

more

context

dependent

(embedded

in background

information, family,

and

kinship) than

were boys' evaluations.

Therefore,

we

predicted

that

relationship

type

would have a greater

impact on

girls' evaluations.

That

is, girls

were

hypothesized

to

make finer

distinctions

among relationship

types than

were boys.

Due

to the gender differences

in

boys'

and girls'

peer relationships,

we hypothesized

that

girls'

relationships

would

be

more influential in terms

of compliance

than would boys'

relationships

(Billy

Udry,

1985;

Davies Kandel,

1981).

Predictions

were also made concerning

the

five peer influence scenarios

(i.e.,

modeling,

positive reinforcement,

negative

reinforcement,

referent,

expert).

Spe-

cifically,

it

was

predicted

that younger

children would

be more influenced

in terms

of evaluations

of compliance

by either

positive

or

negative

reinforcement

and

older children

would

be more influenced

by

referent,

expert, or

modeling, because

as

we age, friends

and status become

more important

(Berndt,

1979).

Lastly, Berndt

(1996)

speculated

that referent

power may

be

the primary

means

through

which friends

influence each

other.

Thus, we predicted

that

chil-

dren

would

evaluate

a best

friend as

being

more

influential

in terms of

compli-

ance,

in the modeling

and

referent influence

scenario

than

would an acquaintance.

Method

Paffidpants

Participants

were 78 girls

and

82 boys

from second,

third, fifth,

and sixth

grades

N=1 60) of

a public elementary

school

in Montgomery,

Alabama.

All

par-

ticipating

children

returned

written parental

consent

and

also

gave their

own writ-

ten

assent

prior

to participating

in the

study. Although

ethnicity of

participants

was

not

a

variable

of

interest in

the

current

study,

the

racial

composition

of

the

sample was

45

African American

and 55 European

American.

Participants

Page 4


7/22

ClHLDSTUDYJOURNAL/IVolume 33/No. 4/2003

Design

In

addition to

Grade

and Gender, Relationship

Type

(Best

Friend,

Acquaint-

ance) was a between-participant yariable.

The

study

also

included Influence

Type

(Modeling,

Referent, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Reinforcement,

Expert)

as

a within participants variable. Thus,

the

general

design was

a 2

(Grade: young,

old) x 2 (Gender of child) x 2 (Relationship Type: best

friend,

acquaintance) x

5

(Influence Type: Modeling, Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement,

Referent, and Expert) mixed-factorial design.

Measures

Each

child

listened to a

total of

six

audiorecorded

scenarios:

one for

a par-

ticular

level of

Relationship Type (e.g., Best Friend, Acquaintance) and five deliv-

ering

the

different

Peer

Influence

Scenarios

(e.g.,

Modeling,

Positive Reinforce-

ment, Negative Reinforcement, Referent, Expert).

Relationsbo T)pe. Two

Relationship Type Vignettes

(e.g., Best

Friend, Ac-

quaintance) were audiorecorded, following

Ray

and

Cohen

(1999;

2000;

see

Ap-

pendix A). The Best Friend

vignette focuses

on trust and intimacy and

behavioral

reciprocities such as sharing and cooperation that distinguish

best

friends from

other

types of social

relationships (Hartup,

1983). The

Acquaintance vignette

reflects

that

the

two

children

are unacquainted and

have not formed a judgment

of

each other. Thus, they neither liked

nor disliked

one another.

In

addition

to the

audiorecorded vignettes,

a

drawing to

represent

each

Rela-

tionship Type was

constructed (Ray

Cohen,

1999; 2000). All drawings

included

two

same-gender,

same-race

children and were matched to the gender and race

of

the participants. There were

8

drawings in total: two male and two female for

African Americans,

and two male and

two

female for European

Americans.

For

Best

Friends,

the

drawings were of two

boys/girls

(named

Chris and

Lee) standing

close

together,

facing one

another and

smiling.

For Acquaintances the

drawings

were of Chris

and Lee

standing

beside each other

with neutral facial

expressions

and

facing

forward.

PeerInfluence

Scenarios.

Five audiorecorded

Peer

Influence Type

Scenarios (i.e.,

Positive and Negative

Reinforcement, Modeling,

Expert, and

Referent) were con-

structed (see Appendix B).

In

the Positive

Reinforcement

scenarios,

the re-

sponder

(Pat)

is offered some

type of

incentive to cheat from the initiator peer

(Chris).

In

the Negative

Reinforcement

scenario, Pat is encouraged

with

a nega-

tive consequence from

Chris

to engage in cheating.

In

the Modeling

scenario,

Pat

observes Chris cheating and doing very well. In the

Expert

scenario, Pat

wit-

nessed Chris, who is good at schoolwork and tests,

cheating. And

in the Referent

scenario,

Pat

desperately

wanted

to be like Chris (popular,

lots

of

friends). It is

important

to

note

that

the

two children

depicted

in

the Relationship Type Vi-

gnettes

are

the same

two

children depicted in each

of

the

Peer

Influence Scenarios.

Pa ge241


8/22

Burton Ray, Mebta

response (e.g., Is Pat

going

to cheat like Chris?) and affective state (e.g., How

up-

set

does Pat feel?). To

assess the influence

of these evaluations

on the evaluator

(participating child),

questions pertaining to the evaluator's affective

state (e.g.,

How upset would

you be

watching

this happen?)

the

evaluator's

behavior

re-

sponse

(e.g.,

If you were Pat, would you cheat?)

and the frequency of

such

behav-

iors (e.g., How

often does this sort

of thing happen?) also were assessed.

Chil-

dren's

xesponses

were

assessed using a Likert-type

scale

ranging

from 1

to

6.

Procedure

Each child was individually

interviewed

in a

quiet

area

outside his

or her

classroom in a 20-25 minute

session.

Each child listened to a total

of six

audiore-

corded scenarios:

one for a

particular

level

of Relationship Type

(Best Friends

or

Acquaintances)

and

five

delivering

the

Peer Influence

Scenarios

(Modeling,

Posi-

tive Reinforcement, Negative

Reinforcement, Expert,

Referent).

Each child was

also

presented

with a picture

corresponding

to the particular level

of Relationship

Type. First, a particular

Relationship Type scenario

and

corresponding picture

was

presented. The

particular Relationship Type p icture

remained in

full

view for

the entire interview.

After

administration of the first peer

influence type

scenario,

children filled out

the corresponding questionnaire.

Children

filled

out

each ques-

tionnaire immediately following

each

Peer

Influence

Type

scenario. After

com-

pleting the questionnaire, the child

was

presented

with the next

peer influence

scenario. Presentation of the peer

influence

scenarios

was counterbalanced

to

control

for possible

carryover

and sequencing

effects.

Children

were instructed

at

the

beginning

of each scenario, Instead

of that happening, let's

pretend

that

this

is what happened.

Upon

completion

of

all questionnaires, the

child was de-

briefed

by

being

reminded

that

the scenarios

are

not real and

did

not actually

hap-

pen. The child was then

asked if he

or

she

had any questions

and

then

returned

to

the classroom.

Results

A series

of 2 (Grade: young, old)

x 2

(Gender) x 2 (Relationship

Type:

best

friend,

acquaintance) x 5

(Influence

Type: modeling,

positive reinforcement, nega-

tive reinforcement,

referent, expert) mixed factorial

ANOVAs

were

conducted

on

variables assessing

the

responder's

behavioral

response (compliance), affective

state

of

the

responder, as well as the evaluator's affective

state, and the evaluator's

behavior response. Follow-up tests to statistically

significant

interactions

were

conducted as

tests

for

simple effects

followed by Newman-Keuls

post hoc tests

to

determine

sources

of

differences

where appropriate.

Page

242


9/22

CHILD STUDYJOURNAL/l/olume 33/No. 4/2003

Responder

Compliance

Analysis on children's evaluations

of

responder

compliance revealed a Grade

main effect, F

1,

152)

=

17.31,

p

<

.001. As

hypothesized, older children

M =

3.92,

SD

=

1.11)

reported

the

responder

as

being

more

likely

to

comply,

than

did

younger children

M=

3.11,

SD =

1.35).

Analysis

also

revealed an

Influence Type

main

effect,

F

(4,

608)

=

6.88 p <

.001. As predicted, children evaluated

the

responder as being

more likely to

cheat

in the

referent peer

influence scenario

M

= 3.99, SD

= 1.92) compared to

all

other peer influence

scenarios,

which did not

differ

from each other

Ms and SDs

=

3.24

(1.92),

3.59

(1.89),

3.16

(1.92),

3.53

(1.92), for modeling, positive rein-

forcement,

negative

reinforcement,

and

expert,

respectively).

ResponderAffeat

Analysis

investigating children's evaluation of

how

upset the responder was

revealed a

significant

Relationship

Type

x Gender

interaction,

F 1, 151) = 5.91,p

< .05.

As

seen in

Figure

1, girls evaluated the responder

as

being more upset

in

the best

friend

relationship

M

=

3.62,

SD = 1.35) compared to the

acquaintance

relationship

M = 2.93,

SD

= 1.32).

No relationship differences

emerge for

boys

Ms and SDs

=

3.10

(1.49),

3.37 (1.25), for

best friends and acquaintances,

respec-

tively).

3.75

Best Friends

-3.50 j cquaintances

3.25

3.00

Pa

243


10/22

Burton,

Ray, Mehta

Analysis

also revealed

a significant

Relationship

Type

x Grade

interaction

F

1, 151)

= 4.45, p

.05. As

seen

in

Figure

2,

for

best

friends, younger

children

evaluated

the responder

as being more

upset

M

=

3.92, SD

= 1.34)

than did

older

children

M

=

2.70,

SD

=

1.16).

No

developmental differences

emerge

for

ac-

quaintances Ms

and

SDs= 3.34

(1.36),

2.99 (1.22),

for best

friends

and

acquaint-

ances,

respectively).

4.00

1

3.757

3.50 -

3.25-

3.00

-

2.75 -

2.50

Fie

s

D

Acsquatan s

2-3

5-6

grade

level

Figure2. Responder

affect Relationship

Type x

Grade interaction.

Page

244


11/22

CHILD

STUDYJOURNAL/Volume

33/No.

4/2003

EvaluatorAffect

Analysis

investigating

how

upset

the evaluator

would

be

evaluating

one

peer

manipulating

another

revealed

a

significant

Grade

effect, F

1,

152)

12.07,

p

<

.01.

Younger

children s

evaluations

M

=

4.78,

SD =

1.41)

revealed

that

they

were

more

upset

evaluating

the

scenarios

than

were

older

children

M

=

3.92,

SD

1.74).

Analysis

also revealed

a

significant

Gender

x

Influence

Type

interaction, F

1,

608) 3.01,

p

.05. As

seen

in Figure

3,

girls

reported

being

more

upset

than

boys

in

the positive

reinforcement

and

negative reinforcement

peer

influence

sce-

narios.

No other

gender

differences

emerge

among

the

different

peer

influence

scenarios.

Girls reported

being

more upset

evaluating

the positive

reinforcement

and

negative

reinforcement

peer influence

scenarios,

which

did

not

differ from

each other, but

were higher

than

the modeling

peer

influence scenario.

No

other

differences

emerged

for

girls

WMs and

SDs =

4.14 (2.02),

4.65

(1.74),

4.64 (1.64),

4.52

(1.80),

4.37

(1.83),

for

modeling,

positive

reinforcement,

negative

reinforce-

ment,

referent,

and

expert,

respectively).

No

differences

in evaluator

affect

emerged

across

the

different peer

influence

scenarios

for

boys Ms

and SDs

4.34

(1.92),

4.21

(1.94),

4.21

(1.99),

4.11 (2.01), 4.32

(1.92), for

modeling,

positive

rein-

forcement,

negative

reinforcement,

referent,

and

expert,

respectively).

4.75

4.60-

4.45-

4.30-

4 15

4.00-

Pa ge 245


12/22

2Burton

Raj,

Mebta

How

Realisfic

Analysis

investigating

how

often

children

experienced

incidences

of cheating

revealed

a statisically

significant

effect

for Grade,

F,

(1,

152)

13.91,

p <

.001.

Older

children

(M

4.19,

SD =

1.27)

reported that

cheating incidences

happened

more

often

than did

younger

children

(M 3.43,

SD

1.33).

Discx.ssion

Peer

relationships

are

vital

to the

social, cognitive,

and physical

development

of

children

(e.g.,

Newcomb,

Bukowski,

Hartup,

1996).

Much

work

has

been

done

investigating

special

relationships

of children

and

the influence

they

have

on

one

another

(see

Berndt,

1989;

Newcomb

Bagwell,

1995

for

meta-analytic

re-

view).

Until

recently,

it

was

assumed

that

a peer's

influence

was

always

positive,

especially

in

children's

friendships.

However,

it

has become

increasingly

obvious

that

some

peer

influence

is

largely

negative

(Duck,

1996;

Savin-Williams

Berndt,

1990).

Researchers

have

found

that

friends

do

encourage

friends

to engage

in

undesirable

and antisocial

acts

(e.g., fighting,

smoking,

drugs).

Interestingly,

little

work

has

been

directed

toward

children's

social-informational

processing

of peer

pressure

situations.

Thus,

the

present

study

investigated

children's

evaluation

of

negative

peer

influence

as

a

function

of different

types

of

peer relationships

(e.g.,

best friends,

acquaintances)

and different

types

of

peer

pressure

(e.g.,

modeling,

positive reinforcement,

referent).

The predicion

that

older

children

(Grades

5-6)

would

evaluate

the

responder

as being

more

likely

to

cheat

than

would

younger

children

(Grades

2-3)

is

sup-

ported,

and

both

replicates

and

extends

earlier

work

on

children's

susceptibility

to

peer

influence.

Researchers

(e.g.,

Berndt,

1996;

Steinberg

Silverberg,

1986)

demonstrate

that conformity

to peer

influence

increases

from middle

childhood

to

middle

adolescence

(about

age 15)

and

then decreases

in late adolescence.

The

current

study

extends

these

findings

in

two important

ways.

First,

the

present

study

is

among

the

first

to

use children

as

young

as

second

grade

in

a

sample

in-

vestigating

peer

influences.

Second,

previous

research

uses

hypothetical

situations

that directly

involve

the

participant

(e.g.,

Will

you

cheat?).

The

current

research

is

one

step

removed,

where

participants

are evaluators

of the

interactions

of

other

peers.

Given

that

similar

findings emerge

when

children

evaluate

themselves

or

when

they

witness

the

interactions

of others,

it

appears

that

children

may

base

their

perceptions

and

evaluations

of

others

and

what

others

will do,

n part,

on

how

they

themselves

would

act in similar

situations

(Ray

Cohen,

2000;

Ray et

al.,

2001).

Why

do older

children

evaluate

peers

as

being more

susceptible

to peer

influ-

ence

compared

to

younger

children?

As children

age,

they begin

spending

more

Page246


13/22

CHILD

STUDYJOURNAL/Volume

33/No 4/2003

and

replace it with dependency

on

their

peers.

Therefore, the

older the

child, the

larger

the measure

of emotional

autonomy

in

their

family relationships.

Also,

past

research (e.g.,

Brown, Clasen,

Eicher., 1986;

1Hartup,

1983) has

shown that with

age

there

is

a

steady increase toward

misconduct and

older children perceive these

negative

behaviors as normative. This is

consistent

with our finding

that older

children (fifth/sixth grades)

report that

being

influenced

to cheat

by their

peers is

a more common

occurrence

than

younger children (second/third

grades).

Per-

haps,

older children

are more apt

to

behave mischievously

because they

view

anti-

social behaviors

differently than do younger children

and they also rely more

heavily on

their

friends

than

their

parents for

direction.

Contrary

to past

research

(e.g.,

Bemdt, 1996),

the

prediction

that the

closer

the relationship between the two

peers being evaluated (best friends vs.

acquaint-

ances)

the

more

influential

one

child

would

be

on

the

other

is

not

supported.

In

light of this

relationship type

non-finding, it is important

to note that

children

do

evaluate

best

friends differently

than acquaintances

in that

all

children

evaluated

liking

between best friends

higher

than liking

between

acquaintances.

Also,

the

prediction that girls

would evaluate best

friends as being more

influential than

boys is

not

supported.

Thus, girl best friends

were no more influential

than

boy

best friends.

In the

present

study, only

positive

(e.g., best

friends)

and neutral

(acquaintances)

are used. Had

a

broader

range

of relationships been

used (e.g.,

best friends,

acquaintances, enemies), perhaps

relationship

effects

would have

emerged.

For

example,

Ray

and

Cohen

(1999; 2000)

demonstrate

that

children's

evaluations of

best friends

and

acquaintances

are

quite

similar

and

always

more

positive than are the evaluations

of enemies.

In

the present

study,

with

reference

to

peer

influence, children are evaluating

two positive relationships and

no

differ-

ences emerge.

Further,

researchers

(e.g.,

Berndt, 1996)

have

demonstrated

three areas where

susceptibility

to

friends' influence

is greatest.

The

first

is

a child's

position in the

peer

group.

Children of

lower

social

status

are

likely to

be more

influenced than

higher status children. While

sociometric status of

participants

is

not

measured

in

the

current

study,

it

is

a safe assumption

to

consider

that

the

majority

of

children

participating are

not from unpopular status groups

(see Ray, Cohen, Secrist,

1995). Second,

children whose personal relationships

(parents,

other peers)

are

less satisfying

are more susceptible

to friends'

influence.

This again,

would sug-

gest that unpopular

and marginal

status children would

be more influenced

than

popular and

average

status

children.

Lastly,

children

appear to

be

more suscepti-

ble to friends'

influence

when the behavior/situation

is not particularly

important

to their sense of self.

While

the

current

study

does not measure

characteristics of

reputational

salience, it

appears that making

good

grades

and

being a good student

are important

to

a sense of self

for

elementary school age

children

and

are, thus,

behaviors

that are less susceptible

to the influence of

peers.

Pagel24

7


14/22

Butnton Ray

Mehta

supported.

However,

children

do evaluate

referent

power as being

the

most

influ-

ential

type

of social power.

As

stated

in the literature

review,

referent

power

emerges

when

children

admire and

want to

be

like another child.

Researchers

(Epstein,

1983;

Sherif

Sherif,

1964)

have

found

that

children

often

try

to

be-

come

friends

with

other

children

whom

they

perceive

as

popular,

athletic,

or

skilled

in some

other

area. Berndt

(1996)

further stated

that after

these

friend-

ships

are formed

they

continue

to use their

friends

as referent

others to

guide

and

direct

their own

behavior.

Analysis

investigating

children's

evaluation

of

the responder's

affect reveals

that

within best

friend

relationships,

girls

as well as

younger

children

report the

responder

to be

more upset

than

do boys and

older

children.

This

supports

pre-

vious

research

(Ray

Cohen,

2000)

demonstrating

that girls

and younger children

are

more

likely

to report

the

peers

they evaluate, particularly

peers

that

have been

wronged

(i.e., aggressed

against), as being

more

emotionally affected

(more

upset)

than do boys

and older children.

Analysis

investigating

how upset the participating

children

would be

evaluat-

ing a

child trying

to get

another

child

to

cheat

reveals

younger

children

as being

more

upset

than

older

children.

As children

get

older incidences of

cheating be-

come

much

more

prevalent

as the

current

study shows,

and

perhaps has

less of

a

negative

effect

on

a child. That

is, as children

get

older and

they see cheating

on

a

more routine

basis,

perhaps,

they become

desensitized

to

it.

Also, older

children

are

more willing to

engage

in such

a negative

behavior,

as

revealed

in this

study.

Thus the

older

the

child,

the

less they

are going

to

be

upset about

an incidence

that

occurs

everyday

around

them and

that

they

themselves

are

more likely to

engage in.

Limitations

of the

current

study

include

children

being presented

with

hypo-

thetical scenarios,

which

may

have minimized

the

reality of

the experiment

for the

evaluators.

Children's

responses

to

hypothetical

situations

may not coincide

with

how

they

will

evaluate

actual

peer

influence

situations.

Thus, it will

be important

for

future

research

to begin investigating

children's

own real world

peer

influence

situations

or experimental

analog

situations

with

actual

peers.

In addidon,

chil-

dren

evaluate

each

scenario

using a

forced choice

questionnaire.

Future

research

allowing

children

to

respond

more freely

and

independently

to situations

involving

peer

influence

may

provide

a

more complete

understanding

of

children's

percep-

tions

of influence.

The

present study

focuses

only

on

dyadic

(one-on-one)

inter-

actions between

children.

Future

research

into

children's

influence

on

each other

will need

to consider the

effect

ofmultiple

friends

and

their collective

influence.

Further,

in

addition

to

cheating

situations

there

are

various

other types

of negative

situations

where the

susceptibility

to peer

pressure

is

more

likely

(e.g.,

not

impor-

tant

to

identity).

Lastly,

while the

present study only

includes

positive and

neutral

Pa ge248


15/22

CHILD

STUDYJOURNALI/Volume

33/No.

4/2003

Page

249

themselves

would

be more

likely

to

cheat

than

would

younger

children.

These

findings

coupled

with

earlier

research

documenting

that

older

children

are

more

suscepible

to

the influences

of

their

peers,

begin

to shed

light

on

how

children

actually

go

about

the business

of

making evaluations

of

others.

It

appears

that

how

children

evaluate

the

interactions

of

their

peers

is, in

part,

determined

by

how

they

themselves

would

behave

in similar

situations

(see

Ray

et al.,

2001,

for

re-

view).

For

example,

older

children

evaluate

the

responder

and also

themselves

as

being more

likely

to comply

than

do

younger

children.

A

similar

pattern

emerges

with

regard

to

the

responder's

affect

and

the

evaluator's

affect.

Perhaps,

the de-

velopmental

differences

evidenced

in

the

current

study are

the result

of

an

ability

of

older

children

to

put

themselves

in the

situation ,

while

younger

children

re-

spond

to

the

situation(s)

in

a

concrete

way.

Clearly,

how

children

evaluate

the

interactions

of

their

peers has

important

developmental consequences,

not

only

for

the evaluator,

but

for

the

children

being

evaluated

as

well.

Peer pressure

situa-

tions

are

daily

occurrences

and

children

obviously

witness

peers

attempting

to

influence

each

other.

As

such,

the

current

study is

a

beginning

in

understanding

how

children

evaluate

these

peer

pressure

situations

between

others

and

the

fac-

tors

that

influence

these

evaluations.


16/22

Page

250

Burton

Ry, &

Mebta

APPENDIX

A

Relationship

Type

Vignettes

Best

Fnendr

Let's

pretend

that you're

new

to this

school

and

don't

know

the

kids

in

the

story

you're

about

to

hear.

The story

is

about

Chris

and

Pat.

Chris

and

Pat

are

best

friends.

They

go

to

the same

school

and

are

in

the

same

class.

Chris

lives

down

the

street

from

Pat

so

they

get

to

spend

a

lot

of

time

together

playing

games

and

having

fun.

They

sat

together

and

shared

their

lunch

today.

Chris

and

Pat

tell

each

other

theirsecrets

and

take

up

for each

other.

Chris

and Pat

have

been

best

friends

for

a

long

time.

Acquaintances

Let's

pretend

that

you're

new

to this

school

and don't

know

the

kids

in

the

story

you're

about to

hear.

The

story

is

about

Chris

and

Pat.

Chris

and

Pat

are

in

the

same

class

together.

Chris

and

Pat know

each

other

but

don't

sit

by each

other

in

class

or

at

lunch

time.

It's

not

that they

don't

like each

other.

They

just

don't

know

each

other

well

enough

to know

whether

they

like

each

other

or

not

Chris

and

Pat

are not

enemies,

but they

are

not

really

friends

either.


17/22

CHILD

STUDYJOURNAL Volume

33/No.

4/2003

APPENDIX

B

Influence

Type

Situations

Modeling.

Let's pretend that

one

day a

class

was

about

to

take a

very

impor-

tant

test.

Chris

and Pat

sit

by

each

other

in class.

The

teacher

passes

out

the

test

to everyone

and

says Go

ahead

and

start working

on

the

test.

I have

to

go

to

the

principal's

office

to

talk to

someone.

Please

remember

to keep

your

eyes

on

your

own

test.

The

teacher

leaves

the

room

and

the class

begins

working

on

the test.

Pat

wants to

do

very

good

on

the

test,

but

the test starts

getting

really

hard.

Pat

looks

over

and

sees Chris

opening

a

book

under

the

desk

and

cheating

and hears

Chris

say,

Wow,

this

test

is

really easy

now.

Positive

Reinforremen:

Let's

pretend

that

one

day

a

class

was

about

to

take

a

very

important

test.

Chris

and Pat

sit

by each

other

in class.

The

teacher passes

out the

test

to

everyone

and says

Go ahead

and

start

working

on the test.

I have

to

go

to

the principal's

office

to talk

to

someone.

Please

remember

to keep

your

eyes

on your

own

test.

The

teacher leaves

the room

and the

class

begins

working

on

the test.

Pat

wants to

do

very

good,

but

the test

starts

getting

really

hard.

Pat

looks

over

and

sees Chris

opening

a

book

under

the

desk and

cheating.

Chris

leans

over

and says

Hey

Pat

this

is

a

really

hard test.

Here,

use

my

answers

and

you will do

really

good.

Negative

Reinforcement:

Let's

pretend

that

one day a

class was

about

to

take

a

very

important

test.

Chris

and

Pat

sit

by each

other

in class. The

teacher passes

out the

test

to

everyone

and

says

Go

ahead

and

start

working

on

the test.

I

have

to

go

to

the principal's

office

to talk

to

someone.

Please

remember

to keep

your

eyes

on your

own test.

The

teacher leaves

the

room

and

the class

begins

working

on

the

test.

Pat wants

to do

very good,

but

the

test

starts

getting

really

hard.

Pat

looks

over

and

sees

Chris

opening

a book

under

the

desk

and

cheating.

Chris

leans

over

and says

Hey

Pat

this

is a really

hard test.

If

you do

not

cheat,

you

are

going to

fail.

Referent:

Let's

pretend that

one day

a

class was

about

to

take

a

very

important

test. Chris

and

Pat sit

by

each

other

in

class.

The

teacher

passes

out

the

test

to

everyone

and

says

Go

ahead

and

start working

on

the

test.

I

have

to go

to the

principal's office

to talk

to someone.

Please

remember

to keep

your

eyes

on

your

own

test.

The

teacher leaves

the

room

and

the

class begins

working

on

the

test.

Pat wants

to do

very

good

on

the

test, but

the

test

starts

getting

really

hard.

Pat

looks

over

and

sees

Chris

opening

a

book

under

the

desk

and

cheating. Chris

has

lots

of

friends

and

everybody

likes Chris.

Pat wants

to be just

like

Chris.

Epert

Let's

pretend

that

one

day

a class

was

about

to take

a very

important

test.

Chris

and

Pat sit by

each

other

in class.

The

teacher

passes

out

the test to

everyone

and

says Go

ahead

and start

working

on

the test.

I

have

to

go to

the

eyes

on

your

Page

251


18/22

Burton Ray,

Mehta

APPENDIX

C

Peer

Evaluation

Questionnaires

1.

How

much do

Pat and

Chris

like each

other?

..............

3.

4 2 5 : 6

Not

at all

Very

much

2.

Is

Pat

going

to

cheat

like Chris?

.................

2..

3.

4.

5..

6

Not

likely

Highly

likely

3.

How

upset

does

Pat

feel

1 2.

3.

4.

5..

6

Not

Upset

Very

Upset

4.

How

often

does

this

sort

of

thing

really

happen?

.

..............

2..

3.

4.

5..

6

Not ever

All

the time

5. How

upset

would

you

be watching

this

happen?

.

..............

.

2.

3.

4.

5.G

6

Not Upset

Very

Upset

6. If

you

were

Pat,

wouldyou

cheat? ...........

2......2.

3.

4.

5..

6

Highly

unlikely

Highly

likely

P.age

252


19/22

CHILDSTUDYJOURNAL/

Volume 33/No.

4/2003

References

Akers,

R.

L. (1977).

Deviant

behavior

A social

earningpersecdive.

Belmont,

CA:

Wadsworth.

Bandura, A.

(1977). Social

earning

theoy.

Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barrett,

M.

E., Simpson,

D.

D.,

Lehman, W.

E.

(1988).

Behavioral

changes

of

adoles-

cents

in drug

abuse intervention

programs.

Jouirnal

of

Youth andAdolescence,

15,

345-353.

Berndt,

T.

(1979).

Developmental

changes

in

conformity

to peers

and

parents. Developmen-

tal

Psybhology,

15,

608-616.

Berndt,

T.

(1989,

Mv arch).

Effects

offiiendshbp

on achievement

motivation

and classroom

behavior.

Paper

presented

at the

annual

meeting

of

the American

Educational

Research

Association,

San

Francisco.

Berndt,

T.

J., Savin-Williams,

R

C. (1993).

Peer

relations

and

friendships.

In

P.

H. To-

Ian

B.

J.

Cohler

(Eds.),

Handbook

of

clinical

research

andpractie

with

adolescents.

(pp.

203-219).

New

York:

Wiley

Sons.

Bemd;

T.j.

Keefe,

K

(1994).

Friend s

influence

on

adolescents

adjustment

to

school.

ChildDevelopment,

66, 1312-1329.

Bemdt,

T. J.

(1996).

Transition

in

friendship

and

friends

influence.

In

J.

A.

Graber,

.

Brooks-Gunn,

A.

C.Peterson

(Eds.),

Transitions

hbi gh

adolescence:

Interpersonal

Domains

and

Context

(pp. 57-84).

Mahwah, New

Jersey:

Lawrence

Erlbaum

As-

sociates,

Inc.,

Publishers.

Billy,

J. G.,

Udry,

J.

R

(1985).

Pattems

of

adolescent

friendship

and effects

on

sexual

behavior.

Social

Psycholo gy.Qarterly,

48,27-41.

Bronfrenbrenner,

U.

(1970).

Tov

worlds

of

hildren.

New

York:

Sage.

Brown, B.

B.,

Clasen,

D.

R,

Eicher,

S.

A.

(1986).

Perceptions

of

peer

pressure,

peer

conformity

dispositions,

and

self-reported

behavior

among

adolescents.

Develop

mental

Prycbolog,,

22, 521-530.

Cohen,

J.

(1983).

Commentary:

The

relationship

between

friendship

selection

and

peer

influence.

In J. L

Epstein

N.

Karweit

(Eds.),

Friendsin

school

(pp.1

6

3

-

174

).

New

York.

Academic

Press.

Crick,

N.

R, Dodge,

K

A. (1994).

A review

and

reformulation

of

social

information-

processing

mechanisms

in children s

social

adjustment.

PsychologicalBulletin,

115,

74-101.

Davies,

M., Kandel,

D.

B.

(1981).

Parental

and

peer

influences

on

adolescents

educa-

tional plans:

Some further

evidence.

American

Journal

of

Sociology,

87,

363-387.

Duck,

V. (1996).

A

lIfetime

of

relationships.

New

York:

Brooks/Cole

Publishing

Company.

Ellio;

D. S.,

Huizinga,

D.,

Ageton,

S. S.

(1985).

Explaining

delinquengy

and drog

nse.

Bev-

erly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Epstein,

J.

L

(1983).

The

influence

of friends

on

achievement

and affective

outcomes.

In

J. L

Epstein

N.

Karweit

(Eds.),

Friends

in

school:

Patterns

of selection

and

nfluence

in

secondary

schools (pp.177-

20 0

).

New York:

Academic

Press.

Fisher,

L

A.,

Bauman,

K.

E.

(1988).

Influence

and

selection

in

the

friend-adolescent

relationship:

Findings

from

studies

of

adolescent

smoking

and

drinking.

Journal

ofAppliedSodialPsychologV, 18,

289-314.

French, J.

R

P.,

Raven,

B. (1959).

The

bases

of social

power.

In

D.C.

Cartwright

(Ed.),

Page253


20/22

Burton,

Ray,

Mehia

Hartup,

W.

W.

(1983).

Sodalization,

personality,

and

social

development

In

E.

M.

Hetherington

(Ed.),

Handbook

of

childpsychology:

Vol.

4.

New York.

Wiley.

Hartup, W.

W. (1992).

Conflict

and

friendship

relations.

In

C. U.

Shantz

W.

W. Hartup

(Eds.),

Conflict

in

child

and

adolescentdevelopment

(pp.

186-215).

Cambridge, UK

Cambridge

University

Press.

Huston,

A.

C. (1985).

The

development

of

sex-typing:

Themes

from recent

research.

Develop,mental

Recien,

5,

1-17.

Kandel,

D.

B.

(1978).

Homophile,

selection

and

socialization

in adolescent

friendships.

AmericanJournalof

ociology,

84,

427-436.

Kopfstein,

D. (1972).

Effects

of

accelerating

and

decelerating

consequences

on the

sodal

behavior

of

trainable

retarded

children.

ChildDevelopment,

43,

800-809.

Maltz, D.

N.,

Borker,

R A.

(1983).

A cultural

approach

to

male-female

miscommunica-

ion.

In

J. A.

Gumperz

(Ed.), Language

and social

identiy

(pp.

195-216).

New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Maccoby,

E.

E.

(1988).

Gender

as

a

social

category.

DevelopmentalPycholog,

24,

755-765.

Maccoby,

E.

E.

(1990).

Gender

and

relationships:

A

developmental

account

American

Pychbologist,

45,

513-520

Matthys,

W.,

Cohen-Kettenis,

P.,

Berkhout,

J.

(1993).

Boys'

and

girls'

perceptions

of

peers

in middle

childhood:

Differences

and

similarities.

TheJournal

of GeneticPry-

chology,

155,

15-24.

McDavid,

J.

W. (1959).

Personality

and

situaional

determinants

of

conformity.

Jouirnal

of

AbnonmalrPychology,

67, 286-289.

Miller,

W.

B. (1958).

Lower

class

culture

as

generating

milieu

of gang

delinquency.

Journa/

of

SocialIssues,

14,

5-19.

Millstein,

S. G.,

Petersen,

A. C.,

Nightingale,

E. 0.

(Eds.).

(1993).

Promoting he

health

of

adolescents:

New

directionsfor

he

tventyfirst

centu_y.

New

York.

Oxford

University

Press.

Morgan,

M.,

Grube,J.

W.

(1991).

Closeness

and

peer

group

influence.

BritishJournalof

SocialPsychology,

30,

159-169.

Mounts,

N. S.,

Steinberg,

L.

(1995).

An

ecological

analysis

of peer

influence

on

adoles-

cent

grade

point

average

and

drug

use.

DevelopmentalPRychology,

31,

915-922.

Newcomb,

A. F.,

Bukowski,

W.

M.,

Hartup,

W. W.

(1996).

The

coVnpany

they

kee:

Friendshb

in

childhood

and

adolescence.

New York:

Cambridge

University

Press.

Newcomb,A.

F,

Bagwell,

C.

L.

(1995).

Children's friendship

relaions: A

Meta-Analyic

Review.

P.yhbologicalBulletin,

117,

306-347.

O Connor,

R.

(1969).

Modification

of

social

withdrawal

through

symbolic

modeling.

Jour-

nal

ofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,

2

15-22.

Parker,J.

G.,

Asher,

S.

R

(1987).

Peer

relationships

and

later

personal

adjustment

Are

low-accepted

children

at

risk?

PsybhologicalBulletin,

102,

357-389.

Ray,

G.

E., Graham,

J. A.,

Cohen,

R (2001).

The

importance

of

relationship

informa-

tion

for

children's

evaluations

of

peers

and

social

situations.

In F.

Columbus

(Vol.

Ed.),

Advances

inpsychology

researrh:

Vol.

5.

(pp.

209-230).

Huntington,

NY:

Nova

Sdence Publishers.

Ray,

G.

E.,

Cohen,

R

(1992,

April).

Children s

e4pectations

and

awareness

of

theirfriendship

networks.

Paper

presented

at the

biennial

meeing

of the

Conference

on Human

Page

254


21/22

CHILD STUDYJOURNAL/IVol

me

33/No. 4/2003

Savin-Williams,

R. C., Berndt,

T.J. (1990).

Friendships

and peer relations

during adoles-

cence.

In

S.S. Feldman G.

Elliot (Eds.),

At

the

threshold:

The developing adolescent

(pp.

277-307). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard

University

Press.

Sherif,

M.,

Sherif,

C.

(1964).

Reference

groups:

Exploration

into

confonrni y

and

deviance

of

adoles-

cents.

NY: Harper

Row.

Steinberg,

L.

(1986). Latchkey

children and

susceptibility

to peer pressure:

An ecological

analysis. DevelopmentalRPychology,

22,

433-439.

Steinberg,

L.,

Silverberg,

S.

B. (1986). The

vicissitudes of

autonomy

in early adolescence.

Child

Development,

57 841-851.

Sullivan,

H. S.

(1953). The interpersonal

heory ofpychiat?y.

New York: Norton.

Sutherland, B.,

Cressey,

D. (1970) Criminology. New

York Lippincott.

Youniss,

J.

(1980).

Parentsandpeers in

soial

development. A

Sullivan-Piagetperspecive.

Chicago:

University

of Chicago

Press.

Footnotes

We gratefully acknowledge

the assistance and

support of

the Principal,

and

the

teachers of Dannelly Elementary

School,

Montgomery,

Alabama.

Correspondence concerning

this article

should be addressed

to:

Glen

E. Ray

Page255


22/22

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Children’s Evaluations of Peer Influence: The Role of

Relationship Type and Social Situation

SOURCE: Child Study J 33 no4 2003

WN: 0300403908003

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in

violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:

http://www.socialwork.buffalo.edu

Copyright 1982-2004 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Enaluation of Peer Influence

Documents

Transcript of Enaluation of Peer Influence