Journal ~Adolescence t986, 9, 73~6

The importance of p ("c d") affiliation in adolescence

B. BRADFORD BROWN*t , SUE ANN E I C H E R t AND SANDRA P E T R I E t

Many ~ a r c h e ~ have speculated about the ~oups play in

they cited or o p p ~ crowd affiliation. The impo~ance of crowd affiliation across age. Younger adole~2ents genemlly favored membe~hip, he erowd~ emotional or in entaI .~ friendships M interaction. Older r~pond e x p r ~ e d on with the conformity demands of crowds and felt their established d the need for

ties. The impo~ance w ~ not related to the dents' sense of identity but did v a ~ s i~ i f i with their

v.4llingn~ t o conform to pce~ and the centrality of their position in peer y-r~ of crowd to which F ind in~ emphasized peer s can ~rw :tio~s, who~ ~lience

shifts with age.

INTRODUCTION

During adol nee, peer inte ons expand beyond dyadic and small- group relationships, which c o r n p ~ e the locus of peer relations in earlier and later st of life, to include school- or nei o d-b collectives commonly refe~ed to ~s groups or s" (Hartup, I983; Brov~n & Lohr, in p . T h e prominence of s in a d ~ c e n c e has prompted the to ascribe nume functions to them: socialization into hetero- sexual behavior (Dunphy, I972 ), facilitation of identity (E on, x968), o ization of status strajctures (J. S. Coleman, i96I ) , and so on. Yet., few studies have examined how well teen o ~ pe tions of peer ps sup~o~ theorists' suppositions about the function e s serve in adol~cents ' personal or social development. The ~ o s t ud i~ reported in

t Reprint r e q u ~ to B. Bradfo~ Bro~aa, Depa~ment of Edu~tional Psychol~, to25 W. John~n St, M a ~ n , WI 5 3 ~ , U,S.A.

t Universi~ of Wisco~n.Mad~n.

ox4~97I~o~oo73 ÷ ~ $03,00/0 ~ , ~ ~ ~ n for the Ps~-~hi~t~c $~Jdy of Ado

74 B.B. BROWN

this paper a~essed how welt variables derived from different theoretical per~spectives accounted for variations in the impor~nce adolescents attach to peer p affiliation and their justifications for belon~ng or not belonging to a crowd.

In the most systematic study to date of adolescents' perceptions of peer ~ o u p affiliation, J. C. Coleman (:974) examined r~ponses to two projective measure~an incomplete sentence ("if someone is not pa~ of the g r o u p . . ") and a T A T story showing one individual separated from a group of peers---among I : - to :7-year-old Briti~-x teenagers with abo e average. ~ intelligence. Responses were ~ d e d as supporting group membership, deriding rnembemhip, neut aI or ambivalent. Analyses indicated that although a majority of sub]ec~ in each age group favored group membership, the propo~ion of responses supporting membership traced an inverted u-shaped change with age. The age pattern was similar for both genders, but clos~r scrutiny of r~ponses showed that a higher proportion of males than females appeared to identify with~the group (rather than the redly dual). Becau~ the age pattern (and minima| gender differences) corresponded to research findings on developmental changes in peer confo~i ty (e.g. Costanzo and Shaw, :966), J. C. Coleman concluded that peer ~ o u p affiliation may be primarily ~ manifestation of peer c o n f o ~ i ~ dispositions

e among t enagers. Belon~ng to a crowd is a means of conforming to peers, and as peer conformity inclinations shift across adolescence so does one's aUe#ance to the crowd.

The developmental pattern J. C, Coleman noted, however, also is consistem with Dunphy's (x972) contention that peer ~ o u p s serve primaMly to socialize adolescents into appropriate heterosexual interests and behavior. Based on observations and interviews with groups of Australian teenagers, Dunphy speculated that crowds evolve through several stages across adol~cence. The isolated, mono~xual cl iqu~ that dominate early adoles- c ~ c e W e way to fully developed crowds (a f~ion of several male and female cliques), Which disime~ate in later adolescence into relatively independent, heterosexu~ cliqu~. Dunphy observed that the crowd's p f ima~ function was to o ize ~ciaI activities; more "mature" tee ~ helped their fellow crowd members l ea~ how to interact with the op~s i t e sex. These o'bservafions su t that teenagers should attach more i m p o l i t e to crowd ~filiadon in middle adolescence than early or later adolescence, and should po the crowd primarily as a source of social (or more sp~ifically, hetero~ ) activities.

Dunphy (x97z) acknowledged other evidence, however, that the amount of time teenagers spend -~5th a peer ~ o u p does not follow an inverted u-shaped age trend, but declines steadily acro~ adoI~cence (Willmott, :966), This developmental p~.tern seems to suppo~ Newman and New-

PEER GROUP AFFILIATION 75

man's (i976) postulates about the role of peer groups in identity formation. Based on Efikson's (x968) theory of identity developmem, Newman and Newman argued that the m~or t ~ k of early adolescence is to affiliate a peer group ~ a t can accept one's budding sense of idendty and provide supportive social relationships to o ~ e teen s withdrawal from emotional dependence on parents. As a more autonomous ~nse of identity eme in later adolescence, the need for strong peer group identifi~tion dimini . Thus , one would expect the impo~ance of peer p affiliation to decline across adolescence, and reasons for or against crowd ~filiation to focus on friendship, social ~ , and one's s e n ~ of identity.

The functions ascribed to peer ps by J. S. Coleman (x96x), by contrast, su t that the importance attached to crowd affiliation may depend less upon age than the type of group to which a teenager "~ lon~. Coleman focused attention on the peer group's role in determining the basis of p~pulafity and social status. In the ten Midwestern high schools in his ~mple most teenagers aspired to membership in their school's "leading crowd", ing c members e~oyed ter popularity and higher self-esteem ~ a n non-members. More recent evidence has reconfirmed the a~sociation be n selV m and the social status of one's c (Brown and Lohr, in press). B on these f ind in~ one might find that the impo~ance of crowd affiliation will vary directly with the position of one's peer p in the social status hierarchy. F u r t h e ~ o r e , reasons for belonging (or not b d ng) to a crowd may focus on the crowd's influence on pe~onal status or reputation among pee~.

In sum, previous rch and theory offer several pe~pectives on dae functions peer ps s e r e in adole~zent development (see Table i ) : Some portray crowds as products of peer c o n f o ~ i t y inclinations; o the~ ~ r d them as sources of ~ciaI activities, or means of socializing adolescents into adult social and hetero~xual behaviour, or sources of social and emotional suppo~, or vehicles to social status. These differing pe tives t

tations about the importance teenage~ attac~a to affi l iation~ whether it will wax and wane across ado! , steadily decline, or vaD, more as a function of group s~ tus than age. Proper assessment of these perspectives requires info ion ~ teenagers" perceptions of peer p affiliation as well as ev ce of their own group affiliation and sense of

To provide such an a ment two studies were unde~aken. The f i~t examined a ~ c i a t i o n s be n the i m ~ r t a n c e of c affiliation and ego-identity development; the second compared a merits of. affiliation among m e m b e ~ of d ~ e r groups. Both studies the r e a so~ teen cited for be lon~ng or not bel ng to a group and age d in the impo ce they at d to p m e m b e ~ i p .

B. B. BROWN

STUDY x

Method

The 373 respondents attended the junior high school (75 ° students in grades 7-~) or senior high s c h ~ l (9oo students in grades i ~ x 2 ) of a relatively homogeneous (98 ~ r cent Caucasian), residenti~ly stable, working- to middl~class Midwestern community of x3 ,~o people. The ~mple was relatively evenly dist~buted by grade and gender (n of males in g rad~ 7- I2 : 33, 3I ~7, 27,34, 35, n of fern les. 32, 32, 32, 3 z, 36, 32). The mean age was I4"9 yea~ for b o ~ gender .

The sample c o m p f i ~ three to four randomly selected classrooms per grade. To increase represen~tiveness in the high school po t ion of the sample, e l a~ r~ rns were selected within a subject area ~ken by most students in that grade. Of the studen~ in the sel~ted classrooms who were present on the day of testing, all but 2 per cent completed a usable

Procedure and m

All paRicipan~ completed a self- t questionnaire. To encourage honest es the questionnaire was administered by a member of the research staff and confidemiality of responses was s d. In addition to d hie in ation (age, gender, etc.), the qu~tionnaire included seve~l measur~ used in the present study~s analyses.

nce of tt'on..At two points in the questionnMre r~pondems were asked to indicate, on a four-point Like~ ~ale (from ~not important" to "ve~ iml>o~ant"), how important it was to them personally to "belong to one of the e s at schoM". The question was repeated to enhance reliability of the ndent's score, nses to the two questions were fairly stro lated (r = o~75). * The c importance , representing the .sum of ons~ m the two questions, ra from o (unimpo~ant) to 6 (ver 3" impo~am).

# t~st crowd ion. ndent~s Mso were asked to explain why belonging to a crowd was or was not im nt to them. Contem

ses of open-e responses to this question among a pilot sample of x 2o adolescents (in Cne ~m~e schools) indicated that m could be coded into seven categories: identi~, reputation, ~ n f o ~ i t y , instrumental or emotional

o In m ~ ~ , when a ~ r e is b ~ on muldple ques t i o~ ~ e q are placed c l ~ e togeK~er L', h e qu . In th~ the two q u ~ i o n s were well ~eparated and ~ae items surrounding each r e p r i n t e d qmt¢ te content a r ~ ~ a i s rr~y e x ~ i n why the on ~ o

~ not .

PEER GROUP AFFILIATION 77

1. Summa~a of ~ on the iml~rtance of crowd lion

usions re: Im ee of d

Author(s) Sample Fhadings or ~neor7 Affilhtion (ICA)

J. S. Coleman U .S. high ~hoo l students (age ,4-~8), mixed SES

Crowd affiliation reflects

crowd" vasty with s t a t ~ I~ading members crowd set norms and have and hi~-ler s e l f - ~ t ~ m ity are

dee crowd

Dunphy in and out of school, age ~3-2z;

clubs

Peer group s t~e tu re ch from isolated

I CA higher in middle adolescence (age x~x9)

adol~¢ence Crowds o ze s ~ i ~ aetivit i~ and s~ial ize teens into h ~ al roles and

J. C. Coleman BriC~h youth in school, age ~ 1-~7 mixed SES n ~ about crowd

Mfiliation

ICA r~fleets peer disp

to identify w-ith the g o u p

N ~ d an

No em I data

task of eady ado autonomous sense of idemity achieved in late adolescence

ICA h ighe r in early ce (age x 3-x7),

,~ith co ation of ~ r . e of idendty

emotional su ~ build friendships, e n c o u ~

g

suppo~, friendship, source of activities, or miscellaneous r~ponses .* Table 2 summarizes each ca tego~ 's specific contents.

Resp~nse~ often i n c l u d ~ references to more than one (ategory, so that * I ntal and , which w~e co ini as separate f i~, w~e

very few s t u d ~ gav~ r e s ~ n ~ ~a t could ~ ¢~ed ~ ip~trumental support.

78 B.B. BROWN

T a b l e 2. Content coded into each c a t e ~ of reasons forlaga#~t cmzed tion : . . . . . . . . . rnJJ!l*T~

Catego~ Positive rea~ns Negative reasons

Identity Crovcd is source of self-concept; helps define one's inter~ts, abilities, personality

Reputation Membership builds one's Crowds have negative or repu~tion, image, status; undesirable image; membership i n c a s e s reco~i t ion or popularity damages reputation or lowers among peers; helps avoid negative ~pula r i ty among peers

V$ Crowd fosters desirable c o n f o ~ i t y or s imihri ty: "Nice to fit i-"n, "If e y e . o n e , d ~ s it, it's okay", "! want friends similar to

Crowd impedes individuality, autonomy, ~If-reliance; dislike ot being stereotyped; "I don't need a crowd to tell me who I am"

Crowd builds self-confidence, ~ l f ,

being liked, ".,,'anted or accepted; #yes somem~e to trust, turn to or depend on; ~ u r c e of feedback, advice or assistance; source of emotional security

Crowd threatens security, inhibits ~s i t ive self-feelings, betrays trusts, or endange~ emotional or physical welbbeing; crowd d ~ not supply emotional or

Chance to meet new people; Crowd r~tr icts relationships;

Ionelin~s; c r ~ ' d is where friends a t e

dislike of people who are in crowds (or how people act in crowds); prefer ~ i n g alone

Crowd is source of activiti¢~ or activity p a ~ n ~ s ; crowd broadens

do ng t h m ~ m a group

Crowd ~ a " ~ ~ ' r~ tnc t s cttv~tt~; don t need a crowd for activities or activity pawners

dents could receive a score in several c ries. For each category mentioned, nses were ~ored ~ positive (the reason cited favored crowd affiliation), tive (the n opposoJ crowd affiliation) or ambivalent (both advan and di~dvantages to c affiliation were p r e e n e d ) .

i Two raters appled this coding system to the sample's r~ponses. To rninimi~ co:ling bias~, raters were blinded to dems' dem hic bac und and remained u ~ w a r e of the p u ~ m or exp ions of the study. R d e t e ~ i n e d which c~tegofi~ were included in the respondent's

PEER GROUP AFFILIATION 79

answer, then assigned a score (positive, negative or ambivalent) to each eategou~, mentioned. Because negative r ns concerning identity nearly always contained implicit or explicit references to conformity, the "n ive identity" code was dropped and subsumed into the negative conformity c . Agreement among the two r on the ca ry and direction (positive, tire, ambivalent) of responses was 0"80, based on Flanders' (x967) modfication of Scott ' s-(I955) pi, which co~ects for chance association.

e r~'attbn to . To determine how pe tions of the importance of crowd affiliation related to self-perceived relation to peer groups, respondents asked to indicate which of six statements best described how they fit imo the school's p system. Respo were coil into three ca ries: crowd member (a leader or definite member of one c ), marginal member (one who h ~ f r i en~ from different crowds but doesn't fit into any single ~ o u p , or who is ~gmetimes accepted by a group and sometimes not), or a non-member (one -echo is a loner or who has a couple of friends but doesn't fit imo any crowd).

of identity. The abbreviated (3o-item) version of Rasmussen's (I964) Identity Scale (EIS) m red the s t ren~h of res ms' sense of identity (Eri , t968). In contrast to m o r e Iy used measures of EHkson's construct (e.g. Marcia, I966; Adams, Shea and Fitch, i979), which focus on the p of identity achievement, the EIS was more consonant with our interest in the degree to which respondents had achieved a positive sense of identity. The 3o-item version has been shown to be a valid and reliable indicator of identity achievemem among 7th to xzth g~aders (En t, 1~¢, Cullen and Lalle , x983). Scale items operationalize the eight -conflict" which Eri (I968) claimed were pa~ of the quest for identity. For example, an item measuring the trust ~ mistr-cmt pa~-conflict is "I lose interest in things if I have to wait too long toget them"; one concerning autonomy" vs shame and doubt is "As a rule, I don't t the decisions I make". Respondents indicated whether they or di ed with each item. Scale s c o ~ , indicating the number of items a in the "positive" (reward identity) direction, could o to 3o. Comparing the presenL~mple to Enright eI aL's (I983) a n a l y ~ , the EIS d ayed a very s imi l~ level of internal consistency (Cronbaeh's alpha was 0"75)but a higher correlation (r = 0-24) with social d~irability (using the i a d o w e - Crowne ~a lO .

Results

of don T o d e t e ~ i n e w h e t h e r or not the i ance ed to affiliation

differed ificantly'by age, gender, or ~lf-perceived relation to s, a 7

80 B . B . B R O W N

(age) X 2 (gender) x 3 ( ~ r c e i v e d relation to crowds) A N O V A was conducted cc~ndueted on the e importance score. Fi~Jre x dis the age pattern. T h e im nee of crowd affiliation a p p ~ r e d to diminish with age, except for a rise be n age 14 and 15, but age differ~:nc~ were not statistically significant, F (6, 332) = x" z x.

u 3 -

2 -

!

I | ~ ~5 {4 t5 16 t? t8-~9

1. Age differences in the impo~ance of crowd affiliations.Study L (Higher ~ o r ~ indi~te greater impo~ance; range of s c o ~ = ~ . For each age, mean g~re and ~undaries of u p ~ r and lower qua~ile are indicated.)

Scores did differ i f ican@ by gender, F (I , 332) = 8"I7, P <o .ox ; f e m a l ~ rega membersh ip as more than m a l ~ did (M = 3 " ~ vs 2-96, adj for e of age and p~eeived relation to c s). Di f fe rene~ by" se l f -~rce ived relation to c s also were s i~ i f iean t , F (2,332) = 52-o6, p < o - o o i . Dunn-Bonferroni post-hoe cont of adjusted mean sco r~ (~qth the s i~ i f icance level of each comparison set at o 'ox6) indicated that s tud who saw elves ~ m e m b e ~ of a placed more impo on group m e m b e r s h i p (M = 4- i5) tl~Lan self- ived

nM p members ( ~ = 2.75), t = 7"54, as well as t who felt they were not pa~ of a (AI = i . ~ ) , t = 9-24. T h e importance s~eore of ma 1 mere was s i~ i f i candy higher than non- bers's score, t = 3 . 2 3 .

PEER G R O U P A F F I L I A T I O N 8~

Reasons j'b inst ~ w d at on

Nearly all of the respondents (94 per cent) gave some explanation of their crowd impo~ance rating. Most students' explanations (74 per cent) involved

'V just one of the categories den ed to code their open-ended responses, although the average number of categories mentioned was significantly higher among females (?el = x'z6) than males (M = x.x I), F (i , 36x)= 8.02, p <o'ox and incre~ed si~ifieantly with age, F (6, 36I) = 6' I4,P <o.ooI (M = o'9z for iz-year-olds vs x'45 for IS-year,olds). A la~er propo~ion of respondents mentioned positive r~sons (favoring crowd alI1 latlon) than negative ones (opposing crowd aff i l i ta t ion)~3 vs 38 per cent.

The dmtnbut on of responses among the categories of reasons is summar in Table 3-* Because respons~ were open-ended (so that respondents did not rate each category-) we refrained from statistical comparisons of the simple distribution of responses. Among those who cited positive reasons, nearly half mentioned that crowds provided emotional or instrumental support. About one-fourth of this ~ o u p referred to the advantages of crowd ~ tltatlon in forming or maintaining friendships or

i " ga nmg access to social activities. Other ca t~o r i~ of positive reasons (especially identity or conformity) were rarely mentioned. The propo~ion of respondents naming ce~ain cate~ries varied somewhat by gender and age but not much by self-percdved relation to crowds.

O Negative reasons ( pposmg crowd affiliation) focused on i conform ty and friendship. Both categories drew more respons~ with advancing age. Older

O r~sponden~ often were critical of how a cr w d s demands for ~ n f o ~ i t y interfered with their self-expression or sense of autonomy. Th~j also felt comfo~able with their friendship network, so that the crowd's ability to foster friendship was no longer valued. As was t ~ e for positive reasons, referenc~ to reputation as a reason to oppose crowd membership diminSshed across age groups. Miscellaneous responses also decreased across age. Differences by self-perceived crowd affiliation were minimal.

A summa~ variable w ~ created to indicate whether respondents ~ v e no t " " " V " . . . . rea~ans o justify their aluatmn of crowd affiliation, gave exclusively th~s~tlve

" t ~ or negative reasons, or showed ambivalence by c l ing both ~vantages and drawbacks to ~ o u p membe~hip. Table 3 indicat~ the distribution of

* In this ~ble, ~ well ~ ~veral s tat i~i~l a n a l y ~ , ch rono l~ i~ l age w ~ ec .~l la~ into age ~ o u ~ a r l y (ag~ I t-x3), middle (I4-~6) and Mder a d o l ~ e n t s (x~x9)~--to allo~ er~mi~t lon of ~ n e ~ l a ~ t r e n ~ and p-.~nt of i n t ~ e t i o n s among ~ f i a b t ~ , which o ~ e ~ s e ~ u l d not have ~ e n ~leulated (be .~u~ of empty ~lls) . Also in this table, ~ wall ~ in the ~ n d i r l g table in Study 2 (Table 4), ~ ¢ h o ~ to figure the ~ c e n ~ g e of r ~ n ~ in ~ e h ~ t ~ o f r ~ n s b ~ d on ~ e n of r ~ n d e n t s ~viv~ ~ e type of r e ~ under eonside~fion ( ve and n ~ t i v e ,

ively), ~ t h ~ than b ~ d on the tot~ sample n. This ~ done in order to avoid ~nfounding two ~ r a t e qu~tioo.s: (~) ~ a t p ~ p ~ i o n of ~ n d e n t s ~ ¢ e farofing ~. o p ~ n g crowd ~fi lhtion?" and (a) t w ~ e the most ~ m m o n ius t i | i~ thp~ for and a~ ins t exowd affilhtion? ~

Tab

le 3

, Per

cen

t of r

espo

nden

ts c

iting

eac

h ca

tego

~ of

reas

on fo

rtag

ains

t cro

wd

tion,

by

gend

er, a

ge g

roup

, and

sel

f-pe

mei

ved

rela

tion

to c

roze

ds

Rel

atio

n to

cro

wds

G

ende

r A

gegr

oup

......

:~

...

......

......

......

......

......

.... ...

....

~ ..

....

. A

mhi

v.

t-~n

n.

Tot

al

Mal

e F

emal

e ~ t

-~3

~4-x

6 ~7

-~9

Mem

ber

a|en

t m

embe

r

Pos

ittv

e ~

aso

m

Mis

cell

aneo

us

(n)

6 6

6 o

7 9

6 6

o z 5

io

x 9

I8

I4

~4

~7

~3

t~

5

6 4

5 6

~ 4

4 ~

46

36

so

46

43

4-9

26

29

23

38

2o

26

a9

zz

22

2 3

31

17

15

aI

42

24

26

15

2 3

~ o

3 o

2 x

4 (2

36)

(zo8

) (z

28)

(6I)

(~

32)

(43)

(x

32)

(77)

(2

7)

Mis

cell

aneo

us

(n)

4 3

5 8

4 2

4 4

6 42

42

~

3 x

42

48

36

45

7 8

6 8

9 4

7 9

3 36

a6

44

31

3

z 46

36

34

43

7

8 6

o 8

xo

7 "9

3

Ix

x8

6 23

9

8 24

8

z 4

(~4 z

) (6

2)

(79)

(2

6)

(67)

(4

8)

(28)

(7

7)

(35)

O~

to ©

Z

Su

mm

a~ o

f re

ason

s N

one

give

n 4

8 o

Io

3 o

z 3

Io

All

~si

tiv

e 57

57

57

6z

6x

4 a

79

~

38

Am

biva

lem

7

3 Io

3

7 Io

4

t2

z A

ll n

egat

ive

32

3 x

33

25

29

48

x 4

43

50

(n)

(375

) (I

78)

(z97

) (9

5)

(z97

) (8

3)

(,6o

) (x

46)

(68)

"--

- ~

"~

::

~:

:~

--

-

~--

- ~

- "

:7-

:'-~

: ~¸

:~

-7

~

~ :

- ::

::

::::

::

7~

::

::

-m-:

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

~

7

: ~

: ~

-,

-:

:

~ -

-:

:

:

~:

~ ~

~ ~

--~

•

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

. ~

r~

~.

~ ~

..

..

* P

eree

mag

es a

re b

ared

on

# of

res

pond

ents

men

tion

ing

one

or m

ore

posi

tive

rea

sons

(hv

orin

g cr

owd

affi

liat

ion)

. P

eree

nta

ge~

are

bas

ed o

n n

of

resp

on

den

ts m

enti

on

ing

on

e o

r m

ore

neg

ativ

e re

a~

ns

(op

p~

ing

cro

wd

affi

liat

ion

).

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

f-

, ..

..

....

PEER G R O U P A F F I L I A T I O N 83

respondents on this variable. Overall, over half the sample just gave positive reasons and a third confined the yes to tire reasons; relatively few were ambivalent or supplied no n. To test the validity of the coding system (for classifying the reasons respondents cited ing crowd affiliation) the ation between this s u m m a ~ v-affable and the c importance score was examined, using Dunn-Bonferroni #anned compari- sons based on a 7 (age) ×2 (gende0 ×4 (summau¢ variaMe) ANOVA of the crowd importance score. As expected, the adj d mean c importance

"V score (adjusted for age and gender effects) for those -echo just gave post1 e reasons (?d = 4"23) was significantly higher ( nd the criterion level ofp <o-ox6) than the score for those who were ambivalent (?d = 3-03), t = 4-I3, or who just gave n ire reasons (.M = 1-56 ), t = I7"o7; ambivalent respondents, in turn, rated e affiliation ificanfly higher than those # r i n g just negative ns, t = 3"56. The mean crowd importance score for t h e e who I no reasons was z'zo.

T h e distribution of ndents on the summaut variable appeared to differ by age group and self-perceived relation to crowds. The number of students giving no r~sons or only positive ns declined across age groups, whereas the number #v ing negative reasons or ambivalent r~ponses increased. Year-by-year age differences were somewhat more curvilenear, ~pecially for the percen ~v ing just negative reasons (see re 2). Positive ments predominated among those who regarded themselves as crowd members, whereas self-~erceived m a ~ n a l membe~ were evenly divided among all po~sitive and all i re stat s. self-p ed non-members just listed n ire reasons. Interestingly, ambivalent responses were most common among marginal members and no reasons were W e n most often by non-member . Because of the small n in the "none" and "mmbivalent" groups, statistical analyses of these apparent differences were confined to those who gave all positive or all n ire . A 2 (re x z (gender) ×3 (age P) ×3 (perceived relation to c s) log-linear, multiple-contingency analysis ind~ated that the distribution of respondents trot all negative and all positive reasons did differ significandy by age

p, X ~ (2, n = 334) = I I ' ~ , p <o-oz, and by perceived ~lat ion to s, X ~ (2, n = 3 3 ~ = 50"62, p < o ' c ~ i , but not by er.*

of ego tity B~ed on N an and N e , ~ a n ~ (I976) postula te , the im ee

attached to affiliation was ted to v a ~ inveF~ly with the stre of adolescent's sense of identity. Linear trend anMyses indicated a sign~icant

o More the chi- ~ i n e d whether ~ not the including the × ao~ group or crowd int p~vidod a better*fit ~ o | ~ e dam t l - ~ h e model

o ~ y irwin of tP~.,e . For d ~ of this t , ~ G ( t ~ ) .

8+ B+ B. BROWN

I O

i i ~ l ~ a - - . . . . . l l

I

........................ .............. : [ ............... ! : = ~=::| .................... : : : : j ............................ t ~ II-I2 13 14 15 16 17 IB-B

A~

2. Age differences in per cent of respondents just Wing ~sitive ( t ) or just ne~tive (Q) reasons regaling crowd affiliatio~Study L (Remaining percentage at each age gave no reasons or ambivalent response).

in with age in u ~ n ' s E I S score, F (~,354) = I4"53, P <o-oo t , similm- to what ot have found ( et al. , I983).f e~ , the c impo~ance and E I S s c o ~ were not highly co ,e l a t ed with each (r = -o -o6 ) . When the c importance ~ o r e was ~ e d on ( coded), gender, the E IS score, and all inte on t e ~ s , the

iation een the E I S and c i score :,¢~ not significant, F (I ,352) = o '2o. Inte ons terms involving the EIS score also were

T h e insights generated by results of S x ~ we against the study's three major shortco : Only one sc d~ t~c t was examined,

h 1 d the general~ability of i n ~ . was no measure of peer major variable in some exp ions of the importance of

crowd affili (J. S. Coleman, I 9 6 t ; Newman and Ne:~man, I976). Also, rat of crowd affiliation dep upon self-perceptions instead of objective ju ( as peer r a t in~) . To address t h e e shortcomings a replic s tudy was ucted.

EIS m ~ scores and s~qdard d ons that E eS ~+ (z983) reposed for the ~ ~ d e levels ~ de 7 (M = z9+zS, s+D+ = +'27) a~d zxth ~ d e (M = 22+c~, s+D+ =

to the for ~ + (M ~ ~9+63, S,D. = 4+60) a~nd t I (M = 2z'c¢, s.D+ = 4 . ~ ) in the p ~ n t study.

PEER GROUP AFFILIATION

STUDY

D a ~ were Cbtained from 924 students in grades 7-x2 in two Mid rn communities. The communities selec~d ided a contrast in living and school env i ronment , but each was ntative of a substantial prop,anion of American ad nts. Approximately half of the ~mple (n = 223 males, 235 females) lived in a small city (95oo residents)~qqich, despite a he tero~neous m ~ of socioeconomic strata, maintained a rural, "small " atmosphere. T h e to'.-~a~ had one middle s c h ~ l d~s ~ ) and one high school ( ~ I 2 ) . T h e rest of the sample (n = 227 males, 239 females) lived in a

minantly worki lass section of a la urban area (2oo,c~o F ~ # e ) . Responden~ -were drawn one of the area's middle schools es ~ 8 ) and the high school (9-I2) into which it fed. T h e s e comp just over half the students in the "rural" ~hools and about 25% of the "urban" schools' studems. Ninety-eight per cent of the raral ondents and 93 per cent of the urban respondents were Caucasian. Of the zo7o students invited to participate, 86 per cent su ully completed the qu~t ion , 7 per cent refused or were denied permission by p s, 6 per cent not available on the day" of testing, and I per cent completed an unu~b le questionnaire.

Peer mere ip

All respondents had been identified previously by peers ~ members of a specific peer group, using a modification of the Social Type Rating (STR) procedure (Schwendinger and Schwendinger, I985). In this dure, stu re d by pee~ as c leade~ were aked to name the l's major c , then classify- classmat~ into these s. By summ ng across S T R r a t i n ~ in each ~ d e (in each school) the m~or peer groups and

rs of each group were identified.* In each school, four crowds were * In each ~ d e ~ ~ e pr- '~edu~ by approaching a student nominated by'administrato~ someone well i d ~ o u t the ~ h ~ l ' s p ~ r s .~ :~ r.:, b the t on the

ure, asking to pmie ipa te and~ i[ wiBing, to name someone in the ~-ne ~ a d e whom ~ u l d l~e to serve ~ a rating . This a ~ was bed, ~M ~ e d to

pa~icipate. S t u d e n ~ w ~ e interviewed in pa i~ to help r a t e~ f~ ! more corn e and enhance the reliability of r e sponse . In each in te~ iew m t ~ first were to ~ m e the major as'~a lal;ml you pu t on ~ p l e who do the same sort of things or act the same way, even if they don*t ~I ~ - n d a Iot of time er ~) ~ e y per in their . Then they ~ ~ t h a ¢ 1 ~ rc~er and to the crowd to whi~'l e~eh s t u d ~ t M their ~ d e . Finally, they listed the p*~rsor~ they ed ~ the most p r o ~ e n t me (in their grad 0 of each the)-, had mentigmed. ~ i s a list ( u p d a t ~ Mter ~ c h i n t ~ i e w ) for n4g

c ~ d ~ m e d b y ~ t e r s w ~ d into a ! of ~ o w d types (d m ~ us to su a ~ ~he for ~ s~Jdent in a and e the s~dent'.s crowd on. Sr~d~ts,#ere of a ~ if at least half the STR ratcrs them to that ~e and l~ t.han them in any r/r~er t-~, For further detai~ of the ure, ~ Clasen ~-~d Brown (in p r~s ) .

86 B .B . BROWN

selec~ed to comprise the sample. Re dents were chosen randomly from s tudents associated wid~ ~c~h e , after stratification b y grade and gender (z z males and z z es per d per grade per c ni ty) . T h r e e ps were common to all ipat ing schools: jock-populars, d - s, and loners. T h e r o u g h varied among schools: brairvs in two schools, n o ~ a l s in one, and "outsiders" (s tudents usually unknown by S T R raters and, thus, not associated with an>, specific c ) in the other school.*

res

nee ra a n d . As in S tudy I, at two points in the self-report quest ionnaire admin i~e red to part icipants , respondents ind the imp ce to t h e m personally of beI ng to one of the crowds at ~2hool. T h e ~ - type resp scale was expanded to 5 points (by adding "extremely impor to S tudy I ' s four onse cat es), so that the

impor tance score ( sum o f i tem o n ~ s ) could range o (unim ant) to 8 (extremely i m p o r t a n 0 . T h e i tems were somewhat more

y c~orrelated than in S t u d y i ( r = o.84), ondents also explained why belonging to a crowd was or was not impor tan t to them; the re s cited ~ e r e coded into the same ca ties used in S tudy x (see 2).

.Peer . Respondents also # y e n xo hypothetical situations, developed by Berndt ( t979) , in which "a c o u # e of your best friends" urged pa~icipaf ion in a certain activity (e.g., sports, watching a T V program, choice of at r i d ~ ) and the ondent was por t rayed as interested in doing someth ing else.~ Responses, coded on a 6-point L i k e ~ scale, indicated the of w i l | i ngne~ to conform to pee~ . T h e conformi ty scale score (mean of i tem could range from z - o o ( v e ~ unwilling to conform to peers) to @oo ( v e ~ receptive to peer influence). T h i s measure has shown consistent d pmental pat terns in several studies of peer conformity ~spositio_ns (Berndt , x979; Brown, C l ~ e n and Eicher, in pr~.s; Ste inberg and Silverbu~g, in p r e ~ ) . T h e scale's internal consistency in the present sampl ronbach 's alpha was o- s comparable to earlier studies.

* In cont~t to the in Study z to obtain a ondom sample of aU students, Study 2~,.ample ~.~ in t~d~ to ~ ~ ~tive of the ~ r ~ou~ that studen~ pe in their .

Th~ would c~mp the com~bili ty of rezults in the two studies if Study 2"s R's were not. ~llectively, fairly ive of their ~h~l 's study body. For example, unlike all in ~e

e, ~%~o~ the student., not c h i n we~ not ~ of any crowd. Yet. it is difficult to say ~ r ~ing in a crowd would or the im~r'~nce a student attached to ~ w d

MfiHation. Furthermore, unpubllsh~ of ~C data ~ from the en:Me student body ~ow nO dif t h ~ who were pm M ~'s e and th~ '~ho

t R e iter-~ used w ~ ~he "noJ~" i te~ from BerndCs 3~item , that is, tho~., tl'~t dealt - ~ d fions h ~ne~pee r ng s~tuatiom (vs anti or huma

PEER G R O U P A F F I L I A T I O N 87

n ' o. was comparable to ~ r l i ~ present s a m p l ~ C r o bach s alpha was s tudio .

Procedure

A self-report q onnaire was - a d m i ~ t e r e d to resp ts in an unused school t i n . r o o m by a er of the research staff. T h e inv on to pa~icipate as well as instructions for filling out the questionnaire were ph so that r~ponde~ts remained unaware that they had been selected b e th_ey were nominated by peers as membe~ of a sp~if ic peer p. The qu nnzire was administered two months after the STR interviews, using different members, so that ~spondents would not late the two phases of the study.

Resu~ ,~.npo~ance oj d tion

A 7 (age) ×a (gender) × z (community) ×4 (crowd membership)* ANOVA indicated that the importance attached to crowd affiliation differed s~gnifieantly by age, F (6, 875 ) = I5-4o, p <o 'ooz. Subsequent trend ana!ys~ on the adjusted mean scores displayed a sigmf cant linear decline with age in the crowd impoaance rating, F (I , 9x7) = 56"I x, p <o-oox (see Figure 3). Gender differences were not s i~if icant , but crowd affiliation was more important to urban (M = 4"49) than rural responden~ (M = 4"~ ) , F (I, 875) = x3"88, p <o-ooi . Scores also differed significantly by crowd membership, F (3, 875) = I I '5o, p <o 'oo i . Post-hoe Dunn-Bonferroni comparisons (setting the si~ific~nce level per comparison at o.oI6) showed

"" I - 8 that loners valued crowd affiliation s i~ff icant y le~s (M = 3 8) than "2 druggie-toughs (M = 4 7 ), t = 3.98; jock-populars ~ " - 4.5z), t = 3 x, or " o

jock-populars and d e-toughs did not differ si~ificantly, t = 0-99.

flo i m t crowd tion

Compared to Study I, more ndents (x 3 per cent) ecially males ...... provided no reasons to explain their assessment of cro-~zl affiliation. Yet, as in Study x, b a ~ d on a 7 ) ×2 der) :<z (community) ANOVA of the number of nes of ns W e n , the nu mentioned was higher females (M = I"o4) than males (.~d = o'9o), F (x, 896) = zo-99, p < o ' ~ I , and in ~ t h age, F (6, 896) = 5"28,p <o-oox. The

t The four c~owd m e m ~ ~ ~ in ~ is xve~ jock toughs, l o n ~ , a~d "others" ruing the ~o-~d ~ that di among . ~ Lr, d planned of m e m ~ effects ~ to the ~ e e eroded ~ to aR partic/~ting

88 B.B..BROWN

~ r cent who mentioned pomtive refocus (58 per cent) and negative reasons (30 per ~ n t ) both were sore than in Study x. Posidve reasons

n focused on friendship, suppo~ and activity, b m unlike Study t , o p p o ~ u n i t i ~ to build or maintain friendships (rather than suppo~) was the most commonly cited inducemem to crowd affiliation (see Table 4). Across age groups, references to ffiend~fip (as well as ~ r s o n a l reputation) declined and positive ns sing on a crowd's ability to provide suppo~ more inem. Neither er nor membership seemed to the

of ~ s i t i v e s .

6

5

4

5

2

li~I2 13 14 15 t6 17 18~ A~

Fig,~e 3. ~A~e diffe~nces in the im~rtance of crowd ~filiatio~Study 2. (Higher ~ores indicate greater importance; of ~ o r ~ = c--8. For each age, mean ~ore ~rtd ~ u n ~ f i ~ of upper and low~ quartile are indicated.)

Among who cited reasons ing c ~ w d affil on, as in Study x, a.nmt emphasized the d's di ting dem for conformity

and undesi~-ble (or unneeded influences) on nships with friends, a~y for m~les and den~, r, a large

of the negative re cited too e or i to be coded into one ~ the five sub e c a t . o r i g . T mi~ellaneous

s ~ , as well ~ to affiliation's n ire on repu n, ~miMshed age ps, whereas rr~ for peer ~ o u p demands for ~ ty in ed~ As in Study I, :females m a l ~

Tab

le 4

. P

er c

ent

of

nts

citi

ng e

ach

cate

gory

of r

easo

n fo

r]ag

ains

t c~

d,

affiliat

wn,"

" by

gen

der,

age

gro

~9,

and

peer

-rat

ed

rela

ti~,,

to

Rel

atio

n to

cro

wds

G

ende

r A

gegr

oup

......

......

. ..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

..

~-

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

....

....

....

....

...

--

~

Io~k

. T

otal

M

ale

Fem

Me

+x-x

3 +

4-t6

+

~+

9 po

pula

r .

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

r~

*-

--

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

Posi

tive

reas

ons*

"V*

Act

+ tt

y e

Mts

c li

anso

us

(n)

Dru

g-

toug

h L

oner

z 2

2 i

o 9

3 z

: ++

:4

9

+5

+2

4 14

9

xt

3 4

3 o

4 5

4 I

5 30

26

3a

z5

~

4o

3z

28

z6

35

33

37

4 °

35

3z

36

32

34

23

z+

z5

I9

z5

~ 2I

z 7

24

8

9 7

8 9

5 3

Ig

Io

(53S

) (2

45)

(2~)

('3

~)

(289

) (+

+4)

08,)

(~

+)

~s)

Mis

eei|a

neou

s " i

n)

Su

mm

a~ o

f re

ason

s N

oneg

iven

A

ll p

osit

ive

Am

biv

a|~

t A

I! n

egat

ive

(n)

7 7

7 +7

8

2 3

z +I

36

35

36

:x

34

46

4:

3z

36

5

7 3

8 z

8 6

3 3

3z

~ ~

3 r

37

26

~ 34

20

5

4 6

3 3

8 o

Io

9 x9

3 °

xo

36

t8

i 5

8

z6

~6

(279

) (t2

8)

(zsx

) (3

6)

(+37

) (+

06)

(63)

(6

s)

(66)

+3

t7

9 zo

+z

9

It

x4

z8

56

54

59

63

59

45

65

55

48

2 +

2 i

+ 4

g o

+ x

9

28

30

x 7

28

~ zz

3I

32

> 0 Z

* P

erce

ntag

es a

re b

ared

on

n of

res

pond

ents

men

tion

ing

one

or m

ore

pro+

tire

rea

sons

(hv

onng

' ~o

wd

aff

ilia

tion

).

t P

erce

ntag

es a

re b

a~d

on

n of

res

pond

ents

men

tion

ing

one

or m

ore

nega

tive

rei

ns

(opp

osin

g cr

owd

affi

liat

ion)

.

9o B, B. BROWN

mentioned negative reasons refe~ing to friendship; males more often cited "mi~etlaneous" re~sons. The t y p ~ of ne~t ive reasons cited also differed somewhat by crowd membership.

Table 4 also displays the distribution of respondems on the variable sum ing reasons ~ven for or against crowd affiliation. Dunn-Bonferroni planned comparisons, based on a 7 (age) ×2 (gender) ×2 (community) ×4 ( summa~ variable) ANOVA of the crowd impo~ance ~ore, ind ic ted that, as in Study z, respondenr~s who only gave ~s i t ive reasons for crowd affiliation rated such affiliation si~ificantly more impo~ant (:d = 5"29, adjusted for age, gender and community effects) than those who gave ambivalent (~d = 3"48) t = 4"5 z, or exclusive y negative reasons (2~f = 2-22), t = 26-59. Ambiva l~ t espondents rating significantly surpassed those who just gave h e . t i r e reasons, t = 3" xo. The mean score for those who listed no reasons was 4"26-

A 3 (age grouP ) ×a (~nder) x2 (community) x 4 (crowd membe~hip) ×3 (summary variable) log-linear analysis indicated that the sample's distribution on the summary variable was s l~ f f canfly contingent upon age ~oup , X* (4, n = 909) = 56"69,p < o ' ~ x , gender, X ~ (2) = x i-~9, p <o-ox, community, X 2 (a) = 13-z4, p <o-ox, as well as crowd membe~hip, X 2 (6) = x8"I9, P <o-oI .* H ~ h e r order mteractz" "ons were not si~ificant. Year-by- y e ~ age differenc~ ~splayed the same pattern as J. C. Coleman (x974) and Kroger (i985) found using projective me~ures of attitudes toward ~ o u p affiliation: The propo~ion giving all positive reasons increased from age z to x 3, then steadily declined; the proportion citing only n~at ive reasons did just the reverse (see Fig-are 4). Differences by gender and peer ~ o u p membe~hip are displayed in Table 4. More tomes than femMes and more

" e jock-populars than members of other crowds gave exelusiv ly positive r ~ m n s for crowd affiliation. Also, more urban than ~aral students (62 vs 53 per cent) confined their explanations to positive re~sons.

Peer To examine the strength of a~.ociation between the impo~anee of crowd

ion and peer rmity inclinations, the was ed on age, , community (all dummy-coded) and the co i~-

~ l e score. Entering the con ty score ~ te r all other main effects eantly im the on equation, F (x, 882) = &~'85~ P

< o ' ~ z , and i the variance ha the crowd imp ce score accounted for by 5 per cent. Age remained f i~nt ly a t ~ with the c importance , even ~ e r controlling for con on (as

* R ~ . . o n d ~ t s classified ~ a m b i v ~ t on the s u m m a ~ variable were exc|udexl f ~ m G - ~ a ~ of ~ r sm~l number. T h ~ left t ' ~ ~ t ~ for the su vafia'ole; ~ l , all , and no ~ve~.

60

5O

e~

4 0

}

PEER GROUP AFFILIATION

IO

- - " ~ R •

.... .......... ! . . . . . ~ .......... t .................. ~ .................... t ................ 11-12 |3 14 15 16 17 18-19

A ~

9 1

F i g u ~ 4. Age differences in per cent of r~pondents W i n g just positive (It) or just n~a t ive (Q) re~ons r ~ r d i n g crowd affiliat]or.~Study 2. (Remaining percentage at each ~ e w e no r~sons or ambivalent ns~s).

well as gender and the age × gender interaction), F (6, 882) = 6-59, p <o-c,oi. Interaction effects invoh, ing peer conformity all were non-

ar,.¢ of studies'fin minor exc , Study z corrobo Study x's major findings.

The i ance axtached to crowd affiliation rally declk, aed across age ( ificantly so in S z). In b o ~ s tud io , the proportion of students who gave exclusivdy ~s i t i ve re for crowd affiliation diminished with age and, by age x8, became lower than the percemage who just gave negative

ns ( affiliation). Age diffe dearer and more co wida p s rch in Study 2. In Study x, females crowd affiliation more highly than re.ales, but r di were not signi in S 2. C i m ~ varied ived relation to (Study x) and with the type of H e r group to whLG'f one belonged (Study z): S tuden~ who saw th ~ as crowd e ~ felt o be lon#ng was more than did sel ived m al members, whose scores (in turn) were higher than those of stir-perceived non-

9 2 B. B, B R O W N

m e m b e r . Similarly, loners did not value crowd affihat on as much as membe~ of more cohesive peer ~ o u p s (jocks, populars, d r u p e s , toughs).

In both studies, positive reasons outnumbered negative reasons nearly two ~t" to one. Pos~ tve reasons focused on the enhancement of social support

i " "v" "e (esp~ially in Study i), fr endshlps and social actl itl s that came from " d belonging to a ~ o u p . Negative reasons emphaslze the crowd's undesir=able

" h * demands for c o n f o ~ i t y and unnecessary sustenance of frlends xps. Refer- W ' ences to the c r o d s impact on personal reputation diminished with age;

" i " e references to ~dent ty mcr ased but remained infrequent. With advancing age, conce~s about e o n f b ~ i t y became a more prominent reason for opposing affiliation. Negative reasons classified as miscellaneous were more common among younger than older respondents. Differences by self. perceived or peer-rated crowd membe~hip in reasons cited for or against crowd affiliation were relatively modest. Gender differences in the kinds o~f reasons W e n were more obvious in Study I, although in both samples females were more likely than males to refer to friendships ~ d le~ likely to ~ v e " i ell " m ~ aneous statements as reasons for opposing crowd affiliation

The impo~ance attached to crowd affiliation was not significantly " ~ i "fi elated with the s t ren~h of one's ~nse of zdent ty, but varied dl ectly,mth

w i U i n ~ e ~ to conform to peer pressure. In Study 2, crowd membe~hip was valued more by urban than ~aral r~pondents. Community of residence did ~ot mediate associations between crowd importance ra t in~ (or rea~ns) and age, gender, or peer-rated crowd membe~hip.

DISCUSSION

Dunp~y's (i972) observ_-ations of adolescent peer interactions led him to conclude that peer groups coal~ce from early to middle adgl ce and serve primarily to nize here ual activities a ~ socialize teenage~ into here 1 roles. Many of our respondents mentioned social activities as a benefit of crowd affiliation, but only 13 (in both ~mpl~s c ined) gave re~ons ~for or against group m e m b e ~ l i p which ~-fe to osite-sex relatio.:ships. Fu~hermore, s were regarded as most important by

adol s, whom Dunphy port d as preoccupied with monosexual cliques ~ the r than larger collectives of pee~. These discrepancies may reflect the differem bases on which crowds were defined in Dunphy's and our studies. Dunphy portrayed peer groups as collections of individuals

* e * in social mt =ctlon (thus using teenage social c l u ~ as the b~ i s for identifying crowds). W e asked adolescents themselv~ to define ~ e groups and found that their conceptions focused on reputation as mu~h if not more so than interaction; crowd n a m ~ were placed on individttals who were similar in a t t i tud~ or activiti~, even if they did not spend m¢ch time

PEER GROUP AFFILIATION 93

together. This broader definition m~y explain why the crowds we studied were much larger than t h e e Dunphy obse~ed, and ,~hy they were po~rayed in more complex terms. Alternatively, the discrepancies may reflect cultural or lfistorical effects: in the 2o years since Dunphy's landmark study of the formation of peer groups, crowds may have begun to coalesce and exert influence earlier in adolescence. Also, there may be cultural differenc~ between the U.S. and Australia (which Dunphy studied) or other nations in the morpholo~ of crowds.

In Study 2, age differences in the propo~ion of respondents mentioning exclusively positive or negative reasons for crowd affiliation replicated age patterns that J. C. Coleman (I974) reposed: After a small rise in early adolescence the percentage who just gave posit; steadily dimin- ished to the point where ........ unlike Colemmn's of the oldest respondents gave exclusively negative than only positive rea~ns. The brief rise during early adolescence in favorable at t i tud~ toward c s was not reflected in the crowd impo~ance score, which displayed an uninterrupted

" n ~ r " ~ e decline. This mt or disc epancy between measures, along with the fact that age remained significantly ass~iated with the crowd impo~anee score even after controlling for peer confo~i ty asposltton, indicated that developmental changes in the importance of crowd affiliation did not simply reflect developmental trends in peer conformity. Neve~heless, as Coleman su ted, cro,.vd affiliation and peer conformity did appear to be related developmental ie-su~: In Study z, w i l l i n ~ to conform tO pee~ w ~ si~ificantly associated with the value placed on crowd membership, and in ~ t h studies much of adolescents' disenchantment with peer ~oups stemmed from the emphasis on conformity within crowds.

There appeared to be developmental shifts in s tudent ' reasoning ~ o u t crowd affiliation. ,Younger students" satisfaction with the peer ~oup ' s ability

t to provide suppo~, foster friendships and facilitate social tn eractton contrasted ~fith older students' concerns about conformity and their confidence that friendships would thrive without peer ~ o u p affiliations.

n e n d ~ t p was a prominent catego~ for both positive and n~gative reasons. The focus on support and social relationships, as well as mounting concerns with age about the conformity demands of crowds, concurred with Newman and Newman's (I976) p ~ t u l a t ~ about the role of peer groups in adolescent

i development. As emot onal dependence upon parents is relinquished, they argue, the crowd becom;es a basis for devdoping suppo~ive relationshi~ that provide the resources necegsa~ to acquire a more autonomous sense of identity. As interest in a personal identity intensifi~ in middle and later adole~ence, peer groups should become l~s vital and, thus, less valued. In fact, older adolescents in our samples found that demands for confo~i ty among peer ~ o u p m e m ~ r s inte~ered with their ing sense of

B. B. BROWN

independence and individuality. Surprisingly, however, the value placed on peer groups was not significantly related to Rasmussen's (x964) measure of the strength of adolescents' sense of identity. Newman and Newman seem to s t that the critical factor diminishing one's preoccupation with peer group affiliation is the ing interest in consolidating an autonomous sense of identity. The EI S scale, which is biased toward psychologically or socially "he " identity consolidation, may not be sufficiently broad-minded to capture the connection between crowd affiliation and idemity development. Indeed, it may be more in ative to ine crowd affiliation in terms of factors that facilitate or inhibit identity formation (disengaging from parents, finding supportive friendships, achieving emotional autonomy, etc.) rather than relying on measures of identity achievement per se to examine the role of peer groups in identity development.

J. S. Coleman ( i96i ) emphasized the crowd's rote in conferring social status and allowing social elites to establish normative attitudes and behaviors for other teenagers to emulate. Few students, however, mentioned reputa- tion ~ a reason for or against affil~iation, and imerest in the group's

t on one's image or popularity dissipated across age groups. AI~ , despite the advantaged position that Coleman accorded to the leading crowd, elites in o u r ~ t u d y ~ o c k - p o p u l a r s ~ i d not value peer groups more than members of le~s elite groups such as d es or toughs. In fact, the impo~ance of crowd affiliation was related more clearly to the self-perceived centrality of one's position in peer groups: the more integrated into crowds students ived themselves to be, the more they valued c membe~hip. In both studies, adolescems at the per iphe~ of the peer group syst elf~perceiv'ed non-members and peer-~ted loners--saw relatively little value in belonging to a . ther this reflected a conscious choice to ~ehew group. affiliations or a nsive reaction to rejection by peers could not be d e t e ~ i n e d from our findings.

The f ind in~ did ~ previous reports (J. S. Coleman, I96I; J. C. Col , i974) that gender differences in the salience of peer groups are more quMi ¢ than quantitative. If, as some have su ted (Douvan and Adelson, i966,- Gilligan, x983), interpersonal relations are now more central to adolescent femal~ than males, one might have expected females to consider crowd affiliation more impo~ant than males and to focus more on positive than negative reasons t:or belonging to a crowd. Our dents did not ay such diffe . Indeed, the only ~ n d e r dif ces co em across the two studies were that, on average, females ed more elab

ations of their crowd impo ~t i~g and, among reasons for sing group m e m ~ h i p , fe s :*ere more likdy to refer to friendships

and males more likely to list idiosyncratic (miscellaneous) response. Thus, mM~ and les may be motivated or against crowd affiliation for

PEER GROUP AFFILIATION 95

different reasons, but still concur on the basic value of adole~ent peer ~oups.

As with gender, there were few community-based differences in the findings, except that Study 2's urban respondents rated crowd affilimion more important than rural respondents. The urban adolescents attended much la schools and were acquainted with ("knew by name") consider- ably r of their classmates than tnJral respondents (M= 7 °vs 87 per cent). It seems probable that the urban sample found peer groups more useful either in avoiding the threat of isolation and alienation or in facilitating interactions with classmates who, save for their earmarks of crowd affiliation, vcould be un n entities.

Overall, the findings were most consistent with Neveman and Newman's (i976) portrayal of peer groups as a "way station" in the development of autonomy and identity. Yet, other perspectives (Dunphy, I972; J. C. Coleman, i974) received partial support, leaving the impression that peer ~oups serce multiple functggns in the lives of.adole~ents. No single reason for or against crowd-affiliation was superordinate; several variables exceed independent influences on adol ts' evaluations of peer groups; and evaluations seemed to shift significantly with age. In other w~rds, our findings stressed that, rather than ~r¢ing as a constant in the lives of teenager, peer groups appear to be dynamic forc~ whose functions and influences shift across adolescence and va~ according to characteristics of adolescents" school or community and their Ie~-el of involvement in crowds. Appreciating the complexity of adolescents" perceptions of peer ~oups will help illuminate the role the), play in individual teenagers' lives.

The study was supported by grants to the first author from the Spencer Foundation, Chicago, IL. and the Royalty Fund, Cemer for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. The authors ~atefully acknow- ledge the assistance of i a ~ " Lane Lohr and Jennifer Meloy in collection and coding of data. Maribeth Gettinger offered helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. Special t han~ is extended to the admi ors, teachers, and studen~ of the participating is in Beaver Dam, Madi~n, and Platteville, WI.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. R., Shea, ]. and Fitch, S. A. (z979). Toward the development of an objective ~se~ment oI ego-identity status, al of Youth and A nce 8, 2 7.

Berndt, T. J. (I979). Developmental changes in confomity to ~ers and pm-ents. tal 15, 6o6--6z6.

Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R. and Either, S. A. (I#6). Percepfion~ of peer pr~ure, peer confo~ity dis~sifions and self-re h-ehavior among adolescent. tal , In Press.

96 B.B. BROWN

B , B. B. ~ d ~ h r , M. J. (z986). group affiliation and adol~cent ~lf- m: An in of ~o identity and sy ie i on theofi~. Journal

and /o~, In . Clasen, D. R. and B , B. B. (I986). The multidimensionality of peer re in

adol ee. of Youth and , In Pre~. Coleman, J. C. (t~74). t ~ss inAdo nee. ~ndon: & n Paul. Coleman, J. S. (x96t). The & . New York: Press. Cc~t~'az+o, P+ R. and Shaw, M+ E. (x9&5). rmity ~ a [unction of age + Child

nt 37, 96~75. Douvan, E, and Adelson, J, ( t9~). The Ado nt nce. New York: Wiley. Dunphy, D. C. (I972). Peer ~oup ~cialization. In lization in A ~ t , Hunt,

F, J. (Ed.). ~ n e y : & n. Enf i# , R.D., ey, D. K., Cullen, J. and L , M. ( t#3). A pspchometrie

inafion of us~n's ego-identity ~ale. In tional a Development 6, 8~x o3."

Efik~on, E, H. (I068). Identity, Youth and Cqsis. New York: Noaon. Fl~,aders, N. A. (I976). Eaimafircg reliability, lnin tionAn : rch

and tion, Amidon, E. J. and H , J. B. (Eds), R~ding, MA:

Gilli~n, C. (x983). In a t . bfdge, MA: Harvard Univ~ity , Go,man, L. A. (!97z). A g~erM I for theana dsu . Mof

77, xo35-Io86. Ha , W. W. (I983). Peer relations, In Ha of Psy Vol. 4:

lization and Pe~onah'ty t, E. M. H n (Ed.). New York:

Kroger, J. (x#5). Rdat ips in adolescence: A cross-national of New geMand and United States Tee . I 8, 47~36.

Martin, J. E. (t966). Development and validation of ego i ity status~ of and 3, 551-558.

, P. R. and an, B. M. (I976). Early ado nee and its conflict: Group Memity vs. alienation. A cence 1I, 261-274.

R~mus~n, J. (I964). Relationship of ~o idea lty to psyeho~eial eff~tiveness. t lS, 8zS 2S.

dinger, H., and di J . S . (I985). l aM New Yoga: Pra .

Scott, W. A. (x955)- Rellablttty of content anal~'st, The case of nomir~l scale c~ing~ .Public 1% 321-325.

Stein , L. and Silverburg, S. B. (I986). The vicissitud~ of emotional autonomy in ear~ adde~enee; nt, In P~>s.

Willmott, P. (x . t in East . London: Rou & Paul.