Lecture 6: Peer Relationships

Question 1

What is a peer? (5)

Answer 1

• Social equals of similar behavioural complexity
  
  • i.e. Understands social norms at same level as everyone else in age group
• Generally only refers to adolescents (10+) b/c younger kids still incapable of separating their identities from their parents
• Similar characteristics → decrease with age i.e. more friends with less similar characteristics, around high school
  
  • Age (usually), gender, SES, personality, attitudes, ethnicity

Question 2

How are peer relationships different from kids’ relationships with adults? (3)

Answer 2

• Briefer → change friendships very easily and quickly
  
  • Parents, teachers, coaches, etc. present in your life for longer periods and more permanently
• Equal status: horizontal interactions vs. vertical interactions with adults

Question 3

mixed age peers (6)

Answer 3

• Older and younger child have to adjust their behaviours/cognition to suit each other’s capacities for behaviour and social interaction and common interests
  
  • Older: compassion (perspective taking), assertiveness, leadership b/c younger child tends to look to older child
  • Younger: deference, seek assistance
• Mixed age peers are somewhat different from siblings
  
  • Siblings: fixed power structure; older child implied to be the “boss” in the relationship
  • Only children learn how to be a leader, seek assistance, and defer through interactions with peers

Question 4

Harris (1995) (3)

(hint: peer influence)

Answer 4

• Peer influence is powerful and enduring in developmental outcomes
• Peer influence > parental socialization once children get into school
• Can even change how the child acts entirely; specifically, for adolescents/teens

Question 5

Fuligni & Eccles (1993) (5)

(hint: parenting influence in school)

Answer 5

• Can’t get rid of parenting’s influence even after children go to school
• Greater perceptions of parental power assertion and restrictiveness → extreme peer orientation
  
  • Delinquent + more extreme in internalizing/externalizing problems
• Perception of reduced/similar decision making role → extreme peer orientation, peer (vs. adult) advice seeking
  
  • Adolescents who talk to their parents about problems and seek advice have better developmental outcomes

Question 6

Kretschmer et al. (2016) (7)

(hint: quality)

Answer 6

• Measured quality of peer interactions and parent factors
• Affection, behavioural confirmation (cooperative activities), and problem behaviour (delinquent activity, substance abuse, anti-social behaviour)
• High Quality (HQ) peer relationships (+)corr. w/ greater affection + behavioural confirmation by parents
• Low Quality Victimized (LQV) peer relationships (+)corr. w/ higher parental problem behaviour
• Lower affection + behavioural confirmation at home → increased risk of LQ + LQV peer relationships
• Low paternal affection → increased risk of deviant activity (only compared to HQ)
  
  • Contrary to expectations, since focus is on how moms influence this

Question 7

Does attachment style transfer from parents to peers? (4)

Answer 7

• Attachment, associated with parenting: security and protection
  
  • Alliance focussed on love, responsiveness, endurance
• Affiliation, associated with peer relations: exploratory system, stimulation
  
  • Alliance focussed on support in times of need, conditional

Question 8

Markiewicz et al. (2006) (5)

(hint: safe haven)

Answer 8

• Studied 12-28 y/os
• Best friends = safe haven but not a secure base
  
  • Start trusting friends as providers of stress relief, but we learn that parents are a secure base from a younger age
• Parents = secure base
• When romantic partners exist? The romantic partner served as a safe haven and secure base, more so than friends and parents
  
  • Dependency increased with age

Question 9

Rosenthal & Kobak (2010) (7)

(hint: rankings, safe haven)

Answer 9

• Studied high school and college students
• Ranking of friends, parents, teachers on whether Ps would prefer to go to these people for help assistance + distress relief
• If friends were placed as the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person they’d go to for help in an emergency → internalizing + externalizing problems
  
  • Differs from study saying that best friends can be safe havens
  • Previous study looked at high SES and well-adjusted children, weren’t looking at the positive/negative effects of serving as safe havens, just that children were willing to use friends as safe havens
• Also found that when they weren’t using fathers as support figures → higher levels of internalizing + externalizing problems
  
  • Pointing to importance of fathers

Question 10

patterns of peer interaction before school age (6)

Answer 10

• 0-6 mo: touch, look, smile (depending on temperament)
• 6-12 mo: social partner, influence peers but usually goes unnoticed
• 1-2 y/o: complexity in conversations/exchanges, complementary behaviours (turn-taking), imitation
• 2-3 y/o: share meaning (e.g. role playing), complementary roles (switching roles in playing)
• 4+ y/o: maximize excitement and enjoyment, even more shared meaning, sustained play, don’t want to switch roles all the time
• 5-7 y/o: prefer peer stimulus opposed to adults, same-gender preference

Question 11

before-school age play behaviour with peers (4)

Answer 11

• Onlooker: half of 2 y/os → watches, doesn’t engage
• Parallel: 2 y/os → plays separately but closely, imitation
• Associative: 3-4 y/os → no organized activity, interest in others but not activity (e.g. just want to run around a field, not play actual games)
• Cooperative: 3-4 y/os → more imagination/cognitive resources needed, role taking, pretend play, cooperative play, complementary roles

Question 12

patterns of peer interaction during school years (7)

Answer 12

• 6-7 y/o: gender preference; coordinated and successful play
  
  • But perhaps not as much any more in current times
• 7-9 y/o: expectations; seeks peer inclusion, avoid rejection
• 9-11 y/o: complex expectations; want acceptance by same gender peers
• 11-13 y/o: intimacy, marked by similarities (attitudes, expectations) + disclosure
• 13-17 y/o: understanding of the self; romantic relationships, trying to get the intimacy you see from friendships
• 17+ y/o: emotional support expected; intimacy and support from romantic relationships based on experiences in 13-17 y/o

Question 13

ways peers socialize (4)

Answer 13

• 1) Observation: imitation, social rules, copy peer models
  
  • Often imitate older peer models, models tend to be deviant/delinquent
• 2) Reinforce/Punish: praise vs. criticism, peer pressure
• 3) Social Comparison: self-evaluation and self-esteem

Question 14

peer status (5)

Answer 14

1. Popular
2. Average
3. Controversial
4. Neglected
5. Rejected

Question 15

peer status: popular (2)

Answer 15

• Popular-Prosocial: friendly, calm, resolves disputes, able to join several groups easily and smoothly
• Popular-Aggressive: attractive, “cool”, high social status, narcissistic/arrogant about ability to manipulate others, pose risk for younger children, more delinquent behaviours

Question 16

peer status: neglected (2)

Answer 16

• Socially reticent: watches, doesn’t engage/shy
• Unsociable/socially uninterested: prefers to be alone/their own company, don’t find value in social interactions

Question 17

peer status: rejected (4)

Answer 17

• Tends to be a very stable category
• Rejected kids show more deviant behaviours than even controversial kids
• Aggressive-rejected: low self-control, externalizing problems, disruptive
• Nonaggressive-rejected: withdrawn, shy, sensitive to idea of being rejected and thus don’t try to socialize

Question 18

What leads to peer acceptance? (4)

Answer 18

1. Temperament
2. Social cognitive skills (by way of parenting and past peer relationships)
3. Physical appearance
4. Blending in

Question 19

peer acceptance: temperament (5)

Answer 19

• Low effortful control (EC) + high surgency (S) → aggressive-rejected
• Low EC + low S → nonaggressive rejected
• Temperament X Environment
  
  • Low EC + parental conflict → rejected
  • Shy + negative parenting → neglected

Question 20

peer acceptance: physical appearance (2)

Answer 20

• Social expectancy theory (self-fulfilling prophecy): kids who are more attractive are assumed to be nicer → end up actually tending to be nicer
• Differential expectations set up an environment for the target to behave accordingly

Question 21

peer acceptance: blending in (5)

Answer 21

• Atypical behaviour → rejection
• Ethnicity → in-group bias
• Puberty makes it difficult to fit in
  
  • Girls: physical developments early = standing out → hanging out w/ older crowds
  • Boys: self-esteem problems if not developing same as other boys

Question 22

antecedents of peer rejection (7)

Answer 22

• Clarity of intention of perpetrator (e.g. did they intend to exclude me, or is it the situation?)
• Identity of rejecting child
• Personality, behaviour; often a cause of being rejected
  
  • Brood over things → non-aggressively rejected
  • Retaliating → aggressively rejected
• Social support; having at least one friend → feel less rejected + fewer negative repercussions, although still rejected
• Consistency of rejection (self-fulfilling prophecy with rejection → more rejection, harder to become accepted again)

Question 23

consequences of peer rejection (6)

Answer 23

• Loneliness (if kid has less than one friend)
• Difficulties in school (teacher rejection, lower grades)
• Behavioural and emotional problems (more criminality, depression, aggression)
• Reputational bias (and stability): tendency to interpret peer behaviour based on past encounters with that person
  
  • Even if kids who are accepted show negative behaviour, that one event tends to get discounted
  • On the reverse, if less prosocial kids try to behave in a prosocial way once, that event gets tossed aside

Question 24

Why are peer relationships so important? (7)

Answer 24

• Cognitive development
  
  • Piaget: peer discourse + conflict resolution → learn higher-order levels of thinking
  • Vygotsky: problem-solving with groups → group-level learning (e.g. scaffolding, everyone is in the same zone of proximal development)
• Emotional development
  
  • Self-concept, self-esteem, well-being (Sullivan, 1953), all helped by peer acceptance, since self-concepts are usually based off of how others see us
  • Overcome prior experience
    
    • Without peers, adolescents tend to be more distressed as individuals

Question 25

Harlow & Suomi (1971): What happens without peers? (4)

Answer 25

• Mother reared monkeys (didn’t have peers) vs. social isolation for 6 months
• Raised by mothers alone → shy, avoid those peers, aggressive, wouldn’t actively participate in play with peers
• Social isolation → psychopathological behaviours (rocking back and forth, self-clasping, withdrawal from novel toys
  
  • Placed with peers younger than them → slow rehabilitation (zone of proximal development, working with each other)

Question 26

Suomi (1999, 2000): What happens without mothers? (5)

Answer 26

• Peer Reared vs. Mother and Peer Reared groups
• Peer reared → hyperattachment to peers, unwilling to detach from one another in novel situations (mutual attachments)
  
  • No exploring or playing
  • Hyperarousal to novel items (negatively reacted as a group)
  • Outgroup aggression

Question 27

Chang et al. (2017) (2)

(hint: sleep problems)

Answer 27

• Consequences of rejection by peers; victimization by peers in school leads to more antisocial behaviour (externalizing problems)

Question 28

importance of peers in adolescent years (4)

Answer 28

• Intimacy, affection, reciprocation
• Conflict → compromise and negotiation
• Similarity = better quality friendships with lower conflict
  
  • But similarity matters less with increasing age

Question 29

“best” friends (4)

Answer 29

• More likely to occur around adolescent years; doesn’t really mean much before 11-12 y/o
• Usually quality friendships = better outcomes for the child
  
  • But depends on friend characteristics
  • If the friend is delinquent and warm + kind, more likely to follow

Question 30

group socialization theory (7)

Answer 30

• Increasing age → peer socialization determines personality (e.g. sibling differences)
  
  • Making choices to adopt/align to certain values
• Assimilation: adoption of group rules, standards, beliefs guiding cognition and behaviour
• Differentiation: group members becoming dissimilar, developing own identities
• Group level effects vs Individual level effects
  
  • With age, lower levels of peer assimilation with the group (higher levels of differentiation)
  • Actively search for cliques and friendships with similarly minded people (self-selection)

Question 31

friendships in old age (3)

Answer 31

• Number of friends consistent
• Amount of disclosure, sociability, loyalty in friendship > compatibility, frequency/length of acquaintance (Adams et al., 2000)
• Lower frequency of interaction → more satisfaction

Question 32

Smith Blau (1961) (5)

(hint: elders, peer rejection)

Answer 32

• Surveyed 65-85 y/os
• Older people feel something similar to peer rejection if they’re widowed or retired
• Majority → class/status
• Retirement affects men more than women - why?
  
  • In the 60s, more men were working, so it affects their sense of self

Question 33

Field (1999) (6)

(hint: elderly friendships)

Answer 33

• Study on 60-74: young-old; 75+ old-old
• Saw changes in kinds of friendships people had over time
• Geographic distance is high → less likely to be friends
• Habit-izing shared activities (e.g. coffee every Thursday at noon) is important
• Desire for close friendships (only men), especially old-old men and men who have been widowed
• Desire for new friendships (only men), related to previous point

Question 34

Jansen et al. (2011) [14]

(hint: bullying predictors)

Answer 34

• What are the characteristics of children + environment before they were involved in bullying?
• Impact of family characteristics (including parental mental health) + preschool emotional, behavioural, motor problems on → 1) being a bully, 2) victimization 3) bullying/victimization @ 11 + 13.5 yos
• Bullying + victimization assessed v/v peer nomination
• Preschool behaviour reported by parents retrospectively
• Family characteristics: SES + family breakup at T1
• Parental mental health: depression, anxiety, substance abuse, antisocial behaviour

Results:

• Early aggressiveness, good motor functioning, SES → bullying in early adolescence
• Early anxiety → decreased risk of being bully/victim @ 11
• Boys more likely than girls to be bullies + bully/victims
• Aggressive preschoolers → bully @ 11, bully/victim @ 10 + 13, victim @ 13
• Motor skills → bully @ 10; low motor skills → victim @ 10 + 13
• Parental mental health not associated w/ bullying
  
  • Contradicts previous evidence
  • Could be explained by measures of bullying not being affected by mental state