Friends/Peer Groups
Friends and peer groups are very influential for Americans. There is evidence that the most important factor in statistically predicting whether a teen will take up a particular deviant behavior (such as smoking or crime) is the presence or absence of peers who also engage in that behavior. Here are some important conclusions that sociologists have claimed about the influence of friends/peers:
- Peer groups tend to be influenced by homophily, or the tendency for people to be around others who are similar to themselves.
- Peer influence starts especially because of school and cohort groups, and becomes significant by adolescence, sometimes more intense and more influential than family.
- Adolescents spend more time with each other in age-related cohorts than with parents or anyone else. This leads to an adolescent subculture.
Strength of Peer Influence on Preadolescents
Patricia and Peter Adler are very well-published in the area of adolescent peer socialization. Their book called Peer Power is an extensive exploration into the world of adolescents and their effect on each other. From Google books,
Based on eight years of intensive insider participant observation in their own children's community, Peter and Patti Adler discuss the vital components of the lives of preadolescents, popularity, friendships, cliques, social status, social isolation, loyalty, bullying, boy-girl relationships, and afterschool activities. They describe how friendships shift and change, how people are drawn into groups and excluded from them, how clique leaders maintain their power and popularity, and how individuals' social experiences and feelings about themselves differ from the top of the pecking order to the bottom. In so doing, the Adlers focus their attention on the peer culture of the children themselves and the way this culture extracts and modifies elements from adult culture. Children's peer culture, as it is nourished in those spaces where grown-ups cannot penetrate, stands between individual children and the larger adult society. As such, it is a mediator and shaper, influencing the way children collectively interpret their surroundings and deal with the common problems they face.
Analyze the evidence below for the importance of peers as agents of socialization. Try to apply the research to your own friends/peers network. Is it similar for you or different and in what ways?
Friend Sources Throughout the Lifecourse of Males and Females
Where do Americans find their friends at different ages? How are males and females friend sources different? Sociologist Reuben Thomas provides some evidence on his homepage. Thomas explains his research:
The survey began with the instruction: “Think about the 2 friends you most often socialize with face-to-face. Do not include family members or boyfriends/girlfriends.” I chose the phrase “most often socialize with” to elicit the friendships most involved in the respondents’ non-work, recreational time. This did not ask the respondents’ to choose based on strength of bond or affection, but purely on frequency of shared social activities, in the present tense. Fischer’s (1982) comparison of ego network name generators found that joint social activities was the best predictor that the alter would be labeled a ‘friend,’ better than discussing personal matters, or any of the other several name generators he used. The specification “face-to-face” discouraged respondents from listing long-distance confidants or other people who were outside of their regular social activities. Though non-local ties can be very strong, and important in many ways, they cannot provide many types of support that local ties can (e.g. child-care), cannot participate in most physical social events (dinners, parties, etc.) and are thus much less likely to have ties to other members of the respondents’ local social networks (Martin and Yeung 2006), or introduce new alters. The focus on local friendship ties in this study is an effort to measure the characteristics of the cores of the non-kin informal social networks that respondents are embedded within
The survey asked respondents how they met each friend, and provided a text box to type in their answers in their own words. The majority of answers were very simple and to the point, such as “at church” or “work.” Some answers were too ambiguous or minimal to provide any clear information, such as “since childhood” or “at home,” which I coded as missing. I defined voluntary organizations loosely to include hobbies, sports and similar activities as well as more formal organizations. I use the label “college” to include all post-secondary education, including 15 when respondents used the word “school” to describe an educational setting in adulthood. I coded as “neighbor” friends who were introduced by a neighbor, but the great majority of this category are friends who are/were the respondents’ neighbors.
Examine his findings in this graphic:
1. Can you identify a difference between where males and females find their friends? At what age is this difference? Is this true for you - where are most of your own friends from?
Where do Americans find their friends at different ages? How are males and females friend sources different? Sociologist Reuben Thomas provides some evidence on his homepage. Thomas explains his research:
The survey began with the instruction: “Think about the 2 friends you most often socialize with face-to-face. Do not include family members or boyfriends/girlfriends.” I chose the phrase “most often socialize with” to elicit the friendships most involved in the respondents’ non-work, recreational time. This did not ask the respondents’ to choose based on strength of bond or affection, but purely on frequency of shared social activities, in the present tense. Fischer’s (1982) comparison of ego network name generators found that joint social activities was the best predictor that the alter would be labeled a ‘friend,’ better than discussing personal matters, or any of the other several name generators he used. The specification “face-to-face” discouraged respondents from listing long-distance confidants or other people who were outside of their regular social activities. Though non-local ties can be very strong, and important in many ways, they cannot provide many types of support that local ties can (e.g. child-care), cannot participate in most physical social events (dinners, parties, etc.) and are thus much less likely to have ties to other members of the respondents’ local social networks (Martin and Yeung 2006), or introduce new alters. The focus on local friendship ties in this study is an effort to measure the characteristics of the cores of the non-kin informal social networks that respondents are embedded within
The survey asked respondents how they met each friend, and provided a text box to type in their answers in their own words. The majority of answers were very simple and to the point, such as “at church” or “work.” Some answers were too ambiguous or minimal to provide any clear information, such as “since childhood” or “at home,” which I coded as missing. I defined voluntary organizations loosely to include hobbies, sports and similar activities as well as more formal organizations. I use the label “college” to include all post-secondary education, including 15 when respondents used the word “school” to describe an educational setting in adulthood. I coded as “neighbor” friends who were introduced by a neighbor, but the great majority of this category are friends who are/were the respondents’ neighbors.
Examine his findings in this graphic:
Friend Groups and Influence on Choice of Study
This 2019 article from the journal Sociology of Education shows that your friends will influence the likelihood of you being in STEM classes or not. From the article,
We find strong evidence that students adjust their preferences to those of their friends (friend influence). Moreover, girls tend to retain their STEM preferences when other girls in their classroom also like STEM (peer exposure). We conclude that these mechanisms amplify preexisting preferences and thereby contribute to the observed dramatic widening of the STEM gender gap....Homophily, the tendency for friends to be similar in multiple regards (e.g., in their gender or sex category, age, attitudes, and cultural taste) is widely documented (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). This can be due to friend selection, that is, the tendency to befriend others who are similar, but, in the case of changeable characteristics, it can also be due to social influence.... First, both boys and girls are influenced to like what their friends like. Because students mostly have same-sex friends, gender-specific tendencies of influence will emerge. Boys, who have higher probabilities to like STEM to begin with (in our observed time period), are likely to be further influenced toward STEM because their friends are likely to be boys, who are, again, more likely to have pre-existing STEM preferences. Girls, having lower probabilities to like STEM already, are likely further influenced by other girls, who are also less likely to prefer STEM. However, these are just general tendencies. Depending on the particular friends one might have, individual implications can also be different (e.g., cases where girls are friends with more boys than with girls, or with girls who like STEM). Second, regarding STEM subjects, other girls’ preferences in the classroom matter. Having other female students in a class who prefer STEM can protect girls from being discouraged from STEM subjects. This implies that along with friends’ subject preferences, the negotiation of gender politics in the classroom is also important for girls’ STEM preferences. Our findings suggest the STEM pipeline model should be conceived as a social pipeline model, in which effects of peer exposure and friend influence are considered important factors in female dropout from STEM careers.
2. Are you in STEM? Are your friends? Is this article's conclusion true for you?
We find strong evidence that students adjust their preferences to those of their friends (friend influence). Moreover, girls tend to retain their STEM preferences when other girls in their classroom also like STEM (peer exposure). We conclude that these mechanisms amplify preexisting preferences and thereby contribute to the observed dramatic widening of the STEM gender gap....Homophily, the tendency for friends to be similar in multiple regards (e.g., in their gender or sex category, age, attitudes, and cultural taste) is widely documented (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). This can be due to friend selection, that is, the tendency to befriend others who are similar, but, in the case of changeable characteristics, it can also be due to social influence....
First, both boys and girls are influenced to like what their friends like. Because students mostly have same-sex friends, gender-specific tendencies of influence will emerge. Boys, who have higher probabilities to like STEM to begin with (in our observed time period), are likely to be further influenced toward STEM because their friends are likely to be boys, who are, again, more likely to have pre-existing STEM preferences. Girls, having lower probabilities to like STEM already, are likely further influenced by other girls, who are also less likely to prefer STEM. However, these are just general tendencies. Depending on the particular friends one might have, individual implications can also be different (e.g., cases where girls are friends with more boys than with girls, or with girls who like STEM).
Second, regarding STEM subjects, other girls’ preferences in the classroom matter. Having other female students in a class who prefer STEM can protect girls from being discouraged from STEM subjects. This implies that along with friends’ subject preferences, the negotiation of gender politics in the classroom is also important for girls’ STEM preferences. Our findings suggest the STEM pipeline model should be conceived as a social pipeline model, in which effects of peer exposure and friend influence are considered important factors in female dropout from STEM careers.
Friends with Academic Benefits: Friend Network Structure and Influence on College Success
First, the article in Contexts called "Friends with Academic Benefits by Janice McCabe from Dartmouth Sociology Department, analyzes three different structures of friend groups for college students. I will summarize the article's findings below, but the full article is linked above. Try to read my summary below and answer question 1, but if you need more context or if you are interested in the rest of the article, see the link above.
McCabe analyzes the structure of peer networks, the type of friends in the network and differences between race and class. She finds 3 different structures of friend networks. She calls these three structures "tight-knitters, compartmentalizers, and samplers....tight-knitters’ networks resemble a ball of yarn, compartmentalizers’ a bow-tie, and samplers’ a daisy."
Tightknitters
Tight-knitters have one densely woven friendship group in which nearly all their friends are friends with one another.... Most tight-knitters were students of color who found the social support of their network helpful in navigating a predominantly White campus. Some tight-knitters had friendship networks that helped them academically in multiple ways. Tight-knit networks, however, did not always pull students up academically. They pulled some tight-knitters down, helping to reproduce race- and class-based inequalities. About half of the 22 tight-knitters in my sample were ... surrounded by friends who pulled them away from academics. Nearly all students discussed friends distracting them from academics, but for lower-achieving tight-knitters who did not graduate from MU or who graduated but with low GPAs and in more than four years, friends were a constant distraction. All behaviors—negative and positive—were quite contagious within tight-knit networks. Consequently, all tight-knitters who described their friends as providing academic support and motivation graduated; only half of the tight-knitters who felt they lacked this support graduated.
Compartmentalizers
Compartmentalizers’ friends form two to four clusters, where friends know each other within clusters but rarely across them. Compartmentalized networks look like a bow-tie, with distinct clusters of friends. Students’ friends within each of the 2-4 clusters were connected to each other, but friends were not connected across clusters. Like Betsy, most compartmentalizers were White and middle-class. They typically had one socially oriented cluster and one academically oriented cluster. She felt her two clusters of friends enabled her to balance schoolwork and friendly fun, and she graduated in four years. Students with more than two clusters of friends felt pressure—on their time and identity—in keeping up with multiple friendship groups. The clusters provided a sense of belonging, but maintaining ties can be demanding, and these demands escalated with each additional cluster. All compartmentalizers had separate academic and social clusters of friends. In general, compartmentalizers came from more advantaged backgrounds, experienced greater ease on campus, and succeeded in college with less support from friends as compared to those with other network types. Friendships among students from more advantaged backgrounds helped to reproduce their advantages.
Samplers
Samplers make a friend or two from a variety of places, but the friends remain unconnected to each other. Students of color frequently described experiencing race-based isolation on campus regardless of their network type; samplers, however, remained isolated. They rarely discussed isolating experiences with friends, and samplers were ambivalent at best about whether their friends provided social support or whether they needed social support. Samplers are academically successful in spite of their friends. Their friends provide little academic help or engagement, but they don’t pull the samplers down academically either. Negative behaviors that were contagious within tight-knitters’ networks did not spread within samplers’ networks due to lack of ties among friends. In other words, their network structure shielded samplers from friends’ negative influences. While samplers demonstrate that friends are not necessary for academic success, one can’t help but wonder if they might be even more successful if they allowed or encouraged their friends to become friends with academic benefits.
3. Do you have friends with academic benefits or do your friends influence you to be less successful academically? Can you identify your own social network structure based on the models in the article?
College Roommates and Risky Behavior
4. What did the researchers conclude about having college roommates that engage in risky behavior?
Peers' Effects on Stress among Males and Females
This 2020 research on Taiwanese youth, Isolation but Diffusion by Zhao, Robinson and Wu, finds that peers can be both a contagion and a mitigating factor for depression based on gender.
5. How are students influenced by attending a college where more of their high school classmates attend?
Research from Fletcher and Tienda (2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment