The Complexity of Socialization in Peer Contexts:
Challenges for Research and Practice
Clea McNeely, DrPH University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Students and Peers as Resources
Youth-Nex 2nd Annual Conference October 18, 2012
University of Virginia
Ubiquity and Salience of Peer Relationships
§ Early adolescents experience increase in: – novelty and sensation-seeking – importance of peers relative to family – extent to which reward systems activated
by social acceptance
Outline
§ Complexity of socialization in peer contexts.
§ Implications for intervening on peer relationships.
§ Future research directions.
Complexity of Peer Contexts
§ Youth are actors in multiple peer contexts § Peer influences are bidirectional and
multidimensional – Best friend – Romantic interest – Clique – Larger peer network – Reputational crowd – Peers grouped by adults – Youth culture
Complexity of Peer Contexts
Complexity of Peer Contexts
The Social Structure of “Countryside” School DistrictPoints Colored by Grade
9th10th11th
7th8th
12th
Complexity of Peer Contexts
Complexity of Socialization in Peer Contexts § Direct peer pressure
§ Development of group norms (Coleman, 1961, 1988)
– Through selection and influence
§ Status attainment (McNeely, Falci & Smiler, 2012; Tuenissen et al., 2012)
§ Resource and information channels (Crosnoe, 2004)
§ Social belonging and social support (Laible et al., 2000; McNeely & Falci, 2004)
§ Social network structure (Moody, 2005; Falci & McNeely, 2009)
Complexity: Socialization Among Peers Varies Across Settings
§ Occurs in multiple settings, e.g., – Classrooms – After-school programs – Lunchrooms and hallways – Hanging out
Complexity: Peer Socialization Increases and Decreases Risk
§ Both negative and positive outcomes result from the same aspect of socialization within the peer context.
§ Example 1: Social belonging § Example 2: Social cohesion
Complexity: Example 1 § Peer social belonging increases and decreases
risk
§ Measured in Add Health as: – You feel close to people at your school. – You feel like you are a part of school. – You are happy to be at your school.
§ Associated longitudinally with: – Lower levels of depressive symptoms (Falci &
McNeely, 2009)
– Higher rates of participation in alcohol and cigarette use (McNeely & Falci, 2004)
Complexity: Example 2
§ Social cohesion associated with greater depressive symptoms in some peer conditions and fewer depressive symptoms under other peer conditions.
Example 2: Social Cohesion
Large, fragmented ego-‐network
Large, cohesive ego-‐network
Example 2: Association Between Number of Friends, Social Cohesion, and Depressive
Symptoms: Girls
0.89
0.92
0.95
0.98
1.01
1.04
1.07
1.1
1.13
1.16
1.19
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Dep
ress
ive
Sym
ptom
s (ln
)
Network Size
Girls 1 SD above mean density Girls 1 SD below mean density
OLS models adjust for race/ethnicity, family structure, income, grade
Example 2: Association Between Number of Friends, Social Cohesion and Depressive
Symptoms: Boys and Girls
0.89
0.92
0.95
0.98
1.01
1.04
1.07
1.1
1.13
1.16
1.19
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Dep
ress
ive
Sym
ptom
s (ln
)
Network Size
Boys 1 SD below mean density Boys 1 SD above mean density
Girls 1 SD above mean density Girls 1 SD below mean density
OLS models adjust for race/ethnicity, family structure, income, grade
Example 2: Summary of Findings § Social cohesion protective against
depression in large networks for girls but not for boys
§ BUT – social cohesion can also reinforce pro-delinquency norms and increase risk behaviors (e.g., Haynie 2001)
Harnessing peer socialization processes for interventions is challenging
§ Deviancy training (Dishion, Mccord, Poulin, 1999)
§ Peer acceleration (Valente et al., 2007) – Positive effects accelerated when natural peer group
contained non-users or low-users – Negative outcomes exacerbated when grouped with peers
who had higher rates of using
Research Implications
§ Humility and caution about trying to directly tap into or manipulate socialization processes in peer contexts.
§ Look for iatrogenic effects for sub-groups and not simply focus on main effects.
Research Implications
§ Focus on how effective youth development settings indirectly shapes socialization between peers, e.g., – How do the 5 C’s shape the various
mechanisms of peer influence? – To what extent do these effects extend
beyond the effective youth development setting ?
– Do these effects hold across all subgroups?