the complexity of socialization in peer contexts...

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?