the role of peer selection and peer influence in how … · katariina salmela-aro (university of...

UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ

Filomena Parada (University of Jyväskylä, Finland)

Britta Ruschoff (FOM University of Applied Sciences, Germany)

Noona Kiuru (University of Jyväskylä, Finland)

Katariina Salmela-Aro (University of Helsinki, Finland)

THE ROLE OF PEER SELECTION AND PEER

INFLUENCE IN HOW LATE ADOLESCENTS AND

EMERGING ADULTS SET PERSONAL GOALS

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions – IFGrant Agreement 749313 -

TeenEduGoals


Background

Developing and maintaining close or intimate friendships with peers is

a key task of adolescence and emerging adulthood (Borwoski & Zeman,

2018)

Friendship exists when two persons maintain strong, positive affective

bonds (Bukowski et al., 2009)

The sense of personal connection that underlies to the bonds tying

friends to one another operates as a facilitator of how young people’s

self-images are introduced and jointly adjusted, maintained or

abandoned in meaningful interactions with other like peers (Marshall et al.,

2006)


Possible selves guide and regulate young people’s behaviour toward

the pursuit of desirable goals and the avoidance of feared future self-

images (Markus & Nurius, 1991; Marshall et al., 2008)

Personal goals, specifically the content of these goals, are indicative of

the end states or circumstances youth strive to achieve or avoid,

therefore, of the domains of life young people prioritize or deem as

more salient (Ford, 1992)

People believe that theirs and others’ actions are reflective of who they

are and that what people are matters to what they do (Oyserman et al.,

2017)

Background


Background

Peer selection and peer influence are among the processes young

people use to ensure similarity

Peer selection is the selection of friends based on perceived

similarities

Peer influence describes the process through which peers tend to

shape one another’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours over time

(Laursen, 2017)


Study aim and Research questions

Aim: To investigate the personal goals adolescents and emerging

adults and their peers set for themselves, as well as the processes

driving the setting of these goals

Research questions

1. What are the main domains of personal goals adolescents and

emerging adults in Finland name the most and what do these goals tell

us about what is important to them?

2. Do friends become more alike in their personal goals because they

select friends based on shared personal goals or because they

influence each others goals?


Method

Participants and design

N = 1419 adolescents from the FinEdu studies

Adolescents clustered in 9 networks

Gender: 729 females 690 males

Age: 15-17 years of age (M = 16.36, SD = 1.49)

2 waves of data collection

i. T1 (2005), 1st year of upper secondary or vocational school

ii. T2 (2006), 2nd year of upper secondary or vocational school


Method

Measures

Peer nominations: Nomination of up to 3 same-grade schoolmates

with whom they most liked to spend time with, no self-nominations

were allowed (Coie et al, 1982)

Personal goals: Revised version of the Personal Project Analysis

inventory (Little, 1983). Writing of 4 personal goals/projects (free choice of

goals and domains of these goals)


Method

Analysis strategy

Dynamic social network analysis (Snijders et al. 2010) with Rsiena (Ripley et

al. 2013) to determine the effects of peer selection and influence on the

personal goals of young people

Individual analyses of each network aggregated via meta-analytic

approach as recommended by Viechtbauer (2005)


Results

RQ1: What are the main domains of personal goals and what do these

goals tell us about what is important to emerging adults?

No mention 1 mention 2 or > mentions

2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006

Education 571 661 684 549 164 209

Work 810 825 556 535 53 59

Family 1021 1065 380 325 18 29

Friends 1164 1254 250 163 5 2

Lifestyle 998 1036 337 313 84 70

Wellbeing 837 959 470 388 112 72

Self-focused 1318 1328 95 83 6 8


(Preliminary) Results of the Network Analysis

RQ2: Do friends become more alike in their personal goals because they

select friends based on shared personal goals or because they influence

each others goals?

Separate analysis for selection and influence effects of adolescents’

personal goals for each of the 9 networks under study

Meta-Analysis of selection and influence effects across all 9 networks



Results for Meta-Analysis of Friendship Nominations and Personal Goals

Between-Network Heterogeneity

Est. SE SD Q

Network Effects

Outdegree (density) -3.06 0.14*** 0.34 29.71***

Reciprocity 2.72 0.10*** 0.13 8.98

Transitive Triplets 1.13 0.06*** 0.10 9.70

Three Cycles -1.03 0.11*** 0.00 7.17

Selection Effects

Sex (F) alter -0.19 0.08* 0.09 8.39

Sex (F) ego 0.16 0.09 0.13 7.98

Sex (F) similarity 0.78 0.08*** 0.08 11.06

Selection (from goal agreement) -0.05 0.07 0.00 6.31

Influence Effects

Outdegree (density) -1.41 0.09*** 0.19 19.64*

Four Cycles 0.01 0.01*** 0.00 12.67

Influence (to goal agreement) 0.56 0.05*** 0.00 5.54

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001





Est. SE SD Q

Network Effects


Reciprocity 2.72 0.10*** 0.13 8.98


Three Cycles -1.03 0.11*** 0.00 7.17

Selection Effects

Sex (F) alter -0.19 0.08* 0.09 8.39

Sex (F) ego 0.16 0.09 0.13 7.98

Sex (F) similarity 0.78 0.08*** 0.08 11.06


Influence Effects


Four Cycles 0.01 0.01*** 0.00 12.67


*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

The data do not point

towards any significant

selection effects.





Est. SE SD Q

Network Effects


Reciprocity 2.72 0.10*** 0.13 8.98


Three Cycles -1.03 0.11*** 0.00 7.17

Selection Effects

Sex (F) alter -0.19 0.08* 0.09 8.39

Sex (F) ego 0.16 0.09 0.13 7.98

Sex (F) similarity 0.78 0.08*** 0.08 11.06


Influence Effects


Four Cycles 0.01 0.01*** 0.00 12.67


*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

The data do point towards a

significant influence effect.


Conclusions

RQ1:

The domain of the goals selected by young people reflect the

challenges and the demands typical of this period of their lives.

Education, work, family, lifestyle and wellbeing are the domains

where the highest number of goals are mentioned.

RQ2:

The data do not show a selection effect: Young people do not

select their friends based on their similarity in goal-domains.

The data do point towards an influence effect: Young people’s

goals become more similar to their friends’ goals.


Conclusion

Over time, the strong affective ties connecting young people to their

peers influence them to make salient goals in the same domains of life

as the ones their friends prioritize, that is, to share similar views about

who they are and wish to become, and therefore to prioritize the active

exploration of potential future images in the same domains of life


16

[email protected]

THANK YOU!

the role of peer selection and peer influence in how … · katariina salmela-aro (university of...

Documents