1 Psychology 1230: Psychology of Adolescence Don Hartmann Fall 2005 Lecture 19: Peers II

2 WEB Discussion Topic #27 #27. How peers can help. Psyched III. (Summary/Evaluation due on Monday, October 21st). Peers can have a variety of impacts on us for good or ill. Relate a peer event that profoundly affected you, and indicate the nature of the impact (e.g., on your sense of self; on your notion of what is acceptable), and why it had this impact. Also comment on another discussant’s commentary.

3 WEB Discussion Process Group#3 due#4 due Whippets10/27 (10/26)11/14 4 ♀ +1 ♂ 10/28 (10/28)11/18 GypsyMafia10/24** JusticeLeague11/15 PithHelmets11/09 MAJACS10/25 (10/25)11/11 Psyched11/ Note: Anyone can contribute to any WEB discussion; group members are responsible to summarizing the discussion. The last day to contribute to any discussion is 3 days before the due date. Dates in parenthesis indicate the date handed in. Bolded dates indicate that material handed in was incomplete; more is required. **Where is the summary??

4 Handout Summary Handout WEB Date Date 37. Study Guide #910/ Lect. #15b: Moral Devel (Kohlberg)10/ Lect. #16: Attachment10/ Quiz 2 from Spring ’0510/ Lect. #17: Autonomy11/ Handout: Supplemental Project #211/ Handout: Supplemental Project #311/ Lect. #17b: Family Conflict11/ Study Guide #1011/ Lect. #18: Peers11/ Lect. #19: Peers II: Pop. & Friendship11/11

5 Peers!

6 Supplementary References: Friendship Bukowski, W.M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In T.J. Berndt & G.W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 15 ‑ 45). New York: Wiley. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp ). New York: Wiley. Terry, R., & Coie, J.D. (1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27,

7 Overview of Peer Relations II Lecture Popularity Most frequently investigated area How to assess it (The methodological tail wagging the substantive dog) The classification scheme What they are like Friendships Value of Friendships Peer Lab findings (Hartmann et al.) Cordinates with text, pp Next: Lect. #20: Bullying

8 Assessing Popularity Referred to as Sociometric Status (SMS) Started with Moreno (of Psychodrama fame) Frequently used method: Participants asked two questions (nominations or ratings): Who do you like? Who do you dislike? Then construct two dimensions Like + Dislike = Social Impact Like – Dislike = Social Preference Individuals assigned to classification categories based upon their Social Impact and Social Preference scores

9 Rejected Popular Neglected Controversial Social Preference Social Impact Low High Is the child liked?

10 Rejected Popular Neglected Controversial Social Preference Social Impact Low High Is the child liked? Average

11 The Results Of the 60% who are classifiable (40% are “other”) 15% average 7.5% controversial 7.5% neglected 15% popular 15 rejected. Peer-based classification agree with teacher ratings Accurately predict the character of children’s peer interactions Stability: Controversial least stable; rejected most stable.

12 What are they like? Large number of observational, peer report, and self- report studies on children’s SMS Rejected kids: Rejected-aggressive: uncooperative, critical; little prosocial behavior. At greatest risk for future problems Rejected-withdrawn: awkward, insensitive, and immature. Lonely with low self esteem Popular: outgoing, friendly, supportive, and calm. Initiate interactions and resolve disputes amicably. Prosocial and not aggressive Neglected: passive and shy. Don’t initiate and don’t call attention to self Controversial: the jokesters

13 Direction of causation? Consider Rejection: Are you rejected because of the behavior you display? Or does your rejected status result in your acting inappropriately? Research with constructed groups composed of unfamiliar participants of known SMS: Kids who are social facilitators and prosocial end up being popular Kids who are pushy and self-serving end up being rejected Kids who hover on the edge of the group become neglected.

14 Is there more to be learned about peer rejection?

15 Treating Rejected Kids Use “conglomerate” or coaching techniques that decrease aggressive behavior that increase prosocial behavior involve peers so that undesirable reputations change Involvement of parents can be useful in improving parenting skills Involvement of teacher aids can be useful to improve acceptability of students by improving their academic skills

16 More Categories Needed?

17 Friendships: Introduction Definition: Reciprocal relationship with positive affect Distinct from popularity Importance Source of social support Conflict resolution skills Preparation for adulthood Can have bad consequences as well: What is the quality of friendships?

18 Time with Friends Hi tech (Csikszentmihalyi & Larsen): Experience time sampling

19 Some Findings Friendships can provide: Companionship—let’s hang out Stimulation—tell me about kissing boys Support—that guy might try to pick me up; help Ego support (validation)—my mom is a bitch, isn’t she? Social comparison—you’re right, I am smart Intimacy—increases with age Girls: let’s talk secrets Boys: let me show you my new derailer

20 George & Hartmann: Method Relationship between friendship and popularity (George & Hartmann). 5 th - & 6 th - grade children administered a rating scale sociometric ‑‑ and children were divided, by classrooms, into the bottom.25 (unpopular), middle.50 (average), and top.25 (popular) Completed a questionnaire asking them to list up to 15 people who they considered to be their good friends

21 Basic Facts & Reciprocation Children reported a mean ≈ 12 good friends 80% of friends within a year of age Few children had reciprocated cross ‑ sex friends 70% of listed friends in same school % Reciprocation Popularity Group

22 Who are Chosen as Friends? Who is chosen as friends? 12% unpopular; 47% average; 41% popular The 3 bars indicate who constitutes the good friends of unpopular kids (far left), average kids (middle), and popular kids (far right)

23 Friendship Stability Length of Time X Friendship Status % Friends Lost Weeks From Hartmann, Abbott, Pelzel, George, & Ward-Anderson

24 Why Do Children Loose Friends? Lack of recent Contact (33%) Change in Interests (23%) Negative Personality (21%) Replaced by Other (21%) Conflict (13%) Third Party (10%) Violation of Trust (10%)

25 Feelings About Most Significant Friendship Loss What emotions did the loss precipitate? Anger, sadness, & confusion How strong were the emotions? 2/3 stated experiencing strong negative feeling How long did the feelings last? More than a month! Pelzel, Barrett, & Hartmann

26 Summary of Peer Lab Friendship findings Children describe having a substantial number of friendships A substantial minority of which are not in their classroom almost all of which are same gender many of which are not reciprocated Popular children are over-represented on lists of good friends Friendships are dynamic—many are changing How dynamic varies depending on how we assess Friendship loss Occurs for a variety of reason And most individuals experience some pain with their most significant friendship loss

27 Where Contextualism Breaks Down!

28 Summary of Peers II Lecture Popularity How to assess it The classification scheme What they are like Friendships Value of friendships Peer Lab findings Next: Lect. #20 (Bullying) Go in Peace