Abstract - University of Virginiapeople.virginia.edu/~psykliff/pubs/publications/Michelle... · Web...

Moderators of Peer Influence

Peer Influences as Predictors of Adolescent Alcohol Use and Values: The Moderating

Effect of Autonomy, Attachment, and Self-worth

Michelle K. Warren

University of Virginia

April, 2004

Advisor: Joseph P. Allen

Second Reader: Dick Reppucci

Running Head: MODERATORS OF PEER INFLUENCE

1


Abstract

To explore the developmental conditions under which peers influence

adolescents’ behaviors (adolescent alcohol use and values), the moderating effects of

autonomy, attachment, and self-worth were examined in a sample of 177 seventh and

eighth grade students (83 male and 94 female; Age: M = 13.36, SD = 0.66) who were

seen longitudinally over a 1-year period. Alcohol use and values were assessed using

self-report measures, and moderator variables were assessed using self-report, peer-

report, and observational methods. Preliminary analyses revealed that adolescent alcohol

use was predicted from peer alcohol use. In contrast, adolescent values were not

predicted from peer values. Three moderating effects were found: peers’ alcohol use and

values were most predictive of changes in adolescents’ alcohol use and values for those

adolescents who lacked autonomy, who had strong attachments to friends, and who

lacked self-worth. Results suggest that aspects of adolescent psychological functioning,

such as autonomy, attachment, and self-worth, may play an important role in determining

how teens are influenced by their peers.

2


Peer Influences as Predictors of Adolescent Alcohol Use and Values: The Moderating

Effect of Autonomy, Attachment, and Self-worth

Peer influence increases dramatically during early adolescence. Adolescents

spend twice as much time with their peers as they do with their parents or other adults,

and peer groups begin to operate more frequently without parental supervision (Brown,

1990). In addition, early adolescence involves a transfer of dependency from parents to

peers for guidance and support (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986), and both parents and

adolescents report feeling more distant from one another during this developmental

period (Fuligni, Eccles, Barber, & Clements, 2001). An increase in peer interaction and

dependency renders adolescents highly susceptible to peer influences (Berndt, 1979;

Gould & Mazzeo, 1982). Accordingly, social science research suggests that peer

influence is an important determinant of adolescent social development (Berndt, 1979;

Berndt, 1992; Brown, 1982; Fuligni et al., 2001). However, susceptibility to peer

influence is at its greatest at ages 12-13 years and then weakens through middle and late

adolescence (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). In addition, although peer influence is

presumed to affect adolescent development, its long-term effects are often difficult to

predict as they result from a complex interaction of variables such as the individual

characteristics of the adolescent and the adolescent’s peers (i.e., autonomy and self-

worth), cultural factors, parental involvement, and the adolescent’s preexisting attitudes

and behaviors (Berndt, 1992; Fuligni et al., 2001; Hamm, 2000). The aim of the present

study is to clarify the complex nature of peer influence and determine whether it may

more readily predict adolescent functioning over a one year period when it is examined in

conjunction with these other factors.

3


One of the reasons it is difficult to make conclusions about the effects of peer

interactions and peer influence on adolescent functioning is because they are often bi-

directional in nature (Berndt, 1992; Brown, 1999; Furman & Simon, 1998). For example,

a deviant peer may pressure a non-deviant peer to become more deviant; however, a non-

deviant peer may exert positive influence on a deviant peer and influence him/her to

become less deviant (Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001; Hartup, 1996). It

is also important to consider the role of peer selection when examining peer influence as

teens often choose friends who are similar to themselves. Some researchers claim that

peer influence is overestimated when peer selection is not taken into account (Berndt,

1992; Hamm, 2000; La Greca, Prinstein, & Fetter, 2001).

Brown (1990) found that the proportion of an adolescent’s friends who were

deviant was a strong predictor of the adolescent’s level of risky behavior. Adolescents

who possess preexisting defiant attitudes and exhibit preexisting deviant behaviors are

more likely to associate with other deviant peers. In fact, research suggests that the most

common characteristic of deviant adolescent friendships is a shared antisocial orientation

(Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995). Therefore, it is difficult to separate the role of peer

selection from the effects of peer influence. Likewise, it is possible that adolescents who

possess prosocial skills may make better decisions about the peers with whom they

associate. Adolescents who maintain supportive peer relationships have been found to

demonstrate higher self-esteem, fewer internalizing disorders, and better academic

performance, although the direction of this correlation is uncertain (Berndt, 1992).

Other researchers suggest that it is difficult to examine links between peer

influence and adolescent functioning because parental influence affects many dimensions

4


of adolescent functioning (Galambos, Barker, & Almeida, 2003). Therefore, although

previous research has shown that the development of close friendships is a necessary and

normative part of adolescence and that friendships are vital to the development of

adolescent behaviors and values (Fuligni et al., 2001; Parker & Asher, 1987), parents can

still have an effect on the way their adolescents deal with the demands and expectations

of their peers. Parents who exert an appropriate degree of control over their adolescents’

lives and simultaneously allow them to develop autonomy and independence can

maintain their position as a positive force in adolescents’ lives throughout adolescence

and into early adulthood (Kandel & Lesser, 1972; White, Speisman, & Costas, 1983).

The majority of adolescents who eventually establish a healthy balance of advice and

support from their parents and their peers encounter fewer difficulties during the

transition from childhood to adulthood (Fuligni et al., 2001).

However, some teens develop excessive peer-orientation that leads to future

problems. Teens who consider their relationship with their parents to be overbearing or

overly permissive are more likely to depend on their peers rather than their parents for

support (Steinberg, 1987). This detachment from parents makes adolescents vulnerable

to negative influences and places them at risk for problem behaviors like delinquency and

substance abuse. Peer-oriented adolescents become trapped in a reinforcing cycle where

their reliance on peers leads to a willingness to defy authority by exhibiting negative

behaviors, like ignoring schoolwork or experimenting with substances like alcohol and

marijuana (DuBois et al., 1998; DuBois et al., 1999; Dubow, Edwards, & Ippolito, 1997;

Seidman et al., 1999). This negative behavior is then reinforced by the expectations and

values of the peer group, in turn promoting future risk-taking behavior (Fuligni et al.,

5


2001). In sum, a strong attachment to one’s peers, in addition to an emphasis on peer

acceptance versus parental authority, weakens protective factors for risky behavior and

poor academic achievement, leading adolescents to maintain these negative behaviors

(McCord, 1990).

It is clear that peer influence can act as both a positive and negative force during

adolescence. On the one hand, supportive friendships are an important factor for healthy

adolescent development; on the other hand, overly-dependent peer relationships can have

detrimental effects on adolescents’ current and future development (Cassidy, Aikins, &

Chernoff, 2003; DuBois, Burk-Braxton, Swenson, Tevendale, Lockerd, & Moran, 2002;

Elgar, Knight, Worrall, & Sherman, 2003; Kiesner et al., 2002; Noom, Dekovic, &

Meeus, 1999; Scholte, Lieshout, & Aken, 2001). Although this review of the literature

has highlighted important aspects of peer influence, other researchers suggest that peers

do not have a great influence on adolescents (Galambos et al., 2003). In addition, the

majority of the peer influence studies employed a cross-sectional design and relied on

adolescent self-report. Therefore, in order to address this gap in the literature, the current

study will examine peer influence and its effects in conjunction with other factors in a

longitudinal design using peer-report, adolescent self-report, and observational data of

peer interactions.

The current study aims to examine the link between peer influence and various

markers of adolescent behavioral and psychosocial functioning, including alcohol use and

value systems. It is necessary to examine the role of peer pressure in the context of

adolescent development because it has been linked with problems ranging from substance

abuse and delinquency to risky sexual behavior (Andrews, Tildesley, Hops, Hyman, &

6


Fuzhong, 2002; DiIorio et al., 2001; Prinstein, Boergers, & Spirito, 2001; Urberg,

Degirmencioglu, & Pilgrim, 1997). Adolescent substance abuse is a serious concern

because not only does it affect the teenagers themselves, but it also drains limited societal

resources. Maladaptive behaviors in adolescence are likely to continue into early

adulthood and can be predictive of future adult problem behaviors such as alcoholism or

criminal activity (Andrews, Tildesley, Hops, & Li, 2002; Dishion & Owen, 2002). In

addition, adolescent value systems are important markers of long-term functioning as

they have been linked to psychosocial outcomes including peer relationship quality

(Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996), social competence (Allen, Weissberg, & Hawkins, 1989),

delinquency and drug use (Allen, Leadbeater, & Aber, 1990; Kuperminc & Allen, 2001),

autonomy (Fasick, 1984; Smetana & Asquith, 1994), and depression (Simons, Whitbeck,

Conger, & Melby, 1991).

Adolescent alcohol use is a complex phenomenon that involves many

interconnected processes, and many researchers have examined the relationship between

peer processes and alcohol use because of its widespread occurrence in adolescent

development. Evidence suggests that peers have a strong influence on adolescents’ levels

of alcohol use. In a study comparing the effect of extra-curricular activities and peer

influence on drinking behavior, Borden, Donnermeyer, Joseph, and Scheer (2001) found

that adolescents have a strong, direct influence on each other’s drinking habits. Andrews

et al. (2002) found peers to be similar in respect to alcohol use and binge drinking over a

three year period and concluded that peer socialization is one process that leads to this

similarity. A retrospective survey analysis of undergraduates showed that alcohol use

was one of the most common activities associated with peer pressure in high school

7


(Brown, 1982). Yarnold (1998) suggested that peer alcohol use was one of three main

factors that significantly increased the likelihood of alcohol use. She concluded that peer

influence was the strongest factor linked to adolescent drinking behavior and that the

typical alcohol-using adolescent socialized with other alcohol-using peers and enjoyed

the risks involved with alcohol use.

Although alcohol use has been strongly associated with peer influence, other

factors, such as parental behavior, also help predict adolescent alcohol use (Atkinson,

Richard, & Carlson, 2001). Coombs, Paulson, and Richardson (1991) distinguished two

groups based on alcohol use (abstainers and users) and found that parents of both groups

had more of an impact than peers on adolescents’ alcohol use. However, they found that

substance users were more likely to be influenced by their peers than abstainers. Dishion

et al. (1995) concluded that alcohol use is most strongly predicted by peer influence and

that a lack of parental involvement supports drinking behaviors. The researchers also

found that risk-taking adolescents were most susceptible to substance use during the

transition to high school when compared to non risk-takers.

La Greca, Prinstein, Mitchell, and Fetter (2001) found that two particular groups,

“burnouts” and “nonconformists,” exhibited the most “health-risk behaviors” and also

had the highest proportion of friends with similar behavior patterns. Adolescents in these

groups also received the lowest amount of social acceptance from their peers. A

longitudinal study that followed adolescents into young adulthood supported the idea that

substance use in young adults is the product of an interaction between peer influence and

peer selection. The researchers concluded that the tendency to form friendships with

other users was the strongest correlate of substance use (Dishion & Owen, 2002). In

8


addition, some research suggests that peer influence on alcohol use results more from

modeling and imitation than from peer pressure or reinforcement. It is possible that

adolescents may alter their behaviors in order to obtain or maintain friendship

congruency (Kandel, 1985).

It is clear that adolescent alcohol use is a complex issue that requires further

investigation. Despite the current literature on various correlates of adolescent alcohol

use such as peer influence, parental relationships, and individual characteristics of the

adolescent, the pathways through which these processes interact to predict adolescent

alcohol use is unclear. Many of the studies mentioned above are limited by their cross-

sectional nature, self-report data, and survey methodology. The current study aims to

investigate the role of peer influence on adolescent alcohol use over time as well as the

interaction between peer influence and variables like autonomy, attachment, and self-

worth, to help discover the strongest predictors of alcohol use.

In addition to alcohol use, it is also important to consider adolescent values about

issues such as prosocial behavior, parental authority, and morality when examining the

role of peer influence on adolescent social development. Adolescence is often described

as a crossroads between childhood and adulthood, a period when teenagers must begin to

develop their own personal values and expectations apart from the ones instilled in them

by adults. Adolescent values have been linked to various risky behaviors including

substance use (Allen et al., 1990; Kuperminc & Allen, 2001), delinquency (Allen et al.,

1990; Kuperminc & Allen, 2001; Simons et al., 1991; Whitbeck et al., 1989), and

dangerous sexual activity (Allen et al., 1990). Other researchers have produced findings

9


supporting the link between low prosocial values and involvement in deviant peer groups

(Allen et al., 1990; Simons et al., 1991; Whitbeck, Simons, Conger, & Lorenz, 1989).

Research on adolescent value systems has shown that most adolescents do not

simply reject adult norms and expectations; rather they develop their own set of values

within the peer network that co-exists with their accordance to adult values (Fasick,

1984). This process is a difficult one because peer expectations and social norms are

often different from adult values and expectations. Adults and peers have different

perceptions of social competence, and as a result, parents may disapprove of a behavior

that gains social acceptance from the peer group (Allen et al., 1989). For example,

maladaptive behaviors like smoking, drinking, and stealing are often encouraged in

deviant peer groups, but such behavior is discouraged by adults (Krosnick & Judd, 1982;

West, 1982). Prosocial values may buffer adolescents from delinquent behaviors by

ensuring that they use their positive social skills to exhibit socially competent behavior

(Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Parkhurst & Asher, 1985). Furthermore, Whitbeck et al. (1989)

emphasized the need to differentiate between different types of values like altruism,

success, and affluence. They found that only adolescents who endorsed altruistic values

were less likely to report associating with deviant peers. The researchers also suggested

that the strength of adolescents’ support of conventional norms and values is largely due

to the strength of their parents’ support of conventional norms and values.

Allen et al. (1989) found that teachers gave positive ratings of overall competence

to adolescents who valued conforming to adult norms, but the same adolescents scored

low on peer ratings of social competence. It is clear that adolescence is a challenging life

stage when one must attempt to break away from adult norms in order to gain autonomy

10


and fit into the peer group while simultaneously holding on to positive values.

Adolescents must balance the desire for healthy peer acceptance with the need for

positive social adaptation. Interestingly, although adolescents who adopt adult value

systems tend to demonstrate diminished social competence, little is known about the

outcomes of adolescents who adopt their peers’ values. This study attempts to fill this

void in the research on peer influence on adolescent values.

Despite the current findings on adolescent values and their effect on psychosocial

functioning, research that examines the specific relationship between peer influence and

values is needed. Previous research suggests that both of these variables have strong

associations with adolescent development, but few studies examine the interaction of peer

influence and values. The studies that have been conducted are mainly cross-sectional,

self-report surveys; thus, the current study aims to clarify the relationship between peer

influence and values by collecting longitudinal data from both adolescents and peers.

Considering the complex nature of peer relationships and their effect on

adolescent behaviors and values, it is important to consider potential moderators that

might help predict which adolescents are more easily influenced by their peers. Several

studies have shown that the strength of peer relationships is associated with the degree of

peer influence, such that adolescents who demonstrate strong bonds to their peer groups

are more heavily influenced by their peers (Pombeni, Kirchler, & Palmonari, 1990;

Tremblay, Masse, Vitaro, & Dobkin, 1995). Kiesner et al. (2002) found that the level of

group identification, defined as the importance of the group to the individual, moderated

the amount of group influence on the individual’s change in delinquent behavior over a

one year period. Past research has also indicated other moderators of peer influence, such

11


as the stability of friendships (Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999), the age of the adolescent’s

friends (Stattin, Gustafson, & Magnusson, 1989), and the adolescent’s self-reported

susceptibility to peer influence (Schulenberg et al., 1999). However, only a few of these

studies exist and most are cross-sectional examinations using self-report. Similarly,

examinations of possible moderators such as autonomy, self-worth, and attachment do

not exist.

Research on variables like autonomy, attachment, and self-worth and their

relationship with adolescent alcohol use and values is limited. For example, although the

current literature discusses the relevance of these particular factors on overall adolescent

functioning (Allen et al., 1990; Allen & Hauser, 1996; Allen et al., 1998; Allen, Marsh,

McFarland, McElhaney, Land, & Jodl, 2002; Crawford & Novak, 2002; Greenberg,

Siegel, & Leitch, 1983; Judy & Nelson, 2000; Noom et al., 1999; Robinson, 1995;

Tevendale, DuBois, Lopez, & Prindiville, 1997), the majority of this literature fails to

examine how these factors might moderate the effect of peer influence on adolescent

functioning.

Autonomy is an important moderator to examine in adolescence because it has

been found to be a significant predictor of healthy social development. Developing

autonomy involves many challenging tasks including learning to make one’s own

decisions, relying less on parents for emotional support, and developing personal morals

and values (Douvan and Adelson, 1966; Mazor, Shamir, & Ben-Moshe, 1990; Steinberg,

1990; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Adolescents must deal with the contradictory

influences of parents and peers while developing their own beliefs and making

independent decisions. One way of measuring autonomy is to examine the role of peer

12


pressure in decision-making situations. Barber, Bolitho, and Bertrand (1999) reported

that both friends’ drug use and overt peer pressure were strong predictors of adolescent

drug use, and Pearson and Lynn (2000) found that peer pressure was strongly associated

with adolescent risk-taking. Dupre, Miller, Gold, and Rospenda (1995) conducted a

survey of adolescent drug users and found that the strongest predictors of drug initiation

were peer drug use and peer pressure to use. Research has shown that adolescents who

lack autonomy are more susceptible to peer pressure and in turn are more likely to engage

in delinquent behavior (Brown, Clasen, & Eicher, 1986). In addition, both emotional and

behavioral autonomy allow adolescents to develop value autonomy (adopting personal

beliefs and morals) because they are better able to assess a given situation or idea from an

objective viewpoint (Brown et al., 1986; Noom et al., 1999).

Another aspect of autonomy deals with the way in which an adolescent interacts

with his or her peers, and certain interaction styles have been linked to maladaptive

development. According to Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim’s (1994) model of interactive conflict

resolution, an avoidant style reflects little concern for oneself and others and is

characterized by conflict withdrawal and unwillingness to accept responsibility for one’s

actions. An avoidant style has been found to be maladaptive and has been linked to

numerous detrimental outcomes in adolescence including drug use, academic failure,

antisocial behavior, and aggression (Colsman & Wulfert, 2002; La Greca & Lopez,

1998). Some researchers have posited that adolescents’ unhealthy interaction styles

could be the result of parental modeling that renders adolescents more likely to be

rejected by peers and to associate with deviant peer groups (Colsman & Wulfert, 2002).

There is also evidence that adolescents who exhibit social avoidance lack adequate social

13


skills, demonstrate poor social functioning, and exhibit low peer interaction levels (La

Greca & Lopez, 1998; Ralph, Williams, & Campisi, 1997). It is clear that autonomy

plays an important role in adolescent social development. Thus, an examination of

autonomy, peer influence, and adolescent functioning was conducted in the present study.

It was hypothesized that autonomy would serve as a moderator of peer influence on

adolescent functioning, such that more autonomous adolescents would be less influenced

by their peers.

Likewise, adolescent attachment organization has also been implicated in

numerous areas of adolescent psychosocial development. Attachment organization is

vital to psychosocial functioning in adolescence because it indicates how the adolescent

processes affect in social settings and it reflects the status of ongoing parental

relationships (Allen & Hauser, 1996; Allen et al., 1998). There is evidence that insecure

attachment characteristics are associated with delinquent behavior and substance use

(Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998; Elgar et al., 2003; Engels & ter Bogt, 2001),

involvement with negative peers (Cassidy et al., 2003), and internalizing disorders (Allen

et al., 1998). Greenberg et al. (1983) found that the quality of relationships with both

parents and peers was related to adolescent well-being. An individual’s primary

attachment relationships begin with their parents, and if these relationships are

characterized by insecurity, they can often lead to problems in future relationships (Gavin

& Furman, 1996). This pervasive insecurity can hinder healthy adolescent peer relations

and thereby foster many unhealthy outcomes like delinquency and substance use, given

that peer relationships often replace parental relationships during adolescence (Ainsworth

& Marvin, 1995; Allen et al., 1998).

14


Several studies have suggested that a preoccupied attachment style, founded in

early childhood as a result of unhealthy parental attachment, may make it difficult for

some adolescents to develop autonomy and therefore may lead them to commit

delinquent acts in an attempt to gain independence (Allen, Hauser, Eickholt, Bell, &

O’Connor, 1994; Allen, Hauser, O’Connor, Bell, & Eickholt, 1996; Allen et al., 1998).

Again, although there is convincing evidence that attachment is associated with various

aspects of adolescent development, no examination exists between attachment and its

effects on peer influence and adolescent functioning. Therefore, in this study it was

hypothesized that peer attachment would be a potential moderator of peer influence on

adolescent functioning, such that adolescents with strong attachments to peers would be

more likely to be influenced by their peers.

Finally, positive feelings of self-worth have been associated with healthy

adolescent development in terms of both emotional and behavioral adaptation (Harter,

1998). Research has shown that adolescents who have feelings of low self-worth are

more likely to experience psychological distress and to involve themselves in delinquent

activity (Andrews, Alpert, Hops, & Davis, 1996; Rosenberg, Schooler, & Schoenback,

1989). The way an adolescent feels about him/herself is a particularly important variable

in early adolescence because it is during this time that the most drastic changes in self-

esteem take place (Simmons, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg, 1973).

Several studies have shown that the stress that accompanies the changes of early

adolescence, most notably peer and school anxiety, has a significant impact on

adolescents’ sense of self-worth (Fenzel, 2000; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000).

Robinson (1995) examined the relationship between adolescents’ perceptions of global

15


self-worth and perceptions of various types of social support and found that self-worth is

most strongly associated with adolescents’ perceptions of peer acceptance. Juvonen et al.

(2000) investigated the relationships between peer harassment, psychological adjustment,

and academic functioning in early adolescents. The researchers found that self-perceived

peer harassment predicted psychological adjustment, which was measured by levels of

loneliness, depression, and self-worth, and that psychological adjustment then predicted

school functioning. The results suggest a strong link between feelings of self-worth and

healthy social functioning. Considering the existing research on the role of self-worth in

adolescent development, it was hypothesized in the current study that adolescent self-

worth would be a potential moderator of peer influence in predicting adolescent

functioning, such that adolescents who demonstrate low self-worth would be more likely

to be influenced by their peers.

The limited research on moderators of peer influence is troubling. In order to

understand the complex pathways through which peer influence works, researchers must

consider all possible factors that may affect its course. This study focuses on three

variables that have been shown to demonstrate a strong link to adolescent functioning:

self-worth, autonomy, and attachment. Researchers have studied all of these variables in

a broad context of adolescent development, but more research examining their

relationships with peer influence is warranted. Specifically, peer influence is expected to

be greatest under certain developmental conditions including low autonomy, strong

attachment to peers, and low self-worth. Furthermore, few studies have gathered

longitudinal data from both adolescent and peer reports or used multi-method approaches

to collecting data (such as survey and observation). The current longitudinal, multi-

16


method study will examine the potential moderating roles of autonomy, attachment, and

self-worth on peer influence in predicting adolescent alcohol use and values.

Methods

Participants

This analysis uses data from a larger longitudinal study of adolescent social

development in familial and peer contexts. Participants were drawn from a public middle

school in the Southeastern United States that included both urban and suburban

populations. Participants were 177 seventh and eight grade students (83 male and 94

female; Age: M = 13.36, SD = 0.66) and their parents. The racially and

socioeconomically diverse sample included 101 Caucasians, 52 African-Americans, and

24 members of other and/or mixed minority groups. Parental reports showed a median

family income of $40,000 - $59,999.

At each wave of the study, adolescents were asked to nominate a close peer as

well as another peer who was within their circle of four closest friends. Close friends

were defined as, “people you know well, spend time with and who you talk to about

things that happen in your life.” Adolescents who found it difficult to name close friends

were told that “closest” friends meant those friends who they were closest to relative to

their other acquaintances. All participants successfully named at least one closest friend

using these criteria. The average length of friendship reported by close peers at Wave 1

and Wave 2 was 4.09 years (SD = 3.05) and 4.46 years (SD = 0.75), respectively. At the

second wave of data collection, 11 adolescents (5.9%) did not return for an interview

session and 10 adolescents (5.4%) were unable to have close friends return for data

collection.

17


Procedure

Parents of students were first contacted through mail and later contacted at school

lunches. Those adolescents who expressed an interest in the study were then contacted

by telephone. Sixty-three percent of all eligible students agreed to participate in the study

as either target teens or peers providing auxiliary information. Adolescents and parents

gave informed consent before interview sessions, all of which took place in private

offices located within a university academic building. At the first wave of the study,

adolescents came in for two visits, first with their parents and then with their self-

nominated close peer. At the second wave of the study, approximately one year later, the

adolescent also came in twice, first for an individual interview and then with the close

peer that he/she indicated during this private session. All study participants were paid for

their participation in both waves.

Confidentiality was assured to all participants at each wave, and adolescents were

told that their parents would not be informed of any of the answers they provided.

Participants’ data were protected by a Confidentiality Certificate issued by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, which protected information from subpoena

by federal, state, and local courts. Transportation and childcare were provided if

necessary.

18


Measures

Adolescent Alcohol Use (self-report). Adolescent alcohol use was assessed using

the Alcohol and Drug Questionnaire, a measure created for the current study. This

measure was based on several other well-known drug and alcohol measures, including

the "Monitoring the Future" surveys (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 1987). Teens and

close peers were asked about the frequency of their alcohol use with the question, “When

you drink alcohol, how often do you drink enough to feel pretty drunk or tipsy?” They

then chose one of four answers: “never”, “less than half the time,” “more than half the

time,” or “all of the time.” Participants were asked this question at Wave 1 and Wave 2

in order to examine the change in drinking behavior over a one year period. Generally,

self-reports of problem behaviors have been found to be reliable and to correlate with

reports of independent observers when sensitively obtained (Patterson & Stouthamer-

Loeber, 1984). Johnston et al. (1987) found high reliability from year to year and

consistency between related measures of drug use within the same questionnaire

administration. Construct validity was demonstrated, as self-reported drug use was

related to attitudes, beliefs, and related behaviors. It appeared that under-reporting was

minimal and that participants were not defensive about either their substance use or their

friends' substance use.

Adolescent Values (self-report). Adolescents’ prosocial values were measured

with the Peer Values Measure using a composite values score, including twenty-five

items that assessed which aspects of their lives adolescents endorsed as important to

them, as well as what they thought was important to their friends. This measure included

questions like, “How important is it to you to fit in with the crowd” and “How important

19


is it to you to get good grades?” Adolescents answered questions on a Likert scale: 1=not

very important to me, 2=somewhat important to me, and 3=very important to me. The

items assessed constructs such as: peer conformity/social acceptance, anti-social values,

and pro-academic values. These constructs correspond closely to those assessed in the

Peer Pressure Inventory (Clasen & Brown, 1985), in which teens were asked to rate how

much pressure they felt from their peers in several areas such as school involvement,

misconduct, and peer conformity. Several items on the Peer Values Measure were

adapted from the Peer Pressure Inventory and others were generated by researchers of the

current study. The Cronbach alphas for the close peer composite values score at Wave 1

and the teen composite values score at Wave 2 were .75 and .77, respectively.

Autonomy (observed). The level of autonomy displayed by the adolescent’s close

peer was assessed using an observational measure called the “Mars Task.” Teens and

close peers were presented with a hypothetical dilemma in which they were asked to

decide which seven out of a possible twelve fictional characters stranded on Mars should

be selected for an emergency trip back to Earth. The participants first made their

selections separately by choosing seven people to take back and by starring their top three

choices. Next, the teen-close peer dyads were brought together and told of their

differences and instructed to try to reach a consensus decision about which seven

characters should be allowed to come back. Finally, teens and peers were again separated

and asked to choose seven people to take back and to star their top three choices. These

interactions were videotaped and then transcribed.

The videotapes and transcripts of the adolescent-peer interactions were coded for

behaviors exhibiting autonomy, using the Autonomy and Relatedness Coding System as

20


adapted for adolescent-peer interactions (Allen, Porter, & McFarland, 2002). This study

used two particular variables to assess adolescent autonomy: the amount that the close

peer pressured the teen and the degree of avoidance displayed by the teen. Concrete

behavioral guidelines were used to assess the interactions on several subscales, including

exhibiting avoidance during the discussion and pressuring the other person to change

his/her choices. Two trained coders used a zero to four scale to code each interaction on

the various subscales and their codes were then averaged. Interrater reliability was

calculated using Cronbach’s alpha for each variable: alpha = .76 for the amount the close

peer pressures the teen, and alpha = .65 for the amount of avoidance displayed by the

teen.

Attachment to friends (peer-report). Adolescent attachment to friends was

assessed using a composite attachment score taken from the Inventory of Parent and Peer

Attachment, which included twenty-five items regarding three areas of attachment

relationships, although for the purposes of this study only the overall attachment score

was used (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Close peers indicated on a Likert scale the

accuracy of statements pertaining to target teens such as “My friend respects my

feelings” and “My friend understands me.” Responses ranged from 1=never true to

5=almost always true. Although this measure was developed with older adolescents, it

has been successfully used with adolescents as young as twelve (Armsden & Greenberg,

1988). Test-retest reliability of .93 has been shown for the overall attachment score with

a sample of eighteen to twenty-one year olds (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). An internal

consistency of .92 was found for the overall attachment score in this study.

21


Perceived self-worth (peer-report). The adolescent’s level of self-worth was

measured with the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents, a fifty-five item measure

which provided a global measure of self-worth. This measure added three additional

subscales (job competence, close friendship, and romantic appeal) to the Self-Perception

Profile for Children, which included 6 original subscales: scholastic competence, athletic

competence, physical appearance, social acceptance, behavioral conduct, and global self-

worth (Harter, 1988). Close peers were asked to choose between two contrasting items

and then rate that item as either “sort of true” or “really true” about their friend, resulting

in a four point scale for each item. Cronbach’s alpha for the peer-reported level of teen’s

self-worth was .71.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Sample Means. Means and standard deviations for all variables are presented in

Table 1.

Demographic Effects. Analyses examined the relation of all variables (adolescent

drinking behavior, values, autonomy, attachment to friends, and overall self-worth) with

adolescents’ gender and parents’ income. Results indicated several main effects for

gender and parents’ income on the assessed variables. Thus, these demographic factors

were considered in all analyses predicting adolescent drinking behavior and values in

order to assure that any effects obtained were not simply artifacts of demographic

differences in this sample. These demographic effects are reported along with other

analyses below.

22


Simple correlations. Table 2 presents correlations of both outcome variables

(partialing out adolescents’ gender and family income). Strong correlations were found

between teen drinking behaviors at Wave 1 and Wave 2, as well as correlations between

teen values at Wave 1 and Wave 2 (r =.48 and r =.55, respectively). In addition,

correlations between teen and close peer drinking behaviors and correlations between

teen and close peer values were examined at each wave. These correlations ranged in

absolute values from r =.18 to r =.55.

There were no significant correlations between the moderator variables

(autonomy, attachment, and self-worth). The correlation between the two autonomy

variables (peer pressure and teen avoidance) approached significance at p =.07. These

analyses suggest that each variable is measuring a unique aspect of adolescent

functioning.

Hierarchical regressions for outcome variables. Results of regressions predicting

adolescent alcohol use and values are presented in Tables 3-6. Regression analyses were

first used to examine the direct effects of close peers’ drinking behaviors and values at

Wave 1 in predicting adolescents’ drinking behaviors and values at Wave 2.

Adolescents’ future levels of drinking were predicted by their close peers’ levels of

drinking (see Table 3), but adolescents’ values were not predicted by their close peers’

values (see Table 4).

Primary Analyses

Hierarchical regression analyses were next used to test potential moderator

effects of autonomy, attachment, and self-worth on adolescent drinking behavior and

values. These analyses were run separately by each of the moderator variables for each

23


of the outcome measures (alcohol use and values). Analyses were entered in hierarchical

fashion, with demographic variables entered first, then the teen’s baseline level of

drinking or baseline values, then the close peer’s baseline level of drinking or baseline

values, followed by either autonomy, attachment, or self-worth. Finally, interaction

terms were created by standardizing the independent variables and multiplying them

together, and these terms were entered as a block as the final step in the models. The

results of these regressions are discussed below and can be found in Tables 3-6.

Alcohol Use and Self-worth. Analyses examined predictions of change in teen

drinking behavior over time from the drinking behavior of the close peer and the teen’s

peer-reported level of self-worth. Analyses (presented in Table 3) reveal a small main

effect of close peer drinking behavior, but also an interaction of teen self-worth with

close peer drinking behavior in predicting teen drinking behavior. This interaction

(depicted in Figure 1) indicates that over time, the drinking behavior of teens’ with low

self-worth became more like the initial drinking behavior of their close peers, whereas for

teens with high self-worth, this effect was not found. Therefore, self-worth moderated

the effect of peer influence on adolescent drinking behavior in the expected direction.

Values and Attachment, Pressure, and Avoidance. Regressions for teen and close

peer values reported in Tables 4-6 indicate no direct effect of peer influence in predicting

adolescent values. Analyses next examined the role of several variables in moderating

peer influence on values. First, analyses examined predictions of change in teen values

over time from the values of the close peer and the teen’s peer-reported attachment to

friends. Analyses (presented in Table 4) reveal an interaction of teen attachment status

with close peer values in predicting teen values. This interaction (depicted in Figure 2)

24


indicates that over time, the values of teens’ with strong attachments to friends became

more like the initial values of their close peers, whereas for teens with weak attachments

to friends this effect was not found. Therefore, attachment status moderated the effect of

peer influence on adolescent values in the expected direction.

Next, analyses examined predictions of change in teen values over time from the

values of the close peer and the amount that the close peer pressured the teen during the

cooperative task. Analyses (presented in Table 5) reveal an interaction of peer pressure

with close peer values in predicting teen values. This interaction (depicted in Figure 3)

indicates that over time, the values of teens’ whose friends pressure them became more

like the initial values of their close peers, whereas for teens whose friends do not pressure

them this effect was not found. Therefore, peer pressure moderated the effect of peer

influence on adolescent values in the expected direction.

Finally, analyses examined predictions of change in teen values over time from

the values of the close peer and the amount of teen avoidance during the cooperative task.

Analyses (presented in Table 6) reveal an interaction of teen avoidance with close peer

values in predicting teen values. This interaction (depicted in Figure 4) indicates that

over time, the values of teens’ with low avoidance became more like the initial values of

their close peers, whereas for teens with high avoidance this effect was not found.

Therefore, teen avoidance moderated the effect of peer influence on adolescent values in

the expected direction.

Discussion

In this study, autonomy, attachment, and self-worth were shown to moderate the

extent of peer influence on adolescent drinking behavior and values. Four significant

25


moderating effects were found after accounting for the effects of gender, parents’ income,

and the adolescents’ baseline levels of drinking behavior and values. As hypothesized,

those teens who lacked autonomy with peers had their future values more strongly

predicted by their close peers’ values. Teens whose close peers identified them as having

strong attachments to friends also had their future values more strongly predicted by their

close peers’ values. Similarly, teens who demonstrated avoidance during a cooperative

task had their future values more strongly predicted by their close peers’ values.

Furthermore, teens whose close peers identified them as being low in self-worth had their

future levels of drinking more strongly predicted by their close peers’ levels of drinking.

These findings suggest a link between particular individual characteristics of adolescents’

and peer influence when examining the effect of peer influence on psychosocial

functioning.

First, teens who lacked autonomy were more likely to have their values change in

the direction of becoming more similar to their friends’ values over time. One

explanation of this moderating effect is that autonomy is necessary to make independent

decisions and to stand up for one’s beliefs. Thus, adolescents who lack this quality are

more easily swayed by the opinions and advice of their peers. This finding is consistent

with other studies that have demonstrated the importance of autonomy for both

preventing delinquent behavior and promoting healthy psychosocial development

(Brown, Clasen, & Eicher, 1986; Dupre, Miller, Gold, and Rospenda, 1995; Noom et al.,

1999). Another explanation of the moderating role of autonomy on peer influence is the

link between low autonomy and greater susceptibility to peer pressure in decision-making

situations. Studies have found that risky behaviors are highly associated with peer

26


pressure; therefore, it is important to consider the mechanisms through which adolescents

process and respond to negative peer influences (Barber, Bolitho, and Bertrand, 1999;

Pearson and Lynn, 2000).

Second, teens who had strong attachment relationships with their peers were also

more likely to have their values change in the direction of becoming more similar to their

friends’ values over time. It is important to examine the role of peer attachment in

determining the extent of peer influence on values because adolescents’ primary

attachment relationships often shift from their parents to their peers (Ainsworth &

Marvin, 1995; Allen et al., 1998). One reason why strong attachments to friends might

lead to an increase in peer influence is that a stronger bond between friends leads to an

increase in the amount of time adolescents spend with friends, and this in turn leads to a

greater opportunity for peers to exert an influence. Also, an adolescent with strong

attachments to peers might place a greater emphasis on their friends’ opinions and

behaviors.

Past research has linked insecure attachments in adolescence to several negative

psychosocial outcomes including delinquency and substance use (Allen, Moore,

Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998; Cassidy et al., 2003; Elgar et al., 2003; Engels & ter Bogt,

2001); however, this study showed that even secure attachment relationships can lead to

negative outcomes. This disparity may be due to the difference in how “strong” or

“secure” attachment is defined, or it might be the result of the limited amount of research

on attachment to peers as opposed to attachment to parents. Future research should

explore the effects of different types of peer attachment organizations on peer influence.

27


Third, teens who demonstrated avoidance were more likely to have their values

influenced by the values of their peers. Research has shown that adolescents who exhibit

avoidance are more likely to demonstrate poor social functioning and lack adequate

social skills (La Greca & Lopez, 1998; Ralph, Williams, & Campisi, 1997). In addition,

an avoidant interaction style has been linked to several negative outcomes in adolescence

including drug use, academic failure, antisocial behavior, and aggression (Colsman &

Wulfert, 2002; La Greca & Lopez, 1998). Teens who demonstrate avoidance when

interacting with their peers may lack the necessary skills to maintain autonomy during

social interactions and therefore may be more susceptible to peer influence. It is possible

that avoidance might reflect a more general inability to apply healthy social interaction

skills in decision-making situations and cooperative activities. It is clear that an avoidant

interaction style is associated with numerous detrimental outcomes, and it is necessary to

explore these correlations further in order to determine more specifically how avoidant

teens become more susceptible to peer influence.

Fourth, teens who were low in self-worth were more likely to have their drinking

behaviors change in the direction of becoming more similar to their friends’ drinking

behaviors. This finding is consistent with past research that has demonstrated a strong

association between low self-worth and vulnerability to peer influence in other areas of

functioning such as peer acceptance, academic success, and delinquency (Andrews,

Alpert, Hops, & Davis, 1996; Juvonen et al., 2000; Robinson, 1995; Rosenberg,

Schooler, & Schoenback, 1989). Adolescence is a stressful developmental period during

which many changes in self-esteem occur, and this renders all adolescents increasingly

dependent on the opinions of their peers (Simmons, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg, 1973). It

28


is likely that adolescents who demonstrate low self-worth are even more reliant on their

peers than adolescents who are high in self-worth. Low self-worth may also be linked to

a lack of confidence in one’s own opinions or ideas as well as the willingness to go along

with the majority in order to gain popularity. Adolescents who lack self-esteem might

alter their drinking behavior to become more like their friends in an attempt to feel like

part of the group or to present a “cool” image.

While the results of this study were significant and supported the hypotheses,

there were several limitations. First, the analyses only included data from two separate

interview sessions conducted over a one year period. Although the use of longitudinal

data is an advantage over past research that used mainly cross-sectional data, it is difficult

to assess the stability of change when data is limited to one year. Perhaps traits like

autonomy, attachment, and self-worth fluctuate from year to year, and levels of alcohol

use and values may also change over a longer period of time. It is necessary to examine

the gradual trend in behaviors and characteristics over several years, and this is the aim of

the ongoing longitudinal study from which data for the current study was drawn.

Furthermore, observational data may not accurately reflect how adolescents interact in

the natural environment. The cooperative task in which adolescents displayed autonomy

has proven reliable, but it is difficult to know whether or not the laboratory environment

affected the participants’ behavior.

Due to the lack of research on moderators of peer influence and their effect on

adolescent alcohol use and values, future research on these complex topics is needed.

The larger ongoing longitudinal study on which this study is based is collecting a wide

range of data on adolescent development, and more longitudinal studies are needed in

29


order to develop an accurate model of peer influence over time. Smaller studies that

focus on moderators such as those examined in this study would help to clarify the

processes through which these characteristics (autonomy, attachment, self-worth, etc.)

develop, as well as the mechanisms that can be used to strengthen them. Further research

on the development of alcohol use and values would also be beneficial as they are

complex issues that require thorough investigation. Finally, studies that use experimental

designs could yield results leaning toward causal relationships in order to advance the

understanding of all of these areas of adolescent development.

Overall, these findings suggest that peer influence is a complex process that

affects adolescents differently depending on their levels of autonomy, attachment, and

self-worth. Despite the limited amount of literature on moderators of peer influence on

adolescent psychosocial functioning, it is clear that certain adolescents are more likely

than others to have their drinking behaviors and values predicted by their peers’ drinking

behaviors and values. This study demonstrated that to the extent that adolescents become

more similar to their peers, the extent to which this happens is linked to the individual

characteristics of the adolescents. Therefore, it is necessary to further explore the

relationship between individual characteristics and peer influence. Most of the studies

that have examined these issues have relied on correlational data. Therefore, this study

extended past research by using regression analyses to begin to indicate a causal role of

peer influence on adolescent functioning. If a definite causal link is established,

researchers can suggest strategies for preventing the effects of negative peer influence,

including: teaching preventive factors like autonomy and self-worth in schools, educating

community members about the importance of preventive measures, and clarifying the

30


role of peer influence in adolescence. Researchers can also educate the community about

the importance of adolescent alcohol use and values as markers of overall adolescent

functioning, and community members can begin to take a more active role in these areas

of adolescent development through measures such as education and program

implementation.

References

Ainsworth, M. & Marvin, R. (1995). On the shaping of attachment theory and research:

An interview with Mary D. S. Ainsworth. Monographs of the Society for

Research in Child Development, 60(2-3), 3-21.

Allen, J. & Hauser, S. (1996). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family

interactions as predictors of young adults' states of mind regarding attachment.

Development and Psychopathology, 3, 793-809.

Allen, J., Hauser, S., Eikholt, C., Bell, K., & O'Connor, T. (1994). Autonomy and

relatedness in family interactions as predictors of expressions of negative

adolescent affect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 535-552.

Allen, J., Hauser, S., O’Connor, T., Bell, K., & Eickholt, C. (1996). The connection of

observed hostile family conflict to adolescents’ developing autonomy and

relatedness with parents. Development & Psychopathology, 8, 425-442.

Allen, J., Leadbeater, B., & Aber, J. (1990). The relationship of adolescents’ expectations

31


and values to delinquency, hard drug use, and unprotected sexual intercourse.

Development and Psychopathology, 2, 85-98.

Allen, J., Marsh, P., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K., Land, D., & Jodl, K. (2002).

Attachment and autonomy as predictors of the development of social skills and

delinquency during midadolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 70(1), 56-66.

Allen, J., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent

psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69(5), 1406-1419.

Allen, J., Porter, M., & McFarland, C. (2002). Autonomy-Relatedness Coding Manual for

Adolescent-Peer Dyads. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia,

Charlottesville.

Allen, J., Weissberg, R., & Hawkins, J. (1989). The relation between values and social

competence in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 458-464.

Andrews, J., Alpert, A., Hops, H., & Davis, B. (1996, March). The relation of

competence in middle adolescence to depression and antisocial behavior : A

multi-method assessment. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society

for Research on Adolescence, Boston.

Andrews, J., Tildesley, E., Hops, H., & Li, F. (2002). The influence of peers on young

adult substance use. Health Psychology, 21(4), 349-357.

Armsden, G. & Greenberg, M. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:

Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in

adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454.

32


Atkinson, J., Richard, A., & Carlson, J. (2001). The influence of peer, family, and school

relationships in substance use among participants in a youth jobs program.

Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 11(1), 45-54.

Barber, J., Bolitho, F., & Bertrand, L. (1999). Intrapersonal versus peer group predictors

of adolescent drug use. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(7), 565-579.

Berndt, T. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents.

Developmental Psychology, 15(6), 608-616.

Berndt, T. (1992). Friendship and friends’ influence in adolescence. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 1(5), 156-159.

Berndt, T., Hawkins, J., & Jiao, Z. (1999). Influences of friends and friendships on

adjustment to junior high school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(1), 13-41.

Borden, L., Donnermeyer, J., & Scheer, S. (2001). The influence of extra-curricular

activities and peer influence on substance use. Adolescent & Family Health, 2(1),

12-19.

Brown, B. (1982). The extent and effects of peer pressure among high school students: A

retrospective analysis. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 11(2), 121-133.

Brown, B., Clasen, D., & Eicher, S. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer conformity

dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents. Developmental

Psychology, 22, 521-530.

Brown, B., Lohr, M., McClenahan, E. (1986). Early adolescents’ perceptions of peer

pressure. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6(2), 139-154.

Cassidy, J., Aikins, J., & Chernoff, J. (2003). Children’s peer selection: Experimental

33


examination of the role of self-perceptions. Developmental Psychology, 39(3),

495-508.

Clasen, D., & Brown, B. (1985). The multidimensionality of peer pressure in

adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 14(6), 451-468.

Colsman, M. & Wulfert, E. (2002). Conflict resolution style as an indicator of

adolescents’ substance use and other problem behaviors. Addictive Behaviors,

27(4), 633-648.

Coombs, R., Paulson, M., & Richardson, M. (1991). Peer vs. parental influence in

substance use among Hispanic and Anglo children and adolescents. Journal of

Youth & Adolescence, 20(1), 73-88.

Crawford, L. & Novak, K. (2002). Parental and peer influences on adolescent drinking:

The relative impact of attachment and opportunity. Journal of Child & Adolescent

Substance Abuse, 12(1), 1-26.

Diego, M., Field, T., & Sanders, C. (2003). Academic performance, popularity, and

depression predict adolescent substance use. Adolescence, 38(149), 35-42.

Dinges, M. & Oetting, E. (1993). Similarities in drug use patterns between adolescents

and their friends. Adolescence, 28, 253-266.

Dishion, T., Capaldi, D., Spracklen, K., & Li, F. (1995). Peer ecology of male adolescent

drug use. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 803-824.

Dishion, T., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and

problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54(9), 755-764.

34


Dishion, T., & Owen, L. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of friendships and substance use:

Bidirectional influence from adolescence to adulthood. Developmental

Psychology, 38(4), 480-491.

Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley.

DuBois, D., Bull, C., Sherman, M., & Roberts, M. (1998). Self-esteem and adjustment in

early adolescence: A social-contextual perspective. Journal of Youth &

Adolescence, 27(5), 557-583.

DuBois, D., Felner, R., Brand, S., George, G. (1999). Profiles of self-esteem in early

adolescence: Identification and investigation of adaptive correlates. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 899-932.

Dubow, E., Edwards, S., & Ippolito, M. (1997). Life stressors, neighborhood

disadvantage, and resources: A focus on inner-city children’s adjustment. Journal

of Clinical Child Psychology, 26(2), 130-144.

Dupre, D., Miller, N., Gold, M., & Rospenda, K. (1995). Initiation and progression of

alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine use among adolescent abusers. American Journal

on Addictions, 4(1), 43-48.

Elgar, F., Knight, J., Worrall, G., & Sherman, G. (2003). Attachment characteristics and

behavioural problems in rural and urban juvenile delinquents. Child Psychiatry &

Human Development, 34(1), 35-48.

Engels, R. & ter Bogt, T. (2001). Influences of risk behaviors on the quality of peer

relations in adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 30(6), 675-695.

35


Fasick, F. (1984). Parents, peers, youth culture and autonomy in adolescence.

Adolescence, 19(73), 143-157.

Fuligni, A., Eccles, J., Barber, B., & Clements, P. (2001). Early adolescent peer

orientation and adjustment during high school. Developmental Psychology, 37(1),

28-36.

Galambos, N., Barker, E., & Almeida, D. (2003). Parents do matter: Trajectories of

change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early adolescence. Child

Development, 74(2), 578-594.

Gosselin, C., Larocque, D., Vitaro, F., & Gagnon, C. (2000). Identification of factors

linked to consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs during adolescence.

International Journal of Psychology, 35(1), 46-59.

Greenberg, M., Siegel, J., & Leitch, C. (1983). The nature and importance of attachment

relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth &

Adolescence, 12(5), 373-386.

Hamm, J. (2000). Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable bases for African

American, Asian American, and European American adolescents’ selection of

similar friends. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 209-219.

Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profile for adolescents. Denver,

CO: University of Denver.

Harter, S. (1998). Relational self-worth: Differences in perceived worth as a person

across interpersonal contexts among adolescents. Child Development, 69(3), 756-

766.

36


Jarvin, D. & Nicholls, J. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals, beliefs about the causes of

social success, and satisfaction in peer relations. Developmental Psychology,

32(3), 435-441.

Johnston, L., O'Malley, P., & Bachman, J. (1987). National trends in drug use and related

factors among American high school students and young adults, 1975-1986

(ED2881420). Ann Arbor Institute for Social Research.

Judy, B. & Nelson, E. (2000). Relationship between parents, peers, morality, and theft in

an adolescent sample. High School Journal, 83(3), 31-42.

Kandel, D. (1985). On processes of peer influences in adolescent drug use: A

developmental perspective. Advances in Alcohol & Substance Abuse, 4(3-4), 139-

163.

Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002). Group identification in early

adolescence: Its relation with peer adjustment and its moderator effect on peer

influence. Child Development, 73(1), 196-208.

Kuperminc, G., & Allen, J. (2001). Social orientation: Problem behavior and motivations

toward interpersonal problem solving among high risk adolescents. Journal of

Youth & Adolescence, 30(5), 597-622.

La Greca, A. & Lopez, N. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer

relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(2), 83-94.

La Greca, A., Prinstein, M., & Fetter, M. (2001). Adolescent peer crowd affiliation:

Linkages with health-risk behaviors and close friendships. Journal of Pediatric

Psychology, 26(3), 131-143.

37


Levitt, E. & Edwards, J. (1970). A multivariate study of correlative factors in youthful

cigarette smoking. Developmental Psychology, 2, 5-11.

Mazor, A., Shamir, R., & Ben-Moshe, J. (1990). The individuation process from a social-

cognitive perspective in kibbutz adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

19, 73-90.

McCord, J. (1990). Problem behaviors. In S. Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the

threshold: The developing adolescent (pp.414-430). Philadelphia: Temple

University.

McDonald, R. & Towlerman, D. (1993). Psychosocial correlates of adolescent drug

involvement. Adolescence, 28, 925-936.

Oetting, E. & Beauvais, F. (1987). Peer cluster theory, socialization characteristics, and

adolescent drug use: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 205-

213.

Patterson, G. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management

practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299-1307.

Pearson, M. &Michelle, L. (2000). Smoke rings: Social network analysis of friendship

groups, smoking and drug-taking. Drugs-Education Prevention & Policy, 7(1),

21-37.

Pombeni, M., Kirchler, E., & Palmonari, A. (1990). Identification with peers as a strategy

to muddle through the troubles of the adolescent years. Journal of Adolescence,

13(4), 351-369.

Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., & Schoenback, C. (1989). Self-esteem and adolescent

38


problems: Modeling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 54, 1004-

1018.

Ralph, A., Candida, W., & Antonina, C. (1997). Measuring peer interactions using the

adolescent social interaction profile. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 18, 71-86.

Robinson, N. (1995). Evaluating the nature of perceived support and its relation to

perceived self-worth in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5(2),

253-280.

Rubin, J., Pruitt, D., & Kim, S. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and

settlement (2nd. ed.),, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Scholte, R., Lieshout, C., & Aken, M. (2001). Perceived relational support in

adolescence: Dimensions, configurations, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 11(1), 71-94.

Schulenberg, J., Maggs, J., Dielman, T., Leech, S., Kloska, D., Shope, J., & Laetz, V.

(1999). On peer influences to get drunk: A panel study of young adolescents.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(1), 108-142.

Seidman, E., Chesir-Teran, D., Friedman, J., Yoshikawa, H., Allen, L., & Roberts, A.

(1999). The risk and protective functions of perceived family and peer

microsystems among urban adolescents in poverty. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 27(2), 211-237.

Simmons, R., Rosenberg, F., & Rosenberg, M. (1973). Disturbance in the self-image at

adolescence. American Sociological Review, 38, 553-568.

39


Simons, R., Whitbeck, L., Conger, R., Melby, J. (1991). The effect of social skills,

values, peers, and depression on adolescent substance use. Journal of Early

Adolescence, 11(4), 466-481.

Smetana, J., & Asquith, P. (1994). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental

authority and personal autonomy. Child Development, 65(4), 1147-1162.

Stattin, H., Gustafson, S., & Magnusson, D. (1989). Peer influences in adolescent

drinking: A social transition perspective. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9(3), 227-

246.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S.

Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent. (pp.

255-276). Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.

Tevendale, H., DuBois, D., Lopez, C., & Prindiville, S. (1997). Self-esteem stability and

early adolescent adjustment: An exploratory study. Journal of Early Adolescence,

17(2), 216-237.

Tremblay, R., Masse, L., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P. (1995). The impact of friends’ deviant

behavior on early onset delinquency: Longitudinal data from 6 to 13 years of age.

Development & Psychopathology, 7(4), 649-667.

Whitbeck, L., Simons, R., Conger, R., Lorenz, F. (1989). Value socialization and peer

group affiliation among early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9(4),

436-453.

Yarnold, B. (1998). The use of alcohol by Miami’s adolescent public school students

40


1992: Peers, risk-taking and availability as central forces. Journal of Drug

Education, 28(3), 211-233.

Table 1Means and standard deviations of all variablesMeasures M(SD)-Wave 1 M(SD)-Wave 2

Frequency of

Alcohol Use (SR)

Teen 1.05 (.33) 1.18 (.61)

Close Peer 1.06 (.30) 1.23 (.69)

Values (SR)

Teen 46.98 (5.55) 47.22 (6.08)

Close Peer 47.96 (5.77) 46.49 (5.31)

Autonomy Measures (OBS)

CP displays autonomy 2.41 (.98)

CP pressures teen 1.33 (1.16)

Teen shows avoidance 1.69 (1.22)

Attachment to Peers (PR) 102.99 (13.35)

Self-worth (PR) 13.06 (2.66)

Adolescent Gender (SR) 53% Female, 47% Male

Parents’ Income $43, 764 ($22,444)

Note: SR = Self Report; OBS = Observed; PR = Peer Report

41


Ns for all measures range from 142-184 due to missing data.

42


Table 2Correlations of outcome variables

Peer Alc1 Teen Alc2 Peer Alc2 TeenVal1 Peer Val1 Teen Val2 Peer Val2

Teen Alc1 .44*** .48*** .32*** .11 .17 .005 -.14

Peer Alc1 .16 .34*** .16 .21** .07 .08

Teen Alc2 .35*** .04 .18* .02 .02

Peer Alc2 .01 .21** -.006 -.06.

Teen Val1 .27*** .55*** .29***

Peer Val1 .18* .21**

Teen Val2 .19*

*p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001

Note: Alc1=Alcohol Use at Wave 1, Alc2=Alcohol Use at Wave 2, Val1=Values at Wave 1, Val2=Values at Wave 2

Ns for variables range from 142 to 184 due to missing data.

43


Table 3. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Teen Alcohol Use from Peer Alcohol Use and Teen Self-worth after Accounting for Related Covariates

Teen Alcohol Use (Time 2)Step 1. β R2 ∆ R2

Gender -.07 Parents’ Income .17* .03+ .03+Step 2. Teen Alcohol Use (Time 1)

.46*** .28*** .25***

Step 3. Peer Alcohol Use (Time 1)

.31* .31*** .03*

Step 4.Teen Self-worth .01 .31*** 0

Step 5.Peer Alcohol Use x Teen Self-worth -.91*** .38*** .07***

***p≤.001, **p≤.01, *p≤.05, +p≤.10

Ns range from 100-158 due to missing data.

44


Table 4. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Teen Values from Peer Values and Teen Attachment Status after Accounting for Related Covariates

Teen Values (Time 2)Step 1. β R2 ∆ R2

Gender -.27*** Income .03 .08** .08**Step 2. Teen Values (Time 1)

.53*** .33*** .25***

Step 3. Peer Values (Time 1)

.01 .35*** .02

Step 4.Teen Attachment Status .16* .37*** .02*

Step 4.Peer Values x Teen Attachment Status .13* .39*** .02*

***p≤.001, **p≤.01, *p≤.05, +p≤.10


45


Table 5. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Teen Values from Peer Values and Peer Pressure after Accounting for Related Covariates



.53*** .33*** .25


.01 .35*** .02

Step 4. Peer Pressure .04 .35*** 0Step 5.Peer Values x Peer Pressure .16** .38*** .03**

***p≤.001, **p≤.01, *p≤.05, +p≤.10


46


Table 6. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Teen Values from Peer Values and Teen Avoidance after Accounting for Related Covariates



.53*** .33*** .25***


.01 .35*** .02

Step 4.Teen Avoidance -.03 .35*** 0

Step 4.Peer Values x Teen Avoidance -.13 .37*** .02

***p≤.001, **p≤.01, *p≤.05, +p≤.10


47

Moderators of Peer Influence 48

Abstract - University of Virginiapeople.virginia.edu/~psykliff/pubs/publications/Michelle... · Web...

Documents

Transcript of Abstract - University of Virginiapeople.virginia.edu/~psykliff/pubs/publications/Michelle... · Web...