Homophily and Influence in Different Peer Contexts: Synthesis

1. Homophily and Influence in Different Peer Contexts: Synthesis Jaana Juvonen, Professor Department of Psychology UCLA

2. Richness of Conceptualizations Multidisciplinary approaches: developmental & social psychology, sociology; applied & theoretical Types of groups studied: dyads to crowds Processes examined: from (de)selection of romantic partners to increased homogeneity of friends� crowd affiliations Motives identified: self-verification, romantic attraction, compliance Functions explored: identity formation & group membership; selection of romantic partners & social status #2: large & small; voluntary & involuntary grps#2: large & small; voluntary & involuntary grps

3. Groups & Mechanisms Studied Main foci of past studies on peer contagion: Dyadic processes of mutual reinforcement based on intervention research Social network analyses: selection vs. influence effects �Mere exposure� effects within larger groups (e.g., classrooms) Drawing from the broader FIELD of study (published research), at least 3 categories of research can be identified Unclear WHO INFLUENCES WHOM & HOW?Drawing from the broader FIELD of study (published research), at least 3 categories of research can be identified Unclear WHO INFLUENCES WHOM & HOW?

4. My Focus on Large Involuntary Groups Need to understand both group level processes and individual motives guiding behaviors: Consider the within group social structure Understand formation & maintenance of perceived group norms Identify emulation motives of individual group members 2 & 3: Motives can be conceptualized functioning at two level: grp and individual 2 & 3: Motives can be conceptualized functioning at two level: grp and individual

5. Peer Contagion in Involuntary Social Groups: Lessons from Research on Bullying Goal = to understand social functions of bullying

6. Social Structure, Power & Group Functioning Young teens in school: cf. primate troops Social hierarchies established through demonstrations of power A dominant group member maintains social order that serves the group: Decreased in-fighting Increased cohesiveness

7. Middle School = Jungle? Middle schools= large & loosely structured Lack of institutional structure ?formation of peer crowds ?mastery of social world Middle school organizational practices (e.g., teaming) help �chunk� the masses, but within group hierarchies prominent Dominance is established much like in the primate troops, with hostile means Hostile means that help someone gain high social status, also shape group norms of what is not tolerated or accepted Hostile means that help someone gain high social status, also shape group norms of what is not tolerated or accepted

8. A. Social Structure of Middle School Bullies, not inept social isolates, but often dominant �leaders� 2. Victims also rejected by classmates = social outcasts # 1 & 2: social structure of the grp; # 3: motive# 1 & 2: social structure of the grp; # 3: motive

10. Peer Rejection of Bullies vs. Victims

11. B1.Formation of Group Norms By targeting specific individuals, bullies �Teach� others what is not accepted/tolerated Observers/bystanders affected by threat of exclusion/ridicule: side with the bully Fear of ridicule and exclusion promote compliance = �jeer pressure� (Passive) siding with the bully & rejection of the victim increases the cohesiveness of the group Agreement who is in the position of power + common �scape goat� = cohesionAgreement who is in the position of power + common �scape goat� = cohesion

12. B2.Maintenance of False Group Norms When no group member publicly challenges the actions of the bully: Pluralistic ignorance arises: inaccurate pro-bully norms are promoted Socially attached/connected youth resort to self-protective self-presentation tactics to avoid the threat of bullying Those with unmet social needs affected by false norms Socially coonected youth know what it takes to avoid bullyingSocially coonected youth know what it takes to avoid bullying

13. C. Emulation of Bullies Those with unmet social needs are most affected by misperceived norms --i.e.,those: who wish to elevate their social status who are not part of desired crowds with no friends or unsatisfying friendships Unmet social needs increase desire to emulate high status bullies & hence increase anti-social behavior

14. How to Study This?�Peer Nominations Bullying �Who starts fights or pushes other kids around?� �Who puts other kids down or makes fun of others?� �Who spreads nasty rumors about other kids?� High social status/perceived popularity �Who are the coolest kids?�

15. Computation of Co-Nominations

16. Predicting Antisocial Behavior End of 7th Grade

17. Lessons from Research on Bullying: Summary Bullying: 1. Maintains a dominance hierarchy or social ranking 2. Serves to promote particular social norms 3. Perceptions of norms shape individual group members� behavior 4. Not all members are equally affected by the norms: those with unmet social needs most vulnerable 5. Emulation of bullies increases disruptive behavior over time

18. Further Questions How to �break down� the social dominance of antisocial youth? Emulation of prosocial behavior: how to make it happen? Educational practices & school organizational features affecting dominance hierarchies? Multiethnic schools: multiple dominance hierarchies? Examination of proximal peer group processes in the context of larger groups dynamics