This study examined two types of influence (reputational and personal) children perceive from different sources (i.e., close friends, well-liked peers, and popular peers). Participants included 455 third through fifth grade students. A quadratic assignment procedure was used wherein children’s peer nominations of the source of influence were correlated with their nominations of the type of influence. Findings suggested that children perceive personal influence more so than reputational influence from close friends and well-liked peers. In contrast, children perceive reputational influence more so than personal influence from popular peers. The degree to which children perceive personal influence from the three sources differed by behavioral domains (i.e., academic and trend-following behaviors). Implications for peer influence research and intervention are discussed.
AllenJ. P.ChangoJ.SzwedoD.SchadM.MarstonE. (2012). Predictors of susceptibility to peer influence regarding substance use in adolescence. Child Development, 83, 337–350. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01682.x
2.
AltermattE. R.PomerantzE. M. (2003). The development of competence-related and motivational beliefs: An investigation of similarity and influence among friends. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 111–123. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.111
3.
BagwellC. L.SchmidtM. E. (2011). Friendships in childhood and adolescence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
4.
BarryC. M.WentzelK. R. (2006). Friend influence on prosocial behavior: The role of motivational factors and friendship characteristics. Developmental Psychology, 42, 153–163. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.153
5.
BerndtT. J. (1992). Friendship and friends’ influence in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 156–159. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep11510326
6.
BerndtT. J. (1999). Friends’ influence on students’ adjustment to school. Educational Psychologist, 34, 15–28. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3401_2
7.
BerndtT. J.KeefeK. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329. doi:10.2307/1131649
8.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
9.
BrechwaldW. A.PrinsteinM. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 166–179. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x
10.
BukowskiW. M. (2011). Popularity as a social concept: Meanings and significance. In CillessenA. H. N.SchwartzD.MayeuxL. (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
CardN. A.HodgesE. V. E.LittleT. D.HawleyP. H. (2005). Gender effects in peer nominations for aggression and social status. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 146–155. doi:10.1080/01650250444000414
12.
CialdiniR. B.RenoR. R.KallgrenC. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
13.
CillessenA. H. N. (2011). Toward a theory of popularity. In CillessenA. H. N.SchwartzD.MayeuxL. (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 273–299). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
CillessenA. H. N.RoseA. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102–105. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00343.x
15.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
CohenG. L.PrinsteinM. J. (2006). Peer contagion of aggression and health risk behavior among adolescent males: An experimental investigation of effects on public conduct and private attitudes. Child Development, 77, 967–983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00913.x
17.
DishionT. J.SpracklenK. M.AndrewsD. W.PattersonG. R. (1996). Deviancy training in male adolescents friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373–390. doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(96)80023-2
18.
EriksonE. H. (1964). Childhood and society. New York, NY: W W Norton & Co.
19.
Gifford-SmithM. E.BrownellC. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235–284. doi:10.1016/s0022-4405(03)00048-7
20.
HarrisJ. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458–489. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.3.458
21.
JuvonenJ.HoA. Y. (2008). Social motives underlying antisocial behavior across middle school grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 747–756. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9272-0
22.
KennyD. A.La VoieL. J. (1984). The social relations model. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142–182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23.
KindermannT. A. (2008). Can we make causal inferences about the influence of children’s naturally existing social networks on their school motivation? In CardN. A.SeligJ. P.LittleT. D. (Eds.), Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences (pp. 335–368). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
24.
KrackhardtD. (1988). Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Social Networks, 10, 359–381. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(88)90004-4
25.
LaFontanaK. M.CillessenA. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130–147. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00522.x
26.
LaursenB.HafenC. A.KerrM.StattinH. (2012). Friend influence over adolescent problem behaviors as a function of relative peer acceptance: To be liked is to be emulated. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 88–94. doi:10.1037/a0024707
27.
LeaseA. M.KennedyC. A.AxelrodJ. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87–109. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00188
28.
MayeuxL.HouserJ. J.DychesK. D. (2011). Social acceptance and popularity: Two distinct forms of peer status. In CillessenA. H. N.SchwartzD.MayeuxL. (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 79–102). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29.
OjanenT.GrönroosM.SalmivalliC. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s social goals: Links with peer-reported behavior and sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 41, 699–710. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.699
30.
ParkhurstJ. T.HopmeyerA. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144. doi:10.1177/0272431698018002001
31.
PiehlerT. F.DishionT. J. (2007). Interpersonal dynamics within adolescent friendships: Dyadic mutuality, deviant talk, and patterns of antisocial behavior. Child Development, 78, 1611–1624. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01086.x
32.
PrinsteinM. J.DodgeK. A. (2008). Current issues in peer influence research. In PrinsteinM. J.DodgeK. A. (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
RoseA. J.CarlsonW.WallerE. M. (2007). Prospective associations of co-rumination with friendship and emotional adjustment: Considering the socioemotional trade-offs of co-rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1019–1031. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1019
34.
RoseA. J.RudolphK. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98
35.
RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.ParkerJ. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In EisenbergN.DamonW.LernerR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
36.
SandstromM. J. (2011). The power of popularity: Influence processes in childhood and adolescence. In CillessenA. H. N.SchwartzD.MayeuxL. (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 219–244). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
37.
SandstromM. J.RomanoL. (2007, March). Popularity and social influence: How status and acceptance influence peers’ persuasive ability. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.
38.
UrbergK. A. (1992). Locus of peer influence: Social crowd and best friend. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 439–450. doi:10.1007/bf01537896
39.
UrbergK. A.DeğirmencioğluS. M.PilgrimC. (1997). Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology, 33, 834–844. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.5.834
40.
Van ZalkM. H. W.KerrM.BranjeS. J. T.StattinH.MeeusW. H. J. (2010). It takes three: Selection, influence, and de-selection processes of depression in adolescent friendship networks. Developmental Psychology, 46, 927–938. doi:10.1037/a0019661
41.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
WentzelK. R.BarryC. M.CaldwellK. A. (2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.195
43.
WoodW. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539–570. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539
44.
YanovitzkyI.RimalR. N. (2006). Communication and normative influence: An introduction to the special issue. Communication Theory, 16, 1–6. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00002.x
