In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Some characteristics of a peer group include shared beliefs, interests and preferences for specific activities. Peers within a group may identify with one another to develop a sense of identity and a positive self-concept. Adolescent peer groups also increase their members’ sense of personal autonomy from their parents. Peer groups may help to reinforce cultural norms for their members by demonstrating successful and unsuccessful ways of participating in culture. Teenagers who are part of peer groups may identify with a certain peer social type even without directly interacting with other peers in the same group. This allows them to make a statement about the type of person they are within the culture. Teenagers may also join peer groups that reflect the views of the larger collective. The peer groups teenagers belong to provide a check that shows them whether they belong and fit in or whether they don’t truly fit into the group. Peer groups also provide teenagers with support and direction as they move away from the childhood environment of their parental home. They are no longer influenced by their immediate family. Instead, they begin to conform to the norms within their peer group as they transition into the larger social environment of the world. aDepartments of Preventive Medicine and Psychology, Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, University of Southern California, 1000 S Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91803, USA Find articles by Steve Sussman aDepartments of Preventive Medicine and Psychology, Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, University of Southern California, 1000 S Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91803, USA Find articles by Pallav Pokhrel bDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 152 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA Find articles by Richard D. Ashmore cDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1025 W Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706-1796, USA Find articles by B. Bradford Brown Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer aDepartments of Preventive Medicine and Psychology, Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, University of Southern California, 1000 S Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91803, USA bDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 152 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA cDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1025 W Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706-1796, USA *Corresponding author. IPR-USC, 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Unit 8, Alhambra, CA 91803, USA. Tel./fax: +1 626 457 4012. ude.csu@amssuss (S. Sussman) This study provides an exhaustive review of 44 peer-reviewed quantitative or qualitative data-based peer-reviewed studies completed on adolescent peer group identification. Adolescent peer group identification is one’s self-perceived or other-perceived membership in discrete teenage peer groups. The studies reviewed suggest that adolescent peer groups consist of five general categories differentiable by lifestyle characteristics: Elites, Athletes, Academics, Deviants, and Others. We found that the Deviant adolescent group category reported relatively greater participation in drug use and other problem behaviors across studies, whereas Academics and Athletes exhibited the least participation in these problem behaviors. Additional research is needed in this arena to better understand the operation of adolescent group labels. Keywords: Adolescent group identification, Group characteristics Social scientists have long noted the tendency for people to place themselves and others into consensually recognized and labeled social types (Ashmore, Del Boca, & Beebe, 2002). Adolescentstend to segregate themselves into different peer group types. Adolescents give names to their peer group types, as has been popularly illustrated by movies such as The Breakfast Club (1985) and Clueless (1995). Peer group names that adolescents give themselves or each other suggest the groups’ lifestyle characteristics, such as shared beliefs, interests in clothes and music, and preference for specific activities (Brown & Lohr, 1987; Hartup, 1985; Sussman et al., 1990). As discussed by Brown and Lohr (1987), adolescents may identify with groups to develop a sense of identity and a positive self-concept, and an increased sense of personal autonomy from parents. In addition, these group categories may reinforce cultural norms by indicating successful and unsuccessful ways of participating in the culture (Ashmore et al., 2002). Teens may “place” themselves into peer group types in at least two ways. First, they may simply identify themselves with a certain peer social type regardless of any direct interaction with other peers. In this sense, they are making a statement about the type of teen they are within the culture (i.e., they are stating the name of the reputation-based collective in which they feel they take part). Second, these adolescents may actually participate in peer groups which reflect the larger collective. The peer groups provide a check on whether they view youth as “really” a member of the peer group type or only someone who tries to be part of the group (a “wannabe”). Adolescents are in the process of moving away from the closed environment of the parental home where they are largely influenced by their immediate family to a social world where they are among peers and have to begin to make independent choices. Due to lack of experience they are often not sure about the lifestyle decisions they should make (e.g., balancing their social and school lives, vocational orientation). In need of support and direction they are likely to search for a place among a group of peers by conforming to the group’s norms (Larkin, 1979). Peer groups thus either vicariously or directly facilitate the adolescents’ transition into the larger social environmental world. The literature that pertains to the study of adolescent peer group types has been referred to by various names (e.g., peer group association (Sussman et al., 1990), peer group self-identification (Sussman et al., 1994), peer crowd affiliation (Prinstein & La Greca, 2002)). For the remainder of this review, we will label this arena as “peer group identification” (e.g., Mosbach & Leventhal, 1988) because peer group types may be self- or other defined, and may pertain to a larger collective or to actual peer group interactions. This term permits inclusion of that variation. The peer group identification literature began at least four decades ago (Clark, 1962). Several studies have found that peer group identification is related to problem-prone behaviors such as substance use and risk-taking (see Jessor, 1984). Findings across several peer group identification studies also suggest that a social hierarchy exists among adolescent groups with Elites or Athletes at the top, and that this hierarchy is associated with the level of one’s social involvement, social acceptance, or self-esteem (e.g., Brown & Lohr, 1987; Cohen, 1979; Eder, 1985; Franzoi, Davis, & Vasquez-Suson, 1994; La Greca, Prinstein, & Fetter, 2001; Prinstein & La Greca, 2002). Currently, it is unknown (1) how many data-based peer-reviewed studies on youth peer group identification exist, (2) what the variation of methods are that delineate peer group names, and (3) what the patterns of associations are between peer group identification and behavioral (e.g., drug use) or personality (e.g., self-esteem) variables across studies. The purpose of this review paper is to address these questions. We first attempted to identify all quantitative or qualitative data-based peer-reviewed studies that used peer group names to identify peer groups. Then, we examined the methods used to delineate group names. We also attempted to identify a finite number of general group names that accommodate the studies that were completed. Two recent group type scaling studies (Ashmore, Griffo, Green, & Moreno, in press; Stone & Brown, 1999) provided direction on what the general group labels might be. We used the results of these two studies and used a sorting procedure, both of which are described below, to identify general groups. Next, the relations of peer group identification with general group characteristics, personality characteristics, parenting characteristics, substance use (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and illicit drugs), teen dating/sexual behavior, and violence participation were examined. It was expected that youth who were identified as belonging to a Deviant group (e.g., a Stoner, Tough, Heavy Metaler, Druggie, or Burnout, as examples), would be delineated across studies and would show the greatest prevalence of problem behavior and personality characteristics (Jessor, 1984). On the other hand, we expected that youth that were more involved in school activities or social events, such as the Academics, Elites, or Athletes would show the lowest prevalence of drug use behavior among the groups. Also, we expected that the Others, not falling into a clearly defined group, perhaps lacking peer support to boost their sense of self-worth, would also show higher drug use than Academics, Elites, or Athletes. Finally, limitations of this research and future research directions based on this review were suggested to stimulate continued investigation in the field of group identification. Searches of OVID MedINFO (1966 to August, 2005), PsycINFO (1887 to August, 2005), ERIC (1966 to August, 2005), Social Science Abstracts (1983 to August, 2005) and Sociological Abstracts (1963 to August, 2005) databases were completed to identify studies that used peer group identification to delineate adolescent peer groups. All databases were searched by crossing the terms “youth” and “adolescents” with “peer group identification”, “peer group self-identification”, “peer group association”, “peer group”, “peer crowd”, “peer crowd affiliation”, “peer affiliation”, and “peer group affiliation.” In addition, we engaged in searches using the group names “Jock”, “Brains”, “Elites”, “Socies”, “Druggies”, and “Normals.” Only studies published in English language peer-reviewed journals were included. Studies were also excluded from consideration if they concerned subjects more than 26 years of age (end of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000)) and if they did not identify clearly definable peer group names. Forty-four studies were located. The included studies and the group names used in them are shown in Table 1. Group identification studies and group names
Subjects across these studies varied in age from 9 to 23 years (see Table 2). While 30 studies involved solely general populations of junior or senior high school students (grades 7 to 12; 12–18 years of age), 3 studies (Sussman et al., 1999; Sussman, Dent, & McCuller, 2000; Sussman, Unger, & Dent, 2004) involved alternative (continuation) high school students (for those that do not successfully adapt to mainstream education). Also, 4 studies targeted pre-teens, at least in part (Dubow & Cappas, 1988; Eder, 1985; Michell, 1997; Prinstein & La Greca, 2002). One study (Ashmore et al., 2002) addressed college students. Six studies (Downs & Rose, 1991; Kipke, Montgomery, Simon, Unger, & Johnson, 1997; Kipke, Unger, O’Connor, Palmer, & LaFrance, 1997; Miller, Farrell, Barnes, Melnick, & Sabo, 2005; Miller et al., 2003; Sussman et al., 1999) targeted non-school based samples. Only three studies were conducted outside the U.S., all in school-based settings (Heaven, Ciarrochi, Vialle, & Cechavicuite, 2005; Michell, 1997; Thurlow, 2001). Peer group differentiation according to methods and measures
Table 2 lists the methods used to identify peer group names and characteristics. The methods used by the majority of studies to elicit peer group names and their respective characteristics are differentiated in three basic ways: (1) adolescents’ self-report on their own peer group identification (24 studies), (2) investigators’ classifying of adolescents into peer groups based on use of ethnographic methods — unstructured interviews and participant or naturalistic observation (eight studies), and (3) peer ratings of adolescents into groups according to the perceived ‘social types’ prevalent at their schools (seven studies). Five other studies were rated differently. One study only investigated perceptions of group types, not dividing subjects into groups (Ashmore et al., 2002). Four studies used statistical methods to divide other-report or self-report measures of aggression, social network ratings of peers one desires to spend time with, or social involvement to create groups (Dubow & Cappas, 1988; Farmer et al., 2003; Franzoi et al., 1994; Tolone & Tieman, 1990). After locating all peer-reviewed data-based group identification studies, we organized them by placing their groups into a general group name framework. To create this framework we relied on two sources of information. First, we examined the results of two scaling studies that placed perceptions of group types into two-dimensional space. A social map was created by Stone and Brown (1999) derived from a multidimensional scaling of perceptions of general group types on peer status versus academic engagement, among a sample of approximately 2000 students grades 6–12 who did the ratings. Ashmore et al. (in press) used cluster analysis to scaled perceptions of specific college student group types on social involvement versus academic involvement. The specific groups clustered to reveal general categories that aligned at different locations on these dimensions. Their results replicated the ones obtained by Stone and Brown (1999). Based on this previous group name perception work, we conjectured that youth could be grouped into one of 5 general categories: Elites, Athletes, Deviants, Academics, and Others. Elites are high in peer status and social involvement, and somewhat involved in academics. Athletes are high in peer status and social involvement but only slightly involved in academics. Deviants are in the middle on peer status and social involvement and rebel against school (very low academic involvement). Academics are high in academic involvement, in the middle on peer status, and relatively low on social involvement. Finally, Others tend to be relatively low in peer status, social involvement, and academic involvement. Second, we engaged in a rating task. The specific group names used to compose general group names were extracted from each study. These names were placed on index cards. If two names were nearly identical (e.g., “Socies”, “Socials”, “High society”) these names were placed on the same card. A total of 119 cards were created. Next, 4 raters (2 males and 2 females, 22 to 30 years old) independently were requested to place the 119 cards into the 5 categories created by the authors. The 5 general categories were defined by use of one sentence descriptions, each. Percent agreement of the placement of the cards into groups by each rater with the arrangement of the names in Table 1 (the standard, created by the authors) was calculated. Percent agreement varied from 81% to 90% (mean across raters=85.0%). 3.1.1. The ElitesThe Elites category was recognized across studies as being a high status group (i.e., in the 34 studies that delineated this category). An elite-type group was the leading group at school and comprised of members who generally were successful in academic and extracurricular activities, held a high opinion of themselves, and were high in both other-perceived and self-perceived social competence. The 10 studies that failed to delineate Elites included seven which subsumed Elites under an Athlete label (Downs & Rose, 1991; Eckert, 1983; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Kipke, Montgomery et al., 1997; Kipke, Unger et al., 1997; Riester & Zucker, 1968; Urberg, 1992), and three studies that did not attempt to study Elites per se (they compared Athletes to Non-athletes, or Loners to Non-loners (Demuth, 2004; Miller et al., 2003, 2005)). 3.1.2. The AthletesAthlete group status was associated with being popular (as well as athletic) like the Elite category (in all 33 studies that this group was mentioned); in fact, seven studies used an Athlete group name to refer to the popular group at school, as was just described in the Elites subsection. Athletes were not represented in 11 studies. Among these, five studies referred to Elite youth as also being the athletes in the school (Cohen, 1979; Dolcini & Adler, 1994; Gotlieb, 1975; La Greca & Harrison, 2005; Michell, 1997). (Thus, 12 studies either subsumed Elites within the Athletes category, or subsumed Athletes within the Elites category.) Also, five studies focused on comparisons that would tend to subsume Athletes as part of a larger group (Loners versus Non-loners (Demuth, 2004; Tolone & Tieman, 1990); Rejected versus Non-rejected (Dubow & Cappas, 1988; Franzoi et al., 1994); Aggressive versus Non-aggressive (Farmer et al., 2003)). Finally, in one study of Mexican and Asian immigrants (Matute-Bianchi, 1986) no Athletes were described at the study high school. 3.1.3. The AcademicsClark (1962) described “Academics” as a peer group more devoted to academic studies and academic-related extracurricular activities than to any other activities. They have been found to be most likely to have graduated from college by 24 years old (Barber, Eccles, & Stone, 2001). A total of 17 studies failed to delineate academics among the groups. Of these studies, four subsumed Academics under the Elites category (Mosbach & Leventhal, 1988; Pascoe, 2003; Poveda & Crim, 1975; Sussman et al., 1999), one study subsumed Academics under the Others category (La Greca & Harrison, 2005), one only delineated two groups in the school and Academics and Elites were subsumed under an athletes category (Eckert, 1983), five focused on types of a priori group comparisons which would tend to group Academics together with other groups (e.g., Demuth, 2004; Miller et al., 2003, 2005; Sussman et al., 1993; Tolone & Tieman, 1990), and six focused on single characteristics of groups and failed to identify Academics as a separate group (clothing styles (Eicher, Baizerman & Michelman, 1991), aggression (Farmer et al., 2003), stereotyping or popularity (Eder, 1985; Fishkin et al., 1993; Franzoi et al., 1994), masculinity and popularity (Pascoe, 2003)). 3.1.4. The DeviantsAs opposed to the Elites, Athletes, and Academics, the Deviants cared least about schoolwork, school extracurricular activities, or future careers. They neither excelled academically nor athletically. What primarily defined the Deviants was their proneness to use tobacco, alcohol and drugs, and engage in other risky behaviors such as involvement in violence. Deviants were described as a separate group in 37 studies. Of the seven studies that did not delineate deviants, five focused on types of a priori group comparisons which would tend to group Deviants together with other groups (Demuth, 2004; Eder, 1985; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Miller et al., 2003, 2005), and two studies grouped Deviants in with the Elites (Dolcini & Adler, 1994; Tolone & Tieman, 1990). 3.1.5. OthersThe Others category is composed of adolescent peer group names that could not be classified into any of the four other general categories. Most of these peer groups were not very distinct (e.g., 7th graders, or “Whites”) and their members did not adhere to any clearly defined set of adolescent norms. Across studies, others also were variously termed as “Normals” (e.g., Brown & Lohr, 1987; Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993; Clasen & Brown, 1985; Downs & Rose, 1991), “Regulars” (e.g., Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Mosbach & Leventhal, 1988; Sussman et al., 1990; Sussman et al., 2000), “Averages” (e.g., Brown et al., 1993; Downs & Rose, 1991; Franzoi et al., 1994; Prinstein & La Greca, 2002; Poveda & Crim, 1975; Urberg, Degirmencioglu, Tolson, & Halliday-Scher, 2000), “Nobodies” (Brown & Lohr, 1987; Clark, 1962; Cohen, 1979), “Outsiders/Loners/Nerds/Outcasts” (Gotlieb, 1975), and “Floaters” (“float” from one group to another (Dolcini & Adler, 1994)). Adolescents similar to this type seem to have made up Larkin’s “Silent Majorities” (Larkin, 1979). From among the 44 studies in the dataset, only three failed to identify Others groups. These delineated only two or three general groups to describe the whole sample (Eckert, 1983; Kipke, Montgomery et al., 1997; Kipke, Unger et al., 1997). Table 2 provides concise summaries of the results of each paper. Some studies provided personality descriptions. The most widely studied was self-esteem. Nine studies addressed self-esteem. Differences failed to be found across groups on self-esteem in four of these studies (except that Others were found to be higher on self-esteem than the other groups in one study (Mosbach & Leventhal, 1988)), the Deviants were described as lowest in self-esteem in three studies, and the Others were described as lowest in self-esteem in two studies. Life satisfaction was a personality-type variable that was described in five studies, favoring Elites (two studies), Athletes (one study), Academics (one study), and Others (one study). No study described Deviants as high in life satisfaction. Other personality or affective descriptors (self-reliance, self-control, and depression/anxiety) were described in three or fewer studies, and are not discussed here. In general, we could not rank groups well on the basis of the available personality findings. The most consistent set of findings across personality data portrayed the Deviants least favorably among groups. Parenting characteristics were examined in six studies, Elites, Athletes, Academics, and Others were ascribed good (Authoritative; i.e., high parental acceptance and control) parenting in two, one, two, and one study, respectively. The Deviants were never ascribed good parenting. Finally, problem-prone behavior characteristics were studied. A total of 14 studies investigated cigarette smoking. Of these, the Deviants were the group most likely to smoke in 13 studies, Elites were very likely to smoke in two of these studies along with Deviants, and Others were very likely to smoke in one of these studies along with Deviants. Elites were the group most likely to smoke in one study (in which a Deviant group was not identified (Dolcini & Adler, 1994)). A total of 18 studies investigated alcohol use. Of these, the Deviants were the group most likely to drink in 15 studies, Elites were very likely to drink in four of these studies along with Deviants, Athletes were very likely to drink in one of these studies along with Deviants, and Others were very likely to drink in one of these studies along with Deviants. Elites were the group most likely to drink alcohol in two studies (Dolcini & Adler, 1994; Tolone & Tieman, 1990). In addition, one study found that Athletes were more likely to drink than Non-athletes (Miller et al., 2003). In all three of these latter studies, no separate Deviant group was delineated. A total of nine studies investigated marijuana use. Of these, the Deviants were the group most likely to use marijuana in eight studies, Elites were very likely to use marijuana in one of these studies along with Deviants, and Others were very likely to use marijuana in one of these studies along with Deviants. Elites were the group most likely to use marijuana in the Dolcini and Adler (1994) study only. A total of 13 studies investigated other illicit drug use. Of these, the Deviants were the group most likely to use other illicit drugs in all 13 studies, and Others were very likely to use other illicit drugs in one of these studies along with Deviants. A total of 10 studies investigated teen dating/participation in sexual behavior. Of these, the Deviants were the group most likely to participate in teen sex in seven studies, Elites were very likely to participate in teen sex in two of these studies along with Deviants, Athletes were very likely to participate in teen sex in one of these studies along with Deviants, and Others were very likely to participate in teen sex in one of these studies along with Deviants. In three studies, in which Loners were compared to Non-loners (Demuth, 2004), Athletes were compared to non-Athletes (Miller et al., 2005), and Elites were compared with Academics and Others (Dolcini & Adler, 1994), Non-loners, Athletes, and Elites were most likely to participate in teen sex. There was no Deviant group identified in these three studies. Finally, a total of seven studies examined involvement in violent situations (e.g., anger, fights, victimization, or stealing property). Of these, Deviants were the group most likely to participate in violent situations in six of these studies, and Others were very likely to participate in violence in one of these studies along with Deviants. In one study, in which “Socials” were compared with “Loners and Nerds” (Tolone & Tieman, 1990), Elites were more likely to participate in violence. No Deviant group was identified in that study. Other problem behaviors (i.e., drinking coffee, cruising) were reported in one study each. In both of these, Deviants were most likely to participate in the problem behavior. Moderately high agreement regarding placement of specific names into the general categories – the Elites, Athletes, Academics, Deviants, and Others – was achieved. In addition, these groups generally demonstrated the lifestyle characteristics that they depict. The Deviants perhaps were the most distinct among the groups. Self-identification as part of a Deviant group showed the greatest stability over time (Sussman et al., 1994), and self-other ratings of group identification were highest in concordance for Deviants (Urberg et al., 2000). Deviants were identified in 37 of the studies including all three studies conducted outside the U.S. Deviants were the least satisfied with life and received the worst parenting. They also were the most likely to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, use marijuana, use other illicit drugs, participate in dating/teen sex, and engage in violent situations. Partial exceptions to these results are regarding alcohol use and participation in sex. On these problem behaviors, the Elites were represented as relatively high in approximately 33% of the studies. While a much lower percentage than the Deviants, who were relatively high in alcohol use and sexual behavior in at least 70% of the studies, and several of these studies involved Elites with no Deviant group identified, there was some consensus that Elites were relatively likely after the Deviants, to participate in these behaviors. These results may suggest that alcohol use and dating (sex) are associated with festive social interactions and popularity among teens and emerging adults, as well as representing a problem behavior. Conversely, cigarette smoking, marijuana use, other drug use, and violence participation may represent primarily problem behaviors. Knowing which adolescent peer groups are most likely to engage in problem-prone behavior can help better target preventive efforts. As Gotlieb (1975) suggested, one way of looking at adolescent peer group identification is as a means by which adolescents form natural support systems without adult support or supervision. Interventions directed on peer groups as support systems are likely to be effective against propagation of unhealthy behaviors. Possibly, intervention programs focused on reducing substance use (preventing abuse) can effectively target undesirable psychosocial characteristics normative within Deviant peer groups (e.g., see the Motivation–Skills–Decision Making (MSD) model (e.g., see Sussman, Earleywine et al., 2004)). To the extent that peer group identification reflects a person perception phenomenon, one may also focus on self- and social image counteraction, to make a prosocial teen image be perceived as a more desirable type to currently self-identified Deviants. Certainly, much more research is needed to be able to more fully understand the implications of prevention programming as a function of peer group identification. There are several limitations of the peer group identification literature. Raters were not in complete agreement when placing specific groups into general categories. Some variation existed in what general types of groups one placed specific groups into, suggesting that specific groups may be viewed in different ways by different people. In addition, specific group names do change over time (e.g., the deviant group “greasers” no longer exists). Even though the same general groups exist over 40 years of studies, the variations that do exist may indicate aspects of the group identification process that cannot be learned by resorting to a finite list of general categories. In particular, one problem is the tendency to define specific groups and then refer to an “Other” general group. Groups such as “Regulars/Averages” and “Floaters” reveal rather different if not contradictory characteristics across studies. Means to better understand youth that currently are labeled as Others is needed. In particular, this general group label really appears to us to reflect a collection of groups and future research might profitably disaggregate its constituents into meaningful and separate types. A second more general problem is regarding how to best measure peer group identification. While participant observation is subject to observer bias, self- and peer ratings of peer group identification have their own methodological biases. As Urberg et al. [30] pointed out self-report is potentially biased because some adolescents are likely to have unrealistic perceptions about themselves. On the other hand, a peer-report method is potentially biased because peer raters may not be familiar with all of the various groups prevalent at school, their norms, and their members. Interestingly, though, Urberg et al. [30] found a high degree of association between self-identified and peer-identified groups (66%), with greater concordance for females and older adolescents. For the time being we assert that multiple measures are likely to provide a better understanding of this construct than are single measures (e.g., see Campbell & Fiske, 1959). In addition, researchers might assess youth’s identification with multiple groups rather than the one group with which one most closely identifies. Among the 44 studies, only Kipke and colleagues permitted subjects to identify multiple groups (Kipke, Montgomery et al., 1997; Kipke, Unger et al., 1997). It is possible that youth naturally identify with many groups in different life domains (e.g., school, home, or clubs). To the extent that group identification is context dependent, one indeed could identify with multiple groups. Comparison of assessment techniques is needed for a better understanding of the parameters of group identification. A third limitation is regarding what has really been learned about this concept over the last 40 years of research. One may argue that these groups are well-known and that all this research was not needed. Researchers simply do not yet know how this concept operates or how it might be important in youth development. Certainly, some work has indicated that one’s group identification predicts one’s lifestyle 5 years later (Sussman, Unger et al., 2004). Still, it remains unknown to what extent it operates as a social perception variable versus a group-level phenomenon, what mediates the relation between group identification and problem behaviors, or what impact on the lifespan this concept might serve. Much more progress is needed in the field than is represented by the current work (Tables 1 and 2). Future research is needed to strengthen the generalizability of the construct. Except for Michell (1997) and Thurlow (2001) whose studies were completed in Great Britain, and Heaven et al. (2005), whose study was completed in Australia, all studies considered in the present review were carried out in the United States. Michell (1997) did not identify discrete peer group names as used by adolescents but classified the adolescent subjects into “Top group”, “Middle Group”, and “Bottom Group” according to the investigator’s observations. Heaven et al. (2005), and Thurlow (2001), on the other hand, found that most names used for the core groups in their samples resembled group names frequently identified in the U.S. literature, such as “Populars,” “Brains,” and “Toughs” (known as “Hard People” and “Bad People” in the British sample). Since peer group names are often used in media representing adolescent popular culture, and given its global reach, it would not be surprising to find the peer group names used in the U.S. spreading to other cultures. Future research also should delve more into emerging adult peer group identification. Apart from Ashmore et al. (2002) who looked into adolescent peer group perceptions among undergraduates and three studies (Kipke, Montgomery et al., 1997; Kipke, Unger et al., 1997; Sussman et al., 1999) that looked into runaway/homeless youth ranging in age from 12 to 23, all the other studies were centered on adolescents. Due to this limitation present studies are likely to have failed to find out peer group names and characteristics exclusive to older youth. Emerging adults in college or elsewhere may exhibit different peer group identification patterns than younger, middle and high school students, though research is lacking. Another future measurement direction is worth noting. Adolescents are perceived to segregate into different delineated groups, adolescents identify themselves as members of delineable groups, and teens do show a tendency to segregate into various peer groups and shape their life styles accordingly. Certainly, use of social network analysis may be important to discriminate between the perceptions youth have of groups or their own group membership versus actual group interactions, which may reflect different phenomena. For example, in a recent study of middle school youth at 16 schools in southern California, social network analysis indicated that the popular students were relatively likely to smoke (Valente, Unger, & Johnson, 2005). This result would appear contrary to group identification studies that indicate that Deviant youth, generally not considered popular, are relatively likely to smoke. Clearly, both group identification and social network data should be collected and compared to better discern how it is that group identification operates as a phenomenon. It is possible that those youth that are considered popular by Valente et al. (2005) are also those that consider themselves Deviant through a process of self-identification. We do not know this unless both types of measures are used. In conclusion, the 44 studies included in the present review indicate that peer group identification is a phenomenon that has existed in the research literature for at least four decades. Five peer group categories emerged across studies. Although specific names of the groups within each of these categories might have changed over time, though we find little evidence of that, the characteristics have been preserved. Also, each category of peer groups is associated with a particular set of behaviors. In particular, Deviants choose to engage in health risk behaviors such as drug use and participation in violence. These kinds of choices have potential to impact the course and the quality of the adolescent’s later life. Therefore, adolescent peer group identification is a construct of consequence and demands serious attention from researchers. This research was supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA07601, DA13814, DA16094, and DA016090).
|