Do They Get What They Want or Are They Stuck With What They Can Get? Testing Homophily Against Default Selection for Friendships of Highly Aggressive Boys. The TRAILS Study

Abstract

In this study a homophily selection hypothesis was tested against a default selection hypothesis, to answer whether preferred and realized friendships of highly aggressive boys differed. In a large peer-nomination sample, we assessed who highly overt aggressive, low prosocial boys (n = 181) nominated as friends (preferred friendships) and who among the nominated friends reciprocated the friendship (realized friendships). These preferred and realized friendships were compared with those of less aggressive (n = 1,268) and highly aggressive but also prosocial boys (bi-strategics; n = 55). Results showed that less aggressive boys preferred peers low on aggression, whereas highly aggressive and bi-strategic boys preferred peers not particular high or low on aggression. In line with default selection, highly aggressive boys ended up with aggressive peers even though that was not their preference. In general, received support proved an important determinant of highly aggressive, bi-strategic, and less aggressive boys’ preferred and realized friendships. Especially highly aggressive boys preferred emotionally supportive friends, but ended up with the least supportive peers. In sum, for friendships of highly overt aggressive boys, the evidence favors default selection over homophily selection.

Peer victimization, deviant peer affiliation and impulsivity: Predicting adolescent problem behaviors

“…Adolescents generally are inclined to affiliate with deviant peers via the process named homophily selection, which emphasizes the importance of common features; in this view, adolescents prefer friends who are like them (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954;Sijtsema, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2010;Veenstra & Dijkstra, 2011). For example, victimized adolescents may voluntarily affiliate with deviant peers who are similarly rejected, depression and/or experience low school connectedness (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariépy, 1988;Fergusson et al, 2003;Jackson et al, 2012;Kochel, Ladd, & Rudolph, 2012;Mrug et al, 2014;Zhu, Zhang, Yu, & Bao, 2015).…”

“…For example, victimized adolescents may voluntarily affiliate with deviant peers who are similarly rejected, depression and/or experience low school connectedness (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariépy, 1988;Fergusson et al, 2003;Jackson et al, 2012;Kochel, Ladd, & Rudolph, 2012;Mrug et al, 2014;Zhu, Zhang, Yu, & Bao, 2015). Another possible explanation for the relationship between peer victimization and deviant peer affiliation is the process of default selection (Sijtsema et al, 2010). For example, because of the low peer acceptance (Kochel et al, 2012), victims may have a chance for peer acceptance only among deviant peers.…”

“…In order to resolve this dilemma, victimized adolescents may be more likely to make friends with deviant peers and acquire security, support, and intimacy from them. In addition, they may associate with deviant peers because of the shared experience of social outcasts (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954;Sijtsema et al, 2010), which may maintain group affiliation. This line of thinking is consistent with the assumption that peer victimization as a risk may be associated with deviant peer affiliation (Sijtsema et al, 2010;Veenstra & Dijkstra, 2011).…”

“…For example, deviant peer affiliation simultaneously could be a mediator in the link from problem behaviors to peer victimization. Adolescents with a higher level of problem behaviors may actively select deviant peers via similarity-based selection (Sijtsema et al, 2010;Rudolph et al, 2014). In turn, deviant peer affiliation may lead to more peer victimization because of a risky lifestyle (Vézina et al, 2011).…”

The Dynamics of Friendships and Victimization in Adolescence: A Longitudinal Social Network Perspective

“…This is known as default selection (cf. Sijtsema, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2010). Indeed, victims often have victimized friends (Haselager, Hartup, van Lieshout, & Riksen-Walraven, 1998;Hodges et al, 1997;Salmivalli, Huttunen, & Lagerspetz, 1997).…”