Formal Modeling of the Resistance to Peer Influence Questionnaire: A Comparison of Adolescent Boys and Girls With and Without Mild-to-Borderline Intellectual Disability

Abstract

Items of the Resistance to Peer Influence Questionnaire (RPIQ) have a tree-based structure. On each item, individuals first choose whether a less versus more peer-resistant group best describes them; they then indicate whether it is “Really true” versus “Sort of true” that they belong to the chosen group. Using tree-based item response theory, we show that RPIQ items tap three dimensions: A Resistance to Peer Influence (RPI) dimension and two Response Polarization dimensions. We then reveal subgroup differences on these dimensions. That is, adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability, compared with typically developing adolescents, are less RPI and more polarized in their responses. Also, girls, compared with boys, are more RPI, and, when high RPI, more polarized in their responses. Together, these results indicate that a tree-based modeling approach yields a more sensitive measure of individuals’ RPI as well as their tendency to respond more or less extremely.

When Do those “Risk-Taking Adolescents” Take Risks? The Combined Effects of Risk Encouragement by Peers, Mild-to-Borderline Intellectual Disability and Sex

“…With regard to the first part of the third question on potential sex differences, boys with MBID were susceptible to negative risk encouragement by peers, whereas girls with MBID were not. This finding is in line with some research on sex differences in susceptibility to peer influence in typically developing adolescents Sumter et al 2009;Widman et al 2016) and with the only study in adolescents with MBID known so far (Dekkers et al 2017). Moreover, the finding builds on earlier research in which boys with MBID were more susceptible to mixed positive and negative riskencouraging statements than typically developing boys (Bexkens et al 2018), by showing that their susceptibility is limited to negative risk encouragement by peers.…”

“…The latter finding matches earlier findings in adolescents with MBID (Bexkens et al 2018), but is not in line with the fact that decreased cognitive control, as often found in adolescents with MBID (Bexkens et al 2014), is related to more risk taking in general (e.g., Bjork and Pardini 2015). However, the results specify the general views that adolescents with MBID are highly susceptible to peer influence and have low risk-awareness in peer situations (Dekkers et al 2017; Greenspan et al 2011;Khemka et al 2009), by showing that this is only the case when peers negatively encourage risk taking. As positive risk encouragement by peers was not related to more risk taking in adolescents with MBID, we conclude that the abovementioned potential mechanisms of negative risk encouragement by peers may apply more to adolescents with MBID than to typically developing adolescents.…”

“…Participants then completed the questionnaire, while the experimenter stayed in another part of the room to answer questions when needed. The RPI data of the current sample were also published in another paper that demonstrated that adolescents with MBID were able to understand the RPI (Dekkers et al 2017).…”

“…Indeed, intellectual disability is characterized by lower riskawareness (Greenspan et al 2011), and vignette studies suggest that adolescents with MBID especially struggle to make safe decisions under peer influence (Khemka et al 2009). Also, adolescents with MBID report lower resistance to peer influence than typically developing adolescents (Dekkers et al 2017). To our knowledge, there is only one experimental study that compared the susceptibility to peer influence of adolescents with MBID and typically developing adolescents (Bexkens et al 2018).…”

“…Previous research about sex differences in susceptibility to peer influence showed mixed results. Several experimental and selfreport studies found that boys were more susceptible to peer influence than girls Sumter et al 2009;Widman et al 2016), and this pattern was similar for adolescents with MBID (Dekkers et al 2017). However, other experimental studies demonstrated that girls are more susceptible to peer influence than boys (Shepherd et al 2011) or did not find any differences between boys and girls (Gardner and Steinberg 2005).…”