Interpersonal Dynamics Within Adolescent Friendships: Dyadic Mutuality, Deviant Talk, and Patterns of Antisocial Behavior

Abstract

Interpersonal dynamics within friendships were observed in a sample of 120 (60 male, 60 female) ethnically diverse 16- and 17-year-old adolescents characterized as persistently antisocial, adolescent-onset, and normative. Dyadic mutuality and deviant talk were coded from videotaped friendship interactions. Persistently antisocial adolescents demonstrated lower levels of dyadic mutuality compared with adolescent-onset and normative adolescents. Persistently antisocial and adolescent-onset adolescents spent more time in deviant talk than did normative adolescents. Across groups, girls were rated as more mutual and coded less in deviant talk than boys. Furthermore, friendship dyads who engaged in high levels of deviant talk and were mutual in their interactions reported the highest rates of antisocial behavior.

Measuring Peer Socialization for Adolescent Substance Use: A Comparison of Perceived and Actual Friends’ Substance Use Effects

“…Although AFU and friendship quality also interacted for marijuana use persistence, this relationship was negative, such that AFU was stronger when friends were less close. A potential explanation for this lies in the "peer influence paradox," such that adolescents who tend to be strong socialization agents for more deviant behavior (e.g., illicit substance use) also tend to have poorer-quality friendships with others (e.g., Bagwell & Coie, 2004;Piehler & Dishion, 2007;Poulin et al, 1999). Conversely, there were also interactions between PFU and friendship quality for marijuana initiation and persistence, such that the effect of PFU increased as friends were closer.…”

Peer Relationships in Adolescence

“…In other words, when conversations were sufficiently patterned to allow partners to reinforce antisocial utterances, the antisocial behavior was more likely to persist. A subsequent study indicated that these conversation dynamics applied to girls as well as boys (Piehler & Dishion, 2007 ).…”

A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluation of an After-School Prosocial Behavior Program in an Area of Socioeconomic Disadvantage

“…One of the most widely cited explanations of iatrogenic effects found in the evaluation of SEL programs is the negative effects of peer influences (Dishion & Kavanagh, 2003;Piehler & Dishion, 2007). In essence, this research suggests that peers learn negative behaviors from each other when instructed in groups.…”