Social Network Centrality and Leadership Status: Links with Problem Behaviors and Tests of Gender Differences

Abstract

Seventh-grade students (N = 324) completed social cognitive maps to identify peer groups and peer group leaders, sociometric nominations to describe their peers’ behaviors, and questionnaires to assess their own behaviors. Peer group members resembled one another in levels of direct and indirect aggression and substance use; girls’ cliques were more behaviorally homogenous than were boys’ cliques. On average, leaders (especially if they were boys) were perceived as engaging in more problem behaviors than were nonleaders. In girls’ cliques, peripheral group members were more similar to their group leader on indirect aggression than were girls who were more central to the clique. Peer leaders perceived themselves as being more able to influence peers but did not differ from nonleaders in their perceived susceptibility to peer influence. The findings contribute to our understanding of processes through which influence may occur in adolescent peer groups.

Depression socialization within friendship groups at the transition to adolescence: The roles of gender and group centrality as moderators of peer influence.

“…Socialization effects were greatest for youth who were more peripheral (i.e., received fewer friendship nominations from fellow group members) in the peer group. This result is in agreement with previous research showing that peer group centrality is inversely related to conformity to friends’ deviant behavior (Lansford et al, 2009). This effect may be driven by the motivation of less central group members to adopt group norms so as to improve their status within the group (Crandall, 1988).…”

“…Such factors could be the target of prevention efforts or could be used to help identify those who may be most likely to fall prey to peer influence. Following from theories and findings in ethnography and developmental psychology research, this study examines youths’ position within their friendship group hierarchy as a moderator of depression socialization (Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995; Eder, 1985; Lansford, Killeya-Jones, Miller, & Costanzo, 2009). Prior work, however, supports competing hypotheses.…”

“…Some research has suggested that central or nuclear members of child and adolescent friendship groups may be most susceptible to group influences given that these members are most frequently exposed to social norms among all group members (Urberg, Luo, Pilgrim, & Degirmencioglu, 2003). Other research has suggested that less central (i.e., peripheral) members are most susceptible to group influences, based on the hypothesis that these members may adopt group norms to earn more favorable positions within the group (e.g., Lansford et al, 2009). As a result, we do not make specific predictions regarding how socialization may vary according to centrality to the friendship group network.…”

Evaluating the Impact of a Substance Use Intervention Program on the Peer Status and Influence of Adolescent Peer Leaders

“…This is important because the efficacy of peer leader prevention programming for the long term depends on the continuing positive influence of leaders trained as prevention agents in affecting the substance use behavior of their peers. Furthermore, we have found in this and other studies on the current sample (see Golonka et al 2007 and Lansford et al 2009) that for the 7th and 8th graders we surveyed there was a clear linkage between centrality/sociometric leadership and substance use prior to intervention as well as in our control cohort across time. Because young adolescent peer leaders are the earliest users of substances (also see Killeya-Jones et al 2007), when their own use declines (or fails to rise) as a function of their participation as prevention agents, their lower overall use should also have salutary long term effects on their “follower” peers given that their status remains intact.…”

Classroom-level predictors of the social status of aggression: Friendship centralization, friendship density, teacher–student attunement, and gender.

“…Popularaggressive youth have little reason to change and may not see current remedial techniques as right for them (Lansford et al, 2009;Rose & Swenson, 2009). Thus, this research focused less on changing aggressive behavior within the individual and more on highlighting potentially malleable setting-level factors that might decrease the social status that aggression can bring.…”