Longitudinal Relations Among Peer Influences and Adolescents’ Problem and Prosocial Behaviors

Introduction: A large body of research has examined the role of negative peer influences on adolescent problem behaviors. Peer pressure for fighting, peer reactions to adolescents’ behavior, and peers’ prosocial behavior have also been shown to be uniquely related to adolescents’ problem and prosocial behaviors. However, there is limited longitudinal research to establish whether these associations are due to peer selection or peer influence. The purpose of the current study was to examine bidirectional influences by examining reciprocal relations between peer influences and adolescents’ physical aggression and effective nonviolent behavior using both adolescent and teacher reports.

Method: Data were collected four times a year (i.e., fall, winter, spring, summer) from 2,152 students from all three grades in three urban middle schools. Models that included teacher-reported outcomes used a subsample of 1,422 students that did not include the summer wave when teachers were not assessed. These samples were approximately 47% male, 78% African American, 16% Latino/a, and ranged in age from 11 to 16 years old. Participants completed the Physical Aggression and Peer Pressure for Fighting subscales from the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale, Friends’ Delinquent and Prosocial Behavior subscales from the Friends’ Behavior Scale, and Friends’ Support for Fighting and Nonviolence subscales from the Reactions to Responses to Conflict Situations Scale at each wave.

Results: Cross-lagged path models revealed reciprocal relations between (1) friends’ delinquent behavior and student-reported physical aggression, (2) peer pressure for fighting and student- and teacher-reported physical aggression, and (3) peer pressure for fighting and teacher-reported nonviolent behavior across each wave, controlling for prior levels of peers’ and adolescents’ behaviors. Peer selection effects were found between (1) student-reported physical aggression and friends’ support for fighting, (2) teacher-reported physical aggression and friends’ prosocial behavior, and (3) teacher-reported nonviolent behavior and friends’ prosocial behavior. Gender and grade did moderate these relations.

Conclusions: The current findings support both peer influence and peer selection effects. The presence of bidirectional relations has important implications for addressing specific risk and protective factors within the peer domain. In particular, peer pressure for fighting had the strongest effect on adolescents’ problem and prosocial behaviors. Therefore, interventions that specifically target peer pressure may have a stronger impact on reducing problem behavior and increasing nonviolent behavior than programs that currently ignore the cyclical patterns between peer and adolescent behavior.