Peer Influences on Academic Motivation: Exploring Multiple Methods of Assessing
Youths’ Most “Influential” Peer Relationships
By: Lauren E. Molloy, Scott D. Gest, Kelly L. Rulison
Molloy, L., Gest, S.D., & Rulison, K. L. (2011). Peer influences on academic motivation:
Exploring multiple methods of assessing youth’s most “influential” peer relationships. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 31(1), 13-40. doi: 10.1177/0272431610384487
Made available courtesy of Sage Publications:
http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431610384487
***© The Authors. Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized
without written permission from the authors. This version of the document is not the
version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the
document. ***
Abstract:
The present study examines the relative role of three distinct types of peer relationships
(reciprocated friendships, frequent interactions, and shared group membership) in within-year
changes in academic self-concept and engagement before and after the transition to middle
school (fifth and seventh grade). In a series of linear regression analyses, main effects of each
peer type’s academic self-concept and engagement on changes in youths’ academic
characteristics were used to test socialization processes. Interactions of youths’ academic skills
with those of each peer type were used to test social comparison processes influencing changes
in academic self-concept. Results suggest unique roles of each peer relationship differentially
influencing changes in youths’ academic adjustment as well as stronger influence effects during
seventh than fifth grade. Implications are discussed in terms of distinct influence processes
associated with each peer relationship type as well as potential developmental differences in the
role that certain peer relationships play.
Keywords: peer relationships | academic achievement | academic/school transitions | self-
concept | friendships | peer groups
Article:
Peers play a prominent role in children’s lives during elementary and middle school, both in
terms of time spent together and potential to impact development (e.g., Hartup, 1996; Newcomb
& Bagwell, 1995; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Peers influence youth in a variety of
domains, including academic adjustment (e.g., Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2005; Berndt & Keefe,
1995; Guay, Boivin, & Hodges, 1999; Kindermann, 2007; Ryan, 2001), but the magnitude of
peer influence effects is typically small and evidence regarding age-related differences in
influence is mixed (e.g., Berndt & Murphy, 2002). One possible reason for the mixed evidence
may be that peer influence is a more heterogeneous set of phenomena than is currently
appreciated. In the present study, we explore this possibility by considering multiple types of
social ties connecting peers and multiple influence processes in a longitudinal study of youths’
academic self-concept and effort before and after their transition to middle school.
Achievement motivation is an interaction of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and environmental
components (Bandura, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Dweck, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002), but
here we focus on one cognitive component (academic self-concept) and one behavioral
component (academic engagement). Academic self-concept refers to perceptions of one’s own
academic competence, and develops out of past experiences, evaluative feedback from important
others, and social comparisons (Dweck, 2002; Harter, 1998). Academic engagement refers to
enthusiastic and focused involvement in academic activities and manifests in behaviors, such as
effort and active class participation (Kindermann, 2007; Ryan, 2001). Youths’ academic self-
concepts and engagement are interrelated: academic self-concept predicts expectations for
success and the value placed on academic achievement, which in turn affect levels of academic
engagement (e.g., Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). Youths’ motivational patterns are important to
understand both as proximal processes that ultimately shape youths’ achievement and as
uniquely important predictors of youths’ general well-being and likelihood of engaging in
deviant behaviors (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ludden & Eccles, 2007).
Three Types of Social Ties
Peers have potential to shape these motivational components in the context of multiple types of
social ties. Friendship researchers focus on dyadic, mutual liking relationships. Compared with
non-friend dyads, mutual friends engage in higher levels of prosocial behavior, closeness,
warmth, equality, and more equitable resolution of conflict (Berndt & Murphy, 2002; Hartup,
1996; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). Friends adhere to norms of reciprocal exchange (Laursen &
Hartup, 2002), with an increasing emphasis on sharing, disclosure, trust, loyalty, and emotional
support in early adolescence (Berndt & Murphy, 2002; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). Dyadic
interaction researchers focus on the frequency of interactions among peers. This approach builds
on developmental-ecological frameworks emphasizing the importance of direct, regularly
occurring interactions as the proximal settings in which individuals acquire competencies, learn
social skills, and develop sets of beliefs and behaviors (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Dishion,
Andrews, & Crosby, 1995; Kindermann, 2007). There is also a long tradition of studying
informal social groups composed of three or more individuals. Shared group membership is
distinct from dyadic relationships because some dyads within a group are only indirectly tied; yet
the group itself becomes rewarding as a source of identity, resources, and positive feelings of
belonging and being liked (Brown, 1990; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Friendships, interaction
dyads, and groups overlap but are partly distinct (Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995;
Kindermann, 2007; Urberg, Degirmencioglu, Tolson, & Halliday-Scher, 1995). For instance,
Kindermann (1996) found that only 30% of sixth-grade interaction dyads were mutual friends,
and just over half of friends were interaction dyads; similarly, Urberg and colleagues (1995)
found that 30% to 50% of youths’ mutual friends were in different groups.
Developmental Differences
Early adolescence is a particularly important developmental period for examining the role of
friends, interaction dyads, and groups in academic motivation. Most generally, peer influence
may peak during early adolescence, as youth spend more time with peers, place increased
importance on peer approval and advice, and look to peers as a source of identity (e.g., Brown,
1990; Bukowski, Sippola, & Newcomb, 2000). Moreover, early adolescent cognitive
development produces greater sensitivity to peer feedback and greater skill at using social
comparisons to assess one’s own competence level (Dweck, 2002), and the transition to middle
school brings more competition for grades, ability-grouped classrooms, and a larger peer
reference group. These changes may prompt youth to reevaluate their academic beliefs and
behaviors, and may increase the salience of peers in these processes (e.g., Eccles & Midgley,
1989; Schunk & Pajares, 2002). For instance, school transitions have been found to increase
perceived discrepancies in ability and resources among disadvantaged youth, leading to lower
academic self-concepts and avoidance of challenging courses (e.g., Crosnoe, Riegle-Crumb, &
Muller, 2007). Moreover, there is also some suggestion that the group level of peer relationships
becomes more important in early adolescence (Rubin et al., 2006). For example, some
researchers argue that adolescents are driven by a need to belong and that identification of a peer
group is a major developmental task of early adolescence, with implications for youths’ sense of
identity and self-perceptions (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Brown, 1990). For these reasons, we
may expect to find stronger evidence of peer influence on achievement motivation in general
after the transition to middle school, and in particular a stronger role of group-level peer
influences among older youth.
Influence Processes: Socialization and Social Comparison
In this article, we explore two broad categories of influence processes that may occur to varying
degrees in the context of these different types of social ties. One influence process commonly
observed in the literature is the tendency for peers to become more similar over time, most often
referred to under the umbrella term of socialization. Broadly defined, socialization is a set of
cumulative processes throughout the lifespan by which individuals learn social norms and values
and develop relational skills and habits (e.g., Hartup, 1996). A commonly noted tendency for
youth to become more similar to peers over time likely reflects multiple underlying socialization
processes, such as peer modeling and reinforcement, evaluative discourse and mutual agreement,
or interpersonal persuasion (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
However, peer influence processes may not always lead to increased similarity. Social
comparison theories assert that youth evaluate their own skill level by comparing their own
abilities with those of their peers, so that youths’ academic self-concept should depend on their
perceptions of their own skills relative to those of their peer reference group. This means that the
influence (on academic self-concept) of a peer reference group with a particular academic skill
level will depend on the youths’ own academic skill level. In statistical terms, this would
translate to an interaction effect between individual skills and peer reference-group skills.
Consistent with this perspective, there is some evidence that youths’ own academic skill level
moderates the effect of peers’ academic skills on youths’ academic self-concept (Altermatt &
Pomerantz, 2005; Guay et al., 1999). Social comparative behaviors have been observed in early
elementary years in the form of glances at peers’ progress and comparative remarks (Altermatt,
Pomerantz, Ruble, Frey, & Greulich, 2002), but youth become increasingly skilled with age at
making accurate social comparisons (e.g., Butler, 1989); by early adolescence, youth are
especially interested in and attuned to social comparisons (Dweck, 2002).
The processes termed here as socialization and social comparison may overlap and operate
simultaneously. For instance, studies of adolescents find that affiliation with peers who are
highly academically competent may, on the one hand, produce benefits for academic effort by
motivating improvements in academic standards and performance, or by providing models for
how to complete challenging academic tasks, serving as a form of “socialization” or increased
similarity (Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2005; Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, & Kuyper, 1999; Gibbons,
Blanton, Gerrard, Buunk, & Eggleston, 2000). On the other hand, early adolescents are
especially likely to incorporate social comparisons into their academic self-concepts; as such,
affiliation with high-achieving peers may provoke social comparisons that undermine a youths’
academic self-concept if a contrast is perceived between her own skills and her peers’ skills
(Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2005; Dweck, 2002; Guay et al., 1999). In the present study, our
interest is in distinguishing these two types of peer influence processes: socialization processes
in which youth become more similar to their peers over time and the more complex social
comparison dynamics by which changes in youths’ academic self-concept result from an
interaction of youths’ own skill level with that of affiliated peers.
Influence Processes Across Types of Social Ties
There are both conceptual and empirical reasons to expect that these two influence processes
may operate to varying degrees across the three types of social ties.
Friends are a likely source of both socialization and social comparison. The “climate of
agreement” existing between friends (Hartup, 1996) promotes socialization toward increased
similarity as friends strive to accommodate each other’s opinions, resolve conflict equitably,
establish common ground, trust each other’s judgment, and reach decisions by consensus (Berndt
& Murphy, 2002; Hartup, 1996; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). Consistent with this view, friends’
academic characteristics have been found to positively predict changes in youths’ academic self-
concept, engagement, and performance (Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2005; Berndt & Keefe, 1995;
Ryan, 2001). However, friends’ salience and closeness also make them a likely source of social
comparison information: for instance, a couple of studies have found social comparison effects in
elementary school to only affect academic self-concept when comparisons were to reciprocated
(as opposed to non-reciprocated) friends (e.g., Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2003; Guay et al., 1999).
Similarly, in second through fourth grade, children’s own achievement was found to be a weaker
predictor of their academic self-concept when they had high-achieving friends (Guay et al.,
1999). Consistently, these studies provide evidence that at least in elementary school, standards
for self-evaluation are higher and “harsher” when youths’ friends are higher-achieving.
However, even while having detrimental effects on academic self-concept, high-achieving
friends may also motivate greater effort, suggesting simultaneous socialization and social
comparison effects of friends: Altermatt and Pomerantz (2005) found that low-achieving youth
in fifth through seventh grade were more likely to report a lower academic self-concept but also
higher academic engagement if they had high-achieving friends than if they had low-achieving
friends. Overall, there is ample reason to expect that mutual friendships will be a source of both
socialization and social comparison at both grade levels.
Interaction dyads’ potential for influence lies most clearly in socialization mechanisms such as
social learning and evaluative discourse (Berndt, Laychak, & Park, 1990; Dishion et al., 1995;
Kindermann, 2007; Sage & Kindermann, 1999). For instance, children receive distinctive
patterns of reinforcement and punishment for classroom behaviors from their frequent interaction
partners (Sage & Kindermann, 1999) and come to display patterns of engagement that are similar
to those of their interaction partners (Kindermann, 2007). Social comparison effects among
interaction dyads, however, have not yet been empirically demonstrated. There is some evidence
that comparative remarks between classmates in the early elementary grades influence children’s
academic self-concepts (e.g., Altermatt et al., 2002), suggesting a role of interactions, but these
studies did not focus specifically on dyads characterized by frequent interaction.
Classic social-psychological theories of social groups highlight their potential relevance to both
socialization and social comparison processes. With regard to socialization, the rewards of group
membership (e.g., access to social opportunities) may motivate individuals to earn group
approval through conformity, and comfortable group interactions require the development and
enforcement of group norms (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Similarly, it has been argued that mutual
reinforcement and rewards from group members are most efficient when similarity among group
members is maximized (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Consistent with these views,
empirical studies have demonstrated increased similarity within peer groups in domains such as
substance use and achievement motivation (e.g., Ennett & Bauman, 1994; Ryan, 2001). There
are also theoretical reasons to expect social groups to play a role in social comparison processes:
Festinger’s (1954) original formulation of social comparison theory was based on experiments
demonstrating that adults base their aspirations and self-assessments upon group members’
performance. However, it is not clear that his observed social comparison dynamics were
specific to group-level ties; indeed, the evidence for social comparison effects in studies of close
friends suggests that they are not. Moreover, Festinger’s experimentally contrived social groups
