Instability in adolescent

peer groups

Jill AntonishakAlison K. W. Schlatter

Joseph P. AllenUniversity of Virginia

Collaborators

F. Christy McFarland Elizabeth Ball Jennifer Haynes

Katie Little Nell Manning Melinda Rosenbaum

L. Wrenn Thompson

Changes in adolescent friendshipsPeer groups are fluid (Cairns et al., 1995;

Neckerman, 1996)

Most youth experience transitions in their affiliative ties (e. g., Hardy, Bukowski, & Sippola, 2002; Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999)

Most research has focused on the disintegration of dyadic relationships (e.g., Benenson & Christakos, 2003; Berndt, Hawkins, & Hoyle, 1986; Bowker, 2004)

Limited research on peer group instability (Parker & Seal, 1996)

Research questionsDo adolescent peer groups

become more stable over time?Are there patterns of instability

that may be more problematic for adolescents?

What are the predictors and sequelae of peer group instability?

Participants179 participantsEqual number of males and

femalesAssessed annually beginning at

age 13Socio-economically diverse

(median income=$40-60,000)31% African American; 69%

European American

Changes in peer group

Teen

MeasuresCBCL - Externalizing scale (Achenbach

& Edelbrock, 1983)

Child Depression Inventory (Kovacs & Beck, 1977)

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment – Peer Alienation scale (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987)

Friendship Quality Questionnaire (Parker & Asher, 1993)

Self-perception Profile for Adolescents – Self-worth Scale (Harter, 1988)

Peer group instability trajectories

Latent growth curve model

0

5

10

15

20

7-8th gr 8-9th gr 9-10th gr 10-11th gr

χ2/df =5.66, 6; RMSEA=.03 (CI=0, .09); CFI=1.00

Growth mixture modelingPopulation is composed of

distinct subgroupsThree class model

Increasing (28)Chronic High (73)Low (78)

Groups should be validated by distal outcomes (Muthén, 2001)

Means for GMM classes

Externalizing behaviors

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Externalizing behaviors

Low

Increasing

High

High >LowF=3.76, p<.05

Alienation from peers

0

5

10

15

20

Alienation from peers

Low

Increasing

High

Increasing>Low & ChronicF=3.86, p<.05

Negative friendship quality

20

25

30

35

Conflict and betrayal

Low

Increasing

High

Low>Increasing & ChronicF=5.28, p<.01

Higher scores are less conflict and betrayal

Positive Friendship Quality

100

110

120

130

Warmth and support

Low

Increasing

High

Low>Increasing & ChronicF=3.28, p<.05

Self-worth

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Self-worth

Low

Increasing

High

Chronic & low>Increasing F=5.19, p<.01

Depression

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Depression

Low

Increasing

High

Predictors and sequelaeLatent difference score models

(McArdle & Hamagami, 2001)

Considers changes within a variable and the time-ordered relationships between variables

How are changes in instability related to changes in adjustment?

y1 y2 y3 y4

Δx2

Δy2 Δy3 Δy4

Δx3 Δx4

y1 y2 y3 y4

x1 x2 x3 x4

x1 x2 x3 x4

x0

y0

ex

ey

σx0,y0

y1 y2 y3 y4

Δx2

Δy2 Δy3 Δy4

Δx3 Δx4

y1 y2 y3 y4

x1 x2 x3 x4

x1 x2 x3 x4

Kxs

ys

x0

y0

y0*

ys*

xs*

x0*

ex

ey

αy

αx

σx0,ys

σy0,xs

σx0,y0

y1 y2 y3 y4

Δx2

Δy2 Δy3 Δy4

Δx3 Δx4

y1 y2 y3 y4

x1 x2 x3 x4

x1 x2 x3 x4

Kxs

ys

x0

y0

y0*

ys*

xs*

x0*

ex

ey

βx βx βx

βy βy βy

αy

αx

σx0,ys

σy0,xs

σx0,y0

y1 y2 y3 y4

Δx2

Δy2 Δy3 Δy4

Δx3 Δx4

y1 y2 y3 y4

x1 x2 x3 x4

x1 x2 x3 x4

Kxs

ys

x0

y0

y0*

ys*

xs*

x0*

ex

σy

γy γy γy

βx βx βx

βy βy βy

αy

αx

σx0,ys

σy0,xs

σx0,y0

y1 y2 y3 y4

Δx2

Δy2 Δy3 Δy4

Δx3 Δx4

y1 y2 y3 y4

x1 x2 x3 x4

x1 x2 x3 x4

Kxs

ys

x0

y0

y0*

ys*

xs*

x0*

ex

ey

γx γx γx

βx βx βx

βy βy βy

αy

αx

σx0,ys

σy0,xs

σx0,y0

y1 y2 y3 y4

Δx2

Δy2 Δy3 Δy4

Δx3 Δx4

y1 y2 y3 y4

x1 x2 x3 x4

x1 x2 x3 x4

Kxs

ys

x0

y0

y0*

ys*

xs*

x0*

ex

ey

γy γy γy γx γx γx

βx βx βx

βy βy βy

αy

αx

σx0,ys

σy0,xs

σx0,y0

Coupling parameters

Instability→y y→Instability Externalizing .26* (2.3) ns

Alienation .42* (2.0) 1.51** (3.1)

Conflict and betrayal

ns 1.46* (2.0)

Warmth and support

-4.80* (2.1) -.20** (3.0)

Self-worth -.35* (2.0) -2.13* (2.3)

T-values in parentheses

ConclusionsOverall, adolescents peer

groups remain stable over time, but there is considerable heterogeneity

Some patterns of instability are linked to adjustment outcomes

Transactional framework (Caspi, Elder, Bem, 1987)