Abstract
The social networks of students, and the underlying processes of selection, can have strong effects on their psychological and academic adjustment. The effects of gender, friendship aim (intimacy or social activities) and the combination of gender and friendship aim on selection patterns (student’s activity in selecting new friends, linking with friends of friends, and similarity in behavior) were studied, using two wave data from 741 students (12–14 years old) in 27 freshmen classes in Dutch high schools.
Many students did not fit the gender-typical expectations regarding friendship aim (girls preferring intimacy and boys social activities). In most classes, girls who preferred intimacy, and boys who preferred social activity, were more active in engaging in new friendships than the other girls and boys. Girls who preferred intimacy more often befriended classmates who were similar in school behaviors, whereas boys who preferred social activities more often befriended dissimilar classmates. We discuss these findings with regard to their implications for academic adjustment in terms of academic performance and wellbeing.
Zusammenfassung
Soziale Netzwerke von Schülerinnen und Schülern (SuS) und die zugrundeliegenden Selektionsprozesse können starke Effekte auf psychische und akademische Anpassung haben. Die Effekte von Geschlecht, Freundschaftszielen (Intimität vs. Soziale Aktivitäten) sowie der kombinierten Wirkung beider auf Selektionsmuster (Aktivität von SuS in der Selektion neuer Freunde, der Verbindung mit Freunden von Freunden und Ähnlichkeit im Verhalten) wurden anhand der Daten von 741 12–14jährigen SuS in 27 Schulklassen niederländischer Oberschulen untersucht.
Die Freundschaftsziele zahlreicher SuS entsprachen nicht stereotypen Erwartungen (Bevorzugung von Intimität durch Mädchen und Bevorzugung sozialer Aktivitäten durch Jungen). In den meisten Klassen waren Mädchen, die Intimität bevorzugten und Jungen, die soziale Aktivität bevorzugten, aktiver in Bezug auf das Knüpfen neuer Freundschaften als andere Mädchen und Jungen. Mädchen, die Intimität bevorzugten befreundeten sich häufiger mit Klassenkamerad/inn/en, die ähnlich in Bezug auf schulbezogene Aktivitäten waren. Jungen, die soziale Aktivitäten bevorzugten, befreundeten sich häufiger mit Klassenkamerad/inn/en, die unähnlich waren. Wir diskutieren die Befunde in Bezug auf ihre Implikationen für Leistungen und Wohlbefinden im schulischen Kontext.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Non-visible similarity is quite similar to deep similarity. However, De Klepper et al. (2010) focused on the level of military discipline which really is nonvisible. We, however, examine visible behaviors. These behaviors are not easy to recognize immediately, but need some attention; the word deep instead of non-visible does more justice to this characteristic.
Indegree and outdegree equal the number of incoming and outgoing friendship choices, respectively. The two are often referred to as popularity and expansiveness of a person, respectively.
The in(out)degree popularity/activity effects have been shown to be best captured by the square root specification, implying that the effects are not linear.
We have not specified separate hypotheses regarding the ego, alter and same effects. For interpretation purposes, we added all three effects. Leaving out either the ego or alter effect would result in an incomplete ’preference for similarity’ picture (although the overall interpretation would hardly be different).
The figures in Table 2 are based on the four decimal output provided by RSiena.
We encountered difficulties in disentangling the three described linking effects and all interaction effects incorporating linking. Using only one linking mechanism, would have resolved the problems on class level. This means that on the class level it would have been possible to present satisfying results. However, we choose not to, because on a meta-level no satisfying results have been found regarding the linking pattern.
The schools participating in this study received classroom network pictures and a small manual how to interpret and use them. Afterwards, many teachers reported to find the pictures very useful.
References
Baerveldt, C., & Snijders, T. A. B. (1994). Influences on and from the segmentation of networks: Hypotheses and tests. Social Networks, 16(3), 213–232.
Baerveldt, C., van de Bunt, G. G., & de Federico de la Rúa, A. (2010). Why and how selection patterns in classroom networks differ between students. The potential influence of networks size preferences, level of information, and group membership. REDES, 19, 272–298.
Benenson, J. F., & Christakos, A. (2003). The greater fragility of females’ versus males’ closest same-sex friendships. Child Development, 74(4), 1123–1129.
Benenson, J. F., Apostoleris, N. H., & Parnass, J. (1997). Age and sex differences in dyadic and group interaction. Developmental Psychology, 33, 538–543.
Buhrmester, D. (1996). Need fulfilment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental contexts of early adolescent friendship. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 158–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bukowski, W. M. (2001). Friendship and the worlds of childhood. In D. W. Nangle & C. A. Erdley (Eds.), The role of friendship in psychological adjustment (pp. 93–105). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
van de Bunt, G. G., van Duijn, M. A. J., & Snijders, T. A. B. (1999). Friendship networks through time: An actor-oriented dynamic statistical network model. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 5, 167–192.
Cairns, R. B., Xie, H., & Leung, M. C. (1998). The popularity of friendship and the neglect of social networks: Toward a new balance. In A. H. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades of measuring children’s experiences with the peer group (pp. 25–53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davila, J., Steinberg, S., Kachadourian, L., Cobb, R., & Fincham, F. (2004). Romantic involvement and depressive symptoms in early and late adolescence: The role of a preoccupied relational style. Personal Relationships, 11, 161–178.
De Klepper, M. C., Sleebos, E., van de Bunt, G. G., & Agneessens, F. (2010). Similarity in friendship networks: Selection or influence? The effect of constraining contexts and non-visible attributes. Social Networks, 32, 82–90.
Erdley, C. A., Nangle, D. W., Newman, J. E., & Carpenter, E. M. (2001). Children’s friendship experiences and psychological adjustment: Theory and research. In D. W. Nangle & C. A. Erdley (Eds.), The role of friendship in psychological adjustment (Vol. 91, pp. 5–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Geary, D. C., Byrd-Craven, J., Hoard, M. K., Vigil, J., & Numtee, C. (2003). Evolution and development of boys’ social behavior. Developmental Review, 23, 444–470.
van der Graaff, J., Branje, S., Wied, M. D., Hawk, S., Lier, P. V., & Meeus, W. (2014). Perspective taking and empathic concern in adolescence: Gender differences in developmental changes. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 1–8.
Hardy, C. L., Bukowski, W. M., & Sippola, L. K. (2002). Stability and change in peer relationships during the transition to middle-level school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 117–142.
Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13.
Hartup, W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355–370.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1971). Transitivity in structural models of small groups. Comparative Group Studies, 2, 107–124.
Lubbers, M., Snijders, T., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2010). Dynamics of peer relationships across the first two years of junior high as a function of gender and changes in classroom composition. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 488–504.
Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L., Leonard, S., & Dinella, L. M. (2011). Experienced and expected similarity to same-gender peers: Moving toward a comprehensive model of gender segregation. Sex Roles, 65, 421–434. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0029-y.
Martin, C. L., Kornienko, O., Schaefer, D. R., Hanish, L. D., Fabes, R. A., & Goble, P. (2013). The role of sex of peers and gender-typed activities in young children’s peer affiliative networks: A longitudinal analysis of selection and influence. Child Development, 84, 921–937. doi:10.1111/cdev.12032.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Mokken, R. J. (1997). Nonparametric models for dichotomous responses. In R. K. Hambleton & W. J. van der Linden (Eds.), Handbook of modern Item Response Theory (pp. 351–367). New York: Springer.
Nangle, D. W., & Erdley, C. A. (Eds.). (2001). The role of friendship in psychological adjustment. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306–347.
Palmen, H. M. H., van Roij, C. J. L. M., Vermande, M. M., Dekovic, M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2006). Sekseverschillen in vriendschapsbehoeften [Gender differences in friendship needs]. Kind en Adolescent, 27, 44–56.
Palmen, H., Vermande, M. M., Dekovíc, M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2010). Machiavellianism in elementary school children: Risk and adaptation. In C. T. Barry, P. K. Kerig, K. K. Stellwagen, & T. D. Barry (Eds.), Narcissism and machiavellism in youth: Implications for the development of adaptive and maladaptive behavior (pp. 233–249). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Vörös, A, & Preciado, P. (2013). Manual for SIENA version 4.0. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics, Nuffield College.
Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 91–115.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed.): Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 571–645). New York: Wiley.
Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (2002). Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Snijders, T. A. B., van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010). Introduction to Actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32, 44–60.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wölfer R., Cortina, K. S., & Baumert, J. (2012). Embeddedness and empathy: How the social network shapes adolescents’ social understanding. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1295–1305.
Wright, P. H. (1998). Toward an expanded orientation to the study of sex differences in friendship. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 41–63). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Zarbatany, L., Conley, R., & Pepler, S. (2004). Personality and gender differences in friendship needs and experiences in preadolescence and young adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 299–310.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baerveldt, C., Bunt, G. & Vermande, M. Selection patterns, gender and friendship aim in classroom networks. Z Erziehungswiss 17 (Suppl 5), 171–188 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0546-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0546-x