Abstract
Growing evidence reveals heterogeneity in antisocial behavior and urges the need to distinguish between aggressive and nonaggressive rule-breaking behaviors. This study characterized how aggression and rule-breaking behaviors shaped peer selection and influence. Using a longitudinal social network modeling approach, these questions were addressed in a sample of 1034 ethno-racially diverse early adolescents (49.52% females, Mage = 12.1), who were assessed in fall and spring of the same year. The results showed no evidence of peer selection on aggressive and rule-breaking behaviors, and significant peer influence on aggressive behavior only. Rule-breaking also forecasted a decreased susceptibility to peer influence on aggressive behavior. The findings expanded our knowledge about complex pathways through which heterogeneity in antisocial behavior is reciprocally related to friendship networks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., & McFarland, F. C. (2006). Leaders and followers in adolescent close friendships: susceptibility to peer influence as a predictor of risky behavior, friendship instability, and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579406060093.
Allen, J. P., Schad, M. M., Oudekerk, B., & Chango, J. (2014). What ever happened to the “cool” kids? Long‐term sequelae of early adolescent pseudomature behavior. Child development, 85, 1866–1880. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12250.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038781.
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Blakemore, S. J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202.
Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: a decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Wiley-Blackwell), 21, 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x.
Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer Relationships in Adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, (pp. 74–103). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Burt, S. (2012). How do we optimally conceptualize the heterogeneity within antisocial behavior? An argument for aggressive versus non-aggressive behavioral dimensions. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(4), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.02.006.
Burt, S., Hyde, L., Frick, P., Jaffee, S., Shaw, D., & Tremblay, R. (2018). Commentary: childhood conduct problems are a public health crisis and require resources: a commentary on Rivenbark et al. [Rivenbark, J. G., 2018]. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(6), 711–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12930.
Burt, S., Rescorla, L., Achenbach, T., Ivanova, M., Almqvist, F., Begovac, I., & Verhulst, F. (2015). The association between aggressive and non-aggressive antisocial problems as measured with the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment: a study of 27,861 parent–adolescent dyads from 25 societies. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.036.
Cillessen, A. H. N., Mayeux, L., Ha, T., de Bruyn, E. H., & LaFontana, K. M. (2014). Aggressive effects of prioritizing popularity in early adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 40(3), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21518.
Crone, E., & Dahl, R. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313.
Dijkstra, J. K., Kretschmer, T., Pattiselanno, K., Franken, A., Harakeh, Z., Vollebergh, W., & Veenstra, R. (2015). Explaining adolescents’ delinquency and substance use: a test of the maturity gap: The SNARE study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 747–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815582249.
Dishion, T. J. (2016). An evolutionary framework for understanding coercion and aggression. In T. J. Dishion & J. Snyder (Eds), The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics, (pp. 53–68). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Griesler, P. C. (1994). Peer adaptations in the development of antisocial behavior. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior. The Plenum Series in Social/Clinical Psychology. Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9116-7_4.
Dishion, T., Patterson, G., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. (1991). Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.172.
Dishion, T. J., Piehler, T. F., & Myers, M. W. (2008). Dynamics and ecology of adolescent peer influence. In Duke Series in Child Development and Public Policy. Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 72–93). New York: The Guilford Press.
Dishion, T., & Tipsord, J. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412.
Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80023-2.
Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. (1990). Risky Behavior Measure. Unpublished scale, University of Michigan.
Ettekal, I., & Ladd, G. (2015). Costs and benefits of children’s physical and relational aggression trajectories on peer rejection, acceptance, and friendships: variations by aggression subtypes, gender, and age. Developmental Psychology, 51(12), 1756–1770. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000057.
Gallupe, O., McLevey, J., & Brown, S. (2018). Selection and influence: a meta-analysis of the association between peer and personal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9384-y.
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7.
Gifford-Smith, M., Dodge, K., Dishion, T., & McCord, J. (2005). Peer influence in children and adolescents: crossing the bridge from developmental to intervention science. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-3563-7.
Greenberg, M. T., & Lippold, M. A. (2013). Promoting healthy outcomes among youth with multiple risks: innovative approaches. Annual Review of Public Health, 34, 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124619.
Hasking, P. A., Scheier, L. M., & ben Abdallah, A. (2011). The three latent classes of adolescent delinquency and the risk factors for membership in each class. Aggressive Behavior, 37(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20365.
Hawley, P. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19(1), 97–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1998.0470.
Heerde, J., & Hemphill, S. (2018). Examination of associations between informal help-seeking behavior, social support, and adolescent psychosocial outcomes: a meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 47, 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2017.10.001.
Huisman, M., & Steglich, C. (2008). Treatment of non-response in longitudinal network studies. Social Networks, 30, 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.
Kiesner, J., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2004). “Very important persons” in adolescence: going beyond in-school, single friendships in the study of peer homophily. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.007.
Klahr, A., & Burt, S. (2014). Elucidating the etiology of individual differences in parenting: a meta-analysis of behavioral genetic research. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 544–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034205.
Kornienko, O., Dishion, T. J., & Ha, T. (2018). Peer network dynamics and the amplification of antisocial to violent behavior among young adolescents in public middle schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 26, 21–30.
Kornienko, O., Ha, T., & Dishion, T. J. (2019). Dynamic pathways between rejection and antisocial behavior in peer networks: Update and test of confluence model. Development and Psychopathology, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418001645.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: a multimethod assessment. Developmental psychology, 38(5), 635 https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.635.
Larson, R. (2001). How U.S. children and adolescents spend time: what it does (and doesn’t) tell us about their development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00139.
Laursen, B. (2018). Peer Influence. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. 2nd edition (pp. 447–470). NY: Guilford Press.
Marsden, P. V. (2005). Recent developments in network measurement. In P. J. Carrington, J. Scott & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2008). Is being popular a risky proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00550.x.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J., & McPherson, M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J., Maumary-Gremaud, A., & Bierman, K. (2002). Peer rejection and aggression and early starter models of conduct disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015198612049.
Moffitt, T. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W. (1996). Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400007161.
Molano, A., Jones, S., Brown, J., & Aber, J. (2013). Selection and socialization of aggressive and prosocial behavior: the moderating role of social‐cognitive processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(3), 424–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12034.
Patterson, G. R. (2016). Coercion theory: The study of change. In T. J. Dishion & J. J. Snyder (Eds), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics (pp. 7–22). New York: Oxford University Press.
Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310–342.
Prinstein, M. J., & Giletta, M. (2016). Peer relations and developmental psychopathology. Developmental Psychopathology, 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy112.
Rivenbark, J., Odgers, C., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Hogan, S., Houts, R., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T. (2018). The high societal costs of childhood conduct problems: evidence from administrative records up to age 38 in a longitudinal birth cohort. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(6), 703–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12850.
Ripley, R., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Vörös, A., & Preciado, P. (2019). Manual for SIENA version 4.0. Oxford: the University of Oxford, Department of Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/siena/.
Rodkin, P., Farmer, T., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 14–24.
Rudolph, K. D., Lansford, J. E., & Rodkin, P. C. (2016). Interpersonal theories of developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental Psychopathology 3rd ed. (pp. 1–69). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2006). Likeable versus popular: distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(4), 305–314.
Sentse, M., Dijkstra, J. K., Salmivalli, C., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2013). The dynamics of friendships and victimization in adolescence: a longitudinal social network perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 39(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21469.
Sijtsema, J. J., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2018). Peer influence in the development of adolescent antisocial behavior: advances from dynamic social network studies. Developmental Review, 50, 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.08.002.
Sijtsema, J. J., Lindenberg, S. M., & Veenstra, R. (2010). Do they get what they want or are they stuck with what they can get? Testing homophily against default selection for friendships of highly aggressive boys. The TRAILS study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9402-5.
Sijtsema, J., Rambaran, A., & Ojanen, T. (2013). Overt and relational victimization and adolescent friendships: selection, de-selection, and social influence. Social Influence, 8(2-3), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.739097.
Snijders, T., Steglich, C., & Schweinberger, M. (2007). Modeling the Coevolution of Networks and Behavior. In Kvan Montfort, J. Oud & A. Satorra (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 41–71). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Snijders, T. A. B., van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32, 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004.
Snyder, J., Schrepferman, L., McEachern, A., Barner, S., Provines, J., & Johnson, K. (2008). Peer deviancy training and peer coercion–rejection: dual processes associated with early onset conduct problem. Child Development, 79, 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01124.x.
Steglich, C., Snijders, T., & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01225.x.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002.
Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1531–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531.
Tremblay, R. (2010). Developmental origins of disruptive behaviour problems: the “original sin” hypothesis, epigenetics and their consequences for prevention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(4), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02211.x.
Van Zalk, N., & Van Zalk, M. (2015). The importance of perceived care and connectedness with friends and parents for adolescent social anxiety. Journal of Personality, 83(3), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12108.
Authors’ Contributions
O.K. conceived of the study, participated in its design, coordination, measurement, performed data analysis and interpretation, and lead the writing of the manuscript; M.D. participated in data analysis and interpretation of the data, and helped to draft the manuscript; C.S. oversaw implementation and administration of the study from which data for this study were drawn, assisted with interpretation and contributed to the writing of the study by reviewing drafts and providing feedback. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This research was supported by the funds from the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University.
Data Sharing and Declaration
This manuscript’s data will not be deposited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
This study employed an opt-out consent procedure (with active student assent), meaning that parents were provide information about the study and had the opportunity to request that their child not participate in the study. All students provided active assent prior to completing their surveys (no students declined participation). The recruitment and consent procedure were approved by the participating school and the university Institutional Review Board.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kornienko, O., Davila, M. & Santos, C.E. Friendship Network Dynamics of Aggressive and Rule-Breaking Antisocial Behaviors in Adolescence. J Youth Adolescence 48, 2065–2078 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01109-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01109-9