The Multiple Meanings of Peer Groups in Social Cognitive Mapping

Social cognitive mapping (SCM) is a common approach to identifying peer groups in developmental research. However, this approach involves three stages that each implies a unique conception of peer group.This article aims to bring conceptual clarity to the identification of peer groups using SCM by demonstrating how the meaning of peer groups differs at each stage of SCM. First, in the data collecting stage, interaction groups identify sets of children that hang out together. Second, in the data aggregating stage, co-membership groups identify sets of children who are members of many of the same interaction groups. Third, in the data analyzing stage, similarity groups identify sets of children with similar patterns of relationships with their peers. After reviewing these three conceptions of peer groups, we briefly discuss some potential problems with using SCM as a tool to measure children’s social networks and peer groups. Finally, we conclude by arguing that despite these issues, SCM remains a valuable methodology, and indeed one with untapped potential.Thus, we offer suggestions for the appropriate application of these theoretically and empirically distinct conceptions of peer group, noting that developmental researchers using SCM must identify which conception of peer group is used and justify why this conception is the appropriate one.

[1]  G. Elliott,et al.  At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent , 1990 .

[2]  James Moody,et al.  Features of groups and status hierarchies in girls' and boys' early adolescent peer networks. , 2007, New directions for child and adolescent development.

[3]  K. Bauman,et al.  Peer group structure and adolescent cigarette smoking: a social network analysis. , 1993, Journal of health and social behavior.

[4]  A. Inkeles,et al.  International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. , 1968 .

[5]  Kenneth H. Rubin,et al.  Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups , 2011 .

[6]  Pedro G. Lind,et al.  The spread of gossip in American schools , 2007 .

[7]  Wendy E. Ellis,et al.  Peer group status as a moderator of group influence on children's deviant, aggressive, and prosocial behavior. , 2007, Child development.

[8]  D. Henry,et al.  Early Adolescent Social Networks and Substance Use , 2007 .

[9]  Hongling Xie,et al.  Gender Similarities and Differences in Preadolescent Peer Groups: Group Structure and Ethnic Diversity , 2009 .

[10]  T. Kindermann Children's development within peer groups: using composite social maps to identify peer networks and to study their influences. , 1998, New directions for child development.

[11]  C. Bagwell,et al.  Peer Clique Participation and Social Status in Preadolescence. , 2000 .

[12]  T. Kindermann Strategies for the Study of Individual Development within Naturally‐Existing Peer Groups* , 1996 .

[13]  Matthieu Latapy,et al.  Basic notions for the analysis of large two-mode networks , 2008, Soc. Networks.

[14]  Jennifer Watling Neal,et al.  “Kracking” the Missing Data Problem: Applying Krackhardt's Cognitive Social Structures to School-Based Social Networks , 2008 .

[15]  J. Benenson,et al.  Group size regulates self-assertive versus self-deprecating responses to interpersonal competition. , 2002, Child development.

[16]  R. Burt Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age , 2003 .

[18]  J. Benenson,et al.  The influence of group size on children's competitive behavior. , 2001, Child development.

[19]  R. Cairns,et al.  Aggressive Behaviors in Social Interaction and Developmental Adaptation: A Narrative Analysis of Interpersonal Conflicts During Early Adolescence , 2002 .

[20]  Wesley Shrum,et al.  Social Structure during the School Years: Onset of the Degrouping Process. , 1987 .

[21]  J. Neal Network Ties and Mean Lies: A Relational Approach to Relational Aggression. , 2009, Journal of community psychology.

[22]  Scott D. Gest,et al.  Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? , 1988 .

[23]  Lei Chang,et al.  Effects of the peer group on the development of social functioning and academic achievement: a longitudinal study in Chinese children. , 2008, Child development.

[24]  James Moody,et al.  Density or Distinction? The Roles of Data Structure and Group Detection Methods in Describing Adolescent Peer Groups , 2007, J. Soc. Struct..

[25]  D. Espelage,et al.  Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. , 2003, Child development.

[26]  T. Farmer,et al.  The Social Dynamics of Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior in School: Implications for Behavior Consultation , 2000 .

[27]  Scott D. Gest,et al.  Rejection, feeling bad, and being hurt: using multilevel modeling to clarify the link between peer group aggression and adjustment. , 2010, Journal of adolescence.

[28]  Jacob L. Moreno,et al.  Foundations of Sociometry: An Introduction , 1941 .

[29]  B. B. Brown,et al.  Peer groups and peer cultures. , 1990 .

[30]  R. Cairns,et al.  Social Structure and Social Cognition in Early Adolescence: Affiliative Patterns , 1985 .

[31]  Zachary P. Neal,et al.  Structural Determinism in the Interlocking World City Network , 2012 .

[32]  Ronald S. Burt,et al.  Cohesion Versus Structural Equivalence as a Basis for Network Subgroups , 1978 .

[33]  Ronald S. Burt,et al.  Interorganization Contagion in Corporate Philanthropy , 1991 .

[34]  R. Cairns Sociometry, psychometry, and social structure: A commentary on six recent studies of popular, rejected, and neglected children. , 1983 .

[35]  P. Rodkin,et al.  Social Networks Derived from Affiliations and Friendships, Multi-Informant and Self-Reports: Stability, Concordance, Placement of Aggressive and Unpopular Children, and Centrality. , 2009 .

[36]  Celia A. Brownell,et al.  Childhood Peer Relationships: Social Acceptance, Friendships, and Peer Networks. , 2003 .

[37]  Patrick Doreian,et al.  Testing a structural model of perception: Conformity and deviance with respect to Journal norms in elite sociological methodology , 1982 .

[38]  Scott D. Gest,et al.  Teacher Reports of Children’s Friendships and Social Groups: Agreement with Peer Reports and Implications for Studying Peer Similarity , 2006 .

[39]  T. Farmer,et al.  They’re Cool: Social Status and Peer Group Supports for Aggressive Boys and Girls , 2006 .

[40]  Hongling Xie,et al.  Aggression and School Social Dynamics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ordinary. , 2007 .

[41]  R. Cairns,et al.  Lifelines and Risks: Pathways of Youth in our Time , 1994 .

[42]  R. Cairns,et al.  The popularity of friendship and the neglect of social networks: toward a new balance. , 1998, New directions for child development.

[43]  R. Breiger The Duality of Persons and Groups , 1974 .

[44]  Xinyin Chen,et al.  Aggressive and Prosocial Peer Group Functioning: Effects on Children's Social, School, and Psychological Adjustment. , 2009 .

[45]  R. Burt The Social Capital of Opinion Leaders , 1999 .

[46]  Jennifer Watling Neal,et al.  Channels of Change: Contrasting Network Mechanisms in the Use of Interventions , 2011, American journal of community psychology.

[47]  M. Leung Social Networks and Self Enhancement in Chinese Children: A Comparison of Self Reports and Peer Reports of Group Membership* , 1996 .

[48]  A. Ryan,et al.  The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement. , 2001, Child development.