See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277247733

Peer Group Influences on Students Academic

Motivation

Chapter January 2015

CITATION READS

1 1,351

1 author:

Thomas Kindermann
Portland State University
40 PUBLICATIONS 1,454 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Kindermann on 26 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Peer Group Influences on Students Academic Motivation

Thomas A. Kindermann, Portland State University

Thomas A. Kindermann, PhD

Department of Psychology

PO box 751

Portland, OR 972070-0751

Ph: 503 725 3970

Fax: 503 725 3904

kindermannt@pdx.edu

word count: 8670 words

To appear in: Kathryn Wentzel and Geetha Ramani (Eds.) HANDBOOK ON SOCIAL
INFLUENCES ON SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL, MOTIVATION, AND COGNITIVE
OUTCOMES IN SCHOOL CONTEXTS.

I would like to thank Darlene Hess for her help with literature reviews and Ellen Skinner for her

helpful critiques throughout my work on the chapter.

Kindermann Peer Group Influences 2

Peer Group Influences on Students Academic Motivation

Thomas A. Kindermann, Portland State University

Most, if not all, cultures have found it useful to give childrens education a formal structure that

organizes their educational experiences in a way so that designated teachers and fellow students

participate at the same time. The benefits of teaching children in groups appear to extend beyond

economic considerations. Students interactions with agemates enhance their learning over and

above the provisions of adult educators. In fact, many children appear to go to school or to like

school (better), precisely because their peers and friends are there.

This chapter follows the idea that students peer relationships at school are an integral feature of

their learning environments. Historically, attention to factors that foster academic development

has mostly focused on teachers and parents. However, peers make childrens time at school

tolerable and enjoyable. They provide companionship, entertainment, feelings of belonging,

help, personal validation, and emotional support (Hamm & Zhang, 2010). Overall, it does not

seem to be the case that peer influences necessarily occur at the expense of learning. Instead,

they may foster learning, and this chapter explores the idea that one way in which peers may

benefit students is by promoting their academic motivation.

Central Issues and Relevant Theory

The notion that peer relationships are important for childrens development has always been

central in developmental psychology (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). Peers are essential for social

development, for learning how to get along with others, for juggling individual needs with the
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 3

needs of a larger social structure, as well as for learning how to receive help and support, for

aligning oneself to the larger peer culture, and for making it through a year when things get

tough. Peers are also considered important for cognitive, affective, and behavioral development,

and they have been described as crucial for identity development and for experimenting with

possible selves during adolescence (Wentzel, 2005).

Although there has been much research on peers negative influences (e.g., Dishion, McCord, &

Poulin, 1999), this chapter focuses on their positive influences for development related to

academic motivation. The goal is to organize research on the role of peers in academic

development according to their provisions for the main aspects of motivation, focusing on four

central issues. First, there is the question of which aspects of motivation should be open to peer

influences. Perhaps, all aspects are susceptible, but it may also be that some are not. Secondly,

there is the question about which kinds of peers are most influential; not all agemates will be

similarly important. The third question is about the conditions under which correlational

evidence can actually demonstrate peer influences. Finally, the question of future research is

addressed, especially taking into consideration how studies can capture configurations of peers

and examine the mechanisms through which social influences from peers occur in the real world.

Peer Relationships and Motivational Constructs

By its nature, motivation is an intrapsychic construct and resides within an individual. Such

internal motivation is greater to the extent that children feel efficacious, view the goals of school

as focused on learning and improvement, attribute failures to effort, harbor positive academic

emotions and feelings of competence and self-esteem, expect success, value school, and find
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 4

academic tasks worthwhile (Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006). For that

reason, all these facets of appraisals and beliefs have been studied as parts of motivation.

At the same time, motivation also shows on the outside. Academically motivated students like

and enjoy learning in school, persist in academic tasks, participate in school activities, and

believe that school is important (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Motivated students are visible to

teachers and peers. In fact, all major motivational conceptions rest on engagement and

disaffection as key components of how motivation manifests itself in the classroom and is

communicated to teachers, parents, and peers (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). Engagement is usually

defined in terms of its constituent constructs(behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement,

Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009), but

the term is also used as a broader marker of the extent of students involvement in general school

activities (e.g., participation in extra-curricular activities; Juvonen, Espinoza, & Knifsend, 2012).

Decades of research on academic motivation, both its intrapsychic markers and its manifestation

in engagement, suggest that the construct may best be conceived not as a fixed characteristic, but

as a malleable state that is the product of interactions among a host of internal and external

factors. For children, social relationships are prominent among the external factors (Martin &

Dowson, 2009). Across all major conceptualizations of the motivational system (see Wigfield et

al., 2006), it appears that (nearly) all components can be affected by interactions with peers.

Theoretical and empirical attention to peers has been paid with regard to students academic and

social goals (Hamm, Farmer, Lambert, & Gravelle, 2014), expectations for success and failure

(Wigfield & Tonks, 2002), self-system processes (Deci, La Guardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan,
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 5

2006), attribution processes (Hareli & Weiner, 2002) and self-efficacy (Schunk & Meece, 2006),

as well as course preferences (Crosnoe, et al., 2008), and affective reactions and feelings of self-

worth (Covington & Dray, 2002).It is plausible to assume that most of the components of the

motivational system are open to peer influences. The following section discusses howdifferent

kinds of peer relationships may be influential, and perhaps for different aspects of motivation.

Locating Sources of Peer Influences: Which Relationships Are Influential?

The peer worlds of childhood and adolescence are more complex than many adults may suspect.

There are many different kinds of peers in a school, and many of these overlap with one another.

Figure 1 provides a schematization of five prominent traditions. The first two take the entire

school, a grade, or a classroom as their setting of reference; peer influences emerge from outside

childrens groups. Sociometric approaches have evolved from Morenos (e.g., 1934) method and

examine childrens social standing among peers by identifying sets of children who are preferred

as social partners (i.e., accepted), disliked, or neither. The typical setting is the whole classroom,

and classmate influences are thought to occur differently for accepted versus disliked children. In

comparison, Social Crowd approaches examine childrens reputations among all of their peers at

school. The goal is to identify social categories, for example, crowds of brains or nerds.

Members of different crowds have different reputations and different peer experiences. Overall,

crowd approaches follow classic social psychological thinking and focus on childrens proclivity

to establish and follow group norms, often in relation to notions of peer pressure.

----- insert Figure 1 about here -----

Both approaches assume that the most important social influences are consequences of a childs

belonging to a specific group or category, but that they do not directly emerge from the other
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 6

members of that group (i.e., members of the crowd of nerds may not even know each other;

rejected children may not interact much with one another). Children do not self-select into these

kinds of groups; their membership is the result of a social verdict. Members are expected to be

treated differently based on their group assignment, and the differential treatment likely comes

from a wide range of very different peers.

The second set of approaches (proximity groups, friendship groups, and interaction groups)

focuses on influences that emerge from within childrens social groups (denoted by arrows).

These follow Morenos postulate that knowledge about students affiliations would make it

possible to forecast how well students would do over time. Most prominent are studies that

identify childrens friends (e.g., Berndt, 2004). Friendships are intimate relationships between

partners who help each other, like each other, enjoy being together, share details about their

private lives and their views about the world, and value each other. Friends are typically

identified using reciprocal nominations, in which two children separately indicate they are

friends with each other. The large majority of social network approaches followsa friendship

perspective, during childhood as well as adulthood (e.g., Borgatti, Mehra, Brass, & Labianca,

2009). An alternative approach is Socio-Cognitive Mapping (SCM, Cairns & Cairns, 1994).

SCM approaches aim to capture childrens frequent interaction partners among peers. Thus,

whereas friendship approaches assume that close relationships are the most important predictors

of development, SCM assumes that it is frequency of interaction (over and above relationship

quality) that is the driving force; proponents typically point out that frequent interactions can

lead to friendships. To identify groups, children participate as expert observers and provide

their knowledge about existing peer groups in their classroom, their grade, or their school.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 7

Finally, there is a small emerging research direction that combines Morenos postulate with

Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) assertion that frequent face-to-face interactions are the

engine of development (p. 6). Physical proximity in the classroom is seen as most important

because it enables interactions (van den Berg, Segers, & Cillessen, 2012). Children spend

probably most of their time each day interacting with classmates who sit next to them, so

classroom seating charts are used to assess physical distances. There are no reports about the

extent to which proximity is motivationally relevant, although teachers tend to believe so.

These five kinds of peer relationships differ on many dimensions: self-selection vs. assignment,

size, frequency of interaction, closeness and intimacy, and presumed prioritization of the

mechanisms of influence. One way of thinking about their differences is through the use of

Bronfenbrenners levels of contexts: Friendships can be thought of as dyadic microsystems, peer

groups as mesosystems that include multiple dyadic relationships (some of whom are friends),

and crowds and sociometric groups can be thought of as exosystems because, although children

are affected by the social verdicts, they do not necessarily interact with many of them on a daily

basis. Several research groups have become interested in contrasting and comparing influence

processes from different kinds of peer relationships (e.g., Gest, Moody, & Rulison, 2007; Hamm

et al., 2014; Kindermann & Skinner, 2012; Rodkin & Ahn, 2008, Urberg, Degirmencioglu, &

Halliday-Scher, 1995). Likely, group-internal influences will be different from external

influences, and it will be interesting to see whether accounts of multiple interconnected peer

systems can heighten the levels of accuracy for estimates of peer influences. In the following

section, the relevance of peer group affiliations for motivational development will be discussed.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 8

Review of the Relevant Literature:

Motivational Correlates of Peer Relationships that Suggest Peer Influences

Studies on the various kinds of peer relationships suggest that it is likely that peers shape

childrens academic development and school motivation. Most of the studies do not claim that

they are able to identify peer influences, but they point out various avenues through which the

presence of peers at school can become beneficial for academic and motivational development.

Studies on peer acceptance demonstrate that social status in the classroom is related to feelings

of belonging in school, academic engagement, and achievement (e.g., Cillessen & van den Berg,

2012; Ladd, Herald-Brown, & Kochel, 2009). From kindergarten to post-secondary education,

when students experience rejection from their peers, this limits their participation in classroom

activities (Flook, Repetti, & Ullman, 2005; Vronneau, Vitaro, Brendgen, Dishion, & Tremblay,

2010). Conversely, when children are accepted by their peers and feel included, this fosters

motivation and learning in school (for a review, see Juvonen, et al., 2012). Popularity seems to

be different from peer acceptance; when children aim to become popular, this goal can be

detrimental to their achievement (Kiefer & Ryan, 2008).

Convergent findings result from studies on perceived peer support (Murdock, 1999), on

students feelings of belonging (Hamm & Faircloth, 2005), and on support in schools peer

cultures (Lynch, Lerner, & Leventhal, 2013). Note that findings on correlations among

acceptance, belonging or support, and academic outcome variables (like GPA) are overall very

similar to the findings about motivation (Veronneau & Vitaro, 2007).

Kindermann Peer Group Influences 9

Indications of peer influences from social crowds at school are likewise consistent. Studies focus

on peer pressure with regard to academic orientations, especially during pre-adolescence

(Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993). For example, students known as Brains

exhibit highest levels of academic competence and have more academically-oriented friends

(LaGreca & Prinstein, 2001). Again, findings on relations between crowds and achievement are

compatible with motivational influence processes (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992).

Studies on friendships have similarly shown that peer characteristics are connected to childrens

decisions for academic versus non-academic activities during class time and beyond (Kilian,

Hofer, Fries, & Kunle, 2010), to engagement with schoolwork (Donna, Laursen, Kiuru, Nurmi,

& Salmela-Aro, 2014), as well as to their ability attributions for success and failure, and their

values of academic standards (Altermatt & Pomeranz, 2003), their academic aspirations

(Hallinan & Williams, 1990), classroom participation, school involvement, and overall

adjustment to school (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Hamm & Faircloth, 2005). Overall, the relations

with academic achievement seem consistent with that view (Ryan, 2001).

Similarly, studies on smaller cliques and peer networks of students who frequently interact with

one another (SCM groups) have also shown that the characteristics of a childs group members

are related to that childs motivation. Thus, early adolescents peer group affiliations are

connected to their tendencies to drop out from school (Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1990), their

engagement in the classroom (Kindermann, 2007) and in school (Wentzel, 2005), as well as their

academic achievement (Chen, Chang, Liu, & He, 2008).

Kindermann Peer Group Influences 10

How Close Are We to Demonstrating Actual Peer Influences?

For a long time, conclusions about social influences from childrens peers were based entirely on

correlations using concurrent data, assuming that similarity between individuals and those peers

was partly a product of social influence (Kandel, 1978). However, with correlational data,

important alternative explanations are based on peer selection effects (homophily) or on

reciprocal effects: Friends may have become friends because they had similar values or interests

already; better-liked children may perform better in school because children who do well in

school are better liked; crowds of brains may have simply found a home for themselves and

are not particularly influenced academically by their likewise brain-y peers.

Experimental designs can provide evidence of causal influence, but the potentially influential

features of peers, such as liking, friendships, crowd reputation or peer group membership, cannot

be randomly assigned to children. Experimental manipulations, in which peers are instructed to

behave in specific ways, show that with existing friends, crowd or peer group members, causal

influences can be demonstrated (e.g., Prinstein, Brechwald, & Cohen, 2011). But then, being

able to make individuals or their friends do specific things in a lab setting does not necessarily

mean that these effects mirror naturally-occurring peer influence processes (see an insightful

discussion in Rutter, 2007). One study that examined causal influences from friends

experimentally was conducted by Berndt, Laychak, and Park (1990). Students discussed

vignettes with their friends (about whether to do a homework assignment or to go to a rock n

roll concert). Although the findings showed only small influence effects, the study demonstrates

how socialization influences can be investigated in an ecologically valid naturalistic scenario.

Kindermann Peer Group Influences 11

Most studies on peer influences rely on correlational designs. For such studies, four

recommendations can be made to heighten the chances that actual influence effects are

indentified: Peer influence effects can be approximated if studies are longitudinal, if peer

selection effects can be separated from influence effects, if aggregate scores of peer group

antecedents can be formed that have interindividual differences, and if time windows for

examinations are consistent with the nature of the target phenomenon under study. Multi-level

analyses are preferable because of interdependencies between the individual and peer data.

Longitudinal designs.Explorations of natural effects rely on longitudinal designs, in which

individual change in motivation over time is predicted from the characteristics of childrens

antecedent peer groups, using individuals as their own controls and controlling for initial peer

selection effects. Socio-cognitive mapping and friendship studies adopted longitudinal analyses

early in order to come closer to identifying peer influences (Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999;

Kindermann 1993, 2007; Kindermann, Mccollam, & Gibson, 1996). Today, it is almost

impossible to think about capturing socialization influences without examining how social

influences create change. Figure 2 gives a schematization of the basic model for examining peer

influences over and above pre-existing similarities. The model can be seen as a part of Kennys

Actor-Partner-Independence Model (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). It has been used in

regression analyses of peer and friend influences as well as Structural Equation (SEM) analyses.

----- insert Figure 2 about here -----

In detail, the correlation between individuals and their peer groups at Time 1 denotes the extent

of initial person-to-group similarity and is the indicator of peer selection processes. The
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 12

prediction from initial peer group characteristics to individual Time 2 scores is the estimate of

socialization effects. Note that same expectation is examined in SIENA analyses (Simulation

Investigation for Empirical Network Analysis, Snijders, Steglich, Schweinberger, & Huisman,

2007; SIENA is based on logistic regression and requires categorical variables). The advantage

of SEM analyses is that intraindividual change is examined over and above stability, whereas

SIENA simulates changes from cross-sectional slices of the data without attention to stability.

The advantage of SIENA is that peer selection estimates are sampled over time, and not just at

the beginning of a study. This can have advantages when selection processes change over time.

In these models, children who are initially with highly motivated peers (and tend to be

motivationally similar; homophily) are expected to increase (or remain stable) over time,

whereas children who are initially with less motivated peers would decrease. Note that this

expectation is different from models that hypothesize increased similarity as the primary

outcome of peer influences (as in SIENA average similarity models).

Peer group profiles. How can antecedent peer group characteristics be captured? Nearly all

regression-based studies have used averages of the members of each childs peer group on the

variable of interest, such as academic engagement, as the indicator of group characteristics. The

assumption is that the average levels of the members of a group (such as their mean levels of

engagement) would, through social interactions, lead to changes in the individual himself or

herself. Note that the use of averages gives up on the notion that there would be well-defined

non-overlapping groups that exist as distinct entities; each child is seen as having his or her

own peer group sphere, consisting of the members that he or she is connected with (friends or
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 13

frequent interaction partners). Although averages are poor descriptors of the groups central

tendencies, to define groups as individual spheres of partners has the advantage that the peer

contexts differ interindividually; the same strategy is used in SIENA Average Alter models.

Multi-level models. An elegant approach to the study of peer influences is multi-level modeling,

a strategy introduced to the peer literature by Ryan (2001; see also Chen, Chang, Liu, &He,

2008). The approach is promising for two reasons. First, since there are typically large mean

differences between groups, distinguishing a group level of analysis from an individual level can

lead to more accurate estimates. Secondly, socialization estimates are also likely to differ across

groups. Even when individuals serve as their own controls over time, when peer influence effects

can be estimated separately for different groups, this should have advantages. However,

traditional hierarchical linear modeling approaches work only with non-overlapping groups (so

that individuals are in only one group). A promising development for overlapping groups

(friendship or peer groups) are cross-classification strategies that have been developed for data in

which children attend several schools at the same time (e.g., Fielding & Goldstein, 2006).

Controls for sample imbalances. When individuals serve as their own controls over time (see

Figure 2), effects of sample imbalances (e.g., biased distributions of gender, intelligence,

transitivity, reciprocity) will be much less severe than they would be in concurrent analyses.

There are, however, controls that still need to be considered. For example, girls tend to do better

in school, and by middle school, they tend to be in peer groups with mostly other girls. If over

time, girls show enhanced patterns of motivational change, the conclusion that this is due to their

(also better functioning) peer groups can be misleading. Statistical controls are needed that
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 14

account for gender effects. Self-selection into peer groups (homophily) can also exist for other

characteristics, like intelligence or ethnicity, and respective controls would also need to be

included. In addition, SIENA proponents argue for additional controls of network characteristics,

for example, reciprocity (if friendship data are used; SCM observation data are always reciprocal

affiliations) and transitivity (so that indirect effects from friends-of-friends are controlled).

Time windows. When longitudinal designs include only one measurement point per school year,

there is a question whether the time window is ecologically valid. In most school systems, the

composition of classes changes over years, which leads to changes in peer selection processes. In

addition, when teachers change over the years, their ratings of student outcomes (e.g., grades, or

teacher rated engagement) will also change. If cross-year changes are analyzed without

considering ecological changes, peer effects will be misestimated. SIENA seems most

appropriate to analyze cross-year peer influences because changes in peer group composition are

included. However, changes in classroom composition and in teachers are typically not, and this

can lead to misestimating influence effects when measurements occur just once in a school year.

The most sensible approach seems to be to assess peer group influences within a given year (i.e.,

from fall to spring, when students have the same teacher and are with the same peers), and then

to augment these findings with results on sequential changes across years. Usually, it can be

expected that selection effects are larger at the beginning of a school year, when peer

relationships reorganize. Thus, the magnitude of peer selection can be expected to decline across

the year, whereas socialization effects can be expected to accrue over the same period.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 15

Controls for extraenous simultaneous influences. In an insightful essay in 1947, Max Weber

cautioned networks researchers that .. if at the beginning of a shower a number of people on the

street put up their umbrellas at the same time, this would not ordinarily be a case of action

mutually orientated to that of each other, but rather of all reacting in the same way to the like

need of protection from the rain. (p. 114). Gest and Kindermann (2012) used the term

contextual confounds to describe configurations in which overarching influences in a setting

influence all members of a peer network in the same way, impersonating peer group influences.

Because school is organized by teachers, changes that appear to be peer influences can instead be

a (confounding) effect of teacher influences. If the teacher treats all members of a peer group

similarly (e.g., because they are all similarly disaffected), effects would be misinterpreted. The

same can hold true for parents as well, even if they are not present in the classroom. For

example, children of the same class and ethnicity who share a group may develop similarly

because of their parents similarities in school involvement. Recently, several studies have begun

to examine such confounding effects in more detail. Burke and Sass (2008), in their longitudinal

data of all public schools in Florida, point out that estimates of peer influence effects become

considerably smaller as soon as teacher effects are also considered. Kindermann and Vollet

(2014) re-analyzed data on an entire cohort of sixth graders in a small town, and the strength of

peer group influences also differed depending on simultaneous adult influences. Students who

saw their teachers or their parents as very much involved with them in their activities at school

showed almost no influences from peer groups on classroom engagement. The largest peer

effects were found for students who saw their parents or teachers as comparably uninvolved.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 16

Future Directions for Theory and Research

Peer group structures in school are complex and cause-and-effect relations with regard to their

influences on academic characteristics can only be approximated. Two directions of future

research can be distinguished. First, because of the correlational evidence of influences on

motivation, even though it has become increasingly longitudinal, perhaps the most promising

avenue for further substantiating causal claims are studies that focus on the specific interactional

mechanisms through which peers exert influences in the real world. A second promising path is

the study of peer cultures that form as combinations of the basic kinds of peer groups.

Mechanisms of Peer Influences

Peer influences are outcomes of social interactions, and studies can aim to identify the

psychological pathways by which the influences occur. The field has recently begun to take up

the question of mechanisms, and there have been increasing numbers of studies in recent years.

Studies can roughly be sorted into those that examine cognitive mechanisms, behavioral

mechanisms, and socio-emotional mechanisms.

Potential cognitive mechanisms of peer influence. With regard to cognitive mechanisms,

researchers have examined social cognitive processes, such as social comparison, through which

individuals self-evaluations or actions are shaped by their interpretation of the behavior and

accomplishments of their peers. Cohen and Prinstein (2006) used chatroom experiments in which

individuals responses to hypothetical scenarios were observed when people were in the presence

of peers with low versus high social status. Because peers were randomly assigned, changes
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 17

indicate actual social influence. Brechwald and Prinstein (2011) reviewed similar studies and

concluded that influences were mainly directed towards behavior that matched the norms of a

valued or desired group, towards behavior that contributed to a favorable self-identity (e.g.,

nonconformity), or towards behavior that was reinforced by peers.

Naturalistic studies on social comparisons tend to focus on school-wide comparisons or on

comparisons within different kinds of friendships. For example, Herbert Marshs studies (Marsh,

et al., 2008) on the big-fish-little-pond effect indicate that students tend to compare themselves

to the overall achievement culture in their schools. Thus, adolescents who attended schools in

which peers were academically highly achieving, tended to show lower academic self-concepts

than students with the same levels of academic ability who attended lower-ranked schools.

When it comes to specific relationships, similarity and closeness among partners seem to be the

main criteria for choosing comparators (Huguet, et al., 2009). Thus, most social comparison

studies on specific relationships looked at friendships, and these studies are usually more

detailed, capturing how comparisons actually occur (e.g., glances at classmates progress,

evaluative comments, performance comparison comments, peer progress inquiries, sharing

success; Altermatt, 2012). Altermatt and Pomeranz (2005) examined the role of social

comparisons for childrens self-concepts within friendships, and found that when reciprocal

friends were achieving above children's own levels, children showed higher levels of

achievement over time but also lower levels of academic self-concept, compared to children with

similar initial achievement levels who were affiliated with lower-achieving friends.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 18

It seems important to point out that cognitive processes, like social comparison, do not

necessarily have to rely on notions of competition (see also Brophy, 2005), which may lead to

early termination of the friendship. For example, Tessser, Campbell, and Smith (1985)

differentiated between arenas that are central to one of the friends self-defintion and secondary

arenas. Friends tend to compare themselves favorably in their central arena, and less favorably in

others. Altermatt (2011) highlighted the cognitive processes through which students benefit from

friends accomplishments, by sharing and enjoying each others successes. It may be that the

social comparison approach, if it continues to broaden its scope, may come to include more than

ranking and competition and so move towards a concept like social tuning.

Potential behavioral mechanisms of peer influence. Studies on behavioral mechanisms focus

on peer discussions (persuasion), communication (e.g., of goals), reinforcement, and

observational learning. For example, Berndt and colleagues (1990) studied the effects of

persuasion among friends in discussions of academically-related vignettes. Peer reinforcement

has been studied much since Pattersons work on behavioral mechanisms in the development of

aggression; a key example is Dishions work on peers deviancy training of problem behavior

(Dishion, et al., 1999). With regard to school motivation, Sage and Kindermanns (1999) study

on natural peer reinforcement processes in classrooms identified differential reinforcement

patterns for on-task and off-task behavior instigated by different interaction partners, namely,

from members of childrens peer groups versus from non-members or from the teacher.

Observational learning mechanisms have also been discussed in terms of their relevance for

motivational development, but have not yet been studied much in the real world. In principle,
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 19

peers can act as models for the development of academic behavior, for example, when children

observe similar peers who demonstrate successful ways to cope with failure (Altermatt &

Broadie, 2009). Although less emphasized, provisions of help and assistance among peers can

have very direct influences on subsequent performance; help seeking shows clear relations to

changes in achievement (Ryan, Jamison, Shin, & Thompson, 2012). Resource control strategies

should also be mentioned as a possible influence mechanism (Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi,

2002); perhaps, forms of bribery can be included in this category. Brute force and coercion are

probably best discussed in the bullying literature as mechanisms of peer influence (e.g.,

Salmivalli & Peets, 2009). Identification mechanisms, despite their long history in the

psychological literature, have received little explicit empirical investigation; an exception is a

study by Taylor and Graham (2007) on peers whom students admired. Finally, peer contagion

may be another mechanism, but for reasons of clarity in definition, it is likely best to reserve this

term for situations in which it can be directly observed. For example, the term seems well suited

for contagion of engaged emotions, like enthusiasm for an activity or topic, but it should not be

used when cognitive mechanisms (e.g., social comparison) or reinforcement provide clearer

explanations.

Potential motivational mechanismsof peer influence. Finally, one can conceive of a set of

motivational mechanisms through which peers can influence each other. These focus on the

premise that motivation has an energizing function and can give behavior a direction. Peer

relationships can be seen as relationships that have the potential to provide motivational

provisions, such as emotional support, warmth, security, a sense of belonging, and autonomy

support. Note that this makes motivational mechanisms different from mere contagion. The
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 20

simple presence of peers is energizing and enjoyable to children, and it can guide the direction of

their behavior. Kindermanns studies (1993; 2007) are based on the premise that being affiliated

with peers who are more or less engaged is an influential factor for childrens own motivational

development, over and above their initial motivation. Such basic energization may also provide a

resource foundation for all other kinds of peer influence mechanisms (e.g., instrumental help,

feedback, social comparison, reinforcement). Note that if self-selected peers have such an

energizing motivational function, experimental simulations with randomly assigned peers may

not provide an accurate estimate of the actual amount of influence that can occur.

Peer relationships, because children largely select their partners themselves, are also likely to

support autonomy-- and so they provide space for children to be themselves and may foster

exploration and experimentation with possible academic identities to a greater extent than

relationships with partners who are culturally assigned (teachers) or genetically and/or culturally

assigned (parents). It is worth noting, however, that this perspective leads to conceptual friction

with classical notions about the role of peer groups: In essence, members of peer groups would

not necessarily need to become more similar to one another. Instead, they could become more

different from one another through autonomy supportive influences among members of a group.

The Social World of Schools: Multiple Peer Relationships and Multiple Relationships
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 21

Although the different strands of research on sociometric acceptance, crowds, friendships, and

peer networks have been followed for decades along separate pathways, there seems to be an

emerging trend to integrate and re-align conceptualizations, in order to combine their virtues for

understanding the complexity of childrens peer relationships (e.g., Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).

Nearly all studies that examine interconnections among different kinds of peers point to

similarities and overlap among the groups captured by the respective traditions (e.g., friends and

interaction groups show about 50% overlap; correlations between group characteristics and

academic variables are comparable). Nevertheless, some studies suggest that there might be

different processes that emerge from different relationships. One example is a study by Urberg

and colleagues (1995) that showed that social crowds and friendship groups were differentially

related to substance abuse. Another example is a study by Gest, Graham-Berman, and Hartup

(2001) that examined sociometric status (rejection), SCM networks (centrality), and friendships.

Each aspect was associated with distinct profiles of prosocial and antisocial behavior.

Recently, Hamm and colleagues (2014) used the term Peer Cultures as a construct that

encompasses multiple aspects of peer relationships. They examined the roles that (SCM) peer

networks and social prominence (nominations for being cool, a leader, and popular combined,

roughly indicators for acceptance) play in students academic effort, valuing of school, and

achievement, by comparing schools that participated in an intervention aimed at enhancing

academic and social processes at school with control schools. Social prominence appeared to

accompany effort and valuing of school, (injunctive) behavioral norms were found in peer

groups that were high in effort and achievement. Molloy, Gest, and Rulison (2011) examined

differential effects from reciprocal friends, overlapping (SCM) peer groups, and non-overlapping
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 22

peer nominated groups in 5th and 7th graders. Strongest peer socialization effects in terms of

changes in engagement were found for reciprocal friends; SCM groups showed smaller effects.

However, SCM groups showed the strongest indications of social comparison processes as

mechanisms of peer influence. The differences may be sample-specific; Kindermann and Skinner

(2012) reported that the engagement levels of childrens reciprocal friends and of members of

(SCM) groups showed about the same amount of influence on changes in classroom engagement.

In looking ahead with regard to combinatorial studies, it seems most promising to consider

children as active participants in relationships that will influence them over time. Thus, the active

role of peer selection could be contrasted with peer contexts that are more culturally or socially

assigned (e.g., social crowds or teacher-assigned proximity, see Figure 1), and both can be

examined in terms of the resulting influences from peers. There is some need to overcome

passive socialization assumptions because children always influence each other reciprocally.

One way to sort out some of these findings would be to consider the particular functions that

different forms of peer relationships may have. Broadly categorized, acceptance/popularity may

be most closely linked to appearance, status, and reputation. Social crowds may be similarly

related to appearance and reputation. For both, social comparison processes, peer pressure, and

social norms may be the most important mechanisms. In contrast, for friendships, because of

their intimate nature, felt security, and secure base-exploration (identity) may be most important

functions. Hartups (1992) findings on the heightened prevalence of conflict among friends may

also suggest that friendships are a place for authentic exploration of (differences in) genuine

opinions and goals. Alternatively, (SCM) interaction groups would be characterized by comfort,

enjoyment of shared activities, and perhaps constitute the playground in which children delve
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 23

into alternative developmental scenarios. Finally, classroom proximity could be most connected

to adult-supervised learning and work on tasks. Of course, it may be possible that all different

kinds of peers have comparable amounts of influence on academic motivation and behavior

overall, but it seems likely that they would differ in their patterns of influence-- different kinds of

peer relationships may differ in the strengths, mechanisms, and motivational targets.

Larger social worlds of school. The chapter should not end without mentioning that peer

relationships at school play out under the invisible hand of the teacher (a term used by Urie

Bronfenbrenner, see Farmer, McAuliffe, & Hamm, 2014), and that parents may have a similarly

invisible hand in childrens development at school (Kindermann & Vollet, 2014). Even

further, attention to classroom structure and composition may need to be included (Capella, Kim,

Neal, & Jackson, 2013; see also the chapters by Gest and by Patrick & Mantzicopoulos in this

volume). All would need to become part of efforts to capture classroom or school ecologies.

Epilogue

This chapter started out with the expectation that peer relationships at school are complex and

multilayered, and that their influences on academic motivation and achievement would be

important and perhaps varied as well, partly with different motivational influences from different

peer relationships. There is some support for this notion. However, more research is needed,

especially studies using designs that analyze changes over time, focus on multiple kinds (or

combinations) of peers, and consider multiple (perhaps alternative) mechanisms. Peers seem to

be a permanent and integral part of school contexts, whose effects on academic and motivational

development are largely positive, and if children can find ways to negotiate these multifaceted
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 24

social worlds (which include their teachers and parents as well), peer researchers should also be

inspired to continue to incorporate some of these complexities in their ongoing empirical efforts.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 25

References

Altermatt, E. R. (2011). Capitalizing on academic success: Students' interactions with friends as

predictors of school adjustment. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31,174-203.

Altermatt, E. R. (2012). Childrens achievement-related discourse with peers. In A. Ryan & G.

W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 109-134). Charlotte, NC:

Information Age Publishing.

Altermatt, E. R., & Broady, E. F. (2009). Coping with achievement-related failure: An

examination of conversations between friends. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55, 454-487.

Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2003). The development of competence-related and

motivational beliefs: An investigation of similarity and influence among friends. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 95,111-123.

Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The implications of having high-achieving versus

low-achieving friends: A longitudinal analysis. Social Development, 14, 6181.

Berndt, T. J. (2004). Children's friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspectives on their

development and their effects: Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 206-223.

Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Jiao, Z. (1999). Influences of friends and friendships on

adjustment to junior high school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 1341.

Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends' influence on adolescents' adjustment to school. Child

Development, 66, 13121329.

Berndt, T. J., Laychak, A. E., & Park, K. (1990), Friends' influence on adolescents' academic

achievement motivation: An experimental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,

664-670.

Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2010). Network analysis in the social
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 26

sciences. Science, 323, 892-895.

Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in

understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 166179.

Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational

Psychologist, 40, 167-176.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W.

Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1:

Theoretical models of human development (pp. 993-1028). New York, NY: Wiley.

Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer

group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467-482.

Burke, M. A., & Sass, T. R. (2013). Classroom peer effects and student achievement. Journal of

Labor Economics, 31(1), 51-82.

Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., & Neckerman, H. J. (1989). Early school dropout: Configurations

and determinants. Child Development, 60, 1437-1452.

Cappella, E., Kim, H. Y., Neal, J. W., & Jackson, D. A. (2013). Classroom peer relationships and

behavioral engagement in elementary school: The role of social network equity. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 367-379.

Chen, X., Chang, L., Liu, H., & He, Y. (2008). Effects of the peer group on the development of

social functioning and academic achievement: A longitudinal study in Chinese children.

Child Development, 79, 235 251.

Cillessen, A. H N., & van den Berg, Y. H. M. (2012). Popularity and school adjustment. In A. M.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 27

Ryan, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 135-164).

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Cohen, G. L., & Prinstein, M. J. (2006). Peer contagion of aggression and health risk behavior

among adolescent males: An experimental investigation of effects on public conduct and

private attitudes. Child Development 77, 967983.

Covington, M. V., & Dray, E. (2002). The developmental course of achievement motivation: A

need-based approach. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement

motivation (pp. 33-56). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Crosnoe, R., Riegle-Crumb, C., Field, S., Frank, K., & Muller, C. (2008). Peer group contexts of

girls and boys academic experiences. Child Development, 79, 139-155.

Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the

benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 313-327.

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and

problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755764.

Donna, M., Laursen, B., Kiuru, N., Nurmi, J.E., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2014). Maternal affection

moderates friend influence on schoolwork engagement. Developmental Psychology, 50,

766-771.

Farmer, T. W., McAuliffe, L. M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role

of teachers in childrens peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,

32, 247256.

Fielding, A., & Goldstein, H. (2006). Cross-classified and multiple membership structures in

multilevel models: An introduction and review. Birmingham, UK: University of

Kindermann Peer Group Influences 28

Birmingham, Research Report RR791.

Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S.

L. Christenson, A. L.Reschly, & C. Wylie. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student

engagement (pp. 97131). New York, NY: Springer.

Flook, L., Repetti, R. L., & Ullman, J. B. (2005). Classroom social experiences as predictors of

academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 41, 319-327.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and

unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric

status. Social Development, 10, 23 40.

Gest, S. D., & Kindermann, T. A. (2012). Analysis of static social networks. In: B. Laursen, T.

Little, & N. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 577-597).

New York, NY: Guilford.

Gest, S. D., Moody, J., & Rulison, K. L. (2007). Density or distinction? The roles of data

structure and group detection methods in describing adolescent peer groups. Journal of

Social Structure, Vol 8, http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume8/GestMoody/

Hallinan, M. T., & Williams, R. A. (1990). Students characteristics and the peer-influence

process. Sociology of Education, 63(2), 122132.

Hamm, J.V., & Faircloth, B.S. (2005). The role of adolescents close friendships in school

belonging. In N. Way, & J.V. Hamm (Eds.), The meanings and experiences of friendship in

adolescence, New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, Monograph Series no.

107, pp. 61-78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Kindermann Peer Group Influences 29

Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Lambert, K., & Gravelle, M. (2014). Enhancing peer cultures of

academic effort and achievement in early adolescence: Promotive effects of the SEALS

intervention. Developmental Psychology, 50, 216-228.

Hamm, J.V., & Zhang, L. (2010). The schooling context of adolescents peer relations. In J.

Meece & J. Eccles (Eds.), The handbook of schools and schooling effects on development

(pp. 518-554). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a

new research direction in the study of achievement motivation. Educational Psychologist,

37, 183-193.

Hartup, W. W. (1992). Conflict and friendship relations. In C. U. Shantz, & W. W. Hartup

(Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 186-215). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press

Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Pasupathi, M. (2002). Winning friends and influencing peers:

Strategies of peer influence in late childhood. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 26, 466-474.

Huguet, P., Dumas, F., Marsh, H., Rgner, I., Wheeler, L., Suls, J., Seaton, M., & Nezlek, J.

(2009). Clarifying the role of social comparison in the big-fishlittle-pond effect (BFLPE):

An integrative study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 156-170.

Juvonen, J., Espinoza, G., & Knifsend, C. (2012). The role of peer relationships in student

academic and extracurricular engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. M. Reschly, & C. Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 387-401). New York, NY:

Springer.

Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships.

Kindermann Peer Group Influences 30

American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427 436.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. New York, NY:

Guilford.

Kiefer, S. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Striving for social dominance over peers: The implications

for academic adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,

417-428.

Kilian, B., Hofer, M., Fries, S., & Kuhnle, C. (2010). The conflict between on-task and off-task

actions in the classroom and its consequences for motivation and achievement. European

Journal of Psychology of Education, 25, 67-85.

Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individuals development: The

sample case of children's motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29, 970-977.

Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally-existing peer groups on changes in academic

engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78, 1186-1203.

Kindermann, T. A., McCollam, T. L., & Gibson, E. (1996). Peer group influences on children's

developing school motivation. In K. Wentzel & J. Juvonen (Eds.), Social motivation:

Understanding children's school adjustment(pp. 279-312). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kindermann, T. A & Skinner, E. A. (2012). Will the real peer group please stand up? A

tensegrity approach to examining the synergistic influences of peer groups and friendship

networks on academic development. In A. Ryan & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships and

adjustment at school (pp. 51-78). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Kindermann, T. A., & Vollet, J. W. (2014). Peer networks and classroom ecologies: Peer group

influences on students classroom engagement depend on relationships with teachers and

parents. Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissenschaft [Journal of Education Science], Special

Kindermann Peer Group Influences 31

Issue 26, 135-151.

Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S. L., & Kochel, K. P. (2009). Peers and motivation. In K. R.

Wentzel, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 323-348). New York,

NY: Routledge.

La Greca, A. M., Prinstein, M. J., &. Fetter, M. D. (2001). Adolescent peer crowd affiliation: Linkages

with health-risk behaviors and close friendships. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26, 131-143.

Lynch, A. D., Lerner, R. M., & Leventhal, T. (2013). Adolescent academic achievement and

school engagement: an examination of the role of school-wide peer culture. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 619.

Marsh, H. W., Seaton, M., Trautwein, U., Ldtke, O., Hau, K. T., OMara, A. J., & Craven, R. G.

(2008). The big-fishlittle-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: Implications for theory,

methodology, and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 319-350,

Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and

achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of

Educational Research, 79, 327-365.

Molloy, L. E., Gest, S. D., & Rulison, K. L. (2011). Peer influences on academic motivation:

Exploring multiple methods of assessing youths most influential peer relationships.

Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 13-40.

Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human

interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.

Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of

alienation in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 62-75.

Prinstein, M. J., Brechwald, W. A., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). Susceptibility to peer influence:
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 32

Using a performance-based measure to identify adolescent males at heightened risk for

deviant peer socialization. Developmental Psychology, 47, 11671172.

Rodkin, P. C., & Ahn, H.-J. (2009). Social networks derived from affiliations and friendships,

multi-informant and self-reports: Stability, concordance, placement of aggressive and

unpopular children, and centrality. Social Development, 18, 556-576.

Rutter, M. (2007). Proceeding from observed correlation to causal inference: The use of natural

experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 377-395.

Ryan, A. M., Jamison, R. S., Shin, H., & Thompson, G. N. (2012). Social achievement goals and

adjustment at school during early adolescence. In A. Ryan & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer

relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 165-186). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent

motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 11351150.

Sage, N. A., & Kindermann, T. A. (1999). Peer networks, behavior contingencies, and childrens

engagement in the classroom. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 454, 143171.

Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. (2009). Bullies, victims, and bully-victim relationships in middle

childhood. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer

interactions, relationships, and groups. Social, emotional, and personality development in

context (pp. 322-340). New York, NY: Guilford.

Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy in adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan

(Eds.), Adolescence and education (Vol. 5, pp. 71-96). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G (2009). Engagement as an

organizational construct in the dynamics of motivational development. In K. R. Wentzel,

& A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 223-245). Mahwah, NJ:
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 33

Erlbaum.

Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping,

and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. M. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook

of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). New York, NY: Springer.

Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., Schweinberger, M., & Huisman, M. (2007). Manual for

SIENA version 3.1. University of Groningen, NL: ICS / Department of Sociology.

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent

achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729.

Taylor, A. Z., & Graham, S. (2007). An examination of the relationship between achievement

values and perceptions of barriers among low-SES African American and Latino students.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 52-64.

Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Smith, M. (1984). Friendship choice and performance: Self-

evaluation maintenance in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 561-

574.

Urberg, K., Degirmencioglu, S., Tolson, J., & Halliday-Scher, K. (1995). The structure of

adolescent peer networks. Developmental Psychology, 31, 540-547.

Van den Berg, Y. H. M., Segers, E., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Changing peer perceptions

and victimization through classroom arrangements: A field experiment. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(3), 40312.

Vronneau, M. H., & Vitaro, F. (2007). Social experiences with peers and high school

graduation: A review of theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology, 27,

419-445.

Vronneau, M. H., Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Dishion, T. J., & Tremblay, R. E. (2010).
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 34

Transactional analysis of the reciprocal links between peer experiences and academic

achievement from middle childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 46,

773-790.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Free Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic performance at school. In A.

Elliott, & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 279 - 296). New

York, NY: Guilford.

Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership:

Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198-1209.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of

achievement motivation. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.),

Handbook of child psychology, 6th Ed. Vol.3. Social, emotional, and personality

development (pp. 933-1002). New York, NY: Wiley.

Wigfield, A., & Tonks, S. (2002). Adolescents expectancies for success and achievement task

values. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 53-82).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Kindermann Peer Group Influences 35
 Kindermann Peer Group Influences 36

View publication stats