Instability in adolescent peer groups

1. Instability in adolescent peer groups Jill Antonishak Alison K. W. Schlatter Joseph P. Allen University of Virginia Collaborators F. Christy McFarland Elizabeth Ball Jennifer Haynes Katie Little Nell Manning Melinda Rosenbaum L. Wrenn Thompson

2. Changes in adolescent friendships • Peer groups are fluid (Cairns et al., 1995; Neckerman, 1996) • Most youth experience transitions in their affiliative ties (e. g., Hardy, Bukowski, & Sippola, 2002; Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999) • Most research has focused on the disintegration of dyadic relationships (e.g., Benenson & Christakos, 2003; Berndt, Hawkins, & Hoyle, 1986; Bowker, 2004) • Limited research on peer group instability (Parker & Seal, 1996)

3. Research questions • Do adolescent peer groups become more stable over time? • Are there patterns of instability that may be more problematic for adolescents? • What are the predictors and sequelae of peer group instability?

4. Participants • 179 participants • Equal number of males and females • Assessed annually beginning at age 13 • Socio-economically diverse (median income=$40-60,000) • 31% African American; 69% European American

5. Changes in peer group Teen

6. Measures • CBCL - Externalizing scale (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) • Child Depression Inventory (Kovacs & Beck, 1977) • Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment – Peer Alienation scale (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) • Friendship Quality Questionnaire (Parker & Asher, 1993) • Self-perception Profile for Adolescents – Self-worth Scale (Harter, 1988)

7. Peer group instability trajectories

8. Latent growth curve model χ2/df =5.66, 6; RMSEA=.03 (CI=0, .09); CFI=1.00

9. Growth mixture modeling • Population is composed of distinct subgroups • Three class model • Increasing (28) • Chronic High (73) • Low (78) • Groups should be validated by distal outcomes(Muthén, 2001)

10. Means for GMM classes

11. Externalizing behaviors High >Low F=3.76, p<.05

12. Alienation from peers Increasing>Low & Chronic F=3.86, p<.05

13. Negative friendship quality Low>Increasing & Chronic F=5.28, p<.01 Higher scores are less conflict and betrayal

14. Positive Friendship Quality Low>Increasing & Chronic F=3.28, p<.05

15. Self-worth Chronic & low> Increasing F=5.19, p<.01

16. Depression

17. Predictors and sequelae • Latent difference score models (McArdle & Hamagami, 2001) • Considers changes within a variable and the time-ordered relationships between variables • How are changes in instability related to changes in adjustment?

18. ey y1 y2 y3 y4 y1 y2 y3 y4 y0 Δy2 Δy3 Δy4 σx0,y0 Δx2 Δx3 Δx4 x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x1 x2 x3 x4 ex

19. ey y1 y2 y3 y4 y1 y2 y3 y4 y0* y0 σy0,xs Δy2 Δy3 Δy4 αy ys* ys σx0,y0 K xs αx xs* Δx2 Δx3 Δx4 σx0,ys x0 x0* x1 x2 x3 x4 x1 x2 x3 x4 ex

20. ey y1 y2 y3 y4 y1 y2 y3 y4 y0* βy βy βy y0 σy0,xs Δy2 Δy3 Δy4 αy ys* ys σx0,y0 K xs αx xs* Δx2 Δx3 Δx4 σx0,ys x0 βx βx βx x0* x1 x2 x3 x4 x1 x2 x3 x4 ex

21. σy y1 y2 y3 y4 y1 y2 y3 y4 y0* βy βy βy y0 σy0,xs Δy2 Δy3 Δy4 αy ys* ys γy γy γy K xs αx xs* Δx2 Δx3 Δx4 σx0,ys x0 βx βx βx x0* x1 x2 x3 x4 x1 x2 x3 x4 ex σx0,y0

22. ey y1 y2 y3 y4 y1 y2 y3 y4 y0* βy βy βy y0 σy0,xs Δy2 Δy3 Δy4 αy ys* γx γx ys γx σx0,y0 K xs αx xs* Δx2 Δx3 Δx4 σx0,ys x0 βx βx βx x0* x1 x2 x3 x4 x1 x2 x3 x4 ex

23. ey y1 y2 y3 y4 y1 y2 y3 y4 y0* βy βy βy y0 σy0,xs Δy2 Δy3 Δy4 αy ys* γx γx ys γx γy γy γy σx0,y0 K xs αx xs* Δx2 Δx3 Δx4 σx0,ys x0 βx βx βx x0* x1 x2 x3 x4 x1 x2 x3 x4 ex

24. Coupling parameters T-values in parentheses

25. Conclusions • Overall, adolescents peer groups remain stable over time, but there is considerable heterogeneity • Some patterns of instability are linked to adjustment outcomes • Transactional framework (Caspi, Elder, Bem, 1987)