Peer Influence on Individuals Behavior - Essay Example

Peer influence on individual behavior Introduction Peer influence can be described as the process through which children nurture each other’s attitudes and behavior, resulting into conformity within the group. Since youngsters spend most of their time with peers, as they achieve liberty from their parents, much of the study on peer influence centers mainly on adolescence. At this particular time, adolescents begin to select their peers based on interest instead of convenience. This cohort is particularly vulnerable to influence from their peers since they are more dependent on them compared to younger children. Additionally, studies have indicated that adolescents are more controlled by their peers compared to grown-ups. This increased vulnerability to peer compliance during adolescence has been expressed as an “emotional way station” that connects the gap between being expressively reliant on parents during babyhood to becoming an expressively independent grown-up (Fadell & Temkow, 2010). Influence from peers and peer choice are corresponding processes that collaborate to generate the adolescent’s social framework. Adolescents obtain friends who are comparable to them and they as well seem to get new friends who are somewhat similar to their old friends. This hemophilic selection process generates stability in the social framework. However, friends might be alike on one trait while being dissimilar on others and are never the same to the adolescent. These disparities generate opportunities for adolescents to influence the behavior of each other. In consequence of this influence, adolescents might alter their approaches or behaviors. Consequently, prospect friendship selection might reflect this change. Thus, the adolescent social framework is best considered as being dynamic where choice and influence collaborate to generate both stability and change for the adolescent (Luo, et al., 2003). Peer groups regularly institute unspecified standards for their members behavior that differentiate them from other peer groups. For instance, most high schools have groups of solemn students, musicians, insurgents, athletes, outsiders and collectively oriented or admired students. These groups form an esteemed chain of command since they have diverse statuses. The well-liked crowd, differentiated by luxurious clothing and striking physical appearance, are frequently the peer groups in the highest class. Adolescent’s confidence can be affected by how they perceive the grade of their individual peer group as compared to other groups. Grown-ups occasionally reproach adolescents for not valuing educational accomplishment and pro-social behavior. However, the alleged peer culture in most high schools precisely mirrors the position of celebrities in sports and leisure in our community (Upstate Center of Excellence, 2001) Urberg (1992) suggests that peer influence may lead to either constancy or transformation in behavior or an attitude, depending on the original connection between the adolescents. This means that if two adolescent pals were very alike on the quantity they smoked, peer influence would be anticipated to attach their behavior and eventually, there would be little transformation in their smoking behavior. Conversely, if they were dissimilar in the quantity that they smoked, one or both would be anticipated to change in the way of their friend. Age is a chief aspect in determining one’s vulnerability to peer influence, with teenagers being more vulnerable than any other age group (Fadell & Temkow, 2010). The developmental path of vulnerability to peer influence in early adolescence fluctuates depending on how the construct is maneuvered. Susceptibility to peer influence appears to increase during early adolescence, peaking around 14 years of age when measured in terms of the inclination to engage particularly in disruptive acts. On the other hand, when vulnerability to peer influence is determined more internationally, it seems to remain constant or to reduce over this same interlude. Nevertheless, between mid adolescence and early adulthood, vulnerability to peer influence plainly declines in spite of the behavior under consideration. This transformation has been attributed to achievements in behavioral sovereignty and in character growth in late adolescence (Monahan, et al, 2009). Self-esteem is another important susceptibility factor since low self-esteem is linked with bigger conformity. Additionally, females have been established to be more vulnerable to conformity than their male counterparts are. Another important factor that explains vulnerability of adolescents to peer influence is parenting style. This is because high levels of dictatorial parenting acts as a probable bumper against peer influence. Social nervousness and high levels of despair have also been found to be linked with vulnerability to peer influence (Fadell & Temkow, 2010). The precise relationship adolescents have with a pal might also affect how easily that friend influences them. For instance, a first-class relationship might be more esteemed by the adolescent, who afterward may be more probable to change his or her behavior to delight the friend. Adolescents with first-class friendships might use most of their time together and, therefore, have more chances to shape each other’s behaviors. General peer recognition may also have an effect on peer influence. Studies indicate that those with much responded friendships are less likely to be influenced by their pals than those with no responded friendships. It is also suggested that those who are outside the school social groups may be inspired to change to the behavior of needed friends to attempt to become part of the group (Luo, et al., 2003). In addition, mutual best friends seem to apply more influence on each other than do one-sided friends. Moreover, mutual best friends are likely to use much of their time together and have a more powerful connection, and consequently more chances to influence each other. Conversely, adolescents whose friendship selections are not responded to are prone to more influence from their friends standards as compared to those in shared relationships. Some people argue that the influence asymmetry implied by the unreciprocated friendship might exert more pressure to transform on the person who needs the friendship than on the one who does not (Urberg, 1992). A person’s position within peer systems also determines peer influences on his or her behavior. Certain individuals are normally accepted and popular. Popular youth have intimate peer associations, and appear to be smart, humorous and friendly. They appear to want to comply with the prospects of those who make them popular. Other youths obtain strong but differing responses; while a number of their peers admire them, others powerfully hate them. In this case, they have to decide which peers they will try to delight. Still, others are detested; they are extensively disregarded or aggressively disliked. Some of their peers’ refutation will influence them and they typically find comfort, and another basis of influence, in the friendship of other unwanted youth. Another deserted matter is the manner in which adolescents are separated from grown-ups so that peer influence prevails. Schools and other communal organizations, housing patterns, and even places of work appear to discriminate people by age (Upstate Center of Excellence, 2001). Urberg (1992) further states that a high value placed on social contact, low self-worth and possibly family variables may be examined for their influence on conformity. Adolescent companionships emerge to be reasonably uniform with respect to social crowd. Most of the adolescents have a pal who recognizes themselves as an affiliate of the similar social crowd as the other adolescent does. Conversely, high socioeconomic standing has been found to be connected with lower vulnerability to unconstructive peer influence. This may be in part because of better access to and eminence of social resources, for instance recreation, playgroups and organized sports. Youths who partake in a range of activities with diverse peers might be less susceptible to the influence of any one nonstandard group (Fadell & Temkow, 2010). Research has found that peers influence each other in several different behavioral spheres. Even though much of this study has centered on rebellious or negative behaviors, some studies exist on pro-social or unbiased behavior. In terms of positive behaviors, researchers have showed peer influence in the spheres of participation in supplementary activities, educational commitment, sexual self-denial, sharing, and cooperation. On the other hand, unconstructive behaviors influenced by peers include risk taking, drugs use, theft, violence, promiscuity, trespassing, misbehavior, vandalism, problematic eating behaviors, cheating, and truancy (Fadell & Temkow, 2010). In substance abuse, most teenagers have pals who are parallel to themselves. Nevertheless, a marginal of non-using teenagers chooses persons who use these substances as friends and therefore, have placed themselves in a circumstance where influence to raise their substance abuse is probable or expected to happen. As a result, it is possible that the process of being a user of a substance is instigated much earlier than the choosing of a using friend. If the progression of being a substance user certainly starts earlier than the choice of a using pal, it would be anticipated that nonusers who select users as companions would be different from those who select nonusers as friends. Nevertheless, it is still probable that non-using teenagers might obtain substance-using friends quite unintentionally. Some non-using teenagers in this case become accidentally rendered to a condition where they might be influenced to start alcohol or cigarette use. This corresponds to the manner in which influence has characteristically been deemed: a ‘blameless’ adolescent is exposed to ‘bad’ peers and consequently, develops bad habits. These cases can be differentiated by establishing whether non-using teenagers who get substance-using friends are different from those who obtain non-using friends (Luo. et al, 2003). Another way in which peer groups’ impacts on individual behavior is through spontaneous buying. While one’s peers allege an impulse as optimistic, consumers have an advanced propensity of purchasing impetuously. Nonetheless, spontaneous buying is also influenced by the person’ relation to the peer. The company of other peers raises the desire to buy and increases the likelihood of impulsive buying. However, the company of relatives reduces this desire. Besides, the presence of others may raise alleged hunger, as they are in the company of a hungry individual and might imitate that feeling. Moreover, eating with others may take much more long time compared to eating alone. This increases the quantity eaten due to an augmented time spent while eating with others (Walet, 2009). The significance of peer groupings in adolescent risky behavior is probably the result of numerous processes. This includes increases in the quantity of time adolescents spend with peers, in the affirmed significance of peer associations. This increases vulnerability to peer influence in adolescents. For instance, a recent investigational study found that the sheer presence of peers increased the quantity of risk taking in which adolescents were involved in. On the other hand, presence of peers had no such influences on grown ups. Moreover, one of the most significant forecasters of peer association with regard to indulgent in and forbearance of risky behavior in adolescence is peer likeness (Monahan, et al, 2009). Walet (2009) indicates that peer influence is frequently mentioned in conversations concerning adolescent risk-taking behaviors. Studies have indicated that adolescents who are engaged in dangerous behavior are regularly in the company of their peers. In addition, many youths are alleged to engage in risky activities for instance using unlawful drugs, engaging in sexual activities, drinking alcohol, and smoking. Some peer collections dynamically discourage motivation to succeed in academics and otherwise conforming to conservative behavioral anticipations (Upstate Center of Excellence, 2001). As Walet (2009) asserts, resistance to peer pressure increases linearly between ages 14 and 18 across all age groups in research. Nonetheless, there is slight proof for growth in this resisting capability between ages 10 and 14 or between 18 and 30. Monahan, et al (2009) stresses that as adolescents’ changeover into young maturity, the relation between associating with nonstandard peers and disruptive behavior deteriorates. That is, even among adolescents who constantly correlate with antisocial peers, the pressure that their peers have over their own behavior diminishes. This assertion is in conformity with studies showing that persons’ ability to oppose peer pressure increases during late adolescence. Additionally, the waning influence of rebellious companions weakens a bit more slowly among persons who exemplify themselves as more vulnerable to the influences of their peers. Therefore, even though adolescents generally, become more resistant to peer pressure as they grow older; it is also evident that some are sluggish to build up this aptitude than others. In addition, these persons are at bigger risk for constant involvement in risky behavior, particularly when their friends engage in antisocial behaviors. A significant way to lessen the influence of peers is to generate more opportunities for teenagers to form strong associations with grown-ups outside their families. This can be achieved in mentoring plans and casual mentoring associations that happen when youth and adults engage in activities of shared interest over a comprehensive period. These may include unpaid assisting in the community projects, workplace internships or apprenticeships and learning to dance or play an instrument. Another strategy is by forming groups across ages founded on universal interests in some activities for instance ecological protection, local history, drama, photography or fishing. While some adolescents require an intimate dialogue mentoring relationship, others can profit from merely being familiar with several caring grown-ups. Such associations do not substitute but harmonize those with parents and peers (Upstate Center of Excellence, 2001). Conclusion Peer influence on individual behavior mostly affects the youth particularly adolescents. There are possibly negative and positive influences on behavior although the negative influences dominate. When in these groups, the adolescents will attempt to copy what their peers are doing so that they can fit in these groups or merely to please their friends. The youth should be involved in various societal activities where they will engage with grown-ups to prevent the negatives of this influence. References Fadell, L.W. & Temkow, S.E. (2010). Contagion: A framework for Understanding Peer Influence among Adolescents. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OdWBRlJjlBsJ:www.drchrustowski.com/peer_influence_paper_final.pdf+peer+influence+on+individuals+behaviour&hl=en&gl=ke Luo, Q. et al. (2003). A Two-stage Model of Peer Influence in Adolescent Substance Use: Individual and Relationship-Specific Differences in Susceptibility to Influence Addictive Behaviors. Journal of addictive behaviors, 28, 1, 1243-1256. Monahan, K.C. et al. (2009). Affiliation with Antisocial Peers, Susceptibility to Peer Influence, and Antisocial Behavior during the Transition to Adulthood. Developmental Psychology Journal, 45, 6, 1520-1530. Upstate center of excellence. (2001). Peers. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QbsW9_ozEsEJ:www.actforyouth.net/documents/Peers_Fact_Sheet.pdf+influence+of+peer+pressure+on+individuals+behaviour&hl=en&gl=ke Urberg, K.A. (1992). Locus of Peer Influence: Social Crowd and Best Friend. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 4, 439-450. Walet, B. (2009). Eating Healthy under Peer Pressure: How Peers Influence Teens’ Food Choice. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hEf5vGesO-MJ:arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid%3D16137+influence+of+peer+pressure+on+individuals+behaviour&hl=en&gl=ke Read More