Research has shown that adolescents’ intergroup attitudes are subject to friends’ influence, but it remains unknown if certain friends are more influential than others. Popular adolescents may be especially influential of their friends’ intergroup attitudes because they can set peer norms. We examined several indicators of popularity in social networks as possible determinants of social influence: sociometric popularity, prestige popularity, being a clique leader, and frequency of contact with friends. Longitudinal analysis of adolescents’ friendship networks (12–13 years, N = 837) allowed estimating influence of friends on adolescents’ intergroup attitudes, while controlling for the tendency of adolescents to befriend peers with similar intergroup attitudes. Results showed that adolescents’ intergroup attitudes changed in the direction of friends’ intergroup attitudes. Only peers who are popular in terms of having many friends (sociometric popular) were especially influential of their friends’ intergroup attitudes. These findings may inform future interventions aiming to reduce prejudice.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (2011). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779108401862
2.
AdlerP. A.AdlerP. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
AryD. V.TildesleyE.HopsH.AndrewsJ. (1993). The influence of parent, sibling, and peer modeling and attitudes on adolescent use of alcohol. International Journal of the Addictions, 28, 853–880. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826089309039661
5.
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford, UK: Prentice-Hall.
6.
Benoit-SmullyanE. (1944). Status, status types, and status interrelations. American Sociological Review, 9, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086307
7.
BerndtT. J. (1996). Transitions in friendship and friends’ influence. In GraberJ. A.Brooks-GunnJ.PetersenA. C. (Eds.), Transitions through adolescence: Interpersonal domains and context (pp. 57–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8.
BiddleB. J.BankB. J.MarlinM. M. (1980). Parental and peer influence on adolescents. Social Forces, 58, 1057–1079. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/58.4.1057
9.
BlantonH.ChristieC. (2003). Deviance regulation: A theory of action and identity. Review of General Psychology, 7, 115–149.
BukowskiW. M.NewcombA. F. (1984). Stability and determinants of sociometric status and friendship choice: A longitudinal perspective. Developmental Psychology, 20, 941–952. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.5.941
CoendersM.LubbersM.ScheepersP.VerkuytenM. (2008). More than two decades of changing ethnic attitudes in the Netherlands. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00561.x
17.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O’BrienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359
18.
CsardiG.NepuszT. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems. Retrieved from http://igraph.org
19.
DijkstraJ. K.CillessenA. H. N.BorchC. (2013). Popularity and adolescent friendship networks: Selection and influence dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1242–1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030098
20.
DijkstraJ. K.CillessenA. H. N.LindenbergS.VeenstraR. (2010). Basking in reflected glory and its limits: Why adolescents hang out with popular peers. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00671.x
21.
DishionT. J.PiehlerT. F.MyersM. W. (2008). Dynamics and ecology of adolescent peer influence. In PrinsteinM. J.DodgeK. A. (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 72–93). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
DovidioJ. F.LoveA.SchellhaasF. M. H.HewstoneM. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052
23.
FlaspohlerP. D.ElfstromJ. L.VanderzeeK. L.SinkH. E.BirchmeierZ. (2009). Stand by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of bullying on quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20404
24.
FredericksonN.TurnerJ. (2003). Utilizing the classroom peer group to address children’s social needs: An evaluation of the circle of friends intervention approach. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690303600404
25.
GestS. D.Graham-BermannS. A.HartupW. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status. Social Development, 10, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00146
26.
GevenS.WeesieJ.van TubergenF. (2013). The influence of friends on adolescents’ behavior problems at school: The role of ego, alter and dyadic characteristics. Social Networks, 35, 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.08.002
27.
GortmakerS. L.PetersonK.WiechaJ.SobolA. M.DixitS.FoxM. K.LairdN. (1999). Reducing obesity via a school-based interdisciplinary intervention among youth: Planet health. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153, 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.153.4.409
28.
HardinC. D.ConleyT. D. (2001). A relational approach to cognition: Shared experience and relationship affirmation in social cognition. In Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition (pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
HoggM. A.TerryD. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization Processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791606
33.
HouletteM. A.GaertnerS. L.JohnsonK. M.BankerB. S.RiekB. M.DovidioJ. F. (2004). Developing a more inclusive social identity: An elementary school intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00098.x
JuvonenJ.GalvánA. (2008). Peer influence in involuntary social groups: Lessons from research on bullying. In PrinsteinM. J.DodgeK. A. (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 225–244). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
KelmanH. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200106
37.
KiesnerJ.MaassA.CadinuM.ValleseI. (2003). Risk factors for ethnic prejudice during early adolescence. Social Development, 12, 288–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00234
38.
Laninga-WijnenL.HarakehZ.SteglichC.DijkstraJ. K.VeenstraR.VolleberghW. (2017). The norms of popular peers moderate friendship dynamics of adolescent aggression. Child Development, 88, 1265–1283. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12650
39.
LatanéB.BourgeoisM. (2001). Dynamic social impact and the consolidation, clustering, correlation, and continuing diversity of culture. In HoggM. A.TindaleR. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 235–258). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
40.
LeaseA. M.KennedyC. A.AxelrodJ. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00188
41.
LeszczenskyL.StarkT. H.FlacheA.MunniksmaA. (2016). Disentangling the relation between young immigrants’ host country identification and their friendships with natives. Social Networks, 44, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.08.001
MaguenS.ArmisteadL. (2006). Abstinence among female adolescents: Do parents matter above and beyond the influence of peers?American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.2.260
44.
MaliepaardM.GijsbertsM. (2012). Moslim in Nederland. The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
45.
MardsenP. V. (2005). Recent developments in network measurement. In CarringtonP. J.ScottJ.WassermanS. (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 8–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MassonC. N.VerkuytenM. (1993). Prejudice, ethnic identity, contact and ethnic group preferences among Dutch young adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01058.x
47.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
48.
MiklikowskaM. (2017). Development of anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence: The role of parents, peers, intergroup friendships, and empathy. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 626–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12236
49.
MunniksmaA.StarkT. H.VerkuytenM.FlacheA.VeenstraR. (2013). Extended intergroup friendships within social settings: The moderating role of initial outgroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 752–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213486207
OsgoodD. W.RaganD. T.WallaceL.GestS. D.FeinbergM. E.MoodyJ. (2013). Peers and the emergence of alcohol use: Influence and selection processes in adolescent friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence: The Official Journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence, 23, 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12059
52.
PaluckE. L. (2011). Peer pressure against prejudice: A high school field experiment examining social network change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.017
53.
PaluckE. L.ShepherdH. (2012). The salience of social referents: A field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 899–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030015
54.
PaluckE. L.ShepherdH.AronowP. M. (2016). Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 566–571. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514483113
55.
ParkhurstJ. T.HopmeyerA. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018002001
56.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.WagnerU.ChristO. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
57.
PickettC. L.SilverM. D.BrewerM. B. (2002). The impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of ingroup size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202287011
RaabeT.BeelmannA. (2011). Development of ethnic, racial, and national prejudice in childhood and adolescence: a multinational meta-analysis of age differences. Child Development, 82, 1715–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01668.x
60.
RambaranA. J.DijkstraJ. K.StarkT. H. (2013). Status-based influence processes: The role of norm salience in contagion of adolescent risk attitudes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12032
61.
RancourtD.PrinsteinM. J. (2010). Peer status and victimization as possible reinforcements of adolescent girls’ and boys’ weight-related behaviors and cognitions. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35, 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsp067
Rivas-DrakeD.SaleemM.SchaeferD. R.MedinaM.JagersR. (2019). Intergroup contact attitudes across peer networks in school: Selection, influence, and implications for cross-group friendships. Child Development, 90, 1898�1916. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13061
64.
RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.ParkerJ. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In DamonW.LernerR. M.EisenbergN. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 619–700). New York, NY: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0310
65.
SalmivalliC.VoetenM.PoskipartaE. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597090
66.
SandstromM. J.CillessenA. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406072789
67.
SavelkoulM.ScheepersP.van der VeldW.HagendoornL. (2012). Comparing levels of anti-Muslim attitudes across Western countries. Quality and Quantity, 46, 1617–1624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9470-9
68.
SchaeferD. R.AdamsJ.HaasS. A. (2013). Social networks and smoking: Exploring the effects of peer influence and smoker popularity through simulations. Health Education & Behavior, 40, 24S–32S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198113493091
69.
ShepherdH.PaluckE. L. (2015). Stopping the drama: Gendered influence in a network field experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78, 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272515581212
70.
SherifM.SherifC. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension: An integration of studies of intergroup relations. Oxford, UK: Harper & Brothers.
SnijdersT. A. B.BaerveldtC. (2003). A multilevel network study of the effects of delinquent behavior on friendship. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27, 123–151.
73.
SnijdersT. A. B.SteglichC. E. G. (2015). Representing Micro–Macro Linkages by Actor-based Dynamic Network Models. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 222–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113494573
74.
SnijdersT. A. B.van de BuntG. G.SteglichC. 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
75.
StarkT. H. (2015). Understanding the selection bias social network processes and the effect of prejudice on the avoidance of outgroup friends. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78, 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272514565252
76.
StarkT. H. (2018). Collecting social network data. In VannetteJ. A.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research (pp. 241–254). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6_31
77.
StarkT. H.FlacheA. (2012). The double edge of common interest: Ethnic segregation as an unintended byproduct of opinion homophily. Sociology of Education, 85, 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711427314
78.
StathiS.CameronL.HartleyB.BradfordS. (2014). Imagined contact as a prejudice-reduction intervention in schools: The underlying role of similarity and attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12245
SteglichC.SinclairP.HollidayJ.MooreL. (2012). Actor-based analysis of peer influence in A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial (ASSIST). Social Networks, 34, 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.07.001
81.
SteglichC.SnijdersT. A. B.PearsonM. (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
ThijsJ.VerkuytenM. (2014). School ethnic diversity and students’ interethnic relations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12032
87.
TurnerJ. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
88.
TurnerR. N.HewstoneM.VociA.VonofakouC. (2008). A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 843–860. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011434
ValenteT. W.Ritt-OlsonA.StacyA.UngerJ. B.OkamotoJ.SussmanS. (2007). Peer acceleration: Effects of a social network tailored substance abuse prevention program among high-risk adolescents. Addiction, 102, 1804–1815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01992.x
91.
van ZalkM. H. W.KerrM.KerrM.van ZalkN.StattinH. (2013). Xenophobia and tolerance toward immigrants in adolescence: Cross-influence processes within friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9694-8
92.
VastaE. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30, 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701491770
93.
VeenstraR.DijkstraJ. K.KreagerD. A. (2017). Pathways, networks, and norms: A sociological perspective on peer research. In BukowskiW. M.LaursenB.Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships and groups (pp. 45–63). New York: NY: Guilford.
94.
VerkuytenM.ThijsJ. (2002). Racist victimization among children in The Netherlands: The effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870120109502
95.
VerkuytenM.ThijsJ. (2010). Religious group relations among Christian, Muslim and nonreligious early adolescents in the Netherlands. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609342984
96.
VezzaliL.HewstoneM.CapozzaD.GiovanniniD.WölferR. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948
97.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
98.
WeermanF. M. (2011). Delinquent peers in context: A longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology, 49, 253–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00223.x
99.
WölferR.FaberN. S.HewstoneM. (2015). Social network analysis in the science of groups: Cross-sectional and longitudinal applications for studying intra- and intergroup behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000021
100.
WölferR.HewstoneM. (2017). Beyond the dyadic perspective: 10 reasons for using social network analysis in intergroup contact research. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 609–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12195
WrightS. C.AronA.McLaughlin-VolpeT.RoppS. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73
103.
ZhouS.Page-GouldE.AronA.MoyerA.HewstoneM. (2018). The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23, 132–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762647
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
