Although previous research has clearly demonstrated the impact that peer crowd affiliation has on socioemotional and risk-related outcomes, very few studies have investigated this relation in samples of emerging adults, and even fewer have focused specifically on commuter college students. Accordingly, the current study aimed to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the relationship between peer crowds and college adjustment at a commuter school. Participants were 663 students at a large public university in Southern California (campus population of 92% commuters). Factor analytic results indicated the presence of four crowd dimensions on campus: (a) social/partiers, (b) creatives and activists, (c) campus active, and (d) international students. Furthermore, path analysis results indicated that these crowd dimensions predict loneliness, college belongingness, and risk behaviors. Overall, the results of this study indicate the presence of a peer crowd landscape unique to commuter schools that has important implications for student adjustment.
AsherS. R.WeeksM. S. (2014). Loneliness and belongingness in the college years. In CoplanR. J.BowkerJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 283–301). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
2.
AshmoreR. D.Del BocaF. K.BeebeM. (2002). “Alkie,” “frat brother,” and “jock”: Perceived types of college students and stereotypes about drinking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 885–907.
3.
BonsuJ. A. (2012). Do high school peer crowd affiliations and peer alcohol use predict alcohol use during college?(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kentucky, Lexington.
4.
BradleyG.WildmanK. (2002). Psychosocial predictors of emerging adults’ risk and reckless behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 253–265.
5.
BrownB. B. (1989). Social type rating manual. Madison: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
6.
BrownB. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In FeldmanS. S.ElliottG. R. (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171–196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BrownB. B.MountsN.LambornS. D.SteinbergL. (1993). Parenting practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467–482.
8.
CornerS. (2009). Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and EFA. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 13, 20–25.
9.
DoornwaardS. M.BranjeS. MeeusWimH. J.ter BogtT. F. M. (2012). Development of adolescents’ peer crowd identification in relation to changes in problem behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1366–1380.
HensonR. K.RobertsJ. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393–416.
13.
HopmeyerA.MedovoyT. (2016). Emerging adults’ self-identified peer crowd affiliations, risk behavior, and social–emotional adjustment in college. Journal of Emerging Adulthood, 5, 143–148.
14.
KennyM. E. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 17–29.
15.
KuhG. D.GonyeaR. M.PalmerM. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or fiction?Commuter Perspectives, 27, 2–5.
16.
La GrecaA. M.PrinsteinM. J.FetterM. D. (2001). Adolescent peer crowd affiliation: Linkages with health-risk behaviors and close friendships. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26, 131–143.
17.
MatsunagaM. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 2011–2084.
18.
MaxwellW. E. (2000). Student peer relations at a community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 207–217.
19.
PascarellaE. T.ChapmanD. W. (1983). A multiinstitutional, path analytic validation of Tinto’s model of college withdrawal. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 87–102.
RussellD. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.
22.
SessaF. M. (2005). The influence of perceived parenting on substance use during the transition to college: A comparison of male residential and commuter students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 62–74.
23.
SessaF. M. (2007). Peer crowds in a commuter college sample: The relation between self-reported alcohol use and perceived peer crowd norms. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 141, 293–305.
StapletonJ.TurrisiR.HillhouseJ. (2008). Peer crowd identification and indoor artificial UV tanning behavioral tendencies. Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 940–945.
27.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
28.
TeeseR.BradleyG. (2008). Predicting recklessness in emerging adults: A test of a psychosocial model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 105–128.
29.
TognoliJ. (2003). Leaving home: Homesickness, place attachment, and transition among residential college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 18, 35–48.
30.
WerchC. E.PappasD. M.CarlsonJ. M.DiClementeC. C.ChallyP. S.SinderJ. A. (2000). Results of a social norm intervention to prevent binge drinking among first-year residential college students. Journal of American College Health, 49, 85–92.
