Peer Influence
Peers help us with language acquisition (kids end up speaking more
like their peers than their parents, e.g., children of immigrants
speak the language of the new country rather than the one of their
parents), and teach us how to make use of cultural tools, such as
computers, games, internet, TV, music. They affect the way we speak,
the way we dress, how we see ourselves and where we fit in in the
world.
If peers introduce us to things like the internet, movies and music,
how do we measure the extent of influence of each of these factors
once they've been introduced?
See also:
memes.
I think it is important to get away from the one-sided 'blame the
parents' mindset, and to realize that families are systems in which
all members affect each other, and that in society itself we
similarly affect and are affected by those we encounter.
Judith Harris Rich, in her book
The Nurture Assumption,
posited that peers have more of an effect on how we turn out than our
parents do, that in effect, nurture is the function of peer
relationships, and that parents could pretty much be shuffled around,
and we would still turn out the same if we had the same peer
groups.
Rich does say that it does matter how you treat your kids, and
it is not OK to be cruel or neglectful. And if after they've grown
up they do not keep in contact with you, it says something about how
they feel about the relationship.
I have been trying to apply some of her theories to my situation,
with little success. It could be that I encountered so many different
sets of peers that sorting out effects is exceptionally
complicated.
It's difficult to unentangle, but how do peers become the 'bad
influences' which our parents would prefer we avoid? Wouldn't that
have something to do with the relationships within their families of
origin? How do those kids become who they are?
It may be that the effects of genetic inheritance have complicated
effects which depend on a lot of different factors, and it may also
be that parents have subtle prejudices that they pass on
unconsciously to their kids, which in turn affect who their kids
attract, and who they seek out.
In any neighbourhood or school, the children your child attracts in
that environment may have something to do with the original family
relationships - the original relationships may have some bearing on
the roles your children adopt in
any given situation, or the
roles they adopt in particular situations.
There might be complicated explanations, some of which might relate
to inherited genes and how such combinations react with different
parenting styles (including the genes and parenting styles of
adoptive parents).
...Exposure to peers who smoke is what determines whether or not a
teenager will experiment with tobacco. Her genes determine
whether or not she will get hooked...
Judith Rich Harris, The Nurture Assumption
Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do
My parents, their friends, and most of my parents' relatives smoked,
so it is possible that many of them had the 'getting hooked' genes,
and that I might have inherited them as well. I was exposed to a lot
of peers throughout my life in a lot of different places who smoked,
including many boyfriends and the first man I lived with. In many
schools I attended (from Grade 7 up), those who smoked frequently
invited me to hang out, and frequently pressured me to smoke - I hung
out with them without ever smoking. When I started high school, a
girl my age lived next door. I saw her very frequently, and she was
constantly pressuring me to smoke. Many people I have met through the
years have commented that I 'look like a smoker'. I tried cigarettes
once while high, and pretty much only to demonstrate open-mindedness.
People I've known who weren't smokers when I met them sometimes
became smokers later - through social contact with a new group, or
because a person they were in a relationship with smoked. Even when
drunk to the point of blackout, I never smoked.
My three siblings don't smoke, either. It could mean a higher than
'normal' resistance to peer pressure, since neither peer influence
nor genetic inheritance appeared to be on our side. Or maybe it was
about 'rebelling' in our own way. My theory is that it may be related
to the influence of our maternal grandfather, the only person on
either side of the family who was never a smoker. He was known for
his fitness and health, he always looked very young for his age, and
he was a kind person who was well-liked. (He lived to the age of 91,
and looked unbelievably good for his age.)
In high school, when I began to drink, I think it had less to do with
peer pressure than that I was acting out my father's drinking style.
For two years already, I had been exposed to his binge drinking on a
regular basis. On weekends, he drank in my presence, frequently to
the point of blackout, while I ate. Before incidents in which I drank
and broke curfew, or ended up in the hospital with suspected alcohol
poisoning, my father had already provided an example in which his
drunkenness prevented me from competing in a horse show I had trained
for for months. I had contact with peers who were both 'positive
influences', and those who weren't. I was able to resist the more
'negative' influences for two years, and it was only after asking for
professional help which didn't help that I began to 'act out'. It was
only after trying the 'official' or 'professional' help, with
disappointing results, that I began to act out my confusion - with
alcohol. I was mirroring my father's drinking and out of control
behaviour.
See:
chronology.
One possible peer affect: If it hadn't been the 'in' thing to wear
jeans to school, I might have been considerably more comfortable
considering my eating patterns and fluctuating weight. When my sister
was a teen, it was 'in' to wear colourful sweats and knitwear to
school, and this might have helped her somewhat. As an adult, I have
tended to choose clothing which is less likely to be 'cool' or 'in
fashion', instead taking my own particular body and issues into
account.
socialization: the umbrella term for all those processes
by which children acquire the behavioural patterns and the values
required to live in their particular society.
individuation: umbrella term for all the processes
involved in the formation of a personal identity.
identity crisis: something that typically occurs in
adolescence. Through childhood, tasks/challenges must be met in order
to successfully continue to the next stage.
Appearance issues at adolescence can become significant for girls
especially, and can be related to a major drop in self-esteem.
adolescence/teens - a culture specific phenomenon. In
some cultures, there are only 2 categories - child and adult.
Sense of self is strongly dependent on the
quality of
interpersonal relationships
looking-glass self: the idea that we come to be who
others tell us we are - the self is a reflection of the way others
see us.
(above taken from):
H Rudolph Schaffer,
Introducing Child
Psychology
(These well-known terms have been coined by other
psychologists.)
What I think is difficult to pinpoint or prove is the complexity and
interaction within family relationships that might lead to a child
seeking similar patterns in the outside world. If a child is
neglected or bullied at home, it might impact their subsequent
relationships, the signals they send out, and what they
attract.
If I try to think about the things that peers affect: language
acquisition, the use of cultural tools, substance abuse, truancy or
deviant behaviour and that peers affect how we eventually interact in
the world at large and find our place in it, it is difficult to work
out the connections for me. It doesn't mean they don't exist, but it
is easier to look at from the perspective of family
influence.
If I think about the individual girls who were my friends, and then
also the larger peer groups: with the individual girls, most smoked,
did some drugs or would later, but most managed to attend school
regularly and get through high school. I am not sure if any attended
university, although I think in my last high school, the friend there
probably would have - her boyfriend and his friend, who I went to the
prom with, both definitely would have gone to university. But maybe
that was an issue: many of the girls I knew were basically
intelligent, but did not have the resources or family support related
to going to school. I think most or all of these girls did the usual
things, like managed to get driver's licences, and part-time jobs
while in school.
None of the friends I had ever read to the extent that I did.
However, this may have been part of why I didn't know what to read
when I reached high school, and just kind of aimlessly
flailed.
Judith Harris Rich's
group socialization theory also
entails that abuse by peers would have long-term deleterious
effects on personality, but that abuse by parents would not.
For me, bullying, name-calling, chasing and attacking occurred mainly
up to Grade 8. I don't seem to have the same feelings of horror that
many people who have been bullied do, and so I think that maybe for
me it was not as extensive or severe, and had fewer lasting effects.
I attended many different schools, so I did repeatedly have to deal
with new intimidation. Sexual harassment might have had some effect,
from Grade 8 onward - touching, grabbing, slapping, and sexual
remarks were a 'normal' part of life. In high school, I once
discovered that a message about me was written in a study carrel in
the library: 'Xesce is a fat ugly slut' with 'She is a gorgeous hunk
of woman!' alongside it - which might sum up the contradictory
messages I received. Some people thought I was attractive, some
thought I was ugly and fat. Some people liked me, some people did
not.
See also:
I Have Alligator
Skin, which relates to issues like name-calling and
bullying.
From the time I was 15 on, I had trouble visiting my mother, and this
was related to her disappointment with my appearance/weight. I did
receive messages from peers which suggested that I was more
attractive when at the lower end of my range as well. It is difficult
to know for sure that this was more about peer influence than
parental influence. I continued to go to school - it was the
difficulty in facing my mother which came first. However, she herself
may have been unconsciously trying to help me 'fit in' with my peer
group.
The incident which resulted in me waking in a field might have had
serious long-term effects on my personality and life, and during it
peers who were not friends acted badly toward me, but it is difficult
to isolate that incident as the only contributing factor. Why did I
seek out that incident? Why had I drunk alcohol to the point of semi-
blackout? My suicide attempt less than a year earlier seems to relate
more to family dynamics than peer influence.
Maybe that I consistently attracted female friends who were
considered more attractive than me (these females were usually
considered highly attractive) caused me to become hypersensitive
about my looks to the extent that I gave up on life and
relationships? But even that looks like it has a precedent in my
family relationships - either regarding my mother or my sister or
both. I would be considered the less attractive and in the overall
sense I would be the less dominant of the two, the one who came
'second' in the overall sense.
In my peer group, I did have a kind of respect - related to my
scholastic abilities. People knew who I was. Some people probably
thought of me as a goody-goody browner type, but I think for the
most part I did not come across that way, since the stoner crowd
tended to invite me to hang out with them. Maybe I smelled of smoke
from the family home. I probably took in enough secondhand smoke to
actually be a smoker.
Most of the friends I had were more concerned with being 'cool' than
I was, and also were a lot more harsh in their criticisms of others
than I was.
Even as a teenager, there was something excessive about my drinking
style that put others off, and which led to me being less welcome at
social gatherings. As for drugs, that also was like my father's style -
I experimented, and occasionally agreed socially, but mainly I was
interested in alcohol. I have had many peers, friends, and boyfriends
who smoked pot, but beyond a few times in Grade 11, it was an
irregular occurrence in my life for me to smoke pot. And I only
provided the drugs on one occasion: I had found an old joint of my
father's at the bottom of a box of bandaids. [Note: I also tried
amphetamines a few times, but when I bought them myself, they became
part of the collection I was saving for my suicide attempt, the bulk
of which was made up of tricyclic antidepressants.]
One idea to examine is that for me, my parents were perhaps 'peers'
in a way. If I was seen as mature for my age, and both at different
times had seen me as a confidant, I could have processed our
interactions the way children normally process peer
relationships.
My lack of relationships in later life seems to relate not to
individual peers and their effects, but to the constant upheaval
within my family, perhaps the death of my mother, and the attitudes
of my family members. I did fear running into those I had known in
the past as I continued to lose ties to life and status. Lack of
peers at critical times may have had an effect, or too many moves
resulting in a reluctance to try to form new lasting relationships,
or lack of social opportunities to find new peers, leading to my
isolation as an adult? As long as I was in school, I didn't really
seem to have trouble forming
some friendships.
I have never been and never will be invited to attend a high school
reunion, because technically my Grade 12 and 13 diplomas were not
issued by schools I attended, but by a correspondence school. This is
partly related to moves and family upheaval. I did Grade 12 by
correspondence, and my last two Grade 13 credits were also acquired
by correspondence. I had by that time no family encouragement to
continue with school at all, and no peers in my life - such that the
decision to get those diplomas was on my own initiative. (Also: my
on-again-off-again boyfriend, although 2.5 years older, did not have
a high school diploma himself - although in the year I knew him, he
received more credits than he did in total for the previous 2 years,
partly because I helped him with homework, and partly because I
actually did some of his work myself.)
One of the biggest positives in high school was that I had a really
good friend during the three years I attended my first high school.
She was not just physically beautiful, she was a good person. I just
had too many problems for her influence to counteract all of them.
If anything I was much more of a bad influence in her life, because
of my 'self-destructiveness'.
I always felt uneasy about inviting peers into the family home. At
present, I would speculate that I felt there was something different
about my family, and it might have been related to a kind of neglect
but also to a kind of emotional turbulence or complication, as well
as excessive habits or patterns that were shameful, the kind of thing
I understood instinctively that other people were not supposed to
know about - things which to retain an image of strength had to be
hidden.
I somehow think that has less to do with peers than with family
relations, and specifically, it might be about the discrepancy
between what it was like to live with my mother as opposed to my
father - once I could no longer live and eat in ways my mother would
have approved of, any situation which would remind me of my failure
to live up to her expectations would prove as stressful as the visit
which resulted in me asking for psychiatric help. I know what most
people think of as normal, and have incredible guilt about the
incredible excess and waste which it turned out I was capable of when
living with my father. The person I live with comes to see my
behaviour as normal for me, but I think I have shameful feelings
related to the 'truth' of the situation - knowing that it is not
'healthy' - in my own estimation.
I would like to challenge the idea of lying to human guinea pigs for
the purposes of scientific enquiry/experimentation. If people are
lied to, and this affects them in some instinctual sense, could it
throw off the results of experiments? Rich quotes a lot of
psychological experiments that to me don't really seem conclusive -
and this particular area is one of the possible reasons that results
may not be accurate - it may be related to an instinctual ability to
'detect cheaters' (in this case, lying researchers).
Rich suggested that parents move into the best possible
neighbourhoods, try to find schools where learning is 'cool', and
help their kids to fit in as well as possible - to get cool haircuts,
clothes, and shoes.
Would this also entail trying to pressure kids to hide
homosexuality?
To me, it looks like she is saying 'Resistance is futile. You will be
assimilated.' And that if you cannot afford to move to a 'better'
neighbourhood, your child is doomed, or you are at least at the mercy
of chance.
In my case it is easier to see the connections between parental
'abuse' and long-term deleterious effects on my personality. I don't
experience pleasure in life, and I associate 'love' with dying, and
constantly wish to die. I don't see a connection between that and any
peers - whereas I can see connections between my father's attitudes
and behaviours and those long-term effects. As well, I think my
mother's constant surveillance of my appearance, her hints and
outright statements, had quite a lasting impact on how I feel about
my looks and body. In the 'real world', I was not a beauty queen, but
usually there were a few people attracted to me. I knew that some
people found me fat or ugly, but there was more balance in the
outside world than in the home - and I think that still affects my
functioning now. When I travelled around the world, I felt that a
sense of balance had been restored in having contact with many
different people. I think what this represents is the unresolved
family conflict, not peer conflict - unless, I am missing something
vital, or not examining my unconscious thoughts and feelings. Maybe I
was over-optimistic as a kid, and could not face the real judgments
people had about me? So, in that case, peer relationships did affect
how I see myself? It's very easy to let myself get confused, and I
think it is difficult to be sure, but what makes more sense to me is
that I was very affected by family upheaval, and family judgment, and
that out in the world I actually encountered a wider range of opinion
that was 'healthier' for me, but I found it extremely difficult to
just 'shake off' family influence.
If a child is home-schooled, or socially isolated in some way, who
are its peers?
If the parents move around a lot, such that the child is constantly
introduced to new peers, is the child more affected by constant
upheaval? Which peer group has the most lasting effect, and how would
that be determined? By the age of encounter, the duration of the
encounter?
How does travel affect how kids function in peer groups once they
return home?
I think overall it is still difficult to work out the Nature vs
Nurture thing. Our genes no doubt play a big part in how we turn out.
But as for thinking peers have
more effect than parents when
it comes to environment or 'nurture', that seems dubious to me, as if
it does not go deep enough in analyzing the effects of the early
parental and sibling relationships and how they contribute to the
seeking out of different people in different circumstances.
I had a pattern of drawing certain relationships to me. In Northern
Ontario, rural South-Eastern Ontario, and in the city of Toronto, I
consistently attracted girls who were prettier and more popular than
me. They were the ones to approach me. It happened at least 4
different times (also, three of the four were smokers - I suppose it
could be argued that the one who wasn't was the one I considered my
best friend in high school, and that maybe that relationship affected
that particular outcome - but the boy I was most obsessed with in
high school was a smoker). I was not a pretty girl - I am not being
modest. It might be necessary to check my school records for photos.
I must have been giving off certain signals. It may be that each of
these girls needed a less attractive foil, that there was something
about their self-esteem that caused them to seek out someone they
wouldn't have to compete with as far as looks. I suspect that the
signals I sent and received had something to do with my relationship
with
my mother - she was the
pretty girl who saw me as a kind of confidant. Or, through observing
my mother, I had picked up some of the behaviours or signals of
pretty girls. It was not these girls who formed my personality, but
my original relationship with my mother - or at least so it seems to
me.
Harris said her goal was "to explain what makes them behave the
way they do in the world outside the home - the world where they will
spend the rest of their lives".
The idea behind this is that the child has one kind of behaviour in
the family home, and another in the world at large, but a problem
with her idea is that in an evolutionary sense the child's main goal
in life will be the forming of its own family (for the purpose of
reproduction). The child does not technically spend the rest of its
life outside the home if it goes on to form its own new home where it
behaves differently from how it behaves in the outside world.
It's important to be accepted by the group, partly because mates are
found within the group. If we have the support of the group, we have
a better chance of handling the difficulties of life. But in an
evolutionary sense, altruism is not natural. Each of us possesses
'selfish' genes which want to pass themselves on. We contribute to
a group, because we want the group's help in return when we need it.
If we can
choose to be altruistic, or to work for the good of
the group as opposed to working merely for our own benefit, can't we
also consciously choose to challenge the standards for acceptance to
a group? Such that we don't have to conform or be 'cool', have a
cool haircut, the right possessions, in order to be accepted by the
group?
The theories of
The Nurture Assumption seem to point to the
need for massive social change, and for there to be a better basic
standard of living for all.
Categorization for Acceptance by a Group:
1. Appearance - people begin the categorization process here
2. What do you do?
3. Clarifications
Simple conversations are about this process, and are therefore not as
simple as they might seem. A casual 'hello' or encounter with a
stranger is not really so casual. This is how you find people to
talk to in a general sense but dismiss for the long term, and how you
might find others who would fit your tribe/group.
People choose mates who are similar in race, religion, socioeconomic
staus, IQ, education, attitudes, personality, appearance. Women are
most frequently younger and shorter than their mates. Friendships
face a similar categorization process.
As an adult, the groups most likely to accept me are likely to be
composed of outcasts of some kind, or those who are depressed, those
with no formal organization or meeting places. I could probably
'pass' as 'normal' for short periods and in certain situations, but I
would not be able to keep it up, and wouldn't see the point of basing
relationships upon such foundations.
Is it possible that writers can ultimately have more of an effect on
ideas and values than either family or peers?