Snare Gremmendp17

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315927398
First Selection, Then Influence: Developmental

Differences in Friendship Dynamics Regarding
Academic Achievement
Article in Developmental Psychology April 2017

DOI: 10.1037/dev0000314
CITATIONS READS
0 109
4 authors, including:
Jan Kornelis Dijkstra Christian Steglich

University of Groningen Linkping University
63 PUBLICATIONS 1,093 CITATIONS 67 PUBLICATIONS 3,143 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Ren Veenstra
University of Groningen
149 PUBLICATIONS 4,166 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Anti-bullying programs 2.0: Tailored interventions to minimize bullying View project
Status differentiation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ren Veenstra on 14 April 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Running head: PEER DYNAMICS IN ADOLESCENTS ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
First Selection, then Influence: Developmental Differences in Friendship Dynamics

Regarding Academic Achievement
Mariola Claudia Gremmen
Jan Kornelis Dijkstra
Christian Steglich
Ren Veenstra
University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Interuniversity Center for Social Science Theory and Methodology (ICS)
2017
Please cite as: Gremmen, M.C., Dijkstra, J.K., Steglich, C.E.G., & Veenstra, R.
(2017). First selection, then influence: Developmental differences in friendship
dynamics regarding academic achievement. Developmental Psychology.
Correspondence regarding this paper should be addressed to the first author: Mariola Claudia
Gremmen, Department of Sociology and Interuniversity Center for Social Science Theory and
Methodology (ICS), University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TG Groningen,
The Netherlands, +31610262632, m.c.gremmen@rug.nl
1
Abstract
This study concerns peer selection and influence dynamics in early adolescents friendships
regarding academic achievement. Using longitudinal social network analysis (RSiena), both
selection and influence processes were investigated for students average grades and their
cluster-specific grades (i.e., language, exact, and social cluster). Data were derived from the
SNARE (Social Network Analysis of Risk behavior in Early adolescence) study, using six
waves (N = 601; M age = 12.66, 48.9% boys at first wave). Results showed developmental
differences between the first and second year of secondary school (seventh and eighth grade).
Whereas selection processes were found in the first year on students cluster-specific grades,
influence processes were found in the second year, on both students average and cluster-
specific grades. These results suggest that students initially tend to select friends on the basis
of similar cluster-based grades (first year), showing that similarity in achievement is attractive
for friendships. Especially for low-achieving students, similar-achieving students were highly
attractive as friends, whereas they were mostly avoided by high-achieving students. Influence
processes on academic achievement take place later on (second year), when students know
each other better, indicating that students grades become more similar over time in response
to their connectedness. Concluding, this study shows the importance of developmental
differences and specific school subjects for understanding peer selection and influence
processes in adolescents academic achievement.
Keywords: academic achievement; peer dynamics; early adolescence; social networks; RSiena
2
First Selection, then Influence: Developmental Differences in Friendship Dynamics

Regarding Academic Achievement
Academic achievement in adolescence is a key determinant of future educational chances and
occupational success. Hence, it is important that adolescents maximize their performance in
accordance with their own abilities (Flashman, 2012; Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow,
2001; Shin & Ryan, 2014a; Witkow & Fuligni, 2010). However, there is huge variability in
the extent to which adolescents do so and set a path towards academic success. Whereas some
students enjoy academics a lot, work diligently on their school work, attend school every day,
and get good grades, others show less interest in school, potentially leading to
underachievement (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Capra, & Pastorelli, 2001; Bissell-Havran &
Loken, 2009).
Several factors affect students academic performance. First, individual factors are
important, such as students intelligence, interest in school, persistence, and willingness to
study (Neisser et al., 1996). Second, environmental factors such as the capabilities and
practices of teachers and parents, affect students academic achievement (Farmer, Mcauliffe,
& Hamm, 2011). The mean level of achievement in a classroom can also affect students
academic achievement, as indicated by studies on classroom composition effects (e.g., Barth
et al., 2004). However, many previous studies have shown that particularly friends in
classrooms play an important role in adolescents academic behaviors, as students spend a
large amount of time with them (Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2003; for a review see Crosnoe &
Brenner, 2015). Friends provide support and resources and either promote or discourage
attitudes and behaviors that contribute to school success (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Brown,
Eicher, & Petrie, 1986; Eccles et al., 1993; Lynch, Lerner, & Leventhal, 2013). Therefore, the
goal of the present study is to examine the role of adolescents friendships in their academic
achievement.
3
Background
Adolescents tend to associate and form relationships with peers who are similar regarding
their involvement in school (Kindermann & Skinner, 2009), motivation (Molloy, Gest, &
Rulison, 2010), and academic achievement (Blansky et al., 2013; Lynch, Lerner, & Leventhal,
2013; Ryan, 2001; Witkow & Fuligni, 2010). Together, these studies clearly demonstrate
similarities in academic adjustment between friends. There are two fundamental processes
capturing friendship dynamics that can explain similarity between (sub)groups of people in
academic outcomes: selection and influence (Snijders, 2001; Veenstra, Dijkstra, Steglich, &
Van Zalk, 2013).
Selection processes refer to mechanisms by which individuals choose to hang out or
become friends with each other, whereas influence processes refer to changes in behavior or
attitudes in response to relationships with peers (Veenstra et al., 2013). Stochastic actor-based
modeling (RSiena) makes it possible to disentangle influence from selection processes by
examining changes in relationships and behaviors simultaneously (Ripley, Snijders, Boda,
Vrs, & Preciado, 2015; Snijders, Van de Bunt, & Steglich, 2010). Currently, this approach
has been used to examine the role of peers in different domains, varying from internalizing to
externalizing behaviors (Veenstra et al., 2013). To date, however, there is only limited
information about these processes for academic outcomes, let alone academic achievement.
A study by Geven, Weesie, and Van Tubergen (2013) showed that students became
more similar to their friends over time with respect to school engagement (homework activity
and paying attention in class), but also selected friends who are similar to them in these
outcomes. Shin and Ryan (2014a) examined students achievement goals, showing both
selection and influence effects for mastery goals (i.e., a focus on developing academic
competence), only influence effects for performance-approach goals (i.e., a focus on
demonstrating high competence to others), and no selection and influence effects for
4
performance-avoidance goals (i.e., a focus on avoiding demonstration of incompetence to
others).
More specifically, a few studies have focused on selection and influence processes in
academic achievement. Lomi and colleagues (2011) found evidence for both selection and
influence processes in a small sample of 75 Italian university students (aged between 24 and
40). Flashman (2012) showed that adolescents academic performance was influenced by
their peers (seventh through twelfth grade students), but also functioned as a sorting
mechanism for friendship formation, particularly in large schools (selection). Further, it
appeared that high-achieving students mostly formed relationships with other high-achieving
students and were positively influenced, whereas low-achieving students associated with other
low-achieving students and were negatively influenced. Also, Shin and Ryan (2014b) found
influence effects on early adolescents academic achievement and (marginal) selection effects
in sixth grade. Finally, a study by Rambaran et al. (2017) revealed both selection and
influence processes in ninth grade students school achievement and truancy. Friendships
were particularly formed and maintained between low-achieving students and students with
high truancy levels.
These findings raise several issues. First, although previous studies indicate that both
selection and influence play a role in students academic achievement, it is important to
understand how these processes develop and when they unfold. Previous studies mainly
focused on the development of peer relationships and academic achievement within one
specific school year (Geven et al., 2013; Shin & Ryan, 2014a, 2014b) or combined
information from several school years, leaving potential developmental differences invisible
(Flashman, 2012; Rambaran et al., 2017). Second, previous studies relied on the GPA (Grade
Point Average) as a measure of academic achievement (e.g., Flashman, 2012; Lomi et al.,
2011; Rambaran et al., 2017; Shin & Ryan, 2014a). By using GPA, differences in grades
5
between school subjects are not taken into account, losing the variability between grades and
potentially leading to more heterogeneous findings than making content-related clusters of
school subjects (Voyer & Voyer, 2014). For example, an average grade of seven out of ten
can indicate a seven on all school subjects, or high scores on some subjects and low scores on
others. Moreover, previous studies have shown that students motivation and goals differ
across school subjects (Bong, 2001).
Therefore, the aim of the present study is to examine adolescents friendship selection
and influence processes for academic achievement in the first two years of secondary school
(i.e., seventh and eighth grade). This developmental period is chosen as it is at the start of
secondary education, with students entering a new peer environment. Consequently, many
students have to form new friendships and to find their place in the larger peer ecology.
Hence, this context is ideal for testing selection and influence processes (Altermatt &
Pomerantz, 2003).
Furthermore, we examine students average grades and their grades on three clusters
of subjects, that is, languages (Dutch and English), exact/science subjects (mathematics and
biology), and social subjects (history and geography). As these grades are assessed within
classrooms, friendship networks were also assessed on a classroom level, which is the main
context for social interaction in the Dutch school system.
In further untangling selection and influence processes we are also interested in the
directions of these processes. We aim to study the general dynamics more specifically for
low-achieving and high-achieving students. That is, whether there are differences between
low- and high-achieving students in their preference for having low- or high-achieving friends
respectively, how this relates to their own achievement (selection), and whether high
performing students enhance academic achievement of their lower achieving peers or whether
low achieving students drag higher achieving peers down (influence).
6
Friendship dynamics
During adolescence, one of the main developmental tasks is to establish friendships with
peers (Witkow & Fuligni, 2010), reflecting the need to belong as a fundamental human
motivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Especially in the first year of secondary education,
students are in a new peer context in which friendships have to be formed. Through affiliation
with others, adolescents try to achieve important social goals (Steverink & Lindenberg, 2006).
They want to belong to the group, be liked, seek social approval and try to avoid rejection
from peers (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003), which students
can achieve through selection and influence processes.
Selection
Selection is an important process that can explain similarities between adolescents academic
achievement. A core principle driving selection is homophily, which holds that people tend
to pick similar others as friends. One reason for this strong empirical regularity is that similar
people on average understand one another better, which increases trustworthiness and
predictability, resulting in less effortful communications and shared feelings of understanding
(McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Hence, relationships between similar people tend
to be more rewarding, stable, and with less conflict (Hallinan, 1980; Veenstra et al., 2013).
Moreover, adolescence is marked by increasing academic comparisons between peers
(Schunk & Pajares, 2002). The social comparisons theory holds that individuals tend to
compare themselves to similar peers to gain an accurate self-evaluation for their own abilities
(Festinger, 1954). Likewise, these comparisons may affect adolescent friendships by
befriending similar others with regard to academic abilities. Also, adolescents might be
motivated to befriend others in the classroom with a high academic achievement to benefit
from these friendships by receiving help while studying (Dieterich, 2015).
7
Based on these ideas, we hypothesize that the more similar the academic achievement
of a peer is to a students academic achievement, the more probable it is that this peer is
nominated as a friend (hypothesis 1). Going beyond the overall similarity effect, we are also
interested in differences between low-achieving and high-achieving students. Therefore, we
will examine whether high- or low-achieving peers are most attractive for affiliations, and
whether they are equally attracted to each other as friends. For example, are there mainly
friendships between low-achieving students or between high-achieving students? And are
high-achieving students attractive as friends, whereas low-achieving students are mostly
avoided by their peers?
Influence
Influence is another process that can explain similarities between students academic
achievement. Social influence occurs when people see and interact with each other (Webb,
1989). Conformity can occur as a result of subtle, unconscious, passive influences and
behaviors, or directly via overt, active social pressure (Harakeh & Vollebergh, 2012).
Unwillingness to conform to expectations and behaviors can have negative consequences, as
it carries the risk of social rejection by peers (Cohen, 1977). These norms are often implicit
rules, which are shared by a group of individuals, and guide their interactions with others.
With regard to peer influence, many mechanisms are put forward to explain these
processes (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011), such as social reinforcement, social norms,
conformity pressures (Cohen, 1977), and modeling (Ryan, 2001). According to the prototype
willingness model adolescents first determine the norms of valued peers and then establish
behaviors that would be approved by these peers (Gerrard, Gibbons, Houlihan, Stock, &
Pomery, 2008). The social learning theory of Bandura (1977) indicates that people learn by
observing peers (imitation), as well as through reinforcement by valued peers (e.g., social
rewards or rejection). This influence can work upwards by stimulating pro-school behavior
8
and improving the grades of lower-achieving peers. However, it can also work downwards by
lowering a friends grades. In this way, peers in classrooms can play critical roles in students
development (Barth, Dunlap, Dane, Lochman, & Wells, 2004).
Friends can also become more similar in academic achievement over time due to
information sharing (Crosnoe, Cavanagh, & Elder, 2003; Flashman, 2014). Friends may help
each other with homework and share information concerning course contents and teachers.
These resources can promote achievement by motivating students, encouraging involvement
at school, and underlining the importance of schooling (Crosnoe et al., 2003), leading to
higher grades among friends.
Based on the aforementioned reasoning, we hypothesize that adolescents academic
achievement is influenced by their friends, indicating that their grades become more similar
over time in response to their friends (hypothesis 2). As influence mechanisms can either
motivate or demotivate adolescents for school work, we will examine whether influence
processes in academic achievement work upwards or downwards. Do high-achieving friends
enhance the academic achievement of lower achieving peers or do low-achieving friends drag
higher achieving peers down?
Structural network effects
Friendships may emerge not only as a result of similarity in particular characteristics or
behaviors, but also as a result of structure-based effects. For this reason, it is necessary to
control for structural network effects (Veenstra & Steglich, 2012). To overcome the bias of
overestimating the effects of individual characteristics in changing relationships, the most
common structural network effects are included. First, we included the outdegree, the general
tendency of students to nominate peers as friends. Second, reciprocity is included, the
tendency to reciprocate friendship nominations. We also accounted for group formation
tendencies (transitivity and three cycles). Finally, the variation in the extent to which students
9
nominate peers as friends (ego effects) as well as receive nominations as friends (alter effects)
have been taken into account (Geven et al., 2013; Shin & Ryan, 2014b; Van Rijsewijk,
Dijkstra, Pattiselanno, Steglich, & Veenstra, 2016; Veenstra et al., 2013). These effects as
well as other effects in the model are explained in more detail in both the method section and
Table 1.
Present Study
In the present study we examine friendship selection and influence processes in adolescents
academic achievement over time. We focus on different school years, that is, the first and
second year of secondary school, on students average grades and their grades on specific
clusters of subjects, and on the strengths and directions of selection and influence processes
for low-achieving and high-achieving students. Within a school year, we focus on friendships
within a classroom as students follow all courses with the same classmates and are thus
surrounded by them for the entire day.
Gender has also been included in the model, as a review study by Crosnoe and
Brenner (2015) showed that girls on average outperform boys in all school subjects. Finally,
we include time spent on homework and satisfaction with school as control variables, as those
factors can influence students connectedness with school and peer influences in school. It has
been found that students who are more engaged and put more effort in their school work,
achieve better (Carbonaro, 2005). Reviews on homework research provide consistent
evidence for a positive influence of time spent on homework on students academic
achievement (Cooper, 1989; Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006). Furthermore, previous
studies showed that feeling at ease in school is often associated with less mistreatments, more
connectedness, and less harassments which benefits students academic achievement (Brook
& Willoughty, 2015; Eisenberg, Neumark-Sztainer, & Perry, 2003; Russel & Topham, 2012).
Method
10
Participants and Procedure
Data stem from the SNARE (Social Network Analysis of Risk behavior in Early adolescence)
study, which is a longitudinal project on the social development of early adolescents with a
specific focus on adolescents involvement in risk behavior (Dijkstra et al., 2015; Franken et
al., 2015). Two secondary schools in rural areas were asked and willing to participate: one in
the middle (one location) and one in the north of the Netherlands (with four distinct
locations), covering the full range of academic tracks.
All students received an information letter for themselves and their parents, in which
they were asked to participate. If students wished to refrain from participation, or if their
parents disagreed with their childrens participation, they were requested to send a reply card
or email within ten days. This procedure is in accordance with the Dutch law, and has been
used in previous social network studies among children and adolescents (Osgood et al., 2013;
Shin & Ryan, 2014a). During every assessment, it was emphasized that participation was
confidential and could be terminated at any point in time. The study was approved by the
Internal Review Board (IRB) of one of the participating universities.
During the assessments, a teacher and research assistants were present. The research
assistants gave a brief introduction followed by the students filling in a questionnaire on an
individual computer during class, containing both self-reports and peer nominations. Data
were collected via questionnaires using Cloud Solutions Socio Software (www.sociometric-
study.com). This software was developed for SNARE and allowed students to answer peer
nomination questions easily by looking up and selecting their class- or grademates names
from a database. The assessment of the questionnaires took place during regular lessons
within approximately 45 minutes. The students that were absent that day were, if possible,
assessed within a month.
11
The present study includes all first year students (seventh graders) in 2011-2012 (N =
614) residing in 27 classes and the same students in 2012-2013 (N = 604) residing in 26
classes from both participating schools. From two classrooms in the second year no
information about students school grades was received. Therefore, 24 out of the 26
classrooms were analyzed (N = 556) (see Appendix A for more specific information on the
attrition and number of students per wave). Based on the available information, students had
on average less than two classmates in secondary school who attended the same elementary
school. Hence, the vast majority of students enter a new peer context when they make the
transition to secondary education. Note that students in their first years of secondary school in
the Netherlands follow the same courses with the same classmates every school day.
The two school years include the first six waves of the SNARE study: October 2011
(Wave 1; M age = 12.66; 48.9% boys), December 2011 (Wave 2; M age= 12.83; 48.9% boys),
April 2012 (Wave 3; M age= 13.16; 48.9% boys), October 2012 (Wave 4; M age= 13.66;
49.6% boys), December 2012 (Wave 5; M age= 13.83; 49.6% boys), and April 2013 (Wave 6;
M age= 14.17; 49.3% boys). Of the participants, 97.5% were born in the Netherlands, and
87.1% of their fathers and 87.7% of their mothers.
Tracked system
In the Netherlands, secondary schools are organized by a tracked system. At the end of
elementary school, in sixth grade (at age 12), students select a secondary school, and the track
plays a crucial role in this selection. A students track is based on a combination of
recommendations from his or her elementary school (which holds records of students
academic development over time), a national test known as Citotoets, and their own
preferences. The three tracks are: pre-university education (with a duration of six years, called
VWO), general secondary education (five years, called HAVO; preparation for applied
universities), and pre-vocational education (four years, called VMBO). Pre-vocational
12
education covers four sectors (i.e., technology, health and personal care and welfare,
economics, and agriculture) and four learning tracks. Three of these tracks have a practical
orientation and one has a theoretical orientation.
Some exceptions notwithstanding, teaching takes places in track-homogeneous classes
of 20-25 students who are educated together for a whole year. Academic grades obtained in
this tracked system have a meaning only within tracks, and cannot be compared across tracks.
Some secondary schools offer classes at all academic tracks, whereas others only offer classes
at specific tracks.
Students rarely change tracks, and when they do, this means they need to change the
class of schoolmates they meet on a daily basis. When they have insufficient grades and
cannot pass the year, they will repeat a year. Alternatively, they can go to a lower track and
not repeat the year. Changes to a higher track are only possible when students have
outstanding grades.
Of the respondents, 17.8% followed a pre-vocational education track with a practical
orientation; 25.9% followed a pre-vocational track with a theoretical orientation; and 56.3%
followed a pre-university/general education track.
Measures
Academic achievement was derived from administrative data, the school report cards.
On these school report cards, which are issued four times per year, students average grades
on all school subjects are displayed, according to the Dutch grading system (i.e., ranging
between 1 and 10, with grades of 5.5 or higher corresponding to a pass). The grades from the
first three school report cards match with the waves of data collection (i.e., October,
December, and April), so we could match the grades obtained for the period preceding data
collection with the data collected by the questionnaire.
13
We also calculated the average grades over six school subjects per student: Dutch,
English, mathematics, biology, history, and geography. Subsequently, average grades for the
language cluster (Dutch and English), exact/science cluster (mathematics and biology), and
social cluster (history and geography) were calculated (see Table 2) Because RSiena requires
dependent variables to be measured on a discrete, ordinal scale, students grades were
categorized into eight subcategories that optimally differentiate the students (see Table 3).
Friendships within classrooms were assessed using a peer nomination procedure.
Participants were presented with the names of their classmates on a computer screen in
alphabetical order, starting at a random name and asked to nominate their friends (Who are
your best friends?). Participants could nominate an unlimited number of same- and cross-
gender classmates. Based on these nominations, we constructed an adjacency matrix for each
classroom at all waves containing all friendship nominations, with 0 and 1 representing
absence and presence of a nomination between actors i and j, respectively.
Doing homework was assessed by asking the average time spent doing homework in
a regular week (from Monday until Sunday). Students could indicate the number of hours per
day out of school spending on doing homework or on learning for a test on a 10-point scale,
with the following options: 1 (no time), 2 (less than half an hour per day), 3 (half an hour per
day), 4 (one hour per day), 5 (two hours per day), 6 (three hours per day), 7 (four hours per
day), 8 (five hours per day), 9 (six hours per day), and 10 (7 hours per day or more).
Satisfaction with school was measured, using the item How do you feel about school
at present?. Answers were measured on a four-point scale, with the following options: 1 (do
not like it at all), 2 (do not like it much), 3 (do like it a bit), and 4 (like it a lot) (see also
Harakeh, De Looze, Schrijvers, Van Dorsselaer, & Vollebergh, 2012).
Gender was coded 0 for girls and 1 for boys.
Analytical Strategy
14
RSiena
Adolescents development of academic achievement was examined using the Simulation
Investigation for Empirical Network Analysis (Siena) software package in R (Ripley,
Snijders, & Preciado, 2015; Snijders et al., 2010), package version 1.1.282. RSiena facilitates
the estimation of stochastic actor-based simulation models to analyze the co-evolution of
networks and behavior. With these models, we are able to assess the contributions of selection
and influence processes to friends similarity in achievement as well as the directions of these
processes (Steglich, Snijders, & Pearson, 2010). Similarity is understood here in a
correlational sense: two students are similar to the degree that their achievement scores differ
in the same direction from the average students achievement in the classroom.
Students are assumed, based on individual preferences, to change both their
friendships and behaviors continuously between observation moments. Model convergence is
only possible when there is enough stability as well as change between time points.
Friendships may change (i.e., creating a new friendships or dropping an existing one) as well
as behaviors (i.e., by going one or more steps up or down in behavior) in response to the
current network structure and the behavior of other students in the network. It is thus a
dynamic process where the model controls for changes in friendships and behaviors as well as
structural and individual effects on changes in friendships and academic achievement.
The changes in friendships and academic achievement are modeled as the result of students
decisions, revealing an underlying preference measure (objective function) indicating how
satisfied the students are with their local network neighborhood configuration.
In the present study, we estimated friendship dynamics (including selection
parameters) and the behavioral dynamics (including influence parameters) for academic
achievement. The parameters in the model are explained in the following subparagraph
(model specification) and are tested using t-ratios (parameter estimate divided by its standard
15
error), just like in other generalized linear models. The estimates are obtained by MCMC
maximum likelihood estimation (Snijders, Koskinen, & Schweinberger, 2010).
Model Specification
Analyses in RSiena yield parameter estimates related to both network dynamics (structural
network and attribute-dependent selection dynamics) and behavior dynamics (behavior
tendencies and influence effects). The parameter estimates are derived from iterative
simulations using the Robbins-Monro stochastic approximation algorithm (see Ripley et al.,
2015). We explain the effects that are of interest in more detail in Table 1. Most of the
included effects are control effects to more accurately assess the selection and influence
effects with regard to academic achievement.
The network dynamics part of the model consists of the following effects. Rate
parameters refer to the rate of change in friendships between time points, indicating whether
there is enough change in the network (friendships). The most common structural network
effects were also included in the model (Veenstra et al., 2013). Density reflects the tendency
of individuals to nominate others. Reciprocity reflects the tendency to reciprocate received
nominations. Transitive triplets and reciprocated transitive triplets refer to the transitive
closure of individuals (friends of friends become friends) and its iteration with reciprocity,
respectively (Block, 2015). Three cycles represent nonhierarchical cycles of generalized
reciprocity (i.e., student A nominates student B, student B nominates student C, and student C
nominates student A). Furthermore, ego (sender) effects, referring to given nominations, and
alter (receiver) effects, referring to received nominations, were included for grade. Grade ego
and grade alter show to what extent academic achievement affects the number of nominations
given and received, respectively.
Also, we estimated the grade ego * grade alter effect (selection effect), which
measures whether students with high (low) academic achievement selected others who also
16
scored high (low) in similarity, showing whether similarity between ego and alter increases
the probability of a friendship between them. For gender, we measured the same gender
effect, indicating whether girls nominate more girls and boys nominate more boys as friends.
Additional analyses (unreported) revealed that boys and girls did not significantly differ in
terms of how many friendship nominations they sent or received, so we did not include ego
and alter effects of gender in the reported model specification.
The behavior dynamics part of the model includes the following effects. Rate
parameters indicate the rate of change in students school grades between time points. The
average alter effect (influence effect) estimates whether students academic achievement was
higher for students whose friends average grades were also higher, indicating whether a
student over time tends to get grades similar to those of his friends. Hence, it indicates the
tendency of students to change their academic achievement to closely resemble their friends
average academic achievement. We controlled for the overall mean and variance of academic
achievement by including the linear shape effect (overall tendency) and the quadratic shape
effect (a negative parameter indicates regression to the mean effect, whereas a positive
parameter indicates polarization). Finally, we controlled for gender, time spent on homework,
and satisfaction with school on changes in academic achievement.
All aforementioned effects were first estimated per classroom for the first year and
second year students, using the MCMC Maximum Likelihood method. Then, meta-analyses
were conducted per school year to estimate the overall effect over the classrooms for each of
the four outcome measures (dependent variables): students average grades and their grades
on the three different clusters.
Finally, based on our estimates, we calculated ego-alter selection effects in order to
gain more insights in whether low-achieving and high-achieving students (represented by the
lines for each of egos scores in the figures) differ in their preference for low-achieving and
17
high-achieving friends (on the x-axis). The effects in the ego-alter selection figures give a
comprehensive interpretation of the ego, alter, and ego * alter (selection) parameters as they
integrate these effects. The values represent the combined log odds that students of the line-
specific achievement category nominate students of the x-axis-specific achievement category
as friends (Ripley et al., 2015). In a similar way we also calculated the ego-alter influence
effects, based on the influence estimate in combination with the linear and quadratic shape
effect. This allows a closer examination of how peer influence effects vary by an individuals
level of academic achievement.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Students grades. In Table 2, students average grades and standard deviations in both
the first and second year are shown. The means are displayed for all school subjects
separately, for the average grades, and for students grades on the three clusters. Also, the
table shows that students mean grades are between 6.30 and 7.37 (out of 10) and that these
grades decline somewhat over time.
Network variables. Descriptions of network and individual variables are presented in
Table 4. The average number of friendship nominations given varied between 4.67 and 5.68
across the six waves. The friendship network was characterized by a high reciprocity index
with participants reciprocating about 60% of the friendship nominations. There was also a
tendency for friendships to occur in cohesive subgroups, indicated by a high transitivity index
in the network (on average 63%). Similar to previous studies, most friendship nominations
were same sex (about 82%).
The Gearys C network autocorrelation coefficient was used to indicate the degree to
which there is closeness of friends in terms of academic achievement (Steglich et al., 2010).
The values of Gearys C lie between 0 and 2. Values lower than 1 demonstrate positive
18
network autocorrelation, indicating that students who are friends are also close to each other
in terms of their academic achievement. In the present study, the index was on average .94,
which indicates that the network was not strongly structured on achievement. The Jaccard
index indicates the amount of stability in friendship nominations and is on average 53%. In
order to conduct longitudinal network analysis in RSiena with adequate statistical power, this
index should be higher than 30% (see Veenstra et al., 2013).
Time spent on homework. Across the six waves, the mean score (SD) varied between
4.43 (1.45) and 4.69 (1.32), indicating that students spent on average between 1 and 2 hours
per day on their homework.
Satisfaction with school. Across the six waves, the mean score (SD) varied between
3.00 (.84) and 3.46 (.68), indicating that students generally liked school a bit to a lot.
RSiena analyses
First year (seventh grade). Table 5 shows the results of the RSiena meta-analysis on
academic achievement for the first year students, regarding their average grades and their
grades on each cluster. The table includes the mean estimate and the standard error for each
effect. Estimates can be interpreted as log odds for a relationship to exist (friendship part of
the model) or for achievement to increase (achievement part; Ripley et al., 2015). A negative
significant effect for outdegree was found (Est.= -2.44), indicating that participants on
average selected few peers (less than half of the classroom) as friends. Moreover, adolescents
tended to reciprocate friendships (Est.= 1.77) and were likely to become friends with friends
friends (Est.= 0.37). However, reciprocation was weaker within transitive triplets (Block,
2015). Also, students select same-gender peers as friends (Est. = 0.88) and students with high
grades were nominated more by peers as friends (grade alter; Est.= 0.04). No significant
effects on grade ego effects were found, indicating that students grades did not affect the
amount of given friendship nominations.
19
In line with hypothesis 1 concerning the selection of friends based on academic
achievement, a significant positive selection effect for grade on the three different clusters
was found (mean estimate was about 0.05). This stands in contrast with the analysis of
average grades, where no significant selection effect was found. Adolescents thus tend to
nominate friends with similar grades on the same kinds of subjects (GPAs), but not with
similar average grades.
For the behavior dynamics no influence effect was found, revealing that adolescents
were not affected by the academic performance of their friends. This is in contrast to our
second hypothesis, in which we expected social influence effects. Also, time spent on
homework, satisfaction with school, and gender did not significantly predict students grades.
Second year (eighth grade). Table 6 concerns the meta-analysis results on friendship
and academic achievement for the second year students. Significant effects were found on all
friendship network dynamics, except for transitive reciprocated triplets and grade ego and
grade alter scores. These results indicate that most students nominate only few of their
classmates as friends (density is -2.50), friendships are often reciprocated (Est.= 1.46),
students were likely to befriend friends friends (Est.= 0.36), and students mostly select same-
gender peers as friends (Est.= 0.81). Also, related to hypothesis 1, only significant selection
effects were found on students average grades (Est.= 0.11) and their grades on the language
cluster (Est.= 0.04).
Results for behavior dynamics showed no significant effects from gender, time spent
on homework, and satisfaction with school on students grades. However, students were
significantly influenced by peers on both their average grades (Est.= 0.09) and their grades on
all clusters (mean estimation of clusters was Est.= 0.09), indicating that their grades become
more similar over time in response to their connectedness. This is in line with hypothesis 2.
20
Further results with regard to selection. The ego-alter selection figure for the first
year students (see Figure 1) presents the attractiveness of selecting friends on the basis of
academic achievement for the language cluster, which is chosen as an illustrative figure
representative for each cluster. On the left part of the figure, it is shown that there are
especially strong preferences for low-achieving students to befriend similar achieving peers
(attractiveness), whereas high-achieving students are not inclined to nominate low-achieving
peers as friends. These attraction and avoidance patterns are weaker for high-achieving peers
(see right part of the figure). The ego-alter selection effects in the second year (see Figure 2)
for students average grades show that similar-achieving students mainly select each other as
friends. These effects are more polarized than in the first year, that is, strong effects (both
attraction and avoidance) were found for low-achieving (see left part of the figure) as well as
high-achieving students (see right part of the figure).
Further results with regard to influence. We only found a significant influence
effect in the second year and therefore only calculated ego-alter influence effects for this
schoolyear (see Table 7). The first column shows the different values of academic
achievement of the peers (running from 1 to 8), whereas the values in the rows indicate the
relative attractiveness of these behavior for adolescents, varying by their own level of
academic achievement (also running from 1 to 8). Comparing the values between rows
indicates that the better peers academically achieve, the more likely it is that adolescents will
move upwards in their own academic achievement. This is shown by the fact that the
attractiveness of peer behaviors, indicated by the values in the rows, turn from negatively to
more positive values. However, these effects become weaker for the highest values of
academic achievement of peers. This suggests a regression to the mean effect, with low-
achieving adolescents who profit from better achieving peers but high achieving adolescents
decreasing a bit in their academic achievement.
21
Discussion
This study contributes to our understanding how friendship relationships affect adolescents
academic achievement (influence processes) and how academic achievement affects their
friendship relationships (selection processes) by looking at these processes in the first two
years of secondary school with regard to students average grades and their grades on
different clusters of subjects. Building on previous studies, we advanced current knowledge
by studying the development of selection and influence processes in students academic
achievement during two years and grades per language, science, and social cluster next to
students average grades.
Three main conclusions can be derived from the results. First, selection and influence
processes develop differently over the years. First year students, who do not know each other
in the beginning of the year, tended to select similar others with regard to cluster-specific
school grades but were not significantly influenced by their friends academic achievement.
However, one year later the converse pattern was found. Friends were influenced by each
other with regard to their average grades and their grades on different clusters, whereas
selection was less prominent. These results suggest that students initially (first year) tend to
select friends on the basis of similar grades and that influence processes on academic
achievement emerge later on (second year), when the students know each other better.
Influence processes thus seem to take more time to unfold, which might explain non-
significant peer influence effects on adolescents grades in a previous study regarding sixth
graders (Dieterich, 2015). This timing effect may be explained by the fact that influence
processes operate through social processes such as imitation (Bandura, 1977). An adolescent
may be influenced by a friends pro-school behavior, but it takes some time to really improve
the grades. Another explanation can be that students first need to know their peers well in
order to be influenced by them. Students have to establish friendships in the first year in a
22
new peer context, whereas these friendships are stronger and more stable in the second year
(Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2003). Differences in selection and influence processes might also
be explained by students developmental phases. In the first year, early adolescents are in a
new school context in which parents might still be their most important supporters. In the
second year these adolescents know the school system and their friends better, leading to
more susceptibility to their friends behaviors.
A second conclusion is that similarity in achievement seems to facilitate friendship, as
low-achieving as well as high-achieving students show mutual attractiveness in the tendency
to nominate each other as friends. However, especially high-achieving students seem to have
a low tendency to nominate low-achieving peers as friends (avoidance). This finding is in line
with the social comparison theory of Festinger (1954), which holds that people tend to move
into groups whose abilities are near to their own in order to satisfy their need for a positive
self-evaluation. With regard to influence, this study shows that students mainly get higher
grades when having high-achieving friends. Friends can thus influence students grades
upwards by improving the grades. This might be explained by the fact that friends share
information and motivate and encourage each other for school involvement (Crosnoe et al.,
2003). Also, low-achieving students might be motivated to achieve well due to carrying the
risk of not passing in the end of the year and subsequently losing their peers in the classroom
and losing frequent contact with friends.
Third, it seems meaningful to distinguish between students average grades and their
grades on content-related clusters of subjects as this study shows different effects between the
average and cluster-specific grades. The different peer selection and influence effects for the
average and cluster-specific grades may be explained by the fact that students average grades
are based on grades on different subjects, with much variability in these grades. Also,
selection of similar others with regard to specific grades might indicate that these students
23
share the same, specific interests. As students might attribute more salience to specific
subjects than others, they may talk with some classmates about those subjects and work
together with them once they see that a specific peer is engaged in that subject. This can be a
determinant of an emerging friendship. Moreover, the finding that students select friends on
the basis of similar grades in specific clusters might indicate that they have subject-specific
academic self-concepts, which is consistent with earlier findings (e.g., Marsh, Walker, &
Debus, 1991). Due to knowledge about their own and their peers academic abilities in all
different school subjects, they compare themselves with their peers in specific clusters (Bong,
2001).
Related to this, it might be that similar achieving students choose their seats close to
each other, as students that are highly motivated for specific school subjects often sit in the
front and are less motivated students in the back of the classroom. In this way, academic
behavior and motivation by surrounding peers, for instance through making notes and paying
attention to the teacher, can unconsciously or consciously affect students behavior. This is in
line with the idea that teachers in elementary schools determine classroom seating
arrangements and subsequently influence social network processes in the classroom (Gest &
Rodkin, 2011; Van den Berg, Segers, & Cillessen, 2012). By choosing seats close to each
other, these peers see each other more during that specific lesson and have more opportunities
to become friends and to be influenced with regard to those specific grades.
These findings have some practical implications. The fact that similar achieving
students seem to select each other as friends and that especially high-achieving students show
the tendency to avoid befriending low-achieving students, can have negative consequences. It
carries the risk of underachievement for low-achieving students as it limits their possibilities
of being positively influenced by friends. Stimulating and facilitating contact between low-
and high-achieving students might be an important way to increase liking among peers with
24
different academic achievement and to prevent students from exclusion of a network with pro-
school behavior. This can be accomplished for instance by school assignments including
cooperation between students and strategies to manage classroom social dynamics, for
example by placing students with different abilities close to one another to get to know each
other and to provide each other support with school work (Gest, Madill, Zadzora, Miller, &
Rodkin, 2014; Van den Berg et al., 2012).
Limitations and Future Studies
The results of the present study should be interpreted in light with its limitations. First,
students have different academic capacities. Although everybody can work hard and might be
motivated to achieve well, students can only reach their own maximum. Therefore, students
can only be positively influenced regarding their grades within their own capabilities.
However, students in the Netherlands are tracked and students are supposed to be able
to achieve well (and reach high grades) within their own educational track. Within each
educational track as well as within classrooms there is much variability in students grades, so
changes in academic achievement can be analyzed by relating it to their friendships. The
results of the present study have indeed shown that adolescents friendships can contribute to
their academic development. The educational systems in the Netherlands, with tracks, differs
from many other systems such as the US, where students with different academic abilities
attend the same high school. However, even with this tracked system we find important
friendship selection and influence effects, making it plausible that even stronger effects can be
found in classrooms with more academic ability differences.
A second limitation is that students academic achievement does not always reflect
their academic abilities, as non-cognitive skills such as students attitudes, behaviors, and
strategies are also crucial to their performance (review by Farrington et al., 2012). Especially
because students in our study were tracked, grades cannot be compared between tracks.
25
However, we focused on students grades within their classroom and whether their friendships
with classmates are related to it. We based students academic achievement on their report
card grades, which is often used in other studies as well (e.g., Rambaran et al., 2017; Shin &
Ryan, 2014b) and is supposed to be an objective and thus reliable measure of students
grades. Moreover, grades are provided by different teachers and for different courses
(multiple informants) making them even more reliable. Focusing on students actual grades is
important as it determines whether a student passes a class and subsequently further
educational opportunities (Witkow & Fuligni, 2010).
A third limitation is that the expectation that students become friends with similar
achieving peers does not necessarily imply that these students consciously seek out a friend
with a particular level of academic achievement (Flashman, 2012). Similarity attraction may
also be related to other factors, such as meeting opportunities via the seating arrangement in
the class (Gremmen, Van den Berg, Segers, & Cillessen, 2016) or to other personality and
character traits that students actively desire in their friends (e.g., motivation, and attitudes).
These unobservable individual factors could have played a role as well, and warrant inclusion
in further research. Moreover, contextual factors such as peer norms on the class level can
also play a role in students academic achievement, and the way peer processes either
contribute to or deteriorate academic success (cf. Dijkstra & Gest, 2015; Laninga-Wijnen,
Harakeh, Dijkstra, Veenstra, & Vollebergh, 2017a; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2017b).
However, Gest, Domitrovich, and Welsh (2005) have found evidence that peers can
influence an individual students academic achievement through peer academic evaluations.
Peers in classrooms observe each others engagement for school and specific school subjects,
by first-hand experiences such as working with classmates and noticing their work habits and
skills. As a result, classmates have unique information about the academic behavior and
grades of peers (Gest et al., 2005), besides the fact that they often know their peers report
26
card grades as well. Social comparisons with especially friends can predict changes in
students own reasoning about their achievement and motivation levels (Altermatt &
Pomerantz, 2003; Ryan, 2001).
A related issue is that in view of statistical power and related convergence problems
due to analyses on the classroom level we could not control for other factors that are
potentially relevant for selection processes, such as differences between educational tracks,
the classroom size, or the percentage of boys in a classroom.
One avenue for future research is to test on specific mechanisms underlying peer
selection and influence processes. For example, friendships can be defined more specifically
according to the frequency of contact or the shared intimacy. Some students might indicate to
be friends within the classroom, but it is also interesting to know whether they meet each
other out of school, how much personal information they share with each other, and what
kinds of shared activities they have (e.g., doing homework together). Future studies can also
focus more on the interplay between adolescents academic achievement and other behaviors,
by examining both direct and indirect socialization effects by peers (Giletta, Burk, Scholte,
Engels, & Prinstein, 2013). For example, to what extent does the interplay with other
behaviors (such as risky and prosocial behaviors) affect students preferences for specific
friends and the extent to which they adjust their academic achievement to their friends?
Next to this, future studies should take different kinds of subjects, instead of only
average grades, into consideration. Results show selection of peers based on different interests
in the first year, possibly reflecting different types of students (e.g., more technically oriented
students and students who are more interested in languages). In the present study, these
selection effects would have remained invisible when only average grades would have been
studied. On top of that, it is important to investigate developmental differences on the impact
of peer processes on students academic achievement. Previous studies mainly included one
27
year in secondary school (Geven et al., 2013; Rambaran et al., 2017; Shin & Ryan, 2014a,
2014b), or did not differentiate in the analyses between school years (Flashman, 2012).
However, our study shows different processes in the second compared to the first year.
Frank and colleagues (2008) found that especially girls are responsive to social norms
with regard to mathematics. It was beyond the scope of this study, but this calls for a more
detailed investigation of gender differences in peer dynamic studies. Previous studies have
found friendship and individual differences between girls and boys concerning academic
behavior (Van Houtte, 2004; Warrington, Younger, & Williams, 2000). So it might be the
case that selection and influence processes differ between boys and girls. Is selection on
languages for example more important for girls, whereas selection on science-related,
technical subjects is more important for boys?
Finally, previous studies have found differences between schools and classes in the
extent to which selection and influence processes in academic achievement take place
(Dieterich, 2015; Flashman, 2014). Therefore, future studies should aim to understand the
causes of these differences. Between-class variations might be explained by the classroom
context, for instance through peer norms (Dijkstra & Gest, 2015). Peer norms reflect the
expected and accepted behavior of a social group, making it interesting to study the role of
these norms on peer processes. In some classes pro-school behavior (e.g., helping behavior,
concentration) may be the norm and thus be seen as attractive, whereas in other classrooms
popular students have low academic scores and promote anti-school behavior (e.g., distracting
behavior).
To conclude, this study shows the important role of friendship selection and influence
processes in adolescents academic achievement. Developmental differences were found, as
well as differences between students average and cluster-specific grades. The results suggest
28
that students initially tend to select friends on the basis of cluster-specific grades (selection),
and that they adjust their academic achievement to friends in the second year (influence).
29
References
Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2003). The development of competence-related and
motivational beliefs: An investigation of similarity and influence among friends. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 111123. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.111
Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades.
American Educational Research Association, 64(2), 287309.
doi:10.3102/00346543064002287
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as
shapers of childrens aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187
206. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00273
Barth, J. M., Dunlap, S. T., Dane, H., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). Classroom
environment influences on aggression, peer relations, and academic focus. Journal of
School Psychology, 42(2), 115133. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2003.11.004
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497529.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bissell-Havran, J. M., & Loken, E. (2009). The role of friends in early adolescents academic
self-competence and intrinsic value for math and English. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 38(1), 4150. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9266-3
Blansky, D., Kavanaugh, C., Boothroyd, C., Benson, B., Gallagher, J., Endress, J., & Sayama,
H. (2013). Spread of academic success in a high school social network. PLoS ONE, 8(2).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055944
30
Block, P. (2015). Reciprocity, transitivity, and the mysterious three-cycle. Social Networks,
40, 163173. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2014.10.005
Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among
middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(I), 2334. doi:10.I037//0022-0663.93.1.23
Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in
understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1),
166179. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x
Brook, C. A. & Willoughby, T. (2015). The social ties that bind: Social anxiety and academic
achievement across the university years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(5), 1139-
1152. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0262-8
Brown, B. B., Eicher, S. A., & Petrie, S. (1986). The importance of peer group (crowd)
affiliation in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 7396. doi:10.1016/S0140-
1971(86)80029-X
Carbonaro, W. (2005). Tracking, students effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of
Education, 78, 2749. doi:10.1177/003804070507800102
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: compliance and conformity.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591621.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Cohen, J. M. (1977). Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology of Education, 50(4),
227241. doi:10.2307/2297
Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 85
91.
31
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic
achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of Educational Research,
76(1), 162. doi:10.3102/00346543076001001
Crosnoe, R., Cavanagh, S., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Adolescent friendships as academic
resources: The intersection of friendship, race, and school disadvantage. Sociological
Perspectives, 46(3), 331352. doi:10.1525/sop.2003.46.3.331
Crosnoe, R., & Benner, A. D. (2015). Children at school. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of
Child Psychology and Developmental Science (7th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 137). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy407
Dieterich, S. E. (2015). The coevolution of adolescent frienship networks and school
outcomes. In Dissertation (pp. 180). Colorado State University.
Dijkstra, J. K., & Gest, S. D. (2015). Peer norm salience for academic achievement, prosocial
behavior, and bullying: Implications for adolescent school experiences. The Journal of
Early Adolescence 35, 79-96. doi:10.1177/0272431614524303
Dijkstra, J. K., Kretschmer, T., Pattiselanno, K., Franken, A., Harakeh, Z., Vollebergh, W., &
Veenstra, R. (2015). Explaining adolescents delinquency and substance use: A test of
the maturity gap: The SNARE study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
52(5), 747767. doi:10.1177/0022427815582249
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., C.M., B., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D.
(1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young
adolescents experience in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90101.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Eisenberg, M. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Perry, C. L. (2003). Peer harassment, school
32
connectedness, and academic achievement. Journal of School Health, 73(8), 311316.
doi:10.1107/S2052252514002838
Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W.,
& Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of
Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance--A Critical Literature Review.
Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research..
Farmer, T. W., Mcauliffe, M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role
of teachers in childrens peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32(5), 247256. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117
140. doi:10.1177/00187267540070002
Flashman, J. (2012). Academic achievement and its impact on friend dynamics. Sociology of
Education, 85(1), 6180. doi:10.1177/0038040711417014
Flashman, J. (2014). Friend effects and racial disparities in academic achievement.
Sociological Science, 1(July), 260276. doi:10.15195/v1.a17
Frank, K. A., Muller, C., Schiller, K. S., Riegle, C., Mueller, A. S., Crosnoe, R., & Pearson, J.
(2008). The social dynamics of mathematics coursetaking in high school. American
Journal of Sociology, 113(6), 16451696. doi:10.1086/587153
Franken, A., Moffitt, T. E., Steglich, C. E. G., Dijkstra, J. K., Harakeh, Z., & Vollebergh, W.
A. M. (2015). The role of self-control and early adolescents friendships in the
development of externalizing behavior: The SNARE study. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 45(9), 1800-1811. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0287-z
Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., Houlihan, A. E., Stock, M. L., & Pomery, E. A. (2008). A dual-
33
process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype willingness model.
Developmental Review, 28(1), 2961. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.10.001
Gest, S. D., Domitrovich, C. E., & Welsh, J. A. (2005). Peer academic reputation in
elementary school: associations with Changes in self-concept and academic skills.
Journal of Education Psychology, 97(3), 337-346. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.337
Gest, S. D., Madill, R. A., Zadzora, K. M., Miller, A. M., & Rodkin, P. C. (2014). Teacher
management of elementary classroom social dynamics: Associations with changes in
student adjustment. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(2), 107118.
doi: 10.1177/1063426613512677
Gest, S. D., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). Teaching practices and elementary classroom peer
ecologies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 288296.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.004
Geven, S., Weesie, J., & Van Tubergen, F. (2013). The influence of friends on adolescents
behavior problems at school: The role of ego, alter and dyadic characteristics. Social
Networks, 35(4), 583592. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.08.002
Giletta, M., Burk, W. J., Scholte, R. H. J., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Prinstein, M. J. (2013).
Direct and indirect peer socialization of adolescent nonsuicidal self-injury. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 23(3), 450463. doi:10.1111/jora.12036
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social
acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41(4), 235
284. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7
Gremmen, M. C., Van den Berg, Y. H. M., Segers, E., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016).
Considerations for classroom seating arrangements and the role of teacher characteristics
34
and beliefs. Social Psychology of Education, 19(4), 749-774. doi:10.1007/s11218-016-
9353-y
Hallinan, M. T. (1980). Patterns of cliquing among youth. In H. C. Foot, A. J. Chapman, & J.
R. Smith (Eds.), Friendship and social relations in children (pp. 321342). Chicester,
UK: Wiley.
Harakeh, Z., De Looze, M. E., Schrijvers, C. T. M., Van Dorsselaer, S. A. F. M., &
Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2012). Individual and environmental predictors of health risk
behaviours among Dutch adolescents: The HBSC study. Public Health, 126(7), 566573.
doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2012.04.006
Harakeh, Z., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2012). The impact of active and passive peer influence
on young adult smoking: An experimental study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 121(3),
220223. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.08.029
Kindermann, T. A., & Skinner, E. A. (2009). How do naturally existing peer groups shape
childrens academic development during sixth grade?, 3(1), 3142. doi:10.3233/DEV-
2009-3105
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Harakeh, Z., Dijkstra, J. K., Veenstra, R., & Vollebergh, W. (2017a).
Aggressive and prosocial peer norms: Change, stability, and associations with adolescent
aggressive and prosocial behavior development. The Journal of Early Adolescence. doi:
10.1177/0272431616665211
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Harakeh, Z., Steglich, C., Dijkstra, J.K., Veenstra, R., & Vollebergh, W.
(2017b). The norms of popular peers moderate friendship dynamics of adolescent
aggression. Child Development. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12650.
Lomi, A., Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., & Torl, V. J. (2011). Why are some more
35
peer than others? Evidence from a longitudinal study of social networks and individual
academic performance. Social Science Research, 40(6), 15061520.
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.06.010
Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-
year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718729.
doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.4.718
Lynch, A. D., Lerner, R. M., & Leventhal, T. (2013). Adolescent academic achievement and
school engagement: An examination of the role of school-wide peer culture. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 619. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9833-0
Marsh, H. W., Walker, R., & Debus, R. (1991). Subject-specific components of academic
self-concept and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(4), 331345.
doi:10.1016/0361-476X(91)90013-B
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in
social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(2001), 415444.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Molloy, L. E., Gest, S. D., & Rulison, K. L. (2010). Peer influences on academic motivation:
Exploring multiple methods of assessing youths most influential peer relationships.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 1340. doi:10.1177/0272431610384487
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Urbina,
S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77101.
doi:10.1037//0003-066X.51.2.77
Osgood, D. W., Ragan, D. T., Wallace, L., Gest, S. D., Feinberg, M. E., & Moody, J. (2013).
Peers and the emergence of alcohol use: Influence and selection processes in adolescent
36
friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(3), 500-512.
doi:10.1111/jora.12059
Rambaran, J. A., Hopmeyer, A., Schwartz, D., Steglich, C., Badaly, D., & Veenstra, R.
(2017). Academic functioning and peer influences: A short-term longitudinal study of
network-behavior dynamics in middle adolescence. Child Development.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Vrs, A., & Preciado, P. (2015). Manual for
RSiena. University of Oxford; Department of Statistics; Nuffield College., Retrieved
online 05052015. Retrieved from
http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/siena/RSiena_Manual.pdf
Russell, G. & Topham, P. (2012). The impact of social anxiety on student learning and well-
being in higher education. Journal of Mental Health, 21(4), 375385. doi:
10.3109/09638237.2012.694505
Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent
motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72(4), 11351150. doi:10.1111/1467-
8624.00338
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A.
Wigfeld & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 1531). San
Diego, CA US: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978-012750053-9/50003-6
Shin, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2014a). Friendship networks and achievement goals: An
examination of selection and influence processes and variations by gender. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 43(9), 145364. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0132-9
Shin, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2014b). Early adolescent friendships and academic adjustment:
Examining selection and influence processes with longitudinal social network analysis.
37
Developmental Psychology, 50(11), 24622472. doi:10.1037/a0037922
Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological
Methodology, 311, 361395. doi:10.1111/0081-1750.00099
Snijders, T. A. B., Koskinen, J., & Schweinberger, M. (2010). Maximum likelihood
estimation for social network dynamics. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 4(2), 567588.
doi:10.1214/09-AOAS313
Snijders, T. A. B., Van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic
actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32(1), 4460.
doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004
Steglich, C., Snijders, T. A. B., & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior:
Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40(1), 329393.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01225.x
Steverink, N., & Lindenberg, S. (2006). Which social needs are important for subjective well-
being? What happens to them with aging? Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 28190.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.281
Van den Berg, Y. H. M., Segers, E., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Changing peer perceptions
and victimization through classroom arrangements: A field experiment. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(3), 403412. doi:10.1007/s10802-011-9567-6
Van Houtte, M. (2004). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between
boys and girls' academic culture. Educational Studies, 30(2), 159173.
doi:10.1080/0305569032000159804
Van Rijsewijk, L.G.M., Dijkstra, J.K., Pattiselanno, K.L., Steglich, C.E.G. & Veenstra, R.
(2016). Who helps whom? Investigating the development of adolescent prosocial
38
relationships. Developmental Psychology, 52(6), 894-908. doi: 10.1037/dev0000106
Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C., & Van Zalk, M. H. W. (2013). Network-behavior
dynamics. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(3), 399412. doi:10.1111/jora.12070
Veenstra, R., & Steglich, C. (2012). Actor-based model for network and behavior dynamics.
In B. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research
methods (pp. 598618). New York: Guilford.
Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-
analysis, 140(4), 11741204. doi:10.1037/a0036620
Warrington, M., Younger, M., & Williams, J. (2000). Student attitudes, image and the gender
gap. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 393407.
doi:10.1080/01411920050030914
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of
Educational Research, 13(1), 2139. doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1
Witkow, M. R., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). In-school versus out-of-school friendships and
academic achievement among an ethnically diverse sample of adolescents. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 20(3), 631650. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00653.x
39
Appendix A
Attrition within school year 2011-2012 (first year). Between waves 1 and 2, two
students entered school and one student moved to another classroom within the school.
Between waves 2 and 3, four students entered school and nine students moved to another
classroom within the school. Also, at wave 1, the data of one student was found unreliable and
was deleted. Across the school year 2011-2012, a total of seven students had refused to
participate in the study. All their data was deleted, including their previously filled out data.
In addition, five students did not fill out the questionnaire at wave 1, eight students at wave 2,
and 19 students at wave 3. This leaves us with 601, 600, and 591 participants at wave 1, wave
2, and wave 3 respectively.
Attrition between school years (first and second year). Between wave 3 and wave
4, 10 students had to repeat a class.
Attrition within school year 2012-2013 (second year). Between waves 4 and 5,
seven students entered school and two students moved to another classroom within the school.
Between waves 5 and 6, the number of students remained the same. Across the school year
2012-2013, a total of six students had refused to participate in the study. All their data was
deleted, including their previously filled out data. In addition, 13 students did not fill out the
questionnaire at wave 1, 19 students at wave 2, and 17 students at wave 3. This leaves us with
550, 551, and 553 participants at wave 4, wave 5, and wave 6 respectively.
40
Figures
Figure 1
Ego/alter selection in the first year regarding students grades on the language cluster: log
odds that ego (an individual) nominates alter (a peer) given the achievement scores of ego
and alter.
Note. Calculations based on Ripley et al. (2015). Ego refers to an individual student (the nominator)
whereas alter refers to his/her peers (the nominees).
41
Figure 2
Ego/alter selection in the second year regarding students average grades: log odds that ego
(an individual) nominates alter (a peer) given the achievement scores of ego and alter.
42
Tables
Table 1
Explanation of Some Basic Parameters in the RSiena Model
Effect RSiena Explanation Graphical representation

effect
name
Outdegree density The basis tendency to form
relationships (nominate
others)
Reciprocity recip The tendency toward
reciprocation of received
nominations
Transitive triplets transTrip Transitive closure
H H
(i h j; i j):
h
Intermediary h
adds proportionally to
the tendency to form
relation i j. I J I J
(Friends of friends become j i j
friends)
3-cycles cycle3 Nonhierarchical cycles of
generalized reciprocity
Same gender sameX Relations occur more often

between actors with the
same gender
Grade alter altX Actors with higher grades
(alter effect) have a higher indegree
(more received
nominations)
Grade ego egoX Actors with higher grades
(ego effect) have a higher outdegree
(more given nominations)
Grade ego * Grade alter egoX * Relations occur more often
(selection effect) altX between students with the
same grades
Average alter avAlt The tendency of students to

(influence effect) get grades similar to those
of friends
43
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of students school grades in their first and second year, the averages of these school grades, and the averages per cluster
(N600).
First year Second year
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Dutch 7.16 .93 7.10 .84 6.99 .95 6.75 .92 6.57 .89 6.57 .85
English 7.37 1.28 7.00 1.23 6.93 1.24 6.81 1.29 6.97 1.11 6.64 1.12
history 6.77 1.12 6.30 1.23 6.52 1.15 6.22 1.05 6.62 .99 6.58 .97
geography 6.91 1.12 6.47 1.15 6.47 1.03 6.40 1.10 6.74 1.09 6.54 1.06
mathematics 7.01 1.20 6.84 1.24 6.83 1.33 6.50 1.32 6.63 1.33 6.82 1.44
biology 7.21 1.03 7.08 1.06 6.81 1.21 6.84 1.07 6.58 1.14 6.86 1.09
Average total (GPA) 7.00 .74 6.75 .82 6.68 .89 6.56 .73 6.72 .69 6.64 .74
Average languages 7.26 .92 7.05 .88 6.96 .97 6.78 .87 6.77 .80 6.60 .82
Average social 6.84 .92 6.38 1.04 6.49 .92 6.31 .84 6.68 .82 6.57 .84
Average science 7.11 .95 6.96 .98 6.82 1.12 6.64 1.02 6.61 1.05 6.83 1.07
Note. School grades are measured on a scale from 1 to 10 and grades below 5.5 are considered unsatisfactory.
44
Table 3
Categories for school grades and per wave the number of students that have average grades
falling into a specific category.
First year Second year
Category Grades W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6
1 < 5.0 7 53 72 4 23 60
2 5.0 5.4 4 40 38 32 31 45
3 5.5 5.9 24 55 59 75 62 60
4 6.0 6.4 84 105 69 106 90 62
5 6.5 6.9 126 121 86 148 91 66
6 7.0 7.4 147 80 67 106 110 72
7 7.5 7.9 122 77 78 41 76 79
8 8.0 73 56 116 19 48 86
Note. School grades below 5.5 (categories 1 and 2) are considered unsatisfactory. Students get grades
for about 13 subjects. For transition to the next year/grade, an overall maximum of three unsatisfactory
grade points on these 13 subjects is allowed.
45
Table 4
Sample and change descriptives for the 27 first year and the 24 second year classes (N600).
Sample W1 W2 W3 Sample W4 W5 W6
Network density indicators Network density indicators
Average degree 5.25 (1.41) 5.68 (1.21) 5.55 (1.37) Average degree 5.38 (1.39) 5.25 (1.27) 4.67 (1.18)
Missing fraction 2.6% 2.2% 2.4% Missing fraction 1.7% 0.6% 1.7%
Other network indicators Other network indicators
Reciprocity 61% (.08) 61% (.09) 61% (.09) Reciprocity 60% (.11) 58% (.11) 57% (.10)
Transitivity 63% (.08) 64% (.07) 64% (.08) Transitivity 63% (.09) 63% (.11) 62% (.11)
Same sex 86% (.09) 83% (.10) 84% (.09) Same sex 80% (.10) 79% (.09) 81% (.07)
Control variables Control variables
Homework 4.69 (1.32) 4.45 (1.52) 4.43 (1.45) Homework 4.58 (1.53) 4.55 (1.64) 4.46 (1.76)
Satisfaction with school 3.46 (.68) 3.41 (.72) 3.20 (.84) Satisfaction with school 3.10 (.81) 3.07 (.84) 3.00 (.84)
Network autocorrelation Network autocorrelation
Gearys C achievement .96 (.18) .94 (.22) .94 (.19) Gearys C achievement .84 (.11) 1.00 (.13) .95 (.23)
Change W1-W2 W2-W3 Change W4-W5 W5-W6
Friendship indicators Friendship indicators
Jaccard index (stability) 50% (.08) 52% (.09) Jaccard index (stability) 56% (.11) 52% (.09)
Hamming distance 85.30% 82.59% Hamming distance 75.8% 79.33%
(change) (38.35) (40.07) (change) (42.23) (43.44)
No. of friendships dissolved 1013 1296 No. of friendships dissolved 995 1190
No. of friendships emerged 1316 1202 No. of friendships emerged 940 783
No. of friendships maintained 2248 2268 No. of fiendships maintained 2131 1181
Changes in achievement Changes in achievement (average)
(average)
No. of steps down 763 541 No. of steps down 346 529
No. of steps up 180 667 No. of steps up 401 547
Actors that remain stable 22.5% (.14) 17.2% (.11) Actors that remain stable 17.5% (.11) 13.0% (.09)
Note. Standard deviations are placed between brackets. Reciprocity was calculated as 2M/(2M+A), where M = mutual friendship and A = asymmetric
friendship; Transitivity was calculated as N of transitive triplets divided by N of 2-paths (potentially transitive triplets); See for more information on the
calculation of the different network indices Veenstra and Steglich (2012).
46
Table 5
Meta-analysis results on friendship and academic achievement for the 27 first year classes (N600).
Average Language Social Science

Mean est. SE Mean est. SE Mean est. SE Mean est. SE
Network dynamics: Friendship
Constant friendship rate (period 1) 8.01 .63 8.78 .82 7.69 .47 8.78 .82
*** *** *** ***
Outdegree (density) 2.44 .07 2.65 .16 2.58 .15 2.65 .16
*** *** *** ***
Reciprocity 1.77 .12 1.64 .12 1.64 .12 1.64 .12
Transitive triplets .37*** .03 .37*** .02 .37*** .02 .37*** .02
*** *** *** ***
Transitive reciprocated triplets .13 .03 .12 .03 .12 .03 .12 .03
*** *** *** ***
3-cycles .28 .03 .27 .03 .27 .03 .27 .03
*** *** *** ***
Same gender .88 .09 .86 .07 .85 .07 .86 .07
** ** ** **
Grade alter .04 .02 .07 .03 .06 .02 .07 .03
Grade ego .08 .07 .07 .07 .03 .04 .07 .07
*** ** **
Grade ego * Grade alter .07 .06 .05 .02 .04 .01 .05 .02
Behavior dynamics: Achievement
Rate grade (period 1) 9.80 1.70 6.89 .84 6.89 .84 6.89 .84
Rate grade (period 2) 7.95 1.17 9.91 1.36 9.96 1.44 9.91 1.36
Linear shape .02 .03 .00 .05 .04 .04 .00 .05
*
Quadratic shape .02 .01 .00 .01 .01 .01 .00 .01
Effect of friends grades (average alter) .06 .04 .28 .24 .01 .04 .28 .24
Effect from gender (1=boy) .03 .03 .07 .04 .07 .04 .07 .04
Effect from homework .02 .01 .00 .02 .01 .02 .00 .02
Effect from satisfaction with school .03 .02 .02 .03 .02 .03 .02 .03
Note. * p-value <.05. ** p-value <.01. *** p-value < .001 (two-tailed tests). Students in the pre-vocational track with practical orientation did not have history and geography courses, so these
classrooms were not included in the analyses concerning the social cluster.
47
Table 6
Meta-analysis results on friendship and academic achievement for the 24 second year classes (N550).
Average Language Social Science
Mean est. SE Mean est. SE Mean est. SE Mean est. SE
Network dynamics: Friendship
Constant friendship rate (period 2) 6.81 .59 6.82 .67 7.29 .67 8.15 1.08
*** *** *** ***
Outdegree (density) 2.50 .10 2.41 .08 2.72 .22 2.28 .05
*** *** *** ***
Reciprocity 1.46 .11 1.45 .11 1.52 .12 1.45 .09
Transitive triplets .36*** .03 .38*** .03 .44*** .08 .38*** .04
Transitive reciprocated triplets .03 .04 .02 .05 .02 .08 .01 .04
*** *** *** ***
3-cycles .32 .03 .33 .03 .37 .05 .29 .03
*** *** *** ***
Same gender .81 .10 .72 .07 .67 .07 .75 .08
*
Grade alter .03 .03 .04 .02 .06 .09 .02 .02
Grade ego .00 .11 .10 .07 .10 .11 .04 .04
* *
Grade ego * Grade alter .11 .06 .04 .02 .01 .05 .02 .01
Behavior dynamics: Achievement
*** ** ***
Linear shape .06 .02 .00 .03 .06 .02 .13 .03
*** ***
Quadratic shape .03 .01 .00 .01 .01 .01 .03 .01
*** *** * ***
Effect of friends grades (average alter) .09 .02 .09 .03 .09 .04 .10 .02
Effect from gender (1=boy) .02 .02 .00 .03 .02 .04 .05 .07
Effect from homework .01 .01 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
Effect from satisfaction with school .00 .02 .00 .02 .01 .02 .01 .02
Note. * p-value <.05. ** p-value <.01. *** p-value < .001 (two-tailed tests). Students in the pre-vocational track with practical orientation did not have history and geography
courses, so these classrooms were not included in the analyses concerning the social cluster.
48
Table 7
Ego-alter influence table in the eighth grade regarding students average grades: log odds
that egos grades (individual student) are influenced by alters grades (peers) given the
achievement scores of ego and alter.
Alter/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Ego
1 -1.04 -.95 -.86 -.77 -.68 -.59 -.50 -.41
2 -.78 -.69 -.60 -.51 -.42 -.33 -.24 -.15
3 -.57 -.48 -.39 -.30 -.21 -.12 -.03 .06
4 -.43 -.34 -.25 -.16 -.07 .02 .11 .20
5 -.35 -,26 -.17 -.08 .01 .10 .19 .28
6 -.32 -.23 -.14 -.05 .04 .13 .22 .31
7 -.36 -.27 -.18 -.09 .00 .09 .18 .27
8 -.45 -.36 -.27 -.18 -.09 .00 .09 .18
49
Author Notes
Mariola Claudia Gremmen, Jan Kornelis Dijkstra, Christian Steglich, and Ren Veenstra,
Department of Sociology and Interuniversity Center for Social Science Theory and
Methodology (ICS), University of Groningen
We thank all students, their parents, teachers, and school administrators who made the
study possible.
Part of this research was funded by the Dutch Scientific

Organization (NWO) Program Council for Fundamental Scientific Education Research
(PROO) Project number 411-12-027 awarded to Ren Veenstra (2013).
50
View publication stats

Snare Gremmendp17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Snare Gremmendp17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Snare Gremmendp17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

First Selection, Then Influence: Developmental

Article in Developmental Psychology April 2017

Jan Kornelis Dijkstra Christian Steglich

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anti-bullying programs 2.0: Tailored interventions to minimize bullying View project

Status differentiation View project

First Selection, then Influence: Developmental Differences in Friendship Dynamics

Mariola Claudia Gremmen

Jan Kornelis Dijkstra

University of Groningen, the Netherlands

Interuniversity Center for Social Science Theory and Methodology (ICS)

to their connectedness. Concluding, this study shows the importance of developmental

processes in adolescents academic achievement.

First Selection, then Influence: Developmental Differences in Friendship Dynamics

Academic achievement in adolescence is a key determinant of future educational chances and

occupational success. Hence, it is important that adolescents maximize their performance in

underachievement (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Capra, & Pastorelli, 2001; Bissell-Havran &

important, such as students intelligence, interest in school, persistence, and willingness to

academic achievement, as indicated by studies on classroom composition effects (e.g., Barth

classrooms play an important role in adolescents academic behaviors, as students spend a

Van Zalk, 2013).

Selection processes refer to mechanisms by which individuals choose to hang out or

modeling (RSiena) makes it possible to disentangle influence from selection processes by

examining changes in relationships and behaviors simultaneously (Ripley, Snijders, Boda,

competence), only influence effects for performance-approach goals (i.e., a focus on

performance-avoidance goals (i.e., a focus on avoiding demonstration of incompetence to

mechanism for friendship formation, particularly in large schools (selection). Further, it

high truancy levels.

selection and influence play a role in students academic achievement, it is important to

potentially leading to more heterogeneous findings than making content-related clusters of

across school subjects (Bong, 2001).

context for social interaction in the Dutch school system.

low achieving students drag higher achieving peers down (influence).

can achieve through selection and influence processes.

predictability, resulting in less effortful communications and shared feelings of understanding

Moreover, adolescence is marked by increasing academic comparisons between peers

(Festinger, 1954). Likewise, these comparisons may affect adolescent friendships by

from these friendships by receiving help while studying (Dieterich, 2015).

interested in differences between low-achieving and high-achieving students. Therefore, we

friendships between low-achieving students or between high-achieving students? And are

high-achieving students attractive as friends, whereas low-achieving students are mostly

avoided by their peers?

Unwillingness to conform to expectations and behaviors can have negative consequences, as

development (Barth, Dunlap, Dane, Lochman, & Wells, 2004).

These resources can promote achievement by motivating students, encouraging involvement

higher grades among friends.

Based on the aforementioned reasoning, we hypothesize that adolescents academic

processes in academic achievement work upwards or downwards. Do high-achieving friends

higher achieving peers down?

Structural network effects

Friendships may emerge not only as a result of similarity in particular characteristics or

overestimating the effects of individual characteristics in changing relationships, the most

tendency of students to nominate peers as friends. Second, reciprocity is included, the

tendency to reciprocate friendship nominations. We also accounted for group formation

surrounded by them for the entire day.

achieve better (Carbonaro, 2005). Reviews on homework research provide consistent

evidence for a positive influence of time spent on homework on students academic

Participants and Procedure