Group Processes Textbook: Social Psychology 11th Edition-Saul Kassin, Markus, & Fein. (Chapter 7-8). Exploring Social Identity Theory and the ‘Black Sheep Effe

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Exploring Social Identity Theory and the 'Black Sheep Effect' Among … Hawley, Leslie R;Hosch, Harmon M;Bovaird, James A Journal of Sport Behavior; Mar 2014; 37, 1; ProQuest pg. 56

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

lable at ScienceDirect

Social Science & Medicine 125 (2015) 151e162

Contents lists avai

Social Science & Medicine

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed

Reprint of: The myth of conformity: Adolescents and abstention from unhealthy drinking behaviors*

Carter Rees a, *, Danielle Wallace b

a Arizona State University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 411 N. Central Ave., Room 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA b Arizona State University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 411 N. Central Ave., Room 600, Phoenix, AZ 85050, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Available online 13 October 2014

Keywords: Adolescent drinking Friendship networks Minority influence Conformity Dissent Social influence

DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. * The article is reprinted here for the reader's conve

of the special issue. For citation purposes, please use tails: Social Science & Medicine 108 (2014) 34-45. * Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.028 0277-9536/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Adolescent peer groups with pro-drinking group norms are a well-established source of influence for alcohol initiation and use. However, classic experimental studies of social influence, namely ’minority influence’, clearly indicate social situations in which an individual can resist conforming to the group norm. Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a nationally repre- sentative sample of adolescents, we find evidence that being a non-drinking adolescent does not unilaterally put youth at risk for drinking onset when faced with a friendship network where the ma- jority of friends drink. Our results also show that a non-drinking adolescent with a majority of drinking friends is significantly less likely to initiate alcohol abuse if he or she has a minority of non-drinking friend(s). Furthermore, a drinking adolescent with a majority of friends who drink has a decreased probability of continuing to drink and has overall lower levels of consumption if he or she has a minority of friends who do not drink. Our findings recognize that adolescent in-group friendships are a mix of behavioral profiles and can perhaps help adolescents continue or begin to abstain alcohol use even when in a friendship group supportive of alcohol use.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Adolescents may be the archetypical social animals, intention- ally spending vast amounts of time together to fulfill the human need for social interaction. Friendships provide protection, knowledge, support, and behavioral guidance via in-group rules and norms. It is within these friendship groups that the ’I’ becomes ’we’ as adolescents become concerned with ’us’ instead of ’me’ (Kroger, 2004). Friendship groups wield enormous power to exact behavioral conformity. Friends can both accept and reject an adolescent, promote and restrict behavior, improve self-esteem and ridicule mercilessly (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011). The social life of an adolescent is often better if he or she conforms because failure to do so risks ostracism from the group (Williams, Forgas, von Hippel, & Zadro, 2005).

socscimed.2014.01.040. nience and for the continuity the original publication de-

gmail.com (C. Rees).

Yet, it is within the friendship group that adolescents must also satisfy the compulsory drive for personal differentiation, but do so without becoming noxious to their friendship groups (see Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). This creates a tension between individuality and group membership. Adolescents have the demonstrated ability rebel, push back, and dissent from the normative influence of parents and schools while remaining students and family members nonetheless. Discussions of this ability to resist conformity and influence have yet to be adequately extended to the adolescent friendship group.

We question the mechanistic view of the all powerful group behavioral norm and the passive adolescent in discussions of social influence. We draw upon established social psychological theories of resistance to social influence (e.g., Moscovici, 1980) to assess the extent to which an adolescent is a servile recipient of friends’ in- fluence, having his or her behavior dominated by majority rule. Or, if a small collective of individuals can resist the influence of established behavioral norms within the friendship group. Furthermore, we ask if a numerical minority can also significantly influence the established behavior of a member of the majority away from the dominant behavioral position.

Our study links the presence of an in-group behavioral minority to adolescent drinking, a behavior shown to be predominately

C. Rees, D. Wallace / Social Science & Medicine 125 (2015) 151e162152

influenced by peers. For example, does having two non-drinking friends decrease an adolescent’s established drinking patterns if the friendship group also consists of four drinking friends? This encourages the discussion of social influence to include conformity to and resistance from in-group norms. This is important because research consistently references pro-drinking group norms of an adolescent’s friends as a risk factor for the onset and continued use of alcohol (Balsa, Homer, French, & Norton, 2011; Donovan, 2004). Broadly, our goal is to advance theoretical and empirical research on interpersonal influence from a socio-psychological perspective. We examine the effect of drinking and non-drinking friends using the social network component of the Add Health data, a nationally representative sample of middle and high school adolescents in the United States.

Alcohol use, adolescents, and peers

Alcohol consumption among adolescents continues to be an issue in the United States being associated with an assortment of other unhealthy behaviors such as illicit drug use, and sex (Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Kulbok & Cox, 2002; Valois, Oeltmann, Waller, & Hussey, 1999). Adolescents who are drinkers are more likely to show signs of emotional distress (Crosnoe, Muller, & Frank, 2004). Risky drinking behavior during adolescence also leads to a variety of detrimental outcomes such car accidents (Lang, Waller, & Shope, 1997), driving while under the influence (Farrow & Brissing, 1990), emergency room visits (Meropol, Moscati, Lillis, Ballow, & Janicke, 1995), poor academic performance (Crosnoe et al., 2004), dropping out of high school (Chatterji & DeSimone, 2005), sexual victimization (Bachanas et al., 2002), and attempted suicide (Miller, Lippmann, Azrael, & Hemenway, 2007). Lastly, high risk drinking places an adolescent at greater risk for heavy drinking and alcohol dependence in adulthood (DeWit, Adlaf, Offord, & Ogborne, 2000).

A vast body of literature establishes the importance of peer in- fluence in adolescents’ drinking behavior and substance abuse (Fujimoto & Valente, 2012a, 2012b). Adolescent exposure to sub- stance abuse by friends is a strong, positive correlate of personal substance abuse (Crosnoe et al., 2004; Kobus & Henry, 2010). Recent studies used detailed social networking data to add clarity to how and why peers matter in the explanation of drinking during adolescence. For instance, adolescents tend to drink to earn social rewards from their friends (Allen, Porter, McFarland, Marsh, & McElhaney, 2005; Diego, Field, & Sanders, 2003). Different types of friends such as a best-, close- or regular friends have separate and significant influence on increasing and adolescent’s drinking (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011; Urberg, Degirmencioglu, & Pilgrim, 1997). Reciprocal friendships amplify the effect of peer influence on adolescent alcohol (Fujimoto & Valente, 2012a), as do personal dispositions, school level factors, and relationship characteristics (Botticello, 2009; Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; Vitaro, Brendgen, & Tremblay, 2000). In sum, health related research has empirically established peer influence and friendship network conditions as prerequisites for understanding the etiology of adolescent drinking.

Yet, focusing on the various ways peers influence and promote drinking behaviors only shows the “dark side of friendship” and ignores the “ways in which particular friendships contribute [in] both positive and negative ways to well-being and adjustment” (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011; p.165). Berndt & Murphy (2003) refer to this as the “myth [that] friends’ influence is predominantly nega- tive” (p. 278). Brechwald and Prinstein (2011) state “the majority of research examining peer influence effects…has focused on social- ization of anti-social, deviant, and health-risk behaviors” (p. 167) but also acknowledges that the past 10 years have resulted in “sorely needed research” related to peer influence of healthy be- haviors (see also Brown, Bakken, Ameringer, & Mahon, 2008).

Integration of these two literatures is critical to recognizing adolescent friendship network may contain a mix of both pro-social and anti-social peers and what this means for peer influences and adolescent drinking (see Haynie, 2002; Windle et al., 2008).

Friends disapprove of and discourage drinking (Keefe,1994). Yet, little research engages these findings as possible ways in which adolescents can use in-group friendships as a means of resisting in- group norms favorable to alcohol consumption. Instead, research has envisioned adolescents in need of specialized training in resistance to social influence and conformity towards substance use through teacher, peer, or school led intervention programs (see Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992). The ability to resist social in- fluence and to rebel against group norms seems to be reserved for high-risk youth in their continuing personal attempts to resist conventional norms and their strong need for independence (see Jessor & Jessor, 1977; Paton & Kandel, 1978).

Social influence: a bias towards conformity

Despite experimental evidence to the contrary, there is a ten- dency to regard the study of social influence and how it changes behavior as equating to the study of an individual always con- forming to the group norm (Moscovici, 1976; see also Packer & Miners, 2012). For example, Asch’s (1951, 1956) famous line studies on social influence provide the foundation for many contemporary studies of social influence and conformity (Friedkin & Johnsen, 2011). His work is regularly cited as evidence that the group majority is able to cause individuals to comply or conform to its position (Levine, 1999). Yet, the original intent of Asch’s exper- iments was the examination of resistance to social influence and group suppression of non-conformity (Moscovici & Faucheax, 1972). Asch (1952) felt social influence research had “…taken slavish submission to group forces as the general fact and has neglected or implicitly denied the capacities of men for indepen- dence” (p. 451). That is, social influence is more than the individual behaviorally yielding to an established group norm. The findings of Asch’s (1951, 1956) experiments demonstrate strong support for the capacity of individuals to resist the majority group’s influence (Bond & Smith, 1996; Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, & Blackstone, 1994). Even having one supporter for an individual’s dissenting opinion against the majority reduced conformity to the group’s erroneous position from 32 percent to 5.5 percent, thereby almost eliminating conformity to the erroneous group norm (Asch, 1951). Asch (1956) concludes that there is a considerable effect of the majority group on the individual but “it was by no means complete or even the strongest force at work” (p. 10). That is, in- dividuals can resist the influence of the majority group and this resistance is even more pronounced with a single partner sharing their opinion.

A focus solely on conformity to group norms and how the ma- jority obtains conformity ignores the demonstrated ability of in- dividuals to be non-conformists, actively and successfully promoting within group change. This emphasis suggests only the majority can exercise social influence because they have power in numbers or status; deviance from the majority position is an in- dividual defect and not an impetus for behavioral or opinion change. Therefore, in keeping with the idea of conformity bias, an erroneous position held by the in-group majority is not correctable by a powerless in-group minority (Moscovici, 1985); resolution to in-group conflict will always be settled in favor of the majority by virtue of their implied position of overwhelming social influence.

The work of Moscovici (1976,1980,1985; see also Nemeth,1986) challenges the assumption that individuals in the minority are only the targets of influence and not the source. Moscovici’s (1980,1985) conversion theory is a formal report on how and why ’minority

C. Rees, D. Wallace / Social Science & Medicine 125 (2015) 151e162 153

influence’ occurs and is supported by a large body of empirical literature spanning politics, decision-making, behavior, and orga- nizations (see Maass & Clark, 1984; Martin & Hewstone, 2010). Conversion theory makes the explicit argument that the minority position does not necessarily equate to being a passive receiver of influence from the majority (Wolf, 1987); majority and minority influence differ in the processes and mechanisms that produce and maintain each type of influence. Majority influence leads to the social behavior of compliance via a comparison process. Minority influence leads to the social behavior of conversion through a vali- dation process. Moscovici (1980) integrates both modes of influ- ence into a single theoretical framework and, unlike most studies of social influence, the majority position is no longer the only source of “truth and norm, and expresses the social system as a whole” (Moscovici, 1976; p. 12; Moscovici, Mugny, & van Avermaet, 1985).

Conversion theory suggests that majority groups are interested in maintaining the power to dictate norms, rules, and social control by stabilizing behaviors and absorbing behavioral outliers leading to the reduction of inter-individual differences in order to maintain the status-quo (Mugny & P�erez, 1991). Majority influence capital- izes on people’s need to need to be liked, accepted by others, and to be correct. The majority may promote behavioral uniformity and compliance through the use of social rewards, such as prestige or respect, and social disincentives such as ridicule or ostracism (Crano, 2012).

In contrast, the in-group minority position generally lacks po- wer, does not control social rewards, and is considered to be a weak position (Wood et al., 1994). However, power must not be thought of as a necessary component of social influence. Social influence, when viewed in this limited way, leaves no room for influential dissention, difference, and defiance (Jetten & Hornsey, 2011). Conversion theory suggests it is from in-group disparities and conflict that the minority derives its ability to influence. This at- tracts attention because it stands in contrast to the majority. A validation process is triggered where one will “examine one’s own responses, one’s own judgments, in order to confirm and validate them…one’s main preoccupation [is] to see what the minority saw, to understand what it understood” (Moscovici, 1980: p. 215). This process functions on both latent and manifest levels. Latent vali- dation refers to an acute internal cognitive conflict that is the result of attempts to understand the minority position in order to convert to it. In turn, these complex internal processes can result in public manifestations of behavioral change (Moscovici and Lage, 1976). Consistency is an important aspect of minority influence. Minority influence is maximal if the position is held across time, situations, and individuals (Gardikiotis, 2011; Papastamou & Mugny, 1990). This generates confidence in the minority position and in turn enhances influence (Maass & Clark, 1984; Moscovici & Lage, 1976).

Minority-majority positions in social networks

Minority-majority influence dynamics can help us understand adolescents’ drinking behavior. A conventional view of conformity and social influence suggests being in a non-drinking minority within a friendship network places adolescents at the highest risk for the onset of drinking. Continued dissent from the in-group drinking norm is disloyal, truculent, and ironically, could be considered deviant. Similarly, the drinking adolescent who wants to stop drinking but is part of an in-group majority of drinking friends not only faces potential ostracism from the group, but also the termination of positive reinforcement for continuing compli- ance with pro-drinking norms (see Brown et al., 2008). Conformity and compliance with group norms occur because the adolescent will not risk ridicule, being labeled as disloyal, or the loss of group membership and social rewards provided by the majority.

Theorizing from the majority-minority perspective suggests in- group friendships may help an adolescent continue or begin to abstain from drinking even if the majority of their friendship network drinks.

The disparity in opinions within the classic studies’ treatment groups forms the basis for defining the majority and minority groups. This variation is also found in network studies of adolescent drinking behavior (see Haynie, 2002; Weerman & Smeenk, 2005). While similarity in drinking behaviors between an adolescent and his or her friends may be the result of a form of selection, this se- lection is not perfect and a social influence process still occurs (se Bauman & Ennett, 1996; Knecht, Burk, Weesie, & Steglich, 2011; Laursen et al., 2008). Adolescents may select friends who have similar drinking habits but this does not result in behaviorally homogenous network in which the social influence process “through which individuals or groups change the thoughts, feel- ings, and behaviors of others” cannot operate (Stangor, 2004; p. 84).

We expect associations with friends who drink will increase the probability of drinking for both individuals who would be initiating drinking behavior and for individuals who already engage in drinking. Explicitly, we expect the effect of peer drinking to be robust for all adolescents. In addition, based on classic experi- mental studies of human behavior (e.g., Asch, 1951, 1952, 1955, 1956), and social psychological studies of minority influence (e.g., Moscovici, 1976, 1980; Moscovici and Faucheax, 1972) we hypoth- esize the following:

Hypothesis 1: When faced with a majority of friends who drink, the probability of time II drinking onset among time I non-drinkers will be decreased if the friendship group consists of at least one friend sharing the respondent’s non-drinking minority position.

Hypothesis 2: When faced with a minority of friends who do not drink, the probability of time II drinking desistance among time I drinkers will be increased if the friendship group consists of at least one friend in the non-drinking minority position.

Linking variation in social influence to minority-majority posi- tions in adolescents’ peer friendship networks may facilitate un- derstanding why some adolescents are able to abstain from both general and problem drinking when faced with a network that should be influencing them to conform or continue to comply with pro-drinking norms. Our study of minority influence in adolescent friendship networks moves beyond previous research regarding adolescent drinking behavior in two crucial respects. First, we tie the discussion of resistance to the group norm, adolescent friend- ship networks, and drin

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.