Table 2.
Peer group differentiation according to methods and measures
| Study | Method | Results | Subjects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashmore et al. (2002) | Other-peer ratings of groups (only perceptions of group types) | Group types devoted to sexual and social pursuits (e.g., Frat boys) were more likely to use alcohol than those more involved with academic pursuits (e.g., Brains) | 300 university students (mean age=19.2) from 1 school, NE, 56% F, 45% W, 10% B, 10% H, 30% A, 5% O |
| Barber et al. (2001) | Self-identification | Jocks and Criminals reported more drinking than other groups; Criminals used marijuana most often; Brains were most likely to have graduated by 24 years old; Basket cases and Criminals reported the lowest self-esteem | 900 Michigan Study of Adolescent Life Transitions participants (assessed at 10th, 12th grades and 2, and 6 years after high school), from 10 school districts, MW, F NR, mostly W |
| Brown and Lohr (1987) | Other-peer ratings of group types, friends in groups, and self-identification | Envious and Distorters showed significantly less self-esteem when compared to Jocks and Populars | 327 7th–12th graders from 1 JHS and 1 RHS, MW, 48% F, 98% W |
| Brown et al. (1993) | Other-peers selected by school staff; Other-peer ratings of group types, and peers into groups | Good parenting practices, academic achievement, and self-reliance positively associated with Jocks, Populars, and Brains and negatively associated with Druggies; Druggies positively related with controlled substance use | 3781 9th–12th graders, 3 MW and 3 We RHS, 52% F, 61% W, 12% B, 13%H, 12% A |
| Clasen and Brown (1985) | Other-peers selected by school staff; Other-peer ratings of group types, and peers into groups | Druggies/Toughs greater peer pressure towards misconduct (e.g., drug and alcohol use); Jocks greater peer pressure towards school involvement; Loners greater peer pressure towards school involvement in rural areas but lower than Jocks in urban areas | 689 7th–12th graders from 2 middle schools and 2 RHS, 2 MW communities, half rural and half urban, 50% F, 95% W |
| Cohen (1979) | Self-identification | Fun Group athletic, engaged in extracurricular activities, popular; Academic group academically oriented; Delinquent group rejects studies and dates, smokes and drinks; Nobodies as “almost faceless student who never speaks up” | 1038 9th–12th graders from 1 RHS, MW, 51% F, 100% W |
| Demuth (2004) | Self-identification | Loners less delinquent than Non-loners; Loners less likely to go on dates, to parties, or to other social activities than Non-loners; Loners’ friends more approving of delinquency than Non-loners’ friends | 1237 13- to 19-year-old participants of National Youth Survey, 46% F, 79% W |
| Dolcini and Adler (1994) | Other-peers selected by school staff; Other-peer ratings of group types, and peers into groups | Elites more athletic than Smarts or Outsiders; Smarts more academically competent than Outsiders; Popular Blacks (mostly female) resembled Elites and showed higher perceived social competence than Smarts, Floaters, and Outsiders; no differences among groups on physical appearance, behavioral conduct, or global self-worth; Elites and then Popular Blacks most likely to smoke (cigarettes), drink, use marijuana, and report sexual intercourse | 183 8th graders from 1 middle school, We, 52% F, 20% W, 24% B, 19% H, 20% A, 17% O |
| Downs and Rose (1991) | Self-identification | Brains/Smart Ones intellectual and adverse to alcohol and drug use; Jocks/Socies value self- image as reflected in personal appearance, clothes, popularity, athletic skills, good grades, and going to college; Average/Normals moderately involved in school activities, more inclined to use alcohol and drugs than Brains and Jocks; Druggies/Losers/Heads/Rejects least involved in school activities and low position in the status hierarchy; and highest use of alcohol and drugs | Treatment sample: 127 13- to 17-year olds from 1 hospital-based program, MW, 49.4% F, 96% W; Comparison sample: 114 13- to 17-year olds telephone-selected, MW, 46% F, 99% W (samples combined for analysis) |
| Dubow and Cappas (1987) | Teacher ratings of students; Other-peer ratings of peers into groups | Teacher ratings: Rejected fewest friends, lowest GPAs, and most problem behavior; Popular and Controversial best adjusted to school; Peer reports: Rejected and Neglected least competent, Popular and Controversial most competent; Rejected and Controversial behavior problems compared to Popular and Neglected; Self-ratings of friends and self-esteem: Rejected reported fewest friends but no difference in self-esteem | 238 3rd–5th graders from 4 elementary schools, MW; 140 students urban, 50% F, 51% W, 49% B; 98 students rural, 60% F, 99% W, 1% B |
| Durbin et al. (1993) | Other-peers selected by school staff; Other-peer ratings of group types, and peers into groups, and self-identification | Adolescents with highest GPAs and from authoritative parenting style families in well- rounded peer groups (i.e., the Jock, Brain, Popular, and Average); Nonsocials (i.e., Loners and Nerds) also highest GPAs; boys from “indulgent” families oriented toward Partier group; girls from uninvolved families overrepresented in the Druggies and Partier groups; Druggies and Partiers most likely to use drugs | 3407 9th–12th graders from 9 RHS, MW and We, 53% F, 100% W |
| Eckert (1983) | Ethnography (interviews and participant observation) | Jocks more positive roles at school, more likely to be from higher SES background, and less likely to smoke (cigarettes); Burnouts less likely to participate at school, more likely to smoke, and more likely to be from lower SES background | 200 high school students from 1 RHS, MW, 50% F, mostly W |
| Eder (1985) | Ethnography (interviews and observation) | Elite group most visible; cheerleaders became popular at first but later became increasingly disliked for being snobs and stuck-up (cycle of popularity) | 750 6th, 7th, and 8th graders from 1 middle school, MW; mostly F and W in groups observed |
| Eicher et al. (1991) | Ethnography (interviews and participant observation) | Jocks wore letter jackets, jerseys, nice jeans, gym shoes; Nerds wore out-of-style clothes, unkempt hair; Punks and Freaks partly shaved, spiked-up hair, wore black leather items; Preppies wore nice, expensive clothes; Average/Regulars dressed casually | 10th graders from 1 RHS (11 students interviewed), MW, F and ethnicity NR |
| Farmer et al. (2002) | School staff-rated, and youth generated social networks | Aggressive groups, and Isolates, most likely to dropout from school; Popular groups (among males only), and Zero-popular groups also relatively likely to dropout | 475 7th graders, 3 SE communities, 52% F; 70% W, % O NR |
| Fishkin et al. (1993) | Perception of group types, and self- identification | High risk youth were perceived by their peers (contrary to their own group perception) to be less engaged in low risk school and non-school activities, more engaged in drug use, and less likely to find good jobs later | 340 7th graders from 3 JHS and 615 10th graders from 2 RHS, We, 49% F, 58% W, 27% H, 5% B, 5% A, 15% O |
| Fordham and Ogbu (1986) | Ethnography (interviews) | Underachievers avoid being accused of “acting white”, to be a Kin/Regular Black; successful students use methods to cope with being accused of “acting white”; “Brainiacs” are those that sell out to white society; “Pervert- brainiacs” totally sell out and questionable in their sexuality | 33 11th graders from 1 RHS, NE, 50% F, 99% B at school |
| Franzoi et al. (1994) | Other-peer ratings (up to 10 other students most and least desire to spend time with) | Popular and Controversial most attractive, highest grades, greatest social participation and athletic achievements; Average less attractive and less social participation, fewer social honors; Neglected/Rejected, compared to Average, dated less, least popular and athletic, most lonely | 408 9th–12th graders assessed in 2 consecutive years at 1 RHS, MW, 49% F, mostly W |
| Gotlieb (1975) | Other-peer rating (14 raters) | Elites worry about school performance, plans after graduation, fear of disappointing parents; Isolates worry about relations with peers, family members, girls, and lack of motivation/ passivity; Deviants perceive needing to understand themselves better and deal with their drug use; Outsiders most likely to work and worry about work | 20 12th graders (5 from each group) from 1 RHS, MW, ethnicity NR |
| Heaven et al. (2005) | Self-identification | Rebels most likely to provide depressive explanations for events, least likely to experience authoritative (democratic) parenting; Studious group on other extreme, but not different from groups other than rebels | 893 12-year olds from 6 Catholic HS in New South Wales, Australia, 49% F, %W NR |
| Kinney (1993) | Ethnography (interviews and observation) | Nerds (unpopular, studious, low social skill) felt like “outsiders” or “social outcasts” back in middle school, avoided by Popular groups (e.g., Trendies); Nerds experienced transition to high school positively (gained self-esteem), opportunity for membership in greater variety of groups, less pressure to appear popular, and popular groups look down at other groups too (e.g., punk rockers) | 81 9–12th graders from 1 RHS, MW, F NR (both M and F interviewed), mostly W |
| Kipke, Montgomery, et al. (1997) | Self-identification | Punks and Gay/Bisexual groups most likely to report substance abuse disorders (Gay/Bisexual for alcohol, not other drugs); Punks most likely to have unprotected sex and share needles; Gay/ Bisexuals and hustlers most likely to engage in survival sex; Hustlers most likely to be tested for HIV; Students/Athletes lowest risk for an alcohol use disorder | 303 13- to 23-year olds (73% 18 or older), We, homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness, 34% F, 54% W, 14% H, 19% B, 13% O |
| Kipke, Unger, et al. (1997) | Self-identification | Punks/Skinheads and Druggies out on the street longest time; Punks/Skinheads most likely to have used services at drop in centers and rely on panhandling for subsistence; Hustlers most likely to rely on prostitution for subsistence; Gang members most likely to use shelter services, rely on drug dealing or stealing for subsistence, and on the street for shortest time | 752 12- to 23-year olds, street youths (50% 19 or older), We, 29% F, 52% W, 15% H, 19% B, 2% A, 11% O |
| La Greca and Harrison (2005) | Self-identification | High status groups (Populars, Jocks) less social anxiety and depression than Others; affiliation with low-status groups (Burnouts, Alternatives) not related to social anxiety or depression; any group identification less anxious | 421 10th–12th graders from 1 RHS, SE, 57% F, 17% W, 67% H, 9% B, 6% O |
| La Greca et al. (2001) | Self-identification | Burnouts and Nonconformists, and friends, greatest drug (smoking, alcohol, marijuana, other drugs) and # sex partners, relatively low social acceptance; Brains, least health-risk activities (low social acceptance); Jocks and Populars, and friends, high social acceptance, lower substance use, but Populars higher on alcohol use, Jocks marginally higher on casual sex | 250 10th–12th graders that had been tracked from 3 elementary schools, SE, 60% F, 46% W, 37% H, 13% B, 4% A |
| Matute-Bianchi (1986) | Ethnography (interviews and observation) | Successful Japanese-descent students more knowledge about adult opportunities and relation of school to post-secondary experiences than successful Mexican-descent students; Chicanos and Cholos more gang-oriented, and more likely to be enrolled in alternative programs designed for unsuccessful students | 35 Mexican-descent and 14 Japanese- descent students from 1 RHS (school: %F NR, 33% W, 57% H, 9% A, 1% B), We |
| Michell (1997) | Ethnography (focus groups and interviews) | Top boys/girls popular, in fashion; Top girls smoked, drank, used hashish more than Top boys, liked boys a lot; Top boys liked sports; Middle group studious and future-oriented, not smoke or peer pressure to smoke; Bottom low- status pupils bad grades, truancy, peer pressure to smoke; Bottom trouble-makers hated school, into fights, smoking, drinking, marijuana use, other drug use; Loners not smoke | 36 11-year olds, and 40 13-year olds, primary and secondary school in West Scotland, %F and ethnicity NR |
| Miller et al. (2003) | Self-identification | Male and female Jocks scored in sports participation but also higher than Non-jocks on level of drinking; Male Jocks reported higher frequency of alcohol-related social problems compared to male Non-jocks | 699 households, 13- to 16-year olds, NE, 48% F; 70% W/O, 30% B |
| Miller et al. (2005) | Self-identification | Male Jocks frequent dating, earlier sexual debut, more frequent past-year and lifetime sexual activity, higher lifetime total # sex partners compared to Non-jocks; Jocks greater past year hours athletic activity | 600 households, 12- to 17-year olds, NE, 54% F; mostly B and W |
| Mosbach and Leventhal (1988) | Self-identification | Dirts highest in risk taking preference, most likely to smoke, drink coffee, drink alcohol and date; Hot-shots more likely to smoke and drink hard liquor than Jocks and Regulars; Regulars highest in self-esteem | 353 7th–8th graders from 1 JHS, MW, 46% F, ethnicity NR |
| Pascoe (2003) | Ethnography (interviews and observation) | Jocks at highest ranked position in social order; male Jocks distinct (female Jocks dispersed through multiple groups); Jocks associated with dominant masculinity; athleticism is treated as “insurance” for masculinity and Jock membership; those who reject the Jock dominant hierarchy exhibit “counterculture” identity (e.g., Freaks). | 20 15- to 18-year olds from 2 RHS, We, 0% F for the study, ethnicity NR |
| Poveda and Crim (1975) | Other-peers selected by school staff; Other-peer ratings of group types, and peers into groups | High society girls more likely to participate in school activities than Party girls; High society girls further divided into Pep crews and Snobs; Pep crews represent ‘athletic spirit’; Snobs are fashion setters and less actively involved in school compared to Pep crews; Party girls likely to smoke, drink, cruise, engage in sex and use drugs; Extreme Party girls called ‘Dopers’ | 400 12th graders from 1 RHS, We, 100% F for the study, W majority. |
| Prinstein and La Greca (2002) | Self-identification | Populars/Jocks highest physical appearance, social acceptance, athletic ability, romantic appeal, global self-worth, and least depressed affect, social anxiety, and loneliness; Brains highest scholastic competence, but only Brains showed a decrease in self-esteem and increase in loneliness over time (not extreme rating at either time point, as Deviants were the lowest in self-esteem at both time-points); None/average more romantic appeal than Brains; Burnouts lowest levels of competence in behavioral conduct, most depressed affect | 246 10th–12th graders (across 25 RHS, as a 6-year follow-up cohort from 3 elementary schools), SE, 60% F, 46 W, 37% H, 13% B, 5%A |
| Riester and Zucker (1968) | Self-identification | Identification with either Collegiates or Leathers associated with high drinking; parent use of alcohol significantly associated with teen drinking; drinking reported more in group setting than while alone; Intellectuals highest grade and least likely to drink | 143 11th and 12th graders from 1 high school, NE, 50% F, ethnicity NR |
| Sussman et al. (1990) | Self-identification | Dirts and then Skaters most likely to smoke cigarettes; Dirts and Skaters most likely to use smokeless tobacco, and lower grades than Hot- shots and Jocks; Dirts highest in risk taking, most likely to try alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs, least involved in sports, lowest in self- esteem; Hot-shots least likely to smoke; Jocks most involved in team sports | 340 7th graders from 3 JHS and 615 10th graders from 2 RHS, We, 49% F, 58% W, 42% mostly H |
| Sussman et al. (1993) | Self-identification | High risk youth most likely to be weekly cigarette smokers, sibling and best friend smokers, stick to group even if meant trouble, lie to protect friends, get revenge or party as coping strategies; High risk youth least likely to be in sports, feel that school reputation is important, though not differ in self-esteem from other groups; non-smoking High risk youth unlikely to have close friend smoker and likely to place importance on health as value | 1245 9th–12th graders from 12 RHS, We, 48% F, 59% W, 21% H, 20% O |
| Sussman et al. (1994) | Self-identification | Group self-identification (High risk youth group status) in 7th grade predicted smoking in 8th grade (but not the converse); compared with 7 other psychosocial predictors, group self-identification as good a predictor (not a mere proxy); High risk youth highest group stability over time. | 3750 7th graders from 20 JHS, We, 50% F, 60% W, 27% H, 7% B, 6% A/O |
| Sussman et al. (1999) | Self-identification | Group self-identification significant predictor of cigarette smoking, alcohol use, marijuana use, and # types illegal drugs used across samples; comparable to demographics and 6 psychosocial variables, not a mere proxy of other variables across samples; High risk youth more likely to use on drug measures compared to Jocks, Regulars, Others, and Hot-shots; street youth 3 groups with Regulars/Jocks/Hot-shots merged | 3061 9th graders from 34 RHS, 803 14- to 19-year olds from 21 CHS, 425 13- to 23- year old street youth; We; 50% 38%, and 34% F; 49%, 39%, and 51% W; 29%, 41%, and 15% H; 22%, 20%, and 34% B/A/O |
| Sussman et al. (2000) | Self-identification | Group self-identification 1-year prospective predictor of violence perpetration, victimization, fear of victimization, weapons carrying, and cigarette, alcohol, marijuana, hard drug use, drug use intent, drug abuse, and hangout and anger coping; High risk youth highest on these measures compared to Hot-shots, Others, and Regulars | 681 14- to 19-year olds from 21 CHS, We, 45%F, 36% W, 48% H, 8% B, 8% A/O |
| Sussman, Unger and Dent (2003) | Self-identification | Five years later, baseline-identified High risk youth most likely to use hard drugs, suffer drug use consequences, perpetrate violence, become victimized, and least likely to graduate from high school and find stable employment (compared to baseline Regulars, Hot-shots, and Others); Others and High risk youth most likely to use alcohol and marijuana, receive financial aid, and be involved in drug-related driving; Regulars and High risk youth most likely to be parents | 532 19- to 24-year olds previously from 21 CHS, We, 43% F, 31% W, 50% H, 6% B, 5% A, 9% O |
| Thurlow (2001) | Self-identification | Most peer groups similar to those in U.S. (e.g., Populars, Brains, Trouble-makers, Hard people/Toughs, Others/normals) whereas two notable groups, Jocks and Burnouts, not self- identified in this British sample (4% were in sports groups) | 462 14-year olds from 6 high schools in England and Wales, 48% F, 74% W, 26% O |
| Tolone and Tieman (1990) | Statistical method (1st and 4th quartiles of self-reported Social Involvement Index used to identify groups) | Socials more likely to engage in alcohol and drug use, truancy, delinquency and violence, but also more involved in creative writing and more happy and satisfied with life, than Loners; Loners more likely to engage in conventional activities such as reading and listening to music | 10,862 12th graders from randomly selected schools across the US., 46% F, 100% W |
| Urberg (1992) | Self-identification | Burnouts likelytosmoke weekly most, followed by Averages and Jocks/Preps; Burnouts lower in conformity to peers than either Jock/Prep or the Average groups; best friends major source of influence on smoking compared to group | 324 11 graders, MW, 51% F, 96% W |
| Urberg et al. (2000) | Other-peer ratings of students into groups and group self-identification | Concordance (overall 66%) between self- identified and peer-identified groups was greater for Alternatives (100%) and Burnouts (64%) than Jocks (56%), Preps (53%), Average (53%), Whiggers (33%), Brains (14%), and Nerds (2%; n=5); Brains highest GPAs, lowest delinquency and drug use (self- and other- rated); Whiggers, Burnouts, and Alternatives most delinquency, cigarette, alcohol, marijuana use and lowest grades (self- and other-rated); Preps, Jocks, and Average between extremes on all measures; Nerds like Brains on drug use but grades like Preps, Jocks, and Average | 489 7th, 9th, and 11th graders, MW, 50% F, 92% W |
Notes: JHS=junior high school; RHS=regular high school; CHS=continuation high school; MW=Midwest; SE=Southeast; NE=Northeast; We=West; F=females; W=White; B=Blacks/African Americans; H=Hispanic; A=Asian/Pacific Islanders; O=Other; NR=not reported.