Skip to content

Write An Essay On Merit And Demerit Of Peer Group

This past month I have been thinking a lot about the peer groups in my life. By peer groups, I mean the primary groups of people with whom I spend time socializing and working. I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about this because I strongly believe in the law of the average:

You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with. – Jim Rohn

In other words, “one’s peer group is unbelievably influential in one’s development and growth”. And furthermore: “Unlike other agents of socialization, such as family and school, peer groups allow children to escape the direct supervision of adults.”

In the past eighteen months, I’ve identified myself with several peer groups. I’ve seen a lot of people, and I’ve changed peer groups several times. Some peer groups have remained consistent for months in each of my living locations, and others are short-lasted, such as visiting a friend at school on the weekend. Very few people have remained constant throughout, but I am thankful for those that have.

To get an idea of the places I’ve been and the people I’ve spent time with, here’s a short list of peer groups that I considered myself part of for at least a few months:

  • Wake Forest student
  • Wake Forest rower
  • College entrepreneur
  • Thiel Fellow
  • Silicon Valley resident
  • Startup founder
  • Founder of Glider
  • New York City resident
  • College dropout


I am not embarrassed to say that creating my own peer group from scratch has been my greatest challenge in the past year. Tougher than recruiting programmers, designers, venture capital, is recruiting a peer group when the overwhelming majority of your peers live within pre-existing communities (college). As someone who is under-21, the toughness is compounded when you live in a social space designed for age 21 and above.

The experience of moving alone to a new region of the country, while working in a small team that stares at computer screens all day, and generally not having many social outlets, is about as sub-optimal as it gets for my personality.

To give you a more specific diagnosis of the peer groups in my life, I turn to a direct excerpt from Tim Madigan in a 2007 issue of Philosophy Now:

In Book VIII of his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle categorizes three different types of friendship: friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure, and friendships of the good.

Friendships of utility are those where people are on cordial terms primarily because each person benefits from the other in some way. Business partnerships, relationships among co-workers, and classmate connections are examples.

Friendships of pleasure are those where individuals seek out each other’s company because of the joy it brings. Passionate love affairs, people associating with each other due to belonging to the same hobby organization, and fishing buddies fall into this category.

Most important of all are friendships of the good. These are friendships based upon mutual respect, admiration for each other’s virtues, and a strong desire to aid and assist the other person because one recognizes their essential goodness.

The first two types of friendship are relatively fragile. When the purpose for which the relationship is formed somehow changes, then these friendships tend to end. For instance, if the business partnership is dissolved, or if you take another job, or graduate from school, it is more than likely that no ties will be maintained with the former friend of utility. Likewise, once the love affair cools, or you take up a new hobby or give up fishing, the friends of pleasure will go their own ways.

However, friendships of the good tend to be lifelong, are often formed in childhood or adolescence, and will exist so long as the friends continue to remain virtuous in each other’s eyes. To have more than a handful of such friends of the good, Aristotle states, is indeed a fortunate thing. Rare indeed are such friendships, for people of this kind are rare. Or as my mother used to say, “Make new friends but keep the old, for one is silver and the other is gold.” Such friendships of the good require time and intimacy – to truly know people’s finest qualities you must have deep experiences with them, and close connections. “Many a friendship doth want of intercourse destroy,” Aristotle warns us.

And yet, for us living in the frenetic 21st Century, it can be difficult to maintain such ties. Friendships of utility and pleasure come and go quickly as we move from job to job and relationship to relationship. But for Aristotle this need not be a tragedy. Since the interchanges of both types are less intense or permanent, their endings are not necessarily detrimental to one’s self. But to lose a friend of the good – ah, there is tragedy indeed.

The fellowship has been overwhelmingly advantageous for friendships of utility. I stand a lot to gain as a Thiel Fellow, and many of the people who help me with Glider will likely gain quite a bit as well. But remember, these are short lasted because they change quickly with circumstances. Briefly connecting with a lawyer or CEO for advice falls under this category. I also saw myself developing friendships of utility with some of my professors and classmates at Wake Forest.

Friendships of pleasure are particularly challenging to discover outside of the campus environment and this has made me particularly unhappy. These types of relationships were especially strong in college. As a 19-year old it’s hard to find other people who have the freedom of time to do exactly what they want. I can’t blame most of the people who I have sought out in this regard, they enjoy spending time with their friends at school.

Friendships of good will always be challenging to find in any social setting. Fortunately rowing has been a sport where I have developed these relationships in the past, and I carry those relationships from high school. However, without rowing or another organization, finding these relationships has been very difficult. The honest truth is that I spend very little intimate time with the fellows and I believe there may be a lot to gain if we had more informal activity. Outside of rowing, the best target I’ve found for identifying friendships of good are startup founders; a handful of founders have been particularly helpful and inspirational to me on a very personal level.

The Good and the Bad

I would like to highlight one particular instance when my peer groups aligned nearly perfectly. A serendipitous chance weekend this past month. I was able to develop a few relationships of good mainly through Y Combinator friends and the Thiel Fellows over the course of one weekend through deep experiences.

It was a weekend when the majority of my friendships of good happened by chance to all be in NYC at the same time. But it didn’t necessarily start out that way. Over the course of four consecutive days, plenty of deep experience occurred, and friendships of good were formed. A combination of intellectual curiosity, mutual respect, shared ambition, disregard of formal credentials, and an environment which all of us could confide in each other. It was like an elixir.

We spent our days in my office together, casually bouncing thoughts off other entrepreneurs, and our late nights on the bar stools and dance floors of Manhattan’s Lower East Side.

As everyone departed for the weekend, one of my friends sent me a text:

“Something I like… If you’re partying with good/intelligent/driven friends… It doesn’t feel like a distraction, it feels like it inspires me to succeed more.” And “Hah, just don’t do it every weekend.”

Of course these weekends do not happen regularly, but having them once in a blue moon is key to maintaining sanity.

The bad is, well, an incredibly visceral feeling. More so than I can describe in words. It’s the feeling of isolation amongst millions of people in close proximity, and isolation in the sense that you are thousands of miles away from a good friend. For me this has typically been the experience of asking myself on any given Friday night: Who can I hang out with? And the answer being no one, about 25% of the time. Or staring into space as you chow down a burger, another dinner alone at SFO. I would estimate about 90% of my meals are eaten alone. In short, the bad is when you aren’t able to find just one of those five people to make you feel comfortable.

I think college is a place of happy mediums, where it can never get either extremely great or extremely bad. It would be difficult to rally all of your best friendships and all of the people you admire in a single college social setting. But it would also be difficult to feel completely astray from a peer group on a college campus. The “real world” as an entrepreneur typically goes either way to the extremes from my experience. One moment you are spending time with all of the people you absolutely admire, the next moment you are flying solo, just another peson amongst millions of other people.

Going Forward

I am in pursuit of three conditions:

As external conditions change, it becomes tougher to meet the three conditions that sociologists since the 1950s have considered crucial to making close friends: proximity; repeated, unplanned interactions; and a setting that encourages people to let their guard down and confide in each other, said Rebecca G. Adams, a professor of sociology and gerontology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

It’s important to note the results of my good and bad experiences are directly related to my optimization: A small team building software outside of a college campus community. In recent months I’ve started to design my life to create more opportunities for repeated and unplanned interaction.

It really does make the difference when you go to an office and a person you know asks “How are you doing?”. So, finding good friends in a co-working space is a fantastic start. Avoiding hotels when traveling is another great help, financially and socially. Most of all, living in close proximity to friends of good and friends of pleasure is ideal.

For other uses, see Peer (disambiguation).

In sociology, a peer group is both a social group and a primary group of people who have similar interests (homophily), age, background, or social status. The members of this group are likely to influence the person’s beliefs and behaviour.[1] Peer groups contain hierarchies and distinct patterns of behavior. Eighteen-year-olds are not in a peer group with 14 year olds even though they may be in school together, just as teachers do not share students as a peer group.

During adolescence, peer groups tend to face dramatic changes. Adolescents tend to spend more time with their peers and have less adult supervision. Adolescents’ communication shifts during this time as well. They prefer to talk about school and their careers with their parents, and they enjoy talking about sex and other interpersonal relationships with their peers.[2] Children look to join peer groups who accept them, even if the group is involved in negative activities. Children are less likely to accept those who are different from them.[2]

Cliques are small groups typically defined by common interests or by friendship. Cliques typically have 2-12 members and tend to be formed by age, gender, race, and social class. Clique members are usually the same in terms of academics and risk behaviors.[2] Cliques can serve as an agent of socialization and social control.[3] Being part of a clique can be advantageous since it may provide a sense of autonomy, a secure social environment, and overall well-being.

Crowds are larger, more vaguely defined groups that may not have a friendship base.[4]Crowds serve as peer groups, and they increase in importance during early adolescence, and decrease by late adolescents.[2] The level of involvement in adult institutions and peer culture describes crowds.


At an early age, the peer group becomes an important part of socialization [5] as supported by a 2002 study titled "Adolescents' Peer Groups and Social Identity" published in the journal Social Development.[6] Unlike other agents of socialization, such as family and school, peer groups allow children to escape the direct supervision of adults. Among peers, children learn to form relationships on their own, and have the chance to discuss interests that adults may not share with children, such as clothing and popular music, or may not permit, such as drugs and sex.[7]

Developmental psychology[edit]

Developmental psychologists, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, Harry Stack Sullivan, and social learning theorists have all argued that peer relationships provide a unique context for cognitive, social, and emotional development. Modern research echoes these sentiments, showing that social and emotional gains are indeed provided by peer interaction.[8]

Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory[9] focuses on the importance of a child's culture and notes that a child is continually acting in social interactions with others. He also focuses on language development and identifies the zone of proximal development. The Zone of Proximal development is defined as the gap between what a student can do alone and what the student can achieve through teacher assistance.[10] The values and attitudes of the peer group are essential elements in learning. Those who surround themselves with academically focused peers will be more likely to internalize this type of behavior.

Piaget's theory of cognitive development identifies four stages of cognitive development.[11] He believes that children actively construct their understanding of the world based on their own experiences. In addition Piaget identified with aspects of development, occurring from middle childhood onwards, for which peer groups are essential. He suggested that children’s speech to peers is less egocentric than their speech to adults. Egocentric speech is referring to the speech that is not adapted to what the listener just said.[12]

Erikson's stages of psychosocial development include eight stages ranging from birth to old age. He has emphasized the idea that the society, not just the family, influences one's ego and identity through developmental stages.[13] Erikson went on to describe how peer pressure is a key event during the adolescences stage of psychosocial development. In his Latency stage, which includes children from 6–12 years old and this is when the adolescents begin to develop relationships among their peers.[14]

Harry Stack Sullivan has developed the Theory of Interpersonal Relations.[15] Sullivan described friendships as providing the following functions: (a) offering consensual validation, (b) bolstering feelings of self-worth, (c) providing affection and a context for intimate disclosure, (d) promoting interpersonal sensitivity, and (e) setting the foundation for romantic and parental relationships.[12] Sullivan believed these functions developed during childhood and that true friendships were formed around the age of 9 or 10.

Social learning theorists such as John B. Watson, B.F. Skinner, and Albert Bandura, all argue for the influences of the social group in learning and development. Behaviourism, Operant Learning Theory, and Cognitive Social Learning Theory all consider the role the social world plays on development.[16]

In The Nurture Assumption, JR Harris suggests that an individual's peer group significantly influences their intellectual and personal development. Several longitudinal studies support the conjecture that peer groups significantly affect scholastic achievement,[17][18][19] but relatively few studies have examined the effect peer groups have on tests of cognitive ability. However, there is some evidence that peer groups influence tests of cognitive ability.[20]

Positive (advantages) attributes of peer groups[edit]

Serve as a source of information[edit]

Peer groups provide perspective outside of the individual’s viewpoints. Members inside peer groups also learn to develop relationships with others in the social system. Peers, particularly group members, become important social referents for[21][22] teaching other members customs, social norms, and different ideologies.[23]

Teach gender roles[edit]

Peer groups can also serve as a venue for teaching members gender roles. Through gender-role socialization, group members learn about sex differences, and social and cultural expectations.[24] While boys and girls differ greatly, there is not a one-to-one link between sex and gender roles with males always being masculine and females always being feminine.[24] Both genders can contain different levels of masculinity and femininity.[25][26] Peer groups can consist of all males, all females, or both males and females. Studies show that the majority of peer groups are unisex.[6] Peer groups can have great influence or peer pressure on each other’s gender role behavior, depending on the amount of pressure.

Serve as a practicing venue to adulthood[edit]

Adolescent peer groups provide support as teens assimilate into adulthood. Major changes include: decreasing dependence on parents, increasing feelings of self-sufficiency, and connecting with a much larger social network.[27][28][29] Adolescents are expanding their perspective beyond the family and learning how to negotiate relationships with others in different parts of the social system. Peers, particularly group members, become important social referents.[21] Peer groups also influence individual members' attitudes and behaviours on many cultural and social issues, such as: drug use, violence, and academic achievement.[30][31][32] and even the development and expression of prejudice.[33][34][35]

Teach unity & collective behaviour in life[edit]

Peer groups provide an influential social setting in which group norms are developed and enforced through socialization processes that promote in-group similarity.[36] Peer groups' cohesion is determined and maintained by such factors as group communication, group consensus, and group conformity concerning attitude and behavior. As members of peer groups interconnect and agree on what defines them as a group, a normative code arises. This normative code can become very rigid, such as when deciding on group behavior and clothing attire.[21] Member deviation from the strict normative code can lead to rejection from the group.[37]

Identity formation[edit]

Peer groups (friends group) can help individuals form their own identity. Identity formation is a developmental process where a person acquires a sense of self. One of the major factors that influence the formation of a person’s identity is his or her peers. Studies have shown that peers provide normative regulation, and that they provide a staging ground for the practice of social behaviors. This allows individuals to experiment with roles and discover their identities.[38] The identity formation process is an important role in an individual’s development. Erik Erikson emphasized the importance of identity formation, and he illustrated the steps one takes in developing his or her sense of self. He believed this process occurs throughout one's entire life.[39]

Negative attributes (disadvantages) of peer groups influence[edit]

Peer pressure[edit]

The term peer pressure is often used to describe instances where an individual feels indirectly pressured into changing his/her behavior to match that of his/her peers. Taking up smoking and underage drinking are two of the best known examples. In spite of the often negative connotations of the term, peer pressure can be used positively, for example, to encourage other peers to study, or not to engage in activities such as the ones discussed above. Although peer pressure is not isolated to one age group, it is usually most common during the adolescent stage. Adolescence is a period characterized by experimentation, and adolescents typically spend a lot of time with their peers in social contexts. Teenagers compel each other to go along with certain beliefs or behaviors, and studies have shown that boys are more likely to give in to it than girls. There has been much research done to gain a better understanding about the effects of peer pressure, and this research will allow parents to handle and understand their children’s behaviors and obstacles they will face due to their peer groups. Learning how peer pressure impacts individuals is a step to minimizing the negative effects it leads to.

Future problems[edit]

Success of peer relationships is linked to later psychological development and to academic achievement. Therefore, if one does not have successful peer relationships it may lead to developmental delays and poor academic achievement — perhaps even in-completion of a high school degree. Children with poor peer relationships may also experience job related and marital problems later in life.[5]

Risk behaviors[edit]

Several studies have shown that peer groups are powerful agents of risk behaviors in adolescence. Adolescents typically replace family with peers regarding social and leisure activities, and many problematic behaviors occur in the context of these groups. A study done in 2012 focused on adolescents’ engagement in risk behaviors. Participants completed a self-report measure of identity commitment, which explores values, beliefs, and aspirations, as well as a self-report that measures perceived peer group pressure and control. Both peer group pressure and control were positively related to risky behaviors. However, adolescents who were more committed to a personal identity had lower rates of risk behaviors. Overall, this study shows us that adolescent identity development may help prevent negative effects of peer pressure in high-risk adolescents.[40]

Aggression and prosocial behavior[edit]

Social behaviors can be promoted or discouraged by social groups, and several studies have shown that aggression and prosociality are susceptible to peer influence. A longitudinal study done in 2011 focused on these two behaviors. A sample of adolescents was followed over a one-year period, and results showed that adolescents who joined an aggressive group were more likely to increase their aggression levels. Also, adolescents were likely to display prosocial behaviors that were similar to the consistent behaviors of the group they were in. An adolescent's peer group plays a role in shaping him or her into an adult, and the lack of positive behavior can lead to consequences in the future.

Sexual promiscuity[edit]

Adolescence is also characterized by physical changes, new emotions, and sexual urges, and teenagers are likely to participate in sexual activity. A longitudinal study done in 2012 followed a group of adolescents for thirteen years. Self-reports, peer nominations, teacher ratings, counselor ratings, and parent reports were collected, and results showed a strong correlation between deviant peer groups and sexual promiscuity. Many teens claimed that the reasons for having sex at a young age include peer pressure or pressure from their partner. The effects of sexual activity at a young age are of great concern. Pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are only a few of the consequences that can occur.[41]

Adolescents and their peer groups[edit]

Gavin's study[edit]

In one cross-sectional, correlational study,[42] four different developmental stages were examined: preadolescence (Grades 5 and 6), early adolescence (Grades 7 and 8), middle adolescence (Grades 9 and 10) and late adolescence (Grades 11 and 12). Self-report measures were used in which adolescents completed questionnaires. First, the students rated the importance of being in a popular group. Next, positive and negative behaviour were assessed. The extent to which students were bothered by negative behaviour targeted at them by others in their groups was also assessed. Structural group properties were also examined, including: group leadership or status hierarchy, group permeability, and group conformity.[42]

Researchers found that middle adolescents reported placing more importance on being in a popular group and perceived more group conformity and leadership within their groups than pre- and late adolescents. Early and middle adolescents also reported more negative interactions and fewer positive interactions with group members and more negative interactions with those not part of their peer groups. Girls reported having more positive group interactions, being more bothered by negative interactions, and having more permeable group boundaries. Boys reported more negative interactions with those outside their groups and are more likely to have leaders in their peer groups.Researchers believe that the decrease in conformity throughout adolescence relates to the decrease in importance of leadership in late adolescence because having a group leader provides a person to model oneself after. They also note the relationship between the importance of being in a popular peer group and conformity. Both become less important in late adolescence, showing that it is less important to conform when the value of group membership decreases. It is believed that positive interactions outside of peer groups increase and negative interactions outside of peer groups decrease by late adolescence because older adolescents feel more comfortable and have less need to control the behaviours of others. Findings that boys have more leaders are consistent with research showing that boys partake in more dominance struggles.[42]

Tarrant's study[edit]

A questionnaire was handed out to 58 males and 57 females, aged 14–15 in the Midlands region of the UK. The first section dealt with group structure and activities of participants' peer groups. Participants were asked how many people were in their group, the gender composition of the group, frequency of group meetings, and the group's usual meeting places. The second section addressed the participants' levels of identification with their peer groups. The next section of the questionnaire was an intergroup comparison task in which participants compared their peer group to an outgroup. The comparison referred to how sixteen different adjectives "fit" or "described" both their ingroup and outgroup. The final part of the questionnaire was designed to check the manipulation of the adjective valence. In this section, participants rated the desirability of the above sixteen adjectives in their own opinions.[6]

Findings supported social identity theory as participants consistently favoured the ingroup in two ways: the ingroup was always associated with a greater number of positive characteristics compared to the outgroup, and the more a participant identified with the ingroup, the higher their evaluations were for it.[6]

Same race peer groups[edit]

Consistent with the dictionary definition of peer groups, youth tend to form groups based on similarities. It has been found that one of these similarities is by race.[43] Preference for same race grows stronger as youth develop.[44] When Latino and Caucasian youth were given surveys asking them to indicate who in their school they had the highest preference to spend time with, they both nominated peers of their same race over peers of different races.[45] This is especially prevalent in classrooms and schools that have a clear cut majority and minority racial groups. Though benefits of homophily are met, preference for one’s own racial group can lead to rejection of the racial out group, which can cause stress for both groups particularly in females.[46]

Cross race peer groups[edit]

For classrooms and schools that have a more equal distribution of racial groups, there can be more socialization across peer groups. Cross racial peers groups can be very beneficial, lowering prejudice and increasing prosocial behaviors.[47][48][49] Having a cross racial friend has also been shown to give youth a higher status and feel more socially satisfied.[50] Diverse peer groups also lower the feelings of victimization felt by youth.[51]

See also[edit]


Further reading[edit]

  • An evolutionary perspective on children's motivation in the peer group. International Journal of Behavioral Development 19(1): 53-73. Full text
  • Insko (2009). "Reducing intergroup conflict through the consideration of future consequences". European journal of social psychology. 39 (5): 831–841. doi:10.1002/ejsp.592. 
A group of children playing together in Bolivia
  1. ^Peer group . (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2012, from
  2. ^ abcdSteinberg, Laurence (2010). Adolescence. New York: McGraw Hill. pp. 1–434. ISBN 978-0-07-353203-5. 
  3. ^Adler & Adler, 1995
  4. ^Brown, 1990
  5. ^ abCurtis, J. E., Tepperman, L., & Albanese, P. (2008). Socialization. Sociology: a Canadian perspective (2nd ed., p. 112). Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press.
  6. ^ abcdTarrant, M (2002). "Adolescent peer groups and social identity". Social Development. 11: 110–123. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00189. 
  7. ^Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc. p. 113.
  8. ^Siegler, Robert (2006). How Children Develop, Exploring Child Develop Student Media Tool Kit & Scientific American Reader to Accompany How Children Develop. New York: Worth Publishers. ISBN 0-7167-6113-0
  9. ^An introduction to Vygotsky (2nd edition). (2005). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from
  10. ^McLeod, Saul. "Zone of Proximal Development". Simply Psychology. Retrieved 22 November 2012. 
  11. ^Beins, B.C. (2012). Jean Piaget: Theorist of the child's mind. (pp. 89-107). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Retrieved from
  12. ^ abSteinberg, Laurence (2010). Adolecence. New York: McGraw Hill. pp. 1–434. 
  13. ^Morris, E (1997). "Contributions of Erik Erikson". Psychoanalytic Review. 84 (3): 337–347. 
  14. ^"Erikson's stages of psychosocial development". Retrieved 21 November 2012. 
  15. ^Ford, D.H., & Urban, H. B. (1963). Harry Stack Sullivan's Theory of Interpersonal Relations. (pp. 518-590). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Retrieved from
  16. ^Shaffer, David R.. "Theories of Human Development." Developmental psychology: childhood and adolescence. 5th ed. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Pub., 1999. 40-74. Print.
  17. ^Kindermann, Thomas A (1993). "Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of children's motivation in school". Developmental Psychology. 29 (6): 970–977. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.6.970. 
  18. ^Sacerdote, Bruce (2001). "Peer Effects With Random Assignment: Results For Dartmouth Roommates". 
  19. ^Robertson, Donald; Symons, James (2003). "Do Peer Groups Matter? Peer Group versus Schooling Effects on Academic Attainment". Economica. 70: 31–53. doi:10.1111/1468-0335.d01-46. SSRN 388214. 
  20. ^"Peer Effects in Academic Outcomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment". 
  21. ^ abcSherif, M., & Sherif, C. (1964). Reference groups. Chicago: Regnery
  22. ^Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescents' relations with mothers, fathers, and friends.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  23. ^Clausen, John A. (ed.) (1968) Socialization and Society, Boston: Little Brown and Company. p5
  24. ^ abMaslach, C. "Individuation, gender role, and dissent: Personality mediators of situational forces". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53 (6): 1088–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1088. 
  25. ^Bem, S. L. (1975). "Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31: 634–643. doi:10.1037/h0077098. 
  26. ^Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  27. ^Blos, P (1967). "The second individuation process of adolescence". The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 22: 162–186. 
  28. ^Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
  29. ^Newman, B. M.; Newman, P. R. (1976). "Early adolescence and its conflict: Group identity versus alienation". Adolescence. 11: 261–274. 
  30. ^Ennett, S. T.; Bauman, K. E. (1994). "The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adolescent cigarette smoking". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67: 653–663. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.653. 
  31. ^Espelage, D. L.; Holt, M. K.; Henkel, R. R. (2003). "Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence". Child Development. 74: 205–220. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00531. 
  32. ^Ryan, A. M. (2001). "The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement". Child Development. 72: 1135–1150. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00338. 
  33. ^Aboud, F. E. (2005). The development of prejudice in childhood and adolescence. In J. F.Dovidio, P.Glick, & L. A.Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after
  34. ^Allport (pp. 310–326). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  35. ^Fishbein, H. D. (1996). Peer prejudice and discrimination: Evolutionary, cultural, and developmental dynamics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  36. ^Eder, D., & Nenga, S. K. (2003). Socialization in adolescence. In J.Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 157–182). New York: Kluwer Academic
  37. ^Gavin, Leslie A.; Furman, Wyndol (1989). "Age differences in adolescents' perceptions of their peer groups". Developmental Psychology. 25 (5): 827–834. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.827. 
  38. ^Gonzales, Nancy (2010). "Family and Peer Influences on Adolescent Behavior and Risk-Taking"(PDF). Retrieved November 28, 2010. 
  39. ^Friedman, Howard (2011). Personality: Classic theories and modern research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. pp. 131–135. 
  40. ^Dishion, Tommy; Henry Veronneau (2012). "An ecological analysis of the effects of deviant peer clustering on sexual promiscuity, problem behavior, and childbearing from early adolescence to adulthood: An enhancement of the life history framework". Developmental Psychology. 48: 703–717. doi:10.1037/a0027304. PMC 3523735. PMID 22409765. 
  41. ^Dumas, T; D. Wolfe (2012). "Identity development as a buffer of adolescent risk behaviors in the context of peer group pressure and control". Journal of Adolescence. 35: 917–927. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.12.012. 
  42. ^ abcGavin, L. A.; Furman, W. (1989). "Age differences in adolescents' perceptions of their peer groups". Journal of Developmental Psychology. 25 (5): 827–834. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.827. 
  43. ^Graham, S., Taylor, A. Z., & Ho, A. Y. (2009). Race and ethnicity in peer relations research. Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups, 394-413.
  44. ^Singleton, L. C.; Asher, S. R. (1979). "Racial integration and children's peer preferences: An investigation of developmental and cohort differences". Child Development. 50: 936–941. doi:10.2307/1129317. 
  45. ^Bellmore, A. D.; Nishinia, A.; Witkow, M. R.; Graham, S.; Juvonen, J. (2007). "The influence of classroom ethnic composition on same- and other- ethnicity peer nominations in middle school". Social Development. 16 (4): 720–740. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00404.x. 
  46. ^Sunwolf & Leets, 2004
  47. ^Kawabata, Y.; Crick, N. R. (2011). "The significance of cross-racial/ethnic friendships: Associations with peer victimization, peer support, sociometric status, and classroom diversity". Developmental Psychology. 47 (6): 1763–1775. doi:10.1037/a0025399. PMID 21910536. 
  48. ^Verkuyten, M.; Thijs, J. (2002). "School satisfaction of elementary school children: The role of performance, peer relations, ethnicity and gender". Social Indicators Research. 59 (2): 203–228. doi:10.1023/a:1016279602893. 
  49. ^Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000) Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice: Recent meta-analytic findings.
  50. ^Lease & Blake, 2005
  51. ^Graham, J. A.; Cohen, R. (2006). "Race and sex as factors in children's sociometric ratings and friendship choices". Social Development. 6 (3): 355–372. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00111.x.