Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T04:38:28.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adolescents’ externalizing behaviors and antisocial text messaging across the broader peer network: Implications for socialization and selection effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Samuel E. Ehrenreich ,
Diana J. Meter ,
Ernest N. Jouriles  and
Marion K. Underwood
Samuel E. Ehrenreich*
Affiliation:
Human Development and Family Studies, College of Education, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA
Diana J. Meter
Affiliation:
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
Ernest N. Jouriles
Affiliation:
College of Humanities & Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA
Marion K. Underwood
Affiliation:
College of Health and Human Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Samuel E. Ehrenreich, Human Development and Family Studies, College of Education, University of Nevada-Reno, 1664 N. Virginia St., MS0140, Reno, NV 89557, USA. Email: sam@unr.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adolescents’ peer networks provide an important context that can contribute to increases in antisocial behavior. By a process called deviancy training, peers can both model and reinforce these behaviors, thereby conveying group norms about the acceptability of such behaviors. This research examined the relationship between the proportion of adolescents’ peers who exchanged antisocial text messages and externalizing behaviors during high school. In Study 1, parent-, teacher-, and self-reports of rule-breaking and aggression were collected for a sample of adolescents (n = 167, 80 girls; 22.2% Black, 51.5% Caucasian, 18.7% Hispanic) during the summers before and after 9th grade. Total text frequency, frequency of antisocial texts, and the proportion of the peer network who exchanged antisocial messages were examined as predictors of antisocial behavior. The proportion of peers who exchanged antisocial texts significantly predicted rule-breaking, but not aggression. Study 2 examined the direction of the relationship documented in Study 1 more thoroughly. Externalizing behaviors at 9th, 10th, and 11th grade were evaluated as predictors of the proportion of the peer network that exchanged texts about antisocial topics (n = 205, 98 girls; 22.4% Black, 53.7% Caucasian, 16.9% Hispanic). Externalizing behaviors predicted the proportion of adolescents’ peer network that exchanged antisocial texts in each of the subsequent years, but this proportion of the peer network exchanging antisocial communication did not predict subsequent externalizing behaviors. The findings suggest that the extent to which antisocial communication permeates the peer group is a selection effect.

Keywords

aggressionantisocial communicationdeviancy trainingrule-breakingtext messaging
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 31 , Special Issue 5: Honoring the Contributions and Legacy of Thomas Dishion , December 2019 , pp. 1619 - 1631
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.Google Scholar
Anderson, M & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media and technology 2018. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/Google Scholar
Barry, C. M. & Wentzel, K. R. (2006). Friend influence on prosocial behavior: The role of motivational factors and friendship characteristics. Developmental Psychology, 42, 153–163. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.153Google Scholar
Bendixen, M., Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2006). Joining and leaving gangs: Selection and facilitation effects on self-reported antisocial behaviour in early adolescence. European Journal of Criminology, 3, 85–114. doi: 10.1177/1477370806059082Google Scholar
Boxer, P., Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R. & Morales, J. (2005). Proximal peer-level effects of a small-group selected prevention on aggression in elementary school children: An investigation of the peer contagion hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 325–338. doi: 10.1007/s10802-005-3568-2Google Scholar
Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social networked lives of teens. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 166–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.xGoogle Scholar
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5Google Scholar
David, C., Cappella, J. N. & Fishbein, M. (2006). The social diffusion of influence among adolescents: Group interaction in a chat room environment about antidrug advertisements. Communication Theory, 16, 118–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00008.xGoogle Scholar
DeLay, D., Ha, T., Van Ryzin, M., Winter, C., & Dishion, T. J. (2015). Changing friend selection in middle school: A social network analysis of a randomized intervention study designed to prevent adolescent problem behavior. Prevention Science, 17, 285–294. 10.1007/s11121-015-0605-4Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J. & Andrews, D. W. (1995). Preventing escalation in problem behaviors with high-risk young adolescents: Immediate and 1-year outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 538–548. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.63.4.538Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Development, 66, 139–151. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00861.xGoogle Scholar
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J, & Patterson, G. R. (2006). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior. In Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology. Vol. 3: Risk, disorder and adaptation (pp. 503–541). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373–390. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80023-2Google Scholar
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., & Lerner, R. L. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 719–788). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Malone, P. S., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2008). Testing an idealized dynamic cascade model of the development of serious violence in adolescence. Child Development, 79, 1907–1927. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01233.xGoogle Scholar
Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Lansford, J. E., Miller, S., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2009). A dynamic cascade model of the development of substance-use onset. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 74, vii–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5834.2009.00528.xGoogle Scholar
Ehrenreich, S. E. & Underwood, M. K. & Ackerman, R. A. (2014). Adolescents’ text message communication and growth in antisocial behavior across the first year of high school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 251–264. doi: 10.1007/s10802-013-9783-3Google Scholar
Fortuin, J., van Geel, M., & Vedder, P. (2015). Peer influences on internalizing and externalizing problems among adolescents: A longitudinal social network analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 887–897. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0168-xGoogle Scholar
Franken, A., Prinstein, M. J., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C. E., Harakeh, Z., & Vollebergh, W. A. (2016). Early adolescent friendship selection based on externalizing behavior: The moderating role of pubertal development. The SNARE study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 1647–1657. doi: 10.1007/s10802-016-0134-zGoogle Scholar
Gadow, K. D., & Sprafkin, J. (2009). The symptom inventories: An annotated bibliography. Stony Brook, NY: Checkmate Plus.Google Scholar
Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., Houlihan, A. E., Stock, M. L. & Pomery, E. A (2008). A dual-process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype willingness model. Developmental Review, 28, 29–61. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.10.001Google Scholar
Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Blanton, H., & Russell, D. W. (1998). Reasoned action and social reaction: Willingness and intention as independent predictors of health risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1164–1181. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1164Google Scholar
Gottfredson, D. C. (2010). Deviancy training: Understanding how preventive interventions harm. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 229–243.Google Scholar
Granic, I. & Dishion, T. J. (2003). Deviant Talk in Adolescent Friendships: A step toward measuring a pathogenic attractor process. Social Development, 12, 314–334. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00236Google Scholar
Guo, J., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, D. J. (2002). A developmental analysis of sociodemographic, family, and peer effects on adolescent illicit drug initiation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 838–845. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200207000-00017Google Scholar
Hart, J. L., O'Toole, S. K., Price-Sharps, J. L. & Shaffer, T. W. (2007). The risk and protective factors of violent juvenile offending: An examination of gender differences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 367–384. doi: 10.1177/1541204006297367Google Scholar
Hoge, R. D., Andrews, D. A., & Leschied, A. W. (1996). An investigation of risk and protective factors in a sample of youthful offenders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 419–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01422.xGoogle Scholar
Kandel, D. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 306–312. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.3.306Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2010). The principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Methodology in the social sciences (3rd Ed.). New York. The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewinternetorg/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspxGoogle Scholar
Lenhart, A & Page, D. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overveiw 2015: Smartphones facilitate shifts in communication landscape for teens. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/04/PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ling, R. (2005). Mobile communications vis-à-vis teen emancipation, peer group integration, and deviance. In Harper, R., Palen, L., & Taylor, A. (Eds.), The inside text: Social, cultural, and design perspectives on SMS. (pp. 175–193). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2002). Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In Katz, J., & Aakhus, M. (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 139–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maddock, J. & Glanz, K. (2005). The relationship of proximal normative beliefs and global subjective norms to college students’ alcohol consumption. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 315–323. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.05.021Google Scholar
Meldrum, R. C., & Boman IV, J. H. (2013). Similarities and differences between perceptions of peer delinquency, peer self-reported delinquency, and respondent delinquency: An analysis of friendship dyads. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 395–406. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.07.005Google Scholar
Meter, D. J., Ehrenreich, S. E., Carker, C. J., Flynn, E. & Underwood, M. K. (2019). Older adolescents’ understanding of participant rights in the blackberry project: A Longitudinal ambulatory assessment study. Journal of Research on Adolescence.Google Scholar
Moffitt, T. E. (2017). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. In Beaver, K. M. (Ed.), Biosocial theories of crime (pp. 69–96). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Olweus, D. (1974). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
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 friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 500–512. doi: 10.1111/jora.12059Google Scholar
Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Yoerger, K. (2000). Adolescent growth in new forms of problem behavior: Macro- and micro-peer dynamics. Prevention Science, 1, 3–13. doi: 10.1023/A:1010019915400Google Scholar
Piehler, T. F. & Dishion, T. J. (2007). Interpersonal dynamics within adolescent friendships: Dyadic mutuality, deviant talk, and patters of antisocial behavior. Child Development, 78, 1611–1624. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01086.xGoogle Scholar
Piehler, T. F., & Dishion, T. J. (2014). Dyadic coregulation and deviant talk in adolescent friendships: Interaction patterns associated with problematic substance use in early adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1160–1169.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Rebellon, C. J. (2012). Differential association and substance use: Assessing the roles of discriminant validity, socialization, and selection in traditional empirical tests. European Journal of Criminology, 9, 73–96. doi: 10.1177/1477370811421647Google Scholar
Rhodes, N., Ewoldsen, D. R., Shen, L., Monahan, J. L. & Eno, C. (2014). The accessibility of family and peer norms in young adolescent risk behavior. Communication Research, 41, 3–26. doi: 10.1177/0093650211429118Google Scholar
Rorie, M., Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A., Wilson, D., & Connell, N. M. (2011). Structure and deviancy training in after-school programs. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 105–117.Google Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/.Google Scholar
Smith, A. & Anderson, M. (2018). Social Media use in 2018. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/Google Scholar
Snyder, J., Schrepferman, L., Oeser, J., Patterson, G., Stoolmiller, M., Johnson, K., & Snyder, A. (2005). Deviancy training and association with deviant peers in young children: Occurrence and contribution to early-onset conduct problems. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 397–413.Google Scholar
Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1531–1543. doi 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531Google Scholar
Stiles, W. B. (1978). Verbal response modes and dimensions of interpersonal roles: A method of discourse analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 693–703. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.693Google Scholar
Underwood, M. K., Ehrenreich, S. E., More, D., Solis, J. S. & Brinkley, D. Y. (2015). The BlackBerry Project: The hidden world of adolescents’ text messaging and relations with internalizing symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 101–117. doi: 10.1111/jora.12101Google Scholar
Underwood, M. K., Rosen, L. H., More, D., Ehrenreich, S., & Gentsch, J. K. (2012). The BlackBerry Project: Capturing the content of adolescents’ electronic communication. Developmental Psychology, 48, 295–302. doi: 10.1037/a0025914Google Scholar
United States Census Bureau. (2000). U.S. Census Bureau: State and county Quickfacts. data derived from population estimates, 2000 census of population and housing. Retrieved February 16, 2016, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48113.htmlGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Education (2008–2009). National Center for Education Statistics, Common core of Data (CCD): Public elementary/secondary school universe survey [Data file]. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/expressTables.aspx.Google Scholar
Utržan, D. S., Piehler, T. F., & Dishion, T. J. (2018). The role of deviant peers in oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. In Lochman, J. E. & Matthys, W. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of disruptive and impulse-control disorders (1st ed., pp. 339–351). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Van Ryzin, M. J., Fosco, G. M., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). Family and peer predictors of substance use from early adolescence to early adulthood: An 11-year prospective analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 1314–1324. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.020Google Scholar
Wilska, T. (2003). Mobile phone use as part of young people's consumption styles. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 441–463. doi: 10.1023/A:1026331016172Google Scholar