TITLE: DEVELOPMENT OF PEER RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERPERSONAL

UNDERSTANDING
INTRODUCTION:
Peers are a ubiquitous aspect of our social life. They comprise of a great variety of people
that we met throughout our life. Classmates, colleagues, sports mates or even the community
establish significant and outstanding peer group contexts. Furthermore, we look for and retain
several dyadic relationships with peers, namely with a close friend, a roommate, an
acquaintance, or a neighbor. Due to the pervasive nature of peers in our lives, there is no doubt
that they can shape our personality.
Relationships with peers are very significant aspects of the social environment in
teenagers. They have strong needs to be liked and accepted by friends and the larger peer group,
which can result in pleasurable feelings when they are accepted or extreme stress and anxiety
when they are excluded and disparaged by peers. (Santrock 2011, 313) These things are also one
of the factors which help in maintaining wellbeing of adolescence. While talking about wellbeing, it is not only absence of diseases or illness but it is a complex combination of physical,
mental and social health factors. Wellbeing from social point of view, social wellbeing is a sense
of involvement with other people. Many researchers believe that wellbeing is not just about
being happy or content, but also about being actively engaged with life and with other people.
(Kehily 2007, 187)
Who actually are peers? What roles do they have? The answers to these questions are
briefly described below. According to Santrock (2010), Peers are the individuals who are about
the same age or maturity level. Same-age peer interaction serves a unique role in culture of
developed countries. One of the most important functions of the peer is to provide a source of
information about the world outside the family. From the peer group, teenagers receive feedback
about their abilities. Teenagers learn whether what they do is better than, as good as, or worse
than what other teenagers do. Learning this at the home is difficult because siblings are usually
older or younger, and sibling rivalry can cloud the accuracy of comparison. (Rubin et al. 2009,
295)

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Study by a group of researcher from the Department for Education and Skills in Norwich
(2003) listed down some of the clear views by their subjects on the differences between personal
and social development:
Personal development means to me how I view myself as a person and social development
means to me how I view myself socially, for example communicating or getting along with
others
Personal: how you view yourself, your morals. Social: how you interact with others, your
ability to take on board views, culture and sexuality of others
Personal development is the private aspects of a persons life and process of growing and
developing. Social development is where you live in a community and how it develops
Based on the statement, the researches defined personal development as being concerned
more with the individuals inner world of feelings, thoughts, beliefs, values, behavior,
temperament and character. While social development is more concerned with relationships with
others (individuals and groups) and with the wider world, and with communities (of place, belief,
culture, interest) which both reflect and shape identity.
Personal and social development is a nonstop process that is attained in daily life as people
facing ordinary life events or though unexpected issues that arises from relationship, intensive
activities and experiences. (Department for Education and Skills in Norwich, 2003)

CHARACTERISTICS OF PEER RELATIONSHIP

There is no exact definition for peer relationship. MerriamWebster.com defines peer
relationships as being characterized by equal standing with another (2011). Interestingly, this
amateur definition agrees with research by McPherson et al. (2011) demonstrated that peers tend
to resemble each other concerning individual characteristics. This is called homophily and is
captured in the notion that birds of a feather flock together. Reitz et al., (2014) believe that
1

peer relationships function predominantly according to the principle of equality matching, which
is one of Fiskes (1992) four elementary forms of social relationships. This suggests that give and
take in peer relationships are comparable, such as in terms of support and affection.
Several arguments corroborate the qualification of equality matching as primary criterion
of peer relationships. First, reciprocity processes are more common in peer relationships than in
other relationships, such as among family members (Bugental, 2000). Second, reciprocity is
important for the continuation of peer relationships. Unbalanced peer relationships are likely to
be ended, because imbalance impairs relationship satisfaction (Neyer et al., 2011). Third,
interpersonal exchange based on equity is a universal characteristic of peer relationships that is
evident in all cultures (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992). Finally, equality matching defines both dyadic
relationships and peer groups that may be relevant for individual development: Equality
matching at the relationship level occurs in the form of peers forming dyadic relationships at eye
level, which can initiate individual processes of social exchange. For instance, two classmates
sitting next to each other start to help each other with their homework. Equality matching at the
group level is expressed in group norms and standards that guide behavior and development of
all group members and serve as a reference to social comparisons. For instance, colleagues who
comply with their teams group norm work hard, play hard by working long hours and joining
for after work drinks are more highly respected in the team than those who do not comply to this
norm.
Another important finding that highlights the role of equality matching is that it
characterizes peer relationships across the entire lifespan (Hartup & Stevens, 1997). However, it
should be noted that the concrete manifestations of social exchanges may take different forms
across the lifespan, such as self-disclosure in young adulthood (Carbery & Buhrmester, 1998)
and practical support in old adulthood (Ingersol-Dayton, et al, 1997). In sum, in contrast to
individual peer characteristics that can change over the lifespan, equality matching is persistent
and thus, qualifies as a defining criterion of peer relationships. It should be noted, however, that
although equality matching is the core characteristic that applies to all peer relationships across
the lifespan, not all peer relationships are the same. Other relationship characteristics can work in
concert with equality matching and shape peer relationships in different ways. For instance,
according to Fiskes (1992) taxonomy, communal sharing (i.e., equivalent treatment and altruistic
2

behavior) is likely to occur in close peer relationships, such as with best friends. Authority
ranking (i.e., paying attention to and distributing resources based on hierarchical positions) might
be found in relationships between peers with low and high social status (i.e., peer group leaders)
that frequently involve dominant and submissive behaviors (e.g., Savin-Williams, 1979).
Following Harris (1995), such peer status differences are the main sources of individual
differences in development within groups.
Another important and very salient characteristic that lay people often use to describe
different kinds of peer relationships is relationship closeness. Peer relationships can greatly vary
in their closeness from rather weak relationships, such as with acquaintances, to very close ones,
such as with best friends (Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997). Social convoy theory suggests that
close relationships can last a life time, while less close relationships fluctuate more in response to
life transitions (Antonucci et al., 2010). In contrast, socioemotional selectivity theory
(Carstensen, 1995) emphasizes the importance of close relationships later in adulthood to pursue
emotion regulation goals that then become increasingly important. Evidence comes from
research demonstrating network size decreases and an increasing focus on few close
relationships across adulthood (Wrzus et al., 2013).
In conclusion, peers are a heterogeneous relationship category, because they include a
broad range of people and the kind of people that are considered peers differ across the lifespan.
However, equality matching is a central characteristic of all kinds of peer relationships across the
entire lifespan, which makes equality matching a defining criterion of peer relationships.
Nevertheless, the specific manifestations of equality matching can vary over the lifespan and
other relationship qualities can work in concert with equality matching to shape peer
relationships in different ways.

ROLE OF PEERS IN STUDENT DEVELOPMENT

The Influence on the Development of Verbal, Quantitative and Subject Matter
Competence
There are plenty of evidence which proposed that students achievement of subject matter,
knowledge and academic skills are greatly influence by the nature of an institutions social or
3

relational environment as well as students interaction with peers. Kuh et al., (1997) discovered
that peers with friendly, approachable and helpful relationships are generally have better
understanding in arts, literature, and humanities as well as in general education skills.
Springer et at. (1999) found that students who did not work cooperatively did not
perform well in course achievement compares to students working in small groups. This proved
that peers have a significant impact in term of learning in formal class settings. Learning can be
improved when students can work with and teach peers.
In addition, there are studies that shows a number of non-classroom interactions with
peers have a net positive impact on learning. Whitt, et al. (1999) found that non-classroom
interactions including discussing issues related policies, religious, arts, and so on, had
significantly positive effects on knowledge acquisition and academic skill development.
However, student participation in extracurricular which is non-academic related program might
have negative effects on student learning (Kuh, 1995).
In summary, the development of verbal, quantitative and subject matter competence is
influenced by students involvement in activities related to interactions with peers, such as smallgroup learning, learning communities, extracurricular activities, and so on. The more the nature
of students interaction with peers is related to academic program, the more is the development
of verbal, quantitative and subject matter competence
The Influence on Cognitive Skills and Intellectual Growth
Students peers play a substantial role in general cognitive growth and intellectual
development in college. A body of evidence suggested that a students quality of involvement in
in-class or out-of-class activities related to interaction with peers will have influences on student
development of cognitive skills and intellectual growth. Karabenick and Collins-Eaglin (1996)
suggested that collaborative or cooperative learning might facilitate the development of general
cognitive skills and intellectual development during college because students would like to use
higher-order learning strategies of elaboration, comprehension monitoring, and critical thinking.
A meta-analysis conducted by Qin, Johnson and Johnson (1995) revealed that cooperative
learning gave a greater advantage over individualistic or competitive learning on problemsolving skills requiring cognitive representation.
4

In addition to in-class activities, students peers sometimes have greater influences than
in-class experiences on cognitive skills and intellectual growth. Analyzing data from National
Study of Student Learning and controlling potential confounding factors, several researchers
found that out-of-class interaction with peers, including out-of-class discussion with peers and
involvement in college clubs, organizations, and diversity activities, had a significant, positive
influence on standardized measures of critical thinking skills during college. Students selfreports of their cognitive skills or intellectual growth were also significantly, positively
influenced by interaction with peers outside of class. However, a small amount of research
concluded that participation in some extracurricular activities, such as Greek affiliation, would
have negative effects on critical thinking (Pascarella , 1996b); but, due to analyzing only based
on a single sample, this conclusion still needs to be proved based on more evidence.
In summary, it can be concluded that interaction with peers that can extend and reinforce
broad ideas and confront students with diverse interests and values, either in or out of class, will
have positive influence on students cognitive skills and intellectual growth.
The Influence on Psychosocial Change
A body of evidence indicated that the frequency and nature of students interpersonal
experience with peers were the more likely sources of influence on psychosocial changes
including identity development, self-concept and self-esteem, autonomy, independence, locus of
control and self-efficacy, interpersonal relations and leadership skills, and general personal
development. Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1998) revealed that cooperative and group learning
boosted self-esteem by increasing student interest in learning and the quality of their social
adjustment and support.
Leadership skill formation was associated with students interaction with peers, which
included fraternity or sorority membership, intramural sports participation, and active
involvement in the classroom. Grayson (1999), Kuh (1995), and Martin (2000) stated that
interpersonal skills of students is highly correlated with the frequency of students interaction
with peers.
On top of that, psychosocial changes can be influenced by multiracial interaction as well
as racial issues discussion with peers. (Chang, 1999). Dukes and his colleagues (1991) found that
5

interaction with peers from a racial-ethnic or cultural background different from their own had a
long-term impact on students intellectual self-confidence.
To sum up, students interaction with peers plays a central role in how students thinking
about themselves, and is the dominant force on general personal development. Interaction with
peers of diversified interests, races, and backgrounds have the potential to stimulate reflection on
students knowledge and currently held beliefs and values and, perhaps, lead to new ways of
thinking about and understanding the world, the other peers, and themselves.

The Influence on the Development of Attitudes and Values

Although some studies found no significant net effects of the peer environment on
students openness to diversity, and understanding differences in cultures and philosophies of life
(Pascarella et al., 1996a; Ethington, 2000), a body of research suggested that students
interpersonal associations with peers are the dominant factors in attitude and value changes
across topical areas. Berger (2000) found that the values held by students peers had important
influences on community attitudes and humanistic values. Gurin, et al., (2002) indicated that
students interactions with peers have significant effects on changes in various dimensions of
their sociopolitical orientations. Students with more frequent interaction with peers were more
likely to pay attention to social and political issues, and to participate in community action
programs. The nature of interaction also influences attitudes and values. Attending a racial or
cultural awareness workshop, discussing political and social issues, or socializing with students
from another racial-ethnic background would positively affected students attitudes and values
(Sax, 2000). Having friends of another race and being a member of an interracial friendship
group has positive net effects on racial-ethnic attitudes and values. Kardia (1996) suggested that
contact with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals may be a primary mechanism in reducing negative
attitudes toward homosexuality.
In summary, peer context has positive net effects on students attitudes and values in various
aspects. Interaction with peers more frequently can help student development in attitudes and
values. Peers of diverse races, culture, or gender can reinforce the development.

POPULARITY AND SOCIAL ISOLATION

Communication researchers have shown that middle school students who were unwilling to
speak were perceived by peers as less desirable friendship choices (Hurt & Preiss, 1978) and that
high school students who had more speaking experiences were more socially competent and
successful in college (Duran & Kelly, 1994). Compared to their unpopular peers, popular middle
school students were more accurate in assessing the frame of reference of an ongoing
conversation and were better able to participate in the conversation. Unpopular children, on the
other hand, seemed to make non-contingent contributions to conversations with peers (Black &
Logan, 1995). These children who are not effective communicators tend to demonstrate social
adjustment problems (Hart et al., 2002). Apparently, verbal communication plays an important
role in the development of social skills and peer relations, especially among older children and
teenagers.
When children move into adolescence other attachment figures come to play an important
role in their need to be loved, liked, supported, or in general, to belong. According to Giordano
(1995), peer relations are attractive for teenagers in realizing a sense of belonging because they
are more egalitarian, less controlling, and less judgmental than relations with adults. Reflecting
this, in adolescence peers become of increasing importance as socializing agents
(Buehler, 2006). For example, after school teenagers spend twice as much time with peers than
parents and they rely less on their parents and family for problem solving (Agnew 2003).
Peers can have both positive and negative influences on a variety of adolescent outcomes.
Research has shown that peers can influence maladaptive outcomes, such as antisocial behavior.
It has been consistently shown that the number of delinquent friends is one of the strongest
correlates of delinquent behavior in adolescence (Buehler, 2006). Positive peer influences have
been found as well. Social support from friends, for example, can enhance a childs self-esteem
and academic achievement. Yet, it has to be acknowledged that these correlates can also emerge
from reversed causality, pointing to selection rather than influence effects. Most likely, both
processes are at work simultaneously.
The concept of peer acceptance-rejection, that is, a childs social standing in a group, is
one of the most researched predictors for adjustment. Being accepted by peers provides teenagers
with a sense of belonging in the peer group (Parker and Asher 1993). This saliency of the need to
7

belong to peers is supported by the numerous researchers who have shown that being accepted
by peers is important for the social and mental development of teenagers (Buhs and Ladd 2001;
Rubin et al. 2004). In contrast, being rejected by peers has detrimental effects on the mental and
social development of teenagers, and puts them at risk for later emotional and behavioral
maladjustment.
IMPLICATION FOR TEACHERS IN UNDERSTANDING PEER RELATIONSHIP
Teachers are concerned with their students' self-concept, with their motivation, with the
effects of learning on peer relationships, and with the development of character, aspiration and
civic virtues. These aspects of the student -- important as they are in their own right -- are also
essential to intellectual development. Proficient teachers consider students' potential in this
broader sense when making decisions about what and how to teach.
Relationships foster a sense belonging, which is an important basis for learning. Create
an inclusive environment where students can work together and support and encourage each
other to learn. For many students, school can be a lonely place, and low classroom acceptance by
peers can be linked with subsequent disengagement and lowered achievement. (Hattie, 2012).
Student-peer relationships are an important aspect of classroom climate that affect
studentsattitudes, behaviors, and performance in school. Research has shown that collaborative
learning techniques are effective at improving relationships in the classroom because they allow
students to learn from one another while working together toward a common academic goal.
Throughout the rapid transformation that teens experience, adults need to balance proper
guidance with adequate freedom for the adolescent to make his or her own choices. Educationrelated professionals need to realize that both positive and negative peer influence is inevitable in
the school setting. Middle and high school teachers and psychologists should be aware that
teenagers are particularly vulnerable to all forms of peer influence. Teachers should focus on
promoting classrooms of acceptance. They should avoid playing favorites and abandon negative
images of students that they already possess. Additionally, teachers should avoid placing students
in groups based on ability level. Mixed groups provide integration and allow students to get to
know a variety of students they might not otherwise interact with. School psychologists should
focus on creating school-wide acceptance and appreciation for diversity. They should also not
8

display favoritism towards any particular group of students in the school, by treating all students
with respect. A crucial element for the role of a school psychologist or a school counselor is
simply being available. Students should know that these individuals are there for them and that
they can talk about peer groups or most any other issue confidentially. Awareness is a key
component to creating an optimal learning environment for all students.
REFERENCES
1. Agnew R. An integrated theory of the adolescent peak in offending. Youth &
Society. 2003;34:263299
2. Antonucci, T. C., Fiori, K. L., Birditt, K., & Jackey, L. H. (2010). Convoys of social
relations: Integrating life-span and life-course perspectives. In M. E. Lamb, A. M. Freund,
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), The handbook of lifespan development, Vol 2: Social and Emotional
Development (pp. 434-473). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
3. Berger, J. (2000). Organizational behavior at colleges and student outcomes: A new
perspective on college impact. Review of Higher Education, 23, 177-198
4. Black, B., & Logan, A. (1995). Links between communication patterns in motherchild,
fatherchild, and childpeer interactions and childrens social status. Child Development,
66, 255271
5. Buehler C. Parents and peers in relation to early adolescent problem behavior. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 2006;68:109124
6. Bugental, D. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A domain-based approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 126: 187-219.
7. Buhs ES, Ladd GW. Peer rejection as an antecedent of young childrens school adjustment:
an examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology. 2001;37:550560
8. Carbery, J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Friendship and need fulfillment during three phases
of young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 393-409.
9. Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 151-156.

10. Chang, M. (1999). Does racial diversity matter? The educational impact of a racially
diverse undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 377-395.
11. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H.
Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and
the generation of culture (pp. 163-228). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12. Department for Education and Skills, 2003. Explaining Personal and Social Development.
Norwich: The Stationery Office.
13. Dukes, R., Johnson, R., & Newton, H. (1991). Long-term effects of travel and study: The
semester-at-sea program. Psychological Reports, 68, 563-570.
14. Duran, R. L., & Kelly, L. (1994). The role of social experience in the development of
communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11, 119126
15. Ethington, C. (2000). Influences of the normative environment of peer groups on community
college students perceptions of growth and development. Research in Higher Education, 41,
703-722.
16. Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory
of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.
17. Giordano PC. The wider circle of friends in adolescence. American Journal of
Sociology.1995;101:661697.
18. Grayson, J. (1999). The impact of university experiences on self-assessed skills. Journal of
College Student Development, 40, 687-699.
19. Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education:
Theory and impact on student outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330-366.
20. Harris, J. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of
development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489.
21. Hart, C. H., Newell, L. D., & Olsen, S. F. (2002). Parenting skills and social/
communicative competence in childhood. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook
of communication and social interaction skill. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Inc.
10

22. Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.
23. Hurt, T. H., & Preiss, R. (1978). Silence isnt necessarily golden: Communication
apprehension, desired social choice, and academic success among middle-school students.
Human Communication Research, 2, 5165.
24. Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Morgan, D., & Antonucci, T. (1997). The effects of positive and
negative social exchanges on aging adults. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 52B,
190199.
25. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college:
What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30, 26-35.
26. Kardia, D. (1996). Diversitys closet: Student attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and
bisexual people on a multicultural campus. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 1090A.
27. Kehily, MJ 2007. A cultural perspective. In the book Kehily, MJ (edit.) Understanding
youth: perspectives, identities and practices. Sage publication, London, 11-40
28. Kuh, G. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student
learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 123-155
29. Kuh, G., Pace, C., & Vesper, N. (1997). The development of process indicators to estimate
student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education. Research in
Higher Education, 38, 435-454.
30. Martin, L. (2000). The relationship of college experiences to psychosocial outcomes in
students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 292-301
31. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in
social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
32. Neyer, F. J., Wrzus, C., Wagner, J., & Lang, F. R. (2011). Principles of relationship
differentiation. European Psychologist, 16, 267-277.
33. Parker, J.G. & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: are lowaccepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin. 102:357389.

11

34. Parker, J.G. &Asher, S.R. (1993). Friendship and friendship-quality in middle childhood:
links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction.
Developmental Psychology. 29:611621
35. Pascarella, E., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L., & Terenzini, P. (1996). Influences on
students openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. Journal of Higher
Education, 67, 174-195.
36. Pascarella, E., Edison, M., Whitt, E., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L., & Terenzini, P. (1996).
Cognitive effects of Greek affiliation during the first year of college. NASPA Journal, 33,
242-259.
37. Peers. 2011. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved on: February 22th Feb 2016, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer
38. Reitz, A. K., Zimmermann, J., Hutteman, R., Specht, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2014). How
Peers Make a Difference: The Role of Peer Groups and Peer Relationships in Personality
Development. European Journal of Personality, 28, 279288.
39. Rubin KH, Dwyer KM, Booth-LaForce C, Kim AH, Burgess KB, Rose-Krasnor L.
Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Early
Adolescence.2004;24:326356.
40. Santrock, JW 2011. Adolescence. McGraw-Hill, New York.
41. Savin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child
Development, 50, 923935.
42. Sax, L. (2000). Citizenship development and the American college student. In T. Ehrlich
(Ed.), Civic responsibility and higher education (pp.3-18). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press
43. Springer, L., Stanne, M., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on
undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 69, 21-51.
44. Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young
adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603-625.

12

45. Whitt, E., Edison, M., Pascarella, E., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P. (1999). Interaction with
peers and objective and self-reported cognitive outcomes across three years of college.
Journal of College Student Development, 40, 61-78.
46. Wrzus, C., Hnel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Social network changes and life

events across the life span: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 5380.

13