Peerpressureinadolescence Boundariesandpossibilities

Peer Pressure in Adolescence
Boundaries and Possibilities
Marija Lebedina Manzoni

Martina Lotar
Neven Ricijaš
Preface
Peer pressure, a common nightmare faced by many parents, is a problem where the question
of parents ability (or inability) to influence their children’s choices and decisions directly
clash with the influence of their children’s peers.
Peer pressure is most often associated with risky or problematic behaviours but what we must
keep in mind is the unbreakable link between the influence of peers and the development of
an adolescent’s own personal sense of self and identity. This process starts very early in life
and doesn’t ever truly stop.
Reasons for this may include:

- Global changes in society
- Changes of roles inside the family
- Longer education among young
Because of developing characteristics, group and peer pressure is the strongest for most in
early adolescence. At that time young people are divided between dependency on parents and
greater independence where they search for identity while building their self-respect.
Previous studies of peer pressure were mainly focused on the situation in which an individual
is pressured and they oppose this pressure (Brown et al. 2008). As the influence amongst
peers is mutual there are questions, factors and mechanisms that arise, as well as the
relationship between peer pressure and its relationship with different aspects of adolescent
personalities. All of these factors play a role in the social changes and contextual factors in
time and space in which the adolescent lives.
Identifying spheres of risk in behaviour when young people are exposed to group pressure
could be helpful for:
- Organizing community actions with a goal of prevention
- Helping to promote a better quality of life
Without attempting to give an answer to all questions and dilemmas, the aim of this book was
to illuminate in detail the concept of peer pressure and to provide some theoretical guidance in
explaining its actions, taking into account the most relevant mechanisms that are present in
this process. It covers the study of peer pressure through its behavioural and experimental
aspects, the individual characteristics of adolescents, the dynamics and quality of relationships
with peers and parents resulting in a series of data that take into account the different areas of
interaction and explain the process of change that is in the background of peer pressure
influences. We wanted to determine constructs that have the greatest predictive value
susceptibility to peer pressure.
This book illustrates the way in which a more positive view of adolescent peer influences can
help us to understand a range of adolescents’ behaviours with their peers. We seek to use this
data to illustrate three overarching points:
- Peer influence processes are not pathological but rather may be either adaptive or
maladaptive in nature
- Peer influence processes are continuously reinforced via normal adolescent social
interaction processes in a way that ingrains them in the very fibre of adolescent peer
relationships
- Though it may be virtually impossible and probably undesirable to stop peer influence
processes in adolescence, strengthening adolescents’ positive connections to peers and
adults may help us steer these influences in more positive directions
If you cannot get rid of (if you cannot avoid) the enemy at least get to know him!

Table of Contents
Susceptibility to peer pressure - research methodology report ........................................... 1

Marija Lebedina Manzoni & Martina Lotar
Susceptibility to peer pressure and self-perception ............................................................ 19
Peer pressure and psychological well-being........................................................................ 34
Martina Lotar
Resistance to peer pressure - what’s attachment got to do with it?................................... 46
Martina Lotar
Parental behavior and adolescent susceptibility to peer pressure ..................................... 60
Neven Ricijaš
Characteristics of youth and susceptibility to peer pressure ............................................. 74
Marija Lebedina Manzoni & Neven Ricijaš
Susceptibility to peer pressure – research methodology report
Susceptibility to peer pressure - research methodology report
Marija Lebedina Manzoni & Martina Lotar
INTRODUCTION
Concept of susceptibility to peer pressure
Social influence of others is a continuing process that can be seen as a basis of

individuals’ socialization across the life span. Arguably, one of the most important periods
and one marked by remarkable and rapid changes is adolescence. During this period, the
concept of peer influence is related to a mutual influence process known as peer contagion
through which peers become increasingly similar over time in different characteristics
(Dishon & Dodge, 2005).
During adolescence, peer relationships take on increasing importance and play a
critical role in adolescents’ development of intimacy, social skills and self-concept (Klarin,
2006). Through interactions with significant others, adolescents create their identity and build
self-concept. Teenagers, because they want to be accepted by their peers, may willingly
abandon many of the norms, values, attitudes, and behaviors learned previously (e.g. parents,
school). There are different mechanisms of mutual influence process, and one of the most
frequently mechanisms referred to is youth peer pressure. Peer pressure is often used to
transmit group norms and foster loyalty to the group (Vander Zanden, 2000).
In the current literature various researchers made a distinction between peer pressure
and peer influence. For instance, Kiran-Esen (2003) and Sim and Koh (2003) suggest that
every influence exerted by a peer group is a form of peer pressure. According to them, peer
pressure is defined as persuading or encouraging another person to engage in certain types of
behavior. It can be direct or indirect. However, indirect peer pressure is not always as obvious
to a person as direct peer pressure. According to McIntosh et al. (2003), and Urberg et al.
(2003) peer pressure refers only to direct forms of persuasion, encouragement or coercion to
manifest certain behaviors, whereas peer influence refers to indirect forms. Furthermore,
Savin-Williams and Berndt (1990) suggest that peer influence includes different aspects of
peer relationships, and thus no single definition can capture all the complexity of peer
influence on adolescent behavior. That is, peer pressure is just one form of peer influence.
1
Peer pressure in adolescence – boundaries and possibilities
Operational definitions of peer pressure vary widely. Different authors have different
opinion as to what constitutes peer pressure or have emphasized different key features.
For example, Lashbrook (2000) emphasizes processes related to peer pressure, namely
conformity. According to him, peer pressure is a specific instance of social influence, which
typically produces conformity to a particular way of acting or thinking. However, one major
limitation of the aforementioned conceptualization is that it neglects examples of peer
pressure that do not produce conformity.
Furthermore, Berndt and Ladd (1989) define susceptibility to peer pressure as the
influence that peer groups exert by rewarding those who conform to expected norms and/or
punishing those who violate them.
Peers exert influence in multiple ways. Peer pressure can be direct (for instance,
through direct attempts by peers to instigate or prevent behaviors), or more subtle (for
instance, when peers avoid or ostracize individuals who do not conform to group norms).
As members of peer groups, adolescents face numerous subtle forms of social
influence, such as peer expectations. By contrast, peer pressure refers to situations when
adolescent based on their past experiences or peer reactions deliberately changes one’s
behavior in order to avoid being laughed at, teased, or ostracized by peers.
In conclusion, peer pressure is a narrower concept than peer influence. It refers to
expectations exerted by a peer group to behave in a particular way regardless of one’s
inclinations and desires. Thus, everything adolescent does in order to gain peers acceptance
(i.e. positive reinforcement) or avoid sanctions can be defined as peer pressure.
According to Brown et al. (Brown, 1982; Brown, Clasen, & Eicher, 1995)
susceptibility to peer pressure is a multidimensional construct that needs to take into account
different domains in which adolescents perceive peer prompting. In order to identify peer
pressure domains, Brown et al. (1986) asked teenagers to report on pressures they perceive
from peers. Based on content analysis, five domains were identified: (1) family involvement,
(2) school involvement, (3) peer involvement, (4) peer norms (e.g., to follow peers’ musical
tastes or dressing), and (5) misconduct. It seems that peer pressure, to a certain extent, occurs
in all key domains of adolescent life. In addition, authors have also examined susceptibility to
peer pressure and perception of the intensity of peer pressure in a sample of teenagers ranging
in age from 12 to 18 years. With respect to different domains, the results of the study have
shown that adolescents report peer pressure to engage in misconduct less frequently than other
forms of peer pressure. Furthermore, gender differences were observed only in the
misconduct domain with boys being more susceptible to peer pressure than girls.
2
Most of the current research has focused on processes related to peer pressure and its
negative effects on adolescent development (Berndt, 1979; Brown, 1999; Santor, Messervey
& Kusumakar, 2000). However, very little is known about the characteristics that make teens
more prone to peer pressure (Allen, Porter, & McFarland, 2006).
Early adolescence is dominated by peer pressure. During this period young person
moves away from relationships with parents towards autonomy, independence, and
development of self-esteem and identity. The need for acceptance by the peer group becomes
a powerful force toward conformity. To gain peer acceptance, adolescents may need to
conform to group norms, even if it implies disregard of one's wishes and beliefs. On the other
hand, with maturation and identity development, conformity and group acceptance are no
longer necessary for the sense of well-being (Brown et al., 1986).
However, adolescents are not passive individuals whose behavior is motivated solely
by peer pressure. That is, they choose who they want to spend their time with and carefully
select whom they want to be associated with as a way to gain social position within the peer
group. Therefore, adolescent peer relations should be viewed as a process that combines
number of factors, including adolescent's traits, attitudes, values and beliefs learned in the
context of interactions with primary socialization sources (family, school, neighborhood),
factors that affect peer selection and peer behavior in different contexts (Lebedina Manzoni,
Lotar, & Ricijaš, 2008).
Both researchers and practitioners have predominantly focused on negative aspects of
peer influence, i.e. antisocial behavior. However, the role of peer relationships can be viewed
in two ways:
a) Negative influence-could lead to antisocial behavior, poor working habits, neglect
of schoolwork, and others types of behavior that neither parents nor public
consider acceptable.
b) Positive influence-helps young people during transition period from a dependent

childhood and protection given by parents towards greater independence in
thought and action.
Moreover, peer groups can be helpful to young people in many ways. For example,
peer groups have positive influences on how adolescents adjust to different settings. They also
serve as a safe haven for sharing both successes and failures. Through interaction with peers
adolescents learn to evaluate themselves through the eyes of their peers, learn communication
skills, and increase empathy. In addition, peers confront adolescents' about their (negative)
3
behavior by giving them positive criticism or feedback. Furthermore, peers support each other
in periods rife with new challenges and development of autonomy. Given this sense of shared
experiences (i.e. pressures and stressors), adolescents feel most understood by and connected
to their peers. During adolescence supportive friendships boost adolescent's self-esteem and
promote adaptive strategies for coping with stress (Kaplan, 2004). Contrary to common
opinion, peer groups provide support and encouragement for adolescents to develop new
skills and abilities.
In order to better understand the construct of peer pressure, it is necessary to identify
predictors of susceptibility to peer pressure. Past research has mainly focused on the
relationship between susceptibility to peer pressure and risk taking behavior among
adolescents (Morgan & Grube, 1991; Reed & Wilcox Rountree, 1997; Kiran-Esen, 2003;
McIntosh et al., 2003; Urberg et al., 2003), parental practices such as parental discipline or
parental support (Snyder, Dishion, & Patterson, 1986; Laible & Thompson, 2002), age
(Brown et al., 1986; Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Montello, & McGrew, 1986; Steinberg &
Silverberg, 1986) and gender (Davies & Kandel, 1981; Billy & Udry, 1985; Brown et al.,
1986) differences in susceptibility to peer pressure.
Susceptibility to peer pressure and other aspects of adolescent life
Certain individual characteristics make adolescents more/less susceptible to peer

pressure to engage in different activities. At the same time, these characteristics determine
individual's perception of self (i.e. self-image), and whether this person will act and behave in
a socially acceptable way (Lebedina Manzoni et al., 2008). For individual characteristics,
several factors have been found to be related to susceptibility to peer influences. For example,
it has been found that children with high anxiety levels report lower levels of social
acceptance and global self-esteem, as well as more negative interactions with their peers
(Ginsburg, La Greca, & Silverman, 1998). In addition, people with high levels of anxiety
generally tend to focus on threats, dangers and potentially negative outcomes. Therefore, it is
possible that adolescents with high anxiety levels would focus on the possibility of being
rejected by their peers. In such cases, conformity may be seen as a way of avoiding
potentially threating situations. Thus, future studies should include anxiety as one of the
predictors of susceptibility to peer pressure.
Furthermore, in his study Lashbrook (2000) found that adolescents often felt negative
emotions (e.g. feelings of inadequacy, isolation, and shame) when they perceived they were
4
being subjected to peer pressure. In addition, these feelings may be related to depression
symptoms.
According to Steinberg (1987) there are several family characteristics related to the
susceptibility to peer pressure. He argues that adolescents' susceptibility to antisocial peer
pressure is related to family structure and family dynamics. For example, more parental
monitoring is associated with less susceptibility to peer pressure to engage in antisocial
behavior. Furthermore, Tolan and Cohler (1993) suggest that susceptibility to peer pressure is
greater among adolescents whose parents are permissive, inconsistent in discipline, and
unlikely to monitor or supervise their behavior. Berndt (1996, according to Burton, Ray &
Mehta, 2003) argues that children with low quality relationships with significant others, e.g.
parents, family members, and friends are more prone to peer pressure.
Urberg et al. (2003) stressed that relationship characteristics (such as friendship
quality) are important predictors of the susceptibility to peer pressure. For example, early
adolescents with high peer acceptance were found to be more apt to conform to their peer
behaviors. Authors suggest that this is because these adolescents tend to rank peer acceptance
and friendship quality as very important. However, it is also possible that their high peer
acceptance is due to higher susceptibility to peer pressure.
Self-esteem is an integrated set of attitudes toward the self, which influence
subsequent evaluations of the self and of self-relevant objects in the environment. Self-
esteem, once formed, makes a frame of reference for a person’s perception and organization
of the world. According to Stryker (1987) self consists of a collection of identities, each of
which is based on roles and expectations associated with positions that individuals hold in the
social structure. Furthermore, there is also significant research suggesting a person’s level of
self-esteem may affect how easily influenced they are. Research by Rhodes and Wood (1992)
showed that subjects with moderate self-esteem were more susceptible to suggestion than
subjects with very high or very low self-esteem.
Accordingly, the purpose of the present study was to examine how different
constructs, such as adolescents' susceptibility to peer pressure and perception of the intensity
of peer pressure are related to adolescents’ self-perception, attachment to friends, anxiety,
depression and parental behavioral characteristics.
5
METHOD
Participants
Previous studies on susceptibility to peer pressure suggest that susceptibility changes

during adolescence. According to some authors, susceptibility peaks in early adolescence
(Berndt & Ladd, 1989; Tolan & Cohler, 1993), and declines thereafter (Berndt & Ladd,
1989). Given this, the study sample consisted of adolescents from the last two grades (7th and
8th) of primary school (12–15 year olds), and from the first three grades of high school
(including both vocational and grammar schools). The age range for the entire sample was
from 12 to 18 years (M=14.82; SD =1.48 years).
Using convenience sampling, adolescents were recruited from four major Croatian
towns (Zagreb, Split, Rijeka, Osijek). All four towns are regional, economic and
administrative centers with population above 100 000. The total sample consisted of 938
adolescents. Furthermore, sample schools were randomly selected from urban (town centers)
and suburban areas. In addition, different types of schools were chosen, i.e. vocational and
grammar high schools. The number of participants was equal across schools.
Table 1. Number of Participants by School Type

Frequencies %
Primary school 359 38.3
Grammar school 291 31
Vocational school 288 30.7
Total 938 100
The sample consisted of 418 boys (44.6%) and 520 girls (55.4%).
Table 2. Number of Participants by Gender and Grade Level
Primary school High school

7. grade 8. grade 1. grade 2. grade 3. grade
Boys 91 75 101 73 78
Girls 91 102 113 107 107
Total 182 177 214 180 185
M=12.8 M=13.8 M=14.8 M=15.8 M=16.8
Mean age
(SD=0.54) (SD=0.48) (SD=0.47) (SD=0.51) (SD=0.47)
6
Measures
Seven questionnaires were used in this study: Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale,
Perception of Peer Pressure Scale, Self – Perception Profile for Adolescents, The Fear and
Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents, Depression scale for children and adolescents,
Measure of Parental Behavior, and The Experiences in Close Relationship Inventory.
The Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale (SPPS)

The Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale was designed primary for this research to
assess the perception of peer pressure in a number of domains. The first step was to
conceptualize peer pressure domains. Using the peer pressure domains identified by Clasen
and Brown (1985), five susceptibility domains were proposed: 1) Involvement with family; 2)
Involvement with school; 3) Involvement with peers; 4) Peer norms, and 5) Misconduct.
Furthermore, four focus group discussions with adolescents were conducted to
generate and refine items. Group members were asked to identify areas/behaviors in which
adolescents face peer pressure today and comment on item appropriateness to adolescent
experiences. Based on qualitative data analysis, five domains which only partially correspond
to the ones identified by Brown and Clasen (1985) were identified: 1) Peer relationships; 2)
Physical appearance; 3) Relationship with parents; 4) Risk-taking behavior, and 5) Behavior
at school. A total of 44 items were generated, with 8 to 10 items in each domain. Participants
were asked how they would behave (i.e. would they yield to peer pressure in order to gain
peer recognition and/or avoid negative consequences).
A pilot study was then conducted on a sample of 359 adolescents ranging in age from
12 to 17 (M = 14.49; SD = 1.47 years). Adolescents were from the last two grades (7th and 8th)
of primary school (12–15 year olds), and from the first three grades of high school.
Participants were asked to rate each item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from „1-
completely false“ to „5-completely true“, with higher scores indicating greater susceptibility.
Table 3. Eigenvalues and percentage of variance for five significant factors

Eigenvalues
Factor
Total Percentage of Variance Cumulative percentage
1 6.61 30.06 30.06
2 1.56 7.08 37.14
3 1.40 6.35 43.49
4 1.18 5.38 48.86
5 1.02 4.62 53.48
7
Item reduction was based on item variability, inter-item correlations, item-total

correlations, and factor analysis. The final version consisted of 22 items.
Factor analysis of the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale yielded a five-factor
solution with eigenvalues greater than 1 that explained 53.48% of the variance (Table 3).
However, scree plot curve begins to straighten after the first factor indicating one factor
should be extracted. In conclusion, both five-factor and single-factor solution proved to be
interpretable. The five-factor solution effectively captured peer pressure domains, whereas the
single-factor solution captured one global dimension, i.e. susceptibility to peer pressure.
Based on the Scree plot test and all of the above the single-factor solution was retained.
Table 4. Factor loadings for the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale

Item Loadings
I would steel something from a store with my friends in order to gain their acceptance. .69
Although I don’t want to, I would smoke cigarettes in an attempt to fit in. .66
Although I don’t want to, I would drink alcohol in an attempt to fit in. .64
I would oppose my parents if that would make me more popular with peers. .63
I would make fun of my peers and say mean things about them if that would gain me
.60
peer acceptance.
I would do things my parents disagree with because peers have urged me to. .57
I would hurt myself if my friends did it too. .54
I would have sex if my friends would talk me into it. .54
Although I don’t want to, I would change my physical appearance because others have
.54
urged me to.
I would hang out with peers I don’t like if that would make me more popular. .52
I would change my hairstyle in order to gain better peer acceptance. .52
I wouldn’t express any additional in classroom activities so others didn’t consider me a
.51
geek.
I would talk negatively about my parents when others did it too. .49
I would break an agreement with my parents because of my friends’ expectations. .48
I would start dieting if my friends did it too. .47
I would try drugs if my friends did it too .46
Although I don’t want to, I would take part in school pranks if my friends asked me to. .45
I would evade active participation in class so that other students wouldn’t think I suck
.44
up to the teacher.
I dress the way my friends expect me to. .43
In order to gain better acceptance of my friends I wouldn’t hang out with unpopular
.40
peers.
I would avoid hanging out with certain peers because my friends did it too. .34
If most of my classmates skipped classes I would do it too. .31
8
The single-factor solution explained 30% of total variance. The resulting factor
loadings are shown in Table 4.
Furthermore, the factor analysis results showed that all of the items had factor loadings
greater than 0.30. In sum, the final version of the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale
consists of 22 items/hypothetical situations. Internal consistency of the scale, as indexed by
Cronbach's alpha, was satisfactory, α = .87.
The Perception of Peer Pressure Scale (PPPS)

The Perception of Peer Pressure Scale (PPPS) was also designed for this research to
assess the extent to which peers influenced adolescents’ behavior. Scale items correspond
with those listed in the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale (SPPS).
Similarly to the SPPS scale, the PPPS scale contains items descriptive of concrete
behavior. Participants are asked to rate each item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from „1-
completely false“ to „5-completely true“, with higher scores indicating greater peer influence.
The structure of the questionnaire was assessed by factor analysis. Similarly to the
structure of the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale (SPPS) (Table 5), a single-factor solution
was chosen. This was supported by an inspection of the Scree plot.
Table 5. Eigenvalues and percentage of variance for five significant factors

Eigenvalues
Factor
Total Percentage of Variance Cumulative percentage
1 7.41 33.37 33.37
2 1.56 7.10 40.77
3 1.13 5.13 45.90
4 1.02 4.63 50.53
5 1.00 4.53 55.06
All 22 items loaded positively onto a single latent factor (Table 6).
As previously mentioned, the content of the Perception of Peer Pressure Scale
corresponds to the behaviors listed in the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale. In addition,
exploratory factor analysis showed that each questionnaire yields a single-factor solution. As
a result, it is possible to directly compare the total scores of the two questionnaires. That is, it
is possible to examine the relationship between the intensity of peer pressure and readiness to
conform to peer pressure. Internal consistency of the PPPS scale, as indexed by Cronbach's
alpha, was high, α = .90.
9
Table 6. Component matrix of the Perception of Peer Pressure Scale

Item
Factor
My friends expect me to…
do things that my parents disagree with .68
make fun of my peers and say mean things about them .67
oppose my parents .66
do not express any additional in classroom activities .64
avoid hanging out with certain peers because they do it too .63
evade active participation in class .63
break an agreement with my parents because of them .61
dress as they expect me to .60
talk negatively about my parents .60
change my physical appearance .60
smoke cigarettes .58
drink alcohol .58
take part in school pranks .57
not to hang out with unpopular peers .54
go with them and steal something from a store .51
have sex .50
skip classes at school when everyone else does it .49
try drugs .47
hang out with peers I don’t like .45
start dieting .34
hurt myself .31
change hairstyle .30
The Self – Perception Profile for Adolescents (SPPA)

The Self – Perception Profile for Adolescents Questionnaire was modeled after the Self
– Perception Profile for Children Inventory (Harter, 1985). Items were added and modified to
be age appropriate for adolescents. In order to reduce the effects of social desirability in
response patterns of the SPPA questionnaire forced-choice format was used. As such,
adolescents were presented with two conflicting statements and were asked first to decide
which of the two statements applies to them. For instance, one item states:
10
Really Sort of Sort of Really

True for True for True True for
Me Me for Me Me
Some teenagers do very Other teenagers don't do

BUT
well at their classwork very well at their classwork
When adolescents have decided which statement they agree with, they are then asked
to indicate, by ticking one of two boxes alongside the statement they have chosen, whether the
statement is ‘really true’ or ‘sort of true’ for them. The rationale behind such a format is that
certain number of youth views themselves one way, and the others view themselves in the
opposite manner. In order to test this hypothesis, adolescents were asked to provide
explanations for their answers. Generally, adolescents noted that the forced-choice format
provided more accurate and less socially desirable responses. This notion is supported by
statistical data obtained in previous studies (e.g. Harter, 1988).
The SPPA scale is based on the assumption that adolescents can perceive one’s
competence and functioning in multiple domains while simultaneously assessing one’s global
self-worth.
The SPPA is subdivided into nine scales. Eight of these subscales measure a discrete
domain of the self-concept and the ninth scale measures the sense of global self-worth, which
is a more general concept. However, it should be also noted that the global self-worth score is
not computed by summing the ratings across discrete domains. That is, the global self-worth
score is a direct representation of the global dimension. The aim of this scale is to encourage
adolescents to evaluate global self-worth independent from the competence domains. As such,
it allows the investigation of the relationship between global self-worth and domain-specific
self-judgments.
Questionnaire used in this study included following self-perception domains:
1. Academic-scholastic competence – This subscale taps the adolescents’ perception of
his/her competence or ability in school, classroom, and self-perception of intelligence.
2. Social acceptance – This subscale taps the degree to which adolescent is accepted by
peers, feels popular, and feels that he/she is easy to like.
3. Athletic competence – This subscale taps the adolescents’ perception of his/her
athletic ability and competence at sports.
4. Physical appearance – This subscale taps the degree to which adolescent is satisfied
with his/her looks, likes his/her body and feels that he/she is good looking.
11
5. Job competence – This subscale taps the extent to which adolescent perceives his/her
job skills, is ready to take on available jobs, and feels that one would do a good job.
6. Romantic appeal – This subscale taps adolescents’ perceptions that they are
romantically attractive, choose partners they want to be with, and feel that they are fun
and interesting.
7. Behavioral conduct (control or behavioral regulation) – This subscale taps the
degree to which one likes the way one behaves, acts the way one is expected to, and
avoids getting into problems.
8. Close friendship – This subscale taps the one’s ability to make close friends they can
share personal thoughts and secrets with.
9. General self-worth – These items tap the extent to which adolescent likes oneself as a
person, and is generally satisfied with the way one is leading one’s life.
The original 45 items were divided into nine subscales each with five items. Items
within each domain were counterbalanced so that half began with a positive sentence,
reflecting high competence/adequacy, while half began with a negative sentence, reflecting
low competence/adequacy. That is, half of the items were worded with the positive statement
on the left and half were worded with the positive statement on the right. Each item is scored
from 1 to 4, where a score of 1 indicates low-perceived competence and a score of 4 reflects
high-perceived competence.
Several studies have examined psychometric properties of the Self – Perception
Profile for Children Inventory in different samples of adolescent boys and girls. Furthermore,
the reliability of the inventory appeared to be satisfactory with good internal consistency,
ranging from .75 to .91 (Harter, 1988).
In the present study, the lowest Cronbach alpha was found for the subscale Business
competence (α = .49), whereas Cronbach's alphas for other subscales were satisfactory and
ranged from .66 (Romantic appeal) to .87 (Physical appearance).
Despite the low reliability coefficient, the authors retained the Business competence
scale in order to preserve the integrity of the inventory.
The Fear and Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents (SKAD-62)
The Fear and Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents (SKAD- - ,
2007) is a 62 item self-report measure organized into eight subscales designed to assess
specific fears and anxiety manifestations and symptoms: test anxiety, social anxiety,
12
separation anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, anxiety sensitivity, worry scale,

somatization, specific fears and phobias. The fear and anxiety scales are designed and
modified so that they correspond with DSM-IV diagnostic categories for anxiety to permit
clinical and research utility.
The age range for the SKAD-62 is 10-18 years. For each item, participants respond to a
statement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Not true for me at all) to 5 (Absolutely true for
me). Metric properties of the SKAD-62 were evaluated in several studies in Croatia (Vulić-
Prtorić, 2007). The results indicated a hierarchically organized construct with one higher-
order factor of anxiety, as well as high correlations among different aspects of anxiety.
Based on previous research on peer pressure, only two subscales were used, i.e., social
anxiety and worry subscale.
Signs of social anxiety include avoiding social contact, intense fear of negative
evaluation, insecurity in relation to one’s own peer-related social competence, distorted
interpersonal perception-belief that other people will evaluate them negatively and perceive
them as insecure. Social anxiety consists of 10 items with an internal consistency of α = .83.
Worry is a cognitive aspect of anxiety and is characterized by exaggerated and unrealistic
worry about one’s own competence, achievement, and appropriateness of one’s own past and
future behavior. According to Vulić-Prtorić (2007) excessive worry is the most important
variable because it is one of the hallmarks of child and adolescent anxiety. In addition, all
other subscales incorporate different aspects of worry. Worry subscale consists of 9 items
with satisfactory internal consistency of α = .87.
The Depression Scale for Children and Adolescents (SDD)

The Depression Scale for Children and Adolescents (Vulić-Prtorić, 2003) is based on
the DSM-IV symptom list for depression. It consists of 26 items that describe the most
common symptoms of depression in childhood and adolescence. These symptoms can
manifest on multiple levels: emotional, cognitive, physical or behavioral (e.g. mood disorders,
loss of interest, appetite and sleep disorders, concentration problems, psychomotor disability,
practical problems, decrease in energy levels, hopelessness and resignation). For each item,
participants respond to a statement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 “Not true for me at all”
to 5 “Absolutely true for me”. It is designed for children and adolescents aged between 10 and
18 years.
Evaluation of construct validity through exploratory factor analysis yielded two-factor
solution accounting for 31.35% of the variance in the data. These factors were named (1)
13
Cognitive depression (16 items) and (2) Emotional depression (10 items). The Cognitive
depression scale included items related to loss of interest, lack of self-confidence, apathy,
feelings of guilt, hopelessness and negative views about oneself and the world. The Emotional
depression scale consisted of items related to symptoms of psychomotor agitation, isolation,
tearfulness, loss of hope, fatigue, and problems with sleeping and eating. The internal
consistency of the cognitive depression scale determined by Cronbach's alpha is α = .98,
whereas the reliability of the emotional depression scale is α = .75.
Parental Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ-29)

The Parental Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ-29) (Keresteš, Kuterovac-Jagodić &
Brković, 2009; Brković, 2010) was used in this study. This questionnaire consists of 29 items
on which a child separately assesses mother and father on a four level scale (1=completely not
true for her/him, 4=completely true for her/him). The results are formed on seven subscales:
1. Acceptance (e.g. He/she shows me that he/she loves me), 2. Autonomy (e.g. He/she
respects me as a person), 3. Psychological control (e.g. He/she asks me too much about
everything), 4. Monitoring (e.g. He/she always knows where I am), 5. Positive Discipline (e.g.
He/she explains me reasons for asking questions), 6. Negative Discipline (e.g. He/she yells
when I behave badly), 7. Permissiveness (e.g. I can easily persuade him/her to what I want).
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) varies from .69 to .84 for fathers and .62 to .80 for
mothers.
The Experiences in Close Relationship Inventory (ECR)

A Croatian version of The Experiences in Close Relationship Inventory was
administered as a measure of attachment to peers (ECR; Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998).
Kamenov and Jelić (2003) modified and shortened the original ECR scale. Modification
included rephrasing relevant items to refer to different attachment figures (e.g. parents, close
friends) instead of specifically to one's romantic partner(s). The final version consisted of 18
items. Psychometric properties of this modified version were examined. Latent structure
remained the same showing two orthogonal factors – avoidance and anxiety, each consisting
of 9 items. The reliability of the new, shorter scale is almost as high as of the original.
Furthermore, it was also shown that this scale could be used to assess the level of attachment
in different intimate relationships.
14
Findings also suggest that shortened Inventory avoids content redundancy while
maintaining psychometric characteristics of the original instrument. Cross-validation of the
new scale confirmed the expected psychometric characteristics. Similar results were found in
a study by Hedrih & Pedović (2009).
Participants rate how well each statement describes their typical feelings in a
relationship with close friends. Respondents use a 7-point, partly anchored, Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) to respond to the items. In this study,
the Cronbach alphas coefficients were α = .80 for the Anxiety dimension and α = .74 for the
Avoidance dimension.
Procedure
This study was conducted in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and
guidelines. In addition, prior written approval was obtained from an authorized official at all
of the data collection sites. Each participant was given a verbal explanation of the aims and
requirements of the study. However, explanations were given after the completion of
procedure in order to avoid any influence resulting from the researcher’s verbal instructions.
In accordance with the Ethical Principles and Guidelines for Research with Children
informed consent was obtained from parents, legal guardians and children/youth.
This study was conducted during the 2009/2010 school year. Questionnaires were
administered in group settings during one class period and took approximately 45 minutes to
complete. All participants were informed that participation was confidential and anonymous
and that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Furthermore, it was emphasized that
self-report questionnaires are not tests, and that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers to the
questions.
In addition, given the length and number of the questionnaires used in this study, a Latin
square rotation was applied to counteract the effects of fatigue.
15
REFERENCES
Allen, J.P., Porter, M.R. & McFarland, F.C. (2006). Leaders and followers in adolescent close
friendships: Susceptibility to peer influence as a predictor of risky behavior, friendship
instability, and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 155-172.
Berndt, T.J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents.

Developmental Psychology, 25, 458-464.
Berndt, T.J. & Ladd, G.W. (1989). Peer relationships in child development. New York: Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Billy, J.O. & Udry, J.R. (1985). Patterns of adolescent friendship and effects on sexual
behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 27–41.
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L. & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic
attachment: An integrative overview. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment
theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
Brković, I. (2010). Development of self-regulation in early adolescence and the role of
parental behavior. Doctoral Dissertation. Zagreb: University of Zagreb.
Brown, B.B. (1982). The extent and effects of peer pressure among high school students: A
retrospective analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 121-133.
Brown, B.B. (1999). Measuring the peer environment of American adolescents. In S.L.
Friedman & T.D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment across the life span:
Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 59-90). Washington, DC: American Psychology
Association.
Brown, B.B. & Clasen, D.R. (1985). The Multidimensionality of Peer Pressure in
Adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14 (6), 451-468.
Brown, B.B., Clasen, D.R. & Eicher, S.A. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer
conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents.
Developmental Psychology, 22 (4), 521-530.
Burton, A.B., Ray, G.E. & Mehta, S. (2003). Children's Evaluations of Peer Influence: The
Role of Relationship Type and Social Situation. Child Study Journal, 33 (4), 235-255.
Chassin, L., Presson, C.C., Sherman, S.J., Montello, D. & McGrew, J. (1986). Changes in
peer and parent influence during adolescence: Longitudinal versus cross-sectional
perspectives on smoking initiation. Developmental Psychology, 22, 327-334.
Davies, M. & Kandel, D.B. (1981). Parental and peer influences on adolescents' educational
plans: Some further evidence. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 363-387.
Dishion, T.J., & Dodge, K.A. (2005). Peer contagion in interventions for children and
adolescents: Moving towards an understanding of the ecology and dynamics of
change. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 395-400.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver: University of
Denver.
16
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver: University
of Denver.
Hedrih, V. & Pedović, I. (2009). Factor structure equivalence of three adult attachment
inventories. 19th Ramiro and Zoran Bujas’ Days (p. 114).
Ginsburg, G.S., La Greca, A.M. & Silverman, W.K. (1998). Social anxiety in children with
anxiety disorders: relation with social and emotional functioning. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 26, 175-185.
Kamenov, Ž. & Jelić, M. (2003). Validation of adult attachment measure in various types of
close relationships: Modification of Brennan's Experiences in Close Relationship
Inventory. Contemporary psychology, 6 (1), 73-91.
Kaplan, P.S. (2004). Adolescence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Keresteš, G., Kuterovac-Jagodić, G. & Brković, I. (2009). Parental Behavior Questionnaire

(PBQ-29). Unpublished manual. Zagreb: Department of Psychology, Faculty of
Philosophy University of Zagreb.
Kiran-Esen, B. (2003). Examining the adolescents' smoking according to their peer pressure
levels and gender. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3 (1), 179-188.
Klarin, M. (2006). Development of children in social context: parents, peers, teachers –

context of child development. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
Laible, D. & Thompson, R. (2002). Early parent-child conflict: Lessons in emotion, morality,
and relationships. Child Development, 73, 1187–1203.
Lashbrook, J.T. (2000). Fitting in: Exploring the emotional dimension of adolescent peer
pressure. Adolescence, 35 (140), 747-757.
Lebedina Manzoni, M., Lotar, M. & Ricijaš, N. (2008). Adolescents’ Susceptibility to Peer
Pressure – Challenges of Defining and Measuring. Annual of Social Work, 15 (3), 401-
419.
McIntosh, J., MacDonald, F. & McKeganey, N. (2003). The Initial Use of Drugs in a Sample
of Pre-teenage Schoolchildren: the role of choice, pressure and influence. Drugs:
education, prevention and policy, 10 (2), 147-158.
Morgan, M. & Grube, J.W. (1991). Closeness and peer group influence. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 30, 159-169.
Reed, M.D. & Wilcox Rountree, P. (1997). Peer pressure and adolescent substance use.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13 (2), 143-180.
Rhodes, N. & Wood, W. (1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influenceability: The
mediating role of message reception. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 156-171.
Santor, D.A., Messervey, D. & Kusumakar, V. (2000). Measuring peer pressure, popularity,
and comformity in adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school performance, sexual
attitudes, and substance abuse. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29 (2), 163-182.
17
Savin-Williams, R.C. & Berndt, T.J. (1990). Friendships and peer relations. In S.S. Feldman
& G.R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 277-307).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sim, T.N. & Koh, S.F. (2003). A Domain Conceptualization of Adolescent Susceptibility to
Peer Pressure. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13 (1), 57-80.
Snyder, J., Dishion, T.J. & Patterson, G.R. (1986). Determinants and consequences of
associating with deviant peers during preadolescence and adolescence. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 6 (1), 20-43.
Steinberg, L. (1987). The imapct of puberty on family relations: Effects of pubertal status and
timing. Developmental Psychology, 23, 452-460.
Steinberg, L. & Silverberg, S. (1986). The Vicissitudes of Autonomy in Early Adolescence.

Child Development, 57, 841-851.
Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Deevelopments and extensions. In K. Yardley & T.

Honess (Eds.), Seld and identity: Psychosocial Perspectives. London: Wiley, 89-104.
Tolan, P.H. & Cohler, B.J. (1993). Handbook of clinical research and practice with
adolescents. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Urberg, K.A., Luo, Q., Pilgrim, C. & Degirmencioglu, S.M. (2003). A two-stage model of
peer influence in adolescent substance use: individual and relationship-specific
differences in susceptibility to influence. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1243-1256.
Vander Zanden, J.W. (2000). Human Development. New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Vulić-Prtorić, A. (2007). Manual for Fear and Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents
SKAD-62. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
Vulić-Prtorić, A. (2003). Manual for Depression Inventory for Children and Adolescents
(SDD). Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
18
Susceptibility to peer pressure and self-perception
INTRODUCTION
The concept of peer influence is essentially an idea about change. That is, adolescent's
behavior will change as a function of the adolescent's experiences with peers. Over time,
adolescents become aware of discrepancies between self- and other-perceptions, and in order
to respond effectively to challenges they are faced with adolescents will have to acquire
behaviors, values and beliefs of their peers (Bukowski, Brendgen & Vitaro, 2007; Dodge,
Dishion & Lansford, 2006; Rubin, Bukowski & Parker, 2006).
Adolescence is a period marked by both identity formation and personality integration
(Erikson, 1968). One of the conditions that promotes healthy youth development is coherence
between adolescents’ self-perception and perception by others. Furthermore, social groups are
very important because they maintain and supplement an individual’s self-perception. Self-
perception is a hierarchical and multidimensional construct that refers to a person’s perception
of "self" in relation to different life domains (self-concept), and evaluation or appraisal of
one’s worth (self-esteem) (Majdak & Kamenov, 2009).
Self-concept is important because it affects not only present experiences and
perceptions, but future decisions and behaviors as well. Self-concept enables a person to
explain past and present behaviors, as well as to predict the future ones. According to several
authors (e.g., Marsh, Barnes, Cairns & Tidman, 1984) positive self-concept usually leads to
constructive and socially desirable behavior, whereas negative self-concept leads to deviant
and socially inadequate behaviors.
Positive self-concept is self-motivating and is affected by the fulfillment of own needs
and expectations. In contrast, negative self-concept frequently leads to attempts to escape the
self, usually through a variety of unhealthy behaviors, e.g. self-destructive behaviors or sense
of futility and hopelessness that could reduce a quest for meaning (Baumeister, 1991). In
addition, negative self-evaluations lead to negative emotional experiences.
Adolescents with positive self-concept and high self-esteem often use more effective
and appropriate problem-solving skills and, hence, are less likely to develop different
19
disorders, including anxiety, depression, delinquent behavior or eating disorders compared to

adolescents with negative self-concept and low self-esteem (Dacey & Kenny, 1994).
Self-esteem is a term that reflects a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of his or
her own worth. Rosenberg (1965) defines self-esteem as the positive or negative attitude
toward a particular object, namely, the self.
Development of self-concept in adolescence is a complex process, which
encompasses differentiation of self into multiple domains (Harter, 1990). With development,
a number of domains of self-perception increase as more social roles become available. Self-
concept is a construct that refers to an individual's perception of "self" that remains relatively
consistent and stable over time, contexts and developmental phases. According to Harter
(2001) adolescents become more self-observant and self-reflective. During late adolescence,
self-concept becomes an organized system; the real self-concept and the possible selves
become related and integrated into a relatively stable structure (Harter, 1990).
Development of self-concept and self-esteem is influenced by a variety of factors, such
as interactions and relationships with significant others, i.e., parents, teachers and peers
(Burnett & Demnar, 1996; Humphrey, 2003). The importance of these interactions changes
over time. During adolescence, interactions with peers become increasingly important,
although parents still play an important role. Adolescents very often use peer groups as a
frame of reference for self-evaluation. In addition, peer groups set and enforce certain cultural
values, standards and expectations (Harris, 1998). However, in late adolescence a person
develops attitudes and beliefs of their own which are less influenced by significant others
(Lebedina Manzoni, 2007).
Previous studies on peer pressure examined gender and age differences in
susceptibility to peer pressure, as well as individual characteristic of adolescents prone to peer
pressure, including self-esteem, self-concept, characteristics of family processes, and
friendship quality. Numerous studies have found that peer influence is related to self-concept.
Bukowski, Velasquez & Brendgen (2008) found that, at the individual level, the desire
for friendship and low self-esteem enhance susceptibility to peer influence effects.
A variety of individual characteristics have been identified to increase susceptibility to
peer influence. One of the robust findings of these studies is that the low global self-esteem is
related to higher susceptibility to peer pressure (Ginsburg, La Greca & Silverman, 1998).
Urberg, Luo, Prilgrim & Degirmencioglu (2003) reported that high peer acceptance
resulted in adolescents being more apt to conform to their friend’s behaviors. Individual
characteristics that may make adolescents more susceptible to peer influence include
20
sensation seeking, low self-esteem, and lack of commitment to traditional social values.
Similarly, Prinstein & Dodge (2008, p. 144) state “To be popular typically means being well
adapted to the norms of one’s peer group.”
According to DuBois and Silverthorn (2004) lower general self-esteem is related to the
deviant associations with peers. In addition, numerous studies have found that adolescents
with supportive friendships have greater self-esteem than adolescents who perceive friendship
quality as negative (Mannarino, 1976; McGuire & Weisz, 1982; Townsend, McCracken &
Wilton, 1988; as cited in Berndt & Savin-Williams, 1993). Similarly, Perry (1987, as cited in
Berndt & Savin-Willams, 1993) found that adolescents who had positive perceptions of their
peer group also had higher self-esteem, greater confidence about their social acceptance by
peers, and lower loneliness.
Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that people with low self-esteem have more
emotional and motivational problems compared with people with moderate or high self-
esteem. In addition, people with low self-esteem are more prone to depression, social
isolation, passive behavior and suggestibility (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger & Vohs, 2003;
Prinstein & Dodge, 2008).
Leung and Lan (1989) examined associations of academic and family self-concept
with delinquent behaviors. Regression analyses indicated that poor academic self-concept and
poor relationship with school and parents were related to a higher frequency of delinquent
behaviors.
Lebedina Manzoni, Lotar and Ricijaš (2008, p. 89) explain the relationship between
susceptibility to peer pressure and individual’s self-esteem as “fear of negative evaluation by
significant others reinforces changes in person’s attitudes and beliefs. These changes lead to
low self-esteem which further conduces to more fear of negative evaluation.”
Bámaca and Umaña-Taylor (2006) found that adolescents with high self-esteem were
more resistant to peer pressure, whereas adolescents with lower self-esteem reported engaging
in more negative behaviors (e.g., delinquent behavior, drug use and academic failure) than
adolescents with high self-esteem. According to authors, adolescents who have low self-
esteem may feel deficient or inadequate, which in turn makes them more prone to peer
pressure to engage in antisocial behavior. In contrast, adolescents with high self-esteem feel
satisfied about themselves, which in turn provides them with a sense of security. As a result,
they are less likely to give in to peer pressure or to live up to peer expectations.
Lebedina Manzoni and colleagues (2008) found that among students the highest
susceptibility to peer pressure was demonstrated in self-concept domains influenced by the
21
judgment of significant others. An inverse relationship between susceptibility to peer pressure

and each item on the self-esteem questionnaire was observed. Although significant, the
associations were low. High school pupils rated themselves significantly higher than
undergraduate students on the Susceptibility to peer pressure scale, particularly on the items
pertaining to influence of significant others on self-concept. These results suggest that self-
concept, self-perception, subjective feeling influenced by significant others and different
behaviors are interrelated.
Overall, adolescence is typically regarded as a period of high susceptibility to peer
pressure. One of the developmental tasks during this period is a differentiation of self-
concept. Based on these issues, the aim of the current study was to examine the relationship
between susceptibility to peer pressure and self-concept in a Croatian sample of urban
adolescents.
Numerous studies (e.g., Rhodes & Wood, 1992; Kaplan, 2004; Bukowski et al., 2008)
found that people with low self-esteem are more susceptible to peer pressure.
Based on these issues, the first aim of this study was to examine the association
between susceptibility to peer pressure and self-concept. It was hypothesized that adolescents
who are more susceptible to peer pressure would have lower self-concept scores.
Susceptibility to peer pressure was measured using a conformity scale of 22 situations in
which adolescents indicated whether the situation applies to them and then rated the degree to
which that particular situation is true for them.
Furthermore, numerous studies have demonstrated gender differences in susceptibility
to peer pressure (Billy & Udry, 1985; Brown, Clasen & Eicher, 1986; Steinberg & Silverberg,
1986). Thus, the second aim of the study was to examine gender differences in the association
between susceptibility to peer pressure and related constructs (e.g. self-concept).
Adolescents most often face indirect/subtle peer pressure and are, to some extent,
unaware of influences that peer groups exert on them. In addition, peer pressure is caused by
adolescents’ need to fit in and to be accepted by peers. Based on these issues, it was
hypothesized that significant differences would be evident between susceptibility to peer
pressure and perception of the intensity of peer pressure. In addition, relationships of two
aspects of peer pressure (i.e., susceptibility to peer pressure and adolescents’ perception of
what peers expect from them) with different domains of self-concept were examined.
22
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The association of self-concept with susceptibility to peer pressure and perception of

peer pressure
Table 1. Intercorrelations between domain-specific self-concepts, susceptibility to peer

pressure and perception of peer pressure for boys
Susceptibility to peer Perception of peer

pressure pressure
Scholastic competence -.10* -.07
Social acceptance -.07 -.03
Athletic competence -.02 .01
Physical appearance -.23** -.16**
Job competence -.16** -.05
Romantic appeal -.08 .05
Behavioral control -.29** -.24**
Close friendships -.02 .03
Global self-worth -.28** -.09
* p<.05; **p<.01
Negative and statistically significant correlations have been observed between five of
nine domain-specific self-concepts and susceptibility to peer pressure. Although statistically
significant, some of these correlations are still quite low. Among domain-specific self-
concepts, the highest negative correlation was noted for the Behavioral control (r = -.29),
followed by the Global self-worth (r = -.28) and the Physical appearance (r = -.23). These
associations were expected. Previous studies have demonstrated that positive self-concept acts
as a protective factor for susceptibility to peer pressure (Baumeister, 1991; Rhodes & Wood
1992; Kaplan, 2004). It should be also noted that the behavioral control and regulation refers
to the degree to which a person is satisfied with the way one behaves, acts the way one is
expected to and avoids getting into problems. Given this, it could be argued that the
behavioral control and regulation is the opposite of susceptibility to peer pressure because it is
based on personal responsibility in choosing one’s behavior and accepting its consequences.
Similarly to the behavioral control and regulation, the association between the global self-
worth and susceptibility to peer pressure was negative.
Dusek and Flaherty (1981), Dusek (2000), and Marsh (1991) demonstrated that during
early adolescence both global and domain-specific self-concepts become more positive.
Moreover, development of autonomy during adolescence gives adolescents a greater
opportunity to explore and express their competencies in different domains, which in turn
23
impacts their sense of self-worth. It could be argued that by knowing one’s strengths and self-
worth adolescent becomes less susceptible to peer pressure.
Several studies have found that self-concept of boys is largely determined by the
competence in physical domain. During adolescence, males demonstrate physical
competences such as physical strength, power, and dominance. A number of studies have
found that males score consistently higher than females on physical self-concept. The robust
gender differences can be explained by the greater opportunities for males to develop their
physical skills, and by gender stereotypes (Lindwall & Hassmén, 2004; Colley, Berman &
Van Millingen, 2005). It could be argued that boys’ perception of their physical traits (i.e.
physical attractiveness) is a major factor by which adolescents prove themselves to peers and
assert their independence from peers. In addition, relationship between scholastic competence
and susceptibility was also observed. These results lend support to Baumeister et al. (2003)
view that high self-esteem is partially determined by success in school. Taken together,
current findings suggest that adolescents with high levels of behavioral control, positive
global self-worth and positive perception of one’s physical appearance will be less
susceptible to peer pressure.
By contrast, correlations between perception of peer pressure and different domains of
self-concept are non-existent, with the exception of correlations between behavioral
control/perception of peer pressure (r = -.24) and physical appearance/perception of peer
pressure (r = -.16). Current findings suggest that the perception of peer pressure among boys
is, to a lesser extent, related to different domains of self-concept, with the exception of
behavioral control and physical appearance. Therefore, adolescents with high behavioral
control and those who are satisfied with the way they look perceive lower levels of peer
pressure. Taken together, among boys different domains of self-concept were less strongly
related to perception of peer pressure than they were to susceptibility to peer pressure.
Correlations between susceptibility to peer pressure and domain-specific self-concepts

for girls are generally low (r = -.05 to -.28) (Table 2). With respect to correlations between
domain-specific self-concepts and susceptibility to peer pressure, similar results were
obtained for girls. The highest negative correlation was noted for the Behavioral control (r = -
.28), followed by the Global self-worth (r = -.21) and the Physical appearance (r = -.14).
Given this, adolescent girls who exhibit higher levels of behavioral control, have higher
global self-worth and/or are more satisfied with their physical appearance are less susceptible
to peer pressure.
24
Table 2. Intercorrelations between domain-specific self-concepts, susceptibility to peer

pressure and perception of peer pressure for girls
Susceptibility to peer Perception of peer

pressure pressure
Scholastic competence -.11* -.09*
Social acceptance -.07 -.15**
Athletic competence -.11* -.08
Physical appearance -.14** -.11*
Job competence -.10* .02
Romantic appeal -.05 -.05
Behavioral control -.28** -.16**
Close friendships -.08 -.16**
Global self-worth -.21** -.19**
* p<.05; **p<.01
Overall, these results provide support for the view that behavioral control (e.g., sense
of autonomy and managing one’s behavior) acts as an important protective factor for peer
pressure for both genders.
Perception of peer pressure was inversely related to a number of domain-specific self-
concepts, namely the global self-worth, close friendships, behavioral control, and social
acceptance. There is clearly a level of complexity in how perception of peer pressure relates
to different domains of self-concept among girls. From this perspective, domains that tap
relational aspects of interdependence (e.g. close friendships) have a major role in the
perception of peer pressure among girls. That is, girls who have higher perceived competence
in social relations domains perceive lower levels of peer pressure. Overall, these results
suggest that peer pressure is moderately related to self-concept, with the strongest associations
with the behavioral control, the global self-worth and physical appearance domains.
Behavioral control is the strongest predictor of susceptibility to peer pressure for both boys
and girls. These results demonstrate that self-control is an important component of
adolescents’ social skills needed for successful social interactions with groups of any kind.
Predictors of susceptibility to peer pressure-gender, domain-specific self-concepts,

perception of peer pressure
One of the aims of this study was to investigate whether it is possible to predict
susceptibility to peer pressure from predictor variables entered in three blocks (i.e. gender,
25
domain-specific self-concepts, and perception of peer pressure). Results are presented in

Table 3.
Table 3. Hierarchical regressions predicting susceptibility to peer pressure
1. step 2. step 3. step

Standardized regression coefficients (ß)
1. Gender -.25** -.24** -.20**
2. Scholastic competence .08* .07*
3. Social acceptance .03 .06
4. Athletic competence -.01 -.01
5. Physical appearance -.08* -.03
6. Job competence -.05 -.08**
7. Romantic appeal .01 -.03
8. Behavioral control -.24** -.15**
9. Close friendships .02 .03
10. Global self-worth -.15** -.13**
11. Perception of the
.46**
intensity of peer pressure
R .25** .41** .61**
R2adj .06** .17** .37**
* p<.05; **p<.01
Results of the regression analyses showed that each block of predictors (i.e. gender,
domain-specific self-concepts, and perception of peer pressure) contributed uniquely to
susceptibility to peer pressure. First block (i.e. gender) explained 6% of the variance in
susceptibility to peer pressure, while variables entered in second block (i.e. domain-specific
self-concepts) explained 11% of the variance in criterion variable. The largest percentage of
variance was explained by perceived intensity of peer pressure (20%).
According to standardized regression coefficients, the strongest predictor of
susceptibility to peer pressure was the perception of the intensity of peer pressure. The
perception of peer pressure is determined by subjective factors and adolescents’ interpretation
of these factors. With increase in perceived intensity of peer pressure, susceptibility to peer
pressure also increases.
With respect to domain-specific self-concepts, the behavioral control, global self-
worth, scholastic competence and physical appearance were significant predictors. However,
after controlling for the perception of the intensity of peer pressure, physical appearance was
no longer a significant predictor, whereas job competence became one (p < .01). It should be
also noted that standardized regression coefficients of the behavioral control, global self-
26
worth and job competence are negative suggesting that adolescents who score lower on
aforementioned domains are more susceptible to peer pressure. By contrast, scholastic
competence is a positive predictor suggesting that adolescents who perceive themselves as
more competent in academic domain are more susceptible to peer pressure. Furthermore, the
association between behavioral control and susceptibility to peer pressure decreased after
controlling for the effects of the perception of intensity to peer pressure. Current findings
suggest that future research needs to consider the intensity of peer pressure when studying
behavioral control and susceptibility to peer pressure. It seems that adolescents with higher
levels of behavioral control are, in general, less susceptible to peer pressure. However,
whether adolescents will be successful at resisting peer pressure depends a great deal on the
intensity of such pressure.
Behavioral control is an important aspect of well-being, which is related to

adolescents’ sense of autonomy, self-esteem and responsibility. Given this, behavioral control
and global self-worth would be inversely related to susceptibility to peer pressure. In addition,
school success is an important aspect of positive self-concept as well. Coopersmith (1967)
found that school success was moderately related to self-esteem (r = .30). Similarly, Lebedina
Manzoni and Lotar (2011) found that scholastic competence was highly correlating with both
global self-worth and behavioral control, suggesting that adolescents who perceive themselves
as competent in academic domain also perceive themselves as well behaved. Furthermore, it
was also found that physical appearance accounted for the largest percentage of variance in
global self-esteem. Taken together, current research findings demonstrated the importance of
different domains of self-concept for predicting susceptibility to peer pressure.
Differences in domain-specific self-concepts between boys and girls with different levels
of susceptibility to peer pressure
A two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the effects of gender, susceptibility to peer
pressure, and their interaction on different domain-specific self-concepts.
27
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations by Gender and Susceptibility to Peer Pressure on
different domain-specific self-concepts
Susceptibility to peer pressure

Low High Total
Gender M SD M SD M SD
Boys 2.89 0.60 2.79 0.62 2.83 0.61 F=1.45
Scholastic Girls 2.85 0.64 2.74 0.65 2.80 0.65 df=1/928
competence Total 2.86 0.63 2.77 0.63 2.82 0.63
F=6.28*; df=1/928
Boys 3.14 0.60 3.04 0.57 3.08 0.58 F=0.36
Social Girls 3.10 0.55 3.03 0.54 3.07 0.55 df=1/928
acceptance Total 3.11 0.57 3.04 0.56 3.07 0.56
F=4.27*; df=1/928
Boys 2.83 0.72 2.82 0.72 2.82 0.72 F=79.36**
Athletic Girls 2.44 0.75 2.32 0.73 2.39 0.75 df=1/928
F=2.03; df=1/928
Boys 3.09 0.62 2.80 0.68 2.90 0.67 F=18.60**
Physical Girls 2.72 0.79 2.59 0.74 2.67 0.77 df=1/928
appearance Total 2.84 0.76 2.71 0.71 2.77 0.74
F=34.27**; df=1/928
Boys 2.86 0.50 2.73 0.49 2.78 0.50 F=0.99
Job Girls 2.79 0.52 2.73 0.53 2.77 0.52 df=1/928
F=7.10**; df=1/928
Boys 2.77 0.63 2.69 0.63 2.72 0.63 F=4.00*
Romantic Girls 2.68 0.62 2.61 0.62 2.65 0.62 df=1/928
appeal Total 2.71 0.62 2.66 0.63 2.68 0.63
F=2.96; df=1/928
Boys 2.86 0.64 2.60 0.64 2.69 0.65 F=16.38**
Behavioral Girls 3.04 0.61 2.76 0.63 2.93 0.63 df=1/928
control Total 2.98 0.63 2.67 0.64 2.82 0.65
F=39.43**; df=1/928
Boys 3.17 0.66 3.12 0.66 3.14 0.66 F=34.30**
Close Girls 3.44 0.61 3.36 0.65 3.41 0.63 df=1/928
friendships Total 3.36 0.64 3.23 0.66 3.29 0.65
F=2.40; df=1/928
Boys 3.37 0.56 3.09 0.59 3.19 0.60 F=14.17**
Global self- Girls 3.17 0.61 2.97 0.64 3.09 0.63 df=1/928
worth Total 3.23 0.60 3.03 0.62 3.13 0.62
F=14.18**; df=1/928
* p<.05; **p<.01
Significant main effects were found for gender on six domains of self-concept, namely
athletic competence, physical appearance, romantic appeal, behavioral control, close
friendships and global self-worth. Boys scored significantly higher than girls on the athletic,
28
physical, and romantic domains, as well as the global self-worth. The opposite is true for the
Behavioral control and Close friendships domains. That is, girls had higher perceived
behavioral control and were more satisfied with the ways they behave than did boys. In
addition, girls had higher perceived ability to make close friends.
Current findings are consistent with several past studies suggesting that physical-
athletic domain plays a major role in developing and maintaining general self-concept of
boys. For example, during adolescence boys develop and demonstrate athletic and physical
competences, such as increased physical strength, power, and dominance. In addition, boys
very often associate their athletic competences with one’s physical attractiveness. Numerous
studies have found that males score consistently higher than females on physical self-concept.
Several authors have suggested that these differences can be explained by the greater
opportunities for males to develop their physical skills, and by stereotypes of male and female
physical attributes (Lindwall & Hassmén, 2004; Colley et al., 2005).
Moreover, Harter (1990) found that physical appearance among adolescents was the
strongest predictor of the global self-esteem for both boys and girls. Similar results were
obtained in the current study. Boys rated themselves higher than girls on both physical
appearance and romantic appeal domains. That is, boys perceived themselves to be more
attractive to potential partners than did girls.
Messages girls receive from the popular culture and socialization encourage girls’
preoccupation with their physical appearance and often induce dissatisfaction with one's own
attractiveness, which in turn motivates girls to make different physical changes.
Girls rated themselves significantly higher than did boys on the Behavioral control and
the Close friendships domains. These findings are consistent with studies suggesting that girls
display an interdependent self-concept, i.e., tend to focus more on the relational aspects of
interdependence, experience more relationship-linked emotions and are more attuned to the
relationships of others (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999). As a result, girls rate close relationships as
more important than do boys, while boys rate peer groups as more important. In addition,
Marsh (1991) suggests that multidimensional perspective of self-concept provides insight into
gender differences in different domains, i.e. social skills. That is, having better social skills
may explain why girls generally perceive themselves as more competent in the Close
friendships domain than do boys.
Furthermore, Hoelter (1984) examined gender differences in the impact of perceived
appraisals on self-evaluations in a sample of 1367 adolescents. He found that girls were
29
affected more strongly by the appraisals of friends, whereas boys were affected more strongly
by the appraisals of parents.
Moreover, Harter (1988) found that girls had lower perceived competence in athletic
domain, physical appearance domain and global-self worth than did boys. However, girls
scored significantly higher than boys on close friendships domain.
Trzepacz (2001) found in a sample of 466 children between the ages of 7 and 15 that
girls reported lower self-perceptions than boys on the Athletic Competence and Physical
Appearance dimensions, but higher self-perceptions for the Behavioral Conduct.
Furthermore, in a sample of 316 first and fourth grade high school students Justinić
and Kuterovac Jagodić (2010) found that boys had higher perceived athletic competence,
physical appearance and global self-worth. These results suggest gender differences in the
self-concept that are observable from an early age and remain throughout adolescence.
Overall, as can be seen from Table 4, a significant main effect was found for
susceptibility to peer pressure on several domains of self-concept: i.e. scholastic competence,
social acceptance, physical appearance, job competence, behavioral control and global self-
worth. Adolescents who were less susceptible to peer pressure had higher scores on all
domains of self-concept.
The current findings emphasize the importance of aforementioned positive self-
concept when studying susceptibility to peer pressure. However, none of the interactions
between gender and susceptibility to peer pressure were found to have a significant effect on
different domain-specific self-concepts.
30
REFERENCES
Bámaca, M.Y. & Umaña-Taylor, A.J. (2006). Testing a model of resistance to peer pressure
among Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 631-645.
Baumeister, R.F. (1991). Escaping the Self: Alcoholism, Spirituality, Masochism, and Other
Flights from the Burden of Selfhood. New York: Basic Books.
Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I. & Vohs, K.D. (2003). Does high self-esteem
cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?
Psychological Science in the public interest, 4, 1-44.
Berndt, T.J. & Savin-Williams, R.C. (1993). Peer relations and friendships. In P.H. Tolan &
B.J. Cohler (Eds), Handbook of clinical research and practice with adolescents (pp.
203-219). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Billy, J.O.G. & Udry, J.R. (1985). The influence of male and female best friends on
adolescent sexual behavior. Adolescence, 20, 21-32.
conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents.
Bukowski, W.M., Brendgen, M. & Vitaro, F. (2007). Peers and Socialization: Effects on
externalizing and internalizing problems. In J.E. Grusec & P.D. Hastings (Eds.)
Handbook of Socialization (pp. 355-381). New York: Guilford Press.
Bukowski, W.M., Velasquez, A.M. & Brendgen, M. (2008). Variation in Patterns of Peer
Influence: Considerations of Self and Other. In M.J. Prinstein & K.A. Dodge (Eds).
Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 125-140). New York:
Guilford Press.
Burnett, P.C. & Demnar, W.J. (1996). The relationship between closeness to others and self-
esteem. Journal of Family Studies, 2 , 121-129.
Colley, A., Berman, E. & Van Millingen, L. (2005). Age and Gender Differences in Young
People's Perceptions of Sport Participants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35
(7), 1440–1454.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The Antecedents of Self-esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freemand and
Company.
Dacey, J. & Kenny, M. (1994). Adolescent development. Madison: Brown & Benchmark
Publishers.
Dodge, K.A., Dishon, T.J. & Lansford, J.E. (2006). Deviant Peer Influences in Programs for
Youth: Problems and Solutions. New York: Guilford Press
DuBois, D.L. & Silverthorn, N. (2004). Do deviant peer association mediate the contributions
of self-esteem to problem bahavior during early adolescence? A 2-year longitudinal
study. Journal of Clinical and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 382-388.
31
Dusek, J.B. (2000). The maturing of self-esteem research with early adolescents. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 20, 231-240.
Dusek, J.B. & Flaherty, J.F. (1981). The development of the self-concept during the
adolescent years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46,
1-67.
Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: youth and crisis. New York: Norton
Gabriel, S. & Gardner, W.L. (1999). Are there "his" and "her" types of interdependence? The
implications of gender differences in collective and relational interdependence for
affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
642-655.
Ginsburg, G.S., La Greca, A.M. & Silverman, W.K. (1998). Social anxiety in children with
anxiety disorders: relation with social and emotional functioning. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 26, 175-185.
Harris, J.R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New
York: Free Press.
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver: University
of Denver.
Harter, S. (1990). Self and identity development. In S.S. Feldman & G.R. Elliott (Eds.), At the
threshold: the developing adolescent (pp. 352-387). Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Harter, S. (2001). Self-development in Childhood. International Encyclopedia of the Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 13807-13812.
Hoelter, J.W. (1984). Relative Effects of Significant Others on Self-Evaluation. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 47, 255-262.
Humphrey, N. (2003). Facilitating a positive self- esteem in pupils with dyslexia: the role of
teachers and peers. Support for Learning, 18, 129-135.
Justinić, J. & Kuterovac Jagodić, G. (2010). Can You Judge a Book by Its Cover? –
Adolescents' Self-Concept and Consumer Involvement in Clothing Brands. Journal of
General Social Issues, 19, 187-208.
Kaplan, P.S. (2004). Adolescence. Boston: Houghton Miffin Company.
Lebedina Manzoni, M. (2007). Psychological basis of behavior disorders. Jastrebarsko:

Naklada Slap.
Lebedina Manzoni, M. & Lotar, M. (2011). Adolescents' Self-Perception in Croatia.

Criminology & Social Integration, 19 (1), 39-50.
Lebedina Manzoni, M., Lotar, M. & Ricijaš, N. (2008). Susceptibility to peer pressure and
self-esteem. Croatian Review of Rehabilitation Research, 44, 77- 92.
32
Leung, K. & Lan, S. (1989). Effects of self-concept and perceived disapproval of delinquent
behaviour in school children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 345-359.
Lindwall, M. & Hassmén, P. (2004). The role of exercise and gender for physical self-
perceptions and importance ratings in Swedish university students. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 14 , 373–380.
Majdak, M. & Kamenov, Ž. (2009). Stigmatization and picture of self in juvenile perpetrators
of criminal acts. Criminology & Social Integration, 17, 41-55.
Marsh, H.W. (1991). The failure of high ability high schools to deliver academic benefits:
The importance of academic self-concept and educational aspirations. American
Educational Research Journal, 28, 445-480.
Marsh, H.W., Barnes, J., Cairns, L. & Tidman, M. (1984). The Self Description Questionnaire
(SDQ): Age effects in the structure and level of self-concept for preadolescent
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 940-956.
Prinstein, M.J. & Dodge, K.A. (2008). Understanding Peer Influence in Children and
Adolescents. New York: Guilford Press.
Rhodes, N. & Wood, W. (1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influenceability: The
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W. & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.
In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, emotional, and
personality development (pp. 571-645). New York: Wiley.
Steinberg, L. & Silverberg, S.B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence.
Child Development, 57, 841-851.
Trzepacz, A.M. (2001). Peer acceptance and self-perceptions in children: The impact of
Gender and Race. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B. The Sciences and
Engineering, 62, 5B, 2505.
Urberg, K.A., Luo, Q., Prilgrim, C. & Degirmencioglu, S.M. (2003). A two-stage model of
33
Peer pressure and psychological well-being
Martina Lotar
INTRODUCTION
Peer relations during adolescence are very important, whereas a lack of close peer
relationships or permanent peer relationship problems are related to internalizing problems
such as loneliness, depression, and anxiety, as well as physical health and school problems
(McDougall, Hymel, Vaillancourt & Mercer, 2001; Rigby, 1999; Rubin, Bukowski & Parker,
1998).
When adolescent’s social status and relationships are uncertain, there is a greater
likelihood of seeking validation from others even at the cost of one’s own autonomy (Allen,
Porter & McFarland, 2006). In such cases adolescents are more prone to conform to peer
expectations and requests. Previous research of peer influence mainly focused on features of
the influence situation or characteristics of the individual that make them more or less
susceptible to influence (Brown, Bakken, Ameringer & Mahon, 2008). However, past
research very often neglected the affective dimension of peer relations (Lashbrook, 2000). In
addition, little research has examined why some adolescents succumb to peer pressure while
others do not. Based on the past research, it was hypothesized that the affective dimension of
peer relations might give an answer to why adolescents conform to peer influence. That is, the
affective component might explain the mechanism behind susceptibility/resistance to peer
influence
Lashbrook (2000) examined the affective dimension of peer influence. Research
findings highlighted that the main motivational force behind conformity were negative
feelings, i.e., fear of being isolated and rejected, and feelings of being ridiculed. Based on
these issues, it was hypothesized that peer pressure is based on a subtle threat to adolescent’s
status within the peer group.
Conformity to peer expectations is often followed by positive reinforcement, such as
peer admiration, higher status, or feelings of belonging to a group, whereas adolescents who
refuse to conform often face ridicule and isolation. On the one hand, adolescents who are
preoccupied with one’s status and how others see them often have high fear of being socially
excluded and laughed at, and hence, are more likely to conform. By contrast, adolescents who
34
refuse to conform to peer influence may face social exclusion from important peer groups,
which in turn can lead to anxiety (Leary, 1990). Recent studies suggest that susceptibility to
peer pressure (manifested as social anxiety or low self-esteem) is higher among adolescents
who have some uncertainty regarding their self-concept or self-identity (Cohen & Prinstein,
2006; Prinstein, 2007).
Adolescents are highly concerned about the impressions they make on others, how
others see them and evaluate them. Based on the past research, it was hypothesized that social
anxiety would be related to susceptibility to peer pressure. For example, Wallace and Alden
(1995) found that socially anxious individuals although are motivated to make a particular
impression on others, doubt that they will do so. Similarly, they also believe that they will not
be able to fulfill other people’s expectations. Moreover, LaGreca and Lopez (1998) found that
adolescents with higher levels of social anxiety reported less support from classmates and less
social acceptance. In addition, these associations were stronger for girls. Furthermore, Strauss,
Frame and Forehand (1987) reported that adolescents who were rated by their teachers as
highly anxious were less liked by their peers. It is possible that highly anxious adolescents
due to the fear of negative evaluation and social exclusion have decreased ability to have a
meaningful authentic friendship. As a result, peers often rate them as the least liked.
The past research suggests that adolescents’ desires to be liked and accepted by their
peers, as well as lack of confidence are related to social anxiety (Leary & Kowalski, 1995).
However, it should be noted that all of the aforementioned issues are also related to
susceptibility to peer pressure. For example, Cohen and Prinstein (2006) found that
adolescents with high social anxiety were inclined to conform to peers regardless of their
social status. By contrast, among adolescents with low levels of social anxiety susceptibility
to peer pressure was influenced by the peer status. That is, adolescents with low social anxiety
were more likely to conform to a group of high-status peers than to a lower status peers.
Taken together, research findings suggest that general peer relations and the qualities
of friendships have positive effect on child and adolescents’ psychological well-being,
including both internalizing and externalizing problems. However, little research has
examined linkages between susceptibility to peer pressure and adolescents’ psychological
well-being, namely depression and anxiety. Based on this issue, the purpose of this study was
to examine the unique contributions of depression and anxiety for susceptibility to peer
pressure. Depression and anxiety were conceptualized as a continuum of symptoms, not as a
discrete category. It was hypothesized that adolescents who reported higher levels of concern
35
about the impression they leave on others and fear of negative evaluation were more likely to
conform to peer desires in order to avoid negative peer evaluations.
Past research has clearly observed that social anxiety contributes to problems in
adolescents’ peer relations. As a result, these adolescents are exposed to high levels of stress.
Roza, Hofstra, van der Ende and Verhulst (2003) and Rudolph and colleagues (2000)
suggested models that conceptualize depression as a result of stress accumulation in the cycle
of anxiety and peer relations difficulties. Some evidence suggests that peer rejection and low
peer acceptance are significant predictors of depression and feelings of loneliness among
adolescents (Bagwell, Newcomb & Bukowski, 1998; Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990; Bell-Dolan,
Foster & Christopher 1995; Kiesner, 2002; Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason & Carpenter,
2003; Prienstein & La Greca, 2004; LaGreca & Harrison, 2005).
Patton and colleagues (1998) reported that symptoms of depression and anxiety were
associated with higher risks for susceptibility to peer smoking influences. Given the high
correlation between anxiety and depression, it is not surprising that Allen and colleagues
(2006) suggested that susceptibility to peer pressure during early adolescence was significant
predictor of increasing levels of depression symptoms in the subsequent year. However, it
should be also noted that aforementioned study did not examine the effects of anxiety on
susceptibility to peer pressure and depression symptoms. Therefore, it is difficult to suggest
that susceptibility to peer pressure is directly linked to increasing levels of depression
symptoms.
In studies examining depression and anxiety, given the high correlation between these
two constructs, it is very important to examine their unique contributions. Depression and
anxiety can be distinguished on the basis of unique clinical features (as defined by diagnostic
manuals), as well as by the presence of specific behaviors, emotions and cognitive content
(e.g. core beliefs, automatic negative thoughts). For example, depression is characterized by
the perception of loss, and intense feelings of sadness and despair. By contrast, anxiety is
characterized by the perception of danger and fear as a dominant emotion (Vulić-Prtorić &
Macuka, 2004). However, depression and anxiety share many common symptoms, such as
difficulty concentrating, fatigue, and loss of interest in things person would typically enjoy.
Watson, O'Hara and Stuart (2008) emphasize that strong correlations (ranging from
.72 to .85) between anxious and depressed mood exist in many different samples (e.g.
adolescent samples, university samples, clinical adolescent samples, clinical and non-clinical
adult samples and non-clinical elderly samples). In addition, Watson et al. (2007) reported
that in three large samples (college students, psychiatric patients, community adults) anxious
36
mood was strongly positively correlated with anhedonia (.71 - .73), cognitive problems (.72 -
.77), worthlessness and guilt (.76 - .84) and psychomotor problems (.73 - .78), all of which are
symptom criteria for the major depressive episode.
Given the high correlation between social anxiety and depression (Zimmerman,
McDermut & Mattia, 2000; Brown, Campbell, Lehman, Grisham & Mancill, 2001; Watson,
2009), as well as the association of susceptibility to peer pressure with both social anxiety and
depression, social anxiety and depression were both included in this study. The main purpose
of this chapter is twofold. First, it examines whether the differences in susceptibility to peer
pressure are significantly related to the levels of social anxiety after controlling for
depression, and levels of depression after controlling for social anxiety. Second, it investigates
moderating role of perception of the intensity to peer pressure on the association between
social anxiety/depression and susceptibility to peer pressure. Based on past research, it was
hypothesized that significant differences in the association between social anxiety/depression
and susceptibility to peer pressure would be evident between those who perceived the
intensity of the peer pressure as high and those who perceived the intensity of the peer
pressure as low. In addition, it was hypothesized that gender differences would be observed in
the association of susceptibility to peer pressure with depression and social anxiety. Given
that gender differences were found in all of the variables analyzed (see Table 1) separate
analyses were conducted for boys and girls.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics on scores from all included variables are shown in Table 1. As
can be seen, boys rated themselves higher than girls on the susceptibility to peer pressure
scale.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations between peer pressure and
psychological well-being variables
Boys Girls t Correlations

M SD M SD 1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Susceptibility to
39.71 13.13 33.83 9.80 7.60* - .55 .26 .32
peer pressure
2. Perception of peer
Boys
38.57 13.65 35.77 13.16 3.17* .49 - .17 .33

pressure intensity
3. Social anxiety 19.83 7.21 22.29 7.59 -5.04* .19 .20 - .48
4. Depression
46.52 15.29 55.12 16.58 -8.17* .26 .30 .36 -
symptoms
Girls
* p<.01
37
In addition, boys perceived intensity of the peer pressure higher compared to girls. By
contrast, girls scored significantly higher than boys on social anxiety and depression scales.
However, it should be noted that the levels of all examined variables were low.
As can be seen, susceptibility to peer pressure correlated positively with the perception
of peer pressure, social anxiety and depression symptoms. These correlations were stronger
among boys than among girls.
In order to examine if the susceptibility to peer pressure depends on the social anxiety
and depression level, two separate analyses of covariances (ANCOVAs) were conducted. In
addition, interaction effects between aforementioned variables and the perception of the
intensity of peer pressure were also tested. For the purposes of this analysis participants were
classified into two groups for the following variables: social anxiety, depression and the
perception of the intensity of peer pressure. Participants were classified according to median
value into either a high or a low group (i.e. low and high social anxiety, low and high
depression, low and high perception of the intensity of peer pressure).
In the first ANCOVA, susceptibility to peer pressure was the dependent variable, and
social anxiety and perception of the intensity of peer pressure were entered as independent
variables with depression level as a covariate (Table 2).
Table 2. ANCOVA predicting the effects of social anxiety and perception of the intensity of
peer pressure on susceptibility to peer pressure with symptoms of depression as a covariate
Social anxiety
Low High Total

M SD M SD M SD
Perception
intensity
Low 32.50 10.41 33.87 10.05 33.00 10.27

pressure
F= 69.34*
of peer
df=1/413
η2=.145
Boys
High 42.55 12.64 46.34 12.65 44.35 12.76
Total 37.86 12.67 41.90 13.20 39.60 13.04

F=0.39; df=1/413; η2=.001
Perception
intensity
Low 28.79 4.97 30.54 7.67 29.78 6.68

pressure
F=104.52*
of peer
df=1/518
η2=.169
Girls
High 37.38 11.46 39.52 10.21 38.70 10.73
Total 32.42 9.35 34.81 10.02 33.83 9.81

F=2.70; df=1/518; η2=.005
* p<.01
38
In the second ANCOVA, depression and the perception of the intensity of peer
pressure were entered as independent variables with levels of social anxiety as a covariate
(Table 3). Both analyses were conducted separately for boys and girls.
As can be seen, depression symptoms as a covariate had significant effect on the
susceptibility to peer pressure for both boys (F=26.22; df=1/413; p<.01; η2=.06) and girls
(F=12.01; df=1/518; p<.01; η2=.02). Similarly, significant effect of the perception of the
intensity of peer pressure on susceptibility to peer pressure while controlling for depression
was found for both boys (F=69.34; df=1/413; p<.01) and girls (F=104.52; df=1/518; p<.01).
That is, adolescents of both genders were more susceptible to peer pressure if they perceived
the intensity of peer pressure as high. Main effect of social anxiety (Fboys=0.39; df=1/413;
p>.05; Fgirls=2.70; df=1/518; p>.05) was not significant. Similarly, the anxiety by perception
of the intensity of peer pressure interaction was not statistically significant (Fboys=1.14;
df=1/413; p>.05; Fgirls=0.08; df=1/518; p>.05).
Table 3. ANCOVA predicting the effects of depression symptoms and perception of the
intensity of peer pressure on susceptibility to peer pressure with social anxiety as a covariate
Depression symptoms
Low High Total

M SD M SD M SD
Perception
intensity
Low 31.51 9.94 37.36 10.09 33.00 10.27

pressure
F= 61.70*
of peer
df=1/413
η2=.131
Boys
High 42.03 12.21 47.23 12.90 44.35 12.76
Total 36.85 12.31 44.36 12.93 39.60 13.04

F=9.84*; df=1/413; η2=.024
Perception
intensity
Low 28.88 5.90 30.65 7.27 29.78 6.68

pressure
F=101.01*
of peer
df=1/518
η2=.165
Girls
High 36.91 10.29 39.40 10.85 38.70 10.73
Total 31.46 8.45 35.37 10.33 33.83 9.81

F=3.83; df=1/518; η2=.007
* p<.01
Social anxiety as a covariate had a significant effect on the susceptibility to peer

pressure for both genders (Fboys=10.91; df=1/413; p<.01; η2=.03; Fgirls=6.89; df=1/518; p<.01;
η2=.01). As expected, main effect of the perception of the intensity of peer pressure while
39
controlling for social anxiety was significant for both boys (F=61.70; df=1/413; p<.01) and
girls (F=101.01; df=1/518; p<.01). Main effect of depression symptoms while controlling for
social anxiety was significant only for boys (Fboys=9.84; df=1/413; p<.01; Fgirls=3.83;
df=1/518; p>.05). These results indicate that the boys with more depression symptoms were
more likely to conform to peer influence. However, the interaction between depression and
perception of the intensity of peer pressure was not significant either for boys (F=0.02;
df=1/413; p>.05) or girls (F=0.18; df=1/518; p>.05).
DISCUSSION
Perception of the intensity to peer pressure had the strongest effect on the
susceptibility to peer. Effect size was large in magnitude (see Table 2 and 3). However, it
should be noted that used measure of peer pressure is not an objective indicator of intensity of
peer pressure, but an indicator of perceived pressure. Perception of the intensity to peer
pressure is related to several factors, including how peers exert their influence (i.e. directly on
indirectly), friendship quality and personality traits of the individual. Thus, it could be
hypothesized that adolescents will perceive stronger peer pressure when they are exposed to
direct encouraging of certain behaviors. This might, at least partially, explain gender
differences in susceptibility to peer pressure. It is possible that peer pressure for boys is direct,
whereas for girls indirect. That is, boys may directly encourage different behaviors among
their peers, and if individual resists one usually faces teasing and ridiculing. By contrast, girls
less directly encourage certain behaviors; instead they “expect” that individuals will behave in
a certain way. Moreover, it is also possible that peer pressure among boys is objectively
stronger.
The main effect of social anxiety while controlling for depression symptoms was not
significant either for boys or girls. That is, boys’ and girls’ susceptibility to peer pressure did
not differ significantly based on different levels of social anxiety. By contrast, Lashbrook
(2000) and Cohen and Prinstein (2006) found that adolescents high in social anxiety were
more likely to conform to peer expectations. However, it should be noted that the
aforementioned studies did not control either the effects of depression symptoms or the effects
of intensity of peer pressure on the susceptibility to peer pressure.
As can be seen in Table 1, susceptibility to peer pressure was related to both social
anxiety and symptoms of depression. In general, these associations were stronger for
depression symptoms than for social anxiety. Given the moderate association between social
40
anxiety and symptoms of depression, as well as comorbidity of symptoms (Zimmerman et al.,

2000; Brown et al., 2001; Watson, 2009) it is necessary to measure the impact of each
disorder independently. Susceptibility to peer pressure is a multidimensional construct that is
related to a number of different variables. Therefore, future research would do well to
examine relationships between these different constructs and susceptibility to peer pressure.
As a result, researchers could statistically or methodologically identify and control possible
confounding variables.
After controlling for social anxiety, main effect of depression symptoms remained
significant for boys. These results suggest that the boys with more symptoms of depression
are more susceptible to peer pressure. However, this effect was not observed for girls.
Moreover, depression symptoms remained significantly correlated with susceptibility to peer
pressure for boys, even after controlling for the social anxiety and perception of the intensity
of peer pressure. However, the true nature of this association remains unanswered.
The past research has clearly observed that anxiety precedes mood disorders (Huppert,
2008; Bittner et al., 2004; Brown & Barlow, 2002). Given this, it is possible that socially
anxious adolescents are more focused on the cue interpretation of peer experiences, which in
turn makes them highly sensitive to peer reactions. In addition, it is likely that socially
anxious adolescents would interpret ambiguous cues as negative (i.e. peer pressure).
Moreover, it is also possible that peers exert greater influence on those who they perceive to
be socially anxious because they seem easily persuaded. Nevertheless, susceptibility to peer
pressure is related to the intensity of peer pressure and the consequences of non-conformity,
whereas social anxiety per se is not a significant predictor of susceptibility to peer pressure.
This association between the social anxiety and peer relations represents a substantial burden
for a young person who needs to assert one’s position in a peer group. Taken together, it is
possible that social anxiety, together with peer pressure is a risk factor for the appearance of
depression symptoms. Support for this latter explanation comes from the previously discussed
models of depression. Specifically, Roza et al. (2003) and Rudolph et al. (2000) suggested
that depression is a result of social anxiety and peer relationship problems.
Among girls, susceptibility to peer pressure and willingness to conform were related
only to the perceived intensity of peer pressure. By contrast, among boys susceptibility to peer
pressure was related to depression symptoms, however, effect size was small.
Moreover, about a third of items from the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale were
designed to measure susceptibility to peer pressure in risky situations. Past research has
clearly observed that boys are more susceptible to peer influence than are girls in such
41
situations (Brown, Clasen & Eicher, 1986; Lebedina Manzoni, Lotar & Ricijaš, 2008).
Overall, these results suggest that resistance to conformity pressures may have significant
(negative) implications for boys’ status within the peer group. These results are of great
importance when we consider that during adolescence boys are more oriented toward a peer
group, whereas girls are more oriented toward experiences at the dyadic level (Vasta, Haith &
Miller, 1995). Overall, current research findings are consistent with several past studies
suggesting that the boys who resist peer pressure often experience social rejection, ridiculing
or making fun of, as well as status decline, which in turn can lead to the development of
depression symptoms (Tani & Schneider, 1997; Hecht, Inderbitzen & Bukowski, 1998;
Kiesner, 2002). Furthermore, resistance to peer pressure may result in personal discomfort,
which in turn may lead to greater susceptibility to peer pressure.
Overall, although findings from this study offer an important insight into the
relationship between susceptibility to peer pressure and psychological well-being, question
whether social anxiety and symptoms of depression are equally important for the peer
influence process still remains unanswered. Future research would benefit from including
both of these variables. Moreover, current findings emphasize the need to examine these
associations in clinical adolescent samples, such as youth diagnosed with social anxiety
and/or depression. However, the cross-sectional nature of this study makes it impossible to
make any type of interpretation of the temporal ordering necessary to help reveal causal
relationships between susceptibility to peer pressure, intensity of peer pressure, social anxiety
and symptoms of depression. Given this, longitudinal research will be necessary to determine
the extent to which social anxiety and depression symptoms result in conformity or resistance
to peer pressure.
Furthermore, in addition to longitudinal studies, future research would do well to
include qualitative data. Qualitative data may greatly illuminate the peer influence process,
including emotions that result from being pressured, effects that conformity/resisting to peer
pressure have on adolescents’ psychological functioning, as well as cognitive processes
involved in decision making. Based on experiences from this study, the most appropriate
technique for qualitative data collection would be in-depth interviews because of the
embarrassment adolescents may experience when speaking in front of their peers.
42
REFERENCES
Allen, J.P., Porter, M.R. & McFarland, F.C. (2006). Leaders and followers in adolescent close
friendships: Susceptibility to peer influence as a predictor of risky behavior, friendship
instability, and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 155-172.
Bagwell, C.L., Newcomb, A.F. & Bukowski, W.M. (1998). Preadolescent Friendship and
Peer Rejection as Predictors of Adult Adjustment. Child Development, 69 (1), 140-153.
Bell-Dolan, D.J., Foster, S.L. & Christopher, J.S. (1995). Girls’ peer relations and
internalizing problems: Are socially neglected, rejected, and withdrawn girls at risk?
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 463-473.
Bittner, A., Goodwin, R.D., Wittchen, H.U., Beesdo, K., Höfler, M. & Lieb, R. (2004). What
characteristics of primary anxiety disorders predict subsequent major depressive
disorder? Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65 (5), 618-626.
Brown, B.B., Bakken, J.P., Ameringer, S.W. & Mahon, S.D. (2008). A comprehensive
conceptualization of the peer influence process in adolescence. In M.J. Prinstein & K.
Dodge (Eds.), Peer influence processes among youth (pp. 17-44). New York: Guildford
Publications.
Brown, T.A. & Barlow, D.H. (2002). Classification of Anxiety and Mood Disorders. In D.H.
Barlow (Ed.), Anxiety and Its Disorders (pp. 292-327). New York: The Guilford Press.
Brown, T.A., Campbell, L.A., Lehman, C.L., Grisham, J.R. & Mancill, R.B. (2001). Current
and lifetime comorbidity of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders in a large clinical
sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110 (4), 49-58.
conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents. Developmental
Psychology, 22 (4), 521-530.
Cohen, G.L. & Prinstein, M.J. (2006). Peer contagion of aggression and health-risk behavior
among adolescent males: An experimental investigation of effects on public conduct and
private attitudes. Child Development, 77, 967–983.
Hecht, D.B., Inderbitzen, H.M. & Bukowski A.L. (1998). The relationship between peer
status and depressive symptoms in children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 26 (2), 153-160.
Huppert, J.D. (2008). Anxiety Disorders and Depression Comorbidity. In M.M. Anthony &
M.B. Stein (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Anxiety and Related Disorders (pp. 576-586).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kiesner, J. (2002). Depressive Symptoms in Early Adolescence: Their Relations with
Classroom Problem Behavior and Peer Status. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12
(4), 463-478.
Kupersmidt, J.B. & Coie, J.D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status, aggression, and school
adjustment as predictors of externalizing problems in adolescence. Child Development,
61 (5), 1350-1362.
43
La Greca, A.M. & Lopez, N. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer
relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 83-94.
LaGreca, A.M. & Harrison, H.M. (2005). Adolescent Peer Relations, Friendships, and
Romantic Relationships: Do They Predict Social Anxiety and Depression? Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34 (1), 49-61.
pressure. Adolescence, 35, 747-757.
Leary, M.R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness,
depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221-229.
Leary, M.R. & Kowalski, R.M. (1995). Social anxiety. New York: Guilford Press.
Lebedina Manzoni, M., Lotar, M. & Ricijaš, N. (2008). Adolescents' susceptibility to peer
pressure - challenges of defining and measuring. Annual of Social work, 3, 401-419.
McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (2001). The consequences of
childhood rejection. In M.R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 213–247). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Nangle, D.W., Erdley, C.A., Newman, J.E., Mason, C.A. & Carpenter, E.M. (2003).
Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on
children’s loneliness and depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 32, 546-555.
Patton, G.C., Carlin, J.B., Coffey, C., Wolfe, R., Hibbert, M. & Bowes, G. (1998).
Depression, Anxiety, and Smoking Initiation: A Prospective Study Over 3 Years.
American Journal of Public Health, 88 (10), 1518-1522.
Prinstein, M.J. (2007). Moderators of peer contagion: A longitudinal examination of
depression socialization between adolescents and their best friends. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 159–170.
Prinstein, M.J. & La Greca (2004). Childhood Peer Rejection and Aggression as Predictors of
Adolescent Girls’ Externalizing and Health Risk Behaviors: A 6-Year Longitudinal
Study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72 (1), 103-112.
Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimization at school and the health of secondary school students.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 95-104.
Roza, S.J., Hofstra, M.B., van der Ende, J. & Verhulst, F.C. (2003). Stable prediction of mood
and anxiety disorders based on behavioral and emotional problems in childhood: A 14-
year follow-up during childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 160, 2116-2121.
Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W. & Parker, J. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.
In N. Eisenberg (Ed), Handbook of Child Psychology (5th edition): Social, emotional,
and personality development. (pp. 619-700). New York: Wiley.
Rudolph, K.D., Hammen, C., Burge, D., Lindberg, N., Herzberg, D. & Daley, S.E. (2000).
Toward an interpersonal life-stress model of depression: The developmental context of
stress generation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 215-234.
44
Strauss, C.C., Frame, C.L. & Forehand, R. (1987). Psychosocial impairment associated with
anxiety in children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16, 235-239.
Tani, F. & Schneider, B.H. (1997). Self-Reported Symptomatology of Socially Rejected and
Neglected Italian Elementary-School Children. Child Study Journal, 27 (4), 301-317.
Vasta, R., Haith, M.M. & Miller, S.A. (1995). Child psychology the modern science. New
York: Wiley.
Vulić-Prtorić, A. & Macuka, I. (2004). Anxiety and depression: phenomenology of
comorbidity. Contemporary psychology, 7 (1), 45-64.
Wallace, S.T. & Alden, L.E. (1995). Social anxiety and standard setting following social
success or failure. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 613-631.
Watson, D. (2009). Differentiating the Mood an Anxiety Disorders: A Quadripartite Model.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 221-247.
Watson, D., O'Hara, M.W., Simms, L.J., Kotov, R., Chmielewski, M., McDade-Montez, E.A.,
Gamez, W. i Stuart, S. (2007). Development and validation of the Inventory of
Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS). Psychological Assessment, 19 (3), 253-268.
Watson, D., O'Hara, M.W. & Stuart, S. (2008). Hierarchical structures of affect and
psychopathology and their implications for the classification of emotional disorders.
Depression and Anxiety, 25, 282-288.
Zimmerman, M., McDermut, W. & Mattia, J.I. (2000). The frequency of anxiety disorders in
psychiatric outpatients with major depressive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry,
157 (8), 1337-1400.
45
Resistance to peer pressure - what’s attachment got to do with it?
Martina Lotar
INTRODUCTION
Attachment in adolescence
Belonging to a peer group plays an important role throughout the life span, especially
in adolescence. During adolescence, this need becomes more pronounced, peer relationships
deepen, peer solidarity becomes prominent, and peer pressure intensifies. Based on previous
research on adolescent attachment (Kamenov & Jelić, 2003, Kamenov, 2006; Allen, 2008), it
was expected that attachment would have significant association with susceptibility to peer
pressure.
While there are many recent studies of attachment, John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth
have made the greatest contribution to understanding the influence of primary relationships
and attachment styles throughout the life span. According to both Bowlby (1969) and
Ainsworth (1982) early caregiving experiences are internalized as working models that serve
as a prototype for future relationships with significant others in adolescence and adulthood.
Working models operate unconsciously to organize individual’s past experience, feelings,
thoughts and expectations and build framework for future intimate relationships (Bowlby,
1980; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Cooper, Shaver, & Collins, 1998).
Bowlby (1982) postulated that attachment styles in adolescence and adulthood are
based on internal working modes of self and others formed in early childhood. Ainsworth et
al. (1978) identified three attachment styles, or patterns between a child and a mother
(primary caregiver) – secure, anxious-avoidant and anxious-ambivalent or resistant. Drawing
on the work of Bowlby and Ainsworth, Bartholomew (1990) presented an alternative model
of adult attachment with four categories based on two types of internal working models: the
model of “self” versus the model of “other”. Each internal model of self, i.e. a person's
abstract image of the self can be dichotomized as positive or negative (the self as worthy of
love and support or not). Similarly, each internal model of other, i.e. the person's abstracted
image of the other can also be dichotomized as positive or negative (other people are seen as
trustworthy and available vs. unreliable and rejecting). Based on these two internal working
models (model of self and model of other) four attachment styles can be conceptualized: a
46
Resistance to peer pressure – what’s attachment got to do with it?
Secure attachment style is defined as a positive model of self and a positive model of other, a
Preoccupied style is defined as a negative model of self and a positive model of other, a
Dismissing style is defined as a positive model of self and negative model of other, and a
Fearful style is defined as a negative model of both self and other.
Similarly to Bartholomew’s notion of different dimensions underlying attachment
style, i.e. model of self and model of other, several other authors have postulated the existence
of different attachment dimensions, for example, closeness and intimacy, dependency, and
anxiety dimensions (Collins & Read, 1990) or avoidance and anxiety dimensions (Brennan,
Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Brennan et al. (1998) developed The Experiences in Close
Relationships Inventory derived from 60 subscales (composed of 323 items) of all the known
self-report adult attachment questionnaires. The initial factor analysis of 60 subscales yielded
12 specific-construct factors, which, when factored, formed two relatively orthogonal
dimensions that were labeled Anxiety and Avoidance. Attachment anxiety is concerned with
fear of interpersonal rejection or abandonment, e.g. “When I'm not involved in a relationship,
I feel somewhat anxious and insecure” or “I worry about being abandoned”. Attachment
avoidance refers to fear of dependence and interpersonal intimacy, and consist of items such
as: “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners” or “I turn to my partner
for many things, including comfort and reassurance” (Fraley & Phillips, 2009). Although four
attachment styles similar to the ones proposed by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) can be
conceptualized based on the aforementioned dimensions, it should be also noted that these
dimensions are qualitatively different.
In Croatia, Kamenov and Jelić (2003) modified and validated The Experiences in
Close Relationships Inventory (Brennan et al., 1998). Modification included rephrasing
relevant items to refer to different attachment figures (e.g. parents, close friends) instead of
specifically to one's romantic partner(s).
The association of attachment with autonomy and the need for belonging
Internalized working models can change during the course of one’s life. Previous
studies suggest that attachment styles are moderately stable throughout the first 20 years of
life (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994). Findings also suggest that later at life the secure
attachment style is the most stable (Kamenov, 2006; Kamenov & Jelić, 2003). In addition,
studies have found that attachment classifications remain stable over the life span, unless a
47
significant stressor occurs in adolescents’ life (Allen, McElhaney, Kuperminc, & Jodl, 2004).
Most of these stressors are associated with different developmental tasks in adolescence.
In adolescence, the central developmental tasks are the formation of a coherent self-
identity and autonomy. Direct threats to adolescents’ autonomy in the form of peer pressure
may be perceived as a stressor, especially in peer relationships. However, the relationship
between autonomy and attachment can be also seen from a different perspective. For example,
McElhaney, Allen, Stephenson and Hare (2009) examined individual differences in the
relationship between autonomy and different attachment styles among adolescents. Authors
suggested that securely attached adolescents are able successfully to negotiate the balance
between maintaining relatedness and supporting one’s own autonomy development. In
contrast, dismissing teens are eager to maintain connections with others, but are insecure and
afraid that the outcome of these relationships will be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, they may
continue to maintain connections even at the cost of appropriate autonomy development.
Moreover, dismissing teens tend to actively engage in strategies that promote self-reliance and
show low levels of trust and relatedness in interactions.
Baumeister and Leary (1995) have proposed that the need to belong is one of the most
fundamental human motivations, underlying many emotions, actions, and decisions.
According to authors the need to belong is characterized by a need for regular contact or
interactions with other people. Ideally, these interactions would be free from conflict and
negative affect. However, when interpersonal conflicts over attitudes and behaviors arise
between an adolescent and a peer group, adolescents tend to conform because of the need to
avoid conflict and negative affect.
Peers very often exert pressure on each other. It is speculated that the threat of
negative feelings (arising from the fear of being rejected, isolated, or laughed at) is the
motivational force behind conformity. For example, anxiety characterized by the fear of being
rejected can motivate adolescents to change one’s behavior in accordance with group
expectations, or adolescent’s perception of what is expected of him/her. Although this
relationship is expected, it should be also noted that according to attachment theories the level
of the need to belong varies among people. As a result, it is possible that dismissing
adolescents would reduce need to belong, whereas the opposite is true for preoccupied
adolescents.
In adolescence, changes in the hierarchy of attachment figures occur by which teens
increasingly turn to their peers for support, whereas parents function more as “attachment
figures in reserve” (Allen & Land, 1999). According to these authors, adolescents’
48
dependence on peers in early adolescence may be viewed as the first step toward learning to
“use” peers as attachment figures. During this period, peers begin replacing parental
functions, as well as reflexive desire to “obey” peers just as they have previously done with
parents. In this respect, heightened susceptibility to peer pressure is expected (Allen & Land,
1999; Freeman & Brown, 2001). Recent research shows that although adolescents organize
multiple attachment bonds with parents, romantic partners, and friends most of them continue
to identify parents as primary attachment figures (Markiewicz, Lawford, Doyle & Haggart,
2006; Rosenthal & Kobak, 2010). Furthermore, Freeman and Brown (2001) have found that
the individual preference for primary attachment figures was strongly related to attachment
style. That is, secure adolescents most often nominated their parents as the source of
emotional support, whereas peers become their primary attachment figures in early adulthood.
By contrast, adolescents with dismissive and preoccupied attachment styles were more likely
to nominate their peers as primary attachment figures. Furthermore, dismissing adolescents
expressed a general mistrust of others and nearly a third of them identified oneself as the
primary attachment figure. It seems that insecure adolescents have a greater need for multiple
attachment figures, and often use peers as one.
Taken together, adolescents with insecure attachments are more susceptible to peer
pressure because they are more oriented towards peers than securely attached adolescents.
Similarly, Allen, Porter, McFarland, McElhaney and Marsh (2007) suggested that adolescents
with secure attachment to their parents are more likely to form and maintain peer relationships
characterized by lower levels of pressure. Allan et al. (2007) examined in a large community
sample of adolescents how attachment security was related to negative peer pressure,
including to pick fights, smoke, get bad grades and cut classes, and make fun of other kids. As
expected, security was negatively related to negative peer pressure (r =-.31). Furthermore, the
amount of negative peer pressure experience, popularity with peers and overall quality of peer
relationships were significant predictors of attachment security to parents. According to Allen
et al. (2007) one of the possible explanations is that secure adolescents are less susceptible to
peer pressure, and, hence, their friends exert less direct peer pressure on them. However, it is
also possible that adolescents’ attachment would be a better predictor of one’s own behavior
rather than of the amount of peer pressure experience. Although studies show that peers exert
more pressure on adolescents who are perceived as more likely to conform to peer
expectations, the relationship between these two variables is less clear. Therefore, it is
necessary to examine the association of secure and insecure attachment styles with
susceptibility to peer pressure and perception of the intensity of peer pressure.
49
Based on these issues, the purpose of the present research was twofold. First, it
examines whether adolescents with different attachment styles (i.e. secure vs. insecure) differ
in the susceptibility to peer pressure. Second, it investigates the interaction effect of gender,
attachment style and perception of the intensity of peer pressure on susceptibility to peer
pressure. Based on the past research on attachment features in adolescent relationships and
peer pressure, it was expected that adolescents with insecure attachments would be more
susceptible to peer pressure than securely attached adolescents. Furthermore, it was
hypothesized that boys will be more susceptible to peer pressure than girls (Berndt, 1979;
Brown, Clasen, & Eicher, 1986; Brown, 1989; Lebedina Manzoni, Lotar, & Ricijaš, 2008). It
was also expected that the susceptibility to peer pressure would be higher among adolescents
who perceive the intensity of peer pressure as high. However, based on the past research,
significant three-way interaction between attachment style, gender and perception of the peer
pressure was not anticipated.
RESULTS
One of the aims of this study was to examine the relationship between susceptibility to
peer pressure and attachment to peers. Based on their score on the Anxiety and Avoidance
scales, participants were classified into four attachment styles. Overall, as can be seen in
Table 1. Participants were most frequently classified as having a secure attachment style,
whereas insecure attachments (i.e. preoccupied and dismissive) were less frequent. Only 3%
participants classified themselves as fearful.
Table 1. The frequency (%) of adolescents classified into four attachment styles
Attachment to friends
Secure Preoccupied Dismissive Fearful
Frequencies 752 97 48 29
Percentage 81.2% 10.5% 5.2% 3.1%
Furthermore, the relationship between susceptibility to peer pressure and attachment

style (i.e. secure and insecure) was examined. Finally, the potential interaction between
attachment style and gender, as well as the interaction between attachment style and
perception of the intensity of peer pressure in predicting susceptibility to peer pressure were
explored. Given the small number of dismissively and fearfully attached adolescents, four
50
attachment styles were collapsed into two attachment groups, i.e. secure and insecure
attachment style.
Table 2. shows means and standard deviations for the Susceptibility to peer pressure
and the Perception of peer pressure scales by attachment style.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the Susceptibility to peer pressure and the Perception of peer
pressure scales by attachment style with friends
Attachment to friends
Secure Insecure
M SD M SD
Susceptibility to peer pressure 35.53 11.04 40.27 13.99

n=752 n=174
Perception of the intensity of peer
35.67 12.26 42.99 16.51
pressure
Overall, as can be seen from Table 2, those with the insecure attachment style reported
a higher susceptibility to peer pressure, as well as higher perceived intensity of the peer
pressure than those classified with the secure attachment style.
Furthermore, a three-way ANOVA was preformed with attachment style (i.e.
secure/insecure), gender and perception of the intensity of peer pressure (i.e. low/high) as the
independent variables, and susceptibility to peer pressure as the dependent variable.
Participants were classified according to median perception of the peer pressure value
into either a high or a low group. That is, participants whose score was above the median
perceived intensity of the peer influence as high, whereas those below the median perceived
the intensity as low.
Results of the three way-ANOVA showed significant main effects of the attachment
style, gender and perception of the intensity of peer pressure. However, only one significant
interaction emerged between gender and the perception of the intensity of peer pressure
(Table 3).
Overall, adolescents with insecure attachment style reported higher susceptibility to
peer pressure than those with secure attachment. Compared to girls, boys reported higher
levels of peer pressure. Furthermore, it also appears that participants who perceived the
intensity of peer pressure as high were the ones who reported higher susceptibility to peer
pressure (Figure 1).
51
Table 3. Results of the Three-Way ANOVA Comparing the Means of Susceptibility to Peer
Pressure by Attachment Style, Gender and the Perception of the Peer Pressure Scale (PPPS)
Source of variation Sum of squares df F Partial η2

Attachment style 1014.21 1 9.74** .011
Gender 2808.79 1 26.97** .029
PPPS 13628.12 1 130.84** .125
Attachment style × PPPS 277.35 1 2.66 .003
Attachment style × Gender 6.51 1 0.06 .000
Gender × PPPS 413.73 1 3.97* .004
Attachment style ×
66.83 1 0.64 .001
Gender × PPPS
Error 95412.94 916
Total 127715.29 923
* p<.05; **p<.01
The effect sizes based on partial eta squared indicate that the perception of the
intensity of peer pressure accounts for 13% of the variance (Table 3). That is, the effect size
of the perception of the intensity of peer pressure is large, whereas the effect sizes of the
attachment style and gender are small.
50
45
40
35
30
25
Secure Insecure Boys Girls Low High
Attachment Gender Perception of the intensity

of peer pressure
Figure 1. Main effects of the attachment style, gender and perception

of the intensity of peer pressure
52
Interaction between gender and the perception of the intensity of peer pressure
suggests that, although boys are more susceptible to peer pressure when compared to girls,
difference between boys and girls becomes more pronounced in the High perception of the
intensity of peer pressure group (Figure 2). However, this effect is very small so that there are
questions about its practical signiﬁcance.
Boys Girls
50
45
40
35
30
25
Low High
Perception of the intensity of peer pressure
Figure 2. Interaction between gender and the perception of the intensity of peer pressure
Given the over-lap between the anxious and avoidant attachment dimensions, the
question of unique predictive power of two attachment dimensions in predicting susceptibility
to peer pressure remains unanswered. Predictive power was examined through correlations
between the avoidance dimension of attachment, the anxiety dimension of attachment and
susceptibility to peer pressure.
Table 4. Intercorrelations between susceptibility to peer pressure, perception of the intensity

of peer pressure and two attachment dimensions
(2) (3) (4)

(1) Susceptibility to peer pressure .53** .25** .18**
(2) Perception of the intensity of
- .33** .14**
peer pressure
(3) Attachment anxiety - .18**
(4) Attachment avoidance -
* p<.05; **p<.01
53
The results indicated that attachment anxiety was low and positively correlated with
attachment avoidance. In addition, both attachment dimensions were positively correlated
with the susceptibility to peer pressure, but correlation coefficient was higher for the
Attachment anxiety dimension (Table 4).
Furthermore, perception of the intensity of peer pressure was positively related to both
attachment related anxiety and attachment related avoidance with a higher correlation for the
attachment related anxiety. However, it should be also noted that susceptibility to peer
pressure and perception of the intensity of peer pressure both exhibit low correlations with the
two attachment dimensions.
DISCUSSION
Current findings are consistent with several past studies of susceptibility to peer
pressure and its correlates. As expected, boys perceived themselves as more susceptible to
peer pressure than girls. For example, previous studies have found that boys are more prone to
peer-pressure risk-taking behavior (Berndt, 1979; Brown et al., 1986; Lebedina Manzoni et
al., 2008). It should be also noted that the Susceptibility to peer pressure mainly focuses on
adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors (e.g. smoking, alcohol consumption, stealing). However,
based on these results it is not possible to make distinction whether current findings are due to
boys being more prone to conformity or to boys thinking that certain behavior are acceptable.
Future research should focus on the adolescents’ beliefs about the acceptability of certain
behaviors in peer groups.
As expected, adolescents high on the perceived intensity of peer pressure were more
susceptible to peer pressure. However, the cross-sectional nature of this study makes it
impossible to make any type of interpretation of the temporal ordering necessary to help
reveal causal relationship between susceptibility and perception of peer pressure. For
example, it is possible that adolescents exert increasing influence on those perceived as more
susceptible to social pressure. It is also possible that adolescents yield to peer pressure
because they cannot deal with the increasing intensity of the pressure, as well as, to avoid
damaging relationships with other peers. Furthermore, it may be that adolescents who are
more susceptible to peer pressure use increased perception of the peer pressure to justify their
conformity behaviors.
According to comprehensive conceptualization of the peer influence process (Brown,
Bakken, Ameringer, & Mahon, 2008) it is possible that some other variables, e.g. social status
54
or power of the peers, moderate associations between susceptibility and perception of peer
pressure. Although this finding is expected, future research should examine underlying
processes by which perception of peer pressure leads to susceptibility to peer pressure.
Attachment style was a significant predictor of susceptibility to peer pressure. Current
findings are consistent with the study by Brown et al. (2008), which found that individual
characteristics have effects on exposure to peer pressure, or on adolescents’ reactions to peer
pressure. That is, attachment style as the individual characteristic affects dynamics of peer
interactions, which in turn influences the intensity of peer pressure and adolescent’s
susceptibility to peer pressure. As expected, adolescents with secure attachment style were
less susceptible to peer pressure than insecurely attached adolescents. Taken together, it is
possible that secure attachment serves as a protective factor against the conformity to peers,
regardless of the intensity of peer pressure.
With respect to the relationship between the attachment style and susceptibility to peer
pressure, current results are consistent with several past studies of the characteristics of
attachment hierarchies. Adolescents with preoccupied and dismissive attachment styles (i.e.
insecure style) during adolescence “reshuffle” their attachment hierarchies in a way that peers
become the most important attachment figures (Freeman & Brown, 2001). As a result,
insecurely attached adolescents are the most susceptible to peer pressure. By contrast,
adolescents who do not rank peer at the top of attachment hierarchies are less susceptible to
peer pressure. Current findings are consistent with the work by Allen and Land (1999), which
found that during adolescence main attachment focus shifts from their parents to peers with
peers becoming the most important attachment figures. In addition, adolescents reflexively
tend to “obey” peer directives just as they have previously done with parental directives.
Taken together, it could be argued that insecurely attached adolescents are more susceptibility
to peer pressure because of the “obedience” to peers who became adolescents’ primary
attachment figures. It is also possible that securely attached adolescents are less susceptible to
peer pressure because parents remained the primary attachment figures, and therefore they
tend to “obey” parental rather than peer directives.
The susceptibility to peer pressure was related to both attachment related anxiety and
attachment related avoidance. It was expected that the correlations for susceptibility to peer
pressure would be stronger with anxiety than with avoidance dimension, as attachment related
anxiety refers to the fear of rejection and abandonment. It was also expected that the
correlation between avoidance dimension (i.e. discomfort with closeness and discomfort
depending on others) and susceptibility to peer pressure would be negative. That is,
55
adolescents who do not feel comfortable in close relationships and try to avoid them would be
less susceptible to peer pressure. Surprisingly, the correlation is low but positive. Given this,
it is possible that adolescents with an avoidant attachment style tend to show restricted
emotions in peer relationships because of discomfort they feel in trusting and becoming close
to others. Arguably, it could be suggested that the avoidant adolescents do not gain peer
acceptance, social status or maintain peer relationships through bonding, but instead, they
adjust their behavior in accordance with the expectations of their peer group. This contention
is supported by a number of studies, which revealed that avoidant attachment is associated
with low levels of self-disclosure (Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991; Bradford, Feeney, &
Campbell, 2002; Taslak & Kamenov, 2009; Jelić, Kamenov, & Zlatar, 2010).
Furthermore, the results demonstrate the importance of assessing attachment when
studying differences in the susceptibility to peer pressure. However, it should be noted that in
this study preoccupied, fearful and dismissive attachment styles were collapsed into one
attachment group (i.e. insecure). Therefore, additional research is needed to determine
whether the different patterns of insecure attachment relate to susceptibility to peer pressure in
a similar manner. In addition, given the small number of dismissively and fearfully attached
adolescents future research should specifically target adolescents at risk for insecure
attachment. Moreover, the past research has clearly observed that dismissive attachment style
is three times more likely among incarcerated felons (Frodi, Dernevik, Sepa, Philipson &
Bragesjö, 2001), whereas secure attachment among criminal offenders was virtually absent
(van Ijzendoorn et al., 1997). Thus, the relationship between attachment styles and differences
in susceptibility to peer pressure should be examined among youth exhibiting risk taking and
delinquent behavior.
In addition, future research on peer attachment and susceptibility to peer pressure
should focus on underlying processes such as adolescents’ attachment hierarchy. That is,
research should focus on the reorganization of attachment hierarchy during adolescence, or
changes in attachment style because of different interpersonal relationships and autonomy
development. Furthermore, longitudinal research is needed to help reveal causal relationships
between underlying processes and susceptibility to peer pressure. In addition, research on
causes of greater susceptibility to peer pressure among adolescents with insecure attachments
would enable the development of different prevention programs and strategies for reducing
risk-taking behavior among youth insecurely attached to their peers.
56
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C.M. Parkes & J.

Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 3-30). New
York: Basic Books.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E. & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allen, J.P. (2008). The Attachment System in Adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 419-
435). New York: The Guilford Press.
Allen, J.P. & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment theory and research (pp. 319-335). New York: The Guilford
Press.
Allen, J.P., McElhaney, K., Kuperminc, G.P. & Jodl, K.M. (2004). Stability and Change in
Attachment Security Across Adolescence. Child Development, 75 (6), 1792-1805.
Allen, J.P., Porter, M., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. & Marsh, P. (2007). The Relation of
Attachment Security to Adolescents' Paternal and Peer Relationships, Depression, and
Externalizing Behavior. Child Development, 78 (4), 1222-1239.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.
Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of
a four-category model. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 61 (2), 226-244.
Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Berndt, T.J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol.1. Attachment (1st ed.), London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic
Books.
Bradford, S.A., Feeney, J.A. & Campbell, L. (2002). Links between attachment orientations
and dispositional and diary-based measures of disclosure in dating couples: A study of
actor and partner effects. Personal Relationships, 9, 491-506.
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L. & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic
attachment: An integrative overview. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment
theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
Brown, B.B. (1989). The Role of Peer Groups in Adolescents' Adjustment to Secondary
School. In T.J. Berndt & G.W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp.
188-215). New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
57
Brown, B.B., Bakken, J.P., Ameringer, S.W. & Mahon, S.D. (2008). A comprehensive
conceptualization of the peer influence process in adolescence. In M.J. Prinstein & K.
Dodge (Eds.), Peer influence processes among youth (pp. 17-44). New York: Guildford
Publications.
conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents. Developmental
Psychology, 22 (4), 521-530.
Collins, N.L. & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult Attachment, Working Models and Relationship
Quality in Dating Couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Cooper, M., Shaver, P. & Collins, N.L. (1998). Attachment Styles, Emotion Regulation, and
Adjustment in Adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (5), 1380-
1397.
Fraley, R.C. & Phillips, R.L. (2009). Self-Report Measures of Adult Attachment in Clinical
Practice. In J.H. Obegi & E. Berant (Eds.), Attachment Theory and Research in Clinical
Work with Adults (pp. 153-180). New York: Guilford Press.
Freeman, H. & Brown, B.B. (2001). Primary Attachment to Parents and Peers During
Adolescence: Differences by Attachment Style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30
(6), 653-674.
Frodi, A., Dernevik, M., Sepa, A., Philipson, J. & Bragesjö, M. (2001). Current attachment
representations of incarcerated offendeers varying in degree of psychopathy. Attachment
& Human Development, 3, 269-283.
Jelić, M., Kamenov, Ž. & Zlatar, A. (2010). What Determines Self-disclosure to Romantic
Partners? Review of Psychology, 17 (2), 200.
Kamenov, Ž. (2006). The role of attachment in adulthood: Is there a reason for pessimism or
optimism? In V. Ćubela Adorić (Eds.), Book of Selected Proceedings, 15th Psychology
Days in Zadar (pp. 10-28). Zadar: University of Zadar, Department of Psychology.
Inventory. Contemporary psychology, 6 (1), 73-91.
Lebedina Manzoni, M., Lotar, M. & Ricijaš, N. (2008). Adolescents' susceptibility to peer
pressure - challenges of defining and measuring. Annual of Social work, 3, 401-419.
Markiewicz, D., Lawford, H., Doyle, A.B. & Haggart, N. (2006). Developmental differences
in adolescents' and young adults' use of mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic
partners to fulfill attachment needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35 (1), 127-140.
McElhaney, K.B., Allen, J.P., Stephenson, J.C. & Hare, A.L. (2009). Attachment and
autonomy during adolescence. In R.M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of
adolescent psychology, Vol. 1: Individual bases of adolescent development (pp. 358-403).
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mikulincer, M. & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment Styles and Patterns of Self-Disclosure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (2), 321-331.
58
Rosenthal, N. & Kobak, R.R. (2010). Assessing Adolescents' Attachment Hierarchies:

Differences Across Developmental Periods and Associations With Individual Adaptation.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20 (3), 678-706.
Scharfe, E. & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns.
Personal relationships, 1, 23-43.
Taslak, M. & Kamenov, Ž. (2009). Gender differences in friendship quality in late
adolescence. Scientific-professional conference "Current Trends in Psychology", Novi
Sad, Srbija (pp. 114-115).
van Ijzendoorn, M.H., Feldbrugge, J.T.T.M., Derks, F.C.H., de Ruiter, C., Verhagen, M.F.M.,
Philipse, M.W.G., van der Staak, C.P.F. & Riksen-Walraven, J.M.A. (1997). Attachment
representations of personality-disordered criminal offenders. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 67, 449-459.
59
Parental behavior and adolescent susceptibility to peer pressure
Neven Ricijaš
INTRODUCTION
Family is the first and the most important environment for child development, and is
often viewed as a major socialization agent by a number of different theoretical approaches
(e.g. ecological system theory, social learning theory, attachment theory etc.). Parental
behavior and child-rearing practices affect the entire socio-emotional development of children
(Macuka, 2008). That is, family environment is the basic context, within which children form
ideas about interpersonal relationships and develop patterns of social interaction, which are
later transferred to other relationships outside the family (Deković & Raboteg-Šarić, 1997).
During the second half of 20th century Baumrind (1971) and Maccoby and Martin
(1983) proposed one of the most famous typologies of parenting styles using a two-
dimensional framework. The first dimension is support and is defined as warmth, affection,
and responsiveness. The second dimension, control, is defined as demanding and controlling
the child. The majority of research on the two-dimensional conceptualization has indicated
considerable stability in parental behavior over time, as well as in relation to child’s gender
(Collins & Russell, 1991). Given this, aforementioned dimensions today are considered basic
parenting style dimensions, although measurement of parental behavior has changed. By
combining these orthogonal dimensions, the following parenting styles can be identified:
authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting, permissiveness, and neglectful parenting
(Vander Zanden, 1993; Klarin, 2006; Hoeve et al., 2007).
Numerous research on the relationship between parenting style and child behavior
have found that authoritative parenting (characterized by high warmth and control) is the
“best” parenting style leading to positive developmental outcomes for a child, namely
growing sense of autonomy, social competencies, self-respect and low levels of risk-taking
and delinquent behavior (Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts & Dornbusch, 1994; Gullotta,
Adams & Markstorm, 2000; Laird, Pettit, Dodge & Bates, 2003; de Kemp, Scholte, Overbeek
& Engels, 2006; Burić, Macuka, Sorić & Vulić-Prtorić, 2007; Hoeve et al., 2008).
Research on the importance of parenting control has been equivocal. On the one hand,
Becker (1964, as cited in Vander Zaden, 1993) argues that the combination of lower levels of
60
control with higher levels of warmth has positive effects on activity, openness, sociability,
creativity, and assertiveness. By contrast, several authors consider this combination as a risk
factor for conduct problems, in particular externalizing behavior problems (e.g. Keresteš,
1999). These inconsistences may be due to different definitions of parental control used in
research. That is, number on definitions focused mainly on the intensity of control, but not the
quality. From the 1990s developmental research emphasizes different types of parental
control, namely psychological and behavioral (Soenens, Vansteenkiste & Luyten, 2010).
Parents use psychological control to monitor their child’s inner experiences, emotions
and thoughts, in addition to different parenting behaviors that hinder child’s development of
psychological independence, autonomy and individuation. Behavioral control encompasses
setting boundaries and limits around child’s behavior in order to discourage child’s
undesirable behavior (Macuka, 2008). According to Manzekse and Stright (2009) behavioral
control includes providing rewards (praise, attention, privileges) and punishments (taking
away privileges), whereas psychological control focuses on the use of the parent-child
psychological bond (e.g. through expressions of disappointment, guilt induction, emphasizing
the sacrifices made by the parent for the child’s well-being etc). Barber (1996, as cited in
Kuppens, Gietens, Onghena & Michiels, 2009) emphasizes the intrusive nature of
psychological control that negatively affects child’s psychological world through
manipulation and exploitation of the parent-child bond, withholding of emotions, expressions
of criticism, and intensive personal control over decision-making. In this sense, Kuppens et al.
(2009) describe psychological control as a type of relational, indirect aggression.
Research studies have found that psychological control hinders children’s mastery
over their behavior and has negative effects on social and emotional development.
Furthermore, psychological control has been consistently, and positively, linked with
internalizing and externalizing problems (Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Macuka, 2008), emotional
regulation (Manzeske & Stright, 2009), aggressive behavior (Knezović & Buško, 2007;
Huppens et al., 2009), self-esteem (Burić et al., 2008), difficulties in establishing close and
satisfying friendships, and loneliness (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Buriez & Niemiec,
2008).
A recent study by Soenens, Vansteenkiste & Luyten (2010) which examined two types
of parents’ psychological control found that psychologically controlling parenting can be
driven by parental concerns in two different domains: (1) interpersonal closeness and (2)
achievement, i.e., dependency-oriented and achievement-oriented psychological control.
Authors conclude that parents’ use of psychological control in these two domains is
61
differentially related to features of parents’ own personality functioning. In other words,

although parents’ use of psychological control in both domains may render adolescents
vulnerable to internalizing problems (anxiety and separation problems) and to depressive
symptoms in particular, they seem to do so along distinct developmental pathways. However,
future research is warranted.
Kuterovac Jagodić, Keresteš and Brković (2007) examined predictive power of the
current adult attachment style and parental attachment history (i.e. person’s attachment with
their parents) on their parenting behavior. A total of 812 pairs of parents and their school-age
children participated in the study. The results showed that parents with secure attachment
style display more positive parenting behavior toward their children than parents with
insecure (avoidant or ambivalent) attachment styles. In addition, securely attached mothers
and fathers more often use positive discipline; display high levels of parental warmth,
closeness, and open expressions of love, comfort and understanding. Insecurely attached
parents display more negative parenting (e.g. showing rejection, withholding praise and help,
unrecognizing the needs and feelings of children etc.). Authors have also found that based on
children's perception of parental behavior attachment style was not related to maternal
parenting style, but was related to father’s positive parenting practices, i.e., positive discipline
and monitoring. Given this, authors conclude, in accordance with the core hypothesis of
attachment theory, that parent's mental representation of attachment leads to working mental
model of self and others, which in turn determines one’s relationships with others such as
peers, parents and children.
Nature of attachment between parents and children also indicates positive influence
parents have on their children. That is, families with secure adolescents make s smoother
transition into the larger social world of adolescence through balancing autonomy and
attachment needs. Secure adolescents have more confidence that their relationships will
remain intact and functional in spite of disagreements. By contrast, insecure teen-parent dyads
are more likely to be characterized by avoidance of problem-solving and lower levels of
adolescent confidence in interactions, as well as, higher levels of disengagement,
dysfunctional anger, and use of pressuring tactics that tend to undermine autonomy (Allen &
Land, 1999). Parental attachment can also be perceived as risk/protective factor for child's
social behavior. Ručević (2011) found that strong attachment to both mother and father was
related to reduced risk for delinquency in sample of boys, whereas the relationship was less
apparent for girls. The findings also show that strong attachment to one parent is as effective
in inhibiting delinquency as strong attachment to both parents.
62
Similarly, research on the relationship between parenting styles and child behavior
found age and gender differences (i.e. differences regarding child’s age and gender, as well as
parents’ gender). For example, according to meta-analysis by Rothbaum and Weisz (1994, as
cited in Keresteš, 1999) parenting variables were more strongly related to aggressive behavior
in boys that they were in girls. Pettit et al. (2001, as cited in Macuka, 2008) found that
maternal psychological control was positively associated with the development of
externalising problems during early adolescence, and internalising symptoms such as
anxiety/depression and delinquent behaviour during late adolescence for girls. Reitz, Prinzie,
Deković and Buist (2007) explored direct and indirect effects (through peer contacts) of
parental knowledge on adolescents’ delinquent and aggressive problem behavior. The results
of this research indicate gender differences, with stronger effects of parenting on both
aggressive and delinquent problem behavior for boys and stronger effects of peer contacts on
aggressive behavior for girls. These results suggest that different externalizing behaviors have
different trajectories and diverse relations with parenting and should not be treated as
identical.
According to developmental theory, in childhood and early adolescence much of
individual’s socialization occurs within the context of family environment, whereas late
adolescence is characterized by the emergence of an independent sense of identity and an
evolving conceptualization of role relationships that is a normal aspect of the socialization
process (Wood, Read, Mitchell & Brand, 2004). As young adolescents begin to assert their
own independence from the family, additional extra-familial socialization influences become
more incorporated into their sense of identity. Peer associations become more intensive;
hence, it has been argued that parental influences decrease during this period.
In the early literature there is a lack of research on parental influence on adolescent’s
peer affiliation and peer relationships. If the current research shows that different
psychosocial outcomes for children depend on parental behavior, it could be hypothesized that
parental behavior will have an effect on child’s peer relationships, quality of their friendships,
susceptibility to peers pressure and involvement in risk taking or delinquent behavior. Chen,
Dornbusch and Liu (2007) suggest that this lack of research may be due to a conception of
weak linkage between the two social worlds, parents and peers, during adolescence. However,
they also provide evidence of many recent empirical studies that have documented parental
influence on adolescent peer affiliation. It should be also noted that most of the current
research has compared parental vs. peer influence in relation to risk taking behavior
suggesting that peer pressure (or general influence) is linked to negative outcomes.
63
In a recent comparative literature review, de Kemp, Scholte, Overbeek and Engels

(2006) found that authoritative parenting buffered adolescents against the influence of drug
use by friends. It was also found that family characteristics have moderating effects on later
delinquent behavior by decreasing the likelihood of affiliation with violent peers and that
strong parental attachment can discourage association with deviant peers and decrease
susceptibility to their negative influence.
Wood and colleagues (2004) found in a sample of late adolescents significant
associations between peer and parental influences and alcohol involvement. It was also found
that parental influences moderated peer-influence-drinking behavior, such that higher levels
of perceived parental involvement were associated with weaker relations between peer
influences and alcohol use and problems. Their findings suggest that parents continue to exert
an influential role in late adolescent drinking behavior. Similarly, Sullivan (2006) reported
that peer influence was the strongest predictor of delinquent behavior, whereas family
environment demonstrated a protective effect. Reitz, Deković, Meijer and Engels (2006)
found in their longitudinal study that, while controlling for parental variables, friends’
deviance affected adolescent externalizing, but not internalizing problem behavior over time.
Urberg, Luo, Pilgrim and Degirmencioglu (2003) found that adolescents who did not
value school achievement and spending time with parents were more apt to find friends with
risky behaviors such as cigarette smoking and alcohol use. On the other hand, it should also
be noted that adolescents do not associate with certain groups of peers by chance. That is,
adolescents form their friendships based on peers’ reputation and behavioral similarity.
In a longitudinal study by Windle (1994, according to Deković & Raboteg-Šarić,
1997) compared to peer influence, adolescent’s problem behavior had a stronger effect on
selecting someone as a friend. Furthermore, Reitz et al. (2007) argue that negative parenting is
associated with higher levels of exposure to peers because such parenting may lead
adolescents to invest more time and attention in their peer relationship. As a result,
adolescents may become more susceptible to peer influence, which in turn may lead to more
participation in delinquent or aggressive behaviors.
Research by Deković and Raboteg-Šarić (1997) provides evidence that supports this
contention. Authors argue that a distinction should be made between two aspects of
adolescents’ relationship with peers: (1) involvement with peers, defined as the degree of
activities with peers and friendships which are more superficial in nature, and (2) the quality
of the relationship with peers, defined as perceived social acceptance and attachment to peers.
Authors have found that parental acceptance and monitoring of the child are the most
64
important predictors of the adolescent-peer relation. Furthermore, parental acceptance of the

child was associated with higher quality of the relationship with peers, whereas low
monitoring of the adolescents’ activities was associated with a higher involvement with peers.
Similarly, Fuligni and Eccles (1993) conducted a study on perceived parent-child
relationship and early adolescents’ orientation toward peers. Since parents should provide
more autonomy and opportunities for participation in decision-making during adolescence,
authors were interested if parenting style had an effect on peer relationships. The results
demonstrated that adolescents who believed their parents did not relax their power and
restrictiveness (in early adolescence) were higher in extreme form of peer orientation. The
lack of parental participation in decision-making was associated with both extreme peer
orientation and peer advice seeking. Today, these results could be interpreted within the
context of strong psychological control.
Based on these issues, the purpose of the current study is to examine relations between
parenting styles and perceived susceptibility to peer pressure. In addition, the past research
has found that boys and girls react differently to both parent-child and peer relationships (e.g.
girls are more likely to rely on friends as a source of advice, whereas boys are less likely to
resist antisocial peer pressure etc.) (Fuligni & Eccles, 1993). Hence, differences in these
associations were examined in relation to both child and parent’s gender.
Furthermore, based on the past research showing that negative parenting practices
have negative effects on child’s cognitive, emotional and social functioning, it was
hypothesized that more negative parenting style would be associated with higher
susceptibility to peer pressure. Parenting practices were measured using the Parental Behavior
Questionnaire (PBQ-29) (Keresteš, Kuterovac-Jagodić & Brković, 2009; Brković, 2010),
whereas susceptibility to peer pressure was measured using the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure
Scale (SPPS) developed for this study. Both measures are described in the Introduction
chapter.
Descriptive statistics for the Parental Behavior Questionnaire dimensions were
calculated and can be seen in Table 1. In general, both boys and girls reported more positive
parenting practices for both mother and father.
65
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum) for
subscales on Parental Behavior Questionnaire
Descriptive statistics
M SD Min Max
Acceptance 3.42 .64 1.00 4.00
Autonomy 3.50 .58 1.00 4.00
Psychological Control 2.48 .76 1.00 4.00
Mothers
Monitoring 2.95 .76 1.00 4.00

Positive Discipline 2.99 .66 1.00 4.00
Negative Discipline 2.03 .66 1.00 4.00
Permissiveness 2.59 .75 1.00 4.00
Acceptance 3.15 .76 1.00 4.00
Autonomy 3.29 .71 1.00 4.00
Psychological Control 2.19 .72 1.00 4.00
Fathers
Monitoring 2.53 .84 1.00 4.00

Positive Discipline 2.66 .75 1.00 4.00
Negative Discipline 1.94 .67 1.00 4.00
Permissiveness 2.52 .77 1.00 4.00
As shown in Table 2, gender is highly correlated with perceived peer pressure measure
(r =-.52). Boys scored significantly higher than girls on the Perception of Peer Pressure Scale
(t = 7.991; p < .001).
Table 2a Pearson correlations for gender, age, perceived susceptibility to peer pressure with
subscales on Parental Behavior Questionnaire
Gender Age PSPP
Gender -
Age .04 -
PSPP -.52** .05 -
A .15** -.08* .19**
AU .17** -.00 .21**
PC -.03 -.03 .22**
mother
M .22** .10** .27**

PD .08* -.05 .15**
ND -.05 .19** .11**
P .09** .05 .08*
A .43 .16** .19**
AU -.01 -.08* .17**
PC .10** -.06 .16**
father
M .02 .14** .20**

PD -.08* -.06* .11**
ND .10** .16** .11**
P .19** .03 .04
Note. PSPP-Perceived Susceptibility to Peer Pressure; A-Acceptance. AU-Autonomy. PC-Psychological Control.
M-Monitoring. PD-Positive Discipline. ND-Negative Discipline. P-Permissiveness; * p < .05; ** p < .01
66
Given this, contribution of parental behavior in the assessment of susceptibility to peer

pressure was measured separately for boys and girls. Furthermore, the relationships between
age and perceived parental behavior/ perceived peer pressure were non-significant.
Furthermore, apart from the Permissiveness subscale, adolescents perceive parenting
practices in a similar manner for both parents (intercorrelations range from .56 to .67).
Current results demonstrate the concordance of parental behavior, defined as the stability of
parenting practices between both parents. However, it should be also noted that concordance
in parenting practices may lead to both positive and negative parental behaviors towards an
adolescent. It should be also noted that the Parental Behavior Questionnaire assesses
adolescent’s perceptions of parental behavior which may be modified by adolescent’s own
criteria, expectations and values.
Table 2b Pearson correlations for subscales on Parental Behavior Questionnaire

mother
A AU PC M PD ND P
A -
AU .68** -
PC .13** .05 -
mother
M .47** .49** -.03 -

PD .46** .57** .12** .41¸** -
ND -.07* -.04 .44** -.01 .14** -
P .23** .11** .01 .10** .07* .16** -
father
A .56** .43** .09** .32** .29** .01 .02
AU .41** .57** -.02 .31** .38** -.00 .02
PC -.04 .01 .59** .00 .16** .32** .09**
father
M .33** .34** -.05 .67** .31** .02 .02

PD .30** .39** .09** .30** .63** .13** .18
ND -.04 -.06 .28** -.02 .12** .66** .05
P .12** .09** .07* .10** .06 -.05 .25**
father
A -
AU .69** -
PC -.02 .10** -
father
M .54** .54** .09** -

PD .50** .64** .28** .48** -
ND -.08* -.01 .50** .03 .18** -
P .32** .20** -.05 .17** .11** .24** -
Note. PSPP-Perceived Susceptibility to Peer Pressure; A-Acceptance. AU-Autonomy. PC-Psychological Control.
M-Monitoring. PD-Positive Discipline. ND-Negative Discipline. P-Permissiveness; * p < .05; ** p < .01
67
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As previously stated, the aim of the study was to examine the association between
parental behavior and perceived peer pressure in a sample of boys and girls. In order to test
for the unique contributions of the parental behavior dimensions, a series of two-step
hierarchical regression analyses was conducted. The results are presented in Table 3. These
results suggest that parental behavior has stronger influence for boys compared with girls.
Maternal parenting behavior explained 20% of variance in the perceived peer pressure scores,
whereas father’s parenting dimensions explained 16% of variance. Among boys, higher levels
of maternal psychological control and permissiveness, and lower levels of monitoring and
positive discipline were related to higher perceived peer pressure. By contrast, among girls
parental behavior explains only 7-8% of variance in the perceived peer pressure scores.
Higher perceived peer pressure was related to lower levels of monitoring by both parents,
higher levels of maternal psychological control and higher levels of paternal permissiveness.
Table 3. Regression Analyses of Variables Predicting Perceived Peer Pressure of Adolescents

Perceived Peer Pressure
Boys Girls
Mother’s Parental Behavior

Acceptance -.02 -.05
Autonomy -.04 -.03
Psychological Control .24*** .16**
Monitoring -.18** -.17**
Positive Discipline -.16** .03
Negative Discipline .03 .04
Permissiveness .23*** .05
Multiple R² .20*** .08***
Father’s Parental Behavior

Acceptance -.08 -.09
Autonomy -.14 -.01
Psychological Control .23*** .06
Monitoring -.14** -.14*
Positive Discipline -.07 -.04
Negative Discipline .02 .09
Permissiveness .23*** .14**
Multiple R² .16*** .07***
Note: All beta weights are standardized.
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001.
In general, the results indicate that more negative parenting, including lack of
monitoring and high permissiveness is related to adolescents’ higher perceived peer pressure.
68
In addition influences of mother and father appear different for boys and girls. Controlling
adolescent’s behavior by manipulation (element of psychological control) with lack of
structure and consistency (elements of permissiveness) may lead to feelings of resistance and
frustration by parents, and need to create safer and stronger attachment with peers. As a result,
adolescent would find his/her friends more important making them more prone to peer
pressure.
Current research findings appear to support gender differences regarding parental
influence. Specifically, these findings support the contention that the association between
parental behavior and/or attachment style and risk taking and delinquent behavior is stronger
for boys than for girls (e.g. Ručević, 2011; Reitz et al, 2007). In addition, it is also possible
that perceived peer pressure is not as high in girls as is in boys. That is, lack of significant
relationship may be due to the low level of perceived peer pressure.
Although the Perceived Peer Pressure Scale does not measure risk-taking behavior per
se, results of the current study demonstrate indirect effect of parental behavior on negative
outcomes for boys (measured as risk taking behavior). That is, even in a “healthy” family
environment peer influence is one of the strongest predictors of delinquent behavior. Hence, it
is reasonable to presume that in a case of negative parenting and low levels of parental
monitoring peer pressure will result in negative outcomes for adolescent. In addition, negative
parenting is related to higher exposure to peers. As a result, children spend more time with
their peers and pay more attention to them.
By contrast, de Kemp and colleagues (2006) demonstrated that possible negative
influences of best friends have been overestimated in previous studies. They argue that small
criminal behaviors of friends at school do not necessarily put adolescents at greater risk for
future delinquency. However, intensification of delinquent behavior in early adolescence does
depend partly on parenting behavior. They also conclude, similarly to the present study, that
by employing high levels of support and supervision, as well as minimal levels of
psychological control, parents may prevent escalation of their child’s delinquency.
In addition, elements of adolescents’ personal values should not be ignored. Padilla-
Walker and Carlo (2007) argue that the pathways to prosocial and antisocial behavior are
different, which is consistent with some other research suggesting the particular importance of
parental monitoring and consistent discipline in deterring children’s antisocial behavior. In
their research, adolescents’ personal values mediated the relation between parents’ and
friends’ expectations, but only for prosocial personal values and prosocial behaviors.
Adolescents’ antisocial behaviors varied as a function of adolescent gender. Although the
69
regression predicting antisocial behavior for girls was statistically significant, the only
variable even marginally related to girls’ antisocial behaviors were maternal expectations. In
contrast, boys who perceived higher peer expectations for prosocial behaviors (but not
maternal expectations) reported participating in fewer antisocial behaviors. These results talk
in favor of possible positive direction of peer influence, and how it can be perceived as a
protective factor against antisocial behavior.
Future research needs to consider influence of different variables on susceptibility to
peer pressure, such as friendship quality, personal values, personality traits, risk behavior etc.,
as well as behavioral outcomes of peer pressure. In addition, the current findings suggest that
primary socialization within the family influences future relationships with peers, and
continues to be one the most important agents of socialization.
70
REFERENCES
Allen, J.P. & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in Adolescence. In Casidy, J. & Shaver, P.R. (Ed.),
Handbook of Attachment – Theory, Research and Clinical Applications, The Guilford
Press: New York, 319-335.
Baumring, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monograph, 4, 1-103.
parental behavior. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Zagreb: Zagreb.
Burić, I., Macuka, I., Sorić, I. & Vulić-Prtorić, A. (2007). Self-Esteem in Early Adolescence:
The Importance of Parental Behavior and School Success. Journal of General Social
Issues, 4-5, 887-906.
Chen, Z., Dornbusch, S.M. & Liu, R.X. (2007). Direct and indirect pathways between
parental constructive behavior and adolescent affiliation with achievement-oriented peers.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 837-858.
Collins, W.A. & Russel, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationship in middle
childhood and adilescence: A developmental analysis, Developmental Review, 11, 99-
136.
Deković, M. & Raboteg-Šarić, Z. (1997). Parental child rearing practices and adolescent peer
relations. Journal of General Social Issues, 4-5, 427-445.
Fuligni, A.J. & Eccles, J.S. (1993). Perceived parent-child relationships and early adolescents’
orientation toward peers. Developmental Psychology, 29 (4), 622-632.
Gray, M.R. & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multi-
dimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574-887.
Gullotta, T.P., Adams, G.R., Markstorm, C.A. (2000): The Adolescent Experience. 4th
edition, San Diego: Academic Press.
Hoeve, M., Smeenk, W., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., van der Laan, P.H., Gerris,
J.R.M. & Semon Dubas, J. (2007). Long-term effects of parenting and family
characteristics on delinquency of male young adults. European Journal of Criminology,
4, 161-194.
Hoeve, M., Blokland, A., Dubas., J.S., Loeber, R., Gerris, J.R.M. & vand der Laan, P.H.
(2008). Trajectories of Delinquency and Parenting Styles. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 36, 223-235.
de Kemp, R.A.T., Scholte, R.H.J., Overbeek, G. & Engels, R.C.M.E. (2006). Early adolescent
delinquency: The role of parents and best friends. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33 (4),
488-510.
Keresteš, G. (1999). Aggressive and prosocial behavior of school children in the context of
war: verification of mediating influence of parent behavior. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Zagreb: Zagreb.
71
Keresteš, G., Kuterovac-Jagodić, G., Brković, I. (2009): Parental Behavior Questionnaire

(PBQ-29). Unpublished manual, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy,
University of Zagreb: Zagreb.
Klarin, M. (2006). Development of children in social context: parents, peers, teachers –
context of child development. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
Knezović, D. & Buško, V. (2007). Perception of parental behavior and different aspects of
aggressive behavior among elementary school children. Educational Sciences, 9 (1), 91-
106.
Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghana, P., Michiels, D. (2009). Relations between parental
psychological control and childhood relational aggression: Reciprocal in Nature? Journal
of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38 (1), 117-131.
Kuterovac Jagodić, G., Keresteš, G. & Brković, I. (2007). Attachment styles of parents of
adolescents and their parenting behavior. In Čubela Adorić, V. (Ed.), 15th Psychology
Days in Zadar: Book of Selected Proceedings, University of Zadar, 167-183.
Laird, R.D., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.A. & Bates, J.E. (2003). Change in parents’ monitoring
knowledge: Links with parenting, relationship quality, adolescent beliefs and antisocial
behavior. Social Development, 12 (3), 401-419.
Maccoby, E.E. & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child
interaction. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization,
personality, and social development (4th ed. pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Macuka, I. (2008). The Role of Children's Perception of Parental Behavior in Explaining
Internalizing and Externalizing Problems. Journal of General Social Issues, 17 (6), 1179-
202.
Manzeske, D.P. & Stright, A.D. (2009). Parenting styles and emotion regulation: The role of
behavioral and psychological control during young adulthood, Journal of Adult
Development, 16, 223-229.
Padilla-Walker, L.M. & Carlo, G. (2007). Personal Values as a Mediator Between Parent and
Peer Expectations and Adolescent Behaviors, Journal of Family Psychology, 21 (3), 538-
541.
Reitz, E., Deković, M., Meije, A.M. & Engels, R.C.M.E. (2006). Longitudinal relations
among parenting, best friends, and early adolescent problem behavior. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 26 (3), 272-295.
Reitz, E., Prinzie, P., Deković, M. & Buist, K.L. (2007). The role of peer contact in the
relationship between parental knowledge and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: A
latent growth curve modeling approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 623-634.
Ručević, S. (2011). Relationship between parental attachments and delinquent and risk-taking
behaviors. Journal for General Social Issues, 20 (1), 167-187.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M. & Luyten, P. (2010). Toward a domain-specific approach to
the study of parental psychological control: Distinguishing between dependency-oriented
and achievement-oriented control. Journal of Personality, 78( 1), 217-256.
72
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Duriez, B. & Niemiec, C.P. (2008). The
intervening role of relational aggression beteen psychological control and friendship
quality. Social Development, 17, 661-681.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Darling, N., Mounts, N.S. & Dornbusch S.M. (1994). Overtime
changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative,
authoritatioan, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.
Sullivan, C.J. (2006). Early adolescent delinquency: Assessing the role of childhood
problems, family environment, and peer pressure. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4,
291-313.
Urberg, K.A., Luo, Q., Pilgrim, C. & Degirmencioglu, S.M. (2003). A two-stage model of
Vander Zanden, J. (1993). Human Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Wood, M.D., Read, J.P., Mitchell, R.E. & Brand, N.H. (2004). Do parents still matter? Parent
and peer influences on alcohol involvement among recent high school graduates.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18 (1), 19-30.
73
Characteristics of youth and susceptibility to peer pressure
Marija Lebedina Manzoni & Neven Ricijaš
Association between susceptibility to peer pressure, personality characteristics and

relationships with significant others have been discussed in detail in previous chapters. It was
hypothesized that characteristics and nature of susceptibility to peer pressure are related to a
number of features of the influence situation or characteristics of the individual. Thus, the aim
of the study was to identify predictive power of included variables.
The purpose of the present chapter is to review the contribution of adolescents’
individual characteristics in explanation of susceptibility to peer pressure. That is, it examines
which characteristics best discriminate youth regarding susceptibility to peer pressure. In
order to test for the unique contributions of the examined variables, discriminant analysis was
conducted. The susceptibility to peer pressure was entered as the grouping variable, whereas
personality characteristics, attachment to peers and perception of parenting behavior were
entered as discriminating variables.
Participants were categorized into four groups based on their score on the
Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale. Each group includes roughly a quarter (25%) of
participants. Although there are disadvantages to this method of classification, it allowed
categorization of youth based on their level of susceptibility to peer pressure in comparison to
the whole sample. The theoretical score range of the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale is
22 to 110, whereas score range in the current study was 22 to 87. Classification of adolescents
based on their score on the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Levels of susceptibility to peer pressure with corresponding Susceptibility to Peer

Pressure Scale scores
Levels of susceptibility Scores N %

1. Low susceptibility to peer pressure 22-27 241 25,7
2. Low-medium susceptibility to peer pressure 28-34 258 27,5
3. Medium-high susceptibility to peer pressure 35-42 207 22,1
4. High susceptibility to peer pressure 43-87 232 24,7
Total 938 100,0
74
Discriminant variables were defined as general youth personality characteristics and

youths’ relationships with significant others, including general perception of one’s self-worth,
social anxiety, worry, depression, psychological well-being and attachment in peer
relationships (anxious and avoidant attachment), as well as perception of parenting behavior
(i.e. parenting styles). Discriminant variables along with assessment tools are shown in Table
2.
Table 2. Authors and assessment tools with corresponding discriminant variables

Author Assessment tool Discriminant variables
Harter (1985) Self Perception Profile for Global self-worth
Adolescents (SPPA)
Vulić-Prtorić (2007) Fear and Anxiety Scale for Social anxiety

Children and Adolescents Worry
(SKAD-62)
Vulić-Prtorić (2003) Depression Scale for Children General depression

and Adolescents (SDD)
Kamenov & Jelić (2003) Experiences in Close Anxious attachment

Relationship Inventory (ECR) Avoidant attachment
Keresteš, Kuterovac-Jagodić Parental Behavior Positive parenting

& Brković (2009); Questionnaire Negative parenting
Brković (2010) (PBQ) Permissiveness
The current findings suggest a significant effect of gender on susceptibility to peer

pressure. Specifically, boys rated themselves as more susceptible to peer pressure when
compared to girls (t=7,602; p< ,001). While suggestive of the gender differences in
susceptibility to peer pressure, it is unknown whether boys are more likely to conform or
whether boys find included behaviors more acceptable. However, it should be noted that
significant gender differences emerged in all included variables except for negative parenting
behaviors (Table 3). Therefore, it is possible that different characteristic are related to
susceptibility to peer pressure in a different manner for adolescent boys and girls. Given this,
two separate discriminant analysis were conducted (for boys and girls).
Taken together, girls scored significantly higher than boys on the social anxiety,
worry, depression, and anxious attachment scales, whereas boys scored significantly higher
on the global self-worth and avoidant attachment scales. Furthermore, girls rated higher
maternal positive parenting, and mother and father’s permissiveness than did boys. By
75
contrast, boys rated paternal negative parenting higher than did girls. All of the
aforementioned gender differences have been discussed in detail in previous chapters.
Table 3. Means and standard deviations for the personality traits, perception of the
relationship and parenting behavior for girls (N=520) and boys (N=417)
Boys Girls
t
M SD M SD
Global self-worth 3,18 0,59 3,09 0,63 2,369*
Social anxiety 19,8 7,21 22,3 7,59 -5,036***
Worry 21,2 8,30 23,0 8,44 -3,267**
Depressive symptoms 46,5 15,30 55,1 16,57 -8,241***
Anxious attachment 21,8 9,28 24,8 10,43 -4,553***
Avoidant attachment 24,9 8,32 20,1 8,96 8,466***
Positive parenting mother 3,1 0,55 3,3 0,48 -5,974***
Negative parenting mother 2,3 0,62 2,2 0,59 1,386
Positive parenting father 2,9 0,62 2,9 0,63 0,352
Negative parenting father 2,1 0,62 2,0 0,56 3,548***
Permissiveness mother 2,5 0,74 2,6 0,74 -2,990**
Permissiveness father 2,3 0,76 2,6 0,75 -5,744***
Among boys, the results of the discriminant analysis yielded a single significant
function accounting for 86% of the total between-groups variance. Group centroids indicated
that this function primarily discriminated the low susceptibility to peer pressure group and the
high susceptibility to peer pressure group. Furthermore, throughout this study it has been
consistently evident that one of the strongest predictors of susceptibility to peer pressure is
perception of peer pressure. Therefore, in order to test the unique contributions of other
examined variables (e.g. attachment, parenting behavior etc.), the perception of peer pressure
was excluded from the discriminant analysis.
Table 4. Significance of a set of discriminant functions and group centroids – boys
Function Canonical Wilks'

Eigenvalue % of Variance χ² df p
Correlation Lambda
1 ,413 86,3 ,540 ,664 149,902 36 <,001
2 ,040 8,3 ,195 ,938 23,478 22 >,050
3 ,026 5,4 ,158 ,975 9,246 10 >,050
Group Centroids of the 1st Function

Low susceptibility to peer Low-medium Medium-high
High susceptibility to
pressure susceptibility to peer susceptibility to peer
peer pressure
pressure pressure
-,966 -,433 ,134 ,696
76
Interestingly, the results of the discriminant analysis (Table 5) show that certain
variables made a small contribution to the discriminant function, although they are highly
correlated with the discriminant function (e.g. global self-worth). This may be due to high
multicollinearity between variables.
Among boys, variable that discriminates best between boys low on susceptibility to
peer pressure and boys high on susceptibility to peer pressure is the maternal positive
parenting. In addition, following variables made important contributions to the discriminant
function: maternal permissiveness, depressive symptoms, anxious attachment and social
anxiety. Furthermore, following variables were highly correlated with the discriminant
function: depressive symptoms, lack of positive parenting, anxious attachment and insecurity
in social relationships, as well as the low perception of self-worth.
Interestingly, boys who rated themselves as more susceptible to peer pressure
perceived maternal parenting behavior as more permissive. Current findings are consistent
with several past studies that showed that adolescents with high social anxiety and depression
are more likely to conform to peer expectations (Lashbrook, 2000; Cohen & Prinstein, 2006).
In addition, research has also found that susceptibility to peer pressure (manifested as social
anxiety or low self-esteem) is higher among youth who have some uncertainty regarding their
self-concept or self-identity (Cohen & Prinstein, 2006; Prinstein, 2007).
Table 5. Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients (S) and within-groups

correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant
functions (C) - boys
Function 1
Discriminant variables
S C
Global self-worth -,060 -,430
Social anxiety ,268 ,429
Worry ,033 ,330
Depressive symptoms ,339 ,587
Anxious attachment ,301 ,442
Avoidant attachment -,214 ,159
Positive parenting mother -,534 -,492
Negative parenting mother ,162 ,165
Positive parenting father -,220 -,423
Negative parenting father -,029 ,152
Permissiveness mother ,467 ,332
Permissiveness father ,137 ,126
77
Results for boys indicated an important role of social anxiety and depressive
symptoms in the context of susceptibility to peer pressure. These findings are consistent with
several past studies that showed that social anxiety is associated with peer relationship
problems. It has also been suggested that socially anxious adolescents may be exposed to
higher levels of stress because of the peer problems. Rudolph and colleagues (2000)
demonstrated that adolescent depression was a result of stress generated by the social anxiety
and unsatisfactory peer relationships. Moreover, anxious attachment made an important
contribution to the model. It may be due to the hallmarks of the anxious attachment style,
namely fear of rejection and abandonment, both of which have been associated in past studies
with susceptibility to peer pressure.
The need to belong is a fundamental human motivation that influences range of
behaviors. As a result, the fear of being rejected and the lack of satisfactory peer relationships
may result in conforming to peer expectations regardless of one's own choices.
Dishion and McMahon (1998) suggested that less effective parenting behavior
management methods include harsh and punitive discipline, or conversely, lax, inconsistent
and over-permissive approaches. Moreover, Wood et al. (2004) found that parental
permissiveness also appeared to influence peer associations, with a significant relationship
between peer influence and alcohol use demonstrated when parents were permissive.
Similarly, Keresteš (1999) reported that permissive parenting style was a risk factor for
problem behavior, in particular externalizing problems.
In addition, studies have clearly observed that when adolescents report feeling close to
their parents they consistently score higher on measures of psychological development,
behavioral competency, self-reliance, and report lower rates of psychological and social
problems (Armsden and Greenberg 1987; Steinberg 1990). Hayes (2004) suggested that good
parent–adolescent relationships are a necessary prerequisite for monitoring to occur. Several
longitudinal studies (e.g. Ary et al. 1999; Barnes et al. 2000; Brody & Ge, 2001) have found
that parent–adolescent relationship quality has an impact on parental monitoring and deviant
peer associations.
In addition, de Kemp et al. (2006) have suggested that intensification of delinquent
behavior in early adolescence depends partly on parenting behavior. They also concluded that
by employing high levels of support and supervision, as well as minimal levels of
psychological control, parents might prevent escalation of their child’s delinquency. By
contrast, boys who report higher global self-worth, as well as more positive parenting
behaviors are less prone to peer influence. As mentioned in previous chapters, high self-
78
esteem is related to high resistance to peer influence (Bamaca & Umana-Taylor, 2006).
Similar results were obtained in this study. Moreover, positive self-esteem has been very often
cited as a major protective factor for susceptibility to peer pressure (Baumeister, 1991,
Rhodes & Wood 1992, Kaplan, 2004).
Taken together, male adolescents who were the least susceptible to peer pressure
differed in several factors from those who were the most susceptible to peer pressure, namely
positive parenting, absence of emotional problems, lower levels of anxiety in peer
relationships, and mother’s non-permissive parenting style. These results suggest that all of
the aforementioned factors should be included in different prevention models.
Similarly to boys, one significant discriminant function emerged for girls (Wilks'
Lambda = ,815). However, the proportion of the variance accounted for discriminant function
was smaller when compared to boys (see Table 6). Group centroids indicated that this
function primarily discriminated the low susceptibility to peer pressure group and the high
susceptibility to peer pressure group.
Table 6. Significance of a set of discriminant functions and group centroids-girls
Function % of Canonical Wilks'

Eigenvalue χ² df p
Variance Correlation Lambda
1 ,183 83,6 ,394 ,815 97,592 36 <,001
2 ,024 10,7 ,152 ,965 17,072 22 >,050
3 ,013 5,7 ,111 ,988 5,951 10 >,050
Group Centroids of the 1st Function

Low susceptibility to peer Low-medium Medium-high
High susceptibility to
pressure susceptibility to peer susceptibility to peer
peer pressure
pressure pressure
-,512 -,040 ,171 ,796
Moreover, discriminant analysis yielded similar results for girls (Table 7) suggesting
that same patterns of factors are related to susceptibility to peer pressure in both genders. The
pooled-within-group correlations revealed that the anxiety made the largest contribution to the
canonical function. That is, girls who were more susceptible to peer pressure scored higher on
anxiety, worry and depression, as well as anxiety in peer relationships. In addition, maternal
negative parenting also made an important contribution to the model. Similarly to boys, global
self-worth was not a significant predictor of susceptibility to peer pressure for girls, although
it's correlation with discriminant function was high. These results suggest gender differences
in the contributions of the perception of mother and mother's role to susceptibility to peer
79
pressure. It is possible that the observed gender differences reflect mother–daughter

disagreements or rivalry. That is, mother’s frustration and the negative perception of mother
among girls susceptible to peer pressure may generate need to create a safer and stronger
attachment to peers. As a result, it is possible that girls would perceive their peers as more
important, which in turn would make them more susceptible to their influence (i.e. pressure).
Table 7. Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients (S) and within-groups

correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant
functions (C) - girls
Function 1
Discriminant variables
S C
Global self-worth -,008 -,492
Social anxiety ,244 ,521
Worry ,126 ,620
Depressive symptoms ,201 ,645
Anxious attachment ,499 ,755
Avoidant attachment -,010 ,301
Positive parenting mother -,223 -,370
Negative parenting mother ,107 ,373
Positive parenting father -,248 -,345
Negative parenting father ,084 ,242
Permissiveness mother ,005 ,033
Permissiveness father ,368 ,163
Furthermore, emotional problems-anxiety, depressive symptoms and maternal

negative parenting have the strongest correlation with the discriminant function. Similarly to
boys, girls who are less susceptible to peer pressure have higher global self-worth, and report
more positive parenting.
Taken together, these results suggest that girls who were the least susceptible to peer
pressure differed in several factors from those who were the most susceptible to peer
pressure, including positive parenting, absence of emotional problems, lower levels of social
anxiety, and absence of negative perception of relationship with mother. Interestingly,
relationship with mother was a discriminating variable of susceptibility to peer pressure for
both boys and girls (i.e. maternal negative parenting for girls and permissive parenting style
for boys).
The purpose of the present study was to identify personal and family characteristics
associated with susceptibility to peer pressure. Although it is impossible to make any type of
interpretation of the temporal ordering necessary to help reveal causal relationships between
examined variables, current findings suggest that it is possible to differentiate both boys and
80
girls according to the level of susceptibility to peer pressure. In addition, findings also suggest
that peer influence is the result of several factors rather than just one. That is, peer influence
may result from multiple phenomena taken from different levels.
Taken together, current findings suggest that boys and girls who are more susceptible
to peer pressure show higher levels of emotional problems, e.g. anxiety and depression. As a
result, they have more difficulties developing healthy secure relationships with others, which
in turn leads to higher social anxiety (i.e. fear of rejection and abandonment) in peer relations,
and lower global self-worth.
Armsden and Greenberg (1987) found that well-adjusted adolescents tend to have high
quality relationships with their peers. Based on strong association between anxiety and
discriminant function, it seems that anxiety in peer relationships is a crucial factor for
distinguishing adolescents who are susceptible to peer pressure from those who are not, in
particular for girls. By contrast, secure attachment might be considered as a protective factor
for peer influence and a reflection of adolescents' autonomy. Therefore, any type of
intervention program that focuses on skill development related to resistance to peer influence
should especially target youth with emotional problems.
The second set of discriminant variables denotes parenting behaviors with positive
parenting as a crucial discriminative factor. Specifically, relationship with a mother was a
strong contributor to the discriminant function for both genders. This may be due to greater
maternal involvement in their adolescents’ lives in general. Taken together, current findings
point to emotional and “socio-cultural” processes that may affect the extent to which peers are
likely to affect each other.
High quality parental monitoring and behavior management, plus sharing of values
and norms are fundamentally dependent on the existence of a high quality parent–adolescent
relationship (Hayes et al., 2004). Large body of research have found that adolescents who
have good relationships with their parents improve outcomes in many areas, including
reduced substance use, better academic achievement, more self-reliance, and lower rates of
social and psychological problems (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Moreover, adolescents
who perceive themselves as less susceptible to peer pressure score higher on the global self-
worth scales, as well as report more positive parenting practices.
Thus, in addition to further studies of susceptibility to peer pressure, future research
should address the association between aforementioned variables, that is, what are the effects
of positive parenting on positive self-esteem and resilience to peer influence, or what is the
relationship between secure attachment and perception of parenting behaviors. Given the
81
simultaneous influence of biological, psychological and social factors on individuals’

personality development, these relationships are likely to be reciprocal. Therefore, prevention
methods aiming at negative aspects of peer influence should focus on two crucial areas-
positive self-esteem and positive parents-child relationship. That is, the key starting point in
any intervention work with adolescents and parents should be the parent–adolescent
relationship. However, it is unclear whether positive relationships, positive self-esteem,
personal resilience, or negative environmental influences are causes or consequences.
Peer relationships, including peer pressure provide an opportunity for the development
of social competencies such as cooperation, negotiation, conflict resolution, sharing, and
equal treatment by adults. In addition, peer relationships serve as a training ground for a
number of skills and competencies that can be thought only within the context of peer
relationships. These skills serve different functions, such as exploration of one’s personality,
personal development and growth, and defining self and others (Hoza, 2007; Parke &
Gauvain, 2009).
In conclusion, it is virtually impossible and probably undesirable to stop peer
influence processes in adolescence. Strengthening adolescents’ positive relationships with
peers and adults may help us steer these influences in more positive directions.
82
REFERENCES
Armsden, G.C. & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological wellbeing in adolescence.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 16, 5, 427-454.
Ary, D.V., Duncan, T.E., Duncan, S.C. & Hops, H. (1999). Adolescent problem behavior:
The influence of parents and peers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 3, 217-230.
Bámaca, M. Y. & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2006). Testing a model of resistance to peer
pressure among Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35,
631-645.
Baumeister, R.F. (1991). Escaping the Self: Alcoholism, Spirituality, Masochism, and Other
Flights from the Burden of Selfhood. New York: Basic Books.
Barnes, G.M., Reifman, A.S., Farrell, M.P. & Dintcheff, B.A. (2000). The effects of parenting
on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: A six-wave latent growth model.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1, 175-186.
parental behavior. Doctoral Dissertation. Zagreb: University of Zagreb.
Brody, G.H. & Ge, X. (2001), Linking parenting processes and self-regulation to
psychological functioning and alcohol use during early adolescence. Journal of Family
Psychology, 15, 1, 82-94.
Cohen, G.L. & Prinstein, M.J. (2006). Peer contagion of aggression and health-risk behavior
among adolescent males: An experimental investigation of effects on public conduct and
private attitudes. Child Development, 77, 967–983.
Dishion, T.J. & McMahon, R.J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and
adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 1, 1, 61-75.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver: University of
Denver.
Hayes, L. (2004). Parental monitoring of adolescent free time: A theoretical model of parent–
adolescent interactions. PhD thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Hayes, L., Smart, D., Toumbourou, J.W. & Sanson, A. (2004). Parental influences on
adolescent alcohol use, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Research Report No. 10.
Hoza, B. (2007). Peer functioning in children with ADHD. Ambulatory pediatrics, 7, 101-
106.
Inventory. Contemporary psychology, 6, 1, 73-91.
Kaplan, P.S. (2004). Adolescence. Boston: Houghton Miffin Company.
83
de Kemp, R.A.T., Scholte, R.H.J., Overbeek, G. & Engels, R.C.M.E. (2006). Early adolescent
delinquency: The role of parents and best friends. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 4,
488-510.
Keresteš, G. (1999). Aggressive and prosocial behavior of school children in the context of
war: verification of mediating influence of parent behavior. Doctoral dissertation,
Zagreb: University of Zagreb.
Keresteš, G., Kuterovac-Jagodić, G. & Brković, I. (2009). Parental Behavior Questionnaire
(PBQ-29). Unpublished manual. Zagreb: Department of Psychology, Faculty of
Philosophy University of Zagreb.
pressure. Adolescence, 35, 747-757.
Parke, R.D. & Gauvain, M. (2009). Child psychology: A contemporary viewpoint. Boston:
McGraw Hill.
Prinstein, M.J. (2007). Moderators of peer contagion: A longitudinal examination of
depression socialization between adolescents and their best friends. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 159–170.
Rhodes, N. & Wood, W.(1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influenceability: The
Rudolph, K.D., Hammen, C., Burge, D., Lindberg, N., Herzberg, D. & Daley, S.E. (2000).
Toward an interpersonal life-stress model of depression: The developmental context of
stress generation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 215-234.
Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict and harmony in the family relationships. In S.S.
Feldman & G.R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255-276).
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vulić-Prtorić, A. (2003). Manual for Depression Inventory for Children and Adolescents
(SDD). Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
Vulić-Prtorić, A. (2007). Manual for Fear and Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents
SKAD-62. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
Wood, M.E., Read, J.P., Mitchell, R.E. & Brand, N.H. (2004). Do parents still matter? Parent
and peer influences on alcohol involvement among recent high school graduates,
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 19-30.
84

Peerpressureinadolescence Boundariesandpossibilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peerpressureinadolescence Boundariesandpossibilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peer Pressure in Adolescence

Boundaries and Possibilities

Marija Lebedina Manzoni

Reasons for this may include:

Marija Lebedina Manzoni

Susceptibility to peer pressure - research methodology report ........................................... 1

Susceptibility to peer pressure - research methodology report

Marija Lebedina Manzoni & Martina Lotar

Concept of susceptibility to peer pressure

Social influence of others is a continuing process that can be seen as a basis of

b) Positive influence-helps young people during transition period from a dependent

Susceptibility to peer pressure and other aspects of adolescent life

Certain individual characteristics make adolescents more/less susceptible to peer

Previous studies on susceptibility to peer pressure suggest that susceptibility changes

Table 1. Number of Participants by School Type

Table 2. Number of Participants by Gender and Grade Level

Primary school High school

The Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale (SPPS)

Table 3. Eigenvalues and percentage of variance for five significant factors

Item reduction was based on item variability, inter-item correlations, item-total

Table 4. Factor loadings for the Susceptibility to Peer Pressure Scale

The Perception of Peer Pressure Scale (PPPS)

Table 5. Eigenvalues and percentage of variance for five significant factors

Table 6. Component matrix of the Perception of Peer Pressure Scale

The Self – Perception Profile for Adolescents (SPPA)

Really Sort of Sort of Really

Some teenagers do very Other teenagers don't do

separation anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, anxiety sensitivity, worry scale,

The Depression Scale for Children and Adolescents (SDD)

Parental Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ-29)

The Experiences in Close Relationship Inventory (ECR)

Berndt, T.J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents.

Kaplan, P.S. (2004). Adolescence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Keresteš, G., Kuterovac-Jagodić, G. & Brković, I. (2009). Parental Behavior Questionnaire

Klarin, M. (2006). Development of children in social context: parents, peers, teachers –

Steinberg, L. & Silverberg, S. (1986). The Vicissitudes of Autonomy in Early Adolescence.

Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Deevelopments and extensions. In K. Yardley & T.

Susceptibility to peer pressure and self-perception

Marija Lebedina Manzoni

disorders, including anxiety, depression, delinquent behavior or eating disorders compared to

judgment of significant others. An inverse relationship between susceptibility to peer pressure

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The association of self-concept with susceptibility to peer pressure and perception of

Table 1. Intercorrelations between domain-specific self-concepts, susceptibility to peer

Susceptibility to peer Perception of peer

Correlations between susceptibility to peer pressure and domain-specific self-concepts

Table 2. Intercorrelations between domain-specific self-concepts, susceptibility to peer

Susceptibility to peer Perception of peer

Predictors of susceptibility to peer pressure-gender, domain-specific self-concepts,

domain-specific self-concepts, and perception of peer pressure). Results are presented in

Table 3. Hierarchical regressions predicting susceptibility to peer pressure

1. step 2. step 3. step

Behavioral control is an important aspect of well-being, which is related to

Susceptibility to peer pressure

Harter, S. (2001). Self-development in Childhood. International Encyclopedia of the Social

Hoelter, J.W. (1984). Relative Effects of Significant Others on Self-Evaluation. Social

Kaplan, P.S. (2004). Adolescence. Boston: Houghton Miffin Company.

Lebedina Manzoni, M. (2007). Psychological basis of behavior disorders. Jastrebarsko:

Lebedina Manzoni, M. & Lotar, M. (2011). Adolescents' Self-Perception in Croatia.

Peer pressure and psychological well-being

Boys Girls t Correlations

38.57 13.65 35.77 13.16 3.17* .49 - .17 .33

Low High Total

M .22 .10 .27**

M .02 .14 .20

M .47 .49 -.03 -

M .33 .34 -.05 .67 .31 .02 .02

M .54 .54 .09** -