LF002

Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School

KATHRYN R. WENTZEL

Relationships with peers are ofcentral impor­ tance to children throughout childhood and adolescence. They provide a source of com­ panionship and entertainment, help in solv­ ing problems, personal validation and emo­ tional support, and a foundation for identity development (Brown, Mory, & Kinney, 1994; Parker & Asher, 1987). In turn, chil­ dren who enjoy positive relationships with peers appear to experience levels of emo­ tional well-being, beliefs about the self, and values for prosocial forms of behavior and social interaction that are stronger and more adaptive than do children without positive peer relationships (see Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). An additional finding is that children who enjoy positive relationships with their peers also tend to be engaged in and even excel at academic tasks more than those who have peer relationship problems. Children's social competence with peers has been related consistently and positively to academic accomplishments throughout the school-age years (see Wentzel, 2013).

In light of evidence that links children's adaptive functioning across social and academic domains, a central issue that is addressed in this chapter is, why do these associations exist? More specifically, what are the mechanisms by which these two

domains of functioning might be related? Toward this end, I first provide general cri­ teria for defining social competence and their implications for understanding peer relationships at school, as well as academic motivation and accomplishments. Next, I review the literature on peer relationships and academic outcomes, followed by a dis­ cussion of processes and mechanisms that might explain significant relations between peer relationships and positive outcomes in the academic domain. Finally, I offer thoughts about and provocations for future research.

DEFINING SOCIAL COMPETENCE WITH PEERS

Why might students' relationships with peers be related to their academic motiva­ tion and accomplishments? One approach to answering this question is to consider the nature of social competence and how stu­ dents' relationships with each other reflect a critical component of their social adaptation to school that contributes to their academic success. Toward this end, I begin this section by presenting a definition of social compe­ tence derived from theoretical perspectives

586

587 31. Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School

on person-environment fit and personal goal setting. This definition is then applied to the realm of schooling and students' relationships with peers. In this regard, I describe both social and academic correlates of students' competence with peers.

Perspectives on Social Competence

In the social-developmental literature, social competence has been described from a variety of perspectives, ranging from the development of individual skills to more general adaptation within a particular set­ ting. In these discussions, social competence frequently is associated with person-level outcomes such as effective behavioral reper­ toires, social problem-solving skills, positive beliefs about the self, achievement of social goals, and positive interpersonal relation­ ships (Rose-Krasnor, 1997; Rubin et al., 2006). Also central to many definitions of social competence is the notion that contex­ tual affordances and constraints contribute to and mold the development of these indi­ vidual outcomes in ways that enable them to contribute to the social good (Barker, 1960; Bronfenbrenner, 1989). Social con­ texts are believed to play an integral role in providing opportunities for healthy social development, as well as defining the appropriate parameters of children's social accomplishments. In this chapter, therefore, social competence is viewed as achieving a balance between the development of posi­ tive outcomes for the self (i.e., person-level outcomes) and adherence to context-specific expectations for behavior that contributes to the smooth functioning of social groups (see also Eccles, & Midgley, 1989; Ford, 1992).

The application of this perspective to the realm of schooling results in a multifaceted description of children who are socially competent and well adjusted. First, socially competent students achieve goals that are personally valued, as well as those that are sanctioned by others. Second, the goals they pursue result in both social integration and positive developmental outcomes for the student. Socially integrative outcomes are those that promote the smooth functioning of social groups at school (e.g., cooperative, prosocial behavior) and are reflected in lev­ els of social approval and social acceptance;

student-related outcomes reflect healthy development of the self (e.g., perceived social competence, feelings of self-determination) and feelings of emotional security and well­ being (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Ford, 1992; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). From this description, it follows that social competence is achieved to the extent that students accomplish social goals that have both personal and social value, in a manner that supports continued psychological and emotional health. In addi­ tion, the ability to be socially competent is contingent on opportunities and affordances of the school context that allow students to pursue multiple social goals.

Goal-directed behavior in social domains historically has been viewed as an aspect of competence rather than a type of motiva­ tion to achieve mastery of specific outcomes (see, e.g., Dodge, Asher, & Parkhurst, 1989; Wentzel, 2002). However, a goal-based defi­ nition of social. competence reflects a basic tenet of motivational theories that people set goals for themselves, and that these goals can be powerful motivators of behavior (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Bandura, 1986; Dweck, 1991). And, as with achievement­ related goals, social goals are often defined as cognitive representations of desired future outcomes (e.g., Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Dweck, 1991; for a more extensive discus­ sion of social goals, see Wentzel, 2002, 2005). In addition, as with task- or academi­ cally related outcomes, the achievement of social goals often is evaluated on the basis of standards. However, social standards are rarely discussed in terms of some sort of social excellence. Rather, evaluations of "success" typically are based on a combined judgment of personal satisfaction with and positive social reactions to specific social outcomes. Achieving an acceptable discrep­ ancy between these two sets of evaluations is the hallmark of social competence, and it is achieved not just by one person's efforts but often as the result of compromise or conflict resolution among two or more individuals.

SOCIAL COMPETENCE WITH PEERS AT SCHOOL

Given this definition of social competence, one strategy for understanding the nature

-------------------~-----------~ --------

588

of social competence with peers and its association with academic motivation and achievement is to identify social character­ istics and outcomes related to peer approval and acceptance, as well as ways in which peers might contribute to the development of positive outcomes for students them­ selves. With regard to the former, establish­ ing positive relationships with peers can take many forms, ranging from general acceptance or preference by the peer group to involvement in reciprocated friendships. Therefore, identifying the common cor­ relates of peer acceptance and approval is a first step in understanding the goal pur­ suits and outcomes that peers demand in exchange for positive regard. In turn, iden­ tifying mechanisms of peer influence pro­ vides insights into how students provide each other with the necessary resources and create supportive contexts that promote the achievement of both socially and personally desirable outcomes.

Correlates of Peer Approval and Acceptance

Researchers typically have defined children's involvement in peer relationships in three specific ways: degree of peer acceptance or rejection by the larger peer group, peer group membership, and dyadic friendships. Peer acceptance and social (e.g., sociomet­ ric) status is typically determined by unilat­ eral assessments of a child's relative stand­ ing or reputation within a larger group of peers, such as a classroom or grade mates. Therefore, the social standing of a student is determined by a diverse set of peers who are not necessarily friends with the student and with whom interactions might be infre­ quent. Based on these assessments, students are assigned to a sociometric status group (i.e., popular, rejected, neglected, controver­ sial, and average status; see Asher & Dodge, 1986), or described in terms of overall accep­ tance or rejection by peers.

Membership in peer crowds and groups is typically determined by identifying clusters of students who are friends with each other using statistical procedures (e.g., Kinder­ mann & Gest, 2009) or by asking students to identify groups characterized by com­ mon activities (e.g., sports) or behavioral

V. SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES

characteristics (e.g., substance use) or, more simply, by those who spend time together (Brown, 1989). Peer crowds and groups have been studied most frequently in adolescent samples (see Brown & Dietz, 2009). Adoles­ cent crowds often include "Populars" (stu­ dents who engage in positive forms of both academic and social, behavior), "Jocks" (stu­ dents characterized by their athletic accom­ plishments), "Druggies" (students engaged in delinquent and other illicit activities), and "Normals" (fairly average students). Research on peer crowds has been mostly descriptive, identifying the central norms and values that uniquely characterize each crowd. A related construct, peer networks, reflects groups of students formed on the basis of mutual friendships.

Finally, peer relationships are studied with respect to dyadic friendships. In this case, students are asked to nominate their best friends at school; often, nominations are then matched to determine reciprocity, or best friendships. Friendships reflect rela­ tively private, egalitarian relationships typi­ cally formed on the basis of idiosyncratic criteria, and are enduring aspects of chil­ dren's peer relationships at all ages.

Each of these relationship "types" has been related to a range of school-based com­ petencies across the schoo,1-age years, to include multiple aspects of motivation and achievement (see also Wentzel & Muenks, 2016). With regard to motivation, socio­ metric status and peer acceptance have been related positively to pursuit of goals to learn, interest in school, and perceived academic competence; moreover, these findings are robust at all ages (see Wentzel, 2013). Dur­ ing middle school, social acceptance and having friends has been related to positive aspects of social (e.g., goals to help, share, cooperate, and follow rules) and academic (e.g., engagement in academic tasks) moti­ vation (see Kindermann & Skinner, 2012; Wentzel, 2005). Peer group membership has been associated with liking and enjoyment of school (Ryan, 2001), and with changes in intrinsic and extrinsic goals over time (Kindermann & Gest, 2009; Kindermann & Skinner, 2012). Finally, peer acceptance and group membership have been related to a range of motivation outcomes during high

589 31. Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School

school (King & Ganotice, 2014; Nichols & White, 2014; Robnett & Leaper, 2013).

Peer relationships have also been related to academic accomplishments. Social sta­ tus and acceptance have been associated positively with classroom grades, standard­ ized test scores, and IQ in samples ranging from elementary school to high school (see Wentzel, 2013), and these relations tend to be stable over time (e.g., Gest, Demitrovich, & Welsh, 2005; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). Simply having friends also has been related positively to grades and test scores (e.g., Jones, Audley-Piotrowski, & Kiefer, 2012; Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004). Students who make transitions with their friends, and those who make friends quickly, also tend to make better academic adjustments to new schools than those who do not (e.g., Ladd, 1990; Molloy, Gest, & Rulison, 2011; Wen­ tzel et al., 2004). Finally, adolescent peer groups differ in the degree to which they pressure members to become involved in aca­ demic activities, with "Jocks" and "Popular" groups providing significantly more pressure for academic involvement than other groups (Brown & Dietz, 2009). Researchers who identify friendship-based peer groups using statistical procedures also have found rela­ tions between group membership and aca­ demic performance (e.g., Kindermann & Gest, 2009), and friendship-based groups in middle school have been related to changes in academic performance over time (Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).

Mechanisms of Peer Influence and Support

How and why might students' relation­ ships with peers contribute to these positive outcomes? Historically, theoretical expla­ nations have focused on the broad notion that positive relationships with peers con­ tribute directly to cognitive development, highlighting fairly structured interactions that take place in formal learning contexts (e.g., Piaget, 1932/1965; Vygotsky, 1978). Additional approaches are based on mod­ els of peer socialization that consider how students' interactions and positive relation­ ships with each other, more generally, pro­ vide important opportunities for motivating and facilitating positive motivational and

academic outcomes (Wentzel, 2005, 2015). In the following sections, I describe each of these perspectives.

Peer Interactions and Cognitive Gains

Theories of cognitive development have a long-standing tradition of relying on social interaction to explain cognitive growth and learning. Piaget (1932/1965) and Vygotsky (1978) both proposed that children are active participants in their own develop­ ment, and that they acquire knowledge about their world through activity and social interactions. Piaget proposed that mutual discussion, perspective taking, and conflict resolution with peers can moti­ vate the accommodation of new and more sophisticated approaches to intellectual problem solving; development was contin­ gent on the relatively symmetrical nature of same-age peer interactions that allowed con­ flict resolution within the context of mutual reciprocity. Symmetrical interaction among peers is found most often in collaborative learning contexts. The nature of collabora­ tive problem solving orients children toward discovery and reflection rather than practice and implementation, and requires peers to integrate the multiple perspectives that each student brings to the task. In support of this notion is evidence that problem-solving tasks, which demand the acquisition of basic reasoning skills, have been found to occur best in peer collaborative contexts rather than other forms of peer learning contexts (e.g., tutoring) (Sharan, 1984; Slavin, 1980). Cognitive gains attributed to participation in cooperative learning activities also have been explained with respect to mechanisms associated with symmetrical peer interac­ tions (Slavin, 2011).

Vygotsky (1978) placed primary impor­ tance on social activity within small groups or pairs of individuals, in which competent students teach specific strategies and stan­ dards for performance to peers who are less skilled. In this manner, asymmetrical inter­ actions contribute to competence develop­ ment through the process of "scaffolding," which extends the range of the less advanced child by bridging the gap between current and desired skill, thereby allowing him or

590

her to accomplish a task not otherwise possi­ ble. From an instructional perspective, scaf­ folding requires deliberate decision making and choice of peer partners on the part of teachers in order to create the optimal learn­ ing environment for participating students.

Peer Interactions and Social Supports

Although the nature of interactions within formal peer learning contexts has the poten­ tial to explain the development and refine­ ment of cognitive structures, it is reasonable to expect that additional aspects of peer interactions within these contexts and in less formal settings contribute in positive ways to student competencies. Indeed, most researchers agree that at the core of positive peer relationships and interactions are the benefits they provide in the form of social supports (Bukowski, Motzoi, & Meyer, 2009; Parker & Asher, 1987). These sup­ ports serve a range of functions, including maintenance of the peer group by promoting socially valued goals and social cohesion, as well as facilitating the development of indi­ vidual outcomes such as social skills and psychological well-being. Supports that pro­ mote allegiance to the broader group and to engagement in group-valued activities take the form of expectations for the pursuit and achievement of specific outcomes, help to achieve these outcomes, a safe environment, and emotional nurturance (see Wentzel, 2004, for a review). These outcomes reflect essential components of social support in that, if present, (1) information is provided concerning what is expected and valued by the group; (2) attempts to achieve these val­ ued outcomes are met with help and instruc­ tion; (3) attempts to achieve outcomes can be made in a safe, nonthreatening environ­ ment; and (4) individuals are made to feel like valued members of the group.

Applied specifically to peer activities as they occur in classroom and school settings, this perspective suggests that students will engage in the pursuit of positive social and academic goals, in part, when their peers communicate positive expectations and standards for achieving such goals; provide direct assistance and help in achieving them; and create a climate of emotional support (including protection from physical threats

V. SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES

and harm) that facilitates positive engage­ ment in valued classroom activities (see Ford, 1992; Wentzel, 2004). Of relevance for the definition of social competence framing this chapter is that in addition to promoting out­ comes valued by peers, these supports also have the potential to facilitate the achieve­ ment of students' personal goals by pro­ moting positive perceptions of competence, autonomy, and social relatedness (see Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 20006; Wentzel, 2004).

In the following sections, I describe spe­ cific mechanisms whereby peer supports may influence motivational and academic outcomes. Mechanisms are grouped with respect to informational supports (provid­ ing goals, expectations, and assistance) and motivational supports (emotional caring, rewards and reinforcements, and peer pres­ sure).

INFORMATIONAL SUPPORTS

Although teachers play a central role in aca­ demic instruction and modeling strategies to learn, students also communicate important information, teach valuable skills, and pro­ vide instrumental help to each other. These supports can occur during the course of aca­ demic instruction, and they comprise a large part of informal peer interactions at school. As suggested by social-cognitive theory, direct instruction and modeling are power­ ful mechanisms whereby students learn from peers what is expected of them, along with skills that enable them to go about meeting those expectations (Bandura, 1986). These processes can occur within dyadic or small­ group interactions, such as those prescribed by constructivist perspectives. The larger peer group also can be a source of behav­ ioral standards, with direct instruction and modeling serving as means to monitor and enforce group standards and expectations (see Brown, Bakken, Ameringer, & Mahon, 2008; Kindermann, 2007).

Direct Instruction. During the course of interactions with peers, students receive input concerning socially valued goals and expectations for academic performance and social behavior, and standards against which judgments of personal efficacy may be made. From a social-cognitive perspective, peers

~- ~--- -~~- ---------------------~

591 31. Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School

who convey expectations that academic engagement and positive social interac­ tions are important and enjoyable are likely to lead others to form similar values and goals (Bandura, 1986). Empirical evidence that peers communicate expectations and opinions concerning appropriate behavior and academic outcomes is scant. However, it is clear that these communications do occur, functioning to define, clarify, main­ tain, and enforce peer norms (Brown et al., 2008). Perceived expectations from peers for social and academic outcomes (Went­ zel, 2004; Wentzel, Baker, & Russell, 2012, 2014; Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney, 2010), and peer group norms (e.g., Kin­ dermann, 1993; Kiuru, Aunola, Vuori, & Nurmi, 2007; Sage & Kindermann, 1999) have been related to positive forms of social behavior, motivation, and academic achieve­ ment. In addition, advice and feedback from peers following success or failure can lead to adjustments in students' perceived compe­ tence and expectations for future academic success (Altermatt, Pomerantz, Ruble, Frey, & Greulich, 2002; see also Gauvain, 2016).

Modeling. Modeling is also a powerful pro­ cess by which information is communicated (Bandura, 1986). Of interest for this chapter is that modeling effects are especially likely to occur when students are friends (Crock­ ett, Losoff, & Petersen, 1984; Ricciardelli & Mellor, 2012). Findings relating charac­ teristics of friends to changes (positive and negative) in social behavior and academic engagement throughout middle school (Barry & Wentzel, 2006; Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999; Wentzel et al., 2004) and high school (Prinstein, Brechwald, & Cohen, 2011) provide indirect evidence for model­ ing effects. Similarly, changes in younger children's competence perceptions from fall to spring have been associated with the com­ petence perceptions of their very best friends (Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2005; Molloy et al., 2011). Adolescents' perceptions of their friends' · academic behavior, engagement, and performance also have predicted stu­ dents' own achievement-related choices, goal pursuit, engagement, and academic per­ formance (e.g., Jones et al., 2012; Marion, Laursen, Kiuru, Nurmi, & Salmela-Aro, 2014; Nelson & DeBacker, 2008).

MOTIVATIONAL SUPPORTS

Students also exert influence on each other through expressions of emotional caring, dispensing rewards and reinforcements, and engaging in peer pressure. These types of influence are conveyed by way of social acceptance and rejection, intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcements, and group conta­ gion, and are relevant for understanding the nature of social exchanges in both formal and informal instructional settings.

Social Acceptance and Rejection. Students experience varying levels of social belong­ ingness and acceptance with peers within dyadic relationships such as friendships, and within larger peer groups to the extent they are inclusive or exclusive (Bennett, 2014). Models of peer influence posit that students who are rejected by their peers suffer from a lack of opportunities and supports afforded to children accepted by peers, including positive and effective role models, direct instruction concerning normative behavior and skill development, and sources of posi­ tive rewards for social and academic behav­ ior (see Parker & Asher, 1987; Patterson & Bank, 1989).

Social acceptance and rejection can also have a powerful impact on students' motiva­ tion and emotional well-being. For example, theoretical perspectives suggest that strong affective bonds and perceived support from others serve as buffers from stress and anxi­ ety and contribute to a positive sense of emotional well-being (Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990). In turn, feelings of emotional security and social connection are believed to facilitate the adoption of goals and interests valued by others (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000a). In support of this notion is an extensive literature indicating that experiencing sup­ portive and caring peers is related positively to interest an,d engagement in classroom life, whereas viewing relationships with peers as negative is related to motivational and aca­ demic problems (Juvonen, Nishina, & Gra­ ham, 2000). Evidence documents significant relations between psychological distress and depression and a range of achievement­ related outcomes, including interest in school, negative attitudes toward academic achievement, actual levels of performance,

592 V. SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES

school avoidance and low levels of class­ room participation, and ineffective cognitive functioning (see Wentzel, 2005, 2014).

Theorists also have argued that desires to sustain positive group identity and cohesion can result in exclusionary practices within and between groups (e.g., Abrams & Rut­ land, 2008; Bennett, 2014), including the formation of stereotypes and discriminat­ ing practices (e.g., Dovidio, Gaertner, Hod­ son, Boulette, & Johnson, 2005; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). As with social acceptance and rejection, these group-level processes can have a profound effect on students' emotional well-being (Brown et al., 2008), their access to opportunities and supports (Haslam, Reicher, & Levine, 2012), and their motivational beliefs, including a sense of group efficacy (Bandura, 1986).

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reinforcement. Peers can also exert influence by way of rein­ forcements and rewards. Intrinsic rewards are positive outcomes for the self that are associated with the act of engaging in a task or activity; students might engage in behav­ ior valued by peers because they experience the behavior as enjoyable and of personal value (Boggiano, Klinger, & Main, 1986; Ojanen, Stratman, Card, & Little, 2013). Extrinsic rewards are outcomes associated with a task that are externally imposed or viewed as an endpoint, such that the task is viewed as a means to an end. In this case, engaging in positive social interactions and conforming to social expectations is a way to achieve other goals, such as social accep­ tance or a better grade (see Wentzel, 2002, 2005).

Peer influence has also been studied with respect to negative reinforcements and reward systems, especially peers' use of intimidation, power assertion, and negative reinforcement. These practices have been used to explain the process of peer pressure and how peer groups function to establish normative standards and power hierarchies (e.g., Cairns, Neckerman, & Cairns, 1989). For example, popular children often exert power over others by using social acceptance and status as a reward for compliance and conformity (Cillessen & Rose, 2005; Sand­ strom, 2011). An extensive literature has also demonstrated how negative reinforcement in

the form of physical and relational aggres­ sion can result in a broad range of negative outcomes related to motivation, emotional functioning, and social behavior (e.g., Crick, Murray-Close, Marks, & Mohajeri-Nelson, 2009). Students can also experience nega­ tive reinforcement for doing well academi­ cally through labeling and stigmatization (Boehnke, 2008; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986).

Group Contagfon. Group contagion is a mutual influence process that occurs as a function of being a member of a peer group or social network, and of patterns of rein­ forcement that occur as a product of group functioning (Dishion, 2013). Peer conta­ gion is associated most often with children's and adolescent's disinhibition of behavior, the disruption of normative behavior (e.g., Boxer, Guerra, Huesmann, & Morales, 2005; Ehrenreich, Underwood, & Ack­ erman, 2014), and mood regulation and depressive symptoms (Dishion & Connell, 2006). However, peer group dynamics have also been associated with positive aspects of student motivation, such as pursuit of intrinsic goals (Duriez, Giletta, Kuppens, & Vansteenkiste, 2013) and emotional well-being (Prinstein, 2007; van Workum, Scholte, Cillessen, Lodder, & Giletta, 2013).

Summary

The picture of social competence with peers that emerges from the literature suggests that students' contribution to the "social good" (as indexed by various aspects of peer accep­ tance and approval) is based in part on posi­ tive aspects of motivation and achievement at school. In turn, students have the potential to influence each other's cognitive development and academic accomplishments through a range of mechanisms. The literature on structured peer learning contexts considers "cognitive gains" in fairly narrow terms, that is, as the development of specific cognitive structures and intellectual skills that evolve through certain types of peer interactions. More broadly, peers are believed to influence student motivation and academic accom­ plishments through provisions of informa­ tional and motivational supports.

Although discussion of ways in which these two perspectives on peer learning

593 31. Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School

might be synergistic is rare, it is useful to think about ways in which peer interactions in one type of context might influence inter­ actions in the other. For example, the same supports that are afforded by informal peer contexts also are likely to facilitate the types of positive interactions that are related to cognitive gains within more structured peer learning contexts (see Wentzel & Watkins, 2002). It is also likely that successful peer collaborations can enhance the quality of peer relationships by providing opportuni­ ties for students to strengthen interpersonal ties and therefore the likelihood that positive peer supports will become available during other forms of classroom instruction.

The competence perspective that guides this chapter suggests that at the heart of these positive peer interactions and influ­ ences are students' desires, or goals, to con­ tribute to the social and academic worlds of the classroom, while maintaining a positive sense of self. Indeed, in order to pay atten­ tion to and buy into peer norms and expec­ tations, students must want to be a part of the peer culture, trust that they will be rewarded for doing so, and be assured of safety from emotional and physical harm. Modeling, peer pressure, and other forms of influence are not likely to be effective if these basic conditions are not in place. Simi­ larly, if appropriate goals and supports are not a part of the larger classroom and school culture, students are not likely to offer these basic supports to each other.

Given the critical nature of these contex­ tual supports, it is important to understand the role that adults can play in promoting positive peer relationships and interac­ tions at school, especially as they relate to learning and intellectual growth. Teachers and administrators are the primary archi­ tects of the classroom and school contexts in which students interact with each other and, as such, have the potential to facilitate academic achievements by way of positive peer relationships. In the following section, I describe the potential impact that teachers and the broader school context can have on students' ability to provide positive resources and supports to each other, to interact with each other in positive ways, and to encour­ age the peer group to be socially accepting, cooperative, and welcoming particularly to

students who demonstrate peer problems that interfere with their academic progress (Mikami, Lerner, & Lun, 2010).

LINKING THEORY AND EVIDENCE TO PRACTICE

Given the potentially powerful and positive role that peers can have in student learning and achievement, it becomes important to understand the role of teachers and school administrators in promoting successful inter­ actions and personal relationships among peers. There is evidence that teachers' beliefs and behaviors, classroom organization and instructional practices, and schoolwide structure, composition, and climate affects students' ability to interact successfully in peer learning activities, students' peer choice and general propensity to make friends, and levels of peer acceptance and friendship net­ works in classrooms. In the following sec­ tions, I describe relevant research on teach­ ers and classroom contexts, then research on school-level influences.

Teachers and Peer Learning Activities

The positive effects of peer collaborative and cooperative approaches to learning on cogni­ tive and motivational outcomes is well docu­ mented. Although an extensive review of this literature is beyond the scope of this chap­ ter, comprehensive reviews and resources are available on this topic (see, Slavin, 2011; Wentzel & Edelman, 2016). However, it is important to note that in addition to sim­ ply implementing these peer learning activi­ ties in their classrooms, teachers can play a critical role in their success by ensuring that students have partners who can benefit from the interactions, as well as contribute to the learning of their peer partners. When implementing peer-assisted learning struc­ tures, teachers cannot just place students together and hope for the best. These activi­ ties require explicit planning and training that will prepare peer partners in academic as well as social skills.

In support of this notion, research on peer learning has confirmed that children do not necessarily develop the constructive interaction patterns or the ability to scaffold

594

that are required for productive engagement to occur without explicit preparation. As Person and Graesser (1999) note, tutoring behaviors tend to be primitive and are often characterized by questioning that is limited in frequency and level of cognitive demand, coupled with infrequent correction of errors, and the giving of positive feedback at inap­ propriate times. Moreover, students do not necessarily have the ability to engage in posi­ tive social interactions that are necessary for successful collaborations with one another (Peterson, Wilkinrson, Spinelli, & Swing, 1984). However, the positive effects of train­ ing students to work with peers in collabora­ tive and cooperative learning contexts have been demonstrated. Higher-achieving part­ ners trained to offer positive constructive feedback and guided direction can enhance the quality of social interactions and cogni­ tive functioning of lower-achieving students · (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Bentz, Phillips, & Ham­ lett, 1994).

Teachers and Peer Relationships

Although the nature of causal connections between teacher-student interactions and peer relationships is unclear, it is reasonable to assume that students' positive relation­ ships with peers might be due in large part to teachers' communications of specific expec­ tations for behavior and achievement, and to systematic regulation of student behavior through instruction-related activities. To illustrate, teachers' expectations concern­ ing students' aptitude and performance have been related to levels of peer accep­ tance and rejection (e.g., Donohue, Perry, & Weinstein, 2003; Farmer, Lines, & Hamm, 2011; Mikami, Griggs, Reuland, & Greg­ ory, 2012). Teachers' verbal and nonverbal behavior toward certain children, especially when critical, also has been related to how these children are treated by their peers (Flanders & Havumaki, 1960; Harper & McCluskey, 2003). In addition, teachers' positive feedback in response to appropriate behavior has been related to students' posi­ tive evaluations of and peer preference for students exhibiting that behavior, whereas negative and critical feedback for disrup­ tive and off-t'ask behavior has been related to negative evaluations of and peer dislike

V. SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES

of students exhibiting such behavior (White & Kistner, 1992). Finally, teachers vary in the behaviors they consider to be appropri­ ate and inappropriate when children are interacting with each other, especially with regard to aggression; in turn, teachers' per­ spectives on the appropriateness of behaviors tend to be adopted by their students (Craig, Henderson & Murphy, 2000; Smith, 2007).

The instructional approach that a teacher adopts also appears to have an impact on students' relationships with peers (Farmer et al., 2011). For example, students enjoy more positive relationships with classmates when teachers use learner-centered practices (e.g., involving students in decision making) as opposed to teacher-centered practices (e.g., focusing on rote learning, norm-referenced evaluation; Donohue et al., 2003) or com­ petitive practices (Mikami et al., 2012). The way in which teachers group students also has been associated with the quality of peer relationships (Gest & Rodkin, 2011) and interactions (Luckner & Pianta, 2011). Finally, middle and high school students in classrooms where students are encouraged to talk to each other about assignments, to work in small groups, and to move about while working on activities also are less likely to be socially isolated or rejected, enjoy greater numbers of friends, and enjoy more diversity and stability in their friend­ ships (e.g., Gest & Rodkin, 2011).

Collectively, this work demonstrates that the quality of teacher-student interpersonal relationships and specific instructional prac­ tices has the potential to contribute to posi­ tive peer interactions, reputations, academic achievement, and motivation, especially for students with peer problems (Mikami et al., 2012; Pianta & Allen, 2008). Efforts to develop interventions to improve teacher­ student relationships have been infrequent. However, several programs appear to be promising and noteworthy. The Responsive Classroom (RC) approach has been associ­ ated with improved teacher-student relation­ ships and classroom behavior in addition to academic gains (Rimm-Kaufman & Chiu, 2007; Rimm-Kaufman, Fan, Chiu, & You, 2007). My Teaching Partner-Secondary (MTP-S) intervention was designed to increase teachers' positive interactions with students and promote sensitive instructional

595 31. Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School

practices. RC has demonstrated improve­ ment in positive peer interactions of students high in disruptive behavior (Mikami, Greg­ ory, Allen, Pianta, & Lun, 2011). The Rural Early Adolescent Learning (REAL) pro­ gram, which includes a focus on teachers' understanding of classroom social dynam­ ics, has demonstrated positive gains in stu­ dents' motivation and academic outcomes, and changes in peer norms for academic effort and achievement (Hamm, Farmer, Dadisman, Gravelle, & Murray, 2011). The Child Development Project (CDP; www. devstu.org) has been successful in increas­ ing levels of positive behavior and academic achievement by focusing in part on improv­ ing classroom management practices and interpersonal relationships.

School-Level and Structural Influences

Perhaps the most obvious way that schools can promote positive peer relationships and interactions is by creating cultures and cli­ mates that are conducive to positive social and emotional development. Classroom- and school-level programs designed to promote social skills development and positive emo­ tional well-being are relevant to this discus­ sion. As noted earlier, social and emotional competencies can provide a foundation for the types of positive peer interactions in for­ mal settings that are necessary for cognitive gains to occur (e.g., Ladd et al., 2014; Wen­ tzel & Watkins, 2002). Social-emotional skills can also contribute to the development of positive relationships with peers (Fabes, Martin, & Hanish, 2009; Rubin et al., 2006), which in turn provide students with a range of positive supports. In general, school­ wide policies and programs that accentu­ ate the importance of students' prosocial development can also facilitate the develop­ ment of positive peer relationships (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Gresham, Van, & Cook, 2006). For example, social skills training programs can increase the· prevalence of prosocial behav­ iors (e.g., sharing, cooperating) displayed by students in the classroom by teaching them how to recognize emotions more effectively, negotiate conflict resolutions, and control impulsive behaviors (Gresham et al., 2006). These programs also facilitate a reduction in

maladaptive social skills, thus enabling the formation of more functional peer relation­ ships (Wilson & Lipsey, 2007). Programs such as Second Step (Frey, Nolen, Van Schoi­ ack Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2005), the Fast Track Program (see Bierman et al., 1999; Bierman, Coie, Dodge, Greenberg, Loch­ man, & McMahon, 2010), and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS; Bierman et al., 2010) have had documented success in this area.

Of related importance is that although the literature implies that peers might be the pri­ mary source of threats to students' physical safety and well-being, teachers and school administrators can play a central role in creating schools that are free of peer harass­ ment and in alleviating the negative effects of harassment once it has occurred (e.g., Espelage & Colbert, 2016; Olweus & Lim­ ber, 2009). Interventions designed to offset the often negative influence of peer groups and gangs on behavior and school atten­ dance are especially successful if students have access to adults who provide them with warmth and strong guidance (e.g., Chaskin, 2010). Schools that stress intergenerational bonding also support the development of positive teacher-student relationships that can buffer the potentially negative effects of aggressive peers on behavior (Crosnoe & Needhan, 2004).

From a developmental perspective, improving the quality of peer relationships should be of special concern for teachers and administrators who work with stu­ dents during transitions to new schools. For example, many young adolescents enter new middle school structures that necessitate interacting with larger numbers of peers on a daily basis. In contrast to the greater predictability of self-contained classroom environments in elementary school, the rela­ tive uncertainty and ambiguity of multiple classroom environments, new instructional styles, and more complex class schedules often result in middle school students turn­ ing to each other for information, social sup­ port, and ways to cope. Students who have access .to positive peer supports are likely to adapt to the demands of middle school transition more quickly and in more posi­ tive ways than those without such supports (Wentzel et al., 2004). In addition, the value

596

of teacher professional development inter­ ventions appears to be particularly impor­ tant at the secondary school level, where teachers are found to perceive their function as imparting academic content rather than facilitating social relationships with peers (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997).

Finally, evidence of ways in which school structures and school-level characteristics can influence peer interactions and relation­ ships has been less forthcoming. However, homogenous classroom composition can be deleterious to the formation and main­ tenance of positive, high-quality peer rela­ tionships over time (Barth, Dunlap, Dane, Lochman, & Wells, 2004). Similarly, Afri­ can American students in classrooms that are ethnically diverse tend to report having more high-quality friendships than those in less diverse classrooms (Jackson, Barth, Powell, & Lochman, 2006). At the school level, greater ethnic diversity tends to result in students who have more friends and more extensive social networks than those in less diverse schools (e.g., Jackson et al., 2006).

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In this chapter, I began by posing the ques­ tion of how social competence with peers might be related to academic motivation and accomplishments at school. I have argued that social competence with peers· reflects the degree to which students are able to meet the social expectations of the peer group, as well as pursue their own personal goals; the achievement of these dual sets of goals is reflected in the psychological and emotional well-being of the student, as well as the smooth functioning of peer relation­ ships and interactions. I also have described pathways whereby students' relationships with peers might be related to academic out­ comes.

Much work, however, remains to be done. At the most general level, it is dear that peers can play a powerful role in defining socially valued outcomes at school through direct instruction and modeling, and by rewarding specific behaviors and personal characteristics with social acceptance and approval. Moreover, most students want to be accepted by their peers and are likely to

V. SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES

behave in ways that will result in positive relationships with their classmates. How­ ever, an understanding of peer influence and determinations of social competence with peers cannot be made without consideration of students' own personal goals. Therefore, researchers need to identify ways in which students learn to coordinate their own social and academic goals with those prompted by others. Issues concerning cause and effect also necessitate continued focus on underly­ ing psychological processes and skills that promote the development and display of competent school-based outcomes.

Lacking direct evidence of causal influ­ ence, it is possible that social competence with peers is simply correlated to academic competencies, without any direction of effects. However, a more likely explanation is that a third set of factors contributes to competence in both domains. These factors could reflect specific types of social behav­ ior, as well as psychological or emotional processes that support both positive peer relationships and academic excellence. For example, an extensive body of work has documented associations between peer rela­ tionships and social-behavioral outcomes. In general, socially accepted and popu­ lar students tend to be more prosocial and sociable, and less aggressive, and rejected students appear to be less compliant, less self-assured, less sociable, and more aggres­ sive and withdrawn. These findings are robust for samples ranging from kindergar­ ten to high school (see Rubin et al., 2006).

Students' friendships and peer groups also are associated with social-behavioral outcomes. Children with friends tend to be more sociable, cooperative, and self­ confident when compared to their peers without friends; children with reciprocated friendships also tend to be more indepen­ dent, emotionally supportive, altruistic and prosocial, and less aggressive than those who do not have such friendships (New­ comb & Bagwell, 1995). As with peer accep­ tance, these findings appear to be robust for students of all ages. Finally, peer crowds often differ with respect to the reputations for social behavior (see Brown, 1989). Of relevance for this discussion is that these forms of positive social outcomes, to include multiple forms of prosocial and cooperative

--- ----·~----

597 31. Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School

behavior, have been related consistently and positively to academic outcomes (see Wen­ tzel, 2013), and have been found to medi­ ate relations between sociometric status and academic accomplishments in both early childhood and early adolescence (Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Wentzel, 1991a).

Moreover, teachers report social prefer­ ence and approval for students who coop­ erate, share, and follow rules (Wentzel, 19916, 2003). Therefore, it is possible that students are rewarded by teachers for their positive behavior with high grades. It also is likely that displays of positive behavior and a lack of disruptive behavior in the classroom creates an instructional climate conducive to effective teaching and learn­ ing of academic material. In this way, social behavior can contribute directly to learning and task mastery, as well as social approval and acceptance. Finally, metacognitive and self-regulatory processes also are likely to contribute to adaptive outcomes in both social and academic domains. Several theo­ rists . have posited a broad . range of basic information-processing skills as factors that contribute to the ability to implement plan­ fol behavior in both social and academic domains (e.g., Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000).

Assuming that causal connections exist, the contribution of different types of peer involvement to academic outcomes also remains a relatively unexplored area of research. On the one hand, friends are believed to play a central role in provid­ ing contexts for self-expression, valida­ tion, and affirmation (Hartup & Stevens, 1997). Having friends appears to mediate the negative effects of harsh and punitive home environments on children's relations with the broader peer group (Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & the Conduct Prob­ lems Prevention Research Group, 2000), and being without friends predicts less than optimal levels of emotional well-being (e.g., Wenz-Gross, Siperstein, Untch, & Wida­ man, 1997). In addition, friends appear to elicit behavior that would not necessarily be displayed under other circumstances. For example, when children are with friends, they engage in more positive interactions, resolve more conflicts, and accomplish tasks with greater proficiency than when they are with nonfriends (Newcomb & Bagwell,

1995). Children also typically display more affect and emotional intensity with friends than with nonfriends (Parker & Gattman, 1989), and children are more successful at making transitions when friends accompany them (Ladd, 1990; Ladd & Price, 1987). In contrast, friends tend to play a relatively minor role in socializing each other with respect to larger group norms and expecta­ tions (Hartup & Stevens, 1997).

On the other hand, adolescent peer groups and crowds are believed to facilitate the for­ mation of identity and self-concept, and to structure the nature of ongoing social inter­ actions within and across groups (Brown et al., 1994 ). In both of these roles, peer groups and crowds are likely to provide students with values, norms, and interaction styles that are commonly valued and sanctioned; valued behavior is modeled frequently, so that it can be easily learned and adopted by group members (Brown et al., 1994). Eco­ logical perspectives (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Cairns et al., 1989) also call attention to the role of peer groups and crowds as interme­ diaries between the individual and broader peer and adult communities. For these rea­ sons, it is likely that peer groups and crowds can play a central role in contributing to students' academic values and accomplish­ ments. However, the role of other peer rela­ tionship "types" in facilitating success at school deserves further attention.

Finally, future research must be con­ ducted within a developmental framework, taking into account the age-related interests and capabilities of the child. From a develop­ mental perspective, the role of peers in moti­ vating academic accomplishments is likely to be especially critical during the middle school and high school years. Although chil­ dren are interested in and even emotionally attached to their peers at all ages, they exhibit increased interest in their peers, spend more time with them, and exhibit a growing psy­ chological and emotional dependence on them for support and guidance as they make the transition into adolescence (Youniss & Sµ10llar, 1989). Moreover, whereas friend­ ships are enduring aspects of children's peer relationships at all ages, peer groups and crowds emerge primarily in the middle school years, peak at the beginning of high school, then diminish in both prevalence and

598 V. SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES

influence by the end of high school (Brown, 1989). Therefore, efforts to understand the influence of peer relationships on academic motivation and outcomes must be sensitive to not only the qualities and types of rela­ tionships that students form with each other but also developmental issues.

In conclusion, we have gained important insights into students' experiences with peers as they relate to academic motivation and achievement. Hopefully, these insights can serve as a foundation to explore further the social antecedents and supports that promote academic accomplishments, and to develop classroom practices that will facili­ tate positive developmental outcomes in all school-age children.

REFERENCES

Abrams, D., & Rutland, A. (2008). The devel­ opment of subjective group dynamics. In. S. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 47-65). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The implications of having high-achieving versus low-achieving friends: A longitudinal analysis. Social Development, 14, 61-81.

Altermatt, E. R., Pomerantz, E. M., Ruble, D. N., Frey, K. S., & Greulich, F. K. (2002). Predict­ ing changes in children's self-perceptions of academic competence: A naturalistic examina­ tion of evaluative discourse among classmates. Developmental Psychology, 38, 903-917.

Asher, S. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identify­ ing <::hildren who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444-449.

Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338-375.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barker, R. G. (1960). Ecology and motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 1-50). Lincoln: Uni­ versity of Nebraska Press.

Barry, C. M., & Wentzel, K. R. (2006). Friend influence on prosocial behavior: The role of motivational factors and friendship char­ acteristics. Developmental Psychology, 42, 153-163.

Barth, J., Dunlap, S., Dane, H., Lochman, J.,

& Wells, K. (2004). Classroom environment influences on aggression, peer relations, and academic focus. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 42, 115-133.

Bennett, M. (2014). Intergroup social exclusion in childhood: Forms, norms, context, and social identity. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 183-195.

Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Jiao, Z. (1999). Influences of friends and friendships on adjust­ ment to junior high school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 13-41.

Bierman, K., Coie, J., Dodge, K., Greenberg, M., Lochman, J., McMahon, R., et al. (1999). Ini­ tial impact of the Fast Track Prevention Trial for conduct problems: II. Classroom effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol­ ogy, 67, 648-657.

Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Green­ berg, M. T., Lochman,J. E., & McMahon, R. J. (2010). The effects of a multiyear universal social-emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 156-168.

Boehnke, K. (2008). Peer pressure: A cause of scholastic underachievement?: A cross­ cultural study of mathematical achievement among German, Canadian, and Israeli middle school students. Social Psychology of Educa­ tion, 11, 149-160.

Boggiano, A., Klinger, C., & Main, D. (1986). Enhancing interest in peer interaction: A developmental analysis. Child Development, 57, 852-861.

Boxer, P., Guerra, N., Huesmann, L., & Morales, J. (2005). Proximal peer-level effects of a small-group selected prevention on aggression in elementary school children: An investiga­ tion of the peer contagion hypothesis. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 33, 325-338.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 187-250). Green­ wich, CT: JAI 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 rela­ tionships in child development (pp. 188-215). New York: Wiley.

Brown, B. B., Bakken, J. P., Ameringer, S. W., & Mahon, S. D. (2008). A comprehensive con­ ceptualization of the peer influence process in adolescence. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in chil­ dren and adolescents (pp. 17-44). New York: Guilford Press.

Brown, B. B., & Dietz, E. L. (2009). Infor­ mal peer groups in middle childhood and

599 31. Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School

adolescence. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds)., Handbook of peer inter­ actions, relationships, and groups (pp. 361- 376). New York: Guilford Press.

Brown, B. B., Mory, M. S., & Kinney, D. (1994) Casting adolescent crowds in a relational per­ spective: Caricature, channel, and context. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during adolescence (pp. 123-167). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as an antecedent of young children's school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550-560.

Bukowski, W. M., Motzoi, C., & Meyer, F. (2009). Friendship as process, function, and outcome. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer inter­ actions, relationships, and groups (pp. 217- 231). New York: Guilford Press.

Cairns, R. B., Neckerman, H. ]., & Cairns, B. D. (1989). Social networks and shadows of syn­ chrony. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullota, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Advances in adolescent development (pp. 275-305). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chaskin, R. J. (2010). Youth gangs and commu­ nity intervention: Research, practice, and evi­ dence. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cillessen, A., & Rose, A. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Direc­ tions in Psychological Science, 14, 102-105.

Craig, W., Henderson, K., & Murphy, ]. G. (2000). Prospective teachers' attitudes toward bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21, 5-21.

Crick, N., Murray-Close, D., Marks, P., & Moharjeri-Nelson, S. (2009). Aggression and peer relationships in school-age children: Relational and physical aggression in group and dyadic contexts. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 287-302). New York: Guilford Press.

Crockett, L., Loso££, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Perceptions of the peer group and friendship in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 155-181.

Crosnoe, R., & Needham, B. (2004). Holism, contextual variability, and the study of friend­ ships in adolescent development. Child Devel­ opment, 75, 264-279.

Dishion, T. (2013). Stochastic agent-based mod­ eling of influence and selection in adolescence: Current status and future directions in under­ standing the dynamics of peer contagion. J our­ nal ofResearch on Adolescence, 23, 596-603.

Dishion, T. ]., & Connell, A. (2006). Adoles­ cents' resilience as a self-regulatory process. Annals ofthe New York Academy ofSciences, 1094, 125-138.

Dodge, K. A., Asher, S. R., & Parkhurst, J. T. (1989). Social life as a goal coordination task. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 107-138). New York: Academic Press.

Donohue, K., Perry, K., & Weinstein, R. (2003). Teachers' classroom practices and children's rejection by their peers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 91-118.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Hodson, G., Hou­ lette, M. A., & Johnson, K. M. (2005). Social inclusion and exclusion: Recategorization and the perception of intergroup boundaries. In D. Abrams, M. Hogg, & J. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclu­ sion (pp. 245-264). New York: Psychology Press.

Duriez, B., Giletta, M., Kuppens, P., & Vansteen­ kiste, M. (2013). Extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits and peer dynamics: Selection and influence processes among adolescents. Journal ofAdolescence, 36, 925-933.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school­ based universal interventions. Child Develop­ ment, 82, 405-432.

Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 199- 236). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Eccles, ]. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage­ environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New York: Academic Press.

Ehrenreich, S., Underwood, M., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Adolescents' text message com­ munication and growth in antisocial behavior across the first year of high school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 251-264.

Espelage, D. L., & Colbert, C. L. (2016). School­ based interventions to prevent bullying and promote prosocial behaviors. In K. Wentzel & G. Ramani (Eds.), Handbook of social influ­ ences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 405- 422). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2009). Children's behaviors and interac­ tions with peers. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of

600

peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 45-62). New York: Guilford Press.

Farmer, T. W., Lines, M. M., & Hamm, J. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role of teachers in children's peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol­ ogy, 32, 247-256.

Flanders, N. A., & Havumaki, S. (1960). The effect of teacher-pupil contacts involving praise on the sociometric choices of students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 65-68.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs; New­ bury Park, CA: Sage.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black stu­ dents' school success: Coping with "the burden of acting white." Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Van Schoiack Edstrom, L., & Hirschstein, M. K. (2005). Effects of a school-based social-emotional competence program: Linking children's goals, attribu­ tions, and behavior. Journal ofApplied Devel­ opmental Psychology, 26(2), 171-200.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Bentz, J., Phillips, N. B., & Hamlett, C. L. (1994). The nature of student interactions during peer tutoring with and without prior training and experience. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 75-103.

Gauvain, M. (2016). Peer contributions to cogni­ tive development. In K. Wentzel & G. Ramani (Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motiva­ tion, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 80-95). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Gest, S. D., Domitrovich, C. E., & Welsh, J. A. (2005). Peer academic reputation in elemen­ tary school: Associations with changes in self­ concept and academic skills. Journal of Edu­ cational Psychology, 97, 337-346.

Gest, S. D., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). Teaching practices and elementary classroom peer ecol­ ogies. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psy­ chology, 32, 288-296.

Gresham, F., Van, M., & Cook, C. (2006). Social-skills training for teaching replacement behaviors: Remediating acquisition in at-risk students. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 363-377.

Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Dadisman, K., Gravelle, M., & Murray, A. R. (2011). Teach­ ers' attunement to students' peer group affili­ ations as a source of improved student expe­ riences of the school social-affective context following the middle school transition. Jour­ nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 267-277.

Harper, L. V., & McCluskey, K. S. (2003). Teacher-child and child-child interactions in

V. SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES

inclusive preschool settings: Do adults inhibit peer interactions? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 163-184.

Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friend­ ships and adaptation in the life course. Psy­ chological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.

Haslam, S., Reicher, S., & Levine, M. (2012). When other people are heaven, when other people are hell: How social identity determines the nature and impact of social support. In J. Jetten, C. Haslam, & S. Haslam (Eds.), The social cure: Identity, health and well-being (pp. 157-174). New York: Psychology Press.

Jackson, M., Barth, J., Powell, N., & Lochman, J. (2006). Classroom contextual effects of race on children's peer nominations. Child Devel­ opment, 77, 1325-1337.

Jones, M. H., Audley-Piotrowski, S., & Kiefer, S. M. (2012). Relationships among adolescents' perceptions of friends' behaviors, academic self-concept, and math performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 19-31.

Juvonen, ]., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 92, 349-359.

Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of children's motivation in school. Devel­ opmental Psychology, 29, 970-977.

Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on changes in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78, 1186-1203.

Kindermann, T. A., & Gest, S. D. (2009). Assess­ ment of peer group: Identifying naturally occurring social networks and capturing their effects. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer inter­ actions, relationships, and groups (pp. 100- 117). New York: Guilford Press.

Kindermann, T. A., & Skinner, E. A. (2012). Will the real peer group please stand up?: A "tensegrity" approach to examining the syn­ ergistic influences of peer groups and friend­ ship networks on academic development. In A. Ryan & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 51-77). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

King, R. B., & Ganotice, F. A.,Jr. (2014). What's happening to our boys?: A personal investment analysis of gender differences in student moti­ vation. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23, 151-157.

Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Vuori, J., & Nurmi, J. E. (2007). The role of peer groups in adoles­ cents' educational expectations and adjust­ ment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 995-1009.

----------

31. Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School 601

Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children's early school adjustment. Child Development, 61, 1081-1100.

Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., Visconti, K. ]., Ettekal, I., Sechler, C., & Cortes, K. (2014). Grade-school children's social col­ laborative skills: Links with partner prefer­ ence and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 152-183.

Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predict­ ing children's social and school adjustment following the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 1168- 1189.

Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71, 107-118.

Luckner, A. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2011). Teacher­ student interactions in fifth-grade classrooms: Relations with children's peer behavior. Jour­ nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 257-266.

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children's relationships with adults and peers: An exami­ nation of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 81-99.

Marion, D., Laursen, B., Kiuru, N., Nurmi, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2014). Maternal affection moderates friend influence on schoolwork engagement. Developmental Psychology, 50, 766-771.

Mikami, A. Y., Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., & Lun, J. (2011). Effects of teacher pro­ fessional development intervention on peer relationships in secondary classrooms. School Psychology Review, 40(3), 1-41.

Mikami, A. Y., Griggs, M. S., Reuland, M. M., & Gregory, A. (2012). Teacher practices as predictors of children's classroom social pref­ ~rence. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 95-111.

Mikami, A. Y., Lerner, M. D., & Lun, .J. (2010). Social context influences on children's rejec­ tion by their peers. Child Development Per- . spectives, 4, 123-130.

Molloy, L. E., Gest, S. D., & Rulison, K. L. (2011). Peer influences on academic motiva­ tion: Exploring multiple methods of assessing youths' most "influential" peer relationships. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 13-40.

Nelson, R. M., & DeBacker, T. K. (2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 170-189.

Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995).

Children's friendship relations: A meta­ analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306-347.

Nichols, J. D., & White, J. (2014). Friendship cliques: A comparison of the motivational traits of lower/upper track algebra students. Social Psychology of Education, 17, 141-159.

Ojanen, T., Stratman, A., Card, N. A., & Little, T. (2013). Motivation and perceived control in early adolescent friendships: Relations with self-, friend-, and peer-reported adjustment. Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 552-577.

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2009). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Implementa­ tion and evaluation over two decades. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 377-402). New York: Routledge.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer rela­ tions and later personal adjustment: Are low­ accepted children at risk? Psychological Bul­ letin, 102, 357-389.

Parker,]. G., & Gottman,J. M. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational context: Friendship interaction from early childhood to adoelscence. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 95-131). Oxford, UK: Wiley.

Patterson, G. R., & Bank, C. L. (1989). Some amplifying mechanisms for pathologic pro­ cesses in families. In M. R. Gunnar & E. Thelan (Eds.), Systems and development: The Minne­ sota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 167-210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Person, N. K., & Graesser, A. G. (1999). Evo­ lution of discourse during cross-age tutoring. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cogni­ tive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 69-86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Peterson, P. L., Wilkinson, L. C., Spinelli, F., & Swing, S. R. (1984). Merging the process­ product and sociolinguistic paradigms: Research on small-group processes. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes (pp. 126-152). New York: Academic Press.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1932)

Pianta, R. C., & Allen, J. P. (2008). Building capacity for positive youth development in secondary school classrooms: Changing teach­ ers' interactions with students. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and com­ munity programs (pp. 21-39). New York: Oxford University Press.

602

Prinstein, M. (2007). Moderators of peer conta­ gion: A longitudinal examination of depres­ sion socialization between adolescents and their best friends. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 159-170.

Prinstein, M. J., Brechwald, W. A., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). Susceptibility to peer influence: Using a performance-based measure to iden­ tify adolescent males at heightened risk for deviant peer socialization. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1167-1172.

Ricciardelli, L. A., & Mellor, D. (2012). Influ­ ence of peers. In N. Rumsey & D. Harcourt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the psychol­ ogy of appearance (pp. 253-272). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Chiu, Y. J. I. (2007). Promoting social and academic competence in the classroom: An intervention study examin­ ing the contribution of the Responsive Class­ room approach. Psychology in the Schools, 44(4), 397-413.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Fan, X., Chiu, Y. ]., & You, W. (2007). The contribution of the Responsive Classroom Approach on children's academic achievement: Results from a three year longitudinal study. Journal ofSchool Psy­ chology, 45(4), 401-421.

Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2013). Friendship groups, personal motivation, and gender in relation to high school students' STEM career interest. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 652-664.

Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development, 6, 111-135.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker,]. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psy­ chology: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571-645). New York: Wiley.

Ryan, A. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motiva­ tion and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135-1150.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. (2000a). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psy­ chological needs as a unifying concept. Psy­ chological Inquiry, 11, 319-338.

Ryan, R..M., & Deci, E. L. (20006). Self­ determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Sage, N. A., & Kindermann, T. A. (1999). Peer networks, behavior contingencies, and chil­ dren's engagement in the classroom. Merril/­ Palmer Quarterly, 45, 143-171.

V. SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES

Sandstrom, M. J. (2011). The power of popular­ ity: Influence processes in childhood and ado­ lescence. In A.H. N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer sys­ tem (pp. 219-244). New York: Guilford Press.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Social support: The search for theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 133-147.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, ]. E., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2000). Friendship as a mod­ erating factor in the pathway between early harsh home environment and later victimiza­ tion in the peer group. Developmental Psy­ chology, 36, 646-662.

Sharan, S. (1984). Cooperative learning. Hills­ dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). A review of peer tutoring and cooperative learning projects in twenty-eight schools. Review of Educational Research, 11, 315-342.

Slavin, R. E. (2011). Instruction based on coop­ erative learning. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 344-360). New York: Rout­ ledge.

Smith, J. (2007). "Ye've got to 'ave balls to play this game sir!"-Boys, peers and fears: The negative influence of school-based "cultural accomplices" in constructing hegemonic mas­ culinities. Gender and Education, 19, 179- 198.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brookes/Cole.

van Workum, N., Scholte, R. H. J., Cillesse.n, A. H. N., Lodder, G. M. A., & Giletta, M. (2013). Selection, deselection, and social­ ization processes of happiness in adolescent friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 563-573.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological pro­ cesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (1991a). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 1066-1078.

Wentzel, K. R. (19916). Social competence at school: Relations between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educa­ tional Research, 61, 1-24.

Wentzel, K. R. (2002). The contribution of social goal setting to children's school adjustment. In

603 31. Peer Relationships, Motivation, and Academic Performance at School

A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 221-246). New York: Academic Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Sociometric status and academic adjustment in middle school: A lon­ gitudinal study. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 23, 5-28.

Wentzel, K. R. (2004). Understanding classroom competence: The role of social-motivational and self-processes. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 32, pp. 213-241). New York: Elsevier.

Wentzel, K. R. (2005). Peer relationships, motiva­ tion, and academic performance at school. In A.]. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 279-296). New York: Guilford Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (2013). School adjustment. In W. Reynolds & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 7. Educational psychology. New York: Wiley.

Wentzel, K. R. (2014). Prosocial behavior towards peers and friends. In L. Walker-Padillo & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A mul­ tidimensional approach (pp. 178-200). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (2015). Competence within con­ text: Implications for the development of positive student identities and motivation at school. In F. Guay, D. M. Mcinerney, R. Cra­ ven, & H. Marsh (Eds.), Self-concept, motiva­ tion and identity: Underpinning success with research and practice (Vol. 5, pp. 299-336). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). Academic lives of neglected, rejected, popular, and con­ troversial children. Child Development, 66, 754-763.

Wentzel, K. R., Baker, S. A., & Russell, S. L. (2012). Young adolescents' perceptions of teachers' and peers' goals as predictors of social and academic goal pursuit. Applied Psy­ chology, 61, 605-633.

Wentzel, K. R., Baker, S. A., & Russell, S. (2014). Peer relationships and positive adjustment at school. In R. Gillman, S. Huebner, & M. Fur­ long (Eds.), Promoting wellness in children and youth: A handbook of positive psychol­ ogy in the schools (pp. 260-277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C., & Caldwell, K. (2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195-203.

Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S., & Loo­ ney, L. (2010). Teacher and peer contribu­ tions to classroom climate in middle school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 193-202.

Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friend­ ships, peer acceptance, and group member­ ship: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198-. 1209.

Wentzel, K. R., & Edelman, D. (2016). Peer relationships and learning: Implications for instruction. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 365-387). New York: Routledge.

Wentzel, K. R., & Muenks, K. (2016). Peer influ­ ence on students' motivation, academic achieve­ ment and social behavior. In K. Wentzel & G. Ramani (Eds.), Handbook ofsocial influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, moti­ vation, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 13-30). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psy­ chology Review, 31, 366-377.

Wenz-Gross, M., Siperstein, G. N., Untch, A. S., & Widaman, K. F. (1997). Stress, social sup­ port, and adjustment of adolescents in middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 129-151.

White, K. J., & Kistner, J. (1992). The influence of teacher feedback on young children's peer preferences and perceptions. Developmental Psychology, 28, 933-940.

Wilson, S., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School­ based interventions for aggressive and dis­ ruptive behavior: Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2, Suppl.), S130-S143.

Youniss, ]., & Smollar, J. (1989). Adolescents' interpersonal relationships in social context. In T. J. Berndt & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer rela­ tionships in child development (pp. 300-316). New York: Wiley.