Introduction
Over the past 30 years, research on how
college impacts student development has continually pointed to the peer group
as perhaps the dominant change agent during the college years (Feldman and
Newcomb 1969; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991).
A college student’s peers act as a reference group, or an environmental
source of sociocultural norms in the midst of which a student grows and
develops (Clark and Trow 1966). A large
body of empirical evidence has been collected over the years to support this
conclusion (Astin 1977, 1993a; Feldman and Newcomb 1969; Pascarella and
Terenzini 1991).
A review of the research on the impact
of college peer groups reveals an interesting trend. The earliest work on peer groups (primarily in the 1950s and
early 1960s) focused on peer associations that were structured organizationally
by either residential circumstances or formal group affiliations (Feldman and
Newcomb 1969). Most of this work was
conducted at single institutions.
Furthermore, there was recognition that while the student body
characteristics of individual colleges may accentuate initial differences
between students attending different institutions, student subcultures and
friendship groups within institutions probably mediate the developmental impact
of the student body (Feldman and Newcomb 1969). Despite general consensus on the important role that friendship
groups play in socialization in college, however, the majority of published
peer group studies since the mid-1960s have been multi-institutional and have
operationalized the student peer group as a singular, campus-wide entity
(Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). Peer
group effects, in other words, were studied as between-institution effects
(e.g., Astin 1977; Bassis 1977; Davis 1966; Thistlewaite and Wheeler 1966;
Werts and Watley 1969). Our current
understanding of these institutional effects is that they are likely mediated
through interactions with students within a variety of interpersonal
environments (Astin 1993a; Kuh 1995; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). Given concurrent research underscoring the
importance of student interaction and engagement on campus for development and
retention (Astin 1984; Pascarella 1985; Tinto 1975; Weidman 1989), it is
surprising that little current work on peer group influence in college focuses
on interpersonal environments such as friendship groups and cliques.
The campus environment itself has
changed greatly since the 1950s and 1960s.
Colleges and universities are rapidly becoming ethnically and racially
diverse student communities (Justiz 1994), and increasing campus diversity has
been accompanied by a rise in racial tension on campus, battles over free
speech and the curriculum fought across racial lines, and social
self-segregation by race (Altbach 1991).
These troubling patterns are less than gentle reminders that issues of
racial and ethnic difference pervade many corners of the university, and
questions regarding student experiences and student development on today’s
campuses must include the role of racial diversity in their formulation. The general purpose of this study is to
conduct a contemporary examination of peer group influence in college that
focuses on interpersonal environments and also addresses the role of racial
diversity in those environments.
Peer groups and peer group influence
Wallace’s book, Student Culture, clearly illustrated the importance of the college
student's interpersonal peer group in influencing members' attitudes towards
the attainment of high grades, academic achievement, and aspirations for
graduate study (Wallace 1966). To show
these effects, he measured the relationship between the student’s interpersonal
environment (Rossi 1966) and change in views and aspirations during the first
year of college. The interpersonal
environment for each student was determined not by the researcher, but by each
individual respondent. That is, each
student responding to a questionnaire examined a list of names of all students
at the college, and beside the name of each student recognized, indicated a
degree of like or dislike for that person and the number of hours per week he/she
spent time with them. Clearly,
Wallace’s method allows the researcher to access the most proximal of students’
social environments in college and provides a model in which to study interpersonal
peer groups. The downside to this
method is that it is methodologically difficult to carry out given the size and
complexity of many postsecondary institutions, and correspondingly, may
realistically be limited to the study of single institutions. Perhaps it is because of the greater
efficiency of gathering institutionally-based peer data and the increasing
interest in between-institution effects that little research along this vein
has followed Wallace. The result,
however, is that we know much more about the influence of reference groups on
campus and tend to rely on that knowledge to understand the role played by
interpersonal peer groups in student learning and development.
Intellectual self-concept, Educational
aspirations, and the “Frog pond” Effect
Researchers contend that college
attendance is a period of psychosocial moratorium (Erikson, 1968), a time when
students continually act and react to the environment in the struggle to
establish their adult role or identity (Chickering 1969; Sanford 1962). It is not surprising, then, that studies of
peer group influence in college have focused primarily on the effect of the
peer environment on academic or intellectual self-concept and educational
aspirations (Feldman and Newcomb 1969).
Much of the effort to understand how college affects academic self-concept
and educational aspirations has been devoted to peer effects and what has
become known as the “frog pond” effect (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991).
The
frog pond effect is based upon Reference Group Theory, which asserts that
self-evaluations are based upon an individual’s relative position in comparison
to others. The effect essentially
refers to the specific role played by the campus environment in a student’s
evaluation of his or her abilities, competencies, and potential. Two theories have received the most
attention in studies of academic self-concept, educational aspirations, and the
role of the peer group. “Environmental
press” states that more selective schools will enhance self-concept via the
context created by high achieving students (Thistlewaite and Wheeler
1966). In other words, students will
take into account the academic selectivity of their local environment in
forming judgements of their abilities.
“Relative deprivation” states that selective schools will detrimentally
affect self-concept and aspirations via evaluative standards that are limited
to the student’s local peer environment.
Davis (1966) found a negative relationship between career aspirations
and a high-achieving student body and invoking relative deprivation, declared that
the aphorism, “It’s better to be a big frog in a small pond than a small frog
in a big pond,” may hold true in the college environment.
Although
research generally supports the relative deprivation model, particularly within
a high school context (Marsh, 1991), findings have revealed conflicting
results. For example, Drew and Astin
(1972), in a national study of academic self-concept, found support for both
environmental press theory and the relative deprivation model. Bassis (1977) found evidence generally
supportive of relative deprivation theory, but in a study published the same
year, Astin (1977) found that institutional selectivity (a measure of peer
ability) had no effect on academic self-concept in either direction. Although a number of studies at both the
college and high school level have continued to explore the relationship
between the institutional peer context and self-concept (Astin 1993a; Bachman
and O’Malley 1986; Marsh and Parker 1984; Pascarella, Smart, Ethington, and
Nettles 1987; Sax 1994) and degree aspirations (Astin 1993a; Heath 1992; Tsui
1995), findings remain somewhat inconclusive (Pascarella and Terenzini
1991). Contradictory and inconclusive
findings may be due, in part, to the almost exclusive focus on the role of
institutional reference groups and consequent inattention given to the
mediating influence of interpersonal membership groups on student
development.
Racial Diversity and Peer group Research
Recently, a handful of studies have
investigated the role of racial diversity in the student body on development in
college. A primary objective of these
studies has been to understand the effects of interacting with someone of
another race or ethnicity. Astin
(1993a, 1993b) included interracial interaction among a number of student
involvement activities in his multi-institutional studies of student
development and found cross-race socialization to be associated with increases
in cultural awareness, commitment to racial understanding, and commitment to
the environment, as well as higher levels of academic development and
satisfaction with college. Villalpando
(1996) and Tanaka (1996) reported similar findings for Chicanos and white
students. In another
multi-institutional quantitative study, Chang (1996) found that interracial
interaction in college is associated with discussing racial issues, taking
ethnic studies courses, and attending racial/cultural awareness workshops. Furthermore, he demonstrated that these
behaviors associated with interracial interaction also enhance student
retention, college satisfaction, intellectual self-concept, and social
self-concept.
Scant attention, on the other hand, has
been given to racial diversity in peer groups.
A few studies (Astin 1993a; Chang 1996; Hurtado 1990, 1992; Milem 1994;
Tanaka 1996) have incorporated percentages of various racial groups in the
student body as environmental measures in their models of college impact. In each of these studies, however, the
authors generally interpret these measures as structural characteristics of
institutions rather than as measurements of peer group characteristics. Chang (1996), for example, explored the
between-institution effects of the level of racial diversity in the student
body or what he called, “structural diversity.” He found that the higher the degree of structural diversity at an
institution, the more likely a student will socialize across race and discuss
racial issues. In using such a distal
measure of the environment, Chang’s results could best be interpreted as a structural
characteristic that affects opportunities to interact across race rather than
as a peer group characteristic that encourages or validates interracial
behavior. Given the long-recognized
importance of the peer group in college student development, the centrality of
identification and affiliation in group formation and influence, and the
continuing interest in racial diversity in higher education, it is surprising
that race and ethnicity have surfaced only as structural characteristics of
institutions in the area of college impact research. Again, the dominant analytical strategy of focusing on
multi-institutional studies of institutional-based peer groups may have
precluded researchers from pursuing more micro-level studies of peer influence
processes, whether centered on race or other group characteristics.
Given the importance of understanding
interpersonal peer environments in the context of racial diversity in student
development, this study focuses on the college friendship group
– a student’s best friends on campus – and its effect on students over
time. The specific questions addressed
in this study are:
(1) To what extent does the interpersonal
environment created by the academic abilities and aspirations of the friendship
group affect intellectual self-confidence and degree aspirations in
college?
(2) What role, if any, does the racial
diversity of students’ best friends affect the development of intellectual
self-confidence and degree aspirations?
Conceptual Framework
Weidman’s (1989) model of socialization
in college is perhaps the most appropriate theoretical model with which to
investigate and interpret peer group effects.
My use of Weidman’s model follows similar studies of peer effects by Dey
(1996, 1997) and Milem (1998). Weidman
conceptualizes the major influences on student change in college to be
pre-college or student background characteristics, the academic and social
normative context of an institution, and the impact of parental and non-college
reference groups. Normative contexts
are particularly important in Weidman's model for influencing change in
personal orientations during college.
However, Weidman also makes three points about the role of the
interpersonal environment and interpersonal processes in socialization. First, he cites Homans (1950, 1961) and
argues that the socialization process is quite dependent on interpersonal
interaction and the sentimental intensity of the relationship associated with
interaction. Second, he notes that
frequency of interaction is also critical.
Lastly, he underscores a conclusion made by a number of researchers,
that the long-term academic impacts of college are not the result of classroom
experiences, but of informal forms of social interaction with students and
faculty.
By focusing on friendship groups, this
study concentrates on two parts of Weidman’s model, the normative context of
informal peer groups and implicitly, the socialization process of interpersonal
interaction. To isolate these elements
of the socialization process in college, I borrow from the conceptual and
methodological models of college impact of Astin (1984, 1993a), models that are
also implicit in Weidman’s (1989) framework.
Astin’s (1993a) model of college impact emphasizes the intercorrelated
nature of student pre-college characteristics (inputs) and environmental
elements of the college experience.
This relationship becomes problematic when trying to isolate the unique
contribution of the educational environment on student outcomes because student
inputs are frequently related to both environments and outcomes. In other
words, qualities of the student may explain their eventual outcome (smart
students will get high grades) and may also determine the types and nature of
their educational experiences (math majors will take more math courses). In the statistical implementation of
Weidman’s socialization model, therefore, I make an effort to properly control
for the confounding relationship of inputs to friendship group measures.
Data and Methodology
Data for this longitudinal,
quantitative study were collected during the 1996-1997 academic year at the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), a racially and ethnically
diverse, public research university. A sample of 2222 third-year students who
were previously surveyed as freshmen in 1994 (using a general freshman survey)
were surveyed again in the 1996-97 school year with an instrument specifically
designed for the study. A two-wave
administration of the survey yielded a response rate of 31 percent. Four surveys were dropped from the sample
because of insufficient or suspect data, yielding a final sample for analysis
of 677 respondents. Because a variety
of pre-college data was available for both respondents and non-respondents
(taken from the 1994 freshman survey), it was possible to predict the
probability of responding to the follow-up survey based on those data and
calculate a weighting factor to partially adjust for non-response bias. Using a procedure described by Astin and
Molm (1971), weights were calculated such that the data of respondents who
appeared most similar to non-respondents in terms of pre-college
characteristics (i.e., respondents with lower probabilities of responding)
received larger weights relative to those students whose characteristics
resembled those most likely to respond.
Weighted data was used in all analyses.
The follow-up instrument collected
demographic data, measures of behavior and involvement in activities in
college, and data on various outcome measures including self-rated abilities
and highest level of degree aspirations.
Most significant to this study, the names of fellow students whom
students identified as members of their friendship group were also collected. Respondents were asked to name up to seven
UCLA students with whom they spent most of their time and who they considered
to be their “best friends” on campus.
They also identified the racial/ethnic composition of their friendship
group. The written names were used to
retrieve data on friendship group members collected by the annual freshman
surveys. Aggregates of the friends’
freshman survey data for each identified friendship group were computed and
operationalized as measures of actual friendship group characteristics. Because it was not possible to obtain
freshman data for all friendship group members, only respondents with
sufficient friendship group data were retained for analyses involving
friendship group measures.
In these analyses, the sample size was
reduced to 426 students.
The two dependent variables are single
item measures taken from the follow-up survey.
Academic self-concept was measured with a traditional self-rated ability
question that asked the student to rate her “self-confidence (intellectual)” as
compared to “the average person your age.”
The rating was made on a 5-point scale (“lowest 10%” to “highest
10%”). A separate question on the
survey asked students to report the highest academic degree they intend to
obtain and was scored on a 4-point scale (“none” to “Ph.D/Ed.D, M.D.,
J.D”). Both variables were pretested
prior to college entry in 1994 with similar measures.
The independent variables derived from
the surveys are listed in the Appendix in Table A. The pre-college data were collected by the freshman survey in
1994. These measures include the
relevant pretest measure for each analysis, gender (female), race/ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, and a measure of academic ability, the student’s SAT
score. Table 1 contains the means and
standard deviations.
insert
table 1 about here
-------------------------------------------
Five friendship group measures were
chosen for the model. Three variables
are aggregate measures and include group averages of intellectual self-confidence
in 1994, SAT composite scores, and degree aspirations in 1994. Note that it was necessary to include the
corresponding individual-level variables for these measures in the regression
model to reduce self-selection effects that confound relationships between
group-level measures and the dependent variables (Burstein 1980). Appropriately, each of the pretest measures,
in addition to SAT score, was included in the analysis of both dependent
variables.
The racial composition of each
student’s friendship group was collected with the follow-up survey and used to
calculate a measure of the racial diversity of the friendship group. Racial diversity of the friendship group was
measured on a four-point scale. The
degree of racial diversity was defined by the percentage of the largest racial
or ethnic group represented in the friendship group:
(1)
Homogeneous -- the largest racial/ethnic group makes up 100% of the friendship
group
(2) Predominantly one race/ethnicity -- the largest
racial/ethnic group makes up 75 - 99% of the friendship group
(3)
Majority one race/ethnicity -- the largest racial/ethnic group makes up 51 -
74% of the friendship group
(4)
No majority -- the largest racial/ethnic group makes up 50% or less of the
friendship group
These
definitions were applied only to friendship groups consisting of two or more
students. Note that in the particular
sociopolitical context at UCLA, racial diversity was defined by students at the
level of ethnicity (Author 1998).
Appropriately, the various Asian American and Latino ethnic groups were
not collapsed into broad, singular categories for the purposes of defining
racial diversity within friendship groups.
Pan-Asian groups consisting of one Chinese American, one Filipino, and
one South Asian student, for example, were not defined as homogeneous but as
having no majority racial/ethnic group.
The final three variables in the model
incorporate one of Weidman’s primary mechanisms of socialization, interaction
among students. A composite variable of
three “time diary” items (studying, partying, and talking with students)
provides a general measure of student interaction. Two additional variables measure the frequency of one specific
type of interaction hypothesized to be related to both intellectual
self-confidence and educational aspirations, having conversations about
homework or classwork (with best friends and with other students).
The primary set of analyses featured
blocked multiple regression procedures to estimate the relationship between the
outcome measures and the five friendship group characteristics while holding
constant pre-college characteristics and 1994 pretests of intellectual
self-confidence and degree aspirations.
Independent variables were entered in three discrete blocks for all
equations, in accordance with the college impact and socialization models of
Astin (1984, 1993a) and Weidman (1989).
Pre-college characteristics were entered into the regression equation
first, followed by the block of friendship group measures and subsequently, the
measures of college involvement. Since
preliminary analyses indicated a strong, statistically significant interaction
between friendship group diversity and race, separate analyses were conducted for
white students (n=151) and students of color
(n=285). Because both individual-level
and group-level variables were modeled simultaneously, potential
multicollinearity problems in the regression analyses were monitored by
reviewing the intercorrelations among independent variables, tolerance indices,
and corresponding variance inflation factors.
There are a few key limitations that
the reader should keep in mind when reviewing the results of this study. First, the sample drawn for this study
represents a single campus with a large enrollment (~36,000), a particularly
diverse student body, and other specific characteristics. It is not known whether the relationships
found in this study generalize to other four-year institutions. An anonymous reviewer familiar with UCLA,
for example, noted that a large proportion of third-year students and older
live off-campus and therefore may retain off-campus friendships as well. These non-college reference groups are not
considered here and may also be influential.
Second, because freshman survey data were used to generate friendship
group measures, the design of the study also did not allow for transfer
students as members of students' friendship groups, which may eliminate members
of some students' interpersonal environments and bias friendship group
measures. As noted above, freshman data
was not available for every best friend named by respondents, which also may
introduce error into the calculation of friendship group measures. Lastly, the single-item measures for degree
aspirations and intellectual self-confidence used in this analysis are not
easily generalized to higher-order constructs and therefore should be viewed
with caution.
Results
Before reporting the results of the
multivariate analyses, it is instructive to examine a number of bivariate
relationships between the dependent variables and key independent
variables. Table 2 displays
distributions of the two dependent variables with two student characteristics,
gender and race. Statistically
significant differences were found for intellectual
insert
table 2 about here
-------------------------------------------
self-confidence. While a large majority of men (81 percent)
rate themselves highly in intellectual self-confidence, a smaller proportion of
women (64 percent) rate themselves similarly.
At the lower end of the scale, women are more than twice as likely than
men to report themselves among the lowest in terms of intellectual ability,
though this difference is not significant at the 0.05 level. Similarly, white students are much more
likely than are students of color to rate themselves highly on intellectual
self-confidence. No significant race or
gender differences were found with respect to student’s highest degree aspirations.
The major premise of this study is that
elements of the interpersonal environment are important influences on
socialization in college. Table 3
provides a simple illustration of the nature of these influences. For the purposes of comparison, three
dichotomous friendship group
insert
table 3 about here
-------------------------------------------
variables were
created. For both intellectual
self-confidence and degree aspirations, friendship groups were classified as
“high” or “low,” based upon whether the score for each group measure was above
or below the sample mean for each respective variable. Columns 1 through 4 in Table 3 clearly
exhibit the same kind of patterns found among high school students by Epstein
(1983). Students who have best friends
with relatively high levels of intellectual self-confidence tend to be more
self-confident intellectually after two years of college compared to students
with less confident friendship groups.
A similar relationship between individual and group characteristics is
evident with respect to degree aspirations.
Interpersonal environments that are high or strong in a particular
quality, characteristic, or trait, appear to enhance that same quality among
students over time. Note that these
patterns, while compelling, do not take into account entering student
characteristics and may mask the effects of self-selection into particular
kinds of interpersonal environments (Cohen 1985; LeVine 1966).
The remaining two columns in Table 3
test to see whether a group characteristic other than one directly analogous to
the outcome also can be a potentially important socializing influence. Comparing students with a low level of
diversity in their friendship group ("homogeneous" groups) to their
counterparts with relatively higher levels ("no majority" groups), we
find no statistically significant differences in intellectual self-confidence
or degree aspirations. Some
relationship is implied, however, with degree aspirations. While about 11 percent of students who have
diverse friendship groups restrict their educational aspirations to the
baccalaureate degree, a larger proportion (18 percent) have similarly low
aspirations among students with homogeneous friendship groups.
As noted above, preliminary regression
analyses of the two outcome measures indicated a statistical interaction
between race and diversity of the friendship group. Figure 1 depicts the interaction graphically. The graphs below show how diversity in the
friendship group essentially has the opposite relationship with intellectual
self-confidence and highest degree aspirations for white students and students
of color. For white students, those who
have a higher degree of diversity in their friendship group tend to be less
self-confident and have lower educational aspirations than do those with
homogeneous groups. For students of
color, diversity is associated with enhanced self-confidence and aspirations. The extent to which these differential
patterns persist after taking into account initial differences in the dependent
variables is discussed next.
insert
figure 1 about here
-------------------------------------------
Table 4 contains the standardized regression
coefficients for the regression models of intellectual self-confidence. Three regression models each were computed
for white students and students of color.
Model 1 coefficients reflect the effects associated with each
independent variable after controlling for pre-college characteristics
only. For the variables not in the
model, the coefficient each variable would have received if added to Model 1
are also provided in brackets.
Friendship group measures are added in Model 2, providing estimates of
their effects independent of each other.
Model 3 coefficients additionally take into account measures of student
involvement.
insert
table 4 about here
-------------------------------------------
Elements of the interpersonal
environment of the friendship group exhibit significant relationships with
intellectual self-confidence for both white students and students of
color. The effects, however, are quite
distinct between the two groups of students.
Among students of color, the group level of intellectual self-confidence
has the positive effect consistent with the notion of environmental press; they
appear to benefit psychologically from interaction within a highly confident
set of best friends. For white
students, a positive influence on intellectual self-confidence appears to
emanate more from high group levels of educational aspirations than with high
group self-confidence. The simple
correlations indicate that group levels of both intellectual self-confidence
and degree aspirations are associated with intellectual self-confidence midway
through college. Controlling for
individual-level variables diminishes the association with group intellectual
self-confidence (evident by comparison to the bracketed coefficient in model
1), leaving group degree aspirations as the only positive group effect. Unlike the case of students of color, white
students’ friendship groups also exhibit negative effects. The depressive effect of group SAT score is
indicative of Davis’ (1966) classic relative deprivation interpretation, in
which students are likely depressing their self-evaluations in the presence of
high-achieving friends.
As suggested by figure 1 above, racial
and ethnic diversity in the friendship group has a positive effect on
intellectual self-confidence for students of color. Among white students, friendship group diversity is negatively
correlated with intellectual self-confidence (partial correlation=-.21,
p<.05, after controlling for the pretest only) but fails to gain significance
in any of the regression models. For
students of color, a diverse interpersonal environment of friends appears to
enhance intellectual self-confidence regardless of the academic ability,
educational trajectories, or degree of self-confidence possessed by themselves
or by their closest friends. For white
students, friendship group diversity, at best, has no bearing on their
intellectual self-confidence.
It is worth noting that the role of SAT
scores as a predictive characteristic is markedly different as well for the two
groups of students. At both the
individual and group levels, SAT scores are closely associated with white
students’ sense of their intellectual abilities. High scores at the individual level enhance self-confidence and
as we have seen, group level scores appear to have a relative deprivation type
of effect. The same variables show no
effects, positive or negative, among students of color.
Lastly, measures of involvement have no
significant effect on intellectual self-confidence for either group of
students, holding constant pre-college variables and friendship group
characteristics.
Table 5 tells a similar story with
respect to educational aspirations.
Among white students, high aspirations are associated with initially
high aspirations as freshmen and by having a highly self-confident friendship
group. Despite a negative value for the
bivariate correlation (r = -0.17, p< 0.05), racial diversity in the friendship
group again appears to be unrelated to the outcome for white students. Again, a slightly different pattern of
effects is suggested by the data for students of color. No relationships were found between any of
the three academically-oriented friendship group characteristics and
educational aspirations among students of color. Diverse interpersonal environments also appear to have beneficial
effects on aspirations, although this relationship should be regarded with
caution since the coefficients do not quite reach significance at the
conventional 0.05 level and the change in explained variance (adjusted R2)
from models 1 to 2 is negligible.
insert
table 5 about here
-------------------------------------------
In studying the interpersonal environment
of the friendship group, I believe this study serves as a meaningful call to
re-focus empirical and theoretical treatments of college peer group
influence. The peer group effects found
in this study are convincing evidence that the micro-level interpersonal
environments of a college campus are important sites of influence on
socialization and student development.
The supposition by researchers that interpersonal environments mediate
institutional-level peer group effects is strongly supported by this research,
and further, the complexity of the findings underscore a need for researchers
and administrators to better understand the role of micro-environments in
socialization in college.
With regard to theory, evidence of both
relative deprivation and environmental press was found to operate simultaneously
at the interpersonal level. However,
different aspects of the interpersonal environment accounted for each type of
influence. In the analysis of
intellectual self-confidence, group SAT scores had a depressive effect while
educational aspirations had an enhancing effect. The inclusion of multiple measures of the interpersonal
environment reveals that different but related aspects of the peer environment
can have opposite effects. In addition,
these results may explain why previous research has been somewhat inconclusive
on this theoretical point. First,
variation of peer effects at the interpersonal level may cancel out overall
peer effects at the institutional level and yield no net effect. This explanation is consistent with Marsh’s
(1984) frame of reference interpretation on the effects of ability grouping on
the academic self-concept of school children.
Second, reliance on a single aspect of the peer environment at any level
may neglect the effects of other peer characteristics and essentially reveals
only one of many distinct yet interrelated processes. Marsh (1991) demonstrated this point within a high school context
where he found school-average SES and school-average ability to have opposite
effects on both educational aspirations and academic self-concept. He speculated that the positive effects of
school-average SES were due to group identification processes while the
negative effects of school-average ability were the result of social comparison
(relative deprivation) processes. The
results of the current study suggest that both types of processes operate at the
interpersonal level. It is important to
note that these opposing peer effects were found for the white student sample
only. Evidence of relative deprivation
in the interpersonal context was not found among students of color, and the
extent to which this conclusion applies across race is unknown. Finally, while the current study does not
make an attempt to compare the relative influence of membership groups (best
friends) to reference groups (the campus peer group), the variation of effects
found within the white student sample and between white students and students
of color suggests that membership groups may not merely mediate campus peer
influence, they may serve to isolate members from more distal institutional
influences as well.
The methodological focus of this study
validates the applicability and feasibility of conducting quantitative,
longitudinal studies of the interpersonal environment on large, sociologically
complex campuses. Studies of the
influence of friends are typically limited by cross-sectional designs and/or
simultaneous measurement of student and friendship group characteristics (Cohen
1983). In taking advantage of a
national freshman survey administered prior to college (during orientation), I
have been able to avoid many of such inferentially confounding pitfalls for
most group measures. Most
significantly, with the use of student-defined friendship group measures, we
are assured of capturing actual environments of interaction, and consequently,
more accurately assessing the impact of the environment.
The results also raise interesting
questions with regard to diversity. The
assessment of the influence of racial diversity in the interpersonal
environment showed that diversity is an important peer characteristic to
consider along with traditional measures of peer ability and self-concept. A previous study showed that racial
diversity in the friendship group is important for increasing a student’s
commitment to racial understanding and is associated with interracial
interaction outside of the friendship group (Author 1998). The present study indicates that racial
diversity is also important when examining academically related cognitive
outcomes. While it is important to recognize
that diversity does have an effect on academically oriented outcomes, what is
missing from this discussion is a theory of how diversity operates in
the context of academics. In the case
of interracial interaction and racial understanding, the mechanism appears to
be the exposure and dealing with issues of racism, discrimination, and cultural
difference (Author 1998). The
connection that interracial interaction and friendships has to academic
outcomes is less clear.
The positive effect of friendship group
diversity on intellectual self-confidence and (more tentatively) educational
aspirations was found for students of color only, and the absence of a similar
effect among white students can help us think about the relationship between
diverse friendships and academic outcomes.
In the realm of self-concept and aspirations, diversity may simply
provide students – students of color – a normative context which contains more
varied reference points from which to evaluate themselves. Under this interpretation, diversity in the
friendship group presents students with multiple referents with respect to
academic ability, and the presence and tacit acceptance of cultural diversity
supports the legitimacy of adhering to multiple norms while remaining a cohesive
group. The standard deviation in SAT
scores among best friends who are members of the more homogenous friendship
groups (s=121), for example, is smaller than among best friends in the more
diverse groups (s=131) in this sample.
Alternatively, a racially diverse comparative context may reduce a
devaluation of ability among students of color due to “stereotype threat”
(Steele 1997) that may be triggered in predominantly white settings and in this
manner, function to enhance self-esteem.
In this interpretation, racially diverse friendship groups act as
enclaves of safety against threats to self-esteem in the greater
environment. Finally, perhaps there is
simply an environmental press effect for students of color because they are
validated by interacting closely with non-white students with high (relative to
stereotypical assumptions) aspirations and competencies. The combination of this validation with the
re-framing of their psyche in a non-white frame may make group diversity as
influential, and in some cases, more influential than academic competencies or
self-esteem in the group, as the findings indicate.
The results for white students also
raise questions and suggest directions for future study. Are white students’ academic self-beliefs
and aspirations unaffected by racial diversity? Results of the current study imply that racial diversity is not a
salient environmental characteristic in academic domains for white
students. In fact, the data suggest a
negative effect for diversity on intellectual self-confidence. This result contradicts the findings of
Chang (1996) who found interracial interaction among white students to enhance
intellectual self-concept. These
discrepant findings indicate a need to probe deeper into the friendship groups
of white students and understand the differences in interaction within racially
diverse groups compared to more homogeneous ones. The differences may lay in the nature and quality of
relationships among best friends in different types of friendship groups. For example, Author (1998) found
descriptions of mutual trust and emotional closeness within friendship groups
to be more common among students with more homogenous friendship groups than
those with relatively diverse groups.
Finally, why do white students appear more susceptible to the effects of
relative deprivation on intellectual self-confidence than do students of
color? The differential effects of SAT
scores at both the individual and group levels suggest that SAT scores may
carry heavier psychological weight for constructing self-concept among white
students as compared to students of color.
At the group level, it is difficult to exactly determine what group
average SAT scores represent. For white
students, higher group SAT scores may be a measure of academic ability,
competitiveness, or perhaps, academic stress.
Future research that “unpacks” the operational meaning of this classic
peer measure in the context of the friendship group will help us to further
understand the mechanism of relative deprivation and the differential effects
observed in this study.
References
Altbach, Philip.G.
1991. “The racial dilemma in
American higher education.” Pp. 3-17 in
The Racial Crisis in American Higher
Education, edited by Philip G. Altbach and Kofi Lomotey. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Alwin, Duane F., and Luther B.Otto. 1977. “High school context effects on
aspirations.” Sociology of Education 50:259-273.
Author. 1996. “Racial balkanization, multiculturalism, and
student development.” Unpublished manuscript.
------. 1998. “The Impact of Friendship Groups in a
Multicultural University.” Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Astin, Alexander W.
1977. Four Critical Years. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
------. 1984. “Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education.” Journal
of College Student Personnel 25:297-308.
------. 1993a. What
Matters in College? Four Critical Years
Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
------. 1993b. “Diversity and multiculturalism on
campus: How are students affected?” Change 25:44-49.
Astin, Alexander W.,
and Linda D. Molm. 1971. “Correcting
for response bias in follow-up surveys.”
Unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of Education, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Bassis, Michael S.
1977. “The campus as a frog
pond: A theoretical and empirical
reassessment.” American Journal Sociology 82:1318-1326.
Burstein, Leigh.
1980. “The analysis of multilevel
data in educational research and evaluation.” Review of Research in Education 8:158-233.
Clark, Burton R. and Martin Trow. 1966. “The organizational
context.” Pp. 17-70 in College Peer Groups, edited by Theodore
M. Newcomb and Everett K. Wilson. Chicago: Aldine.
Chang, Mitchell
J. 1995. “Race identity and race relations in higher education: Fraternity and sorority membership among
students of color.” Presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Orlando,
FL, November.
-------. 1996. “Racial diversity in higher education: Does a racially mixed student population
affect educational outcomes?” Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Cohen, Jere. 1983. “Commentary: The relationship between friendship selection and peer
influence.” Pp. in Friends in School. Patterns of
Selection and Influence in Secondary Schools, edited by Joyce L. Epstein
and Nancy L. Karweit. New York: Academic Press.
Davis, James. 1966. “The campus as a frog pond: An application of the theory of relative
deprivation to career decisions of college men.” American Journal of
Sociology 72:17-31.
------. 1997. “Undergraduate political attitudes: Peer
influence in changing social contexts.”
Journal of Higher Education 68:398-413.
Drew, David E., and Alexander W Astin. 1972. “Undergraduate
aspirations: A test of several
theories.” American Journal of Sociology 77:1151-1164.
Epstein, Joyce L.
1983. “The influence of friends
on achievement and affective outcomes.”
Pp. in Friends in School. Patterns of Selection and Influence in Secondary
Schools, edited by Joyce L. Epstein, and Nancy L. Karweit. New
York: Academic Press.
Erikson, Erik.
1968. Identity: Youth and
Crisis. New York: Horton.
Feldman, Kenneth A., and Theodore M. Newcomb. 1969.
The Impact of College on
Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hallinan, Maureen T.
1983. “Commentary: New directions for research on peer
influence.” Pp. in Friends in School. Patterns of
Selection and Influence in Secondary Schools, edited by Joyce L. Epstein,
and Nancy L. Karweit. New York: Academic Press.
Heath, Tamela.
1992. “Predicting the
educational aspirations and graduate plans of black and white college and
university students: When do dreams become realities?” Presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Minneapolis, MN, October.
Homans, George C.
1950. The Human Group. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
------. 1961. Social
Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Hurtado, Sylvia, and Deborah F. Carter. 1997.
“Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial
climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging.” Sociology
of Education 70:324-345.
Justiz, Manual J.
1994. “Demographic trends and
the challenges to American higher education.”
Pp. in Minorities in Higher
Education, edited by Manual J. Justiz, Reginald Wilson, and Lars G.
Björk. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Kerr, Clark. 1991. “Foreward.”
Pp. vii-x in The Racial Crisis in
American Higher Education, edited by Philip G. Altbach and Kofi
Lomotey. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
LeVine, Robert A.
1966. “American college
experience as a socialization process.”
Pp. 107-132 in College Peer Groups,
edited by Theodore M. Newcomb and Everett K. Wilson. Chicago: Aldine.
Marsh, Herbert W.
1991. “Failure of high-ability
high schools to deliver academic benefits commensurate with their students'
ability levels.” American Educational Research Journal 28:445-480.
Marsh, Herbert W.
1984. “Self-concept, social
comparison, and ability grouping: A
reply to Kulik and Kulik.” American Educational Research Journal 21:799-806.
Milem, Jeffrey F.
1994. “College, students, and
racial understanding.” Thought and Action 9: 51-92.
-------.
1998. “Attitude change in
college students: Examining the effect
of college peer groups and faculty normative groups.” Journal of Higher Education
69:117-140.
Pascarella, Ernest T.
1985. “College environmental
influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review and analysis.”
Pp. in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Volume 1, edited by John C. Smart. New
York: Agathon.
Pascarella, Ernest T., Marcia Edison, Amaury Nora, Linda S.
Hagedorn, and Patrick T. Terenzini.
1996. “Influences on students’
openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college.” Journal of Higher Education 67:174-195.
Pascarella, Ernest T., John C. Smart, Corina A.
Ethington, and Michael T. Nettles.
1987. “The influence of college
on self-concept: A consideration of
race and gender differences.” American Educational Research Journal 24:
49-77.
------.
1991. How College Affects Students.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rossi, Peter H.
1966. “Research strategies in
measuring peer group influence.” Pp. 190-214 in College Peer Groups, edited by Theodore M. Newcomb and Everett K.
Wilson. Chicago: Aldine.
Sax, Linda J. 1994. “Mathematical self-concept: How college reinforces the gender gap.” Research
in Higher Education 35:141-166.
------. 1996. “The dynamics of tokenism: How college students are affected by the proportion
of women in their major.” Research in Higher Education 37:389-425.
Steele, Claude M. 1995.
“Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African
Americans.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 69:797-811.
Tanaka, Gregory K.
1996. “The Impact of
Multiculturalism on White Students.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Thistlethwaite, Donald L., and Norman Wheeler. 1966.
“Effects of teacher and peer subcultures upon student aspirations.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 57:35-47.
Tinto, Vincent.
1975. “Dropout from higher
education: A theoretical synthesis of
recent research.” Review of Educational Research 45:89-125.
Tsui, Lisa.
1995. “Boosting female ambition:
How college diversity impacts graduate degree aspirations of women.” Presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Orlando, FL, November.
Villalpando, Octavio D.
1996. “ The long-term effects
of college on Chicano and Chicana students' "other-oriented" values,
service careers, and community involvement.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Werts, Charles E., and Donivan J. Watley. 1969.
“The student's dilemma: Big
fish-little pond or little fish-big pond.”
Journal of Counseling Psychology 16:14-19.
Means and standard deviations
Mean (std dev)
Variable White
Students Students of Color
n 151 285
Pre-college characteristics
SES 23.02
(4.43) 18.60 (7.02)
SAT
composite score 1209
(94) 1162 (128)
Friendship Group Characteristics
Group degree
aspirations 4.48
(0.43) 4.52 (0.37)
Group
SAT composite score 1202
(72) 1178 (102)
College involvement variables
Student-student
Interaction 14.71
(3.58) 13.01 (3.84)
Conversations
about classwork (w/friendship group) 2.65
(0.53) 2.57 (0.54)
Conversations
about classwork (outside friendship group) 2.32
(0.65) 2.08 (0.62)
Table 2
Intellectual self-confidence and highest degree
aspirations in 1996-97 by gender and race
t-test White Students
t-test
Men Women p-val Students of Color p-val
Intellectual Self-Confidence
“Above
Average” or “Highest 10%” 80.5 63.9 <.001 77.8 68.8 .039
“Below
Average” or “Lowest 10%” 1.9 4.8 .089 3.0 3.6 .726
Degree
Aspirations
Doctorate,
Medical, or Law Degree 50.4 50.2
.969 48.6 51.2 .605
Bachelor’s
Degree 10.3 12.4
.467 13.5 10.4 .343
Table 3
Intellectual self-confidence and highest degree
aspirations in 1996-97
by friendship group
characteristics
Grp
Intel S-C Grp Deg Asp Grp Diversity
Low High Low High Low High
Intellectual Self-Confidence
“Above
Average” or “Highest 10%” 67.0 77.2a 69.9 73.9 74.7 72.9
“Below
Average” or “Lowest 10%” 4.0 2.7 3.6 3.1 3.7 4.4
Degree
Aspirations
Doctorate,
Medical, or Law Degree 50.4 50.3 45.6 55.3a 59.2 54.1
Bachelor’s
Degree 12.9 10.0 10.8 12.5 18.0 10.9
aStatistically significant t-test indicating difference
between low and high groups, p<.05
Table 4
Regression
of Intellectual Self-Confidence on Pre-College Characteristics, Friendship
Group Characteristics, and Involvement Variables
White Students Students of Color
Pre-college characteristics and Control variables
Gender: female -.30 -.13 -.16 -.15 -.18 -.08 -.06 -.06
SES .27 .18* .17* .16* .02 .05 .05 .05
Intellectual self-confidence in 1994 .49 .37*** .37*** .38*** .44 .41*** .40*** .41***
Highest degree aspirations in 1994 .33 .14 .05 .03 .05 .02 .03 .01
SAT score .27 .15* .17* .17* .19 .08 .05 .05
Friendship Group characteristics
Group Intellectual self-confidence .27 [.03] .03 .02 .19 [.12*] .12* .13*
Group degree aspirations .17 [.10] .15* .17* .05 [.00] -.02 -.01
Group SAT score -.04 [-.15] -.21* -.20* .08 [.03] .03 .02
Group Racial/ethnic diversity -.28 [-.14] -.13 -.12 .12 [.12*] .12* .12*
Involvement variables
Student-student interaction .19 [.09] [.08] .08 -.07 [-.07] [-.06] -.07
Classwork conv'ns w/friendship group .07 [.05] [.03] .00 -.06 [-.00] [-.01] -.01
Classwork conv'ns outside of friendship group .05 [-.01] [.00] -.01 -.01 [.04] [.05] .06
R2
.354 .413 .419 .209 .238 .244
Adjusted R2
.326 .366 .354 .193 .209 .206
Model
1: standardized coefficients after controlling for pre-college characteristics
Model
2: standardized coefficients after controlling for pre-college characteristics
and friendship group characteristics
Model 3: standardized coefficients after controlling
for pre-college characteristics, friendship group characteristics, and
involvement variables
***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05
Table 5
Regression
of Highest Degree Aspirations on Pre-College Characteristics, Friendship Group
Characteristics, and Involvement Variables
White Students Students of Color
Pre-college characteristics and Control variables
Gender: female -.07 .02 .09 .09 -.01 -.02 -.02 -.01
SES .03 -.05 -.07 -.08 -.10 -.10 -.08 -.07
Intellectual self-confidence in 1994 .29 .20* .16 .17 .19 .10 .10 .09
Highest degree aspirations in 1994 .42 .41*** .37*** .37*** .40 .39*** .39*** .40***
SAT score -.03 -.14 -.17 -.17 .08 .11 .11 .13
Friendship Group characteristics
Group Intellectual self-confidence .25 [.26**] .25* .23* -.04 [.01] .01 .00
Group degree aspirations .24 [.16] .14 .14 .09 [.02] .01 .00
Group SAT score -.03 [.00] -.11 -.11 .00 [-.02] -.02 -.03
Group Racial/ethnic diversity -.17 [-.08] -.03 -.03 .15 [.11†] .11† .11†
Involvement variables
Student-student interaction .12 [.03] [.02] .08 -.12 [-.04] [-.03] -.02
Classwork conv'ns w/friendship group .11 [.11] [.04] .00 -.03 [.03] [.05] .07
Classwork conv'ns outside of friendship group .02 [-.06] [-.02] -.01 -.08 [-.12*] [-.11] -.12
R2
.232 .303 .305 .196 .209 .224
Adjusted R2
.198 .246 .228 .180 .180 .185
Model
1: standardized coefficients after controlling for pre-college characteristics
Model
2: standardized coefficients after controlling for pre-college characteristics
and friendship group characteristics
Model 3: standardized coefficients after controlling
for pre-college characteristics, friendship group characteristics, and
involvement variables
***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05, †p=.06
Appendix
Variables in the regression model
Pre-college characteristics
Intellectual
self-confidence pretest 5
pt scale, “lowest 10%” to “highest 10%”
Highest
degree aspirations pretest 6
pt scale, “none” to “Ph.D/Ed.D., M.D., J.D.”
Gender-female 1-male,
2-female
SES 3
item composite (a=.803) composed of:
mother’s education (self-report) 8 pt
scale, “grammar school or less” to
“graduate degree”
father’s education (self-report) 8 pt
scale, “grammar school or less” to
“graduate degree”
family income (self-report) 14
pt scale, “less than $6000” to “over $200,000”
SAT
composite score (self-report) continuous
Friendship group measures
Group
intellectual self-confidence in 1994 continuous
(group average)
Group
degree aspirations in 1994 continuous
(group average)
Group
SAT composite score continuous
(group average)
Racial
diversity of friendship group 4
pt scale, “homogeneous” to “no majority/mixed”
College involvement measures
Student-student
Interaction 3
item composite (a=.660) composed of:
studying with other students 8
point scale, "None" to ">20" hours per week
partying with other students 8
point scale, "None" to ">20" hours per week
talking with students outside of class 8 point scale,
"None" to ">20" hours per week
Conversations
about classwork:
w/students in friendship group 3 pt
scale, “Not at all” to “Frequently”
w/students
outside of friendship group 3
pt scale, “Not at all” to “Frequently”
