1. Peer Networks and Romantic Involvement in Late Adolescence
Elise Jayakar and Rona Carter, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan
-
-
-
-
ABSTRACT
The Friends and Couples Project examines the
interpersonal relationships of freshman females to
better understand how their network of close friends in-
fluences their dating and sexual experiences, expecta-
tions, and behaviors. In this study, adolescent females,
their close friend, and romantic partner complete
measures about their dating history, sexual activities,
and peer networks. Observational data is also ob-
tained to assess peer social problem solving. We hope
the results of this study will be used to help freshman fe-
males adjust to the transition from high school to col-
lege when faced with having to build new peer net-
works.
This poster examines associations between romantic
inovolvement and characteristics of peer network
(gender composition, size of network, age of peers,
proximity, length of relationshipm, and level of involve-
ment) in late adolescence.
INTRODUCTION
How does our dating involvement relate to our peer
networks? Are people who are seriously dating (in a
relationship) more likely to have a lot of friends? Do
people who are single have only same-sex friends?
Peer networks are important social settings for better
understanding the significance of romantic relation-
ships. These networks shape and constrain the features
of romantic relationships, socialize members into ro-
mantic roles, influence the timing and forms of sexual
behaviors, and contribute to romantic relationship
norms and expectations (Brown 1999; Dunphy 1963).
Research has demonstarted that peer-network size and
structure is associated with dating behaviour. Mid to
late adolescence is a time when girls shift attention
away from friends and towards romantic partners
(Kuttler & La Greca, 2004). Examining associations be-
tween peer networks and romantic involvement during
the transition to college is particularly important be-
cause many adolescents typically experience a signifi-
cant disruption in their peer networks during this time
(e.g., Oswald & Clark, 2003; Shaver, Furman &
Buhrmester, 1985).
STUDY HYPOTHESIS
Freshman females who are romantically involved will
have larger peer networks which contain more boys,
and older peers than freshman females who are not ro-
matically involved.
Results demonstrated that Num of Close friends and Num
of Friends on campus where the only values which were
statistically significant.
No other significant group differences were found. Also,
the study hyothesis was not supported.
CONCLUSION
The study findings demonstrated that White freshmen fe-
males who are not dating had significantly more female
friends in their peer network than White freshmen females
who are in a relationship. Findings also demonstrated
that White freshmen females, who are not those who are
dating. As well as, white freshmen females who are not
dating had significanlty more friends who lived on
campus than White freshmen females who are in a rela-
tionship.
These findngs suggest that white freshmen females who
are not in a relationship feel more comfortable in social
interactions which include a close support system.
Humans are social beings endowed with intrinsic and ex-
trinsic capabilities and a desire to seek and receive
social support from one another. (Ojo, E.D., 2009) There-
fore, white freshmen females may have their desire for
social support more satisfied with other females who they
feel they can relate closer to (opposed to males). As well
as a stronger support system of those who live closer to
them, such as being on campus.
The insiginificant data in this study may be caused from
condenseddata of racial groups, those who were born in
the US and different ages (ranging from 17-19.) Thus, also
ignoring cultural differences and characteristics.
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
Female college students’ aged 17-19 years old [M = 18.05 (SD=
1.42)] from a Midwestern university (N = 360; 60% White). Par-
ticipants were recruited via an introductory psychology sub-
ject pool.
MEASURES
Romantic Involvement
One item from The Dating History Questionaire (ADD REFER-
ENCE) was used to assess participants’ current relationship
status (i.e., Which best describes your current relationship
status?). Participant responses ranged from 1 (“Not allowed to
date”) to 10 (“engaged, married, or living with someone”).
Three romantic involvement groups were created from these
responses: 1. Not Dating (n=126), 2. Dating (n = 103), and 3. In
a Relationship (n = 131).
Peer Network
The Convoy model (Antonucci, 1986) was used to asses peer
network (i.e., number of male friends, female friends, friends
who live on campus, friends who are family members, friends
met in high school, friends met in college). Particiapnts could
idientofy up to 15 friends. Participants were also asked to indi-
cate how often they communicated with each friend in the
past week via email, skype, hanging out, texting, phone, in
person, and using social network sites.
11.90(3.58)
3.42(2.61)
7.06(4.03)
18.57(1.08)
3.77(3.51)
.588(1.08)
2.92(2.99)
4.20(3.13)
20.27(5.02)
1.18(.269)
2.02(.509)
2.87(.645)
1.61(.528)
2.24(.579)
2.08(.694)
1.25(.449)
Means and standard deviations for study variables for White female
freshmen
Not Dating Dating In Relation
Variable M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) F
10.48(4.04)
3.26(2.68)
5.97(3.51)
18.92(3.29)
2.86(3.17)
.299(.648)
2.33(2.62)
3.62(2.91)
19.44(4.85)
1.25(.486)
2.17(.722)
2.72(.748)
1.73(.737)
2.37(.739)
2.20(.906)
1.25(.564)
3.05
1.16
4.24
.671
3.64
2.88
2.32
1.53
.382
.408
1.197
.333
.356
.347
.186
.635
Num close friends
Num male friends
Num Female Fr...
MeanAgeFriends
Num On Campus
Num Fam Mem Fr...
Num College Friends
Num High School Fr..
MeanLengthFriends
(How often Communi-
cate)
Via email
Via hungout
Via Texted
ViaPhone
Via Spoken In Person
Via Social Network
Via Skype
11.50(4.02)
2.80(2.48)
7.68(4.16)
18.28(.649)
4.25(3.61)
.328(.846)
3.28(3.14)
3.41(2.75)
19.26(4.54)
1.29(.614)
2.27(.608)
2.81(8.12)
1.61(.641)
2.32(.655)
2.18(.993)
1.39(.592)
REFERENCES
Antonucci, T. (1986). Hierarchical mapping technique. Generations, 10, 10-12.
Brown, B. B. (1999). "You're going out with who?” Peer group influences on ado-
lescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman & B. B. Brown (Eds.), The develop-
ment of romantic relationships in adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and
emotional development (pp. 291-329). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University
Press.
Dunphy, D.C. (1963). The structure of urban adolescent peer groups. Sociom-
etry, 26, 230–246.
Kuttler, A. F., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Linkages among adolescent girls’ roman-
tic relationships, best friendships, and peer networks. Journal of Adolescence,
27(4), 395-414. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.05.002
Ojo, E. D. (2009). Support systems and women of the diaspora. New Directions
for Adult & Continuing Education, (122), 73-82. doi:10.1002/ace.336
Oswald, D.L. & Clark, E.M. ( 2003). Best friends forever? High school friendships
and thetransition to college. Personal Relationships, 10, 187-196.
RESULTS