Chapter 5.docx

The Nature of Adolescent Peer Groups When you look at a typical elementary school playground, it's clear that peer groups are an important feature of the social world of childhood. But even though peer groups exist well before adolescence, during the teenage years they change in significance and str...

The Nature of Adolescent Peer Groups When you look at a typical elementary school playground, it's clear that peer groups are an important feature of the social world of childhood. But even though peer groups exist well before adolescence, during the teenage years they change in significance and structure. Four specific developments stand out (Brown & Larson, 2009). In What Ways Do Peer Groups Change? First, there is a sharp increase during adolescence in the sheer amount of time individuals spend with their peers and in the relative time they spend in the company of peers versus adults. If we count school as a setting in which adolescents are mainly with people their age, well over half of the typical American adolescent's waking hours are spent with peers, as opposed to only 15% with adults---including their parents (most of the remaining time is spent alone or with a combination of adults and peers). Indeed, during the transition into adolescence, there is a dramatic drop in the amount of time adolescents spend with parents; for boys, this is mainly replaced by time spent alone, whereas for girls, it is replaced by time alone and time with friends (Dijkstra & Veenstra, 2011). Second, during adolescence, peer groups function much more often without adult supervision than they do during childhood, partly because adolescents are more mobile and partly because they seek, and are granted, more independence (Dijkstra & Veenstra, 2011). As you can see from Figure 5.2, both supervised and unsupervised time with peers, and, especially, with opposite-sex peers, increase steadily throughout adolescence (Lam, McHale, & Crouter, 2014). Groups of younger children typically play in the presence of adults or in activities organized or supervised by adults (e.g., organized sports), whereas adolescents are granted far more independence. Third, during adolescence, increasingly more contact with peers is between males and females (Lam, McHale, & Crouter, 2014). During childhood, peer groups are highly sex segregated. During adolescence, however, an increasingly larger proportion of a person's significant others are peers of the other sex (Dijkstra & Veenstra, 2011; Mehta & Strough, 2009). The shift from same-sex peer groups to mixed-sex groups tends to occur around the beginning of high school (Lam, McHale, & Crouter, 2014). Finally, whereas children's peer relationships are limited mainly to relatively small groups---at most, three or four children at a time---adolescence marks the emergence of larger collectives of peers, called crowds (Brown & Larson, 2009). In junior high school cafeterias, for example, the "populars" sit in one section of the room, the "brains" in another, and the "jocks" in a third. These crowds typically develop their own minicultures, characterized by particular styles of dressing, talking, and behaving (Chen, 2012) What Causes Peer Groups to Change? These changes in peer relations have their origins in the biological, cognitive, and social transitions of adolescence (Dijkstra & Veenstra, 2011). Puberty stimulates adolescents' interest in romantic relationships and distances them from their parents, which helps to explain why adolescents' social networks increasingly include more other-sex peers and fewer adults. The cognitive changes of adolescence permit a more sophisticated understanding of social relationships, which allows the sort of abstract categorization that leads to grouping individuals into crowds. And changes in social definition may stimulate changes in peer relations as a sort of adaptive response: The larger, more anonymous social setting of the secondary school forces adolescents to seek out individuals whom they perceive as having common interests and values, perhaps as a way of re-creating the smaller, more intimate groups of childhood (Brown, 2004). Instead of floundering in a large, impersonal high school cafeteria, someone who belongs to the cheerleader crowd, or even someone who is one of the "nerds," may head directly for a place at a familiar table. Cliques and Crowds Adolescents' peer groups are organized around two related, but different, structures, called "cliques" and "crowds" (Brown & Larson, 2009). Cliques are small groups of between 2 and 12 individuals---the average is about 5 or 6---generally of the same sex and, of course, the same age. Cliques can be defined by common activities (e.g., the football players or a group of students who study together regularly) or simply by friendship (e.g., a group of girls who have lunch together every day or a group of boys who have grown up together). The clique provides the main social context in which adolescents interact with one another. It's the social setting in which adolescents hang out, talk to each other, and form close friendships. Some cliques are more closed to outsiders than others (that is, the members are more "cliquish"), but virtually all cliques are small enough that the members feel they know each other well and appreciate each other more than people outside the clique do (Brown & Larson, 2009). Cliques are quite different in structure and purpose from crowds. Crowds are "reputation-based clusters of youths, whose function in part is to help solidify young people's social and personal identity" (Brown & Larson, 2009, p. 85). In contemporary American high schools, typical crowds include "jocks," "brains," "nerds," "populars," and "druggies." The labels for these crowds may vary from school to school ("nerds" versus "geeks," "populars" versus "preps"), but their generic presence is commonplace around the world, and you can probably recognize these different types of crowds from your own school experience (Delsing et al., 2007; Sim & Yeo, 2012). Unlike cliques, crowds are not settings for adolescents' intimate interactions or friendships but instead serve three broad purposes: to locate adolescents (to themselves and to others) within the social structure of the school, to channel adolescents toward some peers and away from others, and to provide contexts that reward certain lifestyles and disparage others (Brown & Larson, 2009). The key point is that membership in a crowd is based mainly on reputation and stereotype, rather than on actual friendship or social interaction. This is very different from membership in a clique, which, by definition, hinges on shared activity and friendship. In concrete terms, and perhaps ironically, an adolescent does not have to actually have "brains" as friends or hang around with "brainy" students to be one of the "brains." If he dresses like a "brain," acts like a "brain," and takes AP courses, then he is a "brain" as far as his crowd membership goes. The fact that crowd membership is based on reputation and stereotype has important implications. It can be very difficult for adolescents who---if they don't change their reputation early on in high school---may find themselves stuck, at least in the eyes of others, in a crowd they don't want to belong to or even see themselves as a part of (Brown, Von Bank, & Steinberg, 2008). According to some estimates, close to half of high school students are associated with one crowd, about one-third are associated with two or more crowds, and about one-sixth do not clearly fit into any crowd (Brown, 2004). Although an adolescent's closest friends are almost always members of the same clique, some of them may belong to a different crowd, especially when one crowd is close in lifestyle to the other (Urberg et al., 1995). For example, a "brain" will have some friends who are also "brains" and some who are "nerds" but few, if any, who are "druggies" (Brown, Mory, & Kinney, 1994). More importantly, crowds are not simply clusters of cliques; the two different structures serve entirely different purposes. Because the clique is based on activity and friendship, it is the peer setting in which adolescents learn social skills: how to be a good friend, how to communicate effectively, how to be a leader, how to enjoy someone else's company, or how to break off a friendship that is no longer satisfying. In contrast, because crowds are based more on reputation and stereotype than on interaction, they probably contribute more to the adolescent's sense of identity and self-conception--- for better and for worse---than to his or her actual social development. Changes in Clique and Crowd Structure Over Time There are important changes in the structure of cliques and crowds during the adolescent years, driven in large measure by the increased importance of romantic relationships (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000; Kuttler & La Greca, 2004). How Romance Changes the Peer Group During early adolescence, adolescents' activities revolve around same-sex cliques. They are not yet involved in partying and typically spend their leisure time with a small group of friends, playing sports, talking, or simply hanging out. Somewhat later, as adolescents become more interested in one another romantically---but before romantic relationships actually begin---boys' and girls' cliques come together. This is clearly a transitional stage. Boys and girls may go to parties or hang out, but the time they spend together mainly involves interaction with peers of the same sex. When young teenagers are still uncomfortable about dealing with members of the other sex, this context provides an opportunity in which they can learn more about peers of the other sex without having to be intimate or risk losing face. It is not unusual, for example, at young adolescents' first mixed-sex parties for groups of boys and girls to position themselves at other sides of a room, watching each other but seldom interacting. As some adolescents become interested in romantic relationships, part of the group begins to split off into mixed-sex cliques, while other individuals remain in the group but in same-sex cliques. This shift is usually led by the clique leaders, with other clique members following along. For instance, a clique of boys whose main activity is playing basketball may discover that one of the guys they look up to has become more interested in going to mixedsex parties Saturday nights than in hanging out and playing video games with the group. Over time, they will begin to follow his lead, and their all-male activities will become more infrequent. A study of middle school dances over the course of the academic year found that the integration of boys' and girls' peer groups increased over time but that this occurred mainly among physically attractive adolescents (no surprise because being good-looking contributes to status in the peer group) (Pellegrini & Long, 2007). During middle adolescence, mixed-sex and mixed-age cliques become more prevalent (Molloy et al., 2014), and in time, the peer group becomes composed entirely of mixed-sex cliques (Cooksey, Mott, & Neubauer, 2002). One clique might consist of the drama students---male and female students who know each other from school plays. Another might be composed of four girls and four boys who like to smoke weed. Preppies---male and female--- might make up a third. Interestingly, the transition from same-sex groups to mixed-sex groups is associated with an increase in alcohol use among males and in both alcohol and drug use among females, most likely because the activities that draw males and females together often involve partying (Poulin, Denault, & Pedersen, 2011). During late adolescence, peer crowds begin to disintegrate. The importance of the peer group starts to wane somewhat. As students approach their senior year and feel more secure about themselves, there is a decline in the extent to which they say they want to improve their social skills and the quality of their relationships (Makara & Madjar, 2015). Pairs of adolescents who see themselves as couples begin to split off from the activities of the larger group. The larger peer group is replaced by loosely associated sets of couples. Adolescents begin to shift some of their attention away from friends and toward romantic partners (Kuttler & La Greca, 2004). Groups of couples may go out together from time to time, but the feeling of being in a crowd has disappeared. This pattern---in which the couple becomes the focus of social activity---persists into adulthood. The structure of the peer group changes during adolescence in a way that parallels the adolescent's development of intimacy: As the adolescent develops increasing facility in intimate relationships, the peer group moves from the familiarity of same-sex activities to contact with other-sex peers, but mainly in the safety of the larger group. It is only after adolescents have been slowly socialized into dating roles---primarily by modeling their higher-status peers---that the safety of numbers is no longer needed and adolescents begin pairing off. Changes in Crowds There also are changes in peer crowds during this time. Many of these changes reflect the growing cognitive sophistication of the adolescent. For example, as adolescents mature intellectually, they come to define crowds more in terms of abstract, global characteristics ("preppies," "nerds," "jocks") than in terms of concrete, behavioral features ("the ballet crowd," "the Fortnite crowd," "the kids who play basketball on 114th Street") (Dijkstra & Veenstra, 2011). As you know, this shift from concrete to abstract is a general feature of cognitive development in adolescence. In addition, as adolescents become more cognitively capable, they become more consciously aware of the crowd structure of their school and their place in it (Brown, 2004). Over the course of adolescence, the crowd structure also becomes more differentiated, more permeable, and less hierarchical, which allows adolescents more freedom to change crowds and enhance their status (Brown, 2004; Horn, 2003). In early adolescence, a school may have only two broad crowds (e.g., "normals" and "losers"). By high school, there may be several different ways to be "normal" ("populars," "jocks," "average") and several different ways to be a "loser" ("brains," "nerds," "burnouts"). Common Interests Among Friends Thus far, we have seen that adolescents' cliques are usually composed of individuals who are the same age, in the same grade, and of the same ethnicity. But what about factors beyond these? Do adolescents who associate with one another also share certain interests and activities? Generally, they do. Three factors appear to be especially important in determining adolescent clique membership and friendship patterns: orientation toward school, orientation toward the teen culture, and involvement in antisocial activity (Crosnoe & Needham, 2004). Orientation Toward School Adolescents and their friends tend to be similar in their attitudes toward school, their school achievement, their course selection, and their educational plans (Chow et al., 2018; Flashman, 2012; Kiuru, Salmela-Aro, et al., 2012). Adolescents who earn high grades, study a great deal, and plan to go on to college usually have friends who share these characteristics and aspirations. One reason for this is that how much time students devote to schoolwork affects their involvement in other activities. A second is that parents who stress achievement may insist that their teens only spend time with peers who do well in school (Zhao & Gao, 2014). It's important to note that students' friendships are often drawn from the peers with whom they have classes, and because schools assign students to tracks on the basis of their academic achievement, their friends will be more likely to have similar records of school performance (Crosnoe, 2002). Someone who is always studying will not have many friends who stay out late partying because the two activities conflict. By the same token, someone who wants to spend afternoons and evenings out having fun will find it difficult to remain friends with someone who prefers to stay home and study. When adolescents' academic performance changes (for better or for worse), they tend to change their friendships in the same direction (Flashman, 2012; Smirnov & Thurner, 2017). Students also influence each other's academic performance (Gremmen et al., 2017; Shin & Ryan, 2014). For instance, girls' decisions about whether to take advanced math classes are significantly influenced by their friends' decisions about which classes to take (Frank et al., 2008). Friends exert a similar influence on grade point average (GPA): Given two students with similar records of past achievement, the student whose friends do better in school is likely to get better grades than the one whose friends do worse (Véronneau & Dishion, 2011). Indeed, of all the characteristics of friends that influence adolescents' behavior, their friends' school performance has the greatest impact, not only on their own academic achievement but also on their involvement in problem behavior and drug use (Cook, Deng, & Morgano, 2007). Perhaps not surprisingly, students whose friends tend to come from school have higher GPAs than those whose friends tend to come from other contexts, such as the neighborhood (Witkow & Fuligni, 2010) nvolvement in Antisocial Activity A number of studies, involving both boys and girls from different ethnic groups, indicate that antisocial, aggressive adolescents often gravitate toward each other, forming deviant peer groups (Allen et al., 2019; Ragan, 2020). Contrary to the popular belief that antisocial adolescents do not have friends or that they are interpersonally inept, these youngsters do have friends, but their friends tend to be antisocial as well. Although adolescents with deviant friends show some of the same emotional problems as adolescents without friends, even those with deviant friends are less lonely than their friendless peers (Brendgen, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 2000). And cliques composed of antisocial boys exchange text messages about their antisocial activities, as well as more mundane matters (Ehrenreich et al., 2019). As you might expect, adolescents with more antisocial friends are more likely to engage in antisocial activity (Criss, Sheffield Morris et al., 2016), but some adolescents have inherited traits, such as a proneness to sensation-seeking, that make them especially susceptible to the influence of antisocial peers (Schlomer et al., 2021; Mann et al., 2016; Samek et al., 2017). Adolescents are influenced by the antisocial behavior of their classmates, as well, even if the classmates are not actually friends (C. Müller et al., 2016). One study of more than 90,000 American students found that adolescents were 48% more likely to have been in a fight, 140% more likely to have pulled a weapon on someone, and 183% more likely to have badly hurt someone in the past year if a friend had engaged in the same behavior (Bond & Bushman, 2016). Peers appear even to influence the specific type of delinquency an adolescent engages in (e.g., theft versus violence) (Thomas, 2015). Although we would not necessarily want to call all of these antisocial peer groups "delinquent," since they are not always involved in criminal activity, understanding the processes through which antisocial peer groups are formed provides some insight into the development of delinquent peer groups, or gangs (Gilman et al., 2014; Melde & Esbensen, 2011). Gangs are antisocial peer groups that can be identified by name (often denoting a neighborhood or part of the city) and common symbols ("colors," tattoos, hand signs, jewelry, etc.). Adolescents who belong to gangs are at greater risk for many types of problems in addition to antisocial behavior, including elevated levels of psychological distress, impulsivity, psychopathic tendencies, exposure to violence, and violent victimization (Dmitrieva et al., 2014; Gordon et al., 2014; Pyrooz, 2014). This is also true for female adolescents who hang around with male gangs, which increases their involvement in high-risk sexual behavior, drug use, and crime (Yarnell et al., 2014). Adolescents who are gang members also are more likely to have behavioral and mental health problems in adulthood (Augustyn, Thornberry, & Krohn, 2014; Gilman, Hill, & Hawkins, 2014). Adolescent gangs both resemble and differ from other sorts of peer groups. On the one hand, gangs look much like other types of cliques and crowds, in that they are groups of adolescents who are similar in background and orientation, share common interests and activities, and use the group to derive a sense of identity. One study of Latinx youth in southern California found that it was especially important to differentiate between gangs, which were organized and had long histories of involvement in serious antisocial behavior, and "crews," which also engaged in fighting, tagging, and partying but which did not engage in serious violence (Lopez et al., 2006). This distinction has important legal ramifications, because antigang laws that mandate tougher penalties for crimes committed by gangs may be incorrectly applied to adolescents who commit delinquent acts with their friends (or crew) but who are not members of gangs. The processes that lead adolescents to join gangs are not the same as those that lead to membership in crews and other sorts of peer groups, though. Gang members tend to be more isolated from their family, have more emotional and behavioral problems, and have poorer self-conceptions than other adolescents, including those who are involved in antisocial activity but who are not gang members (Garduno & Brancale, 2017). Many gang members have long histories of exposure to trauma and domestic violence, abuse and neglect, and family members who abused drugs, and many believe that joining a gang was necessary for survival in their neighborhood. As one 19-year-old male gang member explained: Before I started hanging around the guys and shit, and being part of the gang, people say stuff like "you not from around here," "don't be around here," or "don't be surprised if something happen to you." Or you know, people try to rob me and other stuff that would make me feel like I want to show them I am tired of being afraid and I wanted to be around. (Quinn et al., 2017, pp. 38--39) Joining a gang often created its own set of problems, though. Here's how an 18-year-old female gang member explained this to an interviewer: You can't really enjoy yourself. You got to always watch your back. You never know who you'll get into it with. It could not even be with you, but you never know who they \[fellow gang members\] into it with. So it is hard making new friends 'cause you're not sure like---so all that. You got to worry about your family 'cause people find out where you live. Then it's like---lots of worries. (Quinn et al., 2017, p. 44) The process of antisocial peer group formation in adolescence begins in the home, during childhood (Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2003). Problematic parent-child relationships---ones that are coercive and hostile---lead to the development of an antisocial disposition in the child, and this disposition contributes, in elementary school, to both school failure and rejection by classmates (Pardini, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2005). Rejected by the bulk of their classmates, aggressive boys "shop" for friends and are accepted only by other aggressive boys (Allen et al., 2019; Kornienko, Ha, & Dishion, 2020). Once these friendships are formed, the boys, like any other clique, reward each other for participating in a shared activity---in this case, antisocial behavior. Improvements in parenting during adolescence reduce teenagers' association with antisocial peers, which, in turn, reduces problem behavior (Forgatch et al., 2016). The Role of Parents Parents often "manage" their adolescent's friendships by monitoring the individuals their child spends time with, guiding their child toward peers they like, prohibiting contact with peers they dislike, and supporting friendships they approve of (Updegraff et al., 2010). Parents also act as "consultants," helping their teenagers work out problems with their friends (Mounts, 2011). Adolescents whose parents act as consultants in this way are less likely to be involved in drug use and delinquent activity and report more positive relationships with their friends (Mounts, 2004). On the other hand, excessive attempts to control an adolescent's choice of friends may backfire; when parents forbid adolescents from associating with peers the parents disapprove of, they may inadvertently drive adolescents to become closer to those peers, perhaps in defiance of these restrictions on their independence (Keijsers et al., 2012; Tilton-Weaver et al., 2013). Rather than viewing the family and peer contexts as separate worlds, it is important to keep in mind that what takes place in one setting often has an impact on what occurs in others. The role of the family in friendship choice has also been described in studies of crowds (Brown et al., 1993). One of the factors that influences the crowd an adolescent belongs to is her or his upbringing. Parents play a role in socializing certain traits in their children, and these orientations, whether toward aggression or academic achievement, predispose adolescents toward choosing certain friends or crowds with which to affiliate. Once in these cliques or crowds, adolescents are rewarded for the traits that led them there in the first place, and these traits are strengthened. Some accounts of adolescent development portray the peer group as more important than the family (e.g., J. Harris, 1998). One problem with this view is that it fails to take into account the fact that the family has a strong effect on adolescents' choice of peers. For example, a child who is raised to value academics will perform well in school and will likely select friends who share this orientation. Over time, these friends will reinforce the youngster's academic orientation and strengthen his or her school performance. By the same token, adolescents who have poor relationships at home are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior, are drawn to other antisocial peers, and become more antisocial over time as a result (Benson & Buehler, 2012; M. Li et al., 2015). Even when adolescents have relatively more antisocial friends, having better relationships at home and a stronger attachment to school will make them less susceptible to their friends' negative influence---even in the context of a gang (Trudeau et al., 2012). The finding that adolescents become more antisocial when they spend time with antisocial peers has prompted some experts to question the wisdom of group-based interventions for adolescents with conduct problems (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999). Several studies of programs designed to reduce adolescents' delinquency or aggression, for example, have found that, instead of having the desired effect, the programs actually increase participants' problem behavior. They have what scientists call iatrogenic effects (Mahoney, Stattin, & Lord, 2004). Iatrogenic effects are the undesirable consequences of well-intentioned treatments---for example, when the side effects of a medication are worse than the problem it's intended to treat. When antisocial adolescents spend time with like-minded peers, they frequently teach each other how to be "more effective" delinquents and reward each other for misbehavior. One observational study of adolescent friends talking to each other on camera (Piehler & Dishion, 2014) found that individuals who had a history of involvement in antisocial behavior engaged in more spontaneous conversation about antisocial activities and rewarded each other in the way they responded (e.g., "We were so wasted last Friday." "Oh, yeah, that was insane!" "Remember the time we stole that vodka?" "That was so awesome!"). Several writers have described this process as "deviancy training" (e.g., Forgatch et al., 2016). Knowing that group treatments for antisocial behavior have iatrogenic effects is obviously important for the design of programs for delinquent and aggressive youth. Similarity Between Friends: Selection or Socialization? Because antisocial activities are such a strong determinant of clique composition, many adults have expressed concern over the influence of peers in promoting delinquent activity and drug and alcohol use. Parents often feel that if their teenager runs with the wrong crowd, he or she will acquire undesirable interests and attitudes. They worry, for instance, when their child starts spending time with peers who seem to be less interested in school or more involved with drugs. But which comes first---joining a clique or being interested in a clique's activities? Do adolescents develop interests and attitudes because their friends influence them, or is it more that people with similar interests and tastes are likely to become friends? This question has been examined in many studies that have tracked adolescents and their friendships over time. By tracing patterns of attitudinal and behavioral change and comparing these shifts with patterns of friendship formation and change, researchers can determine whether adolescents are attracted to one another because of their initial similarity (what social scientists refer to as selection), become similar because friends influence each other (referred to as socialization), or a combination of the two (Ellis & Zarbatany, 2017; Laursen, 2017). In general, studies indicate that both selection and socialization are at work (see Figure 5.4) across a variety of attitudinal and behavioral domains, including school achievement, drug use, mental health, and delinquency (Chen & Chen, 2019; Gremmen et al., 2019; Scalco et al., 2015; Shin, 2017), and in romantic relationships as well as friendships (Simon, Aikins, & Prinstein, 2008). Adolescents who use alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana, for example, are more likely to select other users as friends (de la Haye et al., 2015; Leung et al., 2016). By the same token, spending time with friends who use these substances increases the adolescents' own use as well (Fujimoto, Unger, & Valente, 2012; Wesche, Kreager, & Lefkowitz, 2019). The reverse also happens: when adolescents who smoke spend time with nonsmokers, the smokers are more likely to quit (Lakon et al., 2015). The more substance-using friends an adolescent has and the closer he or she feels to them, the more the adolescent is likely to use alcohol and drugs (McGloin, Sullivan, & Thomas, 2014). Even dating someone whose friends are substance users has similar effects (Haynie, Doogan, & Soller, 2014; Kreager & Haynie, 2011). Similarly, adolescents who are bullies or who sexually harass others are more likely to have friends who behave similarly (Jewell, Brown, & Perry, 2015; Low, Polanin, & Espelage, 2013; Sijtsema et al., 2014). Conversely, antisocial adolescents who have few friends, and few aggressive friends in particular, are likely to become less antisocial over time (Adams, Bukowski, & Bagwell, 2005), whereas those with antisocial friends who become even more antisocial themselves become more delinquent (Monahan, Steinberg, & Cauffman, 2009; Weerman, 2011). This process is not limited to antisocial behavior: Adolescents who report more depressive symptoms are likely to choose other depressed adolescents as friends, which, in turn, negatively affects their own mood and that of their other friends (Kiuru, Burk et al., 2012; Veed, McGinley, & Crockett, 2019). Adolescents who are overweight are likely to have other overweight adolescents as friends, in part because they are rejected by their nonoverweight classmates (Schaefer & Simpkins, 2014) and in part because adolescents who are overweight, sedentary, glued to their electronic devices tend to have friends who have the same unhealthy lifestyle (Marks et al., 2015; Simone, Long, & Lockhart, 2018). How much of adolescents' similarity to their friends is due to selection and how much is due to socialization? The answer depends on what behavior or attitude is being studied. Socialization is far stronger over day-to-day preferences in such things as clothing or music than over many of the behaviors that adults worry about, such as binge drinking or risky sex (Knecht et al., 2011), or even obesity (de la Haye et al., 2013). Although parents don't want to hear it, selection is a stronger factor than socialization when it comes to problem behavior (Fortuin, van Geel, & Vedder, 2015), smoking (DeLay et al., 2013), and drug use (de la Haye, Green et al., 2013; Franken et al., 2017). That is, adolescents who use drugs or engage in delinquency are more likely to select friends with these tastes than to be corrupted by them. Stability of Adolescent Friendships Adolescents' cliques show only moderate stability over the course of the school year---with some members staying in the clique, others leaving, and new ones joining---although cliques become more stable later in high school (Poulin & Chan, 2010). Although the actual composition of adolescents' cliques may shift over time, the defining characteristics of their cliques or their best friends do not (Hogue & Steinberg, 1995). That is, even though some members of an adolescent's clique may leave and be replaced by others, the new members are likely to have attitudes and values that are quite similar to the former members' (Brown, 2004). Over the course of high school, an academically oriented teenager may drift away from some of his friends, but these friends are probably going to be replaced by other academically oriented classmates, not by ones who aren't interested in school. Even "best friendships" are likely to change during the school year. Only about one-third of students who name a best friend in the fall of a school year rename the same person as their best friend in the spring (that person was typically listed as a friend but not the best friend) (Değirmencioğilu et al., 1998). Instability is even the case in best friendships in which adolescents name each other as their best friend (Bowker, 2004). Same-sex friendships tend to be more stable than opposite-sex friendships, and boys' friendships trend to be more stable than girls'. Generally speaking, friendship stability is higher among well-adjusted adolescents than among their more troubled peers, although it isn't clear whether this is because stability contributes to adjustment, because better-adjusted adolescents are better at maintaining friendships, or, most likely, a combination of both (Poulin & Chan, 2010). The most common causes of broken friendships are jealousy, incompatibility, betrayal, and aggression (Casper & Card, 2010) (see Table 5.2). Friendships are far more likely to end between seventh and eighth grade than at later ages, and mixed-sex friendships are especially vulnerable (Hartl, Laursen, & Cillessen, 2015) (see Figure 5.5) Popularity, Rejection, and Bullying Thus far, our discussion has focused on how and why crowds and cliques serve as the basis for adolescents' social activities and attitudes. But what about the internal structure of peer groups? Within a clique or a crowd, what determines which adolescents are popular and which are not? What factors influence bullying and victimization? Determinants of Popularity and Rejection In recent years, psychologists have changed their thinking about what it is that leads to popularity during adolescence. Although it is widely agreed that popular adolescents are generally more socially skilled than their unpopular peers, there is surprising variability among popular teenagers with respect to other characteristics. One reason for this is that there are two forms of popularity, and they don't always go hand in hand (van den Berg, Lansu, & Cillessen, 2020). One form, sociometric popularity, refers to how well-liked someone is. The other form, perceived popularity, refers to how much status, or prestige, someone has (Litwack, Aikins, & Cillessen, 2012). So, for example, a leader of the "preppie" crowd who is snobby might be very high in perceived popularity but not in sociometric popularity. Conversely, a member of a crowd that has less prestige who happens to be a really nice person with a good sense of humor may be high in sociometric popularity but low in perceived popularity. By the time they are 14, adolescents understand the difference between the two (van den Berg, Burk, & Cillessen, 2015). If you think back to your own high school days, you can probably remember people of each type. Sociometric popularity is determined mainly by social skills, friendliness, sense of humor, and so forth, which are valued by people of all ages and backgrounds. The determinants of perceived popularity are highly variable, though. Because the determinants of status can easily differ between schools, or even among groups within the same school, it is hard to predict which adolescents will be popular without knowing what is valued in that adolescent's social context (Jonkmann, Trautwein, & Lüdtke, 2009; Kreager, 2007a). For example, among White and Latinx teenagers, drinking is associated with status, but this is not the case among Black adolescents (Choukas-Bradley, Giletta, Neblett, & Prinstein, 2015a). Although there is one main pathway to sociometric popularity (having good social skills), the determinants of perceived popularity are variable and ever-changing. For example, the importance of academic success for being perceived as "cool" declines as individuals move from fifth to sixth grade (North et al., 2019). Having a boyfriend or girlfriend may have little to do with perceived popularity in fifth grade but may be highly correlated with it in ninth grade. Within the same school, some adolescents are highly regarded by their peers because they are good-looking and athletic (the conventional image of the popular teenager), whereas others are equally admired because they are rebellious, delinquent, and aggressive (Becker & Luthar, 2007). Moreover, whereas many of the things that lead to popularity also make adolescents more likable (e.g., athletic ability, physical attractiveness, social skills), some of the things that help to maintain popularity once it is established may actually make adolescents less likable (such as using gossip to control or manipulate others) (Dijkstra et al., 2010b; Lansu & Cillessen, 2011; Neal, 2010). In general, adolescents tend to affiliate with peers who have a similar level of popularity within their school (Dijkstra, Cillessen, & Borch, 2013; Logis et al., 2013), mainly because the more popular kids reject the less popular ones (Berger & Dikjstra, 2013). Predicting perceived popularity is further complicated by the fact that peer norms change, and socially competent adolescents are skilled at figuring them out, adjusting their behavior in response to them, and even influencing them. If smoking marijuana becomes something that is valued by the peer group, popular adolescents will start getting high more regularly (Allen et al., 2005). And when popular adolescents start to engage in a particular behavior, that behavior often becomes more admired. Indeed, one of the reasons it is hard to persuade adolescents to "just say no" to drinking, smoking, and sex is that these activities are often associated with being popular (Balsa et al., 2011; Gommans et al., 2017). Even things such as fighting, bullying, or carrying a weapon, which most adolescents do not approve of, become more acceptable when popular adolescents start to do these things (Bellmore, Villarreal, & Ho, 2011; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2017). Adolescents are easily swayed by the opinions of high-status peers to behave prosocially (Choukas-Bradley, Giletta, Cohen, & Prinstein, 2015; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2020) and, as well, to endorse activities that they might otherwise reject and to run the other way from activities endorsed by low-status peers, even if they secretly enjoy them (Cohen & Prinstein, 2006). Adolescents often behave in ways they believe popular students act, although these perceptions are not always accurate. For instance, popular kids are often thought to engage in more substance use than they actually do (Helms et al., 2014). Popularity and Aggression Although psychologists used to believe that aggressive and antisocial adolescents are likely to be rejected by their classmates, it turns out that some of these teenagers are quite popular (Andrews, Hanish, & Santos, 2017; Lu et al., 2018; Malamut et al., 2020), although their popularity tends to wane as adolescents get older and antisocial behavior is no longer something that teenagers admire (Young, 2014). Nor do these traits continue to have the same effects on an individual's social life: One study, entitled "What Ever Happened to the 'Cool' Kids?" found that adolescents whose early popularity came from impressing their peers with delinquent and "pseudomature" behavior (such as precocious sex) had more interpersonal and behavioral problems as young adults (Allen et al., 2014; Simons et al., 2018). Studies have identified two distinct types of popular boys (Rodkin et al., 2000). One group has characteristics typically identified in studies of popular youth: They are athletically and academically competent, friendly, and neither shy nor aggressive. A second group, however, is extremely aggressive, athletically competent, and average or below average in friendliness, academic competence, and shyness. Similarly, one study of girls found two distinctly different groups of popular adolescents: girls who were prosocial and good students, and girls who were antisocial and anti-academic, some of whom actually were even bullies (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006). Among both males and females, though, aggression tends to be a turnoff to potential romantic partners (Bower et al., 2015). Being prosocial is a weaker predictor of popularity in the United States than in China, though (Zhang et al., 2018). How can we explain this? Wouldn't we expect adolescents who are antisocial or aggressive toward others to be unpopular? Evidently, it is not aggression alone but the combination of aggression and difficulty controlling emotions or a lack of social skills that leads to problems with peers (Pouwels et al., 2018; van den Berg, Burk, & Cillessen, 2019). Consistent with this, aggressive adolescents who use their aggression strategically and selectively---what is referred to as proactive aggression---are much more popular than aggressive adolescents whose aggression is unplanned and frequent---what is referred to as reactive aggression (Ettekal & Ladd, 2015; Moore et al., 2019). It's also important to distinguish between aggression, which may increase adolescents' popularity, and delinquency, which tends to diminish it (Rulison, Kreager, & Osgood, 2014). Nevertheless, some adolescents engage in antisocial or aggressive behavior because they think it will increase their popularity (Kiefer & Wang, 2016; LaningaWijnen et al., 2019; van den Broek et al., 2016). The Dynamics of Popularity Two ethnographies of early-adolescent girls provide insight into the dynamics of popularity. In a classic study, the researcher spent two years in a middle school observing interactions among early-adolescent girls in various extracurricular and informal settings (in the cafeteria, in the hallway, at school dances) (Eder, 1985). Although the study is more than 35 years old, many of the researcher's observations still ring true today. In this school, the cheerleaders were considered the elite crowd, and girls who made the cheerleading squad were immediately accorded social status. Other girls then attempted to befriend the cheerleaders as a means of increasing their own perceived popularity. This, in turn, increased the cheerleaders' prestige within the school, as they became the most sought-after friends. Girls who were successful in cultivating friendships with the cheerleaders became a part of this high-status group and more popular. But because even popular adolescents can only maintain a finite number of friendships, they ended up snubbing other classmates who wanted to be their friends. Ironically, this often leads to popular adolescents becoming disliked (Mayeux, Sandstrom, & Cillessen, 2008). Thus, adolescents who hang out with popular adolescents may themselves become perceived as more popular over time, but they may also become less wellliked and even victimized because they are seen as snobby status-seekers, especially by their less popular peers (Andrews et al., 2016; Dijkstra et al., 2010b; Lansu, Cillessen, & Karremans, 2012). In another ethnography, the researcher spent time observing and interviewing a group described by teachers as the "dirty dozen" (Merten, 1997). This group of girls, "considered 'cool,' 'popular,' and 'mean,'" were "a combination of cute, talented, affluent, conceited, and powerful" (1997, p. 178). The researcher was interested in understanding "why a clique of girls that was popular and socially sophisticated was also renowned for its meanness" (1997, p. 188). The answer, he discovered, was that meanness was one of the ways that the clique ensured that no one member became stuck-up as a result of her popularity in the eyes of her classmates. Thus, while it was important for clique members to maintain their popular image, if any clique member appeared to become too popular, the other members would turn on her, undermining her standing with other girls by gossiping, starting rumors, and deliberately attempting to disrupt her friendships. Although the study was conducted some 25 years ago, the following quote, from a girl whose friends turned on her, will sound all too familiar: Gretchen was starting to get really mad at me. I talked to her about it and I asked her what was wrong. She just said, "Oh, I heard something you said about me." But I didn't say anything about her. Sara was mad at me. I don't know why. She started being mad at me and then she started making things up that \[she said\] I said. Sara told Brenda and Gretchen so that they would get mad at me, too. So now I guess Gretchen has made up something and told Wellesley. They are all mad at me and laughing and everything. (Merten, 1997, p. 182) Ironically, then, one of the potential costs of being popular in adolescence is that if you become too popular, you face the very real possibility of being the object of other classmates' meanness. The adage that it's important to seek "moderation in all things" applies to popularity as well: Students who are very high in popularity, as well as those who are very low, are less satisfied with their friendships and social life, and are more likely to be the victims of relational aggression than their peers who fall somewhere in between these extremes; as one study put it, "It's lonely at the top" (Ferguson & Ryan, 2019; Malamut, Luo, & Schwartz, 2020; Yun & Graham, 2019) (see Figure 5.6). Although popularity clearly has some costs, the advantages of being popular far outweigh the disadvantages. Being popular is not the same as having close and intimate friendships, but the two often go hand in hand (Asher, Parker, & Walker, 1996). Compared with their less popular peers, popular adolescents are more likely to have close and intimate friendships, have an active social life, take part in extracurricular activities, and receive more social recognition (such as being selected as leaders of school organizations) (Franzoi, Davis, & VasquezSuson, 1994). Perhaps you recall classmates who were not popular but who really wished they were---so-called "wannabes." These teenagers are especially likely to be rejected and the recipients of other students' meanness (Breslend et al., 2018). Part of the overlap between popularity and friendship stems from the fact that many of the characteristics that make adolescents popular are the same ones that make them sought after as friends---chief among them, having good social skills. Actually, adolescents who describe themselves as well-liked and socially competent fare well psychologically over time, regardless of whether they are genuinely popular among their classmates (McElhaney, Antonishak, & Allen, 2008). Teenagers whose peers like them or who merely believe that their peers like them have higher self-esteem both as adolescents and as adults (Gruenenfelder-Steiger, Harris, & Fend, 2016). Keep in mind that some adolescents who are not especially popular in school may have a well-developed network of friends outside of school. Because most research on adolescents' peer networks has been limited to school-based friendships, we know relatively little about the nature or effects of friendships from other sources. But we do know that many adolescents have a social life outside of school---at church, in the neighborhood, in nonschool extracurricular activities---that is quite different from their life in school. Having friends outside school can buffer the harmful consequences of having few friends in school (Kiesner, Poulin, & Nicotra, 2003). Rejected Adolescents Just as there are different reasons for being popular, there are also different reasons for being rejected. It's important to distinguish among three types of disliked adolescents, though (Bierman & Wargo, 1995). One set of unpopular adolescents comprises teenagers who have trouble controlling their aggression. Withdrawn adolescents make up a second unpopular set; these adolescents are shy, anxious, and inhibited, and boys of this sort are frequently victims of bullying (Coplan et al., 2013; Erath, Flanagan, & Bierman, 2007). A third group is both aggressive and withdrawn. These adolescents have problems controlling their hostility, but like other withdrawn children, they tend to be nervous about initiating friendships with other adolescents. The origins of peer rejection in adolescence can frequently be traced to earlier periods of development. Often, adolescents who are rejected by their peers were also spurned during middle childhood, and this rejection, in turn, was the consequence of behavioral and emotional difficulties apparent in early elementary school (Ettekal & Ladd, 2015a; Monahan & Booth-LaForce, 2016). Others are rejected in adolescence mainly because they've been rejected in the past (Ladd et al., 2014). Regardless of its causes, rejection by peers is a significant source of stress for adolescents, who show greater brain activation to rejection than children do, as well as a stronger biological stress response to it (Bolling et al., 2011; Stroud et al., 2009). During adolescence, there are important changes in the brain that lead individuals to become more sensitive to the emotions, expressions, and opinions of others (Van Hoorn et al., 2016). The same reward centers as those activated by food, sex, and drugs are also activated when teenagers view Instagram photos that have received many "likes" (Sherman et al., 2016). Relational Aggression Most studies of the peer relations of aggressive children have focused on children who are overtly aggressive (either physically or verbally). This has led researchers to pay relatively more attention to the social relationships of aggressive boys than girls because boys exhibit more overt aggression (Card et al., 2008). Girls also act aggressively toward peers, but their aggression is often social, not physical (Crick, 1996). They often engage in relational aggression---aggression intended to harm other adolescents through deliberate manipulation of their social standing and relationships. Text messaging has provided added opportunities for adolescents to engage in this behavior (Vollet et al., 2020). Individuals use relational aggression to hurt others by excluding them from social activities, damaging their reputations with others, or withdrawing attention and friendship. Different types of aggression follow similar developmental trajectories during adolescence, increasing during early adolescence and then declining from midadolescence on, and are correlated (individuals who are highly aggressive in one way are also aggressive in others, and individuals who are frequent victims of physical aggression are also frequent victims of relational aggression) (Card et al., 2008; Karriker-Jaffe et al., 2009). Boys who are academically successful and relatively less masculine are especially likely to be victims of both types of aggression (Lehman, 2020). Researchers have found that some adolescents are especially prone to seek revenge when they have been excluded or insulted and are highly sensitive to signs of disrespect (McDonald & Asher, 2018). This may lead to relational aggression, especially among teenagers who are impulsive and who have difficulties with anger management (Espelage et al., 2018). Like physical aggression, the roots of relational aggression are often found in the family and peer group. Adolescents who use a lot of relational aggression frequently have parents who are harsh, controlling, or overly permissive, or antisocial peers (Aizpitarte et al., 2019; Kawabata et al., 2011). "Mean Girls" Although relational aggression was first noticed in observations of girls, studies show that boys also employ it (Juvonen, Wang, & Espinoza, 2013) but that girls are more aware of it, more distressed by it, and more often the victims of it (Card et al., 2008; Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2010). Although both girls and boys use physical and relational aggression, there are many more extremely physically aggressive boys than girls and many more extremely relationally aggressive girls (Ettekal & Ladd, 2015a). Girls' use of relational aggression has attracted a great deal of popular attention, as reflected in the best-selling books Odd Girl Out (Simmons, 2003) and Queen Bees and Wannabees (Wiseman, 2003), which served as the basis for the movie Mean Girls. Perhaps in response, educators have expressed concerns about "meanness" in school environments, noting that teachers have devoted far more attention to preventing overt physical fighting than relational aggression---despite the fact that victims of relational aggression also suffer as a result (Chen et al., 2019; Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2011). Some have called for educational programs designed to help teachers understand, assess, prevent, and respond to the problem when it arises in their classroom, as well as schoolwide programs designed to teach tolerance and acceptance and encourage students to disapprove of relational aggression when they see it. In the opinion of most experts, middle schools ought to be the focus of such interventions (Yoon, Barton, & Taiarol, 2004). making the scientific connection Is relational aggression something that is more common in adolescence than adulthood? If so, why might this be? If not, is it expressed differently among adults? Preventing relational aggression is easier said than done. Adolescents who use relational aggression, especially if they don't overdo it, often are more popular than their peers (Casper, Card, & Barlow, 2020). Actually, this is hardly surprising because the whole point of using relational aggression is to maintain one's status and popularity and because the same social skills that make one popular (learning how to "read" other people, being able to adjust one's behavior to maintain one's status, having a good sense of humor, etc.) are useful when spreading rumors, gossiping, or trying to undermine someone else's reputation (Bowker & Etkin, 2014; Dumas, Davis, & Ellis, 2019). The reason some physically aggressive boys are often more popular than their peers is that physical aggression and relational aggression may go hand in hand, and it is their relational aggression, not their physical aggression, that contributes to their popularity. Many programs designed to reduce relational aggression may be ineffective because adolescents are reluctant to stop doing something that maintains their popularity or even improves their friendships, even if it is at the expense of someone else (Banny et al., 2011; Rose & Swenson, 2009). Adolescents are less likely to react negatively toward their friends when they see them exclude others than when they witness unfamiliar peers doing the same thing (Spaans et al., 2019). Consequences of Rejection Being unpopular has negative consequences for adolescents' mental health and psychological development; peer rejection and friendlessness are associated with subsequent depression, behavior problems, alcohol use, interpersonal difficulties, and academic difficulties (Bellmore, 2011; Meisel et al., 2018; Schacter, Lessard,& Juvonen, 2019). But studies show that the specific consequences of peer rejection may differ for rejected youth who are aggressive versus those who are withdrawn. Aggressive individuals who are rejected are at risk for conduct problems and involvement in antisocial activity as adolescents, not just as a direct result of their rejection but because the underlying causes of their aggression (for instance, poor self-control) also contribute to later conduct problems (Laird et al., 2005). In contrast, withdrawn children who are rejected are likely to feel lonely and are at risk for low self-esteem, depression, and diminished social competence---again, both as a result of being rejected and in part because the underlying causes of their timidity (for instance, high anxiety) also contribute to later emotional problems (Pedersen et al., 2007). Rejection is especially likely to lead to depression in adolescents who place a lot of importance on their standing in the peer group and who believe that they, rather than the peers who reject them, are at fault (Prinstein & Aikins, 2004). Adolescents who are both aggressive and withdrawn are at the greatest risk of all (Rubin, LeMare, & Lollis, 1990). Many psychologists believe that unpopular youngsters lack some of the social skills and social understanding necessary to be popular with peers. Unpopular aggressive children are more likely than their peers to think that other children's behavior is deliberately hostile, even when it is not. When accidentally pushed while waiting in line, for instance, many unpopular aggressive children are likely to retaliate because they believe that the person who did the pushing did it on purpose. This so-called hostile attributional bias plays a central role in the aggressive behavior of rejected adolescents (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Adolescents who are prone to make hostile attributions tend to have friends who view the world through a similar lens (Halligan & Philips, 2010). Interventions aimed at changing the way aggressive adolescents view their peers have been successful in reducing rates of aggression (Dodge, Godwin, & Conduct Problems Prevention Group, 2013; Yeager, Miu et al., 2013). What about unpopular withdrawn children? What are their social skills deficits? In general, unpopular withdrawn children are excessively anxious and uncertain around other children, often hovering around the group without knowing how to break into a conversation or activity. Their hesitancy, low self-esteem, and lack of confidence make other children feel uncomfortable, and their submissiveness makes them easy targets for bullying (Salmivalli, 1998). Many of these youngsters are especially sensitive to being rejected and show a heightened neural response to rejection, as well as increased susceptibility to depression as a consequence (Rudolph et al., 2016; Will et al., 2016). Rejection sensitivity increases in adolescence as brain regions that monitor social information become more easily aroused (Falk et al., 2014; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2014). Some victimized adolescents are depressed, and their depression leads them to behave in ways that make them targets of harassment (people don't like to hang around with depressed individuals) (Saint-Georges & Vaillancourt, 2020). Adolescents who don't have friends at school are likely to view school as a threatening place, which often engenders feelings of depression (Lessard & Juvonen, 2018). Unfortunately, the more these children are teased, rejected, and bullied, the more anxious and hesitant they feel and the more they blame themselves for their victimization, which only compounds their problem---creating a cycle of victimization (see Figure 5.7) (Mathieson, Klimes-Dougan, & Crick, 2014; van Geel et al., 2018). Not all rejected students are bullied, though. Children who are victimized but who have supportive friends are less likely to be caught in this vicious cycle than those who don't (Cuadros & Berger, 2016; Kochel et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2019). Helping Unpopular Teens Psychologists have experimented with different sorts of interventions designed to improve the social skills of unpopular adolescents. These social-competence training programs have focused on three different strategies (Qualter et al., 2015). One type of program has been designed to teach social skills: self-expression, leadership, and how to converse. A second approach has been to have unpopular adolescents participate in group activities with popular ones under the supervision of psychologists. Finally, some social-competence programs focus on a combination of behavioral and cognitive abilities, including social problem solving. Social-problem-solving programs, such as PATHS (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies), are designed to improve individuals' abilities to judge social situations and figure out acceptable ways of behaving. Adolescents are taught to calm down and think before they react, to decide what the problem is, to figure out what their goal is, and to think of positive approaches toward reaching that goal. Instead of lashing out at a classmate who grabbed the last basketball from a gym closet, for example, a hot-tempered boy who had been through this sort of program might calm himself down, tell himself that his goal is to play basketball rather than get into a fight, and approach another student to ask if he can get into a game. PATHS has been shown to effectively reduce behavioral problems among elementary school children (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999). Bullies and Victims About one-third of students report having been physically bullied at some time during the past year, although in some studies, the percentage of students who report having been victimized has been considerably higher (Goldbach, Sterzing, & Stuart, 2018). One problem in coming up with accurate estimates of the prevalence of bullying or victimization is that researchers and survey respondents define them in so many different ways (Hymel & Swearer, 2015); in addition, rates of physical bullying and victimization vary across school grades, declining considerably as students move through middle school and into high school (Ladd, Ettekal, & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2017). Sexual minority youth are especially likely to be bullied persistently and become depressed as a result (Kaufman, Baams, & Veenstra, 2020). For example, Latinx and Black students are less likely than White students to report having been bullied, but they are just as likely as White students to report having been hit, robbed, stolen from, put down, and having their belongings damaged, which to most people qualifies as being bullied (Lai & Kao, 2018). Nevertheless, scholars differentiate bullying from other forms of aggression by its repetitive nature and by the imbalance of power that describes the bully and victim (Rodkin, Espelage, & Hanish, 2015). Rates of victimization vary considerably from country to country, although around the world, adolescents who come from less affluent families are more likely to be bullied (Analitis et al., 2009). Interestingly, the prevalence of bullying is higher in schools and countries characterized by greater income inequality (Due et al., 2009; Menzer & Torney-Purta, 2012). For example, bullying is far less prevalent in Sweden, where the gap between rich and poor is very small, than in Russia, where income inequality is much greater (see Figure 5.8). Apparently, it is more acceptable for the strong to victimize the weak in countries where having a wide gap between the economically "strong" and economically "weak" is also more widely tolerated. Although relationships between adolescents who dislike each other have not been studied extensively, such mutual antipathies are not uncommon. These relationships frequently involve bullies and victims, often with an antisocial adolescent repeatedly harassing a withdrawn classmate (Güroğlu et al., 2009). Although it may be difficult to understand why teenagers who have been repeatedly victimized by someone would maintain a friendship with the bully, victims may do so because they blame themselves, don't have other friends, or think that this is just the way things are. As one student put it (Bouchard, Smith, & Woods, 2021, p. 17): I know what friendship is supposed to be like and I wasn't feeling that anymore. But you see girls treating each other so badly everywhere in the media and movies and you see it every day at school so you start to change your mind. Adolescents who are bullies are also likely to assist and reinforce other bullies and, like the bullies they support, are also more likely to have conduct problems, be callous and indifferent to the problems of others, and be "morally disengaged"---likely to justify unethical behavior as permissible (Van Noorden et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017). Bullying is something that students can be exposed to both directly (when they are the victims) or indirectly (when they witness harassment but aren't themselves victimized). These two different types of experience have both similar and dissimilar effects (Janosz et al., 2008; Nishina & Juvonen, 2005). Being victimized or witnessing the harassment of others makes students anxious, but, oddly enough, witnessing the harassment of others appears to buffer some of the harmful effects of being victimized (Yun & Juvonen, 2020). Adolescents who are victims of harassment but who do not see anyone else being victimized are more likely to feel humiliated and