Peer Influence on Adolescents Risk Behavior
Introduction
Adolescence denotes the period between 13 years and 19 years when a person transits from childhood to adulthood (Prinstein & Dodge 2008). Available evidence identify adolescence as a period in which young people undertake complex decisions relating to their life. During this period, adolescents face heightened risks because of their high sensitivity to peer influence (Albert & Steinberg 2009). This indicates that peer pressure entails the influence of a person’s behavior by members of his or her group or people with whom one associate (Newman & Newman 2012). Hoorn et al. (2014) posit that peer influence can either present opportunities or pose a risk to young people. For example, peer influence can lead to the development of pro-social behavior, which entails positive behavior. Alternatively, peer influence heightens young people’s involvement in risk-taking behavior such as involvement in violence, drug and substance abuse, and involvement in illicit sexual behavior.
Experts on adolescent development and health affirm that the greatest risk faced by young people, especially in industrialized countries often arises from self-inflicted and preventable causes (Steinberg 2008). Available evidence identifies motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death amongst young people aged between 15 and 20 years. Moreover, despite the extensive campaigns aimed at sensitizing young people to the dangers associated with engaging in illicit sexual behavior, the rate of sexually transmitted diseases amongst young people is considerably high. Thus, risk-taking behavior among adolescents presents a significant public health issue (Steinberg 2008). Adolphs (2003) asserts that risk-taking behavior tends to decline as young people or youth transit into mature adults. Thus, age is a key factor in determining a person’s behavior. This paper entails a literature review on the peer influence on adolescent risk-taking behavior. The review focuses on a number of theoretical aspects in relation to peer influence and its contribution to the development of deviant and antisocial behavior among adolescents. The paper further recommends how negative peer influence can be limited.
Analysis
Teenagers or adolescents are highly likely to engage in risky behavior compared to adults and children. Some of the common risky behavior among teenagers includes binge drinking, violence, and criminal behavior (Chein et al. 2011). Despite the fact that remarkable progress has been achieved in dealing with major public health issues amongst young people, the propensity of youth to be involved in risky behavior amongst adolescents/young people continues to be a major public health issue. The relationship between risky behavior by young people and public health is two-dimensional. First, involvement in risky behavior poses a direct health risk to individual youths. Similarly, risky behavior such as driving under the influence of alcohol, having multiple sexual partners, and involvement in violence puts the lives and well-being of other people at risk. Steinberg (2009) accentuates that ‘similar progress has not been achieved with reference to reducing the morbidity and mortality that result from risky and reckless behavior amongst adolescents/young people’ (p. 79). These preventable behaviors account for a significant challenge in enhancing the well-being of youths.
Different approaches and explanations have been advanced in an effort to explain the relationship between peer affiliation amongst the adolescents and probability of engaging in risky behavior. One of the approaches is based on how young people/adolescents socialize. According to Monahan (2009), the concept of peer influence is founded on the fact that peer groups tend to socialize in a specific risk-taking approach. This perspective is supported by Chassin, Hussong and Beltran (2009) who affirm that antisocial acts among young people are more likely to occur within groups. This highlights peer pressure as a significant determinant in decision-making amongst young people. Peer influence arises from the demand of a person to follow group norms. Thus, peer influence socializes adolescent peers into specific risk-taking behavior.
Problem behavior theory
The problem behavior theory is one of the notable theories that explain the development of antisocial and deviant behavior among individuals. According to Spruijt-Metz (2014), the theory proposes that the development of antisocial behavior depicts ‘overt repudiation of conventional norms or expression of independence from parental control’ (p. 65). The theory further accentuates that the development of antisocial behavior arises from interaction between different systems that include the personality system, behavior system and perceived environment system. The personality system relates to different aspects such as personal belief structure, motivation, expectations for affection and independence, and personal control structure. On the other hand, the behavior system relates to the problem behavior such as substance abuse, and sexual intercourse while the perceived environment system relates to the prevailing demography or social structure and how the society socializes (Spruijt-Metz 2014). The respective systems are characterized by varying degrees of proneness to the development of problem behavior.
Jaccard et al. (2005) emphasizes that ‘adolescents with inclinations towards risk-taking behavior are likely to find one another, and these shared personality dispositions account for the correlations in behavior between the individual and peer groups’ (). This assertion underlines the fact that a person’s interaction with the environment plays a critical role in determining the development of risk behavior among adolescents.
Affiliating with peer groups and modeling behavior
Adolescents’ affiliation with peers characterized by deviant behavior is a strong indicator of the adolescent’s involvement in similar deviant behavior (Albert & Steinberg 2009). One of the notable aspects that explain the impact of the environment on the likelihood of young people involved in risky behavior relates to substance abuse (Verster 2011). Statistics on crime amongst young people indicate that young people tend to engage in criminal activities such as substance and drug abuse and vandalism as a group as opposed to adults who engage in such antisocial behavior individually.
Albert and Steinberg (2009) assert that the environment in which adolescents live. Albert and Steinberg (2009) assert that an increase in the amount of time that young people spend with their colleagues is a critical determinant of the nature of their relationship. By spending too much time with their peers, young people become susceptible to influence. Newman and Newman (2012) are of the opinion that the adolescent phase is characterized by intellectual development. During this phase, adolescents conceptualize different aspects surrounding their personal life. The adolescents perceive themselves in terms of expectations. For example, adolescents might develop the perception that they need to be more outgoing, confident, or braver.
As a result of these expectations, adolescents may develop the need to seek comfort by affiliating themselves with peer groups that they consider to assist them achieve the perceived expectation (Newman & Newman 2012). To achieve this outcome, adolescents are forced to suppress a significant proportion of their individuality and develop behaviors or attributes that connect them. This aspect underlines that peer influence may lead to conflict between personal autonomy and the need for belonging. Hoorn et al. (2014) corroborate that peer group’s place a substantial amount of significance on the development of conformity with the group’s rules. Siegel (2016) is of the view that adolescents who associate with peers characterized by deviant behavior are likely to develop deviant behavior similar to their friends. A study by Gardner and Steinberg (2005) revealed that ‘the mere presence of peers doubled the amount of risk-taking in which adolescents engaged’ (p. 625). This means that the presence of adolescent peers in risk-taking situations is likely to significantly increase the probability of adolescents engaging in risky behavior (Albert & Steinberg 2009).
Peer influence on adolescents’ behavior can also be explained on the basis of the concept of deviancy training, which postulates that an individual’s involvement with their deviant friends may reinforce conversation about deviance. Such talk may ultimately result in the individual engaging in the antisocial behavior discussed. Dodge, Dishion, and Lansford (2008) posit that peers reinforce the likelihood of adolescents involving in delinquent behavior. However, the degree of reinforcement is substantially high amongst adolescents who are characterized by a high degree of proneness to the development of deviant behavior.
This aspect underlines the fact that adolescents are motivated to engage in risky behavior through the application of social learning theory, which was postulated by Alex Bandura. In his view, Alex Bandura is of the opinion that people develop behavior through personal experience and interaction with the environment. Siegel (2016) accentuates that the probability of young people living in neighborhood or areas characterized by young people who involve in antisocial behavior such as drug and substance abuse are more likely to develop similar behavior. Therefore, peer groups have a significant influence on how adolescents model behavior. Siegel (2016) defines behavior modeling as the process through which individuals learn, particularly antisocial behavior, by observing others' actions. On the contrary, adults’ exposure to their peers has no impact on involvement in risky behavior. This indicates the existence of a strong correlation between problem behavior theory and social learning theory. The two theories underline the impact of environmental development on behavior. The problem-behavior theory further considers a person’s temperament as a critical factor that determines the development of deviant behavior amongst young people.
Decision making
Conventional decision-making models postulate that individuals adopt a rational approach to making decisions (Albert & Steinberg 2009). Subsequently, individuals weigh the perceived benefits and risks before arriving at a particular decision aimed at achieving the intended outcome (Albert & Steinberg 2009). One of the notable traditional decision-making theories includes the theory of reasoned action. The theory postulates that an individual’s engagement in a particular action is based on the evaluation of the extent to which the intended action is valuable (Becker, Rankin & Rickel 1998). This indicates that the theory of reasoned action is based on a consequentialist framework, which hypothesizes that when an individual has accurate information regarding the consequences of particularly risky behavior, he or she is likely to develop a risk-averse response, which means that the individual is likely to avoid such risky behavior.
In spite of this view, some scholars argue that the inability of adolescents to adopt a rational decision-making approach is triggered by three main factors that include inaccuracy in assessing the vulnerability of the risk associated with a particular behavior, immature cognitive capacity of the benefits and costs of a particular behavior, and overvaluing the benefits of a particular behavior (Loewenstein et al. 2001). However, Fischhoff (2008) accentuates that adolescents have adequate capacity to assess the consequences of specific risk behavior. Reyna and Farley (2006) argue that ‘adolescents report a high level of risk aversion that is comparable to that of adults’ (p.45). Therefore, adolescents/young people possess’ sufficient information and cognitive capacity to enable them to make rational decisions on whether to engage in risky behavior. This contradicts the view that adolescents do not have the capacity to weigh the outcome of risky behavior. In spite of this view, the need for affiliation amongst peers might negatively impact adolescents’ capacity to adopt a rational approach to making decisions. This aspect underlines the fact that the need for affiliation with peer groups limits adolescents’ autonomy in making decisions.
Interventions to overcome peer influence on Adolescents decision making
Environment plays a critical role in shaping behavior among individuals. The significance of the environment in shaping behavior is underlined by the problem behavior theory and the social learning theories. Adolescents/youths rank amongst the category of individuals who are exposed to peer influence. Thus, there is a need to implement the requisite interventions in order to reduce and/or eliminate the public health risk posed by risky behavior among young people.
The social learning theory identifies the family as one of the fundamental determinants of behavior among adolescents. This arises from the fact that young people progressively interact with their family members hence shaping their behavior. Siegel (2016) accentuates that children from parents who use aggressive tactics are likely to develop such behavior. The review further denotes peer influence as a major determinant of adolescents’ involvement in antisocial and risky behavior.
The fact that the adolescent's involvement in risky behavior not only poses a risk to individual adolescents but also constitutes a fundamental public health issue underlines the need for effective measures and interventions to be employed in order to eliminate adolescents’ involvement in antisocial behavior. Different interventions on how to deal with peer influence have been proposed as examined herein.
Parenting interventions
Hoorn et al. (2014) identify effective parenting as one of the most effective interventions that can aid in minimizing negative peer influence hence eliminating adolescents’ involvement in risky behavior. Rainey, Nygren, and Rainey (2002) assert that parents should adopt a nurturing and supportive parenting approach. This approach should involve parents applying effective and consistent disciplinary measures. Moreover, parents should progressively monitor the behavior of their children in order to ensure that they do not associate with peers characterized by deviant behavior. Meadows (2015) asserts that ‘adolescents are more likely to behave badly when away from parents’ supervision or when parents do not know where they are, who they are with and what they are doing’ (p. 164). The application of effective parenting practices can foster the development of positive values and pro-social behaviors. In applying parenting as an intervention to peer influence on adolescents’ decision-making, parents should nurture a strong rapport with adolescents by entrenching effective communication and avoiding negative family conflicts. Hussong et al. (2011) accentuate that poor communication and conflicts within the family environment can lead to a loss of emotional security among adolescents, and enhance interpersonal hostility and use of aggression in the parenting process. The prevalence of such conditions in the family setting can increase adolescents’ susceptibility to peer influence. Subsequently, adolescents from such families are likely to result to risky behavior such as illicit sexual behavior, and drug and substance abuse. Hoorn et al. (2014) assert that parents who develop warm relationships with their adolescents and limit conflicts with their children are likely to significantly reduce the impact of peer influence on adolescents.
School-based interventions
In addition to parenting, the development of risky behavior among adolescents can also be minimized by entrenching school-based interventions. The rationale for employing school-based intervention arises from the fact that the school environment constitutes a fundamental component in an adolescent’s development process. Steinberg (2009) asserts that the school environment acts as a critical turning point in adolescents’ behavior. An ineffective school environment can trigger the development of negative behavior r as a result of the prevalence of peer influence. To improve the effectiveness of school-based interventions in limiting the development of negative behavior, it is imperative for schools to focus on impacting skills to adolescents on how they can resist negative influence by their peers. The school-based intervention should largely target deviant groups in the school environment but it should not be discriminatory. Monahan, Steinberg, and Cauffman (2009), assert that school intervention systems for deviant peer groups are likely to be comprised of different tactics such as extensive academic tracking of deviant peer groups, school suspension, and incorporation of the juvenile justice system. Despite the fact that these measures are likely to limit the development of deviant peer groups, they may result in a negative impact on the overall well-being of the deviant peer groups. Subsequently, it is imperative for stakeholders in the education system to consider ensuring that the intervention system is fair and just. Moreover, the intervention system should be intended at criminalizing deviant peer groups but assisting them understand the risk associated with deviant behavior and assisting the deviant individuals in change.
Conclusion
The literature review affirms that peer influence constitutes a significant determinant in influencing the development of risky behavior among adolescents. This might translate into remarkable public health consequences, which not only affect individual adolescents but also the general population. The capacity of peer influence to determine the development of risky behavior amongst adolescents is supported by the problem behavior theory and the social learning theory, which identify the environment as a critical determinant of a person’s behavior. The problem behavior theory postulates that an individual’s perception, approach to socialization, and the environment might trigger the development of deviant behavior among young people. On the other hand, the social learning theory identifies observation as one of the approaches through which individuals learn behavior. The review further underlines that peer influence impacts the development of risky behavior amongst adolescents through affiliation. By interacting which individuals characterized by deviant behaviors, adolescents are likely to conform to the deviant group norms in an effort to develop a sense of belonging. Despite the fact that young people may have adequate capacity to weigh the costs and benefits associated with the development of a particularly risky behavior, affiliating with deviant individuals may adversely affect their decision-making capacity. This arises from the fact that the youth may intend to feel accepted by developing a sense of belonging. This underlines the fact that peer relationships may have a negative impact on adolescents’ individuality and rationality in the decision-making process.
Considering the negative impacts associated with the risky behavior that adolescents engage in as a result of peer influence, the need to ensure that the relevant measures to curb the prevalence of peer influence on adolescents cannot be underestimated. There are different interventions that can significantly limit the negative impact of peer influence. One of the most effective approaches that should be employed in curbing the impact of peer influence entails targeting the environment that surrounds adolescents. In actualizing this approach, two main dimensions, which entail parenting and improving the school environment, should be taken into account. The application of effective parenting will safeguard adolescents from being influenced negatively by their colleagues. Moreover, effective parenting will lead to the development of a sense of emotional security among adolescents and impart adequate knowledge of the risks associated with engaging in deviant peer groups. Conversely, effective school-based interventions will limit the emergence of deviant peer groups within the school environment. The ultimate effect is that the school environment will not contribute to the propagation of risky behavior among the students.
References
Adolphs, R 2003, ‘Cognitive neuroscience of human social behavior’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 165–178.
Chassin, L, Hussong, A & Beltran, I 2009, Adolescent substance use, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Chien, J, Albert, D, O’Brien, L, Uckert, K & Steinberg, L 2011, ‘Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry’, Dev. Sci., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1-10.
Dodge, K, Dishion, T & Lansford, J 2008, Deviant peer influences in programs for youth; youth problems and solutions, Guildford, New York.
Hussong, A, Jones, D, Stein, G, Baucom, D & Boeding, S 2011, ‘An internalizing pathway to alcohol and substance disorders’, Psychology Addict Behavior, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 390-404.
Monahan, K, Steinberg, L & Cauffman, E 2009, ‘Affiliation with antisocial peers, susceptibility to peer influence, and antisocial behavior during the transition to adulthood’, Dev. Psychology, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1520-1530.
Steinberg, L 2008, ‘ A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk taking’, Dev. Rev, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 78-106.
