College 8 SOCIAL INFLUENCE DYNAMICS AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Question 1

Socialization processes

Answer 1

 Peer contagion, or social influence
 Increasing similarity in behaviors, emotions, cognitions, etc. through repeated interactions
 ‘Dark side of friendship’: can lead to negative behavior (eg. Drinking)
 Imitation of behavior
o Visible rewards (eg. Bank robbers)
o Social rewards (eg. Rise in status; in youth camps)

Question 2

Repulsion

Answer 2

 Aversion for dissimilar peers (Smeaton et al., 1989)
 Similarity enhanced by the tendency to dislike dissimilar others, thus narrowing the pool of friendship op ons to those who share more resemblances (Laursen, 2017)

Question 3

Social influence: How does it work? (Laninga-Wijnen & Veenstra, 2021) (2 dingen)

Answer 3

1. Similarity attraction
   o Select similar peers/friends
   o Become more similar to peers
2. Social influence
   o E.g., Deviancy training (leads to social rewards, status, from peers through laughter;
   sets norm for others that this behavior is normal)
   o Imitating thru reinforcement
   o ‘deviant talk’

Question 4

Assessing similarity processes
Network data

Answer 4

 Mapping and assessing relationship, information ‘flow’ and dependencies between
individuals or actors (groups, companies, countries)

 Dyadic analysis (Actor-Partner Interdependence Models): relationship between one person and another (eg. Romantic partners)

 Ego networks
o Individual reports about (characteristics and) relationships of others and their
relationships

 ‘Round robin’ design
o Each individual reports about every individual in the network

 Complete networks versus incomplete networks

Question 5

Social dynamics of antisocial behavior
 Social selection vs. social influence

Answer 5

o Many studies concerned with addressing this question
o Focus on (late) childhood and adolescence
o Mixed findings across different forms of an social behavior

Question 6

Contrasting views on adolescents with psychopathic traits

Answer 6

VIEWPOINT A:
Cleckley (1976)
- Psychopathic traits linked to social rejection and isolation
- Leading a life of solitude
–>
Hypothesis: Adolescents with psychopathic traits socially isolated.

VIEWPOINT B:
Empirical work (e.g., Kerr et al.,
2012; Kimonis et al., 2004):
- Adolescents with high psychopathic traits not rejected by peers.
- Have close friendships and form close-knit social networks with peers
–>
Hypothesis: Adolescents with psychopathic traits socially central

Question 7

self-esteem en peers met hoge grandiose-manipulatieve traits of hoge CU traits

Answer 7

Hoe minder self-esteem iemand ervaart, hoe sneller diegene toetrekt naar een peer met hoge grandiose-manipulatieve traits of hoge CU traits

Question 8

self-esteem en peers met hoge violence

Answer 8

Moe minder self-esteem iemand ervaart, hoe sneller diegene toetrekt naar een peer met hoge violence

Question 9

Social influence of romantic partners

Answer 9

The role of spouses, partners, and lovers
 Traditionally, a focus on ‘turning points’ (Samson & Laub, 1995)
o Desistance (verzet/weerstand); criminaliteit biedt niet meer hetzelfde als je partner/gezin hebt
o In line with Moffitt ’s dual taxonomy (1993): marriage and family life bring mature
responsibilities that bridge ‘maturity gap’
o Higher costs of offending: you have more to lose (not beneficial to relationship)
 More recently, negative social influences of romantic partners
o Similar to peer influence effects

Question 10

The effects of spouses

Answer 10

Typically related to desistance, unless…
o Spouse/partner also has a criminal record
o Relationships are short in duration
o You’re a woman – “Marriage is good for whom?” (Laub & Sampson, 2003) –> actually
only good for man
 Convicted man would sooner marry non-convicted woman than other way around
o You’ve committed an awful lot of offenses
o Similarity between partners, in particular in female offenders
o Sometimes due to default selection

Question 11

Why would people want to be with someone who scores high on criminality?

Answer 11

 Similar to peer influences
o Similarity attraction (e.g., risk taking)
o Social learning
o Status-concerns
o Need to belong
o Sometimes clear rewards (eg. Money or drugs)
o Lack of social support supervising partner selection

 Lack of alternatives
o Less dating-market value
o Limited pool of dating partners

Question 12

Balancing status and affection needs

Answer 12

 Increasing overlap between the circles of interac on in adolescence
o Status and affecion needs satisfied in the same group
o Aggression more risky strategy for status needs

 Link between status and aggression may change during adolescence/ lifespan
o Adolescence: using aggression can be risky strategy to satisfy status needs

 Interplay between status and affection needs

Question 13

Findings in youths (Sijtsema et al., 2020) –> high status and aggressive behavior (preadolescence, early adolescence, middle adolescence)

Answer 13

 Preadolescence: children with high status goals were more likely to show aggressive behavior irrespective of affection goals
 Eary adolescence: high on status goals leads to more aggressive behavior if you have low
affection goals
 Middle adolescence: high on status goals leads to more aggressive behavior if you have low affection goals

Question 14

Findings in adulthood (Sijtsema & Lindenberg, 2023) status and aggressive behaviour

Answer 14

If you value status and don’t care about
affec on you are more likely to show
aggressive behavior

Question 15

Findings in adulthood (Sijtsema & Lindenberg, 2023) (workplace aggression, intimate partner violence

Answer 15

 Both status goals and affec on goals unrelated to psychological aggression and conflict negotiation strategies
 Affection goals did not moderate association status goals and IPV

Question 16

Conclusions and discussion status and aggression and goals

Answer 16

 Direct aggression lower in those with weak status goals and strong affection goals.
 Product of the balance between social goals, for better or worse.
 Consequences for social dynamics in antisocial behavior