definition [edit ]
Crowds are bombastic groups of adolescents socially connected by a shared effigy and reputation, [ 1 ] specially within the set up of a individual school. It is potential for a single person to belong to more than one herd if their image matches the push ’ criteria. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Because membership in a crowd depends on peers ‘ perceptions, crowd in any given peer group will correspond to the local preconceived “ types ” of adolescents. specific stereotypes vary from position to plaza, but many remain reproducible, based on peer condition, socioeconomic condition, residential sphere, activities, social characteristics, or a combination of attributes ( jocks, nerds, populars, and druggies are among the most normally observed ). [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Crowds are very different from cliques : while cliques are relatively small, close-knit groups based on frequent interaction and jointly determined membership, members of a crowd may not even know each other. Crowd membership reflects external assessments and expectations, providing a social context for identity exploration and self-definition as adolescents internalize or reject their crowd identities. Because crowd membership is initially outwardly imposed, it is possible for an adolescent ‘s peers to classify them as belonging to a crowd they may not consider themselves separate of. [ 6 ] Members of some crowds are more aware of and comfortable with their push designation than others ; members of stigmatize or low-status groups, in finical, may resist or deny their undesirable classification. [ 6 ] Usually, however, adolescents embrace their push affiliation, using it to define themselves and advertise where they fit in their peer group ‘s social structure. [ 7 ] [ 8 ]
Crowds and identity development [edit ]
Crowds serve an essential purpose in adolescent identity development, shaping individual values, behavior, and personal and peer expectations. “ [ One ‘s group ] is much equivalent to one ‘s own probationary identity ; ” [ 9 ] the individual defines herself by the crowd she sees herself fitting into. Different herd expose the individual to different norms. These norms encourage adolescents to interact with some people while avoiding others and reward certain behaviors while discouraging others, a procedure of normative social influence. [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] For example, a extremity of a “ preppy “ crowd might be rewarded for dressing in a fashion for which a member of an “ emo “ push would be teased, and frailty versa.
Bạn đang đọc: Crowds (adolescence)
Crowd effects on norms of interaction :
- Norms affect how the individual interacts with others. Members of high-status (preppie, popular) groups often interact with many people, but most of these relationships are superficial and instrumental; interpersonal connections are used to establish and maintain social status. By contrast, members of lower-caste groups (e.g., dorks, druggies) generally have fewer friends, mostly from within the crowd; however, these relationships are typically marked by greater loyalty, stability, and honesty.
- Norms affect who the individual interacts with. Crowds steer the individual toward certain people, attitudes, and behaviors. There are also effects of peer perception and expectations when individuals attempt to interact across crowds: one may be interested in a cross-crowd friendship, but whether or not the target reciprocates depends on their crowd’s norms as well. The adolescent’s social options for friendship and romance are limited by her own crowd and by other crowds.
much crowds reinforce the behaviors that in the first place caused an individual to be labeled region of that herd, which can positively or negatively influence the individual ( toward academician accomplishment or drug use, for exemplar ). These pressures are often linked to the pigeonhole members of crowd hold about themselves and members of early crowd : oneness by deprecation of the outgroup ( see social identity hypothesis ). [ 9 ]
racial crowd and sub-crowds [edit ]
Adolescents ‘ perception of crowd differences may depend on how closely related the adolescent observer is to a detail crowd. The basic, recurring crowd divisions ( jocks, geeks, partiers ) have been most frequently studied in predominantly white high schools, but they besides exist for minority students. [ 14 ] In multiracial schools, students seem to divide along heathen lines first, then into these archetypal crowd within their own ethnicity. however, one cultural group may not notice the far divisions in other ethnic groups after the first, race-based separate. [ 14 ] For case, black students see themselves as divided into jocks, geeks, emos, stoners, popular kids, and therefore on, but white students may see them arsenic good one crowd defined entirely by ethnicity, “ the black kids. ” sometimes crowd membership transcends race, however, and adolescents are classified as “ jocks ” or “ geeks ” careless of slipstream. [ 15 ] [ 16 ] This seems to vary and depend heavily on the context of the individual school .
Stereotypes, mark, and cross-crowd friendships [edit ]
While crowds are structured around archetypal caricatures of their members, real adolescents rarely match these extremes. furthermore, not all adolescents agree on the characteristics distinctive of a pigeonhole. [ 9 ] In other words, regular expression of just a few central characteristics of a herd is a sufficient basis for classification as a member of that crowd. therefore, not all “ jocks “ neglect their school assignment, though that is character of the typical athlete pigeonhole, and a person matter to in fashion could still be considered a “ eccentric. ” much a herd is stigmatized by one or more other crowd. This can affect adolescents ‘ willingness to associate with members of that crowd, or tied early crowd exchangeable to it. For example, people may avoid being seen as a “ genius, ” a middle-status push, because of the similarity between brains and “ nerds, ” a lower-status crowd. [ 8 ] Shared interests form the basis of many friendships, indeed much adolescents are drawn to members of their own crowd, [ 9 ] specially if their crowd is defined by activities rather than more superficial characteristics such as race or socioeconomic condition. however, interests can be shared across crowd divisions. accordingly, while an adolescent ‘s closest friends are about always part of the same clique ( i.e., they interact frequently within the lapp small friend group ), they are not constantly part of the like push, specially if multiple push have similar lifestyles. [ 9 ] [ 17 ]
far emphasizing the elastic nature of crowd membership, some adolescents are not stably linked to one specific crowd—some individuals are associated with multiple crowds, while others are not stably linked to any crowd and “ float ” among several. These appear more closely attached to individuals outside the peer group ( family, dropout friends, friends from a non-school organization, and so forth ). Others may consciously work to change herd affiliations to express different interests or achieve a change in social condition. [ 6 ] The crowd with which an adolescent desires to be identified is far less stable than the personal attributes by which the adolescent is probably to be categorized by peers. [ 6 ] Accordingly, adolescents who change crowd membership ( a process known as “ crowd-hopping ” ) tend to have lower self-esteem, possibly because they have not so far found an environment and peer group that supports them. It is likely that they continue changing herd membership until they find a meet niche. [ 6 ]
The surface of herd [edit ]
Crowds first gear emerge in middle or junior high school, when children transition from stable, self-contained classroom peer groups into larger schools, where they interact with a more deviate body of peers with less pornographic guidance. Crowds emerge to group students by caricature and social organization interactions between students of each type. [ 9 ] early on crowd are often based on social condition, particularly among girls, with a small group of well-known children being “ popular ” and the rest “ unpopular. ” To maintain their own condition, popular girls will avoid the overtures of less-popular children, which actually makes them disliked. [ 12 ] many children stop attempting to gain entry into the popular crowd and make friends with other children alternatively, giving rise to new crowd. [ 9 ] The stereotypes on which crowd definitions are based change over time as adolescents shift from grouping people by abstract characteristics rather than activities ( “ geeks ” rather than “ the kids who read a batch ” ). With historic period, adolescents become more conscious of crowd divisions and the social hierarchy. [ 1 ] Distinctions between crowd besides become more nuanced, developing from dim-witted popular/unpopular dichotomies to less hierarchical structures in which there are more than two levels of social acceptability, often with several crowds at each level. [ 18 ] [ 19 ] As seen in cross-crowd friendships, some crowds interact with each other more readily than others. [ 9 ] This transition to a more fluid social structure allows adolescents to change their condition over time by changing herd, remaining in a herd that undergoes a change in condition, or gaining the confidence and perspective to reject the assumptions of the sociable hierarchy. [ 9 ] [ 18 ] Willingness to do thus reflects a growing sense of personal identity distinct from crowd membership .
The decline of crowd [edit ]
Adolescents ’ attitudes toward crowd change over time—while ninth-graders are volition to discriminate against members of other crowd, twelfth-graders are less probable to do so. [ 19 ] Adolescents besides develop more many-sided self-concepts and reject crowd labels as simplistic attempts to describe an stallion personality. [ 9 ] Across the high school years, crowd meaning as a basis for affiliation wanes, [ 19 ] as does the influence of crowd on an individual ‘s behavior. [ 1 ] In fact, some studies [ 20 ] indicate that the importance of push peaks at age 12 or 13. By the end of eminent school, adolescents much feel constrained by impersonal, crowd-derived identities. [ 21 ] This, combined with the splintering off of romantic couples from the stay of the crowd, [ 22 ] may account for the worsen of herd meaning over time .
References [edit ]
- Brown, B. ( 2004 ). Adolescents ’ relationships with peers. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg ( Eds. ), ‘ ’ Handbook of adolescent psychology. ’ ’ New York : Wiley .
- Mory, M. ( 1994, February ). “ When people form or perceive sets, they tend to be fuzzy : The encase of adolescent crowd. ” Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego .
- Arnett, J. J. ( 2002 ). “ Adolescents in western countries on the brink of the twenty-first century. ” In B. Brown, R. Larson, & T. Saraswathi ( eds. ), The World’s Youth: Adolescence in Eight Regions of the Globe. New York : Cambridge University Press .
- Delsing, M. J. M. H., ter Bogt, Tom F. M., Engles, R. C. M. E., & Meeus, W. H. J. ( 2007 ). “ Adolescents ‘ peer push identification in the Netherlands : structure and associations with trouble behaviors. ” Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 467–480 .
- Brown, B., & Klute, C. ( 2002 ). “ Friendships, cliques, and crowd. ” In G. R. Adams & M. Berzonsky ( eds. ), Blackwell Handbook on Adolescence. New York : Blackwell Publishers.
- Brown, B., Freeman, H., Huang, B., & Mounts, N. ( 1992, March ). “ ‘Crowd hopping ‘ : incidence, correlates and consequences of change in crowd affiliation during adolescence. ” Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Washington, DC .
- Newman, B., & Newman, P. ( 2001 ). “ Group identity and alienation : Giving the we its due. ” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 515–538 .
- Brown, B.B., Lohr, M. J., & Trujillo, C. M. ( 1990 ). “ multiple crowd and multiple lifestyles : Adolescents ‘ perceptions of peer group characteristics. ” In R. E. Muss ( ed. ), Adolescent Behavior and Society: A Book of Readings ( pp. 30–36 ). New York : Random House .
- Brown, B., Mory, M., & Kinney, D. ( 1994 ). “ Casting crowd in a relational position : caricature, channel, and context. ” In R. Montemayor, G. Adams, & T. Gullotta ( eds. ), Advances in Adolescent Development : Vol. 5. Personal Relationships During Adolescence. Newbury Park, CA : sage .
- Brown, B., Dolcini, M., & Leventhal, A. ( 1995, March ). The Emergence of Peer Crowds: Friend or Foe to Adolescent Health? Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Washington, DC .
- Brown, B., & Larson, J. ( 2009 ). “ Peer relationships in adolescence. ” In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg ( Eds. ), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology ( 3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 74–103 ). New York : Wiley .
- Eder, D. ( 1985 ). “ The cycle of popularity : interpersonal relations among female adolescents. ” Sociology of Education, 58, 154–165 .
- Lesko, N. ( 1988 ). Symbolizing Society: Stories, Rites, and Structures in a Catholic High School. Philadelphia : Falmer .
- Brown, B., & Mounts, N. ( 1989, April ). “ Peer group structures in one versus multiethnic eminent schools. ” Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City .
: The importance of peer group in managing academic achiever. ” Sociology of Education, 76, 265–280 .
Horvat, E. M., & Lewis, K. S. ( 2003 ). “ Reassessing the ‘burden of ‘acting White ‘
- Tyson, D., Darity, W., & Castellino, D. R. ( 2005 ). “ It ‘s not ‘a Black matter. ‘ Understanding the effect of acting White and other dilemma of high accomplishment. ” American Sociological Review, 70, 582–605 .
- Urberg, K., Degirmencioglu, S., Tolson, J., & Halliday-Scher, K. ( 1995 ). “ The structure of adolescent peer networks. ” Developmental Psychology, 31, 540–547 .
- Kinney, D. ( 1993 ). “ From nerds to normals : The recovery of identity among adolescents from middle school to high school. ” Sociology of Education, 66, 21–40 .
Xem thêm: Rims vs. Wheels: What’s the Difference?
Horn, S. S. ( 2003 ). Adolescents ’ reasoning about exception from social groups. ‘ ’ Developmental Psychology, 39 ’ ’ 363-371.
- Brown, B. B., Eicher, S. A., & Petrie, S. D. ( 1986 ). The importance of peer group ( “ crowd ” ) affiliation in adolescence. ‘ ’ Journal of Adolescence, 9, ’ ’ 73-96 .
- Larkin, R. W. ( 1979 ). ‘ ’ Suburban youth in cultural crisis. ’ ’ New York : Oxford .
- Kuttler, A. F., & La Greca, A. M. ( 2004 ). Linkages among adolescent girls ’ amatory relationships, best friendships, and peer networks. ‘ ’ Journal of Adolescence, 27, ’ ’ 395-414 .