Developmental Psychology 1986, Vol. 22, No. 4, 521-530 Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0012-1649/86/S00.75 Perceptions of Peer Pressure, Peer Conformity Dispositions, and Self-Reported Behavior Among Adolescents Donna Rae Clasen University of Wisconsin���Whitewater B. Bradford Brown University of Wisconsin���Madison Sue Ann Eicher University of Wisconsin���Madison Two samples of 6th to 12th graders from separate communities were given measures of peer confor- mity dispositions (willingness to accede to peer pressure), perceptions of peer pressure, and self- reported frequency of behavior concerning two major aspects of teenage life: peer involvement (de- gree of socializing with friends) and misconduct (drug/alcohol use, sexual intercourse, and minor delinquent behavior). Respondents perceived less peer pressure toward misconduct than peer in- volvement and also were comparatively less willing to follow peers in misconduct. Nevertheless, perceived peer pressure and conformity disposition accounted for more of the variance in self-re- ported misconduct than in self-reported peer involvement. Age differences were modest and varied among measures and samples. The samples also differed in the magnitude of perceived pressures and conformity dispositions as well as in the degree to which these variables were associated with self-reported behavior. The findings reveal a complexity in adolescent conformity that bears elabora- tion in future research. Conformity to peers is often considered one of the hallmarks of adolescent behavior. Studies have shown that peer confor- mity dispositions (willingness to conform to peers) as well as conformity behavior increase from childhood through adoles- cence. Researchers, however, have tended to examine confor- mity dispositions without reference to conformity behavior, or behavior without reference to dispositions. There also has been little effort to ascertain the nature or extent of peer pressure adolescents actually perceive in their daily lives. These factors limit our understanding ofhow peer conformity influences ado- lescent development. To address these limitations, the present study examined the associations among peer conformity dispo- sitions, perceptions of peer pressure, and self-reported behavior in two major facets of adolescents' lives: peer involvement and misconduct. From the theoretical perspective of ego identity development A version of this article was presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Ontario, April 1985. The study was supported by a grant from the Spencer Foundation, Chicago, Illinois. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Jeffrey Freemas in data collection and Teri Frailey in preparation of the manuscript. Maribeth Gettinger, Ronald Serlin, Joel Levin, and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. The authors thank Kris Karrmann for providing data from her Platteville High School Drinking Survey. We are especially grateful to the students and staff of the middle schools and high schools in Madison and Platteville, Wisconsin, for their participation in the study. Requests for reprints should be sent to B. Bradford Brown, Depart- ment of Educational Psychology, 1025 W. Johnson Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706. Erikson (1968) and Newman and Newman (1976) both argue that the early adolescent's need for affiliation with a group of peers is manifested by conformity to group norms, and that the group itself is strengthened when members exert conformity pressures on each other. With the development ofa more auton- omous sense of self later in adolescence, strong group affiliation and conformity to peer group norms become less essential for a sense of well-being. Accordingly, one should find that peer conformity dispositions and conformity behavior increase from childhood through early or middle adolescence, then decline in later adolescence. This inverted U-shaped age pattern has been found in several studies using an Asch (1951) procedure involving ambiguous judgments to examine conformity behavior in response to con- trived peer pressure (Costanzo & Shaw, 1966 Iscoe, Williams, & Harvey, 1963). Others using this approach, however, have re- ported more erratic age trends (Berenda, 1950 Collins & Thomas, 1972). Furthermore, Hoving, Hamm, and Galvin (1969) found that when students were confronted with a similar task but less ambiguous judgments, conforming responses de- clined sharply between ages 8 and 14. The inconsistent results among studies based on an Asch pro- cedure suggested that age is not the only factor influencing con- formity behavior among children and adolescents. This prompted some investigators to focus on age changes in peer conformity dispositions rather than conformity behavior. Berndt (1979) and Bixenstine, DeCorte, and Bixenstine (1976) asked students at selected grade levels from Grades 3 to 12 to indicate how they would respond to hypothetical situations in which close friends encouraged them to join in various antiso- cial activities. In both studies, conformity disposition increased from childhood to adolescence. In one study (Berndt, 1979) 521

522 B. BRADFORD BROWN, DONNA RAE CLASEN, AND SUE ANN EICHER willingness to conform diminished in the oldest grade, yielding an inverted U-shaped pattern similar to the age differences in conformity behavior reported by Costanzo and Shaw (1966). Peer pressure was more explicit in these studies than in the "Asch" experiments because peers were portrayed in the hypo- thetical situations not simply as participating in the antisocial activity but actively encouraging the respondent to join them. In addition to antisocial situations, Berndt (1979) examined willingness to follow peers in prosocial and "neutral" behavior. Students in his samples were more willing to follow peers in neutral or prosocial than antisocial behavior, although develop- mental changes in conformity dispositions were more pro- nounced with regard to antisocial situations. Gender differ- ences were significant only in response to antisocial pressures (with females less willing than males to follow peers). These findings corroborated earlier studies (Brittain, 1963 Larson, 1972), also based on hypothetical situations, in which adoles- cents' inclinations to follow peers' (or parents') advice varied significantly among situations. The situational effects apparent in studies of peer conformity dispositions and conformity responses to contrived situations underscore the need to ascertain what sorts of peer pressure teenagers actually confront in their daily lives. In college stu- dents' retrospective accounts of high school peer pressure (Brown, 1982) and reports from teenagers themselves (Brown, Lohr, & McClenahan, in press), Brown found that perceptions of explicit peer pressures varied by "area" (i.e., peer social ac- tivities, relations with parents, conformity in appearance and attitudes, drug and alcohol use) and by age. Different develop- mental trajectories appeared for each area. Areas also differed in the strength of association between perceived peer pressure and corresponding personal attitudes or self-reported behavior. Unfortunately, the role of peer conformity dispositions in these associations remains unclear because Brown did not measure respondents' willingness to conform to various peer pressures. In sum, developmental changes in peer conformity across ad- olescence seem to be mediated by the strength of peer confor- mity dispositions and the nature of conformity demands from peers (peer pressure). Because previous research has not as- sessed the interactions of these forces, the present study exam- ined how variations across adolescence in peer conformity dis- positions and perceptions of peer pressure corresponded with variations in self-reported behavior among two samples of 6th to 12th graders. The study focused on the two facets ofadoles- cent behavior most commonly addressed in earlier investiga- tions of conformity: peer involvement (patterns of social inter- action with peers) and misconduct (drug use, minor delin- quency, and sexual intercourse). Based on previous research and Erikson's (1968) ego identity theory, four hypotheses were formulated: 1. Peer conformity dispositions will differ by area, age, and gender. Specifically: (a) Adolescents will be more willing to con- form to peer pressures involving neutral (peer involvement) than antisocial activities, (b) Conformity dispositions in both areas will follow an inverted U-shaped change with age. (c) Males will be more willing than females to conform to anti- social peer pressures. 2. Perceptions of peer pressure will differ by area, age, and gender. Specifically: (a) Adolescents will perceive stronger peer pressure toward peer involvement than toward misconduct, (b) Perceived peer pressures in both areas will trace an inverted U-shaped change with age. (c) Males will report stronger peer pressure than females to engage in misconduct. 3. Peer conformity dispositions and perceived peer pressure will be significantly associated���independently and interac- tively���with self-reported behavior. 4. Associations between peer conformity dispositions or per- ceived peer pressures and self-reported behavior will be stronger among middle adolescents (age 15-16) than younger or older adolescents. Method Sample The 1,027 students who participated in the study were drawn from one middle school (Grades 6-8) and one high school (Grades 9-12) in each of two Midwestern communities. Sample 1 (n = 251 males, 257 females) represented slightly over half of the 6th to 12th graders in a city of9,500 people, which, although socioeconomically heterogeneous, maintained a "small town" atmosphere. Sample 2 (n = 254 males, 265 females) came from larger schools serving a predominantly working- class section of a major city (population 200,000). Both samples were predominantly Caucasian (98% of Sample 1, 93% of Sample 2). Re- spondents were selected by a stratified random sampling procedure (stratifying by grade, gender, and peer group affiliation). Of those se- lected, 88% (�� = 1,027) successfully completed the questionnaire, 6% refused to participate or were denied permission by parents, 5% were not available on the testing days, and 1% completed unusable question- naires. Measures The analyses drew upon three sets of scale scores: Willingness to con- form to peers (conformity dispositions), perceived peer pressures, and self-reported behavior. Each set contained a scale measuring peer in- volvement and one measuring misconduct. The perceived misconduct pressure scale and self-reported misconduct scale each included a sub- scale of items more directly comparable to the misconduct conformity disposition scale. The derivation and scoring of scales are described below. Conformity dispositions. Conformity dispositions were assessed by a measure developed by Berndt (1979), containing 20 hypothetical situa- tions in which "a couple of your best friends" urge participation in a certain activity and the respondent is portrayed either as reluctant to join peers in the activity or as interested in doing something else. Ten situations involve antisocial behaviors, such as cheating, stealing, tres- passing, and minor destruction of property. The others involve conflicts over choice of sports, entertainment activities, or eating places. For each hypothetical situation respondents indicated what they would "really do"���accede to their friends' urgings and join them in the activity, or do something else���on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from being "absolutely sure" of nonconformity to being "absolutely sure" of conformity to peers. For a more detailed description of the instrument's derivation see Berndt (1979). Each set of 10 items formed a separate scale. Respondents, thus, re- ceived a score for neutral as well as antisocial conformity dispositions. Scores were the mean of scale item responses. They ranged from 1.00 to 6.00, with 3.50 representingthe breakpoint between a predominantly