Download pdf - Why We Harass Nerds and Freaks: A Formal Theory of …selfteachingresources.pbworks.com/f/Why we harass Nerds and Freaks.pdfWhy We Harass Nerds and Freaks: A Formal Theory of Student

Why We Harass Nerds and Freaks:A Formal Theory of Student Culture and NormsJohn H. Bishop, Matthew Bishop, Michael Bishop, Lara Gelbwasser,Shanna Green, Erica Peterson, Anna Rubinsztaj, Andrew Zuckerman

By a 2-to-l margin (60% to 28%), American parents say"if forced to choose, they would prefer their sons or

daughters to make C grades and be active in extracurricularactivities rather than make A grades and not be active."'Why? Certainly, they are not expecting their child to makeit into the NFL. Probably, they believe extracurricular activ-ities teach teamwork, time management, self-discipline,and other skills important later in life and on the job. Thosewho participate in sports during high school spend moretime doing homework and less time watching TV, are lesslikely to drop out of high school, are more likely to attendcollege, and earn more as an adult.

There is controversy, however, about whether the associ-ation between sports and earnings reflects a causal relation-ship or a selection effect. While sports has causal effects onschooling, effects on earnings probably result from selec-tion.̂ Regardless, getting As rather than Cs has much largereffects on high school and college completion rates andlabor market success than participating in extracurricularactivities. Nearly 99% of students with A averages (andcomparably higher test scores) in eighth grade completehigh school, while only 80% of C students graduate.' Forseniors in 1982 who planned on getting a BA degree orhigher, chances of actually achieving that goal during thenext decade were four times greater for A than C students.'*Grubb found that, holding years of schooling constant, an Arather than a C average in high school raised male earningsat age 31 by $5,549 (20%) and female earnings by $2,906(17.7%).'

If parents knew these facts, one would think they wouldchoose A grades over participation in extracurricular activi-ties. Many may not know how important academic achieve-ment is to future success. However, we suggest parentsresponding to the Gallup survey interpreted "makes Agrades and not be active" as a code for nerd or dork, whileathletics is the ticket to social status.

Coleman' was the first sociologist to examine adolescentstatus systems. In the 10 Illinois high schools he studied in1958, athletic achievement was the single most importantcriterion for high status. Tannenbaum,' who conducted asimilar study at a predominantly Jewish high school in NewYork City, asked students to react to written descriptions ofeight fictitious students. The ratings from most positive tomost negative were as follows:

1. Athlete - Brilliant - Non-studious2. Athlete - Average - Non-studious3. Athlete - Average - Studious4. Athlete - Brilliant - Studious5. Non-athlete - Brilliant - Non-studious6. Non-athlete - Average - Non-studious

John H. Bishop, PhD; Matthew Bishop, Michael Bishop, LaraGelbwasser, Shanna Green, Erica Peterson, Anna Rubinsztaj, andAndrew Zuckerman, Cornell University, Human Resource Studies Dept.,Cornell University, 390 Ives Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853; ([email protected]).This paper was prepared for the Wingspread Conference on SchoolClimate and Connectedness held June, 2003, Racine, Wise.

1. Non-athlete - Average - Studious8. Non-athlete - Brilliant - Studious.

Note how being smart was acceptable if not combined withstudiousness. Getting good grades did not get you into trou-ble with your peers, it was trying to get good grades.

Parents know adolescents can be cruel. They do not wanttheir child rejected by peers. What is it like to be denigratedby one's middle school classmates? How common is apredatory anti-teacher peer culture in junior high school?Does it typically last into high school? How do peer normsof different crowds in a school get established? Who setsthem? How are they enforced? Why are some crowds andindividuals more influential in establishing peer norms thatapply generally to all students? Why do some crowds havehigher status than others? What happens to crowds andindividuals who challenge normative dominance of thedominant/popular crowds? What are the long-term effectsof being popular/unpopular during secondary school? Whateffects do context and educational policy have on normsthat prevail in the youth culture?

These questions are being addressed by a researchprogram of the Educational Excellence Alliance. This paperdiscusses the relationship between the study behavior andacademic engagement of individual students, the norms andattitudes of close friends, and the peer culture of school. Weare particularly interested in how the academic orientationof students and their close friends invites or protects themfrom harassment by peers.

BACKGROUNDDescription of peer culture in this paper is based on

review of ethnographic studies of adolescent peer cultures,structured and unstructured interviews conducted by theauthors, and responses to survey questionnaires completedby nearly 100,000 middle school and high school studentsthe past four years. The qualitative data reflect the memo-ries of the paper's authors, most of whom had only recentlygraduated from New York State high schools in 2003, andtaped interviews of 10th graders in eight secondary schoolsserving predominantly White, upper-middle class suburbsin New York State conducted during winter 1998.

Interviewers and respondents were matched on gender.Due to time limitations, both genders were studied in onlyone school, the culture of male students at another school,and that of female students at six schools (Table 1). TheEducational Excellence Alliance collected survey data onattitudes and behavior of secondary school students at morethan 400 schools. Multivariate analysis employed datafrom surveys completed between May 1998 and December1999 by 35,000 students attending 134 schools. A copy ofthe Ed-Excel Student Culture survey instrument may beobtained from the first author.

Descriptions and hypotheses developed from qualitativeresearch were used to develop a preliminary, workingtheory of how crowd and school norms influence peerharassment, student engagement in school, how students

Journal of School Health • September 2004, Vol. 74, No. 7 • 235

choose their crowd, and why crowds and schools have thenorms that they have. Since the interview data is limited topublic schools in predominantly White, upper-middle classneighborhoods, further work remains to assure generaliz-ability. We test some of the theory's predictions using datafrom the Educational Excellence Alliance's survey ofStudent Culture, and conclude with suggestions for schooladministrators about strategies to influence the peer cultureat their school.

Students and Peer Pressure

Literature on school peer groups draws a distinctionbetween cliques and crowds. Cliques are small groups offriends who hang out together a great deal and are person-ally close. Crowds, by contrast, are larger, "reputation-based collectives of similarly stereotyped individuals whomay or may not spend much time together... .Crowd affilia-tion denotes the primary attitudes and activities with whichone is associated by peers....Whereas clique norms aredeveloped within the group, crowd norms are imposed fromoutside the group and reflect the stereotypic image thatpeers have of crowd members."'

Cliques. Clique members often share similar attitudesand behavior patterns, due in part to the influence cliquemembers have on each other. However, it also arises from

selective entry and selective exit from the clique.Sociometric studies with repeated measurement of friend-ship nominations typically fmd substantial turnover. Thesestudies also indicate students are often part of more thanone friendship circle or clique.'"*

Students uncomfortable with the norms and behavior ofa particular clique need not join. If they discover otherclique members heading down a path they don't like, theycan shift their time and attention to another circle offriends, or try to develop new friends. Consequently, highschool students must be viewed as choosing the normativeenvironment of their clique. However, selection is not thesole reason that clique members are similar in attitudes andbehavior. Cliques have norms and expectations for behav-ior. For example, a female student describes one such norm:"No getting smacked at a party, because how would it lookfor the rest of us if you're drunk and acting like a total fool?And if you do hook up with somebody at the party, pleasetry to limit it to one. Otherwise, you look like a slut andthat reflects badly on all of us. Kids are not that smart.They're not going to make distinctions between us.""

Damico'^ studied effects of clique membership on acade-mic achievement at a university lab school in Florida.Through 40 hours of observation in a six-month period, andinterviews with teachers and students, she charted the

Boynton Middle School andIthaca High School

Harbor Edge High SchoolNewport Junction High SchoolLongview High SchoolMadison High SchoolLakeside High SchoolWittison High SchoolCoso High SchoolNew York State Low-Need DistrictsNew York State Public School Average

Boynton Middle School andIthaca High School

Harbor Edge High SchoolNewport Junction High SchoolLongview High SchoolMadison High SchoolLakeside High SchoolWittison High SchoolCoso High SchoolNew York State Low-Need DistrictsNew York State Public School Average

Table 1Characteristics of High

RespondentsGender

M

FFFFF, MFF

$perStudent

$10,400

$12,100$13,400$11,500$10,700$11,600$14,100$9,000$12,500$9,800

%toCollege

88%

96%94%88%83%89%90%83%92%78%

MedianTeacherSalaiy

$42,000

$70,000$65,000$80,000

...$59,000$71,000$45,000$64,700$49,500

Schools Studied

%Poor

14%

4%2%5%4%1%6%4%3%18%

Avg.#StudentsPer Grade

450

4302601,0003307080420......

IncomeWealthRatio

1.21

1.591.87.88.792.542.101.281.861.00

%RegentDipioma

74

648055536567699278

%Hispanic

3%

6%10%4%6%10%3%1%5%18%

%Black

10%

1%7%1%3%3%1%5%3%20%

236 • Journal of School Health • September 2004, Vol. 74, No. 7

clique structure of the school's ninth grade. Aptitude testscores were unrelated to clique membership. Nevertheless,the clique a student was in was a better predictor of GPAthan an aptitude test taken during the year.

Crowds. Some stereotypic identities or crowds arerespected by most of the students at school. In mostschools, the Jocks, Preppies, and Populars represent identi-ties that carry prestige and bring power. Other crowds -Freaks, Goths, Losers, Druggies, Nerds - represent thebottom of the status hierarchy. There also are other crowdswhose status vary by school. In schools in this study, mostof the student body were floaters or did not classify them-selves as members of a distinctive crowd; they were in themiddle in terms of status and popularity. Researchers whostudy peer cultures refer to this category of students as 'thenormals.'"

Boundaries Between Crowds/CliquesCrowds represent different "identity prototypes" reflect-

ing "different lifestyles and value systems."" One youngwoman explained: "I usually sit at the same place, with thesame people. But then we usually walk around and talk toother people. I'll go and talk to the guys. But then the othergirls, I don't really talk to 'cause it's weird. It's weird'cause they're them and we're us. I can't explain it."

Crowd affiliation is most fluid at transition betweenschools, such as entry into middle school or transferringbetween schools. Many students said they were aware oftheir crowd assignment, and the assignment of most of theirfriends, within a month or so after they started middleschool. Many were not happy with the stereotypic identitythey were assigned, and tried for the next couple of years toescape. However, once classmates categorize you, changingcategorization is difficult. In small schools changing one'scrowd essentially involves convincing classmates you havebecome a different person. Downward mobility is easy forthem to recognize. Upward mobility is harder to accom-plish.

Barriers to entry into high-status crowds are oftensubstantial. Most student leaders in these predominantlyWhite, upper-middle class suburban high schools werefrom high-status, all-rounder crowds (called "Preps" inmany schools). These crowds are probably the hardest toget into. Entry typically requires one demonstrate achieve-ment in both academics and a respected extracurricularactivity. At most schools. President of the Science Club didnot qualify. For most preps interviewed, participation ininterscholastic athletics rounded out their resume and madethem eligible for the prep crowd. Cool clothes also werenecessary. Though a barrier for students from modestcircumstances, most families in these communities couldafford the additional cost of fashionable clothes.

Some activity-based crowds form around teams - cheer-leaders, traveling soccer teams, auditioned choirs,"Thespians," Math Olympics, Debate Team, and ChessTeam - that require try outs and auditions. Most high schoolathletic teams, by contrast, are open to anyone. Joining ateam and showing up regularly at practice may gain oneadmission to the crowd associated with that team. However,practices typically require 10 to 15 hours a week, sostudents are unlikely to join if they do not enjoy the sport.If not good at the sport, the student may not be acceptedinto the crowd and become the focus of jokes. At large liigh

schools, playing time may be limited. In effect, such youngpeople may be exchanging a respected position in a low-status crowd, such as the "Brains," for a disrespected role ina high-status crowd such as the Jocks or Preps. Manystudents probably doubt such an exchange would improvetheir status.

Admission to high-status crowds with a fun ideologysuch as the "populars," is typically by invitation. Evenduring the 'wannabe' phase when the aspirant is trying tobecome friends with members of the crowd, the "hangouttime commitment" can be substantial and no certainty ofsuccess exists. In addition, aspirants must demonstrate tothe crowd that they buy into the crowd's view of what iscool, who is cool, and who is not cool. As such, an aspirantmay need to abandon former friends.

These last two items are a price that everyone seeking tochange crowd affiliation must pay. Deviant low-statuscrowds, according to students, are more accepting of newrecruits than high-status crowds. However, they expect newmembers to honor the values and norms held by the othermembers of the crowd and to engage in the behaviors andwear the clothes characteristic of the crowd. Indeed, chang-ing crowds can be costly and uncertain. But staying in adenigrated identity is more costly. What are the costs?

Students rejected by peers are targets of harassment andbullying. In surveys in 1998/1999, 13.1% of boys and 6.7%of girls were "teased, insulted, or made fun of to my face""almost every day." Another 19.5% of boys and 13.3% ofgirls were insulted to their face "about once a week." Inaddition, 16% of boys and 12.7% of girls indicated that"almost every day" they were "insulted or made fun ofbehind your back." If these rates of peer harassment in EEAschools represent the nation, 2.3 million secondary schoolstudents were directly insulted just about every day theycame to school that year. Another 3.9 million students hadabout a one in five chance of being insulted to their face onany given day. Physical confrontations are less common.Almost 4% of students (an estimated 890,000 students)report being "pushed, tripped, or hurt by other students"almost every day. Another 4.3% report it happens aboutonce a week. What is causing this peer harassmentepidemic?

Bullies. Some students believe they gain prestige fromother students by harassing and humiliating weaker, less-popular students. They entice victims to their clique, thensurprise them with insults. One middle school student,trying to make sense of the behavior, said: "Maybe theylike to prove to their friends that they're cool, that they canput someone else down without [being put down them-selves]." While other qualities - good in sports, outgoing,funny, or attractive - are more important; playing andwinning the dominance game is, for some boys, a way oftrying to gain respect and prestige.

Becoming a Pariah. Being a nerd is like having acommunicable disease. One middle school student said: "Ifa 'nerd' goes over and sits next to a jock or somebodywho's really popular... - it doesn't happen very often - theywould probably tell him to leave." Students avoid hangingout with the student since it sends a signal they are a nerdas well. Thus, students who are labeled as outcasts find itdifficult to make new friends, and often lose old friends,which limits their ability to develop social skills that canhelp them get out of their predicament.'^


Submissive Outcasts. To maximize the humiliation,submissive male outcasts are typically harassed in presenceof other students.'* Humiliation comes not so much fromharassment, all students get harassed to some extent, butfrom lack of an aggressive response. Friends of victimsseldom intervene in defense, and sometimes join in theharassment in a joking manner. Friends are trying to escapetheir own outcast identity and fear that sticking up for afriend will prevent their escape. They fail to realize that notdefending a friend simply stigmatizes them as cowards.

Non-aggressive outcasts generally are smaller andweaker than kids who harass them, so a "You Wanna Fight"response is seldom chosen. Another reason why they do notrespond by starting a fight is they have been told by parentsand teachers not to respond to insults hy fighting. They donot want to lose the favorable opinion of teachers, the onlypeople in the school who they feel are on their side."

Looking Different. One student said: "This kid in ourgrade [10th grade] is really weird looking. He has really bigears and is really tall, really awkward looking. One of theseniors called him 'dumbo' and really hurt his feelings. Hewas crying. I laughed, only because it was funny. But thatkid [the senior] got [the same treatment] back... when hewas a freshman. They made him stand up on the table in hisboxers and sing 'I'm a little teapot'."

Small Size. At Newport Junction High School, a femalespent a great deal of time playing sports (15-19 hours aweek) and hanging out (10-14 hours a week). Nevertheless:"I'm picked on all the time because of my size. I guess it'ssupposed to be a joke, although sometimes I care...Justbecause I'm smaller, they know they can make fun of me.I'm not really upset - just angry." Powerful support for theproposition that stature and social status during high schoolinfluences later success in the labor market comes fromPersico, Postlewaite, and Silverman'* who demonstratedconclusively that in both Britain and the United Statesheight as a teen-ager effects future earnings. When adoles-cent height was controlled, adult height and height at agesseven and 11 had no effect. Almost one-half of the effect ofadolescent height on adult earnings was due to its impacton adolescent self-esteem and participation in extracurricu-lar activities.

Consequences of Peer Harassment. Harassmentinduces some victims to withdraw from social interaction.Harassed students respond by avoiding the people and situ-ations inflicting the harassment. Classmates laugh at some-thing they say in class, so they do not participate in classdiscussions. Some try to become invisible, walking quicklyfrom class to class avoiding opportunities to socialize.Often they avoid participating in after-school activities, andleave for home as soon as school dismisses. Such aresponse, however, makes things worse. When 60,000students at EEA schools were asked if "Studying a lot tendsto make you less popular," only 18% agreed. But 60%agreed with the proposition that "Not spending time tosocialize and hang out tends to make you less popular." Theclimate of intimidation and threat of harassment also caninduce withdrawal.

Actively Disliked and RejectedAt the large, suburban secondary schools studied," three

types of students achieved outcast status. Overly aggressiveboys poor at reading social cues, bullied others, and often

got into fights. They have made many enemies, and theirantisocial behavior makes others feel insecure. Naturally,kids avoid them. However, bullying does not always makethe bully an outcast. Verbal bullying of outcast students inthe service of the norms and identity of a popular crowd isgenerally okay, at least in the eyes of popular crowd lead-ers. Some kids bully other in hopes of being accepted by ahigh-status crowd. It's a way of proving one buys into thenorms and values of the crowd.

Some groups publicly mock the identity of the school'spopular crowds. T'hat is how groups like the Goths, Freaks,and Punks were seen by most other students. This may bethe primary reason why it is common for other students toconsider these groups as "choosing to be outcasts." Ourinterviews, conducted before Columbine, encounteredseveral cases where Freaks were being harassed. At HarborEdge Middle School, one student said: "I'm usually the onepicked on...mostly because of my [pink dyed] hair." AtLongview High School, we learned of a couple of incidentsof serious physical harassment. One student said: "We wereall hanging out... and then a couple of freaks walked by andeverybody started throwing things at them, like rocks andstuff...They just kept on walking. They just try to ignore it."

Studious, non-aggressive, socially unskilled students arefrequently outcasts. A Harbor Edge Middle School studentwho eats lunch with the popular crowd, described Nerds as"being very involved with school, asking a million ques-tions in class, and not having much fun in their sparetime...If someone asks a question and you're considered anerd, then people will be like, 'Oh, shut up!' But if you 'renot [a nerd], then no one says anything. It's a double stan-dard." Despite sympathy for the nerds, she also said, "Wellmy friends and I always makes fun of this one girl; all shedoes is study. It's like she studies for college already [10thgrade] - that's so stupid."

At Newport Junction, a school with a strong interna-tional baccalaureate program and a 94% college attendancerate, a female characterized 'dorks' as "constantly askingquestions in class." This seems to annoy other students. Sherecounted what happened in her English class: "Nobodylikes this girl. She talks and says the stupidest things whichmake everyone want to cringe. It gets out of hand, so theseboys stood up in the middle of class and shouted, 'You're aloser, just shut up and get out of this class.' The teacher hadno control." Yet, the Newport Junction students agreed thatgetting good grades did not make you a nerd. "If you'resmart you 're lucky; no one considers you a nerd as a result.Everyone wants to get good grades now because of college,so you kind of envy those who do well."

Certain types of achievement - athletic, funny, friendly,outgoing, popular, and attractive - are better in the eyes ofone's peers. However, for academics, an optimal level ofacademic effort and achievement is the norm. One is sanc-tioned for exceeding it. Brown and Steinberg note that as aresult, "Many of the most intellectually capahle high schoolstudents strive to be less than they can be in order to avoidrejection by peers."^"

SETTING NORMSWho sets the norms? Based on these findings,

cool/popular crowds establish the norms in middle schooland in some small high schools. In large high schools manycrowds exist, and the norms the leading crowd imposed in


middle school continue to influence because they effect thesorting of students into crowds. Each crowd maintains adistinct package of norms and these influence the members'behavior.

How do crowds choose norms? Norms are partiallyinherited from earlier generations of the crowd and partiallyestablished by the current leaders and core members.Popular crowds define school wide norms in ways that itreinforces the popularity and authority of the crowdmembers. If insecure students are afraid of asserting theirindividuality, they will evaluate themselves by what thesecure, confident students consider "cool." High schoolcrowds tend to value the abilities, resources, and personal-ity traits that the crowd's leadership has in common. Sincecrowd leaders exemplify the crowd's norms, self-servingbias of the leadership works to reinforce the popularity andauthority of the crowd's leadership. Individuals tend to joincrowds and cliques that have similar value systems to theirown, so a crowd's size depends on the popularity of thenormative system and identity that it exemplifies.

The views, values, and actions of the popular crowd, andits leadership represent powerful influences on the peerpressures all students endure.

Popular IndividualsNearly 100,000 students at Alliance schools were given

a list of 12 traits and asked to describe the qualities of themembers of the "most popular crowd (yourgender)...during the first year of middle or junior highschool...." Trait were ranked as: cool clothes (64%), attrac-tive (61%), funny (60%), good in sports (55%), outgoing(53%), self-confident (48%), tough (31%), not attentive inclass (24%), worked hard for grades (22%), attentive inclass (21%), smart (19%), and made fun of those who study(18%). Traits most often associated with being popularreflected services - telling jokes, entertaining, participatingin sports - that popular students provide for classmates. AnA student and a member of the "Soccer Girls," one of thepopular cliques at Harbor Edge High School, said: "Thegroup I'm thinking of probably considers themselves to bethe popular crowd. I don't know. I do sports, but maybeother people - those involved in Model Congress or WorldInterest club - consider themselves the popular ones."When asked what makes the popular crowd popular, sheindicated, "Everyone wants to have a good time, no matterwho your friends are. Sports are fun....Battle of theClasses, Sports Night, parties, hanging out...They're allgood time. The actual individuals are good people too;they're interesting, they have different talents and abilitiesand attractable themselves. [Their popularity is] not justbased on what they do."

Popular CrowdsRole Models. Popular students are role models and

exemplars of "cool." Many of their peers respect them, sotheir opinions about who and what is "cool" and who andwhat is "uncool" are quite influential. Their example influ-ences the dress, attitudes, and behavior of other studentsmuch more than parents, teachers, and school administra-tors. New entrants into middle school are particularlysusceptible to such influences. New entrants are insecure,and often hope to eventually join a high-status crowd.

Strong Social Skills. Popular crowd membership

confers opportunities to learn from the acknowledged localmasters of adolescent social interaction and to practicethese social skills. Members become better performers in amiddle school status and dominance game with very differ-ent rules than the elementary school counterpart. Sincepopular students already have been sorted into high-statuscrowds, students outside these crowds are less likely tohave someone in their group who can teach and model thebehavior needed to become popular.

Validating the Popularity of Others. Since the primarysignal of a person's popularity is who one hangs out with,reputation as a popular person depends on "being allowedto hang out with them [one of the popular crowds]." As onerespondent said, "// you 're friends with popular people,you're considered more popular." Inviting someone fromoutside the crowd to a party or including them in lunchtimeconversation may be small matter to a popular student, butit sometimes has an important positive demonstration effecton their reputation. This works for groups as well as indi-viduals. If a clique interacts with a popular group, theclique's reputation improves.

Admission Rules. Around most popular crowds there are"wannabes" actively trying to join the crowd and potential"wannabes" who would try if they thought they had areasonable chance of success. Crowd members control andlimit entry. Often, core members of a clique have the addi-tional power of blackballing potential entrants. For exam-ple, at one school, each member of a group was allowed toinvite an outsider to sit at their lunch table several times amonth, but they must meet at the lockers for other membersto approve it first, and then they cannot exceed their limit."We don't want other people at our table more than acouple of times a week because we want to bond and bond-ing is endless."'"

Attracting the Opposite Sex. Since cross-gender social-izing often occurs in reasonably stable groups, male andfemale cliques often pair up. Thus, a new romantic relation-ship can help a student gain entry into a popular clique.This gives popular students a further edge in the competi-tion for attention from the opposite sex.

Posers. "Posers" are individuals or groups who copy thedress and behavior of a high-status crowd, without being inthat crowd. By adopting the popular crowds' norms andbehaviors as their own, "Posers" assist in transmitting thenorms and values of the popular crowd to the schoolcommunity.

Power Players and Dominance by Insult. Insults fromhigh-status peers are more damaging to one's self-esteemand reputation than insults from low-status peers. Insultsfrom unpopular students can be deflected by calling themnames, like "dirt bag" or "low life," that give life to the wayothers at the school view them. Responses to taunts frompopular students is more difficult. Insults are more effectivewhen they target a vulnerability of one's opponent." Whataspect of the popular student's persona can the victimcounter-attack? The popular person exemplifies what mostof the victim's classmates respect.

Pariah Status. When an unpopular kid is harassed by anindividual from the popular crowd, "Wannabes" and"posers" may view the incident as an opportunity toimprove their status by insulting that victim. Individualpopular students can wittingly or unwittingly single outspecific students for harassment by others.


Normative Hegemony. The quickest way to change aschool's peer norms is to persuade the leaders of the popu-lar crowds that such a change is desirable. The student bodyis used to following their lead so if they advocate thechange and adjust their own behavior to the new require-ments others are likely to follow.

A distinction between membership in a popular crowdand the power of this crowd to set the normative environ-ment of the school must be noted. In small schools,students interact with all class members, so popularity isbased on one's history of interactions with classmates.However, in large schools students have only superficialcontact with a significant portion of their grade, and evenless contact with older and younger students. This is partic-ularly true in large middle schools that combine studentsfrom different elementary schools. Inside the group oneinteracts with daily, status and popularity depend on thehistory of interactions between group members. One'ssocial status and popularity outside this group, however, isdefined by the stereotype assigned to one's crowd and theoutsider's valuation of that stereotype. Crowd assignmentoccurs in the first weeks of middle school and is difficult tochange. Conformity pressures and learning effects tend togenerate contrast effects that make boundary crossing evenmore difficult.

Given the benefits of popular crowd membership, manystudents try to join one of them. By high school, however,many students at the schools studied had gotten tired of thedominance by insult game that was important in middleschool. A Longview High School student said: "The peoplewho used to make fun of other people don't anymorebecause it doesn't really matter. It's not importantanymore...because everyone's kind of grown up and every-one's beyond that now."

STUDENT CULTUREAND THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Social norms and values of students represent contestedterritory in most high schools. Learning, according to thestudents interviewed, represented only one reason forattending school. Socializing, sports, and extracurricularactivities were equally as important for many students.Other students indicated they came primarily because theywere required to by parents and the law.

Teachers often express discontent with students'commitment to learning: "lack of student interest" repre-sents the single most important reason for poor achieve-ment. Many principals feel helpless in the face of a studentculture that they sense is a more powerful influence thanthe threat of failing courses or not graduating. The principalat Longview High School said: "We have mandated extrahelp right now... Any child who fails one of the four majorsubject areas is scheduled for mandated extra help. I willtell you - they didn't go. The kids that have gone, I can onlyassume...I have to think that a kid who does go has to getsomething out of it. But, they don't go. And why don't theygo? Well, someone said, what do you do when they don'tgo ? We notify the parents. How much more discipline, howmuch more can we do? It would be an impossible task.What discipline is there if you don't go to mandated extrahelp? Well, that you'II keep failing..."

Most high school teachers enjoy the subject they teach,and hope students will find it as interesting. Some students

fit the "learning for its own sake" ideal: 42% of students inEEA high schools said they "enjoy doing math problems,"52% "like the books and plays read in English," and 37%"find the history and science textbooks interesting," Yet,48% agreed with the statement: "If I didn't need goodgrades, I'd put little effort into my studies." When all EEAstudents were asked why they worked hard in school,extrinsic reasons were cited: 77% said, "I need the gradesto get into college," 58% "Help me get a better job," and56% "Prepare myself for tough college courses."

Students are not of one mind on these matters. Differentcrowds and cliques maintain distinct priorities about learn-ing and reasons for wanting to learn. These peer groupnorms matter because "Subgroups of youths tend to begranted increasing levels of hegemony in the establishmentof social norms and values,"^'

What are these norms? We asked the 35,000 studentswho completed the Ed-Excel questionnaire during 1998-1999 the following set of questions, "Do you think yourfriends would agree or disagree with the following state-ments?" 1) It's not cool to frequently volunteer answers orcomments in class. (Agree = 19%, Disagree - 81%); It'snot cool to study real hard for tests and quizzes, (Agree =15%, Disagree = 85%); It's not cool to be enthusiasticabout what you are learning in school," (Agree = 27%,Disagree = 73%); It's not cool to be competitive aboutgrades, (Agree - 51%, Disagree - 49%); It's annoyingwhen other students talk or joke around in class, (Agree =40%, Disagree - 60%); It's annoying when students try toget teachers off track, (Agree = 42%, Disagree = 58%), Wealso asked about friends' behavior: 24% said "My friendsmake fun of people who try to do real well in school," and56% said "My friends joke around and annoy the teacher,"

A THEORY OF STUDENT PRIORITIESTo state the theory formally, we begin by laying out

notation and describing how the student's utility maximiza-tion problem is structured. We assume that students allocatetheir free time among four activities: studying or learning(T"-), extracurricular activities including sports (P), hangingout with peers(T''), and solitary leisure activities such asreading, video games, and television (T^) subject to a dmebudget constraint,

1) Time constraint = 1 = T"- + T^ + T"" -i- T ,̂Learning depends on academic ability and previous

learning (A*), quality of instruction (Q), and free timedevoted to learning (T"-),

2) Learning = Li = L(A*, Q , T"-) where Lf > 0 and Lrr < 0,Learning generates three kinds of rewards: IntrinsicRewards, J(̂ L'), refiect the joy of learning; Direct ExtrinsicRewards, $(L'), depend directly on how much the individ-ual learns during high school, and includes effects thatoperate through college admission, years of schoolingcompleted, and higher wages holding schooling constant. Italso includes the benefits parents derive from the economicsuccess of their children and the honor and presfige givento those seen as high achievers. These benefits are larger ifthe skills developed in school are signaled to universities,employers, and parents; Rank Rewards, RJ(L' - L"), dependon the extent to which the student learns more than otherstudents. This would include effect of class rank and GPArelative to the school mean (L"") on the present discountedvalue of lifetime earnings and self-esteem derived from

240 • Journal of School Health • September 2004, VoL 74, No. 7

comparisons with others.3) U'- = I(L') + $(L') + R'iV - L").4) U*(A^ T )̂ = Utility from extracurricular activities

depends on time and ability (A^).5) U''(A'', T'") = Utility from socializing depends on time

devoted and ability (A'').6) U^(T^) = Utility from solitary leisure depends solely

on time devoted to it.Students seek to avoid being harassed, insulted, teased,

and ostracized by peers. In some secondary schools a smallnumber of students who exemplify denigrated traits andbehaviors are targeted for harassment and ostracism. Thetheory treats this kind of peer harassment as punishmentwhose social purpose is to deter certain types of 'antisocial' behavior (eg, squealing on peers, competing forgrades, sucking up to teachers, deviating from the group'sdress code) and encourage 'pro social' behavior (eg, lettingfriends to copy homework). Besides avoiding harassment,students desire for popularity - have many friends, hangoutwith students in the leading crowd, etc. We are concernedwith how popularity and harassment depend on allocationof time among learning/studying, socializing, extracurricu-lar activities, and solitary leisure and on success in learning.

We hypothesize that popularity and harassment dependson four things: Accomplishment in respected extracurricu-lar activities, K A^P, where K is the valuation peers placeon sports and extracurricular achievements when they judgeanother student's popularity and decide whether to harasshim; Socializing with friends, x] AT"", where r| is the impactof socializing on peer judgments of popularity and thestudent's likelihood of avoiding harassment; Conforming topeer group norms about academic commitment andachievement, 5 (L' - L^f, where L^ is the school norm spec-ifying the optimal level of academic achievement chosen bythe leading crowd for the whole school or by the leaders ofthe crowd to which the student belongs and 5 < 0 measureshow strong conformity pressures are similar to peers inone's commitment to academic learning [5 < 0]; and Coststhat studious individuals impose on others by pushingahead of them in a competitive ranking system, captured by0 Rj(L' - L") where L" is the mean achievement level at theschool and 0 is less than zero when peers harass or ostra-cize the studious as "nerds...teachers pets...or actingWhite." When 0 = -1, the anti-nerd pressure against acade-mic effort exactly offsets losses that trying harder imposeson others R(L' - L") because greater achievement for person' i ' increases school mean achievement, L"", and lowerseveryone else's position relative to the mean (eg, rank inclass). If 0 < -1 , anti-nerd peer pressure imposes largercosts on the studious than they impose on their classmates.If students honor those who win academic competitions, 0would be positive. Schools with competitive admissionsand nearly universal participation in AP courses such asStuy vesant High School in New York City maintain a posi-tive 0 . Summarily, we have (7) an equation describing thedeterminants of harassment and popularity.

7) Hi = K A'T^ + X] AHf H- 5 (U - L")̂ + 0 R/L' - L"') + u'

Most students care about their popularity with peers.The weight, ^,, they attach to their popularity with otherstudents will, however, vary across individuals.

8) U; = J(Li) + $(L.) + Rj(L' - L"') -I- U^(A^T^) +U''(A^ T"") -I- U^(T^) -I- (t)' Hi

9) Ui = J(Li) + $(Li) + R/L' - L") + U^(A^T'') -i- U''(A^T'•)+ WiT) + (j)' [K A^T + Ti AT"" -I- 8(L' - L")̂ +0 R/L' - L")]

We then maximize (8) with respect to the time budgetconstraint (1). We obtain the following first order condi-tions for learning time, for extracurricular time, for social-izing, time and for solitary leisure time:

10) (Ji. + $j + R)Lr + 2,(1) 5 (L' - L'')Lr + (|)' 0 R L U = X

Where U\ > 0, U^^ < 0, U^ > 0, U ^ < 0, U^ > 0, U V < 0.This set of first order conditions will look familiar to

economists though less so to health care providers. Itsimply contends students will allocate time between activi-ties that equalizes the marginal utility of the last hourdevoted to each activity. The lagrangian multiplier, A,, isconventionally interpreted as the marginal utility of time.Start by looking at (12), the first order condition for timedevoted to socializing. It says individual students increasetime devoted to socializing if the utility they personallyderive from it goes up (first term) or if the popularity/pres-tige they get from socializing goes up (second term). Thepopularity benefits of socializing are higher for people whoare good at it (high on A""), when the peer group greatlyvalues it (T| increases), and when individuals are particu-larly sensitive to what peers think of them ((}), is large). Weknow that r\ is positive in most schools. Sixty percent ofrespondents in the EEA survey indicated that "not spendingtime to socialize and hangout tends to make you less popu-lar." Thus, i^tX] measures the intensity of peer pressure tosocialize and (|)|K measures peer pressure to participate inextracurricular activities. The stronger this pressure themore time will be spent socializing or participating inextracurricular activities, and the less time will be availableto study and watch TV. This is the first mechanism bywhich peer pressure discourages learning. Peers encourageeach other to hangout and reward those who do with popu-larity. Unless studying can be done simultaneously withhanging out, the result is less study time and less learning.

Schools might counter this kind of pressure by organiz-ing study groups, assigning group projects that requireface-to-face discussions outside school hours, and promot-ing extracurricular activities with an academic focus suchas debate club and interscholastic academic competitions.Time to socialize is an appeal of extracurricular activities.A portion of the time during athletic practice, chess club,and yearbook meetings is social.

The second type of peer pressure comes from the "BeLike Me" conformity pressure from the school's leadingcrowd(s) captured by 2(t),6 (L' - L"̂ ) in equation 10.Remembering that 6 is negative, this expression is positivewhen (L' - L )̂ is negative (ie, student has below averagegrades). Thus, students with low grades are encouraged totry harder and students with grades higher than those of theleading crowd are discouraged from studying. This factimplies that the least-popular students and, therefore, theones most likely to be harassed by peers, are studentswhose commitment to school is above or below the normset by the leading crowd.

This hypothesis will be tested in the empirical work tocome. In the empirical work, I assume L'̂ is the average


achievement level of students. However, our interviews andReinhold Niebuhr's dictum that groups always act in theirown self-interest suggest that a powerful leading crowd willimpose on the school a system of normative evaluations(eg, values for L'̂ ,(|),K,ri, and 0 in this model) that place itat the top of the school's prestige hierarchy. This impliesthat if popular crowd leaders set challenging academicgoals for themselves, their commitment to academicachievement will legitimate a 'study hard' norm for theirentire student cohort as occurred with Lakeside's 11thgrade and the class of 1998 in Ithaca High School.Alternatively, a few charismatic leaders promoting a funideology might have the opposite effect.

One other reason for peer pressure against studying isthe zero sum nature of the competition for good gradescaused by grading on a curve and the use of class rank as acriterion for awarding a fixed number of prizes and foradmission to competitive colleges. ([)' 0 R^ Lr is the term

that captures this effect. Fifty-one percent of EEA studentssurveyed indicated: "It's not cool to be competitive aboutgrades." Another question evaluated whether studentsbelieve that hard work by other students makes it harder forthem to get good grades. Our theory predicts that this beliefshould undermine incentives to study, and we will test thathypothesis.

Another implication of the theory is that since studentachievement is measured with error and imperfectlysignaled to the labor market, private rewards for learningwill be smaller than the social returns to learning and thiswill lead to under-investment in studying during school.This also implies that better signaling of student achieve-ment to the labor market will increase $L and this in turnshould increase student effort levels.

TESTING THE THEORYTo conduct a preliminary test of the theory, we estimated

Table 2Harassment, Study Effort and Grades in School*

[Beta Coefficients]

Study Behavior - EndogenousVerbal Harassment (SqRt #)No Try Because Friends (SqRt #)Study with Friends (SqRt #)Engagement in ClassPercent of Homework Done

Peer Pressure - Exogenous'A' Hard to Get if Others StudyHard if Others Study (School Avg.)Good Student Leading CrowdBad Students Leading CrowdNegative Peer PressurePositive Peer PressureAnnoyed When Others Disrupt(Negative Pressure - Sc Mn) SO(Positive Pressure - Sc Mn) SO(Annoyed - Sc Mn) SO(GPA - 3.0) SOPro-Learning Norm - (Sc Mn)

Student Choices and Time UseHours of Homework Per DayHours of TV Per Day# Accelerated Courses% of Honors Courses% Basic Courses% Heterogeneous Classes# of Study Halls

TeasedVerbalHarassment

»#«............

.043

...

...

.071

.100

.012+

.008+

.021

.024

.055

.027-.014+

...

...

.025

.017-.002+.006+.023

No TryBecauseof Friends

0.89MHfr

. . .

. . .

. . .

.070

.022

...

...

.160

.081

.015

...

...

...

...

.027

...

...

.001 +-.025.021.001 +-.017

StudywithFriends

...

...«**......

.025

.029

.054

...-.046.201.094.............021

...-.056.047.089-.034-.009+.011

EngagementinCiass

-.051......4 H M

. . .

-.047-.001 +.003+-.021-.065.069.188.............013+

...

...-.023.013+-.025.003+...

%ofHomeworkDone

-.055....076...IHHI

-.041-.001 +.016-.009+-.002+.051.083............-.008+

...

...

.015

.049-.035-.004+-.033

GradePointAverage

-.007+-.013.018.048.269

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

.040-.022.057.223-.054.004+-.011

SDofIndependent

Variable

3.512.463.011.00.224

.681

.118

.991.001.001.001.511.791.321.28.665

1.442.131.69.341.369.3073.42

* Analysis of data on 35,604 students from 134 schools in the Northeast that are members of the Educational Excellence Alliance. Tabledocumented in insultfin.ist. All models included three variables not shown: individual is of mixed race, data on race is missing, data onfamily status is missing. The model predicting harassment also included an interaction of middle school with Anti-Learning LeadingCrowd and with accelerated courses. A + to the right of a coefficient indicates it is not significant at the 5% level on a two-tailed test.


ordinary least squares models predicting six outcomes:Incidence and extent of teasing and verbal harassment bypeers (HARASSMENT); Incidence and frequency ofstudents admitting lack of effort on a test or project becausethey were afraid of what friends might think (NOTRY);Incidence and frequency of students studying togetheroutside school or talking with friends about what waslearned in school (STUDY TOGETHER); An indexcomprised of questions about paying attention in class,contributing to classroom discussion, and not daydreaming

(CLASSROOM ENGAGEMENT); Proportion of home-work assignments a student completes on average acrossfour core subjects (HMWK COMPLETE); and grade pointaverage on a 4.0 scale.

Our purpose is to assess how much of the variance ofpeer harassment and student study effort and engagement(the first five variables) can be predicted by the racial andsocioeconomic character of the school and backgroundcharacteristics of students and how much variance can bepredicted by the attitudes and culture of the school and of

Table 2 (continued from previous page)Harassment, Study Effort and Grades in School*

[Beta Coefficients]

School CharacteristicsMiddle SchoolGrade in SchoolAll Teachers Good (Sc Mn)All Teachers Demanding (Sc Mn)Parents Motivate (Sc Mn)Future Extrinsic (Sc Mn)

Student AttitudesIntrinsic Motivation IndexFuture Extrinsic MotivationParents Motivate Student

Characteristics of StudentSelf-Reported AbilityReported Ability (School Mean)MaleParent SchoolingParent School (School Mean)Single-Parent Family% Single Parent (School Mean)# of SiblingsBlackHispanicAsianNative American% Black (School Mean)% Hispanic (School Mean)% Asian (School Mean)

Mean Dependent VariableS.D. of Dependent VariableRMSERSQNumber of Observations

TeasedVerbalHarassment

.024

.000-1--.023-.022......

-.014-.011.055

-.002-^.018-1-.075.010-1-.018+.019-.023+.001-t-.007-1--.021-.030.015.011-1-.000+-.022

3.4253.5133.374.062424,772

No TryBecauseof Friends

.026-.016+-.002+.008+-.022.000+

.001 +-.031.007+

-.081.008+.063.002+-.023.020.013+.033.044.011 +.029.023-.047.007+-.011+

.8492.4612.21.087427,190

StudywithFriends

.032

.020

.026

.029

...

.00

.151

.017

.017

.045

.006-.034.043.066-.009+-.011 +.005+.001 +-.006+-.004+.010+-.035-.002+-.005+

4.2833.0142.64.221526,917

st

EngagementInClass

.017+-.067.044.050...-.004+

.292

.090-.004

.114

.003+-.004+.040-.002+-.025-.002+-.025-.027-.017

-.on-.020-.039-.003+.037

.0171.01.817.303126,313

E

%ofHomeworkDone

-.013+-.106.018.028

.021

.199

.135

.000+

.077-.013+-.043.072.000+-.056-.069-.062-.026-.037.006+-.020.000+-.002+.001 +

.818

.224

.190

.231227,443

h

GradePointAverage

.078-.003+-.001 +-.039

...

...

...

...

.213-.036-.076.070-.009+-.057-.007+-.045-.097-.024.009-.002+.019+-.052-.016

2.97.84.593.46525,677

SDofIndependent

Variable

.320

.980

.251

.192

.218

1.001.021.00

1.97.419.4982.891.19.408.1221.50.316.192.210.075.172.073.061

• Analysis of data on 35,604 students from 134 schools in the Northeast that are members of the Educational Excellence Alliance. Tabledocumented in Insultfin.lst. All models included three variables not shown: individual is of mixed race, data on race is missing, data onfamily status is missing. The model predicting harassment also included an interaction of middle school with Anti-Learning LeadingCrowd and with accelerated courses. A + to the right of a coefficient Indicates it is not significant at the 5% level on a two-tailed test.


the student's clique. Tbe final model uses the peer harass-ment variable and study effort and engagement variables topredict grade point average. Peer culture and attitudestoward learning will be assumed to influence this finaloutcome, student GPA, only through their effects on peerharassment, study effort and engagement.

Control VariablesControls for student background include gender, grade

in school, a dummy variable for seventh or eighth grade,parent's education, number of siblings, living in a single-parent family, self-reported ability, dummy variables forbeing African American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American,mixed etbnicity, and did not answer questions about race.Controls for scbool characteristics included mean forparents' education, proportion of students in single-parentfamilies, African American students, proportion Hispanicstudents, proportion Asian students, mean self-reportedability of students, mean for the school on the 'teachers aredemanding' index, and mean on tbe 'teachers are interest-ing and motivating' index. School means on the 'parentsmotivate me' index and 'future extrinsic motivation' indexwere included in the models predicting study effort andengagement. Items included in each of the attitude indicesmay be obtained from the first author.

The curriculum track pursued by students was controlledby including number of accelerated courses taken in middleschool, share of the semester's courses that were honors orAP courses, share of 'basic' courses or local in New YorkState parlance, share of heterogeneous or mixed courses(share of college prep courses was the excluded category),and number of study halls. To prevent overestimation of the

effects of clique norms and attitudes, controls for student'sself-reported motivation were included: intrinsic motiva-tion, future extrinsic motivation, and parents motivate meindex.

HypothesesThe primary focus was the effect of student culture.

Students experience a school culture specific to their gradeand gender, and to the attitudes and norms of their clique ofclose friends. Researchers attempted to measure both. Anoverall pro-learning school environment index wasconstructed by taking an average of the intrinsic motivationscale, positive peer pressure scale, and the 'it's annoyingwben students joke around scale' for the student's grade,gender, and school. We expect a pro-learning environmentto be associated with less harassment, fewer students sayingthey do not try, more studying together, and greater engage-ment in school.

We also calculated a grade/gender/school average ofanswers to "If others study bard, it is harder for me to getgood grades." This variable measured the belief within thestudent body that they are engaged in a zero sum competi-tion with their classmates. We expect it to have a negativerelationship with engagement and homework completionand a positive relationship with harassment, NOTRY andstudy together. The reason for this last prediction is ourexpectation that students will want to learn from thesmartest student in their friendship circle and to monitorhow hard others are studying when they perceive theirschool to have a competitive grading system. Other studentculture variables are measured at the clique level. Thesevariables are scales constructed by averaging normalized

Figure 1

Friends' Attitudes

Negative Peer Pressure

Positive Peer Pressure

Annoyed by Disruption

iMy Attitudes

A's Harder to Get if Others Study

Future Extrinsic Motivation

Piease Parent(s) Motivation

Intrinsic Motivation

Anti-Learning Crowd

.100 ^

.012 ^

.008 ..w

.043 fc.w-.011 ^

.055 ^

-.014 ^

Deviation of Positive Peer,Annoy, Intrinsic, and GPAfrom School iUean

.Xi?8

VerbalHarassment

1 1 i

.041

SocloeconomicStatus

of Schooi

-.055

TeachersDemanding and

Motivating(School Mean)

/

i-.om

Pro-LearningAttitudes

(Schooi Mean)

School Characteristics

244 • Journai of School Health • September 2004, Vol. 74, No. 7

answers to two to six questions about the attitudes andnorms of friends.

Scales were developed for negative peer pressure, posi-tive peer pressure, annoyed when others joke around inclass, the middle school leading crowd was anti-learning,and the leading crowd was pro-learning. Our theorypredicts that negative peer pressure and anti-learning lead-ing crowd will have a positive relationship with harassmentand NOTRY, and a negative relationship with engagementand homework completion. We also predict that positivepeer pressure, the annoyed when others joke around scale,and pro-learning leading crowd will form a positive rela-tionship with studying together, engagement, and complet-ing homework. The final peer pressure variable assessedstudent beliefs about whether it's harder for them to getgood grades when others study hard. We expect this to havea positive relationship with harassment, NOTRY, studyingtogether and a negative effect on engagement and home-work completion.

The final set of peer culture variables measured devia-tion from the school-wide norm of the student's GPA andhis clique's academic commitment - positive peer pressure,annoyed when others joke around scale and negative peerpressure (reflected). We expect students who significantlydeviate from school norms on these variables will experi-ence more harassment. We have no reason to expect cliqueacademic commitment variables to have a curvilinear effecton the other outcomes studied, so squared deviations fromschool norms were not entered in any of the other models.

Table 2 contains standardized regression coefficientsfrom models predicting all six outcomes. A '-I-' to the rightof a coefficient implies the effect is not statistically signifi-cant (at the 5% level on a two-tail test). Column 7 of Table

2 provides standard deviations (SD) of independent anddependent variables.

RESULTSPeer Harassment

Average annual number of incidents of verbal harass-ment was about 23. 'Behind your back' insults (34 per yearper student) were more common. Boys experienced moreharassment than girls. Hispanics and Asians experiencedless than Whites and African Americans. Children of well-educated parents, students in high SES schools, andstudents in middle schools were more likely to experienceinsults and teaseing. However, the demographic characteris-tics explained only 2.1 % of the variance.

When student attitude and peer pressure variables wereadded, variance explained by the model tripled butremained low at 6.2%. Figure 1 contains the main findingsfrom the analysis of the attitudinal and cultural predictorsof peer harassment. Attitudes and beliefs of students arearrayed on the left underneath the norms of the student'sclique. School characteristics are arrayed along the bottom.School SES effect reported there is the sum of the betacoefficient on the parent's schooling and Beta coefficientfor the proportion of students living with both parents. Theeffect reported for teachers is the sum of the Beta coeffi-cients on the teachers are demanding and the teachers aremotivating index. When we report the effect of a schoolaverage of student attitude scales the effect reported [inbrackets in this case] is what would happen to the depen-dent variable in standard deviation units if student attitudesin the school/gender/grade went up by one student standarddeviation.

Most of the hypotheses were supported. Incidence of

den

tsnt

Per

Yea

rnb

er o

f In

ci1

Har

assm

eN

urof

Ver

ba

50

45

40

30

OK

20

- 4 ^ : ; ; ; ; ;

• • • • • + + •

-2 -1.7 -1.4

with

•A•+

It

-1.1

Figure 2Peer Harassment's Association

the Pro-Leaming Attitudes of One's Clique

Annoyed by Disruption Index

Negative Peer Pressure Index Times (-1)

Positive Peer Pressure Index

GPA

Annoy + GPA + Positive Peer Pressure Effects

: - . ^ . : N M :.:t

-0.8 -0.5 -0.2 0.1 0.4 0.7

Deviation from Sciiool Average (Standardized)

• • • +

•

1 1.3

: : ; +

: • ) • : :

+

A * i *

1.6

. +

• •

• •1.9


harassment was lower in schools with demanding and moti-vating teachers. Incidences were greater for honorsstudents, students with many study halls, and students who

took accelerated courses in middle school. Peer harassmentrates were greater for students who reported an anti-learn-ing leading crowd in middle school and for students who

Figure 3

Verbal Harassment

.100 .089

Friends' Attitudes




My Attitudes



Please Parent(s) Motivation

intrinsic Motivation

.160 ^

.081 w

.015 ^

.070 ^

-.031 ^

.000 ^

.000

-.010 /

SocioeconomicStatus

of School

Didn't Try HardBecausei Worried

WhatiVIy FriendsMight Think

/ ' [-.13]

PleaseParents

Motivation(School Mean)

[.120] \

Pro-LeamingAttitudes

(School Mean)

^[.130]

A's Harderto Get If

Others Study(School Mean)


Figure 4

Pro-Learning Leading Crowd

.054

Friends' Attitudes




-.046

.201 ^

.094 k

My Attitudes





.025

.017

.017

.151

.055

SocioeconomicStatus

of School

- •

- •- •

Study Togetherand Taik withFriends About

What WasLearned

in Schooi

.055


Motivating(Schooi Mean)

[.095]

Pro-LeamIngAttitudes

(School Mean)

\[.167]

A's Harderto Get if Others

Study(Schooi Mean)



believed they were being graded on a curve. Students highon the negative peer pressure index [one of whose items is'my friends make fun of those who try to do real well inschool'] were also harassed much more frequently (Figure2). Compared to the baseline of incidence of 30 per year,students who were 1.5 SDs above the mean (93rdpercentile) on the negative peer pressure index wereharassed 41 times a year. Those hanging out in cliques thatwere 1.5 SDs below the mean on this scale were harassedonly 24 times a year on average.

A GPA significantly above or below the school norm ledto increased harassment. When a clique's commitment toacademic achievement (positive peer pressure and annoyedwhen others joke around scales) deviates significantly fromthe school norm, the members also experience more harass-ment. How strong is the pressure for conformity to schoolnorms? Figure 2 presents a calculation of how much harass-ment increases as a student deviates from school norms onthese four indices. We picked 30 insults a year of each kindas the baseline level of harassment received by studentswho were at the school mean on GPA, positive peer pres-sure and 'annoyed when others joke around.' Holding nega-tive peer pressure constant, students who were 1.5 SDsabove the mean (93rd percentile) on GPA and the commit-ment indices were harassed 43 times a year, a 42% increasefrom the baseline student. Students hanging out in cliquesthat were 1.5 SDs below the school mean on GPA andacademic commitment were harassed about 39 times a yeara 30% increase over the baseline level.

Not TryingWhen directly asked whether "I didn't try as hard as I

could in school because I worried about what my friendsmight think?", 80% said it had "never" happened. For thosewho said it had happened at least once, number of instanceswas 28 per year on average. What are the characteristics ofthe students who report consciously reducing effort becauseof a fear of how friends might react? They are more likelyto be middle school students, male, to be Native American,Asian, Hispanic or African American, to live with only oneparent, to have many siblings and to have parents with lessschooling. Incidence of NOTRY is also lower in high-SESschools, and schools with larger numbers of AfricanAmerican students. However, these variables explain only2.3% of the variance of the square root of the frequency ofnot trying.

What are the effects of peer pressure and norms on nottrying? When peer pressure variables are added to themodel, 8.8% of the variance is explained. Figure 3 presentsthe main findings from the analysis of the determinants ofnot trying hard because of a fear of a negative reaction byfriends. The most powerful determinant of not trying wasbeing in a clique where negative peer pressure was strong.Not trying because of fear about how friends would reactwas higher for students who were frequently harassed andfor students who believed that "If others study hard, it'sharder for me to get good grades." Surprisingly, students incliques with strong positive peer pressure were also morelikely to report not trying as were students in schools thathad strong pro-learning norms. Schools where many of thestudents reported working to please and impress theirparents had fewer instances of not trying. In addition,schools where many students believed they were being

graded on a curve also had significantly higher incidence ofnot trying.

Studying/Talking with FriendsStudying with friends and talking about what you have

learned outside of class is more common for girls, for thoseliving with two well-educated parents, for middle schoolstudents, and in high-SES communities. Studying also posi-tively correlated with self-reported ability. These variables,however, explain only 7% of the variance of square root ofthe frequency of studying together variable.

When peer culture scales and the student course takingpatterns and attitudes are added to the regression, varianceexplained rises to 22%. Studying together was morecommon for students in honors courses and for studentswho had taken accelerated courses in middle school. Figure4 presents findings from their analysis of the effects ofstudent motivation and peer pressure. Incidence of studyingtogether after school is higher in schools with demandingand motivating teachers, schools with a pro-learningstudent culture, and schools with a pro-learning leadingcrowd in seventh grade. As hypothesized, studying togetherwith friends was more common in schools where studentsthought they were graded on a curve.

Students with high levels of intrinsic motivation weremore likely to study with friends. Students motivated toimpress parents or get into college and obtain a good jobwere only slightly more likely to study with friends. Thenorms and attitudes of one's clique significantly affectedstudying together. Positive peer pressure and "annoyedwhen others joke around" had a strong positive relationshipwith studying together. Negative peer pressure had a nega-tive relationship.

Classroom EngagementClassroom engagement is lower for male students,

students from single-parent families, students whoseparents have limited amount of schooling, and studentswith many brothers and sisters. Holding school characteris-tics constant, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asiansrecorded the same level of engagement as Whites. OnlyNative American and mixed-ethnicity students were signifi-cantly less engaged. Schools with the highest levels ofengagement had large Asian, African American, andHispanic minorities, and schools serving the children ofpoorly educated parents. Findings suggest disengagementfrom school is not a problem confined to minority commu-nities and low-income neighborhoods. These variables,however, explain only 7% of the variance of the engage-ment index.

When peer culture scales, attitudes, and self-reportedability were added to the regression, variance explainedrises to 30.3%. Engagement is higher for more-ablestudents and lower for students in basic classes. It is higherin middle school and in the early grades of high school andin schools with motivating and demanding teachers. Figure5 presents findings from analysis of the effects of studentmotivation and peer pressure. Intrinsic motivation has apowerful positive effect on engagement as does futureextrinsic motivation. Students motivated by a desire toimpress their parents were not more engaged in class.

Peer pressure effects also were substantial. Students incliques annoyed when others joked around in class were


more engaged. Positive peer pressure had the expectedpositive effect and negative peer pressure a negative effect.Engagement was lower for those who believed they were

graded on a curve and for students who were frequentlyverbally harassed by peers. An anti-learning leading crowd inseventh grade also was associated with lower engagement.

Figure 5

Anti-Learning Leading Crowd

.071

Verbal Harassment

Friends' Attitudes



Annoyed by Disnjption

-.065 ^

.069 ^

.188 ^

iVIy Attitudes



Please Parent(s) Motivation


-.047 ^

.090 ^

-,004 ^

.292 ^1 1 - ^

-.004+

Engagementin

Class

SocioeconomicStatus

of Schooi(School Mean)

.094


Motivating(School Mean)

Schooi Characteristics

Figure 6

Study and Taii< with Friends

Verbal Harassment

Friends' Attitudes



Annoyed by Dismption

.000

.051 ^

.083 ^

iVIy Attitudes





-.041 wW

.135 ^

.000 ^

PercentHomework

Done

.199 J1 1 - ^ A

+.069/

SocioeconomicStatus

of School(School Mean)

.046


Motivating(Schooi Mean)

[.096] \

FutureExtrinsic

(Schooi Mean)

^ 0 . 0 0

NegativePeer Pressure(School Mean)



Completing Homework AssignmentsProportion of homework assignments completed is

lower for male students, students from single-parent fami-lies, students whose parents have limited amounts ofschooling, and students with many brothers and sisters.Hispanics and Native Americans completed less homework,Asians completed more. Homework completion was higherfor more-able students and students in honors classes.Students with many scheduled study halls complete lesshomework. Completion rates were higher in schools withonly a few single-parent families and in schools with inter-esting and demanding teachers but decline as the studentprogresses through high school. These demographic vari-ables explain 8.3% of variance of homework completion.

When peer culture scales, attitudes, self-reported ability,and course taking patterns are added to the regression, vari-ance explained rises to 23.1%. Figure 6 presents main find-ings from analysis of effects of student motivation and peerpressure. Intrinsic motivation has a powerful positive effecton Homework completion as does future extrinsic motiva-tion. Students motivated by a desire to impress their parentsdid not complete more of their homework.

Peer pressure effects also were substantial. Students incliques annoyed when others joked around in class and thatencouraged each other's learning were more likely tocomplete homework. Negative peer pressure had no effect,suggesting that when a school activity is done in private,negative peer pressure attitudes of one's clique have littleeffect. Students who studied with friends completed alarger share of homework. Homework completion waslower for those who believed they were graded on a curveand for students who were frequently verbally harassed bypeers. A pro-learning leading crowd in seventh grade wasassociated with higher rates of homework completion.

Grade Point AverageParent's schooling and living with both parents both had

positive effects on GPA. African Americans, Hispanics, andstudents with many siblings had lower GPAs. AsianAmerican students had higher GPAs. Mean GPAs werehigher in middle schools and schools with large shares ofAsian American or African American students. Schoolsserving communities with well-educated parents did nothave a tendency for better grades. These demographic vari-ables explained 16.4% of the variance of GPAs. When self-reported ability and course taking patterns were added tothe regression, variance explained rose to 35.2%. Studentsin accelerated classes in middle school and currently inhonors classes had higher GPAs.

The final regression predicting GPA reveals how the fivestudent behavior indicators combine to generate a teachersoverall judgment of student performance. Attitudes andpeer norms were assumed to influence GPA only throughtheir effects on study behavior, so they were left out of theregression. Adding study behavior indicators to the regres-sion increased the explained variance to 46.5%. Proportionof homework completed generated a larger effect on GPAthan other effort indicators. Increasing the proportion ofhomework done by one standard deviation (.224) increasedGPA by .23 or more than one-third of the within schoolstandard deviation of GPA. Classroom engagement was thesecond most important effort-related determinant of GPA.Harassment by peers had no direct negative effect on GPA.

However, since harassment influenced engagement andhomework completion it has indirect negative effects onGPA. Studying together had direct and indirect effects(through homework completion) on GPA.

IMPLICATIONSThis paper addresses two of secondary education's most

serious problems - peer abuse of weaker, socially unskilledstudents, and a peer culture that discourages some studentsfrom trying their best academically. Two problems weredocumented by reviewing ethnographies of secondaryschools, by interviewing students in eight New York Statesuburban high schools, and by analyzing data from ques-tionnaires completed by 35,000 students at 134 schools.Based on these observations, a simple mathematical modelwas created of peer harassment and popularity and of thepressures for conformity created by the struggle for popu-larity.

The theory and data analysis suggest that, while the twoproblems are related, solving one will not necessarily solvethe other. Nerds and Geeks represent one of many groupsof outcasts in secondary schools. If suddenly it was cool tobe a Geek, other groups would still be targeted for harass-ment, and the Nerds would likely participate in the harass-ment with everyone else. Nevertheless, the oppression thatnerds experience sends powerful normative signals to otherstudents to withdraw from alliances with teachers and getwith the program of becoming popular with peers. "Be likeus," the 'populars' say. Spend your time socializing, do not"study too hard;" value classmates for their athletic prowessand attractiveness, not their interest in history or accom-plishments in science.

What do students so dislike about the students theyoutcast as nerds and geeks? They tell us it's the nerds' fault.They do not socialize much, "say stupid things," havegeeky interests, wear unstylish clothes, are competitiveabout grades, talk too much in class, and lack self-confi-dence. These indeed are the stereotypes. However, achicken and egg problem exists. Students identify nerds inthe first weeks of middle school. Once singled out, they aresubjected to harassment intended to wear down their self-esteem. Is it any wonder they lack self-esteem, leave schoolat 3 pm, and hang out with other geeks? Perhaps theystarted out being a little different then the harassment andostracism turned them into the stereotypical nerds.

Changing the School Culture. Requiring adolescents toattend an institution where they are regularly bullied byclassmates is unjust. While some parents respond bymoving to another town or enrolling their child in privateschool, most cannot afford that option. In time, some parentmay successfully sue a school district over the issue.

Harassing the students also poisons the pro-learningenvironment educators attempt to establish. To manystudents, nerds exemplify the "I trust my teacher to help melearn" attitude prevalent in elementary school. The domi-nant middle school crowd is telling them that trustingteachers is baby stuff. It's 'us' versus 'them.'

How can schools and teachers meet this challenge?Schools must vigorously defend the position that school isfirst and foremost about learning, and students are expectedto work hard. EEA schools with the most-demanding teach-ers reported significantly lower levels of peer harassment;students studied together more frequently, were more


engaged in class, and completed homework more regularlySchools high on the teachers are motivating index alsorecorded lower levels of harassment and higher levels ofengagement and homework completion. The first best solu-tion is for teachers to take over normative leadership of theschool and make working hard the norm, as at KIPPAcademy middle schools:

The cool kids in our school are kids who work hard,because we as adults have made sure that to be "in "you have to work hard. We have an extensive systemof rewards and consequences that every teacher inevery grade administers the exact same way. Theconsistency from classroom to classroom and acrossgrade levels is the key, and it has helped us to estab-lish that culture of hard work. We are all workingtogether and have been successful because, to befrank, we haven't allowed kids, who in the past mayhave gotten away with not doing any work or whomay have put other kids down for being nerdy or toostudious, the opportunities to become "cool" or "in."Our discipline is firm; if you don't work hard youdon't get to sit with your friends at lunch, go on fieldtrips, participate in gym class, attend special events,etc., and we, the adults, are all on the same page withthis. It's hard to set the norms when you are not theone participating. On the fiip side, if you do workhard, then you will be rewarded in fun ways—pizzaparties, skating trips, things like that. So, to have funand fit in, kids must adapt, they must work hard.You 're probably saying to yourself that this doesn 'tsound like your traditional middle school and whywould any kid want to put in such hard work. But thekids love it here, because they are discovering thatgreat things happen to people who work hard. Andthey want to be included. (Dean of Students at a KIPPAcademy).KIPP academies are non-selective choice schools that

run from 8 am to 5 pm during the 180-day school year,schedule compulsory Saturday enrichment programs threetimes a month, and convene a three-week summer school.Students commute from all over the city. During thesummer prior to first-time entry to the school, new studentsspend a couple of weeks in skill-building exercises, learn-ing the KIPP culture, and bonding with future classmatesand teachers. The goal is to develop the skills and knowl-edge necessary to gain admission to and succeed in aprivate or charter high school. If they achieve at therequired level, they will all make it into good high schools.

However, when students and parents are not choosingthe middle school, as in regular public schools, establishinga strong adult-dominated, academically focused studentculture is more difficult. For certain types of achievement -athletic, funny, friendly, outgoing, popular, and attractive -more will always be better in the eyes of peers. However,when it comes to academics, peer pressure sets a norm - anoptimal level of academic effort - that seeks to preventmany students from achieving all they are capable of acade-mically. How do policy makers get serious engagementwith learning to be normative among students? Niebuhr'sdictum provides us with a number of avenues.

Leading crowds, and other crowds as well, can becounted on to promote norms that reflect their own inter-ests. If the leading crowd is taking learning seriously, peer

norms about the optimal level of academic effort will shiftup and the whole school will be pulled to a higher level.Thus, all of the instruments for persuading individuals totake on academic challenges and study harder - hiringcompetent and demanding teachers, state or departmentalend-of-course exams, minimum competency exam gradua-tion requirements, higher college admissions standards,increases in payoffs to schooling and learning, etc.- willhave the same effects on peer norms that they have on theincentives faced by individuals.

An anti-learning peer culture is likely to develop ifstudents perceive academic classrooms to be zero-sumgames that pick winners and losers but cannot make every-one better off. To avoid this, the academic enterprise needsto be and needs to be perceived to be a positive sum gamein which everyone can succeed. Teachers should not gradeon a curve. Grades should be based on student effort(completing homework assignments), good discipline (notdisrupting the learning of others), and absolute achievement(quiz and test results). Schools should not publish or callattention to class rank. Course content assessed externallyby state department of education standards or advancedplacement program also is desirable.

Set College Completion as a Common Goal. Almost allmiddle school students aspire to attend college - even thosewith poor basic skills." Middle schools should encouragethis universal aspiration by taking students on trips to localcolleges, briefing parents on financial aid options, andinviting former students to talk about the enjoyable aspectsof college life and the importance of studying in secondaryschool. All students should be presumed to have college asa goal, including children from disadvantaged families.Many students do not realize the academic foundationdeveloped in high school is critical to success in college.Once this mistaken belief is corrected, students will bemore motivated to take demanding courses and study hard.

Teachers should make a special effort to persuade lead-ers of influential student crowds to set particularly demand-ing personal goals (eg, attending the state's top publicuniversity or a competitive private college). If the leader-ship and core members of the leading crowd are trying toget into competitive colleges, they will need to take honorsclasses and work hard in them. This will tend to makestudying and contributing in class normative and willencourage other students to raise their aspirations andcommitment to academics.

Encourage Academic Competition Among Schools.Band, choir, theater, cheerleading, and athletic programsreceive enthusiastic community support because the organi-zations represent the school to neighboring communities,and student achievement in these arenas are visible to thecommunity and student body Academic extracurricularactivities need to harness the energy and school spirit thatinter-school rivalry and public performance generate.Individual states and foundations should establish inter-scholastic team competitions in academic subjects and foractivities like debate, constructing robots, and the stockmarket game.

As many students as possible should participate, and allstudents who practice regularly should be given a valuedrole. This goal can be accomplished by arranging separatecompetitions for each grade, increasing the size of teams,and allowing schools to field larger teams or more than one


team. Academic teams should be celebrated in pep rallies,awards ceremonies, homecoming parades, trophy displays,and local newspapers with the school's sport teams. Asixth-grade team should begin training the first week ofmiddle school. Starting early encourages the creation oflarge academically oriented friendship networks to givethose groups a positive identity and accomplish this whilethe social order is still fluid.

Promote Normative Pluralism as Preferable toNormative Hegemony by a Leading Crowd. In someschools, a tight knit group of 'populars' wielded normativehegemony over students in their grade. This centralizationof normative hegemony in a student group that is typicallydominated by athletes, cheerleaders, and students with afun ideology undermines teacher efforts to develop a pro-learning culture. Students who devote time to academiclearning not sports and socializing are viewed as anti-social"rate busters" by the leading crowd and are often harassedand ostracized. A leading crowd that holds normative swayover the entire student body and has the power to marginal-ize students who study 'too hard' will be able to set a lowertarget L'̂ , pulling down effort levels of all students.

If, by contrast, a school has several leading crowds andthose excluded from the leading crowds have formedgroups of their own, leading crowds are less able to imposetheir norms on everyone else. In this pluralistic normativeenvironment students who like science or who aspire to getinto competitive colleges can find a group of like mindedfriends and insulate themselves to some degree from peerpressures against studiousness. Target learning levels, L",will be set by each crowd, but the average of these levelswill be higher than when one leading crowd sets norms foreveryone. Where it is not feasible to establish a schoolwide, pro-learning normative environment, as the KIPPAcademies have done, a pluralistic student culture is thenext best outcome.

Institute No Pass-No Play. Eighty-five percent of highschools have a minimum GPA requirement for interscholas-tic sports participation. A clean disciplinary record - nodrugs, alcohol, or fights - also is typically required. Suchpolicies have both practical and symbolic effects. Academicsupport is offered to athletes struggling academically. Someathletes are induced to study harder. Others either avoidparties where drugs and alcohol will be consumed or attendwithout imbibing. Since athletes form the nucleus of thepopular crowds of most schools, their behavior influencesthe behavior of everyone else.

Another effect of these policies is on the makeup of theteam. Students who are unable or unwilling to keep theiraverage above the required minimum are either benched orcut from the team. The composition of the popular crowdschanges and, as a result, norms promoted by the leadingcrowds become more favorable to academic learning. Ourfmal suggestion for school administrators, therefore, is toreinvigorate their no-pass, no-play policy and extend it to

cheerleading and possibly to other high prestige extracur-ricular activities where students represent the school tosurrounding communities. I

References1. Rose L, Gallup A, Elam S. The 29th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup

Poll of the Publics Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Phi DeltaKappan. 1997;September:41-56.

2. Barron JM, Ewing BT, Waddell GR. The effects of high schoolathletic participation on education and labor market outcomes. Rev EconStat. 2000;83(3):409-421.

3. Bishop J, Mane F, Bishop M, Moriarty J. The role of end-of-courseexams and minimum competency exams in standards-based reforms. In:Ravitch D, ed. Brookings Papers on Education Policy. Washington, DC:The Brookings Institution; 2001:267-345.

4. Rosenbaum J. Beyond College for All. New York, NY: Russell SageFoundation; 2001:67.

5. Grubb N. The varied economic returns to postsecondary education:new evidence from the national longitudinal study of the class of 1972. JHuman Resources. 1993;28(2):365-382.

6. Coleman J. The Adolescent Society. New York, NY: Free Press;1961.

7. Tannenbaum AJ. Adolescents' Attitudes Toward AcademicBrilliance [dissertation]. New York, NY: New York University; 1960.

8. Brown BB. Peer groups and peer cultures. In: Feldman SS, ElliotGR, eds. At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press; 1990:171-196.

9. Kandel D. Homophily, selection and socialization in adolescentfriendships. Am J Sociology. 1978;427-436.

10. Cohen JM. Sources of peer group homogeneity. Soc Educ.1997;50:227-241.

11. Talbot M. Girls just want to be mean. The New York Times,Magazine section, Feb. 24, 2002.

12. Damico SB. The effects of clique membership upon academicachievement. Adolescence. 1975;10(37):93-100.

13. Brown B, Lohr MJ, Tnijillo C. Multiple crowds and multiple lifestyles: adolescents' perceptions of peer-group stereotypes. In: Muuss RE,ed. Adolescent Behavior and Society: A Book of Readings. New York,NY: Random House; 1990:30-36.

14. Brown BB. Peer groups and peer cultures. In: Feldman SS, ElliotGR, eds. At the Threshold: the Developing Adolescent. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press; 1990:171-196.

15. Sandstrom MJ, Coie JD. A developmental perspective on peerrejection: mechanisms of stability and change. Child Dev. 1999;70(4):956.

16. Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Coie JD. The emergence of chronic peervictimization in boys' play groups. Child Dev. 1993;64:1755

17. Bishop JH. Nerd harassment, incentives, school priorities andlearning. In: Mayer S, Peterson P, eds. Earning and Learning: HowSchools Matter. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1999:231-280.

18. Persico N, Postlewaitte A, Silverman D. The effect of adolescentexperience on labor market outcomes: the case of height. University ofPennsylvania; 2001:1-37.

19. Eder D, Evans C, Parker S. School Talk. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press; 1995:1 -198.

20. Brown BB, Steinberg L. Academic Achievement and SocialAcceptance. 1990:60.

21. Cairns RB, Cairns BD. Lifelines and Risks: Pathways of Youth inour Time. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1994:91.

22. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of EducationStatistics, 1993:137.
