Companion pressure is a factor amid pre-adulthood and even in adulthood

Companion pressure is a factor amid pre-adulthood and even in adulthood. Associate pressure (or social pressure) is the immediate effect on individuals by companions and companions, or a person who gets urged to take after their companions by changing their demeanors, qualities, or conduct to adjust to those of the impacting gathering or person. This sort of pressure contrasts from typical social pressure since it makes an individual change in answer to a sentiment being request or impacted from any sort of companion or associate gathering.

The present work plans to examine both the effect of companion pressure and its impact on their conduct. The examination utilizes a quantitative approach as review for the age gather 16-25 to investigate the ways and means by which the general population feel pressurized and its effect on their conduct.

INTRODUCTION

Adolescent is the time when a man is more helpless against peer pressure since peers makes an imperative effect on conduct amid young, and companion pressure has been known as a sign of high school understanding. Kids enter this period throughout everyday life and get mindful out of the blue of the other individuals around them and understand the key of recognition in their cooperations. Companion recognition in youngsters is most perceptible regarding style, taste, appearance, belief system, and qualities. Associate pressure is usually connected with scenes of young people going out on a limb in light of the fact that these activities for the most part happen in the organization of companion gatherings. Joining with companions who include in chance practices has been appeared to be a solid indicator of an adolescent’s own particular activities. Associate pressure can have constructive outcomes when youthful personalities are compelled by their companions towards a constructive conduct, for example, partaking for philanthropy, taking a shot at wellness , tending to a gigantic group of onlookers or get great outcomes in scholastics.

Associate pressure is broadly perceived as a noteworthy supporter of the start of medication utilize. Companion pressure delivers a wide cluster of negative results. Testing substances likewise happens more often than not amid youths, a period of advancement in which resilience is lower and the danger of reliance builds (Glaser, Shelton and Bree, 2010). Associates and family have a key part in advancing wellbeing amid immaturity, and additionally, the recognition that youths have of their personal satisfaction and subjective prosperity. Wellbeing does not depend entirely on the conveyance of social insurance amid ailment; despite what might be expected, impact of various settings might be critical (Gaspar and Matos, 2008).

Behavioral issues that happen amid earliest stages and puberty (especially outside issues, for example, substance utilize and viciousness practices) may proceed all through adulthood, related to social non-adjustment, substance mishandle and clashes (Bongers, Koot, Van der Ende and Verhulst, 2008). The associate gathering may on one hand, fill in as a model and impact practices and dispositions, while then again, it might give simple access, consolation and a fitting social setting for utilization (Glaser, Shelton and Bree, 2010). Social Learning Theory recommends that it isn’t important for youths to watch a given conduct and receive it; it is adequate to see that the companion assemble acknowledges it, to have the capacity to settle on comparable practices (Petraitis, Flay and Miller, 1995).

Associates may firmly decide inclination in the method for dressing, talking, utilizing unlawful substances, sexual conduct, receiving and tolerating viciousness, embracing criminal and hostile to social practices and in numerous different territories of the juvenile’s life (Padilla,
Walker ; Bean, 2009; Tomé, Matos ; Diniz, 2008). An example of this is that the main motives for alcohol consumption given by adolescents are related to social events, which usually take place in the company of friends, namely: drinking makes holidays more fun, it facilitates approaching others, it helps relaxing or facilitates sharing experiences and feelings (Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel ; Engels, 2005). Also, mimicking risk behaviors may be greater when consumption begins in the context of a social event (Larsen, Engels, Souren, Granic ; Overbeek, 2010).
Despite the positive influence of the peer group, the higher the autonomy from the peer group, the higher his/her resilience against its influence. This resilience seems to increase with age, which may mean that it is associated with youngsters’ maturity; and girls emerge in several studies as more resilient than boys (Sumter, Bokhorst, Steinberg & Westenberg, 2009). Another factor that may be found in the influence of the peer group is the type of friendship, which adolescents maintain with their peer group: if friends are close they have a greater influence on the other’s behaviors (Glaser, Shelton ; Bree, 2010). When the friendship is perceived as reciprocal and of quality, is exerts greater influence (Mercken, Snijders, Steglich, Vartiainen ; Vries, 2010).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1.What is the impact of peer pressure on an individual?
2.What are the effects of peer pressure on an individual?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

1.To understand the behavior of people amongst peer group.
2.To understand the impact of peer pressure.
3.To study how an individual behave under peer pressure?
4.To understand the existence of this in the society.

HYPOTHESIS:

People age (16 years- 25 years) go under peer pressure and it impacts their life strongly depending on the situations (positive and negative).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A young high-school kid joins a new school and is eager to make new friends. On his first day at school, he is invited over by a group who are bunking classes after the Recess and going out for a movie. The new kid knows that he would be skipping classes for the same, and if the teachers or his parents find out, he would be in trouble. But, compulsive to make new friends and be accepted in the circle, he gives in and follows up with the plan of the group and goes out to enjoy the movie.
The kid just gave in to Peer Pressure.
PEER means a group comprising of two to many members. It refers to a small group of same aged close friends usually sharing the same activities (Castrogiovanni, 2002). And, “PEER PRESSURE” can be described as the pressure exerted by a peer group in influencing a person’s attitude, behaviour, morals and many aspects of life. The pressure involves expectations or demands one to behave in a definite way. And, the power of pressure is such that it can make a person violate his/her personal standards to be liked and accepted by other members of the group. (Weiten & Lloyd, 2004). The subtler form of peer pressure is known as PEER INFLUENCE, and it involves changing one’s behaviour to meet the perceived expectations of others (Burns ; Darling, 2002). Living in a society people feel obligated to conform to the norms and perceived expectations of the groups to which they belong(Baumeister,1990) and it is more evident among adolescents (Berndt,1996). Adolescents spends most of their times in school and in activities which require them to spend much them with their peers and as such socialization may impact later social and emotional outcomes, it is very important to understand how their peer affiliation is affecting their development.
Group membership (e.g., family, religious, school, peer) is a particularly powerful socializing experience and people often change their perceptions, opinions, and behavior to be consistent with standards or expectations (norms) of the group (Forgas and Williams 2001; Kameda, Takezawa, and Hastie 2005). Gathering individuals tend to share basic states of mind and conduct and this is especially valid for pre-adult associate gatherings (Eiser, Morgan, Gammage, Brooks, and Kirby 1991). Social identity theory (Terry, Hogg, and White 2000) suggests that adolescents try on various identities and adopt the norms that are central to the social identity of the peer group to remain in good standing.
Researches and studies have shown that Peer Pressure can have both positive and negative impacts on an individual or group. To provide a useful framework for the discussion of Peer Pressure, the paper will consider these two point: the effects of positive and negative peer pressure ; the reactions of an individual and that of the group under peer pressure. Since, the effects have been found to be more profound and prominent in adolescents, the impact on adolescence behavior will be discussed in detail.
NEGATIVE EFFECTS
Developing habits of smoking, drinking, drugs and gambling are only a few of the negative effects that Peer Pressure can have on an individual or a group. Fact is that early initiation to smoking and/or drugs increases the likelihood of habituation, leading to a host of negative outcomes (Pierce and Gilpin 1995). Abrams and colleagues (2005) found that 6th graders (age=11 years) with friends who smoke were more likely over time to become intenders, experimenters, or regular smokers. Peer group influence also varies by individual characteristics including genetics, which could influence exposure to substance-using friends (Cleveland, Wiebe, Rowe, 2005); and personal attributes such as competency skills (Epstein et al., 2007), or perceptions of personal harm due to smoking (Rodriguez et al.,2007). Finally, peer influences on smoking may be moderated by strong social bonds to school and family (Ellickson, Perlman, Klein, 2003). To understand this further, we must introduce the concept of PEER SOCIALIZATION. Peer socialization is the effect of existing social relationships on the formation of social norms. With socialization, the group accepts an adolescent based on shared characteristics. To be acknowledged, the youthful goes up against the states of mind and practices of the gathering (Evans, Powers, Hersey, and Renaud 2006) It also means that socializing processes that facilitate the uptake of adolescent smoking can also discourage use (Stanton, Lowe, and Gillespie 1996). Collectively, the studies reviewed provide strong evidence for peer influence effects on adolescent smoking, suggest that selection is at least as important as socialization, and that these two processes are probably interactive. However, more can be learned about the nature of peer influence processes and how they might vary by age, gender, race, and friendship qualities and what factors mediate the relationship between adolescent and peer smoking. In this regard importance of interaction with parents cannot be dispensed with. Parental influence has frequently been found to be associated with adolescent smoking. However, associations have generally been modest (Avenevoli and Merikangas 2003). The effect of positive parenting practices may be influenced by the strength of family ties (Urberg, Luo, Pilgrim, and Degirmencioglu 2003) Parents and peers appear to provide independent effects on smoking (Simons-Morton and Haynie 2003a). However, of the few studies that have examined both peer and parent effects, most indicate that peers provide greater influences on adolescent smoking than parents (Hoffman, Monge, Chou, and Valente 2007). There is substantial peer group homogeneity with respect to adolescent smoking and other substance use. This is to say that adolescents with friends who smoke are likely to smoke themselves or to take up smoking over time. The reverse is also the case that adolescents without friends who smoke are less likely to take up smoking than adolescents with friends who smoke. Best friends appear to provide the greatest peer influence on adolescent smoking.
In today’s digital world, the medium of exerting peer pressure is not merely related to actual physical socialization but is effective using internet as well. Especially, via the SNSs i.e. Social Networking Sites. Exposure to risky online content had a direct impact on adolescents’ risk behaviours and significantly interacted with risk behaviours of their friends. These results provide evidence that friends’ online behaviours should be considered a viable source of peer influence and that increased efforts should focus on educating adolescents on the negative effects of risky online displays. Exposure to friends’ online pictures of partying or drinking was significantly associated with both smoking and alcohol use whereas adolescents with drinking friends had higher risk levels for drinking, adolescents without drinking friends were more likely to be affected by higher exposure to risky online pictures (Huang G.C. 2014).

Not only this, peer pressure plays its role in indulgence in the habit of using Ecstacy. To better understand the processes of peer influence and peer selection, in a field study 106 Ecstasy users (67M/39F, average age 25.4 years) were interviewed face-to-face in Amsterdam in 2005. In the initiation of Ecstasy use, peer influence emerged as the dominating mechanism. In the continuation of Ecstasy use, peer influence occurred reciprocally in a dynamic process. The study also confirms that peer influence is a multidimensional process: influence was quite often reciprocal (with respondents both exerting and undergoing influence) and it could have both restraining and encouraging effects on ecstasy use. (Varvaeke H.K 2008).

IMPACT ON BEHAVIOUR OF ADOLESCENTS

Impact of peer pressure on an individual is largely regulated by his perceptions. One paper recommends that most 13 year olds and numerous 11 year olds have a reasonable and nitty gritty handle of their own social guide, perceive the pecking request which is set up among their associates and know about the diverse levels of hazard taking conduct. Their remarkably consistent views about which pupils adopt or reject substance use are closely related to their perceptions of their social map (Mitchell L 1997). It is well-established that adolescents are more likely than children or adults to take risks, as evinced by elevated rates of experimentation with alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, unprotected sexual activity, violent and nonviolent crime, and reckless driving (Steinberg, 2008). But still, a litany of carefully-controlled laboratory experiments contrasted adolescent and adult capacities to perceive and process fundamental components of risk information, but found that adolescents possess the knowledge, values, and processing efficiency to evaluate risky decisions as competently as adults (Reyna ; Farley, 2006). So, the question arises: If adolescents are so risky in the real world, why do they appear so risk-averse in the lab? We propose that the answer to this question is nicely illustrated by a teenager: “…if I’m by myself and I didn’t know anybody then I wouldn’t do it. That’s no fun.” If adolescents made all their decisions involving drinking, driving, dalliances, and delinquency in the cool isolation of an experimenter’s testing room, those decisions would likely appear as risk-averse as those of adults (Dustin Albert, Jason Chein 2013). One more study confirms that crime statistics indicate that adolescents typically commit delinquent acts in peer groups, whereas adults more frequently offend alone (Zimring, 1998).

In the first experimental study to examine age differences in the effect of peer context on risky decision making (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005), early adolescents (mean age = 14), late adolescents (mean age = 19), and adults (mean age = 37) were tested on a computerized driving task, called the “Chicken Game,” which challenges the driver to advance a vehicle as far as possible on the driving course, while avoiding a crash into a wall that could appear, without warning, at any point on the course. Peer context was manipulated by randomly assigning each group of three participants to play the game either individually (alone in the room), or with two same-aged peers in the room. When tested alone, the participants from each of the three age groups engaged in a comparable amount of risk taking. In contrast, early adolescents scored twice as high on an index of risky driving when tested with their peers in the room than when alone, whereas late adolescents were approximately 50% riskier in groups, and adults showed no difference in risky driving related to social context. Peer relations are never more salient than in adolescence. In addition to a puberty-related spike in interest in opposite-sex relationships, adolescents spend more time than children or adults interacting with peers, report the highest degree of happiness when in peer contexts, and assign greatest priority to peer norms for behaviour (Brown & Larson, 2009). Peer observation also resulted in a higher rate of monetary gambles on a probabilistic gambling task, but only for participants with relatively lower self-reported resistance to peer influence (Smith, Chein, & Steinberg, 2011). The presence of peers increases risk taking among adolescents but not adults. A study (on the line of Gardner & Steinberg, 2005) posited that the presence of peers may promote adolescent risk taking by sensitizing brain regions associated with the anticipation of potential rewards. Using MRI, brain activity was measured in adolescents, young adults, and adults as they made decisions in a simulated driving task. Participants completed one task block while alone, and one block while their performance was observed by peers in an adjacent room. During peer observation blocks, adolescents selectively demonstrated greater activation in reward-related brain regions, including the ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex, and activity in these regions predicted subsequent risk taking. Brain areas associated with cognitive control were less strongly recruited by adolescents than adults, but activity in the cognitive control system did not vary with social context. Results suggest that the presence of peers increases adolescent risk taking by heightening sensitivity to the potential reward value of risky decisions.
Peers may strongly determine preference in the way of dressing, speaking, using illicit substances, sexual behaviour, adopting and accepting violence, adopting criminal and anti-social behaviours and in many other areas of the adolescent’s life (Padilla, Walker ; Bean, 2009.

POSITIVE IMPACTS OF PEER PRESSURE
Peers and family have a key role in promoting health during adolescence, as well as, the perception that youngsters have of their quality of life and subjective well-being. Health does not depend solely on the delivery of health care during illness; on the contrary, influence of different settings may be crucial (Gaspar ; Matos, 2008). Having friends allows sharing experiences and feelings and to learn how to solve conflicts. Not having friends, on the other hand, leads to social isolation and limited social contacts, as there are fewer opportunities to develop new relations and social interactional skills. Friendship is also positively associated to psychological well-being (Ueno, 2004), whilst a conflicting relation with peers is negatively associated with health (Laftman ; Östberg, 2006). Stronger friendships may provide adolescents with an appropriate environment for development in a healthy way and to achieve good academic results. Adolescents with reciprocal friendships mention high levels of feelings of belonging in school; at the same time, reciprocity and feelings of belonging have positive effects in academic results (Vaquera ; Kao, 2008).
Another factor that may be found in the influence of the peer group is the type of friendship, which adolescents maintain with their peer group: if friends are close they have a greater influence on the other’s behaviours (Glaser, Shelton & Bree, 2010). When the friendship is perceived as reciprocal and of quality, it exerts greater influence (Mercken, Snijders, Steglich, Vartiainen & Vries, 2010). Undoubtedly, friends are one of the most important contexts throughout adolescence. They prevent feelings of loneliness, influence well-being, happiness, health, they help promoting good school achievements and to acquire essential social skills for adult life (Tomé, Matos & Diniz, 2008; Hughes, Dyer, Luo & Kwok, 2009; Camacho, Tomé, Matos, Gamito & Diniz, 2010).
Research also suggests that peers can have a positive influence at all stages of drug use, including during the process of recovery. In peer support services, “peers” has a particular meaning, referring specifically to individuals who have had direct (or indirect, for example through a family member) experiences with addiction and/or recovery (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2009). Different studies support the ideas that having non-using peers is predictive of sobriety among a general population of adolescents (not in recovery; e.g., Valente, Ritt-Olson, Stacy, Unger, Okamoto, & Sussman, 2007) and also that length of sobriety is predictive of having a larger number of sober friends and a smaller number of substance using friends (among an adult population; e.g., Dennis, Foss, & Scott, 2007).
Regardless of the direction of influence, having a number of non-using friends seems to be an important resource for adolescents working to maintain sobriety. We will now consider the recovery school as a particular context within which peer influence relevant to adolescent recovery takes place. Recovery high schools are schools designed to provide an alternative ecology to students in recovery from substance use disorders by creating a space where all students are working to overcome addiction and maintain sobriety (Moberg & Finch, 2008). Recommendations from Faces and Voices of Recovery (2013) also suggest that the situation of recovery high school students within a broader recovery community might enable positive peer supports to be particularly effective. Evidence from 12-step groups suggests that similarly aged peers can be important recovery supports for one another, and students will certainly find similarly-aged peers in a recovery school (Kelly et al., 2010).
Finally, recovery high schools provide a large pool of (presumably) non-using peers who, although they do have histories of use, can develop friendships and help support one another in recovery (Richter et al., 1991).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

DESIGN:
In order to answer the research question, the study will incorporate a combination of quantitative as qualitative approach. The research includes a survey done on 215 respondents. The survey would facilitate in providing an analysis of the viewer’s choice and opinions.

Participants and Procedure:
The participants involved in the study are people between the age group of 16 years-25 years.
Survey:
A digital survey in the form of Google forms was circulated on Facebook and WhatsApp to both individuals as well as groups. 228 responses were recorded. The questions that were asked are as follows:

1.Have you ever been pressurized for things that you feel is out of your league/comfort zone?
2. If you answer yes, what have you been pressured in to?
a. Smoking
b. Taking Drugs
c. Drinking
d. Having sex
e. Driving dangerously
f. Stealing
g. Breaking the rules
h. Performing in front of people/large audience
i. Joining gym
k. Others (please specify)
3. Do you regret anytime you gave in to peer pressure?
4. What form of pressure seems to work best on you?
a. THREATS: “If you don’t do it”
b. RIDICULE: “Little baby’s scared”
c. GUILT: “After all I have done for you”
d. BRIBERY: “If you do it, I will give you”
e. REQUEST: “Please do it for me”
5. Have you ever pressured a friend in to doing something they’re not comfortable with?
6. If so, then did you realize that you’re pressurizing them or it came naturally to you?
7. Have you lied about liking something because you thought your friends would make fun of you if they know?
8. If you were influenced by peer pressure, how do you feel it affected you?
9. If you ever experienced peer pressure, so how did it impact you?
10. Peer pressure exists in the society we live in?

RESULTS

ANALYSIS:

1. A majority of 65.3% people have been pressured in to things that are out of their league/comfort zone.
2. 53.4% of the respondents stated that they’ve been pressurized into performing in front of People/Large Audience whereas 37.6% into Drinking, 31.6% in Breaking the rules and 26.3% in Smoking.
3. 52.9% people regret in giving into peer pressure.
4. 69% of the respondents feel that “REQUEST” is the kind of pressure which works best on them.
5. 57.6% of the people haven’t pressured their friend in doing something which they aren’t comfortable with.
6. For 56.8% peer pressure came naturally to them as they didn’t realize that they’re indulging in such an act.
7. 56.5% of the respondents lied about liking something because they thought that their friends might make fun of them.
8. 53.6% of the respondents got affected both positively and negatively depending on the situation whereas 22.7% positively and 18.5% got negatively affected.
9. 31.6% people got Strongly impacted by peer pressure.
10. 49.8% people agrees on the existence of peer pressure in the society.

CONCLUSION

The survey lead to the outcome that
“People (age 16 years to 25 years) experience peer pressure and it impacts their life strongly depending on the situations (positive and negative)”.
Hence, the Hypothesis has been proven correct.
Peer pressure exists in the society. It affects the adolescents and adults strongly. Pressurizing the peers in some or the manner leads to the development of the person in either ways i.e. negative or positive. Peer pressure comes naturally to a person as most of the times he/she is unaware that they’re indulging in such an act. Therefore one must choose their peers wisely as it may make or break a person.

REFERENCES

1. iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/download/12362/12682
2. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ650426
3. Point-counterpoints: Anxiety and social exclusion
RF Baumeister, DM Tice – Journal of social and clinical Psychology, 1990 – Guilford Press
4. …, M Morgan, P Gammage, N Brooks… – British journal of …, 1991 – Wiley Online Library
5. …, A Farkas, E Gilpin, C Berry, JP Pierce – JNCI: Journal of the …, 1995 – academic.oup.com
6. PL Ellickson, M Perlman, DJ Klein – Addictive behaviors, 2003 – Elsevier
7. L Steinberg – Developmental review, 2008 – Elsevier
8. D Albert, J Chein, L Steinberg – Current directions in …, 2013 – journals.sagepub.com
9. SB Låftman, V Östberg – Social science ; medicine, 2006 – Elsevier
10. E Vaquera, G Kao – Social science research, 2008 – Elsevier