Long-term benefits of social ties to peers – even among adolescents with ‘risky’ friendships?

Abstract

Applying the theoretical framework of social capital, this article investigates whether adolescents’ popularity among their peers during junior high school protects them against a financially marginalized position (as indicated by unemployment, social assistance reception and low educational attainment) in young adulthood. Based on a Norwegian population-based panel study covering the period 1992–2005, the analysis shows that popular adolescents are less likely than unpopular adolescents to be financially marginalized. Previous research, however, indicates that social ties to peers who are seriously involved in substance use and norm-breaking/delinquent behaviors may have a negative influence (in terms of successful school-to-work transitions) on norms and lifestyles. This raises the possibility of a dramatic interaction: For adolescents whose friends are engaged in risk behavior, being popular and having a lot of friends could actually increase their likelihood of future marginalization. The analysis in this article, however, shows that there are positive long-term effects from being popular in adolescence, even for those involved in risk behavior and ‘risky’ friendships.

Keywords:

• transition
• young adulthood
• leisure

Acknowledgements

This research has been financed with the aid of EXTRA funds from the Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation and was initiated by Save the Children Norway.

Notes

1. These authors concluded that delinquent peer associations exert a nontrivial effect on delinquent behavior, which persists after controlling for measurement error correlations, background characteristics, and prior level of delinquency. Still, the effect was not as large as previously assumed. Also, the effect of delinquency on delinquent peer contacts was larger than that of peer association on delinquency.

2. The unemployment rates vary slightly according to the data source: the Labor Force Survey, conducted by Statistics Norway, or data records from government sources such as the Register of Employees at the National Insurance Institution or the Unemployment Register at the Directorate of Labor.

3. This type of social assistance is disbursed only when citizens are unable to obtain income from employment and are not entitled to other social insurance benefits. See Hyggen (2006) for a more detailed description of the Norwegian Social Assistance Benefit System.

4. A person's studies should be completed within a five-year span, and the privilege expires at age 24.

5. Raffo and Reeves (2000) also describe a third type of social capital, a weak system of social capital characterized by few contacts including peers. Adolescents with a weak system of social capital had few possibilities for generating practical knowledge to deal with the transition from school to work.

6. Social acceptance items: T1 (Cronbach's alpha=0.76) and T2 (Cronbach's alpha=0.81).

7. Response options were: (1) one or two regulars, (2) one or two regulars who are often involved with a group of teenagers, (3) a group/gang that sticks together, (4) it's pretty random; whoever I run into, (5) I don't spend time with peers very often, and (6) other. Respondents who marked answer 2 or 3 were coded as having a ‘strong’ friendship structure, those marking answer 1 as having a ‘medium-strong’ friendship structure, and the remainder as having a ‘weak’ friendship structure.

8. Those who reported receiving unemployment benefits and/or rehabilitation benefits were included among the unemployed. To exclude employees on long-term sickness benefits who may have reported rehabilitation benefits, those who indicated their main occupation at T4 to be full-time or part-time (>15 hours) employment were not coded as unemployed. Moreover, preliminary analyses indicated that most respondents reporting incomes from rehabilitation benefits were unemployed young people experiencing difficulties in entering the labor market.

9. This number is higher than the official statistics because the respondents were asked to report their main occupation, not whether they received unemployment benefits.

10. This includes general studies, business and clerical studies, and vocational studies.

11. This number is considerably lower than that reported in official statistics for good reason. Among other things, it represents the portion of the sample 10 years after compulsory schooling, not the 5-year period used for the official statistics. Still, the relatively low number of respondents without secondary education may reflect a biased dropout rate at T4.

12. The questionnaires at T1 and T2 included two open-ended questions about both parents’ occupations: ‘Which occupation does your father/mother have?’ and ‘What does he/she do at work?’

13. ISCO-88 is the current classification scheme of occupations used by the International Labour Organization and has been adopted by Statistics of Norway as the standard classification of occupations for the country.

14. T1 (Cronbach's alpha=0.77); T2 (Cronbach's alpha=0.81).

15. The three submeasures were coded into dichotomies, separating the relatively high level of risk involvement from the low and average levels (responses from T1 and T2 were combined).

16. Separate measures were computed for T1 and T2 and thereafter combined into a dichotomous measure, contrasting those who had been drunk more than 10 times and/or used illegal drugs in the previous 12 months (10%) to the rest.