peer pressure

The Misnomer of Positive Peer Pressure.

From the time he was young, he dressed the way you told him to dress; he acted the way you told him to act; he said the things you told him to say. He’s been listening to somebody else tell him what to do. . . . He hasn’t changed. He is still listening to somebody else tell him what to do. The problem is, it isn’t you anymore; it’s his peers. (Barbara Coloroso)

The words, “peer pressure,” immediately bring to the parental or mentoring mind a horrific fear of young people buckling to the negative influences of their less-than-stellar contemporaries. These age-level associates come in the guise of friends or even mere acquaintances. Our hope and prayer, of course, is that our children act with integrity. In essence, the same way they have been taught to act no matter who is watching. The problem, however, is not so obvious; it is far more insidious. The problem is our own misguided belief that 1) there is such a thing as a “positive peer pressure” which somehow counteracts, subverts, or supersedes negative pressure; and 2) peers are the only participants in its use. Positive peer pressure, at its very essence, is a misnomer.

Positive Pressure

It is true that the opposition to nearly every negative is a positive, but the emphasis on this descriptor minimizes the emphasis on the real culprit of peer pressure. It is the act of pressuring, in spite of the negative or positive connotation, which creates the disruptive influence. To assume that the mere change from a negative to a positive will cause an enlightened influence is a misconception with significant and unfortunate impact.

What we commonly call negative peer pressure often results in acts that have immoral, destructive, and/or unethical consequences. Positive peer pressure is contrarily considered an act that results in moral, worthwhile, and/or ethical consequences. However, both types of pressure employ similar goals and tactics; and therefore, despite the immediate or short-term outcome, the long-term effect of such actions is rarely positive. Whether negatively or positively motivated, the attempt to coerce or inappropriately influence another person’s actions minimizes and disrespects another’s agency. Pressure, therefore, is never moral, worthwhile, and/or ethical despite the positive facing. Actions often employed with its use include emotional and physical enticements, bribery, fear, or threat. If the results of such actions are perceived as positive, the negative inducements are either ignored or superficially considered moral. Should the result, however, have negative impact, the actions are then ironically considered immoral. Thus, the means justify the ends. Satan would agree. After all, isn’t force appropriate if all do right in the end? Should we care if the means rob individual agency if the result is positive? In fact the price of such “positive” pressure is just too high.

Closer analysis of this misguided but well-intentioned coercion brings greater clarity to its abuse. For example: when the inactive young woman does not come to church activities, the young women’s leader may instruct her classmates to “never accept ‘no’ for an answer” and to place positive pressure on the inactive girl to attend. The class period or presidency meeting is spent in brainstorming ideas on how to pressure the young woman into attendance. (Indeed, the leader may pressure the classmates to pressure!) This instruction conflicts with gospel principles. Although intent may be good-hearted, the instruction encourages a lessening of the agency of another. Through coercion, the enforcer of the pressure actually causes harm to the recipient in that: 1) The recipient of the pressure is now in a precarious position. If she caves to the pressure, she becomes more susceptible to pressure in the future—positive or negative. The lack of ability to make a decision makes her dependent on others. This lack of agency thwarts self-judgment and autonomy. Susceptibility to coercion is increased. 2) If the recipient of the pressure does not cave to such influences, the natural tendency is to avoid the awkwardness or discomfort of such situations and those initiating them. The supposed beneficial influences are removed and the opportunity to consider further participation has lessened. 3) Those pressuring may feel ignored, upset, or rejected and may withdraw attention and affection, which may only increase the inactive member’s relationship with less than desirable peers (Scoresby, 1989). Thus, pressure may be initially less abrasive than actual force, but ultimately the two are siblings.

In Moses 4:3-4 we understand that “Satan became the devil by seeking glory, power, and dominion by force.” Elder James E. Faust (1987) declares, “Satan was persuasive enough to entice one-third of the hosts of heaven to follow him (see D & C 29:36; Rev. 12:4). He practiced a great deception by saying, ‘I am also a son of God’ (Moses 5:13).” This abuse of power was not thwarted by a God who believed in the greater power and need for individual agency. Indeed, “a third of the hosts of heaven turned he [Satan] away from me because of their agency” (D & C 29:36). To lose one-third of his children to this divine principle must have been a tremendous heartache for our Father in Heaven. And yet, this great and perfect understanding of agency surely leads us to consider our own tendencies to pressure or force under a great deception of being the adult.

When discussing positive or negative pressure, the modifiers are irrelevant and are merely two sides to the same coin. In 2^nd Nephi we learn, “It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things” (2 Ne. 2:11). The counter or opposition to pressure is example and invitation. Where positive or negative pressure attempts to negate agency, invitation recognizes and honors agency. Our Savior did not pressure those he taught. His influence was felt through modeling and example. He provided unconditional invitation. If invitation was not accepted, he was simply unwavering in its continued extension. Elder Russell M. Nelson (1990) explains, “To fully understand this gift of agency and its inestimable worth, it is imperative that we understand that God’s chief way of acting is by persuasion and patience and long-suffering, not by coercion and stark confrontation. He acts by gentle solicitation and by sweet enticement. He always acts with unfailing respect for the freedom and independence that we possess. He wants to help us and pleads for the chance to assist us, but he will not do so in violation of our agency. He loves us too much to do that, and doing so would run counter to his divine character.”

In Doctrine in Covenants 121:41, we read of the commandment to the priesthood where “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained” other than “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by loved unfeigned.” This compassionate persuasion, combined with unfeigned love, kindly helps another to consider advantages and disadvantages and allows for individual reflection and consideration rather than an attempt to pressure by the hint of conditional acceptance or the actual denial of association. The withdrawal of attention and affection only increases the susceptibility to the influence of others (Scoresby, 1989). Elder Faust (1987) continues, “In contrast, using sarcasm, intimidation, force, impatience, irritability or anger, harshness, and pride will neither teach children proper values nor help them change their behavior. In fact, we know that it is Satan, not Heavenly Father, who wants us to use force and hostility.”

Our young men and women should be encouraged to show love and friendship and model correct behaviors. An invitation to attend activities should be extended, and whether the invitation is accepted or not, members honor the inactive individual’s decision. Classmates continue with their unconditional love and association. When another activity is eminent, another sincere invitation is extended. This simple pattern magnifies a member’s actions and extends the courtesy and appropriate message to the recipient. The inactive peer continues to be provided appropriate association, continues to be surrounded by example, and continues to be valued for their own decisions. If the inactive member accepts the invitation, it is with a willing heart and an uncompromised spirit.

“Peer” Pressure

The term “peer” in reference to peer pressure is misleading. A peer is defined by Miriam-Webster as "one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status.” Peers are often considered the guilty party for exerting less than desirable influences on their friends. Psychologist Barbara Colorosa (1994) declares, “In contemporary society, peers and colleagues assume importance. From an early age young persons hang out with those who are roughly their own age. They are strongly influenced by the behaviors and beliefs of these individuals, and especially those who are seen as somewhat more knowledgeable, prestigious, and/or powerful.”

Peers, however, peers are not the only influence, and they are not the only culprits in dispensing and even instigating peer pressure. A parent, teacher, coach, religious leader, or other adult of influence—can cause even greater damage when instigating or endorsing the use of peer pressure to achieve an outcome. Adults play a critical role in influence and example. An influential educational leader and psychologist, Howard Gardner, has studied moral and ethical behaviors. His research finds that “except for friends and families, young persons place most trust in their own teachers,” (2007, pg. 142). It is, therefore, imperative that adults guide, instruct, encourage, model, and act in ethical ways. They should never be a party to instigating the use of peer pressure. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

While teaching and purporting such gospel standards as “standing for truth and righteousness” or having “courage in conviction,” adult messages are often muted by opposing actions. One day I observed a school teacher lecturing a young man about his use of an inappropriate word on the playground. When the youth attempted to excuse his behavior by saying other kids used similar language, the teacher explained that this young man had been taught better, he had higher principles, and he should be standing for the right. When the sermon ended, the young man sheepishly walked into his classroom. Within the next few minutes, the teacher began her classroom lesson by asking which students had completed homework assignments. When two students failed to show completion, the teacher warned the entire class that unless all homework was completed, the entire class would not be participating in a party later in the week. I watched this endorsement of peer pressure in amazement. Permission had just been granted to the students by the teacher to use whatever means necessary to gain the desired conclusion. Not a few minutes prior, the teacher was chastising a young man for buckling to peer pressure, she then proceeded to instigate such tactics for her own cause. “Do as I say and not as I do” was the message sent. (Ironically had her first lecture been effective—although lectures rarely are—the young man, who had been previously chastised for buckling to pressure, might have respectfully and courageously reminded the teacher that those not turning in homework should be helped and encouraged to do so for the sake of the learning rather than pressured by peers for the sake of a party.) From the P.E. teacher to the Sunday school teacher, nothing is more insidious than an adult instigating peer pressure. Bitterness, blame, mean-spirited actions, and jealousy often rupture relationships between students while under an adult’s misguided attempt at peer motivation. Further, students’ lack of failure to complete assignments is far more complex than the perceived and often mistaken belief that motivation is all that is required for success.

To help an adolescent weather the storms of peer pressure, it is critical to model ethical stances. Elder James E. Faust (2000) declares, “Parental hypocrisy can make children cynical and unbelieving of what they are taught in the home. . . . If children are expected to be virtuous, parents must be virtuous.” Otherwise, “parental credibility is diminished.” Gardner finds that ethical stances of adolescents are highly influenced by parents as well as adults who also exert influence (relatives, visitors, and workers), and mentors or role models” (2007, pg.132). It is therefore, especially critical that such role models employ appropriate examples. The classroom teacher invites others to help the two unsuccessful students become successful. No reward or punishment is delivered to the group based on individual performance. All students participate in class activities; that is what makes them “class” activities. A culture of support and encouragement differ greatly from an atmosphere of threat and intimidation. How to deal with the individual’s lack of assignment completion is another topic that deserves lengthy response, but suffice it to say that it is never the class’ role to discipline.

Conclusion

Peer pressure is always damaging. Positive pressure leads only to desired outcomes with no thought process to ill-desired means. The out-come is composed of irreparable sacrifices of the individual, which leads to a greater propensity for participating in undesired outcomes. Peers are not the only instigators of pressure. Adults having significant importance and impact to the child can abuse such influence when endorsing, encouraging, or giving license to peers in the use such pressure. The counterinfluence to peer pressure is example and invitation. Such modeling provides for the value, dignity, and respect of the individual. It helps in the creation of an individual who has strong self-concept and ultimately understands and exemplifies their own infinite worth.

Marcia McManus, Ed.D.

Teacher Education

Brigham Young University-Idaho

References

Coloroso, Barbara. Kids Are Worth It. New York: Avon, 1994: 77

Doctrine and Covenants: 29:36

Doctrine and Covenants: 121:41

Gardner, Howard. Five Minds for the Future. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Faust, James, E. “Helping Family Members Live the Gospel,” Family Home Evening Resource Book, 1997: 236

Faust, James, E. “The Great Intimidator,” Ensign, Nov. 1987.

Faust, James, E. “The Greatest Challenge in the World—Good Parenting,” Lesson 12: “Teaching Children through Example and Instruction,” Marriage and Family Relations Participant’s Study Guide, 2000: 48.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer), 29 May 2008.

Moses 5:13

Revelations 12:4

Scoresby, A. Lynn. Bringing Up Moral Children. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989: 135.

A diamond before it is a diamond is a coal that has lots of pressure exerted on it. If the coal gave into that pressure, it would be crushed. Instead it withstands and is transformed into something of great worth. We need to teach our kids to withstand “pressure” no matter what kind it is.

Peer Pressure

Scoresby, A. Lynn (1989). Raising Up Moral Children.

Pgs. 134-135

“Children in America form groups in order to gain confidence, confidence that serves them as they enter new situations at school, as they deal with members of the other sex, and as they go through the process of becoming independent from parents. As these groups form, however, they exert pressure on each individual to follow certain ‘rules’ or practices in order to belong. Children may feel pressured to use new words as an indication that they ‘belong,’ or to wear certain types of clothing based on aspects of the fashion of the day. In some cases, the clothing must be very specific to the group; preppies, punkers, surfers, cowboys, and jocks each have a particular and very identifiable style. Each group also demands certain attitudes from its members, such as toughness for the athletes, cynicism for the intellectuals, anti-authoritarianism for the deviant, status consciousness for the reach (or would-be rich), or aloofness and indifference for the ones who feel rejected.”

“Compliance to the ‘rules’ of these groups is maintained by the possibility of exclusion and ridicule. It is easy to see how children might sense pressure to conform. In most cases the pressure is real. And it is often intense. Consequently, when it becomes a group ‘rule’ to drink, or to drink excessively, to smoke, or to use drugs, some children who would not do it on their own will do it with the group. If they have the thoughts and feelings that contribute to their being vulnerable to such influence, then they will be even more likely to engage in immoral behavior. We need to be alert to the likelihood of chemical abuse by our children when they (1) are involved with friends who use drugs and alcohol—even if our children claim they themselves are not, (2) have feelings of social inadequacy, (3) do not belong to a group and feel lonely, (4) are exposed to excessive peer pressure and are controlled by others, (5) have conflict with us that produces strain and frustration.”

“Our challenge is to help our children develop the ability to maintain their standard of morality concerning alcohol and other drugs, even when they are feeling pressure from others. We can do several things to help them.”

“One is to avoid withdrawing our emotional support from our children. When children do not follow family rules, or when they treat us unkindly or disrespectfully, it would be easy to withdraw our attention and affection. That withdrawal only increases their susceptibility to the influence of others. Emotional support does not mean that we give our children whatever they want. It is, rather, communication filled with affection, interest, concern, and warmth. Teenagers who are feeling great pressure to violate their moral standards need our emotional support in order to know they are safe and secure at home.”

“A second way to help our teenagers is simply to teach them to understand peer pressure and to notice its effects on them. High school health classes or social science classes are often useful in helping teach about peer pressure.”

“A third way to help is to review our family rules to see if adjustments can be made that would give our children more time for good activities they may want to participate in. Even small adjustments are noticed and usually appreciate.”

“The effects of peer pressure are moderated when children feel more secure with their family relationships. When communication is good and family members are close, children are less threatened by the effects of pressure they feel from others.”

Page 25

“Children have low esteem are more susceptible to distractions and pressure when they compare themselves unfavorably with other people or feel nervous about performing some task. Children who have previously been neglected or rejected report more often than other children that they are worried their friends will leave them. These children more often do what their friends want than do children who have known more emotional support (Shannon and Kafer, 1984).

Page 22 and 23

Autonomy. Autonomous people have a sense of responsibility for self. They have the ability to pursue a course of action they believe to be correct and to withstand pressure to oblige.

Susceptibility. The opposite of autonomy. In a moral sense, susceptible people are extremely reactive to external pressure.

Autonomy enhances moral behavior; susceptibility undermines it (pg. 26).

Empathy. Empathetic people have a vicarious understanding of the feelings of another person, leading to compassion and a sense of caring. Empathy produces guilt, which can help prevent hurtful acts.

Defensiveness. The opposite of empathy. Defensive people shift responsibility for their actions to someone else. This allows them to justify immorality by avoiding guilt. They hide their feelings and alienate themselves.

Activity. Active people have initiative, responsiveness, and an orientation toward achievement. The quality of activity leads them to perform acts of helpfulness and to find alternatives when judgment says that someone can be hurt.

Passivity. The opposite of activity. Passivity prevents people from doing acts of helpfulness. Combined with susceptibility, passivity increases the likelihood of hurtful acts of omission.

Acceptance. Acceptant people have the ability to receive or accept what exists or is given. Acceptance is the ability and the willingness to understand instead of judging in a nonmoral context.

Prejudice. The opposite of acceptance. Prejudiced people excessively judge others in nonmoral contexts, failing to distinguish between what should and what should not be judged. Prejudice can lead to insensitivity and hurtful acts.

Emotional competence. Emotionally competent people regulate their moods to maintain positive emotional states. Their positive emotional style increases their alertness to their surroundings and aids them in resisting temptations.

Emotional incompetence. Emotionally incompetent people have a negative emotional style, a tendency toward extremely negative or changeable moods, which reduces their awareness and weakens their ability to resist temptation.