Prevention Science

, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 903–913 | Cite as

Peer Influence on Academic Performance: A Social Network Analysis of Social-Emotional Intervention Effects

  • Dawn DeLay
  • Linlin Zhang
  • Laura D. Hanish
  • Cindy F. Miller
  • Richard A. Fabes
  • Carol Lynn Martin
  • Karen P. Kochel
  • Kimberly A. Updegraff


Longitudinal social network analysis (SNA) was used to examine how a social-emotional learning (SEL) intervention may be associated with peer socialization on academic performance. Fifth graders (N = 631; 48 % girls; 9 to 12 years) were recruited from six elementary schools. Intervention classrooms (14) received a relationship building intervention (RBI) and control classrooms (8) received elementary school as usual. At pre- and post-test, students nominated their friends, and teachers completed assessments of students’ writing and math performance. The results of longitudinal SNA suggested that the RBI was associated with friend selection and peer influence within the classroom peer network. Friendship choices were significantly more diverse (i.e., less evidence of social segregation as a function of ethnicity and academic ability) in intervention compared to control classrooms, and peer influence on improved writing and math performance was observed in RBI but not control classrooms. The current findings provide initial evidence that SEL interventions may change social processes in a classroom peer network and may break down barriers of social segregation and improve academic performance.


Social networks Peer influence Intervention Social-emotional learning Academic performance 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


This research was supported by the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. Ahn, H. J., Rodkin, P. C., & Gest, S. (2013). Teacher-student agreement on “bullies and kids they pick on” in elementary school classrooms: Gender and grade differences. Theory Into Practice, 52, 257–263. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2013.829728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.Google Scholar
  3. Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2, 202–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00014.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanton, H., Buunk, B., Gibbons, F., & Kuyper, H. (1999). When better-than-others compare upward: Choice of comparison and comparative evaluation as independent predictors of academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 420–430. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.420.
  5. Borkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognitive theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 253–257. doi: 10.1177/002221949202500406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cascio, E., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2007). First in the class? Age and the education production function (Working Paper No. w13663). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  7. Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning. (2012). 2013 CASEL Guide: Effective social and emotional learning programs-preschool and elementary school edition. Retrieved from Scholar
  9. Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., Debus, R. L., & Jayasinghe, U. (2001). Diffusion effects: Control group contamination threats to the validity of teacher-administered interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 639–645. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.639.
  10. DeLay, D., Laursen, B., Kiuru, N., Poikkeus, A. M., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2015). Stable same-sex friendships with higher achieving partners promote mathematical reasoning in lower achieving primary school children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 33, 519–532. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373–390. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80023-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodge, K. A., & Price, J. M. (1994). On the relation between social information processing and socially competent behavior in early school-aged children. Child Development, 65, 1385–1397. doi: 10.2307/1131505.
  13. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Erdley, C. A., & Asher, S. R. (1999). A social goals perspective on children’s social competence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 156–167. doi: 10.1177/106342669900700304.
  15. Gest, S. D., Osgood, D. W., Feinberg, M. E., Bierman, K. L., & Moody, J. (2011). Strengthening prevention program theories and evaluations: Contributions from social network analysis. Prevention Science, 12, 349–360. doi: 10.1007%2Fs11121-011-0229-2.
  16. Greenberg, M. T., Feinberg, M. E., Johnson, L. E., Perkins, D. F., Welsh, J. A., & Spoth, R. L. (2015). Factors that predict financial sustainability of community coalitions: Five years of findings from the prosper partnership project. Prevention Science, 16, 158–167. doi: 10.1007/s11121-014-0483-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458–489. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13. doi: 10.2307/1131681.
  20. Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Pasupathi, M. (2002). Winning friends and influencing peers: Strategies of peer influence in late childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 466–474. doi: 10.1080/01650250143000427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427–436. doi: 10.1086/226792.
  22. Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373–1400. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00101.
  23. Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, C., Kochel, K. P., Updegraff, K., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., & Martin, C. L. (2015). The relationship building intervention program: Fifth-grade. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Unpublished manual.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, C. F., Kochel, K. P., Wheeler, L. A., Updegraff, K. A., Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2016). The efficacy of a relationship building intervention in 5th grade. Journal of School Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
  26. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271–280. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001.
  28. Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science (New York, N.Y.), 315, 1795–1796. doi: 10.1126/science.1139719.
  29. Rambaran, J. A., Dijkstra, J. K., Munniksma, A., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2015). The development of adolescents’ friendships and antipathies: A longitudinal multivariate network test of balance theory. Social Networks, 43, 162–176. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2015.05.003.
  30. Ripley, R., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Voros, A., & Preciado, P. (2016). Manual for RSiena (version Feb 25, 2016). Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics, Nuffield College. Scholar
  31. Rulison, K. L., Gest, S. D., & Osgood, D. W. (2015). Adolescent peer networks and the potential for the diffusion of intervention effects. Prevention Science, 16, 133–144. doi: 10.1007%2Fs11121-014-0465-3.
  32. Ryan, A. M., & Ladd, G. W. (Eds.). (2012). Peer relationships and adjustment at school. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Schwarz, B. B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction: The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 510–531. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.009.
  34. Snijders, T. A. B., van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010). Introduction to scholastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32, 44–60. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31, 366–377.Google Scholar
  36. Yudron, M., Jones, S. M., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Implications of different methods for specifying classroom composition of externalizing behavior and its relationship to social-emotional outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 682–691. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.07.007.
  37. Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17, 191–210. doi: 10.1080/10474410701413145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dawn DeLay
    • 1
  • Linlin Zhang
    • 1
  • Laura D. Hanish
    • 1
  • Cindy F. Miller
    • 1
  • Richard A. Fabes
    • 1
  • Carol Lynn Martin
    • 1
  • Karen P. Kochel
    • 2
  • Kimberly A. Updegraff
    • 1
  1. 1.T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family DynamicsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.University of RichmondRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations