065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 65

International Journal of Behavioral Development © 2009 The International Society for the
2009, 33 (1), 65–76 Study of Behavioural Development
http://www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/0165025408098014

Peer group homogeneity in adolescents’ school adjustment varies

according to peer group type and gender

Noona Kiuru, Jari-Erik Nurmi, Kaisa Aunola, and Katariina Salmela-Aro

University of Jyväskylä, Finland

This study investigated whether the members of adolescents’ peer groups are similar in terms of their
school adjustment and whether this homogeneity varies according to peer group type and gender. A
total of 1262 peer group members who had recently moved to post-comprehensive education filled
in questionnaires measuring their academic achievement, satisfaction with their educational track,
school engagement, and school burnout. They also gave positive peer nominations on the basis of
which 360 peer groups were identified and categorized as cliques, loose groups, and isolate dyads.
The results showed that the members of adolescents’ peer groups particularly resembled each other
in terms of academic achievement. Moreover, the members of girls’ cliques showed greater similarity
to each other in terms of their satisfaction with educational track and school engagement than did
the members of girls’ loose groups. Girls’ isolate dyads were, in particular, at risk for low adjustment
at school.

Keywords: academic achievement; gender; multilevel modeling; peer groups; peer group type; school
engagement

Peer groups are among the most significant social contexts in
adolescence (Magnusson & Stattin, 1998; Rubin, Bukowski &
Parker, 1998). Research in academic settings has shown, for
example, that the members of adolescents’ peer groups are
similar with respect to many school adjustment variables, such
as academic achievement (Chen, Chang, & He, 2003; Ryan,
2001), school engagement (Kindermann, 2007; Kindermann,
McCollam, & Gibson, 1996), and intrinsic learning motiva-
tion (Ryan, 2001). Moreover, adolescents belonging to the
same peer group have been found to resemble each other with
regards to school-related burnout (Kiuru, Aunola, Nurmi,
Leskinen, & Salmela-Aro, 2008). However, although many
studies have examined peer group homogeneity in school
adjustment, no previous studies have examined whether type
of peer group, that is being a member of clique, loose group,
or isolate dyad, or gender contributes to group homogeneity.
The aim of the present study was to investigate both of these
factors.
Adolescents’ adjustment at school
School adjustment is a broad construct which consists of many
different aspects, such as academic achievement (Berndt &
Keefe, 1995; Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004), overall school
satisfaction (e.g., Epstein & McPartland, 1976), school
engagement (e.g., Berndt & Miller, 1990; Esptein & McPart-
land, 1976; Wentzel, 1993), and prosocial behavior at school
(Wentzel et al., 2004). Well-adjusted students usually value
what they are learning, are positively involved in classroom
activities, are rarely disruptive (Berndt & Miller, 1990; Dubow,
Tisak, Causey, Hryshko, & Reid, 1991; Wentzel, 1993), learn
what is taught at school, and also receive high grades and test
scores (Berndt & Keefe, 1996). School adjustment can be
assumed to reflect adolescents’ overall resources for school
work. In the present study three aspects of school adjustment
were examined: academic achievement; satisfaction with
educational track; and school engagement.
Although a substantial amount of research has been carried
out on school adjustment and well-being at school (Deci,
Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Konu & Lintonen, 2006;
Roeser, 1998; Wigfield & Eccles, 1994), less research has been
carried out on school maladjustment. In the present study,
school maladjustment was conceptualized by using the concept
of school burnout (Salmela-Aro & Näätänen, 2005). Although
burnout was originally regarded as a work-related disorder
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Leiter &
Schaufeli, 1996; Maslach, 1982; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter,
2001), it has also been found to be a useful concept in school
(Kiuru et al., 2008; Salmela-Aro, Kiuru, Leskinen, & Nurmi, in
press-a; Salmela-Aro, Kiuru, Leskinen, & Nurmi, in press-b)
and university (Schaufeli, Martínez, Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker,
2002) contexts as well. Even though students are not paid
employees, their core activities at school can be considered as
“work” from a psychological perspective: they attend classes and
do assignments in order to pass exams and acquire a degree.
Burnout in the school context can be defined as exhaustion due
to school demands, cynical and detached attitude towards one’s
school, and sense of insufficiency as a student (Salmela-Aro &
Näätänen, 2005). It can be assumed to originate from a lack of
fit between the student’s internal resources for school work and
his or her own demands, or those of other people, such as
teachers, peers, and parents, for academic success.

Correspondence should be sent to Noona Kiuru, Department of (FinEdu) project, and was funded by grants from the Finnish
Psychology, University of Jyväskylä/Agora, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Graduate School of Psychology and the Finnish Academy (720 7421,
Jyväskylä, Finland; e-mail: noona.kiuru@psyka.jyu.fi 121 0319, #213486). We would like to thank Esko Leskinen and Asko
This study is a part of the ongoing Finnish Educational Transitions Tolvanen for statistical consultation.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 66
66 KIURU ET AL. / PEER GROUP HOMOGENEITY IN ADOLESCENTS’ SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT
Previous research has also shown many gender differences
in school adjustment. For example, girls typically attribute
more importance to academic achievement (e.g., Berndt &
Miller, 1990), have higher levels of intrinsic academic motiva-
tion (Ryan, 2001), and have higher academic performance
than boys (e.g., Frome & Eccles, 1998; Fuligni, Eccles, Barber,
& Clements, 2001). However, girls also worry more about their
academic success (e.g., Murberg & Bru, 2004) and experience
more school burnout compared to boys (Kiuru et al., 2008;
Salmela-Aro et al., in press-b).
School adjustment is an important indicator of how well
adolescents have been able to cope with the challenges and
expectations presented by school. Classes, work assignments,
homework and exams, on the one hand, and making new
friends and being a member of a peer group, on the other, are
typically ranked as the most important challenges at school
(Newman, Lohman, Newman, Myers, & Smith, 2000). Such
challenges can be particularly demanding after the educational
transition to a new school environment, such as senior high
school. The participants of the present study had moved half
a year previously to post-comprehensive schooling, that is, to
senior high school or vocational school (for details in the
Finnish context see last part of this section). Academic
subjects and pressure for high grades are given greater
emphasis on the academic track, whereas the vocational track
focuses more on hands-on and practical activities.
Peer groups and group type
The developmental significance of peers increases as
adolescents start to spend more time in peer groups (Brown,
1990, 2004; Rubin et al., 1998). Through interactions with
their peers, adolescents acquire a wide range of skills, attitudes
and experiences (Bukowski, Newcomb, & Hartup, 1996;
Rubin et al., 1998). It has been suggested that peer interactions
take place on multiple levels (e.g., Brown, 1990; Hinde, 1987;
Rubin et al., 1998). Brown (1989), for example, described peer
interactions as operating on three levels: dyads, cliques, and
crowds. The dyadic level consists of reciprocal dyadic peer
relations, such as best friendships or romantic relations. The
clique level, in turn, consists of peer groups of a small number
of adolescents who “hang around” together and develop close
relationships. The crowd level consists of reputation-based
peer groups or larger collectives of similarly stereotyped indi-
viduals. In this study a peer group refers to what Brown defines
as a “clique.”
Recently, different subtypes of peer groups (or peer cliques
according to Brown) have been identified. The term “clique”
has been used to refer to highly cohesive peer groups with
intensive ties among the members, whereas the term “loose
group” has been used to refer to distinguishable peer groups
with less intensive ties among the group members (e.g.,
Değirmencioğlu, Urberg, Tolson, & Richard, 1998). “Isolate
dyads”, in turn, refer to groups of two individuals who share
a reciprocal tie but do not belong to any larger peer group (e.g.,
Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003; Ryan, 2001). Previous studies
have been inconsistent in terms of which types of peer group
they have considered to be peer groups. Some studies have
defined peer groups in terms of cliques and isolate dyads
(Espelage et al., 2003); some studies have identified cliques
and loose groups as major types of peer groups (Değirmen-
cioğlu et al., 1998; Urberg, Değirmencioğlu, & Pilgrim, 1997);
and still other studies have defined peer groups in terms of
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
cliques, loose groups, and isolate dyads (Kiuru, Aunola, Vuori,
& Nurmi, 2007; Ryan, 2001). Because there is little research
on whether peer group characteristics vary according to peer
group type, one major aim of the present study was to compare
cliques, loose groups, and isolate dyads in terms of peer group
homogeneity and mean level adjustment.
Gender differences in the membership of different types of
peer groups have been little studied. There is some evidence to
suggest, however, that girls more often than boys belong to
peer cliques whose members have close and intensive ties,
whereas boys more often than girls belong to less cohesive
loose groups (Kiuru et al., 2007). Girls are also more
connected to their peer network than boys (Benenson, 1990;
Urberg, Değirmencioğlu, Tolson, & Halliday-Scher, 1995)
and more often retain the same peer network role over time
than boys (Değirmencioğlu et al., 1998). Girls are also more
interpersonally oriented (Leadbeater, Kuperminc, Blatt, &
Hertzog, 1999; Maccoby, 1995), attribute more importance to
peer groups (Crockett, Losoff, & Petersen, 1984; Kerr, Stattin,
& Kiesner, 2007; Maccoby, 1995), and report higher friend-
ship quality and peer support than boys (Berndt & Keefe,
1995; Brendgen, Markiewicz, Doyle, & Bukowski, 2001;
Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994; Furman & Buhrmester,
1992). In the present study gender and peer group type inter-
actions were also examined in relation to peer group homo-
geneity and mean level adjustment.
Peer groups and adjustment at school
Previous research in academic settings has shown that the
members of adolescents’ peer groups are similar with respect
to school adjustment, that is, academic achievement (Chen et
al., 2003; Ryan, 2001), school engagement (Kindermann,
2007; Kindermann et al., 1996), and intrinsic learning
motivation (Ryan, 2001). Adolescents belonging to the same
peer group have also been found to resemble each other with
regards to school-related burnout (Kiuru et al., 2008).
However, no previous studies have examined the extent to
which peer group homogeneity in school adjustment varies
according to the specific type of peer group. Some research
has, however, examined the role of peer group cohesion (i.e.,
the level of reciprocity in the peer group) in peer group simi-
larity. These studies show that high peer group cohesion
predicts high peer group similarity in external problem behav-
iors, such as aggression and delinquency (e.g., Cairns &
Cairns, 1994; Haynie, 2001; Kiesner, Cadinu, Poulin, &
Bucci, 2002). The present study examined whether peer group
homogeneity in school adjustment varies according to peer
group type, and whether different kinds of peer groups differ
in their mean level of school adjustment.
However, gender may also play a role in peer group homo-
geneity. There is some evidence to show that the members of
girls’ peer groups show more similarity with each other than do
the members of boys’ groups (e.g., Cairns & Cairns, 1994;
Cairns, Xie, & Leung, 1998; Kiuru et al., 2007). Girls also show
a greater tendency than boys to conform to their peer groups
(e.g., Benenson & Schinazi, 2004; Davies & Kandel, 1981;
Laird, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 1999). Not all studies, however,
have been able to show such differences (e.g., Chen et al., 2003;
Urberg et al., 1997). Consequently, the present study examined
whether gender plays a role in peer group homogeneity with
respect to school adjustment and whether girls’ and boys’ peer
groups show different levels of school adjustment.
065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 67
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2009, 33 (1), 65–76
Aims of the study
The following research questions were examined:
• Do the members of adolescents’ peer groups resemble each
other in their academic achievement, satisfaction with
educational track, school engagement, and school burnout?
We expected that adolescents belonging to the same peer
group would resemble each other in different aspects of
school adjustment (Hypothesis 1).
• Does peer group similarity in academic achievement, satis-
faction with educational track, school engagement, and
school burnout vary according to group type and gender?
We expected to find greater similarity among adolescents
belonging to highly cohesive peer groups, that is, clique
members, than among the members of loose groups in
school adjustment (Hypothesis 2a, Kiesner et al., 2002).
Also the interaction between group type and gender was
examined. We expected that the effect of peer group
cohesion would be particularly salient among girls (Hypoth-
esis 2b, Benenson, 1990; Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Urberg et
al., 1995).
• Do the mean levels of academic achievement, satisfaction with
educational track, school engagement, and school burnout
differ according to group type and gender? We expected that
girls’ peer groups would show higher academic achievement
as well as higher levels of school engagement and school
burnout than those of boys (Hypothesis 3a). Moreover, we
expected that isolate dyads would experience less school
adjustment and more school burnout than the adolescents
belonging to cliques or loose groups (Hypothesis 3b).
The Finnish school system
Finnish children start their education at kindergarten during
the year of their sixth birthday. One year later, at age 7, they
move to compulsory comprehensive school where they
continue for the next nine years. Up to age 16, all Finnish
adolescents have a similar basic education. After comprehen-
sive school adolescents’ educational trajectories begin to
diverge. A total of 55% of the adolescents enter senior high
schools and 37% vocational schools, 2% stay on for a volun-
tary tenth grade, and 6% exit formal education (School Statis-
tics, Central Statistical Office of Finland, 2003). High
academic achievement in the ninth grade is required for admis-
sion to senior high school. Senior high school education, in
turn, is a prerequisite for university education, whereas
education in vocational schools leads directly to a lower level
occupational qualification. Educational choices at the end of
comprehensive school channel Finnish young people into
either an academic or a vocational track (e.g., Kosonen, 1983;
Malmberg, 1996; Savolainen, 2001). Finnish girls graduate
from senior high schools and enter universities more often than
boys (Education in Finland, 1999; Nevala, 2000). Education in
Finland is state-provided and tuition is free.
Method
Participants
The study reported here is part of the Finnish Educational
Transitions (FinEdu) study (Salmela-Aro, Niemivirta, &
Nurmi, 2003). The participants were adolescents who half a
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
67
year ago prior to the data collection had faced the transition to
post-comprehensive schooling (six senior high schools, seven
vocational schools, two voluntary tenth grades). A total of 1494
(755 girls, 739 boys) adolescents filled in a questionnaire
concerning their peer relations and adjustment in the school
context. They were first contacted and asked if they would be
willing to participate in the study. Those who consented were
then group-administered questionnaires during a regular school
hour. The participation rate as a proportion of the total number
of students was 84%, ranging between 65% and 100%.
The final sample of the present study consisted of 1,262
(659 girls, 603 boys) adolescents, all of whom were members
of a peer group. Adolescents who had consented to participate
but did not belong to any peer group (N = 232) were excluded
from the present study. Analyses were carried out to examine
the selection effect due to the study design; that is, adolescents
who were members of a peer group (N = 1262) were compared
with those who did not belong to any peer group (N = 232)
with regards to the variables of interest in the present study.
The results showed that peer group members showed more
satisfaction with their educational track (M = 4.06, SD = 0.78)
than did the adolescents who had no peer group affiliation
(M = 3.88, SD = 0.86, t(1372) = 3.06, p < .01). No selection
effects between the adolescents who belonged and those who
did not belong to any peer group were found in academic
achievement, school satisfaction, school engagement, or school
burnout.
The mean age of the participants was 16 (M = 16.47, SD =
1.73). The majority of the participants (99%) were Finnish-
speaking, 1% of them having some other mother tongue. This
agrees well with the figures for ethnic minorities at the national
level. A total of 27% of the fathers and 20% of the mothers of
the participants worked in higher white-collar occupations
(e.g., physicians, teachers, lawyers, managers); 17% of the
fathers and 49% of the mothers were in lower white-collar
occupations (e.g., secretaries, salespersons, nurses); 36% of
fathers and 17% of mothers were in blue-collar occupations
(e.g., welders, construction workers, mechanics); 11% of
fathers and 4% of mothers were private entrepreneurs; 1% and
2% were students; 3% and 2% were retired; and 5% and 6%
had other status (e.g., unemployed).
Measures
Identification of peer groups
Participants’ peer groups were identified by using the socio-
metric procedure developed by Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli
(1982). The participants were asked to nominate up to three
schoolmates from the same grade level in their school with
whom they most liked to spend time and three classmates with
whom they least liked to spend time (positive and negative
nominations). Cross-gender nominations were allowed in
order to gain a realistic picture of the adolescents’ peer
relations in their classrooms (Terry & Coie, 1991).
To identify peer groups, only positive peer nominations were
used. Approximately 87% of positive nominations were of
same-sex peers. The number of positive peer nominations
ranged from zero to three with an average of 2.4 nominations.
A total of 12.6% of the participants gave no nominations. Girls
gave more nominations (M = 2.61, SD = 0.84) than boys (M =
2.20, SD = 1.20; t(1433) = 7.49, p < .001). A total of 55.3%
065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 68
68 KIURU ET AL. / PEER GROUP HOMOGENEITY IN ADOLESCENTS’ SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT
of nominations were for peers in the same class, 29.4% for
peers in other classes in the same school, 7.4% for peers in
other schools and 7.9% for unknown peers.
Sociograms based on the positive nominations were drawn
for all 15 schools. Peer group membership was defined on the
basis of reciprocal, unilateral and indirect links. A reciprocal
link is a reciprocal positive nomination between two indi-
viduals. A unilateral link is a unilateral positive nomination
from one adolescent to another. An indirect link (i.e., common
friendship) is a link between two individuals via a third person.
The following criteria were used to determine group
membership. To be categorized as a member of a particular
group: (1) at least 50% of a person’s reciprocal and unilateral
links had to be within the peer group; and (2) either a recipro-
cal, a unilateral or an indirect link had to exist from each
member to every other member of the peer group. Participants
were assigned to groups if both the group membership criteria
were met. If participants had links to multiple peer groups,
they were assigned to the peer group in which they had the
largest number of peer links. The criteria resembled those used
in other studies using social network analysis to identify peer
groups (e.g., Ennett & Bauman, 1994; Espelage et al., 2003;
Ryan, 2001; Urberg et al., 1997).
Peer group type
The peer groups were categorized as cliques, loose groups, or
isolate dyads. The criteria for identifying these types of groups
were based on procedures used in previous studies (e.g.,
Ennett & Bauman, 1994; Espelage et al., 2003; Ryan, 2001;
Urberg et al., 1997) but modified for the purpose of the
present study. Cliques were highly cohesive peer groups
(consisting of three or more members) among whom at least
85% of the all possible direct nominations were reciprocal.
Loose groups consisted of adolescents who met the criteria for
group membership, but among whom less than 85% of the ties
were reciprocal. Isolate dyads consisted of only two members
who shared a reciprocal tie and who did not belong to any
larger peer group.
School adjustment
Academic achievement. Academic achievement was measured
by asking the participants to report their Grade Point Average
(GPA) in their final comprehensive school report. In Finland,
GPA ranges from 4 (lowest) to 10 (highest). Self-reported
grade point average has shown to have a correlation of .96 with
actual grade point average among Finnish ninth-graders
(Holopainen & Savolainen, 2005).
Satisfaction with educational track. Adolescents’ satisfaction
with their educational track after the transition to post-
comprehensive schooling was measured by Satisfaction with
Educational Track scale (Nurmi, Niemivirta, & Salmela-Aro,
2003). The scale consisted of four unidimensional questions:
(1 = To what extent are you satisfied with your educational track?;
2 = To what extent are you interested in the subjects you are being
taught in your education?; 3 = Do you enjoy going to school?; 4 =
Do you feel that your choice of education was successful?) which
were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much). A
mean sum score was calculated from all four items to measure
adolescents’ satisfaction with their educational track. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .90.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
School engagement. School engagement was measured by the
abbreviated student version (Salmela-Aro, 2004) of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-S) developed origi-
nally by Schaufeli et al. (2002) on the basis of the Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9, Schaufeli, Bakker, &
Salanova, 2006). The scale consisted of nine unidimensional
items measuring vigor (e.g., When I study, I feel that I am
bursting with energy), dedication (e.g., I am enthusiastic about my
studies), and absorption (e.g., Time flies when I’m studying) in
relation to school work and rated on a 7-point scale (0 = never;
6 = every day). For the purpose of this study, a mean sum score
was calculated from all nine items to indicate the level of
adolescents’ school engagement (see also Hakanen, Bakker, &
Demerouti, 2005). The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .94.
Academic achievement correlated .15 (p < .001) with
satisfaction with educational track, and .16 (p < .001) with
school engagement. The correlation between satisfaction
with educational track and school engagement was .55
(p < .001).
School burnout. School burnout was examined with the
School Burnout Scale (BBI-10) developed by Salmela-Aro and
Näätänen (2005). The scale is based on the Burnout Inventory
for Working Life (BBI-15) (Näätänen, Aro, Matthiesen, &
Salmela-Aro, 2003; Salmela-Aro, Näätänen, & Nurmi, 2004).
The scale consists of 10 unidimensional items measuring
school burnout (e.g., I feel overwhelmed by schoolwork; I have
become less interested in schoolwork and I often think of dropping
out of school; I expected to do better academically than I have done),
which were rated on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 6 =
strongly agree). For the purpose of this study, a mean sum score
was formed on the basis of the 10 items to indicate the level
of adolescents’ school burnout. The Cronbach’s alpha
reliability for the scale was .90. School burnout correlated –.47
(p < .001) with satisfaction with school track and –.37 with
school engagement.
Educational track
Educational track after comprehensive school was assessed by
asking the participants the following questions: (1) Are you in
education at the moment? (1 = yes, 0 = no); (2) If you are in
education, what is the name of your school? Participants’ answers
to these questions were coded in the following way: 1 = senior
high school (academic track; 47.5%); 2 = vocational school
(vocational track; 47.4%); 3 = voluntary tenth grade of
comprehensive school (3.8%); and 4 = outside formal
education (1.3%). In the present study, an educational track
variable was created by contrasting academic track with
vocational track. Adolescents in senior high school (N = 710)
were coded 1 and adolescents in vocational school (N = 708)
were coded 0. Adolescents in 10th grade comprehensive or
outside education (N = 76) were coded as missing data.
Gender
Gender was coded by asking the adolescents to circle the
correct alternative (1 = girl, 2 = boy).
Analysis strategy
The first aim of the present study was to examine whether
adolescents belonging to the same peer group would resemble
065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 69
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2009, 33 (1), 65–76
each other in their academic achievement, satisfaction with
educational track, school engagement, and school burnout.
The Multilevel Modeling technique (Duncan et al., 1997;
Muthén, 1997) is an excellent tool for the purposes of answer-
ing this research question, as it enables the variance in the
observed variables to be differentiated into two components:
variation that is due to similarity among the adolescents in the
same peer group (between-peer group variation) and variation
that is due to individual differences within the peer groups
(within-peer group variation). One statistical index used in
multilevel modeling is the intraclass correlation (ICC), which
provides an estimate of what proportion of the total variance
in an observed variable is due to between-group differences
(Heck, 2001; Muthén, 1991). In other words, the ICC is
calculated by dividing between-group variance by the total
variance (total variance = between-group variance + within-
group variance). In the present study, ICCs were calculated
and their statistical significance tested for each adjustment
variable separately by using the peer grouping as a clustering
variable.
The second aim of the present study was to examine
whether peer group type and gender would contribute to peer
group similarity in academic achievement, satisfaction with
educational track, school engagement, and school burnout
when controlled for the effect of educational track. This
research question was analyzed by conducting multiple group
analyses in which intraclass correlations were compared
between different combinations of peer group type and gender
(i.e., girls’ cliques, boys’ cliques, girls’ loose groups, boys’
loose groups, girls’ isolate dyads, boys’ isolate dyads).
The third aim of the present study was to examine whether
the mean levels of academic achievement, satisfaction with
educational track, school engagement, and school burnout
would differ according to gender and peer group type when
controlled for the effect of educational track. This research
question was analyzed by deploying multiple group analyses of
the mean differences between the different peer group type and
gender combinations (i.e., girls’ cliques, boys’ cliques, girls’
loose groups, boys’ loose groups, girls’ isolate dyads, and boys’
isolate dyads).
All the statistical analyses were performed using the Mplus
statistical package (Version 4.1; Muthén & Muthén,
1998–2006) with the missing data method, that is, the
standard MAR approach (missing at random) to missingness
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2006). This missing data method
uses all the data that are available in order to estimate the
model without imputing data. Because the variables were
skewed, the parameters of the models were estimated using the
MLR estimator (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2006).
Results
Peer group composition
A total of 360 peer groups with total of 1262 members were
identified in the sample. The majority (N = 319; 89%) of the
peer groups were composed of adolescents of the same sex.
The number of girls’ peer groups was 169 and the number of
boys’ peer groups was 150. A total of 41 peer groups contained
members of both sexes. The size of the peer groups ranged
from two to nine (M = 3.52; SD = 1.45). Peer groups were
classified according to type. The 360 groups comprised 73
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
69
cliques (43 girls’ cliques, 26 boys’ cliques, 4 mixed cliques),
204 loose groups (78 girls’ loose groups, 91 boys’ loose groups,
35 mixed loose groups), and 83 isolate dyads (48 girls’ isolate
dyads, 33 boys’ isolate dyads, 2 mixed isolate dyads). Girls
were more likely to belong to peer cliques (Adjusted Standard-
ized Residual (ASR) = 3.7) and isolate dyads (ASR = 2.0) than
boys, whereas boys were more likely to belong to loose groups
(ASR = 4.6) than girls (χ2, N = 1071) = 21.87, p < .001). No
gender differences were found with regards to peer group size.
Cliques and loose groups were by definition larger than isolate
dyads. Moreover, loose groups (M = 4.15, SD = 1.48) typi-
cally contained of more members than cliques (M = 3.41, SD
= 0.62, t(275) = –5.85, p < .001). A total of 167 peer groups
(148 gender-homogeneous groups; 19 mixed gender groups)
were on an academic track, 169 peer groups (149 gender-
homogeneous groups; 20 mixed groups) were on a vocational
track, 12 peer groups (all gender-homogeneous) were in the
tenth grade, and 12 peer groups (10 gender-homogeneous
groups; 2 mixed groups) contained adolescents on different
tracks. Only the peer groups that were homogeneous in gender
and whose members belonged either to an academic or to a
vocational track (N = 297; 42 girls’ cliques, 25 boys’ cliques,
71 girls’ loose groups, 82 boys’ loose groups, 46 girls’ isolate
dyads, 31 boys’ isolate dyads) were included in the analyses in
which differences in peer group homogeneity and differences
at the mean level in school adjustment were examined accord-
ing to gender and peer group type when controlled for
educational track. Of these 297 peer groups, 148 were peer
groups on an academic track (15 girls’ cliques, 9 boys’ cliques,
41 girls’ loose groups, 39 boys’ loose groups, 27 girls’ isolate
dyads, 17 boys’ isolate dyads) and 149 were peer groups on a
vocational track (27 girls’ cliques, 16 boys’ cliques, 30 girls’
loose groups, 43 boys’ loose groups, 19 girls’ isolate dyads, 14
boys’ isolate dyads).
Peer group homogeneity in school adjustment
The first research question was to examine whether
adolescents in the same peer group would resemble each
other in their academic achievement, satisfaction with
educational track, school engagement, and school burnout.
Intraclass correlations and their statistical significance are
presented separately for each adjustment variable in Table 1.
A total of 68% of the variation in academic achievement,
19% in satisfaction with educational track, 20% in school
engagement, and 6% in school burnout were due to differ-
ences between peer groups: adolescents in the same peer
group resembled each other, particularly in academic achieve-
ment, but also in satisfaction with educational track, school
engagement, and school burnout. To ensure that the results
were not due to educational track, the effect of educational
track on peer group similarity was also examined (Table 1).
The results for academic achievement, satisfaction with
educational track, and school engagement showed no differ-
ences between the two tracks in peer group homogeneity
(nominal = .05, two-tailed test). The results for school
burnout showed, in turn, that significant peer group homo-
geneity existed only among the peer groups on an academic
track, whereas no peer group homogeneity was found among
the peer groups on a vocational track.
065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 70

70 KIURU ET AL. / PEER GROUP HOMOGENEITY IN ADOLESCENTS’ SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT

Table 1
Intraclass correlations of observed variables among the whole sample (Nwithin =
1117–1262; Nbetween = 355–360) and separately for adolescents on an academic track
(Nwithin = 469–472; Nbetween = 148) and on a vocational track (Nwithin = 420–460;
Nbetween = 145–149)

Variables Whole sample Academic track Vocational track

Academic achievement .68*** .53*** .42***

School satisfaction .19*** .22*** .17***
School engagement .20*** .12*** .27***
School burnouta .06*** .05*** .01***

Notes. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05 (two-tailed test).
a In the case of school burnout, intraclass correlation was significant only at the whole

sample level and among peer groups on an academic track.

The role of peer group type and gender in peer group
homogeneity of school adjustment
The second aim was to examine whether peer group type and
gender would contribute to peer group similarity in academic
achievement, satisfaction with educational track, school
engagement, and school burnout. The results for the positive
indicators of school adjustment (i.e., academic achievement,
satisfaction with educational track, school engagement) are
presented first, followed by the results for school burnout.
Because the results for academic achievement, satisfaction
with educational track, and school engagement showed no
differences between the two educational tracks, the intraclass
correlations of these variables were calculated separately for
the different peer group type and gender combinations (i.e.,
girls’ cliques, boys’ cliques, girls’ loose groups, boys’ loose
groups, girls’ isolate dyads, and boys’ isolate dyads) combin-
ing both educational track groups (Table 2). Moreover,
multiple group analyses were conducted in which differences
in the intraclass correlations among the different peer group
type and gender combinations were examined. The compari-
sons between the intraclass correlations for each adjustment
variable were carried out only for those groups among whom
the intraclass correlation was significant or equal/larger than
.10 (see also Muthén & Muthén, 2001). The comparisons were
carried out in two steps for each variable measuring school
adjustment: (1) overall test for differences in intraclass
correlations (Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2-test for difference,
Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2006) and (2) paired comparisons
of differences in intraclass correlations (nominal = .05, two-
tailed test).
The results for academic achievement in the overall test for
differences in intraclass correlations showed that the hypothe-
sis that all the intraclass correlations would be equal was
rejected (χ2diff(5) = 14.48; p = .01 < .05). The results of paired
comparisons (see Table 2) showed further that the members of
girls’ isolate dyads resembled each other more in terms of
academic achievement than did the members of girls’ cliques
and girls’ loose groups. Similarly, the members of boys’ isolate
dyads resembled each other more in terms of academic
achievement than did the members of girls’ cliques and girls’
loose groups. The results in the overall test for differences in
the intraclass correlations for both satisfaction with
educational track (χ2diff(4) = 12.61; p = .02 < .05) and school
engagement (χ2diff(4) = 9.75; p = .04 < .05) showed that the
hypothesis that all the intraclass correlations would be equal
was rejected. The results for the paired comparisons (see Table
2) showed further that the members of girls’ cliques resembled
each other more than did the members of girls’ loose groups,
boys’ loose groups and girls’ isolate dyads in terms of satis-
faction with educational track. In school engagement the
members of girls’ cliques resembled each other more than did
the members of girls’ loose groups and boys’ loose groups. No
other statistically significant group differences were found,
except that boys’ isolate dyads showed no group homogeneity
either in satisfaction with educational track or school satis-
faction. Because the intraclass correlation for school burnout
was significant only among peer groups on an academic track
(Table 1), the role of gender and peer group type was
examined only for peer groups on this particular track.
However, the results showed that none of the peer group type
and gender combinations showed significant peer group

Table 2
Intraclass correlations in school satisfaction, school engagement, and school burnout across different combinations of peer group type and
gender

Girls’ Boys’ Girls’ loose Boys’ loose Girls’ isolate Boys’ isolate
cliques cliques groups groups dyads dyads
Number of groups (Nbetween = 42) (Nbetween = 25) (Nbetween = 71) (Nbetween = 82) (Nbetween = 46) (Nbetween = 31)

Academic achievement .56***/a .66***/ab .60***/a .69***/ab .81***/b .79***/b

School satisfaction .48**/a .19/ab .17**/bc .10/bc .13/bc .03#
School engagement .42***/a .39**/ab .11*/bc .14*/bc .18/abc .00#

Notes. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05 (two-tailed test).
Intraclass correlations with different letters in superscript differ by a significance level of at least .05 (two-tailed test).
# Not part of comparison, because of non-existing intraclass correlation.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 71

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2009, 33 (1), 65–76 71

homogeneity in school burnout. Consequently, no further
comparisons were carried out.
Mean differences according to peer group type and
gender in school adjustment
The third aim of the present study was to examine whether the
mean levels of academic achievement, satisfaction with
educational track, school engagement, and school burnout
would differ according to different combinations of gender and
peer group type when controlled for educational track. The
means and standard deviations for the peer groups on the level
of the whole sample, and separately for peer groups on an
academic track and on a vocational track, are presented in
Table 3. Multiple group analyses of the mean level using the
Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2-test for difference (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998–2006) showed no mean differences between
peer groups on an academic track and peer groups on a
vocational track in satisfaction with educational track and
school engagement. However, with regards to academic
achievement and school burnout, mean differences were found
for the two tracks (see Table 3): the peer groups on an
academic track showed higher levels of academic achievement
than those on a vocational track. Moreover, the peer groups on
an academic track also showed higher levels of school burnout
than those on a vocational track.
Next, the role of peer group type and gender in the mean
level of the school adjustment variables was examined by
comparing the means among the different combinations of
peer group type and gender (i.e., girls’ cliques, boys’ cliques,
girls’ loose groups, boys’ loose groups, girls’ isolate dyads, and
boys’ isolate dyads). The means and standard deviations of the
adjustment variables among these groups are presented in
Table 4. Multiple group analyses for mean differences were
carried out in the following steps for each variable measuring
school adjustment: (1) overall test for differences in means
(Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2-test for difference, Muthén, &
Muthén, 1998–2006); and (2) paired comparisons of differ-
ences in means (nominal = .05, two-tailed test). Paired
comparisons between the means in different groups (nominal =
.05, two-tailed test) were carried out only if the overall test
showed that the means between all the groups were not equal.
Because no mean differences between the peer groups on an
academic track and those on a vocational track were found in
satisfaction with educational track and school engagement, the
whole sample was used in the analyses of these variables. The
results of the overall test for school engagement showed mean
differences among the groups; that is, the hypothesis that all
the means would be equal was rejected (χ2diff(5) = 15.46; p =
.01 < .05). Consequently, paired mean comparisons were
carried out for mean differences in school engagement (see
Table 4). The results showed that girls’ cliques showed more
engagement than boys’ loose groups, girls’ isolate dyads, or
boys’ isolate dyads. Moreover, girls’ loose groups showed more
school engagement than boys’ loose groups, girls’ isolate
dyads, or boys’ isolate dyads. The results of the overall test for
satisfaction with educational track showed no mean differences
between the groups.
Next, because in the case of academic achievement and
school burnout, school track showed a statistically significant

Table 3
Means and standard deviations of observed variables for the peer groups among the whole sample (Nwithin =
1117–1262; Nbetween = 355–360) and separately for peer groups on an academic track (Nwithin = 469–472;
Nbetween = 148) and on a vocational track (Nwithin = 420–460; Nbetween = 145–149)

The whole sample Academic track Vocational track

Variables M SD M SD M SD Range of scale

Academic achievement 8.01 0.68 8.52a 0.42 7.46b 0.45 4–10

School satisfaction 4.08 0.33 4.04a 0.35 4.08b 0.35 1–5
School engagement 3.75 0.57 3.73a 0.41 3.76b 0.67 0–6
School burnout 2.37 0.22 2.47a 0.20 2.26b 0.10 1–6

Note. Means with different superscript differ by a significance level of at least .05 (two-tailed test).

Table 4
Means and standard deviations of school satisfaction and school engagement across different combinations of peer group type and gender

Girls’ Boys’ Girls’ loose Boys’ loose Girls’ isolate Boys’ isolate
cliques cliques groups groups dyads dyads
(Nbetween = 42) (Nbetween = 25) (Nbetween = 71) (Nbetween = 82) (Nbetween = 46) (Nbetween = 31)

Number of groups M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Academic achievement 8.07a 0.53 7.78b 0.63 8.34a 0.57 7.71b 0.69 8.15a 0.70 7.76b 0.76
School satisfaction 4.13 0.60 4.21 0.33 4.04 0.33 4.06 0.22 3.93 0.28 4.04 0.10
School engagement 4.01a 0.75 3.70ab 0.92 3.93a 0.40 3.59b 0.47 3.50b 0.56 3.63b 0.10
School Burnouta 2.36a 0.82 2.20a 0.85 2.50a 0.89 2.25a 0.91 2.59b 0.82 2.16a 0.69

Notes. a When examining mean differences between the different combinations of peer group type and gender general modeling was used instead
of multilevel modeling because peer group level variance was lacking.
Means with different superscript differ by a significance level of at least .05 (two-tailed test).

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 72
72 KIURU ET AL. / PEER GROUP HOMOGENEITY IN ADOLESCENTS’ SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT
effect, this was controlled for in the multiple group analyses of
the mean level for these variables. The results of the overall test
for academic achievement showed mean differences among the
groups; that is, the hypothesis that all the means would be equal
was rejected (χ2diff(5) = 43.32; p = < .001). The results of
paired mean comparisons (see Table 4) showed further a strong
gender effect: girls’ cliques had higher academic achievement
than boys’ cliques, girls’ loose groups had higher academic
achievement than boys’ loose groups, and girls’ isolate dyads
showed higher academic achievement than boys’ isolate dyads.
The results for the overall test for mean differences in school
burnout (χ2diff(5) = 15.55; p = .01 < .05) showed that the means
were not equal across the different peer group type and gender
combinations; that is, the hypothesis that all the means would
be equal was rejected. The results for the paired mean compari-
sons (see Table 4) for school burnout showed further that girls
belonging to isolate dyads differed from adolescents belonging
to any other peer group type: they experienced more school
burnout than girls’ cliques, boys’ cliques, girls’ loose groups,
boys’ loose groups, or boys’ isolate dyads.
Discussion
Previous research has shown that the members of adolescents’
peer groups are similar with respect to many school adjustment
variables (e.g., Chen et al., 2003; Kindermann, 2007; Kiuru
et al., 2008; Ryan, 2001). However, no studies have been
conducted to examine how type of peer group (i.e., clique,
loose group, isolate dyad) contributes to peer group homo-
geneity. This was the main purpose of the present study. As
found previously, the results showed that the members of
adolescents’ peer groups resembled each other in terms of
school adjustment. However, this peer group homogeneity was
found to vary according to group type. The members of girls’
cliques resembled each other more in terms of satisfaction with
their educational track and school engagement than did the
members of girls’ loose groups. Similar effect was not found
among boys. Girls’ isolate dyads, in particular, were at risk for
low school adjustment.
Peer group homogeneity in school adjustment
The first aim of the present study was to examine whether the
members of adolescents’ peer groups resemble each other in
their school adjustment a half a year after the transition to
post-comprehensive schooling. The results were consistent
with Hypothesis 1, suggesting that peer groups were homoge-
neous, in particular, in terms of academic achievement, but
also in satisfaction with educational track, school engagement,
and school burnout. These results are consistent with previous
studies showing that the members of peer groups are similar
with respect to many school adjustment variables (e.g., Chen
et al., 2003; Kindermann et al., 1996; Ryan, 2001). Overall,
peer group homogeneity was higher in the positive indicators
than the negative indicators of school adjustment. One
possible explanation for this result is that the adolescents were
examined only half a year after moving to a new learning
environment (a starting point in the construction of peer
groups). In the initial selection into new peer groups, academic
resources, such as academic engagement and achievement,
may play a more important role than subjective feelings of
academic overload, such as school burnout.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
The results showed further that peer group homogeneity in
school adjustment was not dependent on school track
(academic track vs. vocational track). The only exception was
school burnout, in which peer group homogeneity was signifi-
cant only in the case of groups whose members were on an
academic track. This result may be due to the fact that
academic pressures are higher on an academic track than on a
vocational track, as on the latter there is a greater emphasis on
manual skills. The results also showed that adolescents on an
academic track experienced a higher level of school burnout
than those on a vocational track (see also Salmela-Aro et al.,
in press-b).
The role of peer group type in group homogeneity
The main aim of the present study was to examine whether
peer group similarity in school adjustment would vary accord-
ing to group type. The results were different for girls and boys,
suggesting a group type ⫻ gender interaction effect. Peer group
cohesion was found to play a particularly important role
among girls (Hypotheses 2a and 2b): girls’ cliques showed
more peer group homogeneity in terms of both satisfaction
with educational track and school engagement than girls’ loose
groups. There are at least two explanations for this result. First,
girls’ may be particularly motivated to conform to their peer
group when the group members share intensive ties with each
other. Girls who belong to highly cohesive peer cliques may
also experience higher levels of trust and social support in their
group (e.g., Berndt, 1989, 2002; Hallinan & Williams, 1990)
and higher sense of belonging (e.g., Brown, 1989) than girls
belonging to less cohesive peer groups. This may lead to higher
peer group conformity in girls’ cliques compared to loose
groups. Second, the members of highly cohesive peer groups
may interact on a more regular basis (cf. flow of norms and
information, Moody & White, 2003) than less tightly
connected peer groups. This provides more opportunities for
shared talk and disclosure than is the case in less connected
peer groups.
In contrast, among boys peer group cohesion did not play
such a significant role in peer group homogeneity (Hypothesis
2b). There are at least two explanations for this result. One
explanation is that girls and boys show intimacy in different
ways in their peer relations. Boys typically show intimacy
through shared activities, whereas girls often express intimacy
through talk and self-disclosure (McNelles & Connolly, 1999).
The results of the present study showed that peer group
cohesion played a particularly important role among girls in
satisfaction with educational track and school engagement,
variables that might be particularly affected by shared
discussions and the sharing of opinions in peer groups. In
contrast, because boys spend time together mainly in shared
activities and doing things together, even boys belonging to
tightly connected peer cliques may spend less time in group
talk than girls in similar groups and are therefore less likely to
show more peer group homogeneity in satisfaction with their
educational track and school engagement than the members of
loose groups. The second possible explanation concerns
statistical power in the case of school engagement. Girls were
more likely to belong to peer cliques than boys and thus the
overall number of peer cliques was somewhat larger among
girls than boys. This may have affected the results on peer
group cohesion among girls, as compared to that among
boys.
065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 73
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2009, 33 (1), 65–76
The results showed further that all the types of peer groups
were strikingly similar in terms of academic achievement (see
also Chen et al., 2003). This finding is in accordance with the
notion that peer group homogeneity tends to be larger in
visible behaviors and shared activities than in attitudes and
motivation (Kandel, 1978; Werner & Parmelee, 1979).
Finally, except for academic achievement, the members of
adolescents’ isolate dyads showed no or very low similarity to
each other in terms of school adjustment. This may be due to
the fact that the members of isolate dyads have been compelled
to spend time with each other, as they have not been accepted
in other groups. Consequently, they may not have chosen each
other on the basis of similarity and they may also be less moti-
vated to conform to each other than the members of other
types of groups.
Mean differences in school adjustment between boys’
and girls’ peer groups
The third aim of the present study was to examine whether the
means of academic achievement, satisfaction with educational
track, school engagement, and school burnout differ accord-
ing to gender and to peer group type. As expected (Hypothe-
sis 3a), the results showed clear gender differences in academic
achievement: girls’ peer groups showed higher academic
achievement than those of boys. However, peer group types did
not differ from each other in this respect.
Similarly, as expected (Hypothesis 3a), gender effects were
found in school engagement and to some extent in school
burnout: girls’ peer groups tended to show not only more
school engagement but also more school burnout than those
of boys. These results are in accordance with previous research
showing that girls typically show higher academic achievement
(e.g., Frome & Eccles, 1998; Fuligni et al., 2001), higher
school engagement (e.g., Berndt & Miller, 1990; Ryan, 2001),
as well as more concerns about their academic success (e.g.,
Murberg & Bru, 2004), and more school burnout (Kiuru et
al., 2008; Salmela-Aro et al., in press-b). One explanation for
the finding that girls not only show higher achievement but also
higher levels of school-related stress and school burnout
compared to boys is that girls also tend to have lower academic
self-perceptions than boys (e.g., Cole, Martin, Peeke,
Seroczynski, & Fier, 1999; Frey & Ruble, 1987; Pomerantz,
Altermatt, & Saxon, 2002). Low academic self-perceptions
combined with placing high importance on achievement may
make girls more prone to school-related stress and burnout
compared to boys, even though they are more academically
successful than boys. Some evidence has also been found to
show that girls are more vulnerable than boys to the negative
effects of difficulties at school and low academic achievement
(e.g., Bryant, Schulenberg, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston,
2003; Frome & Eccles, 1998; Pomerantz et al., 2002).
Unexpectedly, no gender differences were found between
girls’ and boys’ isolate dyads in school engagement and school
burnout. However, girls’ isolate dyads showed less school
engagement and more school burnout than other types of girls’
peer groups, that is, girls’ cliques and girls’ loose groups. These
results suggest that our hypothesis (3b) concerning the
tendency of isolate dyads to show less school adjustment than
adolescents belonging to cliques or loose groups was true only
among girls. One possible explanation for these results is that
isolate dyads show a lower level of overall adjustment similar
to that of isolates (e.g., Ennett et al., 2006; Wentzel &
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
73
Caldwell, 1997; Wentzel et al., 2004) which may then be
reflected on how they think and feel about school. This was
found, however, only for girls. This may be for several reasons.
First, the tendencies of girls to attribute more importance to
peer group membership (e.g., Crocket et al., 1984; Kerr et al.,
2007) and be more vulnerable to interpersonal stress (e.g.,
Leadbeater, Blatt, & Quinlan, 1995; Rudolph & Hammen,
1999; Towbes, Cohen, & Glyshaw, 1989; Wagner & Compas,
1990) compared to boys may cause girls to suffer more than
boys from being somewhat rejected or neglected in the larger
peer network and to be more vulnerable than boys in isolate
dyads where peer relationship quality is likely to be low. The
reason why relationship quality can be expected to be lower in
isolate dyads is that peer selection may be more limited for
these individuals as they are less accepted among their peers
(e.g., Salmivalli, Huttunen, & Lagerspetz, 1997; Urberg, Luo,
Pilgrim, & Değirmencioğlu, 2003). Another possible expla-
nation for the results is gender differences in peer group
composition. Previous research has shown that girls’ peer
groups are more exclusive towards group-outsiders compared
to boys’ peer groups, which tend to be more interconnected
(e.g., Urberg et al., 1995). Consequently, it may be that boys’
isolate dyads have more contacts in the peer network than
girls’ isolate dyads and thus feel less rejected than girls’ isolate
dyads.
Limitations of the study
At least five limitations have to be taken into account in any
effort to generalize the results of the present study. First, the
sample sizes in some of the peer group type and gender combi-
nations (boys’ cliques, in particular) were relatively small in
relation to others (i.e., girls’ and boys’ loose groups). This lack
of power may have influenced some of our results. Second,
peer groups were studied only within schools. It has been
suggested, however, that the sole use of school-based data may
underestimate the extent of peer relations, as adolescents are
likely to have friends and peer groups outside as well as in
school (e.g., Kerr et al., 2007; Kiesner, Poulin, & Nicotra,
2003). It can be assumed, however, that in-school peers will
be the most influential for school-related adjustment, because
they share similar school experiences. Third, the participants
of the present study were restricted to only one peer group
each (i.e., primary peer groups). There is, however, evidence
that adolescents can belong to several peer groups simul-
taneously (e.g., Brown, 2004) and that many peer groups may
be influential in adolescents’ adjustment. As new techniques
have been developed recently which provide a possibility to
examine the membership in multiple peer groups simul-
taneously, such as the MLWin program (Rasbash, Steele, &
Browne, 2005), such efforts would provide an important
extension the existing research. Some new tools for examining
network autocorrelation and peer influence and selection have
also been introduced recently, such as the SIENA program
(Burk, Steglich, & Snijders, 2007; Snijders, Steglich, &
Schweinberger, 2007; Snijders, Steglich, Schweinberger, &
Huisman, 2006). As the SIENA is based on simulations of
peer relationships and peer characteristics, it is not limited to
the analyses of a particular peer group variable at a particular
time. Fourth, consistent with previous research (e.g.,
Bukowski, Gauze, Hoza, & Newcomb, 1993; Bukowski,
Sippola, & Hoza, 1999; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992), only a
few peer groups with members of both sexes were identified in
065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 74
74 KIURU ET AL. / PEER GROUP HOMOGENEITY IN ADOLESCENTS’ SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT
the sample (11%). Consequently, our low sample size did not
allow examination of the role of peer group type among mixed-
gender peer groups. This task remains for the future. Finally,
all the measures included in the present study were based on
self-report measures. It is well-known that self-reports are not
always the most valid and reliable method of data collection
(Shaffer, 2002). However, in the case of school adjustment it
is likely that subjective experiences are particularly important.
Conclusions
The results of the present study showed, first, that the
members of adolescents’ peer groups resembled each other, in
particular, in terms school adjustment, and less so in terms of
school burnout. Moreover, peer group type was found to
contribute to peer group homogeneity, but was moderated by
gender: the members of girls’ cliques resembled each other
more in satisfaction with their educational track and school
engagement than girls’ loose groups, whereas the same was not
true among boys. Girls’ isolate dyads, in particular, were at risk
for low adjustment.
References
Benenson, J.F. (1990). Gender differences in social networks. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 10, 472–495.
Benenson, J.F., & Schinazi, J. (2004). Sex differences in reactions to outperform-
ing same-sex friends. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 317–333.
Berndt, T.J. (1989). Obtaining support from friends in childhood and adoles-
cence. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children’s social networks and social supports
(pp. 308–331). New York: Wiley.
Berndt, T.J. (2002). Friendship quality in social development. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 11, 7–10.
Berndt T.J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment
to school. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329.
Berndt, T.J., & Keefe, K. (1996). Friends’ influence on school adjustment: a
motivational analysis. In J. Juvonen & K.R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation:
Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 248–278). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Berndt, T.J., & Miller, K.E. (1990). Expectancies, values, and achievement in
junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 319–326.
Brendgen, M., Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A.B., & Bukowski, W.M. (2001). The
relations between friendship quality, ranked-friendship preference, and
adolescents’ behavior with their friends. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 395–415.
Brown, B.B. (1989). The role of peer groups in adolescents’ adjustment to
secondary school. In T.J. Berndt & G.W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child
development (pp. 188–215). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, B.B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S.S. Feldman &
G.R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171–196).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, B.B. (2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In R.M. Lerner &
L.D. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 363–394). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bryant, A.L., Schulenberg, J.E., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., & Johnston,
L.D. (2003). How academic achievement, attitudes, and behaviours relate to
the course of substance use during adolescence: A 6-year, multiwave national
longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 361–397.
Bukowski, W.M., Gauze, C., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A.F. (1993). Differences
and consistency between same-sex and other-sex peer relationships during
early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 29, 255–263.
Bukowski, W.M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality
during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric prop-
erties of the friendships qualities scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 11, 471–484.
Bukowski, W.M., Newcomb, A.F., & Hartup, W.W. (Eds.). (1996). The company
they keep – Friendship in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bukowski, W.M., Sippola, L.K., & Hoza, B. (1999). Same and other: Inter-
dependency between participation in same- and other-sex friendships. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 439–459.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
Burk, W.J., Steglich, C.E.G., & Snijders, T.A.B. (2007). Beyond dyadic interpe-
dendence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 397–404.
Cairns, R.B., & Cairns, D.B. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our
time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cairns, R.B., Xie, H., & Leung, M.-C. (1998). The popularity of friendship and
the neglect of social networks: Toward a new balance. In W.M. Bukowski &
A.H. Cillessen (Eds.), Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades of
measuring children’s experiences with the peer group (pp. 25–53). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chen, X., Chang, L., & He, Y. (2003). The peer group as a context: Mediating
and moderating effects on relations between academic achievement and social
functioning in Chinese children. Child Development, 74, 710–727.
Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types
of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18,
557–570.
Cole, D.A., Martin, J.M., Peeke, L.A., Seroczynski, A.D., & Fier, J. (1999).
Children’s over- and underestimation of academic competence: A longitudi-
nal study of gender differences, depression, and anxiety. Child Development,
70, 459–473.
Crockett, L., Losoff, M., & Petersen, A.C. (1984). Perceptions of the peer
group and friendship in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4,
155–181.
Davies, M., & Kandel, D.B. (1981). Parental and peer influences on adolescents’
educational plans: Some further evidence. American Journal of Sociology, 87,
363–387.
Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., & Ryan, R.M. (1991). Motivation
and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist,
26, 325–346.
Değirmencioğlu, S.M., Urberg, K.A., Tolson, J.M., & Richard, P. (1998).
Adolescent friendship networks: Continuity and change over the school year.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 313–337.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job
demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
499–512.
Dubow, E.F., Tisak, J., Causey, D., Hryshko, A., & Reid, G. (1991). A two-year
longitudinal study of stressful life events, social support, and social problem-
solving skills: Contributions to children’s behavioural and academic adjust-
ment. Child Development, 62, 583–599.
Duncan, T.E., Duncan, S.C., Alpert, A., Hops, H., Stoolmiller, M., & Muthén,
B. (1997). Latent variable modeling of longitudinal and multilevel substance
use data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 275–318.
Education in Finland (1999). Statistics and indicators. Helsinki, Finland: Statistics
Finland.
Ennett, S.T., & Bauman, K.E. (1994). The contribution of influence and selec-
tion to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adolescent cigarette
smoking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 653–663.
Ennett, S.T., Bauman, K.E., Hussong, A., Faris, R., Foshee, V.A., & Cai, L.
(2006). The peer context of adolescent substance use: Findings from social
networks analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 159–186.
Epstein, J.L., & McPartland, J.M. (1976). The concept and measurement of the
quality of school life. American Educational Research Journal, 13, 15–30.
Espelage, D.L., Holt, M.K., & Henkel, R.R. (2003). Examination of peer-group
contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development,
74, 205–220.
Frey, K.S., & Ruble, D.N. (1987). What children say about classroom perform-
ance: Sex and grade differences in perceived competence. Child Development,
58, 1066–1078.
Frome, P.M., & Eccles, J.S. (1998). Parents’ influence on children’s achieve-
ment-related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
435–452.
Fuligni, A.J., Eccles, J.S., Barber, B.L., & Clements, P. (2001). Early adolescent
peer orientation and adjustment during high school. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 37, 28–36.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions
of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115.
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with
their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources.
European Journal of Oral Science, 113, 479–487.
Hallinan, M.T., & Williams, R.A. (1990). Students’ characteristics and the peer-
influence process. Sociology of Education, 63, 122–132.
Haynie, D.L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?
American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013–1038.
Heck, R.H. (2001). Multilevel modeling with SEM. In G.A. Marcoulides &
R.E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation
modelling (pp. 89–127). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinde, R.A. (1987). Individuals, relationships and culture: Links between ethology
and the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 75
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2009, 33 (1), 65–76
Holopainen, L., & Savolainen, H. (2005). Unpublished raw data. University of
Joensuu and University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Kandel, D.B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent
friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427–436.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Kiesner, J. (2007). Peers and problem behavior: Have
we missed something? In R. Engels, M. Kerr, & H. Stattin (Eds.), Friends,
lovers, and groups:Who is important in adolescence and why? London: Wiley.
Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002). Group identification in
early adolescence: Its relations with peer adjustment and its moderator effect
on peer influence. Child Development, 73, 196–208.
Kiesner, J., Poulin, F., & Nicotra, E. (2003). Peer relations across contexts:
Individual-network homophily and network inclusion in and after school.
Child Development, 74, 1328–1343.
Kindermann, T.A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on changes
in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78,
1186–2103.
Kindermann, T.A., McCollam, T.L., & Gibson, E., Jr. (1996). Peer networks
and students’ classroom engagement during childhood and adolescence. In J.
Juvonen & K.R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s
school adjustment (pp. 279–312). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Nurmi, J.E., Leskinen, E., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2008).
Peer group influence and selection in adolescents’ school burnout: A longi-
tudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54, 23–55.
Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Vuori, J., & Nurmi, J.E. (2007). The role of peer groups
in adolescents’ educational expectations and school adjustment. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 36, 995–1009.
Konu, A., & Lintonen, T. (2006). Theory-based survey analysis of well-being in
secondary schools in Finland. Health Promotion International, 21, 27–36.
Kosonen, P. (1983). Uranvalinnan valmiuksia peruskoulun päättöluokalla
[Career choice readiness at the end of comprehensive school]. Työvoima-
poliittisia tutkimuksia [Studies on labor policy], 39. Helsinki: Ministry of Labor.
Laird, R.D., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.A., & Bates, J.E. (1999). Best friendships,
group relationships and antisocial behavior in early adolescence. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 19, 413–437.
Leadbeater, B.J., Blatt, S.J., & Quinlan, D.M. (1995). Gender-linked vulnerabil-
ities to depressive symptoms, stress, and problem behaviours in adolescents.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 1–29.
Leadbeater, B.J., Kuperminc, G.P., Blatt, S.J., & Hertzog, C. (1999). A multi-
variate model of gender differences in adolescents’ internalizing and external-
izing problems. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1268–1282.
Leiter, M.P., & Schaufeli, W.B. (1996). Consistency of the burnout construct
across occupations. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 9, 229–243.
Maccoby, E.E. (1995). The two sexes and their social systems. In P. Moen,
G.H. Elder, Jr, & K. Lüscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on
the ecology of human development (pp. 347–364). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Magnusson, D., & Stattin, H. (1998). Person–context interaction theories. In
R. Lerner (Ed.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.
Theoretical models of human development (pp. 685–740). New York: Wiley.
Malmberg, L.E. (1996). How do Finnish students prepare for their future in
three school types? The relation between content of plans, information
gathering, and self-evaluations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66,
457–469.
Maslach, C. (1982). Understanding burnout: Definitional issues in analyzing a
complex phenomenon. In W.S. Paine (Ed.), Job stress and burnout (pp. 29–40).
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
McNelles, L.R., & Connolly, J.A. (1999). Intimacy between adolescent friends:
Age and gender differences in intimate affect and intimate behaviors. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 9, 143–159.
Moody J., & White, D.R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A
hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68,
103–127.
Murberg, T.A., & Bru, E. (2004). School-related stress and psychosomatic
symptoms among Norwegian adolescents. School Psychology International, 25,
317–332.
Muthén, B. (1991). Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement
components. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 338–354.
Muthén, B. (1997). Latent variable modeling of longitudinal and multilevel data.
In A. Raftery (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 453–480). Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Muthén, L., & Muthén, B.O. (1998–2006). Mplus Version 4.1. http://www.
statmodel.com/index2.html
Muthén, L., & Muthén, B.O. (2001). Mplus short courses: Special topic in latent
variable modeling using Mplus. Course material. Santa Monica, CA, November
5–8, 2001.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
75
Näätänen, P., Aro, A., Matthiesen, S., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2003). Bergen Burnout
Indicator 15. Helsinki, Finland: Edita.
Nevala, A. (2000). Opintietä onneen? Korkeakoulutukseen valikoituminen ja
työmarkkinoille sijoittuminen Suomessa toisen maailmansodan jälkeen
[Education and a better life? Selection for further education and placement
in the labor market]. In R. Raivola (Ed.), Vaikuttavuutta koulutukseen [The
influence on education]. Helsinki, Finland: Edita.
Newman, B.M., Lohman, B.J., Newman, P.R., Myers, M.C., & Smith, V.L.
(2000). Experiences of urban youth navigating the transition to ninth grade.
Youth & Society, 31, 387–416.
Nurmi, J.E., Niemivirta, M., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2003). Satisfaction with
educational track-scale. University of Jyväskylä and University of Helsinki,
Finland.
Pomerantz, E.M., Altermatt, E.R., & Saxon, J.L. (2002). Making the grade but
feeling distressed: Gender differences in academic performance and internal
distress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 396–404.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., & Browne, W.J. (2005). A user’s guide to MLwiN version
2.0. University of Bristol.
Roeser, R.W. (1998). On schooling and mental health: Introduction to the
special issue. Educational Psychologist, 33, 129–133.
Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J.G. (1998). Peer interactions, relation-
ships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development
(pp. 619–700). New York: Wiley.
Rudolph, K.D., & Hammen, C. (1999). Age and gender as determinants of
stress exposure, generation, and reactions in youngsters: A transactional
perspective. Child Developoment, 70, 660–677.
Ryan, A.M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young
adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135–1150.
Salmela-Aro, K. (2004). Revised school engagement scale. Jyväskylä: University of
Jyväskylä.
Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Leskinen, E., & Nurmi, J.-E. (in press-a). School-
burnout inventory (SBI): Reliability and validity. European Journal of Psycho-
logical Assessment.
Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., & Nurmi, J.-E. (in press-b). The role of educational
track in adolescents’ school burnout: A longitudinal study. British Journal of
Educational Psychology.
Salmela-Aro, K., & Näätänen, P. (2005). BBI-10. Nuorten koulu-uupumus-
menetelmä [Method of assessing adolescents’ school burnout]. Edita:
Helsinki, Finland.
Salmela-Aro, K., Näätänen, P., & Nurmi, J.E. (2004). The role of work-related
personal projects during two burnout interventions: A longitudinal study.
Work & Stress, 18, 208–230.
Salmela-Aro, K., Niemivirta, M., & Nurmi, J-E. (2003). Finnish Educational
Transitions (FinEdu) study (ongoing). Helsinki: University of Helsinki, and
Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1997). Peer networks and
bullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 305–312.
Savolainen, H. (2001). Explaining mechanisms of educational career choice. A follow-
up study of the educational career choices of a group of youths that finished compul-
sory education in 1990. University of Joensuu, Finland: Publications in
education.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Martínez, I.M., Pinto, A.M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A.B.
(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national
study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481.
School Statistics (2003). http://www.stat.fi/til/khak/2005/khak_2005_2006-12-21_
tie_001.html Helsinki: Central Statistical Office of Finland.
Shaffer, D.R. (2002). Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence (6th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Snijders, T.A.B., Steglich, C., & Schweinberger, M. (2007). Modeling the co-
evolution of networks and behavior. In K. Van Montfort, H. Oud, &
A. Satorra (Eds.), Longtitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences
(pp. 41–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Snijders, T.A.B., Steglich, C.E.G., Schweinberger, M., & Huisman, M. (2006).
Manual for SIENA, version 3. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Terry, R., & Coie, J.D. (1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociomet-
ric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 867–880.
Towbes, L.C., Cohen, L.H., & Glyshaw, K. (1989). Instrumentality as a life-
stress moderator for early versus middle adolescents. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 109–119.
Urberg, K.A., Değirmencioğlu, S.M., & Pilgrim,C. (1997). Close friend and
group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Develop-
mental Psychology, 33, 834–844.
Urberg, K.A., Değirmencioğlu, S.M., Tolson, J.M., & Halliday-Scher, K.
065-076 098014 Kiuru (Q8D):210 x 280mm 18/12/2008 14:17 Page 76

76 KIURU ET AL. / PEER GROUP HOMOGENEITY IN ADOLESCENTS’ SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT

(1995). The structure of adolescent peer networks. Developmental Psychology,
31, 540–547.
Urberg, K.A., Luo, Q., Pilgrim, C., & Değirmencioğlu, S.M. (2003). A two-
stage model of peer influence in adolescent substance use: Individual and
relationship-specific differences in susceptibility to influence. Addictive
Behavior, 28, 1243–1256.
Wagner, B.M., & Compas, B.E. (1990). Gender, instrumentality, and expressiv-
ity: Moderators of the relation between stress and psychological symptoms
during adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 383–406.
Wentzel, K.R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and
academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,
357–364.
Wentzel, K.R., Barry, C.M., & Caldwell, K.A. (2004). Friendships in middle
school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203.
Wentzel, K.R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group
membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child
Development, 68, 1198–1209.
Werner, C., & Parmelee, P. (1979). Similarity of activity preferences among
friends: Those who play together stay together. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42,
62–66.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1994). Children’s competence beliefs, achievement
values, and general self- esteem: Change across elementary and middle
school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 107–138.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016