ICS Codebook 61 Networks and Actor Attributes in Early Adolescence [2003/04] Principal Investigator: Andrea Knecht Department of Sociology Utrecht University Heidelberglaan 2 3584 CS Utrecht The Netherlands 2 3 Citation ICS Codebook number: 61 Data set: Networks and Actor Attributes in Early Adolescence [2003/04] Principal Investigator: Andrea Knecht Department of Sociology/ICS, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands Years of data collection: 2003/04 Depositor: Department of Sociology/ICS, Utrecht University Sponsor: NWO Netherlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) Producer: ICS Data Archive Distributor: Data Archiving and Networked Services DANS, Postbus 93067, 2509 AB Den Haag, The Netherlands Restriction of use: All publications using these data, should refer to the data in the following way: The data were gathered by Andrea Knecht, as part of her PhD research, building on methods developed by C. Baerveldt, initiator and supervisor of the project. The project is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research NWO, grant # 401-01-554 and is part of the research program ‘Dynamics of Networks and Behavior’ with principle investigator T.A.B. Snijders. And to this codebook as follows: Andrea Knecht (2006), Networks and actor attributes in early adolescence [2003/04]. Utrecht, The Netherlands Research School ICS, Department of Sociology, Utrecht University. (ICS-Codebook no. 61). 4 Table of Contents Page Title 5-6 1. Study description 7-12 2. Project description 2.1. Scientific relevance 2.2. Elaboration of the problematic 2.3. Methods and techniques of research 2.4. Societal relevance 12-142 3. Data Overview 3.1. Description of data of pupils 3.2. Description of data of teachers 3.3. Descriptives of data of pupils 3.4. Descriptives of data of teachers 143-214 4. Appendix: 4.1. Pupil’s questionnaire wave 1 - 4 4.2. Mentor’s questionnaire wave 1 – 4 4.3. Music codes 215-216 5. The ICS codebook series 217-220 6. List of ICS codebooks 5 1. Study description PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Andrea Knecht Department of Sociology/ICS, Utrecht University, The Netherlands FUNDING: NWO (401-01-554) DATES OF DATA COLLECTION: 2003/04 EXECUTERS OF DATA COLLECTION: Researcher and assistants KIND OF DATA: Panel survey UNITS OF OBSERVATION: Respondents POPULATION: Pupils in first grade of Dutch secondary schools (‘brugklassers’) Mentors (main class teacher) of first grade of Dutch secondary schools METHOD: Questionnaire SAMPLING: All pupils in the first grade of 14 Dutch secondary schools Mentors (main class teacher) of first grades of 14 Dutch secondary schools In the sample are schools that are not among the 10% largest and 10% smallest secondary schools in the Netherlands. There are no schools with an uncommon denomination or for special needs. From the remaining schools, a selection was made to have a mixture of public and private, rural and urban schools spread all over the Netherlands. All main educational levels are included. WEIGHTING: No weighting STATUS/DATA REPRESENTATION: SPSS portable files 6 NUMBER OF CASES: V wave: pupils 2996 teachers 121 W wave: pupils 2862 teachers 118 X wave: pupils 2913 teachers 111 Y wave: pupils 2932 teachers 84 NUMBER OF VARIABLES: V wave: pupils 425 teachers 186 W wave: pupils 421 teachers 186 X wave: pupils 421 teachers 175 Y wave: pupils 421 teachers 294 LANGUAGE OF WRITTEN MATERIAL: Study description: English Questionnaire: Dutch SPSS-labelling: English SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE: Sociology KEYWORDS: Social networks, adolescence, relations, behavior, social norms 7 2. Project description 2.1. Scientific relevance In this project the emergence of effective group norms is studied in pupils’ social networks at secondary schools. The norms studied are restricted to social behavior of pupils, more precisely, the way pupils use social rules in three areas which are very important to them: school, peer group, and the outer (adult) society. In this study, social rules at schools refer to making homework and truancy; social rules in the peer group refer to trust and reciprocity; and social rules in the outer society refer to social action and delinquency. The relevance of group norms at school is illustrated by a classical study of Willis (1977). He uses the concept of anti-school culture (which is broader than norms per se), and shows how working class pupils first generate such a set of norms and then may be affected by it, eventually leading them to becoming dropouts. His study shows that anti-school norms can develop, and that they can be effective, i.e., influence behavior; and that school norms are strongly related to the other norms about social behavior. The question of development of norms can hardly be treated without discussing the dynamics of networks and behavior. According to Coleman (1990), norms can come into existence when individual behavior has externalities (i.e. effects on other individuals) and when there is the possibility of sanctioning (cf. project 3, and related rational-choice explanations for the emergence of norms, e.g., Voss 2000, 2001). Being subjected to consequences of others’ behavior and having the possibility of sanctioning takes place in the context of the social embeddedness in networks. The development of norms influences the extent to which group members perform the behavior in question, but the norms are also influenced by the behavior itself being observed by group members and by the observed sanctions. The decision to carry out sanctions again is influenced by the individual’s network position and status, and will feed back upon this status (a successful sanction will tend to increase, an unsuccessful sanction to decrease the status of the sanctioning person). Pupils avoid actual sanctions by comparing their intended behavior to norms of others, and using this in choosing how to behave. Two kinds of reference processes are relevant here: normative and comparative references (also see Guldemond, 1994). In normative references pupils compare their own behavior with group norms (Homans, 1950). In comparative references they compare their behavior with that of significant others (Festinger, 1954). When a little delinquent subgroup exists in a non-delinquent class, comparative references could stimulate a group member to shoplifting, but normative references would not. This illustrates that it is important to compare the effects of groups and subgroups. Social network research is essential for the study of group norms (cf. Friedkin, 2001). However, empirical scientific studies of development of norms in networks of adolescents are rare. Hallinan started to study pupils' networks in the 70’s and 80’s (for an overview see Hallinan & Smith, 1989). Most studies are descriptive (like Hallinan’s). Recently, researchers started to tackle the topic of influence of the network on individual behavior and individual norms (see for instance Bender & Lösel, 1997, Reed & Rose 1998, Houtzager & Baerveldt, 1999, about the effect of peer relations on delinquent behavior). No empirical studies of the creation of norms have been carried out in which the mutual influence between behavior and relational networks were traced longitudinally . Our research question, accordingly, is quite basic: What conditions facilitate the development of effective group norms in pupils’ social networks in the first years of high school; and what induces the content of these norms? 8 2.2. Elaboration of the problematic Group norms in social networks may or may not develop. When group norms do not develop, pupils’ individual norms (attitudes) vary much and the chance that behavior is sanctioned is small. In this case it is possible that social network dynamics do not have any effect on norms. The attitudes within pupils’ networks then could reflect, e.g., the aggregated backgrounds of the pupils, especially the norms inherited from parents. This would mean that the pupils’ network plays no role in the development of norms, the individual pupil’s norms developing from other reference groups like family, school, or neighborhood. This is indeed the (often implicit) assumption of many studies on social norms. However, in many situations there will develop group norms. When group norms develop, they bring about a leveling of attitudes and a perception of sanctioning. The power of group norms is that pupils can trust others to sanction ‘bad behavior’ or back up their own sanctions. The development of such trust is intertwined with the development of the social network and cooperation (cf. project 3; see also Snijders, 1996, section 1.4). However, there are theoretical arguments that also when sanctioning is expected, pupils might act in conflict with the norms. From ASE-theory (see project 5), e.g., we could predict that pupils would deflect more if their attitudes deviate more from the norm, social costs of deflecting are less, and their self efficacy is stronger. From this, we could conclude that norms are less effective when attitudes vary more. Also, it could be predicted that norms are less effective in loose networks, and that norms are less effective for pupils who are less dependent on others, like high status pupils and loners. Furthermore, we could conclude that for pupils with a low educational level, positive group norms about peer interaction are more effective than about school behavior because they perceive that they can improve their behavior with peers more easily than their school behavior. Aside from the question when norms are effective, it is still an open question which network characteristics are conducive for the development of group norms. According to Coleman (1990), effective group norms develop when the ties in networks are strong and the networks are closed. This is consistent with arguments from Coleman & Hoffer (1987) who state that in closed networks costs of information and sanctions are lower, which makes it easier to maintain effective group norms. From this, it could be predicted that group norms will arise more easily in cohesive and intimate pupils’ networks.