Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Peer relationships in physical activity contexts: a road less

traveled in youth sport and exercise psychology research
Alan L. Smith
Department of Health & Kinesiology, 1362 Lambert, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1362, USA
Received 22 March 2002; received in revised form 22 May 2002; accepted 23 May 2002

Abstract
Background and Purpose. While it is well established that social agents contribute to the quality of
youth physical activity experiences, relatively little research has specifically explored peer relationships in
physical activity settings. Rather, the bulk of research on social agents has focused on teachers, coaches,
and parents. The purpose of this paper is to provide justification for pursuing youth peer relationships
research and present conceptual and methodological issues of relevance to such efforts.
Methods. The existing literature base on peer relationships in physical activity contexts is overviewed,
emphasizing the contribution of peers to self-perceptions, moral attitudes and behaviors, affect, and motivation.
Results and Conclusions. Promising future research directions are forwarded, focusing on (a) the possible
contribution of peer relationships research to understanding self-presentational processes and developmental
transitions, (b) the importance of examining the interaction of peer relationships and other social relationships in the physical activity context, and (c) the value of using the physical activity setting to promote
quality peer relationships.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Friendship; Peer acceptance; Social relationships; Youth physical activity; Youth sport

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I

I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference
Robert Frost (18741963)

Tel.: +1-765-496-6002; fax: +1-765-496-1239.

E-mail address: alsmith@sla.purdue.edu (A.L. Smith).

1469-0292/03/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00015-8

26

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

Introduction
Quality physical activity experiences are those that prompt commitment and adherence to active
living, as well as those that facilitate outcomes such as moral and social development, motor
competence, positive self-perceptions, and positive affect. Research on youth physical activity has
been championed by many sport and exercise psychologists (e.g., Duda, 1987; Gould, 1996;
Sallis & McKenzie, 1991; Weiss & Bredemeier, 1983), and deliberate efforts in this research area
have provided deeper understanding of factors that contribute to and detract from quality physical
activity experiences. Significant others in youths lives are among these factors, serving as primary
socializing agents in physical activity contexts. The research literature suggests that coaches, teachers, parents, and peers are among those who shape youth physical activity experiences, however
many research avenues that might provide a better understanding of social influence have yet to
be explored.
The overwhelming bulk of research on social influence in youth sport and physical activity has
focused upon the role of adults in governing youth psychosocial and behavioral outcomes
(Brustad, Babkes, & Smith, 2001; Sallis & Owen, 1999). Emphasis on coaches, teachers, and
parents in youth physical activity research is certainly not misplaced. However, it is puzzling the
degree to which research on peers has paled in comparison given the relevance of these social
agents and the vast array of research questions that could be pursued. A youngsters experience
with peers in the physical activity setting can be explored at several levels of social complexity,
ranging from an individuals social orientation and perceptions through interactions, relationships,
and group-level processes (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). Research methods and investigations linked with each of these levels will be discussed in this paper, however primary attention
will be directed toward peer relationships in the physical activity domain. A relationship is comprised of individuals familiar to one another, and has a history characterized by successive interactions (Rubin et al., 1998). Thus, the study of friendships and acceptance within groups of familiar
peers will be emphasized. The following sections of this paper address why sport and exercise
psychologists should spend more time examining peer relationships, highlight existing literature
on peer relationships in physical activity contexts, and forward ideas for future research. In so
doing, the purpose of this paper is to encourage sport and exercise psychologists to take a road
that to this point has been considerably less traveled.
Why this road?
Absence of research on a particular topic, in and of itself, is not sufficient justification for
advancing a rallying cry to pursue a research line. Some less traveled research paths hold greater
potential than others for illuminating interesting ideas and findings along the journey, as well as
linking with and enhancing existing research avenues. Further, some paths are more suited to
public use than others, allowing the practitioner as well as the researcher to gain from what lies
ahead. The study of peer relationships in the physical activity domain has this potential, as evidenced by the literatures on youth sport participation motives, readiness for competition, and
preferred sources of competence information, as well as developmental theory.
Organized sport participation is an omnipresent form of physical activity involvement for chil-

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

27

dren and young adolescents. Therefore, an understanding of youth motives for sport participation
is central to understanding the quality of youth physical activity experiences. Extensive empirical
research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s assessed the importance of a variety of possible
motives for sport participation, regularly highlighting fun/enjoyment, skill/competence development, social acceptance and affiliation, and fitness and appearance as top participation motives
(see Weiss & Ferrer-Caja, in press, for a review). These motives are interconnected with one
another, both empirically and theoretically, and suggest that peer relationships are key elements
of the youth sport experience. Social acceptance and affiliation have been named as sources of
enjoyment (Scanlan, Stein, & Ravizza, 1989) and have been linked with perceived and actual
physical competence (Evans & Roberts, 1987; Weiss & Duncan, 1992). Furthermore, both athletic
competence and physical appearance are viewed by youth as key social status determinants
(Chase & Dummer, 1992). These associations suggest not only that peer relationships are
important to study as contributors to quality physical activity experiences, but that the physical
domain is an ideal context for developing a deeper understanding of peer relationships.
Discussions on psychological readiness for sport competition also highlight the important role
of peers in the physical domain, in that motivational and cognitive markers of readiness are
intimately linked with desire for social comparison and capacity to judge ones competence,
respectively (see Brustad et al., 2001; Passer, 1996). While children certainly may be enrolled in
competitive sport programs by their parents before they themselves are motivated to participate,
it is upon developing a distinct interest in social comparison that achievement contexts such as
sport take on special meaning for them. According to Passer, this interest should be reasonably
developed by around age seven, with interest in social comparison intensifying as youth move
through middle and late childhood. Correspondingly, cognitive abilities such as role-taking and
the ability to understand performance outcomes develop across these years. It is not until about
age 12 when youth are able to distinguish effort and ability as contributors to performance outcomes (Roberts, 1993), although this capacity matures progressively across childhood (Fry &
Duda, 1997). As these capabilities develop, youth shift from relying predominantly on adults for
physical competence information to information from peer comparison and evaluation (Horn &
Hasbrook, 1986; Horn & Weiss, 1991). Given the link of peer comparison to motivational readiness for sport participation and ascending importance of peers to competence perceptions across
childhood, it behooves researchers to better understand peer relationships in this setting.
Peers are not only important to the acquisition of competence information in competitive sport
settings, but also more generally to psychological adjustment as well as social and moral development. Sullivan (1953) theorized that general peer acceptance shapes perceptions of authority and
views toward competition and compromise, while specific friendships allow youth to understand
the self relative to others and provide opportunity for intimacy and validation. Developmental
psychologists have generally supported these views by linking peer relationships with affect,
sociability, aggression, conflict resolution, and other developmental variables (see Newcomb &
Bagwell, 1995; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993). Physical activity contexts such as
organized sport, physical education, and neighborhood games all provide opportunities to interact
with peers and therefore may serve as important contexts for youth development, for example by
providing opportunity for peer comparison and exposing youth to different points of view. As
such, careful examination of peer relationships in physical activity contexts is well justified.

28

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

Leaves, roots, and rocks

In taking a less traveled research path, it is important to clear away the leaves to obtain a view
of the roots that shape the trail. One must ascertain the scope and boundaries of the topical area
as well as central constructs of interest. This allows a more focused and efficient development
of the research line, thereby insuring that the journey is meaningful. In addition, clearing the
leaves allows one to see rocks that may prove hazardous or interfere with ones progress down
the path. Methodological issues of importance must be considered before embarking on peer
relationships research projects. In drawing from parallel avenues of inquiry in developmental and
educational psychology, sport and exercise psychologists can avoid pitfalls and make good time
along the trail. That said, travel along the trail should be carefully paced such that important
conceptual and methodological issues unique to the physical activity context are not overlooked.
This section will define key peer relationships constructs, and discuss them relative to levels of
understanding, measurement issues, and other potential moderators of psychosocial outcomes in
the physical activity context.
The peer relationships literature is comprised of two broad research emphases, friendship and
peer acceptance (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989). Friendship pertains to close dyadic relationships while
peer acceptance is ones degree of social acceptance, liking, or status within the peer group. The
study of friendship by developmental psychologists has entailed consideration of three issues: (a)
whether or not an individual has friends, (b) if one has friends, who they are, and (c) the quality
of relationships with friends (Hartup, 1996). Thus, there are several levels at which friendship
can be studied. Further, both friendships and peer acceptance may be examined at individual,
interaction, relationship, or group levels of social complexity (Rubin et al., 1998). As will be
apparent in the later section of this paper covering physical activity research on peer relationships,
the majority of work has been conducted at the individual level of analysis, with emphasis on
individual perceptions of peer relationships. Expanding this research literature to account for other
levels of social complexity, drawing from existing work on social interaction and group dynamics
in the physical activity and education domains (see Hanrahan & Gallois, 1993; ODonnell &
King, 1999), would considerably enhance our understanding of peer relationships and how they
contribute to quality physical activity experiences.
To extend this literature base successfully, researchers will require sound measures of peer
relationships. Qualitative approaches, self-report instruments, sociometric techniques, and
behavioral analysis procedures can allow for assessment of peer relationships across levels of
analysis. In adopting such measurement approaches, it is important to consider the context within
which the relationships exist (Weiss, Smith, & Theeboom, 1996; Zarbatany, Ghesquiere, & Mohr,
1992). With regard to friendships, for example, Zarbatany et al. found that activity settings (e.g.,
sports, school, talking on the phone) dictated the expectations held of ones friend. Ego reinforcement and character admiration were desired in sport while helping and considerateness were
preferred in school. Weiss et al. interviewed male and female summer sport camp participants,
ages 816 years, about their best friend in sports. The qualitative data revealed a variety of positive
(e.g., companionship, self-esteem enhancement, intimacy) and negative (e.g., conflict, betrayal)
features of best sport friendships that were consistent with features revealed in the developmental
psychology literature. Many of the themes underlying these general dimensions, however, were
specific to the sport context and gender differences typically found on intimacy and self-esteem

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

29

enhancement dimensions did not emerge. This suggests that features of the sport social context
may shape youth perceptions of peer relationships in sport. More generally, the findings of Zarbatany et al. and Weiss et al. indicate that better understanding of peer relationships in physical
activity contexts may require attention to development of context-specific conceptual and measurement models.
Weiss and Smith (1999) developed a self-report assessment of sport friendship quality in an
attempt to account for the context-specific nature of friendship perceptions in the sport setting.
They began their measurement development efforts by examining items from previous work in
developmental psychology (Parker & Asher, 1993) and developing new items grounded in themes
that emerged from their qualitative assessment of sport friendships (Weiss et al., 1996). Through
a series of studies, they refined and validated a measure of friendship quality that tapped selfesteem enhancement and supportiveness, loyalty and intimacy, things in common, companionship
and pleasant play, conflict resolution, and conflict elements of sport friendships. Thus, both positive and negative features of friendship were successfully measured that reflect the perceived
quality of a sport relationship. Several of the subscales distinguished youth perceptions of a best
friend versus a third-best friend, suggesting that the measure is relatively sensitive to the quality
of particular relationships.
Sport and exercise psychology researchers have also successfully used the self-report approach
to assess perceived peer acceptance in physical activity contexts (Etzbach, 2000; Smith, 1999;
Weiss & Duncan, 1992). In the Etzbach study and the Smith study, items from the social (peer)
acceptance subscale of Harters (1988) self-perception profile for adolescents were adapted to
refer specifically to the physical activity context. In both studies peer acceptance was reliably
measured and was related in theoretically expected directions with psychosocial variables that are
salient in the physical domain (e.g., positively with physical self-worth, negatively with social
physique anxiety). While the use of self-report measures has been fruitful for sport and exercise
psychologists studying peer relationships, a limitation of these measures is that peer relationships
are only understood at the level of individual perceptions. To pursue research on peer relationships
at the interaction, relation, or group levels of analysis, other measurement approaches need to
be considered.
Developmental and educational psychologists have used sociometric methods extensively to
obtain understanding of an individuals status within the peer group. Sociometric approaches
emanate from Morenos (1934) theoretical views on the linkage of individuals and social groups.
These approaches have generally evolved into those that categorize individuals based on their
degree of social impact and social preference or approaches that assess who chooses to interact
with whom, allowing creation of sociograms that capture interconnections within groups
(Benenson, Apostoleris, & Parnass, 1998). In the former approach social impact pertains to the
conspicuousness of an individual to the peer group and social preference is the valence attached
to this impact. Individuals of high social impact are categorized as popular, rejected, or controversial as a function of positive, negative, or both positive and negative social preference scores,
respectively. Individuals are categorized as neglected if of low social impact, and average if
they fall between the extremes represented by the other categories. Research by developmental
psychologists generally shows that popular children are more socially skilled (e.g., less aggressive,
more sociable) while those who are least popular are less socially skilled (Newcomb et al., 1993).
In a somewhat dated example addressing the sport domain, Buhrmann and Bratton (1977) assessed

30

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

the link between high school sport participation and social status of tenth- through twelfth-grade
girls in six Canadian schools. They assessed positive and negative status among girls, status with
teachers, status with boys, and the degree to which girls were leaders, or of high social position,
from their peers perspective. Overall, this study showed that participation in sport and greater
sport competence were related to higher social status, therefore providing deeper understanding
of the meaning of sport for girls. Despite the valuable information provided by this study, however, subsequent physical activity research has not exploited this methodological strategy.
Interconnections within groups can be examined through social network analysis techniques
that allow assessment of network density, examination of subgroups or cliques within larger
groups, and the discovery of central players within groups (see Scott, 1991). Kindermann (1993)
created maps of social networks in fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms, and demonstrated both that
groups socialize individuals engagement in school and that individuals affiliated themselves with
peers of similar motivational characteristics. While similar social network investigations can be
found in the psychology and sociology literatures, few researchers have adopted social network
techniques better to understand peer interactions or relationships in physical activity contexts. In
one instance of such work, Tropp and Landers (1979) examined interpersonal attraction, leadership, and interaction channels, as assessed by initiating and receiving passes, in collegiate field
hockey teams. They found that uniqueness and importance of an individuals playing position,
rather than a high degree of interaction per se, accounted for leadership and attraction variability.
Further, in a conceptual paper Nixon (1993) advocated use of a social network approach in sport
sociology research, suggesting that it could shed light on topics such as pain and injury, stacking
(segregation of playing positions based on race or ethnicity), and coaching burnout.
An additional consideration for researchers interested in peer relationships is the development
and use of behavioral indexes of social interaction. Research on peer-assisted learning in education
settings regularly employs behavioral assessment techniques to document the nature of peer interactions (see ODonnell & King, 1999; Topping & Ehly, 1998). Behavioral assessment is of particular salience in the physical activity setting, where individuals are using their bodies as instruments, learning movement skills, and/or engaged in competitive and cooperative activities. Recent
work in the physical domain by dArripe-Longueville, Huet and Gernigon (2000) examined states
of goal involvement, performance, and behavioral interactions in competence-symmetric and competence-asymmetric adolescent dyads learning a swimming task. Competence-asymmetric dyads
engaged in more observation behaviors, demonstrations, and relevant verbalizations than competence-symmetric dyads, suggesting that relative level of competence among peers impacts
behavioral patterns. These and other behavioral patterns may shed light not only on skill learning,
but also other important outcomes in the physical activity setting such as friendship quality, peer
acceptance, self-perceptions, affect, and motivation.
In summary, the study of peer relationships requires attention to multiple levels of analysis and
methods, as well as the specific relationship context. Other possible considerations of relevance
to physical activity researchers include gender differences in physical activity experiences and
biological maturity. Although Weiss et al. (1996) showed relatively limited gender differences in
sport friendship quality dimensions among children and adolescents, Coakley and White (1992)
found that gender moderated the role of peers in sport involvement choices of British adolescents.
For example, their semistructured interviews revealed that female adolescents were more likely
than male adolescents to discuss social support of same-sex friends as important to their involve-

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

31

ment and continued participation in sport activities. A youngsters gender and biological maturity
relative to peers can influence physical and other self-perceptions (Malina, 1988; Smith, 1999),
making these important variables to explore when conducting developmental investigations. These
issues acknowledged, research efforts have been conducted in the physical activity setting that
have begun to move us forward on this research path. While the trail map is certainly in its rough
form, and there is much more territory to cover, what do we know to this point?
Points of interest on the map
While the literature base on peer relationships in physical activity is considerably smaller than
that on coaches or parents, the efforts undertaken to this point provide a sound foundation for
travel down the peer relationships research path. There is a preliminary map of the peer relationships territory that has been drafted, and several places on this map are worth noting before
progressing. For example, peers have been linked with competence, self-perceptions, moral development, affect, and motivational outcomes in these early efforts (see Brustad et al., 2001; Weiss
et al., 1996, for more comprehensive reviews of this literature). In the following paragraphs key
findings will be briefly reviewed, with discussion directed toward how these findings lead to
research questions worth exploration.
Research in the physical activity domain has linked physical competence with social competence or acceptance (Bigelow, Lewko, & Salhani, 1989; Chase & Dummer, 1992; Evans &
Roberts, 1987; Weiss & Duncan, 1992). Chase and Dummer surveyed fourth- through sixth-grade
youth (ages 813 years) on their perceptions of what factors contribute to popularity. Athletic
competence and physical appearance were rated as the most important social status determinants.
Bigelow and colleagues surveyed 912 year-old sport-involved youth and found that lack of skill
was perceived to be an impediment to friendship relations. Corroborating the perceptions of youth,
Evans and Roberts report that actual physical competence of third- through sixth-grade boys is
linked with playing and leadership opportunity during games at recess, and therefore social status.
Higher ability youth are accommodated by peers, while low ability youth receive less opportunity
to join games when late, to improve their motor skills, and to play central roles in games. This
likely has an impact on youth self-perceptions, as suggested by Weiss and Duncans research that
showed a strong, positive relationship of indices of actual and perceived physical competence
with actual and perceived social acceptance among 813 year-old children. Given the importance
of self-perceptions to quality physical activity experiences, and in particular motivational processes (see Weiss & Ferrer-Caja, in press), it is clear that research directed toward understanding
how peers shape self-perceptions would make an important contribution to the sport and exercise
psychology literature. For example, research on the role of peers in modeling motor skills suggests
that enhancement of self-perceptions is an important mechanism by which modeling effects are
realized (McCullagh & Weiss, 2001). By exploring topics such as modeling effects, as well as
how peers provide one another with esteem-enhancing information, positive and negative effects
of using peer comparison and evaluation to judge competence, and group-level processes that
influence self-perceptions, considerable progress will be made.
Peer modeling may also be a mechanism by which youth learn moral attitudes and behaviors
according to Banduras (1977, 1986) social learning approach. Sport psychology research has

32

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

shown this to be the case, with peer influence on moral attitudes and behaviors strengthening as
youth progress through their sport careers (Brustad et al., 2001). Approaches that emphasize moral
reasoning structures (e.g., Haan, 1978; Kohlberg, 1969) also have been supported in the physical
activity setting, suggesting that peer-based interventions designed to promote dialogue on moral
dilemmas and subsequent attempts at reaching moral balance among involved parties can be
successfully implemented (Gibbons, Ebbeck, & Weiss, 1995). Thus, research exploring peer
relationships relative to moral reasoning and behavior is well justified. Specific issues of interest
include the developmental trajectory of peer influence on moral outcomes, the role of the peer
group in fostering bracketed morality (context-based suspension of morality; see Shields and
Bredemeier (1995) for a more extensive treatment of this concept), and what happens when opposing perspectives of right and wrong are represented within ones peer group.
In addition to linking peers with youth self-perceptions and moral outcomes, preliminary
research efforts suggest peers are associated with affective outcomes in physical activity contexts
(Brustad et al., 2001). Duncan (1993) found that higher perceptions of the friendship provisions of
companionship and esteem support, respectively, were associated with more positive performancerelated affect in physical education in seventh- and eighth-grade youth. These indices of friendship
were also associated with an assessment of choice to participate in organized physical activity
outside the physical education setting. Smith (1999) corroborated these findings with a sample of
1215 year-old middle school students. He found that higher perceptions of close friendship associated with more positive physical-activity-related affect and that higher perceptions of peer
acceptance indirectly predicted more positive affect via higher physical self-worth. Additionally,
both peer variables indirectly predicted challenge preference and actual physical activity behavior,
by way of affect. The study supported Sullivans (1953) theoretical assertion that friendship and
peer acceptance make independent contributions to psychosocial outcomes, suggesting that future
research efforts in the physical activity domain concurrently explore specific friendships and
dynamics of the larger peer group. Overall, this work supports motivational perspectives that
highlight significant others, self-perceptions, and affect as key motivational variables (e.g., Eccles
(Parsons) et al., 1983; Harter, 1978, 1981), and suggests that peers are critical to quality physical
activity experiences. Future work designed to explore the relationship of context-specific perceptions of friendships, perceived and actual peer acceptance, social interaction, and group structures
with physical activity cognition, affect, and behavior should meaningfully enhance the sport and
exercise psychology knowledge base.
Preliminary efforts examining peer relationships in the physical activity context suggest that
this less traveled research path is well worth exploring. Some of the leaves and rocks on the path
have been cleared, as researchers have begun to develop context-specific measurement tools
(Weiss & Smith, 1999) and explore the association of friendship and peer acceptance with theoretically relevant psychosocial variables (Brustad et al., 2001). These initial efforts raise important
questions about how peers contribute to the shaping of self-perceptions, moral attitudes and
behaviors, affect in the physical domain, and motivated behavior in the form of seeking challenges,
making physical activity choices, and remaining committed to activity over the long term. Other
potentially fruitful directions for research are presented in the next section that emanate less
directly from the existing research base, but nonetheless receive some direction from it.

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

33

Bushwhacking (with a compass)

Some of the most exciting and rewarding research discoveries take place when one is willing
to cover uncharted territory. Covering new territory entails creating fresh lines of inquiry as well
as seeking connections with existing avenues of knowledge. Given the relatively limited interest,
to this point, in exploring the nature and dynamics of peer relationships in physical activity contexts there are many such opportunities to make progress. New efforts will benefit from guidance
provided by developmental and educational psychology research on peer relationships, as well as
the fledgling literature base in sport and exercise psychology. That is, while we are out bushwhacking we will at least have a compass in our pocket to help us keep from moving in circles!
Following are a few preliminary ideas for future research on peer relationships that may help
improve understanding of the youth physical activity experience.
Peer relationships and self-presentational processes
Self-presentational processes are those where people monitor and control how they are viewed
by others (Leary, 1992; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980). Such processes, while relevant
to individuals of all ages, would seemingly be of particular relevance to youth in late childhood
and early adolescence. As noted earlier, these youth consider physical appearance and athletic
prowess as important to popularity (Chase & Dummer, 1992), engage in sport because of the
desire to make friends and affiliate with peers (Weiss & Ferrer-Caja, in press), and use peer
comparison and evaluation to ascertain their own levels of physical competence (Horn & Hasbrook, 1986; Horn & Weiss, 1991). Therefore, a potentially fruitful line of future research would
be to examine the interface of peer relationships and self-presentational processes.
Leary (1992) encouraged sport and exercise psychologists to consider the role of self-presentational processes in participation motivation, activity and context choices, athletic performance,
and affective responses to sport and exercise. A considerable amount of research followed on
self-presentational processes, the bulk of which has been conducted with adults and has focused
upon affective responses to exercise, in particular social physique anxiety. Social physique anxiety
is a specific form of social anxiety that emanates from the potential for or presence of evaluation
of ones physique by others (Hart, Leary, & Rejeski, 1989). Social anxiety is a function of the
degree of motivation to make an impression and the probability of successfully doing so
(Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Greater motivation to make an impression and lower probability of
successfully making an impression yield higher anxiety. One possible link between the self-presentation and peer relationships literatures lies in individuals perceptions of ability to make desired
impressions. Youth of lower peer acceptance might be expected to experience higher social anxiety because of perceived inability to make positive impressions on peers. A study in the general
psychology literature by Inderbitzen, Walters, and Bukowski (1997) supports this hypothesis.
Adolescents of rejected and neglected social status in their study reported higher social anxiety
than adolescents of average or popular status. In a study of physical activity motivation of over
600 youth aged 1317 years, Etzbach (2000) found that both boys and girls who perceived lower
peer acceptance reported higher social physique anxiety. Furthermore, Etzbach found that social
physique anxiety was associated with physical activity motivation, corroborating existing research
on adults. Thus, a potentially valuable path for future research would be to explore the scope and

34

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

mechanisms of peer influence on youth self-presentational processes as they relate to physical

activity affect, motivation, and choices.
Peer relationships and transitions
A better understanding of youth peer relationships might allow insight into important developmental and career transitions of relevance to physical activity involvement. How peer relationships
and relationship continuity are associated with physical activity motivation and behavior upon
changing schools (e.g., moving from middle school to high school) is unstudied. A review of
research on other forms of health-related behavior by Brown, Dolcini, and Leventhal (1997) suggests that peer relationships influence health behavior and vice versa. Therefore, future research
in the physical activity setting might consider not only how peer relationships help encourage,
maintain, or discourage active lifestyles among youth, but also if physical activity-related interventions can be designed that shape peer group choices upon moving to new school settings.
Other important transitions youth face include entry into organized sport, movement toward
intensive sport involvement and competition, and leaving competitive sport (see Wylleman, De
Knop, Ewing, & Cumming, 2000). How do peers ease such transitions or make them more difficult? Do peers play a role in facilitating or delaying sport transitions? Sport-related research
suggests that individuals who exclusively identify with the athlete role are at greater risk for
adjustment difficulties upon leaving sport or experiencing an injury (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Petitpas, 2000). What role do peers play in the formation of athletic identity or global self-identity?
Careful examination of peer group dynamics may provide better understanding of the formation of
unidimensional versus multifaceted self-identities, as well as how these identities are behaviorally
expressed in and outside the sport setting.
Peers and other players in the physical activity setting
In attempting to fully understand peer relationships in physical activity contexts, researchers
must remember that other social agents, such as coaches and parents, also contribute to youth
social, cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. In the physical education setting, for
example, a student may be concerned about how he appears to his teacher. In the competitive
sport setting, an athlete may be pressured to give up competitive sport by her parents, while
coaches are encouraging her to continue. Elite-level participation may be associated with greater
dependence upon adults, or co-dependence of the athlete and significant adults. These circumstances exist in concert with interactions with friends and other peers in the respective settings.
It would be well worth examining the unique and interactive contributions of different social
agents when attempting to understand psychosocial outcomes in physical activity. Anderssen and
Wold (1992) examined the association of parents and best friends with leisure-time physical
activity of over 900 Norwegian seventh-grade youth. They found that perceived physical activity
levels, helping, and support for activity of both parents and best friends contributed to youth
physical activity. Drawing from responses of over 39,000 1116 year-old respondents to the WHO
cross-national survey of health behavior, Wold and Anderssen (1992) found that activity of family
members and best friends contribute to youth physical activity, with best friends accounting for
most explained variance. These findings provide important information about the role of signifi-

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

35

cant others in youth physical activity, but they could be expanded to explore the interactive contributions of significant others. The developmental psychology literature, for example, highlights
the role of familypeer linkages to psychosocial functioning (Parke & ONeil, 1999) and has
established that family and friendship social systems moderate each others relationships with
youth adjustment and well-being (e.g., Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee, & Sippola, 1996). Therefore, exploration of these linkages by sport and exercise psychologists appears to be warranted.
Enhancing peer relationships through physical activity
Because high quality peer relationships are of value in themselves and may translate to positive
health-related outcomes, the development of effective and efficient ways to use physical activity
contexts to promote peer relationships is a worthy pursuit. The developmental and educational
psychology literatures contain numerous evaluations of intervention protocols grounded in cooperative learning and interaction approaches, modeling and reinforcement, and social skills training
(see Furman & Gavin, 1989; ODonnell & King, 1999; Topping & Ehly, 1998), and should be
consulted such that potential design pitfalls are averted. Existing intervention research on moral
development in the physical activity setting (e.g., Gibbons et al., 1995) should also be consulted,
as particular activities grounded in social learning and structural developmental theoretical perspectives are directed toward enhancing quality of interactions among peers. Finally, literature on
the promotion of mastery motivational climates in physical activity settings (see Roberts, Treasure, & Kavussanu, 1997) might provide useful ideas for those interested in fostering youth peer
relationships. Mastery motivational climates direct attention of youth toward personal improvement and effort rather than normative performance comparisons. As such, these climates may
allow for higher quality relationships to develop by reducing potential for interpersonal conflict.
Future research that improves our understanding of peer relationships will allow us better to judge
such ideas, and will allow for the development of powerful and streamlined techniques for enhancing the well-being of youth.

Making all the difference

To date there has been a great deal of research on the youth physical activity experience, yet
many paths of inquiry are left relatively unworn. Traveling down an unworn research path carries
some risk. Progress can be slow and mistakes are probable. Other researchers may not readily
see the value of pursuing time-consuming foundational efforts. At the same time, taking the less
traveled route affords opportunity to be deliberate, learn from mistakes, and in return make exciting discoveries that enhance understanding. To this point, relatively few research investigations
have been conducted that specifically target understanding of peer relationships in youth physical
activity contexts. Nonetheless, careful study of peer relationships by sport and exercise psychology
researchers is warranted. Initial efforts have been promising and numerous potential lines of exploration are evident, suggesting this is a research path that can make a difference should we choose
to travel it.

36

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

Acknowledgements
Ideas contained in this manuscript were presented at the 1998 Association for the Advancement
of Applied Sport Psychology Convention (Cape Cod, MA, USA) and the 2000 Konza Psychology
of Exercise, Sport, and Behavior Change workshop (Manhattan, KS, USA). I would like to thank
Drs. Fabienne dArripe-Longueville and Paul Wylleman for providing feedback on an earlier
version of this manuscript.
References
Anderssen, N., & Wold, B. (1992). Parental and peer influences on leisure-time physical activity in young adolescents.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 341348.
dArripe-Longueville, F., Huet, M. L., & Gernigon, C. (2000). Peer relationships and motor skill acquisition: Effects
of skill level asymmetry and gender on interactive dynamics and achievement [abstract]. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 22, S33.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Benenson, J., Apostoleris, N., & Parnass, J. (1998). The organization of childrens same-sex peer relationships. In W.
M. Bukowski, & A. H. Cillessen (Eds.), Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades of measuring childrens
experiences with the peer group (pp. 523). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bigelow, B. J., Lewko, J. H., & Salhani, L. (1989). Sport-involved childrens friendship expectations. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 11, 152160.
Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Petitpas, A. J. (2000). Self-identity issues in sport career transitions. In D. Lavallee, & P. Wylleman (Eds.), Career transitions in sport: International perspectives (pp. 2943). Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology.
Brown, B. B., Dolcini, M. M., & Leventhal, A. (1997). Transformations in peer relationships at adolescence: Implications for health-related behavior. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Health risks and
developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 161189). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brustad, R. J., Babkes, M. L., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Youth in sport: Psychological considerations. In R. N. Singer,
H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 604635). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Buhrmann, H. G., & Bratton, R. D. (1977). Athletic participation and status of Alberta high school girls. International
Review of Sport Sociology, 12, 5769.
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In T.
J. Berndt, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 1545). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Chase, M. A., & Dummer, G. M. (1992). The role of sports as a social status determinant for children. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 418424.
Coakley, J., & White, A. (1992). Making decisions: Gender and sport participation among British adolescents. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 9, 2035.
Duda, J. L. (1987). Toward a developmental theory of childrens motivation in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9,
130145.
Duncan, S. C. (1993). The role of cognitive appraisal and friendship provisions in adolescents affect and motivation
toward activity in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 314323.
Eccles (Parsons), J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983).
Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Etzbach, M. E. (2000). Physical activity motivation of adolescents: An impression management perspective. Unpublished Masters thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

37

Evans, J., & Roberts, G. C. (1987). Physical competence and the development of childrens peer relations. Quest, 39,
2335.
Fry, M. D., & Duda, J. L. (1997). A developmental examination of childrens understanding of effort and ability in
the physical and academic domains. Research Quarterly for Sport and Exercise, 68, 331344.
Furman, W., & Gavin, L. A. (1989). Peers influence on adjustment and development: A view from the intervention
literature. In T. J. Berndt, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 319340). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Gauze, C., Bukowski, W. M., Aquan-Assee, J., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Interactions between family environment
and friendship and associations with self-perceived well-being during early adolescence. Child Development, 67,
22012216.
Gibbons, S. L., Ebbeck, V., & Weiss, M. R. (1995). Fair play for kids: Effects on the moral development of children
in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 247255.
Gould, D. (1996). Sport psychology: Future directions in youth sport research. In F. L. Smoll, & R. E. Smith (Eds.),
Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 405422). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Haan, N. (1978). Two moralities in action contexts: Relationship to thought, ego regulation, and development. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 286305.
Hanrahan, S., & Gallois, C. (1993). Social interactions. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook
of research on sport psychology (pp. 623646). New York: MacMillan.
Hart, E. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). The measurement of social physique anxiety. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 11, 94104.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered. Human Development, 21, 3464.
Harter, S. (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change.
In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology, (pp. 215255). Vol 14. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profile for adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development,
67, 113.
Horn, T. S., & Hasbrook, C. A. (1986). Informational components influencing childrens perceptions of their physical
competence. In M. Weiss, & D. Gould (Eds.), Sport for children and youth: Proceedings of the 1984 Olympic
scientific congress (pp. 8188). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Horn, T. S., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). A developmental analysis of childrens self-ability judgments in the physical
domain. Pediatric Exercise Science, 3, 310326.
Inderbitzen, H. M., Walters, K. S., & Bukowski, A. L. (1997). The role of social anxiety in adolescent peer relations:
Differences among sociometric status groups and rejected subgroups. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26,
338348.
Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of childrens motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29, 970977.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.),
Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347480). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Leary, M. R. (1992). Self-presentational processes in exercise and sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14,
339351.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3447.
Malina, R. M. (1988). Growth and maturation of young athletes: Biological and social considerations. In F. L. Smoll,
R. A. Magill, & M. J. Ash (Eds.), Children in sport (3rd ed.) (pp. 83101). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
McCullagh, P., & Weiss, M. R. (2001). Modeling: Considerations for motor skill performance and psychological
responses. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed.) (pp.
205238). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC:
Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Childrens friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 306347.

38

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Childrens peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular,
rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99128.
Nixon, H. L. (1993). Social network analysis of sport: Emphasizing social structure in sport sociology. Sociology of
Sport Journal, 10, 315321.
ODonnell, A.M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbauam Associates.
Parke, R. D., & ONeil, R. (1999). Social relationships across contexts: Family-peer linkages. In W. A. Collins, & B.
Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts: The Minnesota symposia on child psychology, (pp. 211
239). Vol 30. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group
acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611621.
Passer, M. W. (1996). At what age are children ready to compete? Some psychological considerations. In F. L. Smoll, &
R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 7386). Madison, WI:
Brown & Benchmark.
Roberts, G. (1993). Motivation in sport: Understanding and enhancing the motivation and achievement of children. In
R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 405420).
New York: MacMillan.
Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Kavussanu, M. (1997). Motivation in physical activity contexts: An achievement
goal perspective. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, (pp. 413447).
Vol 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
(pp. 619700). Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed., 3. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sallis, J. F., & McKenzie, T. L. (1991). Physical educations role in public health. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 62, 124137.
Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (1999). Physical activity & behavioral medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scanlan, T. K., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: II. sources of
enjoyment. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 6583.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641669.
Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shields, D. L. L., & Bredemeier, B. J. L. (1995). Character development and physical activity. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Smith, A. L. (1999). Perceptions of peer relationships and physical activity participation in early adolescence. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 329350.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (Eds.). (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tropp, K. J., & Landers, D. M. (1979). Team interaction and the emergence of leadership and interpersonal attraction
in field hockey. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 228240.
Weiss, M. R., & Bredemeier, B. J. (1983). Developmental sport psychology: A theoretical perspective for studying
children in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 216230.
Weiss, M. R., & Duncan, S. C. (1992). The relationship between physical competence and peer acceptance in the
context of childrens sport participation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 177191.
Weiss, M. R., & Ferrer-Caja, E. (in press). Motivational orientations and sport behavior. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances
in sport psychology (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weiss, M. R., & Smith, A. L. (1999). Quality of youth sport friendships: Measurement development and validation.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 145166.
Weiss, M. R., Smith, A. L., & Theeboom, M. (1996). Thats what friends are for: Childrens and teenagers perceptions of peer relationships in the sport domain. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 347379.
Wold, B., & Anderssen, N. (1992). Health promotion aspects of family and peer influences on sport participation.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 343359.

A.L. Smith / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4 (2003) 2539

39

Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Ewing, M. E., & Cumming, S. P. (2000). Transitions in youth sport: A developmental
perspective on parental involvement. In D. Lavallee, & P. Wylleman (Eds.), Career transitions in sport: International
perspectives (pp. 143160). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Zarbatany, L., Ghesquiere, K., & Mohr, K. (1992). A context perspective on early adolescents friendship expectations.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 111126.