The Role of Peer Influence in Adolescent Academic Motivation: A Review of Mechanisms, Contexts, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic motivation in adolescents is a significant force with the potential to affect their future success, and peer influence plays a major role therein. Here we review this dichotomy, sifting through the literature to consolidate recent findings and realign a field that has started to go in many different directions. Moreover, our synthesis makes evident that peer influence is not a simple dichotomous good-or-bad quality, but rather a friend group-level attribute with varying outcomes based on the overall attitude and ways of interacting within such a group. In most cases, positive influence works in a more subtle way, as it acts indirectly by increasing the confidence and engagement of a student. Conversely, a very negative influence, particularly online, looms to drain academic attention directly from the student. As a result, it presents a relatively comprehensive framework for addressing this complex topic, as well as opportunities for future research in relation to digital peer dynamics and more efficient interventions in the schools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".