Friend Influence on Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Motivational ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

156 Each student’s name appeared on other students’ lists approximately 12 times for each question. Students were asked to circle the names of classmates who fit each behavioral description and to cross out all names of classmates whom they did not know. Scoring consisted of computing a ratio of the number of nominations a student received divided by the number of times the student’s name appeared minus the number of times the student was not known by classmates. Because these items were correlated significantly (for Time 1, r .60 for Questions 1 and 2, r .62 for Questions 1 and 3, and r .56 for Questions 2 and 3; for Time 2, r .58 for Questions 1 and 2, r .65 for Questions 1 and 3, and r .64 for Questions 2 and 3; for all six correlations, p .001), the three nomination scores were averaged to form a prosocial behavior composite at each time point. <strong>Friend</strong>’s prosocial behavior. Each participant was asked to complete the Prosocial Interaction scale of the questionnaire on friendship features (Berndt & Keefe, 1995) and the Help scale of the <strong>Friend</strong>ship Qualities Scale (Bukowski et al., 1994). A sample item for the Prosocial Interaction scale is “<strong>Friend</strong> #1 helps me if I can’t do something by myself.” The Help scale consists of two subscales: Aid (e.g., “<strong>Friend</strong> #1 would help me when I needed it”) and Protection (e.g., “<strong>Friend</strong> #1 would stick up for me if another kid was causing me trouble”). The original scales have two different rating systems; to keep the directions as clear and simple as possible for the participants, we adopted the Bukowski et al. (1994) rating system. Thus, students were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (not true) to5 (really true) how often the specified friend exhibits various indicators of prosocial behavior. Each participant was asked to respond to these prosocial items for each nominated friend. Then the nine scores for each friend were averaged to form a single prosocial-behavior score (for Time 1, M 4.04, SD 0.68, Cronbach’s .76; for Time 2, M 4.18, SD 0.76, Cronbach’s .75). Results In this study, we sought to identify the process by which friends’ prosocial behavior relates to targets’ prosocial behavior by addressing two research questions. For the first research question, goals were posited to provide a pathway between a friend’s prosocial behavior and changes in a target’s prosocial behavior. Specifically, we predicted that a friend’s behavior would be related to changes in goal pursuit over time; in turn, a target individual’s goal pursuit would be related to that target’s change in prosocial behavior. To examine this question, we applied the most stringent test of mediation. As described by Baron and Kenny (1986), Table 1 Intercorrelations Among Variables support for mediation is found when (a) the independent variable significantly predicts both the mediator and the outcome (i.e., friend’s prosocial behavior significantly predicts both target’s prosocial goal pursuit and target’s prosocial behavior), (b) the mediator significantly predicts the outcome (i.e., target’s prosocial goal pursuit significantly predicts target’s prosocial behavior), and (c) the independent variable predicts the outcome less (partial mediation) or nonsignificantly (complete mediation) when the mediator also is included as a predictor (i.e., friend’s prosocial behavior is a less significant or nonsignificant predictor of target’s prosocial behavior when target’s prosocial goal pursuit is included in the regression equation). We also examined the role of friendship characteristics (affective quality, interaction frequency) in moderating the relation between friend’s prosocial behavior at Time 1 (T1) and change in target’s prosocial goal pursuit over time; and we examined the role of friendship stability in moderating the relation between friend’s prosocial behavior at Time 2 (T2) and change in target’s prosocial goal pursuit over time (in this case, the T2 score for friend’s behavior was used, because friendship stability occurred over two time points). According to Baron and Kenny (1986), support for moderation is found when interaction terms entered at the final step of a hierarchical regression are significant. Support for moderation may also be found when an individual interaction term (e.g., Affective Quality <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior) is a significant predictor, even if the overall step for the interaction term is not significant. A power analysis was conducted in accordance with Cohen (1992), and the final longitudinal sample size was found to be adequate to detect medium effect sizes. Question 1: Does Prosocial Goal Pursuit Provide a Pathway That Links a <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior and an Individual’s Prosocial Behavior? Target’s prosocial goal pursuit was predicted to explain the association between a friend’s prosocial behavior (T1) and a target’s prosocial behavior 1 year later, as depicted in Figure 1. To examine this hypothesis, we first computed zero-order correlations. As shown in Table 1, friend’s prosocial behavior was related significantly and positively to target’s prosocial goal pursuit at Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Sex — 2. <strong>Friend</strong>’s prosocial behavior, T1 (target’s perception of behavior) .36*** — 3. Affective quality, T1 .42*** .73*** — 4. Interaction frequency, T1 .15* .39*** .49*** — 5. <strong>Friend</strong>ship stability .03 .06 .19*** .12 — 6. Target’s prosocial goal pursuit, T1 .35*** .34*** .25*** .17** .01 — 7. Target’s prosocial goal pursuit, T2 .35*** .32*** .24*** .09 .00 .59*** — 8. Target’s prosocial behavior, T1 (peer-nominated behavior) .26*** .01 .09 .06 .09 .25*** .18** — 9. Target’s prosocial behavior, T2 (peer-nominated behavior) .43*** .14* .22** .07 .08 .37*** .28*** .75*** — Note. n 208. T1 Time 1; T2 Time 2. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001. BARRY AND WENTZEL
oth time points and to target’s prosocial behavior at T2 (on the basis of peer nominations) but not to target’s prosocial behavior at T1 (also on the basis of peer nominations). Moreover, target’s prosocial goal pursuit at both time points was related significantly and positively to target’s prosocial behavior at both time points. Sex was related significantly and positively to friend’s prosocial behavior, target’s prosocial goal pursuit (T1 and T2), and target’s prosocial behavior (T1 and T2). In other words, girls were more likely to perceive their friends as prosocial, to report frequent prosocial goal pursuit, and to be nominated by same-sex, samegrade classmates as more prosocial than were boys. 1 The significant correlations indicated that testing for mediation had merit, in that variables of interest were related in the expected directions. To test for mediation more formally, we next examined the pathway from friend’s prosocial behavior to target’s prosocial goal pursuit with a series of regression models. First, we regressed prosocial goal pursuit at T1 on friend’s prosocial behavior (Condition a of Baron & Kenny, 1986). As shown in Table 2, friend’s prosocial behavior significantly and positively predicted target’s prosocial goal pursuit, F(2, 174) 16.35, p .0001. (Step 3 was included to test moderation, which is described in the next section.) We next examined relations between friend’s prosocial behavior and change in goal pursuit over time by regressing prosocial goal pursuit at T2 on friend’s prosocial behavior at T1, after controlling for prosocial goal pursuit at T1 (an extension of Baron & Kenny’s, 1986, Condition a). As shown in Table 3, friend’s prosocial behavior was not a significant predictor of target’s prosocial goal pursuit (T2), although target’s prosocial goal pursuit (T1) significantly predicted target’s prosocial goal pursuit (T2). Finally, we regressed prosocial behavior at T2 on both friend’s prosocial behavior at T1 and prosocial goal pursuit at T2 (Conditions b and c of Baron & Kenny, 1986), after controlling for prosocial goal pursuit at T1. As shown in Table 4, target’s prosocial goal pursuit (T1, but not T2) predicted target’s prosocial behavior at T2 with friend’s prosocial behavior at T1 controlled for. Taken together, the results of the regression analyses indicate that target’s prosocial goal pursuit (T1) served as a pathway that links friend’s prosocial behavior (T1; on the basis of target’s perception) to target’s prosocial behavior (T2; on the basis of peer nominations), in that friend’s prosocial behavior (T1) was related to target’s prosocial goal pursuit (T1), and target’s prosocial goal Table 2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Target’s Prosocial Goal Pursuit, Time 1 Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 1. Sex 2. <strong>Friend</strong>’s prosocial behavior .30*** .20** .19** (FPB), T1 .28*** .35*** 3. Interaction Frequency FPB, T1 .16* Affective Quality FPB, T1 .21** <strong>Friend</strong>ship Stability FPB, T2 .01 R 2 .09*** .07*** .05* Total R 2 .21*** Note. n 177. The standard errors for each step are as follows: .55 (Step 1), .53 (Step 2), and .52 (Step 3). T1 Time 1; T2 Time 2. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR pursuit at T1 was related to the change in target’s prosocial behavior over time. However, complete mediation, as defined by Baron and Kenny (1986), was not supported given that friend’s prosocial behavior (T1) was a nonsignificant predictor of change in target’s prosocial goal pursuit, and target’s prosocial goal pursuit (T2) was a nonsignificant predictor of target’s prosocial behavior (T2). Question 2: How Do <strong>Friend</strong>ship Characteristics of Affective Quality, Interaction Frequency, and <strong>Friend</strong>ship Stability Moderate the Relation of a <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior to a Target Individual’s Prosocial Goals? 157 In keeping with social-learning theory (Bandura, 1986), we hypothesized that behavior is learned, in part, through observing best friends. Moreover, we predicted that friend influence is most likely to occur by way of goal pursuit when (a) the affective quality of a friendship is high, and (b) the interaction frequency and friendship stability between an individual and a friend are high such that the individual and friend spend a significant amount of time together. To test for these moderating effects, we included interaction terms at the last step of the regression analyses presented in Tables 2 and 3: Affective Quality <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior, Interaction Frequency <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior, and <strong>Friend</strong>ship Stability <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior. Affective quality, interaction frequency, and friend’s prosocial behavior were mean centered to reduce the redundancy of each interaction term. As shown in Table 2, two interaction terms (involving affective quality and interaction frequency) included at Step 3 significantly predicted target’s prosocial goal pursuit at T1; however, friendship stability was not a significant predictor. As shown in Table 3, the Affective Quality <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior interaction term was not a significant predictor of T2 goal pursuit with T1 goal pursuit controlled for. (We tested models in which each interaction term was entered as a separate step, and the results were not significantly different from those reported in Tables 2 and 3). To explore further the significant Affective Quality <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior interaction for target’s prosocial goal pursuit at T1, we regressed goal pursuit (T1) on friend’s prosocial behavior for each of three levels of affective quality, as determined by a subdivision of the affective quality variable along the 33rd and 67th percentiles (see Aiken & West, 1991). <strong>Friend</strong>’s behavior was a significant, positive predictor ( .38, p .001) of goal pursuit at T1 only when affective quality was high, F(1, 68) 11.43, SE 0.43, p .001 (see Figure 2). These findings thereby suggest that friend’s prosocial behavior is related to target’s prosocial goal pursuit at T1 when the target perceives the friendship to have high levels of affective quality. To explore further the significant Interaction Frequency <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior interaction for target’s prosocial goal pursuit at T1, we regressed goal pursuit (T1) on friend’s prosocial behavior for each of three levels of interaction frequency, as determined by a subdivision of the interaction frequency variable 1 Initially, grade and ethnicity were included within the first step for all three regressions; however, the two variables were nonsignificant and, thus, omitted from what is reported here.
Page 1 and 2: Developmental Psychology Copyright
Page 3: on the day of data collection (n 2
Page 7 and 8: Figure 3. Effect of Interaction Fre
Page 9 and 10: clearly deserve further study, with
Page 11: Appendix Interaction Frequency Subs

Friend Influence on Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Motivational ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?