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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

158 Table 3 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Target’s Prosocial Goal Pursuit, Time 2 along the 33rd and 67th percentiles. <strong>Friend</strong>’s behavior was a significant, positive predictor ( .42, p .0001) of goal pursuit at T1 only when interaction frequency was low, F(1, 76) 16.67, SE 0.57, p .0001 (see Figure 3). Thus, friend’s prosocial behavior was related to target’s prosocial goal pursuit at T1 when the target had low levels of interaction frequency with the friend. Finally, as shown in Table 3, Interaction Frequency <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior was a significant, positive predictor of change in target’s prosocial goal pursuit over time. Because the latter interaction term was positive, in contrast to the negative interaction term shown in Table 2, a close examination through follow-up analyses is required to understand such significant results, because inspection of the sign of the interaction term can be misleading (Mossholder, Kemery, & Bedeian, 1990). As a result, we further explored this finding, in accordance with Aiken and West (1991), by regressing target’s goal pursuit (T2) on both goal pursuit (T1) and friend’s prosocial behavior for each of the three levels of interaction frequency. <strong>Friend</strong>’s behavior was a significant, positive predictor ( .29, p .002) of goal pursuit at T2 only when interaction frequency was high, F(2, 72) 30.97, SE 0.41, p .0001 (see Figure 4). Therefore, low frequency of interaction appeared to have a significant and positive impact on concurrent Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 1. Sex .32*** .15* .11† .11† 2. Prosocial Goal Pursuit, T1 .57*** .54*** .57*** 3. <strong>Friend</strong>’s prosocial behavior (FPB), T1 .12† .05 4. Interaction Frequency FPB, T1 .13* Affective Quality FPB, T1 .06 <strong>Friend</strong>ship Stability FPB, T2 .09 R 2 .10*** .30*** .01† .02 Total R 2 .43*** Note. n 177. The standard errors for each step are as follows: .57 (Step 1), .47 (Step 2), .46 (Step 3), and .46 (Step 4). T1 Time 1; T2 Time 2. † p .10. * p .05. *** p .001. Table 4 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Target’s Prosocial Behavior, Time 2 Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 1. Sex .43*** .21*** .20*** .20*** 2. Target’s prosocial behavior, T1 .65*** .66*** .66*** Target’s prosocial goal pursuit, T1 .14** .12** .13* 3. <strong>Friend</strong>’s prosocial behavior, T1 .04 .04 4. Target’s prosocial goal pursuit, T2 .01 R 2 .18*** .45*** .00 .00 Total R 2 .63*** Note. n 206. The standard errors for each step are as follows: .16 (Step 1) and .11 (Steps 2, 3, and 4). T1 Time 1; T2 Time 2. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001. BARRY AND WENTZEL relations between friends’ prosocial behavior and targets’ goal pursuit, whereas high interaction frequency appeared to have a significant and positive impact on relations between friends’ prosocial behavior and targets’ goal pursuit over time. Discussion In this study, we examined the process by which a best friend might influence an individual’s prosocial behavior. As predicted, a friend’s prosocial behavior (as observed by the target individual) was related to a target’s prosocial behavior (on the basis of peer nominations) over time by way of a target’s pursuit of goals to be prosocial at T1. In addition, friendship characteristics moderated the relation between a friend’s prosocial behavior and a target’s goal pursuit such that relations differed as a function of the affective quality and frequency of interaction between friends. Therefore, our findings provide further confirmation that motivational processes can explain significant associations between the behaviors of two friends, highlighting the importance of friendship characteristics in defining the nature of relationships between a friend’s behavior and an individual’s goal pursuit. Finally, the significant gender differences in prosocial behavior and prosocial goal pursuit found in our adolescent sample extend empirical research (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993) that has found such differences in early and middle childhood (e.g., Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989), and they support theoretical contentions (see Eisenberg & Figure 2. Effect of Affective Quality <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior on target’s prosocial goal pursuit at Time 1 (T1).
Figure 3. Effect of Interaction Frequency (Int Freq) <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior on target’s prosocial goal pursuit at Time 1 (T1). Fabes, 1998) that girls are expected to behave in prosocial ways to a greater extent than are boys. Prosocial Goal Pursuit as an Intermediary Process According to the tenets of observational learning (Bandura, 1986), an individual is likely to behave similarly to a friend because exposure to modeled behavior is frequent and affectively charged. In addition, Bandura (1986) proposed that although behavior can be learned by observing others, it is likely to be enacted to the extent that an individual is motivated to do so. The findings of the current study support these notions, in that an individual’s pursuit of prosocial goals (at both time points) was related to his or her perception of his or her friend’s prosocial behavior. In addition, changes in prosocial behavior (observed by the peer group) over time were related to levels of goal pursuit at T1. These results also replicate previous findings linking the prosocial behavior of friends by way of goal pursuit (Wentzel et al., 2004), and they provide further demonstration that friendships can have a significant influence on motivational processes (e.g., Rose & Asher, 1999). The findings also affirm that prosocial goal setting is related to displays of prosocial behavior over the course of 1 year (e.g., Nelson & Crick, 1999; Wentzel et al., 2004). Our findings indicate that the amount of change in an individual’s goal pursuit explained by a friend’s behavior is fairly small. Indeed, the prosocial behavior of the students in our study was highly stable over time. This was not surprising given that the sample was composed of adolescents who enjoyed close friendships and, therefore, were socially competent at the outset. In addition, given the potential influence of adults (e.g., parents, teachers, relatives), other children (e.g., siblings, rivals), and the media on an adolescent’s behavior, our findings support the notion that a friend’s behavior can be meaningful in the life of a student. It also is important to note, however, that measures of a single best friend’s prosocial behavior also might be a proxy for behavior displayed by a larger group of friends and close acquaintances. For example, Sage and Kindermann (1999) found that adolescents’ classroom motivation varies as a function of peer-group approval and disapproval. Therefore, influence processes within friendship cliques (see Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997) and peer networks (see Kindermann, 1993) might be important targets for future research. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR In addition, an individual might observe and become motivated to display the behavior of peers with whom he or she wants to become friends. Pairings among potential or new friends have yet to be examined in research on friend influence. However, research on friendship-making strategies has shown that the display of prosocial behavior (e.g., sharing) is a successful strategy for making friends (Wentzel & Erdley, 1993). Therefore, changes in prosocial behavior over time might reflect, in part, changes in investments in forming and maintaining new friendships. An unexpected finding was the nonsignificant concurrent relation between a friend’s and a target’s prosocial behavior at T1 (depicted in Table 1). This lack of similarity in friends’ prosocial behavior has not been reported elsewhere (cf. Wentzel et al., 2004). A methodological explanation for this finding is that a friend’s prosocial behavior was established on the basis of observations of one individual, whereas a target’s prosocial behavior was established on the basis of a larger set of peer nominations. Therefore, a friend’s behavior scores reflected a relatively subjective and less reliable assessment of a close friend, whereas a target’s behavior scores were based on a more objective set of assessments. In addition, items used to assess a friend’s prosocial behavior were much more specific, reflecting behavior that is likely to be observed more frequently by a friend than by the larger peer group. For these reasons, the lack of significant overlap between these two scores is understandable. <strong>Friend</strong>ship Characteristics as Moderators 159 The results of our study also extend work in this area by documenting the importance of friendship characteristics in explaining relations between a friend’s behavior and an individual’s goal pursuit. As suggested by the literature on observational learning, the affective quality of a friendship and the frequency of friends’ interactions, as perceived by an individual, appear to influence relations between a friend’s behavior and the individual’s goal pursuit. However, this influence only seems to occur under specific conditions. For example, findings indicate that a friend’s prosocial behavior is related positively to an individual’s goal pursuit only when the target perceives the affective quality of a friendship to be high. In other words, a friend’s prosocial behavior is most likely to be associated with an individual’s Figure 4. Effect of Interaction Frequency (Int Freq) <strong>Friend</strong>’s Prosocial Behavior on target’s prosocial goal pursuit at Time 2 (T2).
Page 1 and 2: Developmental Psychology Copyright
Page 3 and 4: on the day of data collection (n 2
Page 5: oth time points and to target’s p
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?