Friendship and Friendship Quality in Middle Childhood ... - Psychology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

616 JEFFREY G. PARKER AND STEVEN R. ASHER and their interaction) by comparing the goodness of fit of the model that included the term to the goodness of fit of the model without the term. A backward elimination procedure was used to arrive at a parsimonious model that fit the data. For cases in which significant effects were found, we examined adjusted residuals to assess the effects of membership in particular categories of the independent variables (i.e., low- vs. average- vs. high-acceptance). We ran separate analyses for the two distinct operationalizations of friendship to learn how estimates of the prevalence of friendship, particularly among low-accepted children, are affected by changes in the stringency of the criterion. The first logit analysis, using the looser, best friendship criterion found a significant effect for children's level of acceptance, likelihood ratio x 2 (2, N= 881) = 103.64, p< .001. Membership in the low-accepted group significantly depressed the odds of having a friend, whereas membership in the high-accepted group significantly augmented these odds. Specifically, 45.3% of low-accepted, 82.3% of average-accepted, and 93.8% of highaccepted children had at least one friend. A main effect of gender was found, likelihood ratio x 2 (L N = 881) = 7.09, p < .01: Girls (81.6%) were more likely than boys (74.2%) to have a friend. The interaction of gender and level of acceptance did not significantly alter the odds of having versus not having a friend. The second logit analysis, using the stringent, very best friendship criterion, revealed a highly significant effect for children's level of acceptance, likelihood ratio x 2 (2, N = 881) = 53.10, p < .001, and a nearly significant Gender X Level of Acceptance interaction, likelihood ratio x 2 (2, N= 881) = 5.26, p < .07. Membership in the low-accepted group significantly depressed the odds of having a very best friend, whereas membership in the high-accepted group significantly augmented these odds. Whereas 58.27o of average-accepted children and 69.5% of high-accepted children had very best friends, only 29.3% of low-accepted children had very best friends. Furthermore, whereas the proportion of boys with very best friends and the proportion of girls with very best friends were roughly equivalent in both the high- and average-accepted groups (72.3% vs. 66.7% and 56.2% vs. 60.7%, respectively), low-accepted girls (39.5%) were twice as likely as low-accepted boys (18.9%) to have a mutual very best friend. A comparison of these results with the corresponding results from the earlier analyses suggests that tightening the friendship criterion is particularly likely to affect the estimate of the number of low-accepted boys with friends. Next, using the more inclusive definition, we examined whether there were differences in the number of best friends children had as a function of gender and level of acceptance. A 2 (gender) X 3 (level of acceptance) analysis of variance (AN- OVA) yielded a highly significant effect for level of acceptance, F(2,875) = 81.02, p < .0001; a main effect for gender, F(l ,875) = 10.39, p < .001; and no Gender X Level of Acceptance interaction, F(2,875) = 0.79, ns. Post hoc (Tukey) comparisons indicated that low-accepted children had significantly fewer friends (M = 0.65, SD = 0.82) than average-accepted children (M = 1.50, SD = 0.98), who in turn had significantly fewer friendships than high-accepted children (M= 2.03, SD = 0.89). Girls (M = 1.54, SD = 1.01) had significantly more friends than boys (M= 1.35, SD= 1.02). Finally, we studied the relationship between the acceptance levels of very best friends. To accomplish this, we identified all dyads that met our sociometric criteria for very best friendship (A r = 351). We then classified each dyad according to the level of acceptance of the partners. Of the 351 friendships, there were 9 dyads involving 2 low-accepted children, 36 dyads involving a low-accepted and an average-accepted child, 3 dyads involving a low-accepted and a high-accepted child, 179 dyads involving 2 average-accepted children, 104 dyads involving an average-accepted and a high-accepted child, and 20 dyads involving 2 high-accepted children. A one-sample chi-square test revealed that the observed distribution of configurations departed significantly from its expected distribution, x 2 (5, N= 351)= 79.23, p < .0001, given random pairing and the relative frequency of children in the three acceptance groups. Inspection of the standardized residuals from this analysis indicated that the principal reason for this disparity rests with the pattern of low-accepted children's involvement in friendships. Whereas the number of low-low friendship dyads was consistent with expectations (9 observed vs. 10 expected), the number of dyads involving a low-accepted child with either an average-accepted or a high-accepted partner was markedly less than the number expected through random pairing (36 observed vs. 82 expected and 3 observed vs. 17 expected, respectively). Thus, low-accepted children's relative lack of involvement in friendships can be understood as a tendency for lower participation in friendships with better-accepted children, specifically, and not as an indiscriminant tendency toward less involvement in friendship. At the same time, it is important to note that low-accepted children's involvement in friendship is not restricted to involvement in dyads with other low-accepted partners. Indeed, the majority of dyads involving low-accepted children were dyads involving a low-accepted child and an average-accepted partner (36 out of 48 dyads, or 75%). Friendship Quality Identification of subscales. To identify subscales on the FQQ, we performed a principal-components analysis (oblique rotation) on the responses of the 484 children with very best friends to the 40 primary items in the FQQ. This analysis resulted in six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The six factors, which were in close agreement with the predicted underlying structure of the measure based on pilot testing, were labeled Intimate Exchange, Conflict Resolution, Companionship and Recreation, Help and Guidance, Validation and Caring, and Conflict and Betrayal. The rightmost column of Table 1 shows the structure coefficient from the principal-components analysis for each item in relation to the factor on which it showed the highest loading. The principal-components analysis was used to guide the clustering of items into subscales. Specifically, we formed one subscale for each factor in the principal-components analysis by combining the items that loaded highly on each factor. Table 1 displays the Cronbach alpha for these six subscales. As is evident, the internal consistency of each subscale was satisfactory. A child's score for each subscale was the average of his or her ratings for the relevant items (unit weighting), after appropriate reverse scoring if necessary. The six subscales were mod-
erately to highly intercorrelated, with rs ranging from. 16 to .75 in absolute magnitude. 6 Conflict and Betrayal correlated negatively with all other subscales. All other subscales were positively intercorrelated. Acceptance and friendship quality. The focus of this analysis was on whether low-accepted children who have mutual very best friendships have friendships that are of comparable quality to the friendships of other children. This issue was examined in a 2 (gender) X 3 (level of acceptance) multivariate analysis of variance, with the six subscale scores from the FQQ serving as dependent variables. 7 The results of this analysis yielded a significant multivariate main effect for gender, F(6, 454) = 4.87, p < .001; a significant multivariate main effect for level of acceptance, F(l 2, 910) = 3.17, p < .001; and a nonsignificant multivariate Gender X Level of Acceptance interaction, F(\2, 910) = 1.32. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed gender differences for four of the six friendship quality variables. Table 2 gives the mean, standard deviation, and sample size for each gender on each of the six friendship quality variables and the corresponding F value for the gender comparison. Boys and girls did not differ in their characterizations of their very best friendship with respect to either conflict and betrayal or companionship and recreation. However, boys did report less intimate exchange, more difficulty resolving conflict, less validation and caring, and less help and guidance in their friendships than did girls. Follow-up univariate analyses indicated acceptance-level differences for five of the six friendship quality variables. Table 3 shows these results. The mean, standard deviation, and sample size for each acceptance group for each friendship quality variable are also shown in Table 3, along with the ^statistic for each corresponding comparison and the results of post hoc pairwise comparisons of means (Tukey). As shown in Table 3, children of differing levels of acceptance did not differ significantly with respect to how much companionship and recreation they saw their friendships as providing. However, by their reports, low-accepted children's friendships were less adequate than the friendships of other children in every other respect. Low-accepted children reported significantly less validation and caring, more difficulty resolving conflict, and less help and guidance than both highaccepted and average-accepted children, who did not differ from one another in these respects. Low-accepted children also reported significantly less intimate disclosure in their friendships than high-accepted children. Low-accepted children reported more conflict and betrayal in their friendships than did average-accepted children but not more conflict and betrayal than high-accepted children, although the means were in that direction. High-accepted children reported somewhat more conflict and betrayal than average-accepted children, but this difference was not significant. Finally, it is of interest that lowaccepted children showed the greatest variability of any group on every friendship quality, except conflict and betrayal (see the standard deviations in Table 3). Acceptance, Friendship Quality, and Friendship Satisfaction In general, children with very best friends expressed relatively high satisfaction with these relationships. Low-accepted FRIENDSHIP AND FRIENDSHIP QUALITY 617 children (M= 11.95, SD = 4.28) reported slightly less friendship satisfaction than did either average-accepted (M = 13.04, SD = 3.07) or high-accepted (M= 13.19, SD = 3.04) children. However, these differences were not significant, F(2, 458) = 1.89. Boys tended to express more satisfaction (M = 13.28, SD = 2.82) with their very best friendships than girls (M = 12.65, SD = 3.52), but this difference did not reach significance, F(l, 458) = 3.35, p < .07. The Gender X Acceptance Level interaction was not significant, F(2, 458) = 2.04. Correlations computed between each of the friendship quality subscales and the satisfaction composite indicated that positive friendship qualities (i.e., validation and caring, companionship and recreation, help and guidance, and intimate exchange) were associated with higher satisfaction with the relationship, whereas perceptions of conflict and betrayal were associated with lower satisfaction. These correlations ranged in absolute magnitude from .35 to .52 and were highly similar across the three acceptance groups. 8 All correlations were statistically significant (p < .01). A multiple regression analysis with satisfaction regressed simultaneously on the six friendship quality subscales indicated that the six friendship quality variables accounted for 46% of the variance in satisfaction, R = .68, F(6, 452) = 65.01,/?< .0001. 9 Friendship Adjustment, Acceptance, and Loneliness Sociometric ratings of acceptance were negatively correlated with loneliness, r = -.39, p < .001, for the entire sample. This correlation is consistent with past research (see Asher et al., 1990). We performed a Friendship Status (friended vs. friend- 6 A table of these correlations is available on request from Jeffrey G. Parker. 7 In these and subsequent analyses of friendship quality, all children's responses were included as long as the child was a participant in a very best friendship. We assume that the perceptions of the individual children, and not the dyad itself, are the appropriate unit of analysis in this context. Thus, ratings by 2 children of the same friendship are considered separate data points. As a precaution against violations of the independence of the data, however, we repeated all analyses in the present study involving friendship quality after eliminating any possibility of dependencies across subjects. Specifically, there were 133 friendships (involving 266 children) in which potential dependencies in the data existed (i.e., where both partners contributed data on friendship quality). For these pairs, the data of one member of the dyad were randomly dropped from statistical analyses, with the qualification that in mixed-acceptance group pairs involving an average-accepted child with either a high-accepted child or a low-accepted child, the high-accepted or low-accepted child was preferentially retained to maximize the sample sizes of these extreme groups. Analyses were then rerun on the new, reduced data set (A' = 484 - 133 = 351). These reanalyses resulted in no qualifications concerning significant versus nonsignificant effects. 8 A table of these correlations is available on request from Jeffrey G. Parker. 9 Although the regression analysis provided information about the beta weights for each of the friendship quality variables, comparisons among these betas would be misleading because the existence of substantial correlations between these variables resulted in multicollinearity and mutual suppression among the predictors in the multivariate context.
Page 1 and 2: Developmental Psychology 1993, Vol.
Page 3 and 4: FRIENDSHIP AND FRIENDSHIP QUALITY t
Page 5: Table 1 Items and Subscales of the
Page 9 and 10: Table 4 Summary of Hierarchical Reg
Page 11: FRIENDSHIP AND FRIENDSHIP QUALITY 6

Friendship and Friendship Quality in Middle Childhood ... - Psychology

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?