This article was downloaded by: [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam]On: 14 December 2011, At: 06:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcap20

Longitudinal Associations Between Clique MembershipStatus and Internalizing and Externalizing ProblemsDuring Late ChildhoodMiranda Witvliet a , Pol A. C. van Lier b , Mara Brendgen c , Hans M. Koot b & Frank Vitaro da Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdamb Department of Developmental Psychology, VU University Amsterdamc Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréald GRIP, University of Montreal

Available online: 11 Aug 2010

To cite this article: Miranda Witvliet, Pol A. C. van Lier, Mara Brendgen, Hans M. Koot & Frank Vitaro (2010): LongitudinalAssociations Between Clique Membership Status and Internalizing and Externalizing Problems During Late Childhood, Journalof Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39:5, 693-704

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2010.501678

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Longitudinal Associations Between Clique MembershipStatus and Internalizing and Externalizing Problems

During Late Childhood

Miranda Witvliet

Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdam

Pol A. C. van Lier

Department of Developmental Psychology, VU University Amsterdam

Mara Brendgen

Department of Psychology, Universite du Quebec a Montreal

Hans M. Koot

Department of Developmental Psychology, VU University Amsterdam

Frank Vitaro

GRIP, University of Montreal

This study examined the longitudinal link between clique membership status and thedevelopment of psychopathology in 451 children followed annually from age 9 to 12years. Classroom clique membership status was identified through social network analy-sis, and internalizing and externalizing problems were assessed using peer nominations.Controlling for concurrent experiences of social preference and dyadic friendships, ahigh clique membership probability was found to be related to low levels of internalizingproblems and to an increase in externalizing problems across 4 years. This link betweenclique membership and an increase in externalizing problems was found for boys only.

Peer interactions form an important context forchildren’s social development (for a review, see K. H.Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Empirical evidenceshows that positive interactions with peers, such as

acceptance by peers and having dyadic friendships pro-mote children’s behavioral adjustment (Coie, Dodge, &Kupersmidt, 1990; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1998; Parker &Asher, 1993). In contrast, unpleasant experiences withpeers may impact children’s behavioral development inan undesirable way. Indeed, children who experiencenegative interactions with their peers, such as peer rejec-tion and isolation, have been found to show elevatedlevels of internalizing and externalizing problems(Deater-Deckard, 2001; Hay, Payne, & Chadwick,2004).

However, it is important to note that children’s peerinteractions are often nested within larger social net-works, including cliques. Cliques are cohesive groupsof children who interact more with each other than with

This research was made possible by grants to the last author from

the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and

the Fonds Quebecois de la Recherche sur la Societe et la Culture.

We thank the participating families, and the authorities and direc-

tors as well as the teachers of the participating schools.

We also thank Jacqueline Langlois and Ken Frank for their assist-

ance in the preparation of the data.Correspondence should be addressed to Hans M. Koot, Depart-

ment of Developmental Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, van

der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail:

jm.koot@psy.vu.nl

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(5), 693–704, 2010

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1537-4416 print=1537-4424 online

DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2010.501678

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

other children (Shrum & Cheek, 1987; Urberg, Degir-mencioglu, Tolson, & Halliday-Sher, 1995). Accordingto Z. Rubin (1980), peer relationships in cliques aredifferent from dyadic friendships in that they providechildren with resources, such as a sense of collective par-ticipation and group support, which dyadic friendshipsoften cannot offer. Indeed, cliques have specific structur-al characteristics, such as transitivity, stratification, andcohesiveness that move beyond the characteristics asso-ciated with dyadic friendships (Adler & Adler, 1998;Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Moreover, clique member-ship is different from sociometric status in that the latteris an indication of a child’s standing among his orher peers, whereas clique membership reflects actualaffiliation with a group of peers. Thus, it can be arguedthat involvement in cliques is a peer experience distinctfrom other aspects of peer relationships, such as dyadicfriendship and sociometric status.

Several researchers have theorized that cliquemembership is beneficial for children’s adjustment. Forinstance, clique membership may offer children oppor-tunities to attain social skills and to learn social normsand rules, and it may provide children with assets suchas group support and a sense of belongingness (Boivin,Vitaro, & Poulin, 2005; K. H. Rubin et al., 2006; Z.Rubin, 1980). In contrast, children who are isolatedfrom cliques are deprived of these positive group assetsand therefore may be more at risk for developing psy-chopathology than clique members. Clique membershipmay be particularly salient during late childhood, as thisis the period when achieving group identity and groupacceptance is believed to be a central developmental task(Buhrmester, 1990; Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Parker& Gottman, 1989).

In line with the theorized importance of cliquemembership in childhood, studies focusing on socialwithdrawal in childhood have demonstrated thatwithdrawn children more often experience feelings ofanxiety, loneliness, and depressed mood and show moreexternalizing behavior than other children (Harrist,Zaia, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1997; Rubin, Burgess, &Coplan, 2002; Rubin & Mills, 1988). Furthermore,evidence from studies that have directly focused on cli-que membership status suggests that children who aremembers of a clique are indeed better adjusted thanchildren who are isolated from cliques. For instance,Wentzel and Caldwell (1997) demonstrated in theirstudy with sixth-grade students that clique membersshowed higher levels of academic achievement thanchildren isolated from cliques. In addition, Henrich,Kuperminc, Sack, Blatt, and Leadbeater (2000) foundthat sixth- and seventh-grade clique members not onlyhad higher grade point averages but also showed,according to the teacher, fewer internalizing problemsthan isolated children.

Thus, both theoretical knowledge and empiricalevidence support the idea that clique members are atlower risk of developing psychopathology than childrenwho are isolated from cliques. Nonetheless, there arethree questions about the role of clique membership inthe development of psychopathology that need to beaddressed. The first question is whether clique member-ship status from age 9 to 12 years is significantly associa-ted with the development of psychopathology aftercontrolling for the co-occurrence of known risk and pro-tective factors in the peer relations domain, includingsociometric status and the presence of dyadic friend-ships. The second question is whether clique member-ship is related to the development of internalizingversus externalizing problems in a similar way. The thirdquestion regards the issue as to whether the associationbetween clique membership status and psychopathologyis similar for boys and girls.

THE UNIQUE ROLE OF CLIQUEMEMBERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT

OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

Although theoretically distinct from sociometric statusand dyadic friendships, it is unknown whether cliquemembership status is related to psychopathology aboveand beyond these correlated peer experiences. An abun-dance of studies have demonstrated that sociometric sta-tus and dyadic friendships play an important role withrespect to children’s behavioral and emotional develop-ment. More specifically, sociometric status has beenfound to predict the development of internalizing andexternalizing problems independent of children’s initialcharacteristics (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Snyder,Prichard, Schrepferman, Patrick, & Stoolmiller, 2004;Vitaro, Pedersen, & Brendgen, 2007). Also, the lack ofdyadic friendships has been found to predict internaliz-ing problems (Bagwell, Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998;Pedersen, Vitaro, Barker, & Borge, 2007). It is knownthat clique members often have more reciprocatedfriendships and are better accepted by their peers thanchildren who are isolated from cliques (Wentzel &Caldwell, 1997). Consequently, although clique mem-bership is theoretically distinct from sociometric statusand friendships, it is possible that the associationbetween clique membership status and the developmentof internalizing and externalizing problems is con-founded by the co-occurrence of other aspects of peerrelations. Therefore, the first objective in the presentstudy was to test the existence of a significantassociation between clique membership status and thedevelopment of psychopathology across 4 years in latechildhood above and beyond the possible influence of

694 WITVLIET ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

associated social preference scores and the presence ofdyadic friendships.

THE NATURE OF THE ASSOCIATIONOF CLIQUE MEMBERSHIP WITH

EXTERNALIZING AND INTERNALIZINGPROBLEMS

Although initial evidence supports the idea that cliquemembers show lower levels of psychopathology thanchildren who are isolated from cliques, there are reasonsto assume that clique membership status may actuallybe linked to increases in children’s psychopathology.That is, according to the developmental model of anti-social behavior proposed by Patterson and colleagues(Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989), childrenwho display disruptive behavior in early childhood areat risk of experiencing peer rejection in middle child-hood. This peer rejection may lead, in turn, to involve-ment in a deviant peer group in late childhood, whichputs children at risk for engaging in more externalizingbehaviors, possibly leading to chronic delinquentbehavior.

Results from empirical studies have underscored thisidea. Children who show externalizing problems, andwho nonetheless manage to be clique members, tendto affiliate with children who display similar externaliz-ing problems (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, &Gariepy, 1988; Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003;Haselager, Hartup, van Lieshout, & Riksen-Walraven,1998). Possibly, as a consequence, clique membershipmay enhance the development of externalizing problemsthrough socialization processes such as peer pressure,conformity, and reinforcement. Specifically, deviancytraining (i.e., talking and joking with friends about devi-ant topics such as substance use and breaking the law)has been found to be associated with an increase in ado-lescent delinquent behavior (Dishion & Dodge, 2005;Dishion, Eddy, Haas, Li, & Spracklen, 1997; Dishion,McCord, & Poulin, 1999; Dishion, Spracklen, Andrews,& Patterson, 1996; Patterson, Dishion, & Yoerger,2000). Also, Adler and Adler (1995) demonstrated thatadolescents tend to use aggression as a technique tomaintain their position in a clique. These findings indi-cate that externalizing problems may develop with sup-port from the peer network particularly when childrenaffiliate with others who show externalizing problems.

Although the possible risks imposed by reinforcementand modeling among clique members are well describedwith regard to the development of externalizingproblems, there are reasons to assume that a similardevelopmental mechanism may apply to internalizingproblems. Although most studies exploring socializationprocesses within cliques and friendships focus on

externalizing problems, there is a small body of evidenceindicating that homophily and socialization in cliquesalso may have an influence on internalizing problems(Hogue & Steinberg, 1995; Prinstein, 2007; Stevens &Prinstein, 2005). These studies propose that childrenwith internalizing problems tend to increase the inci-dence of internalizing problems in their friends throughthe process of peer contagion. Besides clique member-ship status as a factor associated with low levels ofpsychopathology, clique membership can alternativelybe hypothesized to foster the development of internaliz-ing and externalizing problems. Therefore, the secondobjective of the present study was to investigate the nat-ure of the association between clique membership statusand the development of both internalizing and externa-lizing problems during late childhood.

SEX DIFFERENCES IN THE LINKSBETWEEN CLIQUE MEMBERSHIP ANDPSYCHOPATHOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Finally, it is unknown whether the link between cliquemembership status and psychopathology is similar forboys and girls. At least in adolescence, girls tend to bemore often members of a clique than boys (Cohen,1977; Urberg et al., 1995). Yet, it is unclear whether thissex difference in frequency of clique membership alsotranslates into sex-specific links between clique member-ship status and psychopathology. Although not specifi-cally found for clique membership status, socialpreference has been found to be more strongly relatedto psychopathology in boys than in girls (DeRosier,Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994). However, others havefailed to find sex differences in the link between peerrelations and psychopathology (Ladd & Troop-Gordon,2003; Pedersen et al., 2007; van Lier, Vuijk, & Crijnen,2005; Vitaro et al., 2007). Therefore, the final objectiveof this study was to explore possible sex differences inthe link between clique membership status and interna-lizing and externalizing problems.

In sum, the present study aimed to investigate the roleof clique membership status in the development ofpsychopathology. Our first aim was to test whether cli-que membership status is linked to psychopathologyabove and beyond other known risk and protectivefactors in the peer relations domain. We hypothesizedthat high social preference and the presence of dyadicfriendships would protect against externalizing andinternalizing problems. We also hypothesized that cliquemembership would be linked to the development ofpsychopathology above and beyond the possible influ-ence of social preference and dyadic friendships. Oursecond goal was to study the nature of the link betweenclique membership and externalizing and internalizing

CLIQUE MEMBERSHIP AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 695

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

problems. Specifically, we aimed to test two competinghypotheses about the link between clique membershipand psychopathology. According to the first hypothesis,clique membership would help prevent children fromdeveloping psychopathology. In contrast, the competinghypothesis states that clique membership would fosterpsychopathology when clique members affiliate withothers who show high levels of psychopathology.Finally, we explored possible sex differences in cliquemembership status and in the link between clique mem-bership status and psychopathology. Although previousfindings are quite mixed, we anticipated finding no sexdifferences in the predictive links between clique mem-bership and psychopathology development.

METHOD

Participants

Participants included 451 children (236 boys, 215 girls)from five different elementary schools in a small com-munity in northwestern Quebec, Canada. In each yearof data collection, all French-speaking children in thecommunity were targeted for participation in the study.The study was approved by the University of MontrealInstitutional Review Board. Active written consent wasobtained every year from the parents, and children alsoprovided active verbal assent. At least 90% of childrenfrom the targeted classrooms participated in the studyeach year. Children included in the study were on aver-age 9.11 years (SD¼ 0.36) at the initiation of this study(at the end of Grade 3) and were followed over 3 years,until age 12 years (at the end of Grade 6). The majorityof the children (>90%) had a French Canadian back-ground. Participants’ socioeconomic status, measuredwith the Blishen, Carroll, and Moore (1987) occu-pational prestige scale (M¼ 43.21, SD¼ 15.53), was rep-resentative of the socioeconomic status of the Provinceof Quebec, Canada (M¼ 43.99, SD¼ 13.00). Eighty-onepercent of the children lived in intact families, 10% livedin blended family households, 8% lived in single parentfamilies, and 1% lived in other family configurations.

To be included in the present study, informationneeded to be available for a child on at least two outof the four time points on all study variables. In total,451 children were included in the study sample by virtueof this criterion. The children included in the final sam-ple were compared with children who did not meet thisstudy criterion. No gender differences or differences inparent occupational prestige were found. However, wedid find that children who were included in the studyshowed less internalizing behavior, F(1, 444)¼ 14.88,p< .01, d¼ .50; showed less externalizing behavior,F(1, 444)¼ 3.91, p< .05, d¼ .20; were more often clique

members, v2(1)¼ 12.66, p< .01, U¼ .17; and had moredyadic friendships, F(1, 444)¼ 12.09, p< .01, d¼ .21,than children who did not meet the study criterion. Ofthe final sample, 364 children (80%) had informationon all study variables for at least three time points.Attrition was due to a lack of parental permission, mov-ing out of the school district, or absence on the day ofdata collection. We checked whether the cases with nomore than one missing data point were different fromthe rest of the sample in Grade 3. Children with com-plete data or occasional missing data showed less exter-nalizing problems, had a higher social preference, andwere more often a clique member than the rest of thesample. For children who had missing data on any ofthe four time points, missing values were estimated usingthe full maximum likelihood method.

Measures

All instruments were administered in French. Instru-ments that were originally in English were translatedinto French and then translated back into English.English-speaking judges verified the semantic similaritybetween the back-translated items and the original itemsin the questionnaires.

Peer nominations of externalizing and internalizingbehaviors were obtained through behavioral descriptionson the Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI; Pekarik, Prinz,Liebert, Weintraub, & Neale, 1976). Evidence to sup-port the reliability and validity of the PEI was providedby Pekarik et al. (1976). Moreover, Tremblay, LeBlanc,and Schwartzman (1988) showed that peer nominationscollected through the PEI were at least as predictiveof later adjustment problems as teacher and motherratings.

Names of all children in a given class were handedout to the participants. Two research assistants ensuredthat all participants recognized the names of the class-mates by reading them aloud in front of the class. Thechildren were then asked to circle the names of the chil-dren who fit each behavioral description. Scores werecorrected for class size by dividing the received nomina-tions by the number of children in the class minus one(self-nomination was not allowed). Externalizing beha-viors were assessed by eight items (e.g., ‘‘starts fights’’and ‘‘is disruptive’’). Internalizing behaviors were alsoassessed by eight different items (e.g., ‘‘is too shy tomake friends easily’’ and ‘‘is unhappy or sad’’). Cron-bach’s alphas ranged from .92 to .93 for externalizingbehaviors and from .60 to .89 for internalizing behaviorsacross the four time points.

Clique membership status was identified throughsocial network analysis using the program Kliquefinder(Frank, 1995, 1996). Kliquefinder is based on aclustering algorithm to detect cohesive subgroups. The

696 WITVLIET ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

algorithm identifies cliques by maximizing an objectivefunction, which looks at the probability that a childinteracts with someone in his or her clique. The programdetects cohesive cliques in terms of a concentration ofinteractions within the cliques relative to the extent ofinteractions across cliques. Children’s friendship choiceswere used as input for the identification of cliques andfor assessing children’s clique membership. Childrenwere asked each year to nominate up to four best friendsin the classroom. Children were considered to have areciprocated friendship when the nominated friend alsonominated the target child as one of his or her four bestfriends (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989). Clique membershipwas conceptualized in this article as having a minimumof two (un)reciprocated friendship nominations withother members of the clique. Following Ennett andBauman (1994), reciprocated and unreciprocated friend-ship nominations of all children within a classroom wereused for input into the program. Friendship nomina-tions were weighted so that reciprocated friendshipsrepresented twice the interaction of unreciprocatedfriendships (i.e., reciprocated friendships received aweight of 2 and unreciprocated friendships a weightof 1).

A dummy-coded variable was created each yearto measure clique membership (clique member¼ 1;isolated¼ 0). The output of the Kliquefinder programwith the final clique solution showed that children withonly one link to a clique were sometimes identified asclique members. Moreover, some cliques consisted ofstrings of (un)reciprocated friendships where childrenwere connected to only one other child in the clique.These children were reclassified as isolated because theydid not meet our predefined criterion of clique member-ship. No cliques were detected in 2 of the 19 classroomsin Grade 4 and in 3 of the 17 classrooms in Grade 6.Because it is uncertain whether Kliquefinder was unableto detect cliques or whether cliques truly didn’t existin these classes, the clique membership status of theseparticipants was handled as missing for that relevanttime point.

Social preference was assessed through peer nomina-tions. Based on the peer nomination procedure of Coieand Dodge (1988), children were asked to nominatethree children in their class whom they liked least (LikeLeast nominations) and three children whom they likedmost (Like Most nominations). The Like Least and LikeMost nominations were corrected for class size by divid-ing the nominations by the number of children in theclass minus one (self-nomination was not allowed).Social preference was determined by subtracting theLike Least from the Like Most nominations. There isevidence to support the reliability and validity of thissocial preference score as a measure of sociometricstatus (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004).

Dyadic friendships were measured with the friendshipnomination procedure just described. Only reciprocatedfriends (i.e., when the nominated friend also nominatedthe target child as one of his or her four best friends)were used in the present study. We summed the totalnumber of reciprocated friendship nominations of chil-dren at each time point to assess dyadic friendships.

Disruptiveness of clique affiliates was measured forchildren who were members of a clique by summingthe peer-nominated externalizing problems of all mem-bers of a clique. The externalizing score of the targetchild was then subtracted from the summed clique score.The resulting score was divided by the number of chil-dren in a clique minus one to correct for the size ofthe clique.

Sociodemographic information was obtained throughmother-reported parental occupation using the Blishenet al. (1987) occupational prestige scale. The scores arebased on the average income and average educationlevel associated with occupations in Canada. Scoreswere first averaged across the two parents and thenacross the 4 years of data collection.

Procedure

Each spring, children spent 2 hr of classroom timeanswering questionnaires. After children were informedabout the purpose of the study, they were assured thattheir answers would kept confidential and that theydid not have to answer any of the questions if they didnot want to. Trained research assistants administeredthe questionnaires in the absence of the teachers toemphasize that the participants’ answers would not berevealed to the teachers.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Two hundred seventy-three (71%), 298 (76%), 277(77%), and 250 (83%) children were members of a cliqueat age 9, 10, 11, and 12 years, respectively. No significantdifferences between boys and girls were found in theirclique membership status from age 9 to 12 years. Cliqueshad an average size of 6.43 (range¼ 3–12), 5.64(range¼ 3–10), 5.43 (range¼ 3–11), and 5.47 (range¼3–11) members across the four time points. The meansand standard deviations of clique members’ and isolatedchildren’s peer-nominated internalizing and externaliz-ing problems, social preference, and dyadic friendshipsfrom age 9 to 12 years are presented in Table 1. Wetested the associations between clique membership,social preference, and the presence of dyadic friendshipsat each time point with Kendall’s s correlations.

CLIQUE MEMBERSHIP AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 697

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

We found that clique membership was moderatelycorrelated with social preference (range, r¼ .24–.31,p< .05) and moderately correlated with having dyadicfriendships (range, r¼ .35–.39, p< .05).

Model Building

All tested models controlled for parental occupationalprestige and sex. The models were fitted using Mplus4.21 (L. K. Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2007). First, alatent growth model for categorical data was specifiedto model clique membership from age 9 to 12 years. Inthis model, the intercept of clique membership repre-sented individual differences in the probability of cliquemembership, whereas a significant slope parameterwould indicate children’s clique membership probabilitywould change across age. A MLR estimator was used,which accounts for possible non-normal distributionsof predictors and outcomes by producing robust stan-dard errors. Conventional model-fit indices, such aschi-square values, are not provided for latent factormodels with categorical data using MLR (L. K. Muthen& Muthen, 1998–2007).

Continuous latent growth models with an intercept(level) and linear slope (growth) were specified to modelgrowth in psychopathology. To assess model fit, the com-parative fit index (CFI> .95), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI>.95) and the root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA� .06) were used (see Hu & Bentler, 1999).

The variance of the intercept of clique membershipprobability was significant (varintcpt¼ .69, SE¼ .24,p< .01), indicating individual differences in the prob-ability of clique membership. The nonsignificant esti-mate of the slope parameter of clique membershipprobability (Bslope¼ .20, SE¼ .26, p> .05) indicatedthat, on average, children did not change in their pro-bability of clique membership from age 9 to 12 years.Moreover, the nonsignificant variance of the slope esti-mate of clique membership probability (Bvarslope¼ .07,SE¼ .15, p> .05) indicated that there were no individualdifferences in the growth of clique membership prob-ability. Therefore, the slope parameter was excludedfrom the model.

The growth model with an intercept and linear slopeparameter of peer-nominated externalizing problems fitthe data well (CFI¼ .99, TLI¼ .98, RMSEA¼ .04). Anonsignificant estimate of the slope parameter indicatedthat, on average, children did not change in externaliz-ing behaviors from age 9 to 12 years (Bslope¼ .007,SE¼ .007, p> .05). However, the variance of the slopeparameter was significant (varslope¼ .006, SE¼ .002,p< .05), and therefore, this parameter was kept in themodel. The growth model with an intercept and linearslope parameter of peer-nominated internalizing beha-viors also fit the data well (CFI¼ .96, TLI¼ .94,RMSEA¼ .05). A significant positive estimate of theslope parameter indicated that, on average, childrenincreased in their peer-nominated internalizing

TABLE 1

Distribution of Peer-Nominated Externalizing and Internalizing Problems, Social Preference, and Dyadic Friendships

Clique Members Isolates

Boys Girls Boys Girls

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Externalizing

9 Years .09 .11 .01 .01 .11 .15 .03 .04

10 Years .10 .13 .02 .04 .10 .12 .02 .02

11 Years .14 .13 .03 .04 .16 .17 .04 .05

12 Years .17 .17 .03 .04 .12 .14 .03 .04

Internalizing

9 Years .04 .05 .03 .04 .06 .06 .05 .05

10 Years .04 .06 .04 .05 .05 .06 .07 .07

11 Years .05 .06 .07 .07 .08 .09 .12 .11

12 Years .06 .09 .06 .08 .14 .19 .09 .11

Social Preference

9 Years .04 .19 .10 .14 �.13 .26 �.08 .19

10 Years .02 .20 .06 .16 �.11 .20 �.09 .14

11 Years .02 .22 .06 .20 �.12 .24 �.09 .21

12 Years .01 .25 .05 .17 �.21 .29 �.06 .17

Dyadic Friendships

9 Years 1.07 1.13 1.44 1.19 .36 .61 .27 .49

10 Years 1.34 1.09 1.41 1.25 .24 .54 .44 .61

11 Years 1.84 1.16 1.94 1.21 .69 .83 .57 .69

12 Years 1.80 1.20 1.76 1.14 .59 .67 .63 .68

698 WITVLIET ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

behaviors from age 9 to 12 years (Bslope¼ .027,SE¼ .007, p< .01). The variance of the slope parameterwas significant (varslope¼ .007, SE¼ .003, p< .05).

The Link Between Clique Membership Status andInternalizing and Externalizing Problems

To test for associations between clique membershipprobability and the development of internalizing andexternalizing problems from age 9 to 12 years, thegrowth parameters of internalizing and externalizingproblems were regressed onto the intercept of cliquemembership probability. First, three separate modelswere fit for clique membership, social preference, anddyadic friendship separately predicting both the devel-opment of internalizing and externalizing problems.Latent factor scores of social preference and dyadicfriendships from age 9 to 12 years were used as predic-tors of internalizing and externalizing problems. Theseresults are presented in Table 2 and show that all threeindicators of peer relations are linked with the growthparameters of both internalizing and externalizingproblems.

We then fit a model in which clique membershipprobability predicted the development of internalizingand externalizing problems while controlling for theco-occurrence of social preference and dyadic friend-ships. This model is depicted in Figure 1. Althoughthe links between clique membership probability, inter-nalizing problems, and externalizing problems weretested in one model, the results are described separatelyfor internalizing problems and externalizing problemsfor the sake of clarity.

The results for internalizing problems are in Figure 2(top portion). Social preference negatively predictedboth the intercept (B¼�.150, SE¼ .030, b¼�.53,p< .01) and the slope (B¼�.078, SE¼ .023, b¼�.57,p< .01) of internalizing problems. Having dyadic

friendships was not significantly predictive of the inter-cept (B¼�.018, SE¼ .010, b¼�.28, p> .05) or slope(B¼�.004, SE¼ .006, b¼�.14, p> .05) of internalizingproblems above and beyond clique membership prob-ability and social preference. The results further showedthat clique membership probability negatively predictedthe intercept of internalizing problems (B¼�.017,SE¼ .008, b¼�.36, p< .05) above and beyond theinfluence of social preference, but not for the slope ofinternalizing problems (B¼�.003, SE¼ .005, b¼�.14,p> .05). Thus, the results indicated that clique membershad, on average, lower levels of internalizing problemsacross the four data points examined in this study andthat this was not accounted for by the co-occurrenceof social preference or having dyadic friendships. After

TABLE 2

Parameter Estimates of Clique Membership, Social Preference and Dyadic Friendships on Growth Parameters of Internalizing

and Externalizing Behavior

Intercept Slope

B SE b B SE b

Internalizing

Clique Membership �0.030 0.013 �.635�� �0.016 0.007 �.669��

Social Preference �0.136 0.022 �.503�� �0.094 0.018 �.648��

Dyadic Friendships �0.017 0.007 �.260�� �0.022 0.006 �.668��

Externalizing

Clique Membership �0.035 0.018 �.301� 0.012 0.006 .396�

Social Preference �0.276 0.048 �.429�� �0.021 0.016 �.129

Dyadic Friendships �0.045 0.014 �.280�� 0.001 0.004 .024

�p< .05. ��p< .01.

FIGURE 1 Graphical representation of the model testing the associa-

tions between clique membership probability and psychopathology.

Note: Estimates were controlled for sex and parental occupational

prestige. Iclique¼ Intercept of Clique Membership Probability;

Socpref¼ Social Preference; Friend¼Having Dyadic Friends; Ipsych¼Intercept of Psychopathology; Spsych¼Slope of Psychopathology.

CLIQUE MEMBERSHIP AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 699

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

including the peer relations predictors in the growthmodel, 47% of the variance in the intercept and 38%of the variance in the slope of internalizing problemswas explained.

The results for externalizing problems are in Figure 2(bottom portion). The results showed that social prefer-ence scores predicted both the intercept (B¼�.303,SE¼ .059, b¼�.44, p< .01) and slope (B¼�.046,SE¼ .020, b¼�.27, p< .05) of externalizing problems.

Having dyadic friendships did not significantly predictthe intercept (B¼ .009, SE¼ .012, b¼ .06, p> .05) orslope (B¼ .000, SE¼ .005, b¼ .002, p> .05) of externa-lizing problems. Above and beyond the influence ofsocial preference, clique membership probability signifi-cantly predicted the slope of externalizing problems(B¼ .019, SE¼ .008, b¼ .65, p< .01) but not the inter-cept of externalizing problems (B¼ .007, SE¼ .016,b¼ .06, p> .05). More specifically, the positive effecton the slope of externalizing problems showed that com-pared to children who were isolated from cliques, cliquemembers increased, on average, in their level of externa-lizing problems from age 9 to 12 years, which was notaccounted for by social preference or having dyadicfriendships. After including the peer relations predictorsin the growth model, 38% of the variance in the interceptand 68% of the variance in the slope of externalizingproblems was explained.

As stated previously, cases with missing data werehigher on externalizing problems, more likely to be iso-lated from a clique, and had lower social preferencescores than cases with complete data. We therefore reranthe model including children who had no more than onemissing data point (i.e., cases with ignorable or no miss-ing data; N¼ 364). The results of this model were similarto those of the model tested on the full sample (N¼ 451).For instance, clique membership probability still pre-dicted the intercept of internalizing problems (B¼�.018, SE¼ .009, b¼�.38, p< .05) and the slope ofexternalizing problems (B¼ .020, SE¼ .008, b¼ .68,p< .01). These results suggest that cases with missingdata did not affect model estimation.

In our model testing links between clique membershipand psychopathology, clique membership was based onreciprocated and unreciprocated friendship nomina-tions. To test the validity of this approach, we reranthe model with cliques based only on reciprocatedfriendships. In this model, children with no reciprocatedfriendships were all defined as isolates. The results forthis model show that clique membership probability stillpredicted the intercept of internalizing problems (B¼�.03, SE¼ .014, b¼�.20, p< .05) and the slope ofexternalizing problems (B¼ .024, SE¼ .008, b¼ .70,p< .05). These findings indicate that the pattern ofresults remains the same if cliques are based only onreciprocated friendships.

Sex Differences

To test for sex differences in the link between cliquemembership status and internalizing and externalizingproblems, the model in Figure 1 was respecified as atwo-group model. Potential sex differences in the asso-ciations between the growth parameter estimates ofclique membership probability and psychopathology

FIGURE 2 Links between clique membership probability and inter-

nalizing problems (top) and externalizing problems (bottom) from

age 9 to 12 years. Note: Iclique¼ Intercept of Clique Membership Pro-

bability; Socpref¼Social Preference; Friend¼Having Dyadic Friends;

Iint¼ Intercept of Internalizing Problems; Sint¼Slope of Internalizing

Problems. Iext¼ Intercept of Externalizing Problems; Sext¼ Slope of

Externalizing Problems. �p< .05. ��p< .01.

700 WITVLIET ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

were tested with nested chi-square difference tests.No significant differences in the links between cliquemembership probability and peer-nominated internaliz-ing problems were found, v2(2, N¼ 451)¼ .01, p> .05.However, we did find sex differences in the observedpositive association between the intercept of cliquemembership probability and the slope of externalizingproblems, v2(1, N¼ 451)¼ 46.22, p< .01. That is, theintercept of clique membership probability significantlypredicted an increase in externalizing problems for boysbut not for girls.

Exploring Why Externalizing Problems IncreasedAmong Clique Members: The Disruptiveness ofClique Affiliates

The finding that boys who were clique members showedan increase in externalizing problems as they aged led usto further explore whether the growth in children’sexternalizing problems coincided with the growth inexternalizing problems of children’s clique affiliates.Because our results indicated that clique membershipprotects children against internalizing problems, wedid not further explore this association.

A parallel growth model of externalizing problemswas specified for children who were members of a clique.In this model, we tested whether growth in children’sexternalizing problems was linked to the growth inexternalizing problems of children’s clique affiliates. Inorder to compute the externalizing problems of chil-dren’s clique affiliates, the peer-nominated externalizingscore of the target child was subtracted from thesummed score of the clique to which this child belonged.Therefore, the externalizing score of a given target childis not included in the externalizing score of this child’sclique affiliates. This parallel growth model of individualand clique members’ externalizing problems had a goodfit to the data (CFI¼ .95, TLI¼ .93, RMSEA¼ .05).The slope of individual externalizing problems was sig-nificantly correlated with the slope of clique members’externalizing problems (B¼ .001, SE¼ .000, b¼ .40,p< .01). This indicates that the growth in externalizingproblems of individuals across the four years coincidedwith the growth in externalizing problems of their cliqueaffiliates.

DISCUSSION

In this study, the longitudinal links between clique mem-bership and internalizing and externalizing problemsduring late childhood were examined. While controllingfor concurrent peer experiences, namely, social prefer-ence and dyadic friendships, clique members were foundto have lower levels of internalizing problems than

children isolated from cliques across a period of 4 yearsin late childhood. Moreover, we found that clique mem-bers compared to isolated children showed, on average,an increase in externalizing problems across that sameperiod. To further investigate the increase in externaliz-ing problems among clique members, we tested whetherthis growth in externalizing problems coincided with agrowth in externalizing problems among children’s cli-que affiliates. Results showed that an increase in indivi-dual’s externalizing problems did indeed correspond toan increase in externalizing problems of children’s cliqueaffiliates. No sex differences were found in the linkbetween clique membership status and internalizing pro-blems. However, the association found between cliquemembership and an increase in externalizing problemswas specific to boys only. These results have severalimplications.

First, our results support the hypothesis that cliquemembership protects children against developinginternalizing problems. However, these findings do notsuggest that children in cliques show higher levels ofinternalizing problems due to peer contagion processesoccurring in cliques. Exacerbation of internalizing pro-blems in cliques has been shown to occur in adolescence(Hogue & Steinberg, 1995; Prinstein, 2007; Stevens &Prinstein, 2005), but our findings suggest that this maynot yet be the case in late childhood. In line with earlierfindings regarding the link between peer relations andinternalizing problems during childhood (Ladd &Troop-Gordon, 2003; Pedersen et al., 2007), we didnot find sex differences in the association between cliquemembership and internalizing problems.

In contrast to our results regarding internalizingproblems, boys who are members of a clique appearedto have a greater chance of exhibiting an increase inexternalizing problems across four years of develop-ment. This latter finding opposes the notion that cliquemembers in late childhood engage in less externalizingbehavior because they have more opportunities to prac-tice social skills than children who are isolated fromcliques. Rather, our finding seems to support previousevidence that children who engage in externalizing beha-vior are more often in cliques with members who alsoshow externalizing problems (Cairns et al., 1988; Espelageet al., 2003). Specifically, children with externalizing pro-blems may select others with similar behaviors as theirclique affiliates (Cairns & Cairns, 1995). At the same time,clique members may influence children’s externalizingproblems through internal clique dynamics such asmutualand selective reinforcement of deviant behavior (i.e.,deviancy training) and through processes of peer pressure(Adler & Adler, 1995; Dishion et al., 1996; Merten, 1997).

It is important to note that the increase in externaliz-ing problems within cliques was limited to boys only.Thus, in late childhood, boys’ externalizing problems

CLIQUE MEMBERSHIP AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 701

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

seem to develop within the context of a clique parti-cularly when the other members of the clique showexternalizing behavior. Further, the finding that cliquemembership status was not related to the initial levelof externalizing problems in Grade 3 is in line with theConfluence model proposed by Dishion and colleagues(Dishion, Patterson, & Griesler, 1994). According to thismodel, children with externalizing problems are morelikely to socialize with each other and to influence eachother’s problem behavior from age 10 onwards.Similarly, findings about selection and socializationprocesses in cliques have been amply reported on foradolescents (Cohen, 1977; Espelage et al., 2003).

Previous studies focusing on sociometric statusand dyadic friendships have shown that these peer rela-tional aspects are negatively related to psychopathology(Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Pedersen et al., 2007;Snyder et al., 2004). However, our findings suggest thatwhen clique membership is also taken into account,having dyadic friendships is no longer uniquely asso-ciated with the development of internalizing and exter-nalizing problems. These results could imply thatachieving group identity and group acceptance is morecentral to children’s social development than havingintimate friendships in late childhood (Buhrmester,1990; Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Parker & Gottman,1989). More studies that take peer relations intoaccount at the dyadic as well as the group level areneeded to further test this hypothesis.

In regard to sex differences in clique membership sta-tus, several studies focusing on adolescence have foundthat boys are more often isolated from cliques than girls(Cohen, 1977; Urberg et al., 1995). In the present study,we did not find sex differences in clique membershipstatus. This discrepancy in findings may have been theresult of investigating differing developmental periods.In adolescence, the concept of friendship changes andthe emphasis on intimacy increases (Sullivan, 1953).Because intimacy is believed to play a larger role amonggirls than among boys (Maccoby, 1998), sex differencesin clique membership status may become particularlyapparent in adolescence when intimacy is a more impor-tant friendship goal.

Limitations

Some limitations of the present study should be noted.First, although we used a longitudinal design, no causalinferences can be made based on our findings. Forinstance, other processes not measured in the presentstudy may underlie the observed associations betweenclique membership and psychopathology. Moreover,we cannot draw conclusions about clique membershipleading to increases in externalizing problems. That is,class compositions changed each year in the study

sample giving children the opportunity to form newcliques each year. Consequently, an increase in externa-lizing problems among boys who are clique membersmay have been the result of active selection of increas-ingly deviant peers as well as the result of socializationprocesses within cliques. Future studies should test thedirectionality between clique membership status andpsychopathology and the role of clique membershipstatus as a marker, contributor, or mediator in thedevelopment children’s psychopathology.

Second, the sample size in the present study was notlarge enough to be able to investigate different trajec-tories of clique membership status. Brendgen, Vitaro,Bukowski, Doyle, and Markiewicz (2001) found thatconsistently rejected children have high levels of externa-lizing problems from age 6 to 12 years. Further, Ladd,Herald-Brown, and Reiser (2008) showed in a longitudi-nal study of children aged 5 to 12 years that participantstended to show a negative growth in classroom partici-pation when they were rejected and a positive growthin classroom participation was seen when they werenot rejected. Similarly, by studying trajectories of cliquemembership status, we would be able to investigatewhether children who are chronically isolated from cli-ques show a different developmental pathway resultingin psychopathology compared to children who fluctuatein clique membership status.

Third, the number of children’s friendship nomina-tions was limited to four. These limited friendshipnominations could have resulted in smaller cliques andmore children isolated from cliques than if unlimitedfriendship nominations were allowed. To overcome thisproblem, we included both reciprocated and unrecipro-cated friendship nominations in our clique assessment.Nonetheless, this procedure may, in some cases, havereflected children’s wish to be friends with a child ratherthan children’s actual friendships. We have limited thepossibility of this effect by weighting the friendshipnominations so that reciprocated friendships repre-sented twice the interaction time of unreciprocatedfriendships (Ennett & Bauman, 1994).

A next limitation involves the fact that peer relations,internalizing problems, and externalizing problems weremeasured with peer nominations. That is, we cannot ruleout the possibility that some of our findings may be theresult of shared-method variance. Therefore, future stu-dies should, in addition to peer nominations, includeinformation from other informants, such as teachersand parents, to measure the association between peerrelations and psychopathology.

Finally, this study used an ethnically homogeneoussample of children. That is, most children in the presentstudy had a French Canadian background. Therefore,studies with a more ethnically diverse sample are neededto increase the generalizability of the present findings.

702 WITVLIET ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice

Our findings suggest that cliques are important socialcontexts linked to the development of psychopathologyin late childhood. Although clique members appear tohave fewer internalizing problems than children whoare isolated from cliques, boys’ externalizing problemsseem to be fostered within cliques. Thus, studying chil-dren’s clique membership may provide unique infor-mation on children’s social development. Even whencontrolling for concurrent experiences of social prefer-ence and dyadic friendships, the links between cliquemembership status and psychopathology were signifi-cant. This indicates that clique membership plays aunique role independent of other classroom interperso-nal experiences. Consequently, viewing peer relationsfrom a group perspective may add to insights gainedfrom the social preference or dyadic friendship context.

For policy and practice, the findings indicate that cli-que membership may reduce internalizing problems butat the same time foster externalizing problems in boys.Thus, the overall positive stance against clique involve-ment is not warranted, even at elementary school. Thefirst signs of deviancy training seem to be evidencealready in middle elementary school, and social dynam-ics in boys’ cliques therefore need sufficient monitoring.

REFERENCES

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion

in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145–162.

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and

identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preado-

lescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjust-

ment. Child Development, 69, 140–153.

Blishen, B. R., Carroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981 socioe-

conomic index for occupations in Canada. Canadian Review of

Sociology and Anthropology, 24, 465–488.

Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Poulin, F. (2005). Peer relations and the

development of aggressive behavior in early childhood. In R. E.

Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins

of aggression (pp. 376–397). New York: Guilford.

Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Bukowski, W. M., Doyle, A. B., &

Markiewicz, D. (2001). Developmental profiles of peer social prefer-

ence over the course of elementary school: Associations with trajec-

tories of externalizing and internalizing behavior. Developmental

Psychology, 37, 308–320.

Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal com-

petence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence.

Child Development, 61, 1101–1111.

Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of com-

panionship and intimacy. Child Development, 58, 1101–1113.

Bukowski, W., & 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. 15–45). New

York: Wiley & Sons.

Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Lifelines and risk: Pathways of

youth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy,

J. L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive-behavior – peer support

or peer rejection. Developmental Psychology, 24, 815–823.

Cillessen, A. H., & Mayeux, L. (2004). Sociometric status and peer

group behavior: Previous findings and current directions. In J. B.

Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: From

development to intervention (pp. 3–20). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Cohen, J. M. (1977). Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology of

Education, 50, 227–241.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social

behavior and social status in the school: A cross-age comparison.

Child Development, 59, 815–829.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group

behavior and social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer

rejection in childhood (pp. 17–59). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Studies in Social and Emotional Development.

Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining

the role of peer relationships in the development of psychopath-

ology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 565–579.

DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994). Chil-

dren’s academic and behavioral-adjustment as a function of the

chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Development, 65,

1799–1813.

Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Peer contagion in interventions

for children and adolescents: Moving towards an understanding of

the ecology and dynamics of change. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 33, 395–400.

Dishion, T. J., Eddy, J. M., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklen, K. (1997).

Friendships and violent behavior during adolescence. Social Devel-

opment, 6, 207–223.

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions

harm – Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist,

54, 755–764.

Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G., & Griesler, P. (1994). Peer adaptations in

the development of antisocial behavior. A confluence model. In R.

Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 61–

95). New York: Plenum.

Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R.

(1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior

Therapy, 27, 373–390.

Ennett, S. T., & Bauman, K. E. (1994). The contribution of influence

and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity—The case of

adolescent cigarette-smoking. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67, 653–663.

Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination

of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early

adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205–220.

Frank, K. A. (1995). Identifying cohesive subgroups. Social Networks,

17, 27–56.

Frank, K. A. (1996). Mapping interactions within and between

cohesive subgroups. Social Networks, 18, 93–119.

Harrist, A. W., Zaia, A. F., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S.

(1997). Subtypes of social withdrawal in early childhood: Socio-

metric status and social-cognitive differences across four years. Child

Development, 68, 278–294.

Haselager, G. J. T., Hartup, W. W., van Lieshout, C. F. M., &

Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A. (1998). Similarities between friends and

nonfriends in middle childhood. Child Development, 69, 1198–1208.

Hay, D. F., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in child-

hood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 84–108.

Henrich, C. C., Kuperminc, G. P., Sack, A., Blatt, S. J., & Leadbeater,

B. J. (2000). Characteristics and homogeneity of early adolescent

friendship groups: A comparison of male and female clique and

nonclique members. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 15–26.

CLIQUE MEMBERSHIP AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 703

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Hogue, A., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Homophily of internalized

distress in adolescent peer groups. Developmental Psychology,

31, 897–906.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Fit indices in covariance structure

modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.

Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.

Lacourse, E., Nagin, D., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & Claes, M.

(2003). Developmental trajectories of boys’ delinquent group mem-

bership and facilitation of violent behaviors during adolescence.

Development and Psychopathology, 15, 183–197.

Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S. L., & Reiser, M. (2008). Does chronic

classroom peer rejection predict the development of children’s class-

room participation during the grade school years? Child Develop-

ment, 79, 1001–1015.

Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer

difficulties in the development of children’s psychological adjust-

ment problems. Child Development, 74, 1344–1367.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming

together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, compe-

tition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of

Education, 70, 175–191.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide

(4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1998). The developmental signifi-

cance of children’s friendship relations. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F.

Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friend-

ship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 289–321). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

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, 611–621.

Parker, J. G., & Gottman, J. (1989). Social and emotional development

in a relational context: Friendship interaction from early childhood

to adolescence. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer

relationships in child development (pp. 95–131). New York: Wiley

& Sons.

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A develop-

mental perspective on antisocial-behavior. American Psychologist,

44, 329–335.

Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Yoerger, K. (2000). Adolescent

growth in new forms of problem behavior: Macro- and micro-peer

dynamics. Prevention Science, 1, 3–13.

Pedersen, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Borge, A. I. H. (2007). The

timing of middle-childhood peer rejection and friendship: Linking

early behavior to early-adolescent adjustment. Child Development,

78, 1037–1051.

Pekarik, E. G., Prinz, R. J., Liebert, D. E., Weintraub, S., & Neale,

J. M. (1976). Pupil evaluation inventory – sociometric technique

for assessing childrens social-behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 4, 83–97.

Prinstein, M. J. (2007). Moderators of peer contagion: A longitudinal

examination of depression socialization between adolescents and

their best friends. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent

Psychology, 36, 159–170.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interac-

tions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),Handbook of

child psychology. Vol. 3 social, emotional, and personality develop-

ment (pp. 571–645). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Coplan, R. J. (2002). Social withdrawal

and shyness. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook

of childhood social development (pp. 329–352). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Rubin, K. H., & Mills, R. S. L. (1988). The many faces of social iso-

lation in childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

56, 916–924.

Rubin, Z. (1980). Children’s friendships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Shrum, W., & Cheek, N. H. (1987). Social-structure during the school

years—Onset of the degrouping process. American Sociological

Review, 52, 218–223.

Snyder, J., Prichard, J., Schrepferman, L., Patrick, M. R., &

Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Child impulsiveness-inattention, early peer

experiences, and the development of early onset conduct problems.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 579–594.

Stevens, E. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2005). Peer contagion of depresso-

genic attributional styles among adolescents: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 25–37.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New

York: Norton.

Tremblay, R. E., LeBlanc, M., & Schwartzman, A. (1988). The predic-

tive power of first grade peer and teacher ratings of behavior: Sex

differences in antisocial behavior and personality at adolescence.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 571–583.

Urberg, K. A., Degirmencioglu, S. M., Tolson, J. M., & Halliday-

Scher, K. (1995). The structure of adolescent peer networks. Devel-

opmental Psychology, 31, 540–547.

van Lier, P. A. C., Vuijk, P., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2005). Understand-

ing mechanisms of change in the development of antisocial behavior:

The impact of a universal intervention. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 33, 521–535.

Vitaro, F., Pedersen, S., & Brendgen, M. (2007). Children’s disruptive-

ness, peer rejection, friends’ deviancy, and delinquent behaviors: A

process-oriented approach. Development and Psychopathology, 19,

433–453.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods

and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance,

and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in

middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198–1209.

704 WITVLIET ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

6:17

14

Dec

embe

r 20

11