Download - Behavioral Characteristics Associated with Stable and Fluid Best Friendship Patterns in Middle Childhood

Behavioral Characteristics Associated with Stable and Fluid Best Friendship Patterns in Middle Childhood

Julie C. Wojslawowicz Bowker, Kenneth H. Rubin, and Kim B. Burgess,University of Maryland

Cathryn Booth-LaForce, University of Washington

Linda Rose-Krasnor, Brock University

Five groups of children were identified using friendship nominations from the falland spring of their fifth-grade year: (1) children with a stable best friendship withthe same child (same-stable); (2) children with a mutual best friendship at Times1 and 2, but the best friend was a different child at each time (different-stable);(3) children with a best friendship at Time 1 but not at Time 2 (friendship loss);(4) children who had no best friendship at Time 1 but did have a best friendshipat Time 2 (friendship gain); and (5) chronically friendless children. Peer nomina-tions of psychosocial adjustment were gathered at both time points. The friend-ship gain group became less victimized and the friendship loss group becamemore victimized by Time 2. The two stable groups of children were rated asprosocial and popular, with low levels of aggression and victimization. Findingssuggest that the consistency of having any best friendship across time may be asimportant to children’s adjustment as same-friendship stability. The results of thisstudy also highlight the importance of best friendship “renewal.”

671

MERR I L L -PALMER QUARTERLY, VOL. 52, NO. 4

Julie Wojslawowicz Bowker, Kenneth Rubin, and Kim Burgess, Department of HumanDevelopment; Cathryn Booth-LaForce, Department of Family and Child Nursing; Linda Rose-Krasnor, Department of Psychology.

The research reported in this manuscript was supported by National Institute of MentalHealth grant 1R01MH58116 to Ken Rubin. The authors would like to thank the children, parents,and teachers who participated in the study as well as Charissa Cheah, Stacey Chuffo, KathleenDwyer, Erin Galloway, Jon Goldner, Sue Hartman, Amy Kennedy, Angel Kim, Sarrit Kovacs, Ali-son Levitch, Abby Moorman, Andre Peri, Margro Purple, Joshua Rubin, and Erin Shockey, whoassisted in data collection and input. Special thanks to Greg Hancock for his statistical assistance.

Correspondence should be addressed to Julie Wojslawowicz Bowker at 224 Park Hall, Uni-versity at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260. Email: [email protected].

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, October 2006, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 671–693. Copyright © 2006 by WayneState University Press, Detroit, MI 48201.

020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 671

The developmental significance of friendship has been well established inthe peer relationship literature (for recent reviews see Rose & Asher, 2000;Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Friendship involvement has beenlinked to indices of psychological well-being, such as self-esteem and posi-tive feelings of self-worth (e.g., Hartup & Stevens, 1996; Bagwell, New-comb, & Bukowski, 1998). Involvement in stable friendships has beenassociated with positive adjustment, such as school involvement and lowlevels of disruptiveness (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Ladd, 1990).

Children who lack friends, as well as those who are rejected by thelarger peer group, appear to be at risk for psychological maladaptation. Inparticular, researchers have demonstrated that the lack of a friendship canrender a child particularly vulnerable to the effects of negative peer experi-ences. For example, Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, and Bukowksi (1999) foundthat friendship played a protective role in the relation between victimiza-tion and internalizing and externalizing problems among same-age chil-dren. Specifically, peer victimization predicted increases in internalizingand externalizing problems across the school year only for those childrenwho lacked a mutual best friendship. Investigators have also shown thatfriendless children are likely to suffer from loneliness (Brendgen, Vitaro, &Bukowski, 2000; Parker & Asher, 1993) and a lack of social skills (Clark &Drewry, 1985). Chronic friendlessness during childhood has been associ-ated with social timidity, sensitivity, and later internalizing problems (Ladd& Troop-Gordon, 2003; Parker & Seal, 1996).

Much recent attention has been devoted to children whose friendshippatterns are stable or consistent over time (e.g., children with stable friend-ships and children who are chronically friendless). Many friendships, how-ever, are neither static nor stable. Some children’s friendships end afteronly a few months or over the course of a single school year (Cairns,Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995). Some children replace “lost” friend-ships with “new” friendships, whereas others do not. Such changes reflectunstable or fluid best friendship patterns and have received scant empiricalattention. Given the many benefits of having best friends (Rose & Asher,2000), it seems likely that changes in best friendship involvement may berelated to children’s psychosocial adjustment. Yet very little is known aboutthe potential for temporal changes in best friendship involvement to influ-ence children’s adjustment.

Patterns in Best Friendship Involvement

It is likely that the world of children’s friendships is more complex thantypically portrayed in the peer relationships literature. For instance, duringa single academic year, some children may consistently be involved in a

672 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 672

mutual best friendship, albeit with different peers. That is, the child mayhave a mutual best friendship with one child during a fall semester and amutual best friendship with a different child later in the spring semester. Inthis case, best friend involvement remains stable, although the identity ofthe best friend changes over time. The consideration of such a best friend-ship pattern raises a number of important questions, such as: How might theadjustment of children with stable best friendships with the same peer com-pare to that of children who have best friendships with different peers? Arethe benefits of consistent best friendship involvement as great when thepeer differs?

Friendship stability has been linked to friendship quality, both theoreti-cally and empirically. It has been argued that the stability of friendshipsderives from the positive qualities of and the positive interactions betweenchildren (Berndt, 1999). In other words, friendships that are high in relation-ship quality will be more likely to persist over time. Supporting this con-tention, Ladd, Kochenderfer, and Coleman (1996) found higher levels ofpositive friendship qualities (e.g., validation) and lower levels of negativefriendship qualities (e.g., low conflict) in stable friendships of kindergart-ners, relative to unstable friendships. The social support of a high-qualitystable friendship has also been shown to be helpful for children during timesof school transition (e.g., Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999; Berndt & Keefe,1995; Ladd, 1990).

In keeping with the existing literature on friendship stability, it is possi-ble that changes in the identity of a best friend decrease the positive bene-fits of a consistent best friendship. It may be necessary to establish a dyadicrelationship history in order to accrue the positive outcomes, qualities, andsocial support benefits of best friendship. To date, however, researchershave not compared the behavioral characteristics of those children whohave varying friendship stability patterns, with the exceptions of a short-term summer camp study (Parker & Seal, 1996) and a study focused onfriendship involvement during early childhood (Howes, 1983, 1988). Con-sequently, we know very little about possible differences between the “ben-efits” of stable best friendship involvement and the “benefits” of consistentbest friendship involvement with different children.

In addition to the previously mentioned best friendship pattern, otherbest friendship patterns have received even less empirical attention. Insome cases, children may be unable to replace a best friendship that is dis-rupted during the school year; other children who are initially friendlessmay gain a best friendship in the school months that follow. When friend-ships are assessed at a single time point, these aforementioned childrenwould be classified as either having or not having a mutual best friendship,respectively. Such classifications, however, neglect important longitudinal

Best Friendship Patterns 673

020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 673

changes in best friendship involvement and may inadvertently misconstruethe potentially influential events of friendship loss and friendship replace-ment on adjustment.

It is not uncommon for friendships to end or dissolve, particularly dur-ing childhood and early adolescence (Berndt & Hoyle, 1985). A lack ofsuch relationship qualities as intimacy/closeness or mutual “liking” is con-nected with friendship dissolution (Berndt, Hawkins, & Hoyle, 1986), asare individual behavioral characteristics such as aggression (Hektner,August, & Realmuto, 2000; Ladd & Burgess, 1999). In fact, it has beensuggested that termination is a normal, inevitable, and often desirable partof friendship development (e.g., Erwin, 1993). Given that friendship isbased largely on individuals having similar characteristics as well as onpropinquity and opportunities for interaction, it has been proposed thatfriendships should come and go as individuals develop new interests, com-petencies, and values. New friends may facilitate the development of newinterests and perspectives, whereas older relationships that were productiveand supportive in one environment may become less relevant or even dis-advantageous to adaptation to new environments (Cairns et al., 1995). Incertain cases, it seems likely that the loss of a specific friendship may beharmless if that friendship is replaced by a friendship with another child.

On the other hand, friendship dissolution may have serious conse-quences for some children. Disruptions of close peer relationships havebeen associated with depression, loneliness, physiological dysregulation,guilt, and anger (e.g., Laursen, Hartup & Keplas, 1996). In addition, friend-ship loss in preadolescence may be particularly painful due to the specialrole of friends’ loyalty during this developmental period (Buhrmeister &Furman, 1987; Erwin, 1993).

Empirical research describing the concomitants of friendship loss isremarkably limited, and the extant findings are inconsistent. Researchersargue that being without a best friendship appears to “mark” some childrenas “easy targets,” placing them at risk for victimization (Hodges et al.,1999). Thus, it seems likely that friendship loss (without replacement) maybe associated with peer victimization. In the only studies in which the asso-ciation between friendship and victimization has been explored, the meas-urement of friendship was static (Hodges et al., 1999); thus, it is not known,at this time, whether friendship loss during the course of a school yearplaces children at risk for peer victimization or any negative outcome at all.

The primary objective of the present study was to examine fluid and sta-ble best friendship patterns based on the notion that stability and change inbest friendship involvement may be related to children’s emotional and socialfunctioning. Whereas the aforementioned Parker and Seal (1996) summer


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 674

camp study focused solely on changing friendship networks, the presentstudy was focused on children’s best dyadic friendships during middle child-hood. We chose such a focus because best or close friendships have beenshown to have a greater influence on children’s adjustment than other good(but not “best”) friends or the larger peer group (Berndt, 1999; Urberg, 1992).

To accomplish our primary research aim, we contrasted five groups ofbest friendship patterns in fifth-grade children: (1) same-stable, childrenwith a stable best friendship across the school year; (2) different-stable,children with a best friend in the fall and spring semesters of the school yearbut whose best friends differed at each time; (3) friendship loss, childrenwith a best friend during the fall semester but without a best friend in thespring; (4) friendship gain, children without a best friend during the fallsemester but with a best friend in the spring; and (5) chronically friendlesschildren. We examined whether patterns of best friendship loss and bestfriendship replacement were associated with children’s social and emo-tional adaptation and maladaptation.

As noted above, there has been only one published report of temporalpatterns of friendships; in that study, participants were drawn from a short-term summer camp setting (Parker & Seal, 1996). We were particularlyinterested in examining change and continuity within the school setting andacross an entire academic year. Greater change in best friend involvement islikely within a school setting, as children may be more willing to changebest friends when the number of possible peers for best friend “replacement”is greater. Furthermore, greater change may occur over the course of aschool year than over the course of a shorter period of time during the sum-mer. The “costs” of best friendship loss may also be greater in a school set-ting. After a few short weeks, children are able to leave a summer camp;such opportunities for escape are not available for children attending school.

Researchers have demonstrated that children’s involvement in friend-ships and peer relationships are positively related to measures of socialcompetence and negatively associated with peer victimization (e.g., Bag-well et al., 1998; Hodges et al., 1999). Problematic peer relationships havebeen linked with adjustment difficulties, including social withdrawal andavoidance of peers as well as aggressive and deviant behavior (for a recentreview see Deater-Deckard, 2001). Moreover, in literature on friendshipmaintenance and the consequences of friendship loss, friendship loss hasbeen associated with internalizing and externalizing problems (Hektner etal., 2000; Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Parker & Seal, 1996). Thus, in this studywe examined the five best friendship patterns noted above in relation toindices of both adjustment (prosocial behavior and sociability) and malad-justment (peer victimization, aggression, and shyness/withdrawal).


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM 75

We expected best friendship group differences in adjustment difficulties.Based on the existing literature regarding friendship stability and friendshipquality (e.g., Ladd et al., 1996), we predicted that children who had a stablebest friendship with the same peer (same-stable) would be better adjustedthan children in the different-stable best friendship group. We hypothesizedthat whereas any friendship contributes positively to children’s development,the relationship history of stable best friendship with the same child wouldenhance the positive benefits of a best friend relationship. We also hypothe-sized that members of the same-stable group would be viewed by peers as themost sociable and socially skilled among all children. Co-constructive activ-ity, conversation, negotiation, and competence in resolving conflict are alloutgrowths of interactions between friends (e.g., Azmitia & Montgomery,1993; Garton, 2001). Thus, it was posited that a stable friendship with thesame child is especially enhancing of skillful social behavior.

We also tested the hypothesis that friendship loss and friendshipreplacement are related to changes in children’s psychosocial adjustment.As noted above, it is known that friendship loss is associated with adjust-ment difficulties (Hektner et al., 2000; Ladd & Burgess, 2001). However,little if anything is known about friendless children who come to developfriendships over time. For children who initially are without best friends,the gain of a best friendship might be an important social “success” thatcontributes positively to their overall sense of self and to their social stand-ing within the larger peer group. Therefore, we hypothesized that thosechildren who acquired a best friendship across the school year (the friend-ship gain group) would experience decreased adjustment difficulties.Specifically, we expected that children who gained a best friend wouldexperience decreased peer victimization as they became viewed by peers asmore socially acceptable. Relatedly, we posited that children in the friend-ship gain group would be viewed by peers as increasingly popular and asmore socially skilled and sociable; improvements in peer perceptions arelikely to promote the possibility of positive and prosocial interactionswithin the larger peer group.

In contrast, the loss of a best friendship (without replacement) wasposited to have negative psychological consequences, as the child loses animportant source of social support. Other children likely notice when a childloses a best friend and may come to perceive the friendless child as lessacceptable and socially skilled and as more vulnerable. In response, childrenwho lose a best friendship may shy away from contact with peers (self-protection through avoidance brought on by negative self-regard; for anoverview see Rubin, Burgess, Kennedy, & Stewart, 2003) or retaliate withaggression. Thus, we expected that children who had a mutual best friendship


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 676

at Time 1 but not at Time 2 (the friendship loss group) would experienceincreased difficulties at Time 2. In particular, we anticipated that the loss of abest friendship would contribute to increased peer victimization. We alsohypothesized that the loss of a best friendship would be related to increases insocial withdrawal and aggression as relations with the larger peer group dete-riorate. Chronically friendless children were expected to have the mostsevere adjustment difficulties—the consistent absence of a best friendshipwas anticipated to be the most detrimental to psychosocial functioning (e.g.,Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Parker & Seal, 1996).

Possible gender differences in the effects of best friendship change andstability on social functioning were examined. Best friendships arebelieved to be particularly important for girls, whereas membership inlarger peer groups is believed to be particularly more important for boys(e.g., Maccoby, 1995). Girls also report greater change in their lives afterthe termination of a friendship than do boys (Benenson & Christakos,2003). Thus, one might expect that changes in best friendship involvementwould have stronger effects on social functioning for girls than for boys.

Method

Participants

Participants were 828 fifth-grade students (407 boys, 421 girls) from thirty-nine classrooms in eight public elementary schools in the Washington, D.C.,metropolitan area for whom written parental permission was obtained (con-sent rate = 84%). Data were collected during the 1999–2000, 2000–2001, and2001–2002 school years. The mean age of the sample was 10.33 years (SD =.52): males, M = 10.34 years (SD = .49), and females, M = 10.33 years (SD =.56). Approximately 58% of the children were Caucasian, 13% AfricanAmerican, 17% Asian, and 9% Latino. Sixty-eight percent of the mothers(68% of the fathers) had a university degree, 21% had some college educa-tion (13% of the fathers), and 9% had high school and vocational education(12% of the fathers). Analyses revealed no significant demographic differ-ences between participants who had parental consent and those who did nothave parental consent. Participants were assessed on two different occasions:the beginning of the fifth-grade year (October; Time 1) and approximatelyseven months later near the end of the school year (May/June; Time 2).Between the two time points, 24 children (9 boys, 15 girls) moved to differentschools that were not participating in the study; therefore, these children werenot involved in Time 2 data collection. All 828 participants completed themeasures at Time 1; all 804 children completed measures at Time 2.


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 677

Procedure

Research assistants administered two questionnaires in group format in theclassrooms. Each session lasted approximately one hour. The first question-naire involved friendship nominations and the second questionnaire was anextended version of the Revised Class Play (RCP) peer nomination measure.

Measures

Friendship nominations (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994). Partici-pants were asked to write the names of their “very best friend” and their“second best friend” at their school. Children could only name same-sexfriends in their grade, and only mutual (reciprocated) best friendships weresubsequently considered. Children were considered “best friends” if theywere each other’s very best or second best friend choice. The identificationof a best friendship is similar to procedures used in other studies focused onbest friendships (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993). Although children couldnominate any same-sex child in their grade as their best friend, only partici-pating children completed the friendship nominations; therefore, it wasimpossible to determine whether a friendship was reciprocated when a non-participating child was identified as a best friend. As such, 62 children (38boys, 24 girls) were excluded from these analyses because their mutual bestfriend moved or both of their best friend nominations were of nonpartici-pating children.1


1. To explore the possibility that children who nominated only one participating child as hisor her best friend were less likely to possess a mutual best friend than those children who nomi-nated two participating children, we conducted chi-square analyses comparing the likelihood ofhaving a mutual best friendship for those children who nominated one participating child and thosewho nominated two participating children. The results were significant at both time points: Time 1,χ2 (1), (N = 801) = 17.03, p < .001; Time 2, χ2 (1), (N = 763) = 23.62, p < .001. Children who nom-inated two participating children as their best friends were more likely to have a mutual best friendthan those children who only nominated one participating child. However, it is important to notethat the majority of children nominated two participating children (Time 1, 76%; Time 2, 80%). Weconducted similar analyses to explore the possibility that children who possessed more than onemutual best friendship at Time 1 were more likely to possess a stable best friendship than thosechildren who had only one mutual best friendship. These results revealed that those children whohad two mutual best friends at Time 1 were more likely to have a stable best friendship (76%) thanthose children who only possessed one mutual best friend (56%), χ2 (1), (N=479) = 16.83, p < .001.However, both of these percentages are comparable to recent reports on the stability of friendshipsacross the school year (e.g., Bowker, 2004; 50%). Also, when we excluded all children who nomi-nated only one participating child as a best friend at both Times 1 and 2, the proportion of childrenin each best friendship group was almost identical to the proportions of children when the entiresample was considered. Analyses conducted with only children who nominated two children astheir best friends at both time points revealed no differences in the overall pattern of findings.

020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 678

Child behaviors. Following completion of the friendship nominationquestionnaire, participants completed an extended version of the RCP(Masten, Morison, & Pellegrini, 1985). The children were instructed topretend to be the directors of an imaginary class play and to nominate theirclassmates for various positive and negative roles. The children were pro-vided with a list of their classmates who were participating in the studyand were instructed to choose one boy and one girl for each role, but thesame person could be selected for more than one role. Only same-sexnominations for participating children were considered. All item scoreswere standardized within sex and within classroom in order to adjust forthe number of nominations received and also the number of nominators.Items were added to the original RCP to more fully capture different typesof aggression (e.g., Someone who spreads rumors) and to better distin-guish between peer victimization and shyness/social withdrawal (e.g.,Someone who talks quietly or rarely). An exploratory principal compo-nents factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded five orthogonal factors:Aggression, Shyness/Withdrawal, Victimization, Prosocial (sociallyskilled) Behaviors, and Popularity/Sociability. The standardized itemscores were summed to yield five different total factor scores for each par-ticipant. It should be noted that this measure, the Extended Class Play(ECP), has been found both valid and reliable using a large normativesample of fifth-grade children across two time points (Burgess, Wojsla-wowicz Bowker, Oh, Rubin, Booth-LaForce, & Rose-Krasnor, 2004;Burgess, Rubin, Wojslawowicz, Rose-Krasnor, & Booth, 2003). The five-factor model was supported by confirmatory factor analyses:

Time 1: χ2 = 2196.47, df = 395 (p < .001), CFI = .86, RMSEA = .08,and SRMR = .09

Time 2: χ2 = 2300.67, df = 395 (p < .001), CFI = .88, RMSEA = .08,SRMR = .09

Cronbach alphas for the factors were:

Aggression (7 items): Time 1, .91; Time 2, .91Shyness/Withdrawal (4 items): Time 1, .82; Time 2, .84Victimization (8 items): Time 1, .87; Time 2, .90Popularity/Sociability (5 items): Time 1, .87; Time 2, .88Prosocial (socially skilled) Behaviors (6 items): Time 1, .82;

Time 2, .82

Identification of best friend status groups. Friendship nominations atTime 1 and Time 2 were used to assess the mutuality of friendship over time.


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 679

In order to fully capture the change and stability in best friendships over time,a total of five best friend status groups of children were identified:

1. Children with stable best friendships (same-stable): 302 children(115 boys, 187 girls)

2. Children who had a mutual best friendship with different children atTimes 1 and 2 (different-stable): 74 children (39 boys, 35 girls)

3. Children with a best friendship at Time 1 but not at Time 2 (friend-ship loss): 99 children (51 boys, 48 girls)

4. Children without a best friendship at Time 1 but with a reciprocatedbest friendship at Time 2 (friendship gain): 108 children (62 boys,46 girls)

5. Chronically friendless children: 182 children (101 boys, 81 girls)

The children in the second group (different-stable) had a reciprocated bestfriendship at both time points; however, the identity of the best friend atTime 1 differed from the identity of the best friend at Time 2.

It is important to note that children were considered to have a same-stable best friendship if they shared a mutual best friendship with the samechild at Time 1 and Time 2 (reciprocal nominations at both time points aseither “very best” or “second best” friend). If a child possessed a mutualbest friendship with two children at Time 1, they were considered to have asame-stable best friendship if one of these best friendships was maintained.However, if a child possessed a mutual best friendship with one or two chil-dren at Time 1 but his or her best friendships at Time 2 were with com-pletely different children, then he or she was classified as different-stable.Children were classified into the friendship loss group if they were com-pletely without a best friend at Time 2 (e.g., these children may have hadone or two best friends at Time 1 but were completely without a mutual bestfriendship at Time 2). Finally, chronically friendless children did not haveany mutual best friendships at either Time 1 or Time 2.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Intercorrelations among relevant measures are shown in Table 1. Resultsrevealed strong stability of the adjustment measures from Time 1 to Time 2;for example, the correlation between Time 1 and Time 2 for the aggressionfactor was r = .80, p < .001. Correlations among the ECP constructs werelow to moderate, suggesting that the constructs were relatively independent.


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 680


Table

1.

Inte

rcor

rela

tions

am

ong

Tim

e 1

and

Tim

e 2

Adj

ustm

ent V

aria

ble

(n=

827)

Shy

(T1)

Vic

(T1)

Pro

(T1)

Pop

(T1)

Agg

(T2)

Shy

(T2)

Vic

(T2)

Pro

(T2)

Pop

(T2)

A. G

rade

5 T

ime

1

Agg

ress

ion

–.21

*.3

2*–.

27*

.14*

.80*

–.19

*.2

6*–.

20*

.15*

Shyn

ess

.39*

.23*

–.18

*–.

20*

.80*

.37*

.21*

–.19

*

Vict

imiz

atio

n–.

15*

–.27

*.2

7*.4

0*.8

3*–.

13*

–.23

*

Pros

ocia

l.4

2*–.

22*

.15*

–.16

*.7

2*.3

4*

Popu

larit

y.1

5*–.

21*

–.26

*.3

8*.7

9*

B. G

rade

5 T

ime

2

Agg

ress

ion

–.21

*.2

5*–.

24*

.14*

Shyn

ess

.47*

.19*

–.22

*

Vict

imiz

atio

n–.

15*

–.28

*

Pros

ocia

l.4

4*

*p<

.001

.

020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 681

Sixty percent of the children (496 children; 217 boys, 279 girls) atTime 1 and 59% of children (491 children; 220 boys, 271 girls) at Time 2had a mutual best friendship. Thirty-seven percent of children (115 boys,187 girls) had a stable best friendship, and 22% were chronically without abest friend (101 boys, 81 girls). We conducted preliminary chi-squareanalyses to test for possible sex differences in the likelihood that boys andgirls would have a mutual best friendship at Times 1 and 2. Results indi-cated that girls were more likely than boys to have a mutual best friendshipat Time 1, χ2 (1), (N = 804) = 9.97, p < .002, and also at Time 2, χ2 (1), (N =785) = 7.80, p < .005. Girls were also more likely to have a stable bestfriendship than boys, χ2 (1), (N = 804) = 21.98, p < .001.

We compared the behavioral characteristics of those children who had astable best friendship with the same child with those children who were con-sistently involved in a mutual best friendship, albeit with different peers.The analyses comprised a series of 2 (group)-x-2 (sex) analyses of covari-ance (ANCOVA) conducted on the five adjustment indices at Time 2. Time 1adjustment variables were used as covariates. Analyses were limited to thesetwo groups in order to specifically test the hypothesis that best friendreplacement decreases the benefits of stable best friendship involvement.

There were no significant differences between the two groups on theaggression, shyness, peer victimization, prosocial, and popular/sociablevariables at Time 2, when Time 1 variables were controlled: aggression, F(1, 376) = 1.19, ns; shyness/withdrawal, F (1, 376) = .00, ns; victimization,F (1, 376) = 1.26, ns; prosocial behaviors, F (1, 376) = .30, ns; and popularity/sociability, F (1, 376) = .55, ns. Different-stable children were no more orless likely to have adjustment problems than same-stable children. Further-more, there were neither effects of child gender nor significant interactions.Given these nonsignificant differences between the two stable best friend-ship groups, these two groups were combined to form one group of childrenwho were involved in a best friendship relationship at Times 1 and 2, a sta-ble friendship group.

Change and Stability in Best Friendship and Its Relation toChildren’s Adjustment

To meet the overarching aim of the study—analyses for the effects ofchange and stability in best friendship involvement on adjustment—aseries of 4(Group: stable friendship, friendship loss, friendship gain, chron-ically friendless) – × – 2(sex) ANCOVAs was conducted on the five adjust-ment indices at Time 2, with Time 1 adjustment variables as covariates.ANCOVAs were chosen for this set of analyses and also for the prior set of


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 682

analyses to control for preexisting group differences (Time 1) on the adjust-ment variables.2 Controlling for initial differences allowed more preciseexamination of the effects of independent variables (the best friend group-ing variables; Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1998). Adjusted means are pre-sented in Table 2.

Best friendship patterns. Tests of between-subject contrasts revealed asignificant group-x-sex interaction for the aggression variable, F (3, 764) =3.26, p < .03. ANCOVAs were then rerun separately by sex, and resultsyielded significant group differences for boys only, F (3, 396) = 2.65, p <.05. Post hoc analyses (LSD) showed that when Time 1 aggression wascontrolled, boys who lost a friendship and were unable to replace it (friend-ship loss group) became significantly more aggressive than boys who wereinvolved in best friendships at both Times 1 and 2 (aggression adjusted M =.11, –.07, for boys in the friendship loss and stable best friendship groups,respectively).

Tests of between-subjects effects also yielded significant group maineffects for the variables of victimization, F (4, 764) = 8.98, p < .001; proso-cial (socially skilled) behaviors, F (4, 764) = 4.59, p < .001; and popular-ity/sociability, F (4, 764) = 3.36, p < .02. Follow-up post hoc analyses


Table 2. Summary of Adjusted Means for Best Friend Group Differences

Mean (standard deviations) by best friend group

Friendship Friendship ChronicallyAdjustment variable Stable loss gain friendless

Aggression –.11(.71) .08(.84) .03(.79) .18(.93)

Shyness/Withdrawal –.06(.80) –.05(.73) .01(.87) .06(.88)

Victimization –.19(.55) .11(.97) –.06(.67) .28(1.00)

Prosocial behaviors .14(.74) –.22(.54) –.01(.77) –.19(.67)

Popularity/Sociability .18(.93) –.20(.70) –.03(.65) –.24(.67)

2. Analyses focused on Time 1 adjustment variables revealed significant group differences onthe variables of aggression, F (3, 764) = 7.01, p < .001; victimization, F(3, 764) = 10.93, p < .001;prosocial behaviors, F(3, 764) = 12.16, p < .001; and sociability/popularity, F(3, 764) = 13.37, p <.001. Follow-up post hoc (LSD) analyses revealed that the chronically friendless children were sig-nificantly more aggressive than the stable friend group (same-stable, different-stable). The stablegroup was less victimized than all other groups; the chronically friendless group was also more vic-timized those children in the friendship gain group. There were no significant differences betweenthe chronically friendless and friendship loss groups on the victimization variable. The stablegroups were also more prosocial and popular/sociable than the other three groups.

020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 683

(LSD) revealed that after initial levels of victimization were controlled,friendship loss and chronically friendless groups of children became signif-icantly more victimized than children in the stable friendship and friend-ship gain groups (all ps < .001). There were no significant differencesbetween the friendship gain and stable friendship groups and no significantdifferences between the chronically friendless and friendship loss children.

A similar pattern of results was revealed for the prosocial (sociallyskilled) behaviors variable. After Time 1 prosocial (socially skilled) behav-ior was controlled, stable friendship and friendship gain children wereviewed by peers as significantly more prosocial (socially skilled) by the endof the school year than children in the chronically friendless and friendshiploss groups (all ps < .02). There were no significant differences between thefriendship gain and stable friendship groups and no significant differencesbetween the chronically friendless and friendship loss children in terms ofprosocial (socially skilled) behaviors.

Finally, follow-up analyses (LSD) revealed that children in the friend-ship loss group became viewed by peers as significantly less popular andsociable by the end of the school year than the children in the stable friend-ship group (p < .001) and children in the friendship gain group (p < .03).There were no significant differences between the friendship gain, stablefriendship, and chronically friendless groups and no significant differencesbetween the chronically friendless and friendless loss children.

Discussion

As in Parker and Seal’s (1996) study, we identified five distinct groups thatreflected patterns of friendship stability and/or change. However, our inves-tigation was the first to focus on specific best friend relationships and theircorresponding stability or change across a school year. Our approach per-mitted us to assess the significance of changes in children’s most importantpeer relationships during middle childhood—best friendships (e.g., Urberg,1992). The current study, therefore, extends and improves upon previousresearch that was limited by its network focus and summer camp setting(Parker & Seal, 1996).

Prior research has demonstrated the many advantages of best friend-ship involvement (e.g., Rose & Asher, 2000). However, findings from thepresent study suggest that temporal changes in whether children have or donot have a best friendship in school may play an important role with regardto these advantages. Our findings demonstrate (a) that the consistent pres-ence of any best friendship in school may be as developmentally significantas the presence of a stable best friendship and (b) that best friendship loss,


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 684

when not followed by best friendship replacement, can lead to increasedadjustment difficulties. Taken together, results strongly suggest that it ismethodologically and conceptually important to incorporate temporalassessments of children’s best friendship involvement when examining thedevelopmental significance and the concomitants of friendship.

Contrary to our expectations, findings revealed that children in thedifferent-stable best friend group were neither more nor less well-adjustedthan the children who had same-stable best friendships. Importantly, thesefindings provide a broader perspective on the different types of best friend-ships that may promote positive adjustment. In contrast to earlier argu-ments about the importance of same-identity stable friendship involvement(e.g., Berndt, 1999), findings from the present study highlight the signifi-cance of having any best friendship at a given point in time. Furthermore,the present findings provide support for the premise that the developmentalsignificance of stable best friendships during middle childhood may haveless to do with the relationship’s length, and more to do with simply havinga “buddy” by one’s side. Previously, researchers have found that the salientcharacteristics of friendship in middle childhood are companionship, recre-ation, validation, caring, help, and guidance (Rose & Asher, 2000). Rela-tionship qualities such as intimacy, closeness, and loyalty tend to berelatively less significant (Berndt, 1996). It may be, therefore, that relation-ship qualities of companionship and recreation take less time to foster thanthose involving intimacy. Future researchers may wish to examine the sim-ilarity between these two groups (same-stable and different-stable) beyondmiddle childhood and with regard to characteristics of friendship quality.Analyses focused on adolescence, when closeness and intimacy becomemore central to children’s relationships, may yield differences between thetwo stable groups.

The absence of differences between the two stable groups also sug-gests that best friendship loss may not be problematic as long as the bestfriendship is replaced during the school year. All different-stable children“lost” best friendships; however, within a short time these children wereable to fill the void. This expedient best friendship replacement may sug-gest that these children are extremely skilled at initiating friendships.Indeed, the data indicated that these children were viewed by peers asequally sociable and socially skilled (prosocial) as their same-stable friendcounterparts. On the other hand, it may be the case that their best friend-ships were dissolved in order that one or both of the partners could becomebest friends with another child. In either case, timely best friendshipreplacement appeared to provide friendship “benefits” similar to those pro-vided by same-stable best friendships.


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 685

We found further evidence of the importance of best friendshipreplacement in the findings of the friendship gain group. Indeed, the addi-tion of a best friendship appeared to lead to positive social experiences forthese children. For example, those children who gained a best friendshipwhen they originally were lacking one became significantly less victimizedand became viewed by peers as more prosocial and socially skilled thanchildren who were consistently without a best friendship and children wholost a best friendship over the school year. These findings are consistentwith the notion that friendship involvement improves children’s relation-ships with peers in general (Berndt, 1999). In particular, the addition of abest friendship appears to have “shielded” or “protected” these childrenfrom peer abuse (Hodges et al., 1999). Moreover, as these children experi-enced less victimization from their peers, it is likely that their social worldsbecame friendlier and kinder. Such a change may have, in turn, motivatedthese newly best-friended children to behave in kinder, more helpful, andmore skilled ways in the larger peer group. Additionally, given thatresearchers have demonstrated that prosocial behaviors, such as thoseassessed in the present study (e.g., Someone who waits his/her turn; Some-one who is polite), contribute to friendship formation (e.g., Rubin et al.,2006), it also seems reasonable that successfully gaining a friendship maypositively reinforce these relationship-enhancing behaviors.

Conversely, the adjustment difficulties of children in the friendshiploss group provide compelling evidence that if a best friendship is notreplaced, the “advantages” of once having a best friend may vanish. Chil-dren who experienced a friendship loss and were best-friendless at Time 2became significantly more victimized by the end of the school year thantheir counterparts who were involved in a best friendship. These findingsare consistent with those of Hodges et al. (1999) concerning the protectivefunction of friendship. The present study is unique because of its considera-tion of temporal changes in best friendship involvement and its associationwith peer victimization. Thus, the findings expand our knowledge about theprotective power of friendship by demonstrating that the “loss” of a bestfriend may predict peer victimization and abuse. When identifying childrenwho are at risk for peer victimization, researchers, teachers, and parentswould do well to consider the presence or absence of best friendship overtime rather than at a single time point. In fact, researchers would do well toexamine processes of friendship (Berndt, 2004) and to study why it is thatsome children “lose” their best friendships and fail to replace them. In thisregard, observational studies of friendship-in-action may be called for(Berndt, 2004).


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 686

It is also important to note that the behavioral characteristics of friend-ship loss children more closely resembled those of chronically friendlesschildren than the other groups. There were no significant differencesbetween children in these two groups on all adjustment measures. This gen-eral pattern of similarity raises the possibility that losing a best friendshipand not “replacing” it over the course of a school year may place children atrisk for adjustment difficulties in much the same way as being chronicallywithout a best friend. Analyses indicated that after losing a best friendship,children experienced not only increased peer victimization but alsodecreased peer acceptance and popularity. If these difficulties within thepeer group at-large persist, these children may become less attractivepotential best friends, thereby reducing their likelihood of gaining a newbest friendship in school. If followed longitudinally, it could be that chil-dren in the friendship loss group become chronically friendless. In thissense, the loss of a best friendship may initiate a spiraling sequence of lossand rejection at both the dyadic and group levels of social complexity(Rubin et al., 2006), thereby leading to increased maladjustment. Evidenceof increased aggression by friendship loss boys also raises the possibilitythat some children may use aggression to cope with increased difficultieswith peers. The increased display of aggressive behaviors after the loss of abest friendship may reflect an attempt to conceal upset or hurt feelingsresulting from the loss. It may also be the case that boys without a bestfriend display increased aggressive behaviors to deter potential victimizers.The consideration of aggression as a strategy to cope with peer difficultiesis an important direction for future research on temporal changes in friend-ship and adjustment.

As expected, the chronically friendless children were characterized bytheir victimization and their low levels of sociability, popularity, and com-petent, prosocial behaviors. Contrary to our expectations, analyses yieldedno significant differences between the five groups on peer reports ofshyness/social withdrawal. These findings are inconsistent with those ofParker and Seal (1996). Since many socially withdrawn children are shy(e.g., Rubin & Burgess, 2001), they may be uncomfortable establishingfriendships with unfamiliar peers in settings such as summer camps. In aschool milieu, a more familiar setting than a summer camp, shy/withdrawnchildren may have less difficulty forming and keeping friendships over thecourse of the school year. Although it is known that socially withdrawnchildren have as many friends as typical children (Schneider, 1999), littleelse is known about the friendships of these children during middle child-hood and early adolescence.


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 687

Limitations and Future Directions

This short-term longitudinal study within a school year provides importantdescriptive data, yet the study’s design does not permit strong causal infer-ences. It is possible that the direction of influence between behavior andfriendship patterns is reversed such that changes in behavior cause changesin friendship patterns. In this case, a child’s behavioral characteristics maycontribute to whether he or she has a best friend, maintains that friendship,or is able to develop a new friendship (e.g., Hartup, 1996; Ladd & Burgess,1999, 2001). For example, it may be the case that maladaptive behaviorcauses children to lose friends or otherwise interferes with the friendship-formation process. An examination of the behavioral characteristics of thechildren at the beginning of the school year (October) revealed that chil-dren in the friendship loss group were already demonstrating maladaptivebehavior relative to those in the stable best friendship groups. Moreover,the friendship loss group was initially more victimized and less prosocialand sociable than the two stable best friendship groups. These initial diffi-culties may have “driven away” the friendship loss group’s best friends andmay have contributed to increased maladjustment. However, by statisti-cally controlling for Time 1 adaptation and maladaptation and by findingbest friendship group differences by the end of academic year, we were ableto demonstrate the significance of changing dyadic best friendship patternsduring the period of middle childhood. The direction of influence betweenchildren’s behaviors and temporal friendship patterns should be examinedfurther in future long-term longitudinal studies. However, it may be mosthelpful to think of the relation between friendship and behavior as trans-actional in nature. Friendship loss may result in behavioral changes pro-voked by anger, sadness, and/or fear. In this manner, the loss of a friendmay lead to increased aggression, vulnerability, and victimization. Suchsocial/behavioral changes may make it more difficult for the child to makenew friends; it may also direct them to initiate friendships with those whoare very much like them. In the case of friendship gain, social self-efficacy,confidence, and happiness may result. The gain of a best friend may lead toincreases in sociable and prosocial behaviors as well in peer perceptions ofincreased popularity. In this case, these children may be sought out by oth-ers as acceptable and positive friendship targets.

Best friendships rarely exist in and of themselves. Rather, these rela-tionships are commonly embedded within a network of friends andacquaintances in a larger peer group context (Hinde, 1997, 1987). It may bethat when a child loses a best friend, the “replacement” is chosen fromwithin an already connected network of acquaintances. Further analyses of


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 688

the larger peer network could provide insight into the friendship “replace-ment” process.

As noted previously, we used a rather strict definition for best friend-ship in the present study. Many researchers allow children to nominate upto three of their best friends, either of the same sex or the opposite sex (e.g.,Haselager, Hartup, van Lieshout, & Riksen-Walraven, 1998; Hodges et al.,1999). However, participants in this study nominated two same-sex chil-dren whom they considered their “very best friend” and their “second verybest friend.” Our intention was to use a stricter criterion to identify bestfriendships that were reciprocally considered the most important in eachchild’s life. Indeed, the proportions of children with a reciprocated bestfriend at Time 1 (60%) and Time 2 (59%) were lower than those previouslyreported (e.g., 77%; Parker & Asher, 1993; Rose, 2002). However, the pro-portion of children considered to be chronically friendless (22%) approxi-mated the proportion (15%) reported by Parker and Seal (1996). Contraryto previous research findings, girls were more likely than boys in the pres-ent study to have mutual stable best friendships (Benenson & Christakos,2003; Berndt & Hoyle, 1985). Few children during middle childhood andearly adolescence nominate opposite-sex children as their best friends(Haselager et al., 1998), and the majority of children’s mutual friendships atthis age are with same-sex peers (e.g., 89%; Brendgen, Little, & Krapp-mann, 2000). As such, our procedure could have underestimated the num-ber of children with best friends but accurately accounted for children whoare chronically friendless. It may also be the case that the “very” bestfriendships for girls are more stable than the “very” best friendships forboys. Nevertheless, future studies that consider friendship more broadlymay reveal additional findings and gender differences regarding the friend-ship profiles considered herein.

Finally, there may be very good reasons for many best friendships toend. Best friendships can be characterized by both positive and negativequalities (Berndt, 1999, 2004). Thus, it may be worthwhile to examine thequality of the relationships that are maintained, lost, and replaced.Although certain best friendship status groups compared herein did not dif-fer behaviorally, they may in fact differ in their emotional well-being.Future researchers should consider affective indices of adjustment in addi-tion to behavioral indices.

References

Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and thedevelopment of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2, 202–221.


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 689

Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friend-ship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development,69, 1, 140–153.

Benenson, J. F., & Christakos, A. (2003). The greater fragility of females’ versusmales’ closest same sex friendships. Child Development, 74, 4, 1123–1129.

Berndt, T. J. (1996). Friendship quality affects adolescents’ self-esteem and socialbehavior. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Thecompany they keep: Friendship during childhood and adolescence (pp.346–365). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berndt, T. J. (1999). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directionsin Psychological Science, 11, 1, 7–10.

Berndt, T. J. (2004). Children’s friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspec-tives on their development and their effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50,206–223.

Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Hoyle, S. G. (1986). Changes in friendship during aschool year: Effects on children’s and adolescents’ impressions of friendshipand sharing with friends. Child Development, 57, 5, 1284–1297.

Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Jiao, Z. (1999). Influences of friends and friend-ships on adjustment to junior high school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45,13–41.

Berndt, T. J., & Hoyle, S. G. (1985). Stability and change in childhood and adoles-cent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1007–1015.

Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment toschool. Child Development, 66, 1313–1329.

Bowker, A. (2004). Predicting friendship stability during early adolescence. Jour-nal of Early Adolescence, 24, 2, 85–112.

Brendgen, M., Little, T. D., & Krappmann, L. (2000). Rejected children and theirfriends: A shared evaluation of friendship quality? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,46, 1, 45–70.

Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (2000). Deviant friends and earlyadolescents’ emotional and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 10, 2, 173–189.

Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship andintimacy. Child Development, 58, 1101–1113.

Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship qualityduring pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric proper-ties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 11, 3, 472–484.

Burgess, K. B., Rubin, K. H., Wojslawowicz, J. C., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Booth, C.(2003). The “Extended Class Play”: A longitudinal study of its factor struc-


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 690

ture, reliability, and validity. Poster presentation at the biennial meetings of theSociety for Research on Child Development, Tampa, Florida.

Burgess, K. B., Wojslawowicz Bowker, J. C., Oh, W., Rubin, K. H., Booth-LaForce, C., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2004). The “Extended Class Play”: A longi-tudinal study of its factor structure, reliability, and validity. Unpublishedmanuscript under review.

Cairns, R. B., Leung, M., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Friendship andsocial networks in childhood and adolescence: Fluidity, reliability, and interre-lations. Child Development, 66, 1330–1345.

Clark, M. L., & Drewry, D. L. (1985). Similarity and reciprocity in the friendshipsof elementary school children. Child Study Journal, 15, 4, 251–264.

Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining the role of peerrelationships in the development of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psy-chology and Psychiatry, 42, 5, 565–579.

Erwin, P. (1993). Friendship and peer relations in children. Chichester, UK: Wiley& Sons.

Garton, A. F. (2001). Peer assistance in children’s problem solving. British Journalof Developmental Psychology, 19, 307–319.

Hartup, W. H. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmen-tal significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13.

Hartup, W. H., & Stevens, N. (1996). Friendships and adaptation in the life course.Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355–370.

Haselager, G. J. T., Hartup, W. M., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Riksen-Walraven, J.M. (1998). Similarities between friends and nonfriends in middle childhood.Child Development, 69, 4, 1198–1208.

Hektner, J. M., August, G. J., & Realmuto, G. M. (2000). Patterns and temporalchanges in peer affiliation among aggressive and nonaggressive children par-ticipating in a summer school program. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,29, 4, 603–614.

Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, relationships, and culture: Links between ethol-ogy and the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex, UK:Psychology Press.

Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1998). Applied statistics for the behav-ioral sciences. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowksi, W. M. (1999). The power offriendship protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Devel-opmental Psychology, 35, 1, 94–101.

Howes, C. (1983). Patterns of friendship. Child Development, 54, 4, 1041–1053.


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 691

Howes, C. (1988). Peer interaction of young children. Monographs of the Societyfor Research in Child Development, 53, 1, 94.

Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and beingliked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children’s early school adjust-ment? Child Development, 61, 1081–1100.

Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajectories ofaggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during early gradeschool. Child Development, 70, 910–929.

Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factorsmoderate linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological andschool adjustment? Child Development, 72, 5, 1579–1601.

Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as apredictor of young children’s early school adjustment. Child Development, 61,1081–1100.

Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer difficulties inthe development of children’s psychological adjustment problems. ChildDevelopment, 74, 5, 1344–1367.

Laursen, B., Hartup, W. W., & Keplas, A. L. (1996). Towards understanding peerconflict. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 76–102.

Maccoby, E. E. (1995). The two sexes and their social systems. In P. Moen, G. H.Elder Jr., & K. Luescher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives onthe ecology of human development (pp. 347–364). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Masten, A. S., Morison, P., & Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). A revised class play methodof peer assessment. Developmental Psychology, 21, 3, 523–533.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middlechildhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness andsocial dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611–621.

Parker, J. G., & Seal, J. (1996). Forming, losing, renewing, and replacing friend-ships: Applying temporal parameters to the assessment of children’s friend-ship experiences. Child Development, 67, 2248–2268.

Rose, A. J. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Devel-opment, 73, 6, 1830–1843.

Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (2000). Children’s friendships. In C. Hendrick & S. Hen-drick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 47–69). California: Sage.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relation-ships, and groups. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Hand-book of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personalitydevelopment (6th ed., pp. 571–645). New York: Wiley.


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 692

Rubin, K. H., & Burgess, K. (2001). Social withdrawal. In M. W. Vasey & M. R.Dadds (Eds.), The developmental psychopathology of anxiety (pp. 407–434).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Kennedy, A. E., & Stewart, S. (2003). Social with-drawal in childhood. In E. Mash & R. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology(2nd ed., pp. 372–406). New York: Guilford.

Schneider, B. (1999). A multimethod exploration of the friendships of children con-sidered socially withdrawn by their school peers. Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology, 27, 2, 115–123.

Urberg, K. A. (1992). Locus of peer influence: Social crowd and best friend. Jour-nal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 439–450.


020 wojsla (671-693) 12/1/06 11:05 AM Page 693