The quality of adolescents' friendships: Associations with mothers' interpersonal relationships, attachments to parents and friends, and prosocial behaviors

Journal of Adolescence 2001, 24, 429–445 doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0374, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

The quality of adolescents’ friendships: Associations with mothers’ interpersonal relationships, attachments to parents and friends, and prosocial behaviors DOROTHY MARKIEWICZ, ANNA BETH DOYLE AND MARA BRENDGEN

Adolescents’ friendship quality and observed emotional expression with their best friends were predicted from reports of their mother’s interpersonal relationships— specifically the quality of her marriage and social network. Two models explaining these relationships received support. Consistent with an Attachment Theory model, adolescents’ perceptions of marital quality predicted attachment security with mother, father and friends. Security of attachment to friends in turn predicted best friendship quality, but not affective behavior with the friend. A Social Learning Theory model was also supported, in which perceptions of both marital quality and mother’s social network quality predicted adolescents’ prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior in turn predicted both best friendship quality and affective behavior with the friend. # 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

Introduction Most studies of the contributions of family and social network relationships to children’s peer relations have focused primarily on young children, and have often examined peer-group acceptance and social behavior. The close, emotional nature of family relationships implies, however, that their most important links may be to the quality of close peer relationships, i.e. friendships. Friendships are of central importance to the well-being of children from middle childhood onwards (Bukowski et al., 1993). During adolescence children’s friendships become increasingly intimate and more comparable to those of adults (Furman and Buhrmester, 1992). The present study explores associations between the quality of the mothers’ interpersonal relationships, specifically her marriage and social network, and the quality of adolescents’ closest friendships. Two theoretical models, Attachment Theory and Social Learning Theory, suggest different specific mechanisms linking parental interpersonal relationships with the quality of children’s friendships. According to Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980), attachment is an affectional bond whose function is the provision of safety and security to the child. Children who experience responsive and sensitive caretaking from their mother develop secure attachment to her, positive expectations about her as a social partner, and socially competent interaction styles. Current relationship theory stresses the central importance of the child’s security of attachment to the mother for other close personal relationships, including friendships (Sroufe and Fleeson, 1986; Elicker et al., 1992). In line with this notion, research has indicated that the quality of the child’s early attachment to the mother predicts the child’s later acceptance by and competence with peers (e.g. Waters et al., 1979; LaFreniere and Sroufe, 1985). Other research indicates that adolescents’ and young adults’ current Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed to: Dorothy Markiewicz, Applied Human Science, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1M8 (E-mail: [email protected]). 0140-1971/01/040429+17 $35
00/0

# 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

430

D. Markiewicz et al.

attachment styles are also significantly associated with the quality of their relationships with peers (e.g. Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991; Simpson et al., 1992; Kerns and Stevens, 1996). The postulated mechanism of linkage is the child’s internal working model or schema of self and of other in attachment-relevant situations (Bowlby, 1969; Bretherton, 1985). This schema serves as a filter for cognitive and affective attachment-relevant information and experience on both a conscious and an unconscious level. The working model tends to remain stable throughout childhood (Bretherton, 1985; Main et al., 1985), and is thought to become more autonomous from experience during adolescence, though also to be somewhat modifiable by life stress or new experiences (Thompson et al., 1982; George and Solomon, 1991). Developmental changes in attachment during adolescence are expected as older children work on the important tasks of becoming more autonomous from parents, and of developing friendships of greater intimacy and supportiveness. However, parents continue to serve as an important source of emotional security (Allen and Land, 1999). Although adolescents’ perceptions of their own need for help decline from late childhood to adolescence, their reports of parental availability at times of stress remain constant and important to attachment (Lieberman et al., 1999). Allen and Land (1999) point out that parents’ continued availability as attachment figures may facilitate their children’s ability to ‘‘explore (emotionally)’’, to separate from them and to form close relationships with peers. Several studies have demonstrated that close friends may serve as attachment figures among adolescents and young adults. Buhrmester (1992) found that adolescents’ long-term relationships (e.g. close friends, romantic partners) were characterized by close affectional bonds and age-appropriate proximity-seeking, separation protest, secure-base, and safehaven behavior patterns analogous to parent-child patterns. Similarly, Fraley and Davis (1997) found that although most young adults used their parents as their main attachment figures, with long term relationships attachment-related functions were transferred to best friends and romantic partners. Notably, there is some evidence of generalization from parent attachment to peer attachment (e.g. Armsden and Greenberg, 1987; Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991; Elicker et al., 1992; Furman and Wehner, 1994). Kobak and Sceery (1988) suggest that secure attachment to the mother contributes to the child’s ability to regulate negative emotions constructively, to express more positive feelings, and thus to interact more effectively. Similarly, secure attachment to friends may be expected to promote the adolescents’ ability to express emotions openly and constructively in close relationships. As such, attachment to peers could mediate the link between attachment to parents and adolescents’ friendship relations. While attachment to parents may influence children’s friendships through its effect on the child’s attachment to their friends, the security of the child’s attachment to parents may in turn be determined by the quality of the marital relationship. Parents’ marital conflict is expected to influence children’s and adolescents’ attachment security to mothers, by reducing the responsiveness and effectiveness of her parenting (Kerig et al., 1993; Davies and Cummings, 1994; Erel and Burman, 1995; Cowan et al., 1996). In addition, strained marital relationships may lead to fathers’ increased marginalization in the family and distancing from their children (Kerig et al., 1993) and thus reduce his physical and emotional availability. As previously noted, parental availibility continues to be essential to adolescents’ secure attachment to parents. Thus, marital quality is expected to influence attachment security to both parents.

Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships

431

Attachment to father versus mother, for preschool children, has been found to differentially predict peer relations and adjustment (Youngblade and Belsky, 1992; Youngblade et al., 1993). During adolescence, attachment to father versus mother may evolve differentially. Mothers of adolescents tend to remain emotionally involved with both sons and daughters, but fathers tend to become more distant with their daughters but not sons (Youniss and Smollar, 1985). From early to late adolescence both boys and girls rate fathers increasingly lower on quality of affect, support and proximity (Paterson et al., 1994). Adolescent girls perceive their fathers as less available than do younger girls, and report being less dependent on their fathers than their mothers (Lieberman et al., 1999). On the other hand, Hosley and Montemayor (1997) point out that, although research on father– adolescent relationships paints them as more distant that those with mothers, fathers are likely to make unique contributions. Fathers may express caring and closeness through shared activities; and although they spend less time with adolescents than mothers do, this time tends to be leisure time. Both adolescent boys and girls report enjoying interactions more, and having less conflict with fathers than with mothers. Thus mothers and fathers may influence their adolescents’ security and attachment quality in different ways. More research is needed to examine the effects of the security of attachment with each parent on adolescents’ peer relationships. According to Social Learning Theory, parents directly influence their children’s social experiences with peers through coaching and/or shaping appropriate social behaviors (Lollis et al., 1992). For children beyond preschool age, who spend more time in social interactions away from parents, such direct influence is less frequent and appropriate (Ladd and Golter, 1988). Parents also influence their children’s peer relations indirectly (Parke et al., 1988) for example through behaviors modeled in interactions with the child (Putallaz and Heflin, 1990), and also with spouse and adult friends (Gottman and Katz, 1989). In line with this notion, both marital quality and maternal friendship relations have been found to be associated with the presence and quality of children’s friendship relations (Hetherington et al., 1979; Homel et al., 1987; Doyle et al., 1994; Sharabany, 1994). In these studies, however, the putative mediators (e.g. attachment security according to the Attachment model and/or social skills according to the Social Learning model) were not measured, and thus the theoretical linking mechanisms were not empirically tested. Social Learning Theory suggests that a good marital relationship and good parental friendship relations may positively affect children’s friendships through children’s observations of these adult interactions, which in turn may lead to children’s acquisition of relevant social behavior patterns, especially prosocial behaviors. That is, parents may model positive social behaviors in their relationships, such as a prosocial style, which their children may observe and imitate. Therefore, according to Social Learning Theory, adolescent’s prosocial behavior is the intervening variable linking mother’s interpersonal relationship quality to the adolescents’ friendship quality and behavior with close friends. The mechanisms implied and the behaviors stressed in Social Learning Theory differ from those implicated in Attachment Theory. Modeling research has emphasized the child’s imitation of the behavior of the valued, prosocial model. The sequence includes the children’s observing and judging as supportive and helpful mothers’ interactions with spouses as well as with friends, and then integrating these perceptions into guides for their own behaviors with others. The adolescents’ perceptions are likely to correspond to some degree with the behaviors observed. However, the perceptions themselves are important since they convey the salient aspects of the adolescents’ constructions based on their observations of

432

D. Markiewicz et al.

these relationships. This model emphasizes the prosocial, caregiving behaviors observed and imitated, rather than the underlying emotional experience of the child with the mother. Attachment Theory, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of the mother’s responsiveness and sensitivity to the child in consolidating the child’s emotional security and expectations concerning the receipt of care from her and perhaps from others. Marital quality is assumed to influence children’s attachment to parents, but a mother’s relationships with her social network are not emphasized in this model. Friendships, particularly those of adolescents and adults, may involve both the care-giving and the attachment systems (Weiss, 1974). Therefore, the Attachment Model and the Social Learning model may each contribute complementary explanations of the processes linking parents’ personal relationships and adolescents’ friendships.* In summary, the present study was designed to compare the relative utility of two models of the role of parental influences on adolescent friendships, the first based on Attachment Theory and the second based on parental modelling of behaviors in interpersonal relationships. These models emphasize different processes, but these may operate concurrently, and are not necessarily contradictory. Using path analysis we tested the two models and the associated hypothesized mechanisms: (1) applying Attachment Theory, we suggest that the parents’ marital quality would predict the adolescent’s attachments to mother and to father, which in turn would predict the adolescent’s attachment to close friends, which would then predict the adolescent’s friendship quality and behaviors with the close friend (see Figure 1). Of particular interest was the quality of the adolescent’s emotional expression with the friend, since attachment relationships have been identified as central in learning patterns of expression and regulation of affective processes (Kobak and Sceery, 1988; Allen and Land, 1999). (2) Social Learning Theory, on the other hand, would suggest that mothers and fathers with higher marital quality would model prosocial behaviors and attitudes with their spouses, which the adolescents would observe and imitate with close friends, which in turn would lead to higher quality friendships and behaviors with close friends. The theory would also suggest that the quality of the mother’s own peer relationships (which reflects mother’s extrafamilial as well as family interactions) would be observed by the adolescents, who would imitate mother’s prosocial behaviors with their own peers, which in turn would contribute to the quality of adolescents’ close friendships (see Figure 2).

Method Subjects A sample of 69 adolescents (45 girls and 24 boys) and 69 of their friends from three suburban Montreal high schools served as participants. They were recruited with a 61 per cent acceptance rate from a population of adolescents (64% girls) who had participated in a larger study two years earlier. The majority of the subjects were in grade nine (n=33) and grade ten *In the present study the focus was on the child’s perceptions of the mother’s (not father’s) friendship and marital quality. This choice was based on the following reasons: prior research has generally found mothers to have a greater influence on their children’s attachment security than did fathers (Van Ijzendoorn, 1995; Cowan et al., 1996). Also, the child’s perceptions of the mothers’ relationships could be validated using the mothers’ own ratings of these relationships, since mothers were more willing than fathers to provide this information. Throughout adolescence mothers spend more time with children than do fathers, and are thus more available as models with friends (Larson et al., 1996). Finally, the relatively small size of the sample available in this study necessitated limiting the number of variables in the tests of the two models.

Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships

433

Figure 1. The theoretical model linking perceived mother’s personal relationships with adolescents’ best friendship experience based on attachment theory.

Figure 2. The theoretical model linking perceived mother’s personal relationships with adolescents’ best friendship experience based on social learning theory.

434

D. Markiewicz et al.

(n=26), with the remainder in grades seven (n=4) and eight (n=6). The majority were white and middle class (Hollingshead, 1975; four factor index, M=41.06, S.D.=11.2). Target subjects and their friends were recruited by letters sent to their homes, and were paid $20 for their participation. Only data from subjects from two-parent families are included in the present study. Mothers of the target adolescents, recruited earlier by letters sent home from the school, had also participated in the previous phase of the study.

Adolescent security of attachment Adolescents’ attachment to each target figure (mother, father, friends) was measured using an adaptation of the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991). Subjects rated the extent to which each one of four paragraphs representing secure, dismissing, preoccupied, or fearful styles, was descriptive of themselves. This rating was made three times with respect to themselves in relation to each of the target figures (mother, father, friends). The RQ attachment ratings have been validated with attachment styles determined by interviews, with self-report measures of self-concept and interpersonal functioning, as well as with other self-report measures of attachment (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991; Griffin and Bartholomew, 1994; Bartholomew and Shaver, 1998). For the present study, the adolescents’ self ratings on only the secure paragraphs were used as indices of their security of attachment to mother, attachment to father, and attachment to friends.

Adolescents’ perceptions of mother’s marital quality and friendship relationships Two instruments were developed to assess adolescents’ perceptions of the quality of their mothers’ (1) marital relationships and (2) friendship relationships (Spaleny, 1995). The Perceptions of the Marital Relationship scale was constructed using items taken from the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale and from the Wright (1985) Acquaintance Description Form for spouses. Five items from the former scale were selected on the basis of high item-total correlations. Nine items were selected from the latter questionnaire, including four measuring tension in the relationship, and five assessing positive aspects of the relationship, again on the basis of high item-total correlations. Items were reworded such that adolescents rated the extent to which the item was true for their mother (1=‘‘never true’’, 5=‘‘always true’’; e.g. ‘‘Even when my mom has done poorly on some important tasks, my dad helps her feel good about herself.’’). The Perception of Mother’s Social Network scale was constructed using items from the Social Relationship Network Questionnaire (Veroff, 1996), reworded to tap the adolescents’ perceptions of mother’s extent and satisfaction with her social network on a five-point scale from 1=‘‘never true’’ to 5=‘‘always true’’ (e.g. ‘‘My mom’s relationships with her friends are very satisfying.’’, ‘‘My mom is generally satisfied with her friends’ support or help.’’). Again, four items with the highest item-total correlations were selected. Internal consistency for both scales was high (Perceptions of Marital Relationship, alpha=0?92; Perceptions of Mother’s Social Network, alpha=0?84). These scales correlated significantly with mothers’ own reports of the same relationships obtained two years earlier: r=0.34 (p50?01) for Mother’s Social Network; r=0?52, (p50?01) for Marital Relationship, supporting the validity of these measures. However, as noted earlier, adolescents’ perceptions were considered important variables in their own right in the models.

Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships

435

Adolescents’ prosocial behavior This five-item scale was taken from the Feelings and Behavior Questionnaire of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children (Statistics Canada, 1995). The internal consistency of this scale was marginally adequate (alpha=0?56). Subjects rated on a three-point scale the degree to which items were true of themselves (1=‘‘Never or not true’’ to 3=‘‘Often or very true’’). Items indicate the subjects’ performance of helpful, empathic behaviors (i.e. ‘‘I will invite bystanders to join in a game’’; ‘‘I show sympathy to (feel sorry for) someone who has made a mistake’’; ‘‘I volunteer to help clean up a mess someone else has made’’; ‘‘I will try, if there is an argument, to stop it’’; ‘‘I comfort a person (friend, brother or sister) who is crying or upset.’’).

Friendship qualities scale (FQS) Adolescents rated the quality of their friendship with their partner on the FQS (Bukowski et al., 1994). This 23-item scale provides five subscales: companionship, help/support, closeness, security and conflict. Bukowski et al. (1994) report that items were selected to minimize scale overlap while maintaining high internal consistency (alphas=0?64 to 0?83). The FQS has been demonstrated to discriminate between reciprocated and nonreciprocated friendships. Of the original FQS items, 16 were adapted in the present study and one added, in order to more clearly focus on the dyadic relationship, rather than on the friend or the self (e.g. ‘‘My friend and I play games and do other activities together.’’ ‘‘My friend and I disagree about many things’’). For the pairs of friends in the present study, the correlations between pair ratings of the friendship subscales ranged from r=0?39 (for security) to 0?65 (for companionship) on the subscales. In the present study, a total friendship quality score was calculated by first reverse-scoring the conflict subscale and then averaging all five subscale scores.

Videotaped discussion sessions Pairs of friends participated in videotaped discussions of three topics (adapted from Kerns et al., 1996) chosen to heighten emotional involvement: (1) a pre-set social problem, (2) free discussion of ‘‘what each does that angers the other’’, and (3) ‘‘kids you both know’’. The order of tasks was counterbalanced across dyads within each gender group. Subjects had 8 minutes, which they timed with a digital timer, to discuss each topic. The testing occurred in the high schools, in a small room equipped with video camera. The videotaped interactions were coded according to procedures adapted from Julien et al., 1987). Two coders blind to other information about the subjects rated the target subjects’ verbal and non-verbal behavior directed towards the friend. In the current study the focus was on ratings of the frequency and intensity of Positive and Negative Affect, since as noted earlier attachment styles are important in the expression and regulation of affective processes (Kobak and Sceery, 1988). These ratings assessed the positive (e.g. joyful, interested) and negative (e.g. angry, sad) non-verbal cues associated with the voice, face and body of target subjects. For the present analyses, a combined score of the quality of affective behavior with the friend was created (positive–negative affect). Preliminary observations indicated that little affect or interaction was elicited by the predefined social problem. Thus only the ‘‘anger’’ and ‘‘kid’’ tasks were coded. Ratings were averaged across tasks; weighted kappas for positive and negative affect, based on 25 per cent of the sessions which were rated by both coders, were 0?66 and 0?73, respectively.

436

D. Markiewicz et al.

Procedure Adolescents who participated in the initial study were contacted again by letter and invited to complete questionnaires in small groups at school (including the mother and father version of the RQ and their perceptions of their mothers’ views of the marital relationship and her peer friendships) and to participate in a videotaped discussion with a friend. They were asked to nominate three friends from their school who might also be contacted and invited to participate. The first-named friend was contacted by letter, explained the objectives of the study, and invited to participate. If this friend did not agree, the second friend was approached, and if not available the third was asked. On average, targets rated their partner as either being their closest or second closest friend (M=1?58, S.D.=0?97). During the video testing session, approximately one month later, all adolescents completed a second series of questionnaires, including the friend version of the RQ, self-ratings of their own prosocial behavior, and the measure of the quality of their best friendship.

Results Analytical procedure The two alternative models predicting the quality of adolescents’ best friendship and the behavior with best friend were tested in a path analytic framework using the LISREL VIII software package (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). For that purpose, two separate models were specified according to the expected relations among the variables as outlined in Figures 1 and 2—one model based on Attachment Theory, the other based on Social Learning Theory. In the first model (see Figure 1), based on Attachment Theory, friendship quality and affective behavior with a best friend were regressed on adolescents’ attachment security to friends, which in turn was regressed on adolescents’ attachment security to mother and father. Attachment security to mother and father, in turn, were regressed on parents’ marital quality. In the second model (see Figure 2), based on Social Learning Theory, friendship quality and affective behavior with best friend were regressed on adolescent prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior, in turn, was regressed on perceived parents’ marital quality and mothers’ friendship network.{ In Table 1, the bivariate correlations among all study variables as well as the respective standard deviations are presented. As can be seen in Table 1, gender was related to three of the four putative mediating variables (i.e. to attachment to father and attachment to peers for the Attachment Model and to child prosocial behavior for the Social Learning model) and gender was also related to both outcome variables. Thus, in order to avoid statistical confounds, gender was partialled out in the analyses. The Maximum-Likelihood method was used for model estimation because, when based on rather normally distributed data as is the case in the present study, this estimation technique is preferable to other estimation methods even with smaller sample sizes (Raykov and Widaman, 1995). In order to assess the relative value of the two alternative models for the { In addition to the regression paths, a correlation was specified between friendship quality and affective behavior with best friend in both models. Although not directly relevant to the two theoretical models, this correlation was freely estimated because friends’ interactional patterns have been suggested to be related to the quality of their friendship (Berndt and Hanna, 1995). In addition, in the first model, because adolescents’ attachment security to mother and father are often correlated (Youngblade et al., 1993; Lieberman et al., 1999), they were allowed to covary. In the second model, parents’ marital quality and mothers’ friendship network were allowed to covary because those two variables also have been found to be related (Voss et al., 1999).

Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships

Table 1

Correlations and standard deviations of all variables used in the analyses A.

B.

A. Gender 1?0 B. Perceived 70?11 1?0 marital quality 0?00 0?35** C. Perceived mother’s friendship network D. Attachment 0?14 0?19 to mother E. Attachment 70?29* 0?40*** to father F. Attachment 0?26* 0?30* to friends G. Adolescent 0?20t 0?27* prosocial behavior H. Quality of 0?21t 0?23t best friendship I. Affective 0?40***0?07 behavior with best friend Standard deviations

437

0?48

0?95

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.

1?0 0?22t

1?0

0?20

0?41***

0?32** 0?26* 0?30*

0?27*

0?36** 0?13

1?0 70?12 1?0 0?18 0?24*

1?0

70?11 0?48*** 0?40***

1?0

0?15

0?18

0?06 0?12

0?40***

0?29*

1?0

0?73

1?81

1?83 1?49

0?36

0?76

1?89

n=69. Gender is coded such that 0=boys and 1=girls. tp50?10; *p50?05; ** p50?01; *** p50?001.

prediction of the quality of adolescents’ best friendship and their affect with their best friend, the two models were examined and compared with respect to the following criteria: First, overall fit to the data was assessed for each model using two comparative fit indices, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI, Bentler, 1990), which is a normed index with a maximum of 1, and the Incremental Fit Index (IFI, Bollen, 1989), which is a non-normed index whose maximum can exceed 1. In addition, a residual based fit index, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, Browne and Cudeck, 1993) was used. These fit indices have been shown to perform well even in very small samples (Bentler, 1990; Marsh and Balla, 1994), whereas descriptive indices such as the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI, Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996) and the Root Mean Square Residual (RMR, Jorskog and Sorbom, 1996) are severely affected by sample size (Marsh et al., 1988). For the CFI and IFI, values around 0?9 or higher are acceptable; for the RMSEA, values around 0?05 or less are acceptable. Second, it was examined whether the regression paths in the two models were in accordance with the respective theoretical expectations both in terms of direction of effect and statistical significance. Because of the small sample size, statistical trends (i.e. p50?10) were interpreted. Third, we examined the amount of variance explained by each model with respect to the two outcome variables (i.e. the quality of adolescents’ best friendships and their affect with their best friend). Notably, because the same variables are not included in the two models, they could not be directly compared in terms of model fit. Therefore, the last two criteria were especially crucial for comparing the relative contribution of each of the two models in explaining the potential mechanisms linking mothers’ interpersonal relationships with their adolescents’ friendship experiences.

438

D. Markiewicz et al.

Attachment theory model For the first model, the initial specification yielded a somewhat low overall model fit, w2 (7, n=69)=15?11, p50?05, CFI=0?85, IFI=0?87, RMSEA=0.?13. Inspection of the residuals and LISREL modification indices revealed that the inclusion in the model of a direct regression path from perceived marital quality to adolescents’ attachment to peers would result in a significant improvement of model fit. After inclusion of this regression path, the results showed excellent model fit, w2 (6, n=69)=3?68, n.s., CFI=1?00, IFI=1?04, RMSEA=0?00. Moreover, inspection of the residuals and LISREL modification indices from the revised model showed that no additional relations among the variables other than those specified were required to improve model fit. In line with theoretical expectations, perceived marital quality positively predicted adolescents’ attachment security marginally with mother, b=0?21, p50?10, and significantly with father, b=0?39, p50?01, which were also positively correlated with each other, r=0?40, p50?01. In turn, attachment security to both parents predicted adolescents’ attachment security with friends. Specifically, in line with expectations, adolescents with secure attachment to their mothers were also more securely attached to their friends, b=0?32, p50?05. In contrast to expectations, however, attachment security with father was inversely related to attachment security with friends, b=70?36, p50?01. Furthermore, adolescents’ secure attachment to friends was directly predicted by perceived marital quality, b=0?41, p50?001. Attachment security with friends, in turn, was positively related to the quality of adolescents’ best friendships, b=0?45, p50?001, again in line with the theoretical expectations. In contrast to expectations, however, attachment security with friends did not predict adolescents’ affective behavior with their best friends, b=0?02, n.s. Finally, higher quality of adolescents’ best friendships was marginally related to more positive affective behavior with the best friend, r=0?22, p50?10. Overall, 21 per cent of the variance of the quality of adolescents’ best friendships was explained by the Attachment Theory model. None of the variance of adolescents’ affective behavior with the best friend, however, was explained by this model. The standardized regression paths among the variables obtained for the model based on Attachment Theory are presented in Figure 3.

Social learning theory model For the second model, the initial model specification revealed an acceptable overall model fit to the data, w2 (6, n=69)=6?78, n.s., CFI=0?98, IFI=1?98, RMSEA=0?04. Inspection of the residuals and LISREL modification indices showed that no additional relations among the variables other than those specified were required to improve model fit. The results showed that there was a positive correlation between perceived marital quality and perceived mothers’ friendship network, r=0?35, p50?01. In line with theoretical expectations, there was a trend for both perceived marital quality and perceived mothers’ friendship network to positively predict adolescents’ prosocial behavior, b=0?22, p50?10, and b=0?23, p50?10, respectively. In turn, higher levels of prosocial behavior predicted a higher quality of adolescents’ best friendships, b=0?37, p50?01, and also more positive affective behavior with the best friend, b=0?35, p50?01. In contrast to the results in the previous model, however, the residual correlation between the quality of adolescents’ best friendships and their affective behavior with the best friend failed to reach significance in the Social Learning Theory model, r=0?10, n.s. Overall, 14 per cent of the variance of the quality of adolescents’ best friendships, and 12 per cent of the variance of adolescents’ affective behavior with best friend were explained by the Social Learning Theory model. The standardized regression

Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships

439

Figure 3. Empirical model linking perceived mother’s personal relationships with adolescents’ best friendship experience based on attachment theory. Standardized regression coefficients based on LISREL maximum-likelihood estimates are presented. For simplicity, coefficients that are not significant at p50?10 and correlation coefficients are not presented, although they are reported in the text.

paths among the variables obtained for the model based on Social Learning Theory are presented in Figure 4.

Discussion The present study examined two models linking the quality of mother’s interpersonal relationships with her adolescent’s friendship quality and behaviors. According to Attachment Theory, as indicated in Figure 1, perceptions of parents’ marital quality were expected to predict the adolescent’s attachment security with mother and with father. These attachments were then expected to predict the adolescent’s attachment security with friends, which in turn was expected to predict the best friendship quality and affective behavior with the best friend. The results partially supported this model. As expected, perceptions of marital quality predicted the adolescent’s attachment security to both mother and father. Perceptions of marital quality also directly predicted attachment security to friends. However, although attachment to mother positively predicted attachment security to friends,

440

D. Markiewicz et al.

Figure 4. Empirical model linking perceived mother’s personal relationships with adolescents’ best friendship experience based on social learning theory. Standardized regression coefficients based on LISREL maximum-likelihood estimates are presented. For simplicity, coefficients that are not significant at p50?10 and correlation coefficients are not presented, although they are reported in the text

unexpectedly, attachment security to father was inversely related to attachment security to friends. Finally, attachment security to friends predicted best friendship quality, but did not predict affective behaviors exhibited with a friend. Adolescents’ attachment to mothers indirectly predicted adolescents’ friendship quality through its effect on attachment security to friends. This is consistent with our expectations and with prior research suggesting that attachment to parents versus friends may predict different aspects of children’s development. Paterson et al. (1995) found that adolescents’ attachment to parents was related to a broad range of measures of adjustment, including selfesteem, coping abilities, and social competence; whereas peer attachment only correlated (significantly and equally strongly, however) with social competence. Lempers and ClarkLempers (1992) also found that attachment to parents more strongly predicted self-esteem than did peer attachment, but that peer attachment was more important for the development of social competence and intimacy. These and our results are consistent with the view that the general sense of security children feel in their relationships with parents may have broad effects on their general well-being, but factors operating specifically within the peer domain may particularly influence friendship relationships. Attachment security to fathers was negatively associated with friend attachment security in our model and so merits further consideration. A similar counterintuitive finding was noted by Youngblade et al. (1993), with five-year olds observed interacting with their friends. These children’s attachment to fathers was assessed in infancy and at 13 months using the Strange Situation. Those more securely attached to fathers were rated as less cooperative, less positive, and showed less coordination with their friends. During adolescence, as noted

Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships

441

earlier, children’s relationships with fathers (but not mothers) tend to become more emotionally distant. However, adolescents report that interactions with fathers (vs. mothers) are more enjoyable (Hosley and Montemayor, 1997). One interpretation of both Youngblade et al. (1993) and our results is that those who are most securely attached to father may be overly dependent on him for stimulation and entertainment. Consequently, they may be less interested or involved in their peer group, and ultimately, less securely attached with friends. Alternatively, those who are not secure in relations with friends may turn to fathers instead. Future research specifically designed to test this hypothesis is needed before firm conclusions may be drawn. One might speculate about why only friendship quality and not affective behavior with the friend would be predicted from friend attachment. Although attachment specifically taps emotional security felt during stress, both measures of friend attachment and friendship quality, reflect the adolescent’s conscious evaluation of their peer relationships in terms of help, security, support, closeness and companionship. Affective behavior, on the other hand, might reflect adolescents’ general comfort level and pleasure with friends more than conscious judgments about them. Finally, in the attachment model the direct link between perceptions of marital quality and friend attachment had not been specifically predicted. Adolescents who perceive their parents to be happily married may experience their homes as more secure and supportive, and close relationships in general to be more mutually supportive and satisfying; and may develop generalized expectancies that others, including peers, will be accepting and dependable. According to Social Learning Theory, as indicated in Figure 2, perceptions of mother’s marital quality and friendship network quality were expected to predict the adolescent’s prosocial behavior, which in turn would predict friendship quality and affective behavior with best friend. This model was fully supported by the results of the second analysis. Both perceptions of marital quality and of mother’s friendship network quality were marginally significantly correlated with adolescents’ prosocial behaviors. In addition, the more prosocial the adolescents’ behavior, the higher quality their friendship and the more positive emotion they expressed with the best friend during the observed interactions. These results are consistent with the view that adolescents imitate the quality of the marital and maternal friendships they observe. The adolescents’ perceptions of the quality of each of these relationships predicted prosocial behavior of adolescents with about equal strength. This suggests that both types of mothers’ close peer relationships served as models of warmth and prosocial behavior in adolescents’ own peer relationships. In addition, the present results extend earlier findings of the correlation between marital quality, maternal friendship quality, and children’s friendship quality (Doyle et al., 1994) to include not only adolescents’ selfrated friendship quality, but also observed affective behavior with friends. The results of this study suggest that distinctions should be made between the acquisition of felt security (positive expectations of the receipt of care from significant others) and of prosocial behaviors (caregiving behaviors) which contribute to friendship quality. The present study separately assessed the attachment and caregiving systems; through attachment to friends and prosocial behaviors respectively. The importance of distinguishing between the attachment and caregiving systems has been noted previously, by Bowlby (1969) as well as others (e.g. Furman and Wehner, 1994). The two models suggest that distinct family factors (i.e. marital relations vs. maternal friendships) may be predictive of each of these systems, and merits examination in future research with larger samples.

442

D. Markiewicz et al.

A number of limitations of this study and suggestions for future research deserve consideration. First, because the variables potentially influencing children’s friendship quality and behavior with best friend were assessed simultaneously, the directional relationships among these variables can not be clearly determined. That is, although our models suggest that mother variables influence adolescent variables, the reverse is also plausible. For example, adolescents who are securely attached to their parents may contribute to a more pleasant home environment, and thus to greater marital satisfaction, and even perhaps to the quality of mothers’ extrafamilial relationships. In addition, a third variable such as genetic temperament may underlie all of the attachments measured. Second, much of the data are self-reported, but the differential nature of the pathways found argues for the validity of the patterns observed. Third, the use of situations for observations that even more clearly arouse the attachment system or the caregiving system might lead to stronger effects on observed behavior with friends. Fourth, the relatively small sample size given the modeling technique used, limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the generalizability of our findings. Thus, although the fit indices used in the present study have been shown to yield reliable results even in sample sizes smaller than the present one, replication studies with larger samples are needed. Fifth, the measure of adolescents’ prosocial behavior was only marginally internally consistent and not a commonly used one. Thus further research with better measures, including observational measures of adolescents’ prosocial behaviors and of parents with their own friends, is needed to replicate the findings reported here. Finally, future tests of the models proposed should include father as well as mother measures of marital and friendship quality, using larger samples. Overall, however, the present study suggests that both Attachment Theory and Social Learning Theory contribute to our understanding of potential mechanisms linking the quality of mother’s marital and social network relationships with adolescent’s friendship quality and behavior. First, the quality of mother’s extra-familial relationships (social network) and of her marital relationship seem to be associated with the adolescent’s prosocial behaviors. Marital quality is also associated with peer attachment security. Second, both prosocial behavior and peer attachment security seem to relate to the quality of the best friendship. Finally, distinctions should be made between caregiving, attachment and affiliative behaviors in future research on adolescents’ friendships.

Acknowledgements This research was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and by the Quebec Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide `a la Recherche. We wish to thank Linda Spaleny, Alexandra Cope, Suzanne Marcotte, and Anne LaCasse for their help in data collection and coding. We also thank the Sault Saint Louis and Baldwin-Cartier School Boards, as well as the parents and adolescents for their collaboration.

References Allen, J. P. and Land, D. (1999). Attachment in Adolescence. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications, Cassidy, J. and Shaver, P. R. (Eds). New York: Guilford Press, pp. 319–335.

Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships

443

Armsden, G. C. and Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454. Bartholomew, K. and Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a fourcategory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Bartholomew, K. and Shaver, P. (1998). Methods of assessing adult attachment. Do they converge? In Attachment theory and close relationships, Simpson, J. A. and Rholes, W. S. (Eds). New York: Guilford, pp. 25–45. Baumrind, D. (1975). The contribution of the family to the development of competence in children. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 14, 12–37. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fix indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Berndt, T. J. and Hanna, N. A. (1995). Intimacy and self-disclosure in friendships. In Disclosure processes in children and adolescents. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development, Rotenberg, K. J. (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–77. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17, 303–316. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books. Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 3–35. Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing structural equation models, Bollen, K. A. and Long, J. S. (Eds). Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 111–135. Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In Children’s sibling relationships, Bou, F. and Dunn J. (Eds). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, pp. 192–240. Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B. and Boivin, M. (1993). Popularity, friendship and emotional adjustment during early adolescence. In New directions for child development: Close friendships in adolescence, Laursen B. (Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 24–38. Bukowski, W., Hoza, B. and Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 471–485. Cowan, P. A., Cohn, D. A., Cowan, C. P. and Pearson, J. L. (1996). Parents’ attachment histories and children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors: Exploring family systems models of linkage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 53–63. Crowell, J. A. and Feldman, S. S. (1988). Mothers’ internal models of relationships and children’s behavioral and developmental status: A study of mother–child interaction. Child Development, 59, 1273–1285. Davies, P. and Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411. Doyle, A. B., Markiewicz, D. and Hardy, C. (1994). Mothers’ and children’s friendships: Intergenerational associations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 363–377. Elicker, J., Englund, M. and Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Predicting peer competence and peer relationships in childhood from early parent–child relationships. In Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage, Parke, R. and Ladd G. (Eds). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, pp. 77–106. Erel, O. and Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent–child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–132. Fraley, R. C. and Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131–144. Furman, W. and Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115. Furman, W. and Wehner, E. A. (1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescent romantic relationships. In Advances in adolescent development, Vol. 6: Personal relationships during adolescence, Montmayor, R. and Adams, G. R. (Eds). Newbury Park, California: Sage, pp. 168–175. George, C. and Solomon, J. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of the family system: Children’s representations of the family in doll play. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, April 1991. Seattle, Washington.

444

D. Markiewicz et al.

Gottman, J. M. and Katz, L. F. (1989). Effects of marital discord on young children’s peer interaction and health. Developmental Psychology, 25, 373–381. Griffin, D. W. and Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 433–445. Grych, J. A. and Fincham, F. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M. and Cox, R. (1979). Play and social interaction in children following divorce. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 26–49. Homel, R., Burns, A. and Goodnow, J. (1987). Parental social networks and child development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 159–177. Hosley, C. A. and Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In The role of the father in child development, Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 162–178. Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. Jouriles, E. N., Barling, J. and O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Predicting child behavior problems in maritally violent families. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 15, 165–193. Kerig, P. K., Cowan, P. A. and Pape Cowan, C. (1993). Marital quality and gender differences in parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 931–939. Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L. and Cole, A. K. (1996). Peer relationship correlates of the mother-child relationship in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 32, 457–466. Kerns, K. and Stevens, A. (1996). Parent–child attachment in late adolescence: Links to social relations and personality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 323–342. Kobak, R. and Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135–146. Ladd, G. W. and Golter, B. S. (1988). Parents’ management of preschoolers’ peer relations: Is it related to children’s social competence? Developmental Psychology, 24, 109–117. LaFreniere, P. and Sroufe, A. (1985). Profiles of peer competence in the preschool: Interrelations between measures, influence of social ecology, and relation to attachment history. Developmental Psychology, 21, 56–69. Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G. and Holmbeck, G. C. (1996). Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744–754. Lempers, J. D. and Clarke-Lempers, D. S. (1992). Young, middle and late adolescents comparisons of the functional importance of five significant relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 54–96. Lieberman, M., Doyle, A. B. and Markiewicz, D. (1999). Developmental patterns in security of attachment to mother and father in late childhood and early adolescence: Associations with peer relations. Child Development, 70, 202–213. Lollis, S., Ross, H. and Tate, E. (1992). Parents’ regulation of children’s peer interactions: Direct influences. In Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage, Parke, R. D. and Ladd, G. (Eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 255–281. Main, M., Kaplan, N. and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In Growing points in attachment theory and research. Bretherton, I. and Waters, E. (Eds). no. 50, pp. 66–106. Marsh, H. W. and Balla, J. R. (1994). Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size and model parsimony. Quality & Quantity, 28, 185–217. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R. and McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-Fit Indexes in Confimatory Factor Analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410. Park, K. and Waters, E. (1989). Security of attachment and preschool friendships. Child Development, 60, 1076–1081. Parke, R., MacDonald, K., Beitel, A. and Bhavnagri, N. (1988). The role of the family in the development of peer relationships. In Social learning systems approaches to marriage and the family, Peters, R. and McMahon, R. (Eds). New York: Brunner Mazel, pp. 17–44. Paterson, J. E., Field, J. and Pryor, J. (1994). Adolescents’ perceptions of their attachment relationships with their mothers, fathers, and friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 579–600.

Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships

445

Paterson, J., Pryor, J. and Field, J. (1995). Adolescent attachment to parents and friends in relation to aspects of self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 365–376. Putallaz, M. (1987). Maternal behavior and children’s sociometric status. Child Development, 58, 324–340. Putallaz, M. and Heflin, A. H. (1990). Parent-child interaction. In Peer rejection in childhood, Asher, S. R. and Coie, J. (Eds). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–216. Radin, N. (1981) Role of father in cognitive, academic and intellectual development. In The role of father in child development, Lamb M. E. (Ed.). 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, pp. 379–427. Raykov, T. and Widaman, K. F. (1995). Issues in Applied Structural Equation Modeling Research. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 289–318. Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. N. and Pierce, G. R. (1987). A brief measure of social support: Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 497–510. Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate friendship scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric properties and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 449–469. Simpson, J., Rholes, W. and Nelligan, J. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446. Spaleny, L. (1995). The development of the Children’s Perception of Mothers’ Relationships Scale. Honours Thesis. Montreal: Concordia University. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28. Sroufe, A. and Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In Relationships and development, Hartup, W. and Rubin, R. (Eds). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, pp. 57–71. Statistics Canada. (1995). National Longitudinal Survey of Children: Survey Instruments for 1994–95. Government of Canada, pp. 95–01. Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M. and Estes, D. (1982). Stability of infant-mother attachment and its relationship to changing life circumstances in an unselected middle-class sample. Child Development, 53, 144–148. Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the adult attachment interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403. Veroff, V. (1996) An integration of friendship and social support: relationships with adjustment in college students. PhD thesis, Montreal, Concordia University. Voss, K., Markiewicz, D. and Doyle, A. B. (1999). Friendship, marriage and self-esteem. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 103–122. Waters, E., Wippman, J. and Sroufe, A. (1979). Attachment, positive affect and competence in the peer group: Two studies in construct validation. Child Development, 50, 821–829. Weiss, R. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Doing unto others, Rubin, Z. (Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, pp. 17–26. Wright, P. H. (1985). The acquaintance description form. In Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach, Duck, S. and Perlman, D. (Eds). London: Sage Publications, pp. 39–62. Youngblade, L. M. and Belsky, J. (1992). Parent–child antecedents of 5-year-olds’ close friendships: A longitudinal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 28, 700–713. Youngblade, L. M., Park, K. A. and Belsky, J. (1993). Measurement of young children’s close friendship: A comparison of 2 independent assessment systems and their associations with attachment security. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 563–607. Youniss, J. and Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relationship with mothers, fathers and friends. Chicago: Chicago University Press.