- Email: [email protected]
Friendship and three A’s (aggression, adjustment, and attachment)
J. Experimental Child Psychology 88 (2004) 1–4
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology www.elsevier.com/locate/jecp
Introduction
Friendship and three AÕs (aggression, adjustment, and attachment) Thomas J. Berndt Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
Friendships are the closest relationships that children and adolescents have with individuals similar to their own age, and developmental researchers have long speculated about the significance of these relationships. More than 70 years ago, Piaget (1932/1965) argued that the distinctive features of close peer relationships make them essential for the development of a mature, autonomous morality. More than 30 years ago, Bronfenbrenner (1970) argued that pressure from peer associates, including close friends, leads to antisocial behavior by adolescents in the United States and many (but not all) other countries. These contrasting views of friendship coexisted for decades but were rarely compared with each other, partly because they derived from different research traditions and partly because friendships were not assessed directly either in Piagetian research on moral development or in the research by Bronfenbrenner and his followers. Research on friendship per se began in earnest in the 1970s (see Berndt, 2004). Various strands of research emerged and flourished during the next couple of decades. Hartup (1996) insightfully integrated and classified the major strands of research into three categories. One category, which has its roots in PiagetÕs ideas about the distinctive features of close peer relationships, focuses on the quality of friendships. For example, friendships are higher in quality when the friends feel free to disclose their most intimate thoughts and feelings to each other; friendships are lower in quality when the friends have more frequent and more intense conflicts with each other. A second category, which has its roots in BronfenbrennerÕs ideas about how pressure from friends can affect childrenÕs behavior, focuses on the identity of childrenÕs friends. In HartupÕs framework, the identity of friends is defined by their attitudes, behaviors, and other characteristics. The final category, ‘‘having friends,’’ refers to the differences between the social interactions of friends and nonfriends, or E-mail address: [email protected]. 0022-0965/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.03.004
2
Introduction / J. Experimental Child Psychology 88 (2004) 1–4
to the differences between children who have friends and those who do not. Hartup (1996) mentioned this category first, because friendship quality and friendsÕ identity can be assessed only if children have friends. However, children who have friends may differ in the number of friends that they have, so studies that compare children with more and fewer friends can also be included in this category. Researchers who are guided by HartupÕs (1996) framework can explore a vast range of questions about friendships and their effects. In the announcement of this special issue, papers that increase understanding of the characteristics, contexts, and consequences of friendships were invited. The six articles in this issue can be divided easily into three pairs. The first pair includes articles in which the relations between childrenÕs own characteristics and the characteristics of their friendships are examined. The special focus in these two articles is on the friendships of aggressive children. The second pair includes articles in which the relations between childrenÕs friendships and their psychological adjustment are examined. These articles shed light on the possible consequences of friendships. The third pair includes articles on the context in which friendships exist, and specifically on the links between variations in friendships and variations in adolescentsÕ conceptions of attachment relationships. Thus, the issue can be described succinctly as illuminating the relations between friendships and three AÕs: aggression, adjustment, and attachment. In the first article on friendships and aggression, Bagwell and Coie describe an intensive study of 10-year-old boys whose classmates described them as high in aggressive behavior. After each boy identified his best friend, the researchers conducted a multimethod assessment of multiple aspects of these friendships. For comparison, the same assessments were done with pairs of friends who were both below average in aggression. A special strength of this research was the observations of friendsÕ interactions in structured laboratory situations. The aggressive and nonaggressive boys did not differ in their self-reports of the quality of their friendships, but the aggressive boys had fewer positive interactions and more intense conflicts with their friends than did the nonaggressive boys. In other respects as well, the aggressive boysÕ interactions with their friends appeared to provide a training ground for aggressive and antisocial behaviors. Rose, Swenson, and Carlson begin their article by reviewing the inconsistent findings of previous studies on the friendships of aggressive children. Some researchers have reported that aggressive children have lower quality friendships than nonaggressive children, but other researchers have reported that aggressive and nonaggressive children have friendships similar in quality. With a sample of more than 600 students in grades 3–9, Rose and her colleagues tested the hypothesis that aggressive children have low-quality friendships if they are also disliked but not if they are also perceived as popular. Moderating effects of being disliked and being perceived as popular were found only for a measure of friendsÕ conflicts, not positive friendship quality, and only for students high in relational aggression, not overt aggression. Most surprising, students higher in relational aggression actually had higher quality friendships, perhaps because these students needed friends to join them in attacking or excluding their victims. As these researchers note, aggression is not always an individual act, and the frequency of joint aggression by friends should be directly investigated in the future.
Introduction / J. Experimental Child Psychology 88 (2004) 1–4
3
In the first of the articles on friendship and adjustment, a team of researchers from Canada and England (Rotenberg, McDougall, Boulton, Vaillancourt, Fox, & Hymel) report on parallel studies of fifth through eighth graders in the two countries. These studies are the only ones in the special issue that include longitudinal data analyses. That is, only Rotenberg and his colleagues both collected longitudinal data and attempted in their analyses to identify the predictors of changes in studentsÕ friendships and adjustment over time. The researchers expected that students who were initially judged by their classmates as more trustworthy would show an increase after 1 year in their number of reciprocal friendships. The results supported this hypothesis but did not show that initially having more friends contributed to increases over time in self-esteem or decreases over time in depressive symptoms or loneliness. These findings reinforce HartupÕs (1996) earlier conclusion that ‘‘the developmental significance of having friends is far from clear’’ (p. 5). Demir and Urberg examine the relations of friendship to adjustment with an older sample, more than 600 students in 8th through 12th grades. These researchers used a single indicator of emotional adjustment derived from studentsÕ reports on their happiness and depressed mood. Measures of positive friendship quality, conflict with friends, and the number of friendship nominations that students gave to and received from classmates were examined as possible predictors of their adjustment. When the data were analyzed in structural equation models, the only measure that directly predicted emotional adjustment was positive friendship quality, and this effect was significant only for boys. Given the correlational research design, these findings could mean that high-quality friendships enhance boysÕ emotional adjustment, that better adjusted boys develop higher quality friendships, or that some other variable contributes simultaneously to friendship quality and emotional adjustment in boys. Additional research is needed to disentangle these options. As the researchers mentioned, more attention should also be given to gender differences in friendship, because other researchers have rarely found gender differences in the relation between friendship and adjustment. Moreover, data that might be helpful in explaining such gender differences are scarce. The articles dealing with friendship and attachment address the very provocative hypothesis that experiences with attachment figures affect other relationships, such as close friendships. Zimmermann first gave 16-year-olds a semistructured interview about their representation of close friendships. Then he used the Adult Attachment Interview to assess their representations of childhood experiences with primary caregivers. As expected, adolescents who were judged from transcripts of their interview responses to have higher quality friendships also had higher scores for attachment security. By contrast, scores for attachment security were not related to adolescentsÕ self-reports of the quality of their peer relationships. One possible explanation of this result is that adolescents who are insecurely attached are satisfied with their friendships even when the low quality of those friendships is obvious to adult observers. Weimer, Kerns, and Oldenburg argue that the quality of the friendship between a pair of adolescents is affected by the security of attachment of both adolescents. Using Bartholomew and HorowitzÕs (1991) measure of attachment style, these researchers contrasted pairs of friends in which both adolescents were securely attached with
4
Introduction / J. Experimental Child Psychology 88 (2004) 1–4
pairs of friends in which at least one adolescent had an insecure attachment style. On a self-report measure of friendship quality, the secure–secure pairs had higher scores than the others, but the difference did not reach significance in the relatively small sample. The pairs were also observed, however, as they discussed their worries and concerns about a very important and personal topic. Secure–secure pairs made significantly more statements expressing support, respect, or acceptance of their friends, and fewer statements clarifying or summarizing their friendsÕ statements, than did the other pairs. Thus, secure–secure pairs appeared to have more positive conversations that reflected greater understanding of one another. These findings led the researchers to suggest that identifying the mechanisms linking attachment style to friendship quality should be a goal for future research. Viewed collectively, the articles in this special issue illustrate both the vigor and the dominant emphases of current research on friendship. Rose and her colleagues explicitly and very successfully used HartupÕs (1996) model of three categories of friendship measures as the foundation for their study. Rotenberg and his colleagues, by contrast, assessed only HartupÕs category of ‘‘having friends,’’ or the number of friends that children have. However, most prominent in this issue is the concentration of researchersÕ attention primarily on the quality of friendships, and secondarily on the identity or characteristics of those friends. The research findings serve as a corrective to the older and less balanced theories of friendships and their effects that were mentioned earlier. As Piaget (1932/1965) assumed, friendships can be highly positive relationships that have a positive influence on childrenÕs social and moral development. But as Bronfenbrenner (1970) assumed, friends can have negative influences on children, reinforcing patterns of antisocial behavior. The effects of friendships on a specific child are likely to depend on the quality of those friendships and the characteristics of the friends, and perhaps on the interaction of the two (Berndt & Murphy, 2002).
Acknowledgment Preparation of this article was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation.
References Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a fourcategory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Berndt, T. J. (2004). ChildrenÕs friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspectives on their development and their effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 206–223. Berndt, T. J., & Murphy, L. M. (2002). Influences of friends and friendships: Myths, truths, and research recommendations. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (30, pp. 275–310). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of childhood: US and USSR. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press (Originally published, 1932).
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology www.elsevier.com/locate/jecp
Introduction
Friendship and three AÕs (aggression, adjustment, and attachment) Thomas J. Berndt Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
Friendships are the closest relationships that children and adolescents have with individuals similar to their own age, and developmental researchers have long speculated about the significance of these relationships. More than 70 years ago, Piaget (1932/1965) argued that the distinctive features of close peer relationships make them essential for the development of a mature, autonomous morality. More than 30 years ago, Bronfenbrenner (1970) argued that pressure from peer associates, including close friends, leads to antisocial behavior by adolescents in the United States and many (but not all) other countries. These contrasting views of friendship coexisted for decades but were rarely compared with each other, partly because they derived from different research traditions and partly because friendships were not assessed directly either in Piagetian research on moral development or in the research by Bronfenbrenner and his followers. Research on friendship per se began in earnest in the 1970s (see Berndt, 2004). Various strands of research emerged and flourished during the next couple of decades. Hartup (1996) insightfully integrated and classified the major strands of research into three categories. One category, which has its roots in PiagetÕs ideas about the distinctive features of close peer relationships, focuses on the quality of friendships. For example, friendships are higher in quality when the friends feel free to disclose their most intimate thoughts and feelings to each other; friendships are lower in quality when the friends have more frequent and more intense conflicts with each other. A second category, which has its roots in BronfenbrennerÕs ideas about how pressure from friends can affect childrenÕs behavior, focuses on the identity of childrenÕs friends. In HartupÕs framework, the identity of friends is defined by their attitudes, behaviors, and other characteristics. The final category, ‘‘having friends,’’ refers to the differences between the social interactions of friends and nonfriends, or E-mail address: [email protected]. 0022-0965/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.03.004
2
Introduction / J. Experimental Child Psychology 88 (2004) 1–4
to the differences between children who have friends and those who do not. Hartup (1996) mentioned this category first, because friendship quality and friendsÕ identity can be assessed only if children have friends. However, children who have friends may differ in the number of friends that they have, so studies that compare children with more and fewer friends can also be included in this category. Researchers who are guided by HartupÕs (1996) framework can explore a vast range of questions about friendships and their effects. In the announcement of this special issue, papers that increase understanding of the characteristics, contexts, and consequences of friendships were invited. The six articles in this issue can be divided easily into three pairs. The first pair includes articles in which the relations between childrenÕs own characteristics and the characteristics of their friendships are examined. The special focus in these two articles is on the friendships of aggressive children. The second pair includes articles in which the relations between childrenÕs friendships and their psychological adjustment are examined. These articles shed light on the possible consequences of friendships. The third pair includes articles on the context in which friendships exist, and specifically on the links between variations in friendships and variations in adolescentsÕ conceptions of attachment relationships. Thus, the issue can be described succinctly as illuminating the relations between friendships and three AÕs: aggression, adjustment, and attachment. In the first article on friendships and aggression, Bagwell and Coie describe an intensive study of 10-year-old boys whose classmates described them as high in aggressive behavior. After each boy identified his best friend, the researchers conducted a multimethod assessment of multiple aspects of these friendships. For comparison, the same assessments were done with pairs of friends who were both below average in aggression. A special strength of this research was the observations of friendsÕ interactions in structured laboratory situations. The aggressive and nonaggressive boys did not differ in their self-reports of the quality of their friendships, but the aggressive boys had fewer positive interactions and more intense conflicts with their friends than did the nonaggressive boys. In other respects as well, the aggressive boysÕ interactions with their friends appeared to provide a training ground for aggressive and antisocial behaviors. Rose, Swenson, and Carlson begin their article by reviewing the inconsistent findings of previous studies on the friendships of aggressive children. Some researchers have reported that aggressive children have lower quality friendships than nonaggressive children, but other researchers have reported that aggressive and nonaggressive children have friendships similar in quality. With a sample of more than 600 students in grades 3–9, Rose and her colleagues tested the hypothesis that aggressive children have low-quality friendships if they are also disliked but not if they are also perceived as popular. Moderating effects of being disliked and being perceived as popular were found only for a measure of friendsÕ conflicts, not positive friendship quality, and only for students high in relational aggression, not overt aggression. Most surprising, students higher in relational aggression actually had higher quality friendships, perhaps because these students needed friends to join them in attacking or excluding their victims. As these researchers note, aggression is not always an individual act, and the frequency of joint aggression by friends should be directly investigated in the future.
Introduction / J. Experimental Child Psychology 88 (2004) 1–4
3
In the first of the articles on friendship and adjustment, a team of researchers from Canada and England (Rotenberg, McDougall, Boulton, Vaillancourt, Fox, & Hymel) report on parallel studies of fifth through eighth graders in the two countries. These studies are the only ones in the special issue that include longitudinal data analyses. That is, only Rotenberg and his colleagues both collected longitudinal data and attempted in their analyses to identify the predictors of changes in studentsÕ friendships and adjustment over time. The researchers expected that students who were initially judged by their classmates as more trustworthy would show an increase after 1 year in their number of reciprocal friendships. The results supported this hypothesis but did not show that initially having more friends contributed to increases over time in self-esteem or decreases over time in depressive symptoms or loneliness. These findings reinforce HartupÕs (1996) earlier conclusion that ‘‘the developmental significance of having friends is far from clear’’ (p. 5). Demir and Urberg examine the relations of friendship to adjustment with an older sample, more than 600 students in 8th through 12th grades. These researchers used a single indicator of emotional adjustment derived from studentsÕ reports on their happiness and depressed mood. Measures of positive friendship quality, conflict with friends, and the number of friendship nominations that students gave to and received from classmates were examined as possible predictors of their adjustment. When the data were analyzed in structural equation models, the only measure that directly predicted emotional adjustment was positive friendship quality, and this effect was significant only for boys. Given the correlational research design, these findings could mean that high-quality friendships enhance boysÕ emotional adjustment, that better adjusted boys develop higher quality friendships, or that some other variable contributes simultaneously to friendship quality and emotional adjustment in boys. Additional research is needed to disentangle these options. As the researchers mentioned, more attention should also be given to gender differences in friendship, because other researchers have rarely found gender differences in the relation between friendship and adjustment. Moreover, data that might be helpful in explaining such gender differences are scarce. The articles dealing with friendship and attachment address the very provocative hypothesis that experiences with attachment figures affect other relationships, such as close friendships. Zimmermann first gave 16-year-olds a semistructured interview about their representation of close friendships. Then he used the Adult Attachment Interview to assess their representations of childhood experiences with primary caregivers. As expected, adolescents who were judged from transcripts of their interview responses to have higher quality friendships also had higher scores for attachment security. By contrast, scores for attachment security were not related to adolescentsÕ self-reports of the quality of their peer relationships. One possible explanation of this result is that adolescents who are insecurely attached are satisfied with their friendships even when the low quality of those friendships is obvious to adult observers. Weimer, Kerns, and Oldenburg argue that the quality of the friendship between a pair of adolescents is affected by the security of attachment of both adolescents. Using Bartholomew and HorowitzÕs (1991) measure of attachment style, these researchers contrasted pairs of friends in which both adolescents were securely attached with
4
Introduction / J. Experimental Child Psychology 88 (2004) 1–4
pairs of friends in which at least one adolescent had an insecure attachment style. On a self-report measure of friendship quality, the secure–secure pairs had higher scores than the others, but the difference did not reach significance in the relatively small sample. The pairs were also observed, however, as they discussed their worries and concerns about a very important and personal topic. Secure–secure pairs made significantly more statements expressing support, respect, or acceptance of their friends, and fewer statements clarifying or summarizing their friendsÕ statements, than did the other pairs. Thus, secure–secure pairs appeared to have more positive conversations that reflected greater understanding of one another. These findings led the researchers to suggest that identifying the mechanisms linking attachment style to friendship quality should be a goal for future research. Viewed collectively, the articles in this special issue illustrate both the vigor and the dominant emphases of current research on friendship. Rose and her colleagues explicitly and very successfully used HartupÕs (1996) model of three categories of friendship measures as the foundation for their study. Rotenberg and his colleagues, by contrast, assessed only HartupÕs category of ‘‘having friends,’’ or the number of friends that children have. However, most prominent in this issue is the concentration of researchersÕ attention primarily on the quality of friendships, and secondarily on the identity or characteristics of those friends. The research findings serve as a corrective to the older and less balanced theories of friendships and their effects that were mentioned earlier. As Piaget (1932/1965) assumed, friendships can be highly positive relationships that have a positive influence on childrenÕs social and moral development. But as Bronfenbrenner (1970) assumed, friends can have negative influences on children, reinforcing patterns of antisocial behavior. The effects of friendships on a specific child are likely to depend on the quality of those friendships and the characteristics of the friends, and perhaps on the interaction of the two (Berndt & Murphy, 2002).
Acknowledgment Preparation of this article was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation.
References Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a fourcategory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Berndt, T. J. (2004). ChildrenÕs friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspectives on their development and their effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 206–223. Berndt, T. J., & Murphy, L. M. (2002). Influences of friends and friendships: Myths, truths, and research recommendations. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (30, pp. 275–310). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of childhood: US and USSR. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press (Originally published, 1932).