Popularity, Friendship Quantity, and Friendship Quality: InteractiveInfluences on Children’s Loneliness and Depression
Douglas W. Nangle, Cynthia A. Erdley, Julie E. Newman, Craig A. Mason, andErika M. Carpenter
Department of Psychology, University of Maine
A mediational model positing that the effects of popularity on children’s lonelinessand depression are passed through indexes of friendship experiences was tested usingstructural equation modeling. Children (193 3rd through 6th graders) completed abattery of sociometric and self-report questionnaires from which measures of popu-larity, multiple friendship dimensions (i.e., quantity and quality of best and goodfriendships), and loneliness and depression were derived. Confirmation of a slightlymodified model supported the mediational hypothesis. Although popularity exertedno direct impact on the adjustment indexes, it strongly influenced friendship, which,in turn, affected depression through its strong association with loneliness. It appearsthat popularity is important for setting the stage for relationship development, butthat it is dyadic friendship experiences that most directly influence feelings of loneli-ness and depression.
The bulk of empirical support for the associationbetween children’s peer relationships and their psy-chological adjustment comes from investigations ofpopularity, a unilateral construct referring to the de-gree to which a child is liked by the peer group (seeNewcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993, for review). Re-searchers have made another distinction in children’speer experiences by examining friendship, a bilateralconstruct referring to a child’s participation in a close,mutual, dyadic relationship. This distinction is impor-tant, as popularity and friendship are constructs withoverlapping yet unique influences on development andadjustment (Buhrmester & Furman, 1986; Furman &Robbins, 1985; Sullivan, 1953). Sullivan proposed thatthe relative importance of popularity and friendshipchanges across development as different social needsemerge. The need for group acceptance is paramountin middle childhood and gives way to an increasing re-liance on intimacy as children enter preadolescence.
Despite their changing roles and importance,Sullivan (1953) believed that both popularity andfriendship continue to impact adjustment throughoutchildhood. Consistent with this notion, even studies ofyoung children demonstrate the unique contribution offriendship to adjustment (e.g., Ladd, Kochenderfer, &
Coleman, 1997; Parker & Asher, 1993). For example,using a middle childhood sample, Parker and Asherfound that having a friend, friendship quality, and pop-ularity made unique contributions to the prediction ofloneliness. Interestingly, not all high-accepted childrenhad friends, and many low-accepted children did havefriends. Furthermore, regardless of their level of groupacceptance, children without friends were lonelier thanchildren who were involved in at least one mutualfriendship. Nevertheless, in a demonstration of theoverlap in the peer experience dimensions, better ac-cepted children were almost twice as likely to have afriend as their less accepted peers. In addition, thebetter accepted children tended to perceive theirfriendships as being higher in quality. Examining theclose association between popularity and friendship,Bukowski, Pizzamiglio, Newcomb, and Hoza (1996)found support for the idea that being liked by the groupis antecedent to friendship development. That is, alarger social network affords a child more opportuni-ties for friendship formation.
Further discriminations in the friendship constructhave been proposed in the hopes of more adequatelycapturing the fullness of children’s peer experiences(Bukowski & Hoza, 1989; Hartup, 1996). As part oftheir hierarchical friendship model, Bukowski andHoza recommended a multilevel assessment com-posed of determining whether a child has a friend, howmany mutual friendships that child has, and what thequality of those friendships is. The importance of hav-ing a friend to a child’s development and adjustment iswell established (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993; Sander-son & Siegal, 1995). The value of the quantity dimen-
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology2003, Vol. 32, No. 4, 546–555
Thanks to Bill Bukowski for his valuable input in developing theconceptual basis for this project. We would also like to acknowledgethe assistance of the principals and teachers at the Hermon Elemen-tary, Caravel Middle, Levant Elementary, and Holbrook Schools.Without their efforts, we could not have completed the study.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Douglas W. Nangle, De-partment of Psychology, University of Maine, Orono,ME 04469–5742. E-mail [email protected]
sion (i.e., the number of friendships in which a child isinvolved), however, is not as clear. In one study, Laddet al. (1997) determined that although friendship quan-tity did not add to the prediction of children’s loneli-ness as they made the transition to kindergarten, it didadd to the prediction of other adjustment indexes, suchas academic readiness and school involvement. Incomparison, evaluations of the quality dimension, achild’s impression of the degree to which a given rela-tionship meets specified needs ranging from the provi-sion of opportunities for play and companionship to al-lowing for intimate disclosure and exchange (e.g.,Berndt & Perry, 1986; Parker & Asher, 1993), have es-tablished its worth as a distinct component of friend-ship with implications for adjustment (e.g., Hoza,Bukowski, & Beery, 2000; Oldenburg & Kerns, 1997;Parker & Asher, 1993).
Evaluating the proposed multidimensionality offriendship would be facilitated by the use of more re-cently developed statistical procedures. To date, moststudies have employed covariance techniques, such asregression, to determine whether friendship has any ef-fect on single adjustment indicators after the effects at-tributable to popularity, the more established predictor,are partialed out (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989). Becausefriendship shares variance with popularity, however, itsoverall effects on adjustment are underestimated byconsidering only nonshared variance (Bukowski &Hoza, 1989). Alternatively, structural equation model-ing allows for the examination of simultaneous effectsof multiple predictors on one or more outcome mea-sures while taking the interrelations among the predic-tors into consideration (see Biddle & Marlin, 1987, fora review). Another advantage is that the “fit” of theoverall model is assessed. For example, in a study withearly adolescents, Bukowski, Hoza, and Boivin (1993)found support for a complex model positing that popu-larity exerts an indirect influence on loneliness throughits effects on mutual friendship and feelings ofbelongingness.
This study examined the simultaneous influences ofpopularity and multiple friendship dimensions offriendship on children’s loneliness and depression us-ing structural equation modeling. Measures of popu-larity, friendship quantity, friendship quality, and lone-liness and depression were derived from sociometricprocedures and psychological adjustment question-naires. The longstanding question of whether friend-ship is a categorical or continuous construct (Hartup,1996; Price & Ladd, 1986) was addressed by the use oftwo different friendship levels: (a) “good” friendships,defined as whether either of two peers nominated theother and the two gave one another peer ratings of atleast 4 and (b) “best” friendships, defined by reciprocalbest friend nominations (see Erdley, Nangle, & Gold,1998, for a comparison of different friendship defini-tions). Another unique aspect of this study was the
evaluation of the contributions of having more than onefriendship and of having friendships of varying qualityto adjustment.
The use of middle childhood participants and selec-tion of loneliness and depression as adjustment indica-tors was based on several considerations. As outlinedearlier, during this developmental stage, children arejust beginning to experience a shift in the priority oftheir social needs from acceptance to intimacy. Assuch, this is an opportune time to evaluate a model pos-iting a mediational role for friendship. Furthermore, inaddition to the solid body of studies linking popularityand the various friendship dimensions with this agegroup, there is a well-developed literature connectingpeer variables to children’s loneliness and depression.Numerous studies have shown that children who arerejected by their peer group experience higher levels ofloneliness and social dissatisfaction than their betteraccepted peers (see Asher, Parkhurst, Hymel, & Wil-liams, 1990, for a review). Even so, there is consider-able variability in rejected children’s reports of loneli-ness. In addition to the actual degree of rejectionexperienced by children and its chronicity, Asher et al.suggested that this variability may be due to the factthat some rejected children have at least one friend whoprovides an important source of emotional support, anassertion validated in a number of more recent studies(e.g., Hoza et al., 2000; Parker & Asher, 1993; Sander-son & Siegal, 1995). Depression is also associated withproblematic peer relationships (Boivin, Hymel, &Bukowski, 1995; Boivin, Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994;Burks, Dodge, & Price, 1995). As with loneliness,friendship experiences can serve as a buffer betweenpeer group rejection and depression (Bagwell, New-comb, & Bukowski, 1998; Oldenburg & Kerns, 1997).
In summary, we tested a mediational model in whichthe effect of popularity on the adjustment indexes ispassed through the friendship variables (see Figure 1).Popularity was hypothesized to form direct associationswith the friendship variables, but not with loneliness ordepression (Bukowski et al., 1993; Bukowski et al.,1996). Reflective of the quantity–quality distinction,good and best friend quantity and quality were expectedto form two distinct latent variables representing thefriendship construct. Direct links between the latentfriendship variables and loneliness were also posited.Finally, our hypothesis that loneliness would mediatethe relation between the peer variables and depressionwas based on the findings of Boivin et al. (1995). Inmodel testing with longitudinal data, these authorsfound that loneliness mediated the relation betweennegative peer experiences, such as withdrawal and re-jection, and depressed mood. Such experiences appearto lead to depressed mood when they cause children tofeel badly about their social situations. No a priori sexhypotheses were generated. Despite speculation that in-ternalizing problems may be more closely related to
group acceptance for boys and more closely related tofriendship for girls (Burks et al., 1995), some studieshave found sex differences in how peer variables relateto internalizing difficulties (e.g., Oldenburg & Kerns,1997)andothershavenot (e.g.,Parker&Asher,1993).
Method
Participants
The participants included 193 third- throughsixth-grade students (103 boys, 90 girls; 99% Euro-pean American) who were recruited from elementaryschools located in low- to middle-income communitiesin northern New England. Data were collected from allstudents who had permission from their parent orguardian to participate in this project and who gavetheir own assent (76% participation rate).
Procedure
The data were collected across two testing sessions,spaced approximately 2 weeks apart. All experimentalsessions lasted approximately 45 min and were con-ducted in the children’s classrooms using group ad-
ministration of the measures. In the first session, chil-dren were asked to indicate how much they liked toplay with each of their classmates (peer acceptance rat-ings). They were also instructed to circle the names oftheir three best friends (limited positive nominations).Then the children completed measures that assessedfeelings of loneliness and depression.
Prior to the second session, every possible dyadwithin each classroom was examined to determinewhether that dyad met fairly liberal criteria for friend-ship (i.e., either of the two peers nominated the otherand the two had an average mutual peer rating of 4 orgreater; Berndt & Perry, 1986). In the second session,children completed a friendship quality questionnairefor each of their previously identified friendships. Allchildren rated at least three friendships. If children didnot have three friendships that met our criteria, theycompleted friendship quality questionnaires concern-ing the three children they circled as their best friends,three children they rated highly, or some combinationof the two. Friendship quality data for suchnonreciprocated friendships were discarded from fur-ther analyses.
With the exception of the friendship quality mea-sure, all questionnaires were read out loud to ensurethat children understood, regardless of their reading
548
NANGLE ET AL.
Figure 1. Proposed model linking the peer and adjustment variables.
level. Children were taught how to use each responsescale via several practice items, and they reported theirresponses in individual packets.
Measures
Sociometric assessment. Children’s level ofpeer acceptance was assessed by presenting studentswith a class roster (listing only those students who hadpermission to participate) and asking them to rate on a5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I don’t like to) to 5(I like to a lot) how much they like to play with each oftheir classmates. A child’s peer acceptance score wasthe mean rating received from all participants in theclassroom who rated him or her. For the peer nomina-tion measure, children were asked to circle the namesof their three best friends on a separate class list.
Best-friend quantity was defined as the total numberof reciprocated best friend nominations for each child.Good friend quantity was defined as the total numberof friendships for each child that met the following cri-teria: either of the two peers nominated the other, thetwo children gave each other a peer rating of 4 orgreater, and the pair had not met the criterion of recip-rocated positive nominations. We had originally in-tended to use the good friend definition put forth byBerndt and Perry (1986) as described previously butchose an alternative because of the fact that requiringonly an average peer rating of 4 leaves room for neutralratings.
Friendship quality. Children reported their per-ceptions of various qualitative aspects of their previ-ously identified friendship dyads using a modified ver-sion of the Friendship Quality Questionnaire–Revised(Parker & Asher, 1993). This modified questionnaireincluded the three items that, according to Parker andAsher, showed the strongest loadings on each of thefollowing six factors: validation (e.g., “My friendmakes me feel good about my ideas”), conflict (e.g.,“My friend and I argue a lot”), conflict resolution (e.g.,“My friend and I make up easily when we have afight”), help and guidance (e.g., “My friend helps meso I can get done quicker”), companionship (e.g., “Myfriend and I always sit together at lunch”), and inti-macy (e.g., “My friend and I always tell each other ourproblems”).
Children responded to these items on a 5-pointscale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (reallytrue). Each child rated at least three friendships. Foreach questionnaire, the name of a specific friend wasinserted into each individual item using word-pro-cessing software. According to Parker and Asher(1993), this method is used to reduce the likelihoodthat children will complete the questionnaire basedon an ideal friendship or mental representation of acombination of many different friendships. Consis-
tent with previous research using this measure, a totalfriendship quality score was used in this study(Parker & Asher, 1993). Best friend quality was themean of the average ratings for each of the sixFriendship Quality Questionnaire–Revised factorscores across each child’s identified best friendships(α = .90 for boys and .95 for girls using the modifiedversion). Likewise, good friend quality was the meanof the average ratings for each of the six FriendshipQuality Questionnaire–Revised factor scores acrosseach child’s identified good friendships (α = .81 forboys and .87 for girls using the modified version).
Loneliness. Using the Asher and Wheeler(1985) Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Ques-tionnaire, children were asked to rate themselves on a5-point scale ranging from 1 (that’s not true at allabout me) to 5 (that’s always true about me) across24 items, 16 of which assess feelings of lonelinessand social dissatisfaction at school (e.g., “I feel aloneat school” and “There are no other kids I can go towhen I need help at school”) and 8 of which are filleritems. This measure has been used extensively withthird- through sixth-grade children (Asher et al.,1990). Results of factor analyses reported by Asher etal. revealed a single factor comprising 16 primaryloneliness and social dissatisfaction items. Consistentwith previous research using this measure (e.g.,Asher et al., 1990), reliability analyses based on datacollected for this study revealed high internal consis-tency (coefficient α = .93).
Depression. Children’s feelings of depressionwere assessed using the Children’s Depression Inven-tory (Kovacs, 1985), a 27-item self-report question-naire that assesses the presence and severity of affec-tive, cognitive, and behavioral symptoms ofdepression. For each item, participants chose one ofthree responses that described their feelings and ideasduring the past 2 weeks (e.g., “I am sad once in awhile,” “I am sad many times,” “I am sad all the time”).Responses were scored on a 3-point scale ranging from0 (symptom is absent) to 2 (symptom is present most ofthe time). For this study, the Institutional ReviewBoard asked us to remove the suicidal ideation item.As such, children completed 26 items and could obtaina total score that ranged from 0 to 52, with higherscores indicating greater incidence and severity of de-pressive symptoms. Adequate psychometric propertiesfor the Children’s Depression Inventory have been re-ported across several studies (Carey, Gresham,Ruggiero, Faulstich, & Enyart, 1987; Kovacs, 1985;Smucker, Craighead, Craighead, & Green, 1986). In-ternal consistency for the Children’s Depression Inven-tory in this study was .90.
A correlation matrix that includes means and stan-dard deviations for the peer and adjustment variables ispresented in Table 1. As expected, for both boys andgirls, popularity was generally highly correlated witheach of the friendship dimensions. Correlations amongthe friendship variables ranged from highly significantfor the good friend quantity–best friend quantity corre-lation, to nonsignificant for the good friend quan-tity–best friend quality correlation. Correlations be-tween the friendship variables and loneliness were inthe expected directions, although the correlations be-tween the quality variables and loneliness were not sig-nificant among girls. Finally, loneliness was highlycorrelated with depression for both boys and girls.
Proposed Model
Based on the correlations, it was decided that the er-rors for the two best friend variables and the errors forthe two good friend variables be allowed to covary.Preliminary structural equation analyses also sug-gested that the two separate factors representingFriendship Quality and Friendship Quantity either beintegrated into a single factor or combined under a sec-ond-order Friendship factor. Both of these modelswere tested and resulted in similar coefficients be-tween the key constructs of Popularity, Friendship,Loneliness, and Depression. However, an examinationof the fit indexes and the various factor loadings sug-gested that a model based on a second-order factorcomprising the friendship quality and friendship quan-tity latent variables was preferred.
With these modifications, the final model was agood fit to the data. Although the sample-size sensitivechi-square test was significant, χ2(10) = 27.102, p =.003, the Normed Fit Index and comparative fit indexsuggested an excellent fit (.990 and .994, respectively).The final model, with standardized path coefficients, is
presented in Figure 2. Popularity and the friendshipvariables accounted for 33.7% of the variance in loneli-ness scores, and the entire model accounted for 36.8%of the variance in depression scores.
Alternative Direct-Effects Model
Even though the proposed model proved to be agood fit with the data, additional analyses were per-formed comparing it to a model in which popularityhad a direct effect on loneliness and both popularityand friendship had direct effects on depression. In es-sence, although the proposed model posits an entirelymediational model, this alternative model allows forboth mediation and direct effects among popularity,friendship, loneliness, and depression. The inclusionof these additional paths did not improve the fit of themodel, ∆χ2(3) = 4.827, p > .10, and none of the addi-tional paths were significant. In the interest of parsi-mony, the more restricted proposed model is thereforepreferred, suggesting a strong mediational pathway.
Sex Equivalence
Finally, analyses were performed examining the sexequivalence of the model. A multigroup analysis of thefinal model with all means, intercepts, path coeffi-cients, variances, and covariances required to be equalfor both boys and girls was tested. This highly restric-tive model forces all standardized and unstandardizedpath coefficients and covariances to be identical acrosssex, but nevertheless resulted in a marginally good fitto the data, χ2(45) = 72.344, p = .006, Normed Fit In-dex = .974, comparative fit index = .990. Allowingmeans and intercepts for all measured variables to varybased on sex resulted in a significant improvement inthe fit of the model, ∆χ2 (8) = 18.089, p < .05. Allowingthe coefficients for the three key mediational paths(popularity to friendship, friendship to loneliness, andloneliness to depression) to vary resulted in a margin-ally significant improvement in fit, ∆χ2(3) = 6.965, p =.07). Closer examination suggested that this was due to
550
NANGLE ET AL.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Amongst the Peer and Adjustment Variables
Note: Correlations for boys (n = 103) are reported above the diagonal, girls (n = 90) below the diagonal. Children without best (n = 33) or good (n= 54) friendships were scored 0 on the respective quality measure.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
sex differences in the loneliness to depression pathway,∆χ2(1) = 6.527, p = .01. Specifically, the pathway be-tween loneliness and depression was greater for boys(standardized path = .700) than for girls (standardizedpath = .490). A series of analyses examining potentialsex differences in the factor loadings of the friendshipquality or the friendship quantity latent variables, orthe Friendship second-order factor, found no evidenceof sex differences—with the exception of the previ-ously noted difference in intercepts for the measuredvariables.
Discussion
Somewhat surprisingly, in light of the suppositionsof Sullivan (1953) and others, we found support for afully mediational model using a middle childhoodsample. Differing from past studies with this agegroup, we incorporated a multidimensional assessmentof the friendship construct and a statistical approach al-lowing for an analysis of simultaneous influences.Consistent with our proposed model, popularitystrongly influenced friendship, which emerged as asingle factor combining the two posited latent quantityand quality variables. Also consistent with our hypoth-
eses, the impact of the peer variables on depressionwas passed through loneliness.
These findings do not detract from the importanceof popularity. Rather, they shed light on the possiblepathways through which popularity might influencefriendship and adjustment. In teasing apart the popu-larity and friendship constructs, Bukowski et al. (1996)found support for the contention that popularity is anaffordance of friendship. Temporally antecedent tofriendship, popularity increases the likelihood thatchildren will form dyadic relationships. Better ac-cepted children would have increased opportunities toform friendships because the “pool” of peers who likethem is larger. In addition to this increased exposure,better accepted children would also be more likely tohave the social skills needed to capitalize on these op-portunities and form more lasting, higher quality rela-tionships (Asher, Parker, & Walker, 1996; Parker &Asher, 1993). Another factor increasing the chancesthat relationships would be formed is the likelihoodthat the peers who like these better accepted childrenare themselves more accepted and socially skilled(Nangle, Erdley, & Gold, 1996).
In turn, it is the increased size and relative quality ofthe friendship networks of more popular children thatappears to buffer them from feelings of loneliness and
551
FRIENDSHIP AND ADJUSTMENT
Figure 2. Final model linking the peer and adjustment variables. †, parameter fixed, all other paths significant at p < .001.
social dissatisfaction. Thus, even before adolescence,the mutuality that is unique to friendships appears to becritical. Perhaps the provisions primarily associatedwith close friendships, which include affection, inti-macy, and sense of reliable alliance (Furman & Rob-bins, 1985), are more important in determining loneli-ness than the sense of inclusion that results from groupacceptance. In light of the theories of Sullivan and oth-ers suggesting that with age friendship becomes in-creasingly important, more research addressing devel-opmental differences in the relation betweenfriendship and adjustment is needed.
The centrality of the quantity and quality dimen-sions in determining adjustment strongly supports theneed for a hierarchical conceptualization of the friend-ship construct (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989; Hartup,1996). Regarding the quantity dimension, the numberof both types of friends was important in predicting ad-justment. Considering that our findings in the contextof past research is made difficult by the fact that moststudies have investigated the role of quantity using ad-olescent samples. Echoing our earlier suggestion,more research addressing possible developmental dif-ferences is needed. Confirmation of the significance ofthe quality dimension in determining adjustment is arobust finding that has held across a number of studieswith children of varying ages (e.g., Bukowski et al.,1993; Hoza et al., 2000; Oldenburg & Kerns, 1997;Parker & Asher, 1993). Our findings add to existing re-search by showing that the beneficial effects of friend-ship quality extend beyond that provided by one bestfriendship. Children’s ability to maintain higher qual-ity mutual relationships across multiple dyads is im-portant. Taken together, our quantity–quality resultssuggest that the positive effects of friendship are cumu-lative. This speaks to the longstanding question ofwhether friendship is a categorical or continuous con-struct (Hartup, 1996; Price & Ladd, 1986). Taking acategorical view, Bukowski and Hoza (1989) criticizedmore liberal friendship definitions used to identify“good” friendships (e.g., Berndt & Perry, 1986) on thebasis that they do not capture the more intense recipro-cal liking they consider to be the essential feature offriendship. Nevertheless, in concert with the stipula-tions of Berndt (1981), the direct links formed betweenthe good friend dimensions and the latent quantity andquality variables in the confirmed model indicate thatthese somewhat less intense relationships play an im-portant role in determining adjustment. As such,friendship appears to be more of a continuous con-struct comprised of varying levels of relationships. At amore conceptual level, the notion of continuity fitswith the proposals of Sullivan (1953) and others (e.g.,Furman & Robbins, 1985) that different functions areserved by different types of relationships. If mere ac-quaintances are thought to fulfill important functionsthat sometimes overlap with those served by close
friendships, then it seems reasonable to assume thatgood friendships make unique contributions to chil-dren’s adjustment. For instance, although children mayexperience less intimacy in their good friendships,these relationships are likely to provide valuablesources of instrumental aid, nurturance, worth en-hancement, and companionship. Unfortunately, de-spite the debate in the literature, we are not aware ofany other studies addressing the possibility that theremay be qualitative differences in the relationshipsidentified using the different definitional criteria. Nodoubt, progress in this area has been hampered by thecontinued use of as many as five different definitions asinterchangeably representing the friendship construct(see Erdley et al., 1998, for a review).
Loneliness proved to be the gateway through whichthe peer variables, particularly friendship, impacteddepressed mood. Fitting well with past studies testingmultivariate models, peer difficulties appeared to in-crease the risk of depression when they became inter-nalized and adversely affected children’s perceptionsof their social environment (Boivin et al., 1995). More-over, these perceptions were shaped more by children’sfriendship experiences than their overall group accep-tance (Bukowski et al., 1993). Recent research has be-gun to explore the possibility that there are subtypes ofloneliness derived from different social relationships(Hoza et al., 2000). For instance, Hoza et al. deter-mined that unsatisfactory peer group experiences weremore related to peer-network loneliness (i.e., loneli-ness associated with isolation from the peer group),whereas the lack of a close friend was more related todyadic loneliness (i.e., loneliness associated with theabsence of a close friendship). In their review, these au-thors criticized the one-dimensional structure of theloneliness measure (Asher & Wheeler, 1985) used inthis study because of its hypothesized lack of sensitiv-ity to such subtypes. At the heart of this critique wasthe concern that the Asher and Wheeler measure inade-quately assesses the loneliness associated with closefriendships. The direct paths between friendship andloneliness, along with the absence of any paths directlylinking popularity and loneliness, found in this studyappear to suggest otherwise. Retesting our model usingthe Peer Network and Dyadic Loneliness Scale devel-oped by Hoza et al. (2000) might result in strengthenedconnections between the friendship variables and lone-liness (i.e., dyadic loneliness), as well as an emerginglink between popularity and loneliness (i.e., peer-net-work loneliness). Another interesting possibility is thatthe distinction might better explain the stronger con-nection between loneliness and depression found forthe boys in our sample. Hoza et al. found that boys ex-perienced more dyadic loneliness than did girls.
The aforementioned loneliness finding notwith-standing, we found no sex differences in our overallmodel. Our reluctance to form any a priori sex hypoth-
eses was based on the mixed findings of previous stud-ies examining potential sex differences in peer rela-tionship experiences and adjustment (Burks et al.,1995; Oldenburg & Kerns, 1997; Parker & Asher,1993). The only one of these studies using participantssimilar in age to those in our investigation and assess-ing friendship also found no sex effects in analyses ex-ploring the connection between peer variables and ad-justment (Parker & Asher, 1993). There has been somespeculation that friendship experiences may be moreimportant for the adjustment of girls than boys (Burkset al., 1995). The peer groups of boys tend to be moreglobal and group based, whereas those of girls tend toinclude more intimate dyadic or small-group friend-ships (Eder & Hallinan, 1978). Hence, girls may bemore apt to rely on alternative types of relationships,such as close friendships, to provide them with addedprotection from the negative consequences of peer re-jection. Burks et al. used this reasoning to explain theirfinding that the extent of peer rejection experiencedover a 2-year period predicted internalizing difficultiesat 3- and 6-year follow-up assessments only for boys.
Our results, along with those of Parker and Asher(1993), suggest that such sex differences in the waysthat peer variables impact internalizing difficulties arenot evidenced in younger children. Perhaps with timethese sex effects would emerge. Given the cross-sec-tional longitudinal design of the Burks et al. (1995)study, the children were older than the participants inour study at the time of the 3-year follow-up assess-ment and in early to middle adolescence by the 6-yearfollow-up. Again, the need for more research devotedto the investigation of potential developmental differ-ences is underscored.
Before discussing the applied implications of our re-sults, we must acknowledge some of the study’s limita-tions. Though the fit of our model was excellent, a largersample size would have enhanced our ability to detectmore subtle relations among the variables. For example,even though stratified analyses suggested that therewere no meaningful differences between boys and girlsin the overall model, a replication with a larger samplemay find more subtle or specific sex-based discrepan-cies in the relations among these variables.
There were also limitations posed by our popularityand friendship measurements. Regarding the use ofpeer ratings, acceptance and rejection are distinct di-mensions of popularity (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989).Thus, the degree to which our findings regarding popu-larity as measured by peer acceptance ratings are appli-cable to the larger body of studies focusing on rejectionand adjustment (e.g., Asher et al., 1990; Boivin et al.,1994; Burks et al., 1995) can be questioned. However,unlike positive and negative nominations that assessacceptance and rejection respectively, rating scalesociometrics are viewed by some as composite indexesthat reflect both the acceptance and rejection dimen-
sions of the popularity construct (Bukowski & Hoza,1989).
As a closely related measurement consideration, theaddition of negative nominations, particularly givenour interest in internalizing syndromes, would have en-abled us to examine different sociometric classifica-tions. Our good friend definition incorporated peer rat-ings. Some researchers have suggested that friendshipcriteria be based on nomination data to avoid con-founds with popularity measures (Bukowski et al.,1996; Parker & Asher, 1993). Nonetheless, given theshared basis in liking, the ability to avoid such con-founds seems limited and, perhaps, conceptually un-warranted. Moreover, the degree to which nominationsand high ratings differ functionally is questionable(Bukowski et al., 1996; Erdley et al., 1998). At anyrate, the fact that our good friend operationalizationmay have affected the formation of a direct path be-tween popularity and loneliness is worth considering.Perhaps using unlimited friendship nominations andallowing children to circle their “very best” friendswould have been a better alternative (A. M. La Greca,personal communication, December 5, 2002). Finally,an important consideration is the direction of effects.The flow of effects is likely to be more bidirectionalthan is suggested in our model. Depression may inten-sify feelings of loneliness and adversely impact accep-tance and friendships. We did perform additional anal-yses examining multiple directions, and nonesuggested a backward pathway between depressionand friendship. However, support was found for a pos-sible pathway from loneliness to friendship.
Clinically, our results suggest that intervention ef-forts might be better directed at developing and im-proving dyadic friendships than enhancing children’soverall peer acceptance. In addition to the limited abil-ity of most social skills training interventions to alterpeer group status (Asher et al., 1996), our results indi-cate that, even when successful, these treatments areonly likely to have an indirect effect on children’s so-cial adjustment through their impact on friendship.When children become more popular, they are morelikely to form more friendships. More friendships ofrelatively higher quality provide these now more popu-lar children with greater protection from loneliness,which, in turn, lessens their overall risk of depression.Attention to improving friendship quality is particu-larly important in light of findings showing that friend-ships that are higher in conflict might place children atincreased risk for negative outcomes (Berndt, 1996).However, despite the demonstrated ability of even oneclose friendship to compensate for the negative effectsof peer rejection (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993), therehave been very few studies evaluating interventionsthat seek to enhance children’s friendship development(see Frankel, Myatt, & Cantwell, 1995; Mrug, Hoza, &Gerdes, 2001, as example interventions).
In closing, a cautionary note is in order. The relationbetween friendship and adjustment is not always posi-tive. For example, friendships among certain childrenmay actually have deleterious effects. In systematic re-search, Dishion Andrews, and Crosby (1995) haveshown that associations between deviant adolescentspredict escalations in substance abuse, delinquency,and violent behavior. Other researchers examining theimpact of friendship on externalizing difficulties havefound similar effects (e.g., Berndt & Keefe, 1995;Hoza, Molina, Bukowski, & Sippola, 1995). An inter-esting possibility is that the same friendships that pro-tect some children from internalizing problems alsoencourage escalations in antisocial behavior. Ulti-mately, determining the full impact of friendship onadjustment will be a very complex undertaking incor-porating measures of who is included in children’sfriendship networks (Hartup, 1996), friendship quan-tity and quality, and multiple adjustment indexes (e.g.,internalizing, externalizing). All in all, it is likely thatsuch research will discover multiple and variant path-ways linking children’s friendship experiences to ad-justment.
References
Asher, S. R., Parker, J. G., & Walker, D. L. (1996). Distinguishingfriendship from acceptance: Implications for intervention andassessment. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W.Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship duringchildhood and adolescence (pp. 366–405). New York: Cam-bridge University Press.
Asher, S. R., Parkhurst, J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G. A. (1990).Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In S. R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253–273). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Asher, S. R., & Wheeler, V. A. (1985). Children’s loneliness: A com-parison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500–505.
Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998).Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors ofadult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140–153.
Berndt, T. J. (1981). Age changes and changes over time in prosocialintention and behavior between friends. Developmental Psy-chology, 17, 408–416.
Berndt, T. J. (1996). Exploring the effects of friendship quality on so-cial development. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W.W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in child-hood and adolescence (pp. 346–365). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329.
Berndt, T. J., & Perry, T. B. (1986). Children’s perceptions of friend-ships as supportive relationships. Developmental Psychology,22, 640–648.
Biddle, B. J., & Marlin, M. J. (1987). Causality, confirmation, credu-lity, and structural equation modeling. Child Development, 58,4–17.
Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of so-cial withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers inpredicting loneliness and depression. Development andPsychopathology, 7, 765–785.
Boivin, M., Poulin, F., & Vitaro, F. (1994). Depressed mood and peerrejection in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 6,483–498.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1986). The changing functions offriends in childhood: A neo-Sullivanian perspective. In V. G.Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social inter-action (pp. 41–62). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Is-sues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G.W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp.15– 45). New York: Wiley.
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1993). Popularity,friendship, and emotional adjustment during adolescence. InB. Laursen (Vol. Ed.) & W. Damon (Series Ed.), New direc-tions for child development: No. 60. Close friendships in ado-lescence (pp. 23–37). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bukowksi, W. M., Pizzamiglio, M. T., Newcomb, A. F., & Hoza, B.(1996). Popularity as an affordance of friendship: The link be-tween group and dyadic experience. Social Development, 5,189–202.
Burks, V. S., Dodge, K. A., & Price, J. M. (1995). Models of internal-izing outcomes of early rejection. Development andPsychopathology, 7, 683–695.
Carey, M. P., Gresham, F. M., Ruggiero, L., Faulstich, M. E., &Enyart, P. (1987). Children’s Depression Inventory: Constructand discriminant validity across clinical and nonreferred (con-trol) populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ogy, 55, 755–761.
Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boysand their friends in early adolescence: Relationship characteris-tics, quality, and interactional process. Child Development, 63,538–548.
Eder, D., & Hallinan, M. T. (1978). Sex differences in children’sfriendship. American Sociological Review, 43, 237–250.
Erdley, C. A., Nangle, D. W., & Gold, J. A. (1998). Operationalizingthe construct of friendship among children: A psychometriccomparison of sociometric-based definitional methodologies.Social Development, 7, 62–71.
Frankel, F., Myatt, R., & Cantwell, D. P. (1995). Training outpatientboys to conform with the social ecology of popular peers: Ef-fects on parent and teacher ratings. Journal of Clinical ChildPsychology, 24, 300–310.
Furman, W., & Robbins, P. (1985). What’s the point? Issues in theselection of treatment objectives. In B. H. Schneider, K. H.Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children’s peer relations:Issues in assessment and intervention (pp. 41–54). New York:Springer-Verlag.
Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships andtheir developmental significance. Child Development, 67,1–13.
Hoza, B., Bukowski, W. M., & Beery, S. (2000). Assessing peer net-work and dyadic loneliness. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol-ogy, 29, 119–128.
Hoza, B., Molina, B. S. G., Bukowski, W. M., & Sippola, L. K.(1995). Peer variables as predictors of later childhood adjust-ment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 787–802.
Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children’s Depression Inventory.Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995–998.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Class-room peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinctrelational systems that contribute uniquely to children’s schooladjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181–1197.
Mrug, S., Hoza, B., & Gerdes, A. C. (2001). Children with atten-tion-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Peer relationships andpeer-oriented interventions. In D. W. Nangle & C. A. Erdley(Eds.), New directions for child and adolescent development:The role of friendship in psychological adjustment (pp. 51–78).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., & Gold, J. A. (1996). A reflection onthe popularity construct: The importance of who likes and dis-likes a child. Behavior Therapy, 27, 337–352.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’speer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, ne-glected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 113, 99–128.
Oldenburg, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (1997). Associations between peerrelationships and depressive symptoms: Testing moderator ef-fects of gender and age. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17,319–337.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship qual-ity in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance andfeelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. DevelopmentalPsychology, 29, 611–621.
Price, J. M., & Ladd, G. W. (1986). Assessment of children’s friend-ships: Implications for social competence and social adjust-
ment. In R. J. Prinz (Ed.), Advances in behavioral assessment ofchildren and families (Vol. 2, pp. 121–149). Greenwich, CT:JAI.
Sanderson, J. A., & Siegal, M. (1995). Loneliness and stable friend-ship in rejected and nonrejected preschoolers. Journal of Ap-plied Developmental Psychology, 16, 555–567.
Smucker, M. R., Craighead, W. E., Craighead, L. W., & Green, B. J.(1986). Normative and reliability data for the children’s depres-sion inventory. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14,25–39.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. NewYork: Norton.
