Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jado

Capturing the friendship context with a collective property: Friendshipgroup engagement vs. disaffection

Carrie J. Furrer*

NPC Research, 4830 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530, Portland, OR 97239, United States

Keywords:Friendship groupsCollective propertiesGroup motivationPeer contextGroup-level phenomenon

* Research, Evaluation and Assessment, Portlanfax: þ1 503 916 3106.

E-mail address: cfurrer@pps.k12.or.us.

0140-1971/$ – see front matter � 2010 The Associadoi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.07.003

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this study was to introduce a motivational property of the group, friendshipgroup engagement vs. disaffection, and to examine different composition models forcombining individual reports into an indicator of a group-level property. Data werecollected from 312 ninth grade students and their teachers. Self-reported friendship group(FG) engagement and disaffection were related to self-reported classroom engagement,aggression, and peer problem behavior, but not to teacher-reported classroom engage-ment. Group-reported FG engagement and disaffection were related to self-reported FGengagement and disaffection, classroom engagement, aggression, and peer problembehavior, but these relationships were moderated by within-group agreement on thegroup property. Findings underscore the importance of a priori conceptualization ofgroup-level properties that are theoretically linked to adolescent adjustment, and the needto consider composition models when aggregating individual reports to create profiles ofthe group. Implications for future work on capturing properties of friendship groups arediscussed.� 2010 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier

Ltd. All rights reserved.

Friends and peer groups are a fundamental developmental context for adolescents. As children move into adolescence,their friends are central in their daily lives – their relationships become increasingly intimate and supportive, they spendmore time with non-family members, and they develop romantic relationships (Collins & Repinski, 1996; Furman &Winkles,2010; Hartup,1996; Ladd, 2005; Parker & Asher,1987; Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990; Sullivan,1953; Youniss & Haynie,1992).Not only are adolescents influenced by their multiple friendships (e.g., Berndt & Keefe, 1996; Farmer, 2000; Hartup, 2005;Kindermann, 2003; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995), but they also participate in shaping these relationships and co-create theclimate or context that emerges from ongoing relationships with friends (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Bukowski,Velasquez, & Brendgen, 2008).

The investigation of qualities of the friendship group (or peer group or social network) has taken two general directions.One line of inquiry centers on asking individuals to report on experiences with friends. Constructs such as friendship quality,social support, belonging, relatedness, and social competence are examples of self-referent indicators of one’s friendshipcontext (i.e., typically self-reported questions that refer to the individual, “I feel.” or “I have.”). Research has generallyshown that a more positive social context, as inferred from these and other similar constructs, contributes to various indi-cators of adolescent adjustment (see Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003 for a review). Adolescents with high quality, supportivefriendships (e.g., experienced as loyal, affectionate, and caring) tend to have higher self-esteem, exhibit more prosocial

d Public Schools, 501 N. Dixon, Portland, OR 97227-1804, United States. Tel.: þ1 503 916 6342;

tion for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867854

behavior, are more popular, have fewer emotional problems, are less lonely, attain higher academic achievement, and aremore involved in school (e.g., Berndt & Keefe, 1996; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Parker & Asher, 1993). Moreover, inter-personal competencies (e.g., self-disclosure, conflict management) have been found to contribute to more intimate friend-ships (Buhrmester, 1990).

In contrast, adolescents who are not accepted by their peers, who experience distress associated with peers, who areisolated, or who are affiliated with disaffected peers tend to be at risk for negative emotional orientations toward school, lowacademic performance, dropout, aggression, alienation, loneliness, and criminality (Guay, Boivin, & Hodges, 1999; Ladd &Troop-Gordon, 2003; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993; Parker & Asher, 1987). Adolescent friendships that are notsupportive, intimate, or companionate are related to social anxiety, including fear of negative evaluation, avoidance anddistress, and pervasive social discomfort (La Greca & Lopez, 1998). Support from antisocial peers has also been connected todifficulty adjusting to a high level of daily stress (Dumont & Provost, 1999).

The other line of inquiry has focused on collecting information from or about groupmembers. This task poses a number ofmethodological challenges. A basic issue is determining how to identify friendship group members. Adolescent friendshipgroups tend to be fluid, overlapping, and highly subjective; it is difficult to get consensus on who is in a particular group, toassign individuals to one discrete group, or to find groups that remain stable over time (Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns,1995; Kindermann, 2007; Leung, 1996). Sociometric methods, which identify social groups by having individuals nominateothers with whom they are connected (Moreno, 1953), are a common strategy in the literature on peer groups and socialnetworks. Social groups can be identified and described by a variety of structural features such as breadth and frequency ofinteractions; homophily or similarity between group members; and reciprocity, density, and transitivity (Burk, Steglich, &Snijders, 2007; Espelage, Green, & Wasserman, 2007; Gest, Davidson, & Rulison, 2007; Hanish, Barcelo, & Martin, 2007;Ojanen, Sijtsema, Hawley, & Little, 2010).

Less attention has been paid to capturing the peer context by conceptualizing and developing group-level measures of thefunctional properties of the friendship group that are theoretically linked to individual adjustment. The structural aspects offriendship groups are needed to identify and describe the group, to understand how members interact, and to specify units(e.g.,dyads, triads) thatmay have unique influence on individual development. However, once groups are identified, researcherstypically aggregate measures derived from constructs conceptualized at the individual level, such as academic achievement,studentmotivation, or bullying, to create a group score or profile fromwhich characteristics of the group are inferred (e.g., Chen,Chang, & He, 2003; Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003; Ryan, 2001). A more direct approach to understanding the functionalproperties of the group is conceptualizing collective attributes that have theoretical implications for individual development.Friendship groups as social contexts have their own emergent properties, which uniquely contribute to development beyondcharacteristics of the individuals who comprise them. As stated by Ryan (2001), “A climate or context emerges out of inter-actions and experiences among peer group members that affects each individual in the peer group” (p. 1146).

The current study contributes to the friendship group literature in two ways. First, it proposes a theoretically-basedconceptualization and measure of a friendship group motivational property, friendship group engagement and disaffection,posited to organize, energize, and shape ongoing interactions between members of the group. Second, it explores twocompositionmodels that have implications for how lower-level data are aggregated to the group level, and the role that groupagreement on a particularmeasure plays when interpreting the relationship between group-level constructs and indicators ofindividual adjustment.

Conceptualizing and measuring collective constructs

Friendship groups and individual adjustment

Although developmental psychologists place great value on understanding human behavior within contexts, it isuncommon for collective constructs to be included in research designs. Rather, there is a preference for individual-levelphenomenon as proxies for theoretically higher-order contextual properties. One of the challenges of studying friends asa social context is conceptualizing and measuring collective constructs (i.e., features of a group of friends) rather thaninferring collective properties from individual-level measures. As compared to individual constructs, for example, collectiveconstructs use language that refers to properties of the group (e.g., collaboration, cohesion, conflict) and are group-referent, orrefer to the group (e.g., “My group”) rather than the self (e.g., “I am”) (for example, Goddard & LoGerfo, 2007).

Social psychologists have put forth various conceptualizations of collective properties and the interactions that give rise tothem, and have developed both self- and group-referent measures of these constructs. For example, Carron and Brawley(2000) defined group cohesion, which is a quality of the group or a group style, along two dimensions: group integration(e.g., individual’s perceptions of the group’s closeness and similarity) and individual attractions to the group. Group inte-gration is measured using group-referent language (e.g., “Our team.”) and individual attraction to the group is measuredusing self-referent language (e.g., “I like.”). Another example of a group-referent measure is relational cohesion, a constructbased on the notion that repetitive social exchange gives rise to processes that facilitate social group formation and unifi-cation (Lawler, Thye, & Yoon, 2000).

Developmental researchers have also started to conceptualize and measure collective properties of friendship groups ordyads. Seidman et al. (1999) described six different types of peer contexts observed for urban adolescents living in povertybased on combinations of individual-level constructs. The disengaged peer cluster, for instance, comprised individuals

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867 855

reporting low perceived social support and below average involvement (quantity of time spent), whereas the engaged peerclusters were distinguished by above average social support, involvement, and acceptance (i.e., feeling liked). Anotherobservational study classified friendship dyads as either interdependent or disengaged based on the degree to whichrelational needs were favored over individual needs (Shulman & Laursen, 2002). In addition to directly measuring higher-order properties of the dyad, they examined the types of interactions that gave rise to such friendships. Interdependentfriendships (i.e., balancing the needs of both individuals to preserve the relationship) emerged from taking responsibilityfor the initiation of conflict and compromise; and disengaged friendships (i.e., partners favoring individual gain over thewell-being of the relationship) emerged from anger and power assertion during conflictual situations. These effortscontribute to a larger call for developmental psychologists to produce more elaborated, theory-driven group-levelconcepts (see Thoits, 1995).

Friendship group engagement vs. disaffection

One such theory-driven group-level concept is friendship group engagement vs. disaffection. Defined as a higher-orderfriendship group motivational property, friendship group (FG) engagement vs. disaffection emerges from a history ofsupportive (or unsupportive) interactions within the friendship group, and works to create predictable future interactionswithin the group. FG engagement vs. disaffection is an adaptation of the Self-System Model of Motivational Development(SSMMD) to the friendship group. The SSMMD is a needs-based motivational model with four interacting components:context, self, action, and outcomes (see Fig. 1; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Skinner, 1995). In the short-term,ongoing interactions between self and others lead to motivated action; a history of these cycles shape longer-term devel-opmental outcomes. More specifically, the model holds that social partners promote individual development by supportingan individual’s fundamental human needs through warm, dependable, and autonomy supportive interactions. Individualswhose needs are met are more likely to exhibit engagement in that particular domain. Social partners can also undermineneed fulfillment by being neglectful, chaotic, or coercive. Individuals whose needs are not met are more likely to be disaf-fected in that particular domain.

FG engagement is expected to be a form of group-level involvement that is intrinsically motivating, meaning that thegroup derives genuine fulfillment and satisfaction from its warm, predictable, and autonomy supportive interactions. Thisfeeling of fulfillment does not require external rewards or reinforcements, but instead is the consequence of a system thatis self-reinforcing because it naturally meets individuals’ needs (see Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997). FG disaffection, on the otherhand, is expected to be a form of group-level involvement that is largely conflictual, annoying, antagonistic, indifferent,argumentative, boring, and/or prohibitive. The group may exhibit unreliable, exclusionary, coercive, controlling, orsecretive behavior, which leads to chaotic, confusing, or hurtful interactions that erode the group’s ability to meetindividuals’ needs. Disaffection in a friendship group might persist because their members cannot gain access to higherfunctioning groups (i.e., they affiliate because they have no other alternatives; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989), orbecause their interactions are not predominantly negative but are disproportionately detrimental to their well-being(Rook & Pietromonaco, 1987).

FG engagement vs. disaffection was conceptualized for this study as having two primary dimensions, behavioral andemotional. The behavioral dimension refers to the activities and routines that groups engage in that reinforce their“groupness” and make the group members more attracted to each other. A behaviorally engaged friendship group, forexample, would spend a good deal of time together participating in common activities, make an effort to know what each ofits members are doing, have frequent, open communication, and have various rituals or routines that help to define the group.Conversely, a behaviorally disaffected friendship group would be more loosely affiliated, spend less time together, have more

Fig. 1. The self-system model of motivational development.

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867856

fragmented interests, have difficulty communicating (i.e., does not feel confident, has less desire to communicate, keepssecrets or guards information), and put less effort into or place less value on knowing and understanding its members.

The emotional dimension of FG engagement was conceived of as qualities of the group such as trust, conflict, boredom, andenjoyment. An emotionally engaged friendship group, for example, would have fun, promote trust, make its members feelrelaxed, and care about each of its members. On the other pole is the emotionally disaffected friendship group, which wouldpossibly be indifferent or even antagonistic toward its members, would not experience enjoyment when together, lack trust,and make its members feel like outsiders. The behavioral and emotional dimensions of engagement should generally rein-force each other such that engaged behaviors foster engaged emotions, which in turn promote engaged behaviors and so on.Likewise, disaffected behaviors should promote disaffected emotions, which then encourage disaffected behaviors. However,even though behavior and emotion are closely coupled, it is possible for mixed group properties to emerge from morecomplex interactions in a group. For the purposes of the current study, the behavioral and emotional dimensions werecombined to represent FG engagement and disaffection.

Measuring FG engagement vs. disaffection

The measure of the collective construct, FG engagement vs. disaffection, was created as a group-referent scale usinglanguage that refers to properties of the group. Children were first asked to identify members of their same-grade, same-school friendship group, and then asked to complete the Friendship Group Engagement vs. Disaffection scale about the group offriends they just nominated. Responses from the target child’s reciprocally nominated group members (excluding the targetchild) were averaged to create a group-level aggregate score. When developing and validating group-level constructs, it isimportant to carefully consider (and empirically test) appropriate composition models, or ways of combining data froma lower level to arrive at a higher-level or collective construct. Chan’s (1998) typology of composition models providesa conceptual framework for examining and empirically testing the relationship between data reported by individualmembers of the group and the higher-level construct. FG engagement (and disaffection) was conceptualized as a group-referent, rather than a self-referent, scale in order to prime youth to access information about their friendship group. Thelower-level data can be composed using various models to create an indicator of group-level FG engagement (anddisaffection).

Two of Chan’s (1998) composition models are additive and referent-shift consensus. The additive model suggests that thesummation or average of lower-level units will yield a valid indicator of the higher-level construct without regard for theextent to which group members agree on the particular construct of interest. Composition using the referent-shift consensusmodel involves two measurements, the group-level construct and an indicator of within-group agreement on the construct.For this model, agreement is necessary to justify aggregating lower-level units. Thus, within a low agreement group thesummation of lower-level level units would not produce a valid group-level construct.

As previously discussed, the summation of lower-level units to create an average group score is a commonway to estimategroup-level or contextual effects (Lüdtke et al., 2008). However, the extent to which friendship group members agree ona particular group property has not been widely investigated. The current study will consider this dimension of an emergentgroup-level property and empirically test whether the more parsimonious additive model better captures group-level FGengagement and disaffection, or whether there is a more complex relationship between FG engagement and disaffection andfunctioning that is moderated by within-group agreement.

Friendship groups and individual adjustment

Difficulty with peers has been linked to a variety of adjustment outcomes including externalizing problems, juvenilecriminality, and school difficulties and drop out (Parker, Rubin, Erath, Wojslawowicz, & Buskirk, 2006). For the purposes ofassessing the relationship between friends and adjustment, the current study focused on four indicators of adjustment:aggression, friends’ involvement with problem behaviors, and classroom engagement (self- and teacher-reported). If, ashypothesized, FG engagement characterizes groups that are meeting their member’s fundamental needs, an engagedfriendship group context should encourage positive outcomes, such as classroom engagement, and discourage aggression andaffiliating with peers involved in problem behaviors. On the other hand, if FG disaffection characterizes groups that under-mine their members’ need fulfillment, a disaffected friendship group context should be more tolerant of or perhaps promoteaggression and involvement with peers engaged in problem behaviors, and reduce classroom engagement.

Aggression

Aggression has been conceptualized as both a predictor of friendship difficulties as well as an outcome (Parker et al., 2006).Peer rejection, friendship distress, friendlessness, and poor friendship quality have been linked to aggression and other typesof externalizing behaviors (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005; Cillessen, Jiang, West, & Laszkowski, 2005; Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Newcomb et al., 1993; Parker & Asher, 1987). Friendship antipathy, or the degree of mutual disliking withdyads, has been found to predict higher levels of aggression among boys into middle childhood (Erath, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates,2009). Regardless of their own perceptions of friendship quality, aggressive boys’ interactions with their friends tend to be

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867 857

qualitatively different than nonaggressive boys, including more rule-breaking behavior and more intense negative affectduring conflicts (Bagwell & Coie, 2004).

Peer involvement with problem behavior

Difficulties with peers have also been linked to having deviant or delinquent friends. Children that are rejected by theirpeers tend to affiliate because they have limited access tomore prosocial peers; within groups of rejected children, delinquentbehaviors are reinforced and perpetuated (Dishion, Eddy, Haas, Li, & Spracklen, 1997). Friendship quality has been lessconsistently related to delinquency or other types of problem behaviors (see Marcus, 1996 for review); however rejected,aggressive, or delinquent children tend to have more conflict in their relationships with friends (Bagwell & Coie, 2004;Deptula & Cohen, 2004).

Classroom engagement

Research has shown that friends influence academic engagement and achievement (for reviews, see Birch & Ladd, 1998;Hymel, Comfort, Schonert-Reichl, & McDougall, 1996; Wentzel, 1999). Feeling a sense of relatedness or connectedness towardpeers has been shown to promote classroom engagement (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Lynch &Cicchetti, 1997; Murdock, 1999). In contrast, children who are rejected by their peers, who experience more loneliness andsocial isolation, and who affiliate with more disaffected peers are themselves more likely to become disaffected fromacademic activities and eventually leave school (French & Conrad, 2002; Sage & Kindermann, 1999; Wentzel, 1999).

Gender differences

Gender adds another layer of complexity. Research has shown that boys and girls differ in the social domain. For example,girls tend to report having more prosocial behavior and social competence, are more oriented to the group, and place moreemphasis on creating positive relationships with friends (for reviews see Eagly,Wood, & Diekman, 2000; Maccoby,1986; Rose& Rudolph, 2006). Compared to boys, girls tend to form more intimate, self-disclosing relationships compared to boys,especially in early adolescence, and tend to both seek out and providemore social support (Belle, 1989). If FG engagement anddisaffection are capturing features of the friendship group, it is likely that they will also differ according to gender. Thus,interactions between FG engagement and disaffection and gender are examined for each analysis.

Summary and hypotheses

Over a decade of research has documented the link between high quality, supportive peer relationships and a variety ofindicators of adolescent adjustment. Researchers typically employ self-referent individual-level constructs to capture thepeer context; however, it is likely that the peer context has emergent properties that have a unique effect on adolescents’social, academic, and behavioral adjustment. The current study focuses on friendship groups formed with classmates in ninthgrade. It was thought that features of these groups would be related to four indicators of adjustment: classroom engagement(self- and teacher-report), frequency of aggressive acts, and the extent that peers were involved in various problem behaviors.

Hypothesis 1. Self-reported FG engagement and disaffection should be related to all four indicators of adjustmentregardless of gender.

Hypothesis 2. If an individual-level attribute is functionally different than a collective property, a measure of the collectiveproperty should be related to adjustment over and above the individual-level attribute. In other words, a self-referentmeasure of an individual’s perceived social support from close friends (a measure fromwhich one could infer qualities of thegroup, but that does not directly measure a group-level property) should not be redundant with a group-referent measure ofa friendship group property. Therefore, it is expected that self-reported FG engagement (or disaffection) will uniquely predictthe four outcomes of interest above and beyond social support from close friends, a self-reported, self-referent measure. Theeffect should be consistent regardless of gender.

Hypothesis 3: FG engagement and disaffection (group aggregate) will be significantly related to adjustment. It is importantto examine whether within-group agreement on the group property moderates the relationship between FG agreement anddisaffection and adjustment. A significant interaction would provide support for the referent-shift consensus compositionmodel rather than additive model.

Method

Participants

The original sample included 443 9th grade students from a large suburban high school (9th – 12th grade) in the PacificNorthwest who participated in a study of peers and classroom engagement in the Fall 2003 (see Furrer, 2005 for details).Students were recruited from a required class that focused on career selection and developing a program of coursework. Atthe time of data collection, approximately 38% of the children in the school district were eligible for free or reduced lunch.

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867858

About 15% of the students who entered the high school in ninth grade did not graduate, and themajority of the non-graduateswere from minority population groups.

For the current study, a subset of children (70.4%, n ¼ 312) was selected because they had complete data on all of thevariables of interest, including reciprocated friendship nominations and therefore FG engagement and disaffection. Reasonswhy children from the original sample were not selected for the current study are: 1) they did not complete the friendnomination portion of the assessment instrument (10.4%, n ¼ 46); 2) they did not have any reciprocated friendship nomi-nations (14.0%, n ¼ 62); or 3) they had missing data on at least one of the other key self-reported variables (5.2%, n ¼ 23).Furthermore, approximately half of the children from the original sample were randomly selected for a teacher assessmentsubsample. Of the selected sample, 185 children (59.3%) had teacher-reported classroom engagement scores.

The selected sample (n¼ 312) was compared to those not selected (n¼ 131) for demographic and key variable differences.Compared to children without reciprocated friendships, children with reciprocated friendships were more likely to be girls(38.9%, n ¼ 51 vs. 64.7%, n ¼ 202), X2 ¼ 25.10, p < .001; less likely to have identified themselves as Latino/Hispanic (20.8%,n¼ 27 vs.10.6%, n¼ 33) or African American (8.5%, n¼ 11 vs. 2.9%, n¼ 9), X2¼17.25, p< .01; and they nominatedmore friends(M ¼ 3.4, SD ¼ 4.64 vs. M ¼ 8.0, SD ¼ 4.75), t(395) ¼ �7.91, p < .01.

In terms of differences on key variables, children in the selected sample reported higher FG engagement (self-report;M ¼ 3.54, SD ¼ .39 vs.M¼ 3.39, SD ¼ .44, t(439)¼ �3.66, p< .001); self-reported classroom engagement (M ¼ 3.08, SD¼ .47vs. M ¼ 2.86, SD ¼ .59, t(173.46) ¼ �3.49, p < .01); and teacher-reported classroom engagement (M ¼ 3.02, SD ¼ .56 vs.M ¼ 2.75, SD ¼ .64, t(249) ¼ �3.19, p < .01). Selected children also had marginally lower aggression (M ¼ .65, SD ¼ .69 vs.M ¼ .82, SD ¼ .82, t(135.03)¼ 1.87, p < .06) and less peer involvement with problem behaviors (M ¼ .72, SD ¼ .54 vs.M ¼ .91,SD ¼ .60, t(404) ¼ 2.92, p < .01). Thus, children in the sample selected for this study were higher functioning in a variety ofdomains (classroom, friendship group, behavior) and had a somewhat different demographic profile than childrenwho wereexcluded.

The selected sample contained 110 boys (35%) and 202 girls (65%), and the average agewas 14.7 years. The selected samplewas predominantly European American, with the remaining children being Hispanic/Latino, Asian or Pacific Islander,Multiracial, African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Multiracial, or another race/ethnicity. The majority ofparticipants spoke English as their first language.

Measures

DemographicsParticipants were asked to report on their gender (male or female) and birth date. Age was calculated by subtracting

a participant’s birth date from the assessment date. Participants reported their ethnicity by circling any or all of six responses(White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Native American, and Other). All combinations of racial/ethnic categories were created and then combined into the following categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/PacificIslander, Native American, and Multiracial (two or more categories circled).

Friendship group engagement vs. disaffectionParticipants reported on the extent to which their groupwas engaged and disaffected. The engagement subscale (11 items)

taps into group behaviors that promote togetherness and identity such as spending time together, rituals and routines, andopen communication, and group emotions such as feeling energized, equally cared for, and comfortable. The disaffectionsubscale (9 items) taps into group behaviors that undermine togetherness and make group members feel drained, margin-alized, jealous, antagonized, or bored. Each subscale employs a 4-point response scale (1 ¼ totally not true for us to 4 ¼ totallytrue for us). Items for each subscale (see appendix) were averaged to create group-referent friendship group (FG) engagementand disaffection scores (with higher scores indicating more of each construct), and had adequate internal consistencies(Cronbach’s alpha, a ¼ .83 and a ¼ .76, respectively).

Social support from close friendsThe close friends subscale of Harter’s Social Support Scale for Children (Harter, 1985) was used to assess levels of perceived

social support from close friends by asking if children have a close friend who understands them, will listen to them, and withwhom they spend time. Participants use a structured alternative question format: they read two statements, decide which ofthe two is truer for them, and then indicate whether that statement is really true or sort of true for them. Items are scored ona 4-point scale; negative items were reverse-coded and averaged with positive items to create close friend social supportscores (higher scores indicate more social support; a ¼ .86).

Classroom engagement vs. disaffection – self-reportClassroom engagement refers to students’ effort, attention, persistence, and emotional involvement while initiating and

sustaining learning activities. Students reported on their own engagement in the classroom (Wellborn, 1991) using a 4-pointresponse scale (1 ¼ totally not true for me to 4 ¼ totally true for me). The 20-item scale combined 10 engagement items (e.g.,“Whenwe start something new in class, I participate” and “When doing my work in class, I feel involved”) and 10 disaffectionitems (e.g., “When I’m doing my work in class, I just act like I’mworking” and “When we start something new in class, I feel

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867 859

worried”). Disaffection items were reverse-coded and averaged with the engagement items to create a total engagementscore (higher scores indicated higher engagement and lower disaffection; a ¼ .93).

Classroom engagement vs. disaffection – teacher-reportTeachers completed ameasure of student behavioral and emotional engagement in the classroom (Wellborn, 1991), which

captured their perceptions of students’ effort, attention, persistence, and emotional involvement during the initiation andexecution of learning activities. The 13-item scale has a 4-point response scale (1¼ totally not true for this student to 4¼ totallytrue for this student). Disengagement items were reverse-coded and averaged with engagement items to create a totalengagement score (higher scores indicated higher engagement and lower disaffection; a ¼ .89).

AggressionAn 11-item self-report measure of aggressive behavior (The Aggression Scale, Orpinas & Frankowski, 2001) was used to

assess how often participants were aggressive over the past month. The scale captures a range of aggressive and bullyingbehaviors including verbal (e.g., teasing, saying mean things, calling names), emotional (e.g., feeling angry most of the day),and physical (e.g., fighting, slapping, kicking, shoving, hitting). Participants used a modified 5-point response scale (0 ¼ neverto 4 ¼ all of the time). Aggression scores were calculated by summing the responses for each item, with higher scores indi-cating higher aggression (a ¼ .89).

Peer involvement with problem behaviorParticipants answered 12 questions on a 5-point scale (0¼ none to 4¼ almost all) assessing howmany of their friendswere

involved in activities such as substance use, stealing, vandalism, athletics (reverse-coded), and school (reverse-coded).Average scores on this scale formed an index of the extent towhich a participant’s friends were involved in problem behaviors(a ¼ .86).

Defining friendship groups

Children’s same-grade friends at school were determined using self-reported friendship networks. Participants wereinstructed to think of the ninth grade peers at schoolwith whom they spend the most time, know the best, and consider theirclose friends. They were told to write down these children’s first and last names. Childrenwere allowed to nominate as manybest friends and friends as they wanted. On average, children nominated 14 friends (ranged from 0 to 39).

One complication of capturing features of a friendship group is that individuals can belong to more than one group. In thecurrent study, this possibility was overcome by defining each target child’s group using only his/her nominations of friendsthat were reciprocal. A nomination was considered reciprocal if the nominated child also nominated the target child asa friend or best friend. Approximately two-thirds of the total possible ninth grade population participated in this study; thus,an average of 60% of nominated friends (ranged from 5% to 100%) was included in the calculation of FG engagement anddisaffection (group-level) for each child. The average proportion of boys in boys’ groups was 69% (ranged from 0% to 100%),and the average proportion of girls in girls’ groups was 86% (ranged from 0% to 100%).

Immediately after participants completed the peer nomination exercise, they were instructed to think about the friendsjust nominated and to complete the Friendship Group Engagement vs. Disaffection scale with that group of friends in mind.Three scores about group properties of engagement (FG engagement) and three scores about group properties of disaffection(FG disaffection) were constructed. After identifying each child’s reciprocal friends (groups contained an average of 4 recip-rocal friends, but this ranged from 1 to 15), the first two indicators were calculated by averaging reports of engagement anddisaffection from all group members, excluding the target child. These indicators are referred to as FG engagement (groupaggregate) and FG disaffection (group aggregate). Second, FG engagement and disaffection reported by each target child arereferred to as FG engagement (self-report) and FG disaffection (self-report). Third, to calculate within-group agreement,a sum of the absolute difference between group member’s reports, including the target child, of engagement was calculated.This score was divided by the number of group members and transformed so that a high score was 0, indicating perfectagreement. The same calculation was done for disaffection. These scores, which are essentially standard deviations for eachgroup, are referred to as FG agreement-engagement and FG agreement-disaffection.

Results

Description of FG engagement and disaffection

Correlations between all variables of interest are presented in Table 1. FG engagement (self-report) and disaffection (self-report) were moderately negatively related (r ¼ �.44), as were FG engagement (group aggregate) and disaffection (groupaggregate; r¼�.46), suggesting that FG engagement and disaffection are related but not redundant (not opposite ends of thesame pole). FG engagement (self-report) scores ranged from 2.30 to 4.00 (M ¼ 3.54, SD ¼ .39, median ¼ 3.60), and FGengagement (group aggregate) scores ranged from 2.40 to 4.00 (M ¼ 3.56, SD ¼ .26, median ¼ 3.60). FG disaffection (self-report) scores ranged from 1.00 to 3.44 (M ¼ 1.63, SD ¼ .48, median ¼ 1.56), and FG disaffection (group aggregate) scoresranged from 1.00 to 2.67 (M ¼ 1.64, SD ¼ .32, median ¼ 1.61). Having more reciprocated friendship nominations was

Table 1Correlations between key variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. # Reciprocal nominations –

2. FG engagement (self-report) .12* –

3. FG Disaffection (self-report) .06 �.44*** –

4. FG engagement (group aggregate) .06 .15* �.06 –

5. FG disaffection (group aggregate) .05 �.04 �.01 �.46*** –

6. FG agreement-engagement .09 .32*** �.07 .46*** �.05 –

7. FG agreement-disaffection .12* .10 �.23*** .17** �.36*** .22*** –

8. Social support from close friends .23*** .51*** �.32*** .19** �.06 .16** .05 –

9. Classroom engagement – teacher-report .27*** .12 �.06 .16* �.11 .16** .06 .03 –

10. Classroom engagement – self-report < .01 .37*** �.31*** .13* �.05 .08 �.05 .29*** .26*** –

11. Aggression �.19** �.26*** .34*** �.18** �.02 �.10 .03 �.32*** �.35*** �.40*** –

12. Peer problem behavior �.06 �.24*** .26*** �.13* .02 �.13* .06 �.21*** �.33*** �.48*** .62***

Note. FG ¼ Friendship Group. The sample size for all self-reported and group aggregate variables was 312, and the sample size for teacher-reportedclassroom engagement was 185.*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001.

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867860

associated with higher FG engagement (self-report), but not with FG disaffection (self-report) and FG engagement anddisaffection (group aggregate).

As expected, girls had higher FG engagement (self-report and group aggregate) than boys (self-report: M ¼ 3.63, SD ¼ .32vs. M ¼ 3.39, SD ¼ .45, t(169.18) ¼ �4.79, p < .001; group aggregate: M ¼ 3.62, SD ¼ .22 vs. M ¼ 3.46, SD ¼ .30,t(176.75) ¼ �4.81, p < .001), but FG disaffection (self-report and group aggregate) did not differ as a function of gender. Thus,children were generally positive about their friendship group and resisted making negative attributions, as evidenced bya positive and negative skew for engagement and disaffection which may also reflect the inevitable selection bias associatedwith examining children who have reciprocated friendships.

FG agreement-engagement ranged from �1.60 to 0 (M ¼ �.38), and FG agreement-disaffection ranged from �1.44 to0 (M¼�.48). On average, groups showed a good deal of agreement on their respective group-level properties; however, therewere clearly reciprocally nominated friendship groups that did not agree. In fact, approximately 39% of the friendship groupsdiffered by more than 1 standard deviation on FG engagement and disaffection. FG agreement-disaffection, but not FGagreement-engagement, was related to having more reciprocated nominations (r ¼ .12, p < .05).

Children in friendship groups nominated by girls were significantly more likely to agree on their FG engagement thanchildren in friendship groups nominated by boys (M¼�.32, SD¼ .18 andM¼�.48, SD¼ .28, respectively), t(158.83)¼�5.27,p < .001, but agreement on FG disaffection did not differ by the target child’s gender. The standard deviations also indicatethat children in friendship groups nominated by boys had more variation in agreement than those in groups nominated bygirls (boys scores ranged from �1.60 to �.06 and girls from �1.06 to 0).

The only significant zero-order cross-reporter correlation occurred between FG engagement (self-report) and FGengagement (group aggregate), r ¼ .15. However, as would be expected, cross-reporter relationships differed signifi-cantly as a function of FG agreement (see Table 2). To illustrate, correlations were calculated for groups having low andhigh FG agreement (dichotomized using a median split: low FG agreement-engagement ranged from �1.60 to �.33, highFG agreement-engagement ranged from �.32 to 0; low FG agreement-disaffection ranged from �1.44 to �.42, high FGagreement-disaffection ranged from �.41 to 0). FG engagement (self-report) and FG engagement (group aggregate) werepositively correlated for groups that had high FG agreement-engagement, r(155) ¼ .57, but negatively correlated forgroups that had low FG agreement-engagement, r(157) ¼ �.19. Similarly, FG disaffection (self-report) and FG disaffection(group aggregate) were positively correlated for groups with high FG agreement-disaffection, r(152) ¼ .57, and negativelycorrelated for groups with low FG agreement-disaffection, r(160) ¼ �.41. These findings confirm that higher FGagreement scores signified greater similarity between self-reported and group aggregate FG engagement (and disaf-fection) scores.

FG engagement and disaffection (self-report) and adjustment

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, FG engagement and disaffection (self-report) were both significantly related to self-reportedclassroom engagement, aggression, and peer involvement with problem behaviors (correlations ranged in absolute valuefrom .24 to .37; see Table 1), but not to teacher-reported classroom engagement. FG engagement (self-report) was associatedwith greater self-reported classroom engagement and less aggression and peer involvement with problem behavior, whereasFG disaffection (self-report) was associated with lower self-reported classroom engagement and more aggression and peerinvolvement with problem behavior.

All of the relationships between FG engagement and disaffection (self-report) and each indicator of adjustment weretested for gender differences by constructing hierarchical regression models including FG engagement (or disaffection; self-report) and gender in step 1 and an interaction term in step 2. FG engagement and disaffection (self-report) were both grand

Table 2Moderating effect of group agreement on relationship between self-reported and group aggregate FG engagement and disaffection.

Predictors FG engagement (self-report) FG disaffection (Self-report)

B Step R2 change B Step R2 change

FG engagementStep 1FG engagement (group aggregate) .12* .10*** – –

FG agreement-engagement .41*** –

Step 2FG engagement (group aggregate) � FG

agreement-engagement.41*** .14*** – –

FG disaffectionStep 1FG disaffection (group aggregate) – – .04 .06***FG agreement-disaffection – �.28***Step 2FG disaffection (group aggregate) � FG

agreement-disaffection– – .49*** .21***

Note. FG ¼ Friendship group. Standardized regression coefficients reported from the second step of the model and R2 values reported for each step of themodel.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867 861

mean centered, and interaction terms for each variable were calculated by multiplying gender and the centered variable(Aiken & West, 1991). Two statistically significant moderating effects for gender were found (see Table 3). The relationshipbetween FG engagement (self-report) and self-reported classroom engagement was stronger for girls than it was for boys(Step 2: F (1,308) ¼ 5.62, p < .05; slope for girls ¼ .57, slope for boys ¼ .25). The relationship between FG disaffection (self-report) and peer involvement with problem behavior, although significant for both genders, was stronger for boys than forgirls (Step 2: F (1,308) ¼ 3.87, p ¼ .05; slope for boys ¼ .45, slope for girls ¼ .20).

FG engagement and disaffection (self-report) distinguished from social support

The next step was to test whether FG engagement and disaffection (self-report), which are group-referent measures,predicted outcomes above and beyond a self-referent measure of social support from close friends, and whether this differedfor boys and girls. Note in Table 1 that perceived social support from best friends was moderately correlated with both FGengagement and disaffection (self-report; r¼ .51 and r¼�.32, respectively). Hierarchical regressionmodels were constructedseparately for each of the four outcomes. Models included gender in step 1, social support from close friends in step 2,centered FG engagement and disaffection (self-report) in step 3, and interaction terms (gender � centered FG engagementand disaffection [self-report]) in step 4.

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, FG disaffection (self-report) was significantly related to lower self-reported classroomengagement, and a greater degree of aggression and peer involvement with problem behavior over and above the effects ofself-referent social support from close friends (see Table 3). Gender moderated the effect of FG engagement (self-report) onself-reported classroom engagement and peer involvement with problem behavior. More specifically, higher FG engagement(self-report) was related to greater classroom engagement (self-report) for girls but not for boys (slopes ¼ .42 and .07,respectively), and to less peer involvement with problem behaviors for girls but there was a slight positive relationship forboys (slopes ¼ �.32 and .14, respectively). Gender also moderated the effect of FG disaffection (self-report) on peerinvolvement with problem behavior such that FG disaffection was more strongly associated with peer involvement with

Table 3Unique effects of self-reported FG engagement and disaffection controlling for perceived social support.

Predictors ClassroomEngagement – self-report

Classroom Engagement– teacher report

Aggression Peer problem behavior

B Step R2 change B Step R2 change B Step R2 change B Step R2 change

Step 1 Gender .14* .05*** .36*** .13*** �.21*** .07*** �.12* .02**Step 2 perceived social support .09 .06*** �.08 < .01 �.19** .07*** �.08 .03**Step 3 FG engagement (self-report) .06 .08*** .09 < .01 .13 .07*** .11 .05***FG disaffection (self-report) �.23* �.01 .43*** .44***Step 4 FG engagement (self-report) � gender .19* .02* �.05 < .01 �.12 .01 �.22** .03**FG disaffection (self-report) � gender .05 .01 �.18 �.29**

Note. FG ¼ Friendship Group. Standardized regression coefficients reported from the fourth step of the model and R2 values reported for each step of themodel.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867862

problem behaviors for boys than for girls (slopes ¼ .61 and .12, respectively). FG engagement and disaffection (self-report)were not significantly related to teacher-reported classroom engagement after accounting for gender.

FG engagement and disaffection (group aggregate) and adjustment

Hypothesis 3 was that FG engagement and disaffection would be related to adjustment using either an additive ora referent-shift consensus composition model. FG engagement (group aggregate) was weakly but significantly correlated withall four outcomes, with absolute values ranging from .13 to .18 (see Table 1). Children belonging to friendship groups withmore FG engagement (group aggregate), regardless of gender, were also more engaged in the classroom (according to self-and teacher-reports), less aggressive, and reported less peer involvement with problem behavior. FG disaffection (groupaggregate) was not significantly related to any of these outcomes.

Hierarchical regressionmodelswere then constructed to test a referent-shift consensusmodel such that FGagreementwouldmoderate the relationship between FG engagement and disaffection (group aggregate) and the four indicators of adjustment.Models included centered FG engagement and disaffection (group aggregate) in step 1, centered FG agreement-engagementand FG agreement-disaffection in step 2, and an interaction term (centered FG agreement-engagement � centered FGengagement [group aggregate] and centered FG agreement-disaffection� centered FG disaffection [group aggregate] tested inseparate models) in step 3.

Consistent with the referent-shift consensus composition model, most of the relationships between FG engagement anddisaffection (group aggregate) and adjustment were moderated by FG agreement (see Table 4). FG engagement (groupaggregate) was generally associated with greater self-reported classroom engagement and less aggression, and the effect ofFG agreement-engagement amplified these effects. FG engagement (group aggregate) had a stronger positive effect onclassroom engagement for children in groups with greater FG agreement-engagement than for children in groups with loweragreement (slopes¼ .40 and .14, respectively). Similarly, FG engagement (group aggregate) had a stronger ameliorative effecton aggression for children in groups with higher FG agreement-engagement than for children in groups with lower agree-ment (slopes¼�.87 and�.54, respectively). FG engagement (group aggregate) was not related to teacher-reported classroomengagement and friends’ involvement with problem behaviors.

FG disaffection (group aggregate) was not related to self-reported classroom engagement and peer problem behavior forchildren in groups with less FG agreement-disaffection (slopes¼ 06 and�.08, respectively). For children in groups with moreagreement, FG disaffection (group aggregate) was associated with less self-reported classroom engagement (slope ¼ �.41)and more peer involvement with problem behaviors (slope ¼ .27). The pattern was slightly different for aggression. Forchildren in groups with higher FG agreement-disaffection, FG disaffection (group aggregate) was positively related toaggression (slope ¼ .23). However, for children in groups with lower levels of FG agreement-disaffection, FG disaffection(group aggregate) was negatively related to aggression (slope¼�.41). In other words, the two conditions that were associatedwith higher levels of aggression were 1) higher FG disaffection (group aggregate), more FG agreement-disaffection and 2)lower FG disaffection (group aggregate), less FG agreement-disaffection. FG disaffection (group aggregate) was unrelated toteacher-reported classroom engagement.

Table 4Moderating effect of FG agreement on relationship between FG engagement and disaffection (group aggregate) and adjustment.

Predictors Classroom engagement –self-report

Classroomengagement – teacherreport

Aggression Peer problem behavior

Ba Bb Step R2

changeBa Bb Step R2

changeBa Bb Step R2

changeBa Bb Step R2

change

Step 1FG engagement (group aggregate) .15* .08 .02 .08 .07 .03 �.27** �.20** .04** �.11 �.08 .02*FG disaffection (group aggregate) �.02 �.10 �.06 �.08 �.12 �.04 < .01 .06Step 2FG agreement-engagement .08 .05 .01 .11 .12 .01 �.03 �.01 < .01 �.11 �.11 .01FG agreement-disaffection �.08 �.08 �.01 .02 .03 .02 .10 .09Step 3FG engagement (group aggregate) � FG

agreement-engagement.14* – .02 .01 – .00 �.12* – .01* �.03 – .01

FG disaffection (group aggregate) � FGagreement-disaffection

– .21** .04** – �.09 .01 – .21** .04** – .15* .02*

Note. FG ¼ Friendship Group. Interaction terms were tested in separate models.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.Standardized regression coefficients are reported from the third step of the model and R2 values reported for each step of the model (did not differ for thea and b models).

a Denotes models that included the FG engagement (group aggregate) � FG agreement–engagement interaction.b Denotes models that included the FG disaffection (group aggregate) � FG Agreement–Disaffection interaction.

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867 863

Discussion

The current study addresses a gap in the adolescent peer literature on group-level measures of the functional properties ofthe friendship group that are theoretically linked to individual adjustment. Friendship group (FG) engagement vs. disaffectionis a motivational property of the group posited to emerge from a history of supportive (or unsupportive) interactions betweengroup members, thereby creating predictable future interactions within the group. In the current study, FG engagement anddisaffection was introduced as a friendship group motivational property, and empirical support was found for its utility inpredicting adolescent adjustment when using a referent-shift consensus model for combining individual-level data to formindicators of the group. The additivemodel, which suggests that group-level constructs are related to outcomes regardless ofgroup member agreement, was generally not supported.

Children rated their friendship groups as relatively low in disaffection (self-report) and high in engagement (self-report).This is not an unusual finding in light of the fact that friendships, for the most part, are voluntary relationships, andadolescents can leave groups that are low quality. One exception is the case of rejected adolescents, who join deviant peergroups because no other groups will accept them (Dishion, French, & Patterson, 1995). However, it is still unlikely thatmembers of deviant peer groups would report that all features of their friendships are negative. FG engagement anddisaffection (self-report) were related but not redundant constructs.

FG engagement anddisaffection (self-report)were related to adjustment. Childrenwithhigher FGengagement (self-report)and lower disaffection (self-report) also reported higher classroom engagement, and lower aggression and peer involvementwith problem behaviors. Furthermore, the information provided by FG engagement and disaffection (self-report), a group-referent measure, was related to adjustment over and above child ratings of social support from close friends, a self-referentmeasure. This finding implies that asking about features of the group provides different information than asking about theindividual in relation to his/her group. It is incomplete, and perhaps not appropriate, to use self-referent measures of socialsupport (or similar constructs) to infer collective qualities of the peer context.

It is noteworthy that only FG engagement (group aggregate) and number of reciprocal friend nominations were related toteacher-reported classroom engagement. Thus, teachers’ ratings of classroom engagement were most closely related to thesize of a student’s friend network, the target child’s gender, and the mutual friendship group’s rating of engagement (but notthe target child’s rating). Data for the current study were collected during the first month of the transition into ninth grade; itis possible that teachers, with relatively new relationships with their students, perceived students from larger, more“publicly” engaged friendship groups as more involved in classroom activities.

Within-group agreement played a central role in understanding the effects of FG engagement and disaffection (groupaggregate). Friendship groups generally agreed on their group’s FG engagement and disaffection, but 2 out of 5 friendshipgroups differed in their ratings by an average of more than 1 standard deviation. FG engagement and disaffection (self-report)and FG engagement and disaffection (group aggregate) were related to each other primarily under conditions of higher FGagreement. Consistent with the referent-shift consensus composition model, FG agreement also moderated most of therelationships between FG engagement and disaffection (group aggregate) and adjustment. Groups with more agreementshowed many of the hypothesized relationships – FG engagement (group aggregate) was related to greater self-reportedclassroom engagement and less aggression, and FG disaffection (group aggregate) was related to lower self-reported class-room engagement and more aggression and peer problem behavior. The same patterns emerged for groups with lowerengagement but the effects were quite small.

From this set of findings it is tempting to conclude that agreement should be thought of as an indicator of reliability, andunreliable group measures (i.e., low agreement) are not related to outcomes. However, less FG disaffection (group aggregate)among children in groups with lower FG agreement was related to a greater degree of aggression. Indeed, research hassuggested that dissimilar perceptions of friendship quality are a marker of maladjustment (Burk & Laursen, 2005; Parker,Rubin, Price, & DeRosier, 1995). Alternatively, this finding may illustrate a group dynamic known as complementarity(Farmer, Xie, Cairns, & Hutchins, 2007). Within such a dynamic, individuals are of unequal status, have different behaviors,and require each other’s actions to maintain their own role (e.g., bully-victim). In this case, the majority of children in thegroup reported less FG disaffection, but the nominating child reportedmore FG disaffection (thereby creating less agreement)and a higher degree of aggression. Agreement among group members may also vary as a function of the developmental stageof the group. New groups, for example, may not have had time to develop a cohesive sense of “groupness” and wouldtherefore have less agreement. It may be useful, therefore, to think about FG agreement as an emergent property of the group(e.g., group functioning) rather than an indicator of reliability among multiple reporters.

Gender differences

Although therewere some significant mean-level differences between boys and girls, it is striking that FG engagement anddisaffection (self-report and group aggregate) generally functioned in the same way across gender. Girls had higher averageFG engagement (self- and group aggregate) scores than boys, which is consistent with previous research that demonstratedgender differences in social behavior (Belle, 1989; Maccoby, 1986; Way & Greene, 2006). It is surprising that the opposite wasnot true – girls did not differ from boys on FG disaffection (self-report and group aggregate). Girls might perceive theirfriendship groups as more engaged than boys, but that does not necessarily mean there is an absence of negative friendship

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867864

group features. Children in friendship groups nominated by girls also more strongly agreed on their FG engagement, butagreement on FG disaffection did not differ according to gender.

FG engagement and disaffection (self-report and group aggregate) were important for both boys and girls, but they werecoupled with certain indicators of adjustment in somewhat different ways. FG engagement (self-report) and classroomengagement weremore strongly linked for girls. FG engagement (self-report) was also negatively related to peer involvementwith problem behavior for girls, but slightly positively related for boys. Another gender difference was that FG disaffection(self-report) and peer involvement with problem behavior were more strongly related boys.

This pattern of findings is consistent with the peer-socialization model recently proposed by Rose and Rudolph (2006),suggesting that girls’ relationship processes “place them at risk for developing emotional problems, such as low self-esteem,anxiety, and depression, but also inhibit antisocial behavior. In contrast, processes characteristic of boys enhance theirlikelihood of developing behavioral problems, such as aggression and other antisocial conduct, but also protect them againstdeveloping emotional problems” (pg. 116). In other words, engaged peer processes for girls may be more likely to contributeto prosocial behaviors, like classroom engagement, and less involvement with peers that are engaged in various types ofproblem behaviors. Boys’ disaffected friendship groups may be more antisocial and involved in more externalizing behaviors(e.g., stealing, vandalism; Güro�glu, van Lieshout, Haselager, & Scholte, 2007).

In the current study, friendship groups were not limited to same-sex nominations. In the future, it would be important toexaminewhether the group’s gender compositionmoderated the relationship between group perceptions of FG engagement/disaffection and adjustment. It would also be interesting to investigate whether FG engagement and disaffection predictchanges in adjustment over time, and whether these trajectories differ by gender. Future work could also test for genderdifferences in the relationships between FG engagement and disaffection and indicators of emotional adjustment (e.g., mentalhealth, self-esteem).

Limitations

The current study has a number of limitations to consider when interpreting results. Administering surveys in ninth gradeclassrooms systematically excluded students who were unable to participate in the class due to language or developmentaldisabilities, had been suspended or expelled, were called out of class for behavioral problems, or missed class due toextracurricular activities. Furthermore, children in the subsample selected for this study, who had reciprocated friendshipnominations, were somewhat higher functioning than those childrenwithout reciprocated friendships. For these reasons, thegeneralizability of these findings is limited.

Cross-sectional data do not allow for drawing conclusions about causality. Multiple time points would be desirable toexamine stability and change in friendship group composition and FG engagement and disaffection, and to explore whetherthe collective properties predict change in adjustment over time. The mobility of friends in and out of a particular group mayitself be related to the level of engagement or disaffection characterizing the group. Additionally, most of the measures usedwere self-reported, which could have contributed to some of the relationships found in this study. Self-perceptions areprobably best captured with self-reports, but friendship group engagement could be assessed using observational methods.Future measurement development efforts might focus on multiple reporters and observation as alternative ways to assess FGengagement and disaffection.

The method used for identifying friendship groups must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of thisstudy. Childrenwere asked to nominate ninth grade friends from their high school, which may have restricted some children’peer networks (e.g., if they had older friends). Aggregated friendship group engagement scores could only be calculated forreciprocally nominated friends who participated in the study. Approximately 67% of the total possible ninth grade populationparticipated in this study; thus, the friends who ended up in each participant’s “group” for this study likely reflected only partof their total collection of nominated friends. It is also interesting to note that the percentage of participants having recip-rocated friendship nominations was fairly high. It is possible that the adolescents who chose to participate in this project didso because their friends participated. While this phenomenon resulted in a larger sample size for group-level analyses, it isprobable that children who felt more alienated at school, or who did not have close friends at school, were less likely toparticipate in this study.

Although childrenwere instructed to think about the friends that they had nominated immediately before completing theFG engagement and disaffection assessment, it is impossible to know whether they were actually thinking about each andevery nominated friend as a group or collective. Furthermore, it is unclear whether a child’s collection of friendship nomi-nations overlappedwith a reciprocal nominee’s collection of nominations. Ideally, a child would have answered the questionsabout all nominated friends and all of the nominations would have been reciprocated. This issue may have contributed tolower levels of agreement among certain groups, especially those more likely to have missing data (e.g., more disaffectedgroups), and/or to lower cross-reporter correlations (e.g., self-reported and group aggregated FG engagement). It also callsinto question the appropriateness of creating a group score based on reciprocal friend nominations, which may artificiallytruncate group membership. The reciprocal approach ensures at least some degree of overlap in children’s “conceptualized”groups about which FG engagement and disaffection ratings were made. Just as social networks differ in fluidity and density,the notion of “group” is likely well defined for some children and amorphous for others.

One way to overcome this issue would be to limit groups to a small number of friends (e.g., triads or dyads) and requireeach nominee to have nominated the same combination of friends. In this way, assessments of FG engagement and

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867 865

disaffection would be based on the same collection of children. The problem with this approach is that placing suchrestrictions on friendship group definition would likely underestimate the larger context. Another way to ensure clearlydefined friendship groups would be to recruit self-defined friendship groups in future studies. This approach would obviouslyeliminate from study more peripheral group members, isolates, and friendless children.

Future directions

The fact that FG engagement and disaffection were not redundant suggests the possibility of other profiles of FGengagement and disaffection. For example, some highly engaged groups may also have a relatively high level of disaffection,or groups could be low on both dimensions. Such groups would likely be unstable over time and possibly dissolve, but it isalso feasible that groups would go through different motivational stages as theywere forming or transforming and eventuallymove to a more stable motivational profile (high engagement, low disaffection). Future studies could examine the likelihoodof various profiles of FG engagement and disaffection, identify the type of children most likely to belong to these groups, andtrack their stability and change over time.

The findings associated with within-group agreement generally support a referent-shift consensus composition model.Another model in Chan’s (1998) hierarchy is dispersion, which posits that agreement and the distribution of scores withina group are meaningfully related to the outcomes of interest. Future studies should consider this and other more complexcomposition models as they relate to adolescent peer groups (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). For example, a great deal of work hasbeen done on the various roles that individuals play in a group (e.g., Salazar, 1996). A high level of agreement between groupmembers, especially in a larger group, may not be an appropriate expectation. The group leader may describe her group ina very different way than a follower or help seeker in the group. If emergent collective properties are a more complexcombination of group members’ individual reports, simply aggregating individual-level measures to represent unit-levelconstructs may be overly simplistic or inappropriate (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

A final important next step would be to link FG engagement and disaffection to changes in adolescents’ healthy devel-opment. With longitudinal data, it would be possible to examine whether FG engagement and disaffection “launch”adolescents on a positive or negative developmental trajectory, or whether changes in FG engagement and disaffectionwouldbe associated with changes in developmental outcomes. The change model would suggest that adolescents have the ability toseek out more engaged or more disaffected systems and actually participate in shaping their own development. The changemodel also suggests that it is possible to create interventions that could change the quality of adolescents’ friendship groupmotivational systems, and therefore help to produce healthy development.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Ellen Skinner and Thomas Kindermann for inspiring this work and providingfeedback on previous versions of this manuscript. I would also like to thank my research team for their contributions to thisproject: Gwen Marchand, Paul Sticca and Diane Wille. I greatly appreciate the support of the Reynolds School District and allof the participating principals, teachers, students and parents.

Appendix. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.07.003.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Bagwell, C. L., & Coie, J. D. (2004). The best friendships of aggressive boys: Relationship quality, conflict management, and rule-breaking behavior. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 88(1), 5–24.Belle, D. (1989). Gender differences in children’s social networks and supports. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children’s social networks and social supports (pp. 173–187).

New York: Wiley.Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1996). Friends’ influence on school adjustment: A motivational analysis. In J. Juvonen, & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation:

Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 248–278). New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 934–946.Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and

bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 701–712.Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental process. In P. H. Mussen, &Wikessen. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1 (pp.

993–1028). New York: Wiley & Sons.Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61,

1101–1111.Bukowski, W. M., Velasquez, A. M., & Brendgen, M. (2008). Variation in patterns of peer influence: Considerations of self and other. In M. J. Prinstein, & K.

Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 125–140). New York: Guilford.Burk, W. J., & Laursen, B. (2005). Adolescent perceptions of friendship and their associations with individual adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral

Develoment, 29(2), 156–164.Burk, W. J., Steglich, C. E. G., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2007). Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and

individual behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4), 397–404.

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867866

Cairns, R. B., Leung, M.-C., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Friendships and social networks in childhood and adolescence: Fluidity, reliability, andinterrelations. Child Development, 66, 1330–1345.

Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89–106.Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246.Chen, X., Chang, L., & He, Y. (2003). The peer group as a context: Mediating and moderating effects on relations between academic achievement and social

functioning in Chinese children. Child Development, 74, 710–727.Cillessen, A. H. N., Jiang, X. L., West, T. V., & Laszkowski, D. K. (2005). Predictors of dyadic friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 29(2), 165–172.Collins, W. A., & Repinski, D. J. (1996). Relationships during adolescence: Continuity and change in interpersonal perspective. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams,

& T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during adolescence. Advances in adolescent development, Vol. 6 (pp. 7–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar, & L. A. Sroufe

(Eds.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology. Self processes and development, Vol. 23 (pp. 43–77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.Deptula, D. P., & Cohen, R. (2004). Aggressive, rejected, and delinquent children and adolescents: A comparison of their friendships. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 9(1), 75–104.Dishion, T. J., Eddy, J. M., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklen, K. (1997). Friendships and violent behavior during adolescence. Social Development, 6, 207–223.Dishion, T. J., French, D., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Risk, disorder, and

adaptation. Manual of developmental psychopathology, Vol. 2 (pp. 421–471). New York: Wiley.Dumont, M., & Provost, M. A. (1999). Resilience in adolescents: Protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on

experience of stress and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 343–363.Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes, & H. M. Trautner (Eds.),

The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174).Erath, S. A., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2009). Who dislikes whom, and for whom does it matter: Predicting aggression in middle childhood.

Social Development, 18(3), 577–596.Espelage, D. L., Green, H. D., Jr., & Wasserman, S. (2007). Statistical analysis of friendship patterns and bullying behaviors among youth. New Directions for

Child and Adolescent Development, 118, 61–75.Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development,

74, 205–220.Farmer, T. W. (2000). The social dynamics of aggressive and disruptive behavior in school: Implications for behavior consultation. Journal of Educational and

Psychological Consultation, 11(3 & 4), 299–321.Farmer, T. W., Xie, H., Cairns, B. D., & Hutchins, B. C. (2007). Social synchrony, peer networks, and aggression in school. In P. H. Hawley, T. D. Little, & P. C.

Rodkin (Eds.), Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior (pp. 209–233). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.French, D. C., & Conrad, J. (2002). School dropout as predicted by peer rejection and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 225–244.Furman, W., & Winkles, J. K. (2010). Predicting romantic involvement, relationship cognitions, and relationship qualities from physical appearance,

perceived norms, and relational styles regarding friends and parents. In M. J. Zimmer-Gembeck & T. A. Kindermann (Eds.). Journal of adolescence (Specialissue capturing the peer context), 33(6), 827–836.

Furman, W. C., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016–1024.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. A. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,148–162.

Furrer, C. J. (2005). The friendship group motivational system: Naturally-occurring resources and liabilities during the transition to high school. DissertationAbstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66(3-B), 1756.

Gest, S. D., Davidson, A. J., & Rulison, K. L. (2007). Features of groups and status hierarchies in girls’ and boys’ early adolescent peer networks. New Directionsfor Child and Adolescent Development, 118, 43–60.

Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer friendships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41,235–284.

Goddard, R. D., & LoGerfo, L. F. (2007). Measuring emergent organizational properties: A structural equation modeling test of self- versus group-referentperceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(5), 845–858.

Guay, F., Boivin, M., & Hodges, E. V. E. (1999). Predicting change in academic achievement: A model of peer experiences and self-system processes. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 91, 105–115.

Güro�glu, B., van Lieshout, C. F. M., Haselager, G. J. T., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2007). Similarity and complementarity of behavioral profiles of friendship types andtypes of friends: Friendships and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(2), 357–386.

Hanish, L. D., Barcelo, H., & Martin, C. L. (2007). Using the Q-connectivity method to study frequency of interaction with multiple peer triads: Dopreschoolers’ peer group interactions at school relate to academic skills? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 118, 9–24.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the social support scale for children. University of Denver.Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13.Hartup, W. W. (2005). Peer interaction: What causes what? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 387–394.Hymel, S., Comfort, C., Schonert-Reichl, K., & McDougall, P. (1996). Academic failure and school dropout: The influence of peers. In J. Juvonen, & K. R.

Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 66–97). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.Kindermann, T. A. (2003). Development of children’s social relationships. In J. Valsiner, & K. Connolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 407–

430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on changes in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78(4),

1186–1203.Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.

J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ladd, G. W. (2005). Children’s peer relations and social competence. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer adversity in the development of children’s psychological adjustment problems. Child

Development, 74, 1325–1348.LaGreca, A.M., & Lopez,N. (1998). Social anxietyamongadolescents: Linkageswithpeer relationsand friendships. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 26, 83–94.Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 616–657.Leung, M.-C. (1996). Social networks and self enhancement in Chinese children: A comparison of self reports and peer reports of group memberships. Social

Development, 5, 146–157.Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2008). The multilevel latent covariate model: A new, more reliable

approach to group-level effects in contextual studies. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 203–229.Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of

School Psychology, 35(1), 81–99.Maccoby, E. E. (1986). Social groupings in childhood: Their relationship to prosocial and antisocial behavior in boys and girls. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M.

Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behaviour: Research, theories and issues (pp. 263–284). New York: Academic Press.

C.J. Furrer / Journal of Adolescence 33 (2010) 853–867 867

Marcus, R. F. (1996). The friendships of delinquents. Adolescence, 31, 145–158.Moreno, J. L. (1953). Who shall survive (2nd ed.). New York: Beacon House.Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of alienation in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1),

62–75.Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306–347.Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and

average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128.Ojanen, T., Sijtsema, J., Hawley, P., & Little, T. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in early adolescents’ friendship development: Friendship selection,

influence, and prospective friendship quality. In M. J. Zimmer-Gembeck & T. A. Kindermann (Eds.). Journal of adolescence (Special issue capturing the peercontext), 33(6), 837–851.

Orpinas, P., & Frankowski, R. (2001). The aggression scale: A self-report measure of aggressive behavior for young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence,21, 50–67.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and

social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611–621.Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Erath, S., Wojslawowicz, J. C., & Buskirk, A. (2006). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental

psychopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Risk, disorder, and adaptation. Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley.Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Price, J., & DeRosier, M. E. (1995). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental psychopathology

perspective. In D. Cicchetti, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Risk, disorder, and adaptation. Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 2 (pp. 96–161). New York: Wiley.Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335.Rook, K. S., & Pietromonaco, P. (1987). Close relationships: Ties that heal or ties that bind? In W. H. Jones, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal

relationships: A research annual, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–35) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral

development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131.Ryan, A. M. (2001). Peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135–1150.Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: An organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior

and development. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 701–728.Sage, N. A., & Kindermann, T. A. (1999). Peer networks, behavior contingencies, and children’s engagement in the classroom. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45,

143–171.Salazar, A. J. (1996). An analysis of the development and evolution of roles in the small group. Small Group Research, 27, 475–503.Savin-Williams, R. C., & Berndt, T. (1990). Friendship and peer relations. In S. Feldman, & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold (pp. 277–307). Cambridge, MA:

HarvardUniversity Press.Seidman, E., Chesir-Teran, D., Friedman, J. L., Yoshikawa, H., Allen, L., Roberts, A., & Aber, J. L. (1999). The risk and protective functions of perceived family and

peer microsystems among urban adolescents in poverty. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 211–237.Shulman, S., & Laursen, B. (2002). Adolescent perceptions of conflict in interdependent and disengaged friendships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12,

353–372.Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 53–79.Way, N., & Greene, M. L. (2006). Trajectories of perceived friendship quality during adolescence: The patterns and contextual predictors. Journal of Research

on Adolescence, 16(2), 293–320.Wellborn, J.G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic domain. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, New York: University of Rochester.Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 91, 76–97.Youniss, J., & Haynie, D. L. (1992). Friendship in adolescence. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 13, 59–66.