Intimacy of Friendship, InterpersonalCompetence, and A4justment duringPreadolescence and Adolescence

BUHRMESTER, DUANE. Intimacy of Friendship, Interpersonal Competence, and Adjustment durinf,

hypotheses that (a) intimacy of friendship is more integral to socioemotional adjustment duringadolescence than preadolescence, and (b) that competence in close relationship skills is more

ered using a 2-step procedure ensuring that students rated only reciprocated friendships. Self- anc

among preadolescents. Significant age differences in coefficients were predominantly found foi

,s, intimacy has most often been equated

nature and significance of friendship during Qourard, 1979), although Sullivan (1953), and

early adolescence (Bemdt, 1982; Buhrmester more recently Reis and Shaver (1988), indi-& Furman, 1986; Gottman & Mettetal, 1987; cated that the core process of intimate interac-SuIIivan, 1953). Friendships among preschool tions is not disclosure, per se, but rather theand elementary school-aged children revolve experiences of feeling understood, validated,primarily around playmate activities and and cared for that accompany self-disclosure,group acceptance, whereas adolescent friend- As a feature of relationships, intimacy usually

J functioning (Buhrmester & tion." Although exactly what features com-furman, iy?H>; Sullivan, 1953), few studies prise intimate collaborative friendships ishave empirically examined diese implica- open to debate, at a minimum they involvetions. The present study investigated whether engaging in mutual activities, self-disclosure,there are age differences between preadoles- and reciprocal feelings of satisfaction with thecence and adolescence in how important inti- relationship (Furman & Robins, 1985; Man-macy of friendship is to adjustment and narino, 1976; Sullivan, 1953). The currentgrowth of interpersonal competencies. study is primarily concerned with intimacy as

The construct of intimacy has been used ^ feature of relationships.

Los Angeles Unified Schools for participating in this study. I we

Development, the University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, T>

1102 Child Development

ies have documented diat, during early ado- (roughly 8 to 12 years) and adolescent (olderlescence, children's fnendships become more than about 13 years) samples to determineintimate as indicated by more frequent com- whether there is an increase with age in thepanionate exchanges, personal disclosure, strength of the association between friend-

and provision of emotional support (Buhrmes- ship intimacy and psychosocial adjustment

ter & Furman, 1987; Gottman & Mettetal, more broadly defined (e.g., anxiety, depres-SmoUar, 1985; see Steinberg, sion, hostility, sociabilily, and self-esteem).

^^j^^^^ jg^gj j ^ ^^,^t^ adolescent friend-^^ demands greater fecUity in a number of^ relattomhip competencies (here re-

tic relationships and only partially overlapWiA Ae playmate skUls demanded in earlychildhood.

lie association be- According to Ais reasoning, adolescentsind a^ustment. A who lack Aese specific relationship com-le links between petencies are more likely to have difficulty

self-esteem and friendship intimacy. Self- achieving intimacy in Aeir friendships. Theyreported closeness of friendship has been are likely to have fewer friendships Aat arefound to be positively related to self-esteem more superficial in nature, and Aus Aeseamong pieadolescents (Bukowski & Hosa, youAs are also likely to be at greater risk for1989; Cauce, 1986; Maimarino, 1978), and actfustment problems. At the same time, be-similar findings have been reported in some cause Aey are unable to estabUsh intimatestudies of adolescents (O'DonneU, 1976). friend^ps, Aey probably miss out on experi-OAer studies, however, have revealed weak ences Aat could finAer promote Ae growAcorrelations between friendship intimacy and of Aese competencies (Hartup & Sancilio,self-esteem (Bemdt, 1987; BlyA & Traeger, 1986). That is, many of Ae subtleties concem-1987; Jourard, 1979). Almost no one, how- ing when and what to self-disclose and however, has directly compared preadolescent to provide emotional support are probably

erac- issues concerning: (a) the extent of conver-, ,,ould gence among self- and friend's ratings of

expect uie assuciauon between interpersonal fnendship quality and interpersonal compe-competence and intimacy in friendship to be tence, and (b) the validity ofthe Interpersonalstronger during adolescence than preadoles- Competence Questionnaire (Buhrmester etcence because it is during adolescence that al., 1988) for use with preadolescents and ado-•' • lteractional processes that demand and lescents.

io studies have attempted to investigate Subjectsr1«i/«]opmental change directly. Man- The initial preadolescent sample con-

6, 1979) and McGuue and Weisz sisted of 133 fifth and sixth graders (68 girls),o scored high on ages 10-13 years (M = 11.3), whereas the ini-" • tial adolescent group consisted of 100 eighth

and ninth graders (44 girls), ages 13-16 years._.^ ^ , re likely to (M = 14.4), fi-om ethnically and racially di-be involved in stable close friendships than verse metropolitan Los Angeles schools. Thechildren who scored low on these measures, preadolescents represented 85% of the chil-These investigators, however, studied only a dren from seven mixed-aged classrooms in

w age range of children (10-12 years) two elementary schools, whereas the adoles-.1 . . J . J . _ii i I l,,„J.„ ^^^t.^ .„„„„*:*,,J. ] AAOf^ .,f *!>„ J.1 f :id consequently did not attempt to evaluate cents constituted 44% ofthe youths from nine

.'hether there were developmental changes classrooms in one junior high school. Thein the importance of these competencies. Fur- lower percentage of adolescents taking part inin the importance of these competences pthermore, they did not assess altruism and the study w operspective taking as it was manifested parental consent forms. After the friendshipspecifically in the context of intimate friend- pairing procedure (explained below), the

ship (see Price & Ladd, 1986). This is prob- sample consisted of 102 preadolescents andlematic because we know that children be- 70 adolescents.

nave aiirerentiy towara n ienas ana

nonfKends (Hartup, 1983). ^ ' T t J ^ o s t^^rocedure w

One general obstacle to researcb on ado- fHendship intoacy^'lnitidl^, ,__

lescent social competence has been the un- cedures were used to identify relationships inavailability of adequate measures. Althougb which pairs of students reciprocally reported

methods have been developed to assess the that they were friends. Students tben ratedskills needed by younger cbildren to gain the intimacy of their relationships with recip-peer-group acceptance (Asher, 1983; Dodge, rocal friends. This method of assessment isPettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986; Putallaz & similar to that employed by Bemdt (1981),Gottman, 1981), little work bas been done to and differs in important ways (which will bedevelop measures that specifically assess the discussed later) from tbe more common prac-interpersonal competencies called for in in- tice of baving students rate tbeir seif-pro-timate relationships (Ford, 1982). Recently, claimed "best friends." Students also rated

lege-aged adolescents that specifically

portant in both close fnendships and romantic Proceduresrelationships. This measure was modified . ^ " ^ """-e gathered in I

slightly in the present study to investigate ™°^- P ™ " * J ^"""'l.

sex schoolmates participating in the study ande cross-sectional study reported instructed to indicate which peers tbey con--ps of preadolescents and adoles- sidered close friends. Cbildren were told thate administered several question- "close friends are kids you know very well,investigate age differences in the spend a lot of time witb in and out of school,

trengths of associations among friendship in- and wbo you talk to about things that happen

central suLously, the data also addressed tv

1104 Child Development

loiescent'sZ Adolescent Interpersonal Competencein fte studv Cuestionnoire (AlCP^.-This newly devel-II g ^ e r s a t "P*"* * ^ " » ' " questionnaire assessed the fol-the fifHi/sixth '""''"S ^"^ domains of competence that are

: in close relationships (sample items

preadolescents and

with reciprocal close iriends. li

schoolmates whom subjects had noniinatedfhends (but wbo bad not reciprocated thenomination) were identified so every childhad two peers to rate on questionnaires (seebelow). These nonreciprocated fiiendshipswere not included in the analyses. Instances

of reciprocal fairly good friends were alsoidentified, and students rated one fairly goodfnend on the fnendship and competencemeasures. The findings for fairly good fnends

are not reported here, however, bpranse nf

space limitations and becaivery few significantratings.

Measures

Fricm. . ,tionnaire consisted of L__

Companionship, Intimate

tionships Inventory (Furmai- —

1985). An Ulustiative intimate disclosure iireads; "How often do you share secrets andprivate feelings with this person?" Subjectsrated the qualities of their relationships withidentified fnends using a 5-point Likert-typescale (e.g., "1 = Never or hardly ever" to "5= VERY often or EXTREMKLY much").

fHends that they have been neglectful or...considerater), and initiation of friendships("How good is tfiis person at phoning friends

' things togethe??").

The AICQ was developed by modifyingInterpersonal Competence Questionnaire

' t was o r ^ a l l y devel-

- , ^ciose^friendships and romantic

relationships (Buhrmester et al., 1988). Stud-• " " demonstrate that its

they col t

relationships (Buhrmester et al., 1jf "^ * e ^ " ^ 8 ^ ICQ demonstra

J™ ^<^l^ " " adequately reliable, they c" ^ ^° *^* predicted i5ve-factar simple struc-

'f"'- ^^ *''>' con-elsrte in predictable anddiscriminant ways with theoretically relatedjariables. In rewording tiie ICQ it f

ere wereith these

° " ^ "««« '» '"ff * « vocabulary appro-nate for young adolescents without chang-"« *<= substantive content of questions.

man's (1978) S-point rating scale to indiesthe level of competence and comfort that ea...target child would have in handling each typeof situation (e.g., "1 = Poor at this; would beso uncomfortable and unable to handle tbis

Duane Buhrmester 1105

alpba coefficients were computed separately Hostility, r = - .06 and - .37 (among preado-for the two age groups and were bigb: preado- lescents and adolescents, respectively); Socia-lescents (.93) and adolescents (.92). bility-Anxiety/Depression, r = - .15 and

' '•^'^' Hostility-Anxiety/Depression, r = .62

adolescents*Vand'adoiescen" (.12)"'"'" Tt2tiTZ"l}^t7^''±ll!^Cf.!^]Socioemotional Adjustment (SA).—A dimensions of adjustment, althougb the mod-

40-item self-report questionnaire was devel- est te moderate size of the associations sug-oped for this study as a relatively brief yet gests that the scales nonetheless assess dis-broad measure of several spberes of self- tinguishable aspects of adjustment. Whereasperceptions of socioemotional adjustment. It information about the validity of these scaleswas necessary to develop this measure be- is limited, the available data indicate thatcause existing measures of child adjustment scale scores are correlated in theoreticallywere either too narrow in scope (i.e., assess- predictable ways with other mfo'^m,.^ nf -n-ing only one sphere of adjustment) or took cial frinctioning (E ' "more Ume to administer than was allotted byschool personnel. Items similar to those found Results

•'le Child Behavior Check List, the Child _ ,^^., ,^,^,^ „ , „ . „ , , ,

point Likert-tyS' s^c'Se"'('?grn° = "Never* OT ° " P ™< *'"'• Consistent with findings fromnot at all" to "5 = Very often or very much"). P^'* ''^'^''^' ^ two-way analysis (ANOVA) of

Factor analyses revealed three orthogo- sex, F(l,168) = 4.02, p < .05, witb girls (M =nal dimensions labeled Sociability, Hostility, 3.22) rating their friendships as mr ' - 'and Anxiety/Depression (see Buhrmester, than boys (M = 3.0" ~1989, for details). Scale scores were computed tions, adolescents dby averaging items tbat assess eacb dimen- fiiendships as more ision. Example items included: "How well do cents. This finding is surprising b«yon work witb other people?" (Sociability; studies examining * "'10 items), "How often do you lose your simi'

- - - - ,wof- age

im .80 to .87 for preadolescents and .72 varied according to sex, age, and thw. - , ^ ^ ...

•• ' ' • - rater (self vs. close friend). There was a sig-nificant effect of type of rater, F(l,167) =

1106 CbUd Development

= 3.62). These differences are similar to friendship intimacy. Fischer's procedurethose found for college students' ICQ ratings (with alpha set at .05) revealed that self-of self, and friends (Buhrmester et al., 1988). reported friendshipThere was also a significant efifect of gri " " "F(l,167) = 16.25, p < 01 ith d l s

(M 357) d(M = _3.57) rated as les.s competent^ tihaii age di

ler, they lower their estimates ment, seemingly because of the relatively

p g). This age differ- of adjustment Significant age difierences

studies where, as between friend-rated intimacy and adjust-

ower their estimates ment, seemingly because of the relatively(Stipek & Maclver, stronger correlations for the preadolescent

h i i f i t i .sample.1989).^ There were no other significanteffects or interactions. . j . ^^ correlations contained in Table 3

rr ." - —f^ contention that interpersonalcompetence is related to friendship intimacy- ' lg adolescence. Both self- and fHend-

Associations among Friendship Intimacy, friend-rated friendship intimacy scores for the

Adjustment, and Competence adolescent sample. It is noteworthy that self-Table 2 provides clear evidence that ratings of competence were related just as

friendship intimacy is related to adjustment strongly to fHend ratings of friendship inti-for adolescents. All four dimensions of .self- macy as to self-ratings of friendship inUmacy.reported adjustment were significandy — ' ., - J . .^ , . . . . L umoderately (r = -.24 to .56)both self-and friend ; • • '•

Duane Buhrmester 1107

Sociabiuiy ..

nd ratings of fnendship intimacy, aithough

re evide'nt""^' ' " e expecte irechon

ro«ngs.-The extent of agreement between p < .01) and from B=self- and friend ratings is of interest for both adolescents (H^ chan,conceptual and methodological reasons. In- .03). Thus, although

Secondary Analyses both age groups: from B^ = .04 to R^ = .24 forCorrespondence between self- and friend preadolescents (B^ change, F[l,101] = 12.46,

,__. .T.,.- - . ^ -^ . . r . between p < .01) and from R' = .19 to B" = .34 foradolescents (H^ change, F[l,69] = 7.08, p <

, „ _„ .03). Thus, although AICQ scores sharedtraclass correlations were computed between some variance with close friends' FI scores, aself-report and friend-reported FI scores, substantial proportion of a friend's appraisal

There were high levels of agreement among of a subject's competence was independent ofadolescents' ratings, r = .81, and moderate the perceived intimacy of the friendship.

" " agpreadolescents'ratings,r = .38. These analyses indic?t» *ot fi-.»nrlc'™Kn».!" " • • • • " • jdfrBm of competence and fri

Bemdt and Das (1987) have argued that whose fnendships were ratethe quality of children's friendships influ- and friend reports) as compaences their perceptions of their friends' per- ing, and satisfying reported thsonalities. If this is true, then friends' judg- competent, more sociable, le

1108 Child Development

anxious/depressed, and have higher self- how the results are interpreted. Subjects didesteem compared to peers involved in less not rate their self-identified "best" friendsintimate friendships. These findings are con- (which has been the most common practice insistent with the claim that the processes that past studies) but rather rated "close" friendscreate intimacy in adolescent friendships are who had reciprocally nominated themselvesimportant determinants of mental health and as close friends. This procedure may in partthe growth of competence. account for the Mure to find the expected

developmental increase in mean ratings of-^gy friendship intimacy. As best friend relation-

many problems mayoverburden friends with unpleasant disclo-sures or may be less able to decenter and pro-youths lacking in interpersonal competence The lack of age differences in intimacymay have greater difficulty establishing and may have also been related to that fact that amaintaining intimate friendships. Although lower proportion of adolescents' friends par-the correlational nature of the results make it ticipated in the study (owing to the lower pro-impossible to draw conclusions about the di- portion of the total school population partici-rection of causation, it seems likely that a pating), thereby reducing the likelihood that

•• ' • • • • •• • ex- adolescents were paired (by chance) withiidi- their "best" friend. This aspect of sampleiter- selection (which in large part was a result of

and, in tum, adjustment the inherently dtSerent institutional and so-determine how success- cioecological structiires of elementary and

,„ ,._ . r^__,_^ . . , „ - , . -inior h i * sehools) may have worked against

d, self-reported friendship inti- "f*"re strongly related to adjustment macy.

. .-sonal competence during adoles- Aimougn mese were noc necessaruy suo-—n preadolescence. These hndings jects' very best friendships, they appear to

support the view diat preadolescent friend- i,ave represented relsUionships from small cir-ships typically do not demand the interper- ^i^ ^f igjg fiiendships among these youAs.sonal competencies called for in more mature ^ ^ know this because: (a) most childrenforms of close relationships. Tliese findings nominated only a handfol of peers as closeare also consistent with the view that, dur- f^^^^ (j ^ ^bout four for preadrfescents anding preadolescence, parents pby a retovely (wo for adolescents), and (b) children's ratings

greater role than peers in frilfilltag children s of the intimacy of these retoionships weresocial needs and shaping their acjustment ^^jy g^^y i^^j ^^^ the ratings of self-(Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). On the o*er identified best friendships that have been re-(Buhrmhand, t

ifriendship intimacy, but merely modestferences in the expedsd direction. For

d l frd f iferences in the expedsd direction. For , _ , , ^ , ^ UTOBUCU UJ aucuum .ur i«»i madolescents, friend reports of intimacy were chins nr for closp friendshins we can bemoderately correlated with adjustment and joiSbly c o n S n t that the p^cesses thatcompetence. The discrepancies in findings thought to mediate the associations betwacross self- and friend reports cannot easily be friendship and socioemotional adaptexplained. Further work is needed to repli- ^ disclosure-validation, provision of sup-cate or explain these findings. port, and the exercise of intarpersooal compe-

The methods used to assess friendship tence) are ^iplicable to close as well as bestand friendship intimacy have implications for friendships. (My fmther research will reveal

Duane Buhrmester 1109

whether the findings reported here also bold meet standard criteria for internal consistencytrue for best fnendships more narrowly de- reliability and are correlated in meaningfrilfined. However, because children spend a ways wilii theoretically related variables. Thegreat deal of time interacting witb peers who moderately strong agreement between self-fkll in the "close friend" category, the results ratings and ratings by close friends fiirtherreported here describe a significant arena of suggests that the AICQ assesses meaningfrilchildren's social lives. and visible dimensions of social bebavior.

child has unreciprocated (and often unreal- sures. These questionntistic) feelings of closeness toward a peer. This perceptions of their friendships, competen-is important because, in theory, unilateral cies, and adjustment, and accordingly thefriendships are not expected to be positively findings might have differed if behavioralrelated to social adaptation. In feet, the corre- methods were used. Even if children's per-lations between intimacy ratings and other ceptions differ substantially from observedvariables reported here are, on average, some- behavior, however, children's perceptions arewhat sti-onger than those reported by investi- important to investigate in tbeir own rigbtgators gathering self-identified best friend rat- (Olson, 1977). There is substantial evidenceings_ (e.g., Bemdt, 1987; Blyth & Traeger, indicating that subjective appraisals are sig-ve appraisals ar

_„..„ _ . . „ . . ts of behavior (Bar _

that, by excluding ratings of unilateral friend- 1986). One strength of the present stiidy wasships, the assessment procedure reduced a that by gathering both self-and peer ratings, Isignificant source of "noise" in the data that was able to determine the degree to whichmay have acted to attenuate the correlations children hold common perceptions of theirfound in previous studies. friendships and levels of competence. Tbe re-

sults show that, at least among adolescents,

__ ^ ^ ..ot only was there agree--.-nt between sources of ratings, but similar

?e-re- pattems of con-elations were observed acrossmong and between self- and close-friend ratings,

ir friend- These convergent findings suggest that these• ' - " - " • op t ions are anchored in a shared social

found for adolescents than preadolescents.This age difference suggests that tbere isgreater reciprocity in perceptions and feelingsof closeness in friendship among adolescentsthan preadolescents. The surprising strengthof the correlations between self- and friendratings among adolescents suggests that ado-lescents are very aware of how close or distant

the qualities of their in-^ ™so refiect a more dynamic

relational process in which adolescents regu-late their own feelings and behavior to\fiiends so as to tiy to matcb what theyceive as their friend's level of investment m

Taken together, the results show tbatthere is an initial basis for confidence in thereliability and validity ofthe AICQ as » mea-sure of perceptions of interpersonaltence, particularly for adolescents.

1110 ChUd Development

and friendship on perceptions ofthe personal- perceptions ofthe pereonal relationships in

d relationships with par- (Eds.), Conversations of friends: SpeadatiomSalzinger, J, Antrobers, & on affective development (pp. 192-240). New

Socio/ networks of chil- York: Cambridge University Press.

, id college students (pp. Hartup, W. W. (1983). The peer system. In E. M.171-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm. Hetherington (Ed), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),

uhrmester, D. (1989). Manual for the Sodoemo- Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Sociali-

tional Adjustment Questionnaire. Unpub- zation, personality, and social developmentlished manuscript. Program m Psychology, (pp. 103-196). New Yorlc; Wiley.University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX. Hartup, W. W., & Sancilio, M. F. (1986). Children's

ing ftincdons of friendship in childhood: A (Eds.), Social behavior in autism (pp. 61-80).

neo-SuUivanian perspective. In V.J.Derles ' -

sonality and Social Psychology, 55, 991-1008. velopmental Psychology, 12,55

" T. J. Bemdt '& G. Ladd (Eds.), males. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133,

986). Social networks and social fiiends'hip and altruism in preadolesoent girls.

Exploring the effects of early ado- Psychiatry. 42, 280-.284.

dships. American Journal of Com- McGuire, K., & Weisz, J. R. (1982). Social cognition

hology, 14, 607—628. and behavior correlates of preadolescent chum-L, Pettit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L., & ships. ' " ' " '

hs of the Society for Re- lated

:perience. New York: Wiley. ger & H. L. Raush (Eds.), Close

Dnane Buhrmester 1111

behavioral assessment of Child Development, 58,283-305.

children and families (pp. 121-149). London: Steinberg, L. (1989). Adolescence. New York: Al-

laver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theortj of

ch in personal relationships (pp. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent rela-

idon: Wiley. tionships with mothers, fathers, and friends.