kempner - university of minnesota
TRANSCRIPT
Implicit Theories of Friendships:
Examining the Roles of Growth and Destiny Beliefs in Children’s Friendships
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
BY
Sara Gayle Kempner
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
W. Andrew Collins, Ph.D., Nicki R. Crick, Ph.D.
August 2008
i
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my advisors, Andy Collins and Nicki Crick. Andy, thank you for being
a mentor and advisor to me and supporting the development of my interests. Your continuing
dedication to my education means so much to me. Nicki, you welcomed me into your lab and
allowed me to broaden my research experiences. I am grateful for your nurturance and support.
I would like to thank my committee members Richard Weinberg and Jeffry Simpson.
Rich, you have been a great supporter of all my interests in graduate school. Jeff, it was in your
close relationships seminar where the ideas for this project first emerged. Thank you for being a
part of this project.
I owe a great deal of gratitude to the schools, teachers, and children who participated in
this study and shared their thoughts with me. Especially one child who asked me how I was
going to use their answers to get a Ph.D. After explaining that I would put their answers into a
computer, analyze it, and write a paper the child remarked, “Well that sounds pretty easy!”
I would like to thank all the undergraduates who helped collect and enter data. Rachel
Kruzel, I do not think I could have done all of this without your enthusiasm and support for this
project.
I would also like to thank my family who has supported me wholeheartedly through all
of my pursuits. Mom and Dad, you have always expected the best from me and done everything
you could to make sure I achieved it. I am very lucky to have a wonderful family who is
interested in and supportive of my interests. You have been there when I needed you and
reminded me that I could do this.
Last, but certainly not least, I could not have written this dissertation without my own
friends. To my friends who have been supporting me since applying to graduate school seemed
like the biggest challenge, you helped make this possible. I am proud and lucky to call you my
friends. To the friends that I made in graduate school, your wisdom and support over these
years has been invaluable. I am proud to call you my colleagues and friends.
ii
Abstract
Individuals formulate implicit theories about the nature of friendships, which influence their
motivations and behaviors in friendships. In the present study, a measure of implicit theories of
friendship was developed and tested in a sample of 166 sixth grade children. Children also
completed measures assessing the importance of friendship qualities as well as specific
behaviors in their friendships with their best friends. Results of the study validated the measure
of implicit theories of friendship and showed that growth beliefs were positively related to
intimacy, conflict resolution and validation and caring in children’s friendships. Destiny beliefs
were not directly related to features of children’s friendships. Gender, satisfaction in the
friendship, and the length of the friendship moderated the relation between implicit theories of
friendship and the importance of friendship qualities and behaviors in the friendship.
Implications of the findings as well as developmental considerations are discussed. Future
directions for the study of implicit theories of friendship are presented.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................. i
Abstract................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables............................................................................................................ v
List of Figures.......................................................................................................... vi
Introduction............................................................................................................ 1
The Significance of Friendships................................................................. 1
The Role of Representational Models in Social Behavior.......................... 3
Implicit Theories........................................................................................ 6
Gender Differences................................................................................... 10
Overview and Hypotheses........................................................................ 11
Methods................................................................................................................. 15
Results.................................................................................................................... 22
Discussion............................................................................................................... 36
References............................................................................................................... 50
Appendix A.............................................................................................................. 58
Appendix B.............................................................................................................. 59
Tables...................................................................................................................... 60
Figures..................................................................................................................... 67
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics for Scales
Table 2. Factor loadings for Implicit Theories of Friendship Measure.
Table 3. Correlations between growth and destiny theories for validation purposes.
Table 4. Correlations between growth and destiny theories and peer behaviors.
Table 5. Correlations between growth and destiny theories and friendship qualities.
Table 6. Correlations between implicit theories and friendship qualities by gender.
Table 7. Effects of Destiny and Growth scales on Friendship Qualities.
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. The interaction between destiny and growth beliefs predicting children’s ratings of
how upset they would be if there was conflict in their friendship with their best friend.
Figure 2. The two‐way interaction between friendship length and growth beliefs predicting the
value of conflict resolution in the friendship.
Figure 3. The two‐way interaction between friendship length and growth beliefs predicting the
value of validation and caring behaviors in the friendship.
Figure 4. The three‐way interaction between friendship length and growth and destiny beliefs
predicting intimate exchange in the friendship.
Figure 5. The two‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and destiny beliefs predicting
relational aggression in the friendship.
Figure 6. The two‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and destiny beliefs predicting
levels of conflict, both to and from the best friend.
Figure 7. The three‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and growth and destiny
beliefs predicting the importance of conflict resolution in the friendship.
Figure 8. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting relational
aggression in the friendship.
Figure 9. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting intimate
exchange in the friendship.
Figure 10. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting satisfaction
with the friendship.
1
Introduction
Individuals vary in their beliefs and expectations about what a friendship is and how
friends should behave. Social cognitive approaches to interpersonal relationships are replete in
social psychology research, and while developmental psychologists have studied social cognition
with respect to individuals’ functioning, less research has explicitly explored the developmental
linkages between social cognition and friendships. In particular, very little is known regarding
how individuals formulate theories about the nature of friendships and how these theories
influence functioning both in individuals and friendships. One area of research that has focused
on how individuals differ in their conceptualizations of attributes is the study of implicit theories
(Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995a). Much of the work in this field has focused on achievement and
social judgment (Dweck, 2000), but more recently researchers have extended the study of
implicit theories to relationships (Franiuk, Cohen, & Pomerantz, 2002; Knee, 1998; Knee, Patrick,
& Lonsbary, 2003). This research has shown important connections between individual’s implicit
theories of romantic relationships, whether they believe in romantic destiny (destiny beliefs) or
relationships develop over time (growth beliefs), and their goals and behavior in romantic
relationships. The application of implicit theories to the study of friendships can provide
interesting insights into the relation between individual’s theories of friendship and behavior.
The goal of the present research is to examine associations between growth and destiny beliefs
about friendships and behavior and qualities of children’s friendships.
The Significance of Friendships
Theoretical arguments have been made for the developmental significance of
friendships (Buhrmester & Furman, 1986; Sullivan, 1953). Much of the current work on the
2
significance of friendships is grounded in the theoretical explanations of Sullivan (1953). Sullivan
argued that friendships, which emerge during early adolescence, present a unique
developmental context for the development of certain social skills. Up until early adolescence,
Sullivan argued that children’s interpersonal needs are satisfied within the peer context.
However, the adolescence period marks the need for greater intimacy and closeness that can
only be satisfied within friendships. Buhrmester and Furman (1986) expanded on Sullivan’s
original theorizing by highlighting the unique skills that are necessary for and develop within
friendships. These skills include compassion, empathy, and loyalty. In line with Sullivan’s
theoretical stance on friendship, empirical research has supported the position that different
social competencies are required for friendships than for peer relationships. In one study
children’s friendship quality was predicted by the goals and strategies children use in response
to conflict, irrespective of their standing within their peer group (Rose & Asher, 1999). Thus,
neglecting to study friendships risks missing important information about children’s functioning.
Research in the past two decades has made advances in demonstrating that friendships
are an important context of development and contribute to individual competence and behavior
(Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Although many studies of friendship suggest that having a
friend is a predictor of positive adjustment, over inflating the positive benefits of friends must
be cautioned. Friendships are complicated and understanding who a child’s friend is as well as
the quality of their friendship are important features that must be considered when studying
how experiences with friends affect adjustment (Hartup, 1996).
Historically, studies of friendship conceptions have focused on the normative shifts
occurring in the way children and adolescents reason about friendships and formulate
3
expectations within friendships across their development (Bigelow, 1977). These studies show
that adolescents are far less egocentric in their thought and show more complexity in their
reasoning abilities than children. Thus, adolescents begin to focus more on aspects of intimacy,
trust, and faithfulness with their friendships as opposed to more concrete qualities (Buhrmester,
1996; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). However, few studies have examined individual differences
in children’s conceptions of friendship and the correlates of these differences, both at the
individual and dyadic level (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995; Rubin et al., 2006).
Studies of social cognition are beginning to look at cognition about friendships, as
opposed to cognition about peers generally or specific friends. This is an important area of
research given that we know that social cognitive variables play an important part in behavior
and that deficits in social‐cognitive processing may contribute to difficulties in the peer group
(Rubin et al., 2006). Focusing on individual differences in how adolescents theorize about
friendships, rather than cognitions about the self or a peer will provide more information about
differences between friendships. The present research will examine how implicit theories about
friendships are related to children’s behaviors and friendship qualities.
The Role of Representational Models in Social Behavior
The role of social cognition in understanding behavior is not new to the field of
psychology or development. Several lines of theory and research have posited that behavior
across relationships and development can best be understood by considering the cognitive
structures that develop with relationship experiences. Bowlby (1973) posited the notion of
internal working models as the intrapyschic mechanism that carries attachment representations
of the self and others based on primary attachment relationships with caregivers during infancy.
4
These representations guide individuals’ subsequent behavior in relationships later in life.
Similarly, social‐cognitive theorists have proposed that relational schemas are the cognitive link
between relationship experiences and future behavior. Baldwin (1992) argues that individuals
generalize repeated experiences and interactions into an interpersonal script that includes
expectations, goals, and feelings regarding the self and other in interaction. These scripts may
influence relational schemas which then guide future social information processing. Baldwin
states that there should be a clear link between relational schemas and behavior, however, to
date little research has been able to substantiate the proposed association between relational
schema and behavior (Holmes, 2000).
Much of the research on attachment theory and friendship has looked at the association
between attachment classifications or representations and aspects of friendships. Many studies
have looked at the longitudinal association between attachment organization during infancy and
peer and friendship functioning in early and middle childhood. For example, Elicker, Englund,
and Sroufe (1992) in reviewing literature on security of attachment and aspects of social
competence from 12 months to 6 years of age report that attachment security has been found
to be related to later peer competence and individual functioning in social contexts. They also
found that children with secure attachment histories from infancy were more likely to form
friendships at a summer camp when they were approximately 11 years old. Studies like these
have made important contributions to attachment theory; however, they focus on connecting
attachment experiences in infancy to later behavior without considering current representations
of relationships. Understanding how primary caregiver attachment relationships are carried
forward to internal working models of other relationships is much less understood; however,
some studies are beginning to undertake this challenge (Carlson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2004).
5
Research on relational schemas has also made empirical connections between
representations and behavior. Rudolph, Hammen, & Burge (1995) found that children’s
representation of peers was related to their peer competence. Children, between seven and
twelve years of age, with negative representations of their peers, including interpreting
behaviors of the peer as more negative and believing that peers engaged in negative behaviors
to hurt the child, had lower quality interactions with an unfamiliar peer during a conflict task.
Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanpää, and Peets (2005) examined children’s self‐schema and peer
relational schema, finding that a positive view of oneself was related to the endorsement of
agentic goals, but a positive perception of peers was related to the endorsement of communal
goals. Furthermore, the interaction of self and peer schemas influenced social goals, such that
the effects of self‐perception varied depending on the type of peer schema. While studies of
relational schemas include perceptions of the self and perceptions of the partner, many are still
neglecting the relationship component. The proposed implicit theories of friendship seek to
remedy this neglected facet of study by focusing specifically on the individual’s perception of
the friendship.
One of the most empirically tested representational models in the study of peer
relationships is the Social Information Processing Model (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Similar to
internal working models and relational schemas, Crick and Dodge proposed a mental “database”
that stores previous relational experiences and guides future mental processing and behavior in
social situations. In a longitudinal study of peer knowledge structures and externalizing
behavior, Burks and colleagues (Burks, Dodge, Price & Laird, 1999) highlighted the importance of
knowledge structures in perpetuating antisocial behavior. Children were followed for nine years,
from elementary school to high school. Results indicated that adolescents’ knowledge structures
6
were related to both their concurrent and future levels of externalizing problems. Furthermore,
knowledge structures, assessed in the sixth year of the study, mediated the relation between
early and later externalizing behaviors.
Implicit Theories
Much research on representations has focused on individual’s beliefs about the self and
others, but few have considered and studied representations at the level of relationships. In
order to address this limitation, the present research seeks to integrate implicit theories into the
study of representations and friendships. Implicit theories have been used to study individual’s
thoughts about the malleability of human attributes (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995) although
much of the research has not been interpersonal in nature. In their work, Dweck and colleagues
(see Dweck, 2000 for a review) broadly proposed that an entity theory is a belief that attributes
are fixed and rigid, whereas an incremental theory is a belief that attributes are malleable.
Research on implicit theories of intelligence has suggested that the way in which individuals
view the stability of intelligence influences the attributions they make for their own behavior,
the goals they bring to situations, and the way they react to challenging tasks and failure (Dweck
& Leggett, 1988). Children who endorse an entity theory of intelligence are more likely to give
up when facing challenging tasks because they view failure as a sign of their insufficient ability.
Thus, these individuals prefer tasks in which they can succeed and obtain positive judgments
from others. On the other hand, children who endorse an incremental theory of intelligence
prefer challenging tasks where they can practice their developing skills and potentially learn new
skills.
7
Recent research has applied a similar pattern of implicit theories to romantic
relationships; demonstrating that individuals hold implicit theories and goals within their
romantic relationships that are analogous to the theories and goals in achievement and social
situations. Individuals enter romantic relationships with expectations of how the relationship
will develop and the amount of effort necessary for the relationship to succeed (Franiuk et al.,
2002; Knee et al., 2003). Implicit theories of relationships capture these different expectations
and motivations in individuals’ relationships. Knee and colleagues (Knee, 1998; Knee et al., 2003)
distinguished between destiny and growth theory of relationships. Destiny theorists believe that
relationships are either “meant to be” or not, and nothing can be done to change a relationship
or romantic partner. These individuals don’t see the value in working on their relationships
because they believe that things will naturally work out if the relationship is meant to last.
Growth theorists, in contrast, believe that relationships are meant to be developed, and that
any challenges that arise can be overcome. Furthermore, they believe that relationships can
grow closer with work and progress over time.
In line with Dweck and colleagues’ work on implicit theories, researchers in the implicit
theories of the romantic relationship area have examined the relations between implicit
theories of relationships and relationship qualities. One focus of researchers has been on the
longevity of relationships. Knee (1998) found that initial assessments of relationship satisfaction
and closeness were more salient to individuals who held destiny theories. Relationships that
were initially rated as less satisfying and less close by destiny theorists were more likely to
dissolve compared to relationships of growth theorists. Similarly, Franiuk and colleagues (2002)
found that individuals with destiny theories were more likely than growth theorists to end a
relationship if they initially reported that their partner was not their soulmate. In addition,
8
perceiving one’s partner as an ideal match was beneficial to individuals holding a destiny theory,
but when the partner was not an ideal fit, it was detrimental to the relationship. Taken together,
these findings suggest that destiny theorists place an emphasis on initial relationship and
partner qualities when evaluating the viability of the relationship.
An important predictor of satisfaction in any relationship is whether or not the
individual’s needs are being met. Research on implicit theories of romantic relationships
suggests that relationship satisfaction was higher when the individual held a destiny theory and
the partner matched the individual’s ideal for a romantic partner (Franiuk et al., 2002, 2004;
Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, & Patrick, 2001). Thus, when the partner was right,
holding a destiny theory may promote greater satisfaction in the relationship than a growth
theory. However, holding a destiny theory when the partner does not meet the individual’s ideal
standards was associated with less satisfaction with the relationship. For growth theorists
relationship satisfaction was unrelated to how well the partner fit the individual’s ideal
standard.
Researchers have also considered relationship functioning based on the implicit theories
of relationships that individuals hold. When conflicts arose in relationships, growth theorists
were more likely to try to resolve the conflicts, as opposed to destiny theorists, who tended to
give in during arguments (Franiuk et al., 2002; Knee, 1998). Findings regarding satisfaction in
relationships reveal that simply knowing the theory of an individual is not enough. Relationship
satisfaction was higher for destiny theorists when they believed their partner was ideal, but
lower when they reported that their partner did not match their ideal. However, growth
theorists were less vulnerable to their perceptions of their partner when it came to their
9
relationship satisfaction. These findings suggest that attention to both general relationship
beliefs as well as specific relationship level factors are important to understanding relationship
satisfaction.
Research on implicit theories has provided great insight into many domains of human
behavior. The findings presented here have clearly demonstrated a link between the theories
people hold about relationships and their subsequent behavior. This theoretical framework lays
the foundation for exploring implicit theories in other domains. The findings from romantic
relationship theories suggest that implicit theories do not just measure individual attributes, but
individuals also apply these theories to their relationships. Given the relations found between
implicit theories and behavior, it is important to understand how these theories function within
friendships. The salience of friendships during early adolescence makes this a fertile time to
examine the role of implicit theories in friendships.
The definitions of implicit theories of friendship, used for the present study, are in line
with the definitions of implicit theories of romantic relationships. The defining feature of a
growth theory is the belief in friendship development. Here, individuals believe that friendships
require work and effort to succeed and grow. These individuals attempt to maintain their
friendships and view obstacles that arise in their friendship as an opportunity to further develop
the friendship. In terms of their friendship, they place an emphasis on friendship development
and closeness. They recognize that friendships are dynamic and are considerate to fluctuations
in behavior and qualities of the friendship. The defining feature of a destiny theory is the belief
in friendship fate. Here, individuals believe that friendships will either work or not, and
ultimately the fate of the friendship is out of each partners’ hands. These individuals attempt to
10
diagnose the validity of the friendship; is this friendship worth their involvement? In terms of
their friendship, they place an emphasis on their initial compatibility and success in hitting it off
as an indicator of the friendship’s viability. They pay close attention to specific events in the
friendship as markers of the fate of their friendship. They see that some friendships are just not
meant to be and it may be a waste of time to put effort into trying to maintain that friendship.
Gender Differences
Results are often mixed when it comes to identifying gender differences in studies of
friendship and social cognition. Studies of implicit theories of romantic relationships have
generally found no difference in theory endorsement for men and women (Franiuk et al., 2002;
Knee et al., 2001), but research on friendship consistently finds differences in content and
social‐emotional adjustment for boys and girls (Rose, 2007). Research has shown that when it
comes to relationships, females are more likely to focus on social‐emotional and relationship
maintenance behaviors whereas males focus more on dominance and using threats when
conflicts arise (Crick & Zahn‐Waxler, 2003; Maccoby, 1990; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). These
differences in gender roles in relationships will likely play a role in implicit theories of friendship
and the behaviors chosen when confronting relationship issues. Gender differences may also
result from the structure of children’s friendships. Males’ friendships tend to be a part of their
larger social network, whereas females focus more on one‐on‐one friendships (Rose & Rudolph,
2006).
Compared to boys, girls rate their friendships as more intimate (Buhrmester, 1990) and
supportive (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Studies of children’s goals in social situations have
demonstrated several differences in the goals that boys and girls choose. Boys have been found
11
to choose more goals oriented towards control (Chung & Asher, 1996), retaliation (Rose &
Asher, 1999), and agency (Ojanen, Grönroos, Salmivalli, 2005; Salmivalli, et al., 2005; Zarbatany,
Conley, & Pepper, 2004). Girls have been found to endorse more intimacy (Jarvinen & Nicholls,
1996) and relationship maintenance goals (Chung & Asher, 1996; Rose & Asher, 1999). Overall,
findings across studies suggest that girls are more focused on relationships and interpersonal
engagement, but boys are more focused on agentic goals. These gender differences have
implications for social cognition (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Given girls’ focus on relationship
development, it is possible that they will be more likely to endorse growth theories of friendship
compared to boys.
Overview and Hypotheses
The goal of the present research was to develop a measure of implicit theories of
friendship and examine the associations between implicit theories of friendship and children’s
behavior and friendship qualities.
Hypothesis 1
The first set of hypotheses serves to validate the measure of implicit theories of
friendship. The convergent and discriminant validity of the destiny and growth scales will be
assessed by examining their associations with similar measures as well as the stability of growth
and destiny beliefs over the two phases of the study. In line with existing research on implicit
theories and friendship, the following associations are hypothesized:
a. The growth and destiny scales should be uncorrelated with each other.
12
b. The Peer Attachment Quality measure will be positively, although only moderately,
correlated with the growth scale, but not correlated with the destiny scale.
c. Growth and destiny scales will be uncorrelated with measures of self‐worth.
d. Growth and destiny scales will be uncorrelated with teacher‐reported measures of
emotional health and popularity/acceptance.
e. Teacher ratings of socially helpless behavior should be positively correlated with the
destiny scale. The social helplessness scale and the destiny scale were both derived from
implicit theories of intelligence’s learned helpless orientation. Both are based on the
premise that, when the going gets tough in relationships, children who score highly on
these measures show little persistence and make few attempts to resolve problems.
f. Children’s peer relationships, specifically their caring and relationally inclusive behavior,
should be positively correlated with the growth scale. However, the destiny scale should
be uncorrelated with relationally toned peer behavior.
g. Growth scales should be highly correlated across the two phases of the study. Destiny
scales should be highly correlated across the two phases of the study.
Hypothesis 2
Once the validity of the scales has been established it is important to examine the association
between different implicit theories of friendships and qualities of children’s friendships. Given
that this is a new line of research on implicit theories, analyses will explore associations with
many of the scales included in the assessment. However, given the theoretical underpinnings of
the growth and destiny implicit theories of friendship, imply the following associations:
13
a. The following subscales of the Friendship Quality Measure will be positively
correlated with the growth scale: Intimate exchange, validation and caring, and
conflict resolution. No direct associations are expected with the destiny scale
and subscales from the Friendship Quality Measure.
b. The following subscales from the Importance of Friendship Quality Measure are
expected to be positively correlated with the growth scale: conflict resolution,
intimate exchange, and validation and caring. No direct associations are
expected with the destiny scale and subscales from the Importance of
Friendship Quality Measure.
Hypothesis 3
Following initial independent correlations between growth and destiny theories, further
analyses will examine growth and destiny theories jointly. Assuming that initial analyses show
that growth and destiny theories are statistically independent dimensions, analyses will examine
the association between functioning and the joint contributions of both implicit theories of
friendship. These analyses will serve as a more stringent test of the association between implicit
theories and functioning.
Hypothesis 4
Theoretically, the effects of implicit theories should be moderated by experiences and
qualities in the friendship. Previous research on implicit theories of romantic relationships also
supports this assertion, finding that implicit theories interact with the initial satisfaction of
romantic relationships to predict commitment and coping in the relationship (Franiuk et al.,
14
2002, 2004; Knee, 1998). Children’s history in a friendship should influence the qualities of their
friendship, just as their beliefs in implicit theories should. The next set of analyses will examine
whether gender and relationship features, such as friendship length and satisfaction, moderate
the association between belief in growth and destiny theories and friendship functioning. The
following relations are hypothesized:
a. The length of the friendship as well as the implicit theories of friendship belief held by
children should be related to outcomes in the friendship. Children high on the growth
scale should be highly invested and committed to friendships, regardless of the length.
However, children low on the growth scale may not show as much concern or
investment in newly developed friendships compared to long‐term friendships.
b. Destiny belief and satisfaction should moderate negative features of friendship, such as
conflict and aggression. Negative features in the friendship should be a signal to children
high on the destiny scale that the relationship is not working; thus they would be more
likely to terminate the friendship. In contrast, children low on the destiny scale should
have more tolerance of negative behaviors.
c. Additionally, satisfaction may play an important role in determining the extent to which
children value resolving conflicts in their friendship. If they are unhappy, high growth
beliefs should make them want to save the friendship, thus resolution should be
important. However, if they are high in destiny beliefs and less invested in saving the
friendship, they may place little value in conflict resolution.
d. Gender will be examined as a moderator of implicit theories. It is expected that girls will
show more intimate behaviors and greater valuing of intimacy in their friendships
15
compared to boys. It is likely that these differences in behaviors and values will be
associated with the effects of implicit theories on friendship qualities.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from eight sixth grade classrooms in twin cities public
elementary schools. Three schools, from two school districts, agreed to participate in the study.
Sixth grade classrooms in elementary schools were recruited because the participating children
would be in early adolescence, making it more likely that they would have more intimate and
close friendships. In addition, because these classrooms were in elementary schools, the
children would spend the majority of their day with one teacher, who would be ideally suited to
report on children’s behavior.
Of the 211 students enrolled in the eight classrooms participating in the study, 166
children participated in the study. The majority of children not participating in the study were
excluded because they neglected to return consent forms (n = 31), but a few parents declined to
let their children participate (n = 14). There were no differences between those children who
participated and those who did not participate did not differ on ethnicity or free and reduced
lunch status (a marker of socioeconomic status); however, boys were less likely to participate
than girls (t(209) = ‐3.53, p < .01).
Of the 166 children participating in the current study there were 96 girls (58%) and 70
boys (42%). The sample was relatively diverse with an ethnic composition of 67.5% Caucasian,
12.7% Black, 9.6% Hispanic, and 10.2% Asian. Information on children’s free and reduced lunch
16
status was available for only 5 of the 8 classrooms (n = 102 children), of whom 32% qualified for
free and reduced lunch. The three classrooms that did not disclose free and reduced status
lunch information are located in a more affluent suburb.
Procedure
Researchers went to each classroom and briefly explained the study to the children.
Parental consent was obtained by sending a letter home with the children describing the study
and encouraging parents to contact researchers if they had any questions. A consent form was
included with the letter. Parents could indicate whether or not they wanted their child to
participate. Children returned the signed consent forms to their teachers, which were collected
by the researchers prior to administering questionnaires.
Approximately one week later researchers returned to the classrooms to administer
questionnaires. Before beginning, children assented to their participation in the study.
Researchers emphasized that their participation was voluntary and that they didn’t have to
answer anything they didn’t want to. The confidentiality of their responses was also
emphasized. Children were told that their answers would be confidential and that no one,
including their teachers and classmates would know what they wrote down. Questionnaires
were passed out to the children in manila file folders. Children then propped up the folders on
their desks for privacy. All of the questionnaires were read aloud to the children to ensure their
understanding of the items. After completing the questionnaires, children returned the
questionnaires in the folders. The entire session took between 45 minutes and 1 hour. Children
received a notebook and a pencil for completing the questionnaires.
17
At this visit, questionnaires were left with teachers to complete at their convenience for
each child participating in the study. Teachers were paid $30 for completing the measures.
Teachers notified the researcher when they had finished completing the questionnaires (this
ranged from 3 days to 3 weeks after the questionnaires were left with teachers).
A second phase of data collection occurred four months later to assess the stability of
ITFs. Children completed the same measures in the second phase as in the first phase.
Additionally, teachers completed the same questionnaires in wave two as in wave one.
Child Measures
Implicit Theories of Friendship. A 14‐item measure was developed by the author to
assess children’s implicit theories of friendship. The items reflected either a growth or destiny
approach to friendships. Children rated the extent to which they agreed with the statements
(see appendix A for a list of items). Items for the scale were based on items used to measure
implicit theories of romantic relationships (Knee et al., 2003), but adapted to apply to
friendships. Results of factor analyses of the items used in the measure identified seven items
that loaded onto a growth beliefs subscale and four items that loaded on to a destiny scale.
Items that loaded on each of the scales were averaged to create destiny and growth theory
scales. Higher scores on each of the scales represent greater endorsement of the theory.
Children’s Peer Relationships. This measure was included to assess children’s
interactions with their peers at school broadly as opposed to more specific qualities of their
friendships. The subscales in this 15 item measure include: caring acts (e.g., “Some kids try to
cheer up other kids who feel upset or sad. How often do you do this,” “Some kids say or do nice
things for other kids. How often do you do this?”), relationally aggressive acts (e.g., “Some kids
18
try to keep certain people from being in their group when it is time to play or do an activity.
How often do you do this,” “Some kids tell their friends that they will stop liking them unless the
friends do what they say. How often do you tell friends this?”), isolation from peers (e.g., “Some
kids do things alone most of the time. How often do you do this,” “Some kids play by themselves
a lot at school. How often do you do this?”), negative affect (e.g., “Some kids feel sad at school.
How often do you feel this way,” “Some kids feel upset at school. How often do you feel this
way?”), and relational inclusivity (e.g., “When other kids are saying mean things about a person,
some kids stand up for that person. How often do you do this,” “When other people seem left
out of a group, some kids try to help them get into the group. How often do you do this?”).
Children rated how frequently they engaged in the behaviors on a 1‐5 Likert type scale (1 =
never, 5 = all the time). Items for each subscale were averaged to create subscale scores.
Inventory of Peer Attachment. In order to assess children’s peer attachments the
Inventory of Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) was included. This 25 item
measure included three subscales: communication (8 items), trust (10 items), and alienation (7
items). Children rated how true each statement was for them on a 1‐5 Likert type scale (1 =
never true, 5 = always true). Sample items included “My friends know when I'm upset about
something, ” “My friends accept me as I am,” “My friends don't understand what I'm going
through these days.” Subscales were created according to Armsden and Greenberg (1987).
Items for each subscale were summed to create subscale scores. An overall quality of
attachment score was created by summing the trust and communication scores and subtracting
the alienation score.
19
Interpersonal Goals. A shortened version of The Interpersonal Goal Inventory (Ojanen,
Grőnroos, & Salmivalli, 2005) was included to measure children’s goals in social situations. The
original measure included 33 items on 8 subscales. Only three subscales were used for the
current study because they were more directly related to the goals and hypotheses of the
present study then the excluded subscales were. The items included in the study represented
different goals in social situations with peers. Children were asked to rate how important each
of the following goals were, communal (e.g., “You feel close to them,” “Everyone feels good.”),
separate (e.g., “You do not give away too much about yourself,” “You keep your thoughts to
yourself.”), and submissive (e.g., “They do not get angry with you,” “You are able to please
them.”). Items from each of the subscales were averaged to create an overall score for each of
the three goal conditions. Higher scores indicated greater endorsement of that social goal.
Self‐worth. The general self‐worth Items from Harter’s (1982) Self‐Perception Profile for
Adolescents were used to measure children’s self‐worth. This five item scale presents children
with two contrasting statements (e.g., “Some kids like the kind of person they are, but other kids
wish they were someone else.”) and asks children to decide which of the two statements is
most like them and to what degree it is like them (“sort of true for me” or “really true for me”).
Scores on the five items were averaged to create an overall general self‐worth measure with
higher scores indicating greater self‐worth.
Assessment of Best Friendship. Before assessing children’s relationship with a best friend
we asked them to identify their best friend. Children were presented with and read a
description of a best friend (“A best friend is someone who you spend a lot of time with,
someone who knows you very well, and someone who you can talk to about your feelings and
20
things that happen to you.”). Children were then asked to write down the name of their best
friend. This was not limited to other children in their classroom and could include anyone they
felt was their best friend if that friend matched the description provided. They were then asked
to indicate the gender of their best friend and how long they had been friends. To ensure
consistency, children were provided with 6 month to 1‐year intervals to choose from in
describing the length of their best friendship(less than 6 months, 6 months‐1 year, 1‐2 years, 2‐3
years, and more than 3 years). Children were reminded that the next set of questions focused
specifically on their friendship with the person whom they had identified as their best friend.
To assess qualities of the best friendship the Friendship Qualities Measure (FQM) was
included. Parker and Asher (1993) originally had developed a measure of friendship quality to
assess various aspects of children’s friendship with their best friend. Grotpeter and Crick (1996)
further adapted this measure by adding additional scales assessing the qualities of children’s
friendship. The measure used in the present study included 38 items and included the following
subscales: overt aggression from friend (e.g., “My best friend pushes and shoves me when s/he
is mad at me.”), relational aggression from friend (e.g., “My best friend won’t let me hang out
with him/her when s/he is mad at me.”), conflict resolution (e.g., “It is easy to get over
arguments with my best friend.”), intimate exchange I‐subject intimate toward friend (e.g., “I
can talk with my best friend about the things that make me sad.”), intimate exchange II‐friend
intimate toward subject (e.g., “My best friend can tell me about his/her problems.”), subject
desire for exclusivity (e.g., “I feel jealous if I see my best friend hanging out with another kid.”),
friend demands of exclusivity (e.g., “My best friend would rather hang out with me alone, and
not with other kids.”), conflict I‐anger toward friend (e.g., “I get mad at my best friend a lot.”),
conflict II‐anger from friend (e.g., “My best friend disagrees with me a lot.”), validation and
21
caring (e.g., “My best friend tells me I am good at things.”), companionship and recreation (e.g.,
“My best friend picks me as a partner for things.”), and satisfaction (e.g., “How is this friendship
going?”). Children rated how true each statement was for their best friendship on a 1‐5 Likert
type scale (1 = never true, 5 = always true). Items for each subscale were averaged to create
subscale scores. Higher scores indicate more of that behavior in the friendship.
The Importance of Friendship Quality Measure (IFQM) was developed by Grotpeter and
Crick (1996) to parallel the Friendship Quality Measure. The Importance of Friendship Quality
Measure assesses the relative importance of specific friendship qualities. The measure used for
this study was shortened to 12 items and asked children how upset they would be if certain
things happened in their friendship with the best friend they identified earlier. The subscales
included, help and guidance (e.g., “How upset would you be if you needed help and advice and
your friend didn’t give it to you?”), conflict resolution (e.g., “How upset would you be if it was
hard to get over arguments with your friend?”), intimate exchange (e.g., “How upset would you
be if you couldn’t tell your friend about your problems?”), conflict (e.g., “How upset would you
be if you and your friend argued?”), and validation and caring (e.g., “How upset would you be if
your friend didn’t make you feel important and special?”). Children rated how upset they would
be on a 1‐5 Likert type scale (1 = not at all upset, 5 =very upset). Items for each subscale were
averaged to create subscale scores. Higher scores indicated that children placed more
importance on that quality in the friendship with their best friend.
Teacher Measures
Teachers were asked to rate each child in their class who participated on various
measures of social behavior.
22
Social Helplessness. To assess children’s social helplessness in peer interactions teachers
completed a twelve item questionnaire (Fincham, Hokoda, & Sanders, 1989). Items included,
“Makes few attempts to resolve disagreements that occur with other children,” “Makes
negative comments about him/herself when rejected by another child even though she/he
actually does have other friends,” “Makes degrading comments about his/her ability to get on
with other children when unable to join peers in social activity.” Scores across items were
averaged to create a social helplessness score with higher scores indicating greater social
helplessness.
Emotional and Peer Competence. To assess children’s general emotional health and
popularity/acceptance in the classroom, teachers were presented with two paragraphs, one
describing an emotionally healthy child and one describing a popular/accepted child, and were
asked to rate on a 1‐5 Likert type scale the extent to which the paragraphs described the
participating child. Higher scores on the two items indicated greater emotional health and
greater popularity/peer acceptance.
Results
Analysis Plan
Initial analyses, outlined in the first hypothesis, focused on the validation of the implicit
theories of friendship scale developed for this study. Exploratory factor analysis examined the
underlying factor structure of the scale developed. Results of the factor analysis were confirmed
through reliability analyses. Growth and destiny theory scales were formed by averaging the
scale items that represent each theory. Discriminant validity of the theory subscales was
assessed by correlating the computed subscales with peer attachment quality, self‐worth,
23
emotional health, popularity/acceptance, and social helplessness. For the purposes of
establishing the stability of growth and destiny beliefs correlations using both Time 1 and 2 data
were completed. Time 2 data was used for the purposes of validation and establishing stability,
however, the remainder of analyses focused on Time 1 data only.
Correlational analyses were done to assess the relation between growth and destiny
theories and assessments of children’s social functioning and their friendship quality as outlined
in hypothesis three.
To understand relations between implicit theory and functioning, an individual’s destiny
and growth theory endorsement must be considered jointly, as described in hypothesis three.
Therefore, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed with both growth and
destiny theories entered at Step 1. Additionally, an interaction term combining growth and
destiny theories was created and entered at Step 2 to test the joint effects of growth and
destiny theories. Significant interactions, after controlling for the main effects of each theory,
were explored further. All independent variables were centered prior to being entered in
regression analyses according to Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003).
As noted in the fourth hypothesis, subsequent analyses looked at the moderating role of
gender, relationship length, and relationship satisfaction in the relation between implicit
theories and functioning. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses with friendship qualities as
the criterion variables were performed. All independent variables were centered prior to being
entered in regression analyses according to Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). All
independent variables were entered and interpreted at Step 1. The two‐way interaction terms
were entered and interpreted at Step 2. Finally, the three‐way interaction terms were entered
24
and interpreted at Step 3. Significant interactions were plotted to determine the nature of the
association.
Implicit Theories of Friendship Measure Development and Validation: Hypothesis 1
Scale Development. The 14‐item measure of Implicit Theories of Friendship consisted of
7 items relevant to growth beliefs and 7 items relevant to destiny beliefs. To confirm the
subscale structure of the measure, principal components analysis with varimax rotation was run.
The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2. Items were retained for the growth and
destiny scales based on their factor loadings as well as their contribution to the overall reliability
analyses of the final growth and destiny scales. Reliability analyses confirmed the validity of the
scales (growth scale, α = .60; destiny scale α = .70).
Gender and ethnic differences. In the present sample, gender differences were
inconsistent across the two time points and on the growth and destiny scales. In line with
predictions, girls scored higher on the growth scale than boys at both Time 1 and 2. Girls and
boys did not differ on their responses on the destiny scale, however they did differ on their
responses on the growth scale in Time one. Girls scored higher than boys (M = 3.93, SD = .57; M
= 3.75, SD = .55, respectively) on the growth scale, t(156) = ‐2.06, p < .05. At Time two boys and
girls differed on both the growth and the destiny scales. Girls scored higher than boys on the
growth scale (M = 3.81, SD = .60; M = 3.53, SD = .73, t(145) = ‐2.57, p < .05), whereas, boys
scored higher than girls on the destiny scale (M = 2.59, SD = .1.02; M = 2.29, SD = .84, t(149) =
2.00, p < .05). Results from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant differences
among ethnic groups on either growth or destiny scales at Time one. At Time two, a significant
difference between ethnic groups emerged on the destiny scale (F(3, 147) = 3.52, p < .05), such
25
that Asians (M = 2.97, SD = .90) were more likely to endorse destiny theory beliefs than
Caucasians (M = 2.27, SD = .82).
Convergent and discriminant validity. Further support for the validity of the implicit
theories of friendship measure comes from the correlations between growth and destiny scales
and measures of individual and relationship functioning. Several hypotheses (1a‐e) were
presented regarding the nature of these correlations, and the results are presented in Table 3.
As expected, the growth and destiny scales were not significantly correlated, r(157) = ‐.10, p
=.23.
Further validation for the Implicit Theories of Friendship measure comes from the
correlations between the growth scale and the measure of peer attachment. As expected, the
growth scale was positively correlated with overall peer attachment quality (r(138) = .22, p <
.01) as well as the communication (r(150) = .40, p < .001) and trust (r(151) = .15, p < .05)
subscales. Though statistically significant, these correlations were only moderate. The moderate
size indicates that, although the peer attachment and growth beliefs measure similar features,
the growth scale can be distinguished from measures of peer attachment. As expected the
destiny scale was not significantly correlated with peer attachment quality (r(139) = .06, p = .47),
nor was it correlated with any of the subscales (r(151) = .04, p = .65, communication; r(151) = ‐
.08, p = .34, alienation; r(153) = .02, p = .85, trust).
Hypotheses 1c and 1d concerned the distinctiveness of the Implicit Theories of Friendship
measure from other, more global assessments of children’s social functioning and competence.
Table 3 presents the results of these correlations. As expected, there was no association with
26
children’s reports of self‐esteem and growth and destiny beliefs (r(148) = .07, p = .41; r(150) =
.02, p = .80, respectively).
The correlation between teacher’s ratings of children’s emotional health and destiny
beliefs was not significant (r(157) = .01, p = .92), but there was a marginally significant
correlation between emotional health and growth beliefs (r(155) = .14, p < .10).
Hypothesis 1e held that the destiny scale should be positively correlated with teacher’s
reports of social helplessness. However, the social helplessness was not significantly correlated
with the destiny scale (r(152) = .06, p = .50) or the growth scale (r(150) = ‐.08, p = .32).
Table 4 presents the correlations between growth and destiny scales and children’s
reports of behavior with peers and goals when with peers. As was predicted in hypothesis 1f,
the growth scale was positively correlated with caring acts (r(155) = .39, p < .001) and
relationally inclusive behavior (r(149) = .31, p < .001) as rated on the Children’s Peer
Relationship Scale. Additionally, the growth scale was positively correlated with children’s
ratings of isolation (r(157) = .19, p < .05) and negatively correlated with relationally aggressive
acts (r(156) = ‐.18, p < .05). Growth beliefs were positively correlated with communal goals
(r(151) = .28, p < .001), but not submissive or separate goals (r(155) = .07, p = .37, r(151) = ‐.04, p
= .65). With the exception of relationship inclusivity, (r(152) = ‐.17, p < .05), destiny beliefs were
not significantly correlated with children’s peer behaviors or interpersonal goals (ps > .25).
Implicit theories of friendship stability. Hypothesis 1g argued that there should be
stability in growth and destiny beliefs across time. Correlations across the two time points, four
months apart, were analyzed to assess the stability in implicit theories. The correlation between
implicit theories of friendship from Time 1 to Time 2 was robust. Both the growth and destiny
27
scales were positively and significantly correlated (r (142) = .49, p < .001; r(146) = .43, p < .001,
respectively) across the two phases. Similar to the gender differences identified in mean
differences on the scales, boys and girls differed in stability, although the correlations for both
genders on both scales were significant. For girls, the correlation was stronger on the growth
scale (r(80) = .63, p < .001) than the destiny scale (r(83) = .40, p < .001). Boys’ correlation was
stronger for the destiny scale (r(63) = .46, p < .001) than the growth scale (r(.32) = .67, p < .01).
The reciprocal nature of children’s friendships, whether their best friend also identified
them as their best friend, may also be important to consider when looking at the stability of
growth and destiny beliefs over time. There were no mean differences on the growth and
destiny scales at either Time 1 or 2 based on the friendship being reciprocated or not (Growth
scale Time 1: M = 3.79, SD = .54; M = 3.86, SD = .57, t(156) = .606, p = .55; Growth scale Time 2:
M = 3.88, SD = .52; M = 3.66, SD = .69, t(145) = ‐1.48, p = .14; Destiny scale Time 1: M = 2.48, SD
= 1.04; M = 2.36, SD = .82, t(158) = ‐.65, p = .51; Destiny scale Time 2: M = 2.65, SD = .77; M =
2.37, SD = .95, t(149) = ‐1.39, p = .17). However, the reciprocal nature of the friendship could
impact the stability of growth and destiny beliefs over time. Having a close friendship dissolve or
developing a closer relationship with a friend would likely influence the implicit theories children
hold about friendships. In terms of the growth scale, stability was greater when the child’s
friendship was reciprocated1 at Time 1 (r(23) = .67, p < .001, reciprocated; r(119) = .49, p < .001,
not reciprocated) and Time 2 (r(43) = .63, p < .001, reciprocated; r(99) = .45, p < .001, not
reciprocated). For the destiny scale, stability was greater when children didn’t have a reciprocal
1 Children’s best friendship was considered reciprocal if the best friend listed the original child as their best friend as well. If children listed someone not participating in the study (whether other students at the school or not) it was not possible to see if the friendship was reciprocal and thus considered not reciprocated.
28
friendship at Time 1 (r(25) = .30, p = .15, reciprocated; r(121) = .46, p < .001, not reciprocated) or
Time 2 (r(42) = .42, p < .01, reciprocated; r(104) = .43, p < .001, not reciprocated).
Growth and Destiny Theory Relations with Friendship Qualities: Hypothesis 2
Analyses presented here focused on exploring the associations between growth and
destiny scales and qualities of children’s friendships. Hypothesis 2 addressed how the
theoretical underpinnings of growth and destiny beliefs would translate into children’s actual
behavior in friendships as well as the relative importance children place on aspects of their
friendships. Correlations between growth and destiny scales with the FQM and the IFQM were
conducted to address this question and the results are presented in Table 5.
The qualities of children’s friendships were in line with the expected associations.
Growth beliefs were positively correlated with conflict resolution (r(152) = .17, p < .05), intimate
exchange, both to and from friends(r(149) = .27, p < .001; r(153) = .26, p < .001), and validation
and caring (r(153) = .35, p < .001). These correlations support the hypothesis that belief in
growth is associated with friendships that emphasize intimacy, compassion, and a dedication to
resolving conflict. In contrast, belief in destiny was not significantly correlated with any of the
friendship qualities (ps > .17).
Growth belief was positively associated with all of the subscales on the IFQM (r(153) =
.17, p < .10, conflict resolution; r(149) = .32, p < .001, intimate exchange; r(152) =.26, p < .001,
conflict; r(157) = .35, p < .001, validation and caring; r(156) =.24 p < .01, help and guidance),
representing the value that children who score highly on growth place on having a positive and
intimate friendship. In stark contrast, destiny belief was not significantly correlated with any of
the subscales on the IFQM (ps > .19). The largest correlation, although not significant, was on
29
the conflict subscale (r(154) = .11, p = .19), highlighting how upset children who scored highly on
destiny would be if there was any conflict in their friendship. Further analyses will examine the
more complex relation between implicit theories of friendship and friendship qualities.
Gender differences. The correlations, separated by gender, between growth and destiny
beliefs and friendship qualities are presented in Table 6. Overall, there were few differences
between girls and boys on the subscales of the FQM. Of note, boys and girls showed significant
correlations in opposite directions between growth beliefs and conflict towards friend (r(66) =
.25, p < .05, boys; r(152) = ‐.24, p < .05, girls). Interestingly, the significant correlations between
the subscales of the IFQM and growth beliefs seemed to be driven primarily by boys and not
girls.
The Mutual Influence of Growth and Destiny Theories on Friendship Qualities: Hypothesis 3
The independence of the growth and destiny scales allows for the effects of each scale
to interact with one another and required more stringent tests of the effects of implicit theories.
Thus, it was important to investigate whether growth and destiny beliefs interact in predicting
friendship qualities. A series of hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted with each of
the friendship qualities shown in Table 5 entered as the criterion and growth and destiny scales
entered at Step 1 and the interaction of the scales entered at Step 2. The results of these
analyses are presented in Table 7.
Similar to the raw correlations presented in Table 5, controlling for destiny beliefs had
little effect on the relation between growth beliefs and friendship qualities (β = .17, p < .05,
FQM Conflict Resolution; β = .27, p < .001, FQM Intimate Exchange I; β = .24, p < .01, FQM
Intimate Exchange II; β = .35, p < .001, FQM Validation and Caring; β = .16, p < .10, FQM
30
Companionship and Recreation; β = .15, p < .10, IFQM Conflict Resolution; β = .32 p < .001, IFQM
Intimate Exchange; β = .27, p < .001, IFQM Conflict; β = .36, p < .001, IFQM Validation and
Caring; β = .23, p < .01, IFQM Help and Guidance). To further test the association between
growth beliefs and friendship qualities additional variables were added in Step 1 to control for
features of the friendship. All associations between growth beliefs and friendship qualities
presented in Table 7 remained significant after controlling for the length of the relationship.
When controlling for gender all effects remained statistically significant with the exception of
conflict resolution on the FQM which dropped to marginally significant (β = .15, p < .10), and
companionship and recreation on the FQM (β = .14, p = .11) and conflict resolution on the IFQM
(β = .10, p < .21) which both dropped to nonsignificance. Similarly, when controlling for
friendship satisfaction, conflict resolution, both on the FQM and IFQM, dropped to marginally
significant (β = .13, p < .10; β = .14, p < .10, respectively) and companionship and recreation on
the FQM (β = .12, p = .13) was no longer significant, but all other associations remained
significant.
In examining the association between destiny beliefs and friendship qualities while
controlling for growth beliefs, no significant relations emerged. In line with theoretical
predictions, this finding suggests that the effect of destiny beliefs on friendship qualities is
indirect, such that outcomes of destiny beliefs are dependent on aspects of the friendship.
These associations will be examined in subsequent sections.
An interaction between growth and destiny beliefs emerged when predicting conflict
resolution on the IFQM, F(3, 147) = 5.83, p < .01, β = .15, p < .05, R2 = .11. This interaction
remained significant when controlling for friendship satisfaction (F(6, 143) = 3.25, p < .01, β =
31
.17, p < .05), but was only marginally significant when controlling for friendship length (F(6, 143)
= 4.12, p < .001, β = .14, p < .10) and gender (F(6, 144) = 6.64, p < .001, β = .14, p < .10). Figure 1
presents the regression derived from the interaction of growth and destiny beliefs at Step 2.
Overall, children high in growth beliefs showed more concern over conflict in their friendship
than children low in growth beliefs. Children low on destiny showed little variation in concern
over conflict based on growth belief. However, high endorsement of both growth and destiny
beliefs was associated with high levels of concern over conflict, whereas high endorsement of
destiny beliefs with low endorsement of growth beliefs was associated with little concern over
conflict in the friendship.
Interactions between Destiny and Growth Theories and Friendship Qualities: Hypothesis 4
While the associations between implicit theories of friendship and friendship qualities
illustrate how growth and destiny beliefs are related to values and behaviors in children’s
friendships, the relation between implicit theories and functioning is likely to be influenced by
other factors in the friendship. Given prior findings regarding implicit theories of romantic
relationships, the present research examined the moderating roles of relationship length,
relationship satisfaction, and children’s gender.
The moderating role of length. It has already been shown that growth beliefs are
positively correlated with valuing conflict resolution and validation in a friendship, but having a
friendship that has lasted longer should also be related to children’s valuing of these features.
To examine the relation between friendship length and implicit theories hierarchical multiple
regressions were run with friendship qualities as the criterion. At Step 1 the growth scale,
destiny scale, and friendship length were entered. At Step 2, the two‐way interactions between
32
growth, destiny, and length were entered. Finally, in Step 3, the three‐way product term was
entered. The length of the friendship had few main effects on friendship qualities at Step 1. Only
conflict resolution, β = .21, p < .01, and validation and caring, β = .17, p < .05, were associated
with friendship length. There were no direct associations between length of the friendship and
the subscales of the IFQM.
Interactions between growth beliefs and friendship length predicted both the conflict
resolution, F (6, 143) = 1.77, p = .11, β = ‐.17, p < .05, R2 = .07, and validation and caring, F (6,
147) = 4.95, p < .001, β = ‐.15, p < .05, R2 = .17, subscales on the IFQM. Figures 2 and 3,
respectively, show the breakdown of these interactions. Both interactions highlight the
importance of growth beliefs in predicting what children value in a friendship. For both conflict
resolution and validation and caring, being higher on the growth scale was associated with
greater importance of these friendship qualities, regardless of length. When friendships were
shorter in length, children demonstrated less valuing of these friendship qualities when they
were low on the growth scale. Children who were low on the growth scale, but had more long‐
term friendships evidenced higher levels of valuing these friendship qualities.
The length of the friendship interacted with both growth and destiny beliefs to predict
the intimate exchanges in friendships, F (7, 139) = 4.17, p < .001, β = ‐.238, p < .01, R2 = .17. The
breakdown of this interaction is presented in Figure 4. High destiny, low growth children with
short‐term friendships exhibit the lowest levels of intimate exchange in their friendships. In
contrast, high destiny, low growth children who have been in long‐term friendships exhibit high
levels of intimate exchange in the friendship. Children who are low on the destiny scale do not
exhibit many intimate behaviors with their friend unless they are also high on the growth scale.
33
These findings highlight the importance of considering both the length of time children have
been involved in a friendship as well as their implicit theories of friendships.
The moderating role of satisfaction. Much research on implicit theories of romantic
relationships has pointed to initial relationship satisfaction as an important moderator in
understanding the effects of destiny beliefs on relationship longevity and coping strategies
(Franiuk et al., 2002, 2004; Knee, 1998). For the current study, we did not assess children’s initial
level of satisfaction with their best friendship, but we did ask about their current level
satisfaction (“how well is this friendship going,” and “how happy are you with this friendship?”).
Given this limitation, associations with destiny beliefs, in particular, are still expected because
destiny theorists should be evaluating their friendships continuously, not just at the beginning.
A series of hierarchical multiple regressions were performed with friendship qualities as
the criterion. At Step 1 the growth scale, destiny scale, and friendship satisfaction were entered.
At Step 2, the two‐way interactions between growth, destiny, and friendship satisfaction were
entered. The three‐way product term was entered in Step 3. Several friendship qualities were
predicted directly by friendship satisfaction in Step 1. These included: overt aggression, β = ‐.27,
p < .001, relational aggression, β = ‐.52, p < .001, conflict resolution, β = .38, p < .001, intimate
exchange, β = .38, p < .001, conflict, β = ‐.33, p < .001, and validation and caring, β =.43, p < .001.
Satisfaction was not directly related to the subscales of the IFQM.
Analyses confirmed a significant effect of destiny beliefs and satisfaction on relational
aggression, F (6, 144) = 10.88, p < .001, β = .22, p < .01, R2 = .31. The interaction is presented in
Figure 5. An important caveat is that this scale is assessing the relational aggressive behavior
directed toward the child from the friend, and not the relationally aggressive behavior of the
34
child. Overall, relationally aggressive behaviors are lower when children report greater
satisfaction. Satisfaction appears to be more strongly related to relationally aggressive behaviors
in the friendship when children were lower on the destiny scale than high on the destiny scale.
The levels of conflict in the friendship, both directed toward the friend and from the
friend, were moderated by an interaction between destiny beliefs and level of satisfaction (F (6,
143) = 5.48, p < .001, β = .31, p < .001; F (6, 146) = 7.65, p < .001, β = .21, p < .05, respectively).
Graphs decomposing both of these interactions are presented in Figure 6. Children high on the
destiny scale reported similar levels of conflict regardless of their satisfaction with their
friendship. A similar picture emerged in conflict from the friend, although there was a decrease
in conflict behavior for high destiny children as satisfaction increased.
A three way interaction between growth theories, destiny theories, and satisfaction was
significantly related to children’s valuing of conflict resolution in the friendship, F (7, 143) = 2.35,
p < .05, β = ‐.24, p < .05, R2 = .10. Overall, when children’s belief in growth was low there was
little variation in their valuing of conflict resolution. Differences emerged when children were
high on the growth scale. As would be expected these children who were also low in destiny and
highly satisfied in their friendship exhibited a high valuing of conflict resolution. However, when
children were high on growth, low on destiny, and not satisfied, they exhibited low levels of
valuing of conflict resolution. This does not seem to fit with what would be expected for children
high on the growth scale. Children who were high on the destiny scale and high on the growth
scale exhibit more valuing of conflict resolution when they were less satisfied with the
friendship than when they were highly satisfied.
35
The moderating role of gender. Given the gender differences present in the correlations
between implicit theories and friendship qualities, it was important to consider the moderating
role they may play in predicting friendship outcomes. To address this, hierarchical multiple
regressions were conducted with friendship qualities as the criterion. At Step 1 the growth scale,
destiny scale, and gender were entered. At Step 2, the two‐way interactions between growth,
destiny, and gender were entered. Finally, in Step 3, the three‐way product term was entered.
Several expected main effects of gender were identified at Step 1. For example, boys engaged in
more overt aggression than girls, F (3, 148) = 2.40, p < .10, β = ‐.18, girls were more intimate in
their friendships than boys, F (3, 144) = 8.69, p < .001, β = .280, and girls showed more concern
on all subscales of the IFQM, (Fs > 8.6, ps < .001).
Several significant interactions between growth, destiny, and gender emerged. Growth
and destiny beliefs interacted with gender to predict relational aggression in the friendship, F (7,
144) = 1.91, p < .10, β = .19, p < .05, R2 = .09. Decomposing this interaction (see Figure 8) shows
that children low on growth exhibited about the same level of relational aggression, regardless
of destiny beliefs and gender. However, when children were high on growth, girls exhibited
more relational aggression when they were high on destiny as opposed to lower on destiny
beliefs, but boys exhibited a different pattern. Boys substantially decreased levels of relational
aggression when low on destiny.
A gender by growth, by destiny interaction also emerged for predicting intimate
exchange in friendships, F (7, 140) = 5.60, p < .001, β = ‐.24, p < .01, R2 = .22. A graphical
presentation of this interaction is presented in Figure 9. Girls, almost consistently, exhibited
more intimate exchange in their friendships than boys. When high on growth beliefs, girls
36
demonstrated more intimate exchange than boys regardless of destiny beliefs. When children
were low on growth beliefs, boys exhibited more intimate exchange when they were low on
destiny than when they were high on destiny. In contrast, girls exhibited more intimate
exchange when they were high on destiny than when they were low on destiny.
Lastly, an interaction between growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and gender emerged
when predicting satisfaction in the friendship, F (7, 148) = 2.27, p < .05, β = ‐.23, p < .01, R2 = .10.
Decomposing this interaction revealed a complex relation between implicit theories and gender
in friendship satisfaction (see Figure 10). Both boys and girls who were low in destiny beliefs
were similar in satisfaction when they were also low in growth. This satisfaction level changed
little for girls that were high in destiny. However, satisfaction dropped significantly for boys that
were low in destiny beliefs and high in growth beliefs. Overall, the highest levels of satisfaction
were when children scored high on growth, but only for boys that were also high in destiny and
girls that were low in destiny. For boys, they seem most satisfied when they were either high on
both implicit theories or low on both.
Discussion
The goal of the present research was to examine the associations between implicit
theories of friendships and friendships, drawing on the theoretical framework laid out in implicit
theories research and previous work on friendships.
Nature of the variables
Measurement. The primary objective of the current research was to develop and
validate a measure of Implicit Theories of Friendship. One area of controversy in the implicit
37
theories research has been how to best measure implicit theories. While Dweck and colleagues
(Dweck, 2000) have measured implicit theories of intelligence on a bipolar continuum (entity
theories representing one end and incremental theories on the opposite end), studies of implicit
theories in romantic relationships suggest that these theories are better conceptualized as
independent dimensions (Franiuk et al., 2002). In line with the results of implicit theories of
romantic relationships research, factor analyses supported a two‐factor structure for implicit
theories of friendship, representing a growth and destiny scale. Measuring each dimension on
an independent continuum allows each implicit theory of relationships to contribute uniquely to
the prediction of behavior (Knee et al., 2003). The independence of growth and destiny scales
were further supported by the lack of significant correlation between the two scales.
Validation. Hypotheses regarding the association between similar measures of
representation and friendship and implicit theories were generally supported. Growth beliefs
were significantly correlated with peer attachment quality in the expected direction; however,
the moderate size of the correlation indicated that, while the constructs share similar features,
they are unique. The lack of significant correlations between growth and destiny beliefs and
measures of self‐worth demonstrated that implicit theories are not just a measure of general
self‐perception. It could also be argued that children who score highly on the growth scale are
more socially competent or accepted with their peers and that children who score highly on the
destiny scale are less socially competent, however the results do not completely support this
argument. Teacher’s ratings of children’s emotional health and popularity/acceptance were not
significantly correlated with the destiny scale, but the growth scale was positively correlated
with the measure of emotional health. This marginal correlation could be related to how
children navigate the social world of the classroom. Children who score highly on the growth
38
scale may be better suited to resolve conflicts that arise in the peer setting and may be more
accepting of peers and less quick to judge them. This may not be the case for children who score
highly on the destiny scale. Teacher’s observations of this behavior in the classroom could be
implicated in the marginal correlation between the emotional health and growth scales.
A significant correlation between teacher’s ratings of social helplessness and the destiny
scale would be positively correlated, however, this was not found. The lack of correlation
between the two scales may be due to the fact that teachers are completing the social
helplessness scale and children are completing the destiny scale. Teacher’s observations of
children are limited to the classroom and playground, thus most of the interactions they
observe are with peers and not children’s friendships. The destiny scale asks children to think
specifically about friendship. Children may be drawing on information and experiences that
teachers do not have access to.
While implicit theories of friendship assess children’s beliefs about friendships, there
should be overlap in their behavior with peers. Many of the skills required for acceptance by the
peer group are also required for successful involvement in friendships (Asher, Parker, & Walker,
1996). The positive correlation between the growth scale and isolated behavior is somewhat
surprising. It is possible that children who score highly on the growth scale are focused on
developing close friendships and may be more removed in social contexts with peers or lack the
appropriate strategies to negotiate peer experiences. Rose and Asher (1999) found that
children’s friendship quality was predicted by the goals and strategies children use in response
to conflict, irrespective of their standing within their peer group. Thus, some children may be
39
much better at establishing and maintaining close friendships, but unaccepted by their peers
because of the goals they select.
The destiny scale was uncorrelated with peer behaviors with the exception of
relationship inclusivity. In reviewing the items that compose this scale they focus on intervening
when another peer is being excluded or picked on. It could be that children who score highly on
the destiny scale prefer to avoid disagreements in both friendships and peer relationships, thus
they may be more reluctant to step in when a peer is being victimized because they might then
be involved in a disagreement. The correlations with interpersonal goals are in line with the
original hypothesis. The positive correlation between communal goals and growth beliefs is in
line with growth theory in that relationships are valued and children believe that they can
develop friendships with peers. The lack of correlations with destiny beliefs fits as well. In
particular, children scoring highly on the destiny scale may be reluctant to endorse communal
goals with peers because they are not focused on developing relationships with peers when
they do not know if they would be good friends.
Stability. Studies of implicit theories across domains tend to support their stability.
Franiuk and colleagues (2002) found that across their eight month study, implicit theories of
romantic relationships remained relatively stable, even across different relationship partners.
Bukowski, Newcomb, and Hoza (1987) found stability in children’s conceptions of friendship, or
their beliefs about what characteristics were most central to friendships, across a one year
period from sixth to seventh grade. While the results of this study do support stability of implicit
theories of friendship over a four month period, results did vary depending on whether it was a
growth or destiny theory and whether or not children had reciprocated friendships. The stability
40
of growth beliefs was related to children having a reciprocated best friend. Being in a
reciprocated friendship is important for growth theorists and experiencing this likely reinforces
their growth beliefs. Destiny beliefs, in contrast, were slightly more stable when they did not
have a reciprocated friendship. Given the theoretical nature of destiny beliefs, they are less
dependent on a stable, reciprocated friendship to reinforce their beliefs. In fact, their beliefs are
more likely to be reinforced if they experience unreciprocated friendships. This finding supports
the theoretical differences between growth and destiny implicit theories of friendship.
One limitation of the study was that identifying the reciprocity of children’s friendships
was not exact because children were allowed to identify friends that were not in the classroom,
thus making it impossible to assess reciprocity if the identified best friend was not participating
in the study. Additionally, children often have multiple friends and best friends (Furman, 1993).
Choosing which friend to identify as the best friend was often difficult for children. In many
instances, a triad of friends was identified such that friend A would chose friend B, friend B
would chose friend C and friend C would chose friend A. Note here that none of these children
would be identified as having a reciprocated friendship, but when looking across the three
children, there is some reciprocity amongst the friends.
Previous research has shown that implicit theories are subject to manipulation under
experimental conditions, suggesting that, while stable, implicit theories are malleable (Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Franiuk et al., 2004). Knee and colleagues (2003) suggest the likelihood of
relationship experiences modifying an individual’s implicit theory. This modification of
representations based on experience is supported by attachment theory and research (Collins &
Sroufe, 1999; Sroufe, 1997; Sroufe & Waters, 1977) If an adolescent has a close friendship that
41
abruptly ends, they may reevaluate their growth theory beliefs and may adopt more of a destiny
theory, believing that there is little they can do to maintain a relationship that is destined to
end. While this study was able to look at reciprocity amongst friends in examining stability,
future studies may want to consider more specific relationship experiences that may influence
the stability and change of implicit theories.
Associations with Behavior
Further support for the theoretical differences between growth and destiny theories
comes in the relations between implicit beliefs and behavior. Growth beliefs were positively
correlated with intimate exchanges in friendships, conflict resolution, and validation and caring.
Furthermore, growth beliefs were associated with greater valuing of conflict resolution, intimate
exchange, avoiding conflict, validation and caring, and help and guidance. These associations
remain when destiny beliefs are controlled for and additional qualities of the friendship,
including length, satisfaction and gender, are controlled for, indicating the strength of these
associations. Destiny beliefs, however, do not show any direct associations with qualities of
children’s friendships. This finding highlights how context dependent destiny theorists are in
their friendships. Growth theorists value intimacy and conflict resolution regardless of
satisfaction or length; however, destiny theorists place more emphasis on the features of the
friendship. They are more likely to show intimacy when the friendship has lasted longer, possibly
using that as validation that this friendship is meant to be and thus warrants their investment.
The interaction between growth and destiny beliefs in predicting the importance of
avoiding conflict is consistent with predictions. Children who highly endorse both growth and
destiny beliefs not only value their friendships, but also fear conflict as sign of trouble. Thus,
42
they would be concerned if conflict was present in their friendship because it would suggest
problems in the friendship, which they value, and might signal dissolution of the friendship.
Findings across studies of implicit theories imply that there is a complex relation, between not
only implicit theories, but also the role of friendship qualities is important when predicting
relationship outcomes.
Friendship length. Results of the present research supported the moderating role of
length in predicting friendship outcomes. Growth beliefs interacted with friendship length to
predict conflict resolution and validation and caring. In line with the theoretical predictions of
implicit theories higher growth theories predicted higher levels of conflict resolution and
validation and caring regardless of friendship length. The role of friendship length came in when
children were low on the growth scale. Longer friendships, compared to shorter friendships,
demonstrated greater conflict resolution and validation and caring. This finding suggests that
even if children do not endorse growth beliefs, their friendships can demonstrate just as much
caring and conflict resolution if they are longer in length. Without growth beliefs, children need
time to develop these features in their friendships.
Intimate exchange to the friend was predicted by a three‐way interaction between
growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and friendship length. High destiny, low growth children with
short‐term friendships exhibited the lowest levels of intimate exchange in their friendships. This
is likely because they are still attempting to diagnose the viability of the friendship. In contrast,
high destiny, low growth children who have been in long‐term friendships exhibited high levels
of intimate exchange in the friendship. Given the length of the friendship, they have had time to
diagnose the viability of the friendship and thus, despite being low in growth beliefs, they share
43
intimate behaviors with their friend. Children who were low on the destiny scale exhibited more
intimate behaviors with their friend when they were also high on the growth scale. These
findings highlight the importance of considering both the length of time children have been
involved in a friendship as well as their implicit theories of friendships.
Satisfaction. Previous research has also highlighted the importance of satisfaction in
combination with implicit theories. The current research also showed the importance of
satisfaction, particularly in relation to destiny beliefs, in predicting negative qualities in the
friendship, as well as the importance of resolving conflict. Interactions between destiny beliefs
and satisfaction predicted relationally aggressive behaviors as well as conflict in the friendship.
Satisfaction appears to be more strongly associated with relationally aggressive
behaviors in the friendship for children low on the destiny scale more than children high on the
destiny scale. There is a marked decline in relationally aggressive behaviors as satisfaction
increases for children low in destiny beliefs, but little change in relationally aggressive behaviors
for children high on the destiny scale. While this finding seems counterintuitive, thinking about
the possible functions of relationally aggressive behavior may explain the finding. Relationally
aggressive behaviors are used by one person to control or manipulate their relationship with
another person. Children who are high on the destiny scale may view the relationally aggressive
behaviors of their friends as an attempt to prevent conflict and keep the behaviors of friends in
line with what is expected. Thus, they may not be as dissatisfied when their friend is being
relationally aggressive towards them as a child who is low in destiny beliefs.
Given the theoretical underpinnings of destiny theory, conflict should signal problems in
the friendship and thus, lead to dissolution of the friendship. Significant interactions between
44
destiny beliefs and satisfaction predicted both conflict to and from the friend. High destiny
children showed little variation in their conflict levels based on satisfaction. This finding was
surprising, but high destiny theorists may not show much variation in their levels of conflict
because they dissolve the friendship before conflict escalates too high. They may not be as
satisfied with their friendship, but conflict should be a deal breaker for destiny theorists. The
association between low destiny beliefs and satisfaction illustrates that children scoring low on
the destiny scale are exhibiting more conflict when they are unsatisfied in a relationship, but
very little when they are satisfied. A similar picture emerges in the conflict from the friend,
although there is a decrease in conflict behavior for high destiny children as satisfaction
increases. This steeper decrease in conflict may be due to the fact that children cannot
necessarily control the conflict they are receiving from their friend, whereas they have more
control over their own use of conflict behaviors toward the friend. The conflict they are
receiving may be a warning for them that the friendship won’t last and thus they are less
satisfied.
The significant interaction between growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and satisfaction
predicting the importance conflict resolution highlights the likely mutual influence of growth
and destiny beliefs. The children scoring highly on the growth scale showed the greatest
variability in their valuing of conflict resolution. As was expected, the children that valued
conflict resolution the most were high on growth, low on destiny, and highly satisfied.
Somewhat surprising was the finding that the children who rated highly on the importance of
conflict resolution were high on both growth and destiny, but low on satisfaction. This is likely
due to the competing beliefs of high growth and destiny endorsement. Their growth beliefs
suggest they should maintain and develop this relationship, but their destiny beliefs suggest that
45
if they are unsatisfied they should dissolve the friendship. They may value conflict resolution as
an attempt to salvage the friendship. Children high on destiny and highly satisfied probably
display little valuing for conflict resolution because they probably are not experiencing much
conflict if they are highly satisfied. It was unanticipated that children that are low on destiny and
unsatisfied also display little value of conflict resolution because their high growth belief should
heighten their value of conflict resolution despite their satisfaction level. The lack of satisfaction
may be influencing the lower value of conflict resolution.
Gender. The results of the analyses looking at the moderating role of gender revealed a
complex relation between gender and implicit theories in predicting friendship qualities. The
interaction between growth and destiny beliefs and gender predicted relational aggression in
children’s friendship. Interesting patterns emerged for boys and girls. Boys experienced the
most relational aggression in their friendships when they were high on growth beliefs and low
on destiny beliefs, but less when they had higher destiny beliefs. Girls, however, experienced
more relational aggression when they were high on growth beliefs and high on destiny beliefs,
but less when they were higher on destiny beliefs. Boys, unlike girls, seem to be involved in
friendships with more relational aggression when they have higher growth beliefs and lower
destiny beliefs. These results contradict previous findings that there is more relational
aggression in girls’ friendships than boys’ (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996), but point to the importance
of social cognitive processes in understanding behavior in friendships. The different effects of
destiny beliefs for boys and girls also suggest that the implicit theories may function differently
for boys and girls in certain contexts. This is an important question that should be addressed in
future research.
46
The three‐way interaction between growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and gender also
predicted intimate exchange by children. Girls clearly display more intimate exchanges in their
friendships than boys do, a finding consistent in the literature (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985;
Maccoby, 1998; Rose, 2002; Zarbatany et al., 2000). Variation in intimate exchange occurred
when children were low on the growth scale. Both boys and girls exhibited similar levels of
intimate exchange when low on both growth and destiny scales. However, when low on growth
beliefs, boys exhibit less intimate exchange when they are high on destiny beliefs, but girls
exhibit more intimate exchange when they are high on destiny beliefs. Maybe as part of
diagnosing the validity of their friendships boys with high destiny beliefs are more guarded in
disclosing to friendships, but girls display more of themselves to their friends.
Satisfaction in children’s friendships was also predicted by the three‐way interaction
between growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and gender. Similar to the previous findings, opposite
patterns emerge for boys and girls in examining satisfaction. Children are most satisfied when
they are high on growth, but this is only when boys are high on destiny and girls are low on
destiny. Satisfaction for these boys and girls does decline as their growth beliefs decrease, but
the decline is steeper for boys. The steeper patterns of change for boys may indicate that they
are more sensitive to the effects of implicit theories when evaluating their satisfaction in
friendships. Many studies of gender differences have examined mean level differences between
boys and girls, but very few studies have looked at the moderating role of gender (Rose, 2007;
Schmidt & Bagwell, 2007). The findings here suggest that gender differences represent more
than girls and boys being higher or lower on measures, but that there are different effects for
boys and girls. Decomposing the roles of gender and implicit theories in predicting friendship
qualities is complex and needs to be addressed in future studies.
47
Developmental Considerations
The transition from middle childhood to adolescence is marked by biological
maturation, but many cognitive and social changes are also occurring that have important
implications for interactions friends. As children make this transition, they begin spending more
time outside of the family and more time with peers and friends. In fact, when Furman and
Buhrmester (1992) asked children and adolescents who they turn to for support, they found
that by the tenth grade, same‐sex friends had surpassed parents as the most frequent source of
support for adolescents. By this time friendships are also characterized by greater intimacy,
reciprocity, and trustworthiness than friendships during childhood (Buhrmester, 1990; Furman
& Bierman, 1984; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). The cognitive abilities that emerge in early
adolescence support and allow for more in‐depth processing of friendships (Keating, 2004).
Greater abstraction in thought and hypothetical and multidimensional thinking all contribute to
adolescents’ ability to process their social world. This maturity in cognition likely plays a major
role in the greater complexity and closeness seen in friendships. These cognitive changes are
also likely to influence adolescents’ understanding and expectations of friendships (Bigelow,
Tesson, & Lewko, 1996).
The children in the present study were in sixth grade, right in the middle of this shift
from middle childhood to adolescence. This timing may have many implications for the
conclusions that can be drawn from this study. As the basis of children’s friendships shift from
proximity and similarity to intimacy and reciprocity, it is likely that their implicit theories of
friendship are being revised as well. Thus, the modest stability seen in growth and destiny
theories may be partly due to the changing features children are experiencing in their
48
friendships. Additionally, their cognitive growth during this time period may also be influencing
how they think about friendships. If this study were to be replicated in a sample of older
adolescents it is likely that some of the findings would be different.
Future Directions
Several future directions have been mentioned already, but additional future directions
merit noting here. One important area of future relationship research would be investigating
the concordance of friends’ implicit theories about friendship. Does the agreement between
friends’ theories matter for relationship outcomes? Research looking at both self and friend
perceptions of the friendship suggests that it might. Burk and Laursen (2005) found that friends
who held discrepant perceptions of the negative aspects of their friendship had more negative
friendships than friends who had concordant perceptions of their friendship. Investigating both
friends’ implicit theories of friendship and their concordance could provide more information
about their friendship and its quality than just examining the implicit theory of one friend.
The current study asked children to rate growth and destiny items based on their
general beliefs about friendships, and not specifically about one friendship. There are conflicting
views about whether one should examine general or specific relationship beliefs. Fletcher &
Kininmonth (1992) argue for the importance of studying general relationship beliefs. They
acknowledge that cognitions about specific relationships will be different from general
relationship cognitions, but that specific relationship cognitions are often clouded by other
relationship factors. Others have argued that a better picture of relationships is obtained by
measuring cognitions about specific relationships (Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000). Furman
(2001) argues for a hierarchy of relationship representations. Here, individuals hold general
49
relationship representations, broad representations of specific relationship types, and specific
relationship representations. While studies examining the cognitions related to a specific
friendship should provide important information about children’s functioning, the present study
examined how more generalized implicit theories interact with aspects of a friendship in
predicting behavior. Investigating the representations individuals hold about specific friendships
and how general and specific implicit theories of friendship influence each other and behavior is
an important direction for future research.
While the present study provided important information regarding the association
between implicit theories of friendship and qualities of children’s friendship, little is known
about the specific behaviors that children use in their friendship. Research on implicit theories
of romantic relationships has shown that destiny theorists use more negative (Knee, 1998) and
passive (Franiuk et al., 2002) coping strategies compared to growth theorists. The present study
did not allow for the study of explicit behaviors within friendships, but rather general qualities of
the friendship. Investigating specific behaviors and strategies that children use in their
friendships based on their implicit theories of friendships would be an interesting avenue of
future study.
Conclusions
The present research highlights the importance of considering the implicit theories
children hold about friendships in understanding their behavior in friendships and the qualities
that they value in these friendships. As expected, endorsement of growth beliefs was associated
directly with greater intimacy and valuing of friendships. Effects of destiny beliefs were indirect
and depended on children’s satisfaction in their friendship. Complex interactions between
50
implicit theories of friendship and gender as well as friendship qualities also emerged. These
findings suggest interesting effects of holding different combinations of growth and destiny
beliefs when combined with certain features of friendships. The findings here lead to many
more questions regarding the role of implicit theories of friendship in understanding children’s
behavior and the qualities of their friendships. Many important avenues of future research have
been suggested. Continuing the study of implicit theories of friendships promises a greater
understanding of the role of social cognition in friendships.
51
References
Armsden, G. C. & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well‐being in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427‐454.
Asher, S. R., Parker, J. G., & Walker, D. L. (1996). Distinguishing friendship from acceptance:
Implications for intervention and assessment. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W.
W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence (pp.
366‐403). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461‐484.
Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children’s friendship expectations: A cognitive‐developmental study. Child
Development, 48, 246‐253.
Bigelow, B. J., Tesson, G., & Lewko, J. H. (1996). Learning the rules: The anatomy of children's
relationships. New York: Guilford Press.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment
during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101‐1111.
Buhrmester, D. (1996). Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental
contexts of early adolescent friendship. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W.
Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship during childhood and adolescence (pp.
158‐185). New York: Cambridge University Press.
52
Buhrmester, D. & Furman, W. (1986). The changing functions of children’s friendships: A neo‐
Sullivan perspective. In V. Derlega & B. Winstead (Eds.), Friendships and social
interaction (pp.41‐62). New York: Springer.
Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., & Hoza, B. (1987). Friendship conceptions among early
adolescents: A longitudinal study of stability and change. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7,
143‐152.
Burk, W. J. & Laursen, B. (2005). Adolescent perceptions of friendship and their associations
with individual adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29,156‐
164.
Burks, V. S., Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., & Laird, R. D. (1999). Internal representational models of
peers: Implications for the development of problematic behavior. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 802‐810.
Carlson, E. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2004). The construction of experience: A longitudinal
study of representation and behavior. Child Development, 75, 66‐83.
Chung, T. & Asher, S. R. (1996). Children’s goals and strategies in peer conflict situations. Merrill‐
Palmer Quarterly, 42, 125‐147.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, W. A. (1997). Relationships and development during adolescence: Interpersonal
adaptation to individual change. Personal Relationships, 4(1), 1‐14.
Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: Interpersonal
contexts of adolescent development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(1), 55‐62.
53
Collins, W. A. & Sroufe, L. A. (1999). Capacity for intimate relationships: A developmental
construction. In W. Furman, C. Feiring, & B. Brown (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on
adolescent romantic relationships (pp. 125‐147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In W.
Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4, Socioemotional
processes (pp. 1003‐1067). New York: Wiley.
Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing
mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74‐101.
Crick, N. R. & Zahn‐Waxler, C. (2003). The development of psychopathology in females and
males: Current progress and future challenges. Development and Psychopathology, 15,
719–742
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self‐theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267‐285.
Dweck, C. S. & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social‐cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256‐273.
Elicker, J., Englund, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Predicting peer competence and peer
relationships in childhood from early parent‐child relationships. In R. Parke & G. Ladd
(Eds.), Family‐peer relationships: Models of linkage (pp. 77‐106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fincham, F. D., Hokoda, A., & Sanders, R. (1989). Learned helplessness, test anxiety, and
academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. Child Developmen, 60, 138‐145.
54
Fletcher, G. J. O. & Kininmonth, L. (1992). Measuring relationship beliefs: An individual
differences measure. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 371‐197.
Franiuk, R., Cohen, D., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2002). Implicit theories of relationships: Implications
for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships, 9, 345‐367.
Franiuk, R., Pomerantz, E. M., & Cohen, D. (2004). The causal role of theories of relationships:
Consequences for satisfaction and cognitive strategies. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1494‐1507.
Furman, W. (1993). Theory is not a four‐letter word: Needed directions in the study of
adolescent friendships. New Directions for Child Development, 60, 89‐103
Furman, W. (2001). Working models of friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
18, 583‐602.
Furman, W. & Bierman, K. L. (1984). Children’s conceptions of friendship: A multimethod study
of developmental changes. Developmental Psychology, 20, 925‐931.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of their personal relationships in
their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016‐1024.
Furman, W. & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of
personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103‐115.
Gest, S. D., Graham‐Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and
unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric
status. Social Development, 10, 23‐40.
Grotpeter, J. K. & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship.
Child Development, 67, 2328‐2338.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87‐97.
55
Harter, S., Waters, P. & Whitesell, N. R. (1998). Relational self‐worth: Differences in perceived
worth as a person across relational contexts among adolescents. Child Development, 69,
756‐766.
Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental
significance. Child Development, 67, 1‐13.
Hartup, W. W., Brady, J. E., & Newcomb, A. F. (1983). Social cognition and social interaction in
childhood. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social
development: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 82‐109). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Holmes, J. G. (2000). Social relationships: The nature and function of relational schemas.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 447‐495.
Jarvinen, D. W. & Nicholls, J. G. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals, beliefs about the causes of
social success, and satisfaction in peer relations. Developmental Psychology, 32, 46‐55.
Keating, D. P. (2004). Cognitive and brain development. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.),
Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 45‐84). New York: John Wiley.
Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic
relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 360‐370.
Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit theories of
relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal? Personality and Social
Psychological Bulletin, 27, 808‐819.
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations
toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41‐55.
56
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American
Psychologist, 45, 513‐520.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, comning togethe: Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press,
Newcomb, A. F. & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta‐analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306‐347.
Ojanen, T., Grönroos, M., Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s
social goals: Links with peer‐reported behavior and Sociometric status. Developmental
Psychology, 41, 699‐710.
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.
Pietromonaco, P. R. & Barrett, L. F. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do we
really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General Psychology, 4, 155‐
175.
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior
and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844‐872.
Rose, A. J. (2002). Co‐rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 73,
1830‐1843.
Rose, A. J. (2007). Structure, content, and socioemotional correlates of girls’ and boys’
friendships. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 53, 489‐506.
57
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, 98‐131.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In
W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3,
Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). New York: Wiley.
Rudolph, K. D., Hammen, C., & Buge, D. (1995). Cognitive representations of self, family, and
peers in school‐age children: Links with social competence and sociometric status. Child
Development, 66, 1385‐1402.
Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpää, J., & Peets, K. (2005). “I’m ok but you’re not” and other peer‐
relational schemas: Explaining individual differences in children’s social goals.
Developmental Psychology, 41, 363‐375.
Schmidt, M. E. & Bagwell, C. L. (2007). The protective role of friendships in overtly and
relationally victimized boys and girls. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 53, 439‐460.
Sroufe, L.A. (1997). Psychopathology as an outcome of development. Development and
Psychopathology, 9(2), 251‐268.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child
Development, 48(4), 1184‐1199.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Zarbatany, L., McDougal. P., & Hymel, S. (2000). Gender‐differentiated experience in the peer
culture: Links to intimacy in preadolescence. Social Development, 9, 62‐79.
58
Appendix A
Items from the Implicit Theories of Friendship Questionnaire developed for this study.
Participants rated on a scale of 1‐5 the extent to which they agreed with each of the
statements.
Growth
• Arguments are an opportunity to improve friendships.
• With enough effort, any friendship can work.
• Friendships often fail because people do not try hard enough.
• Problems in a friendship can bring friends closer together.
• It is important to me to work on improving the quality of my friendships.
• The best kind of friendship develops slowly over time.
• I like friendships where I can learn new things about myself and my friend.
Destiny
• Friends either get along or they don’t.
• I like friendships that just click.
• Friendships that don’t work out were never meant to be.
• If a friendship is not meant to be there is no point in trying to make it work.
• It is important to me that my friends and I agree.
• Problems at the beginning of a friendship are a sign that the friendship won’t last.
• To last, a friendship must seem right from the start.
59
Appendix B
Final items used for the Growth and Destiny Scales.
Growth Items
• Arguments are an opportunity to improve friendships.
• With enough effort, any friendship can work.
• Problems in a friendship can bring friends closer together.
• It is important to me that my friends and I agree.
• It is important to me to work on improving the quality of my friendships.
• The best kind of friendship develops slowly over time.
• I like friendships where I can learn new things about myself and my friend.
Destiny Items
• Friendships that don’t work out were never meant to be.
• If a friendship is not meant to be there is no point in trying to make it work.
• Problems at the beginning of a friendship are a sign that the friendship won’t last.
• To last, a friendship must seem right from the start.
60
Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics for Scales
n M SDITFa
Growth 158 3.85 0.57 Destiny 160 2.38 0.86
CPRSb Caring Acts 158 3.66 0.65 Negative Affect 159 2.17 0.73 Relational Aggression 159 1.64 0.53 Isolation 160 1.85 0.79 Relationship Inclusivity 152 3.33 0.74
Peer Attachment Communication 152 27.49 5.98 Alienation 150 15.20 4.43 Trust 154 42.45 5.93 Overall Quality 140 54.86 13.74
Interpersonal Goals Submissive 157 3.26 0.57 Separate 154 2.28 0.69 Communal 153 3.14 0.50
Global self‐esteem 151 3.37 0.60 Best Friend Length 159 4.13 1.19 FQMc
Overt Aggression 155 1.24 0.48 Relational Aggression 154 1.59 0.52 Conflict Resolution 155 3.06 0.57 Intimate Exchange 1 152 4.15 0.86 Intimate Exchange 2 155 4.21 0.84 Subject Desire for Exclusivity 152 1.75 0.64 Friend Desire for Exclusivity 154 1.69 0.52 Conflict 1 155 1.85 0.67 Conflict 2 157 1.76 0.64 Validation and Caring 156 4.19 0.76 Companionship and Recreation 135 4.20 0.66 Satisfaction 160 4.72 0.50
IFQMd Conflict Resolution 154 2.92 0.76 Intimate Exchange 152 2.54 0.97 Conflict 155 2.61 0.65 Validation and Caring 160 2.65 1.01 Help and Guidance 159 2.38 0.84
Emotional Health e 162 4.04 0.87 Popular/Acceptance e 162 3.83 0.92 Social Helplessness e 157 1.48 0.64 a Implicit Theories of Friendship Questionnaire, b Children’s Peer Relationship Scale, c Friendship Qualities Measure, d Importance of Friendship Qualities Measure, e Teacher reported measures
61
Table 2. Factor loadings for Implicit Theories of Friendship Measure.
Destiny Factor
Growth Factor
g Arguments are an opportunity to improve friendships. ‐.36 .45 Friends either get along or they don’t. .43 .01 g With enough effort, any friendship can work. ‐.07 .46 I like friendships that just click. .30 .31 Friendships often fail because people do not try hard
enough. .35 .27
d Friendships that don’t work out were never meant to be. .67 .01 d If a friendship is not meant to be there is no point in trying
to make it work. .65 .04
g Problems in a friendship can bring friends closer together. ‐.43 .43 g It is important to me that my friends and I agree. .11 .58 g It is important to me to work on improving the quality of
my friendships. .11 .76
g The best kind of friendship develops slowly over time. .05 .50 d Problems at the beginning of a friendship are a sign that
the friendship won’t last. .70 ‐.10
g I like friendships where I can learn new things about myself and my friend.
.03 .59
d To last, a friendship must seem right from the start. .69 .11 g Indicates items retained for the growth scale. d Indicates items retained for the destiny scale.
62
Table 3. Correlations between growth and destiny theories for validation purposes.
Growth Destiny Growth ‐.097 Destiny ‐.097 Peer Attachment Quality .220** .062
Communication .394*** .037 Alienation .054 ‐.079 Trust .162* .016
Self‐esteem .069 .021 Emotional Healtha .136† .009 Popularity/Acceptancea ‐.026 .093 Social Helplessnessa ‐.083 ‐.055 a Teacher reported measures
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
63
Table 4. Correlations between growth and destiny theories and peer behaviors.
Growth Destiny CPRS a
Caring Acts .389*** ‐.086 Negative Affect .080 ‐.009 Relational Aggression ‐.180* .070 Isolation .189* .051 Relationship Inclusivity .306*** ‐.167*
Interpersonal Goals Submissive .073 .093 Separate ‐.037 .024 Communal .281*** .025
a Children’s Peer Relationship Scale
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
64
Table 5. Correlations between growth and destiny theories and friendship qualities.
Growth Destiny FQM a
Overt Aggression ‐.096 ‐.048 Relational Aggression ‐.011 .044 Conflict Resolution .168* ‐.008 Intimate Exchange I .271*** ‐.106 Intimate Exchange II .260*** ‐.112 Subject Desire for Exclusivity .004 .000 Friend Desire for Exclusivity ‐.033 ‐.012 Conflict I ‐.034 .020 Conflict II .045 ‐.065 Validation and Caring .353*** ‐.067 Companionship and Recreation .149† .100 Satisfaction .132† ‐.030
IFQM b Conflict Resolution .154† ‐.071 Intimate Exchange .323*** ‐.030 Conflict .258*** .106 Validation and Caring .354*** ‐.048 Help and Guidance .238** ‐.033
a Friendship Qualities Measure, b Importance of Friendship Qualities Measure
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
65
Table 6. Correlations between implicit theories and friendship qualities by gender.
Growth Destiny Girls Boys Girls Boys
FQM a Overt Aggression ‐.021 ‐.117 ‐.057 ‐.068 Relational Aggression ‐.105 .140 .185† ‐.165 Conflict Resolution .079 .226† .039 ‐.041 Intimate Exchange I .270* .202 ‐.023 ‐.187 Intimate Exchange II .218* .229† .109 ‐.295* Subject Desire for Exclusivity ‐.082 .097 .115 ‐.191 Friend Desire for Exclusivity ‐.069 .012 .094 ‐.171 Conflict I ‐.239* .253* .039 ‐.038 Conflict II .033 .133 .003 ‐.191 Validation and Caring .278** .379** ‐.078 ‐.024 Companionship and Recreation .244* ‐.019 .131 .069 Satisfaction .118 .107 ‐.130 .097
IFQM b Conflict Resolution .037 .172 ‐.071 .006 Intimate Exchange .253* .350** ‐.032 .039 Conflict .072 .429*** .033 .296* Validation and Caring .197† .471*** .030 ‐.099 Help and Guidance .146 .270* .097 ‐.173
a Friendship Qualities Measure, b Importance of Friendship Qualities Measure
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
66
Table 7. Effects of Destiny and Growth scales on Friendship Qualities.
Friendship Quality Growth β Destiny β Growth x Destiny β
FQMa Conflict Resolution .170*
Intimate Exchange I .267***
Intimate Exchange II .244**
Validation and Caring .348***
Companionship and Recreation .158†
IFQMb Conflict Resolution .151†
Intimate Exchange .323***
Conflict .273*** .154*
Validation and Caring .358***
Help and Guidance .234**
Note. Friendship Qualities not reported did not reach significance. In each analysis destiny and growth theories were entered and interpreted at Step 1, the two‐way interactions were entered and interpreted at the Step 2. Only significant results are presented here.
a Friendship Qualities Measure, b Importance of Friendship Qualities Measure
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low Destiny High Destiny
IFQ
M: C
onfli
ct
Low Growth
High Growth
Figure 1. The interaction between destiny and growth beliefs predicting children’s ratings of how upset they would be if there was conflict in their friendship with their best friend.
67
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low Length High Length
IFQ
M C
onfli
ct R
esol
utio
n
Low Growth
High Growth
Figure 2. The two‐way interaction between friendship length and growth beliefs predicting the value of conflict resolution in the friendship.
68
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low Length High Length
IFQ
M V
alid
atio
n an
d ca
ring
Low Growth
High Growth
Figure 3. The two‐way interaction between friendship length and growth beliefs predicting the value of validation and caring behaviors in the friendship.
69
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Growth High Growth
Intim
ate
Exc
hang
e
(1) High Destiny, High Length
(2) High Destiny, Low Length
(3) Low Destiny, High Length
(4) Low Destiny, Low Length
Figure 4. The three‐way interaction between friendship length and growth and destiny beliefs predicting intimate exchange in the friendship.
70
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low Satisfaction High Satisfaction
Rel
atio
nal A
ggre
ssio
n
Low Destiny
High Destiny
Figure 5. The two‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and destiny beliefs predicting relational aggression in the friendship.
71
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low Satisfaction High Satisfaction
Con
flict
Tow
ard
Frie
nd
Low Destiny
High Destiny
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low Satisfaction High Satisfaction
Con
flict
Fro
m F
rien
d
Low Destiny
High Destiny
Figure 6. The two‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and destiny beliefs predicting levels of conflict, both to and from the best friend.
72
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Growth High Growth
IFQ
M C
onfli
ct R
esol
utio
n
(1) High Destiny, High Satisfaction
(2) High Destiny, Low Satisfaction
(3) Low Destiny, High Satisfaction
(4) Low Destiny, Low Satisfaction
Figure 7. The three‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and growth and destiny beliefs predicting the importance of conflict resolution in the friendship.
73
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Growth High Growth
Rel
atio
nal A
ggre
ssio
n (1) High Destiny, Girls
(2) High Destiny, Boys
(3) Low Destiny, Girls
(4) Low Destiny, Boys
Figure 8. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting relational aggression in the friendship.
74
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Growth High Growth
Intim
ate
Exc
hang
e (1) High Destiny, Girls
(2) High Destiny, Boys
(3) Low Destiny, Girls
(4) Low Destiny, Boys
Figure 9. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting intimate exchange in the friendship.
75