THESl‘S

_/
1 .
I w My “on” Q: . v .» ‘ , F
i 6: ~ . :
4A).. cah‘o ., .'_ ‘,
Va 3.55in w . ~. - ' a .u!

 

I
3.11,,» _, 2'
‘ . £._.. 'i '5'; vi 3: ‘ln . ; _\,&;,.
I"-—‘ W ,_ ,W - C.

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
CHILDREN'S STRATEGIES AND GOALS FOR
ACQUAINTANCESHIP AND FRIENDSHIP FORMATION
presented by

Judith C. Meister

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. A. degree in Psychology

 

 

fiWM a? sic/WW

 

 

Major professor

Date February 22, 1984

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771

 

 

 

MSU

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARIES remove this checkout from
“ your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
.. a: 1 ,_ i A
a? t" .“z : A: .-
LIA WU,;.,1_.,; 1; {F}; 3; girl". '4‘ng ‘i

 

 

 

CHILDREN'S STRATEGIES AND GOALS FOR ACQUAINTANCESHIP

AND FRIENDSHIP FORMATION

BY

Judith C. Meister

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
' for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1984

ABSTRACT

CHILDREN'S STRATEGIES AND GOALS FOR ACQUAINTANCESHIP AND
FRIENDSHIP FORMATION

BY

Judith C. Meister

Fourth-grade and seventh-grade boys and girls of four social
effectiveness statuses were interviewed about their strategies and goals
for acquaintanceship and friendship formation, including an initial
social encounter, acquaintanceship formation, friendship maintenance,
managing conflict in the context of friendship, and dealing with
friendship termination. Separate analyses for children's strategies,
goals, and feelings for these situations, based on confirmatory factor
analysis and multivariate analysis of variance, revealed several
patterns of results. First, children‘s strategies for initial social
encounters and friendship maintenance varied by grade. Second,
children's goals for friendship termination varied according to gender.
Third, children's feelings about friendship maintenance varied by grade
and gender. Finally, children's feelings about friendship termination
varied according to gender and social effectiveness status.
Developmental differences in children's friendship formation strategies,
possible links between these differences and sex role development, and
the need for more accurate and stable sociometric classification methods

were discussed.

AKCNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Ellen Strommen,
for her whole-hearted support and encouragement throughout the course of
this project. I would also like to thank Dr. wade Horn and Dr. William
Bukowski for their assistance and advice on the data analysis, and the
administration, faculty, and students of the St. Clair Shores School
District for their enthusiasm and cooperation during data collection.
Finally, I thank Julie Juenemann for her efforts in acquiring a subject

population for this study, and her help, along with numerous others, in

collecting the data.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES .................................................. iv
INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1
METHOD .......................................................... 12
Sdfiafis..u.u.n.n.n.n.u.u.n.n.u.u.n.n.u.n..12
Procedure .................................................. 12
Interview Measures ......................................... 17
RESULTS ......................................................... 21
Derivation of dependent measures through factor analysis ... 21
Multivariate analyses of variance .......................... 28
DISCUSSION ...................................................... 37
APPENDIX A. Sociometric Questionnaires ......................... 48
APPENDIX B. Social Strategies and Goals Interview .............. 52
APPENDIX C. Feelings—Strategies-Goals Coding Scheme ............ 55
APPENDIX D. Strategy Coding Scheme ............................. 56
APPENDIX E. Goals Coding Scheme ................................ 64
APPENDIX F. Feelings coding Scheme ............................. 73
APPENDIX G. Best Friend Coding Scheme .......................... 77
APPENDIX H. Codes Combined for Factor Analyses ................. 82

LIST OF REFEREbEBS O0.0.0....00.000.000.000.............OOOOOOOOO 88

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Liked, Disliked, Social Preference and Social Impact
Scores by Grade and Social Effectiveness Grouping......... 15

2. Strategy Item Factor Loadings After varimax Rotation...... 24
3. Goal Item Factor Loadings After varimax Rotation.......... 25
4. Feelings ItemiFactor Loadings After Verimax Rotation...... 27
5. Best Friend Item Factor Loadings After varimax Rotation... 29
6. Significant MANOVAs by Vignette and Coding Scheme. . . . . . . . . 31
7. Strategy Factors by Grade................................. 31
8. Goal Factors by Gender: Friendship Termination Vignette.. 33

9. Feelings Factors by Grade by Gender: Friendship
Maintenance VignetteOOOOI....0............OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOO 33

10. Feelings Factors by Grade: Friendship Maintenance

VignetteOOOOCIOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0... 35

11. Feelings Factors by Gender by Social Effectiveness
Grouping: Friendship Termination Vignette............... 35

12. Feelings Factors by Gender: Friendship Termination

VignetteOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00.............OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 35

iv

I NTRODUCT I ON

In recent years, the importance of children's friendships and peer
relationships to healthy social and emotional development has been
recognized by both developmental and child-clinical psychologists. Peer
interaction, and particularly friendship relations, have been shown to
facilitate the development of a mutually regulated behavioral repertoire
in which those who are interacting synchronize their conversation and
nonverbal behavior in ways which sustain the interaction and allow it to
flow smoothly, as well as to facilitate the development of social
cognitions which guide interpersonal interaction (Hartup, 1983). One
area of research which seems particularly important to both types of
development is the sociometric correlates of acquaintanceship and
friendship formation. Research in this area has focused on the
behavioral correlates of sociometric status, with a number of
researchers examining the social skills and behaviors which are related
to both positive and negative peer status and to relationship
developnent (e.g.Dodge, in press; Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, in press;
Gottman, Gonso, & Rasmussen, 1975; Hartup, Glazer, & Charlesworth, 1967;
Putallaz & Gottman, 1981). However, some researchers have recently
taken the position that overt behavior is just one component of
children's peer relations, and as a result, have begun to examine the
role of social knowledge in children‘s friendships and the effects of

sociometric status on these cognitions (e.g. Asher & Renshaw, 1981;

1

Flavell, 1981; Nelson, 1981; Renshaw & Asher, in press).

The premise guiding some of this research is drawn from cognitive
and social problem-solving literature which suggests that children
monitor social situations to determine what they wish to accomplish in
that situation, and how to go about doing so (Miller, Galanter, &
Pribram, 1960; Schank & Abelson, 1977; Nelson, 1981). In other words,
children must define for themselves what the situation requires them to
do (a goal), and then choose a means of fulfilling that requirement (a
strategy). There is some research to suggest that children's abilities
to carry out these social tasks varies according to their sociometric
status (Ladd & Oden, 1979; Asher, Renshaw & Geraci, 1988; Asher &
Renshaw, 1981). For example, Ladd and Oden (1979) studied popular and
unpopular third- and fifth-grade children's strategies for dealing with
hypothetical situations in which a peer needed help, and found that the
children's ideas varied according to their popularity status. When
unpopular children were provided with a situation in which the goal was
to help a peer who was being teased, or to help a peer with school work,
they tended to provide unique or non-normative strategies for solving
the dilemma in comparison to their more popular peers. That is, the
unpopular children tended to suggest behaviors that were not suggested
by any one else, while a more unified consensus on the appropriate
strategies for these situations was reached by the more popular
children. Similar results were obtained in a study of kindergartener's
strategies for hypothetical social interaction situations (Asher &
Renshaw, 1981). In this study, children were interviewed for their
strategies in three different peer interaction situations. First, the

children's strategies for initiating a social relationship were

elicited. Second, they were asked to provide strategies for maintaining
an already ongoing interaction with a peer, and finally, they were asked

to provide strategies for managing a social conflict. The unpopular
children not only provided unique, non-normative strategies for these
three situations in comparison to their more popular peers, but also,
the unpopular children's strategies tended to be inappropriately
negative, vague, and in the conflict situation, aggressive.

Renshaw and Asher (in press) extended this research to include not
only children's strategies for hypothetical social interaction
situations, but also children's goals for those situations. Thus, they
were interested in both the various goals that a child might choose to
pursue in a given situation as well as the strategies he/she would
formulate to achieve those goals. The premise here was that social
situations are often rather unstructured, and therefore may warrant the
production of a variety of goals as well as a variety of strategies for
achieving those goals. In this study, Renshaw and Asher (in press)
interviewed third-, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade children about
hypothetical social situations in which they distinguished strategies as
"what the child would do or say" in a particular situation, and goals as
"why the child would use the various strategies" in that situation.
Four hypothetical situations were used--contact, in which the child was
to imagine that he/she had recently moved to a new school and that
he/she was about to go out on the playground with the new classmates;
ggtgy, in which the child imagined attempting to join two already
interacting peers who commented that they had not asked the chi ld to

join them; friendship, in which the child imagined seeing a friend

 

playing with a peer during recess whom the child did not like; and

conflict, in which the child imagined watching television with a new
neighborhood child who changed the channel in the middle of a program
without asking permission to do so. In comparing the responses of
popular children to those of their less popular peers, Renshaw and Asher
(in press) found that only the friendship situation produced clear
results; popular children provided friendly, outgoing goals and
strategies while unpopular children provided goals and strategies which
had a nonsocial, avoidance theme, such as leaving the situation, or
which were related to their experience of unpleasant emotions in the
situation at hand.

Additional results of this study were related to differences in
children's goals and strategies with increasing age. Specifically,
Renshaw and Asher (in press) found that older children provided friendly
strategies that tended to be indirect or accomodating while younger
children provided more direct stategies. Older children's goals in
using these accomodating strategies appeared to be related to attempts
to protect their image in the event that their peers rebuffed them. In
addition, older children appeared to recognize that they needed to
consider their peer's perspective when formulating social goals for
conflict situations while younger children did not recognize this need.
Thus, older children's goals for the conflict situation were focused on
making or maintaining the friendship, while younger children's goals
were focused on their personal rights in the situation.

The results of Renshaw and Asher's work (in press) and those of
previous studies (Ladd & Oden, 1979; Asher, et al., 1980) point not only
to the importance of examining the effects of children's social status

on their social knowledge, but also to the importance of including a

developmental perspective in research on children's social goals and
strategies. Older children appear to have distinctly different ideas
about the requirements of various social situations than do younger
children. This developmental difference could be important in
understanding the ways in which children's age and sociometric status
interact in influencing their use of social knowledge for behavioral
interaction.

Research focusing on the development of person perception and
friendship conceptions (Bigelow & LaGaipa, 1975; Bigelow, 1977; Forbes,
1978; Furman & Bierman, 1981, 1983; Peevers & Secord, 1973), which
suggests that a shift in children's descriptions of social interaction
and of friendships occurs with age, provides further support for this
issue. Specifically, it has been shown that in completing story
recognition, peer description, and questionnaire tasks, children between
the ages of four and thirteen differ in their definitions of friendship
in a stage—like progression beginning with behaviorally based constructs
in early childhood--descriptions of peers based on perceptually obvious
and observable characteristics, common activities, and frequent
contact--and moving to contractually based constructs in middle
childhood, and finally to abstract, dispositionally based concepts
relating to the functional, social, and cultural features of
friendship--intimacy, support, trust, loyalty, and affection--during
adolescence (Bigelow, 1977; Forbes, 1978; Furman & Bierman, 1981, 1983).
These results, in conjunction with those obtained by Renshaw and Asher
(in press), support the notion that with development, children's social
knowledge, which influences the goals and strategies they choose for

various social situations, becomes less directed toward self—serving

ends and more focused on achieving mutually satisfying interactive ends.

The present study attempts to examine this notion by extending the
scope of studies such as those completed by Asher and his colleagues
(Ladd & Oden, 1979; Asher, et al., 1988; Asher & Renshaw, 1981; Renshaw
& Asher, in press). In particular, the present study examines the
effects of developmental and sociometric status differences on fourth-
and seventh-grader's strategies and goals for five acquaintanCeship and
friendship formation situations. Sociometric status in the present
study is conceptualized in a more detailed manner than that used in
previous studies; rather than considering sociometric status as a
measure of popularity--i.e. the extent to which a child is desired as a
playmate (Renshaw & Asher, in press)--it is considered as a
two-dimensional construct relating to a child's acceptance by his/her
peers and to his/her impact upon or visibility among his/her peers
(Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983). It was expected that this distinction,
which allows the identification of four social effectiveness groups,
would be useful in illuminating differences in social goals and
strategies which may have been masked in Renshaw and Asher's (in press)
work due to their rather general conceptualization of children's
sociometric status as popular or unpopular.

A further extension of previous studies examining children's
social goals and strategies (Ladd & Oden, 1979; Asher, et al., 1988;
Asher & Renshaw, 1981; Renshaw & Asher, in press) is to examine
children's goals and strategies for the process of friendship formation.
Research has shown that children of different social effectiveness
groupings differ in the ways in which they attempt to develop

friendships or other peer-oriented relationships (Hartup, et al., 1967,

Gottman, et al., 1975; Putallaz & Gottman, 1981; Dodge, in press; Dodge,
Coie, & Brakke, in press). Specifically, children who are more highly

accepted by their peers tend to be friendlier, more agreeable, and more
likely to provide constructive alternatives for action in peer conflict
situations than their less well accepted counterparts, while the less
popular children tend to call attention to themselves and ask
informational questions when attempting to join a group of peers

(Putallaz & Gottman, 1981). In addition, popular children are more

likely than rejected children to refrain from peer-directed aggression
and context-inappropriate behavior both in the classroom and on the
playground (Dodge, in press; Dodge, et al., in press). Popular children
seem to engage in behaviors which heighten the probability that their
peers will respond positively to them, and they seem to avoid engaging
in behaviors which are likely to elicit negative peer responses. In
contrast, rejected children engage in higher rates of inappropriate and
aggressive acts which are likely to elicit negative peer responses, and
engage in fewer prosocial behaviors which are likely to produce positive
peer responses (Dodge, in press).

In terms of actual friendship development, Gottman's (1983) recent
examination of how children ranging in age from 3 to 9 years become
friends demonstrated that children who "hit it off" and became friends
were more likely to exchange information successfully, manage conflict
appropriately, and establish common ground activities in their initial
meeting than were children who did not "hit it off". This data, in
conjunction with the theoretical and empirical research on
acquaintanceship and friendship development conducted among adolescents

and adults (Newcomb, 1956, 1961; Altman & Taylor, 1973; Duck, 1976; Duck

& Craig, 1977, 1978; Scanzoni, 1978) which suggests that individuals
begin a relationship by establishing commonalities and exchanging
personal information of a very superficial nature, provides a starting
point for examining children's knowledge about relationship development.
In addition, the theories tested by Duck and his colleagues (Duck, 1976;
Duck & craig, 1977, 1978) and by Newcomb (1956, 1961) which suggest that
the quality of social interaction changes with increasing degrees of
acquaintance, provide more extended areas in which children's social
knowledge of relationship development may be studied. In particular,
the theories of adult and adolescent relationship development suggest
that as individuals become better acquainted, their interactions alter
in focus from rather superficial, objective types of exchange to a more
personally intimate type of exchange. In addition, it is thought that
as the friendship between two individuals deepens, the participating
individuals become more tolerant of one another's negative attributes
and behaviors than they would have been at earlier points in the
relationship (Duck, 1976; Duck & craig, 1977, 1978; Scanzoni, 1978).
Therefore, in addition to examining the effects of sociometric status on
children's goals and strategies in social situations, the theoretical
and empirical work on acquaintanceship and friendship development
(Newcomb, 1956, 1961; Duck, 1976; Duck & craig, 1977, 1978; Putallaz &
Gottman, 1981; Dodge, in press; Dodge, et al., in press) provide an
additional arena for the study of children's social knowledge. In
particular, rather than focusing on isolated events within the context
of established friendship (Renshaw & Asher, in press), the present study
incorporates five of the steps in the friendship development process

outlined in the theoretical and empirical work with adolescents and

adults (Newcomb, 1956, 1961; Duck, 1976; Duck & Craig, 1977, 1978),
including the initial social meeting, acquaintanceship development,

friendship maintenance, conflict management, and friendship termination.

These two extensions of Renshaw and Asher's (in press), in addition
to re-examining their work from a developmental perspective, provided

the bases for two sets of hypotheses. First, it was hypothesized that

children who were classified pg stars, and who were highly accepted by

 

their peers, would produce social strategies and goals for the

 

friendship formation situations which were friendlier, more outgoing,

 

and more socially apprqpriate than children who were classified ip_the

other three sociometric groups. In addition, previous research on the

 

behavioral correlates of sociometric status and relationship development
(Putallaz & Gottman, 1981; Dodge, in press; Dodge, et al., in press), as
well as Asher's work with children's strategies and goals (Asher, et
al., 1980; Asher & Renshaw, 1981; Renshaw & Asher, in press), provided

the basis for expecting that children who were classified pg

 

r jected--poorly accepted by their peers—-would provide 2 gpeater number

 

pf non-normative, unique goals and strategies for friendship formation

than would their more highly accepted peers, and that these goals and

 

 

strategies would p§_less socially appropriate and more likely 39 pg

 

aggressive ip_the conflict and termination friendship situations than

 

would the goals and strategies pf_other children. Children classified

 

 

 

§§_being neglected--little noticed by their peers--were expected 59'

 

produce fewer numbers pf goals and strategies than children classified

 

p§_stars, average, pp rejected, and these responses were expected Epppg

 

 

less well defined than those pf star and average children. This

 

 

10

hypothesis was based on the premise that since neglected children are
selected by few of their peers as either a friend or a least-liked peer,
they probably have had fewer opportunities for social interaction which
would facilitate their development of a large pool of social knowledge;
therefore, they would have fewer experiences upon which they could rely
in formulating their responses to the friendship formation situations.
Despite this possible lack of social experience and social knowledge,

strategies would pe_socially inappropriate p£_aggressive. In fact,

 

 

Dodge and his colleagues (Dodge, in press; Dodge, et al., in press) have
found that at least in their social interactions, neglected children do
not display the aggressive and socially inappropriate behavior which is
evidenced in rejected children's interactions with their peers.

The recent work of Asher and his colleagues which has included a
developmental perspective on children's social goals and strategies
(Ladd & Oden, 1979; Asher, et al., 1980; Renshaw & Asher, in press),
along with research in other areas of social cognition which has
examined the development of children's freindship conceptions (Bigelow,
1977; Forbes, 1978; Furman & Bierman, 1981) provided the bases for the
second set of hypotheses in the present study. In the present study,
responses of fourth- and seventh-graders were compared since it has been
shown that children's descriptions of friendship and social interaction
sequences progress from the use of concrete observable constructs to the
use of more abstract, sophisticated, and relationship-oriented
constructs (Bigelow, 1977; Forbes, 1978; Furman & Bierman, 1981). ‘13

was expected that the fourth-graders would more frequently rely pp_more

 

concrete constructs such §§_frequent contact and playsrelated gpals and

 

11

strategies than would seventh-graders. In addition, since children's

 

friendship descriptions and their social goals and strategies within the

context of established relationships have been shown to become
increasingly relationship-oriented with age (Bigelow, 1977; Forbes,
1978; Renshaw & Asher, in press), i£_was expected that the

seventh-graders would focus pp_these more abstract concepts ip_

 

formulating their friendship formation goals and strategies. More

 

specifically, it was expected that the older children would show gpeater

conern for the peer portrayed ip_the friendship formation situations,

 

and would focus pp_the more inteppersonal aspects pf_the situation

 

 

 

relating pp trust, loyalty, and value concurrence, than would the

younger children. Finally, pp gender differences were hypothesized, as

 

there was no evidence from previous research suggesting that boys and
girls would differ in their goals and strategies for these situations.
To test these hypotheses, groups of fourth- and seventh-graders
selected to represent star, average, neglected and rejected social
effectiveness statuses were asked to respond to five interview questions
related to the process of friendship development. These questions were
designed to elicit the children's feelings, strategies, and goals for an
initial encounter with a previously unknown peer, becoming acquainted,
maintaining a friendship, handling a conflict, and terminating the
friendship with the peer. Further tests of the hypotheses related to
children's increasing concern with the interpersonal aspects of
relationships with increasing age were included by having the children

provide reasons for choosing another child as a best friend.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects for the present study were recruited from six fourth-grade
classrooms and from the entire seventh grade in a lower-middle class
suburban Detroit school district. An incentive system was used in
recruiting subjects at each grade level in order to facilitate the
children returning their permission letters for participation in the
study. At each grade level, the first homeroom to have 90 percent of
the permission letters returned, regardless of whether or not
participation was granted, received a 25 dollar prize. The second
homeroom in which 90 percent of the permission letters were returned
received a 10 dollar prize. Using this incentive system, an initial
sample of 249 children was acquired, consisting of 77 male and 55 female
fourth-graders (Total N = 132) and 52 male and 65 female seventh-graders

(Total N = 117).

Procedure

Sociometric questionnaire. Each child in the initial sample

 

completed a group administered sociometric questionnaire during a
homeroom period. Fburth grade children selected from among their
same—sex classmates (i.e., children in their homeroom) the three
children who were their best friends, and the three children whom they

liked the least. Seventh graders completed a similar questionnaire with

12

13

the exception that they made their best friend and least—liked peer
selections from among their same-sex grademates (i.e., all of the
children in the seventh grade). In addition, the children ranked their
best friends in descending order from first to third best friend by
placing the numerals one, two, and three next to their choices (See
Appendix A).

Next, four nomination scores were computed from the children's
sociometric questionnaire data. First, a raw liked score and a raw
disliked score were computed by tabulating the frequency with which each
child was selected by his/her peers as a best friend and as a
least-liked peer. These scores were subsequently converted to z-scores,
with the fourth graders' scores being standardized by homeroom and sex,
and the seventh graders' scores being standardized by sex. Using these
z-scores, two additional scores were computed-—a social preference
score, which is the difference of the liked and disliked nomination '
z-scores, and a social impact score, which is the sum of the liked and
disliked nomination z-scores. These social preference and social impact
scores were then restandardized by homeroom and sex for the
fourth-graders, and by sex for the seventh graders.

These four scores--raw liked, raw disliked, social preference, and
social impact-~were then used to group the children in the original
sample into four social effectiveness groupings based on the binomial
probability method derived by Newcomb and Bukowski (1983). This method
is based on a binomial probability distribution which is applied to the
raw liked, raw disliked, social preference, and social impact scores,
and which uses the size of the group nominating a child as liked or

disliked, in order to determine rare (less than chance) scores on the

14

social preference and social impact dimensions. Since the
fourth-graders nominated only same-sex children in their homeroom,
thereby reducing the number of children from which they could make their
choices, the nominating group size factor played a larger role in
determining rare social preference and social impact scores than it did
for the seventh graders, who made their nominations from among all of
their same—sex grademates. This method allowed for the selection of a
second sample of children (N = 96), six each from each grade and sex in
each of the four social effectiveness groupings, who would participate
in the social goals and strategies interview. The four social
effectiveness groups were labeled star, average, neglected and rejected,
and the minimum probability criterion value for the scores which
determined a child's membership within a group was set at'p < .05.

Stars were children whose liked scores were rare, whose disliked
score was below the mean, and whose social preference z-score was
greater than +1.0. Children assigned to the Average group had liked and
disliked scores that would be expected by chance and preference and
impact z-scores which fell between -1.0 and +1.0. Neglected social
effectiveness status was implicated for children whose social hmpact
score was rare (i.e., less than -l.0), and children assigned to the
Rejected group had a rare disliked score, a liked score below the mean,
and a social preference z-score less that -l.0. Table 1 presents the
mean liked, disliked, preference, and impact scores for the 96 children
chosen to participate in the strategies and goals interview, organized
by grade, sex, and social effectiveness. Six children from each grade
and sex were chosen for each of the social effectiveness groupings,

resulting in a 2 X 2 X 4 design.

Mean Liked, Disliked, Social Preference and Social Impact
by Grade, Gender, and Social Effectiveness Grouping

Grade Gender

 

7 Male
Female

4 Male
Female

Social

Effectiveness

15

Table l

 

 

Star
Average
Neglected
Rejected
Star
Average
Neglected
Rejected
Star
Average
Neglected
Rejected
Star
Average
Neglected
Rejected

Liked Disliked
5.50 1.00
2.00 1.67

0 0
.67 6.00
6.33 1.17
2.50 1.17
.67 .83
1.33 6.00
7.83 .50
3.00 2.50
.50 ‘.83
.50 9.17
6.67 .33
2.67 2.67
1.17 1.33
.17 7.17

Preference

 

1.64445
.11966
-.07676
-1.80577
1.44031
-.02419
-.49266
-1.70497
1.54767
.12207
-.13547
-1.87112
1.37413
.01957
-.05018
-1.50123

Scores

Impect

1.45505
.28776
-l.l0512
1.28918
1.48060
-.09939
-1.14l94
.94760
1.10681
-.01892
-l.67123
1.14346
.91311
-.08367
-1.52499
.98157

16

Social strategies and gpals interview. The aim of this part of the

 

study was to assess children's strategies and goals for a variety of
situations related to the process of friendship formation by eliciting
their responses to an individually administered interview. The
interviews were conducted throughout the school day by the investigator,
three fellow graduate students, and two undergraduate research
assistants, each of whom had been previously trained in interviewing
children and who had been previously familiarized with the interview
instrument. All of the interviewers were blind to the children's social
effectiveness groupings. Children's responses to the interview
questions were audio-taped in order to expedite data collection and
minimize the amount of time children were absent from their classrooms.
The interview process was explained to each child, and his/her written
permission for audio-taping was sought prior to beginning the interview.
In addition, children were assured of the confidentiality of the
information contained on their tapes, and any questions the children had
about the various parts of the study were answered.

The interview consisted of five social situations in which the
interviewee imagined playing a major role. Situation i_required the
child to imagine himself/herself in an initial social encounter with a
previously unknown same—sex peer. In situation 3, the child was
required to imagine a scene in which he/she became better acquainted
with the peer encountered in situation 1. Situation §_occurred in a
school setting, and dealt with the child's attempt to maintain the
friendship he/she had thus far developed with the peer. Situation 4
took place in the peer's home, and involved a conflict situation, and in

situation 5, the child was required to deal with the peer's desire to

17

terminate the friendship (see Appendix B). For each of these five
situations, the interviewer first presented the child with a 4 inch by 6
inch index card which outlined the vignette, and then elicited three
types of infopmation from the child about the vignette. First, the
interviewer asked how the child would feel if the presented situation
had actually occurred. Then the child was asked to determine what
he/she would do or say if the vignette had actually occurred--i.e., the
child was asked to provide strategies for dealing with the situation.
Third, the interviewer asked the child why he/she would use each of the
strategies that had been generated--i.e., the child was asked to provide
a goal corresponding to each of the strategies. This procedure was
repeated for the five friendship formation vignettes, after which the
interview was terminated by eliciting from the child his/her reasons for
choosing a particular child as his/her best friend on the previously
administered sociometric questionnaire. This question was designed to
determine the factors which are important in children's conceptions of

close friendships.

Interview measures

Prior to developing the coding schemes for the strategies and goals
interview, the tapes were transcribed by the investigator and two
undergraduate research assistants. The'children's responses were
transcribed verbatim, and all transcribers were blind to the children's
social effectiveness grouping. Five coding schemes were derived from

the children's protocols, each dealing with the probes used by the

18

interviewer in eliciting children's responses to the vignettes-~"How
would you feel if this happened?", "What would you do or say if this
happened?", and "Why would you do or say each of these things?". The
children's responses to these probes were divided into idea units by the
investigator for each of the five friendship formation vignettes. Idea
units were defined as a complete thought expressed by the interviewee,
and could be as short as one word or as long as a sentence, depending on
the length of the child's thought. These idea units were used by the
coders as the items to be coded. Coding for each coding scheme was
completed by the investigator, while an undergraduate research assistant
coded one—third of the transcripts (N = 32) in order to establish
inter-coder reliability. Reliability figures for each of the five
coding schemes were computed using Cohen's (1960) kappa statistic, and
appear in parentheses at the end of the coding schemes' descriptions.
During the coding process, both the principal coder and the reliability
coder were blind to the children's social effectiveness groupings.

Feelings - Strategies - Goals Coding Scheme. The first coding

 

 

scheme classified children's responses to the five friendship formation
vignettes presented in the interview as to whether they reflected
Feelings, Strategies, or Goals. This Feelings-Strategies-Goals coding
scheme, is detailed in Appendix C. The same three codes, Feelings,
Strategies, or Goals were used for responses to all three questions for
each of the five vignettes. This coding scheme was developed as a
precursor to three of the subsequent four coding schemes because the
children's responses to the interviewer's three probes were not always
neatly sequenced in the order that the probes were asked. That is,

children sometimes provided strategies and/pr goals when asked "How

19

would you feel if this happened?", or provided feelings and/or goals in
response to the question "What would you do or say if this happened?",
or provided feelings and/Or strategies when queried about their goals
for each of the strategies they had generated (k_= .81).

Strategies Coding Scheme. This coding scheme was developed to

 

provide an exhaustive categorization of the strategies identified by the
feelings-strategies-goals coding of responses to the friendship
formation vignettes. The coding scheme consisted of 58 codes, each of
which is defined in Appendix D. Every effort was made to derive codes
which were mutually exclusive; however, a number of codes were very
similar, and therefore had the potential to be confusing (§_= .82).

Goals Coding Scheme. This coding scheme categorizes those

 

responses to the friendship formation vignettes which were identified by
the feelings-strategies—goals coding as goals. As with the strategies
coding scheme, every attempt was made to develop a mutually exclusive
and exhaustive coding scheme for the children's goals; the 64 code
definitions appear in Appendix E (k_= .60).

Feelings Coding Scheme. The codes for this coding scheme were

 

derived from the children's responses to the five social vignettes which
were identified by the feelings-strategies-goals coding as feelings.

The 35 codes in this coding scheme are mutually exclusive and exhaustive
and cover a range of emotions as dictated by the demands of the
friendship formation vignettes. Definitions of these codes appear in
Appendix F (k_= .90).

Best Friend Coding Scheme. Unlike the previous four coding

 

schemes, this coding scheme is not based on the five vignettes. Rather,

it is based on the final interview question-~"I noticed that you chose

20

(child's name) as your best friend. What is it about (child's name)
that made you chose him/her as your best friend?", and deals with the
children's conceptions of what a best friend is like. The 40 codes in
this coding scheme, detailed in Appendix G, are mutually exclusive and
exhaustive, and cover a range of ideas from the frequency of contact the

child has with the best friend to the extent of intimacy experienced in

the friendship (k_= .61).

RESULTS

The analyses of the interview measures were organized in two ways.
First, the frequency data from each of the coding schemes, with the
exception of the feelings—strategies-goals coding scheme, were submitted
to confirmatory factor analyses in order to reduce the number of
variables to be used in data analysis. Second, the frequencies of the
final factors resulting from the factor analysis iterations were used as
dependent measures in a series of 2 X 2 X 4 multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVA) examining the effects of the subjects' grade, gender,
and social effectiveness grouping on the factors for each of the five

friendship formation vignettes.

Derivation pf dependent measures through factor analyses

 

The large number of codes in four of the five coding
schemes-~strategies, goals, feelings, and best friend--presented a high
variable-to-subject ratio problem which needed to be resolved prior to
conducting any of the analyses. In order to reduce the
variable-to—subject ratio, two procedures were employed. First, it was
noted that a number of codes could, on conceptual grounds, be combined
with other similar codes and still represent the same, or a similar
concept. Therefore, the first code reduction process was to combine
codes on a conceptual basis. Second, a number of codes occurred with a

low frequency (fewer than 15 occurrences) and could not be combined with

21

22

other codes on conceptually firm grounds. These infrequently occurring
codes were dropped from the analysis. Following these procedures,
factor analyses of the reduced coding schemes were completed, using
communalities in the diagonals (Hunter, 1977) , as a means of deriving a
small number of meaningful dependent measures for use in testing the
present study's hypotheses.

Strategy codes. The frequency of occurrence of each of the 58

 

original strategy codes varied greatly, with a range across all of the
vignettes of one occurrence to as many as 142 occurrences. Using the
previously described code reduction processes, the strategies coding
scheme was reduced to a total of 27 codes which were used in the factor
analysis. The combinations of the strategies codes and the original
codes which were dropped from the analyses due to infrequent occurrence
are detailed in Appendix H. The original frequencies of each of the
original codes are presented in parentheses following each of the code
names in the right-hand column.

Following the code reduction process, the strategy codes were
grouped into three conceptuallybderived factors and submitted to a
confirmatory factor analysis. Using a correlation of'p = .35 as a
minimum criterion for the part-whole correlations between items and
their factors, five iterations of the factor analysis were completed
before a final factor solution including three primary factors and a

residual category was derived. The first factor, Acquaintanceship

 

Facilitators, included information exchange, defer to other's wishes,

 

and empathy. The reliability of this factor, assessed by standardized
coefficient alpha, was adequate, 2.: .57. The second factor, consisting

of seven items--invite to play, help, compromise, get along, walk away,

23

mutual activity, and express a preference-awas labeled Maintain Harmony;

 

this factor had good reliability, 3 = .72. The third factor, Conflict

 

Resolution, had adequate reliability, §_= .54, and consisted of three
items-~greet, desire an explanation for action, and find other
companions. The part-whole correlations of the items in the three
factors, along with the part-whole correlations of the items in the
residual category are presented in Table 2.

Goal codes. The original goal coding scheme, consisting of 65

 

codes ranging in frequency of usage by the children from one to 111
occurrences, was reduced to a total of 30 codes as detailed in Appendix
H. Frequencies of each of the original codes are presented in
parentheses following each code name in the right-hand column. In
factor analyzing the codes from the goals coding scheme, three primary
factors and a residual factor consisting of one item were originally
conceptualized. Three primary factors and a residual category were
subsequently derived through seven factor analysis iteration. The
partawhole correlations of the items with the factors, and the
part-whole correlations of the residual items appear in Table 3. The

first factor, Friendship Development Facilitators, consisted of seven

 

items-~information exchange, reference to possessions, acquire reason
for action, concern for peer's well-being, conversation, judgements of
peer's personality, and get along. Three items comprised the second

factor, Good Manners--nice, don't know what else to say, and good

 

manners. The third factor consisted of three items--references to self
image, existence of other companions, and references to expressing

feelings--and was labeled Conflict Resolution. The reliabilities of

 

these factors, assessed by standardized coefficient alpha, ranged from

24

Table 2

Strategy item factor loadings after varimax rotation

 

 

 

Items Factor

1 2 3 R
acquaintanceship Facilitators
04. Information exchange .38 .16 -.14 .13
20. Submit to other .58 .12 .25 .77
27. Empathy .73 .27 .11 .48
Maintain Harmony
05. Invite to play .35 .50 .26 -.06
07. Help .26 .40 .13 .56
08. Compromise -.01 .51 .02 .20
10. Get along .00 .37 -.10 .25
12. walk away .20 .69 .21 .44
17. Mutual activity .15 .66 .24 -.19
Conflict Resolution
02. Greet .02 .24 .76 .53
15. Desire an explanation .19 -.08 .44 .10
22. Find other companions .01 .23 .43 .33
Residual
06. Ask to make friends .27 .12 -.07 -.07
09. Make up/renew loyalty -.ll .17 .08 -.15
ll. Retaliate .06 .02 -.01 .27
13. Do nothing .15 -.01 .07 .08
14. Observe discrepancies .23 .07 .12 .02
16. Acquire info from others .24 .20 -.16 -.18
20. Conversation .19 .04 .06 .27
21. Ask other to submit .32 .19 .27 .11
23. Ask other's preference -.17 -.11 .19 .52
24. Compliment -.01 .06 -.10 .ll
25. Express feelings .08 .07 .26 .47
26. Hide feelings .20 -.10 .34 .31

Goal item factor loadings after varimax rotation

Items

25

Friendship Development Facilitators

02.
13.
15.
16.
20.
21.
28.

Information exchange
Reference to possessions
Acquire reason for action
Concern for peer
Conversation

Judge peer's personality
Get along

Good Manners

 

08.
11.
30.

Nice
Don't know what else to say
Good manners

Conflict Resolution

 

14.
23.
29.

Reference to self image
Other companions
Refer to expressing feelings

Residual

01.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07.
09.
10.
12.
17.
18.
19.
22.
24.
25.
26.
27.

Acquainting behavior
Facilitate friendship
Help

Compromise

Loss of friendship
Apologize

Avoid conflict/argument
Retaliate

Point out discrepancies
Mutual activity

Express a preference
Submit to other

Ask other to submit
Friendly

Retain liking

Ask other's preference
Commonalities

Table 3

1

.49
.55
.54
.59
.60
.49
.64

.15
-005
.28

.13
.29
.28

.26
.27

.03

.11
.18
-.02
.28
.24
.29
.10
.20
.13
.09
.30
.28
.16
.31

Factor

2

-.04
.03
.14
.11
.24
.20
.23

.55
.39
.71

.32

.16

.30
.00

-.13
.11
.08
.12

-008
.09
-.98

.06
.02
.16
.15
-.01

3

.27
.09
.20
.33
.03
.16
.29

.26

.38

.57

.61

.18
.19
.19
.13
.09
.19
.26

.09
.01
.09

.22
.10
.01
.05
.10

.49
.53
.15
.43
.63
.46
.88

26

adequate to good, .70, .55, and .70 for Friendship Development
Facilitators, Good Manners, and Cbnflict Resolution, respectively.

Feelings codes. Children's usage of the 36 original feelings codes

 

ranged from one to 94 occurrences. Details of the code reduction
process for this coding scheme, as well as the frequencies of the
original codes are presented in Appendix H. Confirmatory factor
analyses of the reduced coding scheme were based on five conceptually
derived factors which were reduced to four primary factors and a
residual category after eight iterations of the factors. The first
factor was labeled M999, and consisted of four items--sad, wish to make
acquaintance, happy, and hurt. Three items comprised the second factor,

labeled Uneasiness--fearful of losing friend, terrible/rejected, and

 

curious/reflective. Two items--concerned about other and playmate--were

grouped under a factor labeled Sensitivity pp Other, and three

 

items--excited, cheated/unconsidered, and confused--comprised the fourth

factor, labeled Self-oriented Feelings. Standardized coefficient alpha

 

reliability figures for these factors were adequate to good--.57, .70,
.56, and .59 for Mood, Uneasiness, Sensitivity to Other, and
Self-oriented Feelings, respectively-and part-whole correlations of the
items in the factors and residual category are presented in Table 4.

Best friend codes. This coding scheme originally consisted of 40

 

items, and was reduced to 23 codes using the same combination and
elimination procedures previously described. Details of the code
reductions as well as the original code frequencies, shown in
parentheses following each code name in the right-hand column, appear in
Appendix H. Fbur primary factors incorporating the 23 items were

submitted to confirmatory factor analysis and five iterations of the

27

Table 4

Feelings itemlfactor loadings after varimax rotation

 

 

 

 

Items Factor

1 2 3 4 R
Mood
05. Sad* .54 .24 -.04 .05 -.13
09. Wish to make acquaintance .47 -.05 .13 -.01 -.07
15. Happy* .5m .06 .07 .13 .32
18. Hurt .51 -.03 -.08 .02 .11
Uneasiness
ll. Fearful of losing friend .07 .64 -.07 -.09 —.l4
l4. Terrible/rejected .07 .46 -.05 -.13 .05
20. Curious/reflective .09 .93 .07 .01 .17
Sensitivitylgp_other
12. Concerned about other —.01 -.05 .64 .15 -.10
23. Playmate .06 -.07 .64 .28 -.02
Self-oriented feelings
06. Excited .03 -.09 .19 .72 .20
19. Cheated/unconsidered .07 -.08 -.02 .39 .29
21. Confused .07 .00 .42 .62 -.09
Residual
02. Bad .15 .14 .01 .00 .07
e3. Upset* -.12 .10 -.36 .21 .63
04. Shy —.09 -.04 -.08 .08 .23
07. Enjoyable situation .04 -.07 -.07 .05 .08
08. Undisturbed/nonchalant .09 -.04 .01 -.02 .41
10. Jealous/selfish* -.01 -.09 .06 .08 -.01
13. Great -.09 -.06 -.03 -.03 .35
16. OK/mediocre* .12 -.09 .18 .17 .04
17. Desire to develop friendship .33 .19 .02 .03 .21
22. Pleased with self* -.16 .03 .06 -.06 .17

*
Items reverse scored

28

originally conceptualized factors resulted in a three factor solution
with a residual category. The three factors and the items comprising

the factors are presented with their part-whole correlations in Table 5,

and included the following: Unique Qualities pf Friendship--share,

 

 

comparison to other peers; Personaligy Characteristics—-he1ps, nice,

 

honest, sensitive to other's feelings; and gegree pf

Acquaintance-—length of acquaintance, depth of acquaintance, and role of

 

others in the acquaintance process. The reliability figures for these
factors were measured by standardized coefficient alpha, and ranged from
adequate to excellent--.85, .58, and .48 for unique Qualities of
Friendship, Personality Characteristics, and Degree of Acquaintance.

Multivariate Analyses pf variance

 

Following the creation of a meaningful set of dependent measures
for each coding scheme, multivariate analyses of variance were conducted
as a means of testing the various hypotheses. Five separate MANOVAs
were completed for each coding scheme, using grade, gender, and social
effectiveness grouping as the independent variables, and the mean
frequencies of occurrence of the factors derived from the factor
analyses for each of the coding schemes as the dependent measures.

Feelings - Strategies - Goals codes. The first series of MANOVAs

 

 

was completed using the three general codes from this coding
scheme--feelings, strategies, and goals--as the dependent measures.
Separate MANOVAs were completed for each of the five social vignettes
since each of these represented different situations. As shown in Table
6, only the MANOVA for the friendship termination vignette was
significant, with a main effect of gender. Subsequent univariate

analyses of the dependent variables using gender as an independent

29

Table 5

Best Friend item factor loadings after varimax rotation

Items

Uniquelgpalities‘pf’Friendship
15. Share
20. Comparison to other peers

 

Personality Characteristics

06. Helps

09. Nice

12. Honest

14. Sensitive to other's feelings

 

Degree p£_Acquaintance
10. Length of acquaintance

17. Depth of acquaintance
21. Role of others in acquaintance

Residual

02. Sense of humor*

03 . chmmonalities*

04. Compatibility

05. Agree*

07. Frequent contact
08. Partners

11. School acquaintance
l3. Understands other friendships
16. Mutual liking

18. Good personality*
19. Close proximity*
22. Empathy*

23 . Sweet/kind*

*Items reverse scored

.87
.87

-.02

.08
-.03
-.01

-004
.09
-004

.06
-.13
.27
.04
-.11

.10
-.04
.08
.06
.06
.01
-.03

Factor

2

.02
.03

.53
.46
.69
.38

-009
.03
-0a5

.05
.16
.26
-.01
-.17
-.07
-.04
.25
.02
.07
.04
.06
-.13

3

.00
.01

.03
-.06
-.08
-.03

.4”
.74
.36

.11
.05
.10
.02

-.04
-.10
-.10
.05
.06
.16
.13

.39
.19

.53
.07
.19
-.32

“-009
.39
.09

-.01
.23
-.11
.31
.33
.63
.39
-.11
.11
-.06
.14
-.08
.26

30

variable revealed a significant difference for the goals code, F(1,80) =
10.18, p'< .002, with girls using a greater number of these codes than
boys, g = 3.06 vs. 11 = 1.85 for girls and boys, respectively. This
analysis demonstrates that in general, children do have goals for social
situations as well as strategies (Renshaw & Asher, in press), and
suggests that girls may be more adept than boys at generating a variety
of goals for such situations.

Strategy codes. The five MANOVAs using the mean frequencies of the

 

three strategy factors—-Acquaintanceship Facilitators, Maintain Harmony,
and Conflict Resolution--as dependent variables, revealed main effects
of grade on the initial encounter vignette and the friendship
maintenance vignette (see Table 6). Subsequent univariate analyses
using the four strategy factors as dependent variables, and grade as the
independent variable revealed a significant difference on the Maintain
Harmony factor, {(1,80) = 8.25, p < .005, and a marginally significant
difference for the Conflict Resolution factor, _E_‘(1,80) = 3.52, p < .06,
for the initial social encounter vignette, and a significant difference
on the Acquaintanceship Facilitators factor, _F_‘(l,80) = 9.15, p < .003,
for the friendship maintenance vignette. Means for these univariate
analyses are presented in Table 7. It appears that seventh graders have
a larger repetoire of acquaintanceship facilitating strategies for
initiating and maintaining friendships as well as a larger repertoire of
conflict management strategies for initial social encounters than do
fourth graders. In contrast, fourth graders appear to have a greater
repertoire of harmony'maintenance strategies for initial social

encounters than do their seventh-grade counterparts.

31

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6
Significant MANOVAs by vignette and coding scheme
Vignette Codin Effect F df
'__—__——_ sahamg' '__—_—_ " -—'
1. Initial social Strategies Grade 4.74*** 4,77
Encounter
2. Acquaintanceship None -- ---- ----
Formation
3. Friendship Strategies Grade 3.e7** 4,77
Maintenance Feelings Grade X Gender 2.64** 5,76
Feelings Grade 3.18*** 5,76
4. Conflict None -- ---- ----
5. Friendship FSG Gender 3.01“ 4,77
Termination Goals Gender 3.49*** 4,77
Feelings Gender X Social 1.77** 15,210
Effectiveness
Feelings Gender 2.71** 5,76
Table 7
Strategy Factors by Grade
Grade _4_ Grade 1
Vignette/Factor g M {(1 , 80)
Initial social encounter
a. Acquaintanceship Facilitators .83 1.10 ns
b. Maintain Harmony 1.35 .54 8.25
c. Conflict Resolution 1.31 1.77 3.52
Friendship Maintenance
a. Acquaintanceship Facilitators .10 .58 9.15
b. Maintain Harmony 2.13 1.75 ns
c. Conflict Resolution .00 .04 ns

*p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01

32

Goal codes. The mean frequencies of the three goal factors,
Friendship Development Facilitators, Good Manners, and Conflict
Resolution, were used as dependent variables in the series of MANOVAS
examining the use of the goal codes in each of the friendship formation
vignettes. As shown in Table 6, only one significant multivariate
effect was found—-gender was significant on the fifth vignette which
dealt with friendship termination. Table 8 details the results of the
subsequent univariate analyses using the three goal factors as dependent
variables and gender as the independent variable. Significant
differences were found for two of the goal factors, Friendship
Development Facilitators and Conflict Resolution, suggesting that girls
are more likely than boys to attempt to resolve the conflicts or
re-establish the friendship when a peer wishes to terminate the
relationship.

Feelings codes. Table 6 also summarizes the MANOVAs which

 

incorported the mean frequencies of the four feelings factors, Mood,
Uneasiness, Sensitivity to Other, and Self-oriented Feelings, as the
dependent variables. Feur significant multivariate effects resulted
from these analyses, two each for the friendship maintenance and
friendship termination vignettes.. As shown in Table 6, a significant
interaction of grade and gender, F(5,76) = 2.64, p < .03, and a
significant main effect of grade, F(5,76) = 3.18, p < .01, occurred for
the friendship maintenance vignette. Subsequent univariate ANOVAS
completed for these effects revealed significant differences on the Mood
factor, F(l,80) = 10.89, p < .001, and F(l,80) = 8.00, p < .006, for the
grade by gender interaction and for the main effect of grade,
respectively. Post-hoc analyses of the interaction between grade and

gender for the friendship maintenance vignette, using Scheffe's test,

33

Table 8

Goal Factors by Gender
Friendship Termination vignette

 

 

Boys Girls
5 e 51.80)
a . Friendship Development
Facilitators .54 1.15 6.82***
b. Good Manners .02 .14 3.33*
c. Conflict Resolution .04 .38 4.67**
Table 9
Feelings Factors by Grade by Gender
Friendship Maintenance Vignette
Grade 4_ Grade 2_
Factor Gender _M_ g _F( l , 80 )
Mood Boys .54 0 10.89****
Girls .17 .21
Uneasy Boys .13 .08 ns
Girls 0 0
Sensitivity to other Boys 0 .04 ns
Girls 0 0
Self-oriented feelings Boys 0 0 ns
Girls .04 0

*p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01, ****p < .001

34

revealed that fourth-grade boys provided significantly more mood related
feelings than did fourth-grade girls, seventh-grade boys, and
seventh-grade girls (p_< .01). Means for these differences are
presented in Table 9, and the means for the differences between groups
on the mood factor for the main effect of grade are presented in Table
10. It appears that overall, fourth-graders are more expressive about
mood related feelings than are seventh-graders, but that this factor is
affected by the child's gender, and may be related to sex role
stereotypes prescribed by our society in interaction with developmental
factors.

A significant interaction of grade and social effectiveness,
£315,210) = 1.77, p < .04, and a main effect of gender, F(5,76) = 2.71,
p < .03, resulted from the multivariate analyses of the friendship
termination vignette (see Table 6). Subsequent univariate ANOVAs using
the gender and social effectiveness as the independent variables
revealed significant differences on two of the feelings factors, Mood,
F(3,80) = 2.89, p < .04, and Uneasiness, F(B,80) = 2.97, p < .04. The
means for these results are presented in Table 11. Post—hoc analyses of
these results using Scheffe's test revealed that star girls referred to
the mood factor significantly more frequently than star boys (p.< .01),
neglected boys (p'< .05), and rejected girls (p_< .05). In addition,
neglected boys referred to feelings of uneasiness significantly more
frequently than star boys, star girls, average boys, and neglected girls
(all p‘s < .05). In examining the main effect of gender for this
vignette, univariate ANOVAS using the four feelings factors as dependent
variables revealed significant differences for the Mood factor, §X1,80)

= 13°67r.2.< .002; means for this analysis are presented in Table 12.

35

Table 10

Feelings Factors by Grade
Friendship Maintenance Vignette

 

Grade 4 Grade 7
Factor M —' M -' F(l,80)
maaa“ .55 .Im " 3.18**
Uneasy .06 .04 ns
Sensitivity to other 0 .02 ns
Self—oriented feelings .02 0 ns
Table 11

Feelings Factors by Gender by Social Effectiveness Grouping
Friendship Termination Vignette

Social Effectiveness Cropping
Stars Average Neglected Rejected

 

 

 

 

 

Factor Gender .13 M £1 g F ( l , 80)
Mood Boys .17 .42 .25 .42 2.89*
Girls .92 .67 .67 .33
Uneasy Boys 0 0 .50 .08 2.97*
Girls 0 .08 0 .08'
Sensitivity Boys 0 0 0 0 ns
to other Girls 0 .17 0 0
Self-oriented Boys .25 0 0 0 ns
feelings Girls .08 .25 0 .08
Table 12

Feelings Factors by Gender
Friendship Termination Vignette

Boys Girls
Factor g g F(l , 80)
Mood .31 .65 l0.67***
Uneasy .15 .04 ns
Sensitivity to other 0 .04 ns
Self-oriented feelings .06 .10 ns

*p < .05, **p< .01, ***p < .001

36

Although these findings do not directly support the hypotheses related
to producing the most sophisticated and socially appropriate goals and

strategies for the friendship formation vignettes, they do suggest that
at least star girls are less inhibited than any of the other groups of
children in expressing their feelings, particularly about friendship
termination situations. It appears, also, that neglected boys are
particularly inhibited by this situation, and as a result, experience

and/or express uneasiness about terminating a friendship.

Best Friend codes. Since these codes pertain only to the final

 

interview question, as opposed to pertaining to the five friendship
formation vignettes, only one MANOVA was completed for this analysis.

As with the other analyses, grade, gender, and social effectiveness
grouping served as the independent variables, while the mean frequencies
of the three factors derived from the reduced coding scheme--Unique
Qualities of Friendship, Personality Characteristics, and Degree of
Acquaintance—-served as the dependent variables. No significant main
effects or interaction effects were found with this analysis; however, a
marginally significant main effect of grade occurred, F(4,77) = 2.24, p
< .07. Using grade as the independent variable and the three best
friend factors as dependent variables in a subsequent univarite ANOVA
examining this effect, a significant difference for the Degree of
Acquaintance factor was found, F(l,80) = 3.93, p < .05. It appears that
seventh graders refer to the degree of their acquaintance with their
best friend more often than do fourth graders, M = .67 vs M = .27.

These findings support the hypothesis that older children tend to focus
on the more interpersonal and intimate aspects of friendship relations

than do younger children.

Discussion

Overall, the results of the present study directly support two of
the five originally stated hypotheses. There is no direct support for
the hypotheses related to differences in children's strategies and goals
for the friendship formation vignettes as a function of the children's
social effectiveness grouping. There was support for the age-related
hypotheses. Specifically, it was found that fourth-graders tended to be
bound by more concrete constructs related to play activities and the
maintenance of these activities while seventh-graders were more flexible
in their strategies for friendship formation. In particular,
seventh—graders' strategies reflected the hypothesized concern for the
peer's experience, as well as the overall focus on the interpersonal
aspects of relationship development including factors such as empathy,
infonmation exchange, and conflict resolution. These developmental
differences in children's friendship formation strategies were not,
however, reflected in the children's goals for friendship formation,
thus resulting in only partial support of the aforementioned hypotheses.

Although not specifically hypothesized, the grade differences in
the feelings variables lends further support to the notion that with
development, children become more concerned with the interpersonal and
mutually beneficial aspects of friendships, and less concerned with the

personal-gain aspects of friendships particularly in the case of

37

38

friendship maintenance. Specifically, fourth-graders' more frequent use
of mood variables, in comparison to their seventh-grade counterparts,
would suggest that the younger children tended to focus on their own
personal emotional reactions to the situation, while the older children
were less concerned with this aspect of the situation. By implication,
the older children may have been more concerned with the peer's
experience as indicated by their more frequent, though non-significant,
use of "sensitivity to other" variables.

Indirect support for the hypothesized differences in children's
cognitions about the various friendship formation vignettes as a
function of social effectiveness grouping may be drawn from the findings
that in their use of the feelings variables for friendship temmination,
children differed according to social effectiveness grouping and gender.
In particular, the star, average, and neglected girls' more frequent use
of mood variables for this vignette supports the notion that these
children are more able to define and express their feelings about
negative situations than rejected children. Although indirectly
supported in the present study, this suggests that the star, average,
and neglected children may be more adept at assessing social situations
and devising plans and goals for behavior in these situations. In
addition, the neglected girl's similar use of mood related variables,
and the neglected boy's non-significantly less frequent use of these
same variables, in comparison to the use of these variables by average
children suggests that neglected children's repertoires for social
situations may be more similar to the repertoires of the average social
effectiveness child than those of the rejected social effectiveness

child. Although this conclusion would support Dodge's findings that

39

neglected children do not display the aggressive and
context-inappropriate behaviors exhibited by rejected children in social
interaction (Dodge, in press; Dodge, et al., in press), further testing
of these hypotheses is needed due to the only minimal and indirect
support found in the present study.

The seventh-graders' more frequent use of conflict resolution
strategies in the initial social encounter situation, acquaintanceship
facilitating strategies for friendship maintenance, and both friendship
development and conflict resolution goals for dealing with friendship
termination corroborates the findings of previous research which
suggests that as children grow older, they become more attuned to the
interpersonal aspects of relationships with others (Bigelow, 1977;
Forbes, 1978; Furman & Bierman, 1981, 1983; Renshaw & Asher, in press).
In contrast, the fourth-grader's more frequent use of harmony
maintenance strategies for initial social encounters suggests that they
are somewhat more attuned to the ways in which relationships can
personally benefit them (Asher, et al., 1980; Renshaw & Asher, in
press). The fourth-grader's more frequent use of mood related emotions,
such as expressions of happiness, sadness, hurt, and wishing to make
friends with the peer, in the friendship maintenance vignette provides
further evidence that younger children are more attuned to the
self-serving aspects of relationships than they are to the mutually
beneficial aspects of friendships. Apparently, the older children were
'more aware than the younger children of the need to consider the peer's
perspective as well as their own in each of the situations, and this
greater awareness led them to choose strategies which were likely to

enhance not only their own experiences in the relationship, but also

40

those of the peer. The younger children's apparently lesser awareness
of the need to consider the peer's perspective resulted in their

choosing strategies which were likely only to enhance their own personal
experience of the relationship. The peer's experience may or may not
have been enhanced by these strategies, depending on their outcome.

The results of the present study also suggest that children as young
as 9 years are aware of at least some of the strategies which are likely

to facilitate the development of acquaintanceships. For example, a

number of researchers studying friendship development among adults and
older adolescents have found that early social interactions involve
exchange of superficial information about oneself as well as
establishing some type of common ground or similarity (Newcomb, 1956,
1961; Altman & Taylor, 1973; Duck, 1976; Duck & Craig, 1977, 1978). In
addition, behavioral research with children between the ages of 3 and 9
years suggests that children who become successfully acquainted with a
new peer are likely to engage in behaviors such as information exchange,
conflict management, and the establishment of a mutual, common ground
activity (Gottman, 1983). The fourth—grader's harmony maintenance
strategies--inviting to play, helping, compromising, getting along,
walking away, expressions of preference, and suggestions for mutual
activities-awhich were provided for the initial social encounter
vignette in the present study, represent similar types of constructs,
and provide evidence that elementary school-aged children's knowledge of
social relationship initiation strategies is beginning to resemble the
behavioral strategies for acquaintanceship formation used by older
adolescents and adults. The fact that the seventh-graders in the

present study, in comparison to their younger peers, provided an even

41

greater number of relationship initiation strategies, as well as goals
and strategies for maintaining and terminating relationships similar to
those which have been suggested in theories of interpersonal attraction
among adults (Newcomb, 1956, 1961; Altman & Taylor, 1973; Duck, 1976)
would appear to reflect these children's more extensive peer experience
and the influence of development on the their social knowledge base.

The gender differences in children's goals for the friendship
termination vignette, as well as the gender differences in children's
feelings about this vignette were unexpected. Girls not only expressed
mood related emotions about this situation more often than boys, but
they also provided a greater number of friendship development and
conflict resolution goals for this situation. One possible explanation
for these results is that the children's responses to the friendship
termination situation reflect sex-role stereotypes. In particular, the
socialization of girls still tends to be focused on their learning how
to relate to other people, while boys' socialization tends to be focused
on their becoming self-sufficient and independent (Hetherington & Parke,
1979). As a result, it is likely that girls would express greater
sensitivity to the issue of losing a friend, and would try to recover
that friendship through attempting to resolve an hmplied conflict or by
attempting to reinstate the previously achieved level of friendship with
the peer. Boys, in contrast, might express less sensitivity to the loss
of the friendship and be more likely to adopt a more independent
attitude by establishing other friendships or dealing with their
feelings on their own.

Sex-role stereotypes and the influence of development also provide

an explanation for the grade X gender interaction of feelings for the

42

friendship maintenance vignette. For this vignette, fourth-grade boys

expressed more mood related feelings than did any of the other children,
followed by the seventh-grade girls, fourth-grade girls, and finally

seventh-grade boys. Apparently, by seventh-grade, girls have reached a
point in the socialization process where they feel comfortable in
expressing their feelings openly, while seventh grade boys have learned
to suppress their emotions in various social situations. waever, the
extent of this socialization appears not to have been reached by fourth
grade. In fact, boys at this age may still feel free enough to express
their emotions to their peers, and this is reflected in their more
frequent use of mood related feelings in the friendship maintenance
vignette. Accordingly, the fourth-grade girls' less frequent expression
of mood emotions in this case may reflect their not yet having entirely
acquired the emotional-expression role exhibited by the older girls.

A second unexpected result of the present study was the gender X
social effectiveness grouping interaction for the feelings variables in
the friendship termination vignette. Girls classified as stars reported
mood related feelings more frequently than any other children, followed
by average and neglected girls, and then rejected boys. Star boys
reported the fewest mood related feelings, with neglected boys also
reporting few mood related feelings. However, neglected boys reported
uneasy feelings more frequently than any other group, with rejected boys
and girls and average girls reporting fewer uneasy feelings. On the
average star boys and girls, average boys, and neglected girls reported
no uneasy feelings for the friendship termination vignette. These
results may in part reflect stereotypic responses such as those

described above; however, some other factor, such as peer experience,

43

appears to be involved as well. The star boys' fewer mood responses,
and the star girls' more frequent mood responses, may reflect more
quickly acquired emotion-related sex roles resulting from these children
having had a greater number of successful peer experiences from which to
learn the components of these roles. In contrast, the neglected boy's
and rejected girl's fewer mood related responses, in comparison to those
of star girls, may reflect slower acquisition of these sex roles as a
result of having had fewer or less positive peer experiences from which
to learn some of the components of these roles. In addition, for
neglected boys at least, and perhaps in small measure, though not
significantly so in the present study, for the rejected children, their
expressions of uneasiness for the friendship termination situation may
reflect a general feeling of uneasiness in social interaction which
hinders them from having positive peer experiences. This, in turn,
would affect their ability to draw upon such experiences in acquiring
the roles currently prescribed for them in the socialization process.

A final unexpected outcome of the present study relates to the
overall pattern of results. When examined carefully, it was noted that
only two of the five friendship formation vignettes revealed significant
differences--the friendship maintenance vignette (#3) and the friendship
termination vignette (#5), and that the hypothesized social
effectiveness differences did not occur. There are several possible
explanations for this result. First, it seems likely that the
friendship maintenance and friendship termination situations are
generally unfamiliar or less salient to children and that they do not
often think about the component processes of friendship maintenance once

a friendship has developed. In addition, it is also likely that

44

friendship termination is so seldom experienced, at least in the form
presented in this study, that the children do not have the repertoire of

responses for these situations that they have for the more familiar
acquaintanceship and conflict management situations. Alternatively, the
children's responses to the initial encounter, acquaintanceship
formation, and conflict management situations may have been reflections
of a repertoire of socially appropriate, polite responses which do not

fit the friendship maintenance and termination situations so easily.

Thus, their responses to these less frequently encountered situations
were more diverse than their responses to the more familiar situations,
resulting in significant outcomes for the friendship maintenance and
termination vignettes. Finally, a possible though less strong
explanation for the significant results on only two of the five
vignettes is that the subject sample was too small to reflect any real
differences among groups, particularly with the use of factor analytic
techniques used in the present study to reduce the variable-to-subject
ratio. Although a firm consensus has not been reached in research which
uses factor analytic techniques, some authors (Crawford, 1975; Comrey,
1978; Baggaley, 1982; Loo, 1983) suggest that factor analysis should not
be used in studies having fewer than 200 subjects.

The small sample size may have also contributed to the lack of
social effectiveness grouping differences in the present study.
However, a more likely explanation is that the method used in
categorizing the children into the four social effectiveness groups was
inaccurate. In fact, studies of the short-term and long-term stability
of the groups derived from the binomial probability classification

procedure suggest that. the groups are not stable, and that fluctuations

45

in group membership are especially likely to occur among children who
fall at the extreme edges of their social effectiveness group (Newcomb &
Bukowski, 1983; Bukowski & Newcomb, in press). Therefore, a child who
falls near the average—rejected borderline may be classified at one
point in time as rejected and at another point in time as average.
Similar instability is likely to occur at the star-average and
neglected-rejected borderlines as well.

Although it has not been specifically studied as yet, another
possible reason for the failure to find social effectiveness group
differences in the present study is that children nominating one another
as "best friends" and "least-liked peers" may make very different
interpretations of these phrases as they complete their nominations.
That is, some children may evaluate the meaning of "friend" or
"least-liked peer" in terms of the nominee's social skills while another
child interprets these phrases in terms of the nominee's athletic or
academic prowess. Other children may consider all of these factors in
combination with other factors such as frequency of interaction
opportunities and physical appearance in making their nominations.

These diverse interpretations in conjunction with the failure to include
these factors in the binomial probability classification procedure may
have resulted in diverse within group differences among the children in
each of the groups which would have masked any differences in the
children's responses to the friendship formation vignettes which might
otherwise have been due to differences in their social effectiveness
status.

Despite these difficulties, the results of the present study are

important in several respects. First, they provide some support for the

46

point made by Renshaw and Asher (in press) that children's goals for
social situations need to be considered along with their strategies when
attempting to understand the extent of children's social knowledge base.
In addition, the present study's results further contribute to the
literature which suggests that elementary school-aged children's
acquaintanceship and friendship formation goals and strategies include
some concepts which are similar in nature to those of adolescents and
adults (Newcomb, 1956, 1961; Altman & Taylor, 1973; Duck, 1976; Duck &
Craig, 1977, 1978; Gottman, 1983; Newcomb & Meister, 1983; Newcomb,
Packard, & Smithéwinberry, 1983). The fact that children's concern with
the peer's experience in the various friendship formation situations
seemed to become more important with age is consistent with the notion
that children's criteria for evaluating friendships become more focused
on interpersonal than self-centered factors with increasing age
(Bigelow, 1977; Forbes, 1978; Furman & Bierman, 1981, 1983). Factors
which might be considered in future research in this area include a more
accurate and stable method of classifying children into social
effectiveness groups which includes a variety of social skill and
ability dimensions, a larger sample size, and additional friendship
formation situations. Regarding this final addition, it would be
particularly helpful to determine whether or not children do have a
repertoire of responses available for friendship termination situations
when those situations consist of more familiar events than those
presented in the current study. One possible situation might include
the ways in which friendship is terminated or extended when the peer
moves to a different area of the country or to a different school

district. In a case such as this, children might have a more extended

47

and uniform repertoire than they had for the friendship tenmination

vignette presented in the current study.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
SOCIOMETRIC QUESTIONNAIRES

APPENDIX A
Sociometric Questionnaire for Fourth Graders

MSU Social Relations Study Page 1
PERMISSION FORM

This study has been explained to me and I am willing to participate in
it.

My name is .

My teacher's name is .

48

49

Page 2
Circle the names of the three boys(girls) in your class that you like
the most.

Name
Name
Name
Name
etc.

hUNl-J

Now put a number 1 beside the name of your first best friend.
Put a number 2 beside the name of your second best friend.
Put a number 3 beside the name of your third best friend.

Circle the names of the three boys(girls) in your class that you like
the least.

Name
Name
Name
Name
etc.

waH

50

Sociometric Questionnaire for Seventh Graders

MSU Social Relations Study Page 1
PERMISSION FORM

This study has been explained to me and I am willing to participate in
it.

My name is .

My teacher's name is .

 

51

Page 2
Write the names of the three seventh—grade boys(girls) that you like the
most.

1)
2)
3)

 

 

 

write the names of the three seventh-grade boys(girls) that you like the
least.

1)
2)
3)

 

 

 

APPENDIX B
SOCIAL STRATEGIES AND GOALS INTERVIEW

APPENDIX B
Strategies and Goals for Friendship Formation Interview

MSU Social Relations Interview Page 1
PERMISSION FORM

This study has been explained to me and I am willing to participate in
it.

My name is .

Today‘s date .

52

53

Page 2

YOu are outside in your front yard one day after school. You see a
boy(girl) about your age that you don't know. He(she) is alone in
his(her) front yard, across the street from yours, watching his(her)
dog play. You would like to meet him(her).

a. How would you feel if this happened?

b. What would you do or say if this happened?

c. You said that you would . Why would you do or say that?

A new boy(gir1) has come to your class at school today. The new
boy's(girl's) name is Kevin(Kristi). At recess, you see
Kevin(Kristi) out on the playground talking to two other boys(girls)
who are in your class. You decide that you would like to become
friends with Kevin(Kristi).

a. HOw would you feel if this happened?

b. What would you do or say if this happened?

c. You said that you would . Why would you do or say that?

You and Kevin(Kristi) have become friends. Today you and
Kevin(Kristi) have asked the teacher if the two of you may do your
weekly science project together. While you and Kevin(Kristi) work
on the science project in school this week, you want to make sure
that you stay friends with Kevin(Kristi).

a. How would you feel if this happened?

b. What would you do or say if this happened?

c. You said that you would . Why would you do or say that?

You and Kevin(Kristi) are watching television at Kevin's(Kristi's)
house on Saturday morning. You are watching a show that you really
like. Kevin(Kristi) stands up and changes the channel to a show
that he(she) really likes but that you don't like very much.

a. How would you feel if this happened?

b. What would you do or say if this happened?

c. You said that you would . Why would you do or say that?

You and Kevin(Kristi) are still friends. One day at school, you ask
Kevin(Kristi) if he(she) will walk home with you after school.
Kevin(Kristi) says to you, "I don't want to walk home with you
because I don't want to be your friend anymore."

a. How would you feel if this happened?

b. What would you do or say if this happened?

c. You said that you would . Why would you do or say that?

54

Page 3

I noticed that you chose as your first best friend. What is
it about him/her that made you choose him/her as your best friend?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C
FEELINGS-STRATEGIES-GOALS CODING SCHEME

APPENDIX C
Feelings-Strategies-Goals Coding Scheme

In this coding scheme, you are simply making a judgement as to
whether a child's response to a question represents a feeling, strategy,
or goal. As you know, an attempt was made in the interview to separate
out these different responses. However, despite the interviewers'
valiant efforts, some children provided strategies for feeling or goal
questions, goals for strategy or feelings questions, or feelings for
strategy and goal questions. As a result, your task is to determine
which of the child's responses represent feelings, which represent
strategies, and which represent goals. Each of these concepts is
defined below, with a code number to its left. You will use each of the
code numbers to record the child's responses on the coding sheet. Each
response has been numbered on the transcribing sheet in red ink, and
slash marks have been used to divide separate responses where necessary.

Codes for Feelings-Strategies—Goals scheme:

1. Feelings - This code represents a child's expression of an affective
state or disposition. In other words, a child's expression of
emotion is coded as feelings. Examples include: good, normal,
happy, sad, mad, angry, confused, excited, and so on.

2. Strategies - Any reponse which designates some action the child
wouId take or something that the child would say in a particular
situation will be coded as a strategy. Examples include: Say hi,
Go over, Introduce myself, Tell her she has pretty eyes, Ask him to
turn it back, Ask him why he doesn't want to be my friend anymore,
Punch her in the face, Just leave, and so on.

 

3. Goals - A goal represents a child's reason or explanation for
performing a particular behavior or saying a particular thing. very
frequently, although NOT always, these responses begin with a word
such as "so", "because", "well", "cuz", "just", etc. Be sure to
read the reponses carefully and follow the line of the child's
thought in coding this and the other to categories of responses.

9. No response, Don' t know, or Repitition of the question asked _thhe
interviewer - This category is coded whenever the child has not
given a reponse to the interviewer' 5 question, or when he/she has
responded by saying "I don't know." In addition, if the child in
some manner repeats the interviewer's question, code this particular
category-i.e. record a code of "9".

 

 

 

 

55

APPENDIX D
STRATEGY CODING SCHEME

APPENDIX D

Strategy Coding Scheme

In this coding scheme, you are asked to code each of the child's
strategy responses. A master list of all responses that have been
designated as strategy responses is attached at the back of this
booklet, and you will use this list as a guideline for which responses
to code. This booklet contains a list of codes for you to use in coding
the children's strategies, along with a definition of each of these
codes. In addition, a master list of the codes is provided for your use
during coding. You should read this booklet carefully, and learn the
definitions of the codes before you begin to code. If you have any
questions, please see Judy before you begin coding.

Codes for Strategies:

01. roach - Approach will be coded whenever a child indicates that
EeBShe would in some way physically approach a peer. In other
words, if a child indicates that he/she would walk up to another
child, stand next to that child, or in some way attempt to get
physically nearer to a peer, this code should be used. Examples of
this code include: Go over; walk up to him/her; Sit/stand next to
him/her; Get in a circle, etc.

02. Greet - This code is used to indicate that a child would use some
form of greeting in his/her interactions with a peer. Examples
include: Hi; Hello; how are you; I heard you're a new kid; I'd
yell across the street hi; Try to meet him/her, What are you guys
doing?, etc.

03. Introduce self or other — This code is used whenever a child
indicates that EE/EEe_fiould tell a peer his/her name or tell them
who he/she is. In addition, this code is used when the child
indicates that he/she would introduce a peer to other peers.
Examples include: Tell him/her who I am; Tell him/her my nam;, My
name is Johnny; Introduce myself; He'd introduce himself; etc.

04. Ask other for information about him/herself - Whenever a child says
that he/She would ask a peer questions about him/herself, this code
will be used. Typically, these questions would be personal
questions related to the child, his/her family, his/her residence,
information about the child's academic or sports records, hobbies,
and other such information. Examples include: Ask him about his
life; I hear that your name is Kevin; Ask how old he/she is; Ask
how she does things; Ask what he/she likes to do; What's your name;
How he was doing in school; What's your dog's name; Ask for his
phone number; Ask him stuff about school; Does she have any
brothers and sisters; See if she likes pets; etc.

05. Give information about self - This code is similar to the one
above, except that it refers to the child's giving information
about him/herself to the peer. This code also refers to personal
information, but in this case it is information that the child
volunteers to others rather than asking for information from

 

 

 

U1
OW

06.

07.

08.

09.

10.

11.

12.

57

others. Examples include: Tell him where I live; I'm nice; I live
over there; Tell her what I like to do; Tell her my hobbies; Tell
her what grade I'm in; I'd tell her I wasn't the kind of kid who
went around smoking or anything like that; etc.

Ask/invite other to play/join - When a child indicates that he/she
would attempt to include a peer in an activity, or invite a peer to
play, this category of codes should be used. Examples include:

Ask if I could play with his dog too; want to play baseball; See if
we could play games; Ask her if she want to play a game; Ask if
he'd like to stay the night; Bring him over to my house; Do you
wanna do something; Try and get her alone; Ask him if he wants to
come over to your house; See if we could all play games; etc.

Ask to make friends or maintain friendship - If a child indicates
that he/she would like to make friends with a peer, or wishes to
maintain an ongoing friendship, this code should be used. Examples
include: I'd like to be your friend; Then she can be my friend;
Can I be your friend; would you become my friend; Tell her/him that
you'd like to be friends; She should know I want to be her friend
if I tell her that; If he walks away I know he means no; Still be
friends if he asked; etc.

Help other — When a child refers to providing aid to a peer or in
some way helping that peer, code this category. Examples include:
Help him out alot; Pull each other through; Do more things for her;
Tell her what all the teachers are about; Help each other with
homework; Show him where his classes were; Show her around the
school; etc.

Share with other - Offering to let a child borrow one's
possessions, or offering to share one's possessions with a peer is
considered sharing. Examples include: Share everything with him;
I'd let her borrow things; Like borrow my crayons; etc.

Compromise — When a child is willing to meet his/her companion
half-way in a conflict situation, and when he/she expects the
companion to do likewise, this is coded as a compromise. Examples
include: Ask if he wants to watch somethin else besides either of
the two shows that we both like; Ask if I could watch that for a
little bit longer and watch his show ther rest of the time; I'd
feel that she can watch what she wants and when the time comes that
she says I can watch I can watch; Maybe after we're done watching
my show we could get in the middle of yours; watch mine for half an
hour and his for half an hour; Maybe during commercials she could
turn it back; Make a deal with him; Try to compromise; Is there
another show on that we both like; Try to be careful to say hey
let' 5 do this instead of that; etc.

Appl pgize_ or express sorrow at loss of friendship- Any instance of
a ch11 expressing regret for an action or regret at losing
friendship should be coded within this category. Examples include:
I'mlsorry; I didn't mean to say that; I'm sorry that you don't want
to be my friend; etc.

lry_ to make amends (makeu EL)... or t_o renew loyalty - If a child
indicates that he/she would try to make up for or compensate for a
transgression, or would try to renew his/her loyalty to a friend,
code this category. Examples of this code are: I would try to be
true to her; Try and get friends with him again; we can still be
friends; Maybe tomorrow I can walk home with you and then we can

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

58

start there again; If I did something bad I'd say I still want to
be friends; etc.

§§_nice, kind, don't hurt other — Any reference to being nice to
the peer, being kind to the peer, or trying to avoid hurting the
person should be coded here. Examples include: I wouldn't do
nothing to hurt her; Say nice things to himvher; Be good to
him/her; Try not to do something wrong; Try to be as nice as I
could to her; Show her that I care; Not tell personal jokes; I
don't think that was nice; etc.

Have frequent contact with other - Responses which imply or
indicate a desire to increase or continue the amount of contact a
child has with his/her peer should be coded within this category.
Examples are: Go over to his house every day; Call him up, etc.
Avoid conflict, argument, anger, 9£_loss of friendship - This
category officodes includes réferences to a child's desire to not
"rock the boat". In other words, the child wishes to maintain
his/her relationships with peers on an even keel without incurring
the anger of the peers. In addition, the child wishes to avoid
arguments or conflicts with his/her peers. Examples of this code
include: I would just get along; Not make him mad at me; Tell her
I'll never fight with her; I would never argue with her; Don't make
him/her upset; Don't say nothin to make him mad; I'd be careful not
to lose her; Just tell animal jokes that wouldn't offend them; I
might say the wrong things; I really wouldn't try to argue; etc.
Retaliate - If a child indicates that he/she would try to "get
back" at a peer for something that the peer said or did that hurt
the child or made him/her mad, code this category. Examples
include: Tell him fine with me; Change it back to my channel; Well
if you don't want to be my friend I won't talk to you play with you
or come over anymore; If you don't want to be my friend that's your
problem; Alright I don't want to walk with you either; If she was
being a snot I'd say something different; I'd probably say fine
buzz off; etc.

App§§l_tg_authority figures - Any references to appeals to parents,
teachers or some other more powerful person or adult in order to
resolve a conflict should be coded as an appeal to authority
figures. Some examples are: I would tell her mother; Her mother
would tell us to compromise; Maybe I'd go tell somebody; etc.

walk away - Attempts to resolve a conflict or disagreement by
leaving the situation will be coded as walking away. Examples of
this code are: Say ok then bye; Just say fine then we're not
friends anymore; I'd just walk away from him; watch the show I
wanted to watch at my house; Go home; well if she wasn't gonna
answer me I'd sorta let her be on her own; If she gave me a snotty
reaction I'd just lay off her; etc.

‘Qg_nothing - When a child indicates that he/she would not take any
action in a conflict situation or otherwise, code this category.
Examples are: I'd just sit there; Nothing; It depends on what he
says when I ask him why; If she said no there's really nothing I
can do about it; I wwuldn't say anything yet; Let him go; wait till
she tells me by herself; Just look at him; etc.

Point out discrepancies - Here, a child observes to his/her peer
that a discrepancy exists in the situation, but he/she takes no
action to resolve of fix the discrepancy. Some examples of this

 

 

 

 

 

 

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

59

code: I'd say I want to be your friend but you don't want to be
nfine; I was watching something else; Me and you were watching the
show before it and you changed the channel; It don't matter if they
don't like it's your friend; we were watching that show; etc.
Make reference to other' 3 pgssessions - If a child points out that
something belongs to or is owned by his/her peer, it should be
coded as a reference to other' 5 possessions. Examples are: It's
your (his/her) house; It's your (his/her) TV; But this is your
house so you can change it; It's over his house; etc.

Express confusion or disbelief - A child's expressions of surprise
at another' 5 actions, disbelief in those actions, or confusion over
the reason for those actions should be coded here. Some
illustrtations include: What?!?; I don't see why you don't want to
be friends anymore; 'CUZ you and me were friends; Me and you were
friends before and now you don't want to be with me; I don't
believe it!’ I thought we were friends; wouldn't know what to say;
etc.

Reqpest/give reason for action - When a child asks a peer for an
explanation of an action, or when the child gives the peer an
explanation for his/her own actions, it should be coded here. Some
illustrations of this code are: Say she said somebody else didn't
like me; Ask why she's mad at me; Find out if others have told
those kind of things about me; Did I say anything wrong to offend
you or get you mad?; Ask why; What happened; Ask him/her what I did
wrong; etc.

Make reference 39 other's loneliness — Any references about a peer
experiencing loneliness or being alone and without friends should
be coded here. Some illustrations of this code are: He's all
alone; He's lonely; He needs someone to play with; You seem lonely;
etc.

Acquire information from other friends - Attempts by a child to
find out about a peer by asking his/her other friends about that
peer will be coded as acquiring information from others. Included
as examples are: One of my friends told me; Ask my friends how is
he, nice?; Ask my friends what she's like or how they like her; Go
talk to the other two girls; I might go to my friend first; Ask
them to introduce me to her; Ask the other guys about Kevin; etc.
En a e in mutual activity - References to the child and a peer
engaging in the same activity together or playing with one another
should be coded in this category. This category does not include
invitations to play. Examples of this code are: And we would do
it together; Play games with him/her; Go to the movies the next
day; Do something with her; Try to play with her; Ask if we could
all be partners; we could work on the science project at my house
or at his house; Ride bikes; Take him places; Kevin, we can keep
working on the project; After school we'd do things; etc.

Express a preference- When the child indicates that he/she would
express his/her own preference for a particular activity,or
expresses a liking for a particular thing,code it in this category.
Illustrations here include: I would say that I didn't really like
this channel; I'd just say I didn't want to hang aroung the wrong
people; Say that I like the other program better; I would rather
watch the other one; Say to myself "I don' t really like it"; etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submit or defer to other' 5 wishes without active disagreement -

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34

35.

60

This category should be coded whenever the child says that he/she
would go along with the peer's wishes without actively disagreeing
and without actively expressing a preference for something else.
Some illustrations: If you really like it, I'd try to get used to
it; Just let him get his own way; It really doesn't matter if I
watch it, but I don't agree; If he wanted to do something, I'd let
him do it; I'd just watch his show; Just watch what Kevin was
satching; I'd let her on top a little more; I'd let her have her
way a little more; I can stand watching one show; I'd just sit
there and finish watching the show; Try to make allowances for her;
we can watch your program if you're sure you don't like mine; He
can change it if he wants; etc.

Begin/continue a conversation - If the child says that he/she would
start talking to a peer, or would try to continue a conversation
that was currently in progress, it would be coded here. Some
examples: Then go on talking; Most of the time talk strictly on
the science project; Talk to him alot; Start talking to them; What
are you talking about?; I'd talk right back to her; Try and talk to
her; etc.

Make a_judgement about the peer's personality - When a child makes
a remark about the other person's personality, or about what that
person is like, code it here. Some examples include: See how I
like her; Tell him he was pretty rude; I don't think that was
nice; That's not nice to say things about other people; If you
don't like 'em, you shouldn't say nothin'; She'd tell people
probably, and I couldn't play with no one else; etc.

A§k_other to submit to your wishes - This code will be recorded
when a child 1nd1cat§§ that he/she wants his/her peer to do
something the he/she suggests, rather than going along with what
the peer wants. In other words, the child is expressing a desire
to engage in a particular activity and asks the peer to go along
with that wish. Some examples are: Ask him/her to turn it back;
Can you switch it back; I'd tell him to turn it back; Please put it
back; etc.

Find other companions - Record this code if the child indicates
that he/she would go play with or find some other friends in the
face of conflict with his/her current peer. Here are some
examples: I would just say that I'd go find another friend; That's
not the only friend I have; I'll just go play with my other
friends; Make friends; Make more friends; Or if she just decided to
go with someone else and to be their best friend; Maybe just hang
around with someone else; And if he didn't, I'd ask one of my other
friends to walk home with me; etc.

§g_friendly - Displays of warmth and friendliness should be coded
as being friendly. Some examples are: Try to be friendly; Talk to
him friendly; I have other friends if she wants to meet them; Take
him to see some other friends; etc.

 

 

 

 

Agree with other - Any attempts made by the child to be agreeable

 

and to agree with his/her peer's suggestions in an active manner, as
opposed to passively submitting to the peer's wishes, are to be
coded here. Illustrations include: Try to agree with him/her; Try
to agree on things; Try not to disagree; Agree on some of her ideas;
Might agree with him on something; etc.

Expression pf liking for other - A child's expressions of fondness

 

 

36.

37.

38.

39.

4G.

41.

42.

43.

44.

61

for a peer, or of liking for a peer, should be recorded in this
category. Examples of liking for another child include: Kristi, I
like you; I really do like you for a friend; You are my very best
friend; I like you; Tell her I liked her; etc.

Ask other's preference - You should code this response category if
Ehe'ch1ld indicates that he/she would seek his/her peer's opinion
about something before acting, or seeks his/her peer's preferences
about an activity before beginning it. Examples of this code
include: Ask him if he liked the other show; Ask them if they
wanted to watch another TV show or watch this one; Are you sure you
don't want to be my friend; Ask her what she wants to watch instead
of that; What he wants to do on the project; Didn't you like that
show; etc.

quality/reciprocity‘ig relationship- Any indications that the
children involved in the relationship have equal roles, or that
they would expect one another to behave in ways that would be of
benefit to both participants would be coded as equality.
Illustrations here are: I would not want to be the boss; I would
like her to do the same thing to me; And he would let me do what I
wanted to do; etc.

Resolve conflict/arggment - All attempts to work out disagreements
in a mutually satisfying manner are considered attempts to resolve
a conflict, and should be coded as such. Examples of attempts to
resolve conflicts include: If we get into an argument, try to work
it out; Try to talk it over; Maybe we can work it out; we'd see
what the problem was; etc.

Avoid self embarrassment - This code is recorded when a child
indicates that he/she would act in some way so as to not become
embarrassed or flustered. Avoiding self embarrassment includes:
Try not to say something dumb; Make a good impression; Try not to
do something wrong myself; I wouldn't say anything bogue; etc.
Establish commonalities - A child's attempts to determine if he/she
has anythingiin common with a peer fall into this category. This
includes comments such as: See what we have in common; See if we
have the same interests; I'd say, "I have a dog just like that"; If
we had something in common say, "Boy, I like this tool"; we could
find out each other's interests in science; etc.

Bribe/not bribe other - Any references to trying to buy another
child's friendship, or to avoiding such actions, fall in this
category. Illustrations of this code include: Some people buy 'em
things, but I don't do that; etc.

Acknowledge other's presence - This code is recorded whenever a
child responds to a peer in such a way that the peer would know
that the child is aware of his/her presence. This code is similar
to a greeting, except that the actions are nonverbal instead of
verbal. Some examples include: If she glanced over I'd probably
wave to her; I wouldn't just ignore her; I'd join her in on the
conversation; I wouldn't just ignore her like I had other friends;
etc.

Refrain from retaliation - When a child avoids trying to "get back"
at his/her peer—when that peer does something the child dislikes,
this code should be used. An example of this code is: But I
wouldn't walk up and change it though, etc.

compliment other - Any expressions of praise or admiration for a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

58.

51.

52.

53.

62

child's peer or for that peer's possessions should be coded as a
compliment. Compliments include: I'd say, "You're nice"; I like
your dog; I'd start complimenting them; You're doing a good job on
the science project; You have pretty hair; You have pretty eyes;
etc.

Avoid physical/verbal aggression - Any indication that the child
wiShes not to use phySiCal force or verbal degradation in order to
resolve a conflict or deal with a situation should be coded as an
avoidance of aggression. Illustrations are: Try not to yell;
wouldn't punch him; Instead of going up and saying, "You're no
good"; Not tell personal jokes; Try not to say anything offensive
to her that would make her mad; I wouldn't say anything bad; If I
didn't like any of her ideas, I wouldn't yell, "I don't like that";
etc.

En'o each other's company - Expressions of a child's having fun
w1th his/her peers, and of liking to be with them, engaging in
'mutual activities should be coded here. Some examples of this code
include: Just enjoy yourself while you're doing the project; I'd
have fun playing and talking with her; etc.

Take other's point pf view - Attempts to understand the situation
at hand from the peer's perspective, and to act according to that
perspective should be coded here. Some examples are: we would try
and understand each other's feelings; If we do disagree, I would
try to see her point and not just stay stubborn with my own; I'd
try harder to make allowances for her, etc.

Engage 12 physical aggression - If a child indicates that he/she
would take hostile physical action against a peer, it should be
coded here. An obvious example is: Punch her in the face.

Avoid exclusive friendship - This code refers to a child's attempts
to allow both his/her peer and him/herself to maintain friendshps
outside of the relationship between that child and the peer he/she
is currently with. Examples of this code are: I would tell her
that we can be friends without saying that each other can't play
with someone else; Tell her not to be jealous of each other; etc.
Expressions pf_feelings ~ If a child indicates that as a strategy
he/she would express his/her feelings or affective state to a peer,
it should be coded in this category. This does not include
expressions of liking for a peer. Examples include: I would
probably let it (my feelings) out; If she told me why, I would be
surprised; I'd just say alright; I'd just say OK; I would get mad
at her; It's OK, you don't have to walk with me; I don't mind if
you guys don't want to play with me; It would be OK; etc.

Provide support/understanding - Provision of emotional support (as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

opposed to helping a peer), or of a child and his/her peer
"sticking up for" one another should be coded as providing support
or understanding. Examples include: Stick up for him/her; If
you're stuck on something I'll always be there to help you through;
If he'd tell me, maybe I'd understand it more; etc.

Respect each other's privacy/silence - This code includes a child's
attempts not to pry into his/her peer's feelings, and not to push
them into giving an explanation for a confusing situation.

Examples are: I wouldn't butt into their business; If they don't
want me talking to 'em» I'll just walk away; etc.

Forgive other - If the child indicates that he/she would excuse

 

 

54.

55.

56.

57.

99.

63

his/her peer's inappropriate behavior, code it in this category.
An example is: If she hurt my feelings, I'd tell her it's alright.
Hide feelings - All attempts to conceal one's actual emotions or
affectiVe state from the peer fall into this category. Examples
are: I wouldn't tell her; I would keep it to myself; I would say
to myself I don't really like it; etc.

§§_ypurself - A child's attempts to act normally and not to put on
any airs in front of his/her peers are coded as attempts to "be
yourself". An example is: Try to act normal.

Ignore other - If a child indicates that he/she would not pay
attention to the peer, it should be coded as ignoring. An example
is: Ignore her if she got on my nerves.

Imitate others - This code should be used in cases where the child
indicates that he/she would try to emulate his/her peer, or would
try to copy the peer's behavior. An example is: I'd do the same
thing as the other kids.

gp_respgnse pg uncodable response - Use this code if the child has
failed to provide any strategies for a given question, or if their
response cannot be coded within one of the above categories. This
code should rarely be used as most children gave at least one
strategy for each interview question.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E
GOALS CODING SCHEME

APPENDIX E
Goals Coding Scheme

In this coding scheme, you are asked to code each of the child's

goal responses. A master list of all responses that have been
designated as goal responses is attached at the end of this booklet.
Use this list as a guideline for which responses to code. This booklet
contains a list of codes for you to use in coding the children's goals,
along with a definition of each of these codes. In addition, a master
list of the codes is provided for your use during coding. You should
read this booklet carefully, and learn the definitions of the codes
before you begin to code. If you have any questions, please see Judy
BEfore you begin coding.

Codes for Goals:

 

01.

02.

03.

04.

05.

ApproaCh/Greet - Use this code whenever a child says that he/she

 

performed a particular behavior in order to physically approach
and/or greet another child. For example: Because if I called her
over she probably wouldn't come; Because she said hi first; Because
I would want to go over there; Hi is a greeting; etc. would be
coded as Approach/Greet.

Meet/Get better acquainted - If a child indicates that his/her goal

 

is to meet a peer, or to get better acquinated with that peer, use
this code. Getting better acquainted may be specifically referred
to, or it may be referred to in the form of the child wanting to
"get to know" the peer. Examples of this code include: I like
meeting new kids; I think I would like to know him better; So you
could know each other; 'Cuz I wanted to meet her; You'd probably
get to meet him; You want to know her; And we'd get to know each
other; To find out about her; etc.

Introduction £9 self pr others - A child's goal may be to introduce
him/herself to a peer, or to introduce the peer to his/her family
or friends. Examples are: To meet my parents; To let him know my
name; Because he would probably like to know my name; Because I say
my name in class; Maybe she didn't know a lot of other people; So
you know what your name is; Because I would want to introduce
myself; etc.

Acquire knowledge about other — The child's goal is to acquire

 

 

personal or objective information about a new peer. This includes
information about the peer's family, name, interests, etc.
Therefore, statements such as: So I could know what his name is;
To see what she likes to do; In case I wanted to go over his house
and ask for him; If I became better friends with him, I'd know
where he lived; Just in case I don't know the movie; I'm supposed
to ask what their name is; If I don't know the show, I won't know
what's gonna happen; etc. are coded in this category.

Other asks for and/Or receives information about self - Here, the
child's goal is to in some manner provide his/her peer with
personal or objective information about him/herself. This may
occur as a result of the peer having requested the information, or
because the child has chosen to volunteer the information.

 

64

06.

B7.

08.

09.

10.

11.

65

Examples include: One day he'll probably ask my name; To let her
knOW'what kind of things I do like and don't like; If I'm her
friend, if I wasn't her friend maybe she really doesn't know much
about me; And one day she may ask more about me and I'll tell her
that maybe she'll like me more; So she might ask you your name;
'CuZ he wouldn't know it if I didn't tell him; So she'll know what
I like; etc.

Facilitate interaction b joining/coming over/asking tp_ la — This
code should be used in 1nstances where the child's goal 18 to
initiate interaction between him/herself and the peer by joining
the peer, asking the peer to play, or having the peer over to the
child's house. Statements like: If I didn't have nobody to play
with I'd like to ask her to play; He mignt wanna come over someday;
If there's nobody else left I might be able to play with her; 'Cuz
he asked me to come over; And see if she'll play with me; Because I
wanted to play with her; To see if they wanna play with you; etc.
fall in this category.

Make friends/Maintain friendship - Record this code in cases where
a child indicates that his/her goal is to make friends with a peer,
or that he/she wishes to maintain a friendship at the same level of
intimacy as that which it is currently. This code should not be
used when the child wishes to become better acquainted with a peer
(02), or when he/she wishes to increase the intimacy level of a
relationship (63). Some examples: Because I want to make friends
with him; well, that you're a good friend; So he'd know I'd be a
friend; Become good friends; So we can keep friends; So I would
have a new friend and he would have a new friend; They could get to
be good friends; 'Cuz it's always good to make new friends instead
of keeping old ones; So we can start being friends; And stay close
together; we four could be best friends; etc.

Help other - The child's goal here is to give assistance to his/her
peer or to receive assistance from that peer. Examples are: well
if I was a bad student maybe she'd like to help me; So he's not
late for the bell; If I was good in something maybe I could help
her; She probably didn't know what to make so I decided on two
things; Because if I don't know what else to put in it maybe she'd
have some ideas; etc.

Share - Here, the child has given an explanation for an action
wh1ch indicates a desire to pool resources, or take turns at an
activity. Statements belonging to this code include: She's not
the only person with changing channels or anything she wants; She
has to give her friend a turn too; All the people I like I let
borrow things from me; etc.

Compromise - Goal statements indicating a willingness on the
child's part to give the partner leeway in a conflict situation,
but which also imply an expectation that the partner will give the
child similar flexibility should be coded in this category. Some
examples: So you're not just doing what you wanna do; So if we
liked two different things we could combine them; But what they
wanna do too; Maybe we can find cartoons we both like; well if
you're at a friend's house and they say you can change it, that's
something different; So we can each get a piece of the show; etc.
Loss pf_friendship or companionship - If the child's goal reflects
the—expectation that—heishe will lose a peer's friendship or

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

66

companionship (i.e. the friend will not continue to associate with
the child), use this code. Examples: Because he didn't want to be
my friend anymore; 'Cuz she already left; He might not like ya;
She'd leave; Because he said he wouldn't walk with me; Because if I
didn't have any other friends and she didn't like me, I think maybe
I'd never have a friend again; If he doesn't want to be friends
with me I guess I can't be friends with him; etc.
Apologize, make amends, renew loyalty - If the child's goal is to
become friends with a peer again, correct a mistake, or apologize
for some wrongdoing, use this code. Illustrations include: See if
I could correct that; I could be friends with him again; Maybe he
would've changed his mind about not making friends; If it's for
some reason that I should know about it I'd want to change it; To
correct it; etc.
Attempts £9 92 nice/kind/not hurt - Any reference to trying not to
urt a peer's feelings, being sensitive to the fact that other's
feelings can be hurt, and attempting to avoid doing so, while being
nice or kind instead, should be coded here. These goal statements
might be like the following: Because it wouldn't be nice to tell
her I don't like her; I don't feel like hurting other person's
feelings; I kinda feel sorry for him; It's nice to say hello before
you ask what's your name; It would probably be nice; Because she's
nice to me; Because if I said it it might hurt her feelings; etc.
Frequent contact - The child's goal may be to increase the amount
of time he/She spends with a certain peer. If this is so code it
here. Examples: So we keep in touch; If he spends the night we
could have the whole night together; So I could get in contact with
him; So I would know where he was; So I'd know if I'd see him more
often; etc.
Avoid conflict/argument/anger/loss of friendship - The child's goal
is often to avoid engagingiin an argfiment with his/her friends, or
to maintain the relationship on an even footing and not make the
friend angry. Use this code if the child responds in such a
manner: I didn't want to lose my best friend; I wouldn't want to
argue with him; If I do that then he'd probably get mad; And not
get mad when we're friends; Because I wouldn't feel like telling
her and starting an argument with her; etc.
Retaliate - Use this code if the child indicates that his/her goal
is to "get back at" a peer for some offense, or if the child
believes that the friend will try to "get back at" him/her for some
offense; Examples: Because I thought maybe he got mad at me and
knew I didn't like a show he liked and turned it; Because if she
didn't want to walk with me then I didn't want to walk with her; To
get back at her; etc.
Appeal/refer £p_authority figures - A child's goal may be embedded
within a reference to authority figures, particularly parents.
Some illustrations: Maybe they'll say she can stay the night;
That's how my ma taught me to begin to talk to someone that I never
met; etc.
‘Walk away - This goal refers to the child's taking leave of his/her
peer by walking away. Examples: 80 I'd leave him; You don't want
to hang around somebody who keeps telling you off; etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. Don't know what else to sa — Here a child indicates that he/she has
515

no real explanation f5?

/her behavior other than that they

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

67

couldn't think of anything else to say. Examples are: Just kinda a
habit of mine; That's what they say sometimes; That's how people
ask; Because I don't have no other thing; It's just one of the
things I say when I make friends; There's nothing else to do; 'Cuz
if you wanna be friends it's probably one of the best things to do;
etc.
Point out discrepancy - The child's goal in this situation is to
inform his/her peer that a discrepancy exists in their interaction,
although no action to correct the discrepancy is implied. Examples
include: Because we were in the middle of my show and yours is
just starting; Because he changed the channel without asking from
something I liked; Because he's the one who changed it; He just
broke up with me and I liked him; Because she'd been my friend for
awhile; But I would be the guest; Someone can't just walk up and
say I don't want to be your friend; It was kinda funny that he
wouldn't walk home with me; etc.
Reference to possessions - In this instance, the child's goal is to
expla1n hi§7her behavior or the behavior of a peer by referring to
the peer's possessions, or to the child's own possessions. Some
examples: we're at his house; So like if they don't have it she'd
be able to try it; Because she owns the TV; Because the dog would
probably be friendly; This could be his friend's house or
something; etc.
Outsider's judgement p£_self - The child explains his/her behavior
or that of his/her peers by referencing his/her perceptions of how
other children feel about him/her. In other words, the child is
providing his/her perceptions of what other children think he/she
is like as a person. Illustrations include: Why I said that is
that a lot of people don't want to play with me; Some people don't
think I'm nice; Oh, because some people might think you're stuck
up; And you don't wanna make friends with new kids; If I was
talking to another friend about her, but not bad, and the other
friend said something different t her that I said something bad,
she might you know, get it confused; Like if I said she was pretty
and another girl went up to her and said that I said that she was
really ugly and mean, she might....; etc.
Acquire/give reason for action - Here the child's goal is to find
out why a particular event occurred or to explain why a particular
event occurred. In most cases, this code is used when the child is
attempting to discover why his/her peer behaved in a certain
manner. The following examples qualify for this code: So I can
see what's wrong; Tell him why he's mad at me; Because I'd like to
find out what I did to her; To see how come she didn't like it;
Because I'd be curious to know; I don't want just little parts that
happened if she got sick or things like that; I'd want to know why
she changed her mind on me; etc.
Reference tp_peer's loneliness/solitary state - A child's
explanation of behaVior for this code makes reference to the fact
that a peer is alone, or that the peer is lonely. Examples are:
Because he did...he's just watching his dog play; He was lonely;
'Cuz she only had two friends; He did not have any friend outside;
And he was playing out in his front yard with his dog; If she was
that type, didn't have any brothers or sisters, she would like to
have some; In case he doesn't have no friends so far and he wants

 

 

 

 

 

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

68

somebody to meet him; etc.
Acquire information from other friends - The explanation for

 

behavior in this instance is that the child has behaved as reported
because of some bit of information he/she has acquired from other
peers. Examples: Because one of my friends told me that there's a
new kid on the street; They'll give him information, etc.

Mutual activity - The child's desire in this situation is to become
engaged in mutual activity with a peer, and is explaining his/her
behavior as an attempt to accomplish this goal. Some
illustrations: In case we have another one of these and want to do
it again together; He plays with me; Maybe you wanna play a game
and you need two people; So you can play a game; Because you want
to play with her; Do some sorts of activities with me; etc.

E ress a preference - The child's goal here is to let the peer
know the—he/She wishes to engage in a particular activity, although
it may not be an activity in which the peer also wishes to engage.
Thus, the child is expressing his/her preference for, or choice of,
an activity. Examples: See if I like it or not; So I could watch
the other show; I probably didn't get along and agree because it
wasn't my favorite show; I hate watching shows I don't like; It's
kinda boring; So I'd say, "want to know what my idea is?"; Because
I wouldn't want to walk homebby‘myself; So he'd know what it is you
want to do; Because I was liking the movie; So she has the idea
that I like it; etc.

Give other leeway/Submititp other - The child's explanation for
his/her actions revolve around giving into the peer's preference
without engaging in an argument. Examples include statements such
as: It's only natural for someone to like someone who always gets
their own way than someone who's always arguing; To let him do
whatever he wanted; 'Cuz maybe the ShOW’WOUld be interesting; If he
doesn't want to walk with me I'd just let him do that; She should
be allowed to watch what she wants; That way if he doesn't want to
'meet me he doesn't have to; She can do whatever she wants; etc.
Begin/Continue a conversation - Getting a conversation off the

 

 

 

 

 

ground, or attempting to maintain an ongoing conversation is the
child's goal. Statements included are: That's a nice way of
starting a conversation up; Because that's the best way of starting
what you want to say first; 'Cuz if they were talking I'd just say;
Because I would want to talk to her alot; It wouldn't be a very
good conversation if you didn't know her name; etc.

Judgements about the peer's personality - Here the child's
explanation of his/her behavior is based on a judgement he/she has
made about the peer's personality, or of what the peer is likely to
do. In addition, the peer may make judgements of the child's
personality which fall into this code. Examples: Because she
mught be nice; I'd tell her because how she acts and her attitude;
Because she said I was nice; I don't like people that say things;
So he'd know that you're nice; Because some people yell when
they're working; She might look like that type, an animal lover;
She might be too shy to talk to you; That would be kinda mean if he
did that; etc.

Gaining preferred choice - The child's goal in this situation is to
gain his/her preferred choice at the expense of the peer's choice
of activity. Examples include statements such as: He let me watch

 

 

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

69

my stuff a little bit of the stuff that I was watching; So she
mught change it back; To watch the movie I like; So I could watch
what I was watching; 'CUZ maybe he never saw this cartoon; And I
said maybe he'd like it; So we can watch something I like; etc.
Find other companions - The child's goal is to find companions to
replace those whom he/she has lost. Examples: If I don't have
anyone else to play with I might ask someone else to play; 'Cuz if
he says he wants to be my friend, then no, I have another friend;
And like that friend instead of me; In my class I have friends
named Beth, Heather, Kathy; Because I got a lot more friends; etc.
Be friendly - The child's goal is to let the peer know that he/she
15, or wishes to be, warm and friendly. Illustrations include the
following: If I'm friendly she might like me; waving's sorta
friendly; It's a friendly greeting; Hi might think that you're
friendlier; So she'd think I was more friendly; etc.

Agree with other - In making specific reference to being agreeable,
the child's goal is to get along without making waves. He/she
wishes to maintain the status quo by agreeing with partner.
Examples: I just agreed with him that I didn't want to be his
friend; If I agree with her she might like me; Because agreeing is
better than arguing; etc.

Retain liking for one another - Maintaining a peer's regard or
admiration, or the child's wish to retain his/her own regard for
the peer represents the child's goal for this code. Thus, the
child wishes to continue to like the peer, and wishes to maintain
the peer's liking for him/her. Statements such as: So she knew
that I like her; So maybe he would still like me; If I tease him
he'll thing I don't like him; I had a friend...I told her I liked
her like a sister; To see maybe if I like her before I go on
talking to her; Because I really like her alot; Then he won't like
me; You like 'em; Because if you did, why not tell her; etc. fall
into this category.

Refer to/ask for other's preference - Use this code whenever the
child's goal is to seek his/her peer's preferences before taking
action, or when the child explains his/her behavior by referring to
his/her peer's wishes. Examples: So maybe he would like to watch
something else for a little while; He might think it's a good idea
for his project; But he didn't want to; I thought he liked it; She
probably didn't want to walk with me and she probably wanted to
walk by herself; Because that's what she likes; So I don't just say
"How about this", and start right in on it; etc.
Equality/Reciprocity - The goal is to express equality in the

 

 

 

 

 

relationship as a reason for an action, or to express give and take
in the relationship. Statements included are: When I say it he
mdght want to be nice and say it back to me; Because it's something
that each do; They should tell me before they say anything; etc.
Resolve conflict - Settling an argument or resolving a conflict is

 

the child's goal for into this code. Examples include: So maybe
we can get our problem straightened out; Maybe you can work it out;
etc.

Avoid embarassment — The child explains his/her behavior as a means

 

of avoiding feeling ill at ease. Illustrations of this code

include: So I don't say nothing wrong; So I wouldn't be
embarrassed; etc.

 

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

70

Establish commonalities/similarities - Here the child's goal is to

 

determine the extent to which he/she and his/her peer share common
interests or attributes. Statements included in this code are:
Maybe he's my age; He's like me; we could see if we could trade
clothes if we wore the some size; If he's my age it'll be a better
friend to play with; To see if we like the same things; He's just a
kid like me; we could see how each other are; etc.

Not take advantag__of - Use this code when a child indicates that

 

his/her goal is to not try to buy a peer' s friendship. Some
examples: Not to use him or anyting; 'Cuz it's like trying to buy
a friendship; If she started to use you you wouldn't be friends
anymore; You'd just be using each other, etc.

Acknowledge peer's presence - This code should be used when the

 

child's goal is to acknowledge that he/she is aware of a peer's
presence, or when the child wishes other's to acknowledge that
he/she is present. An example is: So they'd notice me.

Give gifts to friends - The child's reason for a given action is

 

that it wouId aIIow Him/her to give the friend a gift, or for the

friend to give him/her a gift. Examples of this code are: So if

he had a birthday party I could buy him something; She might wanna
give you stuff; etc.

Compliment/Admiration - In this situation, the child's goal is to

 

express admiration for a peer's attributes, or for something the
peer has done, by complimenting the peer. Examples are: In case
while we're doing it together and he's thinking of more answers and
he's doing better questions, then he would be good to work with; So
it would be good to do it because he has a lot better things; To
make her think that her eyes were pretty; Because she probably did
a better job on her project; 'Cuz she looks pretty; She would
probably say I did a little better on my project; etc.

Avoid physical/verbal aggression - Any references to avoiding a

 

fight or av6iding physical contact in the form of hitting one
another which are given as reasons for a child's behavior should be
coded here. Examples are: I wouldn't want to say anything mean to
get him fighting; That you want to beat 'em up; And take all their
money; So we don't get in a fight; etc.

923.310“ /En'o each other's company - The child's goal here is
spec1f1cally to get along well with his/her peers, and to be sure
that both parties experience a mutually enjoyable time together.
Examples: It's buddy-buddy stuff; Because he'd probably want to
have fun with me; That would be one way of getting along and having
fun with each other; well people who are good friends come over and
have fun; You might want to laugh a little bit; You have fun to
death; etc.

Take other's viewpoint - Here the child's goal is to examine the
situation from his/her peer's point of view when determining how to
behave. Statements coded here include: That's not a very good way
to stay friends if you don't listen to 'em; Because I could be
wrong; To be considerate; I know how it feels; I've had my feelings
hurt before; etc.

Engage_ in physical/verbal aggression - The child's goal is to get
1nto an argument with his/her peer, or to engage in some sort of
physical altercation with the peer. Examples are: 'Cuz me and him
would probably get in a fight; we might get in an argument;

 

 

 

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

71

Everybody gets angry when somebody tells them off; etc.

Avoid exclusive friendship - This code should be used if the
child's goaliis to allow the peer freedom to develop friendships
outside of the relationship between the child and that peer. In
addition, the child expects to be allotted the same privelege.

Some examples include: So we can have other friends; And if I
didn't have anyone to play with they would be the people I could
play with in school days; In case someone tells her not to play
with me or work together with me or do projects with me; It would
maybe make my other friends like me better; You really don't gotta
keep to yourself; etc.

Reference t9 expressingfeelings - The child explains his/her
actions in terms of the emotions he/she is experiencing in the
situation. Examples: well, I can't keep it to myself always; I
have to tell it sometime; So I don't want to feel sad for myself;
Because I don't feel good watching something I don't like; Because
if she started saying things about me I'd feel very sad; etc.
Support/Understanding/Feeling wanted - The child explains his/her
BEhavior in a situation as being related to the desire to provide
support and/or understanding for the peer, or to make the peer feel
welcome and desirable as a friend. Some statements in this
category are: He should understand like me; To make him feel like
he used to be where he had friends; To make her feel like her ideas
are OK too; To make her feel like you want to; So he won't feel bad
when he moved away; Like you're not just comin' because you have to
but you want to; 'Cuz I'd be with him so long that I'd know what he
feels and what he's been through; etc.

Reference to fairness - The child's goal is to establish an

 

 

 

interactiofijwhich is equitable for each of the persons involved.

Illustrations include: Because that wouldn't be fair if I asked
one of them and not the rest; 'Cuz it's not right just to play with
Kristi and not the other girls; Because that's more fair than just
letting me or her watch it and not take turns; It's not right; etc.
Avoid boredom - The child specifically refers to the desire to
avoid being bored. Examples: Because if you talk strictly about
science that week, it might get boring; If he was bored in the
first place, it might get unbored; NOt just sit around and be bored
to death; It's boring if you just sit around talking; etc.

Ease pf interaction - This code will be used when the child's goal
15 to makeithe interaction between him/herself and the peer more
comfortable. Examples include: It's probably the easiest way;
It's faster; It's easier to sit next to her; I'd feel more
comfortable with someone I knew than with someone I didn't know;
etc.

Activities with non-agemates - The child's goals for behavior
reference the difficulties of interacting with older or younger
peers. Illustrations include: Because I don't like playing with
older people; They boss me around; I don't like playing with little
kids at heart; Because if I think she's a little bit older than me
then I'll say to someone that I meet again that she, um, introduced
her to someone; It ain't really fun if you're playing with bigger
kids; etc.

Not ignore other - Record this code if the child's goal is to pay
attention to the peer and not ignore what that peer has to say.

 

 

 

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

99.

72

Statements included here: You don't ignore someone you want to get
to know; You don't walk up to someone and say nothing; etc.
Reference 59 peer's state pf_physical/mental health - This response
15 usually used as a reason for the child's strategy of asking a
peer "How are you?". The goal is to determine whether or not the
peer is feeling well, or what the peer's state of mind is.
Examples: Because he might be sick or something; To see how he
felt; To see how he's feeling, etc.

Reference 59 the peer beingnew ipflth§_area - The child's behavior
is explained in terms of the peer never having lived in the area
before, or being new to the environment. Some examples are: Maybe
she'd been in the house all the time she'd lived there; well he
hasn't been here alot around here; I would probably watch it
because he's a new kid on the street; I've never seen her out there
before; 'Cuz maybe he's new; Because if I was a new kid I wouldn't
have no one to play with; etc.

Reference to good manners - The child's goal is to maintain good
manners and—to poI1te and appropriate. Examples: Because I
think it's very rude to say that; It's not polite to do it; It
would probably come out and it wasn't supposed to; Because I'm not
supposed to say "Hey girl"; You should ask them before you do it;
If he's busy I don't want to interrupt him; etc.

Reference t9 self abilities/personality - Here the child explains
h1s7her behavior by refering to an ability or to the type of person
that he/she perceives him/herself to be. Examples are: Something
I was good at; Just because I'm that type of person; etc.

Reference to finishing school work/chores - The child's explanation
of BEhav1of_deals with the desire to finish work, or to aid the
process of work being done by the child or peer. Examples include:
We may not get our science project done; So we can get ahead on our
science project; So we'd get done faster; etc.

Reference to self loneliness - The child explains his/her behavior
as BE1ng rEIated to loneliness or to being alone. Examples are:
Because I don't have anyone else on the street; Because I don't
meet friends very good when other people are around; Because that's
the only friend I have, the new friend; etc.

Friendship develggment and increasing intimacy - The child's goal
in this situation is to increase the closeness or intimacy of the
relationship with the peer. This goal is usually referred to in
specific terms and includes statements like: Because that could
make a friendship grow; So we could be closer; Just so we could get
closer; So we can get more friends; Because if we became better
friends we might become best friends; etc.

Hide feelings/attempt tp_cop§ - Here, the child wishes to conceal
his/her true feelings from the peer, or to cope with a bad
situation as best he/she can. Examples are: So he won't know my
feelings; Just go on living without her; etc.

§p_response/Don't know/Uncodable response - Although this code will
rarely occur, it should be used in instances where a child has
failed to provide a goal response, is unable to think of an
adequate goal response, or the response given does not fit into any
of the above categories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F
FEELINGS CODING SCHEME

APPENDIX F
Feelings Coding Scheme

In this coding scheme, you are asked to record the child's

responses to a question about how he/she would feel in particular
situations. The coding scheme provided here outlines the codes to be
used in evaluating the children's responses. It is a comprehensive
coding scheme, and the children's responses are generally
straightforward. Use this code book as a guideline for your coding, and
see Judy before you begin coding if any questions should arise.

Feelings codes:

01.

02.

D3.

04.

GS.

06.

07.

08.

that he she would feel good about the situation. The child tends
not to be any more specific in his/her response, other than
possibly giving an explanation about why he/she feels good.
Examples: Good; Pretty good; Feel good 'cuz I'm going to meet him;
Same; I'd feel good that he's my friend already; You'd feel nice,
well good that we got to work together; etc.

Bad_in eneral - This code is similar to #01 except that it is the

Good in general - Use this code when the child responds by saying

- opposite emotion. Thus, the child feels generally bad, or not

good, but again does not specify a more differentiated emotion.
Examples: Bad; Not too good; Probably not too good 'cuz he changed
the channel; I wouldn't feel any good anymore; etc.

Angry/Upset - Here the child indicates that he/she would be mad at
a peer, or angry about the state of the situation. Examples:
Angry; Mad; Upset; Sort of mad; Kind of mad that he wouldn't be my
friend; I wouldn't like it; My first reaction would be to be angry;
etc.

Shy/Nervous - The child indicates that he/she is unsure about what

 

 

to do in the situation, and therefore is either shy about making a
move, or nervous about doing something. Examples: Shy; Nervous;
Anxious; Not sure; Sometimes it's hard for me to meet people; They
were really shy when they came to school the first time; I'd feel
like waiting till he's alone; Sometimes I'm too shy to ask people;
I'd feel like maybe I'd be intruding if I walked over; etc.
Sad/Unhappy - If the child indicates that the situation would be
sad, or would make him/her feel unhappy, use this code. Examples:
Sad; Unhappy; Disappointed; Real sad; If we really didn't get along
I'd feel sad; Not very happy; etc.

Excited/Anticipatory - The child is anticipating a desireable
outcome, and is excited to have that outcome occur. Examples:
Excited; Eager to be her friend; Like this is gonna be exciting;
Anxious to meet her; I would probably feel friendly; etc.
Enjoyable/fun situation - This code is used when the child feels
that the situation is or will be fun, and that the friend and the
child both feel wanted by one another. Exmamples: I'd feel that
she was sorts good to me; Fun to have a new friend; Boy, you're a
great friend; etc.

Undisturbed/Nonchalant - The child feels that the situation is not
worth worrying about, and expresses a feeling of not being

 

 

 

 

73

D9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

74

disturbed by it. Examples: That would be fine; I wouldn't care;
It wouldn't bug me; I'd feel that she can watch what she wants; I
wouldn't mind very much; etc.

Wish tpymeetflmake acquaintance - Here the child feels the desire to
meet a child whom he/she doesn't currently know, and/Or wishes to
become acquainted, although doesn't necessarily desire to become
friends with that peer (see #19). Examples: Like maybe I should
go meet him; Like I'd want to meet him/her; I'd probably like to
say hi; Like I should go over; etc.

Jealous/Selfish - If the child would feel jealous of a peer's other
friends, or if the child wishes to keep that peer to him/herself,
use this code. Examples: I guess I'd be selfish because I'd want
Kristi to myself; Jealous; Feel like trying to keep him away from
other people; etc.

Fearful of losing a_friend - Here the child indicates a desire to
keep a ffiendship, and would feel sad or sorry if it broke up.
Examples: Then you won't want to play with me anymore; I mught
lose Kevin; That I wouldn't want to lose him; Sorry he wouldn't
want to talk to me; etc.

'Happy £95 other - The child is concerned with the peer's welfare,
and feels glad that something positive has happened to that peer.
Examples: I'd be glad for him; Good 'cuz she had friends; etc.
Strange/Uneasy - Use this code if the child indicates that the
situation would be in some way uncomfortable or odd. Examples:
Kinda strange; Quite strange; I'd feel kinda different; Icky; etc.
Great/Terrific - This is a stronger emotion than just feeling good
or happy. Rather, the child finds the situation quite pleasant and
feels especially good about it. Examples: Terrific; Real, real
happy; very good; real great; I'd feel great because I have a new
friend; etc.

Terrible/Awful - Like #14, this emotion is quite strong. The child
feels very bad and finds the situation very unpleasant. Examples:
very, very bad; Terrible; A little bit horrible; etc.

Happy/Glad - Here the child experiences joy that is stronger and
'more specific than just feeling good, but not as ecstatic as he/she
feels for code #14. Thus the child feels happy or glad in the
situation at hand. Examples: Glad that I went over to meet her;
Sorta glad; Glad that the teacher said yes; Happy; Happy to meet
her; I'd like it; I like little kids; Glad to be her partner; etc.
Nice - For this code, the child feels good about the other person,
or about him/herself, and he/she is more specific about that
feeling than would be the case in code #01. In general the child
specifically refers to being nice. Examples: Feel like she's
pretty nice; Have to be nice; etc.

OK/Mediocre - The child indicates that he/she feels no different
than normal. Thus he/She is not feeling any specific emotion.
Examples: I'd probably feel OK; Alright I guess; Fine; Normal; Not
happy or sad, just in between; Not happy but not sad either; I'll
feel myself again; I'll feel like I'm normal; etc.

Desire to develop friendship - If the child indicates that he/she
wouId like to become friends with a peer, or to become closer to
that peer, code the response here. Examples: I'd like to be his
friend; Feel like I'd want to make friends with her; I've got a new
friend; I'd feel maybe I'd just made another friend; Like I would

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

3D.

31.

32.

33.

34.

75

wanna be good friends; etc.

Frustrated - The child feels trapped by the situation and is
frustrated with how it has turned out. Examples: Mad at myself; A
little frustrated at myself; etc.

Hurt — The child indicates that the peer has hurt his/her feelings.
Examples: Hurt; Hurt 'cuz I think we would have a good
relationship; I would feel hurt because we got to be such good
friends; etc.

Lonely/Sad for other - The child is empathizing with the peer, and
feels sorry that the peer has no friends or is alone. Some
examples: I'd feel lonely for her; I'd feel bad because she was
all by herself; Like he's lonely; etc.

Cheated/Unconsidered - The child feels that the peer has cheated
him/her or has not taken the child's wishes into consideration.
Examples: I feel like changing it back; I'd feel that my friend is
cheating me; Like it was something mean to do; That he shouldn't
have done that; etc.

Curious - The child feels puzzled by the situation, but is

motivated to find out what will happen. Example: Chrious about

what I would do.

Confused/Challenged - The child is strongly puzzled by the
situation or feels that the situation is challenging. Examples:
Like this kid is really changing; Confused; This is a real toughy;
wanting to know what I did; It would be kinda weird to me if I hurt
her feelings; etc.

Pleased with self - Here the child feels a sense of determination
and/or pride. Examples: Proud; Determined to go meet her; I'd

probably feel relieved that she's my friend; Successful that I made
another friend; etc.

Partner - The child indicates a sense of partnership with the peer.
ExampIe : Like we're going to work on something together; Feel
that we gotta work on it together; etc.

Pla ate - Here the child indicates a desire to have someone to

p ay w1t . Examples: He needs somebody to play with; Like I

wanted to play with him; I'd feel like playing with them; And ask
them if they wanted to play; etc.

Bored - The child finds the situation boring. Examples: Like this
is gonna be a little bit boring; etc.

Rejected/Unwanted - The child feels as if the peer does not want

hiS/her friendship. Examples: Rejected; And he/she is beginning
to hate me; etc.

Reflective - The child is thinking about what to do in the
situation without indicating that he/she is unsure or anxious about

what to do. Examples: I'd just wonder what would happen; I'd just
think what would happen if we weren't friends; etc.

Clumsy/Dumb - The child is feeling stupid or inept at handling the
situation. Examples: Then you'll think I'm dumb or something; I'd
feel like I did somethin stupid in school; etc.

Aggressive - The child feels like he/she wants to express anger
through physical aggression toward the peer. Example: Feel like
beating him up.

Responsible for others - The child feels responsibility for the
outcome of the situation and that he/she would be to blame if the
outcome were negative. Examples: But if they fall over I might be

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.

99.

76

to blame; Like little kids I might hurt 'enn I'd feel like I wasn't
helping her enough; etc.
Concerned about other — Use this code if the child feels that

 

he/she needs to protect the peer or to avoid hurting the peer.
Examples: I feel protective; I don't want to hurt her feelings;

etc.
Uncodable - This code should be used only in the rare case that a

child's response can not be coded within any of the above

categories.

APPENDIX G
BEST FRIEND CODING SCHEME

01.

02.

03.

D4.

05.

06.

07.

APPENDIX G
Best Friend coding Scheme

Reciprocity/Equality - This code should be used in all cases where

 

the child describes the relationship with the best friend as having
an element of give and take, or an element of equality to it. Each
of the partners contributes equal amounts to the friendship, and
each is willing to compromise in the relationship. Examples of the
code: I do what he wants to do and he does what I want to do; If
he feels like playing football, I do too; She doesn't boss me
around; I don't boss her around; She does things I wanna do;
Everytime I tease him, he teases me back; She treats me really good
and I try to do the same to her; etc.

Sense of humor - Comments indicating that the best friend is
amiable—aha enjoys fun should be coded here. Examples: He's funny
and stuff; He's sorta silly; He does a lot of crazy things; He
always makes me laugh; etc.

Commonalities/Similarities — The best friend is described in terms
of hobbies, interests, or attributes which he/she has in common
with the child. Thus, the two children are friends because they
share something in common. Examples: He's my friend at baseball;
I asked him if he wanted to join baseball; He likes games I play;
She's more like me; We do the same things almost everytime; We're
the same; He's in Mills room; we have a lot of the same interests;
etc.

Compatibility - Comments related to gettng along and avoiding
arguments or fights should be coded here. Examples are: Me and
him barely get into fights; I like him 'cuz he doesn't fight; we
get along most of the time; Whenever me and him.fight it's just
pushing around and wrestling for kicks, never anything real; He
makes a good partner for me; She hardly ever gets mad at me; etc.
Agree - A child's comments about his/her best friend's tendency to
agree with the child or to be agreeable to the child's suggestions
are coded as agree. Examples: She's almost always agreeable; we
both agree on everything; etc.

Help each other - As best friends, the two children engage in
helping behavior by giving aid to one another in various
situations, including schoolwork, chores at home, and aid during
times of need. Some examples: He helps me; Sometimes I help him;
Sometimes she helps me with my work if I need help; If I'm sick
she'll get my homework for me; we do things for him; She does
favors fOr me; etc.

Frequent contact - For this code, the child has indicated that
he/she and the best friend spend a great deal of time together,
usually in the form of visiting one another's homes or going places
together. Examples are: I go over his house alot; I can always
play with her 'cuz she's at my grandma's; She takes me everywhere;
we usually do everything together; When she wants to stay the night
my mom says yes because this is my best friend, and my mom knows
her; Because everytime that I did something that someone else
liked, and maybe I didn't like and they didn't want me to play, Sam

 

 

 

 

77

08.

09.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

78

would come over and ask me if I wanted to play with her; I used to
go over his house; She talks to me alot; We always walk home
together; etc.

Mutual activity/play partners - This code is used when the child
indicates that he/she and the best friend engage in activities
together, and/Or are frequent play partners. This code is
distinguished from #07 in its reference to play activities.
Examples include: Asks me to play baseball with him; He's on my
teams and things; we'll start playing together; Sometimes I ask her
to eat lunch with me and she'll eat lunch with me; She goes with
you; He's captain of the team and he usually picks me; We started
to play alot; we go on boat rides; etc.

Nice - If the best friend is referred to as being nice, or as being
a nice person, use this code. Examples 'CuZ she's nice; He's not
mean; She's a nice kid; He's not like a bully to the other kids; He
doesn't push them around; But in the 7th grade he's real nice to
“me; She's not mean to people; etc.

Len th of acquaintance - References to the amount of time the
childrefi—have known each other should be coded here. Examples: I
knew her for a long long time; we just knew each other since
kindergarten; well since I was a little girl here she started to
like me alot; we've always been together; Because when I first
cames to this school, he started being my friend; etc.

School acquaintance - If the child specifically refers to the
friend as being a school-based friend, code the response here.
Examples include: We like to talk together in school; Me and him
go to the school; He's my friend in school; etc.

Honest - If the friend is honest and non-deceiving, use this code.
Illustrations are: When she goes someplace, she doesn't always
keep it to herself; She tells me; I'll ask can I come with you, and
she'll say I'm sorry, I have another partner going; He don't tell
lies; He don't steal; etc.

Friendl - Responses in this category make note of the best
friend's outgoing personality and friendliness. Examples: He's
friendly; He sat right in front and when I walked in he said, "Hi,
my name's Jamie"; She's friendly; etc.

Understanding pf other friendships - Here, the friend accepts and
understands the fact that the child may have other friends with
whom he/she may ocassionally wish to associate. In turn, the child
understands and accepts that the best friend may have other
friendships as well. Examples: I had a different best friend
before she came along; Sometimes I play with other friends; Her
name was Carrine, and she got in a fight with me; I hang around
with mostly 8th graders; She's got a lot of other friends; etc.
Sensitivity tg others feelings - This code should be used when the
child indicates that the friend is aware of others' feelings and
tries not to upset that person, or to hurt that person's feelings.
Illustrations are: She doesn't hurt feelings; He doesn't pick on
me; She don't make fun of me 'cuz I have a problem; She usually
tries to make me feel real good; He doesn't do anything bad to hurt
me; etc.

Includes ip_activities - Use this code when the child indicates
that E55 friend attempts to include the child in his/her ongoing
activities. Example: She included me in games.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

79

Share - The best friend is described as being willing to pool
resources with the child or to take turns when resources are
limited. Some examples of sharing are: We share things; She
shared ideas with me; Everytime I get a project he always comes
over and says, "Can I copy off of you 'cuz I forgot what was the
thing", and I let him copy; He let's me borrow stuff; etc.
Consideration gf_other's preferences — The child describes his/her
best friend as being willing to listen to and/or spontaneously
consider others' points of view. Illustrations include: Every
time we wanna do things she always asks me what I wanna do first;
She'll do what you wanna do; etc.

Mutual liking - Here the child indicates that he/she and the best
friend share a common liking or affection for one another.
Examples: I like her alot; She likes me very much; She likes me
for a friend; I like her for a friend; But Jack likes me; etc.

Good person - Reponses which imply a favorable judgement of the
friend as a person should be coded in this category. Examples:
Because he's a good guy to be with; She's a good person; She
doesn't hang around with the wrong people; etc.

Good manners - For this code, the child has indicated that his/her
best friend is a desirable companion because he/she is well
mannered, and typically polite. Examples include: She's polite to
:me; etc.

Depth gt acquaintance - Responses in this category refer to the
closeness of the child's relationship with the best friend.
Although it does not go so far as to imply love or deep intimacy,
the relationship is definitely a friendship that is close and
probably exclusive to the pair of children. Examples are: He's my
friend; She's my best friend; He's always been friends; 'Cuz we're
very close; He's close by me; And she stayed my friend; Debby got
really close; we feel kinda close; Just got to know each other
pretty well; She's one of my closest friends; During those times
we've grown to like each other; etc.

Not stuck up/Good personality - The child refers to the friend as
having a good personality or as not being conceited. Examples: He
doesn't think he's bigger than anyone else in the class; He has a
good personality; She's got a good personality; etc.

Exchange gifts - One of the activities mentioned by the child as a
Eharacteristic of the best friend relationship is that the two
children exchange gifts with one another. Examples are: He gives
me stuff soretimes; I give him stuff soietimes; He gives me
Kool-Aid or pop when I go over; etc.

Close proximity - This code includes comments indicating that the
child's best friend lives nearby, or is within close distance of
the child. 'Examples: Because we live right across the street from
each other; He was about the only kid on the street I knew; He
lives a mile away; It's kinda tiring (to ride to his house); We sit
next to each other in every class; She's my locker partner; etc.
work partners - The child indicates that he/she and the best friend
work together on chores or projects. Examples include: Me and him
always do our work together; He asks me to do projects with him;
Sometimes we do work together; He always makes a good partner for
me, etc.

Loyalty - Any coments referencing the friend's faithfulness is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

80

regarded as loyalty, and should be coded here. Sample responses:
'Cuz she's not like some girls who say they're friends and the next
day they're turning their nose away from you; we got in a
fight.....and she came back to me; I think that's it, she's loyal;
She doesn't talk about people; etc.

comparison to other peers - Here the child points out how the best
friendhis different from other peers or acquaintances. These
characteristics make the relationship seem more stable or closer
than other relationships. Examples include: All the other kids
tease me alot; Most other friends don't do that; All the other kids
keep saying all these bad things about me 'cuz sometimes a little
bit if they get, if they tease me I tease them back; See we really
can't do that for a day or something like my other friends if we
break up; All the other kids that hang around don't like me and
pick on me; The other kids don't usually let me play baseball; Not
like everybody else; etc.

Admiration gf_abilities - The child is pointing out that his/her
best friend has a talent that the child admires. Examples: He's
good at things; She's usually good in everything; etc.

Parent's acquaintance - Either the child or the child's parents
are acquainted with the best friend's parents. Examples: My mom
and his dad had a lot in common; They went to school together and
were real good friends; His mom gets along with me; His mother
knows my ma, and they do alot of things; etc.

Enjoyable compapy - Responses in this category reference the fact
that the friend is a fun person to be with and makes an enjoyable
companion. Examples are: She's fun; And (we) laugh once in
awhile; Really fun to be around; We have a lot of fun; Fun to be
with; etc.

Supportive - The child makes reference to the fact that the friend

 

 

 

 

 

 

is’around in times of need, and provides suport and encouragement
as needed. Some examples are: He's there when I need him; She's
there whenever I need her; etc.
Became acquainted through other peers - The child is referring to
the way in which he/she met and became friends with the best
friend; in this case, the two children met through mutual
acquaintance. Examples: Through another good friend Lynn; Met her
through Tony; I was hangin' around Tony and then Debbie started
hangin' around too; etc.

th - The child talks with his/her best friend about things
he/she would not normally discuss with other friends. The friend
discusses similar things with the child, and each empathizes with
and understands the other. Examples include: Like with some
people like I used to have this best friend and we never talked,
like really talked like me and Trisha do; we talk about our
families and our problems; If something's going wrong in her
family, we talk about it; It makes you feel better; Somebody I can
talk to with my problems; we both understand each other; You know,
we talk; When I'm down she cheers me up; etc.
Deep intimacy/Love — Here the child indicates that he/She loves the
best friend, or is very close to the friend in a way which makes
ther relationship a special one to be cherished. Examples include:
we love each other like sisters; She's special to me; She's really
special; etc.

 

 

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

81

Sweet/Kind — Specific references to the best friend's kindness, or

 

that the best friend is a "sweet" person fall into this category
and include: She's sweet; He/she is kind; etc.

Not selfish - This code is used when the child says that the friend
puts him7herself after others. An example: She puts others first
before herself.

caring - The child makes specific reference to the fact that the
friend cares for the child. Example: She cares.

Friend's posessions - The child refers to animate or inanimate
object owned by the friend. Examples are: He has a boat; He has
pets; etc.

contact with friend's siblings - Here the child refers to contact
he/she has with the friend's brothers and/or sisters. Some
examples: His brothers are nice when I go over there; She has good
looking brothers; etc.

 

 

 

APPENDIX H
CODES COMBINED FOR FACTOR ANALYSES

Appendix H

Strategy Codes Combined for Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis Codes

 

01.

02.
03.
04.

05.
06.

07.
Q8.
09.

10.

11.
12.
13.
14.

15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

Approach

Greet
Introduce self/other
Information exchange

Invite to play
Ask to make friends

Help
Compromise
Make up/renew loyalty

Get along

Retaliate
walk away
Do nothing
Observe discrepancies

Desire explanation

Acquire info from others
Mutual activity
Express a preference
Submit to others wishes
Conversation

Ask other to submit
Find other companions
Ask other's preference
Compliment

Express feelings

Hide feelings

Empathy

Original codes

 

01. Approach (88), 42. Acknowledge
other's presence (4)

02. Greet (142)

03. Introduce self/other (104)

04. Ask for information (121), 05. Give
information (36), 40. Establish
commonalities (8)

06. Invite other to play/join/come over
(142)

07. Ask to make friends/maintain
friendship 80)

08. Help other (25)

10. Compromise (40)

12. Try to make amends/renew loyalty
(15)

09. Share with other (7), 11.
Apologize/express sorrow at loss of
friendship (13), 13. Be nice/kind/don't
hurt (56), 15. Avoid
conflict/argument/loss of friendship
(21), 33. Be friendly (7), 34. Agree
with other (6), 35. Express liking for
other (13), 38. Resolve conflict (7),
45. Avoid physical & verbal aggression
(5), 46. Enjoy each other's company
(4), 53. Forgive other (1)

16. Retaliate (34)

18. walk away (20)

19. Do nothing (34)

20. Point out discrepancies (9), 21.
Refer to other's possessions (7)

22. Express confusion/disbelief (8),
23. Request/give reason for action
(112) .

25. Acquire info from others (19)

26. Engage in mutual activity (67)

27. Express a preference (28)

28. Submit/defer to other's wishes (SS)
29. Begin/continue conversation (50)
31. Ask other to submit (50)

32. Find other companions (17)

36. Ask other's preference (39)

44. Compliment other (21)

50. Expression of feelings (40)

54. Hide feelings (16)

37. Equality/reciprocity (S), 47. Take

82

Stratagy Codes deleted from analyses

. ave frequent contact (7)

83

other's point of view (3), 51. Provide
support & understanding (6), 52.
Respect other's privacy or silence (ll)

45. Avoid physical/verbal
aggression (5)

l7. Appeal to authority figures (4) 48. Engage in physical aggression

(6)

24. Refer to other's loneliness (3) 49. Avoid exclusive friendship (2)
30. Judge other's personality (ll) 55. Be yourself (3)

39. Avoid self embarrassment (4)
41. Bribe/don't bribe other (2)
43. Refrain from retaliation (l)

56. Ignore other (1)
57. Imitate others (1)
99. Uncodable responses (3)

84

Goal Codes Combined for Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis Codes

 

01.

02.

03.

04.
05.
06.
07.
08.

09.

10.

11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.

17.
18.

Acquainting behavior

Information exchange

Facilitate friendship

Help
Compromise
Loss of friendship

Apologize
Nice

Avoid conflict

Retaliate

Don't know what else to say
Point out discrepancy
Reference to possessions
Reference to self image

Acquire reason for action
Concern for peer

Mutual activity
Express a preference

Original codes

 

01. Approach/Greet (16), 02. Meet/get
better acquainted (111), 03.
Introduction to self/others (78), 14.
Frequent contact (11)

04. Acquire knowledge about other (88),
05. Other asks for or receives
information about self (20), 25.
Acquire information from others (6)

06. Facilitate interaction by
joining/inviting to play (53), 07. Make
friends/maintain friendship (152), 63.
Friendship development/increasing
intimacy (15)

08. Help other (17)

10. Compromise (23)

11. Loss of friendship/companionship
(44)

12. Apologize/make amends/refer to
renewing loyalty (21)

13. Attempts to be nice/kind/not hurt
peers (61)

15. Avoid conflict/argument/loss of
friendship (72), 45. Avoid
physical/verbal aggression (4)

16. Retaliate (ll), 17. Appeal/refer to
authority figures (2), 48. Engage in
physical/verbal aggression (2)

19. Don't know what else to say (16)
20. Point out a discrepancy (27)

21. Reference to possessions (33)

22. Outsider's judgement of self (5),
39. Avoid embarrassment (l), 62.
Reference to self loneliness/solitary
state (10)

23. Acquire/give reason for action (89)
24. Reference to peer's
loneliness/solitary state (38), 47.
Take other's viewpoint (ll), 51.
Support/Understanding (13), 57.
Reference to peer's state of
physical/mental health (6), 58.
Reference to peer being new in the area
(9)

26. Mutual activity (23)

27. Expression of a preference (60)

19.

20.
21.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.

29. Refer to expressing feelings

(15)
30.

Goal codes deleted from analysis

09.
18.
37.
38.
41.
42.

43.

Submit/Give leeway

conversation
Judge peer's personality

Ask other to submit
Other companions
Friendly

Retain liking for other
Ask other's preference
commonalities

Get along

Good manners

Share (2)

walk away (1)
Equality/reciprocity (l)
Resolve conflict (2)

Not take advantage of (4)
Acknowledge other's presence

Give gifts to friends (3)

85

28. Give other leeway/submit to other
(20)

29. Begin/continue a conversation (32)
3g§)Judgements about peer's personality
31. Gaining preferred choice/ask other
to submit (30)

32. Find other companions (12), 49.
Avoid exclusive friendship (7), 55.
Activities with non-agemates (4)

33. Be friendly (53)

35. Retain other's liking/liking for
other (40)

36. Refer to/ask for other's preference
(27)

40. Establish
commonalities/similarities (31)

34. Agree with other (4), 46. Get
along/enjoy each other's company (31),
53. Avoid boredom (9), 54. Ease of
interaction (6)

50. Reference to expressing feelings

59. Reference to good manners (45)

44. Compliment (9)
52. Reference to fairness (3)
56. Not ignore other (2)
60. Reference to self
abilities/personality (1)
61. Reference to finishing school
work/chores (9)

(1) 64. Hide feelings/attempt to cope
(1)

86

Feelings Codes Combined for Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis codes

 

$1.
02.
03.

04.

05.
06.
07.
08.
09.

10.
11.
12.

13.
14.

15.
16.
17.

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

Good in general
Bad in general

Upset
Shy/Uneasy

Sad

Excited

Enjoyable situation
Undisturbed/nonchalant
Wish to make acquaintance

Jealous/selfish
Fearful of losing friend
Concerned about other

Great
Terrible/rejected

Happy
OK

Desire to develop friendship

Hurt
Cheated/unconsidered
CUrious/reflective
confused

Pleased with self
Playmate

Feelin 3 codes deleted from analysis
. Nice (2)

29.
33.
99.

Bored (l)
Aggressive (l)
Uncodable response (2)

Original Codes

 

01. Good in general (94)

02. Bad in general (32)

03. Angry/upset (67), 20.
Frustrated (2)

04. Shy/nervous (33), 13.
Strange/uneasy (3)

05. Sad/unhappy (50)

06. Excited/anticipatory (8)

07. Enjoyable situation (5)

08. Undisturbed/nonchalant (13)
09. Wish to meet/make acquaintance
(44)

10. Jealous/selfish (5)

ll. Fearful of losing friend (4)
12. Happy for other (3), 22.
Lonely/sad for other (2), 34.
Responsible for others (4), 35.
Concerned about other (2)

l4. Great/terrific (10)

15. Terrible/awful (5), 30.
Rejected/unwanted (l), 32.
Clumsy/dumb (3)

16. Happy/glad (45)

18. OKflmediocre (36)

19. Desire to develop friendship
(18), 27. Partner (3)

21. Hurt (12)

23. Cheated/unconsidered (9)

24. Curious (2), 31. Reflective (4)
25. Confused/challenged (9)

26. Pleased with self (8)

28. Playmate (6)

87

Best Friend Codes Combined for Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis Codes

 

01.
02.
03.
04.

Reciprocity/equality
Sense of humor
commonalities/similarities
Compatibility

05.
06.
07.
08.

Agree
Help each other
Frequent contact

Partners

Nice

Length of acquaintance

School acquaintance

Honest

Understands other friendships

09.
10.
11.
12.
13.

14. Sensitivity to other's feelings

Share
Mutual liking
Depth of acquaintance

15.
16.
17.

18. Good personality
19.
2a.
21.

Close proximity
Comparison to other peers
Role of others in acquaintance

22.
23.

Empathy
Sweet/kind

Original codes

 

01. Reciprocity/equality (12)

02. Sense of humor (11)

03. Commonalities/Similarities (32)
04. Compatibility (38), 13.
Friendly (4), 31. Enjoyable company
(2)

05. Agree (8)

06. Help each other (10)

07. Frequent contact (33)

08. Mutual activity/play partners
(19), 26. work partners (4)

09. Nice (63)

10. Length of acquaintance (19)
11. School acquaintance (6)

12. Honest (6)

14. Understanding of other
friendships (6)

15. Sensitivity to other's feelings
(5), 18. Consideration of other's
preferences (2), 32. Supportive
(2), 37. NOt selfish (l), 38.
Caring (2)

17. Share (6)

l9. Mutual liking (15)

22. Depth of acquaintance/close
friends (16), 35. Deep
intimacy/love (4)

23. Not stuck up/good personality
(4), 27. Loyalty (4)

25. Close proximity (9)

28. Comparison to other peers (8)
30. Parent's acquaintance (4), 33.
Became acquainted through other
peers (3)

34. Empathy (18)

36. Sweet/kind (6)

Best friend codes deleted from analysis

I6. Includes in activities (1)
20. Good person (3)
21. Good manners (l)

24. Exchange gifts (3)

29. Admiration of abilities (2)
39. Friend's possessions (2)

40. Contact with friend's siblings
(2)

99. Uncodable response (2)

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Altrman, I. and Taylor, D.A. (1973). Social panetration: The

 

development o_f interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt,

 

 

Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
Asher, S.R., and Renshaw, P.D. (1981). Children without friends:

Social knowledge and social-skill training. In S.R. Asher and J.M.

Gottman (Eds.) , The develggment o_f children's friendships.

 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asher, S.R., and Renshaw, P. D. (1981). Social skills and social
knowledge of high- and low-status kindergarten children. Cited in

S.R. Asher and J.M. Gottman (Eds.) , The development gf_ children's

 

friendships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Asher, S.R., Renshaw, P.D., and Geraci, R.L. (1980). Children's

friendships and social competence. International Journal pf

 

Limuistics, 1, 27-39.

 

Baggaley, A.R. (1982). Deciding on the ratio of number of subjects to
number of variables in factor analysis. Multivariate gtperimental

Clinical Research, 6, 81-85.

 

Bigelow, B.J. (1977). Children's friendship expectations: A
cognitive-developmental study. Child Development, 48, 246-253.

Bigelow, B.J., and LaGaipa, J.J. (1975). Children's written
descriptions of friendship: A multidimensional analysis.

Developmental Psychology, l_l_, 857-858.

 

88

89

Bukowski, W.M., and Newcomb, A.F. (in press). The stability and
determinants of sociotetric status and friendship choice: A
longitudinal perspective. Developmental Psychology.

Cohen, J. (1960) . A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, _2_0, 37-46.

Comrey, A.L. (1978) . Common methodological problems in factor analytic
studies. Journal gt Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 648-659.

Crawford, QB. (1975) . Determining the number of interpretable
factors. chhological Bulletin, 82, 226-237.

Dodge, K.A. (in press). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status.

Child Development.

 

Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., and Brakke, N.P. (in press). Behavior
patterns of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents: The role
of social approach and aggression. Journal gt Abnormal Child
Psyghology.

Duck, 8. (1976) . Interpersonal communication in developing
acquaintance. In G.R. Miller (Ed.) , Explorations ir_1 interpersonal

communication. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

 

Duck, S.W., and Craig, G. (1977). The relative attractiveness of
different types of information about another person. British Journal
gt Social and Clinical Psychology, l6, 229-233.

Duck, S.W., and Craig, G. (1978). Personality similarity and the
development of friendship: A longitudinal study. British Journal g
Social and Clinical Psychology, _l_7, 237-242.

Flavell, J. H. (1981). Monitoring social cognitive enterprises:
Something else that may develop in the area of social cognition. In

J.H. Flavell (Ed.) , Social cognitive development: Frontiers and

 

 

90

possible futures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Forbes, D. (1978). Recent research on children's social cognition: A

brief review. In W. Damon (Ed.), Social Cognition. San Francisco:

 

Jossey-Bass.

Furman, w. and Bierman, K.L. (1981, April). A features model theory of
children's conceptions of friendship. Paper presented at the
meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston,
Massachusetts.

Furman, W. and Bierman, K.L. (1983). Developmental changes in young

children's conceptions of friendship. Child Development, 2.1,

 

Gottman, J .M. (1983). How children become friends. Monographs _<_>_f_ _th_e

Society for Research 1151 Child Develprment, 48 (3, Serial No. 201).

 

 

Gottman, J., Gonso, J., and Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction,

social competence, and friendship in children. Child Development,

 

35;, 709-718.

Hartup, WM. (1983) . The peer system. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.-in-chief) ,

and E.M.Hetherington (Ed.) , Carmichael's manual g child psycholgy,

 

(Vol. 4). New York: Wiley.
Hartup, w.w., Glazer, J. A., and Charlesworth, R. (1967). Peer

reinforcement and sociometric status. Child Development, _38,

 

1017-1024.
Hetherington, E.M. and Parke, R.D. (1979). Child gychology: _A

contemporary viewpoint. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

 

Hunter, J.E. (1977). Cluster analysis: Reliability, construct

 

 

validity and the multiple indicators approach 2’. measurement. Paper

 

delivered at a meeting of the 0.5. Civil Service Commission Panel on

91

Advanced Statistics, Washington, D.c.
Ladd, G;W., and Oden, S. (1979). The relationship between peer
acceptance and children's ideas about helpfulness. Child

 

Loo, R. (1983). Caveat on sample sizes in factor analysis. Perceptual

 

and Motor Skills, 56, 371-374.

 

Miller, G.A., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K.H. (1960). Plans and the

 

structure 9: behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Nelson, K. (1981). Social cognition in a script framework. In J.H.

Flavell (Ed.) , Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible

 

 

futures. cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newcomb, A.F., and Bukowski, W.M. (1983). Social impact and social

preference as determinants of children's group status. Developmental

 

Psychology, lg, 856-867.

 

Newcomb, A.F. and Meister, J.M. (1983). The initial social encounters
of high and low social effectiveness school-aged children.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.

Newcomb, A.F., Packard, T.N. and SmithJWinberry, C.L. (1983) A model
for the initial social encounters of neglected and average social
standing children. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State
University.

Newcomb, T.M. (1956). The prediction of interpersonal attraction.

American Psychologist, ii, 575-586.

 

Newcomb, T.M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt,

 

Rinehart, and Winston.
Peevers, B.H., and Secord, P.F. (1973). Developmental changes in

attribution of descriptive concepts to persons. Journal gt

92

Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 120-128.

 

Putallaz, M., and Gottman, J. M. (1981). An interactional model of

children's entry into peer groups. Child Development, 53, 986-994.
Renshaw P.D. and Asher, S.R. (in press). Children's goals and

strategies for social interaction. Merrill Palmer Quarterly.
Scanzoni, J. (1978). Social exchange and behavioral interdependence.

In T.L. Huston and R.L. Burgess (Eds.). Social exchange ip.

developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.

 

Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, gpals and

understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.