Attachment Style

Attachment Style, Centrality of Groups Membership.
Reported Emotional Intelligence

And Friendships in Children and Adolescents
A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty
Of
The Gordon F. Demer
Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies
Adelphi University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
By
Keri Cassesa Ryan
May 10, 2006
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3212765
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3212765
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
COMMITTEE PAGE
Committee Chairman
Rebecca Curtis, Ph.D
Committee Member:
Rosemary Flanagan. Ph.D
Laura DeRose, Ph.D
Dr. Martha Dore
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Allison Newman, Jodi Streich, and Janet Pinsker for their
assistance with data collection. I am also greatly appreciative to Pat Ross, PhD for all of
his help with the statistical analyses.
iii
Table of Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
Friendship Groups......................................................................................................... 1
Friendship Quality......................................................................................................... 5
Victimized Children and Social Relationships.................................................. 7
Aggressive Children and Social Relationships.................................................. 9
Attachment............................................................................................................................ 11
Family Relationships of Victimized Children.......................................................... 15
Family Relationships of Aggressive Children.......................................................... 16
Social Problem Solving...................................................................................................... 18
Social Problem Solving: Victimized and Aggressive Children............................. 21
Emotional Intelligence........................................................................................................ 22
Coping Skills........................................................................................................................ 25
Affect Regulation................................................................................................................ 29
Purpo se of Study.................................................................................................................. 32
Hypotheses............................................................................................................................ 35
Individual Attachment Style....................................................................................... 35
Friendship Groups......................................................................................................... 38
Impact of Central or Peripheral Group Status........................................................... 43
Bullies and Victims of Peer Abuse............................................................................. 44
Loners.............................................................................................................................. 45
General Hypothesis....................................................................................................... 46
Method.................................................................................................................................. 47
Participants..................................................................................................................... 47
Procedure....................................................................................................................... 47
Measures........................................................................................................................ 48
Results................................................................................................................................... 56
Individual Attachment Results.................................................................................... 56
Friendship Group Results............................................................................................. 59
Bullies and Victims of Peer Abuse............................................................................. 67
Loners............................................................................................................................. 77
Sex Differences and the Impact of Ethnicity............................................................ 77
Grade Differences......................................................................................................... 80
Discussion............................................................................................................................. 81
Individual Attachment Results.................................................................................... 81
Friendship Group Results............................................................................................. 84
Bullies and Victims of Peer Abuse............................................................................ 94
Loners.............................................................................................................................. 102
Limitations of Current Study...................................................................................... 103
Directions for Future Research................................................................................... 105
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 109
References............................................................................................................................. 114
Appendixes............................................................................................................................ 123
I V
Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1: Attachment Style.................................................................................................. 56
Table 2: Means for Friendship Quality Subscales Based
on Friendship Group Membership...................................................................... 60
Table 3: Mean Results for Insecure Central Members
and Insecure Peripheral Members...................................................................... 68
Table 4: Number of Students Classified as Bully or
Victim Based on Attachment Style.................................................................... 69
Table 5: Mean Results for Victimized Central Members
and Victimized Peripheral Members.................................................................. 75
Table 6: Mean Results for Bully/Victim Status x
Central/Peripheral Status..................................................................................... 76
Table 7: Ethnicty/Race x Sex Friendship Groups........................................................... 79
Figures
Figure 1: Number of Secure and Insecure Students
Classified as Central or Peripheral Group Members..................................... 65
Figure 2: Number Bullies and Victims Classified as Central
or Peripheral Group Members........................................................................... 72
Abstract
This study provided evidence linking attachment style, friendship group
membership, and group status to friendship quality and reported emotional intelligence.
Students in the fifth through eighth grades who participated in this study (N=195)
completed the following measures: The BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth
Version, the Adolescent Relationship Scale, a Reactions to Teasing Measure, the
Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist, and an affect regulation scale.
Results indicate that perceived friendship quality of children/adolescents who are
friends with only securely attached children/adolescents was higher than the quality of
friendships of those who are friends with only the insecurely attached. Since securely
attached children/adolescents were predicted to be better adjusted, it was also believed
that those who were members of friendship groups that contained both the securely and
insecurely attached would have higher quality friendships than those in groups that
contained only the insecurely attached. This hypothesis was confirmed and suggests that
being members of higher functioning groups (groups with secures) might allow
children/adolescents to have better quality friendships.
Another aspect of friendship group formation studied was central and peripheral
group membership. When insecurely attached children/adolescents are classified as
central members of groups they score higher in companionship and "help and guidance"
than the insecurely attached who are classified as peripheral members of groups. These
insecurely attached central members have higher overall emotional intelligence,
indicating that even though insecure children/adolescents may have a more difficult time
navigating interpersonal relationships, those who are central members of groups are more
adept at communicating their needs and having satisfying relationships than those who
are classified as peripheral members.
The friendship formation of victims of peer abuse was also investigated. Victims
are more likely to be insecurely attached, making it difficult for them to form friendships.
Victims who were classified as central members of groups had better emotional
intelligence scores than victims who were classified as peripheral members of groups.
Although the causal direction cannot be determined, it may be that being a central
member of a friendship group may allow children/adolescents who are historically less
likely to have fulfilling friendships to function better in social contexts.
Introduction
Friendship Groups
The friendship groups and dyadic friendships that children form in elementary school play
an important role in childhood development. Friendship groups, or cliques, of children and
adolescents are cohesive groups of youth who spend time together (Bagwell, Coie, Terry, &
Lochman 2000). Dyadic friendships, however, are the bonds formed between two children.
Children rely on friendship groups to act as references for their behavior and they influence their
conduct and attitudes (Bagwell et al., 2000). It has been suggested that friendship groups function
as conveyers of cultural knowledge (Harris, 1995), and as children become involved in a group
and begin to identify with their membership in that group, the beliefs held by certain members of
the group become the beliefs of everyone.
Membership in friendship groups is not a random collection of children, but a grouping of
particular peers. The similarity-attraction hypothesis, which states that those who are similar to
one another in attitudes and attributes are attracted to each other and become friends, has been
widely researched and validated (Byrne & Nelson, 1965; Kupersmidt, DeRosier, & Patterson,
1995). It has been found that preadolescent and young children who form friendships with one
another are similar in the following ways: sex, race, sociometric status, academic achievement,
behaviors, and socioeconomic status. Psychological characteristics, however, do not emerge as
important influences oh friendship group formation until preadolescence (Cairns, Leung,
Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995; Kupersmidt et al., 1995). As children mature, similarity in ones
social self-concept becomes a key factor in forming friendships (Clark & Drewry, 1985).
Similarity in social self-concept is important as children get older because school is the
environment in which they validate their self-concept. Children desire positive feedback for their
2
behaviors and attitudes, and therefore tend to surround themselves with peers who hold similar
beliefs. However, it is also important for children to associate with those whose beliefs and
attitudes complement their own (Clark & Drewry, 1985). Therefore, while similarity is
important, friendship groups are also formed between children whose attitudes are different but
blend together nicely. The presence of friendships in elementary school also enhances childrens
self-esteem and offers ego support, as friends support one anothers ideas and provide a secure
environment for children to express their wants, needs, beliefs, and fears (Shulman, Elicker, &
Sroufe, 1994). While many of these studies focused on dyadic friendships, studies have shown
that clique formation follows similar patterns (Bagwell et al., 2000).
Sullivan (1953) proposed the presence of developmental epochs where humans feel an
emergent need and engage in the behaviors necessary to satisfy that need. Sullivan believed that
at each epoch the presence of particular interpersonal relationships is necessary to fulfill the needs
and assist in the development of certain interpersonal competencies. Sullivans epochs follow a
hierarchical pattern such that hindered development at one stage causes the development of
competencies during later epochs to be compromised. Two of Sullivans epochs are particularly
important in the formation of friendship groups. The first epoch is the juvenile era (ages 6
through 9) where the emerging need is acceptance. The entire peer group (such as a classroom)
fulfills this need, and the competencies learned are cooperation, compromise, and competition.
However, if children are rejected by their peer group, then developmental arrest at that epoch
occurs, damaging their ability to adequately interact with their peers using the skills they should
have learned. In the preadolescent epoch (ages 9 through 12), the emerging need of intimacy
should be fulfilled by same-sex friends. The competencies that are developed at this stage are
perspective taking, empathy, and altruism. At this epoch isolation and loneliness result in
developmental arrest, disabling children from developing the skills they need to form lasting
friendships (Sullivan, 1953). Social and emotional skills are important factors in friendship
maintenance, especially for the resolution of conflict (Shulman et al., 1994). Hence, if children
suffer from ostracism and loneliness, they will be unable to develop these crucial skills, hindering
their ability to form friendships. Another theory of friendship development similar to Sullivans
that is important to the study of friendship groups proposes that there are various social goals and
processes that are developed during early childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence
(Phillipsen, 1999). At the middle childhood stage (ages 8 through 12) the prominent social goal is
to be accepted by same-sex peer groups. The processes involved in these peer groups tend to
assist children in avoiding rejection by the peer group and consists of negative-evaluation gossip
and social support. During the adolescent stage (ages 13 through 18) the prominent social goal is
self-exploration. The processes that characterize these groups include self-disclosure, positive
and negative- evaluation gossip, problem solving, and an exploration of similarities and
differences (Phillipsen, 1999).
Popularity, which is complementary to Sullivans concept of acceptance, is also important
to discuss in relation to friendship groups. Popularity is a group-oriented construct that represents
how an entire group (such as a classroom) feels about particular students (Ray, Cohen, Secrist, &
Duncan, 1997). Whether students are popular or rejected by their classmates is an important
aspect of friendship group formation. For instance, Ray et al. (1997) found that rejected children
report fewer mutual friendships than average or popular children, and that rejected children have
less contact with the positive peer interactions that help them develop necessary social skills.
Even though rejected students may form friendships and be members of cliques, they will mainly
involve low status children whose interactions do not foster adequate social skills (Bagwell et al.,
4
2000). Similarly, Ladd (1983) found that low status youth play with younger peers and peers of
low status, all of whom are less socially competent than average peers. Cairns et al. (1995)
discussed an important factor related to popularity and friendship group formation. They found
that while the actual children who are members of particular groups may differ, the status of those
members is stable over time. Therefore, regardless of who is in the group, those permitted into
the group will be of the same social status, and those who leave the group will retain their social
status despite the move. This finding emphasizes the long range effect of social status because
even if rejected children or popular children leave a group, they still retain their status.
Although some studies have found that sociometric status is an important feature in
friendship formation, there are others who have not found this correlation (Kupersmidt et al.,
1995; Ray, 1997). In fact, prior research indicates that most low status children tend to associate
with average or higher status children (Feltham, 1985). However, while this has been found in
dyadic friendships, the importance of sociometric status in the formation of friendship groups has
not been as extensively studied. For instance, although it has been observed by some that low
status children do not play together (Ray et al., 1997), there is evidence of group formation among
both aggressive children and victimized children, all of whom are usually low status (Cairns,
Cairns, Neckerman, & Gest, 1988; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). Additionally, Bagwell et al. (2000)
found that rejected youth were usually members of cliques formed by other low status peers. This
is important because studies have shown that having a best friend who offers protection and
comfort reduces the amount of victimization and rejection by peers (Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, &
Bukowski 1999).
In their investigations of peer group formation Cairns et al. (1988) and Bagwell et al.
(2000) argued that everyone involved in a peer group is not always viewed equally by all
5
members. They believe that some children are central members and some are peripheral
members. This is an interesting notion in that it challenges the assumption that participation in
peer groups alone or the perceived presence of friends will buffer low status children from the
rejection they are confronted with. Whether children are central or peripheral members of groups
is an important aspect of peer group formation. Bagwell et al. (2000) believe that children who
are disliked by peers can still belong to peer groups but are more likely to be peripheral members
of those groups. In their study they found that aggressive and nonaggressive children were
equally likely to be central members of groups while rejected children were less likely to be
central members than nonrejected children (Bagwell, 2000). Children in these studies were
classified based on their sociometic status (popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and
average) and not attachment style which is the main interest of this study. It has been shown that
attachment style often plays a role in the popularity of children (Kerns, Klepac, & Cole, 1996)
and others have found that centrality is related to the presence of aggressive and prosocial
behaviors in children (Barry & Wentzel, 2006). Therefore, the relationship between attachment
style and whether children or adolescents are central or peripheral members of groups is
something that will be investigated in this study.
Friendship Quality
Friendship quality is an important element of friendship groups. Research on dyadic
friendships shows that while children may not be popular or accepted by the larger peer group, the
presences of a close friendship with another student may lessen the negative impact of peer
rejection (Parker & Asher, 1993). Friendship quality is believed to impact childrens feelings of
loneliness and social dissatisfaction and those children without best friends were lonelier than
those with a best friend, regardless of whether they were accepted or rejected by peers (Parker &
6
Asher, 1993). However, it is important to note that accepted children were more likely to have a
best friend than were rejected children. Parker and Ashers (1993) Friendship Quality
Questionnaire evaluates childrens best friendships on six different categories: validation and
caring, conflict and betrayal, companionship and recreation, help and guidance, intimate
disclosure, and conflict resolution. Comparisons of low-accepted, average-accepted, and high-
accepted childrens friendships indicate that low-accepted childrens friendships were more
problematic in all areas but companionship and recreation (Parker & Asher, 1993). This is an
interesting finding and explains the ability of rejected children, including those who are
aggressive or victimized, to form friendships that serve the purpose of companionship but not
necessarily the purposes of support and intimacy.
Attachment style is also an important topic relating to friendship quality. Kerns et al.
(1996) found that the friends of secure-secure dyads were more responsive than and not as critical
as those of secure-insecure dyads. However, while it was found that those in secure-secure dyads
felt that their friendships were higher in companionship levels than secure-insecure dyads, there
were no differences on levels of affection and intimacy. While attachment style does seem to be
related to childrens ability to form relationships and develop meaningful relationships with them,
the ability of insecurely attached children to form friendships indicates the presence of other
mediating factors that impact friendship group formation. The review of friendship quality
indicates that while studies have looked at dyadic friendships and the overall popularity of
students, friendship quality in friendship groups has not been extensively studied.
An important consideration in the study of peer group formation is the impact of gender
and ethnicity. In agreement with past research, a study on the structure of peer networks revealed
that girls were more likely to be integral parts of social networks, have identified best friends, and
7
be members of same-sex cliques than were boys (Urberg, Dggirmencigglu, Tolson, & Halliday-
Scher, 1995). Parker and Asher (1993) found that girls rated their friendships to be higher in
validation and caring, help and guidance, conflict resolution, and intimate disclosure than boys.
Since most friendships tend to be same sex dyads the possible differences in opposite sex
friendships have not been as extensively studied. While it is not as important an element in
dyadic friendships, opposite sex relationships take on more importance when friendship groups
are studied where mixed sex groupings are more likely to occur. It was also found that cultural
beliefs about the importance of friendship groups impacted the extent to which African-
Americans were members of defined groups. Urberg and colleagues (1995), for instance, found
that African-Americans were not as likely to be members of school friendship groups as were
Caucasian students, possibly suggesting a higher involvement in neighborhood friendship groups
as opposed to school groups.
Victimized Children and Social Relationships
There are a variety of characteristics that may indicate whether or not a child is singled out
to be a victim. The most common attributes held by victims are as follows: social isolation, non
assertiveness, fear of aggression, weak, submissive, anxious, withdrawn, insecure, cautious,
immature, poor problem solvers, lonely, low self esteem, low confidence, and poor
communication skills (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Dunn, 2004; Pierce & Cohen, 1995). According
to research conducted by Boulton and Smith (1994), victims rate themselves as less athletically
competent than others do and as having lower opinions of their self worth. Studies have also
shown that victims rarely initiate prosocial behaviors, are passive, display an inflexible playing
style, initiate few social conversations, have low leadership ratings, and were frequently described
as being sad (Bernstein & Watson, 1997; Pierce & Cohen, 1995).
There are certain characteristics such as anxiety and depression that some researchers
believe could have come after the onset of victimization and may not have influenced their target
status, while others believe they were present beforehand (Bernstein & Watson, 1997; Dunn,
2004; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). Researchers have identified other outcomes commonly
associated with victimization that can either cause the victimization or be a result of it. For
example, it has been observed that many victimized children have lower grades than aggressive
children and average peers and are often in special education classes (Bernstein & Watson, 1997;
Hoover & Hazier, 1991). Children who are repeatedly victimized may be anxious in school,
hindering their academic success, and their lack of understanding of class material may make
them easy targets for ridicule. One other possible outcome of victimization can be seen as a cause
or a result of bullying. Many victims report feeling unhappy during playtime compared to
average peers, and while this may be a direct effect of being ridiculed during the school day, it is
also possible that the victims lack of social skills and interactions result in a lack of stimulation
and enjoyment during playtime. However, regardless of which view is taken, victims are
consistently seen as targets for specific reasons and the victimization may only exaggerate these
characteristics (such as heightened anxiety and depression).
Some research indicates that victims do not have many friends and are usually rated as
less popular than both aggressive children and average peers (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Hoover &
Hazier, 1991). As a result of their constant rejection and lack of social support, many victims
may not develop normative views of proper social interactions (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). With
no friends to help them, the result is likely to be distress and more rejection. As reported by
Batsche and Knoff (1994), one in five students reported having either no, one, or two friends at
school, indicating that many victims have few peer-level resources for either problem solving or
support (169).
It has been found that if victimized children have friends, they are most likely victimized
as well. According to Pierce and Cohen (1995) friends of rejected children were viewed higher
in victimization than were the friends of children in any other sociometric category (305). This
illustrates that even if victims have some type of support, they are most likely associating with
other victims, which may increase their victimization since they have no peers to stick up for
them. Since peer victimization impairs childrens feelings of trust and security, it may cause
some children to avoid school, causing numerous social and academic deficiencies (Ladd,
Kochenderker, & Coleman 1997; Orpinas & Horne, 2006). Luckily, research has shown that
victims are less likely to feel total rejection if they have a best friend (Hodges et al., 1999)
because a close friendship may create enough emotional support to decrease the likelihood of
these problems.
Aggressive Children and Social Relationships
There are two types of aggression, overt and relational. Overt aggression is the physical
abuse that occurs and relational aggression is name calling, social isolation, and shunning of the
victim (Pellegrini, 1998). One assumption about aggressive children is that they have poor peer
relationships and are usually loners. Bierman, Smoot, and Aumiller (1993) studied aggression in
boys from four categories: Aggressive-Rejected, Aggressive-Nonrejected, Nonrejected, and a
Comparison group. They then conducted peer ratings, teacher ratings, peer interviews, and
observations to see who was most aggressive. Overall, Aggressive-Rejected boys were perceived
to be more aggressive, disruptive and less prosocial than any other group. However, in contrast to
this study, Cairns et al. (1988) found that aggressive children and adolescents tend to form
10
coercive clusters where aggressive boys form bonds and friendships with other aggressors.
These clusters can result in many negative effects: they provide opportunities for aggressive boys
to be aggressive with one another; they enable aggression to become heightened because boys
become aggressive towards others and themselves; and the groups encourage aggressive behavior.
Through a variety of peer questionnaires, Cairns et al. (1988) attempted to establish who was
most aggressive, popular, and intelligent and who were best friends. It was established that
aggressive children were less popular than a group of non-aggressive children, but that aggressive
children rated themselves to be as popular as non-aggressors. In addition, results indicated that
aggressive children have as many best friend nominations as non-aggressors. Mouttapa,
Valente, Gallagher, Rohrbach, and Unger (2004) found that aggressive children were often central
members of their peer groups while victims were not.
Together, these studies show that aggressive boys do not always get rejected by everyone.
In fact, it has been suggested that children who engage in gender-normative aggression
(relational for girls, overt for boys) are better accepted than those who engage in gender-
nonnormative aggression (overt for girls, relational for boys) (Phillipsen, Deptula, & Cohen
1999). Despite the evidence that aggressive children have social groups, other studies have
shown that the friendships formed in coercive clusters are not as potent as those in other social
groups because there is less interpersonal trust and they are less able to resolve their conflicts
(Coie, Dodge, Terry, &Wright, 1991). Friendships between girls who are rated high on relational
aggression are reported to be more intimate than nonaggressive girls (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996).
However, it was also found that relationally aggressive girls had more conflict, betrayal,
exclusivity, jealousy, and relational aggression in their friendships than did nonaggressive girls.
It was suggested that their high levels of intimacy are a result of more self-disclosure present in
the relationship as a way to gain control over one another (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). Although
aggressive and nonaggressive girls differ on these qualities, they do not differ on friendship
qualities such as validation, caring, entertainment, or companionship. Friendships of physically
aggressive peers, however, report low levels of intimacy and high levels of companionship
(Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). Physically aggressive children prefer to have a friend with whom to
play more than one with whom to form a bond. In fact, these children often desire friends that
will engage in aggressive behaviors with them towards those with whom they are not friends.
Boulton and Smith (1994) found that aggressive childrens self-assessed self-esteem was
comparable to average peers. This issue is similarly addressed in a study conducted by
Kumpulainen, Rasanen, Henttonen, Almqvist, Kresanov, Linna, et al. (1998) of seven to nine year
olds from rural and urban area school districts. The participants took the Childrens Depression
Inventory and aggressive children rated significantly higher on self-confidence and leadership
than did victims. Hoover and Hazier (1991) suggest that aggressive children are much less likely
to be leadership material than they see themselves. In fact, they are unwilling to accept others
ideas, follow others, negotiate the rules of games, or politely ask for game changes.
Attachment
Parent-child attachment history also has an impact on childrens abilities to form close
friendships with their peers. The presence of a secure parent-child attachment means that the
children are confident that their caregivers will be responsive and available to them (Kerns et al.,
1996). Attachment figures are considered a safe base from which children can explore the world
around them and as someone to trust in times of fear. As children get older, physical proximity is
no longer necessary, but children must feel that the caregiver is physically accessible, open to
communication, and responsive when they are in need (Kerns et al., 1996). Securely attached
children regularly explore their environment and interact with peers, developing the social skills
necessary to maintain friendships. Consequently, securely attached children have more
cooperative and responsive interaction styles with their parents which generalize to their
interactions with peers, something which may not occur with insecurely attached children (Kerns
et al., 1996; Lieberman, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 1999). In contrast, insecurely attached children
view caregivers as unavailable, unhelpful, or harmful to them. Hence, the insecurely attached
often have uncooperative and non-responsive interaction styles with their parents that they
generalize to interactions with peers (Kerns & Richardson, 2005). Securely attached children are
also more likely to effectively modulate negative affect, allowing them to interact more positively
with their peers. Meanwhile, insecurely attached children are more likely to display their negative
affect in an inappropriate manner, damaging their peer interactions (Lieberman et al., 1999). The
secure relationship between a caregiver and child results in the development of positive beliefs
about future relationships, and leads to securely attached children being more likely to enter into
friendships with a positive outlook than are insecurely attached children (Kerns et al., 1996). It is
believed that securely attached children may consciously or unconsciously form relationships
with peers that are comparable to their beliefs (Kerns et al., 1996). Secure children are also more
likely to see themselves as loveable and see others as responsive to their needs, whereas
insecurely attached children see themselves as unlovable and assume others will be unconcerned
with their needs (Lieberman et al., 1999). Hence, secure children will behave in ways that evoke
positive interactions with peers while insecure children behave in ways that elicit negative
interactions.
Research indicates that securely attached children are more likely to be rated as popular by
their peers than are insecurely attached children (Kerns et al., 1996; Lieberman et al., 1999;
13
Shulman et al., 1994). Kerns et al. (1996) report that children involved in secure parent-child
relationships are liked more by their peers, have more reciprocal friendships, and report feeling
less lonely than those not involved in secure relationships. They also found that secure-secure
friendship dyads were not as critical of one another, were more responsive, and reported higher
levels of companionship than were secure-insecure dyads. The authors assert that since
insecurely attached children can form reciprocated friendships with securely attached children,
attachment is not the most important aspect of peer relationships. While this is an accurate
statement, the authors failed to investigate the relationships among children in insecure-insecure
dyads and also failed to discover how rewarding the secure-insecure friendships were. Friendship
quality is an important factor in peer relationships as well. While some researchers do not find a
connection between parent-child attachment and friendship quality (Kerns et al., 1996),
Lieberman et al. (1999) found that secure attachment was significantly related to many
components of friendship quality. The study by Lieberman et al. (1999) indicates that the
availability of help from a friend, the closeness of the relationship, the low levels of conflict in the
relationship, and feelings of security in that relationship were all related to security of attachment.
With these qualities as determinants, it seems that securely attached children have more stable
friendships than do insecurely attached children.
Kerns and Richardson (2005) believe that attachment style research has neglected the
developmental period known as middle childhood (ages 6-12). Stemming from both Ainsworth
and Bowlbys works on secure and insecure attachment, the attachment security of infants has
been extensively studied (Kerns & Richardson, 2005). The focus has mainly been on the
following four attachment categories: secure, preoccupied, avoidant, and disorganized. Kerns and
Richardson believe that middle childhood is a unique developmental phase that results in many
14
emotional and physical changes and that the attachment categories created in early infancy may
not be appropriate for use with that age group.
In attachment literature, the next stage of research occurs in adulthood. Bartholomew and
Horowitzs (1991) contribution to adult attachment style is also relevant and valuable to the study
of attachment in middle childhood and early adolescence. Although research has shown that
attachment style impacts friendships, there is not a lot of information about the different types of
attachment. Most studies have measured insecure and secure attachments, neglecting the
subtypes of insecure attachment. Their proposed model of attachment includes the following four
categories which incorporate an individuals sense of self and their sense of others: secure
attachment is characterized by a subjective sense of worthiness and the belief that others are
accepting and responsive; preoccupied (ambivalent) attachment is defined as a subjective sense of
unworthiness and a positive evaluation of others; fearful attachment is characterized by a sense of
unworthiness and the belief that others are untrustworthy and rejecting; and dismissive attachment
is defined as a sense of worthiness and the belief that others are untrustworthy and rejecting
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). These specific types of attachment are related to an
individuals ability to initiate and maintain peer relationships. An investigation of the subtypes of
insecure attachment and their relation to the formation of friendship groups is important because
the fearful, dismissive, and preoccupied (ambivalent) types of insecure attachment are present in
children with a variety of different personality characteristics and behaviors. Additionally, most
research has been done on attachment styles influence on dyadic friendships but not its influence
on friendship groups.
Family Relationships o f Victimized Children
Attachment patterns and its influence on victimization has been extensively studied.
Theorists posit that if children develop insecure attachments to their parents, then they may go on
to form insecure relationships with others (Bernstein & Watson, 1997; Bowers, Smith, & Binney,
1994). Many victims have received unpredictable care from their parents and doubt their ability
to influence caregivers, and in turn, their peers. Since their parents may alternate between
responsiveness and rejection, these children do not give up on the relationship because of the
responses they get, and also learn to accept the rejection, making it more likely that they will be
victimized by their peers (Bernstein & Watson, 1997). The influence that attachments have on
peer interactions was illustrated in a study by Troy and Sroufe (1987) where it was observed that
when children with avoidant attachments (aggressive children) were paired with children with
anxious and ambivalent attachments (victims) aggression would inevitably follow. However,
when either a victimized or aggressive child was paired with a securely attached child, the
interactions were more positive.
Many victims believe that their families are overly involved to the extent that they are
unable to develop their own identity or cope without their family (Oliver, Oaks, & Hoover, 1994;
Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2000). The enmeshed family structure has been documented by
numerous researchers, and Oliver et al. (1994) have given a very convincing reason for why this
occurs. In their study, they found that a possible reason for this type of family functioning is that
since victims are socially isolated, their needs for psychological comfort at home will increase
and the family becomes overly enmeshed. This type of family relationship also coincides with
the data that mothers of victims are often overprotective, controlling, and restrictive, while their
fathers are hostile or indifferent (Bernstein & Watson, 1997; Bowers et al., 1994). Duncan (1999)
16
found that victims parents might instill in their children the belief that they are not valuable
and have no power to stop others from mistreating them. If children believe that they are
worthless, they will not have the confidence to socialize with other children adequately.
Family Relationships o f Aggressive Children
Evidence has shown that attachment patterns are also important in the development of
aggression. Parents of insecure-avoidant infants are more intrusive and negative than parents of
secure children, contributing to a lack of security and more aggression in the child (Lyons-Ruth,
1996). Lyons-Ruth (1996) has also shown that mothers of disorganized children have fewer
interactions with their children and even less when their children initiate it. Therefore, many
children initiate aggressive contact in order to be noticed. Moreover, East (1991) has shown that
if children are insecurely attached then feelings of hostility toward the parents transfer over to the
childrens relationship with their peers.
Families directly affect their childrens social skills as well. When children are exposed
to dysfunctional social skills and parenting behavior their future relationships with peers are
affected. East (1991) analyzed parent-child relationships using two questionnaires, one in which
a child rated parental support and another where a parent rated his/her support to the child. This
study indicated that aggressive children felt that their relationships with their fathers were not
supportive enough, while these fathers felt that their relationships were not as warm or satisfying
as fathers of non-aggressive children. Mothers of aggressive children felt that they gave less
support to their children and were less satisfied. Interestingly, aggressive children overestimated
the level of their mothers satisfaction and underestimated their support (East, 1991). East
suggested that aggressive children may lack social sensitivity and are not able to detect
dissatisfaction in the relationship. She also proposed that (a) children who detect rejection from
their parents may acquire attitudes of mistrust and tend to aggress towards peers in order to
defend against more rejection or (b) that because the children in the family do not receive much
warmth from their parents, this lack of nurturance frustrates the child and leads them to become
aggressive towards their peers (East, 1991).
The dynamics of family interactions and parenting practices are important as well. For
example, Haapasalo and Tremblay (1994) found that non-aggressive boys were better supervised,
less punished and had fewer rules at home than aggressive boys. Hence, it can be concluded that
aggressive boys may come from homes with authoritarian parenting styles, which are based on
stringent rules, and that this may contribute to the development of aggression. Evidence has
suggested that when aggressive children are confronted with ambiguous signals they believe that
the people have hostile intentions toward them. Dix and Lochman (1990) found that mothers
attributed their childrens aggressive behavior to negative personality attributes and attributed
responsibility to the children. However, Barret, Rapee, Dadds, and Ryan (1996) concluded that it
was not only the childrens personality, but also that family dynamics played a much larger role
than expected. The study consisted of presenting groups of children with 12 ambiguous situations
and asking them what they would do, as well as proposing the same situation to their parents and
asking them what their children would do. The ambiguous situation could be threatening
(physically or socially) or non-threatening. Aggressive children were increasingly biased toward
perceiving the situation as threatening. The parents of aggressive children were also biased
toward perceiving threatening situations and predicted that their children would behave
aggressively. A final step in this study was for the families to gather together and discuss the
situations and consider solutions. The importance of the relationship between the aggressive
childrens responses and the responses of their parents was brought into focus by the fact that
18
after these meetings the childrens aggressive solutions increased. The suggestion is that when
children from such families are confronted with an ambiguous situation concerning their peers,
they will act aggressively even if there were no hostile intentions. Additionally, children take the
expectations of threatening situations with them into new social situations with peers who have
not made assessments of their personality and have no reason to be hostile (Coie et al., 1991).
Research has also shown that family relationships of aggressive children influence the
development of attitudes that support violence and aggression (Orpinas & Home, 2006).
Social Problem Solving
The ways in which children perceive the world around them and process the information
they receive vary in important ways. The variation that is evident has effects on their behaviors,
which have lasting repercussions on their social status, and the way they interact with others.
Rogers and Tisak (1996) suggested that before children act they undergo decision making
processes which include response evaluation, outcome expectation, and response selection.
However, for many children these processes are faulty and lead to ineffectual cognitive
processing and peer interactions. Research has shown the link between childrens social problem
solving skills and their peer status (Crick & Ladd, 1990; Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Rose &
Asher, 1999). Crick and Dodge (1994) utilized social-cognitive theory to describe the process by
which children solve problematic social situations (Dodge, Laird, Lochman, & Zelli 2002). The
first step they propose is an encoding process whereby situational cues are perceived and put into
working memory. The encoded information is then considered to demonstrate consistent patterns
of behaviors. After cues are encoded they are given meaning and associated with particular goals
and are then used when certain situations arise. As a psychological meaning is given to an event,
problem solving occurs where specific goals are accessed and used to carry out the desired
19
behaviors. Social problem solving is also commonly organized in terms of the quality and the
quantity of solutions children produce when confronted with a conflict situation (Goodman,
Barfoot, Frye, & Belli, 1999).
Attachment style has also been associated with social functioning and problem solving
(Dodge, 1993). It is believed that a secure attachment style enables children and adolescents to
develop more sophisticated social skills and a better ability to process experiences in relationships
with peers than are insecurely attached children and adolescents (Allen. Marsh, McFarland,
McElhaney, Land, Jodi, et al., 2002). In turn, those with insecure attachment styles seem to have
more difficulty navigating interpersonal relationships, impacting their ability to solve
interpersonal conflict. This research did not, however, investigate the differences among the three
insecure subtypes. Research with adults has shown that attachment style influences the problem
solving approaches used in interpersonal conflict (Kobak & Duemmler, 1994; Simpson, Rholes,
& Phillips, 1996). Simpson et al. (1996) found that ambivalent individuals evidenced large
amounts of stress during arguments and felt more hostility towards their partners after an
argument. The authors supported their findings using attachment research that documented the
tendency of those with ambivalent attachment styles to be anxious and uncertain about the
supportiveness of attachment figures. When those with an ambivalent attachment style are
confronted with a conflict in an interpersonal relationship their need for psychological closeness
is strong but they are overwhelmed by feelings of anxiety and fears of abandonment (Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1977; Simpson et. al., 1996). In turn, ambivalently
attached individuals tend to perceive conflictual interactions and their outcomes in more negative
ways and become more hostile towards their partners as a result of their perceived neglect.
Avoidant individuals, in contrast, do not report more anger towards their partner or towards the
20
situation but do show less warmth towards their partner during and after conflict (Simpson et.
al., 1996). Attachment theory posits that those with an avoidant attachment style do not believe
their attachment figures are available to them and become self-reliant and avoid situations where
their attachment needs would be stimulated (Bowlby, 1977). As a result, during conflictual
situations those with avoidant attachments are more removed and emotionally distant from their
partners. In contrast to each insecurely attached style, securely attached individuals were able to
express themselves more freely and felt better about themselves and their partners during and
after the conflict (Simpson et. al., 1996). Since this research was done predominantly with adults
it is necessary to examine if the same patterns of behavior can be seen in children with these
attachment styles.
Children who have difficulties with social problem solving are believed to also have low
social status. Rose and Asher (1999) found that the manner in which children resolve conflicts
with their peers is related to the number of friendships they have and the quality of those
friendships. Research has shown that popular children are more likely to use prosocial problem
solving strategies and have friendly goals for behaviors whereas rejected children are more likely
to use aggressive problem solving strategies and have unfriendly goals (Richard & Dodge, 1982;
Marked & Asher, 1984). The goals that guide childrens behaviors can be based on either
instrumental or relational outcomes. When children use instrumental goals they are most
concerned with the attainment of a goal but when relational goals are implemented they are
concerned with how their strategies impact friendships (Crick & Ladd, 1990).
Crick and Ladd (1990) investigated the different social strategies and goals of popular,
average, neglected, and rejected children. They found that rejected children tended to focus on
instrumental outcomes more than relational outcomes than did their peers. Rejected children also
21
felt that verbal aggression would be instrumentally successful and did not place much emphasis
on relational outcomes. Crick and Ladd (1990) posited that rejected children are not aware of the
impact their behaviors have on others in social situations, negatively impacting their social status.
Although neglected children are also low in social status they are different from rejected children
in that they are ignored rather than rejected by their peers. In contrast to rejected children who
desire instrumental outcomes and value their success, neglected children often feel that they will
be less successful both instrumentally and relationally and tend to withdraw and engage in few
social interactions (Crick & Ladd, 1990). In comparison to their peers popular children often
believe that socially acceptable behaviors lead to more favorable outcomes and tend to use such
approaches in social situations. Studies that focus on childhood aggression also point to the large
impact social problem solving skills has on social competence. For instance, Lochman and
Dodge (1994) found that children with social problem solving difficulties who believe that
aggression will lead to positive outcomes are more likely to behave aggressively in conflict
situations. In addition, those with problem solving deficits are also more likely to develop
internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems (Goodman et. al., 1999).
Social Problem Solving: Victimized and Aggressive Children
Victimized and aggressive children have deficits in social information processing and
social problem solving that have lasting repercussions on their social status and the way they
interact with others. Victims have problems with social information processing that inhibits them
from interacting normally with their peers. Studies show that victims have trouble with role
taking, social knowledge, the ability to generate adequate alternatives to a problem, and difficulty
attending to and encoding social cues (Hughes, Robinson, & Moore, 1991). More aggressive
victims have trouble distinguishing between hostile and positive cues in social interactions and
22
may assume they are hostile, causing them to act aggressively. Hughes et al. (1991) also posit
that more aggressive victims have fewer positive social encounters with peers because they
continuously interpret their actions as negative and never positive, leading to fewer and fewer
interactions with their peers. Hence, due to few positive interactions and many negative ones,
their peers will tend not to like them, causing them to be rejected. More passive victims have
many of the same problems with social information processing, but tend to respond with
submissive alternatives to problems (Bernstein & Watson, 1997).
Aggressive children tend to have more trouble with social information processing and
problem solving than both victims and average peers. Aggressive children have similar problems
as victims, such as deficits in role-taking abilities, social knowledge, ability to generate adequate
solutions to problems, and errors attending to and encoding social cues (Hughes et al., 1991).
Like victims, aggressive children may have fewer positive interactions with their peers due to
their beliefs that their peers actions are hostile and not positive, also called the hostile attribution
theory (Hughes et al., 1991; Ray & Cohen, 1995). If aggressive children do not accurately
understand their feelings or those of others, they may misunderstand others actions and will also
not understand how much their actions hurt. Aggressive children also have difficulties generating
positive solutions to social problems and lack the knowledge needed to effectively respond to
their problems without using aggression (Slee, 1993).
Emotional Intelligence
Research has shown that some of the most important factors related to whether children
will be accepted or rejected are their levels of empathy, pro-social behavior, social intelligence
and perspective taking (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Carlo, Knight, Eisenberg, & Rotenberg, 1991;
Roberts & Strayer, 1996). Due to their deficits in identifying the motives of others and
23
responding to people, rejected children have trouble interacting in social situations (Batsche and
Knoff, 1994; Roberts & Strayer, 1996). Roberts and Strayer (1996) indicated that high levels of
negative emotions can disrupt behavior, including empathic responses and prosocial behaviors
(449). Negative emotions such as anger disrupt or even sever social relationships (Roberts &
Strayer, 1996, 450). These negative emotions can play a large part in the actions of rejected
children and their inability to function properly socially. Studies have shown that the more
individuals can express themselves, the more empathic they will be and the more they will
respond prosocially. However, the more anger they show, and the less they can identify the
emotions of both themselves and others, the less likely they will be to respond positively to others
(Roberts & Strayer, 1996). Rejected childrens deficits in perspective taking, a skill associated
with pro-social behavior, is also related to the lack of success that these children have in
interpersonal relationships (Carlo et al., 1991).
The two personal intelligences of Gardners (1993) Multiple Intelligence theory are of
particular interest to peer relationships. Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to identify and
respond properly to the moods, temperaments, motives, and desires of others. Intrapersonal
intelligence is the ability to identify ones own feelings and use them to guide behavior
appropriately. These types of intelligence are very important, especially since many bullying
incidences are the result of the childrens inability to accurately identify the motives of others
(Pierce & Cohen, 1995).
Salovey and Mayer (1990) discussed how social intelligence is related to emotional
intelligence. Social intelligence is the ability to accurately perceive and influence others
motivational states, which has important effects on prosocial behaviors. Social intelligence
contains two parts: motivational intelligence which is the understanding of the drives underlying
24
the need for achievement and power, and emotional intelligence which is the ability to identify
and express emotions, reason with emotion related material, and organize this information as part
of a problem solving technique (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). These abilities have been shown to be
very important to a persons psychological health; if people lack these abilities, they are liable to
experience emotional and social impairment (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). These skills are very
important in understanding the possible problems rejected children face.
One component of emotional intelligence is empathy, where a person vicariously
experiences the feelings, perceptions, and thoughts of another which may result in more prosocial
behaviors. An emotionally intelligent person creates a warm relationship with other emotionally
intelligent people and maintains a supportive social structure and greater life satisfaction (Salovey
& Mayer, 1990). These benefits of emotional intelligence are highly related to peer relationships
because behaviors that cause children to become rejected may interfere with their development of
the emotional and social resources that will help them cope with their difficulties (Grotpeter &
Crick, 1996). Additionally, Goleman (1995) reported studies illustrating that the inability to
express and regulate emotions are characteristics of various forms of psychopathology.
Childhood is one of the most crucial periods during which to develop emotional
intelligence and parents are expected to help their children develop these abilities (Goleman,
1995). Parents who are emotionally intelligent validate their childrens feelings, model ways to
regulate their moods, and use emotional cues to solve problems. Children who have parents who
help them develop this intelligence are better equipped to deal with their emotions (Goleman,
1995). Parents who lack emotional intelligence themselves are less able to help their children
develop these skills and tend to ignore their childrens feelings, are permissive or authoritarian,
and are emotionally distant (Goleman, 1995). Hence, unlike emotionally intelligent children,
these children may be less likely to identify and regulate their emotions, correctly judge others
feelings, have adequate problem solving abilities, or be able to control their aggression (Goleman,
1995). The attachment style of those with high and low emotional intelligence is an important
area of study. Lapidos, Yaar-Golan, and Curtis (2006) found that secure attachment was related
to higher emotional intelligence than was insecure attachment. More specifically, they found that
secure attachment was related to the following emotional intelligence factors: attention, clarity,
and repair. Interestingly, the repair factor was related to how individuals felt better after talking
to their parents about their emotions. Not only is this an important finding in the realm of
emotional intelligence but also in the realm of friendship for it has also been found that those
children and adolescents who are securely attached are more likely to have friendships that allow
intimate disclosure.
Coping Skills
The ability of children to cope with the stress they encounter in school and the ways in
which they choose to do so are linked to social status and psychological adjustment. The concept
of coping has been extensively researched and divided into different dimensions. The most
common dimensions of coping are: problem-focused vs. emotion-focused coping, primary vs.
secondary control coping, and engagement vs. disengagement coping (Compas, Connor-Smith,
Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001). Compas and colleagues (2001) believe, however, that
these dimensions of coping do not take into consideration the complexities of coping and the
many ways that children attempt to cope with stress. Their comprehensive review acknowledges
the shortcomings of the many coping dimensions and calls for a more complex and
multidimensional categorization of coping.
26
The problem-focused vs. emotion-focused coping dimension encompasses the decisions
people make to either deal with the source of stress or reduce the disconcerting emotions that
result from stressful situations. Problem-focused coping entails generating solutions to the
problem or taking some form of action to eliminate the source of stress whereas emotion-focused
coping constitutes the expression of emotion and the tendency to seek support from others. The
primary control vs. secondary control coping dimension focuses on whether people try to gain
personal control over the situation and their reactions or if they try to adapt to the situation.
Primary control coping entails problem solving activities that impact the situation or engage in
emotion regulation while secondary control coping focuses on efforts to accept the situation or
engage in cognitive restructuring. The engagement vs. disengagement coping dimension
describes whether individuals approach or avoid the situation. Engagement coping refers to the
individuals tendency to approach either the source of environmental stress or their emotional
reactions to the stress, implementing problem solving tactics or searching for emotional support.
In contrast, disengagement coping consists of the individuals tendency to avoid the stressor or
emotions it produces. However, the emphasis on avoidance is misleading because these tactics
often include the ability to direct their attention to something more constructive and does not
mean that the person does not have an awareness or understanding of the stressor.
Research has shown that the different types of coping approaches have different effects on
psychological adjustment and peer acceptance. In a study investigating the impact of childrens
coping strategies on peer victimization, Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) found that the
impact of coping strategies on victimization was different for boys and girls. Approach coping
strategies (also referred to as engagement coping) resulted in favorable outcomes when they
conformed to social norms. More specifically, when boys handled conflicts on their own they
27
were less lonely and more likely to be accepted by peers than if they sought support from
others. For victimized boys, however, neither problem solving nor support seeking worked to
their benefit because not only are they unable to influence their peers or use effective strategies to
accomplish such goals but they also have limited peer relationships (Kochenderfer-Ladd &
Skinner, 2002). The findings are somewhat more startling for girls in that the negative effects of
victimization are reduced in victimized girls who seek emotional support from peers. In contrast,
nonvictimized girls who seek emotional support in times of stress have more social problems.
Avoidance coping, however, is associated with peer problems for both boys and girls, indicating
that ignoring problems is just as deleterious as confronting them.
In their review of the reliability and validity of various coping measures Compas and
colleagues (2001) investigated various emotional difficulties that may be attenuated with the use
of problem focused coping, emotion-focused coping, engagement coping, or disengagement
coping. Overall it was found that engagement coping and problem-focused coping were
associated with better psychological adjustment in the realms of internalizing and externalizing
behaviors and social competence. They also concluded that problem solving, cognitive
restructuring, and positive reappraisals of the stressor are the subtypes of engagement and
problem-focused coping that are most likely to be associated with adjustment. It is important to
realize, however, that many studies that Compas and colleagues (2001) analyzed also revealed
that those types of coping are not always associated with better adjustment or necessarily the best
for every situation. More specifically, further analysis showed that engagement and problem-
focused coping are not useful in situations that can not be controlled by the child. Disengagement
coping and emotion-focused coping, in contrast, were found to be associated with poor
adjustment, particularly in terms of internalizing and externalizing problems and social
28
competence. Specific aspects of disengagement and emotion-focused coping that are related to
maladjustment are cognitive and behavioral avoidance, social withdrawal, resigned acceptance,
emotional ventilation, wishful thinking, and self-blame. An important distinction that must be
made within these types of coping, however, is that it is not the release and consideration of
emotion that is related to poor adjustment, but the strategies that foster negative emotions, poor
self-image, avoidance, and unregulated emotional release. Other studies also indicated that
disengagement and emotion-focused coping led to better adjustment when children were faced
with uncontrollable stressors. Hence the results of these studies seem to indicate that it is more
important for children to have a plethora of coping strategies that they are able access and
implement when faced with various stressors. In addition, it seems necessary for children to have
the capacity to understand the situations that they encounter and have the ability to determine
which coping strategy would work best in each situation.
The link between attachment style and stress is also of importance. Attachment theory
posits that stressful situations evoke attachment patterns and influence the ways in which children
cope. Research has shown that a secure attachment style is a valuable shield against the many
effects of stress (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Bowlby, 1988). In addition, Bowlby (1988)
proposed that those with secure attachment styles are more likely to have more adaptive coping
skills as well as increased feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy than those with insecure
attachment styles. It is believed that the ability of individuals with secure attachments to
experience less anxiety and fear in stressful situations allows them to implement adaptive and
effective coping strategies. Investigations into the relationship between attachment style and
coping strategies in traumatic situations found that individuals with secure, anxious-avoidant, and
anxious-ambivalent attachment styles did not differ on their use of problem-focused coping but
29
did differ on their use of support-seeking, emotion-focused, and distancing coping strategies
(Mikulincer et. al., 1993). More specifically, it was found that securely attached individuals
relied more on social support than other styles, ambivalently attached individuals relied more
heavily on emotion-focused coping than did secure individuals, and avoidant individuals relied
more on distancing strategies than secure individuals. Mikulincer, Florian, and Weller (1993)
also found that insecurely attached individuals reacted to stress with more emotional distress than
did securely attached individuals, indicating that an insecure attachment style may predispose
individuals to emotional maladjustment. This is an interesting finding in relation to attachment
style and peer relationships because children with the combined attributes of insecure attachment,
poor coping skills, and emotional maladjustment would inevitably have difficulty initiating and
maintaining friendships.
Affect Regulation
The regulation of emotions serves many adaptive functions, such as decision making, but
is particularly important in social relationships in that it allows us to understand the emotions and
behaviors of others and direct our social lives. Although the terms affect and emotion regulation
are often used to reflect the same phenomenon, some researchers propose that affect regulation be
considered a superordinate category consisting of emotions, emotion episodes (behaviors), mood
regulation, dispositional states, defense strategies, and coping strategies (Gross, 1998). Emotion
regulation consists of the methods by which people monitor, maintain, and attempt to control at
an optimal level what emotions they have, when they have them, and how they express them in
order to achieve their goals (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000; Gross, 1998; Shields &
Cicchetti, 1997). The literature on emotion regulation focuses on both the deliberate control of
emotions as well as the unconscious processes that influence the expression of emotion,
30
demonstrating the complexities of such behaviors. Research on emotion regulation is also
heavily influenced by coping literature, specifically the emotion-focused dimension of coping
discussed previously. Gross (1998) acknowledges the influence of coping research on emotion
regulation but makes an important distinction between the two whereby coping mainly focuses on
decreasing negative emotions whereas emotion regulation focuses on the monitoring and control
of the expression and experience of emotions.
Emotion regulation is an important determinant in how children will behave in many
different social situations. Shields and Cicchetti (1997) found that preschool and grade school
children tend to develop more complex and integrated emotion regulation skills because of their
expanding representational thought and information processing abilities. Research on empathy
and sympathy has shown that children who are able to manage their emotional arousal during
empathy inducing situations tend to be concerned about others because they are aware of and
understand how others feel (Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, Murphy, Jones, & Guthrie 1998). In
contrast, it was found that children who become emotionally over aroused during such situations
tend to become preoccupied with their own negative emotions at the expense of engaging or
sympathizing with others. Eisenberg and colleagues (1998) also found that high emotional
regulation and low negative emotionality are related to the experience of dispositional sympathy,
demonstrating the impact that emotion regulation has on peer relationships. In addition, research
on undercontrol (no emotion regulation) and overcontrol (too much emotion regulation) of
behaviors show that undercontrol is related to externalizing problems and overcontrol is related to
internalizing problems, illustrating the impact of regulation on the quality of social interactions
(Eisenberg et. al., 2000). Based on these results it is possible to conclude that children who can
31
optimally regulate their emotions and exhibit low intensities of negative emotion are more
likely to engage in prosocial and empathic relationships with peers, influencing their social status.
The social benefits of affect regulation are made clear through studies focusing on why
physically aggressive children are often not rejected by peers. Research has shown that when
aggressive children are able to control their behaviors and implement them to gain social goals as
opposed to using aggression in response to their environment they are more readily accepted by
peers (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Other research has shown that rejected-aggressive children tend to
exhibit other poorly modulated behaviors in addition to aggression, such as hyperactivity,
emotional outbursts, low frustration tolerance and negative affectivity (Pope, Bierman, &
Mumma, 1991), demonstrating the impact of affect regulation on social status. Similarly, Pope
and Bierman (1999) found that rejected-nonaggressive children often exhibited patterns of
irritable, inattentive, atttention-seeking, dependent, disruptive, and intrusive behaviors that thwart
them from forming and maintaining peer relationships.
The relationship between attachment style and affect regulation is also an important
dimension of social functioning. Attachment theory posits that securely attached individuals are
able to learn how to regulate their emotions from their caregivers (Bowlby, 1988). As securely
attached children mature they are able to internalize the emotion regulation patterns present in the
parent-child relationship and mimic that in their relationships with peers. In contrast to insecurely
attached children, securely attached children are more able to regulate their emotions and often
display more socially appropriate behaviors (Eisenberg et. al., 2000; Pope & Bierman, 1999).
Research with preschool children showed that attachment style is related to how children display
affects in social situations. Specifically, securely attached children tend to use more positive
32
affect than do insecurely attached children when initiating and maintaining interactions with
peers (Contreras, Kerns, Weimer, Gentzler, & Tomich 2000).
Purpose o f study
Recent and past tragedies in Americas schools have increased the nations focus on the
problems that cause children and adolescents to commit such crimes. Of particular interest to this
investigation are the relationships that children form with their peers. Since children influence
one anothers conduct and children often rely on friends to act as references for their behavior,
research on friendships can lead to a better understanding of how children and adolescents
respond to events in their lives. Although such bullying occurrences and the actual dyadic
friendships that children form have been extensively studied, there has been less emphasis on
friendship groups. The purpose of this study is to investigate attachment style, friendship groups
and group status (central or peripheral member) and their relationship to emotional intelligence,
friendship quality, coping skills, and affect regulation. These three factors are expected to
influence all children and adolescents, including those who are the bullies and victims of peer
abuse.
In terms of the formation of friendship groups, attachment style has rarely been
investigated. Since many studies focus on the differences between securely attached and
insecurely attached children in dyadic friendships, it is important to investigate the friendship
groups of those children and adolescents who are classified as having any of the three different
subtypes of insecure attachment in order to address this gap in attachment research for this age
group. Once children and adolescents are initiated into friendship groups their interpersonal skills
development becomes extremely important. Since it is known that children and adolescents
influence one another in many ways, being members of friendship groups that contain securely
attached children and adolescents, which are expected to be higher functioning groups, may
enable children and adolescents to function better in social situations. In contrast, membership in
friendship groups that contain insecurely attached children and adolescents, which are expected to
be lower functioning groups, may hinder their interpersonal functioning.
The influence that friendship group status has on childrens and adolescents interpersonal
skills is also of interest in this study. It is proposed that even if children and adolescents are able
to form friendships, whether they are central or peripheral members of those groups is of
importance. Most research in the area of central and peripheral group status has focused on
aggressive, nonaggressive, and rejected children (Bagwell, et al., 2000; Mouttapa, et al., 2004).
This present study is unique in that it will investigate the relationship between attachment style
and the attainment of central or peripheral group status.
The friendship group status and social functioning of children and adolescents who are
labeled as either bullies or victims is also of interest in this study. Since some studies show that
such children group together because of their rejected status (Cairns et al., 1988; Hodges et al.,
1999) and others refute such claims (Ray et. al., 1997), it is an important area of social
functioning that needs to be investigated. This study addresses not only the friendship group
formation of bullies and victims, but also attachment style and group status, two aspects of
friendship not commonly studied.
Attachment style, friendship group formation, and group status are also expected to
influence childrens and adolescents performance on measures assessing friendship quality,
emotional intelligence, coping skills, and affect regulation. Although each of these aspects of
functioning have been investigated before, their relationships to attachment style, friendship
34
group formation, and group status have not been as extensively studied but is of use to those in
clinical and school settings.
35
Hypotheses
Individual Attachment Style
Friendship Quality.
1. Secure children/adolescents will rate their friendships higher in validation and caring,
companionship and recreation, help and guidance, conflict resolution, and intimate disclosure
than fearful and dismissive children/adolescents as measured by the Friendship Quality
Questionnaire. They will also rate them lower in conflict and betrayal than fearful and dismissive
children/adolescents. Preoccupied children/adolescents scores on the Friendship Quality
Questionnaire will fall in between the securely attached and fearful and dismissive
children/adolescents scores. This hypothesis was based on research that indicated that securely
attached children are more likely to form responsive and caring friendships than are insecurely
attached children. Research also shows that insecure children do not always differ on levels of
intimacy (Kerns et al., 1996). By separating the insecure group into three different subtypes,
more differences are expected to emerge.
Reactions to Teasing.
2. Securely attached children/adolescents will seek help from others when teased more than any
of the three insecure subtypes as measured by the communication subscale of a reaction to teasing
measure. Fearful and dismissive children/adolescents will use more avoidant reactions (as
evidenced by higher scores on both the denial and withdrawal subscales) to teasing than the
secure and preoccupied. This hypothesis was based on attachment research which stated that
secure children have positive internal working models of others (Kerns & Richardson, 2005).
Based on this research, it is proposed that securely attached children will seek help from others
36
when in need. In contrast, since they have a negative internal working model of others, it is
proposed that the fearful and dismissive are more likely to use avoidant reactions.
Affect Regulation.
3. Secure children/adolescents will use more interpersonal help-seeking, contemplation of
feelings, and interpersonal activity to regulate their emotions as measured by the affect regulation
measure than the other attachment styles. The fearful and dismissive will use more solitary
activities and aggression and withdrawal to regulate their emotions (aggression and withdrawal is
one subscale in this measure) than the secure and preoccupied. The preoccupied
children/adolescents will use more interpersonal help-seeking, contemplation of feelings, and
interpersonal activity than the fearful and dismissive but less solitary activities and aggression and
withdrawal than the fearful and dismissive. Prior research indicates that children with secure
attachments are better able to regulate their emotions than are insecurely attached children and
will seek support when in need (Bowlby, 1988). In addition, research indicates that those with a
preoccupied attachment react to emotional stressors with intense and prolonged distress whereas
those with dismissive attachment styles react with more emotional distance (Bonanno, Wortman,
Lehman, Tweed, Haring, Sonnega, et al., 2002; Hazan & Shaver, 1994). This study aims to
confirm prior research in these areas. The fearful category of attachment in children and
adolescents has not been extensively studied and this research proposes that their negative views
of self and other and their tendency to avoid interpersonal interactions may predispose them to
exhibit more emotional reactions than the dismissive category but less than the preoccupied
category.
Coping Skills.
4. Secure children/adolescents will use more support seeking strategies and active coping than
fearful and dismissive children/adolescents, as measured by The Childrens Coping Strategies
Checklist. Preoccupied children/adolescents will use those strategies less than the secure but
more than the fearful. Dismissive children/adolescents will use more distraction strategies than
secure, preoccupied, and fearful children/adolescents. Fearful children/adolescents will use more
avoidance strategies than secure, preoccupied, and dismissive children. Prior research indicates
that whereas the ability to implement problem-focused coping skills may not vary across
attachment style the use of other strategies does (Mikulinicer et al., 1993). Research has found
that securely attached individuals experience less anxiety in stressful situations, allowing them to
implement more adaptive strategies than insecurely attached individuals (Mikulincer et al., 1993).
The different types of insecure attachment styles also differ on the type of coping strategy they
use, with preoccupied individuals using more emotion-focused coping and avoidant individuals
using more distancing strategies. This study aims to confirm prior research in this area. Although
the fearful and dismissive attachment styles have been found to implement the same type of
coping style, this hypothesis was generated in order to ascertain whether or not they vary in their
use of distancing and avoidant strategies.
Emotional Intelligence.
5. Securely attached children/adolescents will have higher self-reported emotional intelligence
than fearful and dismissive children/adolescents whereas preoccupied children/adolescents will
score in between securely attached children and the fearful and dismissive children/adolescents.
This hypothesis aims to confirm prior research in this area and was based on findings that the
38
securely attached have higher emotional intelligence than the insecurely attached (Barry &
Wentzel, 2006; Batsche & Knoff, 1994).
Friendship Groups
Friendship Quality.
6. Individuals in groups that contain only securely attached children/adolescents will rate their
friendships higher in validation and caring, companionship and recreation, help and guidance,
conflict resolution, and intimate disclosure than groups that contain only insecurely attached
children/adolescents as measured by the Friendship Quality Questionnaire. Individuals in groups
that contain only securely attached children/adolescents will rate their friendships lower in
conflict and betrayal than those groups that contain only insecurely attached. This hypothesis is
based on research that securely attached children and adolescents have better quality friendships
than the insecurely attached (Kerns, et. al., 1996). Prior research has investigated the relationship
between attachment style and dyadic friendships but not its relationship to friendship groups. The
friendship quality of friendship groups has also not been extensively studied and this research
proposes that attachment style will influence the friendship quality of friendship groups.
7. Individuals in groups of children that contain securely attached children as well as insecurely
attached children (secure-insecure) will rate their friendships higher in validation and caring,
companionship and recreation, help and guidance, conflict resolution, and intimate disclosure as
measured by the Friendship Quality Questionnaire than groups that contain only insecure
children/adolescents (insecure only). They will rate their friendships lower in conflict and
betrayal than groups that contain only insecure children/adolescents. Those in groups that contain
only securely attached children will always have friendships of better quality than the other two
39
groups. Once again, prior research has focused on dyadic friendships and this research
proposed that attachment style will also influence the friendship quality of friendship groups.
8. Individuals in groups that contain only securely attached children/adolescents will seek help
from others when teased more often than those groups that contain only insecurely attached
children/adolescents as measures by the communication subscale of the reaction to teasing
measure. Individuals in groups that contain only the insecurely attached will use more
withdrawal, aggression, and denial subscales. This research proposes that children and
adolescents who are in higher functioning groups (secure only) will use more adaptive strategies
than those in lower functioning groups (insecure only). While this is not a common area of study,
the hypothesis is based on the findings that when children and adolescents interact with higher
functioning peers they develop more adequate interpersonal skills (Lieberman, et al., 1999).
9. Individuals in groups of children that contain securely attached children as well as insecurely
attached children (secure-insecure) will seek help from others when teased more often than
groups that contain only insecure children/adolescents (insecure only) as measured by the
communication subscale of the reaction to teasing measure. Those in groups that contain only
insecure children/adolescents will use more denial, withdrawal, and aggression than groups that
contain secures and insecures (secure-insecure). Those groups that contain only securely attached
children/adolescents will use more adaptive strategies than the other two groups. This research
proposes that children and adolescents who are in higher functioning groups (secure-insecure)
will use more adaptive strategies than those in lower functioning groups (insecure only). While
this is not a common area of study, the hypothesis is based on the findings that when insecure
40
children and adolescents interact with secure peers they develop more adequate interpersonal
skills (Lieberman, et al., 1999).
Affect Regulation.
10. Individuals in groups that contain only securely attached children/adolescents will use more
interpersonal help-seeking, contemplation of feelings, and interpersonal activity to regulate their
emotions as measured by the affect regulation measure than those in groups that contain only the
insecurely attached. Those in groups that contain only the insecurely attached will use more
solitary activities and aggression and withdrawal to regulate their emotions (aggression and
withdrawal is one subscale in this measure) than groups with only the securely attached. Prior
research indicates that those with secure attachments are better able to regulate their emotions
than are the insecurely attached (Bowlby, 1988; Bonanno, et al., 2002; Hazan & Shaver, 1994).
This study aims to confirm prior research in these areas. Research has focused less on how
friendship groups influence affect regulation and this research proposes that children and
adolescents who are in higher functioning groups (secure only) will use more adaptive strategies
to regulate their emotions than those in lower functioning groups (insecure only).
11. Individuals in groups of children that contain securely attached children/adolescents as well as
insecurely attached children/adolescents (secure-insecure) will use more interpersonal help-
seeking, contemplation of feelings, and interpersonal activity to regulate their emotions as
measured by the affect regulation measure than those in groups that contain only the insecurely
attached. Those in groups that contain only the insecurely attached will use more solitary
activities and aggression and withdrawal to regulate their emotions (aggression and withdrawal is
one subscale in this measure) than groups with the securely and insecurely attached. Prior
research indicates that those with secure attachments are better able to regulate their emotions
41
than are the insecurely attached (Bowlby, 1988; Bonanno, et al., 2002; Hazan & Shaver, 1994)
and that associations with higher functioning peers impacts interpersonal functioning (Lieberman,
1999). Research has focused less on how friendship groups influence affect regulation and this
research proposes that children and adolescents who are in higher functioning groups (secure-
insecure) will use more adaptive strategies to regulate their emotions than those in lower
functioning groups (insecure only).
Coping Skills.
12. Individuals in groups that contain only securely attached children/adolescents will use more
support-seeking and active coping strategies than those groups that contain only insecurely
attached children/adolescents; individuals in groups that contain only the insecurely attached will
use more distraction strategies than groups that contain only the securely attached. Research has
found that securely attached individuals experience less anxiety in stressful situations, allowing
them to implement more adaptive strategies than insecurely attached individuals (Mikulincer et
al., 1993). This hypothesis aims to confirm prior research. Research has focused less on how
friendship groups influence coping skills and this research proposes that children and adolescents
who are in higher functioning groups (secure only) will use more adaptive strategies to cope with
stress than those in lower functioning groups (insecure only).
13. Individuals in groups that contain securely and insecurely attached children/adolescents
(secure-insecure) will use more support-seeking and active coping strategies than groups that
contain only insecure children/adolescents (insecure only). Those in groups that contain only the
insecurely attached will use more distraction strategies than those in groups that contain the
securely and insecurely attached. Those in groups that contain only securely attached children
will use more adaptive strategies than the other groups. Research has focused less on how
42
friendship groups influence coping skills and this research proposes that children and
adolescents who are in higher functioning groups (secure-insecure) will use more adaptive
strategies to cope with stress than those in lower functioning groups (insecure only).
14. Individuals in groups that contain all securely attached children/adolescents will have higher
self-reported emotional intelligence than those in groups that contain only insecurely attached
children/adolescents as measured by the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory- Youth Version.
The hypothesis is based on prior research in this area and was based on findings that the securely
attached have higher emotional intelligence than the insecurely attached (Barry & Wentzel, 2006;
Batsche & Knoff, 1994). Research has focused less on how friendship groups influence
emotional intelligence and this research proposes that children and adolescents who are in higher
functioning groups (secure only) will have higher self-reported emotional intelligence than those
in lower functioning groups (insecure only).
15. Individuals in groups that contain securely attached children/adolescents as well as insecurely
attached children/adolescents (secure-insecure) will have higher self-reported emotional
intelligence than groups that contain only insecure children/adolescents (insecure only).
Individuals in groups that contain only securely attached children will have higher emotional
intelligence than the other groups. Research has focused less on how friendship groups influence
emotional intelligence and this research proposes that children and adolescents who are in higher
functioning groups (secure-insecure) will have more emotional intelligence than those in lower
functioning groups (insecure only). This hypothesis is based on research that suggests once
insecurely attached children interact with securely attached children they begin to develop more
adequate interpersonal skills (Lieberman et al., 1999).
43
Impact o f Central or Peripheral Group Status
16. Securely attached children/adolescents are more likely to be classified as central group
members while insecurely attached children are more likely to be listed as peripheral group
members. Fearful and dismissive children/adolescents are more likely to be peripheral group
members than preoccupied children/adolescents. This hypothesis is based on research which
indicates that securely attached children/adolescents are more likely to be rated as popular by their
peers, which would make them central members, than are insecurely attached
children/adolescents, which would make them peripheral members (Kerns et al., 1996; Lieberman
et al., 1999). Research in this area has focused on aggressive, nonaggressive, and rejected
children and this study aims to add to these findings by focusing on attachment style.
Children/adolescents who are insecurely attached are often less likely to have positive interactions
with peers because they often enter into relationships assuming they are unworthy (Lieberman et
al., 1999). The literature focusing on the different types of insecure attachment styles describes
how each type of attachment style interacts differently with peers. It suggests that those with
preoccupied attachment styles have positive internal working models of others, allowing them to
be more likely to interact with peers than those with fearful and dismissive attachment styles
because of their negative internal working models of others (Lopez, Melendez, Sauer, Berger, &
Wyssmann, 1998).
17. Children and adolescents who are classified as central members of groups will perform better
on all dependent variables than those who are classified as peripheral members. Research in this
area is limited and this hypothesis proposes that children/adolescents association with peers
influences their skills development in a positive manner (Kems et al., 1996; Bagwell et al., 2000),
making it possible that those with central membership will function better in various areas.
44
18. Insecurely attached children/adolescents who are classified as central members of groups
will perform better on the dependent variables when compared to insecure children/adolescents
who are peripheral members of groups. While insecurely attached children/adolescents are
expected to perform poorly when compared to securely attached children/adolescents, the impact
of central or peripheral group membership may play a part in how well insecurely attached
children/adolescents perform. Research is limited in this area and this study aims to fill this gap.
Bullies and Victims o f Peer Abuse
19. Children/adolescents who are classified as being victims of peer abuse are more likely to have
a preoccupied attachment style than secure, dismissive or fearful attachment style. Troy and
Sroufe (1987) found that children who display an ambivalent (preoccupied) attachment style are
more likely to be victimized by peers than are children who display other types of insecure
attachment. Victims of peer abuse are more likely to be peripheral members of groups than
central members and bullies are more likely to be central members of groups. Research has
shown that bullies are often able to become central members of their groups whereas victims are
not (Mouttapa, et al., 2004), and this study aims to confirm research done in this area.
20. Children/adolescents who were classified as being aggressive towards peers are more likely to
have a fearful attachment style than a secure, preoccupied, or dismissive attachment style. This
study aims to confirm research done by Troy and Sroufe (1987) who found that children who
have an insecure avoidant attachment are more likely to expect hostility from others and be
aggressive towards peers.
21. Children/adolescents who are classified as bullies will perform better on the various
dependent variables than those who are classified as victims. Since aggressive children have been
found to be central members of groups (Bagwell et al., 2000) and rejected less often than victims,
45
it is believed that they will perform better in these areas when compared to victimized children.
There is limited research done in this area and this study aims to fill that gap.
22. Children/adolescents who are classified as victims that are central members of groups will
perform better on the dependent variables than those victims who are peripheral members of
groups. This hypothesis is based on research indicating that the presence of friends buffer low
status children from the effects of victimization (Bagwell et al., 2000). The impact of friendship
group status on victims in the areas of emotional intelligence, friendship quality, affect regulation,
and coping skills has not been extensively studied and this research aims to fill that gap.
23. Children/adolescents who are classified as bullies that are central members of groups will
perform better on dependent variables than those who are peripheral members of groups. The
impact of friendship group status has on bullies in the areas of emotional intelligence, friendship
quality, affect regulation, and coping skills has not been extensively studied and this research
aims to fill that gap
24. Children/adolescents who are classified as victims are more likely to be in friendship groups
that contain only insecurely attached children/adolescents than in groups that contain both the
securely and insecurely attached or only the securely attached. Children/adolescents classified as
bullies are more likely to be in friendship groups that contain the securely and insecurely attached
than groups that contain only the insecurely or only securely attached. There is no known
research addressing how bully or victim status is related to friendship group membership and this
study aims to address this gap.
Loners
25. Children/adolescents who are classified as loners (they are not members of any friendship
group) will perform worse on the various dependent measures than those children/adolescents
46
who are members of friendship groups. This hypothesis is based on research illustrating that
association with high functioning peers impacts interpersonal functioning (Dunn, 2004;
Lieberman et. al., 1999). Therefore, those classified as loners are more likely to have lower
emotional intelligence and less adaptive affect regulation abilities and copings skills than those
involved in friendships.
26. Those classified as loners are more likely to be insecurely attached than securely attached.
Research has shown that the insecurely attached are more likely to be rejected by peers than the
securely attached (Bagwell et al., 2000) and this study aims to confirm this.
27. Those classified as loners are more likely to be victims of peer abuse than they are to be
bullies or noninvolved peers. Research has shown that those without friends are more likely to be
the victims of peer abuse than those with friends (Bagwell et al., 2000; Dunn, 2004) and this
study aims to confirm this.
General Hypothesis
There are many factors related to how children and adolescents function socially. This research
proposes that attachment style, friendship group membership, and group status (central or
peripheral) are significantly related to children and adolescents friendship quality, emotional
intelligence, coping skills, and affect regulation abilities.
Al
Method
Participants
Participants were 197 fifth through eighth grade students, ages 10-15, enrolled in two public
schools in an urban New Jersey city. This city has a population of 39,482 with a median income
of $62,550 but with 11% of the population being below the poverty line (United States Census
Bureau, 2000). There were a total of fifty-one 5th grade students, thirty-five 6th grade students,
forty-eight 7th grade students, and sixty-three 8th grade students that participated in this study.
Based on the class census, 79% of 5th grade students, 65% of 6th graders, 55% of 7th graders, and
78% of 8th graders participated in this study. Students represented the diverse population of the
city, with most students being Caucasian, African-American, or Hispanic. The two schools that
participated in this study had similar populations, with 67% of the population being Hispanic,
17% being Caucasian, 16% being African-American, and 2% Asian. The ethnicities of the subset
of students who participated in this study were as follows: 53% Hispanic, 36% Caucasian, 10%
African-American, and 1% Asian. School administrators were provided with the research
materials for final approval before the start of the study and consent letters were sent to parents
informing them of the purpose of the study as well as providing them with contact information
should they have any questions. Only those students with parental approval were allowed to
participate in the study and if a signed consent form was not returned the student was unable to
participate.
Procedure
Students who were able to participate in this study remained in their classrooms during data
collection. Data collection took place in one session, lasting between 1.5 and 2.5 hours,
depending on the skill level of the students in the class. Each classroom was assigned one of four
48
doctoral candidates to supervise the data collection. The directions for each measure were read
aloud by the doctoral candidate and they also provided examples and assisted the students with
any questions that they had.
Measures
Friendship Groups.
Students from each grade were instructed to list the names of their closest friends. A modified
version of the factor analysis procedure used by Bagwell, Coie, and Terry (2000) determined
which students were in which friendship groups. A voter by votee matrix was constructed for
each grade using ones and zeros to reflect friendship nominations (lathis voter nominated this
votee, 0=this voter did not nominate this votee). Once the matrixes were created the factor-
analytic procedure was implemented by decreasing the number of factors by one until the
eigenvalues of each factor were greater than or equal to 1.0 and each factor had at least three
significant loadings (meaning at least three children per group). Each factor that was created
represented a friendship group. The factors that were created were manually inspected to ensure
that no child or adolescent was represented in more than one group. If the factor analysis placed a
participant in more than one group, they were manually placed into the group in which they had
the highest loading.
Central or Peripheral Group Status.
Children/adolescents were classified as central or peripheral members based on the factor
loadings from the above mentioned factor-analytic procedure. Those who had a factor loading of
less than .4 were considered peripheral members and those with a factor loading of more than .7
were considered central members. Those who had factor loadings between .4 and .7 were
49
considered average members of groups. The loadings used to determine central and peripheral
group membership were the same as those used by Bagwell, Coie, and Terry (2000).
Bullies and Victims.
In order to determine which students were the victims and perpetrators of peer abuse teachers
were asked to list those students who were victimized by others and those who bullied others.
The design of the study initially called for students to list who they believed were bullies and
victims but school administrators requested it be done by teacher rating in order to avoid potential
conflicts between students. Research has shown that teacher ratings of victimization, aggression,
popularity, prosocial behavior, and hyperactivity are reliable and are similar to peer ratings of the
same behaviors (Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997;Rowell Huesmann, Eron, Guerra, & Crawshaw,
1994).
Attachment Style.
The Adolescent Relationship Questionnaire (Scharfe, 1999), which is based on the
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) attachment style classification system, was used to place
children into one of the following categories: secure, fearful, preoccupied, or dismissive.
Participants were asked to read four paragraphs that describe ways in which people relate to
others and asked to rate on a scale from one to seven how much the paragraph described
themselves. The Adolescent Relationship Scales Questionnaire, which is a revised version of the
Adolescent Relationship Questionnaire, was also used to validate the findings of the four
paragraph version. The seventeen item questionnaire represents the four attachment patterns
defined by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1990) and reflect the degree to which children are secure,
fearful, preoccupied, or dismissive. This attachment questionnaire was chosen because it is easy
to understand and has been shown to effectively identify the different attachment styles.
50
Intercorrelations between an attachment semi-structured interview and self-report ratings of
attachment and other areas interpersonal of interpersonal relating were consistent with the four
category model. Attachment ratings were validated by data from measures assessing self-concept
and interpersonal functioning. Based on their attachment style classification, participants
performances diverged in theoretically meaningful ways on the various measures. For instance,
the securely attached had overall higher scores on measures assessing warmth and sociability than
the other styles, the preoccupied revealed higher scores in areas of dominance and expressiveness,
the dismissive scored higher on scales assessing introversion than the other styles, and the fearful
had more difficulty with assertiveness and self-expression than the other styles. Alpha
coefficients were computed to assess reliability of the four attachment prototypes; reliabilities
ranged from .87 to .95 (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). This attachment measure was chosen
instead of the more commonly used measure Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECRS)
created by Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998). The ECRS is a thirty-six item self-report measure
of adult attachment anxiety and avoidance. It was determined that the Adolescent Relationship
Questionnaire would be more appropriate for use with children and adolescents. In addition, due
to the design of this study, it was necessary to use a measure that separated individuals into one of
the four attachment groups (secure, preoccupied, fearful or dismissive) and not just measure
levels of anxiety and avoidance.
The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) was also used to assess the positive and
negative attributes of students relationships with parents and peers (Armsden & Greenberg,
1987). This questionnaire was chosen as a supplement to the Adolescent Relationship
Questionnaire because it measures the quality of the different aspects of attachment relationships
and does not merely separate children into attachment groups. This questionnaire assesses the
51
following three dimensions: degree of mutual trust, quality of communication, and extent of
anger and alienation. The revised version was used because it assesses separately the perceived
quality of attachment to mothers and fathers instead of parents combined. The instrument is a
self-report questionnaire with a five point likert-scale response format and consists of 25 items in
each of the mother, father, and peer sections, yielding three attachment scores. Internal
reliabilities are reported as follows: Mother attachment, .87, Father attachment, .89, and peer
attachment, .92. The parental attachment scores are moderately to highly related to Family and
Social Self scores from the Tennessee Self Concept scale and to most subscales on the Family
Environmental Scale (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Peer attachment is also positively related to
scores of social self concept as measured by the Tennessee Self Concept scale and to family
expressiveness on the Family Environment Scale (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).
Friendship Quality.
The Friendship Quality Questionnaire-Revised is a self-report instrument that measures
qualitative aspects of childrens friendships (Parker & Asher, 1989). The questionnaire is a 40
item, self report measure which contains six subscales: companionship and recreation, validation
and caring, help and guidance, intimate disclosure, conflict resolution, and conflict and betrayal.
A five point rating scale is used to assess how true each statement is about their friendships. The
scoring system of the Friendship Quality Questionnaire does not provide for an overall friendship
quality score but instead yields scores for each of the six subscales. In the research and
development of this questionnaire Parker and Asher (1989) found that childrens friendship
quality is better described by these six important features of friendship than by an overall score.
The Friendship Quality Questionnaire-Revised is a revision of an earlier measure developed by
Parker and Asher (1989). The earlier version was based on a questionnaire developed to address
52
friendships and was changed by Parker and Asher to meet their research needs. One of the
revisions made by Parker and Asher was to personalize the questionnaire by including the name
of each childs best friend on the questionnaire itself (eg. Stephanie and I always sit together at
lunch). There is, however, a more general approach where children are told to mentally select a
friend while answering the questions which has good internal validity and consistency (Parker &
Asher, 1989). While this questionnaire has mostly been used to measure the quality of dyadic
friendships, the same subscales are relevant to measure the quality of friendship groups. This
questionnaire was chosen because it measures important factors related to friendship quality.
Cronbach alphas for each subscale are as follows: Validation and Caring (.90), Conflict
Resolution (.73), Conflict and Betrayal (.84), Help and Guidance (.90), Companionship and
Recreation (.75), and Intimate Disclosure (.86). The six subscales ranged from moderately and
highly intercorrelated, with correlations ranging from .16 to .75; the conflict and betrayal subscale
was negatively correlated with all other subscales. Results of a study conducted by the authors to
validate their measure they found that each of the six Friendship Quality subscales predicted
loneliness and social dissatisfaction and demonstrated the ability of the measure in distinguishing
friendship adjustment from overall peer acceptance (Parker & Asher, 1989).
A short questionnaire assessing how children react when teased by peers was created for use
in this study. Students were asked to identify how often they engage in particular behaviors when
teased by peers and respond on a five point likert scale. Factor analysis revealed the presence of
four factors: communication, aggression, withdrawal, and denial. This questionnaire was created
because there were not many short measures available to assess specific reactions to teasing.
Coping Skills.
53
The Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist (Program for Prevention Research, 1999) is a
self-report questionnaire in which children describe how they cope on a daily basis. There are
two versions of the checklist, one that assesses the strategies children used to cope with a specific
event and one which measures childrens dispositional style of coping. For the purposes of this
study the latter was used. The questionnaire contains four major factors: Active Coping
Strategies, Distraction Strategies, Avoidance Strategies, and Support Seeking Strategies. Each
factor also contains separate subscales. This questionnaire was chosen because children are
instructed to think about everyday stressors in their lives and not traumatic experiences, allowing
the questionnaire to be used by the general population. Another valuable feature of this
questionnaire is that it incorporates the various types of coping strategies written about in the
literature. The developers of this scale found that childrens coping skills are better described by
the individual subscales than an overall score so that is what is used in this research. Cronbach
alphas for each subscale are as follows: Active Coping (.89), Distraction Strategies (.80),
Avoidance Strategies (.73), and Support Seeking Strategies (.78). Comparisons between
performance on the coping scales and performance on various self-report measures yielded
theoretically meaningful differences. For instance, active coping was related to high self-esteem
and low reports of depression, avoidant strategies were related to increases in depression and
conduct disorder.
Affect Regulation.
A modified version of an affect regulation scale developed by Schaffer (2000) was used in
order to assess what children and adolescents do when they experience painful emotions. The
original version of this affect regulation scale contained items inappropriate for
children/adolescents (i.e.: sexual and occupational content) and these were eliminated from the
54
modified version. Some items were changed to reflect the interests and hobbies of children
instead of adults (i.e.: reading a book to cope with emotions was changed to playing video games)
and some items were changed to reflect the cognitive abilities of children and adolescents (i.e.:
fantasize about disappearing was changed to wish you were somewhere else). Factor analysis
revealed the presence of 5 factors which were labeled Aggression and Withdrawal, Interpersonal
Help-Seeking, Contemplate Feelings, Interpersonal Activities, and Solitary Activities. Students
rated on a scale from one to five how often they engaged in certain activities in order to handle
their feelings. An overall score is not available in this measure so the individual subscales will be
used to describe the affect regulation skills of participants in this study. There is no psychometric
data available for this measure.
The Emotional Quotient Inventory-Youth Version (Bar-On & Parker, 2000) is a self-report
measure of emotional intelligence and looks at childrens awareness of their feelings and the
feelings of others, their ability to communicate their needs to others, self-control, planning
abilities and flexibility to change, and social skills. Students responded to questions using a five
point scale ranging from never true of me to always true of me. There are a total of seven
subscales: intrapersonal, adaptability, general mood, stress management, interpersonal, overall
emotional intelligence, and a positive impression validity scale.
The Emotional-Quotient Inventory has internal reliability for 10-12 year olds of .80 and .90
for 13-15 year olds and has three week test-retest reliability of .82. The youth version correlates
.87 with the adult version. Construct validity is based on comparisons to other measures of
emotional intelligence, its relationship to measures of basic personality, and relationship to other
measures of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Compared to the NEO-Five Factor Model
55
of Personality the correlations converged and diverged in theoretically appropriate ways. The
intrapersonal scale of the Emotional Quotient Inventory was not associated with any of the basic
personality scales and there was a low negative correlation between the adaptability scale and
neuroticism. It was also compared to the Childrens Depression Inventory. High correlations
were found between the general mood scale and various measures on the Depression Inventory.
There were also moderate correlations for the total emotional intelligence and the various scales,
indicating that a positive mood is associated with emotional intelligence (Bar-On et. al., 2000).
56
Results
Individual Attachment Style Results
Students performance on the various dependent measures were analyzed according to
their attachment style (secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dismissive) using a One-Way ANOVA
with the various measures as the dependent variables and attachment style as the independent
variable. Table 1 displays the number of children/adolescents classified as each attachment style.
Table 1
Attachment Style
Attachment Style Number of Students Percentage
Secure 108 55.4
Preoccupied 28 14.4
Fearful 32 16.4
Dismissive 27 13.8
195 100
Friendship Quality.
On a measure of Friendship Quality, there were significant differences on the subscales
between some of the attachment styles. The hypothesis that secure children and adolescents
would score significantly higher on the companionship and recreation, validation and caring, help
and guidance, intimate disclosure, and conflict resolution subscales but lower on the conflict and
betrayal subscale than those with an insecure attachment was partially confirmed. On both the
Companionship and Recreation subscale and the Validation and Caring subscale securely attached
children/adolescents scored higher than the fearful, F(3, 188) = 6.06, p < .05 and F(3, 193) = 2.89,
p < .05 respectively. On the Conflict Resolution subscale both secure and dismissive
57
children/adolescents scored higher than the fearful, F(3, 192) = 3.35, p < .05. There were no
significant differences between attachment styles on the Help and Guidance, Intimate Disclosure,
or Conflict and Betrayal subscales of the Friendship Quality Questionnaire.
When asked about how they responded to being teased by peers, the hypothesis that the
securely attached would have higher scores than those with an insecure attachment on the
communication subscale of the teasing measure was not confirmed. However, the hypothesis that
the fearful and dismissive would have more avoidant reactions to teasing than the secure and
preoccupied was partially confirmed, as the fearful scored higher than the secure and dismissive
on the Withdrawal response subscale, F(3, 193) = 10.62, p < .05 whereas the dismissive scored
higher than the preoccupied on the Denial response subscale, F(3, 194) = 3.91, p < .05. There
were no significant differences among attachment styles on the Communication response or
Aggression response subscales.
Affect Regulation.
On a measure of Affect Regulation the hypothesis that the securely attached would have
higher scores on the interpersonal help seeking, contemplates feelings, and interpersonal activity
subscales than the insecurely attached was partially confirmed. The hypotheses that the fearful
and dismissive would have higher scores on the aggression and withdrawal (aggression and
withdrawal is one subscale on this measure) and solitary activity subscales than the secure and
preoccupied whereas the preoccupied would have the lowest scores on all subscales were partially
confirmed. Results indicated that the fearful had higher scores on the Aggression and Withdrawal
subscale than the secure, F(3,190) = 3.66, p < .05 whereas both the secure and dismissive scored
lower on the Contemplates Feelings subscale than the fearful, F(3,194) = 5.41, p < .05. On the
58
Interpersonal Activity subscale the secure, preoccupied, and dismissive all scored higher than
the fearful, F(3,194) = 1.92, p < .05. There were no significant differences between attachment
styles on the Interpersonal Help Seeking or Solitary Activity subscales of this measure.
Coping Skills.
On the Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist (CCSC), the hypothesis that the securely
attached would have higher scores on the Support Seeking and Active Coping subscales than the
insecurely attached was not confirmed. The hypotheses that the dismissive would have higher
scores on the Distraction Coping Strategies subscale and the fearful would have higher scores on
the Avoidance Coping Strategies subscale than the secure and preoccupied were also not
confirmed. The hypothesis that those who had a preoccupied attachment would have scores that
fell in between the secure and the fearful and dismissive on the various subscales was partially
confirmed in that those who are preoccupied scored higher than the fearful on the Distraction
Strategies subscale, F(3, 194) = 3.23, p < .05.
The hypothesis that those who are securely attached would score higher than the
insecurely attached in the area of emotional intelligence whereas the preoccupied would have
scores that fell in between the secure and fearful and dismissive was partially confirmed. Results
indicated that the preoccupied scored higher than the fearful on the Intrapersonal Intelligence
subscale of a self-report emotional intelligence measure, F(3, 193) = 2.92, p < .05. The securely
attached scored lower than the fearful and the preoccupied on the Stress Management subscale of
the emotional intelligence measure, F(3, 192) = 1.71 >P< .05. There were no differences among
attachment styles on the Interpersonal, Adaptability, or Overall Emotional Intelligence subscales
of the emotional intelligence measure.
59
Friendship Group Results
There were a total of forty-two friendship groups in this study, ten were classified as
secure only, twenty-seven were classified as secure-insecure, and five were classified as insecure
only. The groups contained between three and seven members: 5 groups contained three
members, 8 groups contained four members, 13 groups contained five members, 10 groups
contained six members, and 6 groups contained seven members.
Performance on Dependent Measures
Friendship Quality.
In order to test the hypothesis that the friendship groups that children/adolescents form is
related to their performance on the various measures, separate One-Way ANOVAs with each
measure as the dependent variable and friendship group membership (secure only, secure-
insecure, insecure only) as the independent variable were conducted and subsequent post-hoc
analyses (Tukeys post-hoc test was used for all analyses). On the Friendship Quality
Questionnaire the hypothesis that those who are friends with only the securely attached would
score higher on the companionship and recreation, validation and caring, help and guidance,
intimate disclosure, and conflict resolution subscales but lower on the conflict and betrayal
subscale than those who are friends with the securely and insecurely attached was partially
confirmed. The results showed that secure children/adolescents who are friends only with other
securely attached rated their friends as being more available to spend time with them, more likely
to offer then help and support, more intimate, and more willing to resolve conflicts than those
secure and insecure children/adolescents who are friends with each other rated their friend to be
[F(2, 180) = 5.79, p < .05; F(2, 180) = 5.98, p < .05; F(2, 180) = 6.43, p < .05; and F(2, 184) =
60
6.54, p < .05]. In addition, the hypothesis that those in friendship groups that contain both the
securely and insecurely attached would score higher on the companionship and recreation,
validation and caring, help and guidance, intimate disclosure, and conflict resolution subscales but
lower on the conflict and betrayal subscale than those who were in friendship groups with only
the insecurely attached was also partially confirmed. Results showed that the securely and
insecurely attached children/adolescents who are friends with each other scored higher on the
Companionship and Recreation, Intimate Disclosure, and Conflict Resolution subscales than
those insecurely attached children and adolescents who are friends only with other insecurely
attached children and adolescents [F(2, 180) = 5.79, p < .05; F(2, 180) = 6.43, p < .05; and F(2,
184) = 6.54, p < .05]. Table 2 displays the mean scores on the subscales based on friendship
group membership.
Table 2
Means for Friendship Quality Subscales Based on Friendship Group Membership
Friendship Quality
Friendship
Secure Only
Group
Secure and Insecure
Membership
Insecure Only
Companionship and Recreation 4.11 3.70 2.96
Help and Guidance 4.07 3.56 2.94
Intimate Disclosure 4.05 3.48 2.64
Conflict Resolution 3.95 3.66 2.48
Note. All means presented here are for significant results, p < .05
There were no significant differences between groups on the Validation and Caring or Conflict
and Betrayal subscales. Also, the hypothesis that those in friendship groups that contained only
the securely attached would score higher on the five aforementioned subscales and lower on
61
conflict and betrayal than those in groups with only the insecurely attached was confirmed. As
was expected, securely attached children/adolescents who are friends with only other secures
performed better on all subscales than insecurely attached children/adolescents who are friends
only with other insecurely attached children [Companionship and Recreation, F(l, 20) = 4.40, p <
.05; Validation and Caring, F(l, 20) = 6.82, p < .05; Help and Guidance, F(l, 20) = 13.51, p <
.05; Intimate Disclosure, F(l, 20) = 7.32, p < .05; Conflict Resolution, F(l, 20) = 9.63, p < .05;
and Conflict and Betrayal, F(l, 20) = 7.22, p < .05].
The hypothesis that those in friendship groups with only the securely attached would have
higher scores on the emotional intelligence subscales than those in groups with only the
insecurely attached was not confirmed. In fact, group membership was not related to
performance on overall emotional intelligence, but was related to scores on the Stress
Management subscale. Interestingly, on that subscale, insecurely attached children/adolescents
who are friends with only other insecures scored higher than securely attached
children/adolescents who are friends only with other secures, F(l, 161) = 3.96, p < .05. There
were no significant differences between groups on the Intrapersonal Intelligence, Interpersonal
Intelligence, Adaptability, or Total Emotional Intelligence subscales. However, when the secure
and insecure group was excluded from the statistical analyses and an ANOVA with subscale
scores as the dependent variable and secure only and insecure only as the independent
variable was used, as was expected secure children who are friends only with other secures scored
higher on Intrapersonal Intelligence than insecure children/adolescents who are friends with only
other insecures, F(l, 21) = 5.96, p < .05. The hypothesis that those in groups with both the
securely and insecurely attached would have higher scores on the emotional intelligence subscales
62
than those who were in groups with only the insecurely attached was not confirmed.
Group membership was also related to reactions to teasing. The hypothesis that those in
groups with only the securely attached would have higher scores on the communication subscale
than those in other groups was not confirmed. The hypothesis that those in groups that contained
the securely and insecurely attached would have higher scores on the communication subscale
than those who are friends with only the insecurely attached was also not confirmed. The
hypothesis that those in groups with only the insecurely attached would have higher scores on the
denial, withdrawal, and aggression subscales than those in groups with the securely and
insecurely attached as well as those in groups with only the securely attached was partially
confirmed. Results indicated that the securely attached children and adolescents who are friends
with only other secures used fewer withdrawal reactions to teasing than did secures and insecures
who are friends with each other, F(l, 162) = 4.89, p < .05. In addition, children and adolescents
who are friends with both secures and insecures used fewer withdrawal reactions than insecures
who are friends with only other insecures, F(l, 162) = 4.89, p < .05. On the denial reactions
subscale, the securely attached who are friends with only other securely attached scored lower
than secures and insecures who are friends with each other, F(2, 163) = 4.54, p < .05. There were
no differences between groups on how much they went to others for help (communication
subscale) or became aggressive (aggression subscale).
Coping Skills and Affect Regulation.
The hypotheses that group membership would impact performance on the coping skills
and affect regulation measures (where groups with only the securely attached having the best
scores, those in groups with the securely and insecurely attached falling in the middle, and those
63
in groups with only the insecurely attached having the lowest scores) were not confirmed.
Results indicated that there were no significant differences between groups on these measures.
Attachment Style and Friendship Groups
In order to determine if an interaction existed between attachment and group status, a
MANOVA was conducted with the various measures as dependent variables and attachment style
and group membership as the fixed factors (Tukeys post-hoc test was used for all analyses).
There were four groups used-secure only; secure-insecure; insecure-secure; and insecure only.
The secure-insecure group consisted of secure children and adolescents who nominated insecure
children and adolescents as friends, whereas the insecure-secure group consisted of insecures who
nominated secures as friends. It was hypothesized that those in secure only groups would
perform better than those in secure-insecure groups and insecure only groups and that those in the
secure-insecure groups would perform better than those in the insecure only groups. These
hypotheses were partially confirmed.
Although there was no interaction for Friendship Quality between attachment style and
group membership, results of the MANOVA showed that securely attached children/adolescents
who are friends with only securely attached children/adolescents had higher scores on the Help
and Guidance and Conflict Resolution subscales than friendship groups that contained secures
and insecures and groups with only insecures, [F(3, 147) = 3.34, p < .05 and F(3, 147) = 3.33, p <
.05]. Although there was also no interaction between attachment and group membership for how
they reacted to teasing, it did indicate that securely attached children/adolescents who are friends
with other secures use fewer denial reactions than secures and insecures who are friends with each
other, F(3, 253) = 4.39, p < .05. Although there was also no interaction on the measure of Affect
Regulation, this analysis showed that insecures who are only friends with other insecures
64
Contemplate Feelings more than secures who are only friends with other secures, F(3, 153) =
2.13,p < .05. There was also no interaction between attachment and group membership on
measures of emotional intelligence and coping skills.
Impact o f Central or Peripheral Group Status
Attachment Style.
A Chi-Square test using attachment style and central/peripheral group status as variables
was used to determine the attachment styles of children and adolescents who are most likely to be
central members of groups and those who are most likely to be peripheral members of groups.
The hypothesis that the securely attached will be central members of groups whereas the
insecurely attached will be peripheral members of groups was confirmed. Results indicate that
central members of groups are most likely to be secure, X (1, N=195) 5.18, p < .05 and peripheral
members of groups are most likely to be insecure, X (1, N=195) 5.70, p < .05. There were no
significant differences among the insecure subtypes. Results are displayed in Figure 1 on the
following page.
Performance on Dependent Measures.
MANOVAs were conducted to test the hypothesis that children/adolescents who are
central members of groups will perform better on the various measures than those who are
peripheral members of groups. In addition, it was hypothesized that insecurely attached children
who are central members of groups will perform better on the measures than insecures who are
peripheral members. Both hypotheses were confirmed. On the measure of Friendship Quality
there was an interaction between attachment and central/peripheral group membership on the
Companionship and Recreation, Validation and Caring, Help and Guidance, and Conflict
Resolution subscales. Secure peripherals scored higher than fearful peripherals on
c e n t r a l p e r i p h e r a l
Central or Peripheral Group Member
Figure 1. Number of Secure and Insecure students classified as Central or Peripheral
Group Members.
6 6
Companionship and Recreation, F(3, 160) = 4.47, p < .05, Validation and Caring, F(3, 160) =
3.25, p < .05, Help and Guidance, F(3, 160) = 2.85, p < .05, and Conflict Resolution, F(3, 160) =
2.87, p < .05. Fearful centrals scored higher than fearful peripherals on Companionship and
Recreation, F(3, 160) = 4.47, p < .05, Validation and Caring, F(3, 160) = 3.25, p < .05, Help and
Guidance, F(3, 160) = 2.85, p < .05, and Conflict Resolution, F(3, 160) = 2.87, p < .05.
Dismissive peripherals scored higher than fearful peripherals on Companionship and Recreation,
F(3, 160) = 4.47, p < .05 and Conflict Resolution, F(3, 160) = 2.87, p < .05. Preoccupied
peripherals scored higher than fearful peripherals on Validation and Caring, F(3, 160) = 3.25, p <
.05. Overall, central members of groups scored higher on the Companionship and Recreation
subscale than peripheral members, F(l, 160) = 7.95, p < .05. Based on these results, it appears
that for central members of friendship groups attachment style was irrelevant as there were no
significant differences among scores on the Friendship Quality subscales. Interestingly, there
were no consistent differences in performance within attachment style based on central or
peripheral group membership for any attachment style other than the fearful.
There was an interaction between attachment style and central/peripheral status on
whether or not children/adolescents turn to others for help when they are teased by peers (based
on the communication subscale of the reaction to teasing measure). Fearful peripherals turned to
others less often than dismissive peripherals and fearful centrals, F(3, 166) = 5.63, p < .05.
Surprisingly, dismissive peripherals turned to others more than secure peripherals and dismissive
centrals, F(3, 166) = 5.63, p < .05. Once again attachment style was not related to performance
for central members of groups as there were no significant differences between scores on the
teasing subscales. In addition, there were no differences in performance within attachment style
based on central or peripheral group membership for the secure or preoccupied. Although there
67
were no interactions between attachment and central/peripheral status on the Affect Regulation,
Coping Skills, or Emotional Intelligence scales, on the Emotional Intelligence measure central
members scored higher than peripheral members on the Stress Management and Overall
Emotional Intelligence subscales, F(l, 165) = 8.31, p < .05 and F(l, 165) = 8.53, p < .05.
Insecure Central Members vs. Insecure Peripheral Members.
An Independent Samples T-Test was conducted to test the related hypothesis that insecure
children/adolescents who are classified as central members of groups would perform better on the
dependent variables when compared to insecures who are peripheral members of groups. Results
are presented in Table 3. As expected, on the measure of Friendship Quality insecures who were
central members of groups scored higher than insecures who were peripheral members of groups
on the Companionship and Recreation subscale, t(70) = 2.8, p < .05 and on the Validation and
Caring subscale, t(70) = 2.14, p < .05. On a measure of Emotional Intelligence insecures who
were central members of groups scored higher than insecures who were peripheral members of
groups on the Overall Emotional Intelligence, t(73) = 2-13,p < .05 and Stress Management
subscales, t(73) = 2.93, p < .05. There were no significant differences among insecure central
members and insecure peripheral members on Affect Regulation, Coping Skills, or reactions to
teasing.
Attachment Style.
It was predicted that children/adolescents who were classified as being victims of peer
abuse were more likely to have a preoccupied attachment style than a secure, fearful, or
dismissive style. A 2 x 2 Chi-Square analysis was conducted to determine if victimization
occurred more often with secure or insecure children and adolescents. Although victimization
6 8
Table 3
Mean Results for Insecure Central Members and Insecure Peripheral Members
Insecure Central Insecure Peripheral
Friendship Quality Mean SD Mean SD
Companionship and Recreation 3.73 .75 3.13 1.06
Validation and Caring 3.6 .74 3.15 1.06
Overall Emotional Intelligence 67.47 8.72 62.81 10.17
Stress Management 17.17 4.32 14.19 4.22
Note. All results presented here are significant, p < .05
69
was somewhat infrequent among the children in this study (31 out of 195, 16%), it was much
more prevalent among insecurely attached children (24 out of 87, 33%) than among securely
attached children (7 out of 108, 7%). A 2 x 4 Chi-Square analysis was carried out to determine if
the prevalence of victimization occurred more often with certain kinds of attachment styles.
Subsequent post-hoc analyses ( 2 x 2 Chi-Square analyses) carried out comparing the securely
attached children with those who fell into one of the three insecure attachment styles indicated
that there were no significant differences among the three insecure subtypes. A similar
hypothesis was created for bullies, whereby those who were classified as bullies were more likely
to have a fearful attachment style than a secure, preoccupied, or dismissive style. A 2 x 2 Chi-
Square analysis was conducted to determine if those classified as bullies were more likely to have
a secure or insecure attachment style. Although children and adolescents classified as bullies
was somewhat infrequent in this study (33 out of 195, 17%), it was more prevalent among
insecurely attached children (18 out of 87, 20%) than among securely attached children (15 out of
108, 13%). A 2 x 4 Chi-Square analysis was conducted to determine if the prevalence of bullies
occurred more often with certain kinds of attachment styles. Subsequent post-hoc analyses ( 2 x 2
Chi-Square analyses) carried out comparing the securely attached children with those who fell
into one of the three insecure attachment styles indicated that there were no significant differences
among the three insecure subtypes. Results are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4
Number o f students classified as Bully or Victim based on Attachment Style
Yes
Victim
No
%
Victims
Bully
Yes No
%
Bullies
Secure 7 101 7% Secure 15 93 13%
Insecure 24 63 33% Insecure 18 69 20%
70
Performance on Dependent Measures.
It was predicted that children who were classified as bullies and victims would perform
worse on the various dependent variables than those who were not classified as either bully or
victim. It was also predicted that due to their victimized and rejected status, victims would
perform worse than bullies on the measures. Both of these hypotheses were partially confirmed.
One-Way ANOVAs with the various measures as the dependent variables and bully/victim status
as the independent variable was used to test this hypothesis. In comparison to students who were
not classified as bullies or victims (non-involved peers), victims scored lower than non-involved
peers on the Companionship and Recreation subscale on the measure of Friendship Quality, F(2,
188) = 4.57, p < .05 and victims scored higher than non-involved peers on the Withdrawal
subscale of the reactions to teasing measure, F(2, 195) = 9.04, p < .05. In comparison to non-
involved peers, bullies scored higher on the Conflict and Betrayal subscale of the Friendship
Quality measure, F(2, 188) = 7.60, p < .05, higher on the Aggression subscale of the reactions to
teasing scale, F(2, 196) = 8.19, p < .05, and higher on the Aggression and Withdrawal subscale of
the Affect Regulation scale, F(2, 191) = 5.30, p < .05. In comparison to each other, bullies scored
higher than victims on the Aggression subscale of the reactions to teasing scale, F(2, 196) = 8.19,
p < .05 whereas victims scored higher than bullies on the Withdrawal subscale of the reactions to
teasing scale, F(2, 196) = 8.19, p < .05 and the Avoidance subscale of the Coping Strategies
measure, F(2, 196) = 3.06, p < .05.
In order to determine if there was an interaction between bully/victim status and
attachment, MANOVAs with the various measures as dependent variables and bully/victim
status and attachment style as the fixed factors were conducted. There was only an interaction
between bully/victim status and attachment on the Companionship and Recreation subscale of the
71
Friendship Quality measure where fearful bullies scored higher than fearful victims and fearful
non-involved peers, F(6, 187) = 2.68, p < .05.
Impact o f Friendship Group Membership and Group Status.
The hypothesis that bullies were more likely be members of secure-insecure groups than
other groups was confirmed whereas they hypothesis that victims were more likely be members
of insecure only groups than any other group was not confirmed. In order to determine if bullies
and victims were members of particular types of friendship groups a 2 x 3 Chi-Square analysis
was conducted. Post-hoc analyses ( 2 x 2 Chi-Square analyses) revealed that both bullies and
victims were more likely to be members of groups that contain both the securely and insecurely
attached than members of groups that contain only securely or only insecurely attached, X2(4,
N=196) 27.56, p < .05. A 2 x 2 Chi-Square analysis also revealed that bullies and victims were
more often members of friendship groups than not, X2(l, N=59) 5.4, p < .05. In order to
determine if bullies and victims were more likely to be central or peripheral members of groups a
2 x 2 Chi-Square analysis was conducted but did not reveal significant results. The hypothesis
that bullies would be central members of groups and victims would be peripheral members of
groups was not confirmed. Although the differences were not significant, it was interesting that
more bullies were central members of groups than were victims (63% of the bullies were central
members whereas 36% of the victims were) and more victims were peripheral members of groups
than were bullies (37% bullies were peripheral whereas 64% victims were peripheral). Results
are presented in Figure 2.
In order to assess whether bullies and victims performances on the dependent measures
was related to their friendship group status, MANOVAs with the various measures as dependent
variables and bully/victim and group membership (secure only, secure and insecure, insecures
72
18
Bully or Victim
Ivictim
c e n t r a l p e r i p h e r a l
Central or Peripheral Group Member
Figure 2. Number of Bullies and Victims classified as Central or Peripheral Group Member.
73
only, no group membership) as the fixed factors were conducted. There was an interaction
between bully/victim status and group membership on Overall Emotional Intelligence where
bullies who were not members of a friendship group scored lower than bullies in groups, victims
in groups and not in groups, and non-involved peers in groups and not in groups; on the same
measure victims in insecure only groups scored lower than victims in groups that contained
secures and insecures, F(6, 194) = 2.33, p < .05. There was also an interaction on the measure of
Affect Regulation where bullies who were members of insecure only groups scored higher on the
Aggression and Withdrawal subscale than bullies who were members of other friendship groups
and those who were not members of any group, higher than all victims (both in friendship groups
and not in friendship groups), and higher than all non-involved peers; on the same subscale of the
Affect Regulation measure non-involved peers who were not members of groups scored higher
than other non-involved peers who were members of groups; and victims who were not members
of friendship groups scored higher than victims who were members of groups, F(6, 191) = 2.45, p
<.05.
Centrality o f Group Membership and Bully/Victim Status.
It was predicted that children/adolescents who were classified as victims and were central
members of groups would perform better on the dependent variables than those victims who were
peripheral members of groups. This hypothesis was partially confirmed. Independent Samples t-
tests with the various measures as the dependent variables and status (central victim or peripheral
victim) as the grouping variable were conducted. It was found that victimized central members of
groups scored higher than victimized peripheral members of groups on the Help and Guidance
subscale of the Friendship Quality measure, t(23) = 2.67, p < .05; and higher on the Intrapersonal
t(23) = 2.91, p < .05, Interpersonal t(23) = 2.62,p < .05, Stress Management t(23) = 2.64, p < .05,
74
Adaptability t(23) = 2.14, p < .05, and Overall Emotional Intelligence, t(23) = 4.09, p < .05
subscales of the Emotional Intelligence measure. Victimized peripheral members scored higher
than victimized central members on the Denial subscale of the reaction to teasing measure, t(23) =
-2.48, p < .05. There were no significant differences between victimized central and victimized
peripheral members on the Coping Skills or Affect Regulation scales. The hypothesis that bullies
who were central members of groups would perform better on the dependent measures than those
bullies who were peripheral members of groups was not confirmed. Interestingly, there were no
differences among central bullies and peripheral bullies on any of the dependent measures.
Significant results are presented in Table 5.
In order to determine if there was an interaction between bully/victim status and
central/peripheral status MANOVAs with the various measures as the dependent variables and
bully/victim status and central/peripheral status as the fixed factors were conducted. It was found
that peripheral bullies scored higher on Companionship and Recreation than peripheral victims
and peripheral victims scored lower than central non-involved peers, F(2, 160) = 4.94, p < .05 and
on the Help and Guidance subscale, peripheral victims scored lower than central victims and
central bullies scored lower than central victims, resulting in an interaction, F(2, 160) = 6.28, p <
.05. There was also an interaction on the Support Seeking Strategies subscale of the Coping
Skills measure where central victims scored higher than peripheral victims, central bullies, and
both central and peripheral non-involved peers, F(2,167) = 3.34, p < .05. Results are presented in
Table 6.
75
Table 5
Mean Results for Victimized Central Members and Victimized Peripheral Members
Central
Mean
Victim
SD
Peripheral
Mean
Victim
SD
Friendship Quality
Help and Guidance M l .62 3.07 1.12
Overall Emotional 75.57 11.27 59.06 8.16
Intelligence
Intrapersonal Intelligence 17.57 3.74 13.22 3.21
Interpersonal Intelligence 21.14 2.79 17.28 3.48
Adaptability 19.43 4.47 15.50 3.99
Stress Management 17.43 3.69 13.06 3.73
Teasing Measure
Denial Subscale 1.71 .95 3.17 1.42
Note. All of these results are significant, p < .05
76
Table 6
Mean Results for Bully/Victim Status x Central/Peripheral Status
Central
Victim
Peripheral
Victim
Central
Bully
Peripheral
Bully
Central
Non-
Involved
Peripheral
Non-
Involved
Friendship Quality
Companionship and
Recreation
4.08 2.94* 3.57 3.97* 3.95* 3.58
Help and Guidance
Coping Skills
4.35* 2.87* 3.48* 3.57 3.71 3.63
Support Seeking
Strategies
2.88* 2.07* 2.07* 2.28 2.15* 2.11*
Note. *p < .05
77
Loners
MANOVAs were conducted with the various measures as dependent variables and
attachment style and whether a child/adolescent was a loner or member of a friendship group as
fixed factors. In this sample 17% of the children and adolescents were classified as loners (33 out
of 197). As measured by an Affect Regulation scale children/adolescents who were classified
as loners (they were not nominated by classmates as friends nor did they nominate anyone as a
friend) scored lower on the Contemplates Feelings subscale than children/adolescents who were
members of friendship groups, F(l, 184) = 4.54, p < .05. On the Childrens Coping Strategies
Checklist, those who are loners scored higher on the Distraction Coping Strategies than those who
were in friendship groups, F(l, 187) = 3.94, p < .05.
A 2 x 4 Chi-Square analysis was conducted in order to determine if children/adolescent
who were classified as loners were more likely to have a particular attachment style. Subsequent
post-hoc analyses ( 2 x 2 Chi-Square analyses) revealed that loners were more likely to have a
preoccupied attachment style than a fearful style, X2(l, N=56) 5.01, p < .05. Results of a 2 x 3
Chi-Square analysis also revealed that loners were more likely to be victims than bullies, X2(l,
N=57) 6.31, p < .05.
Sex Differences and the Impact o f Ethnicity
There were a total of 88 males (45%) and 109 females (55%) in this study. Chi-Square
analyses were conducted to address possible sex differences in attachment style, bully/victim
status, centrality of group membership, and type of friendship group membership (secure only,
secure-insecure, insecure only, or no friendship group/loner). No differences were found in any
of these areas.
There were a total of forty-two friendship groups in this study. Twenty-two of them
78
contained a mixture of boys and girls (52%), seven of the groups contained all boys (17%) and
thirteen of the groups contained all girls (31%). ANOVAs were conducted to determine if there
were differences among the groups on the various dependent variables. On the Friendship
Quality Questionnaire, those in the all girls group rated their friendships higher in validation and
caring than those groups of all boys, F(2, 161) = 5.04, p < .05 and higher in intimate disclosure
than groups of all boys and a mixture of boys and girls, F(2, 156) = 14.31, p < .05. Those in
groups of all girls and a mixture of girls and boys sought help from others when teased more often
than those in groups of all boys, F(2, 163) = 3.84, p < .05 and those in all girl groups also used
more withdrawal tactics when teased than those in all boy groups, F(2, 162) = 4.34, p < .05.
Surprisingly, those in all girls groups and groups with both boys and girls used more aggression
and withdrawal to regulate their emotions than those in all boys groups, F(2, 162) = 4.52, p < .05
yet all girl groups contemplated their feelings more often than those in groups of all boys and both
boys and girls, F(2, 163) = 21.02, p < .05. When handling stressful situations, those in all boys
groups use more distraction strategies than those in all girls groups, F(2, 163) = 5.48, p < .05. On
a self-report measure of emotional intelligence, those in groups of all boys are more flexible and
realistic than those in groups of all girls, F(2, 161) = 7.15, p < .05 but those in groups of both boys
and girls have higher overall emotional intelligence, F(2,161) = 4.16, p < .05 and are better able to
understand the feelings of others and have satisfying interpersonal relationships than those in
groups of all girls, F(2,161) = 4.51, p < .05. Although this study did not include hypotheses about
possible sex differences, it was important to establish if there were significant sex differences in
this study. Parker and Asher (1989) found that females often have more satisfying relationships
than males, and these results do show some agreement with prior findings. Although there were
differences among the sexes on the various dependent variables, there were no significant
79
differences found in the areas of attachment style, friendship group membership, or group status
which were the three major areas of interest in this study.
In order to determine the influence that ethnicity had on friendship groups Chi-Square
analyses were conducted with ethnicity and friendship groups as variables. A 2 x 4 Chi-Square
analysis revealed significant differences between ethnicities in whether they form single race or
mixed race groups. Subsequent post-hoc analyses ( 2 x 2 Chi-Square analyses) revealed that only
Caucasians and Hispanics formed single race groups, X (1, N=103) 3.23, p < .05. There was also
a relationship between ethnicity and gender. Chi-Square analyses revealed that all friendship
groups (female only, male only, and male/female) were more likely to contain a variety of
ethnicities than a single race/ethnicity, but that single race groupings were more common in
mixed sex groups (male/female groups), X2(l, N=164) 15.84, p < .05. There were no significant
differences between friendship groups in how often they contained mixed ethnicity/race. Results
are presented in Table 7 below.
Table 7
Ethnicity/Race x Sex Friendship Groups___________________________________________________
Mixed Ethnicity/Race Single Ethnicity/Race
Female Only 10 3
Male Only 6 1
Male/Female 14 8
Note. Data represent the number of groups for each category; results are significant, p< .05
Although this study did not include hypotheses about possible ethnic/race differences, it
was important to establish if there were significant differences. ANOVA's were conducted to
determine if there were differences among the ethnicities/race on the various dependent measures.
On a measure of Friendship Quality, Hispanic children/adolescents scored higher on the Help and
80
Guidance subscale than African-American children/adolescents, F(3, 188) = 2.88, p< .05 and on
a self-report measure of emotional intelligence and both Hispanic and Caucasian students scored
higher on the Interpersonal Intelligence subscale than African-American students, F(3, 194) =
3.99, p< .05. Although there were limited differences among the different ethnicities/races on the
various dependent variables, there were no significant differences found in the areas of
attachment style, friendship group membership, or group status which were the three major areas
of interest in this study.
Grade Differences
Although this study did not include hypotheses about possible differences between
children/adolescents in different grades, it was important to establish if there were significant
differences. MANOVAs were conducted to determine if there were differences among the
grades on the various dependent measures. Differences between the grades occurred only
between fifth and eighth graders. On a measure assessing childrens/adolescents reactions to
teasing, fifth grade students scored higher than eighth graders on the Communication subscale,
F(3, 196) = 3.07, p> .05; on the Affect Regulation measure, fifth graders use more Interpersonal
Help Seeking than eighth graders, F(3, 192) = 5.56, p< .05; on the Coping Skills measure fifth
graders scored higher than the eighth graders on the Support Seeking subscale, F(3, 195) = 6.32,
p< .05; and on the self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence, fifth graders scored higher than
the eighth graders on the Intrapersonal Intelligence subscale, F(3, 194) = 3.40, p< .05 and Overall
Emotional Intelligence, F(3, 194) = 6.33, p< .05. Although there were differences among grades
on the various dependent variables, there were no significant differences found in the areas of
attachment style, friendship group membership, group status, or the presence of bullies and
victims which were the major areas of interest in this study.
Discussion
Individual Attachment Results
The results of this study confirmed the hypothesis that there is a relationship among
friendship group membership, attachment style, and the social competence of children and
adolescents. It has been well established that childrens and adolescents social networks directly
influence their behaviors, ideals, and emotional development (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996;
Phillipsen, 1999). In addition, the friendships that children and adolescents form are crucial to the
development of their self-image and social skills and often impacts school performance (Schwartz
et al., 2000). Of significant interest in this research was the relationship between attachment
style, friendship group membership, group status (central or peripheral), bully-victimization
status, and performance on measures assessing friendship quality, emotional intelligence, coping
skills, and affect regulation.
The general impact of attachment style on students performances on the various measures
in this study was obtained by analyzing each student separately and not as a member of a group.
The results indicate that in relation to other attachment styles, those children and adolescents who
have a fearful attachment style performed significantly different on the various measures, most
often worse than those with other attachment styles.
On a measure of Friendship Quality fearful children and adolescents perceived their
friendships to be lower in companionship, validation and caring, and the ability to resolve
conflicts than children and adolescents who were securely attached. The fearful also felt that their
friendships had less opportunity to resolve conflict than the dismissive felt about their friendships.
It was expected that secures would have higher scores than the fearful and dismissive on five of
the six subscales of the Friendship Quality questionnaire (this excludes conflict and betrayal
82
which would be lower). It was also thought that those with a preoccupied attachment style
would have scores that fell in between the securely attached and the fearful and dismissive.
Understanding the characteristics that differentiate these four attachment styles is important in
determining why these differences occurred. The attachment style classification system used in
this study was that of Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991). Securely attached children and
adolescents believe that they are worthy of love and support and view others as trustworthy and
available. In contrast, the fearful feel unworthy of love and support and view others as unreliable
and rejecting. It is no surprise, therefore, that the fearful would score lower on a measure of
friendship quality, especially on the subscales of companionship and recreation, validation and
caring, and conflict resolution than the securely attached. These subscales assess the degree to
which children and adolescents spend time with peers, care about them, and are capable of
appropriately resolving conflicts with them. Since the fearful are fearful of intimacy and socially
avoidant, it is less likely that they would spend time with peers or have relationships with peers
where they were intimate and able to resolve conflicts easily.
Of interest is the finding that the dismissive had higher scores on the Conflict Resolution
subscale than the fearful. Dismissive children and adolescents have a positive self-image but a
negative model of other people, causing them to dismiss intimacy and consider others to be
untrustworthy and rejecting. In addition, the dismissive tend to deny the necessity of intimacy
needs and rely on their independence. As a result, it is possible that the dismissive scored higher
than the fearful because they are not as concerned by conflicts within peer relationships. In
addition, since the fearful often expect rejection from others, they may be more likely to perceive
certain interactions as hostile than would the dismissive. As expected, the preoccupied did not
score significantly different than the other styles and obtained mean scores that fell in between the
83
securely attached and the fearful and dismissive.
The fearful appear to utilize more withdrawal techniques when being teased by peers than
do the secure and dismissive. This is not surprising considering the tendency for the fearful to be
socially avoidant. The dismissive utilize more denial techniques than the preoccupied, also not
surprising when one considers the ways in which these two styles differ in their relationships with
others. Dismissive individuals avoid close relationships with others and rely on themselves to
handle situations, often seeming cold to others (Horowitz, Rosenberg, and Bartholomew, 1993).
Therefore, it makes sense that these individuals would react to teasing with the following
statement, It doesnt bother me (taken from the teasing questionnaire) more often than
preoccupied individuals who are very concerned with social acceptance. Similarly, as measured
by an Affect Regulation scale, the fearful use more aggression and withdrawal than secures when
trying to regulate their emotions and they are less likely to engage in interpersonal activity to
regulate their emotions than the secure, preoccupied, and dismissive. These findings indicate that
the fearful are more likely to use withdrawal strategies to handle situations in their lives,
strategies that most likely hinder them from overcoming the difficulties they are having. It seems
that the fearful do not turn to others for assistance and most likely isolate themselves in order to
cope with certain situations. This is not surprising based on the characteristics of the fearful
(socially avoidant and fearful of intimacy), but it does point to how these children and adolescents
are often unable to utilize more adaptive strategies.
Surprisingly, there were no differences between the attachment styles on overall emotional
intelligence. However, the preoccupied had higher Intrapersonal Intelligence than the fearful and
the fearful and preoccupied had higher Stress Management scores than the secure. The
Intrapersonal Intelligence subscale assesses the degree to which children can understand their
84
emotions and communicate their feelings (Bar-On and Parker, 2003), indicating that
preoccupied children and adolescents are more capable of doing this than the fearful. Those who
are classified as preoccupied tend to gain self-acceptance through group acceptance. Therefore, it
is possible that the preoccupied are able to express their feelings and needs more often than the
fearful in order to gain the acceptance of the peer group. In fact, it is likely that the fearful are
unlikely to express their feelings and needs due to their beliefs that others are untrustworthy and
rejecting.
Of interest is the finding that the fearful and preoccupied had higher Stress Management
scores than the secure. Individuals with high stress management scores are able to work under
pressure and respond to stress without an emotional outburst (Bar-On and Parker, 2003).
Although the difference between the preoccupied and secure appears counter-intuitive when one
considers the well known emotionality of the preoccupied, research on emotion regulation
indicates that those children and adolescents who experience more negative emotions find it
necessary to develop a skill-set that enables them to control those emotions if they desire peer
acceptance (Contreras et. al., 2000). Therefore, the preoccupied have most likely developed the
ability to respond to stress without expressing too much emotion so that they can gain social
acceptance. Similarly, the finding that the fearful have better developed Stress Management skills
than the secure is related to this studys finding that the fearful withdraw when teased by others.
Although it can be assumed that higher stress management scores indicates a better ability to
handle stress, for the fearful it is possible that it signifies the lack of an emotional outburst
when confronted by a stressful situation since they are more likely to withdraw.
Friendship Group Results
Friendship quality appears to be the area in which friendship group membership was
85
significantly related to the social functioning of children and adolescents. As expected,
securely attached children/adolescents who are friends with only other secures rated their
friendships as being higher in the areas of companionship, guidance, intimacy, and conflict
resolution than those secure and insecure children/adolescents who are friends with each other. It
is not surprising that securely attached children/adolescents in groups with other secures felt that
their friends were more likely to spend time with them, offer them assistance in time of need, be
trustworthy enough to reveal the intimate details of their lives, and have a bond strong enough to
withstand conflict than those secures and insecures who are in friendships with each other. Prior
research shows that securely attached children/adolescents are more likely to form responsive and
caring friendships than the insecurely attached and the results above from this study confirm that
area of research (Kerns & Richardson, 2005). A similar study evaluating the friendships of
students based on their group acceptance illustrates this most clearly. Similar to the findings from
this current study, Phillipsen (1999) found that low-accepted dyads (both children were rated as
not being accepted by the entire peer group) had fewer positive interactions and more conflict
than high-accepted dyads (both children were accepted by the peer group).
Of more interest to the focus of this study was the result that children and adolescents in
those groups that contain both securely attached and insecurely attached children rated their
friendships as being higher in companionship, intimacy, and the ability to resolve conflict than
insecure children and adolescents who are only friends with other insecures. This was an
expected outcome of this study as it was believed that being involved in friendships that contain
securely attached children and adolescents has a mediating effect on the insecurely attached,
positively impacting their social skills and ability to form close friendships relative to those
insecurely attached children and adolescents who are friends with only insecurely attached
86
children and adolescents. Research shows that securely attached children and adolescents are
able to form close, cooperative friendships with others whereas the insecurely attached are often
less competent socially (Dunn, 2004; Kerns & Richardson, 2005; Shulman et. al., 1994). Despite
the large amount of research focused on friendships of the secure and insecure separately,
comparisons between secure only, secure-insecure, and insecure only friendships are not
common. Therefore, this study illustrates the possibility that the presence of a securely attached
child and adolescent in the friendship may help the insecurely attached function more
appropriately in interpersonal relationships. Therefore, this studys result that those friendship
groups that contain children/adolescents who are friends with both the securely and insecurely
attached believe their friends would spend time with them socially, were trustworthy enough to
tell their secrets to, and that they had a strong enough relationship to overcome conflicts within
the friendship than those insecurely attached children/adolescents who were friends with only
other insecures points to the benefits of these friendships. This also shows the necessity for
further research in this area as a way to help and assist insecurely attached children and
adolescents who are usually viewed as less able to form close, fulfilling relationships.
It was unexpected that there were no differences among groups on how validating they felt
their friends were or in the amount of conflict present in their friendships as the securely attached
were expected to be involved in friendships that were based on mutual affection and validation
where they would increase each others self-esteem by making them feel good about
accomplishments and support them in their endeavors as well as be less likely to argue and betray
one another than those friendships that involved the insecurely attached. Interestingly, in
comparison to Parker and Ashers (1993) mean results for these subscales [Validation and Caring
(M=2.85), Conflict and Betrayal (M=1.04] it appears that the children and adolescents in this
87
study had higher mean scores on these subscales [Validation and Caring (M=3.8), Conflict and
Betrayal (M=2.3)]. It is possible, therefore, that differences did not emerge within this sample as
they generally display these features within friendships more than other samples.
It was surprising that friendship group membership was not related to
children/adolescents Overall Emotional Intelligence scores. It has been suggested that the
securely attached are more likely to demonstrate prosocial behaviors than the insecurely attached,
making this negative finding difficult to evaluate. Barry and Wentzel (2006) identified social-
learning and observational learning theories as contributing to the prosocial behavior of children.
They found that children often behave prosocially when they have friends who do so. Despite the
influence of group membership on the other areas of functioning included in this study, it is
possible that emotional intelligence is not related to attachment style and group membership as it
may be by other factors related to friendship, specifically that of central and peripheral group
status which will be discussed more later. The one aspect of emotional intelligence that was
influenced by friendship group membership was the Stress Management subscale where
insecurely attached children/adolescents who are friends with only other insecures were more able
to work under pressure and respond to stressful events without emotional outbursts than securely
attached children and adolescents who are only friends with other secures. It is quite possible that
those insecurely attached children/adolescents have learned to adjust to stress within the
classroom.
Prior research has illustrated that difficulties in the realm of affect regulation impact peer
relationships and that the insecurely attached have more problems in this areas than the securely
attached (Lopes, Salovey, Cote, & Beers, 2005; Rubin, Dwyer, Booth-LaForce, Kim, Burgess, &
Rose-Krasnor, 2004). However, this studys finding that those in groups that contain only the
insecurely attached are better able to handle their emotions during times of stress refutes prior
findings. Although a cause and effect relationship can not be established, it is possible that the
ability of these insecurely attached children and adolescents to form friendships has enabled them
to handle stress more adequately than is usually expected of the insecure. This finding is related
to the reactions that children/adolescents have when they are being teased by others. It was found
that insecurely attached children/adolescents who are friends with only other insecures are more
likely to withdraw when teased by their peers than are insecures and secures who are friends with
each other. For example, they report to be more likely to walk away and sit by myself or do
nothing. When one looks at the tendency for the friendship groups of only insecurely attached
children/adolescents to have high Stress Management scores (as measured by Emotional
Intelligence scale) where they do not react to stress emotionally, it makes sense that they are also
more likely to withdraw when teased. Surprisingly, there were no differences among friendship
groups for how often they went to one another for help or became aggressive. It is possible that
while members of friendship groups with only insecurely attached children are more likely to
withdraw when teased, they are also able to go to their friends for help or become aggressive just
as much as those in other friendship groups. This finding indicates that despite their withdrawal
tendencies, those insecurely attached who are friends with other insecures still attempt support-
seeking behaviors when in need.
It was unexpected that there were no differences among friendship groups in the areas of
coping skills and affect regulation. Prior research on coping skills points to an interesting feature
of coping skills and may explain why no differences were found in this study. Kemp and
Neimeyer (1999) believe that those with fearful and dismissive attachment styles may not differ
from secures in the area of coping skills because they have become adept at suppressing their
89
reactions to stress, causing them to either not experience or not report their avoidant and
distancing reactions to stress. In addition, prior findings that attachment style may only influence
coping skills when stress levels are high, such as after a traumatic incident, and not when they are
low, such as during everyday stressors (Simpson, Rholes, and Nelligan, 1992), supports the lack
of differences among friendship groups in this study. The lack of differences in affect regulation
could also be based on a similar trend in this area. For instance, it is possible that attachment
style impacts affect regulation only when individuals are faced with intensely negative emotions
on a chronic basis. Therefore, children and adolescents in different friendship groups may not
differ in how they regulate their emotions unless they are under severe stress. Another possibility
is the finding that children and adolescents who experience more negative emotions find it
necessary to develop a skill-set that enables them to control those emotions if they desire peer
acceptance (Contreras et. al., 2000), possibly accounting for the lack of emotion regulation results
in this study. More related to this studys hypotheses, and discussed earlier in relation to
emotional intelligence, is the possibility that their ability to become members of friendship groups
may have increased their ability to regulate their emotions. In fact, the individual attachment
results presented previously revealed differences between the four attachment styles that were not
present when friendship group membership was analyzed, indicating the positive benefits of being
involved in a friendship group. For instance, the secure, preoccupied, and dismissive all found
that participating in interpersonal activities helped them regulate their emotions when
overwhelmed whereas the fearful did not. However, when children and adolescents are members
of friendship groups these differences do not emerge, illustrating how when involved in a
friendship group the fearful are able to regulate their emotions by seeking support from others.
90
Impact o f Central or Peripheral Group Membership
Of interest in this study other than the impact that friendship group membership has on
children and adolescents is the influence of central or peripheral group status. Research indicates
that whether children and adolescents are central or peripheral members of groups is related to
various aspects of their functioning within the friendship group (Bagwell et. al., 2000) as well as
to aggressive and prosocial behaviors (Mouttapa et al., 2004). However, the issue of centrality in
friendship groups has not been extensively studied in other areas of functioning and this research
addresses this gap. Although this current study did not find differences among the insecure
subtypes, it was revealed that central members of groups are more likely to be securely attached
and peripheral members of groups are more likely to be insecurely attached. This is an interesting
finding as it points to the impact that attachment style has on the functioning of children and
adolescents in the area of friendships. Securely attached children and adolescents are more likely
to have central roles in friendships than are the insecurely attached. This means that these
children and adolescents are liked by most members of their friendship group and have more of
an impact on the functioning of the group, such as deciding what activities to engage in, who to
let into the friendship group, and how the friendship group relates to those not in the group. It is
not surprising that securely attached children and adolescents undertake this role in friendships as
the securely attached are more often leaders and are more comfortable interpersonally (Engels,
Finkenauer, Meeus, & Dekovic 2001). In contrast, peripheral members of groups are often on the
outskirts of the group, participating minimally in activities, having fewer close friendships within
the group, and having less of an impact on the functioning of the group. Peripheral members
often have less association with their socially competent peers and this can lead to social and
behavioral maladjustment (Bagwell et. al., 2000). It was expected that insecurely attached
91
children and adolescents would be peripheral members of friendship groups since it has been
found that the insecurely attached are less likely to take the leadership role because they avoid
social interaction, have lower self esteem, and are less competent socially (Kerns & Richardson,
2005; Shulman et. al., 1994).
This study revealed an interaction between attachment style and central or peripheral
group status in the areas of friendship quality and reactions to teasing. As reported before, the
fearful were most likely to have difficulty in various areas, such as friendship quality, reactions to
teasing, affect regulation, and emotional intelligence. In terms of attachment style, in comparison
to other peripheral members of friendship groups, those who have a fearful attachment style
appear less likely to engage in beneficial and productive friendships. This study revealed that
fearful peripheral members believe that their friends are not as available to spend time with them
as secure peripherals or dismissive peripherals, less likely to make them feel good about
themselves and support them in their endeavors as friends of secure peripherals and preoccupied
peripherals, are not there to help them when in need as are friends of secure peripherals, and do
not have the strong bond to withstand conflicts that the secure peripherals and dismissive
peripherals have with their friends. When fearful peripheral members are compared to fearful
central members, the fearful peripheral members rated their friendships as lower in the same four
areas of friendship quality mentioned above than the fearful central members of friendship
groups. This finding illustrates the importance of friendship group status on how
children/adolescents interact within friendship groups.
Fearful peripheral members of friendship groups are also less likely to turn to others when
teased by peers than are dismissive peripherals and fearful centrals. When friendship group
membership status is not taken into account, the fearful do not differ from the other attachment
92
styles in how often they turn to others when in need. However, when central or peripheral
group status is taken into account this pattern changes and the fearful children and adolescents
who are peripheral members of groups feel unable to turn to others when they are teased by peers.
As seen with friendship quality, attachment status did not impact performance for central
members of friendship groups in how they react to teasing by peers, highlighting the importance
of being a central member of a friendship group regardless of attachment style. Interestingly,
when the insecure subtypes were combined, there were no differences between all insecure
central and all insecure peripheral members in how they reacted to teasing, illustrating the unique
position of the fearful children and adolescents in relation to their friendships. Although research
has indicated that central and peripheral group membership are important factors in friendships
(Bagwell, et. al., 2000), attachment style appears to be overlooked. Therefore, this study points to
the issue of attachment style as an important element to the functioning of friendship groups.
More specifically, since this study revealed that fearful children/adolescents who are peripheral
members of friendship groups have less fulfilling friendships than most others (in terms of both
attachment style and group status), these children/adolescents may require more help with
interpersonal functioning than do others. The numerous findings in this study regarding those
with a fearful attachment style accentuate the differences that exist between the various subtypes
of insecure attachment. Much of the attachment research available focuses primarily on
distinctions between the secure and insecure (Kerns & Richardson, 2005; Lieberman et al., 1999).
When insecure attachment is investigated, those who are classified as having a preoccupied
attachment are often of most interest. Therefore, this studys many findings for those with a
fearful attachment style indicate that there are important differences among those with
preoccupied, fearful, and dismissive attachments.
93
Interestingly, in the area of friendship quality it appears that attachment style did not
impact performance for central members of friendship groups, possibly indicating that the
differences between attachment styles is less dramatic when children/adolescents are central
members of friendship groups, highlighting the difference it makes between being a central,
leading member of a friendship group versus a peripheral, less involved member.
Although there was no interaction between attachment style and central or peripheral
group status for any insecure subtypes other than the fearful on the various measures, when the
insecure subtypes were combined, insecures who were central members of friendship groups had
higher overall emotional intelligence scores than insecures who were peripheral members of
friendship groups. Once again this points to the importance of friendship group status (central or
peripheral) in how children and adolescents interact with peers. Although a cause and effect
relationship can not be established, it is still important to note that those insecurely attached
children who are central members of groups are more likely to understand their emotions and
communicate their needs to others, have satisfying relationships and empathy for others, be
flexible and realistic, and work well under pressure than those insecures who are peripheral
members of friendship groups. Jean Rich Harris (1998; 2006) work on child development offers
an interesting addition to this studys findings regarding central and peripheral group
membership. Harris (1998) emphasizes the importance of friendships in childrens personality
development over both the parental environment and genetic influences. Similar to findings in
this study, Harris (1998) argues that peer group status (high or low) has effects on childrens
personality. Interestingly, she believes that children are influenced by their social environment
(the peer group) more than their family because the family environment teaches children how to
interact only with family members. In order to illustrate this more clearly, Harris (2006) points to
94
differences in personalities of identical twins who are raised in the same household. Harris
(2006) argues that within the peer group children learn what it means to be a member of a group
and they absorb the culture and behaviors of that group. In addition, Harris (2006) believes that
knowledge of the self develops when children measure themselves against peers, both rivals
and friends. These works by Harris demonstrate how important peer group membership is to
overall development, something also clearly illustrated in this study.
It was surprising that there were no differences among insecure central or peripheral
members on affect regulation or coping skills. However, the consistent lack of findings in these
two areas of functioning could be accounted for in one of three ways. First, as has been
established before, unless children and adolescents are faced with high levels of stress or intensely
negative emotions, differences may not appear. Second, the fact that these children and
adolescents are members of friendship groups, whether central or peripheral, reduces the
differences expected to emerge. Third, and a limitation of this study, is that these two measures,
the affect regulation measure in particular, do not seem to differentiate among the groups
represented in this sample.
The issue of peer abuse (bullying) has become a topic of much discussion. The victims of
peer abuse have reacted to their victimization in violent ways such as school shootings, and
victims are more likely to be depressed, anxious, withdrawn, and socially inept than bullies and
non-involved peers (Veenstra, Lindenberg, DeWinter, Oldehinkel, Verhulst, & Ormel 2005). As
the perpetrators of this abuse, the bullies are more likely to be aggressive, hostile, impulsive,
antisocial, drug abusers, and uncooperative in social contexts (Orpinas & Horne, 2006: Veenstra
et. ah, 2005). This papers hypotheses that attachment style, friendship group membership, and
95
friendship group status all impact friendship and the various skills children and adolescents
possess in order to navigate through social relationships can also be applied to the area of peer
abuse.
Attachment Style
The impact of attachment style on peer abuse has been extensively studied, with most
research pointing to insecure children as the likely victims of the abuse (Bernstein & Watson,
1997; Orpinas & Home, 2006). Although victimization was infrequent in this study, it was much
more prevalent among insecurely attached children and adolescents (33%) than the securely
attached (7%). The presence of bullies was also infrequent in this study, but once again it was
more prevalent among the insecurely attached (20%) than the securely attached (13%).
Although this study did not confirm the hypothesis that victims and bullies were more
likely to have particular insecure attachment subtypes, it is possible that if both the number of
bullies and victims and the number of students categorized in each insecure subtype were not so
small (only 16% of the sample was classified as victims and 17% as bullies; 16% fearful, 14%
preoccupied, and 14% dismissive), more differences would have emerged between the subtypes.
An interesting finding in this study related to attachment style was that fearful children and
adolescents who were classified as bullies believed that their friends were available to spend time
with them more than fearful victims and fearful non-involved peers felt their friends to be
available. As seen before, children and adolescents classified as fearful were less likely to find
their friends available to them as were the securely attached. The fact that fearful bullies feel
their friends are more available to them points to an interesting feature of the friendships of
fearful bullies that differs from the friendships of other fearful children and adolescents.
Although the fearful are fearful of intimacy and socially avoidant, knowledge of the friendships of
96
bullies makes this finding more understandable. Although the data in this study did not support
prior findings that bullies were more likely to form friendships with other bullies than with other
children and adolescents, it is likely that the friendships they do form encourage the use of
bullying tactics. Grotpeter and Crick (1996) found that children were not concerned by the
aggressive tendencies of their friends, as long as the aggression was directed towards peers
outside of the friendship group. Similar to the findings of this present study for fearful bullies,
Grotpeter and Crick (1996) also found that aggressive children often value the companionship of
friends more than the intimacy. Given the fact that the fearful (regardless of whether they are
victims, bullies, or non-involved peers) are less social and more fearful of intimacy, it makes
sense that those who are bullies would be more likely to value the companionship of their friends
than those fearful who are victims or non-involved peers. Moreover, since the fearful bullies feel
comfortable expressing their aggressive tendencies within their friendships, it makes it easier for
them to become involved in social interactions than it is for other fearful children and adolescents
who are less comfortable with interpersonal relationships.
Performance on Dependent Measures
It was hypothesized that bullies and victims would have lower functioning in the areas of
friendship quality, emotional intelligence, affect regulation, coping skills, and reactions to teasing
than would those peers who were not classified as either bullies or victims (referred to as non-
involved peers). It was also believed that victims would perform worse than bullies in these
areas. These hypotheses were partly confirmed in this study. It was found that victims rated their
friends as less likely to spend time with them than the non-involved peers rated their friends, that
victims responded to teasing by peers with withdrawal more often than their non-involved peers
and bullies, and victims used more avoidance tactics to respond to stress than bullies. These
findings are not surprising as research has shown that victims are often less involved in
friendship groups and when they are, they are often friends with other victimized or rejected
children and adolescents, making it less probable that they would have fulfilling friendships that
help them develop social skills (Bagwell, et. ah, 2000; Buhs and Ladd, 2001). It was also
established that due to perpetual maltreatment by peers, victims often withdraw from social
interactions in order to cope with and avoid further victimization and that their tendency to
socialize with other low status children and adolescents hinders them from developing social
competencies (Bagwell, et. al., 2000; Buhs & Ladd, 2001). Therefore, it is not a surprise that
victims would feel socially isolated from friends and withdraw when confronted by stress.
Bullies believed that their friendships contained more conflict and betrayal than the
friendships of their non-involved peers, they responded to teasing with more aggression than non-
involved peers and victims, and responded to difficult emotions by using aggression and
withdrawal (aggression and withdrawal is one subscale on the affect regulation measure) more
often than non-involved peers. These findings also confirm prior research which shows that
bullies are obviously more aggressive than others and will respond to various situations with
aggression (Veenstra, et. al., 2005). As expected, the friendships of bullies would be
characterized as containing more conflict. It has been suggested that while aggressive children
may not be the most popular students, they are able to form friendships, especially with other
aggressive children, resulting in what some term coercive clusters (Cairns, et. al., 1988; Ray, et.
al., 1997). As stated before, although this study did not find that bullies formed friendship groups
with only other bullies, it is likely that they are able to form friendships with other children and
adolescents not classified as bullies who encourage the bullies use of aggression to obtain their
needs, perpetuating their use of bullying tactics because they view it as socially acceptable.
98
Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simpson-Morton, and Scheidt (2001) found that many bullies
find that they are able to make friends relatively easily, making it easier for them to feel that their
actions are acceptable.
Surprisingly there were no differences between victims, bullies, and non-involved peers in
the other aspects of friendship quality. Although research has shown that the friendships of
bullies and victims are different from the friendships of non-involved peers, the results of this
study indicate that there are other factors involved in the perceived friendship quality of bullies
and victims other than their victim or bully classification, such as central and peripheral group
status which will be discussed further. The limited findings in the areas of coping skills and
affect regulation was a surprise considering the results of prior research that points to differences
in these areas. An interesting research finding by Hoover, Oliver, and Hazier (1992) indicated
that while a majority (over 75%) of their sample of middle and high school students reported
being bullied, less than 15% of them believed that they were impacted socially, academically, or
emotionally by these incidents. It was proposed by Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) that if
children and adolescents have adequate coping skills, the victimization would be less detrimental
to their well-being. Due to the lack of significant differences between bullies, victims, and non-
involved peers in the area of coping skills and affect regulation, it is possible that these students
have been able to develop more adequate skills in these areas than expected.
Impact o f Friendship Group Membership and Group Status
This research focused on the impact that attachment style has on friendships overall in
addition to the friendships of victims and bullies. Interestingly, victims and bullies were more
likely to be in friendship groups that contained both the securely and insecurely attached and were
also more likely to be members of friendship groups than not. When the friendship groups of
99
bullies and victims were investigated, the main differences occurred in the area of overall
emotional intelligence. Bullies who were not members of a friendship group had overall lower
emotional intelligence than bullies, victims, and non-involved peers who were members of a
friendship group. This finding confirms the hypothesis that being a member of a friendship group
is related to how children and adolescents interact socially. Although a cause and effect
relationship can not be established, the fact that bullies who are in friendship groups have higher
emotional intelligence scores than those bullies who are not, points to the importance of
friendships. In fact, research shows has shown that friendships often enable children and
adolescents to compensate for any deficits in social and emotional skills that they have (Schwartz,
et al., 2000).
Interestingly, victims who are members of friendship groups that contained only the
insecurely attached have lower emotional intelligence scores than those victims in friendship
groups that contained both the securely and insecurely attached and that bullies involved in
friendship groups that contained only the insecurely attached use more aggression and withdrawal
to handle difficult emotions than do bullies, victims, and non-involved peers who are involved in
other types of friendship groups (those with only the securely attached or those with both the
securely and insecurely attached). These findings also point to the benefit of having friendships,
particularly friendships with securely attached children. It has been established that the presence
of friendships often decreases the likelihood of victims maladjustment, (Ladd et al., 1997).
Although harsh home environments have predicted victimization in grammar school, some have
found that these environments do not predict victimization when children report having many
friends (Rubin et al., 2004). It was hypothesized that forming friendships with secure peers, who
are historically better adjusted, will influence how insecurely attached children function socially.
100
Although a cause and effect relationship can not be established, these findings indicate that
forming friendships with the securely attached can also impact how victims and bullies function
socially. Therefore, while friendship itself has an impact on victims and bullies, who they form
friendships with is of even more importance.
Results of this study illustrate the importance of friendship group status, showing that
being either a central or peripheral member of a group is related to friendship quality, emotional
intelligence, and how one reacts to teasing. Although not statistically significant, it is interesting
that 63% of bullies in this study were central members of friendship groups, 37% of bullies were
peripheral members, 36% of victims were central members, and 64% of victims were peripheral
members of friendship groups. The fact that a higher percentage of victims were peripheral
members of groups illustrates the impact that being a victim has on children and adolescents,
because even when they are members of groups they are on the periphery which minimizes their
exposure to the group, their impact on the groups functioning, and participation in group
activities. Hence, as peripheral members of groups, victims do not reap the same rewards of the
friendship as would those who are central members. In contrast, bullies are able to become
central members of their groups more often, possibly allowing them to feel comfortable with their
bullying activities, making them less amenable to change. This finding is related to the other
findings from this study that bullies are often more interested in the companionship that
friendships provide so that they can form coercive clusters that enable them to feel good about
their aggressive activities (Cairns, et. al., 1988; Ray, et. al., 1997).
When the friendship group status of victims and bullies was investigated victims who
were peripheral members of friendship groups felt that their friends were less available to spend
time with them than bullies who were peripheral members felt their friends to be. Interestingly,
101
central victims felt that their friends were there more often to offer them assistance when in
need than peripheral victims felt about their friends. Central bullies believed that their friends
were not as available to offer them support when in need as central victims friends. These
findings illustrate how friendship group status significantly impacts bullies and victims. Although
overall friendship group status results (without attachment style as a second factor) indicate
differences between central and peripheral members for how available their friends are to spend
time with, when the friendships of bullies and victims are investigated peripheral and central
status impacts both how available their friends are to spend time with as well as how available
they are to offer support and assistance.
In the area of emotional intelligence, victims who are peripheral members of friendship
groups are less able to understand their emotions and communicate their needs to others, have less
fulfilling relationships, are less able to empathize with others, are less realistic and flexible when
managing change, and have lower overall emotional intelligence than victims who are central
members of friendship groups. As discussed before, results of this study show that friendship
group status results (central or peripheral) impacts overall emotional intelligence. However,
when the friendship group status of victims is addressed, the issue of friendship group status
becomes even more important. These findings illustrate how not only is it important for victims
to be in a friendship group, but also that they are a central member of that group in order to
receive the full advantages of being in that friendship group. Research has indicated that having a
best friend buffers victims from many of the negative outcomes of victimization (Hodges et al.,
1999; Kochenderfer-Tadd & Skinner, 2002). Others have emphasized the importance of having
friends that will protect the victim from bullies and who care about their friends emotional well
being (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005). Although this study did not address the
102
particular attributes of friendship cited above, the finding that being a central member of a
group is more beneficial to victimized children and adolescents than being a peripheral member
identifies group status as another type of buffer present in friendships. Interestingly, there were
no differences among central bullies and peripheral bullies, possibly indicating that friendship
group status does not have as much of an influence on bullies as it does on victims in certain areas
of functioning. This proposition makes sense in light of prior research indicating that bullies are
able to make friends, become central members of groups, and participate in bullying activities
with their friends (Mouttapa et al., 2004). Therefore, whether or not they are a central member of
that group may not be as much of a concern for them since they only value the ability to be
involved in the friendship, and hence the ability to be involved in bullying tactics.
Loners
A small portion of this study investigated the functioning of loners, those children and
adolescents who have no friends in their class. Approximately 17% of the children and
adolescents in this study were classified as loners (33 out of 195) and it was found that loners are
more likely to have a preoccupied attachment style and more likely to be the victims of peer abuse
than the bullies. These results confirm prior research which suggests that children and
adolescents who are rejected by peers are often but not always the victims of peer abuse (Ladd,
Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997). Those who are rejected by their peers often have difficulty
initiating and maintaining any contact with peers, have poor academic performance, display
emotional maladjustment, and have reduced participation in classroom activities (Buhs & Ladd,
2001). Surprisingly, those classified as loners in this study did not differ much from those who
are members of friendship groups except for their tendency to contemplate their feelings when
confronted by difficult emotions and use distracting strategies to cope with stress. It is possible
103
that if this sample had included more loners there would have been more significant
differences.
Limitations o f Current Study
One of the major limitations for this study was the relatively small sample used. Since
this study investigated the impact of attachment style on friendship groups, it was necessary that a
large number of children and adolescents represent each insecure subtype. However, the sample
in this study only contained eighty-seven students who could be classified as one of the insecure
subtypes (28 preoccupied, 32 fearful, and 27 dismissive) versus the one hundred and eight
students classified as being securely attached. It is possible, therefore, that more significant
differences would have been obtained if a larger sample had been used. Another limitation is that
those students who were not given permission by their parents to participate in this study were
excluded from the friendship group nomination procedure. Therefore, the friendship groups that
were formed may not accurately reflect the friendships of those children and adolescents in this
study. In addition, it seems that Caucasian students were overrepresented in this study. Whereas
Caucasians represented 17% of the school population, 36% participated in this study. It has been
suggested that cultural beliefs about the importance of friendship groups impacts the extent to
which African- Americans were members of defined groups. Urberg and colleagues (1995), for
instance, found that African-Americans were not as likely to be members of school friendship
groups as were Caucasian students, possibly suggesting a higher involvement in neighborhood
friendship groups as opposed to school groups. Therefore, since this sample contained a limited
percentage of African-American students (10%) it is possible that it does not reflect an accurate
representation of their friendship groups.
The affect regulation method used in this study failed to detect differences among the
104
different friendship groups. This measure was a revised version of a one hundred and five
item adult affect regulation scale and was created specifically for this study. This is the first time
this measure was used in a research project and was therefore not subject to reliability and
validity analyses. The original scale was shortened to include the thirty-nine items most
appropriate for use with children and adolescents. The factor analysis used to create the subscales
resulted in five factors: Aggression and Withdrawal, Interpersonal Activities, Contemplation of
Feelings, Solitary Activities, and Help Seeking Behavior. The first factor, aggression and
withdrawal, contained items that assessed how often children and adolescents either withdrew or
engaged in physical fights when anxious or upset. These two behaviors, aggression and
withdrawal, are two very different ways to respond to anxiety and should not have been included
in the same subscale. The other subscales, however, contained items that were appropriately
grouped together. This measure was used because it was one of only a few self-report measures
available. Originally, the Emotion Regulation Checklist created by Shields and Cicchetti (1997)
was chosen as the affect regulation measure to be included in this study. However, this is a
teacher-report measure and was changed when concerns were raised by school administrators
about the time needed for teachers to complete a survey for each student in the study. In the
future the measure used in this study would not be recommended without further evaluation of its
reliability and validity.
The attachment scale used in this study was based on Bartholomew and Horowitzs (1991)
Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) which assesses four adult attachment categories. The
Adolescent Relationship Questionnaire (Scharfe, 1999) is a revised version of the RQ for
adolescents. This version uses the same four paragraph model as the RQ with minor changes to
the language in order to make it more appropriate for use with children and adolescents. This
105
attachment style measure is being used less in attachment research than it has in the past. One
of the other attachment measures used in this study, the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment-
IPPA (Greenberg and Armsden, 1987) is indicative of the trend in attachment towards looking at
areas such as the degree of trust, communication, and alienation that are present in relationships
instead of relying specifically on attachment categories. The four category model was chosen for
this study so that children and adolescents could be placed into one of four categories when the
data was analyzed. It is possible that had the IPPA been used to separate children and adolescents
into groups based on their scores for the above mentioned subscales (such as high trust vs. low
trust, high communication vs. low communication, and high alienation vs. low alienation),
different results would have been obtained.
One aspect of this research that was not carried out to the researchers satisfaction was the
method of classifying children and adolescents as bullies and victims. Due to school concerns,
students were not allowed to identify which children were bullies and which were victims.
Although the teacher reports that were used may have been reliable for in-class peer abuse, those
children and adolescents who participated in peer abuse outside of class may not have been
identified.
Directions for Future Research
Children and adolescents in this study classified as having a fearful attachment style
consistently performed poorly in certain areas of friendship quality, affect regulation, and
emotional intelligence. Of more interest, when fearful children and adolescents were peripheral
members of groups, their scores on these measures were worse than both those fearful who were
central members of groups and those peripheral members of groups who were classified as a
different insecure attachment style. A future direction of research would be to investigate the
parent and peer relationships of the fearful and assess how their friendships and possible
overall social and emotional adjustment may be different from those with other attachment styles.
One of the findings in this study pointed to fearful bullies as having higher companionship and
recreation scores on the friendship quality measure than other fearful children and adolescents.
Further exploration of what these friendships are like is warranted. Do these friendships foster
aggressive behaviors, making it easier for these children and adolescents to feel comfortable with
their actions? Do they try to stop them from engaging in these behaviors and what are the
consequences of doing so? Do they ignore their friends bullying tactics, enabling them to
continue these actions? The family lives of these children and adolescents are of interest as well.
Whether their parents are abusive or neglectful would be an important factor in understanding
how these children and adolescents become bullies. Prior research focusing on the families of
aggressive youth often generalize findings based on levels of intrusiveness, supportiveness, and
aggressiveness (East, 1991; Lyons-Ruth, 1996; Orpinas & Horne, 2006). When attachment is
considered it does focus on the family relationships of the insecure-avoidant. However, since this
study utilized Bartholomew and Horowitzs (1991) attachment style classification system that
separates the insecure-avoidant style into fearful and dismissive, the prior findings may not be as
relevant. Since this study found significant differences for fearful bullies, future research on this
particular subset of bullies is warranted. It is possible that fearful children and adolescents who
are bullies need more assistance from the school system. In addition, they may require individual
or family counseling, not only to combat the bullying actions but also for them to see the value of
an adequate and caring support system.
The issue of affect regulation and its relationship to friendship warrants further study.
Results of this study indicate that the insecurely attached had higher stress management scores (as
107
measured by the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory), indicating that they are able to work
well under pressure and respond to stress without emotional outbursts. It is possible that the
insecurely attached are emotionally under controlled, limiting their ability to communicate with
peers and receive assistance when under stress. Although the affect regulation measure used in
this study did not find significant differences among friendship groups, it is possible that
differences would have emerged if another affect regulation measure was used. It is possible that
insecurely attached children need more assistance in identifying and understanding their emotions
as well as assistance in coping with them.
The friendship group status (central or peripheral status) of bullies and victims was
discussed in this research. Based on the results of this study, being central or peripheral members
of groups is related to the emotional intelligence of bullies and victims. For instance, in the area
of emotional intelligence central victims had higher scores on all of the subscales than the
peripheral victims, indicating the relationship between group status and emotional intelligence.
However, a cause and effect relationship could not be established through this research. It would
be interesting to determine if the central victims already had higher emotional intelligence which
enabled them to become central members of groups. Future study could also help create school
wide assistance programs that would offer peripheral victims (and other children as well) more
support in an effort to help them become involved in more fulfilling friendships and help them
cope with the stressors they confront in school. There are many intervention programs already in
existence that aim to reduce the incidences of bullying. Some interventions focus on assisting
children in the development of certain skills such as prosocial behavior, responsibility, and
empathy (Menesini, Codecasa, Benelli, & Cowie, 2003). Others focus on school-wide counseling
programs for both bullies and victims that include peer support, parental intervention, and
108
endorsement of a school-wide anti-bullying position (Orpinas & Horne, 2006). Based on the
findings of this study, programs that include assisting children in the development of prosocial
behaviors and empathy, the implementation of anti-bullying policies, and the use of counseling
programs would be most beneficial. Understanding and utilizing the benefits of friendship would
also assist program development. Intervention programs that assist children in making and
keeping friends would be of great value to all children and adolescents, especially those who are
the victims and perpetrators of peer abuse. In addition, programs that focus on teaching children
and adolescents how to be assertive rather than aggressive when solving problems and expressing
themselves could assist in the reduction of peer abuse.
There are personality characteristics present in children and adolescents that were not
addressed in this research and it is possible that these characteristics contributed to the findings of
this research. For instance, in the findings for victimized central and peripheral members of
groups that were discussed above, it is possible that personality traits such as temperament
impacted the results. It is possible that victimized children and adolescents who are less irritable
and display moderate amounts of internalizing (depression, low self-esteem) and/or externalizing
(fighting, temper tantrums) behaviors are more likely to become central members of groups than
those victims whose temperaments are more irritable and contain more internalizing and
externalizing behaviors. Personality characteristics such as temperament, ego strength,
neuroticism, self-esteem, self-control, resilience, and agreeableness (Dunn, 2004) could have
contributed to how the children and adolescents in this research performed on the various
measures. Research on loners (those who are rejected by peers) also investigates the personality
characteristics of these children and adolescents that may contribute to their loner status. An
understanding of the personality characteristics of both those who are classified as loners and
109
victims may also help in identifying warning signs for school violence. Whether these
children and adolescents display particular patterns of behavior, such as increases in withdrawal
and irritability, before they resort to violence would assist school counselors in identifying at risk
students. The family relationships of loners and the parenting styles of their parents are important
areas for future research. Whether parents actively assist their children with the formation and
maintenance of friendships (i.e.: driving them to classmates homes, allowing them to become
involved in after-school activities), or if they ignore this aspect of their childrens lives would be a
particularly informative avenue of research.
Conclusions
The literature review included in this study illustrates how it is well known that children
and adolescents benefit from forming fulfilling friendships. Overall findings indicate first, that
friendship group membership, specifically those groups based on attachment (secure only, secure-
insecure, and insecure only) is related to the quality of friendships that children and adolescents
form. This is not surprising considering that attachment style itself is based on the quality of
relationships to caregivers. Second, it appears that central or peripheral group status is related to
emotional intelligence, particularly for those children and adolescents who are insecurely
attached. It seems that when attachment and group status are taken into account, the insecurely
attached who are central members of groups have higher levels of emotional intelligence than
those who are peripheral members. This is an interesting finding and points to the importance
that group status has on insecure children and adolescents. Third, when investigating friendships
of bullies and victims, once again emotional intelligence stands out as a main difference. It seems
that group membership and group status are related to victims emotional intelligence scores
whereas only group membership is related to bullies emotional intelligence scores, indicative of
1 1 0
the differences between the friendships of bullies and victims. Fourth, the findings for those
children and adolescents who have a fearful attachment style indicate that these children and
adolescents seem to have fewer positive interactions with peers and lower scores in the various
areas of functioning assessed by this research.
This study illustrated the unique relationship that attachment style has to friendship.
Based on these findings, with whom children and adolescents form friendships is of great
importance. The differences in friendship quality between friendship groups containing secure
only, secure-insecure, and insecure only children and adolescents indicates that overall, secure
only groups had better quality friendships than secure-insecure and insecure only groups, but
more importantly, that secure-insecure groups had better quality friendships than insecure only
groups. Flence, the hypothesis that forming friendships with higher functioning children and
adolescents positively influences those who are lower functioning was confirmed. Although a
cause and effect relationship can not be established, it is still an important finding that indicates
the relationship between friendship and attachment. This also held true for victims of peer abuse.
When they were in friendship groups with only the insecurely attached, their emotional
intelligence scores were lower than those victims who were in groups with the securely and
insecurely attached.
Whether children and adolescents are central or peripheral members of their friendship
groups was also found to be highly important, especially for the insecurely attached. The main
effect occurred in the area of emotional intelligence, where insecurely attached central members
of groups had more abilities in this area than the insecurely attached peripheral members.
Therefore, whereas the friendship group itself may help insecurely attached children function
better socially, if they are able to become central members of groups, the benefits may increase.
I l l
Again, although a cause and effect relationship can not be established, it is an important
finding that warrants attention. Interestingly, there were no differences between the securely
attached central or peripheral members of groups which further show the importance that group
status has for the insecure. More specifically, since the secure children and adolescents
emotional intelligence is not related to central or peripheral status it shows that by being securely
attached their emotional intelligence skills are intact and not influenced by their friendships. In
contrast, the insecurely attached emotional intelligence scores are related to their friendships and
may improve when they form friendships with higher functioning peers.
That group membership and group status are related to victims emotional intelligence
scores whereas only group membership was related to bullies emotional intelligence scores is an
interesting finding. Since victims of peer abuse are often limited in their abilities to function
socially, it is necessary to identify which aspects of friendship formation have the most impact on
victims in order to assist them. It seems that when victims are in friendship groups that contain
only the insecurely attached, their overall emotional intelligence scores are lower than those
victims who are in friendship groups with both the secure and insecure. Since it was found that
most victims of peer abuse are insecurely attached, it seems that they have more overall emotional
intelligence when they are friends with the securely attached. In addition, when the victims are
central members of groups their performance in the many areas of emotional intelligence is higher
than those victims who are peripheral members of groups. These two findings illustrate the
importance for victims to not only be members of certain friendship groups (secure-insecure vs.
insecure only) but also to be central members. The fact that emotional intelligence was one of the
only differences between central and peripheral victims points to the importance of emotional
intelligence in how victims function socially. Future research may attempt to find out if the
victims higher emotional intelligence scores allow them to become central members of groups
or if these abilities increase as they become associated with higher functioning peers. It is
possible that having emotional intelligence, although not stopping them from being bullied by
others, does allow them to become central members of friendship groups, positively impacting
them in a variety of ways. These findings for victims become even more informative when they
are compared to the findings for bullies. It seems that when bullies are members of any type of
friendship group (secure only, secure-insecure, or insecure only) they have higher emotional
intelligence scores than if they are not a member of a group. Otherwise, there are no differences
between bullies based on their friendship group membership, unlike victims who benefited from
being in a secure-insecure group. This indicates that for bullies, friendship alone is related to
emotional intelligence. This is not surprising considering the findings that bullies often value the
companionship that friendship offers more than they value the more intimate aspects of
friendships, making the type of friendship less of an issue for bullies. In addition, there were no
differences in emotional intelligence between bullies who were central members of group and
those who were peripheral members of groups, indicating that emotional intelligence is not as
related to the friendships of bullies as much as it is for victims. Of interest is the fact that bullies
who were not members of friendship groups had lower emotional intelligence scores than victims
in groups. This shows that once bullies are members of any type of group, their emotional
intelligence scores increase whereas victims emotional intelligence scores tend to increase only
when they are members of particular groups and have a high status.
The results obtained in this study for those children and adolescents classified as having a
fearful attachment style are most interesting. Compared to other attachment styles, these children
and adolescents appear to have lower quality friendships and fewer appropriate methods to handle
113
stress (i.e. aggression and withdrawal, distraction strategies). When their friendship group
status is taken into account, fearful peripheral members of groups have lower perceived friendship
quality than other peripheral members of varying attachment styles as well as lower friendship
quality than fearful central members of groups, illustrating the unique position of the fearful.
Interestingly, it seems that those children and adolescents who are classified as bullies and have a
fearful attachment style are able to form friendships that are available for companionship alone
more than other fearful children and adolescents and hence more likely to find friends that
encourage their bullying tactics. It was proposed that the ability for these children and
adolescents to form friendships that they felt good about enabled them to participate in bullying
activities more readily than if they were in friendships that did not allow this to happen. What is
it, therefore, about the friendship groups of fearful bullies that is different from the friendships of
others? Although this research can not answer that question, it is an interesting topic for future
study. Knowing why this interaction occurs would be helpful in school and clinical settings.
This research provided evidence linking attachment style, friendship group membership,
and group status to the areas of friendship quality and emotional intelligence. Although the
differences between groups that were expected in the areas of coping skills and affect regulation
did not occur, the findings related to friendship quality and emotional intelligence are most
interesting. Both friendship quality and emotional intelligence are related to interpersonal
exchanges, so it is not a surprise that research focused on friendships would find this relationship.
This studys focus on attachment style, friendship groups, and group status added new pieces to
the extensive research on friendships. It is hoped that a greater understanding of how friendships
impact all children and adolescents will enable researchers, clinicians, and school administrators
to effectively help those students most in need.
114
References
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns o f attachment: A
psychological study o f the strange situation. Oxford, England: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Allen, J., Marsh, P., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K., Land, D., Jodi, K., et al. (2002).
Attachment and autonomy as predictors of the development of social skills and
delinquency during midadolescence. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
70(1), 56-66.
Armsden, G.C., & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment: Relationships to well-being in adolescence. Journal o f Youth and
Adolescence, 16(5), 427-454.
Bagwell, C. L, Coie, J.D., Terry, R.A., & Lochman, J.E. (2000). Peer clique participation
and social status in preadolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 280-305.
Barret, P., Rapee, R., Dadds, M., & Ryan, S. (1996). Family enhancement of cognitive
style in anxious and aggressive children. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology,
24(2), 187-203.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,
61(2), 226-244.
Barry, C.M., & Wentzel, K.R. (2006). Friend influence on prosocial behavior: The role of
motivational factors and friendship characteristics. Developmental Psychology, 42(1),
153-163.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. (2000). BarOn emotional quotient inventory: Youth version
technical manual. Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Batsche, G., & Knoff, H. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive
problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23(2), 165-174.
Bernstein, J., & Watson, M. (1997). Children who are targets of bullying: A victim
pattern. Journal o f Interpersonal Violence, 12(4), 483-498.
Bierman, K., Smoot, D., & Aumiller, K. (1993). Characteristics of aggressive-rejected,
aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) boys. Child Development, 64(1),
139-151.
Bollmer, J.M., Milich, R., Harris, M., & Maras, M. (2005). A friend in need: The role of
friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal o f
Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 701-712.
115
Bonanno, G., Wortman, C., Lehman, D., Tweed, R., Haring, M., Sonnega, J., et al.
(2002). Resilience to loss and chronic grief: A prospective study from preloss to 18-
months postloss. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1150-1164.
Boulton, M., & Smith, P. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children:
Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British
Journal o f Developmental Psychology, 12(3), 315-329.
Bowers, S., Smith, P., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of bullies,
victims and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal o f Social and Personal
Relationships, 11(2), 215-232.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: Aetiology and
psychopathology in the light of attachment theory. British Journal o f Psychiatry, 130,
201- 210.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human
development. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.
Buhs, E.S., & Ladd, G.W. (2001). Peer rejection as an antecedent of young childrens
school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology,
37(4), 550-560.
Byrne, D. & Nelson, D. (1965). The effect of topic importance and attitude similarity -
dissimilarity on attraction in a multistranger design. Psychonomic Science, 3(10) 1965,
449-450.
Cairns, R.B., Cairns, B.D, Neckerman, H., & Gest, S. (1988). Social networks and
aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24(6),
815-823.
Cairns, R.B, Leung, M., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B.D. (1995). Friendships and social
networks in childhood and adolescence: Fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child
Development, 66, 1330-1345.
Carlo, G., Knight, G., Eisenberg, N. & Rotenberg, K. (1991). Cognitive processes and
prosocial behaviors among children: The role of affective attributions and reconciliations.
Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 456-461.
Clark, M.L., & Drewry, D.L. (1985). Similarity and reciprocity in the friendships of
elementary school children. Child Study Journal, 15(4), 251-264.
Coie, J.D, Dodge, K.A, Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer
relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys' play groups. Child Development,
62(4), 812-826.
116
Compas, B.E., Connor-Smith, J.K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A.H., & Wadsworth, M.E.
(2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and
potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 81-127.
Contreras, J.M., Kerns, K.A., Weimer, B.L., Gentzler, A.L., & Tomich, P.L. (2000).
Emotion regulation as a mediator of associations between mother-child attachment and
peer relationships in middle childhood. Journal o f Family Psychology, 14(1), 111-124.
Crick, N.R., & Dodge, K.A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-
processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological-Bulletin, 115(1),
74-101.
Crick, N.R., & Ladd, G.W. (1990). Childrens perceptions of the outcomes of social
strategies: Do the ends justify being mean? Developmental Psychology, 26(4), 612-620.
Dix, T. & Lochman, J.E. (1990). Social cognition and negative reactions to children: A
comparison of mothers of aggressive and nonaggressive boys. Journal o f Social and
Clinical Psychology, 9(4), 418-438.
Dodge, K.A. (1993). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct
disorder and depression. Annual-Review-of-Psychology, 44, 559-584.
Dodge, K.A & Coie, J.D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and
proactive aggression in children's peer groups. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 53(6), 1146-1158.
Dodge, K.A., Laird, R., Lochman, J.E., & Zelli, A. (2002). Multidimensional latent-
construct analysis of childrens social information processing patterns: Correlations with
aggressive behavior problems. Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 60-73.
Duncan, R. (1999). Maltreatment by parents and peers: The relationship between child
abuse, bully victimization, and psychological distress. Child Maltreatment: Journal o f the
American Professional Society on the Abuse o f Children, 4(1), 45-55.
Dunn, J. (2004). Childrens friendships: The beginning o f intimacy. Massachusetts:
Blackwell Publishing.
East, P. (1991). The parent-child relationships of withdrawn, aggressive, and sociable
children: Child and parent perspectives. Merrill-Palmer-Quarterly, 37(3), 425-443.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Guthrie, I., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and
regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal o f Personality
and Social Psychology, 78(1), 136-157.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Shepard, S., Murphy, B., Jones, S., & Guthrie, I. (1998).
Contemporaneous and longitudinal prediction of children's sympathy from dispositional
117
regulation and emotionality. Developmentcil-Psychology, 34(5), 910-924.
Engels, R.C.M.E., Finkenauer, C., Meeus, W., & Dekovic, M. (2001). Parental
attachment and adolescents emotional adjustment: The associations with social skills and
relational competence. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 428-439.
Feltham, R. (1985). Friendship in normal and socially deviant children. Journal o f Early
Adolescence, 5(3), 1985, 371-382.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic
Books Inc.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New
York, NY: Bantam Books.
Goodman, S., Barfoot, B., Frye, A., & Belli, A. (1999). Dimensions of marital conflict
and children's social problem-solving skills. Journal o f Family Psychology, 13(1), 33-45.
Gross, J.J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review.
Review o f General Psychology, 2(3), 271-299.
Grotpeter, J.K., & Crick, N.R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and
friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328-2338.
Haapasalo, J. & Tremblay, R. (1994). Physically aggressive boys from ages 6 to 12:
Family background, parenting behavior, and prediction of delinquency. Journal o f
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 1044-1052.
Harris, J. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of
development. Psychological Review, 102(3) Jul 1995, 458-489.
Harris, J. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.
Harris, J. (2006). No two alike: Human nature and human individuality. New York, NY: V.W.
Norton & Company, Inc.
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research
on close relationships. Psychological-Inquiry, 5(1), 1-22.
Hodges, E.V.E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W.M. (1999). The power of
friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental
Psychology, 35(1), 94-101.
Hoover, J., & Hazier, R. (1991). Bullies and victims. Elementary School Guidance and
Counseling, 25(3), 212-219.
118
Hoover, J., Oliver, R., Hazier, R. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in
the Midwestern USA. School-Psychology-International, 13(1), 5-16.
Horowitz, L.M., Rosenberg, S.E., & Bartholomew, K. (1993). Interpersonal problems,
attachment styles, and outcome of brief dynamic psychotherapy. Journal o f Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 61(4), 549-560.
Hughes, J., Robinson, M., & Moore, L. (1991). Children's attributions for peers' positive
behaviors: Social status differences. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, 19(6), 645-
657.
Kemp, M., & Neimeyer, G. (1999). Interpersonal Attachment: experiencing, expressing,
and coping with stress. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 388-394.
Kerns, K.A.. Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (1996). Peer relationships and preadolescents
perceptions of security in the child-mother relationship. Developmental Psychology, 32(3),
457-466.
Kerns, K.A., & Richardson, R.A. (Eds.). (2005). Attachment in middle childhood. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Kobak, R., & Duemmler, S. (1994). Attachment and conversation: Toward a discourse
analysis of adolescent and adult security. Advances in Personal Relationships, 5.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B.J, & Skinner, K. (2002). Childrens coping strategies: Moderators
of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 267-278.
Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F., Kresanov, K., Linna, S.L., et
al. (1998). Bullying and psychiatric symptoms among elementary school-age children.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(7), 705-717.
Kupersmidt, J.B., DeRosier, M.E., & Patterson, C.P. (1995). Similarity as the basis for
childrens friendships: The roles of sociometric status, aggressive and withdrawn
behavior, academic achievement and demographic characteristics. Journal o f Social and
Personal Relationships, 12(3), 439-452.
Ladd, G.W. (1983). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school
settings. Merrill-Paimer Quarterly, 29, 283-307.
Ladd, G.W., Kochenderfer, B.J., & Coleman, C.C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance,
friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to
childrens school adjustment? Child Development, 68(6), 1181-1197.
Lapidos, A., Yaar-Golan, M., & Curtis, R. (2006, June). Emotional intelligence,
attachment style, and recollections of parents behaviors. Paper presented at the meeting
119
of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Lieberman, M., Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (1999). Developmental patterns in security
of attachment to mother and father in late childhood and early adolescence: Associations
with peer relations. Child Development, 70(1), 202-213.
Lochman, J.E., & Dodge, K.A. (1994). Social-cognitive processes of severely violent,
moderately aggressive, and nonaggressive boys. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 62(2), 366-374.
Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P., Cote, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and
the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5(1), 113-118.
Lopez, F.G., Melendez, M.C., Sauer, E.M., Berger, E., & Wyssmann, J. (1998). Internal
working models, self-reported problems, and help seeking attitudes among college
students. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 45(1), 79-83.
Lyons-Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive
behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal o f
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(1), 64-73.
Marked, R. & Asher, S. (1984). Children's interactions in dyads: Interpersonal influence
and sociometric status. Child-Development, 55(4), 1412-1424.
Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing childrens
responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in
Italian middle schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 1-14.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies,
and posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the gulf war in Israel. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 817-826.
Mouttapa, M., Valente, T., Gallagher, P., Rohrback, L.A., Unger, J.B. (2004). Social
network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39(154), 315-335.
Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment. Journal o f the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.
Oliver, R., Oaks, I., & Hoover, J. (1994). Family issues and interventions in bully and
victim relationships. School-Counselor, 41(3) Jan 1994, 199-202.
Orpinas, P., & Home, A.M. (2006). Bullying prevention: Creating a positive school
climate and developing social competence. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
1 2 0
Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R. (1989). Friendship quality questionnaire instructions and
manual. Childrens Friendship Project, University of Michigan.
Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle
childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social
dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 611-621.
Pellegrini, A. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research.
Journal o f Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 165-176.
Phillipsen, L. (1999). Associations between age, gender, and group acceptance and three
components of friendship quality. Journal o f Early Adolescence, 19(4), 438-465.
Phillipsen , L., Deptula, D., & Cohen, R. (1999). Relating characteristics of children and
their friends to relational and overt aggression. Child Study Journal, 29(4), 269-290.
Pierce, K., & Cohen, R. (1995). Aggressors and their victims: Toward a contextual
framework for understanding children's aggressor/victim relationships. Developmental
Review, 15(3), 292-310.
Pope, A.W., & Bierman, K.L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer problems and antisocial
activities: the relative roles of aggression and dysregulation. Developmental Psychology,
35(2), 335-346.
Pope, A.W., Bierman, K.L. & Mumma, G. (1991). Aggression, hyperactivity, and
inattention-immaturity: Behavior dimensions associated with peer rejection in elementary
school boys. Developmental-Psychology, 27(4), 663-671.
Program for Prevention Research. (1999). Manual for the Childrens Coping Strategies
Checklist and the How I Coped Under Pressure Scale. Arizona State University.
Ray, G.E., & Cohen, R. (1995). Best friend networks of children across settings. Child
Study Journal, 25(3), 169-189.
Ray, G.E, Cohen, R., Secrist, M.E., & Duncan, M.K. (1997). Relating aggressive and
victimization behaviors to childrens sociometric status and friendships. Journal o f Social
and Personal Relationships, 41(1), 95-108.
Richard, B. & Dodge, K. (1982). Social maladjustment and problem solving in school-
aged children. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(2), 226-233.
Roberts, W. & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy, emotional expressiveness, and prosocial
behavior. Child-Development, 67(2), 449-470.
Rogers, M. & Tisak, M. (1996). Children's reasoning about responses to peer aggression:
Victim's and witness's expected and prescribed behaviors. Aggressive-Behavior, 22(4),
1 2 1
259-269.
Rose, A.J., & Asher, S.R. (1999). Childrens goals and strategies in response to conflicts
within a friendship. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 66-79.
Rubin, K.H., Dwyer, K.M., Booth-LaForce, C., Kim, A.H., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2004).
Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence. Journal o f
Early Adolescence, 24(4), 326-356.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Schaffer, C. (2000). [Affect regulation scale]. Unpublished measure.
Scharfe, E. (1999). A comparison of self-report and interview ratings of attachment.
Unpublished manuscript.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., and Bates, J.E. (2000). Friendship as a
moderating factor in the pathway between early harsh home environment and later
victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 646-662.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The
development and validation of a new criterion q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology,
33(6), 906-916.
Shulman, S., Elicker, J., & Sroufe, L.A. (1994). Stages of friendship growth in
preadolescence as related to attachment history. Journal o f Social and Personal
Relationships, 11, 341-361.
Simpson, J., Rholes, W.S., & Nelligan, J.S. (1992). Support seeking and giving within
couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434-446.
Simpson, J., Rholes, W.S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An
attachment perspective. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899-914.
Slee, P. (1993). Bullying: A preliminary investigation of its nature and the effects of
social cognition. Early Child Development and Care, 87, 47-57.
Sroufe, L.A. (1986). Appraisal: Bowlby's contribution to psychoanalytic theory and
developmental psychologyattachment, separation, loss. Journal o f Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 27(6), 841-849.
Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory o f psychiatry. (Flelen S. Perry and Mary
Lad Gawel, Eds.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co, Inc.
1 2 2
Troy, M., & Sroufe, L.A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment
relationship history. Journal o f the American Academy o f Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 26(2), 166-172.
United States Census Bureau (2000). Your gateway to census 2000. Retrieved March 18,
2006, from http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.
Urberg, K.A., Dggirmencigglu, S.M., Tolson, J.M., & Halliday-Scher, K. (1995). The
structure of adolescent peer networks. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 540-574.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A.J., De Winter, A.F., Verhulst, F.C., & Ormel,
J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies,
victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41(4),
672-682.
123
Appendixes
124
CONSENT FORM
Dear Parent/Guardian:
My name is Keri Cassesa and I am a Doctoral Student at the Derner Institute of Advanced
Psychological Studies, Adelphi University, New York. I am currently interested in investigating
the formation, maintenance, and quality of friendships in middle school children. Research on
this topic is particularly valuable considering current increases in school violence and peer
victimization, and your childs participation in this study may help us further understand these
events.
Your child will be given surveys that assess how they interact with their friends, how they cope
with certain life events, how they relate to important people in their lives, and how they
understand and express emotions. Your child will participate in this research at school but the
administration of these questionnaires will not interfere with their school work. Participation is
voluntary and non-participation will have no impact on your childs status in school. The
administration of the questionnaires will take place during one session, lasting approximately two
hours.
Your childs responses to the surveys, as well as any other information that is provided to the
research staff, will be kept confidential and available only to those involved in the research. Your
childs name will be kept strictly confidential and they will be identified by numerical code only.
Upon completion of this study I will provide general results to anyone who is interested. There
are no known risks associated with this type of study. If you have any questions do not hesitate to
contact me at 201-736-2631 or my supervisor, Dr. Rebecca Curtis at 212-496-4128 or 516-877-
4812.
Thank you,
Keri Cassesa
I give my child permission to participate in this research.
I do not give my child permission to participate in this research.
Childs Name Parents Signature
Grade Teachers Name
Friendship Group Nomination Form
125
NAME:__________________________
GRADE:_________________________
TEACHER:______________________
Please list the names of your closest friends
1. ____________________________________
2 . _______________________________________________________________________________
3 . ________________________________________________________________________
4 . ________________________________________________________________________
5 . ________________________________________________________________________
6. ________________________________________________________________________________________
7 . ________________________________________________________________________
8. ________________________________________________________________________________________
9 . ________________________________________________________________________
1 0 . ________________________________________________________________________________________
1 1 . _______________________________________________________________________________
1 2 .
Teacher Rating Scale-Identification of Bullies and Victims
NAME: GRADE:
Please list which students you believe get picked on the most by their classmates (if there
not enough room provided please continue of the back of the paper).
1.
2.
3 .
4 .
5 .
Please list which students you believe pick on their classmates the most
2.
3 .
4 .
5 .
6.
Adolescent Relationship Scale (Attachment Style)
127
Below are 4 different ways that kids act when they are with other people. Please read each
paragraph and decide how much you are like each one when you are with people.
1. It is easy for me to feel close to people. I feel OK asking other people for help and I know
that they will usually help me. When people ask me for help they can count on me. I
dont worry about being alone and I dont worry about others not liking me.
Not at all Kind of Very much
like me like me like me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. It is hard for me to feel close to people. I want to be close to people, but I find it
hard to trust them. I find it hard to ask people for help. I worry that if I get too
close to people they will end up hurting me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I want to be really close to people, but they dont want to get that close to me. I
am unhappy if I dont have people that I feel close to. I sometimes think that I
care about people more than they care about me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I dont care if I am close to people. It is very important for me not to ask for
help, because I like to do things on my own. I dont like it if people ask me for
help.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Adolescent Relationship Scales Questionnaire (Attachment Style)
128
Think about all of the people in your life. Now read each of the following statements and
rate how much it describes your feelings:_________ ___________ __________ __________
Not
like me
1
A little
like me
2
Somewhat
like me
3
A lot like
me
4
Exactly
like me
5
1. I find it hard to count on
other people
2. It is very important to me
to feel independent
3 . 1find it easy to get
emotionally close to others
4 . 1worry that I will be hurt
if I become too close to
others
5. I am comfortable without
close emotional relationships
6 . 1want to be completely
emotionally close with others
7 . 1worry about being alone
8. I am comfortable
depending on other people.
9 . 1 find it difficult to trust
others completely
10.1am comfortable having
other people depend on me
11.1worry that others don't
value me as much as I value
them
12. It is very important to me
to do things on my own
13. Id rather not have other
people depend on me
14.1am kind of
uncomfortable being
emotionally close to people
15. I find that people dont
want to get as close as I
would like
16.1prefer not to depend on
people
17.1worry about having
people not accept me
129
Friendship Quality Questionnaire
Think about your friendships with your closest friends. Answer the following questions by
writing the number that tells how true that is of your friendship
Page 1 FQQ_______________________________ _________ ___________ _______________
Not at
all true
A little
true
Somewha
t true
Pretty
true
Reall
y true
1 2 3 4 5
1. My friends and I live really close
to each other
2. My friends and I always sit
together at lunch
3. My friends and I get mad at each
other a lot
4. My friends tell me Im good at
things
5. If other kids were talking behind
my back, my friends would always
stick up for me
6. My friends and I make each other
feel important and special
7. My friends and I always pick
each other as partners
8. If my friends hurt my feelings,
they say Im sorry
9 . 1can think of some times when
my friends said mean things about
me to other kids
10.1can always count on my
friends for good ideas about games
to play
11. If my friends and I get mad at
each other, we always talk about
how to get over it
12. My friends would still like me
even if other kids didnt like me at
all
13. My friends tell me Im pretty
smart
14. My friends and I are always
telling each other about our
problems
15. My friends make me feel good
about my ideas
130
Page 2 FQQ
Not at
all true
1
A little
true
2
Somewha
t true
3
Pretty
true
4
Reall
y true
5
16. When Im mad about something
that happened to me, I can always
talk to my friends about it
17. My friends and I help each
other with chores or other things
18. My friends and I do special
favors for each other
19. My friends and I do fun things
together a lot
20. My friends and I argue a lot
21.1 can always count on my
friends to keep promises
22. My friends and I go to each
others houses after school and on
weekends
23. My friends and I always play
together at recess
24. When Im having trouble
figuring out something, I usually
ask my friends for help and advice
25. My friends and I talk about
things that make us sad
26. My friends and I always make
up easily when we have a fight
27. My friends and I fight
28. My friends and I always share
things like sticker, toys, and games
with each other
29. If my friends and I are mad at
each other, we always talk about
what would help make us feel better
30. If I told my friends a secret, I
could trust them not to tell anyone
else
31. My friends and I bug each other
32. My friends and I always come
up with good ideas on ways to do
things
Page 3 FQQ
Not at
all true
1
A little
true
2
Somewha
t true
3
Pretty
true
4
Reall
y true
5
33. My friends and I loan each
other things all the time
34. My friends often help me with
things so I can get done quicker
35. My friends and I always get
over our arguments really quickly
36. My friends and I always count
on each other for ideas on how to
get things done
37. My friends dont listen to me
38. My friends and I tell each other
private things a lot
39. My friends and I help each
other with schoolwork a lot
4 0 . 1can think of lots of secrets my
friends and I have told each other
41. My friends care about my
feelings
132
Reactions to Teasing
When other kids tease you, make fun of you, or bully you how often do you do the
following?
Do you: Never
1
Hardly
Ever
2
Sometime
s
3
Most of
the time
4
Always
5
Tell a friend
Walk away and sit by
myself
Hit them
Tell a teacher
I feel angry
Tease them back
Nothing
Tell my parents
It doesnt bother me
I feel sad
133
Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist 2
Instructions: When faced with a problem, kids do different things in order to solve the problem or to
make themselves feel better.
Below is a list of things kids may do when faced with a problem. For each item, select the response
that best describes how often you do the behavior when you have a problem. There are no right or
wrong answers, just say how often you do each thing in order to solve the problem or to make
yourself feel better.
WHEN I HAVE A PROBLEM, I
Page 1 CCSC
Never
1
Sometimes
2
Often
3
Most of
the time
4
1. Listen to music
2. Think about what I could do before I
do something
3. Write down my feelings
4. Do something to make things better
5. Try to notice or think about only the
good things in life
6. Go bicycle riding
7. Try to stay away from the problem
8. Try to put it out of my mind
9. Figure out what I can do by talking
with one of my friends
10. Think about why it has happened
11. Think about what would happen
before I decide what to do
12. Try to make things better by
changing what I do
13. Talk about how I am feeling with
my mother or father
14. Tell myself it will be over in a short
time
15. Play sports
16. Talk about how I am feeling with
some adult who is not in my family
134
Page 2 CCSC Never
1
Sometimes
2
Often
3
Most of
the time
4
17. Cry by myself
18. Ask God to help me understand it
19. Go walking
20. Imagine how Id like things to be
21. Talk to my brother or sister about
how to make things better
22. Try to understand it better by
thinking about it
23. Read a book or magazine
24. Try to stay away from things that
make me feel upset
25. Try to solve the problem by talking
with my mother or father
26. Think about what I can learn from
the problem
27. Let out feelings to my pet or stuffed
animal
28. Think about which things are best
to do to handle the problem
29. Talk with my brother or sister about
my feelings
30. Wait and hope that things will get
better
31. Think about what I need to know so
I can solve the problem
32. Go skateboarding or roller skating
33. Talk with one of my friends about
my feelings
34. Watch TV
35. Avoid the people that make me feel
bad
135
Page 3 CCSC Never
1
Sometimes
2
Often
3
Most of
the time
4
36. Do something to solve the problem
37. Remind myself that things could be
worse
38. Do some exercise
39. Try to figure out what I can do by
talking to an adult who is not in my
family
40. Avoid it by going to my room
41. Try to figure out why things like
this happen
42. Wish that things were better
43. Tell myself its not worth getting
upset about
44. Do something like video games or a
hobby
45. Do something in order to get
something good out of it
136
Affect Regulation Scale
When you are experiencing painful feelings that are hard for you to deal with, how often do
you do the following things?
Page 1 Never
1
Almost
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of
the Time
4
Always
5
1. Watch TV
2. Bite my nails
3. Cry
4. Play video games
5. Do my homework
6. Think about how I feel
7. Try to explain why I feel this
way
8. Be alone
9. Listen to music
10. Clean my room
11. Sit quietly and think
12. Have a snack
13. Write in my diary
14. Think about what my friends
would do
15. Play with my pet
16. Wish it werent happening to
me
17. Play with my hair
18. Play with my friends
19. Wish you were somewhere else
137
Page 2 Never
1
Almost
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of
the Time
4
Always
5
20. Make plans to hang out with
friends
21. Play with my brother or sister
22. Eat a lot of food
23. Talk to my parents
24. Call a friend
25. Pick on other kids
26. Daydream
27. Talk to my teacher
28. Play sports
29. Go on the internet
30. Pray
31. Blame someone else
32. Think about positive/good
things
33. Get a headache
34. Ask someone for help
35. Go to sleep
36. Put myself down
37. Scream, yell, or punch things
38. Wait for my feelings to go
away
39. Get a stomach ache
Due to copyright laws the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version and the
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment are not included in the appendix.

Attachment Style

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Attachment Style

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Attachment Style, Centrality of Groups Membership.

Reported Emotional Intelligence

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen