Intimacy of Friendship, Interpersonal

Competence, and A4justment during

Preadolescence and Adolescence

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

hypotheses that (a) intimacy offriendshipis more integral to socioemotional adjustment during
adolescence than preadolescence, and (b) that competence in close relationship skills is more

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

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

,s, intimacy has most often been equated

nature and significance of friendship during

Qourard, 1979), although Sullivan (1953), and

early adolescence (Bemdt, 1982; Buhrmester

& Furman, 1986; Gottman & Mettetal, 1987;
SuIIivan, 1953). Friendships among preschool
and elementary school-aged children revolve
primarily around playmate activities and
group acceptance, whereas adolescent friend-

more recently Reis and Shaver (1988), indicated that the core process of intimate interactions is not disclosure, per se, butratherthe
experiences of feeling understood, validated,
and cared for that accompany self-disclosure,
As a feature of relationships, intimacy usually

J functioning (Buhrmester &

furman, iy?H>; Sullivan, 1953), few studies
have empirically examined diese implications. The present study investigated whether
there are age differences between preadolescence and adolescence in how important intimacy of friendship is to adjustment and
growth of interpersonal competencies.
The construct of intimacy has been used

tion." Although exactly what features comprise intimate collaborative friendships is

open to debate, at a minimum they involve
engaging in mutual activities, self-disclosure,
and reciprocal feelings of satisfaction with the
relationship (Furman & Robins, 1985; Mannarino, 1976; Sullivan, 1953). The current
study is primarily concerned with intimacy as
^ feature of relationships.

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

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

1102

Child Development

ies have documented diat, during early adolescence, children's fnendships become more
intimate as indicated by morefrequentcompanionate

exchanges,

personal

disclosure,

and provision of emotional support (Buhrmes-

(roughly 8 to 12 years) and adolescent (older

than about 13 years) samples to determine
whether there is an increase with age in the

strength of the association between friendship intimacy and psychosocial adjustment

ter & Furman, 1987; Gottman & Mettetal,

SmoUar, 1985; see Steinberg,

more broadly defined (e.g., anxiety, depression, hostility, sociabilily, and self-esteem).

^^j^^^^ jg^gj j ^ ^^,^t^ adolescent friend^^ demands greaterfecUityin a number of

^
relattomhip competencies (here re-

tic relationships and only partially overlap

WiA Ae playmate skUls demanded in early
childhood.
lie association beAccording to Ais reasoning, adolescents
ind a^ustment. A who lack Aese specific relationship com^le links between petencies are more likely to have difficulty
self-esteem and friendship intimacy. Self- achieving intimacy in Aeirfriendships.They
reported closeness offriendshiphas been are likely to have fewerfriendshipsAat are
found to be positively related to self-esteem more superficial in nature, and Aus Aese
among pieadolescents (Bukowski & Hosa, youAs are also likely to be at greater risk for
1989; Cauce, 1986; Maimarino, 1978), and actfustment problems. At the same time, besimilarfindingshave beenreportedin some cause Aey are unable to estabUsh intimate
studies of adolescents (O'DonneU, 1976). friend^ps, Aey probably miss out on experiOAer studies, however, haverevealedweak ences Aat couldfinAerpromote Ae growA
correlations betweenfriendshipintimacy and of Aese competencies (Hartup & Sancilio,
self-esteem (Bemdt, 1987; BlyA & Traeger, 1986). That is, many of Ae subtleties concem1987; Jourard, 1979). Almost no one, how- ing when and what to self-disclose and how
ever, has directly compared preadolescent

to provide emotional support are probably

erac,
,,ould
expect uie assuciauon between interpersonal
competence and intimacy in friendship to be
stronger during adolescence than preadolescence because it is during adolescence that
'

lteractional processes that demand and

issues concerning: (a) the extent of convergence among self- and friend's ratings of
fnendship quality and interpersonal competence, and (b) the validity ofthe Interpersonal
Competence Questionnaire (Buhrmester et
al., 1988) for use with preadolescents and ado-

lescents.

io studies have attempted to investigate

r1i/]opmental change directly. Man-

Subjects

The initial preadolescent sample con-

6, 1979) and McGuue and Weisz

o scored high on
"

sisted of 133 fifth and sixth graders (68 girls),

ages 10-13 years (M = 11.3), whereas the initial adolescent group consisted of 100 eighth
and ninth graders (44 girls), ages 13-16 years
._.^
^
,
re likely to (M = 14.4), fi-om ethnically and racially dibe involved in stable close friendships than verse metropolitan Los Angeles schools. The
children who scored low on these measures, preadolescents represented 85% of the chilThese investigators, however, studied only a dren from seven mixed-aged classrooms in
w age range of children (10-12 years) two elementary schools, whereas the adolesid consequently
.1.. J.did
J
not
. _ii attempt
iI
to l,,J.
evaluate
^^^t.^ .*:*,,J.
cents constituted
] AAOf^ .,f *!> 44%
J.1 ofthe
f
youths
:
from nine
.'hether there were developmental changes classrooms in one junior high school. The
competencies. Fur- lower p
percentage of adolescents taking part in
in the importance of these competences
thermore, they did not assess altruism and the study w
o
perspective taking as it was manifested parental consent forms. After the friendship
specifically in the context of intimate friend-

pairing procedure

ship (see Price & Ladd, 1986). This is problematic because we know that children benave

aiirerentiy

towara

n^ienas

nonfKends (Hartup, 1983).

One general obstacle to researcb on ado-

below),

the

^'TtJ^o st^^rocedure w
fHendship intoacy^'lnitidl^,

lescent social competence has been the unavailability of adequate measures. Althougb

(explained

sample consisted of 102 preadolescents and

70 adolescents.

ana
,__

cedures were used to identify relationships in

which pairs of students reciprocally reported

methods have been developed to assess the

skills needed by younger cbildren to gain
peer-group acceptance (Asher, 1983; Dodge,
Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986; Putallaz &
Gottman, 1981), little work bas been done to
develop measures that specifically assess the
interpersonal competencies called for in intimate relationships (Ford, 1982). Recently,

that they were friends. Students tben rated

the intimacy of their relationships with reciprocal friends. This method of assessment is
similar to that employed by Bemdt (1981),
and differs in important ways (which will be
discussed later) from tbe more common practice of baving students rate tbeir seif-proclaimed "bestfriends."Students also rated

lege-aged adolescents that specifically

portant in both close fnendships and romantic
relationships. This measure was modified

^"^

e cross-sectional study reported

-ps of preadolescents and adolese administered several questioninvestigate age differences in the
trengths of associations among friendship incentral suL
ously, the data also addressed tv

Procedures

"""-e gathered in I

slightly in the present study to investigate

^- P " *

^"""'l.

sex schoolmates participating in the study and

instructed to indicate which peers tbey considered close friends. Cbildren were told that
"close friends are kids you know very well,
spend a lot of time witb in and out of school,
and wbo you talk to about things that happen

1104

Child Development

loiescent'sZ
in fte studv
II g ^ e r s a t
the fifHi/sixth

Adolescent Interpersonal Competence

Cuestionnoire (AlCP^.-This newly devel"P*"* * ^ " ' " questionnaire assessed the fol'""''"S ^"^ domains of competence that are
: in close relationships (sample items

fHends that they have been neglectful or...

considerater), and initiation of friendships
("How good istfiisperson at phoning friends
' things togethe??").
The AICQ was developed by modifying
Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire
' t was o r ^ a l l y devel-

preadolescents and

with reciprocal close iriends. li

-

schoolmates whom subjects had noniinated

fhends (but wbo bad not reciprocated the
nomination) were identified so every child
had two peers to rate on questionnaires (see
below). These nonreciprocated fiiendships
were not included in the analyses. Instances

of reciprocal fairly goodfriendswere also

identified, and students rated one fairly good
fnend on the fnendship and competence
measures. The findings for fairly good fnends

^ciose^friendships and romantic

Studrelationships (Buhrmester et al., 1988).

1
"^ * e ^ " ^ 8 ^ ICQ demonstra
" " demonstrate that its
jf^
they cco
J ^<^l^ " " adequately reliable, they
l t
" ^ ^ *^* predicted i5ve-factar simple struc'f"'- ^^ *''>' con-elsrte in predictable and
discriminant ways with theoretically related
jariables. In rewordingtiieICQ it
f
" ^ " ' '"ff * vocabulary appronate for young adolescents without chang" *<= substantive content of questions.

are not reported here, however, bpranse nf

space limitations and becai

very few significant

ere were
ith these

ratings.
Measures

Fricm.

.,

tionnaire consisted of L__

man's (1978) S-point rating scale to indies

Companionship, Intimate
the level of competence and comfort that ea...
target child would have in handling each type

of situation (e.g., "1 = Poor at this; would be

1985). An Ulustiative intimate disclosure ii
reads; "How often do you share secrets and so uncomfortable and unable to handle tbis
private feelings with this person?" Subjects
rated the qualities of their relationships with
identified fnends using a 5-point Likert-type
scale (e.g., "1 = Never or hardly ever" to "5
= VERY often or EXTREMKLY much").
tionships Inventory (Furmai-

Duane Buhrmester 1105

alpba coefficients were computed separately

for the two age groups and were bigb: preadolescents (.93) and adolescents (.92).

Hostility, r = - .06 and - .37 (among preadolescents and adolescents, respectively); Socia-

bility-Anxiety/Depression,

-.15

and

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

adolescents*Vand'adoiescen" (.12)"'"'"

Tt2tiTZ"l}^t7^''ll!^Cf.!^]

Socioemotional Adjustment (SA).A dimensions of adjustment, althougb the mod40-item self-report questionnaire was devel- esttemoderate size of the associations sugoped for this study as a relatively brief yet gests that the scales nonetheless assess disbroad measure of several spberes of self- tinguishable aspects of adjustment. Whereas
perceptions of socioemotional adjustment. It information about the validity of these scales
was necessary to develop this measure beis limited, the available data indicate that
cause existing measures of child adjustment scale scores are correlated in theoretically
were either too narrow in scope (i.e., assess- predictable ways with other mfo'^m,.^ nf -ning only one sphere of adjustment) or took cialfrinctioning(E '
"
more Ume to administer than was allotted by
school personnel. Items similar to those found Results
'le Child Behavior Check List, the Child _ ,^^.,,^,^,^ , . , , ,

point Likert-tyS' s^c'Se"'('?grn = "Never*OT^ " P <^ *'"' Consistent with findings from
not at all" to "5 = Very often or very much"). P^'* ''^'^''^' ^ two-way analysis (ANOVA) of
Factor analyses revealed three orthogo- sex, F(l,168) = 4.02, p < .05, witb girls (M =
nal dimensions labeled Sociability, Hostility, 3.22) rating theirfriendshipsas mr ' '
and Anxiety/Depression (see Buhrmester, than boys (M = 3.0" ~
1989, for details). Scale scores were computed tions, adolescents d
by averaging items tbat assess eacb dimen- fiiendships as more i
sion. Example items included: "How well do cents. Thisfindingis surprising b
yon work witb other people?" (Sociability; studies examining * "'
10 items), "How often do you lose your simi'
,wofage

im .80 to .87forpreadolescents and .72

' '

varied according to sex, age, and thw. - , ^ ^ ...

rater (self vs. closefriend).There was a significant effect of type of rater, F(l,167) =

1106

CbUd Development

= 3.62). These differences are similar to

those found for college students' ICQ ratings
of self, andfriends(Buhrmester et al., 1988).
There was also a significant efifect of gri "
F(l,167) = 16.25, p <

01

ith

friendship intimacy. Fischer's procedure

(with alpha set at .05) revealed that selfreported friendship
"
"

d l s

(M = _3.57)
tihaii age
357) rated
d as les.s competent^
p
g di
). This age differof adjustment
studies where, as

between friend-rated

ler, they lower

ower their estimates
(Stipek & Maclver,

h significant
i i f i t
1989).^ There were no other
effects or interactions.

Associations among Friendship Intimacy,

friend-rated

adjust-

preadolescent

.sample.
.j.^^ correlations contained in Table 3
r r . " - f^ contention that interpersonal
competence is related to friendship intimacy
- ' lg adolescence. Both self- and fHend-

friendship

Adjustment, and Competence

Table 2 provides clear evidence that
friendship intimacy isrelatedto adjustment
for adolescents. All four dimensions of .selfreported adjustment were significandy '
moderately (r = -.24 to .56)
both self-andfriend;
'

Significant age difierences

intimacy and

ment, seemingly because of the relatively

stronger correlations for the

intimacy scores for the

adolescent sample. It is noteworthy that selfratings of competence were related just as

strongly to fHendratingsoffriendshipintimacy as to self-ratings offriendshipinUmacy.
., - J . .^
, ... . L u

Duane Buhrmester 1107

Sociabiuiy ..

nd ratings of fnendship intimacy, aithough

re evide'nt""^' ' "

e expecte

irechon

Secondary Analyses

both age groups:fromB^ = .04 to R^ = .24 for

Correspondence between self- andfriend

preadolescents (B^ change, F[l,101] = 12.46,

,__. .T.,.- extent

- . ^ - ^ . of
. r agreement. between p < .01) andfromB
R'= = .19 to B" = .34 for
rongs.-The
change, F[l,69] = 7.08, p <
self- andfriendratingsis of interest for both adolescents (H^ chan,
conceptual
, and methodological reasons.
In- .03). Thus,
_ although
.03). Thus, although AICQ scores shared
traclass correlations were computed between some variance with closefriends'FI scores, a
self-report

and

friend-reported

FI

scores,

substantial proportion of a friend's appraisal

There were high levels of agreement among

adolescents'ratings,r = .81, and moderate

"

"

of a subject's competence was independent of

the perceived intimacy of the

agpreadolescents'ratings,r = .38.
"
"
" jdfrBm

Bemdt and Das (1987) have argued that

the quality of children's friendships influences their perceptions of theirfriends'personalities. If this is true, thenfriends'judg-

friendship.

These analyses indic?t *ot fi-.nrlc'Kn.!

of competence and fri

whose fnendships were rate

andfriendreports)as compa
ing, and satisfying reported th
competent, more sociable, le

1108

Child Development

anxious/depressed, and have higher selfesteem compared to peers involved in less

intimatefriendships.Thesefindingsare consistent with the claim that the processes that
create intimacy in adolescentfriendshipsare
important determinants of mental health and
the growth of competence.

how the results are interpreted. Subjects did

not rate their self-identified "best" friends
(which has been the most common practice in
past studies) but rather rated "close" friends
who had reciprocally nominated themselves
as closefriends.This procedure may in part
account for the M u r e tofindthe expected
developmental increase in mean ratings of
-^gy friendship intimacy. As bestfriendrelation-

many problems may

overburdenfriendswith unpleasant disclosures or may be less able to decenter and proyouths lacking in interpersonal competence
The lack of age differences in intimacy
may have greater difficulty establishing and may have also been related to thatfactthat a
maintaining intimatefriendships.Although lower proportion of adolescents'friendsparthe correlational nature of theresultsmake it ticipated in the study (owing to the lower proimpossible to draw conclusions about the di- portion of the total school population particirection of causation, it seems likely that a pating), thereby reducing the likelihood that

'


ex- adolescents were paired (by chance) with
iidi- their "best"friend.This aspect of sample
iter- selection (which in large part was aresultof
and, in tum, adjustment the inherently dtSerent institutional and sodetermine

, ,._ .

how success-

cioecological structiires of elementary and

r^__,_^ . . , - , .

d, self-reportedfriendshipintire strongly related to adjustment

.^.-sonal competence during adoles n preadolescence. These hndings
support the view diat preadolescent friendships typically do not demand the interpersonal competencies called for in more mature
forms of closerelationships.Tliese findings
are also consistent with the view that, during preadolescence, parents pby a

retovely

-inior h i * sehools) may have worked against

"f*"
macy.
Aimougn mese were noc necessaruy suojects' very bestfriendships,they appear to
i,averepresentedrelsUionshipsfromsmall cir^i^ ^f ^igjgfiiendshipsamong these youAs.
^ ^ know this because: (a) most children
nominated only a handfol of peers as close
f^^^^ (j ^ ^bout four for preadrfescents and

(wo for adolescents), and (b) children's ratings

greater role than peers infrilfilltagchildren s of the intimacy of theseretoionshipswere

social needs and shaping their acjustment ^^jy g^^y
i^^j ^^^ the ratings of self(Buhrm
(Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). On the o*er identified bestfriendshipsthat have been rehand, t
i
friendship intimacy, but merely modest
ferences
in the
direction. direction.
For
ferences
in expedsd
the expedsd
For , _
, , ^ , ^ UTOBUCU UJ aucuum .ur ii m
dl
frd reports off intimacy
i
adolescents,
friend
were chins nrforclospfriendshinswe can be
moderately correlated with adjustment and joiSbly c o n S n t that the p^cesses that
competence. The discrepancies in findings thought to mediate the associations betw
across self- andfriendreports cannot easily be friendship and socioemotional adapt^
explained. Further work is needed to repli- ^
disclosure-validation, provision of supcate or explain these
findings.
port, and the exercise of intarpersooal compeThe methods used to assess friendship tence) are ^iplicable to close as well as best
andfriendshipintimacy have implicationsforfriendships.(My fmther research will reveal

Duane Buhrmester 1109

whether thefindingsreported here also bold
true for best fnendships more narrowly defined. However, because children spend a
great deal oftimeinteracting witb peers who
fkll in the "closefriend"category, the results
reported here describe a significant arena of
children's social lives.

meet standard criteria for internal consistency

reliability and are correlated in meaningfril
ways wilii theoretically related variables. The
moderately strong agreement between selfratings and ratings by closefriendsfiirther
suggests that the AICQ assesses meaningfril
and visible dimensions of social bebavior.

child has unreciprocated (and often unreal- sures. These questionnt

istic) feelings of closeness toward a peer. This perceptions of theirfriendships,competenis important because, in theory, unilateral cies, and adjustment, and accordingly the
friendships are not expected to be positively findings might have differed if behavioral
related to social adaptation. Infeet,the corre- methods were used. Even if children's perlations between intimacy ratings and other ceptions differ substantiallyfromobserved
variablesreportedhere are, on average, some- behavior, however, children's perceptions are
what sti-onger than those reported by investi- important to investigate in tbeir own rigbt
gators gathering self-identified bestfriendrat- (Olson, 1977). There is substantial evidence
ve appraisals
ings_ (e.g., Bemdt, 1987; Blyth & Traeger, indicating that subjective
appraisals ar
are sig_..

_..

. .

ts of behavior (Bar _

that, by excluding ratings of unilateral friend- 1986). One strength of the present stiidy was
ships, the assessment procedure reduced a that by gathering both self-and peer ratings, I
significant source of "noise" in the data that was able to determine the degree to which
may have acted to attenuate the correlations children hold common perceptions of their
found in previous studies.
friendships
and levels of competence. Tbe results show that, at least among adolescents,
__ ^

..ot only was there agree-

-.-nt between sources of ratings, but similar

?e-re- pattems of con-elations were observed across

mong and between self- and close-friend ratings,
ir friend- These convergentfindingssuggest that these
'-" -"

found for adolescents than preadolescents.

This age difference suggests that tbere is
greater reciprocity in perceptions and feelings
of closeness infriendshipamong adolescents
than preadolescents. The surprising strength
of the correlations between self- and friend
ratings among adolescents suggests that adolescents are very aware of how close or distant

the qualities of their in^ so refiect a more dynamic

relational process in which adolescents regulate their own feelings and behavior to\
fiiends so as totiyto matcb what they
ceive as theirfriend'slevel of investment m
Taken together, the results show tbat
there is an initial basis for confidence in the
reliability and validity ofthe AICQ as measure of perceptions of interpersonal
tence, particularly for adolescents.

o p t i o n s are anchored in a shared social

1110

ChUd Development

andfriendshipon perceptions ofthe personal-

perceptions ofthe pereonal relationships in

d relationships with par,

(Eds.), Conversations of friends: Speadatiom

Salzinger, J, Antrobers, &

on affective development (pp. 192-240). New

Socio/ networks of chil-

York: Cambridge University Press.

id college students (pp.

171-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.

uhrmester, D. (1989). Manual for the Sodoemo-

Hetherington (Ed), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),

Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Sociali-

tional Adjustment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Program m Psychology,

University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX.
ingftincdonsof friendship in childhood: A

Hartup, W. W. (1983). The peer system. In E. M.

zation, personality, and social development
(pp. 103-196). New Yorlc; Wiley.
Hartup, W. W., & Sancilio, M. F. (1986). Children's

(Eds.), Social behavior in autism (pp. 61-80).

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

sonality and Social Psychology, 55, 991-1008.

velopmental Psychology, 12,55

" T. J. Bemdt '& G. Ladd (Eds.),

986). Social networks and social

Exploring the effects of early adodships. American Journal of Com-

fiiends'hip

McGuire, K., & Weisz, J. R. (1982). Social cognition

hology, 14, 607628.

L, Pettit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L., &
hs of the Society for Re-

:perience. New York: Wiley.

males. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133,

and altruism in preadolesoent girls.

Psychiatry. 42, 280-.284.

and behavior correlates of preadolescent chumships. ' "

'
"
'

lated

ger & H. L. Raush (Eds.), Close

Dnane Buhrmester

behavioral assessment of
children and families (pp. 121-149). London:

58,283-305.

Steinberg, L. (1989). Adolescence. New York: Al-

laver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an

ch in personal relationships (pp.

idon: Wiley.

Child Development,

1111

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theortj of

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent rela-

tionships with mothers, fathers, and friends.