Developmental Psychology

© 2019 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 55, No. 11, 2428 –2439
ISSN: 0012-1649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000812

Children’s Peer Beliefs, Friendlessness, and Friendship Quality: Reciprocal

Influences and Contributions to Internalizing Symptoms

Wendy Troop-Gordon Adrienne P. MacDonald

Auburn University Minnesota State University Moorhead

Darcy J. Corbitt-Hall
Auburn University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Children’s peer beliefs have been shown to mediate the link between stress experienced within the peer
group and later internalizing symptoms. This study extends this research by examining bidirectional
associations between children’s peer beliefs, friendlessness, and perceived friendship quality (i.e.,
receiving provision, negative treatment) and identifying indirect pathways to internalizing symptoms.
Participants (N ! 366; Mage ! 9.34 years, SD ! .07; 196 girls) reported on their peer beliefs, classroom
friendships, friendship quality, and internalizing symptoms at 3 time points across 1 calendar year.
Receiving provision from friends predicted less negative peer beliefs. Negative peer beliefs predicted less
received provisions from friends and higher levels of negative treatment, and, in turn, negative treatment
from friends predicted higher levels of internalizing symptoms. These findings provide novel insights
into how perceptions of the peer group relate to dyad-level relationship processes, including the potential
contribution of peer beliefs to children’s peer adjustment.

Keywords: peer beliefs, friendlessness, friendship quality, internalizing symptoms

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000812.supp

Integral to social information processing theories is the propo-
sition that behavioral and emotional responses to interpersonal
events are driven by underlying belief systems about other’s be-
haviors and traits (i.e., knowledge structures, working models,
social schemas; Crick & Dodge, 1994, 1996; Huesmann, 1988).
These cognitive representations are multidimensional and multi-
level (see work by Hubbard, Dodge, Cillessen, Coie, & Schwartz,
Editor’s Note. Jennifer E. Lansford served as the action editor for this
article.—EFD
This article was published Online First August 22, 2019.
X Wendy Troop-Gordon, Department of Human Development and
Family Studies, Auburn University; Adrienne P. MacDonald, Department
of Psychology, Minnesota State University Moorhead; Darcy J. Corbitt-
Hall, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Auburn
University.
Data for this research were collected as part of the North Dakota State
University Youth Development Study, a 2-year longitudinal study exam-
ining the causes and consequences of social maladjustment in childhood.
This work was support by the United States Department of Agriculture
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project 1017585. We
thank the children, teachers, and school administrators who participated in
this study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wendy
Troop-Gordon, Department of Human Development and Family Studies,
Auburn University, Spidle Hall Room 203, Auburn, AL 36849. E-mail:
wpg0006@auburn.edu
2428
2001, and Peets, Hodges, & Salmivalli, 2008, for examples). The
multidimensional nature reflects the varied attributes on which
children can appraise their peers (e.g., friendliness, aggressive
behavior, submissiveness). The multilevel nature captures the
specificity versus generality of those representations. At the
most specific level are cognitions of particular individuals or
types of individuals (e.g., friends, popular peers; for examples,
see Adler & Adler, 1995; Jones, Audley-Piotrowski, & Kiefer,
2012). At a more general level, children hold beliefs about peer
groups as a whole (e.g., Rabiner, Keane, & MacKinnon-Lewis,
1993). Evidence indicates that both specific and group-level
cognitions play a role in socioemotional development (Hubbard
et al., 2001; Peets et al., 2008), which is consistent with
Hubbard et al.’s (2001) contention that generalized views of
peers have heuristic utility, particularly when interacting with
unfamiliar agemates, and that person-specific cognitions be-
come more salient and influential with greater interpersonal
experience at the dyadic level.
Children’s cognitive representations of peers are theorized to be
interdependent with their social experiences (Rabiner et al., 1993;
Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005). Empirical tests of this proposition
have most often examined representation– experience linkages in a
within-level fashion (e.g., associations between peer experiences at
the group level and general perceptions of the peer group). Con-
sequently, little is known as to how experiences at the dyadic level
are associated with group-level peer beliefs or vice versa. To
address this limitation, the current study aimed to provide a novel
examination of how children’s cognitive representation of their
 PEER BELIEFS AND FRIENDSHIP ADJUSTMENT
peer group (referred to here as peer beliefs) are predicted by
experiences within a salient, dyadic context—friendships. Further-
more, we posit that peer beliefs may also contribute to children’s
friendship adjustment and, therefore, test for bidirectional effects.
In addition, peer beliefs have been implicated as a mechanism
through which experiences within the peer group (e.g., rejection,
victimization) are associated with later emotional maladjustment
(Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005). The
current study builds on this previous research by testing whether
peer beliefs similarly mediate associations between friendship
adjustment and internalizing symptoms. We also explore whether
peer beliefs are indirectly associated with subsequent internalizing
problems through changes in friendship adjustment. Thus, the third
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
objective of this study was to test how a culmination of negative
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
peer beliefs and friendship maladjustment can lead to direct and
indirect associations with internalizing symptoms.
Friendship Adjustment and the Development
of Peer Beliefs
At the center of this study are children’s cognitive representa-
tion of the general social disposition of peer group members (i.e.,
peer beliefs; Rabiner et al., 1993). These peer beliefs integrate
perceptions of peers’ propensity to engage in prosocial behaviors
(e.g., on average, children in my class are helpful, trustworthy) and
antisocial behaviors (e.g., on average, children in my class blame
others for their misbehavior, hurt others). Research on the origins
of these peer beliefs has been dominated by a focus on their
association with childhood experiences occurring at the group
level (e.g., peer group rejection; Rabiner et al., 1993; Salmivalli &
Isaacs, 2005; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005). Through observing
and interacting with peers, children are believed to derive a cog-
nitive representation of their peers’ prosocial and antisocial behav-
iors (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Rabiner et al., 1993; see similar
work on databases [Crick & Dodge, 1994], relational schemas
[Rudolph, Hammen, & Burge, 1995], and cognitive representa-
tions [G. R. Patterson, 1997]). The consequence is that exposure to
chronic peer stress engenders negative, antisocial beliefs about
peers (Ciairano, Rabaglietti, Roggero, Bonino, & Beyers, 2007;
Salmivalli & Isaacs, 2005). Supporting this proposition is evidence
that during elementary school, peer rejection is positively associ-
ated with boys’ negative beliefs about familiar peers (Rabiner et
al., 1993), and longitudinal evidence that peer victimization and
rejection are prospectively associated with heightened negative
peer beliefs (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Salmivalli & Isaacs,
2005; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005).
However, children may also generalize experiences at the dy-
adic level to their beliefs about the peer group. Given the centrality
of friendships in children’s lives (Gest, Graham-Bermann, &
Hartup, 2001; Hartup, 1996; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman,
1996), experiences with friends may be particularly influential in
the development of peer beliefs. Children spend more time, engage
in more intimate discussions, provide greater emotional support,
and more readily resolve disagreements with their friends than
with nonfriends (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995; Rubin, Coplan,
Chen, Bowker, & McDonald, 2013). Friendships can also be a
source of negative treatment (Crick & Nelson, 2002; Rubin et al.,
2013) and jealousy (Parker, Kruse, & Aikins, 2010). Thus, friend-
ships may be a primary source for children’s expectations regard-
2429
ing agemates’ behavior, and their peer beliefs may, in part, be
derived from the extent to which they are able to form and
maintain high-quality friendships.
Two studies to date have examined how friendship experiences
relate to peer belief development. Ladd and Troop-Gordon (2003)
found that a history of chronic friendlessness (i.e., identifying no
peers as friends or having no reciprocated friendship nominations)
between the first and third grades was a significant predictor of
more negative peer beliefs in the fourth grade, even after taking
into account concurrent friendlessness, rejection, and peer victim-
ization. They surmised that having a friend with whom to social-
ize, derive peer support, and develop a trusting, intimate relation-
ship may lay the foundation for positive peer beliefs (see Baldwin,
1992; Sullivan, 1953). Children may generalize from these expe-
riences the assumption that other peers also are likely to be
prosocial in their social interactions and rarely antisocial. Further-
more, having a friend may lead to opportunities to interact posi-
tively with a wide range of peers (e.g., by being invited to parties)
and reduce risk of social isolation (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1998).
Conversely, children lacking friends may develop negative peer
beliefs as a result of having a disproportionately higher proportion
of antisocial and aversive peer interactions than children with
friends. Salmivalli and Isaacs (2005), however, found no associa-
tion between friendlessness in fifth and sixth grades and children’s
peer beliefs in sixth and seventh grades, respectively, after ac-
counting for rejection and peer victimization, suggesting that the
effects of friendlessness may be dependent on chronicity or devel-
opmental period.
Friendship quality also may contribute to the development of
peer beliefs. Friendship quality is multifaceted and includes the
extent to which the relationship is characterized by reciprocation
of friendship provisions (e.g., emotional and instrumental support,
validation, and companionship) or engagement in conflict and
betrayal (Ladd et al., 1996; Parker & Asher, 1993). How children
feel they are treated by their friends may be particularly salient in
the development of their peer beliefs. Theoretically, children who
receive provisions from their friendships likely construe interper-
sonal scripts that include expectations of positive social engage-
ment and favorable characterizations of peers (Baldwin, 1992;
Sullivan, 1953). In contrast, children who receive high levels of
negative treatment from their friends may incorporate dishonesty,
a lack of trustworthiness, and hostility toward others in their peer
beliefs. Thus, at the dyadic level, friendlessness, received provi-
sions from friends, and negative treatment from friends may inde-
pendently predict children’s peer beliefs.
Peer Beliefs and the Development of
Children’s Friendships
Counterintuitively, although cognitive representations are theo-
rized to be foundational to the development of socioemotional
development (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Huesmann, 1988), research
on peer beliefs has predominantly addressed the genesis of
these cognitive representations (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003;
Salmivalli & Isaacs, 2005) or their link to mental health (e.g.,
internalizing and externalizing problems; Ladd & Troop-Gordon,
2003; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005). Whether peer beliefs con-
tribute to peer adjustment remains relatively unexplored. Because
peer beliefs reflect an assessment of peers’ general social dispo-
 2430 TROOP-GORDON, MACDONALD, AND CORBITT-HALL
sitions, these beliefs theoretically contribute to interpretations of,
and responses to, other’s behavior in a range of interpersonal
contexts (e.g., ambiguous provocation, group entry; Crick &
Dodge, 1994; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Thus, peer beliefs
should have significant implications for children ability to form
healthy peer relationships.
Specifically, peer beliefs may contribute to friendship formation
and the perceived quality of children’s friendships by (a) providing
a cognitive filter through which children assess the nature of their
dyadic relationships and the type of treatment that they receive
from friends, and (b) contributing to behaviors that impact friend-
ship formation and dissolution as well as the relational processes
occurring within friendships. With regard to the former, as peer
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
beliefs are believed to underlie attentional and interpretational
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
processes (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000),
children with negative peer beliefs may selectively attend to slights
(e.g., a peer not providing desired support) and misinterpret other’s
behaviors as hostile. Children with highly negative peer beliefs
may even question whether a friendship with a particular peer
exists. Perceptions of a friendship are often unilateral (i.e., only
one member of the dyad labels the relationship as a friendship;
Bowker, 2004; Sijtsema, 2016), possibly because one member of
the dyad not believing that the other child truly is a friend. Thus,
it is possible that children with negative peer beliefs progressively
discount relationships as friendships and identify themselves as
friendless (i.e., do not name or nominate any peers as friends when
asked). Furthermore, even in situations in which children have
identified friendships, more negative peer beliefs may bias assess-
ments of the quality of those friendships. Negative peer beliefs
may lead to distorted interpretation of, or lack of memory for,
friends’ benign acts, culminating in lower levels of perceived
friendship provisions. At the same time, negative peer beliefs may
lead to heightened sensitivity to small acts of hostility or misin-
terpretation of ambiguous behaviors as aggressive, resulting in
heightened perceived negative treatment from friends.
Children’s peer beliefs also have behavioral ramifications (Ladd
& Troop-Gordon, 2003; Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanpää, & Peets,
2005), likely impacting friendship formation and dissolution. For
example, negative peer beliefs are associated with higher levels of
aggression (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Troop-Gordon & Ladd,
2005), which increases the odds of friendship dissolution (Ellis &
Zarbatany, 2007), and greater social withdrawal and reduced focus
on communal goals (Salmivalli et al., 2005), potentially leading to
an avoidance of opportunities to make new friends. Thus, over
time, children holding negative peer beliefs may lose friends but
not replace them, leading to friendlessness. When considering
friendships with classmates, the pernicious effects of negative peer
beliefs may be most pronounced at the beginning of the school
year when children are tasked with reestablishing their friendship
network with a new set of classmates, many of whom may be
unfamiliar to them (Neckerman, 1996; Poulin & Chan, 2010).
Peer beliefs may also underlie the behaviors that contribute to
the quality of children’s friendships. As a result of engendering a
lack of trust and low expectations of prosocial interactions, peer
beliefs may undermine engagement in expected reciprocal acts of
sharing, instrumental support, and intimacy (Berndt & Perry,
1986), resulting in lower levels of received provisions from
friends. This may be particularly true when new friendships are
forming and trust and intimacy are still being established. Simi-
larly, holding negative peer beliefs may elicit negative treatment
from friends as a result of reacting with hostility to behaviors
consistent with assumptions that others are aggressive and untrust-
worthy, or through heightened submissiveness, leaving children
vulnerable to bullying from friends (Crick & Nelson, 2002).
Peer Beliefs, Friendship Adjustment, and the
Development of Internalizing Symptoms
Identifying bidirectional associations between peer beliefs and
friendship adjustment has the potential to not only inform our
understanding of social– cognitive and peer development but also
provide insights into the development of psychopathology. Failure
to cultivate positive peer relationships, including an absence of
high-quality friendships, jeopardizes short-term and long-term
emotional development (Rubin et al., 2013). Friendlessness in-
creases risk for internalizing problems (Laursen, Bukowski,
Aunola, & Nurmi, 2007), including anxiety, depression, and social
withdrawal (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Parker & Asher, 1993).
Friendship quality is similarly associated with children’s mental
health (Erdley, Nangle, Newman, & Carpenter, 2001; Oldenburg
& Kems, 1997; Townsend, McCracken, & Wilton, 1988). For
example, receiving friendship provisions, such as companionship
and support, buffers against loneliness and depression (Parker &
Asher, 1993; Parker, Saxon, Asher, & Kovacs, 1999; Uruk &
Demir, 2003), and conflictual friendships increases risk for depres-
sion (Gil-Rivas, Greenberger, Chen, & Montero y López-Lena,
2003).
Peer beliefs have been hypothesized to be one explanatory
mechanism linking peer adjustment difficulties and later socio-
emotional development (Burge et al., 1997; Burks, Laird, Dodge,
Pettit, & Bates, 1999; Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003). Specifically,
negative peer beliefs derived from a history of peer stress are
believed to underlie subsequent depressogenic or aggressogenic
cognitive and emotional responses to interpersonal difficulties,
culminating in increased risk for psychopathology. Consistent with
this premise, Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2005) found indirect effects
of peer victimization on changes in children’s internalizing and
externalizing problems through negative peer beliefs. In the only
study to examine whether peer beliefs mediate the association
between friendship adjustment and socioemotional development,
Ladd and Troop-Gordon (2003) found that friendlessness was
predictive of heightened loneliness through negative peer beliefs.
The current study expands upon these initial findings by testing
whether peer beliefs mediate the link between three forms of
friendship adjustment—friendlessness, negative peer treatment,
and received provisions—and children’s internalizing symptoms.
Over and above a direct effect on emotional adjustment, peer
beliefs may also be predictive of socioemotional well-being
through their impact on children’s peer relationships. That is, peer
beliefs may underlie cognitive, behavioral, and emotional re-
sponses to interpersonal events that enhance, or encumber, peer
relationship development over time and, in turn, emotional adjust-
ment. Specific to this study are potential associations between
negative peer beliefs and subsequent friendlessness, low received
provisions from friends, and negative treatment from friends,
which are each predictive of heightened internalizing symptoms
(Erdley et al., 2001; Laursen et al., 2007; Oldenburg & Kems,
1997; Townsend et al., 1988). Therefore, the current study also
 PEER BELIEFS AND FRIENDSHIP ADJUSTMENT
tested for mediated paths from peer beliefs to internalizing symp-
toms through each of the three indices of friendship adjustment.
Thus, the overarching conceptual framework underlying this re-
search posits that peer beliefs and friendship adjustment are mu-
tually reinforcing, culminating in direct and indirect pathways to
internalizing symptoms.
Potential Gender Differences in the Associations
Between Peer Beliefs and Friendships
The current study also allowed for testing for gender differences
in the hypothesized links between peer beliefs, friendship adjust-
ment, and internalizing symptoms. As previous research has not
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
yielded significant gender differences in the link between chil-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
dren’s peer beliefs and peer relationships (Ladd & Troop-Gordon,
2003; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005), tests for gender differences
were primarily exploratory with two exceptions. We hypothesized
that (a) peer beliefs would be more predictive of friendlessness for
boys than for girls, and (b) friendship quality would be more
predictive of peer beliefs for girls than for boys. Boys tend to play
in larger groups and have more friendships than girls (Ladd, 1983;
Lever, 1976, 1978). Consequently, negative peer beliefs may im-
pede boys’ motivation and efforts to integrate into larger friend-
ship networks. In contrast, even when girls hold negative beliefs,
they may still form friendships with one or two peers whom they
see as exceptions to the overarching peer culture. Therefore, peer
beliefs were expected to be more predictive of friendlessness
among boys than among girls, and, as a result, any indirect effect
between peer beliefs and internalizing symptoms through friend-
lessness was expected to be stronger for boys.
In contrast, girls report receiving more provisions from their
friendships than boys, including feelings of closeness (Bukowski,
Hoza, & Boivin, 1994; Camarena, Sarigiani, & Petersen, 1990),
affection (C. J. Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990; Furman
& Buhrmester, 1985; Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1993), trust
(Sharabany, Gershoni, & Hofman, 1981), security, validation
(Parker & Asher, 1993), acceptance (Crockett, Losoff, & Petersen,
1984), and enhancement of worth (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985).
Girls also value these friendship provisions more than boys (Rose
& Rudolph, 2006). The consequence may be that girls incorporate
their experiences of friendship quality into their beliefs about peers
more than boys do. Thus, we hypothesized that paths from re-
ceived friendship provisions and negative treatment from peers to
peer beliefs would be stronger for girls than for boys, and, in turn,
any indirect effects of friendship quality on internalizing symp-
toms would be stronger for girls.
The Current Study
Given accumulating evidence that peer beliefs may be a mech-
anism through which peer relationship quality is associated with
later socioemotional adjustment (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003;
Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005), it is critical to explicate exactly
how various relational experiences, including dyadic relationships,
help shape these beliefs and how such beliefs may contribute to a
cycle of deteriorating dyadic peer relationships. Accordingly, the
current study had four goals. The first goal was to examine
prospective links from children’s friendlessness, received provi-
sions from friends, and negative treatment from friends to their
2431
negative peer beliefs. The second goal was to test prospective
associations from negative peer beliefs to children’s friendless-
ness, received provisions from friends, and negative treatment
from friends. The third goal was to test for indirect links from
friendship adjustment to internalizing symptoms through peer be-
liefs as well as indirect links from peer beliefs to internalizing
symptoms through children’s friendship adjustment. The fourth
goal was to test whether gender moderated any direct or indirect
associations.
Relations were tested with an older, elementary school sample,
to take into account the relevant importance of friendships at this
age (Parker & Asher, 1993) and previous research indicating that
peer belief development is ongoing during late childhood and early
adolescence (Salmivalli & Isaacs, 2005; Troop-Gordon & Ladd,
2005). In order to test the hypothesized mediated pathways, anal-
yses focused on three waves of data that were collected during the
fall and spring of children’s third or fourth grade year and the fall
of their subsequent fourth or fifth grade year, respectively. Fur-
thermore, an important question is whether children’s friendship
experiences are uniquely associated with children’s peer beliefs
after accounting for sustained positive or negative treatment from
the peer group (e.g., Rabiner et al., 1993; Salmivalli & Isaacs,
2005). Thus, all predictions of peer beliefs, friendship adjustment,
and internalizing symptoms controlled for children’s peer accep-
tance and peer victimization.
Method
Participants
Data for this study came from 366 children (Mage ! 9.34 years,
SD ! .07; 196 girls) who participated in the North Dakota State
University Youth Development Study, a longitudinal study cover-
ing two academic school years during which participating children
were in the third and fourth grade (Year 1) and fourth and fifth
grade (Year 2), respectively. Children were recruited from elemen-
tary schools in three rural and two midsized communities serving
predominantly middle-class to upper-middle-class families. Data
used in this study were collected during the fall (Wave 1) and
spring (Wave 2) of the first year of the study and in the fall (Wave
3) of the second year of the study. At the beginning of the study,
all children in participating classrooms in five public elementary
schools were invited to participate. Of these children, 74.1%
received parental permission to participate. During the second year
of the study, 91.5% of the original 366 children continued partic-
ipation, and 99 new students from the participating schools were
recruited for the study. Only the children who participated in the
first year of the study were included in the analyses presented here.
Attrition was primarily caused by children moving to a different
school or to a classroom in which permission to collect data was
not granted by the teacher. The participating children were 87.7%
Caucasian, 4.6% Native American, 3.8% mixed ethnicities, and
3.9% other ethnicities. Based on parent reports of annual income,
13 (3.6%) came from families earning less than $20,000, 39
(10.7%) reported earning between $20,000 and $40,000, 184
(50.3%) reported earning above $40,000, and 130 parents (35.4%)
did not report annual family income.
 2432 TROOP-GORDON, MACDONALD, AND CORBITT-HALL
Measures
Peer beliefs. Children’s peer beliefs were assessed using the
Peer Belief Inventory (PBI; Rabiner et al., 1993). This measure
consists of five items assessing children’s beliefs about the their
peers’ antisocial behavior (e.g., “boss other kids around,” “like to
act mean,” “get angry easily”) and five items assessing beliefs
about their peers’ prosocial behaviors (e.g., “help others,” “care a
lot about others,” “share”). Children rated how often they viewed
their peers as demonstrating these behaviors on a 4-point scale
from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot). Scores on the five prosocial peer belief
items were reverse-scored such that higher scores on each item
reflect more antisocial peer beliefs. The 10 items were averaged to
create a composite peer belief score ("s ! .85 and .85, for Waves
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1 and 2, respectively).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Friendlessness. Friendlessness at Wave 1 and Wave 2 was
assessed using a peer nomination procedure (Newcomb & Bag-
well, 1995; Parker & Asher, 1993). Children were presented a list
with all the names of their participating classmates, including
same-sex and cross-sex peers, and were asked to circle the names
of up to five children who were their good or best friends. Two
children were considered friends if they circled each other’s
names. Children were categorized as having at least one mutual
friend or no mutual friends (0 ! has at least one mutual friend;
1 ! friendless).
Friendship quality. Children also completed a revised ver-
sion of the Friendship Quality Questionnaire (FQQ; Parker &
Asher, 1993). Unlike the original FQQ, which asked about a
friendship with one specific peer, the revised version used here
asked children to answer in reference to the children they circled
as a good or best friend. Thus, the measure tapped children’s
perceptions of how they were treated by their friendship group.
Items were chosen that reflected receiving provisions or negative
treatment from friends. Some items that assessed reciprocated
behaviors (e.g., always tell each other our problems) were rewrit-
ten to measure how often children received provisions or negative
treatment from their friendships (e.g., “I always tell my friends my
problems”). The measure included five items assessing receiving
friendship provisions (e.g., “I can count on my friends to keep
promises,” “My friends stick up for me if others talk behind my
back”) and three items assessing being treated negatively (e.g.,
“My friends don’t listen to me,” “My friends get mad a lot,” “My
friends sometimes say mean things about me to other kids”). Item
scores for each subscale were averaged to create a composite
receive provisions score ("s ! .79 and .83, at Waves 1 and 2,
respectively) and a composite negative treatment score ("s ! .61
and .70, at Waves 1 and 2, respectively).
Internalizing symptoms. Self-reports of internalizing symp-
toms were obtained using four items adapted from the Center for
Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children (Radloff,
1977). Example items include “were unhappy” and “did you feel
like crying,” and were scored on a scale from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot).
A final internalizing symptoms score was computed by averaging
the four items ("s ! .78, .86, .86 at Waves 1, 2, and 3, respec-
tively). Self-reported anxiety was measured using three items (e.g.,
“were you worried”) from the Revised Measure of Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale (Reynolds & Richmond, 1997) and were
scored on a scale from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot). A final anxiety score
was computed by averaging the three items ("s ! .82, .87, .85 at
Waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Scores on depression and anxiety
were significantly correlated (rs ! .51, .63, .54, ps # .001, at
Waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively) and were averaged to create a
composite internalizing symptoms variable.
Peer acceptance. Children’s peer acceptance was assessed by
having children indicate how much they like to play with each of
their participating classmates on a 3-point scale from 1 (not at all)
to 3 (a lot; Parker & Asher, 1993). Composite peer acceptance
scores were calculated by averaging ratings received from all
participating classmates.
Peer victimization. Children’s peer victimization was as-
sessed using four self-report items from the Multi-Informant Peer
Victimization Inventory (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002). For
each item, children were asked, “How much do the kids in your
class . . .,” and response options included “pick on you or tease
you,” “hit or push you,” “call you names or say other hurtful things
to you,” and “say mean things or lies about you to other kids.”
Ratings were made on a scale from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot). Items
were averaged to create a composite peer victimization score
("s ! .79 and .78, for Wave 1 and Wave 2, respectively).
Procedures
Data collection took place during the fall and spring of the
2005–2006 and 2006 –2007 school years. Children provided writ-
ten assent and completed self-report and peer-reported question-
naires in their classroom. Questionnaires took about 45 min to
complete. One research assistant read the questions aloud to stu-
dents while two to three additional assistants were available to
assist students. Upon completion, children were thanked for their
participation in the study. This study was approved by the Insti-
tutional Review Board of North Dakota State University (Protocol
SM6030, Project Title “Responses to Children’s Peer Victimiza-
tion”).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Means, standard deviations, and the percentage of children who
were friendless are presented separately by gender in Table 1.
Received friendship provisions, negative treatment, and internal-
izing symptoms were significantly skewed at all time points.
Natural log transformations were applied to these variables, and all
subsequent analyses were performed on the transformed scores.
Independent samples t tests were conducted to identify any gender
differences in the variables. Girls held more negative peer beliefs
at Wave 2 than boys, t(357) ! $1.98, p ! .05, and reported
receiving more negative treatment from their friends at Wave 1,
t(354) ! $2.97, p ! .003. Compared with boys, girls also reported
more self-reported internalizing symptoms at Wave 2, t(357) !
$4.15, p # .001, and Wave 3 t(317) ! $3.51, p # .001, and had
higher peer acceptance scores at Wave 1, t(362) ! $2.32, p ! .02.
Missing data ranged from 0.5% to 18.3%. Children with missing
data reported more positive peer beliefs at Wave 1, t(267) !
$4.83, p # .001, and Wave 2, t(267) ! $4.50, p # .001, more
received provisions at Wave 1, t(267) ! $5.46, p # .001, and
Wave 2, t(267) ! $8.20, p # .001, more negative treatment from
friends at Wave 1, t(267) ! $5.46, p # .001, and Wave 2,
 PEER BELIEFS AND FRIENDSHIP ADJUSTMENT 2433

Table 1 Data Analytic Strategy and Final Path Models

Descriptive Statistics
A path analysis was conducted to test reciprocal associations
Boys Girls between peer beliefs and friendlessness and friendship quality. In
addition, paths were included to test direct and indirect associa-
Variable M SD M SD
tions with internalizing symptoms. The path model included peer
Wave 1 Peer beliefs 1.91 .69 1.90 .57 beliefs, friendlessness, received provisions, and negative treatment
Wave 2 Peer beliefs 2.13 .40 2.21 .39 at Waves 1 and 2, and internalizing symptoms at Waves 1, 2, and
Wave 1 Receive provisions 3.27 .67 3.39 .64
Wave 2 Receive provisions 3.16 .74 3.31 .71
3. To account for the inclusion of a categorical endogenous vari-
Wave 1 Negative treatment 1.39 .57 1.55 .61 able (i.e., Wave 2 friendlessness), robust weighted least squares
Wave 2 Negative treatment 1.43 .62 1.52 .61 (WLSMV) estimation was used. Multigroup path analyses were
Wave 1 Self-reported internalizing symptoms 1.63 .52 1.72 .54 conducted to test for gender differences. A model in which all
Wave 2 Self-reported internalizing symptoms 1.54 .54 1.77 .61 paths were estimated separately for girls and boys was compared
Wave 3 Self-reported internalizing symptoms 1.50 .50 1.66 .48
with a model in which all paths were constrained to be equal across
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Wave 1 Peer acceptance 1.90 .33 1.98 .30

Wave 2 Peer acceptance 1.91 .37 1.90 .31 gender. A scaled chi-square difference test (Asparouhov &
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Wave 1 Peer victimization 1.60 .75
Wave 2 Peer victimization 1.62 .62
% %
Wave 1 Friendlessness 7.70
Wave 2 Friendlessness 11.80
t(267) ! $8.20, p # .001, more self-reported internalizing symp-
toms at Wave 1, t(267) ! $2.88, p ! .004, Wave 2, t(267) !
$4.50, p # .001, and Wave 3, t(267) ! $15.50, p # .001, and
more peer victimization in Wave 2, t(357) ! $2.14, p ! .03, than
children with complete data. They were also more likely to have
been friendless at Wave 1, %2(1) ! 25.02, p # .001, and Wave 2,
%2(1) ! 29.41, p # .001, and have lower peer acceptance at Wave
1, t(362) ! 2.35, p ! .02, and Wave 2, t(361) ! 3.44, p # .001.
By using full information maximum likelihood in Mplus (Muthén
& Muthén, 1998 –2017), all available data from the 366 children
were included in the analyses.
Bivariate correlations computed separately by gender are pre-
sented in Table 2 (see the online supplemental materials, Table S1,
for bivariate correlations with peer acceptance and victimization).
All variables evidenced moderate stability across time points.
Negative peer beliefs correlated negatively with number of friends
and received provisions and correlated positively with negative
treatment. All other correlations were low to modest and in the
expected direction.
1.63 .67 Muthén, 2006) was used to determine whether there was a signif-
1.79 .69 icant decrease in model fit when the parameters were constrained
to be equal. If a significant decrement in model fit was detected,
paths were sequentially constrained to identify those that differed
7.20
10.80
between boys and girls. All indirect effects from (a) Wave 1 peer
beliefs to Wave 3 internalizing symptoms through Wave 2 friend-
lessness, received provisions, and negative treatment from friends,
and (b) Wave 1 friendlessness, received provisions, and negative
treatment from friends to Wave 3 internalizing symptoms through
Wave 2 peer beliefs were tested using bootstrapped 95% bias-
corrected confidence intervals (CIs) using 10,000 resamples
(MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). Bootstrap indirect
effects are robust to the non-normal distribution of indirect effects
and provide a more valid test of indirect effects than other proce-
dures (e.g., MacKinnon et al., 2004).
Final Path Model
Tests of the path model revealed that constraining all paths to be
equal for girls and boys significantly reduced model fit, &%2(39) !
55.46, p ! .04, which could be accounted for by a significant sex
difference in the path from Wave 2 friendlessness to Wave 3
internalizing symptoms, &%2(1) ! 48.18, p # .001. Thus, a final
model was estimated constraining all parameters to be equal be-
tween boys and girls except the pathway from Wave 2 friendless-
ness to Wave 3 internalizing symptoms. Figure 1 presents the final,
statistically significant unstandardized path coefficients for all

Table 2
Bivariate Correlations for Boys and Girls

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Wave 1 Negative peer beliefs — .54 !!

.21 !!
.14 $.26 !!!
$.28 !!!
.34 !!!
.35 !!!
.39 !!!
.32!!!
.05
2. Wave 2 Negative peer beliefs .57!!! — .19!! .10 $.24!!! $.36!!! .31!!! .43!!! .21!! .45!!! .23!!
3. Wave 1 Friendlessness .11 .15 — .29!!! $.15! $.13 .18! .21!! .18! .23!! .02
4. Wave 2 Friendlessness $.07 .21!! .44!!! — $.14 $.23!! .05 .07 .04 .09 $.05
5. Wave 1 Receive provisions $.36!!! $.30!!! $.19! $.13 — .46!!! $.45!!! $.16! $.09 $.12 .07
6. Wave 2 Receive provisions $.31!!! $.38!!! $.18! $.10 .56!!! — $.25!!! $.42!!! $.10 $.27!!! $.04
7. Wave 1 Negative treatment .41!!! .14 $.19! .24!! $.34!!! $.21!! — .39!!! .16! .17! .08
8. Wave 2 Negative treatment .31!!! .41!!! .20!! .26!!! $.32!!! $.34!!! .18! — .22!! .40!!! .22!!
9. Wave 1 Internalizing symptoms .37!!! .30!!! $.18! .12 $.25!!! $.27!!! .28!!! .25!! — .39!!! .29!!!
10. Wave 2 Internalizing symptoms .35!!! .54!!! .22!! .16! $.19! $.19! .13 .35!!! .47!!! — .35!!!
11. Wave 3 Internalizing symptoms .18! .37!!! .32!!! .26!!! $.27!!! $.25!! .18! .36!!! .37!!! .51!!! —
Note. Bivariate correlations for boys are presented below the diagonal. Bivariate correlations for girls are above the diagonal.
!
p # .05. !! p # .01. !!! p # .001.
 2434 TROOP-GORDON, MACDONALD, AND CORBITT-HALL

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3

Peer .47***
Peer
Beliefs Beliefs

-.22**

Friendless 1.32*** Friendless

.07*/-.07*
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

*
-.08

Received .58***
Received Internalizing
Provisions Provisions Symptoms
-.13*
.10** .10*

.15*
Negative
.43***
Treatment
Negative
Treatment

.19*

Internalizing .34***
Internalizing
Symptoms Symptoms

Figure 1. Unstandardized path models testing the reciprocal associations between peer beliefs and friendless-
ness, receive provisions, and negative treatment, and direct and indirect associations with self-reported inter-
nalizing symptoms. All autoregressive and cross-lagged paths were modeled, but only significant paths are
depicted here. Also not shown are paths from Wave 1 and Wave 2 peer acceptance and peer victimization to all
Wave 2 and Wave 3 variables, respectively. ! p # .05. !! p # .01. !!! p # .001.

primary paths of interest. Not shown are nonsignificant paths,
Wave 2 error covariances, and paths from the control variables
(i.e., peer acceptance and peer victimization). A table of all un-
standardized path coefficients can be found in the online supple-
mental materials (see Table S2).
The final estimated path model fit the data well, %2(90, N !
366) ! 120.79, p ! .02, comparative fit index ! .97, root mean
square error of approximation ! .04. For boys, the model ex-
plained 43.0% of the variance in Wave 2 peer beliefs, 33.3% of the
variance in Wave 2 friendlessness, 35.5% of the variance in Wave
2 received provisions, 22.2% of the variance in Wave 2 negative
treatment, and 30.3% and 40.1% of the Wave 2 and Wave 3
variance in internalizing symptoms, respectively (all ps # .001).
For girls, the model explained 30.6% of the variance in Wave 2
peer beliefs, 26.9% of the variance in Wave 2 friendlessness,
32.6% of the variance in Wave 2 received provisions, 19.5% of the
variance in Wave 2 negative treatment, and 27.4% and 28.9% of
the Wave 2 and Wave 3 variance in internalizing symptoms,
respectively (all ps # .001). Significant stability was found for all
variables except negative treatment from friends, potentially be-
cause of the dissolution of highly conflictual friendships as well as
significant covariance between Wave 1 negative treatment from
friends and the other Wave 1 predictor variables. Wave 1 peer
acceptance predicted lower odds of Wave 2 friendlessness. Wave
1 peer victimization predicted higher levels of Wave 2 negative
treatment from friends and higher levels of Wave 2 internalizing
symptoms. Neither Wave 2 peer acceptance nor Wave 2 peer
victimization predicted Wave 3 internalizing symptoms. Standard-
ized covariances between Wave 2 residuals ranged from $.51 to
.40.
Partial support was found for the prediction that Wave 1 friend-
ship adjustment would predict Wave 2 negative peer beliefs.
Specifically, received provisions predicted lower levels of negative
peer beliefs. Partial support was also found for the prediction that
Wave 1 negative peer beliefs would predict Wave 2 friendship
adjustment. Negative peer beliefs predicted lower levels of re-
ceived friendship provisions and higher levels of negative treat-
ment from friends.
A number of direct effects emerged in the prediction of inter-
nalizing symptoms, but only weak evidence was found for indirect
 PEER BELIEFS AND FRIENDSHIP ADJUSTMENT
effects. Wave 1 friendlessness predicted higher levels of Wave 2
internalizing symptoms. Wave 2 friendlessness also predicted
higher levels of Wave 3 internalizing symptoms for boys but,
surprisingly, lower levels of Wave 3 internalizing symptoms for
girls. In addition, Wave 2 negative treatment from friends pre-
dicted higher levels of Wave 3 internalizing symptoms. This
resulted in a marginally significant positive indirect effect of Wave
1 negative peer beliefs on Wave 3 internalizing symptoms through
higher levels of negative treatment (indirect effect ! .009, p ! .09;
95% CI [.000, .026]). The findings did not support a gender
difference in the bidirectional associations between peer beliefs
and friendship adjustment or in the one identified marginally
significant indirect effect.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Discussion
Children’s cognitive representations of their peer group have
been shown to be an important mechanism linking relational
experiences to subsequent psychosocial development (Ladd &
Troop-Gordon, 2003; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005). The current
study extended this research by examining associations between
beliefs about the peer group and experiences occurring at the
dyadic level. In doing so, the research yielded novel evidence that
experiences within friendships have implications for children’s
cognitive representations of their peer group, and, in turn, these
peer beliefs may contribute to, or hinder, the development of
intimate and supportive friendships. The findings supported the
proposition that perceiving friends as providing relational provi-
sions reduces negative peer beliefs. At the same time, negative
peer beliefs were predictive of reporting lower quality friendships
(i.e., receiving fewer provisions and more negative treatment).
Moreover, there was some evidence, albeit weak, that negative
peer beliefs are predictive of internalizing symptoms through
greater perceived negative treatment from friends. Thus, this re-
search adds to a growing understanding of the interdependence
between experiences and cognitions at group and dyadic levels and
provides novel insights into how peer maladjustment may contrib-
ute to psychological well-being.
Bidirectional Associations Between Peer Beliefs and
Friendship Adjustment
Previous research has underscored experiences with peers at the
group level (i.e., peer rejection and victimization) as being foun-
dational to the development of children’s peer beliefs (Ladd &
Troop-Gordon, 2003; Rabiner et al., 1993; Salmivalli & Isaacs,
2005). The current study provided novel evidence that dyadic
relationships, namely, friendships, may also contribute to chil-
dren’s peer beliefs. Moreover, peer beliefs were shown to be
predictive of children’s subsequent friendship development.
Therefore, associations between peer beliefs and children’s friend-
ship adjustment may best be viewed as bidirectional.
Specifically, holding negative peer beliefs predicted viewing
friends as yielding fewer friendship provisions and being treated
negatively by friends. From a social information processing per-
spective (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000), these
findings can be understood in light of children’s expectations and
interpretations of peers’ behavior. Children who hold negative peer
beliefs may be sensitive to the possibility that their friends within
2435
that peer group are similarly inclined to antisocial behavior and
disinclined to act prosocially. This may be particularly true for
children in schools, such as the ones in this study, in which the
composition of classmates changes from year to year, resulting in
the formation and expansion of friendship networks with relatively
unfamiliar peers (Neckerman, 1996; Poulin & Chan, 2010). As
suggested by Hubbard et al. (2001), peer beliefs act as a heuristic
through which children interpret friends’ behaviors, particularly if
those friendships are relatively nascent.
Peer beliefs may also contribute to perceived friendship quality
by indirectly affecting children’s behaviors with their friends.
Negative expectations and hostile interpretations of friends’ be-
havior, based on negative peer beliefs, may inhibit trusting, warm,
and socially receptive behaviors that elicit provisions from friends.
As reciprocity of psychological provisions become increasingly
salient in preadolescents’ friendships (Laursen & Hartup, 2002;
Sullivan, 1953), this may lead to a breakdown in intimacy, support,
and validation. In the same manner, negative peer beliefs may
foster aggressive behavior (see Burks, Dodge, Price, & Laird,
1999; Burks, Laird, et al., 1999) that prompts negative treatment
from friends, or may elicit internalizing behaviors (e.g., anxiety;
Rudolph, Hammen, & Burge, 1997; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005)
that leave children vulnerable to peer victimization from friends
(Crick & Nelson, 2002). Alternatively, children who hold negative
peer beliefs may view their friends as exceptions in an otherwise
hostile peer environment. This may lead them to become overly
dependent on their friends and jealous when their friends socialize
with other peers (Parker et al., 2010), causing their friends to
disengage from the relationship. Thus, an investigation into the
relational processes that occur among friendship dyads in which
one or both members hold negative peer beliefs would help clarify
the exact mechanisms through which negative peer beliefs are
associated with children’s perceptions of treatment from peers.
Only one of the indices of friendship adjustment, receiving
provisions, was predictive of less negative peer beliefs. This find-
ing is consistent with the proposition that perceived regularities in
social interactions become integrated into more generalized rela-
tional schemas (Baldwin, 1992; Crick & Dodge, 1994). Children
who receive support and validation from friends may presume that
such behaviors cannot be limited to a small subset of their peers,
contributing to more positive perceptions of the peer group as a
whole. Unlike Ladd and Troop-Gordon (2003), friendlessness did
not predict more negative peer beliefs. However, the earlier study
assessed chronic friendless over 3 years. Friendlessness in the
current study was measured only in the fall and with a somewhat
older age group. Friendlessness for many of these children may
have been temporary and attributable to a change in classmates.
Indeed, Salmivalli and Isaacs (2005) similarly did not find that,
with a sample of older children and early adolescents, friendless-
ness in the spring of one school year predicted peer beliefs 8
months later. More surprising, therefore, is that negative treatment
from friends did not predict negative peer beliefs. The pattern of
correlations suggest that fall negative treatment from friends was
associated with concurrent peer beliefs, but not peer beliefs that
spring. One possibility is that, as friendships within a school year
are apt to change (Poulin & Chan, 2010), children who believe
they are treated poorly by friends in the fall establish new, health-
ier friendships, allowing for maintenance of positive peer beliefs.
 2436 TROOP-GORDON, MACDONALD, AND CORBITT-HALL
Indirect Effects on Internalizing Symptoms
Only one indirect path to internalizing symptoms emerged.
Negative peer beliefs were associated with internalizing symptoms
through negative treatment from friends. That conflict and betrayal
in friendships jeopardizes emotional well-being is well docu-
mented (Gil-Rivas et al., 2003). That it was the most salient
predictor of internalizing symptoms suggests that stress within
one’s friendships may play a more substantial role in short-term
changes in adjustment than the benefits procured from having
high-quality friendships. An important contribution of this re-
search is the finding that negative peer beliefs may not only
directly precipitate depressogenic thoughts, leading to greater in-
ternalizing symptoms (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Troop-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Gordon & Ladd, 2005), but also contribute to declining friendship
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
quality, leading to greater levels of depression and anxiety. How-
ever, it is important to consider the magnitude of this indirect
effect, as it was only marginally significant. On the other hand, it
should be acknowledged that this path approached significance
while taking into account simultaneous effects of friendlessness,
earlier internalizing symptoms, low peer acceptance, and peer
victimization. Thus, a highly conservative test of this indirect
effect was applied.
No evidence emerged supporting an indirect effect of friendship
adjustment and children’s internalizing symptoms though the de-
velopment of negative peer beliefs. This contrasts with previous
studies (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Troop-Gordon & Ladd,
2005) and can be attributed to a nonsignificant link from negative
peer beliefs in the spring to internalizing symptoms the following
fall. One difference in this study compared with the previous ones
is the prediction of internalizing symptoms at the beginning of the
school year. It may be that children come to school prepared to
reassess their peer group, and thus previous peer beliefs may not
contribute to their emotional adjustment. As relational patterns are
reestablished, underlying peer belief systems may once again
predict children’s internalizing symptoms.
Gender Differences
Consistent with previous literature, this study found little sup-
port for gender differences in the associations between peer beliefs
and children’s peer experiences. Despite the evidence that boys
and girls socialize with their peers in different manners (e.g., boys
tend to play in larger groups than girls [Ladd, 1983; Lever, 1976,
1978]; girls report receiving more feelings of closeness [Bukowski
et al., 1994; Camarena et al., 1990]), the current findings suggest
that these differences do not affect the bidirectional associations
between peer beliefs and friendship adjustment. Therefore, boys
are not more likely than girls to extend their experiences with their
friends to their peer group, nor are girls’ peer beliefs more nega-
tively affected than boys’ peer beliefs by receiving few friendship
provisions.
One gender difference did emerge. Friendlessness in the spring
predicted higher levels of internalizing symptoms the following
fall for boys and lower levels of internalizing symptoms for girls.
In light of girls’ greater distress in response to interpersonal
problems (Charbonneau, Mezulis, & Hyde, 2009), this finding is
difficult to explain. Girls do experience greater friendships insta-
bility than boys (Poulin & Chan, 2010) and, therefore, may view
periods of friendlessness as a normative part of shifting peer
dynamics and recover quickly when faced with an unfamiliar set of
children (e.g., a classroom with many new peers). Greater stability
of boys’ friendships in combination with socializing with a larger
number of peers (Ladd, 1983; Lever, 1976, 1978) suggests that for
boys, friendlessness is indicative of greater peer difficulties, lead-
ing to internalizing symptoms. Consistent with this premise,
friendlessness was more stable during the school year for boys
compared with girls, albeit the stability coefficient was still small
(r ! .21).
Limitations, Future Directions, and Implications
Despite the strengths of this study, which include a large sam-
ple, longitudinal design, and inclusion of key control variables, the
current study has a number of limitations. With the exception of
the assessment of friendlessness, we relied solely on self-reports of
the key variables. Thus, the associations could be inflated as a
result of shared method variance, although shared method was
partially accounted for by including autoregressive paths in the
models. Reliance on self-reported friendship quality also leaves
open the question of whether actual shifts in friendship quality
occurred or simply changes in children’s perceptions of their
friendships. This limitation underscores the need to identify the
mechanisms through which negative peer beliefs are associated
with lower perceived friendship provisions and greater perceived
negative treatment from peers. We hypothesize that such associa-
tions can be attributed to social– cognitive biases in response to
friends’ behaviors, children’s own behavior within the friendship,
or a combination of the two. Thus, methodological approaches that
incorporate friend-specific cognitions, friend report of relational
processes and friendship quality, and observational data will allow
for identifying the mechanisms linking peer beliefs to friendship
adjustment and for discerning whether peer beliefs are associated
with actual friendship processes or simply with perceptions of
friends’ behaviors. Furthermore, friendship quality was assessed
using children’s evaluations of their friendships with children they
nominated as friends regardless of whether those friendship nom-
inations were reciprocated. As reciprocated friendships are char-
acterized by higher levels of positive engagement and friendship
quality than unilateral friendships (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995), it
is possible that associations between peer beliefs, friendship qual-
ity, and internalizing symptoms would be different if perceived
quality of only reciprocated friendships had been tested. In addi-
tion, some of the internal reliabilities of the scales were low,
particularly negative treatment from peers at Wave 1. Thus, more
comprehensive measures of all key constructs should be included
in subsequent studies.
The findings are also specific to older elementary schoolchil-
dren. Indeed, much of the extant literature on peer beliefs has
focused on this age group (e.g., early to middle childhood; Ladd &
Troop-Gordon, 2003; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005). It would be
beneficial to extend research on peer beliefs to adolescence to gain
a greater understanding of how peer beliefs and friendships are
associated with emotional adjustment when youth begin to develop
stronger and more salient cognitive and social skills. For example,
youth become increasingly better at abstract tasks (Harter, 1998)
and become more dependent on peers for emotional support
(Cauce, Reid, Landesman, & Gonzales, 1990; Furman & Buhrm-
ester, 1992; Helsen, Vollebergh, & Meeus, 2000; Meeus, 1989,
 PEER BELIEFS AND FRIENDSHIP ADJUSTMENT
1993) during adolescence. Thus, peer beliefs and friendships may
play a stronger role in the development of internalizing symptoms
for adolescents than they do for children.
In addition, the friendship processes under study were limited to
provisions and negative treatment received from friends. Subse-
quent studies should expand the friendship qualities studied (e.g.,
friendship satisfaction, jealousy in friendships). Furthermore, the
assessment of internalizing symptoms at Wave 3 occurred in a
separate school year than the assessments of peer beliefs and
friendships. While this design allowed us to examine the potential
lasting impact on emotional well-being, what was not addressed
was how changes in peer beliefs with a somewhat new set of peers
(i.e., new classmates) and possible changes in friendship adjust-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ment may have been associated with internalizing beliefs during a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
new school year. Unfortunately, assessments of friendship quality
were not obtained in the second year of the study.
At a broader level, a number of questions regarding the nature
and origin of children’s peer beliefs need to be addressed. Al-
though the study of group entitativity (i.e., the extent to which a
group is seen as a cohesive unit) has a long history in social
psychology (Lickel et al., 2000), whether children view their group
of schoolmates or classmates as entities with distinct characteris-
tics has only been implicitly studied (e.g., through measures of
school climate; as part of qualitative interviews with adolescents).
Studies are needed that examine whether children hold entitative
views of the peer group, the developmental onset and trajectory of
such beliefs, and individual differences in the entitativity of peer
group beliefs.
Of particular relevance to this study is to what extent children’s
perceptions of their peer contribute to, or are derived from, their
perceptions of specific peers or subgroups of peers. It is possible,
for example, that peer beliefs are highly dependent on friend-
specific perceptions. If so, friend-specific beliefs may account for
the links between peer beliefs and friendship adjustment found in
this study. However, previous research on children in the fourth
through sixth grades has shown that peer beliefs are concurrently
correlated with their ratings of nonfriends’ aggressive and proso-
cial behavior, but not their ratings of their friends’ behavior,
suggesting that children view their friends as more unique than
prototypical members of their peer group (Troop-Gordon, 2009).
The findings from this study further suggest that, rather than
remaining orthogonal, friend-specific perceptions, derived from
the quality of those friendships, are incorporated into children’s
peer beliefs. In turn, peer beliefs may have a role in the develop-
ment of friend-specific perceptions. Thus, more research is needed
to explicate the codevelopment of peer-specific and generalized
peer beliefs and their association with socioemotional develop-
ment (see Hubbard et al., 2001, and Peets et al., 2008, for exam-
ples). Finally, although linkages between peer beliefs and friend-
ship adjustment were statistically significant even after controlling
for peer acceptance and victimization, associations were still mod-
est. Thus, peer beliefs are likely multiple determined by a number
of experiential factors beyond those occurring in friendship dyads.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the current study provided novel evidence that
children’s cognitive representation of their peer group is not inde-
pendent of their experiences within their friendships. Rather, per-
2437
ceiving negative friendship experiences is predictive of holding
more negative perceptions of the peer group as a whole. At the
same time, holding negative peer beliefs forecasts children’s re-
ports of having friendships of lower quality (i.e., receiving fewer
provisions, experiencing more negative treatment). Furthermore,
negative peer beliefs may contribute to internalizing symptoms
through less positive perceptions of friendships. With regard to
theory, these findings underscore the need to incorporate interre-
lations between cognitions and experiences at multiple levels of
the peer system when testing social– cognitive models of peer
development and developmental psychopathology. From an ap-
plied perspective, the findings point to the potential benefits of
addressing negatively biased peer beliefs as a means of bolstering
friendship quality and reducing risk for internalizing symptoms.
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in
preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145–162. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/2787039
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2006). Robust chi-square difference testing
with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Mplus Web Notes: No.
10. Retrieved from http://statmodel.com/download/webnotes/
webnote10.pdf
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social
information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461– 484. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0033-2909.112.3.461
Berndt, T. J., & Perry, T. B. (1986). Children’s perceptions of friendships
as supportive relationships. Developmental Psychology, 22, 640 – 648.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.5.640
Bowker, A. (2004). Predicting friendship stability during early adoles-
cence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 85–112. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0272431603262666
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship
quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psy-
chometric properties of the friendship qualities scale. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 11, 471– 484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407594113011
Burge, D., Hammen, C., Davila, J., Daley, S., Paley, B., Herzberg, D., &
Lindberg, N. (1997). Attachment cognitions and college and work func-
tioning two years later in late adolescent women. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 26, 285–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-
0003-5
Burks, V. S., Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., & Laird, R. D. (1999). Internal
representational models of peers: Implications for the development of
problematic behavior. Developmental Psychology, 35, 802– 810. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.802
Burks, V. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1999).
Knowledge structures, social information processing, and children’s
aggressive behavior. Social Development, 8, 220 –236. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/1467-9507.00092
Camarena, P. M., Sarigiani, P. A., & Petersen, A. C. (1990). Gender-
specific pathways to intimacy in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 19, 19 –32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01539442
Cauce, A. M., Reid, M., Landesman, S., & Gonzales, N. (1990). Social
support in young children: Measurement, structure, and behavioural
impact. In B. R. Samson, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Peirce (Eds.), Social
support: An interactional view (pp. 64 –95). New York, NY: Wiley.
Charbonneau, A. M., Mezulis, A. H., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Stress and
emotional reactivity as explanations for gender differences in adoles-
cents’ depressive symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38,
1050 –1058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9398-8
 2438 TROOP-GORDON, MACDONALD, AND CORBITT-HALL
Ciairano, S., Rabaglietti, E., Roggero, A., Bonino, S., & Beyers, W. (2007).
Patterns of adolescent friendships, psychological adjustment and antiso-
cial behavior: The moderating role of family stress and friendship
reciprocity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 539 –
548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025407080573
Crick, N., & Dodge, K. (1994). A review and reformulation of social
information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 –101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.115.1.74
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing
mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development,
67, 993–1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131875
Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization
within friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 599 – 607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
A:1020811714064
Crockett, L., Losoff, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Perceptions of the peer
group and friendship in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Ado-
lescence, 4, 155–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431684042004
Ellis, W. E., & Zarbatany, L. (2007). Explaining friendship formation and
friendship stability: The role of children’s and friends’ aggression and
victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 79 –104. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1353/mpq.2007.0001
Erdley, C. A., Nangle, D. W., Newman, J. E., & Carpenter, E. M. (2001).
Children’s friendship experiences and psychological adjustment: Theory
and research. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
2001, 5–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cd.3
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the
personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 21, 1016 –1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in per-
ceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63,
103–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130905
Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer
experience: Common and unique features of number of friendships,
social network centrality, and sociometric status. Social Development,
10, 23– 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00146
Gil-Rivas, V., Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Montero y López-Lena, M.
(2003). Understanding depressed mood in the context of a family-
oriented culture. Adolescence, 38, 93–109.
Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. In W. Damon
& N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emo-
tional, and personality development (pp. 553– 617). Hoboken, NJ: Wi-
ley.
Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their
developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/1131681
Helsen, M., Vollebergh, W., & Meeus, W. (2000). Social support from
parents and friends and emotional problems in adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 29, 319 –335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1005147708827
Hubbard, J. A., Dodge, K. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Coie, J. D., & Schwartz,
D. (2001). The dyadic nature of social information processing in boys’
reactive and proactive aggression. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 268 –280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2
.268
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the devel-
opment of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/1098-2337(1988)14:1#13::AID-AB2480140104'3.0.CO;2-J
Jones, M. H., Audley-Piotrowski, S. R., & Kiefer, S. M. (2012). Relation-
ships among adolescents’ perceptions of friends’ behaviors, academic
self-concept, and math performance. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 104, 19 –31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025596
Ladd, G. W. (1983). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected
children in school settings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 283–307.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship
quality as a predictor of young children’s early school adjustment. Child
Development, 67, 1103–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131882
Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2002). Identifying victims of peer
aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant
data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of
victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological
Assessment, 14, 74 –96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.74
Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer
difficulties in the development of children’s psychological adjustment
problems. Child Development, 74, 1344 –1367. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/1467-8624.00611
Laursen, B., Bukowski, W. M., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2007).
Friendship moderates prospective associations between social isolation
and adjustment problems in young children. Child Development, 78,
1395–1404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01072.x
Laursen, B., & Hartup, W. W. (2002). The origins of reciprocity and social
exchange in friendships. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 2002, 27– 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cd.35
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion
processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Devel-
opment, 71, 107–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00124
Lempers, J. D., & Clark-Lempers, D. S. (1993). A functional comparison
of same-sex and opposite-sex friendships during adolescence. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 8, 89 –108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07435548
9381007
Lever, J. (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social
Problems, 23, 478 – 487. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/799857
Lever, J. (1978). Sex differences in the complexity of children’s play and
games. American Sociological Review, 43, 471– 483. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/2094773
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J.,
& Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group
entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99 –128. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Meeus, W. (1989). Parental and peer support in adolescence. In K. Hur-
relmann & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents (pp. 167–
185). New York, NY: De Gruyter.
Meeus, W. (1993). De psychosociale ontwikkeling van adolescenten [Psy-
chosocial development in adolescents]. In W. Meeus & H. ‘t Hart (Eds.),
Jongeren in Nederland (pp. 31–55). Amersfoort, the Netherlands: Aca-
demische uitgeverij.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2017). Mplus user’s guide (7th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Neckerman, H. J. (1996). The stability of social groups in childhood and
adolescence: The role of the classroom social environment. Social De-
velopment, 5, 131–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1996
.tb00076.x
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations:
A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306 –347. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.306
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1998). The developmental significance
of children’s friendship relations. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb,
& W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in child-
hood and adolescence (pp. 289 –321). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Oldenburg, C. M., & Kems, K. A. (1997). Associations between peer
relationships and depressive symptoms testing moderator effects of
 PEER BELIEFS AND FRIENDSHIP ADJUSTMENT
gender and age. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 319 –337. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431697017003004
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in
middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of
loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29,
611– 621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.611
Parker, J. G., Kruse, S. A., & Aikins, J. W. (2010). Friendship jealousy in
childhood and early adolescence. In S. L. Hart & M. Legerstee (Eds.),
Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary ap-
proaches (pp. 516 –546). Malden, MA: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/9781444323542.ch22
Parker, J. G., Saxon, J. L., Asher, S. R., & Kovacs, D. M. (1999).
Dimensions of children’s friendship adjustment: Implications for under-
standing loneliness. In K. J. Rotenberg & S. Hymel (Eds.), Loneliness in
childhood and adolescence (pp. 201–222). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551888.010
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Patterson, C. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Griesler, P. C. (1990). Children’s
perceptions of self and of relationships with others as a function of
sociometric status. Child Development, 61, 1335–1349. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/1130746
Patterson, G. R. (1997). Performance models for parenting: A social
interactional perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Par-
enting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contem-
porary theory (pp. 193–226). New York, NY: Wiley.
Peets, K., Hodges, E. V., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). Affect-congruent social-
cognitive evaluations and behaviors. Child Development, 79, 170 –185.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01118.x
Poulin, F., & Chan, A. (2010). Friendship stability and change in childhood
and adolescence. Developmental Review, 30, 257–272. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.dr.2009.01.001
Rabiner, D. L., Keane, S. P., & MacKinnon-Lewis, C. (1993). Children’s
beliefs about familiar and unfamiliar peers in relation to their sociomet-
ric status. Developmental Psychology, 29, 236 –243. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0012-1649.29.2.236
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for
research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement,
1, 385– 401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306
Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (1997). What I think and feel: A
revised measure of children’s manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 25, 15–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:102575
1206600
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer
relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behav-
ioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98 –
131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R., Chen, X., Bowker, J., & McDonald, K. L. (2013).
Peer relationships in childhood. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb
(Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (pp. 309 –360).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
2439
Rudolph, K. D., Hammen, C., & Burge, D. (1995). Cognitive representa-
tions of self, family, and peers in school-age children: Links with social
competence and sociometric status. Child Development, 66, 1385–1402.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131653
Rudolph, K. D., Hammen, C., & Burge, D. (1997). A cognitive-
interpersonal approach to depressive symptoms in preadolescent chil-
dren. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 33– 45. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1023/A:1025755307508
Salmivalli, C., & Isaacs, J. (2005). Prospective relations among victimiza-
tion, rejection, friendlessness, and children’s self- and peer-perceptions.
Child Development, 76, 1161–1171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2005.00841.x-i1
Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpää, J., & Peets, K. (2005). “I’m OK but
you’re not” and other peer-relational schemas: Explaining individual
differences in children’s social goals. Developmental Psychology, 41,
363–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.363
Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hofman, J. E. (1981). Girlfriend, boy-
friend: Age and sex differences in intimate friendship. Developmental
Psychology, 17, 800 – 808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.6
.800
Sijtsema, J. J. (2016). Preadolescents and their friends: Similarity in
aggression and depressive problems as a function of social status and
friendship reciprocity. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 40, 565–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025415607380
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York,
NY: W. W. Norton.
Townsend, M. A., McCracken, H. E., & Wilton, K. M. (1988). Popularity
and intimacy as determinants of psychological well-being in adolescent
friendships. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 421– 436. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0272431688084008
Troop-Gordon, W. (2009, April). Generalized and relationship-specific
peer beliefs: Social-cognitive mechanisms underlying aggression by
popular youth. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Denver, CO.
Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2005). Trajectories of peer victimiza-
tion and perceptions of the self and schoolmates: Precursors to internal-
izing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76, 1072–1091.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00898.x
Uruk, A. C., & Demir, A. (2003). The role of peers and families in
predicting the loneliness level of adolescents. The Journal of Psychol-
ogy: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 137, 179 –193. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/00223980309600607
Received May 25, 2017
Revision received July 20, 2019
Accepted July 24, 2019 !