The authors propose that popularity andfriendship are linked to

different forms of adjustment and emotional well-being. A central

point of their model is that friendship functions as an important
mediator between popularity and loneliness in early adolescence.

Popularity, Friendship, and Emotional

Adjustment During Early Adolescence
~~~~i~~
M. B ~ k o ~ s Betsy
k ~ , Hoza, ~ i c Boivin
~ e ~

Early adolescenceis one of the most challenging developmentalperiods of

the life span. During this time, the nature of interpersonal relationships
changes as youngsters begin to function in a vast array of new environments. As part of these changes, the establishmentof healthy relationswith
peers and the development of a sense of emotional well-being become
increasingly important. In this chapter, we bring these two aspects of early
adolescent development together to show how peer relations and emotional well-being are interrelated during this developmental period. In
particular, we present a model of the associations between relationships
with peers and feelings of belongingness and loneliness during early
adolescence.
Our first goal in this chapter is to describe the two aspects of peer
relations that have received the most attention in the social-developmental
literature. These two constructs are popularity and friendship. In this
discussion, we point to the conceptual distinctions between these two
domains of experience with peers and we propose that they may become
increasingly distinct forms of experience during adolescence. We also
discuss the reasons why it is important to study popularity and friendship
simultaneously. Next, we indicate why popularity and friendship are
expected to be related to different aspects of adjustment. In this discussion,
This chapter was written with the support of the W. T. Grant Foundation Faculty
Scholars Program. Correspondence should be directed to Wiliiam M. Bukowski,
Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G
1M8.

24

CLOSE FRIENDSHIPS
IN ADOLESCENCE

we draw on theory taken from the work of Harry Stack Sullivan (1953) and
Robert Weiss (1974). We then evaluate our model with two samples of
early adolescent boys and girls. Finally, we discuss our findings and point
to future directions in this area of research.
Theoretical and Empirical Background:
Peer Relations and Adjustment
Our research on the association between aspects of peer relations and
emotional adjustment is embedded within the larger literature regarding
the links between peer relations and adjustment. The overriding premise
of our research is that relations with peers influence development. Several
researchers (for example, Sullivan, 1953) have argued that peer relations
during early adolescence play an important, if not essential, role in the
development of severalaspects of competenceand well-being. A particular
point of this work is that relations with peers provide experiences that
cannot be found in relations with parents. Specifically, whereas parentchild relationships are defined by a hierarchy of social unequals,peer
relationships consist of interaction among equals. As a consequence,
peer relationships give early adolescents important opportunities to experience acceptance, validation, and closeness. For these reasons, Sullivan
argued that peer and friendship relations in early adolescence constitute a
persons first true interpersonalrelationships and make a profound contribution to an early adolescents sense of well-being.
In conjunction with this theoretical literature, there is a great deal of
empirical evidence that measures of peer relations are associated with
measures of adjustment (see Kupersmidt, Coie, and Dodge, 1990; Parker
and Asher, 1987). Indeed, numerous studies have shown that indices of
adjustment can be significantlypredicted from measures of peer relations.
The general conclusion from this literature is that children and adolescents
who do not establish good relations with peers are more likely than other
children to show behavioral and emotional problems during adulthood.
The obvious question raised by these observations is, How do relations
with peers affect development and adjustment in children and adolescents? This question is the centerpiece of our research program.
What Are the Basic Dimensions of Peer Relations? When describing
the effects of peer relations, many investigators have distinguished between childrens and adolescents general experiences within the peer
group and their expelences on the dyadic level with particular peers
(Bukowski and Hoza, 1989; Parker and Asher, in press). The experiences
at the group level fall under the heading of popularity and can be further
broken down into the dimensions of u c c e p ~ ~(that
c e is, how much a child
is liked by members of the peer group) and ~ e j e c ~(that
i ~ n is, how much a
child is disliked by members of the peer group). In contrast, the experi-

POPULARITY, FRIENDSHIP,
AND

EMOTIONAL
ADJUSTMENT

25

ences at the level of the dyad fall within the domain of friendship. Two
aspects of friendship have been studied: whether a person has a mutual
~
~ relation~with a peer
~ and the
~ q u ~ ~ii t ~ofe the
5 p~~~~p
relation.
That is, whereas popularity refers to a child's general experiences at the
level of the group, friendship refers to dyadic experiences with specific
peers.' It is important to note that popularity is a unilateral construct in that
it refers to the view of the group toward the individual, and friendship is
a at at era^ construct because it refers to the relationship between two
persons.
Measuring Popularity and Friendship. Because popularity and friendship are distinct constructs, they present different measurement requirements. Moreover, each of the constructs is in itself a multidimensional
phenomenon. As pointed out above, there are two fundamental dimensions of populari~,acceptance and rejection. Acceptance and rejection are
typically measured with nomination procedures in which children or
adolescents indicate which of their peers they regard as best friends and
which peers they do not like to be with. The number of times that a child
is chosen as a friend is used as an index of acceptance, whereas the number
of times that the child is chosen as a disliked peer is used as the index of
rejection. These variables are often combined to form two higher-order
measures known as impact and preference. Impact is the sum of acceptance
and rejection and is an index of a child's visibility in the group. Preference
is the difference between acceptance and rejection and is a measure of a
child's relative likeableness.
Another means of measuring popularity is the rating scale. With this
procedure, children indicate on a rating scale how much they like each of
their peers, The mean of the ratings that a child or adolescent receives from
peers is used as the index of popularity. Relative to nomination procedures,
one drawback to the use of a mean received liking score is that it does not
provide distinct indices of acceptance and rejection. Instead, the mean
received liking score is probably best thought of as a construct equivalent
of the preference score derived from nomination data. The important
point, however, is that regardless of whether one uses a rating scale or a
nomination technique, the essential feature of a popularity measure is that
it represents the view of the group toward the individual.
Measures of friendship, in contrast, must reflect the properties of the
relationship between two individuals. Two measures of friendship have
been widely adopted. First, as an index of whether a child has a mutual
friend, investigators determine whether the child makes a reciprocated
friendship choice. That is, a child is regarded as having a mutual friend if
he or she chooses as a best friend a peer who in turn chooses him or her
as a best friend. One could adopt a very restrictive criterion whereby the
reciprocated choice must be observed with the children's first friendship
selection, or one could use a more liberal criterion such as accepting any

26

CLOSE

FRIENDSHIPS
IN ADOLESCENCE

reciprocated choice regardless of whether it included first choices, second

choices, and so on. The important point is that this index satisfies the
definition of friendship in that it is dyadic (refers to the relationship
between two people) and it refers to a childs relationship with a particular
peer (a peer chosen as a best friend).
Second, investigators have recently gone beyond using just an index of
whether a child has a friend by turning their attention to assessment of the
qualities of these friendships. We (as well as others, for example, Parker
and Asher, in press) have developed procedures for assessing the qualities
of childrens and adolescents best friendships according to theoretically
meaningful dimensions. In our scale (Bukowski, Hoza, and Boivin, 19921,
we assess five qualities of friendship: companionship, conflict, help and
aid, security, and closeness. The strategy of friendship quality measures is
to obtain an index of a childs impression of his or her relationship with a
best friend. These measures are dyadic and bilateral in that they focus on
the properties of the relationship between two individuals.
Association Between Popularity and Friendship. A final issue regarding the distinction between popularity and friendship is whether measures
of these two constructs are empirically interrelated. Because popularity
and friendship are distinct constructs, it is conceivable that a child who is
popular may not have a mutual friend, and that a child who is unpopular
may have a friendship relation. So it would seem that we should not expect
measures of popularity and friendship to be related to each other. But there
are other factors that would lead us to expect measures of popularity and
friendship to be intercorrelated. Specifically, it is important to recognize
that in order to have a mutual friend, a child must be liked by at least one
other child. More important, children who are liked by many peers have
more opportunities to form friendships than do children who are liked by
few peers. Based on this logic, we can expect measures of popularity and
friendship to show some level of interrelationship. Moreover, although
popularity and friendship are conceptually distinct, both of these constructs are nevertheless related to liking. Accordingly, it is hard to imagine
that there is no association between measures of popularity and measures
of friendship.
In our research on this question of the link between measures of
popularity and mutual friendship,we have found moderate levels of association (Bukowski, Newcomb, and Hoza, 1992). In four samples of school-age
children and early adolescents, the correlation between measures of
sociometric acceptance and measures of mutual friendship ranged between
.38 and .49.Because each of these measures was derived from the same data
(sociometricnominations), we were concerned that these correlationsmay
have been artificiallyinflated. When we considered these same associations
using a rating scale measure of popularity, the observed correlations were
similar to those found with the nomination-based data.

POPULARITY,
FRIENDSHIP,
AND EMOTIONAL
ADJUSTMENT 27

Previous research indicated that popular children have more consistent friendship relations than do unpopular boys and girls. Specifically,
Bukowski and Newcomb (1984)reported that friendshipselectionsacross
a variety of intervals, ranging from one month to eighteen months, were
more stable among popular children than among unpopular boys and girls.
Taken together, these findings led to the conclusion that in spite of the
conceptual distinctions between popularity and friendship, measures of
these constructs are nevertheless interrelated.
Given the association between the measures of popularity and friendship, separate examination of each construct presents obvious confounds.
For example, effects associated with popularity may actually be due to the
fact that highly popular children are more likely to have mutual friends
than are less popular children. To avoid this problem, investigators must
simultaneously consider the effects of popularity and those of friendship.
Only in this way can the unique and combined effects of these variables be
adequately examined.
Popularity and Friendship in Adolescence
We next consider whether the association between peer relationships and
a d j u s ~ e nchanges
t
with age.
Age Changes in Popularity and Friendship. According to theory,
research, and childrens comments about their peer relations, the relative
importance of popularity and friendship changes across the childhood and
adolescent years. The major change across these periods is an increase in
the importanceof interaction at the level of the dyad. For example, Sullivan
(1953)proposed that for school-age children general acceptance by peers
and inclusion in the groupare of greatest concern. Exclusion from the
group, he argued, can be devastating to a childs sense of well-being. At a
later age, during preadolescence and early adolescence, the emphasis on
peer relations shifts to dyadic experiencesand relations with best friends.
Sullivan believed that during early adolescence, friendship, rather than
popularity, is centrally important to the development of a positive sense of
well-being and adjustment. The particular qualities of friendship that he
emphasized were closeness and security.
This increased emphasis on closeness and intimacy in friendship
relations is also apparent in childrensand early adolescentsdescriptions
of their friendships and discussionsof the concept of friendship. Beginning
with Bigelow (1977),many investigatorshave found that as children grow
older, they attach increasing importance to the dyadic features of peer
relations (Berndt, 1986;Bukowski, Newcomb, and Hoza, 1987;Furman
and Bierman, 1984).Whereas young children typically say that play and
companionship are the essential features of friendship relations, preadolescence and early adolescents emphasize the role of intimacy, loyalty,

28

CLOSE

FRIENDSHIPS
IN ADOLESCENCE

trust, and closeness in relations with friends. This age-related trend appears to match the developmental shift described by Sullivan.
Research on the link between intimacy and outcome also suggests an
age-related increase in the importance of friendship. Buhrmester (1990),
for example, has shown that intimacy is more closely associated with
feelings of affective well-being during adolescence than in prior developmental periods. These findings support the view that close friendship
relations take on a new importance during early adolescence.
Friendship as a Mediator Between Popularity and Adjustment. Although the research discussed in the previous section seem to support the
conclusion that popularity becomes less important for adjustment during
adolescence, while friendship becomes more important, it is still difficult
to argue that popularity is unrelated to adjustmentin early adolescence.To
the extent that popularity and friendship are conceptuallyand empirically
linked, it is unreasonable to conclude that one of these phenomena is
related to adjustment whereas the other is not.
There are at least four ways in which popularity and friendship may be
related to adjustment. First, popularity and friendship may both be directly
and uniquely related to adjustment. Second, popularity may be indirectly
linked to adjustmentvia the associationwith friendship. That is, friendship
may mediate the link between popularity and adjustment. Third, and the
converse of the second alternative, popularity may be directly linked to
adjustment,mediating the associationbetween friendship and adjustment.
Fourth, popularity and friendshipmay be associatedwith different aspects
of adjustment. Each of these options is depicted in Figure 2.1.
The increased importance of friendship during adolescence argues
against the third option stated above. Indeed, given the likely link between
popularity and friendship and the increased importance of friendship
during adolescence, we would expect popularity to be linked to adjustment via its association with friendship rather than the other way around.
Moreover, that popular children are more likely to have friends than are
unpopular children argues against the first option. Accordingly, we would
expect (1)popularity to be linked to adjustmentby means of the mediating
effect of friendship and, perhaps, (2) popularity and friendship to be
related to different forms of adjustment. Clearly, in order to understand
how popularity and friendshipare linked to adjustment,investigators need
to examine both the direct and the indirect (mediated) associationsamong
these variables. In the next section, we discuss the possibility that popularity and friendship are linked to different aspects of adjustment.
Popularity, Friendship, and Adjustment
In this section we address the question of whether popularity and friendship have similar effects on adjustment during early adolescence.

POPULARITY, FRIENDSHIP,
AND

EMOTIONAL
ADjUSTMENT

29

Figure 2.1. Four Ways in Which Popularity

and Friendship May Relate to Adjustment
POPULARITY
ADJUSTMENT

Popularity and friendship are both directly and uniquely refated to

adjustment.

POPULARITY

FRIENDSHIP

ADJUSTMENT

Popularity is related to adjustment via an association with friendship,

FRIENDSHIP

POPULARITY

ADJUSTMENT

Friendship is related to adjustment via an association with popularity.

ADJUSTMENT t

FRIENDSHIP

Popularity and friendship are linked to different aspects of adjustment.

Differential Links to Adjustment. To understand the contributions of

popularity and friendship to development and adjustment, investigators
must recognize that popularity and friendshipare very differentexperiences.
To explain the differences between the developmental significance of
popularity and that of friendship, Furman and Robbins (1985) adopted the
notion of provisions,originally proposed by Weiss (1974). Provisions are
the opportunities or experiences that may be available within a social or
personal relationship. Furman and Robbins reasoned that popularity and
friendship offer children and adolescentssimilar and different experiences.
In particular, they reasoned that popularity offers experiences for a sense of

30

CLOSEFRIENDSHIPS
IN ADOLESCENCE

inclusion, whereas friendship provides opportuniti~for loyalty, affection,

and intimacy. They proposed that popularity and friendship share four
provisions: help, nurturance, companionship, and enhancement of selfworth. They concluded that both popularity and friendship are important,
but the two are not interchangeable.
The central point of Furman and Robbinss (1985) work is that
p o p u l a r i ~and friendship are likely to make different contributions to
development. That is, although they share some provisions, popularity and
friendship provide opportunities for distinct experiences.
Our position resembles an idea previously expressed by Weiss (1974).
Weiss argued that different outcomes result from problems at the level of
the group and the level of the dyad. Specifically, according to Weiss, when
individuals are not integrated into a peer group structure, they experience
feelings of social isolation; whereas when they lack an emotional closeness
or exchange with chosen peers or friends, they experience feelings of
emotional loneliness. We propose that popularity, because it provides
opportunities for companionship, affects early adolescents perceptions
that they fit in or that they are part of the group; whereas friendship,
which provides opportunities for affectively laden experiences such as
security and closeness, is related to affective aspects of adjustment, such
as loneliness.
Links Among Aspects of Adjustment. A further point of our perspective is that different aspects of adjustment are interrelated. Outcome
measures in many studies of peer relations are typically regarded as end
points of a process. It is conceivable, however, that there is a dynamic set
of associationsamong measures of adjustment. For example, Harter (1983)
has proposed viewing the various aspects of the self-conceptnot as distinct
end points but rather as elements of a hierarchy. In her view, perceptions
of competence derive from experience and in turn influence feelings of
general self-worth.
We propose a similar hierarchical model of the associations between
perceptions of belongingness and feelings of loneliness. Instead of thinking
of perceptions of belongingness and feelings of loneliness as separate or
independent outcomes of popularity and friendship, we regard belongingness as an antecedent to feelings of loneliness. From our perspective,
feelings of loneliness derive from two sources: deficiencies in relationships
at the level of the dyad and perceptions of not belonging.
Multiple-Pathways Model of the Links Among Popularity,
Friendship, and Adjustment in Early Adolescence
Our approach to the study of popularity, friendship, and adjustment is
predicated on the following proposals: (1) Because popu~rityand friendship are conceptually and empirically linked to each other,,they must be

POPULARITY, FRIENDSHIP, AND

EMOTIONAL
ADJUSTMENT

31

studied simultaneously. (2) Popularity and friendship are associated with

different aspects of adjustment, namely, perceptions of belonging and
feelings of loneliness, respectively. .(3) During adolescence, friendship
mediates the relationship between popularity and adjustment. And (4)
aspects of adjustment are interrelated. The major methodological requirement of this perspective is that these measures and their interrelationships
must be studied as a whole system. That is, all of the links that we identify
among these measures must be examined together, including the indirect
links among variables. This kind of model is not amenable to the most well
known statistical tests, such as analysis of variance and multiple regression.
Nevertheless, it is perfectly suited for path analysis.
Path analysis is an ideal procedure for examining our model because
it produces an index of the adequacy of the whole model, indicates the
strength of each individual path in the model, and assesses the direct and
the indirect links among variables. The index of overall adequacy indicates
whether the model provides an accurate representation of associations
among variables in the model. The strengths of the particular paths in the
model indicate how strongly the linked variables are associated to each
other and whether each association is greater than a chance level. For the
model to be accepted, coefficients for the specified links or paths must be
statistically significant.
The specific model examined is depicted in Figure 2.2. In this figure,
the dark arrows represent direct associations between variables: (1) Popularity (sociometric preference) is directly associated with both of the
friendship measures and with perceptions of social belongingness. (2)
Mutual friendship is directly linked to friendship quality, and both measures of friendship are directly associated with feelings of loneliness. (3)
Social belongingness is directly linked to feelings of loneliness. Implicit in
this view is the notion that popularity is related to loneliness through
indirect pathways, one via mutual friendship and the other via perceptions
of belongingness and inclusion.
A two-step procedure was used to assess direct and indirect links. First,
the overall quality of the model was assessed with only the indirect paths
among the variables of interest included, the direct links excluded. For
example, the direct link between popularity and loneliness was not included in the model. In the second step, the direct links were included. (In
Figure 2.2, these additional paths are indicated by gray arrows.) If the
overall quality of the model is better when the new paths are included, then
we conclude that this direct link is important (for example, that popularity
and loneliness are linked directly). If the model does not improve, then we
conclude that the association between the measures was indirect and that
the direct link was not important (for example, that the association
between popularity and loneliness is mediated by friendship and perceptions of belongingness),Three additional direct paths were included in our

32

CLOSEFRIENDSHIPS
IN ADOLESCENCE

Figure 2.2. Path Analysis Model of Links

Between Measures of Popularity and Friendship
and Measures of Social Belongingness and Loneliness

FRIENDSHIP QUALITY

Note: All hypothesizedassociationsin the model are representedby dark arrows. These paths are
all statistically significant. The direct links, representedby gray arrows (coefficients in parentheses), are not statistically significant.

model: a link between popularity and loneliness, a link between mutual

friendship and belongingness, and a link between friendship quality and
belongingness.
Evaluation of the Multiple-Pathways Model
We evaluated our proposed model with a sample of 169 early adolescent
boys and girls who were in grades five and six in a middle school located
in the northern New England area of the United States. As part of their
participation in a larger longitudinal study, these subjects completed a
questionnaire on popularity, friendship and friendship quaiity, and loneliness and satisfaction with peer relations. Based on these data, we developed measures of popularity, mutual friendship, friendship quality,
perceptions of belongingness, and feelingsof loneliness. For popularity,we
used a measure of sociometricpreference. As noted earlier, this score is an

POPULARITY, FRIENDSHIP,
AND E ~ O ~ O NAADLJ U S ~ E N T

33

index of a childs relative likableness in the peer group. The score is the
difference between the number of times a child is chosen as a friend and
the number of times the child is chosen as a disliked peer.
The mutual friendship measure indicated whether a child had a reciprocated friend. To meet the criterion of mutual friendship, a child had to be
either the first or the second choice for best friend of each of the children that
he or she had chosen as a first or second best friend. Approximately half of
the children in the sample met this criterion.
Friendship quality was measured with our Friendship Qualities Scale,
a self-report questionnaire that we designed to assess childrens impressions of their relationships with their best friends in terms of five dimensions: companionship, help or support, conflict, security, and closeness. In
the current study, we focused on two of these subscales-security and
closeness-because they most closely approximate the relationship provisions that have been identified as unique to friendship (Furman and
Robbins, 1985).The items and reliability of these two subscales are shown
in Table 2.1. The security subscale consists of items indicating that in times
of need the child can rely on and trust his or her friend, and that if there
were a quarrel or a fight or some other form of negative event in the
friendship relation, the friendship would be strong enough to transcend
Table 2.1. Items in Two Subscales
of the Friendship Qualities Scale
Subscale
(Cronbachs alpha)

Security C.73)

Item

If I have a problem at school or at home, I can talk to my

friend about it.
If there is something bothering me, I can tell my friend about
it even if it is something I cannot tell to other people.
If I said I was sorry after I had a fight with my friend, he
(she) would still stay mad at me.
If my friend or I do something that bothers the other one of
us, we can make up easily.
If my friend and I have a fight or argument, we can say Im
sorry and everything will be all right.

Closeness (.79)

If my friend had to move away, I would miss him (her).

1 feel happy when 1am with my friend.
I think about my friend even when my friend is not around.

When I do a goodjob at something, my friend is happy for me.

Sometimes my friend does things for me or makes me feel
special.

34

CLOSE

FRIENDSHIPS
IN ADOLE5CENCE

this problem. The items in the closeness scale focus on the sense of
affection or specialnessthat the child experiences with his or her friend
and the strength of the childs attachment to the friend.
To complete these two measures, subjects were asked to identify their
best friends and to rate each item on a 5-point scale according to how well
it described their relationships with these friends. These ratings were
coded so that higher scores indicated greater levels of the quality measured.
The children in our sample also completed a scale designed by Asher,
Hymel, and Renshaw (1984) to measure loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Using the subjects ratings of the items in this scale, we tallied two
scores: loneliness and social belongingness. The loneliness score was the
mean of a subjects ratings of the two items in this scale that referred most
directly to feelings of loneliness: I feel alone and I feel lonely. The social
belongingness scale included items that referred to childrens feelings of
inclusion and isolation: I have lots of friends in my class, I dont have
anyone to play with,* I am well likedby the kids in my class, and I dont
have any friends in my class. The subjects rated each of these items on a
5-point scale, higher ratings indicating greater levels of loneliness and
isolation from the peer group. These two scores were internally consistent
(alpha = .68 and .77, for the loneliness and the social belongingness
scores, respectively).
As indicated in Figure 2.2 by the dark arrows, seven paths were
included in our model: popularity was linked to mutual friendship, friendship quality, and social belongingness; mutual friendship was linked to
friendship quality and loneliness;and friendship qualityand belongingness
were linked to loneliness. We evaluated this model with Bentlers (1989)
structural equations program. Our findings indicated that the model
worked very well: The observed goodness-of-fit index was -91 and the chisquare value was 8.08, indicating that our model matched the data well.
The path coefficients also indicated that both mutual friendship and
friendship quality were linked to loneliness, and that popularity was linked
to belongingness. When the model was reevaluated with direct paths
between the popularity measure and the loneliness measure, the mutual
friendship measure and the social belongingness measure, and the friendship quality measure and the social belongingness measure, the overall
quality of the model did not improve. The coefficients for these additiona~
paths were not statistically significant. This pattern of findings supports
the argument that popularity is linked to loneliness not directly but rather
indirectly via mutual friendship and feelings of belongingness.
Popularity, Friendship, and Adjustment: New Directions
Investigators who have studied the associationsbetween peer relations and
adjustment have typically focused on either a single aspect of the peer

POPULARITY, FRIENDSHIP,
AND EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT

35

system (for example,popularity or friendship) or the additive contribution

of a few variables. Although these efforts have contributed to the development of a new area of research, the researchers have failed to recognize the
complex interrelatedness of constructs within the domain of peer relations. Moreover, they have not distinguished among the experiences
provided by different aspects of relations with peers and thus have failed
to recognize the importance of these distinctions to an understanding of
how peer relations affect particular domains of adjustment.
Our approach to the study of peer relations avoids these shortcomings
in four ways. First, based on what we know about the inte~elatednessof
popularity and friendship (and the interrelatedness of the measures used
torepresent these constructs), we have studied popularity and friendship
simultaneously so as to avoid the confounds that result when they are
studied separately.
Second, we have proposed that because popularity and friendship are
different experiences, they are likely to affect different aspects of adjustment. So we have made specific hypotheses about which aspects of
adjustment are linked to particular types of experience with peers. By
deriving these hypotheses directly from theory about the nature of peer
relations, we have been able to develop a comprehensive model of how
peer relations contribute to development.
Third, both theory and research support the argument that friendship
relations become increasinglyimportant as individuals enter early adolescence. Accordingly,we have placed friendship relations at the center of our
model of peer relations and adjustment. In particular, we have proposed
that friendship relations are important mediators between experience at
the level of the group and adjustment during early adolescence. That is,
popularity and friendship are not separate pathways to affective adjustment, but friendship is the pathway by which popularity is linked to
emotional adjustment. We have also proposed that popularity directly
affects childrens feelings of inclusion and belongingness, which in turn
affect emotional well-being.
Fourth, we have considered the direct and indirect associations between measures of peer relations and measures of adjustment. Instead of
looking at simple associations between measures of peer relations and
measures of adjustment, we have examined how they function together.
One exciting feature of this approach is the opportunity to consider the
processes that link particular aspects of peer relations to adjustment. For
example, our study demonstrated that friendship mediates the link between popularity and loneliness. By determining how particular variables
act as mediators, we were able to identify which constructs from the peer
system are directly linked to the development of affective well-being. This
information not only contributes to our understanding of social and
personality development but also suggestseffective strategies to help early
adolescents who are lonely or who lack a sense of emotional well-being.

36

CLOSE

FRIENDSHIPS
IN ADOLESCENCE

Our findings clarify two other points as well. First, the results suggest
that although children who are unpopular may not feel included in the peer
group, they may nevertheless be protected from feelings of loneliness by a
close and secure relationship with a best friend. In other words, the
friendship relation may act as a buffer to protect unpopular children from
loneliness. Second, it is important to note that mutual friendship is linked
to loneliness directly and indirectly via friendship quality. That is, early
adolescents who do not have a mutual friend are at risk for loneliness
because they lack this kind of relationship and because nonreciprocated
friendships are less likely to provide experiences for closenessand security.
Conclusion
There is a large literature demonstrating that relations with peers play an
important role in social development. The goal of our research program
was to identify the particular means by which peer relations and adjustment are linked during early adolescence. Our approach was predicated on
the proposal that popularity and friendship constitute different forms of
experience for early adolescent boys and girls, and the belief that popularity and f r i e n ~ h i are
p conceptually and empi~callyrelated constructs and
hence must be studied together in a unified model. By pursuing this
research direction, investigators are likely to illuminate how particular
domains of peer relations affect emotional adjustmentduring early adolescence.
References
Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., and Renshaw, P. D. "Peer Loneliness in Children." Child Development, 1984,55,1456-1464.
Bentler, P. M. EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angela: BMDP, 1989.
Berndt, T.J. "Children's Comments About Their Friends." In M. Perlmutter (ed.), Minnesota
Symposia on Child Psychology. Vol. 18.Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1986.
Bigelow, B. J. "Children's Friendship Expectations: A Cognitive-Developmental Study."
Child Development, 1977,48,247-253.
Buhrmester, D. "Intimacy of Friendship, Interpersonal Competence, and Adjustment During
Preadolescence and Adolescence." Child Development, 1990,61, 1101-1 111.
Bukowski, W. M., and Hoza, B. "Popularity and Friendship: Issues in Theory, Measurement,
and Outcome." In T. J. Berndt and G. W. Ladd (eds.), Peer Relationships in Child
Development. New York Wiley, 1989.
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., and Boivin, M. "The Development of a Scale to Measure
Dimensions of Friendship Quality During Childhood and Early Adolescence." Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, 1992.
Bukowski, W. M., and Newcomb, A. F. "The Stability and Determinants of Sociometric
Status and Friendship Choice: A Longitudinal Perspective." Developmental Psychology,
1984,20,941-952.

POPULARITY,

FRIENDSHIP,
AND EMOTIONAL
ADJUSTMENT

37

Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., and Hoza, B. Friendship Conceptions Among Early
Adolescents: A Longitudinal Study of Stability and Change.Journal of Early Adolescence,
1987,7,143-152.
Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., and Hoza, B. TheAssociation Between Rating State and
Nomination-Based Popularity Measures and an index of Mutual Friendship. Unpublished
manuscript, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, 1992.
Furman, W., and Bierman, K. L. Childrens Conceptions of Friendship: A M u l t i ~ e t h ~
Study of Developmental Changes. Developmental Psychology, 1984,20,925-931.
Furman, W.,and Robbins, P. Whats the Point? Issues in the Selection of Treatment
Objectives. In B. H. Schneider, K. H. Rubin, and J. E. Ledingham (eds.), Chi~drensPeer
Relations: Issues in Assessment and Intervention. New York Springer-Verlag, 1985.
Harter, S. Developmental Perspectives on the Self System, In E. M. Hetherington (ed.),
Handbook ofChild Psyckology. Vol. 4 Socialization, Personality, and Social Development.
New York Wiley, 1983.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., and Dodge, K. A. The Role of Poor Peer Relations in the
Development of Disorder, In S. R. Asher and J. D. Coie (eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood. New York Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Parker, J. G., and Asher, S. R. Peer Relations and Later Personal Adjustment: Are LowAccepted Children at Risk? Psychological Bulletin. 1987,102,357-389.
Parker, J. G.,and Asher, S. R. Friendship and Friendship Quality in Middle Childhood
Links with Peer Group Acceptance and Feelings of Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction.
Developmental Psychology, in press.
Sullivan, H. 5. The I n ~ e ~ e r s o nTheory
a ~ ofpsychiatry. New York Norton, 1953.
Weiss, R. S. The Provisions of Social Relationships. In Z. Rubin (ed.), Doing unto Others.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1974.

&?LLIAM M. BUKOWSKI
is associateprofessor in the Department of Psychology,
Concordia University, Montrea~.

BETSYHOZAis assistant professor at the Western Psychiatric Institute and

Clinic, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
~ B co is ~~~s ~ s~tEaprofessor
n ~t ~ in the School o~psychology,U n ~ v e r soif~
Luvul, Suinte-Foy, Canada.
~