Author's personal copy

Peer Relations
J K Dijkstra and R Veenstra, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
ã 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Glossary Social network: A social network is a social structure made

Dyad: A pair of individuals such as two friends, a couple, or up of individuals who are connected by one or more specific
a bully and a victim. types of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship, or
Peer clique: An inclusive group of peers who interact and common interest.
share interests, views, purposes, or behaviors.
Peer crowd: Reputation based collective of similarly
stereotyped individuals who may or may not spend time
together.

Introduction of time spent with parents decreases, whereas particularly

for girls, time spending with peers increases. For boys, it is
An eye-catching feature of adolescence is the increased promi- found that time spending with parents is mainly replaced by
nence of peers in the lives of adolescents. This article introduces time spending alone. Particularly in the United States and
peer relations in adolescence by focusing on the importance of Europe, adolescents spend a considerable amount of their
peer relations for adolescent adjustment and development. time solely with peers, whereas in Asia, the presence of family
What prompts the increased salience of peer relations in adoles- members is more prominent.
cence? Why do peers become more important? In what way do Adolescents may spend less time with and seek more auton-
peer relations change from childhood to adolescence? omy from parents, but they typically do so in the context
of stable strong connections and parental influence. Well-
behaved adolescents share their lives with their parents. They
Importance of Peer Relations are willing to self-disclose to parents and are open to parental
monitoring.
When children move into adolescence, the prominence of
peers becomes more salient in their daily lives. Adolescents
gradually shift their attention from parents toward peers, yield- Dual Role of Peers
ing peer relations as a domain that becomes increasingly impor-
tant for support and companionship, and adolescents’ social and The importance of peers for the social and mental develop-
mental development. The increased salience of peers is shown by ment of adolescents is unquestionable. In childhood, parents
the extent to which adolescents spend time with peers. In general, form the most relevant socializing agents, but in adolescence,
adolescents spend double or triple as much time with peers than the salience of peers for adolescents’ development increases
with parents or other adults. For example, in the United States with distinct implications for adolescents’ well-being and
adolescents spend 50% of their time with peers and approxi- development. Relationships with peers in and outside school
mately 15% of their time with adults. This difference in time become increasingly important for the social and mental devel-
spending can partially be explained by daily, prescribed activ- opment of adolescents. Paradoxically, there are two sides of the
ities, particularly attending school in the proximity of peers, and coin regarding the role of peers in adolescence, reflected in two
results in age segregation and gives rise to the development of a distinct views on adolescence.
distinct peer culture, independent from the adult world. On the one hand, adolescence is recognized as an impor-
Yet, this is only half of the story. Increased time spending tant developmental period full of opportunities and challenges
with peers is not only due to daily structured activities, but also for personal growth, social commitment, identity development,
reflects adolescents’ preference to be with peers or alone rather and decision-making. Relations with peers form an important
than spending time with family or teachers. The increased context in which adolescents acquire skills and exhibit behaviors
importance of peers is also shown when adolescents are asked that enable them to establish more mature relations with peers
to indicate significant others. Adolescents consider peers as very and achieve emotional independence from parents to prepare
important to them. Adolescents more often seek opportunities to themselves to fully participate in life when moving toward
spend time unsupervised and hanging around with peers. More- adulthood.
over, recent changes in Western societies, particularly increasing The importance of peer relations is also reflected by the fact
demands for labor market participation of women, have reduced that adolescents who face difficulties in the establishment of
opportunities for parents to be at home during the day and relations with peers are at risk for maladaptive outcomes.
increased the opportunities for unsupervised time spending. Adolescents who are unable to establish a position within the
A closer look at the changes in time spending from child- peer group are likely to develop feelings of inferiority that can
hood to adolescence shows that for all adolescents, the amount contribute to a sense of psychological ill-being and are at risk

Encyclopedia of Adolescence, Volume 2 doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-373915-5.00079-6 255

Encyclopedia of Adolescence (2011), vol. 2, pp. 255-259
 Author's personal copy
256 Peer Relations

for internalizing problems such as anxiety, loneliness, and As such, peer influence emerges via opportunities. These
depression. In turn, these indices of maladjustment cause opportunities and constraints often reflect differences in struc-
difficulties for adolescents to develop meaningful relationships tural characteristics, such as socioeconomic background and
with peers. In that regard, peer relations also cause stress, ethnicity. The formation and establishment of peer relations is,
insecurity, conflict, and disagreement. therefore, not purely based on individual preferences, but also
On the other hand, the peer context puts adolescents at risk bound by given opportunities.
for engagement in maladaptive behaviors. Most prominently,
peers are generally conceived as crucial in the development of
adolescent risk behaviors, leading to conformity in behaviors Biological, Cognitive, and Social Changes
to what peers do. It has been consistently shown that the
number of deviant, antisocial, and delinquent friends is one The reason why peers become more important for adolescents
of the strongest correlates of externalizing problem behaviors and the way in which peer relations are organized differently
in adolescence, such as delinquency and substance use. in adolescence compared to childhood reflects three major
Learning and socialization theories reveal the idea that peers changes that adolescents undergo. These major changes can
influence one another’s maladaptive behavior via learning of be distinguished into biological, cognitive, and social transi-
skills, norms, attitudes, and rationalizations of deviant beha- tions. To understand the role of peers in adolescence, it is
viors, referred to as deviancy training. The attractiveness of risk necessary to consider these changes, because they explain
behaviors in adolescence is also reflected by associations with why peers become more important and in what way the orga-
status among peers. Perceived popular adolescents are known nization of adolescents’ peer relations differs from childhood.
for their antisocial, aggressive behaviors and their prosocial, First, the transition from childhood to adolescence is char-
peer-valued characteristics. acterized by a process of biological and, consequently, sexual
It is argued that the rise in problem behaviors in adoles- maturation. In a relatively short period of time, adolescents
cence could be attributed to this process of age-segregation undergo accelerated changes in their secondary sex character-
in which adolescents become alienated from societal values istics. In this growth spurt, known as puberty, adolescents
and norms, reflected by parental influence. Expectations and biologically mature, reflected by physiological and physical
demands from peers might strongly contradict what is seen as changes. For boys and girls, this development differs in two
normative from the adults’ perspective. Yet, the influence of ways. First of all, biological maturation starts earlier as well as
parents is not fading in favor of peers. Peer influence mainly comprises a shorter time period for girls than for boys. Girls
concerns ‘superficial’ behaviors rather than fundamental undergo a process of biological maturation between ages 9 and
values and norms that for instance reflect political or academic 14, whereas for boys, maturation takes place between ages
orientations. The role of peers is more restricted to short-term 10 and 17. Second, the biological changes, which are steered
decisions and temporal engagement in adverse behaviors. This by changes in physiological processes, differ for boys and girls.
suggests that peers become more salient, but parents remain of Whereas for girls, estrogen is responsible for their biological
critical importance. Moreover, adolescents are not equally sus- maturation, such as first menarche, expansion of the hip, and
ceptible to peer influence. Influence processes differ by age, breast growth, for boys, changes in the production of testoster-
peer group affiliation, and even community of residence, and one lead to changes in their physical characteristics such as hair
interact with experiences in other contexts such as the neigh- growth, lower voice, maturation of testicles, and development
borhood, the family, or sport clubs. Thus, peer influence is of muscles.
neither overwhelming nor uniform. These biological alterations that result in sexual maturation
Most challenging to conclusions about peer influence is affect the organization of peer relationships rather straightfor-
that similarity in behaviors between adolescents and peers wardly. In childhood, peer relations are strongly sex-segregated
does not automatically imply peer influence, considering that and same-sex preferences dominate. When children enter
similarity might also emerge via a selection process, in which adolescence, and become more biologically mature, sex bound-
adolescents with similar behaviors, values, preferences, or aries are gradually crossed, and contacts and relationships with
characteristics select one another as friends. In other words, the other sex increase. One aspect of peer relations that facil-
associations between adolescents’ behavior and peers can also itates cross-sex affiliations is that adolescents tend to belong to
emerge from reversed causality, pointing to assortive pairing larger peer networks, which makes inclusion of cross-sex peers
rather than influence effects. Most likely, both processes are at easy and assures participation in heterosexual-oriented activ-
work simultaneously. ities. The time differences in biological development between
The extent to which both processes, that is, influence boys and girls, in which girls start earlier and develop faster,
and selection, are at work also depends on opportunities to result in girls being more inclined to seek affiliation with older
affiliate with peers. Structural characteristics that emerge from, male peers. These older boys are likely to perform more risk
for instance, attending a particular school or living in a specific behavior than younger ones, thereby encouraging risk behavior
neighborhood, affect the proximity to peers and, therefore, in early maturing females in unsupervised contexts.
the opportunities to affiliate. Particularly, time spending with This relates to the second change in adolescence that affects
peers without adult supervision creates an opportunity struc- adolescents’ peer relations. From a social-structural perspec-
ture for deviant behavior, even if adolescents initially do not tive, changes in peer group structure also respond to changes
aim for deviant acts. In reverse, unstructured, unsupervised in the social world, that is, the transition to secondary educa-
activities might also be subject to selection effects by attracting tion. The transition from childhood to adolescence often coin-
peers who are more prone to engage in deviant activities. cides with entering a new school. Contrary to primary schools

Encyclopedia of Adolescence (2011), vol. 2, pp. 255-259

 Author's personal copy
Peer Relations 257

which are generally small, secondary schools are usually large. structured compared to childhood by increased time spending
For adolescents, finding their way within this larger peer ecol- with peers, and cross-sex interactions, increased salience
ogy often results in seeking affiliation with a more well-defined of peer crowds, and more autonomy and less supervision
group of peers. These groups are often based on shared values, by adults.
interests, or norms concerning aspects like music taste, risk Three remarks should be made. First of all, the organization
behaviors, school involvement, and substance use. Adolescents of peer relations differs somewhat between boys and girls.
seek crowds that fit to their needs for emotional support and Girls generally operate more within intimate, closely knit
exploration or reaffirmation of values and attitudes and aspira- relationships in which trust and mutual disclosure are highly
tions. Entering the large peer system with a lot of unknown and valued, whereas boys are more in loose-knit groups and more
unfamiliar peers, adolescents may find that membership in a organized around specific activities. Second, socioeconomic
smaller group of befriended peers provides security. Moreover, status (SES) also reflects upon the organization of peer rela-
categorization of different peer groups helps to organize par- tions, particularly in the United States, with high SES adoles-
ticipation and negotiation with unknown peers. Stated differ- cents being part of expanding networks based on interests and
ently, entering secondary education with larger schools makes activities, and groups of lower SES adolescents remaining in
affiliation with peers based on different attributes and charac- local networks.
teristics more salient. For instance, in the United States status Third, it is important to keep in mind that our knowledge
and sports play an important role in the organization and about the world of adolescents is mainly based on research
definition of distinct peer groups, resulting in groups labeled conducted in Western countries. Recognition of the different
as jocks, brains, and burnouts. circumstances under which adolescents grow up and the extent
Associations with peers with whom adolescents share simi- to which these circumstances influence their organization of
lar attributes and characteristics are also closely related to the peer relations is warranted. For instance, in Western countries,
third change in adolescence. The social-cognitive development peers become increasingly salient in the lives of adolescents,
of adolescents allows them to establish and maintain signifi- whereas adolescents in the Arab world face more restricted peer
cant relationships with peers, and develop within these inter- interactions, particularly girls. In some circumstances, for
actions their own identity. The development of identity is an instance street children, peers are extremely important and
important challenge for adolescents. Peers provide unique function as a surrogate family in the absence of the natural
opportunities to establish and develop an identity. Particularly, family. Another striking cross-cultural difference is the extent
the cognitive development enhances perspective taking, abstract to which adolescents aim for autonomy. Whereas in Western
thinking, meta-cognitive thinking, and role taking, which countries, gaining independence and autonomy from parents
enables them to reflect upon social relationships and establish and family is a key asset of adolescence, adolescents in Asian
more mature relationships with peers. countries keep closely connected to parents, for instance, via
In the achievement and establishment of an identity, peers arranged marriages or earning income for their family.
play a crucial role for comparison and provision of informa-
tion about appropriate behavior and self-knowledge and
self-definition. Peer relations fulfill unique needs for the Different Levels of Peer Relations
establishment of a personal identity, social acceptance, and
sense of place in the peer hierarchy. Additionally, peer relations To understand the role of peers in adolescence, peer relations
provide opportunities for adolescents to share experiences, have been studied at the individual, dyadic, and group level. At
thoughts, laughter, and mutual enjoyment with similar others. the individual level, peer researchers have focused on adoles-
Compared to parents, peers supply opportunities and cents’ position in the peer network, yielding different types of
experiences that cannot be duplicated by other socializing status. Using peer nominations, information is assessed about
agents. Peer relations are considered as attractive for adoles- with whom adolescents are friends as well as whom they like or
cents for being more egalitarian, less controlling, less judgmen- dislike in the peer group. From these nominations, two dimen-
tal, more accepting, and more present-oriented than relations sions are discerned. Social preference is the sum of like (or best
with adults, who are more experts or authorities. friend) nominations minus nominations received from peers
This coincides with one important developmental task in as being disliked. Social impact is the sum of nominations as
adolescence, namely, the establishment of a more emotional like and dislike. Combining both dimensions has yielded dif-
independent relation with parents in favor of more mature, ferent types of positions adolescents have in the peer group:
intimate relations with peers. This is also reflected by gaining being popular, controversial, neglected, rejected, or average.
more autonomy and less adult’s guidance or control. In child- Characterizing these different sociometric status groups
hood, peer groups are anchored in the neighborhood, but in on dimensions of sociability, aggression, withdrawal, and cog-
adolescence, peers come often from different neighborhoods, nitive abilities showed the following picture. Popular adoles-
which makes the area in which adolescents spend their time cents, who score high on social preference, are known for their
much larger and parental supervision harder. An important sociability and cognitive abilities, whereas their level of with-
shortcoming in research is the predominant focus on school drawal and aggression is low. Controversial adolescents differ
settings, whereas peer relations in other settings, like the neigh- from popular peers by not only being liked but also being
borhood or workplace, have been studied less. disliked by peers (scoring high on social impact). Their contro-
Thus, changes in peer relations are responsive to biological, versial status is reflected in their behaviors, combining aggres-
social-cognitive, and social-structural changes. Together, these sion with sociability. By contrast, rejected adolescents are also
changes in adolescence affect the way peer relations are considered as aggressive, but lack sociable and cognitive

Encyclopedia of Adolescence (2011), vol. 2, pp. 255-259

 Author's personal copy
258 Peer Relations

abilities. Yet, they have a negative status in the peer group by The study of mutual dislike relationships on the dyadic
being disliked by peers and, thus, scoring low on social prefer- level, so-called antipathies, has gained mixed findings regard-
ence. In addition, some rejected adolescents are not known as ing its significance for adolescents’ development. Although
aggressive, but rather as withdrawn. In a similar way, neglected mutual antipathies do not necessarily relate to maladjustment,
adolescents are also characterized by low levels of aggression it has been found that they form an important context for
and sociability. However, they are kept unnoticed by their aggression and victimization; in particular, when both actors
peers, receiving few nominations for being liked or disliked. in the relationship are physically strong. Future research has to
They score low on social impact. The average status position is provide more insight into the unique impact of antipathy
reserved for those children who do not meet the criteria for relationships for adolescents’ development.
one of the other status groups, having moderate levels of Romantic relationships have also gained more attention
aggression, sociability, withdrawal, and cognitive abilities. from researchers. An important feature of adolescence is the
It is important to keep in mind that these status groups are increasing cross-gender interactions including romantic rela-
based on the aggregate of interpersonal liking and disliking by tionships. These relationships form an important context for
asking adolescents to nominate the peers they like or dislike. the development of interpersonal skills, intimacy, nurturance,
Consequently, both dimensions of liking and disliking do attachment, mutual support, and sexual behaviors. Romantic
not form one continuum. Whereas some children like a partic- relationships may be developmentally positive or negative
ular peer, others might dislike him or her. The implication is depending on the characteristics of the partners, the quality
that the dimensions of social preference are not a continuum, of the relationship, and the context in which it occurs. They
running from dislike to like, but rather two single dimensions may be especially important as buffers against the potential
that only modestly correlate. Hence, nominations for being harm of weak bonds with parents or peers. Age differences
liked or disliked have also been translated into two distinct emerge in romantic affiliations with girls, reflecting their early
dimensions; peer acceptance and peer rejection, which are maturation, being more likely to date older boys. In other
differently related to behaviors. For instance, negative beha- aspects, partners in romantic relationships tend to be similar,
viors such as aggression and bullying are consistently related to such as in ethnicity, status, physical attractiveness, and also
peer rejection, whereas associations with peer acceptance are depressive symptoms. Whether similarity emerges via a process
more ambiguous. Negative behaviors do not always translate of assertive mating or via socialization remains an avenue for
into fewer nominations as liked. future research. The formation of romantic relationships is not
More recently, the concept of perceived popularity has solely driven by personal preferences but also subject to cul-
been emphasized, reflecting hierarchical ordering of the peer tural norms and expectations. For instance, Asian-American
group. Contrary to the above-mentioned sociometric status adolescents are less likely to date at an early age than adoles-
groups that are based on the aggregate of interpersonal liking cents from other ethnic backgrounds.
and disliking, perceived popularity reflects the reputation of At the group level, peer cliques and peer crowds have
adolescents within their peer group derived from nomina- been studied. Peer cliques are interaction-based entities
tions for who is the most popular and who is the least popu- of befriended peers, whereas peer crowds are larger, more
lar. Despite some overlap with being liked or having many reputation-based groups, which primarily reflect cognitive
friends in the peer group, perceived popularity is a distinct phenomena and stereotypical images of a group. Different
measure of peer status that indicates dominant and promi- types of peer cliques and peer crowds have been identified
nent adolescents, who have power to attract peers and being using peer reports on who are associated with one another
influential. Perceived popular adolescents are generally seen and who are seen as distinct cliques and crowds. Definitions
as aggressive as well as having prosocial behaviors and peer- of peer crowds are often based on distinct features of the crowds,
valued characteristics, most prominently athletic abilities and such as being academic oriented (‘brains’), sport oriented
psychical attractiveness. It has been argued that these latter (‘jocks’), or deviant (‘burnouts’). Peer crowds differ not only
characteristics mitigate the negative effects of their aggression in their orientation, but also in their status. Particularly, sport-
in peer relations. Whether aggression helps to achieve popu- oriented and socially active crowds posses a high status, which
larity has been debated, but it is generally conceived as an is reflected by more self-esteem of its members as well as
important means to maintain status in the peer group by attaching more importance to being member of a crowd
beating competitors who also aim to gain a high status in compared to peers in lower status crowd.
the peer group. Cliques can be hierarchically ordered. For example, popular
On the dyadic level, most research has focused on friend- children are often followed by wannabes. The willingness
ship relations, whereas research on negative relationships, to become or remain a member of the popular clique can
such as bully-victim dyads and antipathies, and positive rela- yield insecurity, frustration, and unstable friendship relations.
tionships, such as romantic relationships and victim–defender So-called middle friendship groups provide more egalitarian
dyads, is emerging. Using a dyadic approach has yielded and stable friendships.
more insights into the dynamics underlying different types of Another way of approaching larger peer groups is by means
relationships. For instance, bully–victim relationships have of social networks derived from best friend nominations.
been characterized by a power imbalance, with aggressive chil- Social network analysis yields insights into the structural fea-
dren initiating bullying of vulnerable, rejected children. Pick- tures of the network, such as mutual friendship patterns (‘reci-
ing vulnerable peers who are not well liked or even rejected, procity’), friendship triangles meaning that friendships are
bullies seem to choose their victims strategically by not facing more likely to be established when persons share a common
the loss of friendships in the peer group at large. friend (‘transitivity’), centrality of individuals in the network as

Encyclopedia of Adolescence (2011), vol. 2, pp. 255-259

 Author's personal copy
Peer Relations 259

well as the role of personal characteristics, such as age, gender, changes, which are steered by changes in physiological pro-
and ethnicity, in establishing friendship relations. cesses, are reflected in a gradual shift in attention toward cross-
The group level has been studied less frequently than the sex peers. To understand the role of peers in adolescence, peer
individual and dyadic level. One reason is that social networks relations have been studied at the individual, dyadic, and
are more difficult to define and measure. Most researchers group level. At the individual level, research has focused on
agree that peer status refers to a rank ordering of individuals different social status positions of adolescent in their peer
according to their degree of acceptance, rejection, or popular- group, showing its impact on social and mental adjustment.
ity. The measurement of dyadic relationships is relatively At the dyadic level, most research has focused on friendship
straightforward as well. Friendships are typically derived from relations, whereas research on negative relationships, such as
reciprocal best friend nominations. Similarly, operational bully–victim dyads and antipathies, and positive relationships,
definitions have been used to identify enemies or mutually such as romantic relationships and victim–defender dyads, is
aggressive pairs. The identification of social networks is more emerging. At the group level, disentangling the larger structure
complex and challenging because they are not fixed entities of adolescents’ social networks, particularly via identification
but clusters of connected individuals that change over time. of different peer cliques and crowds, has enhanced our under-
At any given time, the members of a network are in it with standing of how peer groups are organized and how identity is
varying received and given nominations; over time, the net- reflected by membership of particular cliques and crowds.
work relations may increase or decrease and individuals may Little is known, however, about the interplay between different
move in and out of the group. Progress in models that can levels of peer relations and changes in peer group formation
study social networks allows investigators to examine changes over time. Furthermore, the cross-cultural validation of these
in behaviors and networks over time. changes and their impact on adolescents is needed.
An avenue for future research is the interaction between
different levels of peer relations and their influence on adoles-
cents’ social and mental development. An influential model to See also: Alcohol Use; Bully/Victim Problems during Adolescence;
study the interaction between individuals and the group is Disruptive Behaviors and Aggression; Peer Influence; Popularity and
the person–group dissimilarity model, which postulates that Social Status; Risk-Taking Behavior; Romantic Relationships;
negative social behaviors like aggression are more likely to lead Socialization; Tobacco use.
to negative peer evaluations when these behaviors are not
normative in the peer context. Evidence indeed suggests that
children are more likely to be rejected when they behave
dissimilar to their peer group context and, thus, deviate from Further Reading
the group norm. Adler PA and Adler P (1998) Peer Power. Preadolescent Culture and Identity.
Another avenue for future research is the understanding of New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
group dynamics on adolescents’ social and mental develop- Agnew R (2003) An integrated theory of the adolescent peak in offending. Youth &
ment. In Western societies, the peer group has become the Society 34: 263–299.
Brown BB, Larson RW, and Saraswathi TS (eds.) (2002) The World’s Youth.
major social context in which respect and recognition of social Adolescence in Eight Regions of the Globe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
maturity may be granted. This is particularly noticeable in risk University Press.
behaviors that seem to be intrinsically linked to the context of Carrington PJ, Scott J, and Wasserman S (eds.) (2005) Models and Methods
adolescent peer relations. The question, however, is how indi- in Social Network Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cillessen AHN and Rose AJ (2005) Understanding popularity in the peer system.
vidual positions within peer networks and being embedded in
Current Directions in Psychological Science 14: 102–105.
specific peer groups can have a major impact on adolescent Corsaro WA and Eder D (1990) Children’s peer cultures. Annual Review of Sociology
behaviors. 16: 197–220.
Crosnoe R and Kirkpatrick Johnson M (2011) Research on adolescence in the
21st century. Annual Review of Sociology (in press).
Dishion TJ and Tipsord JM (2011) Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and
Conclusions emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology 62. doi:10.1146/annurev.
psych.093008.100412.
The importance and organization of peer relations alters in Giordano PC (2003) Relationships in adolescence. Annual Review of Sociology
adolescence as a result of biological, cognitive, and social 29: 257–281.
Moffitt TE (1993) Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial
changes. Socially, moving into adolescence is associated with
behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100:
entering larger schools. To establish a sense of belonging 674–701.
within these larger peer ecologies, adolescents engage in peer Rubin KH, Bukowski WM, and Laursen B (eds.) (2009) Handbook of Peer Interactions,
groups that often have a distinct identity. Cognitively, adoles- Relationships, and Groups. New York: Guilford.
cents develop toward mature autonomous individuals where Steinberg L (2007) Adolescence, 8th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Veenstra R and Steglich C (2011) Actor-based model for network and behavior
this is related to gaining a more independent position toward dynamics: A tool to examine selection and influence processes. In: Laursen B,
parents. Relations with peers enable adolescents to establish Little TD, and Card NA (eds.) Handbook of Developmental Research Methods.
valuable relationship independent from parents. Pubertal New York: Guilford.

Encyclopedia of Adolescence (2011), vol. 2, pp. 255-259