See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232557626

Friendship and Adaptation in the Life Course

Article in Psychological Bulletin · May 1997

DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.355

CITATIONS READS
883 8,533

2 authors:

Willard W. Hartup N. L. Stevens

University of Minnesota Twin Cities Radboud University
103 PUBLICATIONS 9,578 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 2,374 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by N. L. Stevens on 20 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychological Bunetin Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1997, Vol. 121, No. 3, 355-370 0033-2909/97/$3.00

Friendships and Adaptation in the Life Course

Willard W. Hartup Nan Stevens
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities University of Nijmegen

To consider friendships and their significance through the life course requires, first, differentiation
of deep structure (i.e., reciprocity) from surface structure (i.e., the social exchange) and, second,
assessment within a multifaceted framework that simultaneously emphasizes having friends, the
identity of one's friends, and relationship quality. Having friends is correlated with a sense of well-
being across the life span, but developmentaloutcome also depends on the identity of one's friends
as well as the quality of one's relationships with them. Greater attention needs to be given to the
manner in which friendships differ from one another, continuities and changes across major develop-
mental transitions, and differentiationof developmentalpathways through which friendship experi-
ence contributes to individual outcome.

Most individuals build their lives around friends as well as Our major objective is to assess the developmental signifi-
families. A friendship consists mainly of being attracted to cance of having friends, who one's friends are, and quality of
someone who is attracted in return, with parity governing the friendship relations in a life-span perspective. Accordingly, we
social exchanges between the individuals involved. Friendships discuss first what it means to take a life-course perspective on
carry expectations that "best" friends will spend more time friendship relations. We suggest that life-course views in this
with one another than other persons, offering one another emo- area must involve two levels of analysis--what might be called
tional support, including loyalty, trust, intimacy, and fun. Not deep structure and surface structure. Second, we argue that
everyone has friendships, but these relationships are sought after friendship and life-course adaptation cannot be understood un-
and valued from early childhood through old age. Friendships less a clear distinction is made among having friends, the iden-
are ranked among the things that matter most to children, adoles- tity of one's friends, and friendship quality. We examine these
cents, and adults (Klinger, 1977). three friendship dimensions in turn, extending the treatment
Although friendships have been scrutinized by social scien- given to them from two earlier essays. In the first essay in this
tists for a century or more (Monroe, 1898 ), their developmental series (Hartup, 1995), the general case for multidimensional
significance is difficult to specify beyond adolescence. First, assessment was argued; in the second (Hartup, 1996), this
studies with adults are not as numerous as studies with children three-dimensional framework was used to examine the signifi-
and adolescents; relevant longitudinal studies are especially rare cance of friendships in child and adolescent development. Now,
(Blieszner & Adams, 1992). Second, studies with adults are in this article, we extend the analysis by differentiating deep
likely targeted on special groups (e.g., retirees and widows), and surface structures in friendship experience and by applying
thus rendering normative comparisons difficult. Third, adult the three-dimensional framework across the life course.
friendships are studied with a relatively narrow range of methods
(interviews and questionnaires); child and adolescent friend-
Friendship Relations in the Life Course: The Distinction
ships have been studied with more diverse methodologies, in-
Between Deep and Surface Structures
cluding experimental and observational techniques. Fourth, sub-
ject matter varies with age: Studies with adults deal with inter- To consider friendship in a life-span perspective involves two
personal attraction, similarities between friends, and social main assumptions. First, one assumes that friendships bear on
support (Blieszner & Adams, 1992); studies with children and developmental outcome, beginning in early childhood and ex-
adolescents deal with origins and behavioral manifestations, tending through old age. Some adaptational concomitants are
cognitive expectations, and developmental outcomes (Hartup, concurrent, so one finds that friends support one another in
1996). coordinated play and problem solving during the early years and
that toddlers who are sought out as friends are more generally
competent than those who are not (Howes, 1983). Other conti-
Willard W. Hartup, Institute of Child Development, University of nuities extend across time and situation, so adults who have
Minnesota,TwinCities; Nan Stevens,Departmentof Psychogerontology, friends are known to meet various developmental challenges,
Universityof Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. such as widowhood, with better outcomes than individuals who
Some sections of this article are based on presentations by WiUard do not have friends (Connidis & Davies, 1990; Dykstra, 1995a).
W. Hartup and Nan Stevens at dedication ceremonies for the Rutten
Some of these contributions may be cumulative in the sense that
Institute for PsychologicalResearch, Universityof Nijmegen,Nijmegen,
The Netherlands, on October 20, 1995. the contributions of one friendship augment the contributions
Correspondenceconcerningthis article should be addressed to Willard of others. One does not necessarily assume that friendships have
W. Hartup, Institute of Child Development,Universityof Minnesota, 51 the same significance throughout life but that these relationships
East River Road, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455. Electronic mail may are developmental resources at all ages.
be sent via Internet to [email protected]. Second, one assumes that developmental changes in individu-

355
356 HARTUP AND STEVENS

als trigger changes in relationships and that these changes extend the giving and taking, and returning in kind or degree. On this
through the life course. For example, (a) among very young basis, then, we argue that the friendship deep structure in West-
children, new coordinations and combinations in memory ern cultures is best described as "symmetrical reciprocity" (see
emerge at about 2 years of age, appearing to serve as a basis for Hinde, 1979; and Youniss, 1980).
an increase of coordination and collaboration in the interaction Because reciprocity constitutes the friendship deep structure
between toddlers and their friends (Brownell, 1986); (b) across the life course, certain outcomes or consequences should
changes associated with puberty trigger increases in intimacy be evident at all ages. Social reciprocities should be significant
between opposite-gender friends but not same-gender friends sources of security (Bowlby, t969), self-worth (Sullivan,
(Sharabany, Gershoni, & Hofman, 1981 ); and (c) when strength 1953), and well-being (R. S. Weiss, 1973). These conditions,
and mobility decline in old age, one' s friends must initiate social in turn, should support successful coping, especially with devel-
contact and activities, thereby changing relationship reciproci- opmental transitions such as school entrance, puberty, workforce
ties (O'Connor, 1993; Rawlins, 1992). entrance, marriage, child bearing, spouse' s death, and retirement
To consider friendships across the life course requires the (Magnusson, Stattin, & Allen, 1985). On the basis that friend-
differentiation of deep structure, which characterizes these rela- ship reciprocities support coping in this fashion, one expects
tionships, from surface structure. We use deep structure to refer these relationships to promote good outcomes regardless of age.
to the social meaning (essence) of relationships and surface Surface structures--the actual exchanges that occur between
structure to refer to the social exchanges that characterize them friends--differ from situation to situation and from early child-
at any given moment or in any given situation--a convention hood to old age. Social reciprocities between two toddlers, for
that is similar to the one used in linguistics (Chomsky, 1965). example, are manifested mainly in time spent together and con-
The friendship deep structure can be identified by researchers nected interactions (Howes, 1989). Reciprocities between kin-
asking participants to describe a friend or friends--especially dergarten friends are more elaborate socially but remain basi-
an ideal or hypothetical f r i e n d - - a n d then content analyzing the cally concrete, consisting of play and sharing (Howes, 1983).
results. Accordingly, among young children, friendship expecta- Reciprocities among adolescent friends consist of common ac-
tions have been found to center mainly on common activities tivities (especially socializing), augmented by self-disclosure
and concrete reciprocities ( " W e play." "And I give them food, and expectations of loyalty and trust (Berndt, 1989). Reciproci-
so they give me food back"; Goodnow & Burns, 1985, p. 120). ties among adult friends are centered on work activities, and
School-aged children describe friends as understanding, loyal, many friendships become "fused" or "blended" with work
and trustworthy; children expect to spend time with their friends, (Hess, 1972; Winstead, Derlega, & Montgomery, 1995). Other
share interests, and engage in self-disclosure with them ( " A fusions occur with marriage; husbands and wives frequently
good friend is someone who likes you and spends time with share friends with whom issues in marriage and family relations
you and forgives you and doesn't actually bash you up"; p. are stressed (Hess, 1972; Rawlins, 1992). Reciprocities among
120). Children do not use words like intimate to describe their older persons are more separated from family and work but
friends, but such constructs begin to differentiate these relation- concern support issues and companionship. Surface structures
ships shortly before adolescence (Bigelow, 1977; Selman, at this time include friends exchanging letters and gifts, talking
1980). Older individuals describe an ideal friend mainly as on the telephone, doing favors for one another, and expressing
being supportive (dependable, understanding, and accepting), a affection and mutual respect (Rawlins, 1992; Shea, Thomp-
confidant, and trustworthy. Most important, high school seniors, son, & Blieszner, 1988). What friends talk about and what they
newlyweds, middle-aged parents, and soon-to-be retirees differ do with one another thus change with age and circumstance.
relatively little from one another in their emphasis on these We believe that these changes in surface structure mainly
reciprocities when they describe an ideal friend. Similarity be- reflect changes in the developmental tasks (Havighurst, 1953)
tween friends (sharing interests, experiences, and activities as confronting the individuals involved. So, among young children,
well as communicative compatibility) is regarded, however, as friendship reciprocities support the acquisition of new social
an important friendship attribute among adolescents but de- skills, especially expertise in cooperation and other socially co-
creases subsequently (L. Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975). ordinated skills (e.g., conflict resolution). Among older children
Close examination of these results reveals differences as well and adolescents, the emphasis shifts to intimacy and other ex-
as similarities in the manner in which friends are described by changes that support a sense of self-identity, sensitivity with
younger and older individuals. Differences occur mainly in the respect to the needs of others, and maintenance of mutually
number of psychological constructs used, complexity and orga- oriented relationships with "agemates"--including members
nization of information and ideas, and flexibility with which of both the same and opposite genders (Sullivan, 1953). Among
this information is used to describe a friend, These age differ- young adults, friendshiPS center on a new collection of develop-
ences are similar to those recorded in person perceptions (Lives- mental t a s k s - - w o r k and family issues (Hess, 1972). Finally,
ley & Bromley, 1973), which probably reflect general cognitive when older individuals confront major life transitions that re-
development. Similarities across age occur in the extent to which quire reorganization of one's lifestyle and expectations, friend-
reciprocity and mutuality emerge in the meaning structure. Reci- ship content changes once again. Clearly, the socializing func-
procity does not have narrow connotations in these descriptions; tions of these relationships are closely tied to the developmental
most individuals do not describe friendships as exchange rela- challenges that the individuals involved face, whatever their age.
tionships in which inputs and resource exchanges must be equiv- Some researchers suggested that friendship surface structures
alent or one individual's behavior must exactly match another's. are mainly socializing in childhood and adolescence because
Nevertheless, children and adults of all ages consider these rela- they support innovation in both social understanding and social
tionships to be marked by reciprocation, that is, mutuality-- skill, but they are mainly sustained in old age, through which
 FRIENDSHIPS IN THE LIFE COURSE 357

normative traditionalism is supported (Hess, 1972). Research vidual as well as from companion to companion (Hartup,
shows, however, that these differences may be overstated: So- 1996). First, enormous variation occurs in who one's friends
cialization, for example, remains an important friendship func- are. Some companions are cooperative, outgoing, and socially
tion throughout the life course. Older individuals assist one skilled; others are not. Sometimes companions are antisocial;
another in the reorganization of lifestyles and identities, such at other times, they are not. Such differences are obvious, but
as when retirees seek the company of those already retired their significance is often overlooked. New evidence suggests,
(Adams, 1987), recent widows are aided by long-term widows though, that the identity of one's friends (i.e., their personal and
in reorganizing their lives as single women (Bankoff, 1983; social characteristics) accounts for more outcome variance than
Stevens, 1995), and new residents in housing for older persons whether one has a friend; antisocial children and adolescents
are assisted in their adaptation to the new setting by long-term are examples (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995).
residents (Armstrong & Goldsteen, 1990; Hochschild, 1973). Second, friendships differ from one another qualitatively
Similarly, sustaining functions may occur among friends across (Hartup, 1996), that is, in their content or normative functions
a wide age range, not merely among older adults and their (e.g., what the two individuals do together), their construc-
friends. Certainly, among older adults, "values, which in con- tiveness (e.g., whether one normally resolves conflicts with
temporary terms are dated, can be freely expressed with people one's friends using negotiation or the "power-assertion" influ-
whose life span has given them comparable experiences and ence strategy), their closeness (e.g., if one's companions spend
outlook" (Jerrome, 1981, p. 190), but friendships also support time together, they engage in many different activities as opposed
normative commitments among children and adolescents (Kan- to a few and their exchanges involve self-disclosure), their sym-
del, 1978b). metry (e.g., whether friends influence one another equally or
To summarize, the friendships of toddlers and the friendships "social power" is distributed unequally), and their affective
of older adults are both similar and different. On the one hand, character (e.g., whether friendships are supportive and secure
social interaction between both younger and older friends is or nonsupportive and conflict ridden). Qualitative features are
marked by symmetrical reciprocity (deep structure). On the well recognized in research on mother-infant and marital rela-
other hand, the social exchanges that occur between friends tionships (Bowlby, 1969; Gottman, 1979) but not in relation to
(surface structure) reflect salient developmental tasks. The friendships and their developmental implications.
friendship deep structure is thus developmentally stable, Friendships may thus be assets or liabilities, depending on
whereas friendship surface structure is not. To consider friend- who one's friends are and the quality of one's relationships with
ships in life course terms, then, requires that attention be given them. Overly romanticized views of these relationships distort
to both continuities and discontinuities in their manifestations what they may contribute to development across the life course.
and developmental implications. Two hypotheses, can be ad- Indeed, the identity of one's friends and the quality of one's
vanced. (1) Good friends support well-being from early child- relationships with them may be related to developmental out-
hood onward through the reciprocities that occur between the come more closely than having friends.
friends; consequences may extend from immediate to future
adaptations. (2) Friends support one another in coping with the
Having Friends
developmental (time-limited) challenges that confront them, the
consequences of which may also extend from present to future Occurrence
adaptations. We examine empirical evidence relating to these
hypotheses in subsequent sections. Consider the occurrence of having friends and what research-
ers know about it. First, toddlers sometimes interact with one
another preferentially and the word friend enters their vocabu-
Three Friendship D i m e n s i o n s lary during the third or fourth year (Howes, 1983). Various
data sets suggest that about 75% of nursery school children are
Researchers and clinicians commonly differentiate among involved in reciprocated friendships, as measured by observed
individuals--both children and adults--according to whether time spent in one another's company, nursery school teachers'
or not they have friends. Clinicians, for example, want to know reports, and maternal interviews (Hinde, Titmus, Easton, &
whether a troubled child or adult client has friends, a circle of Tamplin, 1985; Howes, 1983). This figure rises slightly through
friends, or a best f r i e n d - - b u t usually little else in this domain. adolescence when 80% to 90% of teenagers report having mu-
Researchers enter "has friends" into their regression equations tual friends, usually including one or two best friends and several
but seldom more. Whether or not one has friends receives this "close" friends or " g o o d " friends (Van der Linden & Dijkman,
emphasis for two reasons: First, making and keeping friends 1989). Frequencies remain high (90%) among adults in midlife
requires good social skills, so having friends is an indication and then decline, but older adults more commonly have friends
of (a proxy for) good social adjustment. Second, acquiring than not (Wright, 1989; Schutze & Lang, 1993). Small numbers
friends and maintaining these relationships require a person to of individuals have no friends as adults ( 6 - 7 % ) - - a number
be other oriented as well as self-oriented, espouse egalitarian that increases to 12% for women and 22% for men over Age
attitudes, and manage conflicts with one's companions in con- 65 in the United States (Fischer & Phillips, 1982) and 19%
structive ways. On the basis of these arguments, having friends for older persons in the Netherlands (Pearl Dykstra, personal
increases one's social skills and well-being, which, in turn, communication, December 7, 1995).
increase one's likelihood of making and keeping friends. Second, friendship networks are small among preschool chil-
Friendship experience, however, cannot be reduced only to dren, averaging about 1.7 friends for boys and 0.9 for girls,
having friends. Friendships vary greatly from individual to 'indi- whereas school-aged children average 3.0-5.0 best friends, de-
358 HARTUP AND STEVENS

pending on whether one counts unreciprocated as well as recip- published (Hartup, 1989, 1996) as well as a meta-analysis (A.
rocated choices (Hallinan, 1980). This figure remains relatively F. Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995 ). In these studies, researchers did
constant during adolescence and early adulthood (Cairns, not demonstrate the developmental significance of friendships
Lueng, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995), although to make compari- directly but specified some of the social processes through
sons across studies is difficult because of methodological varia- which friendship experience and adaptation are linked.
tions. Network size is greatest among newlyweds, who report We summarize one representative investigation in this article
an average of 7.6 friends; then declines to 4.7 again by middle •along with the meta-analytic results as a basis for the remainder
age; and rises slightly (to 6.0) among persons about to retire of the review. In an empirical study, Hartup, Daiute, Zajac,
(Lowenthal, Thurnher, & Chiriboga, 1975). Network size de- and Sholl (1995) examined conversations between friends and
clines among older adults between Ages 55 and 90 (Dickens & nonfriends (10-year-olds) in an innercity magnet school while
Perlman, 1981; Dykstra, 1995b) due to mostly the loss of "ca- the children wrote stories collaboratively on a computer, Stories
sual" friends. Close friends, however, are retained into old, old were about the tropical rain forest--a'subject matter that the
age, and older persons have about the same number of close children had studied during a 6-week science project. Children
friends as middle-aged adults (Field, 1995; Lang & Carstensen, were assigned to three groups: (a) those who wrote stories
1994). Girls' networks are ordinarily smaller and more exclu- individually on 4 different days; (b) those who wrote individu-
sive than boys' during early and middle childhood (Eder & ally on Day 1, then the next 2 with a friend, and the final day
Hallinan, 1978), but this situation reverses during adolescence alone; and (c) those who collaborated with a nonfriend rather
(Cairns et al., 1995 ). Gender differences in network size among than a friend. Results indicate that friends did not talk more
adults are not consistent across the relevant studies. during collaboration than nonfriends but, nevertheless, (a) en-
Third, time spent with friends varies over the life course, gaged in more mutually oriented and fewer individualistic utter-
although estimates are extremely difficult to compare from in- ances; (b) agreed with one another more often (but did not
vestigation to investigation; metrics and methods vary greatly. disagree more readily); (c) repeated their own and friend's
On the one hand, time spent with friends is greatest in middle assertions more often; (d) posed alternatives and provided elab-
childhood and adolescence, amounting to 29% of time awake orations more frequently; (e) spent twice as much time as non-
among teenagers. On the other hand, middle-aged adults spend friends talking about writing content, the vocabulary used, and
only 7% of their time interacting with friends, and those over writing mechanics; and ( f ) spent less time engaged in "off-
Age 65 spend 9% of their time this way (Larson & Bradney, task" talk. Principal component analyses confirm that friends'
1988; Larson, Zuzanek, & Mannell, 1985 ). Older women spend talk was assertively collaborative--a finding that is reminiscent
more time interacting with friends (and relatives) than men, and of the dialogues between experts and novices reported in other
widowed men and women spend more time with friends than social problem-solving studies (Rogoff, 1990). The stories also
married individuals (Altergott, 1988). show that, overall, the ones written collaboratively by friends
Fourth, children who have friends at one age are likely to were better than those written by nonfriends--a difference that
have them at other ages (Elicker, Englund, & Sroufe, 1992), seems to rest on the better use of standard English by friends
thus illustrating a continuity in social relations also suggested by rather than the narrative elements included in the stories.
retrospective interviews with older persons. Based on interviews The meta-analysis (A. E Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995) sum-
with older participants, Matthews (1986) identified three "per- marizes friend versus nonfriend differences among children and
sonological" types as differentiated by friendship styles--inde- adolescents in terms of four broad band categories: positive
pendents enjoy friendly, satisfying social relationships through- engagement (i.e., more talk, smiling, and laughter generally
out their lives but never have close or intimate friendS; discern- occur among friends than nonfriends), conflict management
ing individuals report having a small number of very close (i.e., friends use disengagement and negotiation vs. power asser-
friends throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood; and tion proportionally more frequently than nonfriends), task activ-
acquisitive individuals always have a relatively large number of ity (i.e. task orientation as opposed to off-task orientation is
friends and expect friends always to be available. Continuity is greater among friends than nonfriends), and relationship proper-
also suggested by the fact that close friends of many older ties (i.e., equality in the exchange as well as mutuality and
persons are the same individuals who were their friends earlier affirmation are greater among friends than nonfriends). The
in life (Field, 1995). Long-term friendships rest on shared his- data within and across studies show that, behaviorally speaking,
tories, accumulated experiences, and simultaneously moving the relationship affordances of "being friends" differ from the
through major developmental transitions (Hess, 1972; Rawlins, affordances of "being acquaintances." Friends are socially ac-
1992). Long-term continuities result from selection too: Old tive with one another, and their interaction is marked by mutual-
friends are consciously maintained in preference to the making ity, effective conflict management, and task orientation, thereby
of new ones into very old age (Lang & Carstensen, 1994). reflecting the deep structure revealed in the descriptions of
friends (L. Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975).
Behavior With Friends and Nonfriends Certain changes in the interaction between friends can be
observed with the onset of adolescence, although these ex-
Behaviors that differentiate friends from nonfriends have been changes remain anchored in reciprocation. First, although nega-
examined in more than 80 studies with children and adolescents; tive gossip occurs more commonly in talk between friends than
the results generally verify the friendship deep and surface struc- between nonfriends throughout childhood and adolescence, pos-
tures described earlier. Reciprocity anchors these relationships itive gossip differentiates friends and acquaintances only in ado-
generally through the first 2 decades; surface content changes lescence. Second, self-disclosure newly differentiates among
with age. Several narrative reviews of these studies have been friends and acquaintances in adolescence and so does mindread-
 FRIENDSHIPS IN THE LIFE COURSE 359

ing, that is, attributions that people make to others' actions, few instances with college roommates (Ginsberg & Gottman,
motives, or personalities (Gottman & Mettetal, 1986). Conflicts 1986) and older residents of an apartment complex (Hochschild,
with friends do not occur as frequently as commonly supposed 1973). Consequently, age differences in behavior with friends
(Laursen & Collins, 1994) and are reported about as frequently cannot always be specified from direct observation. Observa-
by adolescents as children. When choosing between competition tional studies are badly needed, however, because of experimen-
or sharing with their friends, though, adolescents compete less tal evidence showing that exchange equivalences and reciprocal
and share more than children (Berndt, Hawkins, & Hoyle, self-disclosure are not always concomitants of social attraction
1986). (Clark & Mills, 1979; Ginsberg & Gottman, 1986).
Differences in the exchanges that occur between adult friends
and nonfriends have been studied mainly because these establish Developmental Significance
the greater closeness of friends as compared with acquaintances.
On that basis, more numerous exchanges occur between friends Security and self-validation in social relations have long been
than acquaintances (Berg, 1984); self-disclosure occurs more regarded as necessary to the growth of social competence
frequently and is deeper (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Berg, 1984); (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). To show that friends interact commu-
friends are more directive and authoritative with one another nally with one another, however, does not demonstrate their
than nonfriends. More diverse resources are exchanged by developmental significance. Rather, two other kinds of studies
friends than nonfriends (Berg, 1983), although the specific re- are needed to do this: (a) comparisons between individuals who
sources exchanged differ: Affection, services, and status are have friends with those who do not, especially with respect to
exchanged more frequently by friends than nonfriends but not self-esteem and social competence, and (b) demonstrations that
goods, money, and information (Tornblom & Fredholm, 1984). having friends supports better coping with challenges or stress
Friends are more likely to give benefits to one another on the than not having friends and promotes good outcome over time.
basis of need or desire than nonfriends, whereas the latter are Having friends versus not having friends. Cross-sectional
more likely to give benefits depending on whether they have (concurrent) comparisons show that, first, children who have
received them previously themselves (Mills & Clark, 1982). friends are more socially competent than those who do not; they
Finally, friends think of themselves as a unit more frequently are more sociable, cooperative, altruistic, self-confident, and less
than acquaintances, their exchanges are more satisfying intrinsi- lonely (A. E Newcomb & BagweU, 1995). Second, children,
cally, and relationships are more lasting than between mere adolescents, and adults seeking clinical referrals or other forms
acquaintances (see also Berg & Clark, 1989). Results indicate of assistance with psychosocial problems are more likely to be
that the reciprocities undergirding friendships among younger friendless than better adjusted individuals (Rutter & Garmezy,
children and adolescents are amplified among adults by a com- 1983). Third, individuals with friends enjoy greater psychologi-
plex set of attributions that concern closeness and the nature of cal well-being throughout adulthood and old age than individu-
relationships. The developmental origins of these attributions als who do not have friends (Brown, 1981; Gupta & Korte,
and their elaborations have not been studied. 1994; Larson, 1978).
Companionship and talk (referred to earlier as positive en- Certain studies suggest, however, that the existence of sup-
gagement) continue to differentiate friends from nonfriends in portive relationships may have less to do with well-being, espe-
middle and old age (Blieszner & Adams, 1992). Relationship cially in old age, than the absence of problematic ones. Indeed,
talk is more topical and role related among young adult and the number of problematic relationships one has and the fre-
middle-aged friends than among either adolescents or older quency with which one interacts with problematic persons are
adults. Sharing, resource exchanges, emotional support, and more closely related (negatively) to well-being than the number
other indications of mutuality are salient in friendship interac- of supportive persons available and opportunities to interact
tions, especially those among adult friends that occur during with them (Pagel, Erdly, & Becker, 1987; Rook, 1984; Stephens,
crises such as divorce (Ginsberg, 1986). Problem solving Kinney, Ritchie, & Norris, 1987). Still other studies suggest
among older persons is notably more symmetrical with friends that friendship support may be more necessary for some individ-
than with relatives (Kaye & Monk, 1991 ). Although conflicts uals than others. Lang and Carstensen (1994) found, for exam-
o c c u r frequently between adult friends (as among children), ple, that among older individuals who no longer have living
they are less commonly acknowledged than conflicts in marital relatives, number of close friends predicts feelings of social
relationships. Conflicts among adult friends are concentrated in embeddedness, whereas this is not the case among individuals
two areas (Argyle & Furnham, 1983): emotional disagreements with families. Friends also provide emotional advantages for
(beliefs, values, and social partners) and criticisms (over life- "spouseless" individuals, that is, persons who were never or
style, habits, and personal issues). Among older persons, con- were formerly married (Dykstra, 1995a; Gupta & Korte, 1994).
flicts mainly concern normative expectations that apply to older Among older persons, widows and widowers spend more time
persons and resource inequities affecting older persons (C. B. with friends than married people (Gallagher & Gerstel, 1993;
Fisher, Reid, & Melendez, 1989). Wister, 1990) or those divorced (R. S. Weiss, 1975), with
To summarize, social interactions between friends, as com- friends serving both confiding and companionship functions
pared with nonfriends, are more engaged, mutually oriented, and (Connidis & Davies, 1990). Comparisons between married and
symmetrical across the life course. Social exchanges between spouseless individuals are especially important because the re-
friends, that is, their content, change over time but certain struc- sults support two widely discussed but infrequently verified
tural dimensions--especially their mutuality and symmetrical hypotheses: ( 1 ) Friendships may substitute for other (missing)
reciprocity--characterize friendships at all ages. Observational relationships in social development and adaptation and (2)
studies have seldom been conducted with adults, except in a friendships are protective factors or "buffers" that mitigate
360 HARTUP AND STEVENS

the effects of stress and privation in everyday life, especially early adulthood. Because same-gender friendships forecast ro-
relationship strains and losses. mantic relationships but not vice versa, results are consistent
In general, then, having friends is correlated with psychologi- with Sullivan's (1953) notion that same-gender friendships dur-
cal well-being from childhood through old age, consistent with ing the "juvenile era" support the formation and functioning
the hypothesis that the friendship deep structure (reciprocity) of heterosexual relationships--mainly by the establishment of
and certain benefits associated with it do not change through intimacy needs.
the life course. These results are nevertheless difficult to inter- Finally, in one other longitudinal investigation, Bagwell, New-
pret. First, having friends in these studies is usually confounded comb, and Bukowski (1996) examined having friends during
with friendship quality; that is, having friends usually means preadolescence broadly as a predictor of social adaptation in
having good friends. The significance of this confound is clearly early adulthood ( 12 years after the initial testing). Results show
demonstrated by the discovery that not having problematic that (a) childhood sociometric status (popular vs. rejected) sig-
friendships is more closely related to well-being among older nificantly predicted school performance, job success, aspira-
persons than having supportive ones (Rook, 1984). Second, tions, and sociability in early adulthood, although having friends
most empirical studies (especially with adolescents and adults) did not; and (b) childhood friendships predicted good attitudes
examine support networks that include friends but also include toward family members and, most important, general feelings
other persons, thus making it difficult to specify the exact devel- of self-worth and depressive symptoms in early adulthood; so-
opmental contributions made by the dyadic relationship. Third, ciometric status, however, did not predict these outcomes. Corre-
causal direction is impossible to establish: Friendship experi- lations between having friends in childhood and one's self-
ence may contribute to self-esteem or well-being; but, at the attitudes in adulthood remained significant, even when the parti-
same time, confident and secure individuals may make friends cipants' perceptions of their social competence as children were
more readily than less confident o n e s - - b o t h in childhood and factored out.
adulthood (see Elicker et al., 1992). Fourth, the correlation These results suggest, first, that sociometric status is a more
between having friends and well-being is moderated by other important predictor of social skill than friendship experience
conditions, including the availability of other supportive rela- across the transition between childhood and adulthood. Friend-
tionships (e.g., with spouses or relatives), time spent with ship experience, however, contributes to developmental outcome
friends, and the kinds of events that require support (Staudinger, in two other domains--family relations and self-esteem (as
Marsiske, & Baltes, 1995). Although the correlational evidence well as depression, a disorder frequently accompanied by low
suggests that friendships constitute social and emotional re- self-esteem). The results thus augment the cross-sectional stud-
sources across the life course, important reservations must be ies (see above) to suggest that having friends contributes devel-
attached to this conclusion. opmentally to the individual's sense of well-being. More im-
Outcomes across developmental transitions. Relatively few portant, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that friend-
longitudinal studies contain information about having friends ships enhance coping with the specific developmental challenges
and developmental outcome. Short-term studies with children that confront the individuals involved--identity issues, in this
suggest that benefits accrue across certain developmental transi- case. With these participants--studied between childhood and
tions, for example, school entrance. School attitudes are better early adulthood--the results support one of the most basic prop-
among kindergarten children (5-year-olds) whose prior friends ositions in S ullivan's (1953) theory of interpersonal relations,
attend the same school and who maintain these relationships namely, that preadolescent friendships "provide opportunities
than among children who do not (Ladd, 1990). Having friends for validation of self-worth and a unique context for exploration
also predicts increases in self-esteem among preadolescents and development of personal strengths" (Bagwell et al., 1996,
(Bukowski, Hoza, & Newcomb, 1991 ), and psychosocial distur- p. 22). Results also show these effects to be relatively long
bances are less frequent when school changes occur in the com- lasting.
pany of good friends than when they do not (Berndt & Keefe, Other longitudinal studies are more circumscribed. Short-
1992; Simmons, Burgeson, & Reef, 1988). term prospective studies with adults reveal that friendship net-
Other studies suggest that friendships in childhood may be works are associated with better postdivorce adaptation among
precursors of romantic relationships in adolescence. First, ' 'hav- adult women than are family networks, presumably because
ing friends" and "having a friend to confide in" during middle friendship collectives are more diversified and less closely knit
childhood are reported more often by undergraduates also re- (Wilcox, 1981 ). Retrospective accounts among older persons
porting childhood sexual encounters (with other children) than show that individuals who report themselves as having been
undergraduates not reporting early sexual experience (Hau- increasingly happy after Age 60 had greater numbers of friends
gaard & Tilly, 1988). This concordance between having friends earlier than those reporting a decreasing happiness (Lebo,
and early sexual experience may reflect individual differences in 1953). Friends are actually more effective in enhancing self-
self-esteem or social competence rather than a causal connection esteem among older persons than family members (Felton &
between friendship experience and sexual socialization. Alterna- Berry, 1992). These results continue to suggest that friendships
tively, having friends may increase feelings of self-worth (see promote a sense of well-being when the relationship reciproci-
below), thereby setting the stage for early sexual engagement. ties are centered in developmentally relevant surface structure.
Cross-lagged longitudinal data (Neeman, Hubbard, & Kojetin, To summarize, correlational studies show that having friends
1991) clarify this situation somewhat: Having same-gender is correlated with good psychosocial functioning and a sense of
friends during middle childhood forecasts having romantic rela- well-being across the life course. These studies are not easy to
tionships during adolescence; subsequently, having same-gender interpret for several reasons: (a) The impact of having friends
friends during adolescence forecasts romantic relationships in is difficult to disentangle from that of friendship quality, (b)
 FRIENDSHIPS IN THE LIFE COURSE 361

having a best friend is often difficult to differentiate from being are considerably stronger in childhood than previously thought.
part of a friendship network, and (c) directional effects are Peer ratings were obtained from a large number of 11-year-olds,
difficult to specify. Short-term longitudinal studies suggest that centering on prosocial behavior, antisocial behavior, shyness-
having friends supports good outcomes across developmental dependency, depressive symptoms, and sociometric status. First,
transitions--both normative (e.g., school entrance) and non- friends were more similar to one another than nonfriends within
normative (illness, divorce, or family member's death). More each construct cluster (i.e., both mean difference scores were
substantial evidence on these effects is needed. Cross-lagged significantly smaller, and correlations within dyads were sig-
longitudinal studies are rare, especially ones that span substan- nificantly greater). Second, friends were more similar to one
tial lengths of time. Some results suggest, however, that the another than nonfriends in rating their classmates as well as in
specific contributions made by having friends reflect the devel- classmates' ratings of them. Third, correlations between friends
opmental status of the individuals involved: Childhood friend- were greater for antisocial behavior (i.e., fighting, disruption,
ships, for example, are now known to contribute to self-esteem and bullying) than prosocial behavior (i.e., cooperation and
as well as better family attitudes and romantic relationships offering help to others) or social withdrawal (i.e., shyness, de-
during adolescence and early adulthood. Whether similar devel- pendency, and being "victimized" ). These correlational differ-
opmental sequelae are associated with having friends at other ences may reflect differences among the three attributes in nor-
times is not likely. mative salience: Fighting, for example, is more salient among
children in terms of their reputations and their membership in
the social networks that exist within classrooms than is either
The Identity of One's Friends
cooperation or shyness (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990).
Several questions need to be asked about the identity of one's Fourth, certain gender differences were evident: (a) Friends were
friends: With whom does one become friends? Can the identity more similar to one another in both prosocial and antisocial
of one's friends be forecast from what one knows about oneself? behavior among girls than boys, and (b) Friends were more
What is the adaptational significance of the identity of one's similar in shyness among boys than girls. These gender differ-
friends? These questions are especially important because of ences are consistent with the normative salience hypothesis too
the growing awareness that the behavioral similarities existing because uncooperativeness and aggression are more socially
between friends (known among sociologists as "homophilies" ) problematic for girls than boys (Huston, 1983). One would
have considerable long-term significance for the individuals in- expect the reverse with shyness, however, because this attribute
volved (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). presents more serious social difficulties for boys than girls
(Caspi, Elder, & B e m , 1988).
Behavioral concordances among adolescents also vary from
Who Are One's Friends?
attribute to attribute. Adolescents are most similar to their
Consider, first, that common ground is necessary for the for- friends in school-related attitudes, aspirations, and achievement
mation and maintenance of friendships throughout the life (Epstein, 1983; Kandel, 1978b) along with normative behaviors
course. Consequently, friends ought to be similar to one another that define their lifestyles, for example, smoking, drinking, drug
in age, gender, and ethnicity as well as abilities and behavior. use, dating, and sexual activity (Billy, Rodgers, & Udry, 1984;
Indeed, the weight of the evidence shows friends to be concor- Kandel, 1978b; Tolson & Urberg, 1993). In general, personality
dant for age, gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity--be- assessments are not very similar among adolescent friends, al-
ginning in childhood and extending through old age (Adams & though similarities in normatively significant behaviors are sub-
Blieszner, 1995; Kupersmidt, DeRosier, & Patterson, 1995; Mat- stantial, for example, aggression and delinquency (Kandel,
thews, 1995). Demographic concordances are especially great 1978a, 1978b; Dishion et al., 1995).
in midlife because friends frequently are coworkers or family Although similarities in attitudes and values are known to be
related (Nahemow & Lawton, 1975). the basis of attraction among adults (Berscheid & Walster, 1968;
Behavioral concordances are extensive too, but these vary T. M. Newcomb, 1961 ), attempts to verify behavioral and attitu-
from age to age and attribute to attribute--in most cases based dinal similarities among adult friends have yielded weak out-
on normative salience (i.e., the normative salience of the attri- comes and inconsistent results (Brown, 1981; Nahemow &
bute in the social networks to which the individual belongs or Lawton, 1975). In describing " r e a l " friends, adults emphasize
the salience of the attribute to determine social reputations). similarities, such as shared experiences and activities, ease of
Among young children, Challman (1932) found friends to be communication, similar general behaviors and interests--more
concordant in social cooperation (an attribute with considerable so in fact than reciprocities (L. Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975). It
normative significance) but not in intelligence (an attribute with is also the case, however, that common ground and shared inter-
none). Among boys, friends were more concordant in physical ests are not mentioned as frequently as a basis for friendships
activity than nonfriends but not among girls, for whom similarity by adults than children (Lowenthal et al., 1975; Werner & Par-
in attractiveness of personality and social network size was melee, 1979). Whether adult friendships depend more on work
greater among friends than nonfriends. and family communaiities than earlier friendships--thereby re-
Most concordance studies with school-aged children are ducing behavioral and attitudinal concordances between friends
about personal construct use (Erwin, 1985), self-reported simi- in adulthood--is unknown. The bulk of the evidence on behav-
larities (Hymel & Woody, 1991), or similarities within social ioral similarity among adult friends emanates from studies of
networks (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). Some data (Haselager, college roommates rather than older adult friends, perhaps to
Hartup, Van Lieshout, & Riksen-Walraven, 1996) suggest, how- explain why actual behavioral similarities are not consistently
ever, that behavioral concordances within the friendship dyad reported.
362 HARTUP AND STEVENS

Similarities B e t w e e n Friends: Sources whereas girls receive more approval from both adults and age-
mates for associating with other girls than boys (Fagot, 1978;
The developmental significance of similarities between Thorne, 1986). Selection similarities based on avoidance also
friends cannot be specified without the acknowledgment that derive from both intrinsic and extrinsic sources: Young girls,
friendship similarities (at least among children and adolescents) for example, find the rough and tumble play of boys to be
stem from three sources: (a) sociodemographic conditions that aversive and a reason for their perference for the company of
bring similar individuals into contact with one another, (b) so- other young girls (Maccoby, 1990), whereas cross-gender so-
cial selection through which individuals select friends who are cializing among nursery school children is criticized by other
similar to themselves and simultaneously avoid relationships children of both genders (Fagot, 1978). These dynamics un-
with individuals who are different, and (c) mutual socialization doubtedly contribute to the similarities that exist between
through which individuals become similar to their friends by friends throughout the life course (Hess, 1972).
interacting with them. Based on the available evidence, we cannot assume that simi-
Sociodemographic conditions. Sociodemographic forces de- larities between friends derive from carefully weighed decisions
termine the neighborhood in which people live, the schools in made by individuals, cumulating gradually over weeks and
which people are enrolled as children and adolescents, the insti- months, to associate with others who are similar and avoid those
tutions people work for, and the neighborhoods people live in who are dissimilar to themselves. Rather, network and friendship
when they retire and become widowed. Concordances among concordances resemble "shopping expeditions" (Dishion, Pat-
persons and their friends in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and terson, & Griesler, 1994) in which certain selections "feel
chronological age thus derive to some extent from social forces right" and others do not (i.e., some activities and conversations
that bring similar individuals into contact with one another in suggest common ground, whereas others do not). Antisocial
neighborhoods and institutions. Culture restricts social choices children, for example, are more likely to make friends with other
to similar individuals in two ways: First, it creates individuals antisocial children than better socialized children, both because
who have similar beliefs and attitudes, including the belief that other children do not select them and because, between them-
interpersonal similarity optimizes gratification as well as the selves, their antisocial behaviors establish common ground. In-
belief that dissimilarity optimizes tension and discomfort (Ro- deed, the communalities that exist between antisocial adoles-
senbaum, 1986); second, it creates neighborhoods and commu- cents and their friends suggest a kind of merger between them
nity arrangements that maximize opportunities for similar indi- that results in the emergence of a "dyadic antisocial trait."
viduals to socialize with one another and minimize contacts Similar mergers occur among children for friendliness and coop-
between dissimilar individuals. Residential choices are the in- eration as well as shyness and depressive symptoms (Haselager
strumentalities through which culture brings about these concor- et al., 1996).
dances; the institutions with which individuals affiliate (work Selection choices are also embedded in complex assortative
organizations, schools, and churches) extend them. processes, about which relatively little is known. Assortments
Selection. Similarities between friends also derive from se- occur within social networks, which in turn emerge from larger
lection choice, that is, the tendency among individuals to choose social units, such as classrooms, office blocks, and retirement
associates who resemble themselves. Among children attending residences. Greater similarity between friends than nonfriends
schools that are of mixed ages, races, and socioeconomic sta- thus emerges within two interlocking selection systems: (a)
tuses, for example, friends are more similar to one another than dyadic interaction and (b) assortative dialectics, which differen-
nonfriends (Goldman, 1981; McCandless & Hoyt, 1961 ). Simi- tiate social networks from their larger aggregates. Little recogni-
larly, older residents of nursing homes are more likely to make tion is given to, unfortunately, that friendship selection usually
friends with similar than dissimilar individuals (Chown, 1981; occurs within higher order structures in which group decision
Matthews, 1995). making and pressures also occur. Consequently, theoretical mod-
The similarity-attraction dynamic begins in childhood. For els are lacking to account for the manner in which network
example, among the 8-year-old children in one experiment who dynamics moderate friendship selection (Berndt, 1996). Given
began a series of sessions as strangers, differential attraction this state of affairs, researchers should not treat similarity be-
was evident in some groups (40%) after the first meeting. Within tween best friends and within friendship networks as reflections
these groups, the social and cognitive dimensions of play were of the same construct.
more similar when the children were attracted to one another Mutual socialization. Similarities between friends derive
than when they were not (Rubin, Lynch, Coplan, Rose- from socialization as well as selection. Kandel (1978a) studied
Krasnor, & Booth, 1994). Other studies show that children be- changes over the course of 1 year in substance use, educational
come friends in direct relation to the number of attributes (both aspirations, and delinquency of adolescents, discovering that
demographic and behavioral) they share (Kupersmidt et al., similarity stems from both sources in approximately equal
1995). amounts. In other studies, selection seems to contribute more
Reinforcement theorists argued that these homophilies stem variance than socialization to cigarette and alcohol use (L. A.
from two sources: the rewards that emanate from recognition Fisher & Baumann, 1988). The sturdiest conclusion that can
by individuals of common statuses and values (Lazarsfeld & be drawn from these studies is that the relative contribution
Merton, 1954) and the aversiveness that stems from recognition of selection and socialization to friendship similarity must be
of status dissimilarities (Rosenbaum, 1986). Rewards are both estimated separately for each attribute and, most likely, each
intrinsic and extrinsic: For example, most young girls find their population assessed.
interests in dramatic play to be more supported by interaction Circumstantial evidence that demonstrates mutual socializa-
with other girls than with boys (Sears, Alpert, & Rau, 1964), tion effects is plentiful: Children, for example, who ascribe to
 FRIENDSHIPS IN THE LIFE COURSE 363

conventional norms move further over time in the direction of accompanies shyness among both children and adults (Asher,
normative behavior after they associate with friends (Ball, 1981; Parkhurst, Hymel, & Williams, 1990).
Epstein, 1983; Kandel & Andrews, 1987). Antisocial activities So friendships can be mixed blessings: On the one hand,
increase over time among antisocial individuals and their friends, friends may support good developmental outcome through the
even though most people perceive friends as exerting pressure intimacy, companionship, social support, and increased well-
toward desirable rather than undesirable conduct (Brown, Cla- being that they provide one another. On the other hand, friends
sen, & Eicher, 1986). Similarly, socializing with friends smooths may be risk factors, depending on who one's friends are. Poorly
adaptation to new institutional settings among both adolescents socialized and antisocial friends place one at greater risk for
and older persons (Armstrong & Goldsteen, 1990; Simmons et social maladaptation than do well-socialized friends. Prac-
al., 1988; Stacey-Konnert & Pynoss, 1992). titioners may not be able to insist that their clients change friends
Debate continues whether friends truly socialize one another (for ethical reasons or otherwise), but developmental prognosis
or rather serve as "socialization supplements." Beth Hess nevertheless demands that they know who a client's friends are,
(1972) argued that friends assist with learning, behavioral im- not just whether the individual does or does not have friends.
plementation, or both but cannot teach one another because
the difference between them in expertise is not great enough.
Friendship Quality
Although much evidence demonstrates that the co-construction
of knowledge is more successful than is a solitary effort in many Assessment Issues
different situations (Rogoff, 1990), contemporary research does
not tell definitively whether two similar individuals can teach Qualitative assessment is more advanced to study friendships
one another effectively in all situations. among children and adolescents than those among adults. Two
One guesses that, from early childhood through old age, indi- main strategies are used: (a) dimensional assessment through
viduals model normative behavior for their friends and simulta- which one determines whether particular features characterize
neously receive reinforcement from them. Once again, the exact the social interaction between friends and with what frequency
mechanisms through which mutual socialization occurs between or regularity (e.g., companionship, intimacy, conflict, or power
friends are not well documented. Friends engage in large symmetries) and (b) typological or categorical assessment
amounts of talk, and conversations with friends during problem through which one identifies patterns or organizations in the
solving are laced with both suggestions and criticisms (Nel- social interactions between friends that contribute to social de-
son & Aboud, 1985). Conflicts frequently occur and may be velopment and adaptation (Furman, 1996).
closely related to the socialization that occurs between friends. Dimensional assessment. Most dimensional assessments are
In one investigation with school-aged children (Azmitia & based on what Robert S. Weiss (1986) called "provisions" or
Montgomery, 1993), difficult deductive reasoning tasks were features of relationships, for example, their closeness, intimacy,
more frequently solved by friends working together than non- supportiveness, or content. Studies with children and adolescents
friends. Although social interaction differed between friends and indicate that considerable mileage can be gained simply by the
nonfriends in numerous ways, task success was significantly measurement of relationships in terms of their intimacy or sup-
related to only one measure--transactive conflicts. Socializa- portiveness (Berndt, 1996; Furman, 1996). Work with adoles-
tion between friends thus may rest mainly on the free airing of cents suggests the theoretical relevance of connectedness, a
disagreements in a cooperative, task-oriented context rather than composite comprising closeness, interdependence, and emo-
on modeling or reinforcement. Other results suggest that friends tional tone (Collins & Repinski, 1991 ). Among adults, friend-
also use coercion with one another, but it is different from ship quality is described mainly in terms of closeness or solidar-
the criticisms and persuasions that mark interactions between ity, defined operationally as the frequency and diversity of inter-
nonfriends; reasoning and explanations are more common (Dis- action as well as affective sharing (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto,
hion et al., 1995; Nelson & Aboud, 1985). 1989; Repinski, 1993).
Dimensional structures that encompass both positive and neg-
ative friendship attributes have also been examined. Windle
Developmental Implications (1994), for example, confirmed a factor structure among older
adolescents that includes reciprocity of relations, self-disclo-
Given the demographic and social similarities that exist be- sure, overt hostility, and covert hostility. Other instruments de-
tween friends and that these similarities extend from childhood signed to measure friendship quality include slightly different
through old age, what is their significance? First, friends who dimensions (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994; Furman & Buhr-
are well socialized and normatively conventional serve mutually mester, 1985; Parker & Asher, 1993; Young, 1986), most tapping
as "protective" factors in development. For example, friends five or six domains (e.g., companionship, intimacy, commit-
who are cooperative and nonadversarial become more so over ment, affective tone, instrumental help, and conflict). Factor
time. Second, friends who are antisocial and socially unskilled analysis does not always confirm that these measurements are
seem to be " r i s k " factors. The developmental significance of as multidimensional as their originators wanted them to be,
certain other similarities, however, is not known. Consider, for although many reveal a well-differentiated structure (Ladd, Ko-
example, that no one knows whether shy friends socialize them- chenderfer, & Coleman, 1996; Windle, 1994).
selves toward increased gregariousness or increased shyness. Closeness and supportiveness are emphasized in dimensional
Whatever the situation, though, the social exchanges that occur assessment because these attributes reflect the friendship deep
between two shy friends may improve rather than worsen indi- structure-reciprocity. This convention makes sense, although
vidual adaptation by alleviating the debilitating loneliness that one or two reservations must be voiced: First, closeness and
364 HARTUP AND STEVENS

intimacy are commonly defined in a feminized manner that ment, criticism versus acceptance, and expressiveness versus
emphasizes exclusivity, self-disclosure, social understanding, protectiveness. Configurations or patterns delineated by these
and care (communal aspects). Concomitantly, adolescent girls four dimensions are believed to differentiate one friendship pair
rate their friendships more highly than do boys in self-disclosure from another and to be potentially useful to study relationship
as well as less highly in overt hostility (Windle, 1994). Greater stages, cultural differences, continuities, and changes across the
weight ought to be given to sociable communication, social life course. Assessment researchers who based their work on
involvement with multiple companions, objective praise and this system use qualitative rather than quantitative methods, and
criticism, and effective conflict management, so the agentic di- applications have been made mostly to conversational vignettes.
mensions of closeness are measured as well as communal ones. Second, Shulman (1993) constructed a typological model
The objective, in this instance, is not to minimize gender differ- based on the balance between closeness and intimacy--on the
ences in friendship closeness but only to ensure that agentic one h a n d - - a n d individuality--on the other. The measurement
elements are recognized as strongly to measure this attribute as model originated in family systems theory, and three types of
communal ones are. friendships are identified: interdependent ones in which cooper-
Second, closeness (reciprocity) must be measured in ways ation and autonomy are balanced, disengaged ones in which
that are developmentally appropriate. Closeness needs to be friends are disconnected in spite of their efforts to main-
examined among children as well as adults. Considerable psy- tain proximity with one another, and consensus-sensitive or
chometric work must be conducted before other attributes, such -enmeshed relationships in which agreement and cohesion are
as communality-agency, affective tone, symmetry, and conflict maximized. Empirical data that support this factor structure
management, can be measured effectively from early childhood derive from adolescents' interactions with their friends in a co-
through old age. One must recognize, too, that different friend- operative task.
ship qualities may be related to social adaptation among younger
as compared with older individuals, reflecting developmental Developmental Significance
changes that occur in the friendship surface structure (see
Friendship Relations in the Life Course). Among the urgent Cross-sectional studies. Among children and adolescents,
needs of researchers are comparative developmental studies that supportiveness between friends (high vs. low) is positively cor-
establish the qualitative dimensions most closely related to good related with school involvement and achievement (Berndt &
developmental outcome across time. Hawkins, 1991; Cauce, 1986) and negatively correlated with
Typological assessment. Many years ago, John Bowlby school-based problems (Kurdek & Sinclair, 1988). Closeness is
(1969) argued that infant-caregiver relationships are based on positively correlated with popularity and good social reputations
"felt security" and that the significance of these relationships ( Cauce, 1986), with self-esteem (Mannarino, 1978; McGuire &
can be detected in the infant's behavior on two occasions-- Weisz, 1982), and with psychosocial adjustment (Buhrmester,
when separated from the caregiver and when reunited with him 1990). Supportiveness is negatively correlated with identity
or her. Mary Ainsworth (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, problems (Papini, Farmer, Clark, Micke, & Barnett, 1990) as
1978) subsequently demonstrated that variations in the organi- well as delinquency and depression (Windle, 1994). Among
zation of separation- and reunion-induced behavior (secure, re- middle-aged adults, closeness and communality at work (rather
sistant, and anxious attachments) forecast adaptational out- than equity) are correlated with job satisfaction, social satisfac-
comes in child and adolescent development. Several efforts dem- tion, and attitudes toward supervisors (Winstead et al., 1995).
onstrate the "secure base phenomenon" among friends. Nursery Among older adults, well-being and friendship satisfaction are
school children show fewer signs of distress, more positive af- associated with closeness (Lowenthal & Haven, 1968; Ro-
fect, greater mobility, and more frequent talking when left in a berto & Scott, 1986), although the friendship quality measures
strange situation with a friend than with a nonfriend (Ipsa, 1981; in these studies sometimes consist of having close friends rather
Schwartz, 1972). Among older adults, absence of friendship than friendship closeness. Results are thus consistent: Support-
support is closely tied to feelings of loneliness (Dykstra, iveness between friends (the deep structure) and well-being
1995a). Whether friendship styles can be identified that are are correlated from childhood through old age, supporting our
similar to the attachment types identified in mother-infant rela- hypothesis that friendship prototypes (i.e., those most clearly
tionships has not been established. Although an attachment ty- reflecting reciprocity) have similar affective concomitants
pology (secure, anxious, and ambivalent) has been identified across the life course.
among adult romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), Correlations are negative between other friendship attributes
results have been controversial (Berscheid, 1994). Considering and adaptive outcome. Among adolescents, for example, both
that the friendship deep structure consists of symmetrical reci- overt and covert hostility in relation to one's friends are posi-
procities rather than security (see Friendship Relations in the tively correlated with alcohol use, delinquency, and depressive
Life Course), we believe that the developmental significance of symptoms. Self-disclosure between friends is also positively
these relationships is more likely to rest on variations in intimacy correlated with alcohol use (Windle, 1994), perhaps because
and its concomitants than variations in security. friendship and alcohol both disinhibit reticence. Also among
Two typological m o d e l s - - b o t h grounded in the friendship adolescents, conflict and contention with friends are negatively
deep structure--have been described in the literature, although correlated with attitudes toward school (Berndt, 1989).
neither is well validated. First, Rawlins (1992) argued that con- _ Once again, these correlational results are impossible to inter-
versations between friends can be classified on the basis of four pret. Psychological well-being may foster closeness between
dialectical axes: dependence versus independence (connected- friends, especially when both individuals have high self-esteem,
ness vs. individuation), instrumental versus affective engage- but the reverse may also be true. Similarly, problem behaviors
 FRIENDSHIPS IN THE LIFE COURSE 365

among adolescents (e.g., alcohol use) may foster self-disclosure Windle (1994), for example, discovered that, among adolescent
between friends as well as tension and disagreement, but the friends, behavior problems evinced by individuals predicted
reverse may also occur. friendship characteristics across time rather than the reverse.
Longitudinal studies. Longitudinal studies that deal with Both delinquency and depression, for example, predicted overt
friendship quality are centered mostly on school attitudes, and covert hostility with friends but not vice versa. Perhaps one
involvement, and achievement among children and adolescents. selecting antisocial friends and socializing with them brings
One cross-lagged investigation (Berndt, 1989) across the transi- about dissension between these same individuals, which, in turn,
tion from elementary to junior high school shows that variations affects developmental outcome individually. Results are some-
in developmental outcome can be predicted with comprehensive what difficult to interpret because friendship attributes and so-
friendship assessments that include friendship quality. Size of cial behaviors were both assessed by means of self-reports (thus
the friendship network, friendship stability, and self-reported subject to contamination) from single individuals rather than
friendship quality were simultaneously studied; outcome mea- both members of each friendship dyad (thus biased). More
sures included school attitudes and achievement. First, network detailed study of the natural history of adolescent friendships
size was negatively related to friendship supportiveness and inti- is needed to disentangle these effects (see Windle, 1994).
macy (friendship quality). Second, neither number of friends Relatively little is known about friendship quality as a pre-
nor friendship stability contributed to changes in school adjust- dictor of adult adjustment, even though other aspects of peer
ment--across either the school transition or the first year in the competence in adolescence (not childhood) generally predict
new school. (School adjustment was relatively stable across the sociability, good marital adjustment, and mental health status in
transition and was related to friendship stability cross-section- adulthood (Bagwell et al., 1996; Skolnick, 1986). Attitudes and
ally but not with earlier adjustment factored out.) Third, the commitments of older persons' friends to one another become
supportiveness of the child's friends, assessed shortly after en- increasingly positive as these relationships become closer. Spe-
trance to the new school, predicted increasing popularity and cifically, a direct relation has been discovered between closeness
increasingly positive attitudes toward classmates over the next changes and the exchange of resources among older participants
year. Clearly, having friends, the stability of these relationships, (Shea et al., 1988). Friendship quality seems not to have been
and their supportiveness (i.e., quality) have different develop- used, though, to forecast developmental outcome across transi-
mental implications. Consistent results have been reported for tions to retirement, widowhood, or residential living, even
younger children (Ladd, 1990) as well as adolescents (Berndt & though older individuals (e.g., widows) are known to use friends
Keefe, 1992) over a period of 9 to 12 months. to support new activities on these occasions (Bankoff, 1983;
Other researchers have examined the relation between social Stevens, 1989). Sometimes, developmental transitions them-
support (including friends) and problem behavior. In general, selves precipitate changes in friendship quality, as when a per-
increases in social support experienced in childhood and adoles- son's declining health and moving to a nursing home change
cence are accompanied by increasingly better social adaptation the friendship network from close to casual friends (Adams,
(Dubow, Tisak, Causey, Hryshko, & Reid, 1991). Complex 1987).
interactions exist, however, to the effect that friendship quality To summarize, although relatively little is known about friend-
and the identity of a child's friends interact with stress occur- ship quality and its developmental implications, the weight of
rence to determine outcome. For example, regression models the evidence suggests that good outcomes are most likely when
(Windle, 1992) show that, among adolescent boys experiencing one has friends, one's friends are well socialized, and when
high stress, friend support encourages both alcohol use and one's relationships with these individuals are supportive and
depression; among boys experiencing moderate or low stress, intimate. But the amount of variance accounted for by each of
nonsupportive friends encourage both alcohol use and depres- these relationship parameters may not be equal. Some dimen-
sion. Among girls, the results are more straightforward: Sup- sions, for example, having friends, may account for relatively
portiveness among one's friends is positively correlated with little outcome variance, whereas others, for example, the identity
alcohol use but negatively correlated with depression (with ini- of one's friends, may account for a great deal. More needs to
tial adjustment factored out). One does not know whether the be known, too, about the manner in which relationship attributes
stressed-out boys in this investigation also had stressed-out reflect the social histories of the individuals involved.
f r i e n d s - - a reasonable supposition, given the behavioral similar- Regression models may differ too across different develop-
ities known to exist between friends (Dishion et al., 1995). mental transitions. Supportive friends may be the most important
Nevertheless, the admonition that friendships are mixed bless- assets that a child can have when facing a school transition, but
ings should be recalled: Childhood friends with behavioral dif- merely having friends may be most important when one is mak-
ficulties may provide one another with emotional support, but ing the transition to retirement. The identity of one's friends
the interactions that occur between them may not simultaneously may be extremely important to determine whether an adolescent
predict good outcome. Moreover, supportive friendships may will move into an adult criminal career but relatively unimport-
have deleterious effects when the support emanates from a be- ant to determine good outcome across the transition to widow-
haviorally disturbed friend but good effects when emanating hood. Comprehensive studies are badly needed, therefore, in
from a better adjusted friend. Only when the identity of an which friendship is studied in tandem with other predictors (e.g.,
adolescent's friend is specified along with relationship quality temperament and personality) rather than studied separately.
(i.e., supportiveness) will these results be interpretable. Multivariate effects must be tracked through time. Children,
Although causal influence seems to extend from friendship adolescents, and adults need to participate more extensively in
quality to individual adaptation, this does not rule out the possi- longitudinal studies on friendship and its many vicissitudes.
bility that attributes of individuals also affect friendship quality. Birth-to-death studies are not necessarily needed, but short-
366 HARTUP AND STEVENS

term longitudinal studies across major developmental transitions ness, supportiveness, and hostility in these relationships, espe-
(e.g., adolescence, midlife, and retirement) would be extremely cially among children and adolescents, are good beginnings.
valuable. Many other qualitative dimensions, however, need examination.
Friends vary based on how many and which attributes they
share: Are friends who are similar in many ways different from
Conclusion
those who are similar in only one or two ways? What are the
The weight of the evidence suggests that friendships are de- long-term implications of a person sharing one attribute with a
velopmentally significant throughout the life course. First, friend versus sharing many attributes? One can guess that, when
friends are cognitive and affective resources from childhood many attributes are shared, interpersonal attraction can be great
through old age, fostering self-esteem and a sense of well-being. (Kupersmidt et al., 1995), but does this mean that these friends
Second, friends socialize one another, especially with respect to have certain developmental advantages? Are certain similarities
age-related tasks that must be mastered for individuals to achieve more significant than others? Do homophilies with depression
good outcomes. Third, supportive and intimate relationships be- place individuals at the same degree of risk as would those with
tween socially skilled individuals seem to be developmental antisocial behavior? Finally, when one considers that friendships
advantages, whereas conflict-ridden relationships between trou- differ from one another in myriad ways, which qualitative attri-
bled individuals seem to be disadvantages. butes carry the greatest developmental significance and when?
The database on friendship and adaptation abounds with dis- Second, what normative continuities and discontinuities can
continuities. Adults, for example, spend less time with their be traced across the life course? What brings about normative
friends than children do and spend their time differently. Sup- change in friendship interactions? Existing normative studies
portiveness between friends is correlated with good outcome, center too much on having friends and the most superficial facts
but this result depends on who one's friends are and what these about them. Normative trends over the life course can be de-
relationships are like. Consistency emerges, however, when one duced only from diverse studies that vary greatly in methodology
examines friendships within a multidimensional framework. and quality. For example, observational studies tell many things
First, one must distinguish between deep and surface struc- about the behavioral manifestations of children's friendships,
tures when thinking about these relationships. Based on empiri- but virtually nothing is known about these manifestations among
cal evidence, reciprocity is the deep structure, and certain out- middle-aged or older friends. Cross-sectional normative studies
comes (e.g., the individual's sense of well-being) derive from including children and adults would improve this state of affairs;
these reciprocities throughout the life course. Surface structures but longitudinal studies are also needed. Whatever can be
vary based on how old the individuals are: Four-year-olds, for learned about the distinctiveness of friendship interaction among
example, engage in rough-and-tumble play; 14-year-olds social- adults and the changes that occur across major life transitions
ize in shopping malls and over the telephone; 34-year-olds relate in adulthood (e.g., widowhood) would be extremely valuable.
to one another by discussing jobs, parenting, and golf scores; Third, friendships and their developmental significance need
74-year-olds reminisce and discuss their health and what the to be better understood. Developmental psychologists are study-
world is coming to. Surface structure changes, however, are ing behavioral outcomes in relation to temperament and early
precisely why these relationships are adaptational advantages. experience, social skills and sociometric status, family relation-
Friendship reciprocities are cast and recast so that they can ships, and the social context (most especially situations that
support the individuals involved in developmentally relevant involve stress and other challenges). Multiple pathways that
ways. involve combinations of these conditions are being discovered
Second, one must recognize that, although having friends that lead to good outcomes, meanwhile other pathways are being
may be a developmental advantage, all friendships are not alike. discovered that lead to poorer ones (Hartup & Van Lieshout,
People differ in the company they keep, that is, in who their 1995). Friendship experiences may contribute a significant vari-
friends are. Both children and adults also differ in that some ance within some pathways but not others--a contingency that
friendships are close, stable, and symmetrical, while others are has somehow been ignored.
not. Only when three dimensions--having friends, identity of Overall, our assessment shows documentation on friendships
one's friends, and quality of the friendship--are taken into ac- and their developmental significance to be sufficiently strong
count does the literature yield a coherent account of friendship for the argument that friendships should not be ignored in devel-
and adaptation in the life course. opmental analysis--neither in childhood nor throughout the life
Significant gaps exist in the database. Some issues are unre- course. Causal models are weak, however, and need to be im-
solved because too little is known about how friendships differ proved. Consideration of both deep and surface structures as
from one another. Some conclusions are shaky because cross- well as multidimensional assessment in which having friends,
sectional data have not been supplemented with longitudinal the identity of one's friends, and quality of the friendship are
studies. Other conclusions are tenuous because the database essential to this improvement.
comes from children and adolescents but too little is known
about the relevant issue among adults. Still other studies are
inconclusive because too little is known about the complex man- References
ner in which relationships and their development interact with Adams, R. G. (1987). Patterns of network change: A longitudinalstudy
the development of the individual. of friendships of elderly women. Gerontologist, 27, 222-227.
Among the many issues that need attention are these three. Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. (1995). Midlife friendship patterns. In
First, more attention must be given to the manner in which N. Vanzetti & S. Duck (Eds.), A lifetime of relationships (pp. 336-
friendships differ from one another. New assessments of close- 363). San Francisco: Brooks/Cole.
 FRIENDSHIPS IN THE LIFE COURSE 367

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children's friendship expectations: A cognitive
Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situa- developmental study. Child Development, 48, 246-253.
tion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Billy, J. O. G., Rodgers, J. L., & Udry, J. R. (1984). Adolescent sexual
Altergott, K. (1988). Social action and interaction in later life: Aging behavior and friendship choice. Social Forces, 62, 653-678.
in the United States. In K. Altergott (Ed.), Daily life in later life: Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult friendship. Newbury Park,
Comparative perspectives (pp. 117-146). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. CA: Sage.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Socialpenetration: The development Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York:
of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Basic Books.
Argyle, M., & Furnham, A. (1983). Sources of satisfaction and conflict Brown, B. B. (1981). A life-span approach to friendship: Age-related
in long-term relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, dimensions of an ageless relationship. In H. Lopata & D. Maines
481-493. (Eds.), Research in the interweave of social roles (Vol. 2, pp. 23-
Armstrong, M. J., & Goldsteen, K. S. (1990). Friendship support pat- 50). Greenwich, CT:. JAI Press.
terns of older American women. Journal of Aging Studies, 4, 391- Brown, B.B., Clasen, D.R., & Eicher, S.A. (1986). Perceptions of
404. peer pressure, peer conformity dispositions, and self-reported behav-
Asher, S. R., Parkhurst, J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G. A. (1990). Peer ior among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 22, 521-530.
rejection and loneliness in childhood. In S. R. Asher & J.D. Coie Brownell, C. A. (1986). Convergent developments: Cognitive-develop-
(Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253-273). New York: Cam- mental correlates of growth in infant/toddler peer skills. Child Devel-
bridge University Press. opment, 57, 275-286.
Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dia- Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal compe-
logues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Develop- tence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child
ment, 2, 202-221. Development, 61, 1101 - 1111.
Bagwell, C.L., Newcomb, A. E, & Bukowski, W.M. (1996). Pre- Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship
adolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjust- quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psy-
ment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Richmond, Department chometric properties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of
of Psychology, Richmond, VA. Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 471-484.
Ball, S.J. (1981). Beachside comprehensive. Cambridge, England: Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A.F. (1991). Friendship,
Cambridge University Press. popularity, and the "self" during early adolescence. Unpublished
manuscript, Concordia University, Department of Psychology, Mon-
Bankoff, E. (1983). Social support and adaptation to widowhood. Jour-
treal, Quebec, Canada.
nal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 827-839.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks. New York:
Berg, J. H. ( 1983, August). Attraction in relationships: As it begins so
Cambridge University Press.
it goes. Paper presented at the 91 st Annual Convention of the American
Cairns, R. B., Leung, M., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Friend-
Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.
ships and social networks in childhood and adolescence: Fluidity,
Berg, J. H. (1984). The development of friendship between roommates.
reliability, and interrelations. Child Development, 66, 1330-1345.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 346-356.
Caspi, A., Eider, G. H., &Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the
Berg, J.H., & Clark, M.S. (1989). Differences in social exchange world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychol-
between intimate and other relationships: Gradually evolving or ogy, 24, 824-831.
quickly apparent? In V. J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friend- Cauce, A. M. (1986). Social networks and social competence: Exploring
ship and social interaction (pp. 101-128). New York: Springer the effects of early adolescent friendships. American Journal of Com-
Verlag.
munity Psychology, 14, 607-628.
Berndt, T. J. (1989). Obtaining support from friends during childhood Challman, R.C. (1932). Factors influencing friendships among pre-
and adolescence. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and school children. Child Development, 3, 146-158.
social supports (pp. 308-331 ). New York: Wiley. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA:
Berndt, T. J. (1996). Exploring the effects of friendship quality on social MIT Press.
development. In W. M. Bukowski, A. E Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup Chown, S. M. (1981). Friendship in old age. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour
(Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adoles- (Eds.), Personal relationships. Vol. 2: Developing personal relation-
cence (pp. 346-365). New York: Cambridge University Press. ships (pp. 231-246). London: Academic Press.
Berndt, T. J., & Hawkins, J. A. (1991). Effects of friendship on adoles- Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange
cents' adjustment to junior high school. Unpublished manuscript, and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences, West Lafay- chology, 37, 12-24.
ette, IN. Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Kupersmidt, J.B. (1990). Peer group
Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Hoyle, S. G. (1986). Changes in friend- behavior and social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer
ship during a school year: Effects on children's and adolescents' rejection in childhood (pp. 17-59). New York: Cambridge University
impressions of friendship and sharing with friends. Child Develop- Press.
ment, 57, 1284-1297. Collins, W. A., & Repinski, D. (1991, April). Development of relation-
Berndt, T.J., & Keefe, K. (1992). Friends' influence on adolescents' ships during the transition to adolescence: Processes of adaptation
perceptions of themselves in school. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece to individual change. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the
(Eds.), Students'perceptions in the classroom (pp. 51-73). Hillsdale, Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
NJ: Erlbaum. Connidis, I. A., & Davies, L. (1990). Confidants and companions in
Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of later life: The place of family and friends. Journal of Gerontology:
Psychology, 45, 79-130. Social Sciences, 45, S141-S149.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The Relationship Dickens, W. J., & Perlman, D. (1981). Friendship over the life cycle.
Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relation- In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships. Vol. 2:
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792-807. Developing personal relationships (pp. 91 - 122). London: Academic
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1968). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Press.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Anti-social boys
368 HARTUPANDSTEVENS

and their friends in early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, Goldman, J. A. (1981). The social interaction of preschool children in
quality, and interactional process. Child Development, 66, 139-151. same-age versus mixed-age groupings. Child Development, 52, 644-
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Griesler, P. C. (1994). Peer adapta- 650.
tions in the development of antisocial behavior: A confluence model. Goodnow, J.J., & Burns, A. (1985). Home and school: A child's eye
In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Current perspectives on aggressive behav- view. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
ior (pp. 61-95). New York: Plenum. Gottman, J.M. (1979). Marital relationships. New York: Academic
Dubow, E. E, Tisak, J., Causey, D., Hryshko, A., & Reid, G. (1991). Press.
A two-year longitudinal study of stressful life events, social support, Gottman, J. M., & Mettetal, G. (1986). Speculations about social and
and social problem-solving skills: Contributions to children's behav- affective development: Friendship and acquaintanceship through ado-
ioral and academic adjustment. Child Development, 62, 583-599. lescence. In J. M. Gottman & J. G. Parker (Eds.), Conversations of
Dykstra, P. (1995a). Loneliness among the never and formerly married: friends (pp. 192-237). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
The importance of supportive friendships and a desire for indepen- Press.
dence. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Gupta, V., & Korte, C. (1994). The effects of a confidant and a peer
Sciences, 50B, $321-$329. group on the well-being of single elders. International Journal of
Dykstra, P. (1995b). Network composition. In C. P. M. Knipscheer, J. Aging and Human Development, 39, 293-302.
de Jong Gierveld, T.G. van Tilburg, & P. Dykstra (Eds.), Living Hallinan, M. T. (1980). Patterns of cliquing among youth. In H. C. Foot,
arrangements and social networks of older adults (pp. 97-114). A. J. Chapman, & J. R. Smith (Eels.), Friendship and peer relations
Amsterdam: Free University Press. in children (pp. 321-342). New York: Wiley.
Eder, D., & Hallinan, M. T. (1978). Sex differences in children's friend- Hartup, W. W. (1989). Behavioral manifestations of children's friend-
ships. American Sociological Review, 43, 237-250. ships. In T.J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relations in child
Elicker, J., Englund., M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Predicting peer com- development (pp. 46-70). New York: Wiley.
petence and peer relationships in childhood from early parent-child Hartup, W. W. (1995). The three faces of friendship. Journal of Social
relationships. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer rela- and Personal Relationships, 12, 569-574.
tionships: Modes of linkage (pp. 77-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their
Epstein, J. L. (1983). Examining theories of adolescent friendship. In developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1-13.
J.L. Epstein & N.L. Karweit (Eds.), Friends in school (pp. 3 9 - Hartup, W. W., Daiute, C., Zajac, R., & Sholl, W. (1995). Collaboration
61 ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. in creative writing by friends and nonfriends. Unpublished manuscript,
Erwin, P. G. (1985). Similarity of attitudes and constructs in children's University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Institute of Child Development,
friendships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 470-485. Minneapolis, MN.
Fagot, B. I. (1978). Reinforcing contingencies for sex role behax~iors: Hartup, W. W., & Van Lieshout, C. E M. (1995). Personality develop-
Effect of experience with children. Child Development, 49, 30-36. ment in social context. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 655-687.
Felton, B. J., & Berry, C. A. (1992). Do the sources of urban elderly's Haselager, G. J. T., Hartup, W. W., Van Lieshout, C. E M., & Riksen-
social support determine its psychological consequences? Psychology Walraven, M. (1996). Behavioral similarities between friends and
and Aging, 7, 89-97. nonfriends in middle childhood. Unpublished manuscript, University
Field, D. (1995, August). Continuity and change in friendships in ad- of Nijmegen, Department of Developmental Psychology, Nijmegen,
vanced old age: Findings from the Berkeley Older Generation Study. The Netherlands.
Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on Developmental Haugaard, J. J., & Tilly, C. (1988) Characteristics predicting children's
Psychology, Krakow, Poland. responses to sexual encounters with other children. Child Abuse and
Fischer, C. S., & Phillips, S. L. (1982). Who is alone? Social characteris- Neglect, 12, 209-218.
tics of people with small networks. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman Havighurst, R. (1953). Human development and education. New York:
(Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and Longmans, Green.
therapy (pp. 21-39). New York: Wiley Interscience. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
Fisher, C. B., Reid, J. D., & Melendez, M. (1989). Conflict in families attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
and friendships of later life. Family Relations, 38, 83-89. 52, 511-524.
Fisher, L. A., & Baumann, K. E. (1988). Influence and selection in the Hess, B. (1972). Friendship. In M. W. Riley, M. Johnson, & A. Foner
friend-adolescent relationship: Findings from studies of adolescent (Eds.), Aging and society (Vol. 3, pp. 357-393). New York: Russell
smoking and drinking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, Sage.
289-314. Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. New York:
Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of friendship perceptions: Con- Academic Press.
ceptual and methodological issues. In W. M. Bukowski, A. E New- Hinde, R. A., Titmus, G., Easton, D,, & Tamplin, A. (1985). Incidence
comb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships of "friendship" and behavior with strong associates versus non-
in childhood and adolescence (pp. 68-70). New York: Cambridge associates in preschoolers. Child Development, 56, 234-245.
University Press. Hochschild, A. (1973). The unexpected community. Englewood Cliffs,
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the NJ: Prentice-Hail.
personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psy- Howes, C. ( 1983 ). Patterns of friendship. Child Development, 54, 1041 -
chology, 21, 1016-1022. 1053.
Gallagher, S. K., & Gerstel, N. (1993). Kinkeeping and friend keeping Howes, C. (1989). Peer interaction of young children. Monographs of
among older women: The effect of marriage. Gerontologist, 33, 675- the Society for Research in Child Development, 53(Serial No. 217).
681. Hymel, S., & Woody, E. (1991, April). Friends versus nonfriends:
Ginsberg, D. (1986). Friendship and postdivorce adjustment. In J. M. Perceptions of similarity across self, teacher, and peers. Paper pre-
Gottman & J. G. Parker (Eds.), Conversations of friends (pp. 346- sented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child
376). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Development, Seattle, WA.
Ginsberg, D., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Conversations of college room- Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M.
mates: Similarities and differences in male and female friendships. In Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4: So-
J. M, Gottman & J. G. Parker (Eds.), Conversations of friends (pp. cialization, personality, and social development (pp. 387-467). New
241-291 ). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. York: Wiley.
 FRIENDSHIPS IN THE LIFE COURSE 369

Ipsa, J. (1981). Peer support among Soviet day care toddlers. Interna- Matthews, S. H. (1986). Friendships through the life course. Beverly
tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 4, 255-269. Hills, CA: Sage.
Jerrome, D. (1981). The significance of friendship for women in later Matthews, S. H. (1995). Friendships in old age. In N. Vanzetti & S.
life. Ageing and Society, 1, 175-196. Duck (Eds.), A lifetime of relationships (pp. 406-430). San Fran-
Kandel, D. B. (1978a). Homophily, selection, and socialization in ado- cisco: Brooks/Cole.
lescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427-436, McCandless, B. R., & Hoyt, J. M. ( 1961 ). Sex, ethnicity and play prefer-
Kandel, D. B. (1978b). Similarity in real-life adolescent pairs. Journal ences of preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 306- 312. ogy, 62, 683-685.
Kandel, D. B., & Andrews, K. (1987). Processes of adolescent socializa- McGuire, K. D., & Weisz, J. R. (1982). Social cognition and behavior
tion by parents and peers. International Journal of the Addictions, correlates of preadolescent chumship. Child Development, 53, 1478-
22, 319-342. 1484.
Kaye, L. W., & Monk, A. ( 1991 ). Social relations in enriched housing Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships.
for the aged: A case study. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 9, Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 72-81.
111-126. Monroe, W. S. (1898). Social consciousness in children. Psychological
Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incen- Review, 5, 68-70.
tives in people's lives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Nahemow, L., & Lawton, M. P. (1975). Similarity and propinquity in
Kupersmidt, J. B., DeRosier, M. E., & Patterson, C. P. (1995). Similarity friendship formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
as the basis for children's friendships: The roles of sociometric status, 32, 205-213.
aggressive and withdrawn behavior, academic achievement and demo- Neeman, J. D., Hubbard, J., & Kojetin, B. A. (1991, April). Continuity
graphic characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, in quality of friendships and romantic relationships from childhood
12, 439-452. to adolescence. Poster session presented at the biennial meetings of
Kurdek, L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (1988). Adjustment of young adolescents the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
in two-parent nuclear, stepfather, and mother-custody families. Journal Nelson, J., & Aboud, F.E. (1985). The resolution of social conflict
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 91-96. between friends. Child Development, 56, 1009-1017.
Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. (1995). Children's friendship relations:
and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children's A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306-347.
early school adjustment? Child Development, 61, 1081-1100. Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt,
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship Rinehart & Winston.
quality as a predictor of young children's early school adjustment.
O'Connor, P. (1993). Same-gender and cross-gender friendships among
Child Development, 67, 1103-1118.
the frail elderly. Gerontologist, 33, 24-30.
Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (1994). Close emotional relationships
Pagel, M. D., Erdly, W. W., & Becker, J. (1987). Social networks: We
in late life: Further support for proactive aging in the social domain.
get by with (and in spite of) a little help from our friends. Journal
Psychology and Aging, 9, 315-324.
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 793-804.
Larson, R. (1978). Thirty years of research on the subjective well-being
Papini, D. R., Farmer, E F., Clark, S. M., Micke, J. C., & Barnett, J. K.
of older Americans. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 109-125.
(1990). Early adolescent age and gender differences in patterns of
Larson, R., & Bradney, N. (1988). Precious moments with family mem-
emotional self-disclosure to parents and friends. Adolescence, 25,
bers and friends. In R. M. Milardo (Ed.), Families and social networks
959-976.
(pp. 107-126). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Larson, R., Zuzanek, J., & Mannell, R. (1985). Being alone versus Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality
in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings
being with people: Disengagement in the daily experience of older
of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology,
adults. Journal of Gerontology, 40, 375-381.
Laursen, B., & Collins, W.A. (1994). Interpersonal conflict during 29, 611-621.
adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 197-209. Rawlins, W.K. (1992). Friendship matters. New York: Aldine de
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: Gruyter.
A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & Repinski, D.J. (1993). Adolescents" close relationships with parents
C. H. Page (Eels.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18- and friends. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minne-
66). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. sota, Twin Cities, Institute of Child Development, Minneapolis.
Lebo, D. (1953). Some factors said to make for happiness in old age. Roberto, K.A., & Scott, J.P. (1986). Friendships of older men and
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 384-390. women: Exchange patterns and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging,
Livesley, W. J., & Bromley, B. D. (1973). Person perception in child- 1, 103-109.
hood and adolescence. London: Wiley. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford Uni-
Lowenthal, M. F., & Haven, C. (1968). Interaction as adaptation: Inti- versity Press.
macy as a critical variable. American Sociological Review, 33, 2 0 - Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on
30. psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Lowenthal, M. E, Thurnher, M., & Chiriboga, D. (Eds.). (1975). Four ogy, 46, 1097-1108.
stages of life: A comparative study of women and men facing transi- Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevel-
tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. opment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental ac- ogy, 51, 1156-1166.
count. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520. Rubin, K. H., Lynch, D., Coplan, R., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Booth, C. L.
Magnusson, D., Stattin, H., & Allen, V. L. (1985). Biological maturation (1994). "Birds of a feather . . . ": Behavioral concordances and
and social development: A longitudinal study of some adjustment preferential personal attraction in children. Child Development, 65,
processes from mid-adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Youth and 1778-1785.
Adolescence, 14, 267-283. Rutter, M., & Garmezy, N. (1983). Developmental psychopathology. In
Mannarino, A. P. (1978). Friendship patterns and self-concept develop- P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook
ment in preadolescent males. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133, of child psychology. Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social de-
105-110. velopment (pp. 775-911 ). New York: Wiley.
370 HARTUP AND STEVENS

Schutze, Y., & Lang, E R. (1993). Freundschaft, alter und geschlecht W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp.
[Friendship, age and gender]. Zeitschriftfur Soziologie, 22, 209-220, 167-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwartz, J. C. (1972). Effects of peer familiarity on the behavior of Tolson, J. M., & Urberg, K. A. (1993). Similarity between adolescent
preschoolers in a novel situation. Journal of Personality and Social best friends. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8, 274-288.
Psychology, 24, 276-284. Tomblom, K. Y., & Fredholm, E. M. (1984). Attribution of friendship:
Sears, R. R., Alpert, R., & Ran, L. (1964). Identification and child- The influence of the nature and comparability of resources given and
rearing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. received. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 50-61.
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New Van der Linden, E J., & Dijkman, T. A. (1989). Jong zijn en volwassen
York: Academic Press. worden in Nederland [Being young and becoming an adult in The
Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hofman, J. E. (1981). Girlfriend, boy- Netherlands]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Hoogveld.
friend: Age and sex differences in intimate friendship. Developmental Weiss, L., & Lowenthal, M . E (1975). Life-course perspectives on
Psychology, 17, 800-808. friendship. In M. E Lowenthal, M. Thurnher, & D. Chiriboga (Eds.),
Shea, L., Thompson, L., & Blieszner, R. (1988). Resources in older Four stages of life: A comparative study of women and men facing
adults' old and new friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Rela- transitions (pp. 48-61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
tionships, 5, 83-96. Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shulman, S. (1993). Close friendships in early and middle adolescence: Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York: Basic Books.
Typology and friendship reasoning. In B. Laursen (Ed.), Close friend- Weiss, R. S. (1986). Continuities and transformations in social relation-
ships in adolescence (pp. 55-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ships from childhood to adulthood. In W.W. Hartup & Z. Rubin
Simmons, R.G., Burgeson, R., & Reef, M.J. (1988). Cumulative (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 95-110). Hillsdale, NJ:
change at entry to adolescence. In M. Gunnar & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Erlbaum.
Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 123-150). Werner, C., & Parmelee, P. (1979). Similarity of activity preferences
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. among friends: Those who play together stay together. Social Psychol-
Skolnick, A. (1986). Early attachment and personal relationships across ogy Quarterly, 42, 62-66.
the life course. In D. Magnusson, H. Stattin, & V. L. Allen (Eds.), Wilcox, B. L. ( 1981 ). Social support in adjusting to marital disruption:
Life span development and behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 173-206). New A network analysis. In B.H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and
York: Academic Press. social support (pp. 97-115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction Windle, M. (1992). A longitudinal study of stress buffering for adoles-
of relationships. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships cent problem behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 28, 522-530.
and development (pp. 57-71 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Windle, M. (1994). A study of friendship characteristics and problem
Stacey-Konnert, C., & Pynoss, J. (1992). Friendship and social networks behaviors among middle adolescents. Child Development, 65, 1764-
in a continuing care retirement community. Journal of Applied Geron- 1777.
tology, 11, 298-313. Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., & Montgomery, M. J. (1995). The qual-
Staudinger, U. M., Marsiske, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1995). Resilience and ity of friendships at work and job satisfaction. Journal of Social and
reserve capacity in later adulthood: Potentials and limits of develop- Personal Relationships, 12, 199-215.
ment across the life span. In D. Cicchetti & D.J. Cohen (Eds.), Wister, A. (1990). Living arrangements and informal social support
Developmental psychopathology. Vol. 2: Risk, disorder, and adapta- among the elderly. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 6, 33-43.
tion (pp. 801-847). New York: Wiley. Wright, P.H. (1989). Gender differences in adults' same- and cross-
Stephens, M. A.P., Kinney, J.M., Ritchie, S.W., & Norris, V.K. gender friendships. In R.G. Adams & R. Blieszner (Eds.), Older
(1987). Social networks as assets and liabilities in recovery from adult friendship (pp. 197-221 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
stroke by geriatric patients. Psychology and Aging, 2, 125-129. Young, J.E. (1986). A cognitive-behavioral approach to friendship
Stevens, N. (1989). Well-being in widowhood: A question of balance. disorders. In V. J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and
Doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Department of Psycho- social interaction (pp. 246-276). New York: Springer Verlag.
gerontology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development: A Sulli-
Stevens, N. (1995). Gender and adaptation to widowhood in later life. van-Piaget perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ageing and Society, 15, 37-58.
Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New Received January 25, 1996
York: Norton. Revision received July 25, 1996
Thorne, B. B. (1986). Boys and girls t o g e t h e r . . , but mostly apart. In Accepted July 29, 1996 •

View publication stats