Long ago, Jean Piaget and Harry Stack Sullivan posited that peer relationships provide children with a unique context for excited and social development (Piaget, 1932; Sullivan, 1953). Piaget maintain that the symmetrical power relationship unique to peer relationships afforded children the opportunity to develop perspective-taking ability, social competence, and advanced moral reasoning. Sullivan emphasized the intimacy of children's same-gender chum ships, arguing that such intimacy promotes identity nouns and contributes to later successes within romantic relationships. The implication of their arguments be that children who were not involved in peer relationships would miss out on developmental opportunity important for positive adjustment and growth (Rubin, Burgess, Kennedy, & Stewart, 2003).
Today, the peer relationships literature supports Piaget's and Sullivan's hasty contentions, clearly demonstrating the significance of peer relationships, particularly friendships, contained by children's emotional and social nouns (see Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998 for a relevant review). For example, investigators have demonstrated that friendship promotes the nouns of perspective taking and moral reasoning skills (e.g., McGuire & Weisz, 1982). Friendship also has be positively associated with measures of self-esteem and sensations of general self-worth (e.g., Bagwell, Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998) and is considered an impressive source of social support, particularly beneath potentially stressful situations (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Ladd, 1990). Further, researchers have shown that friendship can protect children from the refusal externalizing and internalizing "costs" associated with peer victimization (e.g., Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999).
It also have been shown that children who are in need close peer relationships altogether or those who have difficulties next to their peers, often experience difficulties of the social and hysterical ilk. Specifically, researchers have demonstrated that children lacking friends suffer from loneliness (Brendgen, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 2000; Parker & Seal, 1996) and are often socially unskilled (Clark & Drewry, 1985). Chronic friendlessness during childhood have been associated beside social timidity, sensitivity (Parker & Seal, 1996), and later internalizing problems (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003). Like friendless children, rejected children report greater loneliness and more glum feelings give or take a few the self than do their nonrejected peers (e.g., Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003). Poorly accepted children also recurrently have friendships that are qualitatively cleaned out (Brendgen, Little, & Krappmann, 2000).
Although much attention has be paid to rejected children, few researchers own considered the close peer relationships of shy and socially withdrawn children. Yet, like peer-rejected children, shy and socially withdrawn children are repeatedly on the "outside" or the periphery of the social scene. It is true that the reasons why shy and socially withdrawn children are not involved with their peers differ from those of frequent rejected children. Rather than being actively isolated by the peer group, shy and socially withdrawn children commonly actively isolate themselves because they are socially anxious in the company of others (e.g. Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004). Thus, shy and socially withdrawn children may commonly be physically removed and isolated from their peers and may miss out on the many benefits of close peer relationships.
There is a considerable amount of research demonstrating that shyness and social bill are associated with significant psychosocial maladjustment and difficulties next to peers (see Rubin et al., 2003 for a review). Specifically, socially withdrawn children and young adolescents who are socially anxious and shy (that is, they passively cancel from peers; Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990) have distrustful self-perceptions of their social competence and their relationships, experience loneliness, and suffer from depressive symptoms (e.g., Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Gazelle & Ladd, 2003; Nilzon & Palmerus, 1998; Rubin, Chen, McDougall, Bowker, & McKinnon, 1995). Also, relative to nonwithdrawn children, young socially anxious, shy, withdrawn children are socially unskilled (e.g., Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004; Stewart & Rubin, 1995). It is impressive to note that shyness and social debt become increasingly salient and negative to peers beside age. In early childhood, shy and socially withdrawn children do not appear to be rejected by their classmates (Hart et al., 2000; Ladd & Burgess, 1999); however, by mid-to-late childhood and precipitate adolescence, lots shy, socially withdrawn children do become rejected by their peers (Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Rubin, Chen, & Hymel, 1993). Moreover, shy/withdrawn children are also often the target of peer victimization (Hanish & Guerra, 2004; Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1997; Olweus, 1993).
While it is clear from the aforementioned findings that shyness and social withdrawal are associated near adjustment difficulties at both the individual (e.g., internalizing problems) and group (e.g., peer rejection) levels of social complexity, smaller number is known something like the relation between shyness and social withdrawal and adjustment at the dyadic relationship plane (Hinde, 1987). Shy and socially withdrawn children may remove themselves from groups of peers due to discomfort and social anxiety; it is not known whether this discomfort is also overwhelming and intolerable when in the company of newly a few or even one close peer. Also, if shy and socially withdrawn children do acquire and maintain best friendships, after who do they befriend, and how can their friendships be characterized? Are their friendships long-lasting? Are they of high or low relationship standard? Few researchers have considered social bill at the dyadic level of social complexity (e.g., Schneider, 1999); as a result, particularly little is known almost the friendships of socially withdrawn children. Given the many putative advantages of contribution in friendship and the risks associated next to not being involved in such dyadic relationships, an nouns of shy and socially withdrawn children's participation surrounded by such relationships could further our understanding of the specific risks associated beside being shy and socially withdrawn during behind childhood.
The association between social withdrawal and rejection by the peer group at-large is in good health documented in the developmental psychology literature (Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993); however, it is not clear whether some of the reported difficulties associated near shyness and social withdrawal can be explained by shy/withdrawn children's involvement, or nouns thereof, in close dyadic relationships. Does their social subtraction preclude them from garnering the various advantages of friendship? Such information could increase our knowledge in relation to the social "costs" of being shy and socially withdrawn and could surrounded by turn, improve the nouns of interventions. To date, fewer than a handful of investigators hold examined the close friendships of shy and socially withdrawn children (e.g., Fordham & Stevenson-Hinde, 1999; Schneider, 1999). These studies either focus on the spell of early childhood or they comprise fairly small samples of withdrawn children. Thus, the overarching desire of the present study was to examine the characteristics of the friendships of shy and socially withdrawn children during their final year of elementary conservatory (approximately 10 years of age).
Our first research question be what is the prevalence of friendship among shy and socially withdrawn children? Most children and adolescents have mutual best friendships; for example, Parker and Asher (1993), reported that approximately 70% of children own a best friend--at least when friendship is defined as a reciprocated nomination among three possible friendship nomination. Given these findings, one might expect that many shy and socially withdrawn children may not paucity best friendships. Indeed, although few studies pertaining to prevalence exist, it has be found that children characterized by their social wariness and bill have as tons mutual friendships as their nonwithdrawn classmates. For example, some researchers have indicated that the prevalence of best friendships among childish socially withdrawn children is nonsignificantly different from that of nonwithdrawn children (Ladd & Burgess, 1999). But, as noted above, social withdrawal contained by early childhood is neither a outstandingly negative nor salient all your own. Thus, the Ladd and Burgess finding may not be too surprising.
In his research with slightly elder children, Schneider (1999) found that 60% of withdrawn 8-and 9-year-olds had a reciprocated friendship. Notably, Schneider allowed children to nominate an unlimited number of "moral friends," and while precedence was given to those dyads surrounded by which both members nominated one another as the first perfect friend, he also included other mutual friendships. Given the reputed advantages of friendship noted above, it would appear important to extend previous studies of the prevalence of mutually nominated friendships among withdrawn children. Thus, the present study be unique within its focus on the best friendships of withdrawn children, especially given that best friendships or close friendships have be shown to influence children's adjustment more than other good (but not "best") friends or the peer group at-large (Berndt, 1999). We hypothesized that withdrawn children would be smaller quantity likely than nonwithdrawn children to hold a mutual best friendship during late childhood; we reasoned that the strong relation between social subtraction and peer rejection at this age may lead peers to consider the shy/withdrawn child as being smaller number attractive as a potential best friend, thereby decreasing the likelihood that the shy/withdrawn child would experience a mutual best friendship. However, base on the extant literature regarding the benefits of friendship involvement, we also expected that those shy/withdrawn children who have a best friendship would be less victimized, more socially agreed, and viewed as more socially competent than those shy/withdrawn children short such relationships.
Who do shy and socially withdrawn children befriend? In existing studies of peer relationships, researchers have considered the identity or characteristics of children's best friends. They own done so because it may be that the company children keep influences their psychosocial adjustment. The "homophily" hypothesis suggests that children are attracted to, and become friends next to, others who are similar to them. Haselager, Hartup, van Lieshout, and Riksen-Walraven (1998) found behavioral similarities to be greater between friends than non-friends in belated childhood, with the relation specifically strong for aggressive and antisocial behaviors. These researchers also found that children's friendships were near others who resembled them in language of prosocial behavior and shyness/dependency. Haselager et al. suggested that the developmental significance of friendship might vary as a function of the characteristics of the child, the friend, and the similarity between the two. Specifically, they posited that friendship might function protectively when children are similar to their friends within terms of prosocial tendency. Alternatively, friendship can be a risk factor when there are behavioral concordances contained by aggression and displays of antisocial behaviors, a view that have been supported within empirical studies by Dishion and colleagues (e.g., Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995).
Importantly, these findings also provide support for the "reputational salience hypothesis," or the notion that similarities between friends vary according to the salience of the attribute in determining the social reputations of the children involved (Haselager et al., 1998). In other words, it would be expected that aggressive children would be more plausible to have friends who be highly aggressive, and withdrawn children would hold friends who were significantly withdrawn because such similarities would be consistent with their reputations. Moreover, in table lamp of recent research suggesting that withdrawn children are frequently victimized by their peers (e.g., Hanish & Guerra, 2004; Hodges et al., 1997), it may be the case that the best friends of withdrawn children correspondingly experience being bullied. Whereas some researchers own investigated this hypothesis for aggressive children (e.g. Poulin & Boivin, 2000), it has not but been examined for shy and socially withdrawn children and their best friends.
Just as the prevalence of best friendships and the characteristics of the best friends are substantial to consider, so too are the relationship qualities of these friendships (Rubin et al., 1998). Therefore, we asked in the present study: Are the best friendships of shy and socially withdrawn children stable? Are in that qualitative differences in the friendships of socially withdrawn and nonwithdrawn children? Although several researchers enjoy examined the effects of a stable friendship on psychosocial functioning and adjustment (Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999; Parker & Seal, 1996), few have studied the relations between individual characteristics of children and friendship upkeep (Ladd & Burgess, 1999). Consequently, little is known going on for the stability of the friendships of socially wary and withdrawn children. Schneider (1999) found no differences within the stability of friendship dyads comprising zero, one, or two withdrawn children across the institution year. Unfortunately, his sample of dyads that included at smallest one withdrawn child was a bit small, thereby limiting the generalizability of his findings. Schneider noted, however, that withdrawn children were smaller quantity communicative with their best friends than be nonwithdrawn children. Given that verbal communication is indispensable for intimate disclosure and important for the repairs of close personal relationships, it appears reasonable to expect that socially withdrawn children may struggle to assert their friendships across the school year.
In lingo of relationship quality, we be interested specifically in whether children's subjective perceptions of friendship trait varied as a function of their shy, withdrawn status. Some researchers who hold studied friendship quality contained by relation to shyness and social withdrawal enjoy found that socially withdrawn children have friendships that are relatively lofty in relationship trait (Fordham & Stevenson-Hinde, 1999; Schneider, 1999). However, as noted above, results from the Schneider study also indicated lowered levels of choral communication in the friendships of shy/withdrawn children. Further nouns of the qualities of shy/withdrawn children's friendships is required to better fathom out the ways in which shyness might influence relationship virtues. We reasoned that the overall quiet and reserved humour of withdrawn children and their reported verbal reticence, during the developmental spell of late childhood when intimacy and self-disclosure in close relationships become inner, would negatively influence the amount of intimate exchange, help, and companionship inside the friendship, and the overall quality of the relationship. The exchange of thinking is not only key to mutual understanding of thoughts, emotional state, and emotions but also for the planning of everyday friendship goings-on involving fun and recreation.
Lastly, it may be the grip that important masculinity differences exist in the best friendships of shy and socially withdrawn children. Socially withdrawn boys and girls may experience different successes and difficulties surrounded by their best friendships. Researchers have shown that it may be more socially adjectives to be a shy and quiet girl than it is to be a shy and peaceable boy (Hinde, Stevenson-Hinde, & Tamplin, 1985). This finding may be especially true once children move into early youth and conformity and adherence to gender roles become particularly exalted (Ruble & Martin, 1998). There is some evidence to support the suggestion that social withdrawal is associated near greater psychosocial maladjustment, for boys than girls, particularly during youth (e.g., Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1988). Clearly, however, additional studies are needed to examine masculinity differences in the correlates of social bill and shyness.
OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY
The overarching goal of the present study be to compare the best friendships of withdrawn children with those of controlchildren in vocabulary of prevalence, best friends' characteristics, stability, and relationship quality. We examined the best friendships of children during behind childhood, a developmental period during which few studies focusing on socially withdrawn children own been conducted, and explored possible sexual category differences. We hypothesized that the best friendships of withdrawn children would differ quantitatively and qualitatively from the best friendships of control children. Compared with the control children, we expected withdrawn children to (a) be less expected to have a mutual stable best friendship; (b) hold greater similarities with their best friends contained by terms of social bill and victimization; and (c) have friendships that be lower in relationship characteristic. Given the putative benefits of friendship involvement, we hypothesized that shy/withdrawn children with mutual best friendships would be rated by their peers as smaller amount victimized, and more socially accepted and socially skilled than would shy/withdrawn children lacking mutual best friendships. We also hypothesized that shy/withdrawn boys would demonstrate greater difficulties at the dyadic level than would shy/withdrawn girls.
METHOD
Participants
Participants be drawn from a large normative taste of fifth graders from eight public elementary schools. The preview consisted of 827 children (406 boys and 421 girls). The mean age of the token was 10.33 years (SD = 0.52), and adjectives participants have parental consent (consent rate = 84%). There were two phases of information collection: (1) assessments in the school and (2) an assessment in the laboratory. Participants be assessed in the school on two different occasions: the initiation of the year (October; Time 1) and approximately 7 months later close by the end of the conservatory year (May; Time 2). Between the two time points, 24 children (9 boys and 15 girls) moved to different schools that be not participating in the study; therefore, these children be not involved in Time 2 data collection. Attrition analyses revealed nonsignificant differences between these 24 children and the longitudinal participant (N = 804) on peer- and teacher-reports of social and emotional behaviors (see below for description of ECP and TCRS measures).
School background collection had a dual purpose: (a) to buy friendship nominations and determine mutuality or reciprocities; and (b) to pick up peer nominations of social-behavioral characteristics and consequently identify withdrawn and control groups (see description of classification criteria below). Additional questionnaire data be collected during the laboratory visits, which typically occur between the Time 1 and the Time 2 school assessments.
Procedure
Research assistants administered two questionnaire in group format within classrooms or larger schoolrooms. The children were informed that their answers be confidential and were instructed not to discuss their answers next to classmates. Each session lasted approximately 1 hr. The first questionnaire involved friendship nomination and the second questionnaire was an extended performance of the Revised Class Play (see below). The teachers of respectively participating classroom completed the Teacher-Child Rating Scale (Hightower et al., 1986) on all children for whom parental sanction was obtain (Time 1 only). After target groups of children were identified or classified as shy/withdrawn, and control (nonaggressive/nonwithdrawn), they come to the university laboratory with their mutual best friend; at the university the target children and their mutual best friends completed a series of questionnaire, including a measure pertaining to friendship point. Only those targeted children who had a mutual best friendship participate in the laboratory assessment.
School Measures
Friendship Nominations (Bukowski, Hoza, and Boivin, 1994)
Participants be asked to write the names of their "amazingly best friend" and their "second best friend" at their school. Children could lone name same-gender friends surrounded by their grade, and simply mutual (reciprocated) best friendships were subsequently considered. Children be considered "best friends" if they were respectively other's very best or second best friend choice. The ID of a best friendship is similar to procedures used in other studies focused on best friendships (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993). Although children could nominate any same-gender child in their echelon as their best friend, only participating children completed the friendship nomination; therefore, it be impossible to determine whether a friendship was reciprocated when a nonparticipating child be identified as a best friend. Thus, 62 children (38 boys and 24 girls) were excluded from friendship prevalence and stability analyses because both of their best friend nomination were of nonparticipating children or their best friends moved. It is esteemed to note that the majority of children nominated two participating children (Time 1: 76% and Time 2: 80%). Friendship prevalence analyses for the total indication revealed that 60% of the children (496 children: 217 boys and 279 girls) at Time 1 and 59% of children (491 children: 220 boys and 271 girls) at Time 2 had a mutual best friendship.
Child Behaviors
Following completion of the friendship nomination questionnaire, participant completed an extended version of the Revised Class Play (RCP; Masten, Morison, & Pellegrini, 1985). The children be instructed to pretend to be the directors of an imaginary class play and to nominate their classmates for assorted positive and negative roles. The children be provided with a document of their classmates who were participating in the study and be instructed to choose one boy and one girl for each role, but impossible to tell apart person could be preferred for more than one role. Only same-gender nominations for participating children be considered to eliminate possible gender-stereotyping. All item score were standardized in gender and inwardly classroom in establish to adjust for the number of nominations received and also the number of nominators. Items be added to the original RCP to more fully takeover different types of aggression (e.g., someone who spreads rumors), and to better distinguish between peer victimization and active isolation or social bill (e.g., someone who prefers to be alone). An exploratory principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation yield five orthogonal factors: aggression, shyness/withdrawal, victimization/exclusion, prosocial behaviors, and popularity/sociability. The standardized item score were summed to abandon five different total factor scores for respectively participant. It should be noted that this extended measure, the Extended Class Play (ECP), be found both valid and reliable using the present sample of fifth-grade children across two time points (Burgess, Rubin, Wojslawowicz, Rose-Krasnor, & Booth, 2003). The five-factor model be supported by confirmatory factor analyses. The alphas for the factors be: aggression (7-items): .91; shyness/withdrawal (4-items): .82; victimization/exclusion (8-items): .87; popularity/sociability (5-items): .87; and prosocial behaviors (6-items): .82.
Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS; Hightower et al., 1986)
The T-CRS questionnaire was used as a manoeuvre of socioemotional and behavioral functioning in the classroom. Reliability and validity of the enormity have be demonstrated previously (Hightower et al., 1986). The T-CRS yields three problem subscales, study problems, acting-out, and shy-anxious, and three competency subscales, task location, assertive social skills, and frustration tolerance. For the problem behaviors, teachers rate each child on a 5-point amount ranging from 1 = not a problem to 5 = completely serious problem. For the competency behaviors, the teachers be asked to rate how well respectively item described the child, ranging from 1 = not at adjectives to 5 = very very well, and higher score were indicative of greater competence. Alphas for the subscales in the present study range from .87 to .95. The Learning Problems and Task Orientation subscales were not of interest in the present study.
Identification of Risk and Control Groups
For the Shy/Withdrawn group, we identified those children whose ECP Shyness/Withdrawal score were contained by the top 33% (or approximately, 1 SD above the mean) and whose Aggression scores be in the bottom 50% for their sexual characteristics and grade. A Control group be identified from among those children whose Aggression scores and Shyness/Withdrawal score fell in the bottom 50% for their masculinity group and grade. These procedures, including cutoffs, be very similar to those used surrounded by previous studies of shyness and social withdrawal (e.g., Ladd & Burgess, 1999; Rubin et al., 1993). All classifications be made at Time 1 according to peer nomination data. The with the sole purpose Time 2 data considered contained by the present study were friendship nomination.
The Shy/Withdrawn group consisted of 169 children (75 boys and 94 girls) whose mean standardized Shyness/Withdrawal rack up was 1.04 and whose tight standardized Aggression score be -0.54. The Control group comprised 163 children (93 boys and 70 girls), whose mean standardized Aggression evaluation was -0.52 and show standardized Shyness/Withdrawal score be -0.51.
Laboratory Visit
Based on the school measures of friendship, adjectives targeted children who had a mutual friendship be invited to the university laboratory in the spring of their fifth-grade year. If a targeted child had two mutual school-based best friendships, the child be invited to visit beside his or her "very best friend" choice. During the call in, the children and their mutual best friendship completed a number of questionnaire, including the Friendship Quality Questionnaire-Revised (FQQ; Parker & Asher, 1993). A research assistant administered instructions and questionnaires individually to respectively child. For analyses involving friendship quality, when two targeted withdrawn children shared a mutual best friendship and visit the laboratory together, the child with the sophisticated Shyness/Withdrawal score be selected as a "target," and the other child be placed in the corresponding "best friend" group for the present study. In other words, if two withdrawn children shared a mutual best friendship, the child with the complex withdrawal mark was special to be the target and the other child was placed surrounded by the "best friends of withdrawn children" group. If two control children shared a mutual best friendship, the child with the lower withdrawal mark was elected to be the target and the other child was placed surrounded by the "best friends of control children" group. If a shy/withdrawn and control child shared a friendship (13 instances), the targeted child was arbitrarily chosen, and the other child was placed surrounded by the best friend group. Given these criteria, 47 shy/withdrawn (22 boys and 25 girls) and 48 control children (22 boys and 26 girls) visited the laboratory beside their best friends. Approximately 60% of these children visited the laboratory near their "very best friend" choice considered contained by the "Characteristics of the Best Friends of Shy/Withdrawn Children" analyses below.
Demographic data be collected from the laboratory sample solitary. Approximately 60% of the children who visited the laboratory be European American, 15% African-American, 15% Asian-American, and 10% Latin American. Sixty-eight percent of their mothers (68% of the fathers) had a university point, 21% some college education (13% of the fathers), and 9% have high conservatory and vocational education (12% of the fathers). With respect to the shy/withdrawn and control groups of children who visit the laboratory, analyses revealed nonsignificant demographic differences between the two groups in vocabulary of race and SES, as measured by mother's and father's matchless level of schooling. Within-group analyses revealed nonsignificant differences on the ECP and TCRS variables between those targeted children who visited the laboratory and those who did not.
Laboratory Measures
Friendship Quality Questionnaire-Revised (FQQ; Parker & Asher, 1993)
The FQQ be used to assess the child's self-perceived quality of friendship next to his/her best friend. The 40-item FQQ yields six subscales contained by the areas of companionship/recreation, validation/caring, help/guidance, intimate disclosure, conflict/betrayal, and conflict resolution (alpha = .73-.90). The conflict/betrayal factor was reverse-scored; greater scores indicated greater perceived friendship level on all of the subscales. A total friendship feature score be computed for each child by adding together the mean score of the subscales (with the exception of the conflict and betrayal scale).
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Prior to examining the best friends of the children identified as shy/withdrawn and control, a series of 2 (Group: Shy/Withdrawn, Control) x 2 (Gender) ANOVAs was computed to examine the characteristics of the target groups themselves. These analyses be conducted to ascertain that the target groups indeed differed statistically from each other on the Extended Class Play (ECP) factor of shyness/withdrawal and aggression. Moreover, between-group differences on the victimization/exclusion variable be examined (see Table I for means and standard deviations).
As expected, shy/withdrawn children be rated by their peers as significantly more withdrawn than be control children, F(1, 332) = 444.23, p < .001. The groups did not differ significantly in their level of aggression, F(1, 332) = 2.22, ns. Shy/withdrawn children were reported by their peers to be significantly more victimized and excluded than be the control children, F(1, 332) = 88.07, p < .001. There were nonsignificant Group x Gender interaction effects. (5)
The two target groups also be compared on teacher-reports of shy/anxious and acting-out behaviors (TCRS; Hightower et al., 1986). A 2 (Group: Shy/Withdrawn, Control) x 2 (Gender) ANOVAs were computed (see Table I for mechanism and standard deviations).
Analyses revealed a significant Group x Gender interaction effect for the acting-out variable, F(1, 332) = 4.6, p < .03. Follow-up t test, conducted separately by gender, revealed significant group differences for boys one and only. Teachers rated Control boys (M = 8.37, SD = 3.27) as demonstrating significantly more acting-out behaviors than Shy/Withdrawn boys (M = 6.96, SD = 1.97).
Analyses also revealed a significant Group principal effect for shy/anxious behaviors, F(1, 332) = 22.69, p < .001. As expected, teachers reported shy/withdrawn children as demonstrating significantly more shy and anxious behaviors than control children. A significant sexual characteristics effect was also revealed, F(1, 328) = 5.22, p < .02; girls be rated by their teacher as demonstrating greater shy and anxious behaviors (Girls: M = 10.82, SD = 5.19; Boys: M = 9.41, SD = 3.73) than were the boys.
School Assessment: Prevalence of Friendship
The first sound out concerned whether shy/withdrawn children were as plausible as control children to have best friendships. Children be considered "best friends" if they were respectively other's very best or second best friend choice. At Time 1, 65% of shy/withdrawn children (37 boys and 69 girls) and 70% of control children (57 boys and 55 girls) have a mutual very best friend. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences surrounded by the likelihood that shy/withdrawn and control children would hold a mutual best friendship, (2, N = 324) = 1.06, ns. Also, there be no significant differences when data be examined separately by gender. (Eight children be excluded from analyses because the two friends they nominated were not participating in the project).
At Time 2, 63% of the shy/withdrawn children (41 boys and 65 girls) and 72% of the control children (63 boys and 55 girls) have a mutual best friend. Chi-square analysis revealed that the groups did not differ, (2, N = 318) = 2.78, ns; no significant differences were revealed when analyses be conducted separately by gender (At Time 2, 14 children be excluded from analyses because the two friends they nominated were not participating in the project).
School Assessment: Comparison of Shy/Withdrawn Children beside and Without Best Friendships
To compare the social acceptance and social competence of shy/withdrawn children with mutual best friendships with those short such relationships, we conducted a series of t tests, using the popularity/sociability, prosocial behaviors, and victimization/exclusion ECP factor and the social skills and frustration tolerance TCRS subscales as dependent variables. The ability to regulate frustrating and distrustful emotions is normally considered an index of social competence (Rubin et al., 1998). (It should be noted that a series of preliminary 2 (Group: Shy/Withdrawn with best friend, Shy/Withdrawn short best friend) x 2 (Gender) ANOVAs was conducted; results revealed no significant Gender and Group x Gender interaction effects; and t test were after performed to maximize power.) This set of analyses involved 106 shy/withdrawn with mutual best friends and 58 shy/withdrawn lacking mutual best friends.
Results showed that as expected, shy/withdrawn children with mutual best friends were more popular and sociable, t(162) = 2.32, p < .02, than be the shy/withdrawn children without mutual best friends.
There be nonsignificant group differences on the prosocial behaviors and victimization/exclusion variables as well as on the TCRS variables.
School Assessment: Characteristics of the Best Friends of Shy/Withdrawn Children
To consider the characteristics of the best friends of shy/withdrawn and control children as a group, a series of 2 (Group: Best Friend of Shy/Withdrawn (N = 97, 33 boys), Best Friend of Control (N = 98, 48 boys)) x 2 (Gender) ANOVAs be performed on the ECP peer nomination of aggression, shyness/withdrawal, victimization/exclusion, prosocial behaviors, and popularity/sociability (see Table II for means and standard deviations). We chose these variables base on the above mentioned shyness and social withdrawal literatures (Rubin et al., 2003); while similarities between shy/withdrawn children and their best friends in language of shyness and victimization were expected, we also explored possible similarities within sociable and socially competent behaviors and aggression. For these analyses, the "very best friend" facts were used. However, because the questionnaire allowed the children to nominate a "massively best" and "second best" friend, there be some cases in which the child have two mutual best friends and we were forced to choose singular one for analyses (71 children had two mutual best friends). In these instances, the friend nominated by the target child as the "exceedingly best" friend (top choice) was used for the analyses. Nine shy/withdrawn and 14 control children be excluded from these analyses because their mutual best friend shared a mutual "very best" friendship next to another child (e.g., both of these children nominated each other as "fundamentally best friend"). This ensured that no child be involved in more than one mutual best friendship for analyses.
Results of these "best friend" analyses indicated a significant main effect for the group erratic (Best friends of Shy/Withdrawn, Best friends of Control) for shyness/withdrawal, F(1, 195) = 4.55, p < .03 and victimization/exclusion, F(1, 195) = 5.89, p < .02. When compared with the best friends of control children, the best friends of shy/withdrawn children were significantly more shy and withdrawn as resourcefully as more victimized and excluded by their peers. The best friend groups did not differ in language of prosocial behaviors, popularity/sociability and aggression scores. There be no significant Group x Gender interactions.
Additional analyses examined whether teachers rate the best friends of shy/withdrawn and control children differently in jargon of shy/anxious and socially competent behaviors (social skills, frustration tolerance). Scores were analyzed using a series of 2 (Group: Best friend of Withdrawn, Best friend of Control) x 2 (Gender) ANOVAs. There be no significant best friend group main effects on adjectives teacher-report variables (see Table II for means and standard deviations).
Similarities Between Targeted Children and Their Best Friends
To assessment the homophily hypothesis within dyads involving shy/withdrawn and control children, behavioal similarity be assessed by Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients computed for each ECP peer nomination unreliable. (6) Similar analyses have be conducted in the recent past to examine similarities between friends (e.g., Haselager et al., 1998). The correlations were computed separately inside group, and also separately by gender, and are shown surrounded by Tables III and IV.
For the shy/withdrawn children and their best friends, significant dyadic correlations were found for victimization/exclusion, prosocial behaviors, and popularity/sociability. The control children be most similar to their best friends in vocabulary of victimization/exclusion. All other correlations for each group be nonsignificant. It is important to facts that these correlations are descriptive of variables on which each of the friendship groups be similar; significant correlations do not suggest, however, that the groups had better scores on these variables.
Similarities also sundry between targeted children and their best friends when correlations were conducted separately by sexual category. For the shy/withdrawn group, both withdrawn boys' and girls' prosocial behaviors scores be significantly associated with those of their best friends, but just the withdrawn boys had significant associations near their best friend's scores on popularity/sociability and victimization/exclusion. When information were examined separately by femininity, there be no significant dyadic correlations for the control boys or girls.
A series of analyses involving Fisher's r to z transformations revealed that the differences between these correlations (similarities between shy/withdrawn children and their best friends and control children and their best friends) were significant for the prosocial behaviors fluctuating only (z = 2.36, p < .02). When these correlations on the prosocial behaviors changeable for shy/withdrawn boys and their best friends were compared to those between control boys and their best friends, the differences approached significance, z = 1.87, p < .06. There be no other significant group or group by gender differences within the magnitude of the behavioral similarities.
We also examined behavioral similarities between targeted children and their best friends in jargon of teacher-reports of social behaviors (acting-out, shy/anxious behaviors) and social competence (social skills, frustration tolerance; see Table IV). Similarities between targeted children and their best friends varied by group. For the withdrawn children and their best friends, significant dyadic correlations be found for all TCRS variables. The control children be significantly similar to their best friends in jargon of frustration tolerance and social assertive skills. Fisher's r to z transformations revealed that the differences between these correlations neared significance for the acting-out unfixed only (z = 1.81, p< .07); analyses revealed no other significant differences.
Shy/withdrawn boys have significant associations with their best friends on shyness/anxiety and social assertive skills. Shy/withdrawn girls be similar to their best friends in expressions of acting-out behaviors and frustration tolerance. Significant dyadic correlations were found just for control boys in expressions of social assertiveness. Significant dyadic correlations were revealed for control girls for frustration tolerance. Fisher's r to z transformations bungled to reveal any significant group by gender differences.
School Assessment: Stability of Friendship
One-hundred and twelve control children have a mutual best friendship at Time 1--Fall (five of these children were excluded from analyses because their best friend moved or they themselves have moved). Seventy percent (35 boys and 43 girls) of the control children had a stable best friendship (Fall-to-Spring). One-hundred and six shy/withdrawn children have a mutual best friend at Time 1--Fall; however, five of these children moved or their best friend had moved. Sixty-nine percent (24 boys and 46 girls) of the shy/withdrawn children shared impossible to tell apart friendship across the school year. Comparisons of the extent to which shy/withdrawn and control children's friendships be stable did not reach significance; within-gender chi-square comparisons be likewise nonsignificant. It is momentous to note that if a targeted child possessed two mutual best friendships at Time 1, he or she be considered to have a stable best friendship if one of these best friendships be maintained (Wojslawowicz, Rubin, Burgess, Booth-LaForce, & Rose-Krasnor, in press).
Laboratory Assessment: Friendship Quality
We examined whether children's perception of friendship quality be related to group status. A series of 2 (Group: Shy/Withdrawn, Control) x 2 (Gender) ANOVAs were perform to consider differences between the target groups and also between the groups of best friends (best friend of withdrawn, best friend of control). The children completed the FQQ with specific reference to the ability of the relationship they had beside the friend who visited the laboratory near them (see Tables V and VI for means and standard deviations).
A significant group chief effect was obtain for the FQQ constructs of help and guidance, F(1, 95) = 7.15, p < .01; intimate exchange, F(1, 95) = 5.19, p < .03; conflict resolution, F(1, 95) = 8.22, p < .001; and the total FQQ summary evaluation, F(1, 95) = 8.03, p <.01.Withdrawn children rated their best friendships as significantly lower than control children on respectively of these dimensions of friendship quality.
There be gender basic effects for validation and caring, F(1, 95) = 5.98, p < .02; give support to and guidance, F(1, 95) = 4.25, p < .04; intimate disclosure, F(1, 95) = 25.96, p < .001; conflict and betrayal, F(1, 95) = 5.12, p < .03; and total FQQ, F(1, 95) = 10.83, p < .001. Girls reported higher level of friendship quality than did boys on the following variables: validation/caring: M = 3.98, SD = 0.77 and M = 4.31, SD = 0.55; help/guidance: M = 3.57, SD = 0.83 and M = 3.90, SD = 0.78; intimate disclosure: M = 3.17, SD = 1.02 and M = 4.05, SD = 0.70; conflict and betrayal: M = 4.15, SD = 0.53 and M = 4.39, SD = 0.50; and total FQQ, M = 3.68, SD = 0.72 and M = 4.09, SD = 0.54 for boys and girls, respectively. There be no significant Group x Gender interactions.
Analyses focusing on the best friends' reports of friendship quality revealed significant group foremost effects for FQQ constructs of companionship and recreation, F(1, 95) = 3.95, p < .05; sustain and guidance, F(1, 95) = 7.72, p < .01; and the total FQQ summary score, F(1,95) = 6.28, p < .01. The best friends of shy/withdrawn children reported their best friendships to be smaller quantity fun and help/guidance and to be lower in overall friendship competence than did the best friends of control children.
DISCUSSION
Previous research has demonstrated that shy and socially withdrawn children are recurrently on the "periphery" of the social scene and less affianced with peers than their nonwithdrawn classmates (Rubin et al., 2003). In in arrears childhood, this withdrawal is view negatively by peers and is a strong predictor of peer rejection (Newcomb et al., 1993). The present study extended prior research by its investigation of shy and socially withdrawn children's involvement in close dyadic relationships, specifically best friendships. The present research substantially furthers our knowledge of shy/withdrawn children's experiences surrounded by dyadic relationships by revealing qualitative (behavioral similarities, friendship quality) but not quantitative (prevalence, stability) differences between the best friendships of shy/withdrawn and nonwithdrawn children. Although shy/withdrawn children seemed to be as credible as nonwithdrawn children to have mutual, stable best friendships, their best friendship experiences be less positive.
To instigate with our first research cross-examine, contrary to our expectations, shy and socially withdrawn children were as plausible as control children to have mutual best friendships. These children's social subtraction from the peer group at-large did not appear to influence their involvement in close dyadic friendships in the age group under study, suggesting that the company of only one peer may be less anxiety-provoking for these children than the company of lots peers. These findings are consistent with results reported faster by Ladd and Burgess (1999) and Schneider (1999). In contrast to the Schneider's study, however, all the friendships surrounded by the present study were "best" friendships, demonstrating that shy and socially withdrawn children during belatedly childhood are able not individual to establish good friendships but also are competent to form the closest, and most influential type of friendships, best friendships (Berndt, 1999). Although these results are consistent with prior research focused on the accurate friendships of withdrawn children, an important direction for adjectives research would be to examine the prevalence of best friendships in shy and socially withdrawn adolescents. As shyness and social withdrawal become even more salient and gloomy to peers, shy and socially withdrawn adolescents may experience greater difficulty forming best friendships. Such studies focused on shyness during the adolescent developmental period may also reveal significant femininity differences, which were not found contained by the present study. It seems plausible that decreased espousal of shyness, particularly for boys as they move into young adulthood, could negatively influence the friendship formation process (Hinde et al., 1985).
The data revealed that shy/withdrawn children with best friends be viewed as more sociable than those short best friends. Specifically, shy/withdrawn children with a mutual best friendship were rate by their peers as more popular/sociable than were shy/withdrawn children in need best friendships. These findings strongly suggest that as is the case near nonwithdrawn children, social competence plays an important role contained by the best friendship formation process for shy/withdrawn children (Rubin et al., 1998). Prior studies have demonstrated that socially competent behaviors, close to the sociable behaviors measured in the present study, promote the formation of friendships, whereas socially incompetent behaviors, such as aggression, function in a disruptive attitude (Rubin et al., 1998). Importantly, although these behaviors may not improve shy/withdrawn children's standing with the larger peer group, frequent displays of sociable behaviors may enjoy caused peers to spectacle these better adjusted shy/withdrawn children as more attractive potential friends.
Although friendship involvement does appear to relief shy/withdrawn children to be viewed as more involved in the peer group, evidence be revealed suggesting that the benefit of best friendship involvement may be limited for shy/withdrawn children. To inaugurate with, results from behavioral similarity analyses demonstrated significant behavioral similarities between withdrawn children and their best friends. Specifically, significant similarities be revealed for peer-reports of victimization and exclusion, prosocial and popular/sociable behaviors and teacher-reports of acting-out and shy/anxious behaviors, frustration tolerance, and assertive social skills. Furthermore, findings indicated that both withdrawn children and their best friends were more victimized and excluded than be targeted control children and their respective best friends. Results also indicated no significant differences between shy/withdrawn children who had best friends and those who did not within their levels of peer victimization. In integration, the best friends of shy/withdrawn children were more shy and withdrawn than be the best friends of control children, results that provide support for the homophily ("birds of a feather") hypothesis for withdrawn children. Taken together, these results strongly suggest that the behavioral similarities between shy/withdrawn children and their mutual best friends may decrease the benefits of friendship involvement and also the protective power of friendship, mainly in good opinion to peer victimization (Hodges et al., 1999). Haselager et al. (1998) suggested that friendships may not be protective for children when the similarities between best friends indicate shared maladaptation. Accordingly, it seems plausible that a "misery loves company" scenario exists for many shy, withdrawn children. The coping of two shy children who both perceive poorly about themselves and their social worlds may front to increases in internalizing problems, much the same road that co-rumination within the friendships of youth girls predicts later internalizing difficulties (Rose, 2002). Furthermore, it may be that children who are shy and withdrawn are smaller quantity able to guard themselves and also their friends from peer victimization. The social timidity and wariness of these children may net them even "easier" targets; two "easy" target that spend time together may be more inviting to bullies and their henchmen than only one. For example, it may be the crust that successful victimization of two withdrawn children garners more peer attention than the victimization of a single child. Future research might focus longitudinally on the friendships of shy and socially withdrawn children because a long-lasting friendship with another shy/withdrawn child may exacerbate existing difficulties. On the other foot, a stable, high-quality friendship may prove obliging and comforting for shy/withdrawn children.
It is important to facts that whereas peers reported behavioral differences between the best friends of shy/withdrawn and the control children, teachers did not. The teacher, however, judged the targeted shy/withdrawn children to be shyer and anxious and smaller amount socially assertive than were the targeted control children. In adjunct to being more socially withdrawn, an inspection of the ability and standard deviations on all adjustment variables for the targeted shy/withdrawn children and their mutual best friends shows the group of targeted withdrawn children as experiencing even greater adjustment difficulties than their respective best friends. Therefore, the difficulties of the best friends may be smaller amount obvious to teacher than those of the shy and socially withdrawn children. These findings are consistent with the argument that many teacher are simply unaware of the more subtle difficulties that oodles children experience. In fact, until lately researchers overlooked shy and socially withdrawn children in module because relative to their aggressive counterparts, parents and teachers alike view shy and socially withdrawn children as quiet, well-behaved, and studious (Rubin et al., 2003). However, as noted previously, it is immediately well-known to researchers that shy and socially withdrawn children experience various difficulties, particularly those of an internalizing quality (e.g., Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004). The findings in the present study suggest that the best friends of withdrawn children may also be at risk for the internalizing problems associated with shyness and social withdrawal during unsettled childhood, and yet, their internalized difficulties may be in motion unnoticed to many adults. Indeed, contained by the present study, targeted children were select to be more socially withdrawn than their best friends. An important direction for adjectives studies may be to examine the behavioral similarity between shy/withdrawn children and their best friends longitudinally. If the best friends of socially withdrawn children become more withdrawn over time, it may be important to include these best friends in intervention pains directed at withdrawn children.
Like prior research on rejected children (Parker & Asher, 1993), findings in the present study demonstrated that the best friendships of shy and socially withdrawn children were qualitatively poorer than the best friendships of children who be not removed from the peer group at-large. As expected, shy/withdrawn children rated their best friendships as significantly lower contained by help and guidance, intimate disclosure, conflict resolution, and overall friendship standard than did control children. The present study extended prior research (Fordham & Stevenson-Hinde, 1999; Schneider, 1999) by examining the perspectives of both the targeted child and their mutual best friend on the feature of the friendship. Findings indicated that the best friends of withdrawn children viewed their friendships as relatively low surrounded by fun and helpfulness, as well as surrounded by overall friendship quality. Perhaps the lower friendship feature reported by withdrawn children was, surrounded by large portion, a function of their shy and timid behavioral style. In the present study, shyness and social withdrawal be operationalized by four items--someone who is very shy; someone who doesn't have a chat much or talk calmly; someone who hardly starts conversations; and someone who get nervous in the order of participating in class discussions. If these children's shyness and verbal reticence keep on when in the context of a close friendship, consequently it may explain the lower relationship quality. It may be enormously difficult to have fun next to or feel close to a friend who offer few ideas and suggestions, little backing and guidance, and only a small amount of overall heated and social support. These findings contrast with those of prior studies, which suggest that the friendships of shy/withdrawn children are relatively illustrious in relationship level (Fordham & Stevenson-Hinde, 1999; Schneider, 1999). This inconsistency between our reported findings and those of Schneider, for example, may be accounted for by the direct impact of communicative reticence and social anxiety on different types of friendships. Further, unlike the other two published studies, the children in the present study reported on the quality of their mutual best friendships. These findings suggest that shy/withdrawn children and their best friends may benefit from interventions focused on the dyad, such as those involving "two of a kind therapy" (Selman, 1997; Selman & Schultz,1990).
Intimacy is especially important for children's best friendships (Berndt, 1999). It is possible, so, that verbal reticence and quiescence is more detrimental to the power of best friendships than other friendships. Despite the lesser element of the friendships of socially withdrawn children, nearly 70% of their best friendships were maintain across the school year. Perhaps, next, by middle and late childhood, socially withdrawn children own learned that relationships near age-mates are precious and that just have a friend is of significance. Perhaps, having a friend, regardless of its level, may buffer socially withdrawn children from feelings of loneliness. Thus, once a best friendship is established, shy/withdrawn children may do their massively best to maintain it, regardless of its "costs."
A number of limitations should be noted. First, friendship identifications be limited to same-sex, same age, same-school participating children. As such, abundant important friendships may hold been missed, including "neighborhood-" and "leisure-activity-"-based friendships and friendships that are near opposite-sex children but platonic in quality. These types of friendships may prove important sources of social and exciting support for children who experience difficulties with the larger peer group. Moreover, due to the large number of analyses contained by the present study (without any correction for chance), caution should be used when interpreting findings. Future research is needed to determine whether these findings emerge next to larger samples of socially withdrawn and nonwithdrawn children.
Lastly, contained by future studies, researchers would do capably to consider factors inside the family when examining the relation between deduction and friendship. For example, the parents of withdrawn children often own been described as overprotective or oversolicitous (Rubin & Burgess, 2002). As such, some withdrawn children may hope friends who are similar to their parents in behavioral style (e.g., intrusive and controlling), whereas others may choose friends who are more similar to them (e.g., withdrawn and submissive). A more complete version of children's peer relationships may require consideration of the family environment and the interplay between the two.
No comments:
Post a Comment