/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

Friendship as a protective factor in adolescence

(USC Thesis Other)

Friendship as a protective factor in adolescence

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content
FRIENDSHIP AS A PROTECTIVEFACTOR
FOR BULLIED ADOLESCENTS

by

Tania Abou-ezzeddine

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PSYCHOLOGY)

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Tania Abou-ezzeddine

ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
Abstract v
Introduction 1
Research Design and Methods 11
Overview 11
Participants 11
Procedures 12
Measures 13

Results 19
Descriptive Statistics 19
Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Relations 20
Moderator Analysis 22
Number of Friends as Moderator 25
Character of Friends as Moderator 25
Quality of Friendship as Moderator 32

Discussion 35
Study Limitations and Future Directions 43
Conclusions 45
References 47
Appendix A 58
Appendix B 59
Appendix C 60
Appendix D 61
Appendix E 62

iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis of the variables 20
Table 2: Bivariate Correlations Amongst All Variables 21
Table 3: Bivariate Correlations Amongst All Variables for Girls 23
Table 4: Bivariate Correlations Amongst All Variables for Boys 24
Table 5: Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Having 26
Friends in the Association between Peer Victimization and Emotional
and Academic Outcomes
Table 6: Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Aggressive 27
Friends in the Association between Peer Victimization
and Emotional and Academic Outcomes
Table 7: Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Non-aggressive 29
Friends in the Association between Peer Victimization and Emotional
and Academic Outcomes
Table 8: Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Academically 33
Engaged Friends in the Association between Peer Victimization
and Emotional and Academic Outcomes
Table 9: Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of High Quality 34
Friendships in the Association between Peer Victimization and
Emotional and Academic Outcomes
Table 10: Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Low Quality 35
Friendships in the Association between Peer Victimization
and Emotional and Academic Outcomes

iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Moderating Role of Aggressive Friends at three fixed levels, on 28
the relation between Peer Victimization and Academic Engagement
Figure 2: Moderating Role of Non-aggressive Friends at three fixed levels, 31
on the relation between Peer Victimization and Depression.
Figure 3: Moderating Role of Non-aggressive Friends at three fixed levels 32
for Girls, on the relation between Peer Victimization and GPA.

v
Abstract
The moderating role of friendship (attributes of friends and quality of friendship) in the
relation between peer victimization and externalizing and internalizing problems
(academic disengagement, low GPA, and depression) was studied. Five hundred twenty-
one adolescents in the ninth grade (289 girls, 223 boys, 9 unknown; average age of 14.62
years), were recruited from a high school in Downey, Los Angeles. Data was collected
using a peer nomination inventory, self-report measures, and a review of school records.
The moderating role of friendship differed as a function of the behavioral attributes of the
victimized peer’s friends; peer victimization was associated with depression when
adolescents had low proportions of non-aggressive friends. Another interesting finding
was that adolescents who were doing well in school (high academic engagement and
GPA) seemed to be more vulnerable to victimization. Finally, the quality of friendship
did not mitigate the relation between peer victimization and negative outcomes.

1
Introduction
Peer victimization has been reported to be a serious and visible problem within
the adolescent population. Approximately three-quarters of young adolescents in the
United States experience some form of relational aggression (e.g., spreading rumors or
being ridiculed) by their peers, while one-third report experiencing extreme forms of peer
aggression such as coercion and hitting (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000). Recent
reports have further highlighted a peak in peer victimization in early adolescence that
gradually decreases as the youth matures into late adolescence and early adulthood
(Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, & Simons-Morton, 2001).
Adolescents who are frequently bullied by their peer group are reported to be at
an elevated risk for developing a variety of negative outcomes that may carry out into
adulthood (Olweus, 1993). Some victims of peer violence often exhibit poor academic
performance (Eisenberg, Neumark-Sztainer, & Perry, 2003), negative school attitudes
that eventually lead to school avoidance (Juvonen et al., 2000), and loneliness and
depression (Van der Wall, De Wit, & Hirasing, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993).
All of these negative outcomes may in turn lead to a lack of concentration in the
classroom, thus further exacerbating academic problems (Juvonen et al., 2000; Schwartz,
Gorman, Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005).
However, the literature has demonstrated that not all youth exposed to adversities
develop negative outcomes (e.g., Garmezy, 1993; Richters & Martinez 1993). The
research has identified various protective factors that may contribute to normative
development for youth exposed to stressful life events (see Fergusson & Horwood, 2003).

2
One main protective factor that has been identified in the literature is access to supportive
peers (Masten & Powell, 2003). In this study, the focus is on the role of peers whom
adolescents considered close friends.
Work conducted by Hodges and colleagues (1997) has shown that despite the
risks associated with particular behavioral vulnerabilities (e.g., internalizing and
externalizing behaviors), children who are able to establish positive relationships with at
least a subset of their peer group may be relatively unlikely to emerge as targets of
bullying. Friendship was also seen to play a protective role in the lives of children living
in harsh home environments by decreasing their chances of being victimized by peers in
school (Schwartz et al., 2000). Friends have been seen as either allies or defenders who
protect and defend the victim against aggressors (Hodges & Perry, 1999) as well as
sources of influence fostering the socialization of adaptive social skills that may
eventually help deter future overtures from aggressive peers (Schwartz, McFadyen-
Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999). In addition, one study demonstrated that
children without friends who reported being victimized at the beginning of the school
year demonstrated an increase in internalizing and externalizing problems compared to
their counterparts who reported having friends (Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski,
1999).
Very little work has been done to investigate whether friendship may actually
moderate the relation between peer victimization and the development of negative
outcomes such as poor academic functioning (i.e., grade point average (GPA) and
academic engagement) and depression. Recently a longitudinal study by Schwartz and

3
colleagues (in press) looked at the effect of having aggressive friends on the GPA of
victimized children in elementary school. They found that the type of friend that
victimized children had influenced the relation between peer victimization and academic
performance in school over time (Schwartz, Gorman, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, in press).
However, most of this research on friendship as a moderator has been conducted
with children. One strength of the current study is that it extends the research field by
looking at the role of friendship in the lives of victimized adolescents. It is expected that
this moderating effect will replicate within the adolescent peer group (Bukowski &
Adams, 2005).
Another reason, why the current study focuses on adolescence, is the
growing importance and influence of the peer group at this developmental stage. Peer
relationships begin to take a more important role in the lives of emerging adolescents and
eventually come to replace the family as the central support system (Cauce, Reid,
Landesman, & Gonzales, 1990; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; Meeus, 1989, 1993). The
social development of the adolescent is characterized by an expansion of peer networks,
increased importance of close friendships, and the emergence of romantic relationships
(Sullivan, 1953). Friendship in adolescence is described as having a variety of functions,
including companionship, physical and emotional support, intimacy, and affection
(Parker & Gottman, 1989). During adolescence, there is a dramatic increase in the
psychological importance of close friends who are seen to play a crucial role in the
shaping of the adolescent’s well-being and development. Studies have reported that
adolescents spend more time with (Crockett, Losoff, & Petersen, 1984) and rely more

4
heavily on (Larson & Richards, 1991) friends then do their younger counterparts. In
addition, adolescents are more likely to disclose personal information to their peers
compared to their younger counterparts (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). Adolescent
relationships are also more intimate and intense, involving the sharing of feelings and
thoughts (Hartup, 1983; Youniss & Smollar, 1985; Berndt, 1982). This importance of the
peer group is seen to decline in later adolescence as romantic relationships take their
place (Brown, Eicher, & Petrie, 1986; Dunphy, 1963). Therefore, in this study the focus
will be on young adolescence where the primary social interaction in schools is non-
romantic close friendships.
A potential limitation of the existing work on friendship as a protective factor is
that it has focused exclusively on the presence or absence of friendships in the school
peer group. This emphasis is probably a result of focusing on good social skills that are
required for the formation and maintenance of friendships, which may be credited with
the moderating influence of these relationships (Hartup, 1996), or the idea that
maintaining such relations would produce positive developmental outcomes (Sullivan,
1953). However, having a friend is not always beneficial and the literature has
emphasized the importance of considering other factors such as the behavioral attributes
of friends (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995) and the quality of friendships (Berndt, 1999).
A framework introduced by Berndt (1999) attempted to explain the different
influences that exist in friendships. Berndt drew on the theories of social influence and
interpersonal relationships in order to describe how peers influence the attitudes and
behaviors of children and adolescents (Berndt, 1992, 1996; Hartup, 1996). This

5
framework focused on two pathways of friends’ influence; one involved the behavioral
attributes of friends, and the other took into account the features or quality of peer
friendships (Berndt, 1999).
Within Berndt’s framework, the first pathway is concerned with the behavioral
attributes of friends. Examples involve looking at the effects of having friends who may
have negative characteristics, such as aggression, or positive characteristics, such as
academic engagement (Berndt, 1999). The idea within this framework comes from
general theories of interpersonal influence in social and developmental psychology that
endorse the idea of people being influenced by the character of their friends (French &
Raven, 1959; Miller, 1993).
The influence of a friend’s character is especially salient when it comes to
adolescents having deviant peers as friends because aggression, disengagement from
school, and other behavioral deviances can provide a maladaptive socializing influence
(Brendgen, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 2000). Research on youth who have relationships with
deviant and delinquent peers provides an example of how the attributes of friends can
affect adolescents’ behavioral and psychological development. Having relationships with
peers who endorse delinquent characteristics, such as stealing and lying, have been
associated with the development of maladaptive outcomes, such as high levels of
aggression (Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001; Vitaro, Brendgen, &
Tremblay, 2000).
In addition, there is some evidence that aggressive or antisocial friends can
exacerbate the risks associated with stress exposure (e.g., Laird, Pettit, Dodge & Bates,

6
1999). This is especially true when taking into account the negative characteristics that
make up aggressive friendships (Laird et al., 1999), which may be even more damaging
for adolescents already experiencing maltreatment in the peer group. Victimized
adolescents with aggressive friends would probably be more likely to exhibit defiant or
antisocial behaviors that would further exacerbate preexisting academic vulnerabilities.
The recent study by Schwartz and colleagues (in press) supports the idea that aggressive
friends are less likely to promote positive social attitudes toward school or model a
favorable stance toward academic achievement. Although their study focused on
children, their conclusions were consistent with the literature on aggressive friendships in
adolescence. They found that peer victimized children who had a high level of
aggressive friends or a low level of non-aggressive friends exhibited declines in their
academic performance over time (Schwartz et al., in press). It is not surprising that youth
who have aggressive or antisocial friends exhibit more disruptive behaviors over time
(Lahey, Waldman, & McBurnett, 1999). This negative influence of deviant friends
prompted a set of other hypotheses in this study that focused on aggressive and non-
aggressive friends. Aggressive friends are hypothesized to exacerbate negative outcomes
associated with peer victimization, while non-aggressive friends are hypothesized to
buffer against the negative consequences of being victimized by the peer group.
Having friends with positive characteristics, such as good social adjustment and
competence, is also important to consider since such friends may serve a positive
function in the lives of adolescents exposed to negative life events (Parker, Rubin, Price,
& DeRosier, 1995). Past research also demonstrates the positive benefits of having peers

7
who perform well academically and who are academically engaged (e.g., Wentzel &
Watkins, 2002; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). In adolescence, it has been found
that friends have significant influence on levels of school involvement (Berndt & Keefe,
1995), as well as on decisions to spend time on academic endeavors compared to social
ones (Berndt, Laychak, & Park, 1990). Since the literature shows that adolescents who
are academically engaged (e.g., make an effort on school tasks, are persistent, and
contribute in class) are more likely to perform well in school (Marks, 2000) and are less
likely to drop out (Connell, Spencer, & Aber, 1994), another hypothesis in this study is
that having a friend who is academically engaged will help buffer adolescents from the
negative outcomes of peer victimization.
Berndt’s second pathway involves the quality of friendship. Berndt links
friendship quality to the developmental theories of interpersonal relationships (e.g.,
Sullivan, 1953) and the more encompassing theories of supportive social relationships in
childhood and adulthood (Berndt, 1989; Veiel & Baumann, 1992). High quality
friendships have higher amounts of positive interactions and fewer negative interactions.
They also tend to be more stable due to the high number of positive qualities that they
contain (Berndt, 1999). Friendships that are high in positive features are described by
qualities such as warmth, support, and companionship. On the other hand, friendships
that are viewed as low in quality are seen as competitive, suspicious, and jealous (Berndt,
1999). High quality friendships have been reported to protect adolescents from low
levels of social competence and self-worth when they are faced with low family cohesion
(Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee, & Sippola, 1996) and low levels of self esteem

8
associated with child abuse (Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, 1998) and family violence
(Criss, Pettit, Bates, Dodge, & Lapp, 2002). In the current study, it is hypothesized that
high quality friendships would protect adolescents from the negative outcomes associated
with peer victimization, while low quality friendships would exacerbate these outcomes.
The expectation in this study was that both positive behavioral attributes
(academic engagement and non-aggressiveness) in friends and high quality friendships,
would buffer adolescents against some of the negative outcomes associated with peer
victimization (e.g., academic disengagement, low GPA, and depression). On the other
hand, negative behavioral attributes in friends (aggressiveness) and low quality
friendships were hypothesized to exacerbate these outcomes. The aim of this study is to
better describe and understand the process of resilience that may be taking place in the
lives of peer victimized adolescents by looking at the type of friends and friendships that
they have.
Since adolescence is considered a critical stage for academic achievement (Eccles
& Wigfield, 2000; Henderson & Dweck, 1990), this study considered the moderating
function of friend’s behavioral attributes and the quality of the friendship on the relation
between peer victimization and poor academic functioning (academic engagement and
GPA). Studies have demonstrated that as children transition into adolescence, the
importance of doing well in school increases and academic functioning becomes more
related to future goals and career plans (Dryfoos, 1990; Eccles, Lord, Roeser, Barber, &
Josefowicz-Hernandez, 1997; Roderick, 1993). Poor academic performance, as
measured by the adolescent’s grade point average (GPA) and standardized test scores,

9
has consistently been associated with high rates of high school dropout (Fagan & Pabon,
1990; Krohn, Thornberry, Collins-Hall, & Lizotte, 1995; Rumberger, 1983). Adolescents
are more likely to drop out at both early ages (Battin-Pearson et al., 2000) and older ages
if they are performing poorly in school (Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1989; Ekstrom,
Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986). This failure to complete high school has long-term
personal, social, and economic implications (Ekstrom et al., 1986; Fagan & Pabon, 1990),
which makes it important to study the variables that may moderate the outcome of poor
academic functioning in adolescence. Identifying these protective variables could be
helpful in identifying and developing effective prevention programs that would help
mitigate the risk factors of dropping out of high school (Newcomb et al., 2002).
Depression is another consequence faced by victims of peer aggression (Hodges,
Malone, & Perry, 1995; DeRosier, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994; Khatri, Kupersmidt,
& Patterson, 2000; Olweus, 1992). It is also one of the most likely characteristics, along
with poor academic performance, for adolescents referred to mental health clinics (Brown
et al., 2008). In one study, approximately one-third of the referred adolescents endorsed
depression (Fleming, Boyle, & Offord, 1993). Depressive symptoms have also been seen
as precursors to more severe psychopathology which develops into adulthood (Birmaher,
Ryan, Williamson, & Brent, 1996; Moutier & Stein, 1999). Being able to identify factors
that may ameliorate depressive symptoms in adolescence is a particularly important step
in stopping this negative trajectory of impairment into adulthood (Aalto-Setaelae,
Marttunen, Tuulio-Henriksson, Poikolainen, & Loennqvist, 2002; Devine, Kempton, &
Forehand, 1994).

10
A final issue considered in this study is the influence of gender. The literature has
documented gender differences in childhood in regards to the type and effect of peer
victimization (e.g. Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), as well as the developmental significance
and quality of friendship (Parker & Asher, 1993). In addition, research on adolescent
populations has reported gender differences in regards to friendship intimacy.
Adolescent girls tend to be more exclusive and intimate in their friendships compared to
boys (Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995) and usually have relationships
characterized by high levels of sharing thoughts, feelings and self-disclosure (Rose,
2002). However, the bully/victim literature has consistently reported similar findings
across gender in childhood (e.g. Hodges et al., 1997, 1999). Therefore, in this study
gender differences in the pattern of friendship moderation is not hypothesized but the
possibility of a gender effect was explored.
The current literature on adolescence has yet to report on the behavioral attributes
of friends and quality of friendships as moderators on the relation between peer
victimization and the negative outcomes of poor academic engagement, low GPA, and
depression. The goal of this study is to examine the moderating role of friendship in the
link between bullying by peers and maladjustment (academic and psychological), while
shedding some light on a long-standing gap within the resilience field which involves the
underlying processes that may explain the buffering influences of some friendships.
The study hypotheses are as follows: 1) Friendships with aggressive peers will not
attenuate the relation between peer victimization and negative outcomes; instead, there
will be an exacerbation of these outcomes associated with peer victimization.

11
2) Friendships with non-aggressive peers will weaken the relation between peer
victimization and negative outcomes. 3) Friendships with academically engaged peers
will to diminish the relation between peer victimization and negative outcomes. 4) High-
quality friendships will attenuate the relation between peer victimization and negative
outcomes. 5) Low-quality friendships will not weaken the relation between peer
victimization and negative outcomes; instead, there will be an exacerbation of negative
outcomes related to peer victimization.
Research Design and Methods
Overview
These hypotheses were examined in a cross-sectional investigation conducted in a
high school in Downey, California, Los Angeles County. One goal of this research was
to facilitate the generalization of past findings to groups that were under represented in
the existent literature. Past research on bully/victim, problems have tended to focus
primarily on European American adolescents from middle-class socioeconomic
backgrounds. In fact, much of the existing research has been conducted in Midwestern
university towns. There was an obvious need to extend the existing findings to more
diverse urban samples. Accordingly, a high school in Downey, California was targeted
and was believed to represent the Greater Los Angeles region.
Participants
The participants were 521 adolescents (289 females, 223 males, and 9 unknown)
with a mean age of 14.62 (SD = 0.55), recruited from the 9
th
grade of a high school in
Downey, Los Angeles. Downey is an ethnically diverse city located southeast of

12
downtown Los Angeles. The ethnic diversity of this sample was representative of the
county of Los Angeles (67% Hispanic, 10% White, 6% African American, 6% Asian, 7%
mixed, and 4% other) and only 54% of participants reported that English was the primary
language spoken at home.
All students in the 9
th
grade English class were given consent forms in order to
obtain parental permission. Consent forms were provided in both Spanish and English.
Parents were provided with details on the study’s goals and procedures and were
informed of their right to refuse their child’s participation in the study, without any
negative consequences. All classrooms that returned consent forms were rewarded with a
pizza party and a raffle for University of Southern California football tickets, after the
data was collected.
Approximately 900 adolescents were given consent forms; 78% returned signed
forms to the study administrator and 63% had parental consent to participate in the study
(27 adolescents were either absent or refused to participate during data collection). In
addition, there were some missing values because participants were allowed to opt out of
completing specific questions.
Procedures
Data was collected using a student peer nomination inventory, a friendship
nomination inventory, self-report questionnaires, and school academic records. All
measures were developed using items gathered from the existing bully-victim literature.
The student peer nomination inventory was used to collect both the peer
victimization and aggression variables. Adolescents were given a randomized list of up

13
to 50 students (there were 11 randomized lists in the study, each participant’s name came
up at least once) in their grade that had parental consent to participate in the study. Each
adolescent was given an id number for the study. Each participant was asked to nominate
up to nine peers who fit each of the peer victimization and aggression descriptors, by
writing down their id codes in the space provided (Appendix A).
The friendship nomination inventory was used to calculate the number of close
friends that each student had in their grade. Participants were given a copy of the whole
9
th
grade roster (students with parental consent) and they were asked to nominate up to 10
peers that they considered ‘close friends’ and one whom they considered their ‘best
friend’ (Appendix B). Adolescents who reciprocally nominated one another were
considered friends. These measures were tested extensively in two North American cities
(Schwartz, 2000; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000; Schwartz et al., in press) and have been used
in a variety of international studies (Schwartz, Chang, & Farver, 2001; Schwartz, Farver,
Chang, & Lee-Shin, 2002; Abou-ezzeddine et al., 2007). \
Self-report questionnaires were used to collect the variables of academic
engagement, depression, and quality of friendship. GPA was calculated using school
records of the final academic year grades for English, mathematics, history and science.
Measures
Peer Victimization
Consistent with past research conducted across diverse cultural contexts
(e.g., Boulton, Bucci & Hawker, 1999; Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, McNeilly-
Choque, 1998; Osterman et al., 1998), measures included items designed to tap

14
multiple subtypes of victimization, including physical and verbal forms of overt
victimization as well as relational victimization (Crick et al., 1995). Three peer
nomination items were used (“students who get hit, pushed, or bullied by other
students”, “students who get beat up by other students”, “students who get left
out, excluded or ignored when others are trying to hurt their feelings”, α= 0.68)
(Appendix A). A peer victimization score was assigned to each adolescent and
was standardized by list (M = 0, SD = 0.99).
Aggression
An aggression score was created for each adolescent. This was done by
using items on the peer nomination scale that were designed to tap into multiple
subtypes of aggression, including physical and verbal forms of overt aggression as
well as relational aggression. This scale included four peer nomination items
(two physical and two relational) ("students that hit or push other students”,
“students that start fights with other students by punching or pushing them”,
“students that gossip about other students or say mean things about other students
behind their backs”," students that try to be mean to other students by ignoring
them or excluding them"; α=.75) (Appendix A). This aggression score was then
standardized within list (there were 11 randomized lists in the study) (M =0, SD =
0.99).
Academic Engagement
This variable was calculated using the Fredricks scale of academic
engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2002). The scale was

15
designed to tap into academic engagement in urban schools. It included twelve
items that tap into behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement (e.g., “I like
to study even when I don’t have a test”, “Grades are very important to me”, “I feel
bored with most of my classes or subjects at school” α= .87) (see Appendix C).
An academic engagement score was calculated by combining item scores (M =
3.01, SD = 0.66).
Depression
This variable was calculated using the short form of the Child Depression
Inventory (CDI) (Kovacs, 1992). The CDI has been shown to be a reliable and
valid measure of depression (Kazdin & Petti, 1982; Kovacs, 1985; Norvell &
Towle, 1986; Saylor, Finch, Spirito, & Bennett, 1984). A CDI-short form, made
up of 10-items assessing symptoms of sadness and self-loathing, was used in
order to shorten the length of the whole battery (see Appendix D). For each item,
adolescents chose a sentence that best described their symptoms for the past two
weeks. The CDI-short form correlates with the full-scale version (r = .89) which
has an internal consistency coefficient of r = .71 to r = .89, and the test-retest
coefficients range from r = .74 to r = .83 (time interval two to three weeks)
(Kovacs, 1992). In this study the variable consistency of the items on this scale
was α =76. Each adolescent was assigned a depression score based on the
responses on the CDI-short form (M = 12.93, SD = 2.93).

16
Grade Point Average (GPA)
Once parental consent and student assent were obtained, the school was
contacted for the records of participating students’ academic performance in
school for the whole year (current Math, History, Science, and English grades). A
numerical score was assigned to the letter grades of each class for the full school
year (points ranging from "F" = 0 to "A" = 4), and the mean of these scores were
calculated to form the adolescent’s GPA (M = 2.29, SD = 0.89). The internal
consistency of the grades for all four subjects was α= .80.
Generating Friendship Variables
Number of Friends. In order to formulate the friendship attribute
moderators, the total number of reciprocated friendships that each adolescent had
in school was calculated. As part of the peer nomination inventory, students were
given a copy of their grade roster and were asked to nominate up to ten peers that
they considered ‘close friends’ and one peer that was their ‘best friend’ (Appendix
B). The total number of friends was assessed using the reciprocated ‘close
friends’ and ‘best friend’ nominations (i.e., adolescents who reciprocally
nominated one another were considered friends, e.g., Hodges et al., 1997) (M=
2.90, SD= 2.34). The reciprocated nominations technique has received empirical
support in past research (Asher, Parker, & Walker, 1996).
Aggressive Friends. Each participant was assigned an aggression score
based on the mean total number of nominations they received on the peer
nomination aggression variable (mentioned above). This score was then

17
standardized within list (each participant was given a random list of 50 students
participating in the study). All adolescents who had a standardized aggression
score that was 0.5 SD above the grade mean were classified as aggressive (M =
0.79, SD= 1.10).
The next step involved calculating the total number of aggressive friends
that each adolescent had. Based on the reciprocated friendship nominations
mentioned above, the number of aggressive friends score for each adolescent was
calculated. In order to control for the total number of friends a participant had,
the total number of aggressive friends was divided by the total number of friends,
to calculate the proportion of aggressive friends.
Non-aggressive Friends. The same procedure used to formulate the
aggressive friend variable was used to calculate non-aggressive friends.
However, for this variable standardized aggression scores at or below the mean
were used to classify non-aggressive adolescents (M = 1.74, SD = 1.72).
Based on the reciprocated friendship nominations mentioned above, the
number of non-aggressive friends score for each adolescent was calculated. In
order to control for the number of friends a participant had, the total number of
non-aggressive friends for each adolescent was divided by total number of
friends, to calculate the proportion of non-aggressive friends.
Academically Engaged Friends. Each participant was assigned an
academically engaged score based on the Fredricks scale of academic engagement
(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2002, mentioned above). A score was

18
calculated by combining item scores and standardizing them within grade (M =
3.01, SD = 0.66). Adolescents with a standardized academic engagement score
above the grade mean were classified as academically engaged.
The next step involved calculating the total number of academically
engaged friends that each adolescent had. Based on the reciprocated friendship
nominations mentioned above, the total number of academically engaged friends
was calculated and then divided by the total number of friends, to calculate a
proportion of academically engaged friends for each adolescent.
Friendship Quality
Friendship quality was measured using a modified version of Bukowski’s
‘Friendship Quality Scale’ (FQS) (α = .91) (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994), a
widely used and validated scale which taps into the quality of childhood
friendships. The modified version used in this study consisted of 35-items
measuring companionship, help, security, closeness, and conflict within a dyadic
friendship (see Appendix E). The students responded to each item on a 5-point
likert scale, picking the response that would best describe their relationship with
their best friend. This scale taps into 4-positive features (companionships, help,
security, and closeness) and 1-negative feature (conflict) of friendship quality.
Several questionnaires measuring friendship quality, including Bukowski’s (1994)
FQS, have been shown to consist of two marginally correlated global factors,
positive friendship quality and negative friendship quality (Furman, 1996). In this
study positive and negative friendship quality were not correlated (r = 0.04, ns).

19
High Quality Friendship. A composite score of positive friendship quality
(high-quality) was calculated by averaging item scores that related to the four
positive features of friendship, companionship (e.g., “ My friend and I spend a lot
of our free time together”), help (e.g., “My friend gives me advice when I need
it”), security (e.g., “If I have a problem at school or at home, I can talk to my
friend about it”), and closeness (e.g., “Sometimes my friend does things for me or
makes me feel special”) α= .96.
Low Quality Friendship. This variable was calculated by averaging the
items measuring the conflict features of friendship (e.g., “My friend bugs me or
annoys me even though I ask him/her not to“α= .76).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 summarizes the variables analyzed in the study. The distribution of each
of the variables was examined. Peer victimization and all three outcome variables
(academic engagement, GPA, and depression) were distributed with similar levels of
variability across the full range of the friendship variables. However, univariate statistics
revealed patterns of modest skew in the peer victimization, aggression, and depression
variables. Accordingly, square-root transformations to normalize distributions were
applied (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and the data was analyzed separately with both
transformed and non-transformed variables. There were no significant differences found
when analyzing the transformed versus non-transformed variables. Therefore, since the
research is divided on whether transformations are a recommended solution to solving

20
failures in normality and homoscedasticity, and transformed variables are sometimes
more difficult to interpret, it was decided to conduct the analysis on the non-transformed
data (Tabachnick et al., 2007).
Table 1:
Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis of the variables
______________________________________________________________________
Variable Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis___

1. Peer Victimization 0 0.99 1.30 1.62
2. Aggression 0 0.99 1.14 1.36
3. Academic Engagement 3.01 0.66 0.10 0.37
4. GPA¹ 2.29 0.89 -0.62 -0.26
5. Depression 12.65 2.93 1.28 1.67
6. Aggressive Friends² 0.22 1.19 1.19 0.48
7. Non-Aggressive Friends² 0.49 0.38 -0.04 -1.43
8. Academically Engaged Friends² 0.42 0.36 0.19 -1.29
9. Positive Friendship Qualities 3.79 0.79 -0.88 0.14
10. Negative Friendship Qualities 2.10 0.75 0.76 0.14

Note: ¹GPA= Grade Point Average. ²The friendship variables are proportion scores based
on the number of nominations each adolescent received divided by the total number of
friends they have.

Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Relations
Table 2 depicts a summary of bivariate relations among all variables in this study
(only effects at the 0.005 level were interpreted to control for inflation rates). Peer
victimization was positively correlated with academic engagement, and negatively
correlated with the number of friends and high quality friendships. Academic
engagement was positively correlated with number of friends, academically engaged
friends, and high quality friendships; however, it was negatively correlated with low
quality friendships. GPA was positively correlated with the number of friends the
adolescent has. Depression was negatively correlated with having academically engaged

Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Amongst All Variables
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Peer Victimization -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2. Number of Friends -.10* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
3. Aggressive Friends -.01 .23*** -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4. Non-aggressive Friends -.04 .37*** -.34*** -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
5. Academically Engaged Friends .05 .39*** .16*** .36*** -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
6. High Quality Friendships -.14*** .26*** .14*** .07 .17*** -- -- -- -- -- -- --
7. Low Quality Friendships -.04 .05 .07 -.05 -.02 .04 -- -- -- -- -- --
8. Academic Engagement .13*** .09* -.04 .07 .19*** .15*** -.22***-- -- -- -- --
9. GPA .01 .09* .04 -.02 .02 .02 .03 .21*** -- -- -- --
10. Depression -.03 -.03 .01 .02 -.09* -.01 .13** -.18*** -.07 -- -- --
11. Gender -.25*** .17*** .00 .17*** .09* .47*** .03 .04 .05 .19*** -- --
12. Aggression .21*** .04 .32*** -.21*** .05 .06 .06 -.07 -.08 .04 -.11** --
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gender is coded as a dichotomous variable (0=males, 1=females).
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.005

21

22
friends but positively correlated with low quality friendships. Gender was coded
dichotomously (0=boys, 1=girls), therefore any negative correlation involving gender
was indicative of a score applicable to boys. In this study, boys had higher scores than
girls for victimization, while girls had higher scores in relation to the total number of
friends, the proportion of non-aggressive friends, the number of high quality friendships
and depression.
Table 3 and 4 depicts a summary of bivariate relations among all variables in this
study separately for girls and boys (only effects at the 0.005 level were interpreted to
control for inflation rates). A few gender differences were observed in the data.
Academic engagement was positively correlated with peer victimization and GPA for
girls but not for boys. In addition, depression was negatively correlated with academic
engagement and high quality friendships for girls but not for boys. Finally, academically
engaged friends were correlated with aggressive friends for boys but not for girls.
Moderator Analysis
To examine the moderating role of a friend’s behavioral attributes and friendship
quality, a separate hierarchical regression analysis was conducted for each moderating
variable (i.e., total number of friends, proportion of aggressive friends, proportion of non-
aggressive friends, proportion of academically engaged friends, high quality friendships
and low quality friendships) and for each of the three outcome variables (i.e., academic
engagement, GPA and depression). In each model, the outcome variables were predicted
from the main effects of peer victimization, moderator and gender (entered on step 1); the
two-way interaction terms for peer victimization by moderator, peer victimization by

Table 3. Bivariate Correlations Amongst All Variables for Girls
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Peer Victimization -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2. Number of Friends -.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
3. Aggressive Friends -.01 .21*** -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4. Non-aggressive Friends -.04 .40*** -.38*** -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
5. Academically Engaged Friends .08 .37*** .10 .43*** -- -- -- -- -- -- --
6. High Quality Friendships -.07 .16*** .20*** -.08 .03 -- -- -- -- -- --
7. Low Quality Friendships -.03 .04 .06 -.04 01 -.03 -- -- -- -- --
8. Academic Engagement .20*** .05 -.07 .01 .15** .12* -.21***-- -- -- --
9. GPA .02** .03 .01 -.03 .04 .03 -.03 .27*** -- -- --
10. Depression -.04 -.01 .03 .06 -.07 -.19*** .11 -.31*** -.12* -- --
11. Aggression .17*** .04 .44*** -.31*** .08 .13* .05 -.10 -.06 .05 --
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.005
23

Table 4. Bivariate Correlations Amongst All Variables for Boys
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Peer Victimization -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2. Number of Friends -.05 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
3. Aggressive Friends -.02 .34*** -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4. Non-aggressive Friends .04 .44*** -.13* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
5. Academically Engaged Friends .08 .51*** .31*** .38*** -- -- -- -- -- -- --
6. High Quality Friendships .00 .16*** .12 .06 .23*** -- -- -- -- -- --
7. Low Quality Friendships -.04 .04 .08 -.08 -.07 .01 -- -- -- -- --
8. Academic Engagement .10 .13* -.01 .12 .22*** .18** -.24*** -- -- -- --
9. GPA - .09 .14* .10 -.04 -.02 -.04 .12 .12 -- -- --
10. Depression .08 -.13 .07 -.12 -.16* -.03 .16* -.04 -.01 -- --
11. Aggression .21*** .09 .18** -.05 .03 .11 .09 -.03 -.09 .07 --
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.005
24

25
gender and moderator by gender (entered on Step 2); and the three-way interaction term
for peer victimization by gender by moderator (entered on step 3). The steps were
entered sequentially, and all terms were entered simultaneously at each step. Significant
interaction effects were conceptualized as indicative of moderation (Baron & Kenny,
1986). Interaction terms were calculated based on mean-centered values (Aiken & West,
1991).
The analyses demonstrated significant effects for aggressive friends and non-
aggressive friends as moderators. There was a significant two-way interaction for peer
victimization by aggressive friends, for academic engagement; and a significant two-way
interaction for peer victimization by non-aggressive friends, for depression. A significant
three-way interaction for peer victimization by non-aggressive friends by gender was
reported for GPA.
Number of Friends as a Moderator
The number of friends an adolescent has was only marginally significant in
moderating the interaction between victimization and academic engagement (Table 5).
No theory relevant effects were found for GPA and depression.
Character of Friends as a Moderator
Aggressive Friends. As depicted in Table 6, there was a significant, peer
victimization by aggressive friends, two-way interaction for only academic engagement.
Theory-relevant interaction effects for the outcomes of GPA and depression were not
found.

26
Table 5. Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Having Friends in the
Association between Peer Victimization and Emotional and Academic Outcomes
_______________________________________________________________________
Outcome Variables Step Effects in Model β sr²
________________________________________________________________________
Academic Engagement 1 Victimization .15 .02***
Friends .10 .01*
Gender .06 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .07 .00
Friends by Gender -.06 .00
Victimization by Friends -.08 .01ٰ¹
3 Victimization by Friends .04 .00
by Gender
GPA 1 Victimization .03 .00
Friends .08 .00
Gender .05 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .13 .02***
Friends by Gender -.05 .00
Victimization by Friends -.03 .00ٰ
3 Victimization by Friends .03 .00
by Gender
Depression 1 Victimization .02 .00
Friends -.06 .00
Gender .21 .04***
2 Victimization by Gender -.05 .00
Friends by Gender .03 .00
Victimization by Friends -.07 .00ٰ
3 Victimization by Friends -.06 .00
by Gender
________________________________________________________________________
Note: All terms were entered simultaneously at each step, with steps entered sequentially.
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p<.005, ¹P=.07
The significant two-way interaction for academic engagement was decomposed in
a series of follow-up analyses. Academic engagement was predicted from peer
victimization, with aggressive friends fixed at low (1 SD below the mean), medium (the
mean) and high (1 SD above the mean) levels (Aiken & West, 1991). The positive
relation between peer victimization and academic engagement steadily declined as the

27
level of aggressive friends moved from low, β = .23, p<.001, to medium, β = .15, p<.001,
to high, β = .06, n.s.
Table 6. Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Aggressive Friends in the
Association between Peer Victimization and Emotional and Academic Outcomes
_______________________________________________________________________
Outcome Variables Step Effects in Model β sr²
_______________________________________________________________________
Academic Engagement 1 Victimization .15 .02***
Aggressive Friends -.04 .00
Gender .08 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .06 .00
Aggressive Friends by Gender -.06 .00
Victimization by Aggressive -.10 .01*
Friends
3 Victimization by Aggressive .03 .00
Friends by Gender
GPA 1 Victimization .03 .00
Aggressive Friends .04 .00
Gender .06 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .12 .01**
Aggressive Friends by Gender -.08 .00
Victimization by Aggressive -.08 .01
Friends
3 Victimization by Aggressive .00 .00
Friends by Gender
Depression 1 Victimization .02 .00
Aggressive Friends .01 .00
Gender .20 .04***
2 Victimization by Gender -.06 .00
Aggressive friends by Gender -.06 .00
Victimization by Aggressive -.03 .00
Friends
3 Victimization by Aggressive .02 .00
Friends by Gender
________________________________________________________________________
Note: All terms were entered simultaneously at each step, with steps entered sequentially.
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p<.005,

28
The hypotheses given at the start of this paper approached these data from a stress
model perspective with academic engagement thought of as an outcome variable.
However, these results appear to be paradoxical given the positive correlation between
peer victimization and academic engagement. A more accurate interpretation of these
findings may be better represented by looking at the data with academic engagement as
the risk variable and victimization as the outcome variable. Figure 1 appears to be
demonstrating a positive correlation between peer victimization and academic
engagement. This correlation is stronger for adolescents with a low proportion of
aggressive friends. These results reveal that adolescents who are engaged academically
in school are more likely to be victimized by their peer group. The proportion of
aggressive friends may be a marker for the type of adolescent that is victimized.
Figure 1. Moderating Role of Aggressive Friends at three fixed levels, on the relation
between Peer Victimization and Academic Engagement
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-2 -1 0 1 2
Peer Victimization
Academic Engagment
Low Agg FR Medium Agg FR High Agg FR

29
Non-aggressive Friends. As shown in Table 7, there was a significant, peer
victimization by non-aggressive friends, two-way interaction for depression, and a
significant peer victimization by non-aggressive friends by gender three-way interaction
for GPA. However, no theory-relevant interaction effects were found for academic
engagement.
Table 7. Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Non-aggressive Friends in
the Association between Peer Victimization and Emotional and Academic Outcomes
________________________________________________________________________
Outcome Variables Step Effects in Model β sr²
________________________________________________________________________
Academic 1 Victimization .15 .02***
Engagement Non-aggressive Friends .06 .00
Gender .07 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .08 .00
Non-aggressive Friends by Gender -.06 .00
Victimization by Non-aggressive Friends -.04 .00
3 Victimization by Non-aggressive
Friends by Gender .03 .00
GPA 1 Victimization .03 .00
Non-aggressive Friends -.03 .00
Gender .07 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .12 .01**
Non-aggressive Friends by Gender .01 .00
Victimization Non-aggressive Friends .03 .00
3 Victimization by Non-aggressive Friends by
Gender .10 .01*
Depression 1 Victimization .02 .00
Non-aggressive Friends -.01 .00
Gender .20 .04***
2 Victimization by Gender -.04 .00
Non-aggressive Friends by Gender .07 .00
Victimization by Non-aggressive Friends -.09 .01*
3 Victimization by Non-aggressive Friends by
Gender .00 .00
________________________________________________________________________
Note: All terms were entered simultaneously at each step, with steps entered sequentially.
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p<.005

30
The significant two-way interaction for depression was decomposed as per Aiken
and West (1991). Depression was predicted from peer victimization, with non-aggressive
friendship fixed at low (1 SD below the mean), medium (the mean) and high (1 SD above
the mean) levels. The relation between peer victimization and depression steadily
declined as the level of non-aggressive friends moved from low, β = .15, p<.05, to
medium, β = .03, n.s, to high, β = -.09, n.s (see Figure 2). Peer victimization was
associated with depression when adolescents had few non-aggressive friends. However,
as the level of non-aggressive friends increased the relation between peer victimization
and depression became insignificant. At high levels of non-aggressive friends, the
relation between peer victimization and depression became negative (although not
significant) revealing a pattern where victimized adolescents were not depressed if they
had a high level of non-aggressive friends.
Next, the three-way interaction for peer victimization by GPA by gender was
decomposed with regression models conducted separately by gender. In these analyses,
GPA was predicted from the main effects of non-aggressive friends and peer
victimization, and the two-way interaction for non-aggressive friends by peer
victimization. For girls, there was a significant non-aggressive friend by peer
victimization effect, β = .12, sr²= .01, p<.05. The corresponding effect for boys was not
significant.
Separate analyses by gender were conducted to examine relations between peer
victimization and GPA at low, medium, and high levels of non-aggressive friends for
girls (Aiken & West, 1991). The strength of the positive association between peer

31
victimization and GPA increased steadily as the proportion of non-aggressive friends
moved from low β = .00, n.s., to medium, β = .12, p< .05, to high, β = .24, p<.001 (see
Figure 3). These results revealed a similar paradoxical effect like the one seen above;
here also a positive correlation is seen between peer victimization and GPA. This
correlation is stronger for adolescents with a high proportion of non-aggressive friends.
This positive correlation is not explained by the stress model hypotheses. Instead, these
results reveal that adolescents who are doing well in school are more likely to be
victimized by their peer group. The proportion of non-aggressive friends may also be a
marker for the type of adolescent that is victimized.
Figure 2. Moderating Role of Non-aggressive Friends at three fixed levels, on the
relation between Peer Victimization and Depression.
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-2 -1 0 1 2
Peer Victimization
Depression
Low Non-agg FR Medium Non-agg FR High Non-agg FR

Academically Engaged Friends. As shown in Table 8, there were no significant
theory-relevant two or three-way interaction effects found for academically engaged
friends and any of the outcome variables.

32
Figure 3. Moderating Role of Non-aggressive Friends at three fixed levels for Girls, on
the relation between Peer Victimization and GPA.
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-2 -1 0 1 2
Peer Victimization
GPA
Low Non-agg FR Medium Non-agg FR High Non-agg FR

Quality of Friendship as Moderator
High Quality Friendships. Contrary to expectations, friendships with positive
features did not moderate the relation between peer victimization and any of the outcome
variables (see Table 9).
Low Quality Friendships. The same was true for friendships with negative
features. There were no significant theory-relevant interactions found for low quality
friendships (see Table 10).

33
Table 8. Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Academically Engaged
Friends in the Association between Peer Victimization and Emotional and Academic
Outcomes
____________________________________________________________________________________
Outcome Variables Step Effects in Model β sr²
______________________________________________________________________
Academic Engagement 1 Victimization .14 .02***
Academically Engaged Friends .18 .03***
Gender .06 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .07 .00
Academically Engaged
Friends by Gender -.03 .00
Victimization by Academically
Engaged Friends .00 .00
3 Victimization by Academically
Engaged Friends by Gender .04 .00
GPA 1 Victimization .02 .00
Academically Engaged .01 .00
Friends
Gender .06 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .13 .01**
Academically Engaged
Friends by Gender .03 .00
Victimization by Academically
Engaged Friends .03 .00
3 Victimization by Academically
Engaged Friends by Gender .04 .00
Depression 1 Victimization .03 .00
Academically Engaged -.11 .01**
Friends
Gender .21 .04***
2 Victimization by Gender -.06 .01
Academically Engaged
Friends by Gender .03 .00
Victimization by Academically
Engaged Friends -.01 00
3 Victimization by Academically
Engaged Friends by Gender -.02 .00
_______________________________________________________________________
Note: All terms were entered simultaneously at each step, with steps entered sequentially.
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p<.005

34
Table 9. Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of High Quality Friendships in
the Association between Peer Victimization and Emotional and Academic Outcomes
_______________________________________________________________________
Outcome Variables Step Effects in Model β sr²
_______________________________________________________________________
Academic Engagement 1 Victimization .15 .02***
Good Quality Friendships .17 .02***
Gender .00 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .08 .00
Good Quality Friendships
by Gender -.01 .00
Victimization by Good
Quality Friendships -.01 .00
3 Victimization by Good
Quality Friendships by Gender -.05 .00
GPA 1 Victimization .02 .00
Good Quality Friendships -.01 .00
Gender .06 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .11 .01*
Good Quality Friendships
by Gender .05 .00
Victimization by Good
Quality Friendships .04 .00
3 Victimization by Good
Quality Friendships by Gender .03 .00

Depression 1 Victimization .02 .00
Good Quality Friendships -.12 .01**
Gender .25 .05***
2 Victimization by Gender -.04 .00
Good Quality Friendships
by Gender -.12 .01**
Victimization by Good
Quality Friendships -.07 .00
3 Victimization by Good
Quality Friendships by Gender -.04 .00
________________________________________________________________________
Note: All terms were entered simultaneously at each step, with steps entered sequentially.
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p<.005

35
Table 10. Summary of the Analyses of the Moderating Role of Low Quality Friendships
in the Association between Peer Victimization and Emotional and Academic Outcomes
______________________________________________________________________
Outcome Variables Step Effects in Model β sr²
______________________________________________________________________
Academic Engagement 1 Victimization .14 .02***
Low Quality Friendships -.21 .04***
Gender -.08 .01
2 Victimization by Gender .07 .00
Low Quality Friendships
by Gender .03 .00
Victimization by Low
Quality Friendships -.04 .00
3 Victimization by Low
Quality Friendships by Gender -.01 .00
GPA 1 Victimization .03 .00
Low Quality Friendships .03 .00
Gender .06 .00
2 Victimization by Gender .13 .02**
Low Quality Friendships
by Gender -.09 .00*
Victimization by Low
Quality Friendships -.05 .00
3 Victimization by Low
Quality Friendships by Gender .08 .01
Depression 1 Victimization .03 .00
Low Quality Friendships .13 .02***
Gender .19 .03***
2 Victimization by Gender -.05 .00
Low Quality Friendships
by Gender -.05 .00
Victimization by Low
Quality Friendships -.08 .01
3 Victimization by Low
Quality Friendships by Gender .07 .01
________________________________________________________________________
Note: All terms were entered simultaneously at each step, with steps entered sequentially.
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p<.005
Discussion
The bully/victim literature has focused on friendship as a buffer for children
against the risks associated with peer victimization. A limitation of the field has been

36
that most studies have focused on the presence or absence of friendship and not on the
attributes of the friend or the quality of the friendships. In addition, most of the research
has focused on children despite the documented importance of friendship at the
adolescence stage of development (Sullivan, 1953). This study’s aim was to address the
deficits in the field by looking at possible behavioral attributes of victimized adolescents’
friends and qualities of their friendships, which may play a protective role against the
risks associated with peer victimization.
Consistent with this study’s hypotheses, the analyses demonstrated that the
moderating role of friendship differed as a function of some behavioral attributes of the
victimized adolescent’s friends. Specifically, peer victimization was associated with
depression when adolescents had few non-aggressive friends In addition; the results
revealed some incidental findings that did not fit into the stress model hypotheses.
Academic engagement was seen to be positively correlated with peer victimization when
adolescents had a low proportion of aggressive friends and GPA was positively correlated
with peer victimization when adolescent girls had a high proportion of non-aggressive
friends.
The significant finding for depression is supportive of the perspective that
emphasizes the protective power of having well adjusted peers as friends. Peer
victimization was positively correlated with depression when adolescents had a low
proportion of non-aggressive friends. Research has demonstrated that children with poor
peer relationships are more vulnerable to feelings of loneliness and depression (Furman
& Robbins, 1985) and that having friendships with aggressive or deviant peers leads to

37
the exacerbation of the negative symptoms of victimization (Laird et al., 1999). Non-
aggressive friends, on the other hand, may provide social support and companionship to
victimized adolescents and these higher levels of intimacy, companionship, and
validation within friendships has been shown to decrease feelings of loneliness and in
turn, depression in populations of victimized youth (Parker et al., 1993). This supports
the theoretical framework that portrays intimate friendships as having psychotherapeutic
influences (Sullivan, 1953).
Having outlined how this result may fit into the theoretical model stated at the
beginning of this paper, it is necessary to mention other possible explanations for this
finding. Having friends in itself is an important developmental marker variable (Parker
& Asher, 1987) and youth who make friends with non-aggressive peers are most likely
very different from youth who have aggressive peers as friends (Criss et al., 2002;
Schwartz et al., 2000). Adolescents who form these friendships with non-aggressive
peers may have certain personal attributes that would help enhance their academic
performance and allow them to be more academically engaged.
Regardless of the underlying mechanisms, the outcomes of this study clearly
show that non-aggressive friendships are likely to have positive influences on the
emotional adjustment of victimized peers. This finding provides the first known
evidence that having non-aggressive friends may play a protective role in the lives of
frequently bullied adolescents. However, further investigation will be needed in order to
clarify causal processes.

38
As for the paradoxical results reported for both academic engagement and GPA,
the best explanation may be found by looking at both these variables as risk instead of
outcome variables. The hypotheses stated at the beginning of this paper were based on a
stress model perspective, supported by the existing child peer victimization literature,
which has consistently demonstrated an association between peer victimization and
negative academic outcomes (e.g. Schwartz et al., 2005). Schwartz and colleagues
(2005) used structure equation modeling to show that peer victimization predicted low
GPA, but that low GPA did not predict peer victimization. The peer victimization
literature has generally assumed that being a victim of peer violence leads to problems
with academic functioning through issues such as disengagement and internalizing
problems such as depression (e.g., Juvonen et al., 2000). However, the value placed on
academic functioning within the adolescent stage of development was not considered.
Instead of the expected negative correlation between predictive and outcome variables
this data demonstrated significant positive correlations between peer victimization and
academic functioning (engagement and GPA).
A possible explanation for this pattern of findings may be that within this urban
adolescent population high academic functioning may not be popular. Steinberg and
colleagues (1992) presented the concept of academic functioning being unpopular in
certain urban adolescent settings. They put forward the theory that being academically
engaged may put adolescents, within ethnic minority populations, at a higher risk for
being bullied in school (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992). The research has
reported that in settings where high academic functioning is not consistent with the

39
values of the peer group, a deficit in academic performance is associated with popularity
and a higher social status in high school (Nakamoto et al., 2004). This phenomenon was
also supported by a study by Becker and Luthar (2002) which demonstrated that
popularity in high school was associated with a decrease in academic performance. The
school from which this current data was collected had an Academic Performance Index
rank of four (out of 10) the year that data was collected (California Department of
Education, 2005). This index score demonstrates that the focus of academic functioning
in this school was below average.
These paradoxical results were significant when the adolescents had a high
proportion of non-aggressive friends or a low proportion of aggressive friends. The type
of friend an adolescent has may be indicative of the adolescents’ own behavioral
attributes (e.g. Hartup, 1983). The correlation between being aggressive and having an
aggressive friend in this data set was positive and significant indicating that aggressive
adolescents are more likely to have friends that are like them in character. This also held
up for non-aggressive friends, where the data showed that the correlation between being
aggressive and having a non-aggressive friend was negative and significant (for girls). It
is possible that this pattern of findings indicates that the adolescents who are high on
academic functioning and low on aggression (studious, academically focused individuals)
are more likely to be victimized by their peer group. These are possibly studious and
socially withdrawn adolescents who more than likely resemble the subgroup of
adolescents labeled as ‘passive victims’ in the peer victimization literature (e.g. Schwartz,
Dodge, Pettit, Bates, 1997).

40
There was a gender effect for one of the paradoxical findings. Peer victimization
and GPA remained positively correlated at high levels of non-aggressive friends for girls
only. In this case, it also appears that adolescent girls who are functioning well in school
(high GPA) and have a high proportion of non-aggressive friends are more likely to be
victimized by their peers groups. These victimized girls a most likely non-aggressive
themselves (as mentioned above) and highly studious, which may be an unpopular
combination within this urban high school setting. Kiefer and Ryan (2008) have recently
published a similar pattern of findings for girls, where they found that poor academic
engagement and achievement in adolescent African American girls was associated with
being popular in school. They also showed that social dominance (being forceful and
domineering) within an urban high school setting was associated with poor academic
functioning specifically in African American girls (Kiefer et al., 2008).
These incidental findings were a surprise considering the stress model that was
initially used to formulate the hypotheses for this study. However, they are very
interesting and appear to be supportive of the emerging research on the unpopularity of
academic achievement and engagement among ethnic minority adolescents going to
school in urban settings. Future research would benefit from examining the social
correlated of achievement as well as looking at the value given to education in urban
adolescent peer groups. It seems highly likely that the high academic achievers are the
unpopular adolescents who are victimized in these urban high school settings.
A few of the hypotheses stated at the beginning of this paper were not supported
by the results. Both aggressive and academically engaged friends did not moderate the

41
relation between peer victimization and either emotional or academic outcomes. One
possible explanation for the lack of a moderating effect may be that within this student
body academic achievement and engagement was not highly valued and therefore being
academically minded and performing well in school may be linked to peer victimization
and unpopularity among peers (Nakamoto, Gorman, Schwartz, & McKay, 2004). This
explanation may be relevant in this study given the significant positive correlation that
was found between academic engagement and victimization (small effect size) in this
data set. If academia were not viewed highly in this group, it would make it less likely
that academically engaged friends would play a protective role in the lives of victimized
peers.
Another possible explanation may be linked to how long adolescents in the
current study have been friends and the stability (ability of peers to maintain friendship
over time) of these friendships (Berndt, 2004). Given that, this study examined the
friendships of ninth graders who had recently (one academic year) transferred from
middle school; it is likely that most of the relationships examined were less than a year
old. In addition, according to Bukowski et al. (1994) friendships that have been stable for
over 6-months are associated with higher levels of closeness in comparison to unstable
friendships. This study did not measure the stability of these relationships, which may
explain why certain friend attributes did not appear to have an influence on this
population of victimized youth. If these adolescents had not been in stable reciprocated
friendships in school for a significant period of time they may be less likely to have a
measurable emotional or academic influence on one another by the time data was

42
collected. Furthermore, the motivation for change has also recently been looked at within
the adolescent population. Barry and Wentzel (2006) examined the pathways towards
behavioral change in a group of adolescents and reported that motivational processes in
adolescence could explain the change of this cohort’s behavior to match the prosocial
behavior of their close friends. Therefore, if adolescents are not motivated to become
more academically engaged or aggressive, having academically engaged or aggressive
friends may not lead to a change in their behavior.
In addition, a hypothesis for the lack of moderation by aggressive peers on the
specific relation between peer victimization and depression may be explained by research
that has looked at friendships with aggressive adolescents who are also prosocial. These
“bistrategic” friendships have been shown to be high on both intimacy and conflict
(relational and overt aggression) and may provide emotional support and high quality
friendships that would ameliorate the emotional effects of victimization (Hawley, Little,
& Card, 2007). In this study, a significant positive correlation was found between
aggression and high quality friendships (small effect size). This may explain why having
aggressive friends did not exacerbate the symptoms of depression in this population of
victimized adolescents. If some of these victimized adolescents have high quality
friendships with their aggressive peers, then they may be receiving enough emotional
support to protect them from developing depression.
The hypotheses that quality of friendships would moderate the relation between
peer victimization and either depression or academic outcomes were not supported.
Many researchers have stated that one gap in the current friendship literature is that in

43
order to know whether friendship quality makes a difference in the lives of adolescents
the friend’s attributes must be taken into consideration (Hartup & Stevens, 1997). The
field has begun to theorize that the effect of friendship likely depends on the relation
effect of both the quality of the friendship and the characteristics of the friend (Berndt &
Murphy, 2002). However, studies that have looked at the interaction between these two
influential pathways have failed to report significant outcomes and most of them are
difficult to replicate (Berndt, 1999). This study did not hypothesize an interaction effect
between these two pathways and only intended to expand the fields of peer victimization
and friendship by examining various friendship buffers that would be accessible to
victimized adolescents. This limitation may explain why no moderating influence was
detected for either high or low friendship qualities.
Study limitations and Future Directions
One potential limitation of this study was mentioned briefly above, and involves
measuring the stability of friendships over time. Friendship stability has been shown to
be associated with higher levels of closeness and in turn may effect the level of influence
that one peer has on the other (Bukowski et al., 1994). Future research may benefit from
looking at the subgroup of stable friendships to analyze whether they would play a more
significant role in buffering adolescents from the negative outcomes of victimization.
Another limitation involves the cross-sectional nature of the study. Given
logistical and time restraints, it was not possible to look at the moderating role of
friendship quality and friends’ behavioral attributes longitudinally. A longitudinal design
would allow for an examination of changes over time that would occur in the victimized

44
adolescent’s emotional and academic life. This is especially true since the population
studied was concluding its first year in high school and most of the relationships analyzed
were probably less than a year old. A longitudinal design would be more likely to
elucidate causal processes by demonstrating changes in behavior over an extended period
of time (Berndt, 1999).
In addition, it may be helpful for future studies to examine these relational
patterns in schools that differ in structure from the school examined in this study. The
school examined here was a large high school with a low emphasis on education. Future
research would benefit from looking at schools that emphasize education (e.g. small
charter schools) or kindergarten through high school establishments where the majority
of students remain for most of their educational experience prior to college and where
relationships may be stable and possibly more influential.
Future studies may also benefit from carefully examining issues of gender and
culture. Given that 90% of the participants in this study were ethnic minorities, it is quite
possible that cultural variables will have influenced both the type of friends and the
values that these adolescents maintained. In addition, 67% of the population examined in
this study was Hispanic it may have been beneficial to look at the type of friendship
support that this population of adolescents had outside of school. A key Hispanic value is
that of familism which emphasizes the interdependence of the extended family (Zuniga,
1998). Hispanic adolescents may have an extensive support system outside of school,
which may involve peers that are related to them (e.g., cousins) who may provide support
and protection.

45
Given that this school was in an urban setting in the East Los Angeles county area
and that gang activity is a prominent problem in areas surrounding the city within which
this school is located, future work may want to examine the role of gang activity on the
values placed on aggression and academic functioning. It is possible that adolescents in
urban settings that are high in crime or gang activity will have a very different world
schema that may influence peer relations, coping mechanisms, and academic functioning.
Finally, the incidental findings uncovered in this data set encourage the further
examination of the social correlates of achievement. It is important to analyze the
differences between the high achievers versus low achievers in this data set in order to
understand the process of peer victimization within this urban adolescent setting.
Conclusions
In summary, the initial hypothesis looking at depression as an outcome variable
was supported. Adolescent friendships appear to play an important role in protecting
victimized adolescents from depression; specifically an ameliorative effect of having
non-aggressive friends was demonstrated. Incidental findings revealed that adolescents
who are doing well in school (high academic engagement and GPA) seemed to be more
vulnerable to being victimized. These findings are consistent with current hypotheses in
the literature, which suggest that doing well in school may not be popular among
minority populations in urban settings. The type of friends that this subgroup of
adolescents endorsed may also be a marker variable that may identify the type of victim
that these adolescents may be (e.g. passive victim). Finally, friendship quality was not
found to moderate the association between peer victimization and emotional and

46
academic outcomes in this study. Future research within the friendship and peer
victimization fields may benefit from a focus on the combined effect of both the
attributes of friends and the quality of friendships.

47
References
Aalto-Setälä, T., Haarasilta, L., Marttunen, M., Tuulio-Henriksson, A., Poikolainen, K.,
& Aro, H. et al. (2002). Major depressive episode among young adults: CIDI-SF
versus SCAN consensus diagnoses. Psychological Medicine, 32, 1309-1314.

Abou-ezzeddine, T., Schwartz, D., Chang, L., Lee-Shin, Y., Farver, J., & Xu, Y. (2007).
Positive peer relationships and risk of victimization in Chinese and South Korean
children's peer groups. Social Development, 16(1), 106-127.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Asher, S. R., Parker, J. G., & Walker, D. L. (1996). Distinguishing friendship from
acceptance: Implications for intervention and assessment. In W. M. Bukowski,
& A. F. Newcomb (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and
adolescence. (pp. 366-405). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Barry, C. M., & Wentzel, K. R. (2006). Friend influence on prosocial behavior: The role
of motivational factors and friendship characteristics. Developmental Psychology,
42(1), 153-163.

Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., &
Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: A test of five
theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 568-582.

Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement
outcomes among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap.
Educational Psychologist, 37 (4), 197-214.

Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child
Development, 53, 1447-1460.

Berndt, T. J. (1989). Obtaining support from friends during childhood and adolescence.
In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports. (pp. 308-331).
Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Berndt, T. J. (1992). Friendship and friends' influence in adolescence. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 1(5), 156-159.

48
Berndt, T. J. (1996). Exploring the effects of friendship quality on social development.
In W. M. Bukowski, & A. F. Newcomb (Eds.), The company they keep:
Friendship in childhood and adolescence. (pp. 346-365). New York, NY, US:
Cambridge University Press.

Berndt, T. J. (1999). Friends' influence on students' adjustment to school. Educational
Psychologist, 34(1), 15-28.

Berndt, T. J. (2004). Children’s friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspectives on
their development and their effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 206-223.

Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends' influence on adolescents' adjustment to
school. Child Development, 66, 1312-1329.

Berndt, T. J., Laychak, A. E., & Park, K. (1990). Friends' influence on adolescents'
academic achievement motivation: An experimental study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 664-670.

Berndt, T. J., & Murphy, L. M. (2002). Influences of friends and friendships: Myths,
truths, and research recommendations. In R.V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child
development and behavior (pp. 275-310). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Birmaher, B., Ryan, N. D., Williamson, D. E., & Brent, D. A. (1996). Childhood and
adolescent depression: A review of the past 10 years, part I. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1427-1439.

Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer relationships and self-
esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69, 1171-
1197.

Boulton, M. J., Bucci, E., & Hawker, D. D. S. (1999). Swedish and English secondary
school pupils' attitudes towards, and conceptions of, bullying: Concurrent links
with bully/victim involvement. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 277-
284.

Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W.M. (2000). Deviant friends and early
adolescents’ emotional and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 10 (2), 173-189.

Brown, R. T., Antonuccio, D. O., DuPaul, G. J., Fristad, M. A., King, C. A., Leslie, L. K.
et al. (2008). Depressive disorders and suicidality. In Ronald T. Brown, David
O. Antonuccio, George J. DuPaul, Mary A. Fristad, Cheryl A. King, et al (Eds.).
Childhood mental health disorders: Evidence base and contextual factors for

49
psychosocial, psychopharmacological, and combined interventions. (pp. 69-85).
Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Brown, B. B., Eicher, S. A., & Petrie, S. (1986). The importance of peer group ("crowd")
affiliation in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 73-96.

Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and
intimacy. Child Development, 58, 1101-1113.

Bukowski, W. M., & Adams, R. (2005). Peer relationships and psychopathology:
Markers, moderators, mediators, mechanisms, and meanings. Journal of Clinical
Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 3-10

Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality during
pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the
friendship qualities scale. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 11, 471-
484.

Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., & Neckerman, H. J. (1989). Early school dropout:
Configurations and determinants. Child Development, 60, 1437-1452.

Cairns, R. B., Leung, M., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Friendships and social
networks in childhood and adolescence: Fluidity, reliability, and interrelations.
Child Development, 66, 1330-1345.

California Department of Education (2005). Base academic performance index report
[On-line]. Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apireports.asp.

Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression
toward female partners by at-risk young men: The contribution of male adolescent
friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 61-73.

Cauce, A. M., Reid, M., Landesman, S., & Gonzales, N. (1990). Social support in young
children: Measurement, structure, and behavioral impact. In B. R. Sarason, & I.
G. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view. (pp. 64-94). Oxford,
England: John Wiley & Sons.

Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in
African American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child
Development, 65, 493-506.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-
psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

50
Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Lapp, A. L. (2002). Family
adversity, positive peer relationships, and children's externalizing behavior: A
longitudinal perspective on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73(4), 1220-
1237.
Crockett, L., Losoff, M., & Petersen, A.C. (1984). Perceptions of the peer group and
friendship in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 155-181.

DeRosier, M., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994). Children's academic and
behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer
rejection. Child Development, 65, 1799-1813.

Devine, D., Kempton, T., & Forehand, R. (1994). Adolescent depressed mood and young
adult functioning: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
22, 629-640.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Dunphy, D. C. (1963). The social structure of urban adolescent peer groups. Sociometry,
26, 230-246.

Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., Roeser, R.W., Barber, B., & Josefowicz-Hernandez, D. (1997).
The association of school transitions in early adolescence with developmental
trajectories through high school. In J. Schulenberg, J. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann
(Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence. (pp. 283-
320). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Adolescence: Social patterns, achievements, and
problems. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; New
York, NY, Oxford University Press.

Eisenberg, M.E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Perry, C. (2003). Peer harassment, school and
school success. Journal of School Health, 73, 311–316.

Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out of
high school and why? : Findings from a national study. Teachers College Record,
87, 357-73.

Fagan, J., & Pabon, E. (1990). Contributions of delinquency and substance use to school
dropouts among inner-city youth. Youth and Society, 21, 306-354.

Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2003). Resilience to childhood adversity: Results
of a 21-year study. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.) Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation
in the context of childhood adversities (pp.130-155). New York: Cambridge

51
Fleming, J. E., Boyle, M. H., & Offord, D. R. (1993). The outcome of adolescent
depression in the Ontario child health study follow-up. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32 (1), 28-33.

Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2002). Increasing
engagement in urban settings: An analysis of the influence of the social and
academic context on student engagement. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential
of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-
109.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright
(Ed.), Studies in social power. (pp. 150-167). Oxford, England: University of
Michigan.

Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of friendship perceptions: Conceptual and
methodological issues. In W. M. Bukowski, & A. F. Newcomb (Eds.), The
company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence. (pp. 41-65). New
York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of
networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63(1), 103-115.

Furman, W., & Robbins, P. (1985). What is the point? Issues in the selection of
treatment objectives. In B. H. Schneider, K.H. Rubin, & J.E. Ledingham (Eds.),
Children’s peer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention. (pp. 41-54).
New York: Springer-Verlag.

Garmezy, N. (1993). Developmental psychopathology: Some historical and current
perspectives. In D. Magnusson, & P. J. M. Casaer (Eds.), Longitudinal research on
individual development: Present status and future perspectives. (pp. 95-126). New
York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Gauze, C., Bukowski, W. M., Aquan-Assee, J., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Interactions
between family environment, friendship, and associations with self-perceived
well-being during adolescence. Child Development, 67, 2201-2216.

Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K.
(1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children:
Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687-697.

52
Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. H. Mussen, & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social
development (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental
significance. Child Development, 67(1), 1-13.

Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.

Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2007). The allure of a mean friend:
Relationship quality and processes of aggressive adolescents with prosocial skills.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(2), 170-180.

Henderson, V. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1990). Motivation and achievement. In S. S.
Feldman, & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent.
(pp. 308-329). Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press.

Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). Developmental
Psychology, 35, 94-101.

Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1995). Behavioral and social
antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. In N.R. Crick (Chair),
Recent trends in the study of peer victimization: Who is at risk and what are the
consequences? Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the society for
research in child development, Indianapolis, IN.

Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1997). Individual risk and social risk as
interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 1032-1039.

Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and
consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 76, 677-685.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological
adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 349-359.

Kazdin, A. E., & Petti, T. A. (1982). Self-report and interview measures of childhood
and adolescent depression. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 23, 437-
457.

53
Kiefer, S. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Striving for social dominance over peers: The
implications for academic adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 417-428.

Khatri, P., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. (2000). Aggression and peer victimization
as predictors of self-reported behavioral and emotional adjustment. Aggressive
Behavior, 26, 345-358.

Kovacs, M. (1985). The natural history and course of depressive disorders in childhood.
Psychiatric Annals, 15, 387-389.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory Manual. North Tonawanda. NY:
Multi- Health Systems.

Krohn, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., Collins-Hall, L., & Lizotte, A. J. (1995). School
dropout, delinquent behavior, and drug use: An examination of the causes and
consequences of dropping out of school. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Drugs, crime,
and other deviant adaptations: Longitudinal research in the social and behavioral
sciences: An interdisciplinary series (pp. 163-183). New York, NY, US: Plenum
Press.

Lahey, B. B., Waldman, I. D., & McBurnett, K. (1999). The development of antisocial
behavior: An integrative causal model. Journal of Child Psychology &
Psychiatry, 40, 669-682.

Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Best friendships, group
relationships, and antisocial behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 19, 413-437.

Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early
adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62, 284-
300.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the
elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 153-184.

Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and
practice. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the
context of childhood adversities (pp. 1-25). New York, NY, US: Cambridge
University Press.

Meeus, W. (1989). Parental and peer support in adolescence. In K. Hurrelmann, & U.
Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents: International perspectives;

54
Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence, (pp. 167-183).
Oxford, England: Walter De Gruyter.

Meeus, W. (1993). Occupational identity development, school performance, and social
support in adolescence: Findings of a Dutch study. Adolescence, 28, 809-818.

Miller, P. H. (1993). Theories of developmental psychology (3
rd
ed.). New York:
Freeman.

Moutier, C. Y., & Stein, M. B. (1999). The history, epidemiology, and differential
diagnosis of social anxiety disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60 (9), 4-8.

Nakamoto, J., Gorman, A. H., Schwartz, D., & McKay, T. (2004). Peer perceived
popularity and adolescents' academic engagement. Paper presented at the
Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Baltimore, MD.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association,
285, 2094-2100

Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children's friendship relations: A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306-347

Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D., Battin-Pearson, S., &
Hill, K. (2002). Mediational and deviance theories of late high school failure:
Process roles of structural strains, academic competence, and general versus
specific problem behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(2), 172-186.

Norvell, N., & Towle, P. O. (1986). Self-reported depression and observable conduct
problems in children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 228-232.

Olweus, D. (1992). Victimization among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention.
In G. W. Albee, & L. A. Bond (Eds.), Improving children's lives: Global
perspectives on prevention; primary prevention of psychopathology, vol. 14; (pp.
279-295). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K.
H. Rubin, & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in
childhood. (pp. 315-341). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.

55
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S. F.,
Fraczek, A., et al. (1998). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 24, 1-8.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are
low accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle
childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social
dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621.

Parker, J. G., & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational
context: Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence. In T. J.
Berndt, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development. (pp. 95-
131). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Price, J. M., & DeRosier, M. E. (1995). Peer relationships,
child development, and adjustment: A developmental psychopathology
perspective. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
psychopathology, vol. 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. (pp. 96-161). Oxford,
England: John Wiley & Sons.

Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. (1993). The NIMH community violence project:
Children as victims of and witnesses to violence. Psychiatry: Interpersonal &
Biological Processes, 56 (1), 7-21.

Roderick, M. (1993). The path to dropping out: Evidence for intervention.
Westport, CT: Auburn House.

Rose, A. J. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child
Development, 73, 1830-1843.

Rumberger, R. W. (1983). Dropping out of high school: The influence of race, sex, and
family background. American Educational Research Journal, 20 (2), 199-220.

Saylor, C. F., Finch, A. J., Spirito, A., & Bennett, B. (1984). The children's depression
inventory: A systematic evaluation of psychometric properties. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 52, 955-967.

Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children's peer groups.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28 (2), 181-192.

Schwartz, D., Chang, L., & Farver, J. M. (2001). Correlates of victimization in Chinese
children's peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 37, 520-532.

56
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). The early socialization
of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68(4), 665-675

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & The Conduct Problems
Prevention Research Group, US. (2000). Friendship as a moderating factor in the
pathway between early harsh home environment and later victimization in the
peer group. Developmental Psychology, 36, 646-662.

Schwartz, D., Farver, J. M., Chang, L., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2002). Victimization in South
Korean children's peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30 (2),
113-125.

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (In press).
Friendships with peers who are low or high in aggression as moderators of the
link between peer victimization and declines in academic functioning. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology.

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in the
peer group and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 425-435.

Schwartz, D., McFadyen-Ketchum, S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1999).
Early behavior problems as a predictor of later peer group victimization:
Moderators and mediators in the pathways of social risk. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 27, 191-201.

Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence exposure and children's
social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion
regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 68,
670-683.

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in
adolescent acheivment: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47
(6), 723-729.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. Oxford, England: Norton
& Co.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5
th
ed.).
Boston,MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Van der Wall, M. F., De Wit, C. A. M., & Hirasing, R. A. (2003). Psychosocial health
among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics,
111, 1312–17.

57
Veiel, H. O. F., & Baumann, U. (1992). The meaning and measurement of social
support. Washington, DC, US: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.

Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2000). Influence of deviant friends on
delinquency: Searching for moderator variables. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 28, 313-325.

Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as
contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31, 366-377.

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and
friends. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press.

Zuniga, M .E. (1998). Families with Latino roots. In E.W. Lynch & M. J. Hanson
(Eds.), Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children
and their families. (pp. 209-250). Baltimore : Brookes.

58
Appendix A
Peer Nomination Inventory
Each adolescent was given a random list of 50 students (eleven total lists were
used in the study), whose parents had consented to their participation in the study.
Student lists were randomly distributed to participating adolescents.

Peer Victimization Questions.
a. Write the ID codes of up to nine students who get hit, pushed, or bullied
by other students.
c. Write the ID codes of up to nine students who get left out of activities,
excluded, or ignored when other students are trying to hurt their feelings.
d. Write the ID codes of up to nine students who get beat up by other
students.

Peer Aggression Questions.
a. Write the ID codes of up to nine students that hit or push other students.
b. Write the ID codes of up to nine students that start fights with other
students by punching or pushing them.
c. Write the ID codes of up to nine students that try to be mean to other
students by ignoring them or excluding them
d. Write the ID codes of up to nine students that gossip about other
students or say mean things about other students behind their backs.

59
Appendix B
Friendship Nomination Inventory
Each adolescent was given a roster of ALL students participating in the study.
They were asked to write down the ID numbers of the students and not there names. The
list was alphabetized by student’s first name.

a. Using the new list, please write the ID NUMBER of your VERY BEST FRIEND on
the line below.

________________

b. Using the new list, please write the ID NUMBERS of up to 10 students on the
attached list who you consider GOOD FRIENDS. These are students who are your
REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS.

1. __________________ 2. __________________

3. __________________ 4.__________________

5. __________________ 6.__________________

7. __________________ 8. __________________

9. __________________ 10.__________________

60
Appendix C

Fredricks Scale of Academic Engagement

Adolescents were asked to pick one answer from the likert scale provided that
best described their answer. The likert scale had five answers ranging from Not True to
Really True.

Questions:
a. I pay attention during class.
b. I complete my assignments on time.
c. I try to follow the rules in school.
d. When I am in class, I usually pretend that I am paying attention.
e. I think working hard for good grades is a waste of time.
f. I feel bored with most of my classes or subjects at school.
g. I am interested in what we learn at school.
h. Grades are very important to me.
i. I like to study even when I don’t have a test.
j. I enjoy watching TV shows about things that I am learning in school.
k. I check my assignments for mistakes before I turn them in.
l. I read extra books to learn more about things we do in school.

(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2002)

61
Appendix D

Child Depression Inventory-Short form

Please circle one sentence from each list that best describes how you have been feeling
for the past two weeks.

Question 1 Question 6
A. I am sad once in a while. A. Things bother me once in a while.
B. I am sad many times. B. Things bother me many times.
C. I am sad all the time. C. Things bother me all the time.

Question 2 Question 7
A. Things will work out for me O.K. A. I look O.K.
B. I am not sure if things will work out for me. B. There are some bad things about.
C. Nothing will ever work out for me. my looks
C. I look ugly.

Question 3 Question 8
A. I do most things O.K. A. I do not feel alone.
B. I do many things wrong. B. I feel alone many times.
C. I do everything wrong. C. I feel alone all the time.

Question 4 Question 9
A. I like myself. A. I have plenty of friends.
B. I do not like myself B. I have some friends,
C. I hate myself. but I wish I had more.
C. I do not have any friends.

Question 5 Question 10
A. I feel like crying once in a while. A. I am sure that somebody loves me.
B. I feel like crying many days. B. I am not sure if anybody loves me.
C. I feel like crying every day. C. Nobody really loves me.

(Kovacs, 1992)

62
Appendix E

Bukowski's Friendship Quality Scale:

Instructions
1. We want to ask you some questions just about you and your best friend.
Be sure to read carefully and answer as honestly as possible.
2. Some of the sentences might be very true for your friendship while other
sentences might not be true at all for your friendship.
3. Read the sentence and circle the number that best describes your
friendship. Remember, there are no right or wrong ways to answer these
questions and you can use any of the numbers on the scale.
4. Please remember this is the same best friend that you nominated 2
questions ago.

Likert Scale
1. Adolescents were given a likert scale after each question and were asked
to circle the response that was best descriptive of their friendship.
2. Not True Might be true Usually True Very True Really True
1-------------------2-------------------3------------------4---------------5

Questions
1. My friend and I spend a lot of our free time together.
2. My friend gives me advice when I need it.
3. My friend and I do things together.
4. My friend and I help each other.
5. Even if my friend and I have an argument we would still be able to be
friends with each other.
6. If other kids were bothering me, my friend would help me.
7. I can trust and rely on my friend.
8. If my friend had to move away, I would miss him/her.
9. When I do a good job at something, my friend is happy for me.
10. There is nothing that would stop my friend and I from being friends.
11. Sometimes my friend does things for me or makes me feel special.
12. When my friend and I have an argument, he/she can hurt my feelings.
13. When I have not been with my friend for a while, I really miss being with
him/her
14. If somebody tried to push me around, my friend would help me.
15. I can get into fights with my friend.
16. My friend would stick up for me if another kid was causing me trouble.
17. When we have free time at school, such as at lunchtime or recess, my
friend and I hang out with each other.
18. If I have a problem at school or at home, I can talk to my friend about it.
19. My friend bugs me or annoys me even though I ask him/her not to.

63
20. If I forgot my lunch or needed a little money, my friend would loan it to
me.
21. If I said I was sorry after I had a fight with my friend, he/she would still
stay mad at me.
22. My friend helps me with tasks that are hard or that need two people.
23. My friend and I hang out after school and on weekends.
24. Sometimes my friend and I just sit around and talk about things like
school, sports and other things we like.
25. Even if other people stopped liking me, my friend would still be my
friend.
26. I know that I am important to my friend.
27. My friend would help me if I needed it.
28. If there is something bothering me, I can tell my friend about it even if it is
something I can’t tell other people.
29. My friend puts our friendship ahead of other things.
30. When I have to do something that is hard, I can count on my friend for
help.
31. If my friend or I do something that bothers the other, we can make up
easily.
32. My friend and I can argue a lot.
33. My friend and I disagree about many things.
34. I feel happy when I am with my friend.
35. I think about my friend even when my friend is not around.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The moderating role of friendship (attributes of friends and quality of friendship) in the relation between peer victimization and externalizing and internalizing problems (academic disengagement, low GPA, and depression) was studied. Five hundred twenty-one adolescents in the ninth grade (289 girls, 223 boys, 9 unknown

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Mediators and moderators in the link between maternal psychological control and peer victimization for Hong Kong Chinese boys

PDF

Family aggression, prosocial friends, and the risk of dating and friend victimization in late adolescence

PDF

Using observed peer discussions to understand adolescent depressive symptoms and interpersonal interactions

PDF

Heterogeneity among adolescents with elevated depressive symptoms: distinct patterns of social and academic attributes

PDF

The successful African American Parenting (SAAP) Program: an evaluation of a culturally sensitive parenting intervention

PDF

Popularity as a predictor of friendship affiliation in adolescence

PDF

An examination of in-school and online protective factors for adolescent trajectories of online victimization and harassment over time

PDF

Social status, perceived social reputations, and perceived dyadic relationships in early adolescence

PDF

Negative peer relationships and academic failures as predictors of depressive symptoms in early adolescence

PDF

Interpersonal coping responses during adolescence: implications for adjustment

PDF

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

PDF

The egocentric social networks of Black adolescents and sources of racial socialization messages

PDF

Adolescents who have never dated: friendship attributes as predictors of prolonged romantic development among Asian American and Latine youths

PDF

Evaluating a cultural process model of depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents