Social attributes of adolescents’ problem-talk partners predict changes in depression

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Social Attributes of Adolescents’ Problem-Talk Partners Predict Changes in Depression
by
Leslie Marie Taylor
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORNSIFE SCHOOL OF ARTS, LETTERS, AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
(PSYCHOLOGY)
December 2024

ii
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the Valentine Endowed Fellowship for facilitating this thesis.
The author also wishes to thank David Schwartz for his mentorship, Wendy Troop-Gordon,
Henrike Moll, and Christopher Beam for their committee guidance, and Yana Ryjova, Minci
Zhang, and Jinsol Chung for their valuable feedback on this thesis.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables................................................................................................................................. iv
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... v
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
The Current Investigation ................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 1: Method ........................................................................................................................ 14
Participants.......................................................................................................................... 14
Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 14
Measures............................................................................................................................. 15
Chapter 2: Results......................................................................................................................... 18
Univariate and Bivariate Analyses...................................................................................... 18
Effects of Problem-Talk Partners’ Social Attributes.......................................................... 18
Exploratory Analyses of Friendship ................................................................................... 20
Chapter 3: Discussion ................................................................................................................... 22
Emotion-Focused vs. Solution-Focused Problem-Talk ...................................................... 22
Social Attributes of Problem-Talk Partners........................................................................ 25
Limitations and Future Directions...................................................................................... 27
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 32
References..................................................................................................................................... 33

iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables................................................................ 40
Table 2: Correlations Among All Study Variables....................................................................... 41
Table 3: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Social Attributes of Problem-Talk
Partners and T2 Depressive Symptomatology.............................................................................. 42
Table 4: Exploratory Multiple Regression Analyses of Social Preference and Popularity of
Friends vs. Problem-Talk Partners................................................................................................ 43

v
Abstract
The current investigation explores the role of problem-talk partners’ social status in the
link between problem-talk and adjustment outcomes for youth reporting depressive
symptomology. Two hundred sixty-seven adolescents (Mage = 14.4 years old, 152 girls)
completed a short-term prospective study consisting of two waves of data collected one year
apart. Adolescents completed self-report questionnaires measuring depressive symptomatology
(CDI). Participants nominated peers as emotion-focused or solution-focused problem-talk
partners, and also nominated peers for an array of social variables, including social preference
and popularity. Social preference of emotion-focused problem-talk partners was associated with
a decrease in CDI score from T1 to T2. Popularity of emotion-focused problem-talk partners was
not associated with change in depressive symptomatology. Main effects for gender were not
found, nor was gender found to moderate the relation between emotion-focused problem-talk and
depressive symptomatology. These results shed light on how adolescents may decide on peers
with whom they can discuss their troubles and challenges. Furthermore, these findings prompt
additional exploration of the roles of popularity and social preference in problem-talk
partnerships.
Keywords: problem-talk, adolescence, peer relationships, depression, popularity, social
preference

1
Introduction
During childhood, close peer relationships are often forged over shared interests and
preferred activities (Bowker & Weingarten, 2022), or parentally guided factors, such as
community groups. Parents, caregivers, and the family home are the primary sources of
emotional support and intimacy for younger children (Helsen et al., 2000). However, as youth
enter and navigate the changing social landscape of adolescence, peer relationships become the
central focus of daily life (Helsen et al., 2000; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). These relationships
may take on features that reflect a growing desire for intimacy, a salient developmental concern
and a common feature of close friendships (Bagwell et al., 2011; Bowker & Weingarten, 2022).
Intimacy can be accomplished through mutual self-disclosure between peers (Bukowski
et al., 1996; Rubin et al., 2008; Rose et al., 2014), and adolescents seeking to deepen their
relationships may gravitate toward peers who possess social attributes and reputations that reflect
a capacity for intimacy (Aikens & Litwack, 2011; Selfhout et al., 2009). The peer relations
literature has offered evidence that multidimensional person- and dyadic- level factors, such as
emotional closeness, perceived social support and problem-talk (Prinstein, 2007; Rose, 2002;
Rose et al., 2014; Selfhout et al., 2009; Spiekerman & Rose, 2024) may have critical
implications for youths’ adjustment as they navigate the novel changes associated with
adolescence.
Adolescence is also a developmental period during which youth may become vulnerable
to increases in internalizing problems, such as depressive symptomatology (Benner et al., 2017;
Merikangas et al., 2009; Selfhout et al., 2009). These struggles may stem from a variety of
changes associated with the transition to adolescence, such as the physiological and hormonal
transformations of puberty, and reorganizations of peer group structures (Berndt, 1982). As

2
adolescents navigate these changes, they may also begin to take on specific social roles and
attributes that differentiate them from their peers in terms of interpersonal competencies and
power dynamics (Abrahami, 1981; Berndt, 1982).
Consequently, adolescents’ peer relationships may take on varying degrees of
heterogeneity as they develop across time. Adolescents are often faced with the two-pronged
challenge of individuating themselves from peers while developing perspective-taking abilities
during social interactions (Abrahami, 1981; Berndt, 1982; Rodkin et al., 2013). As such, youth
may have some relationships that are characterized by high levels of emotional closeness, and
others in which the imbalances of social status and peer group hierarchy are more apparent
(Bukowski, 2011; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010; Rodkin et al., 2013).
Although self-report and observational paradigms have shed light on how the content of
adolescents’ problem-talk may influence changes in perceived intimacy, emotional closeness,
and depressive symptomatology (Rose et al., 2017; Spiekerman & Rose, 2024), not much is
known about how problem-talk partners’ social attributes and reputations within the peer group
may be linked to adolescents’ adjustment outcomes. Recent findings in the adolescent
victimization literature have begun to uncover the roles of peers’ social attributes and reputations
in the link between victimization and adjustment problems (Huang et al., 2022; Schwartz et al.,
2023). Notable moderator effects have been found for both social attributes of problem-talk
partners, such as peer victimization (Schwartz et al., 2023) and dyadic process variables, such as
co-rumination (Huang et al., 2022). However, victimization research tends to focus on how
negative attributes and experiences predict increases in adjustment problems, such as depressive
symptomatology.

3
The present study seeks to investigate how other social attributes of problem-talk
partners, namely popularity and preference, may be associated with changes in adolescents’
depressive symptomatology. Popularity and social preference are associated with a broad variety
of interpersonal competencies and social experiences among adolescents, some of which may
have differential implications for problem-talk partners’ adjustment outcomes.
Social Functions and Affordances of Popularity
A strong, comprehensive definition of popularity has eluded developmental and social
scientists for quite some time, in part due to the finding that popularity and social preference are
both accomplished using varying combinations of interpersonal skills (Bukowski, 2011;
Cillessen & Marks, 2011; Rodkin et al., 2013; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006). Furthermore, peer
nominations research has found that, while social preference and popularity can be
operationalized as two distinct constructs (Cillessen & Marks, 2011; Mayeux et al., 2011;
Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006), adolescents can be nominated as both preferred and popular by
their peers (Bukowski, 2011; Cillessen & Marks, 2011; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006).
Many authors agree, however, on certain functions of popularity drawn from research on
social group structures. Popular individuals are often tasked with a balancing act between
garnering high esteem from peers and eliciting group harmony (Bukowski, 2011; Rodkin et al.,
2013). Consequently, group structure is often guided by a popular individual in service of
achieving goals important to that group (Collins & Raven, 1968). It is reasonable to infer, then,
that some popular adolescents may be more skilled at dictating and enforcing group norms
(Bukowski, 2011; Rodkin et al., 2013; Levine & Moreland, 1998), rather than handling a peer’s
vulnerable self-disclosures (Berendt, 1982; Bukowski, 2011; Cillessen & Marks, 2011).

4
As popular adolescents navigate changing social structures within the larger peer group,
others may look to them as responsible for making group decisions, demonstrating behaviors,
embodying values, and enforcing trends that can help their group reach salient goals (Levine &
Moreland, 1998; Bukowski, 2011). As such, popularity on the whole appears to be a social status
agreed upon and conferred by members of the insular group itself, as well as onlookers that
differentiate this group from their own (Bukowski, 2011; Cillessen & Marks, 2011; Rodkin et al.,
2013; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006).
Despite standout qualities that reinforce popular adolescents’ visibility in the peer group,
the large-scale nature of their goal-directed behaviors (Bukowski, 2011) may not leave them
best-equipped with the openness and understanding to support peers who are struggling with
depressive symptomatology (Aikens & Litwack, 2011; Rose, 2014). Popular adolescents’
interpersonal competencies may facilitate behaviors that complement popular adolescents’ normenforcing or goal-dictating behavior among peers, e.g., convincing group members to adhere to a
particular clothing trend with encouragement rather than disparaging comments. However,
popular adolescents may not be able to augment their interpersonal competence and prosocial
behavior when a peer seeks their emotional support during problem-talk. Adolescents may,
instead, select peers as problem-talk partners whose reputations for being socially preferred are
weighted higher than their popularity and dominance in the peer group.
Elements of Social Preference
Numerous peer relations studies, both cross-sectional and prospective, have reported a
positive association between social preference and prosocial behavior among adolescents
(Becker, et al., 2007; Kim & Cillessen, 2023; Niu et al., 2016; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998;
Rodkin et al., 2013). Additional studies have also noted that lower social preference among peers

5
was predictive of later maladjustment (Waldrip et al., 2008), including depressive
symptomatology (Klima & Repetti, 2008).
Socially preferred adolescents may subsequently demonstrate homophily in their
selection of friends and companions from the larger peer group (Dijkstra et al., 2013; Shin,
2017), perhaps choosing to associate with other well-liked peers characterized by similar levels
of prosocial behavior (Shin, 2017). It is possible that adolescents high in social preference
naturally gravitate towards peer relationships that take a balanced approach to interpersonal
dynamics, rather than engage with peers who are more inclined to assert dominance over others.
As previously discussed, social preference and popularity are often found to be positively
correlated (Aikins & Litwack, 2011; Cillessen & Marks, 2011; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006).
The affordances of and skills associated with social attributes must then be carefully considered
within the problem-talk context in order to theorize about differential adjustment outcomes for
adolescents. Potential rewards of problem-talk with a socially preferred peer include boosts to
self-esteem and emotional buffering against life’s challenges (Bukowski, 2011; Cuadros &
Berger, 2016; Rubin et al., 2008).
Gender and Social Preference
Although main effect associations between prosocial behavior and peer social preference
are prevalent in the literature, researchers have discovered notable moderating effects of gender
in some samples (Kim & Cillessen, 2023; Klima & Repetti, 2008). Kim & Cillessen (2023)
found that positive predictive associations between T1 prosocial behavior and T2 social
preference among peers were greater for girls than for boys. Similarly, Klima & Repetti (2008)
found that greater social preference predicted increases in self-esteem only for girls. Taken

6
together, these findings may suggest that social preference may be more salient for girls than
boys.
In summary, providing one-on-one support to a struggling peer may call for a different
set of interpersonal skills than those required of popular peers (Buhrmester, 1990; Selfhout et al.,
2009), and it is not well-known if and how these skills differ between problem-talk partners who
offer emotional or solution-focused, instrumental support.
Adolescent Problem-Talk
The nature of peers’ problem-talk may take on many distinct characteristics depending on
the individual features of and dynamics between adolescents. Problem-talk partnerships may be
differentially weighted toward providing emotional support or pragmatic solutions. Although
both types of problem-talk may occur within the same dyadic interaction (Rose et al., 2014);
notable differences exist between emotion-focused and problem-focused dynamics.
Solution-Focused Problem-Talk
Constructive problem-solving is a notable feature of many close peer relationships, and
researchers have argued that developing effective conflict resolution skills is a central task of
adolescence (Laursen & Veenstra, 2021; Selfhout et al., 2009). Investigators have found that
peer interdependence and dyadic commitment are linked to greater levels of constructive
problem-solving compared with peers that endorsed a disengaged relational style (Shulman &
Laursen, 2002). Furthermore, peers endorsing a disengaged relational style are less likely to
engage in constructive problem-solving and more likely to be dismissive or to displace blame
(Shulman & Laursen, 2002).
Although instrumental support appears to be an important feature of adolescents’
interpersonal dynamics, extant research on solution-focused approaches indicates that this type

7
of support may not be as strongly tied to adjustment outcomes as emotion-focused problem-talk.
An investigation comparing parents and peers as sources of instrumental and emotional support
found that, as the peer group becomes a central focus for adolescents’ socioemotional
development, parents tend to fall behind peers as the preferred source of emotional support (del
Valle et al., 2009). Additionally, parents tended to maintain a consistent level of instrumental,
solution-focused support for adolescents across development (del Valle et al., 2009).
In a similar vein, early stress and coping literature lent support for the buffering role of
solution-focused coping against negative affect and emotions. Folkman & Lazarus (1988) found
that “planful problem-solving,” in which participants negotiated solutions to their problems, was
positively associated with both confidence and happiness, and negatively associated with anger
and disgust. Within the problem-talk context, solution-oriented approaches may be characterized
by advice-giving behavior (Rose et al., 2014; Spiekerman & Rose, 2024). Although there may be
individual differences and personal preferences that influence adolescent perceives advice-giving
during problem-talk, researchers have tended to categorize advice-giving as an indicator of
positive engagement with a peer’s problems (Spiekerman & Rose, 2024). It is not well-known,
however, if solution-focused behaviors, such as advice-giving, can be consistently linked to
changes in adolescents’ depressive symptomatology within the context of problem-talk.
Taken together, these findings generally support the idea that solution-focused
approaches to problem-solving may have positive implications for adjustment outcomes.
However, the link between intra-individual problem-solving and mood may not be a perfect
mirror for inter-individual social processes, such as problem-talk. Solution-focused approaches
to conflict resolution may be beneficial when the problem at hand is between the adolescents in
the dyad (Adams & Laursen, 2001; Laursen & Veenstra, 2021; Selfhout et al., 2009; Shulman &

8
Laursen, 2002), but it is not clear if this approach carries the same effectiveness when applied to
extra-dyadic problems. When adolescents initiate problem-talk with peers, they may not always
be seeking a pragmatic, immediate solution to the problem at hand. Although this is certainly a
possibility for some youth, it is also possible that the act of initiating problem-talk is, instead, a
bid for emotional support from a chosen peer.
Emotion-Focused Problem-Talk
Cultivating intimacy in personal relationships is a salient developmental task of
adolescence (Roisman at al., 2004), and the peer group provides a ready arena for adolescents to
test and measure the outcomes of self-disclosure and interpersonal closeness (Bagwell &
Schmidt, 2011; Rose et al., 2016; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Furthermore, the
cultivation of social support is a critical component of adolescent adjustment (Buhrmester,
1990). Effective interpersonal skills on the individual level can foster an ecosystem of emotional
support among adolescents, and those who fall behind their peers in the development of social
competencies may be at risk for adjustment difficulties (Nilsen et al., 2013; Rudolph, 2009).
Problem-talk, an intimate dyadic behavior that calls for both self-disclosure and some
form of response from a peer, provides opportunities for adolescents to make bids for emotional
support and connection with peers (Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 2014). Likewise, adolescents who
engage with peers by responding to problem-talk have the opportunity to deepen the sense of
intimacy with a peer and practice interpersonal competence (Rose et al., 2016). Problem-talk,
though associated with depressive symptomatology (Selfhout et al., 2009), has been linked to
greater perceived closeness, emotional support, and commitment between peers (Rose et al.,
2016; Selfhout et al., 2009). There is mounting empirical evidence to support the idea that the
interpersonal dynamics and content of adolescent problem-talk have implications for changes in

9
their internalizing symptoms (Rose et al., 2016; Spiekerman & Rose, 2024). Furthermore,
adolescents who give and receive more positive responses during problem-talk, such as
supportive and agreeable comments, are likely to report a reduction in depressive
symptomatology (Spiekerman & Rose, 2024).
Not all peer responses during problem-talk are positive, however. Observational
paradigms of adolescent problem-talk have noted that some peers may give dismissive responses
to peers’ disclosures, and some may even offer only silence (Rose at al., 2016; Spiekerman &
Rose, 2024). Although numerous variables may influence the emotional consequences of these
types of responses, e.g., personality and communication styles between adolescents, Spiekerman
& Rose (2024) found that these types of negative responses were linked to increases in
depressive symptomatology. It is not well understood if adolescents’ social attributes, such as
preference or popularity, are linked to the development of a sense of how problem-talk responses
may help or harm peers. However, positive associations between correlates of preference, e.g.,
prosocial behavior, may suggest that peers high in social preference are more likely to take
others’ feelings and experiences into consideration prior to responding.
Gender Differences in Problem-Talk Dynamics
Although self-disclosure between adolescents may often be healthy and adaptive within
the context of building intimacy and friendship quality across genders, notable gender
differences in the nature of problem-talk partnerships for boys and girls have been reported. It is
well-documented in the literature that girls engage in emotion-focused talk more often than boys
(Barstead et al., 2013; Cuadros & Berger, 2016; Rose et al., 2002, 2012, 2016; Rubin et al.,
2008). However, girls’ friendships are also more likely to feature greater intimacy, selfdisclosure, and balanced interpersonal style than boys’ friendships (Berndt, 1982; Rose et al.,

10
2016; Selfhout et al., 2009), and extant research suggests that the developmental course of
intimacy does not unfold at the same pace across genders.
In a longitudinal study of friendship types, Selfhout et al. (2009) found gender
differences in the development of adolescents’ problem-solving dynamics and interpersonal
styles. Adolescent girls outpaced boys in the development of an engaged interpersonal dynamic
and had a greater sense of commitment to resolving dyadic conflicts than boys (Selfhout et al.,
2009). Furthermore, girls in emotionally disengaged friendships reported higher levels of
depressive symptomatology than boys who endorsed the disengaged friendship type, as well as
adolescents of both genders whose friendships had an interdependent style (Selfhout, 2009).
Related investigations of adolescents’ interpersonal styles and sense of emotional
closeness have revealed further gender differences in how problem-talk may shape the outcomes
and subtle textures of peer relationships. In a short-term longitudinal study, Rose et al. (2016)
replicated past findings that girls appear to engage in problem-talk with greater frequency than
boys (Rose, 2002; Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Rose, 2012). Strikingly, however, an observational
component to this study demonstrated both qualitative and functional differences in how girls
and boys respond to their partners’ self-disclosures (Rose et al., 2016). Boys engaged in
problem-talk were more likely to respond with humorous statements than girls, which was linked
to increases in perceived emotional closeness within problem-talk dyads for boys (Rose et al.,
2016). Although positive, engaged responses during problem-talk were linked to increases in
perceived emotional closeness regardless of gender, girls were more likely than boys to provide
emotionally supportive and encouraging responses than boys (Rose et al., 2016).
Furthermore, gender differences exist in how adolescent boys and girls perceive the
outcomes of problem-talk. Rose et al. (2012) found that adolescent girls expected their

11
interpersonal vulnerability to yield greater feelings of closeness and support than boys, and that
many boys felt as if self-disclosures were awkward or a poor use of time. Taken together, these
findings suggest that emotion-focused problem-talk may be a central process through which girls
cultivate intimacy, and that boys’ trajectories toward establishing intimacy may have textural and
temporal differences when compared with girls’ behaviors.
Interpersonal Mechanisms of Depression
Early research on the origins of depressive symptomatology focused primarily on intraindividual thought patterns, coping styles, and behavioral responses to stressors as root causes of
emotional distress and maladjustment (Abramson et al., 1978; Beck, 1976; Coyne, 1976;
Folkman & Lazarus, 1986, 1988). However, investigations of interpersonal dynamics gained a
foothold in the literature as perspectives shifted to accommodate a multifaceted view of the
development of depression. Individuals’ maladaptive cognitive schemas and ruminative
behaviors may be elicited and reinforced by others’ social responses (Coyne, 1976; Rudolph,
2009), suggesting that depressive symptomatology may be a bidirectional social process rather
than an isolated, private mental state (Coyne, 1976).
Adolescence is a particularly sensitive time for the development of depressive
symptomatology (Benner & Graham, 2009; Merikangas et al., 2009; Nolen-Hoeksema et al.,
2013) as youth begin to navigate personal and social responses to the physiological changes of
puberty and peer group reorganizations that may prove challenging (Berndt; 1982; Twenge &
Nolen-Hoeksema, 2002). Although these challenges are considered normative for youth during
this developmental period (Berndt, 1982; Buhrmester, 1990), broaching sensitive topics or
revealing personal vulnerabilities during dyadic interactions, such as problem-talk, may create
opportunities for maladjustment stemming from interpersonal difficulties (Coyne, 1976;

12
Spiekerman & Rose, 2024). This risk may be particularly exacerbated when problem-talk
partners are not socially equipped to respond to adolescents’ self-disclosures in ways that foster
intimacy, closeness, and emotional support (Rose et al., 2014; Spiekerman & Rose, 2024), but
instead have a greater orientation towards achieving and maintaining visibility and dominance in
the peer group (Bukowski, 2011; Pellegrini et al., 2011; Rodkin et al., 2013)
Gender Differences in Depressive Symptomatology
Adolescent gender differences in onset and severity of depressive symptomatology are
well-documented in the literature, with girls generally endorsing greater depressive
symptomatology than boys (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; Nolen-Hoeksema & Hilt, 2009;
Mojtabai et al., 2016; Rose et al., 2016; Rose, 2002). Furthermore, girls may be more sensitive to
changes to the social structure of the peer group (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994). There is a
wealth of evidence that orientations toward friendship quality, dyadic intimacy, and emotional
self-disclosure are stronger in adolescence for girls than for boys (Berndt, 1982; Frankel, 1990;
Selfhout et al., 2009; Rose et al., 2014, 2016), prompting further exploration of how the features
of adolescents’ close peer relationships may play central roles in the developmental trajectory of
depressive symptomatology across genders.
The Current Investigation
Associations between prosocial behavior, constructive problem-solving, and emotional
wellbeing among peers are well-supported in the extant literature (Berndt, 1982; Buhrmester,
1990; Selfhout et al., 2009; von Salisch et al., 2014). As such, the first hypothesis is that social
preference of both types of problem-talk partners will be linked to a decrease in focal
adolescents’ depressive symptomatology from T1 to T2. Due to the strength of the relation
between popularity and social preference in the extant peer relations literature (Cillessen &

13
Marks, 2011; Rodkin et al., 2013), and the finding that these two constructs are modestly
correlated in the current sample (r = .19, p <.001), the popularity of emotion-focused problemtalk partners was included in the model as a covariate. We did not expect problem-talk partners’
popularity to account for a significant amount of variance in the model due to the underlying
theory that problem-talk partners’ prosocial competencies will play a greater role in peers’
adjustment outcomes than their abilities to enact group-level change (Bukowski, 2011; Cillessen
& Marks, 2011; Rodkin et al., 2013).
Youth, regardless of gender, will begin to look to the peer group as a source of emotional
intimacy as the home and family becomes less central to their social needs (Berndt & Murphy,
1982; Buhrmester, 1990; Bukowski, et al., 1996; Rubin et al., 2008; Shulman et al., 1997;
Vijayakumar & Pfeifer, 2020). However, girls’ problem-talk dynamics may take on a greater
emotional valence than boys’, and girls whose friendships are not characterized by normative
levels of emotional closeness and engagement may be at greater risk for depressive
symptomatology (Berndt, 1982; Frankel, 1990; Selfhout et al., 2009; Rose et al., 2014, 2016).
Based on these established findings, the second hypothesis is that a) gender will moderate the
relation between social preference of both types of problem-talk partners and depressive
symptomatology, with the effect stronger for girls than boys.

14
Chapter 1: Method
This investigation was part of an existing two-year longitudinal study of adolescents’
psychosocial adjustment conducted at a Los Angeles area high school. Two data collections were
carried out one year apart. The present study assessed several facets of adolescents’ psychosocial
adjustment, including depressive symptoms, self-report measures of social status variables (e.g.,
popularity, unpopularity, liking, disliking), as well as peer nomination inventories in which focal
students nominated same-grade peers as coping partners.
Participants
A total of N = 414 ninth grade students returned parental consent to participate in the
study. The longitudinal sample included n = 264 students, with attrition mostly attributable to
survey scheduling issues. A small number of attrited students (n = 33) transferred to another
school prior to data collection. The final T1 sample included N = 414 students (Mage = 14.4
years old, 167 boys, 209 girls, 38 another gender), and the final T2 sample included N = 262
students. The self-reported racial/ethnic background of the sample was 28.8% Latinx, 26.6%
White, 12.7% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.9% African American, .4% American Indian, 25.4%
mixed, and 4.2% not reported. T-tests revealed that participants who completed measures at both
T1 and T2 did not statistically differ from participants who were missing from the T2 sample (ts
< 2.00).
Procedure
After reading instructions to participants, research assistants distributed printed
questionnaire packets to students in the classroom. The assistants stayed in the classroom until
the students were finished to answer any questions. The investigation was conducted according

15
to all ethical guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association and all measures
were approved by the Internal Review Board at the University of Southern California.
Measures
Participant Social Status
In order to assess the social reputations of adolescents in the sample, participants received
one of eight alphabetized lists of 50 randomly selected peers who had also consented to
participate in the study. Names did not appear on more than one out of the eight lists.
Participants were then asked to nominate peers who met four descriptive statements: “students
that you really like,” “students that you don’t like that much, “students that are popular,” and
“students that are UNpopular (these are students who are NOT popular).” We then calculated
the sums of nominations received, standardized within list.
Social Preference
We generated participants’ social preference score by subtracting a participant’s disliked
score from their liked score (Coie et al., 1982; Cillessen & Marks, 2011). Social preference
scores were then standardized within list.
Popularity
We generated participants’ popularity score by subtracting a participant’s unpopularity
score from their popularity score (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Cillessen & Marks, 2011).
Popularity scores were then standardized within list.
Identifying Friends and Problem-Talk Partners
Peer nomination inventories were used to identify subtypes of problem-talk partners:
emotion-focused and solution-focused. Students received full lists of all peers in their grade that
consented to participate in the study. Both lists were identical, and participants were able to

16
nominate the same peer for either or both categories. First, participants were asked to nominate
peers according to the following prompt: “When we talk about a problem, we talk about how bad
the person with the problem feels.” This item was intended to prompt participants to nominate
peers who were emotionally supportive. A subsequent nomination inventory asked participants
to nominate peers for the following prompt: “When we talk about a problem that one of us has,
we try to come up with a plan to fix the problem.” This item was intended to identify peers who
provide solutions. Participants were also asked to nominate “students who you consider good
friends. These are students who are your really close friends” from the full list of consenting
peers in their grade.
We computed a Jaccard Index (Jaccard, 1912) to assess the statistical overlap between
peers nominated as both emotion-focused and solution-focused problem-talk partners. The
Jaccard Index, ��(�, �) = |"∩$|
|"∪$|
, divides the number of elements in both sets (the
“intersection”) by the total count of unique elements in both sets combined (the “union”),
yielding a similarity coefficient from 0.0 - 1.0 that can be used to judge the commonalities
between two groups (Jaccard, 1912; Loh & Sheng, 2014). A similarity coefficient of 0.0
indicates no similarity between groups, and a coefficient of 1.0 indicates perfect overlap between
groups (Jaccard, 1912; Loh & Sheng, 2014).
First, two long-format lists of study IDs were generated of all participants nominated as
emotion-focused and solution-focused problem-talk partners. Once a participant’s ID appeared in
the list, it could not appear again, resulting in two vectors of study IDs for each problem-talk
category with no duplicated IDs. Lastly, the intersection of both study ID lists was divided by the
union of both study ID lists. The Jaccard similarity coefficient was found to be 0.86, which

17
indicated that 86% of the peers nominated for either category of problem-talk were common to
both categories.
Social Attributes of Problem-Talk Partners
For each focal participant, mean social preference and popularity scores of their problemtalk partners were calculated separately by summing the social experience scores of each
nominee, and dividing this sum by the total number of peers that the focal participant nominated
as a problem-talk partner. This process was carried out separately for each category of problemtalk, resulting in mean social preference and popularity scores for the focal participants’
emotion-focused and solution-focused problem-talk partners, respectively. This procedure was
also repeated to calculate mean social preference and popularity for peers nominated as friends
by the focal participant.
Depressive Symptomatology
Participants completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985), a 26-
item scale assessing depressive symptomatology. A single item addressing suicidality was
excluded from the instrument. Items consisted of three statements that increase in severity and
are scored from 0 to 2, with 2 indicating the greatest symptom severity for all items. Participants
were asked to circle one statement in each set of three that they felt best represented their
feelings. The mean CDI score was calculated at both T1 (α =.88) and T2 (α = .89). As depressive
symptoms tend to be stable over periods of time as short-term as this study, depression scores at
T1 were included in the model as a covariate (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; NolenHoeksema & Hilt, 2013).

18
Chapter 2: Results
Univariate and Bivariate Analyses
Means and standard deviations for all study variables for the full sample, as well as by
gender, can be found in Table 1. The Shapiro-Wilk test was conducted for all study variables to
test for normality. None of the study variables were normally distributed, therefore Levene’s test
was chosen to examine equality of variance for all study variables between boys and girls.
Variances were unequal across groups for all study variables, thus the Welch-Satterthwaite t-test
was used to compare variables. Welch-Satterthwaite t-tests demonstrated that both waves of CDI
scores were statistically different between boys and girls. No significant difference between any
other study variable was found between groups.
Pearson Product-Moment correlation with α = .05 level of significance was chosen to
assess bivariate correlations between all study variables of interest. Bivariate correlations for all
study variables are located in Table 2. Consistent with study expectations, the mean social
preference score of emotion-focused problem-talk partners was negatively associated with
depression scores at both T1 and T2. Depression scores at T1 and T2 were positively correlated,
which was also expected, given the highly stable nature of the construct (Nolen-Hoeksema &
Girgus, 1994; Nolen-Hoeksema & Hilt, 2013).
Effects of Problem-Talk Partners’ Social Attributes
All study variables were entered in a stepwise hierarchical multiple regression analysis to
specify all possible two-way interactions, according to procedures outlined by Aiken & West
(1991). Two separate models were computed for emotion-focused and solution-focused problemtalk partners, with both models containing the mean social preference and popularity scores of
partners and focal adolescent’s gender. Focal adolescents’ T1 CDI score was included in both

19
models as a covariate, and the outcome construct for both models was focal adolescents’ T2 CDI
score. During the first step, we entered the main effects of T1 CDI, gender, and partners’ social
preference and popularity into the model. For the second step, we entered the two-way
interactions for gender by partners’ social preference, gender by partners’ popularity, and
partners’ social preference by partners’ popularity. The steps of the hierarchical multiple
regression analysis were entered sequentially, and all variables were entered simultaneously at
each step.
In the emotion-focused problem-talk model, a main effect of partners’ social preference
on T2 CDI score was found. No main effect of popularity among problem-talk partners on T2
CDI score was found. Focal adolescents’ gender was also not found to have a main effect on T2
CDI score. In the solution-focused problem-talk model, neither main effects of social preference
nor popularity on T2 CDI score were found. Similar to the emotion-focused problem-talk model,
no main effect of focal adolescents’ gender on T2 CDI scores was found.
Surprisingly, neither potential main effects nor a potentially moderating effect of gender
were found in either of the problem-talk models, which did not support our hypothesis that a
gender by social preference interaction would be found in both emotion-focused and solutionfocused models. Although no moderating effects of gender were found, a significant two-way
interaction between emotion-focused problem-talk partners’ popularity and social preference
emerged as a result of these analyses (Full Model R2 = .525, F(8, 258) = 37.70, p <.001). As we
did not hypothesize an interaction between social preference and popularity, we are hesitant to
interpret this result. In the absence of theory regarding this interaction, and after calculating the
squared semi-partial correlation coefficient for the interaction term (sr2 = .008, p = .031), we are
concerned that this interaction may be a spurious moderator effect. However, we investigated the

20
potential moderating effect of partners’ popularity on the relation between partners’ social
preference and T2 CDI scores for exploratory purposes.
We decomposed the potential moderating effect of partners’ popularity according to
procedures outlined by Aiken & West (1991). First, we computed one standard deviation above
and below the mean, resulting in low (-1 SD) mean, and high (+1 SD) levels of partners’
popularity scores. Simple slopes analysis revealed that the moderating effect of emotion-focused
partners’ popularity on the relation between partners’ social preference and T2 CDI score was
present when popularity levels were one standard deviation below the mean (-1 SD) or at the
mean level. At low levels of partners’ popularity, partners’ social preference was significantly
negatively related to T2 CDI score (b = -0.13, SE = 0.04, t(7, 259) = -3.18, p = .000). Similarly,
at the mean level of partners’ popularity, partners’ social preference was significantly negatively
related to T2 CDI score (b = -0.08, SE = 0.03, t(7, 259) = -3.01, p = .000). The moderating effect
was not present when partners’ popularity levels were high (b = -0.03, SE = 0.03, t(7, 259) = -
1.15, p = .250). The full results of the exploratory hierarchical regression analyses for emotionfocused and solution-focused problem-talk partners are included in Table 3.
Exploratory Analyses of Friendship
Exploratory analyses were conducted in order to investigate whether the intimacy
theoretically afforded by friendship, rather than problem-talk partnership, contributed to
significant variance in the longitudinal models. We conducted separate multiple regression
analyses with focal adolescents’ T2 CDI score as the outcome variable. For the emotion-focused
problem-talk model, main effects of focal adolescents’ gender, partners’ mean social preference,
and friends’ mean social preference were entered as predictors, with focal adolescents’ T1 CDI
score entered as a covariate. In a separate emotion-focused model, main effects of focal

21
adolescents’ gender, partners’ mean popularity, and friends’ mean popularity were entered as
predictors, with focal adolescents’ T1 CDI score entered as a covariate. These two main effects
models were repeated for the solution-focused partner variables, resulting in four exploratory
multiple regression models. Predictor variables were entered simultaneously in all four models.
These exploratory analyses did not yield significantly different results from those of the
current investigation's models. Mean social preference of emotion-focused problem-talk partners
was linked to a decrease in T2 CDI scores and mean social preference of friends did not account
for significant variance in the model. Neither popularity of emotion-focused partners nor friends
was associated with T2 CDI scores. Finally, none of the predictor variables (partners’ social
preference, partners’ popularity, and gender) accounted for variance in T2 CDI scores in either of
the solution-focused models. Results of these exploratory analyses can be found in Table 4.

22
Chapter 3: Discussion
The present study sought to understand how social attributes of problem-talk partners
may play a role in adjustment outcomes for adolescents. Though observational paradigms in the
peer relations literature have expanded understanding of the nuances of adolescent problem-talk
(Rose 2014, 2016; Spiekerman & Rose, 2024), the current investigation contributes the novel
finding that the social attributes of problem-talk partners may be linked to changes in
adolescents’ depressive symptomatology.
Emotion-Focused vs. Solution-Focused Problem-Talk
The theoretical rationale for examining two different types of problem-talk, emotionfocused and solution-focused, was predicated on the idea that adolescents may look to different
sets of peers for different types of support, namely emotional and instrumental. Our first
hypothesis that social preference of problem-talk partners would be linked to a decrease in
depressive symptomatology from T1 to T2 was partially supported. Social preference of partners
was significantly, negatively associated with T2 CDI scores in the emotion-focused model,
suggesting that reductions in adolescents’ internalizing distress may be linked to how well-liked
their emotion-focused problem-talk partners are within the peer group. However, no significant
association between preference and T2 CDI scores was found in the solution-focused model.
Although we cannot determine the differential causal processes that may be at play in the
problem-talk models, one possible explanation is that adolescents may not experience relief from
internalizing struggles as a result of instrumental support from peers. Self-disclosure, a
vulnerable behavior that provides both an opportunity to deepen intimacy and a risk of rejection,
is a common, broad feature of close adolescent relationships (Rose et al., 2014, 2016), whereas
solution-focused problem-talk may be more likely to feature constructive problem-solving that

23
addresses a specific event or disagreement (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Selfhout et al., 2009;
Shulman & Laursen, 2002). Solution-focused problem-talk may prompt concessions, rather than
confessions, between peers (Adams & Laursen, 2001).
Additionally, it is not uncommon for adolescents to maintain some reliance on parents
and caregivers for instrumental support, even as the peer group becomes central to their
socioemotional development (del Valle et al., 2009). As such, adolescents seeking emotionally
supportive peers may be traversing a new interpersonal dynamic that appears and feels different
than the pragmatic advice-giving already present in the home environment. Adolescents may be
undertaking significant social risk in order to make the vulnerable self-disclosures necessary to
seek emotional support from and increase intimacy with peers; choosing a solution-focused
partner for an emotion-focused task may not increase internalizing distress, but it may not
ameliorate it, either.
It is important to note that both emotion-focused and solution-focused problem-talk can
occur within the same dyad (Rose et al., 2014, 2016; Spiekerman & Rose, 2024). The Jaccard
Index of .86 calculated in the present study indicates a strong overlap between peers nominated
for both emotion-focused and solution-focused problem-talk. Although the current investigation
did not directly measure friendship quality between participants and their problem-talk partners,
it may be reasonable to infer that this commonality is attributable to intimacy and closeness
within problem-talk dyads: adolescents may simply prefer to talk to close peers about problems,
regardless of if they are seeking solutions or emotional support.
It is possible that adolescents experiencing depressive symptomatology discuss problems
of a lesser emotional valence with peers they nominated as solution-focused problem-talk
partners. Selfhout et al. (2009) noted that engagement and “balanced relatedness” within peer

24
relationships tend to be associated with more productive, interdependent approaches to resolving
relational conflict. It is not well-known if peers equipped with more developed interpersonal
skills may approach problem-talk in a solution-focused style that fosters improved adjustment
within the dyad, rather than engaging in the dyadic problem-talk process to help a peer wrestle
with depressive symptomatology.
The potential buffering effect of problem-talk with a well-liked peer against depressive
symptomatology suggested by the current investigation warrants further exploration of the
processes by which youth can harness the positive, supportive qualities of problem-talk and
avoid co-ruminative snares. These findings also prompt greater discussion of the fine-grained
differences between the social affordances of popularity and social preference, a better
understanding of which may be used to encourage and cultivate prosocial, supportive
interpersonal dynamics among close peers.
Although co-rumination was not assessed in the present study, there are important
theoretical similarities and distinctions between co-rumination and problem-talk that should be
acknowledged. First and foremost, problem-talk can occur without taking on the repetitive,
cyclical nature that defines co-rumination (Rose et al., 2016). Secondly, although another peer
must be present in order for problem-talk to occur, a partner can offer responses that derail or
deflect an adolescent’s attempt to initiate problem-talk, including changing the subject or
ignoring the peer (Rose et al., 2014; Spiekerman & Rose, 2024). This contrasts with the dyadic
nature of co-rumination, in which partners’ responses (even those of a positive, supportive
nature) tend to elicit further discussion of the problem (Rose et al., 2014; Spiekerman & Rose,
2024).

25
Lastly, although the focal adolescent’s problems at hand may certainly take on an
emotional valence, problem-talk does not necessarily portend a focus on negative themes and
emotions; there is room for variation in both the emotional tone and subject matter present
during problem-talk. Co-rumination is often associated with internalizing symptomatology
(Schwartz-Mette & Rose, 2012), particularly for girls (Rose et al., 2012, 2014, 2016; Spiekerman
& Rose, 2024). The present study found that social preference of emotion-focused, but not
solution-focused, problem-talk partners was linked to a reduction in depressive symptomatology
from T1 to T2. Taken together, there are theoretical grounds to assert that there is heterogeneity
in the outcomes of problem-talk of an emotional valence: although a repetitive focus on negative
emotional themes may have troubling consequences for adolescents, talking about emotions with
peers may also help some adolescents feel better over time.
Social Attributes of Problem-Talk Partners
As expected, popularity of problem-talk partners was not linked to changes in depressive
symptomatology in either model. Although popularity and social preference are often found to be
positively correlated (Cillessen & Marks, 2011; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006), we cannot be
sure that all popular adolescents are also well-liked by their peers (Bukowski, 2011; Sandstrom
& Cillessen, 2006). Peer nomination-based measures of popularity can certainly bring to light
those adolescents who are highly visible within their peer group. However, we cannot make
strong inferences about popular peers’ interpersonal skills and prosocial attributes simply by
knowing that they are highly visible, nor can we glean a strong sense of the popular adolescent’s
social relationship with the peers who nominated them for the role (Bukowski, 2011; Cillessen &
Rose, 2005). In other words, we do not know if popular adolescents provide their proximal peers
with emotional support, avenues for self-disclosure, or opportunities for increased intimacy

26
unless we measure these constructs and their correlates separately (Bukowski, 2011; Cillessen &
Marks, 2011; Cillessen & Rose, 2005). We may, however, be reasonable in our expectations that
popular adolescents are more skilled at enacting a broader influence on the peer group at large,
rather than attending to peers’ individual self-disclosures that may not have a strong bearing on
peer group functioning.
Complementary findings regarding the implications of the social experiences and
attributes of adolescents’ close peer relationships have been reported in the victimization
literature. Cuadros & Berger (2016) found that friendship quality was found to moderate the
relation between victimization and adolescent wellbeing, such that victimized adolescents in
close peer relationships characterized by emotional support and self-disclosure endorsed greater
wellbeing than adolescents with poorer friendship quality. Similarly, Schwartz et al. (2023)
found that victimized adolescents experienced an increase in depressive symptomatology only if
they engaged in problem-talk with other victimized adolescents; victimization was not positively
associated with depression when youth discussed problems with non-victimized peers,
suggesting that social experiences of problem-talk partners may color dyadic interactions and
subsequent outcomes (Schwartz et al., 2023).
Conversely, it is possible that popular peers lack those same social skills or respond
aggressively or dismissively to their peers’ vulnerable self–disclosures (Bukowski et al., 2011;
Pellegrini et al., 2011; Rose et al., 2014, 2016). Popular adolescents who ascend to the role of
group figurehead may possess leadership skills that, while beneficial to group goals (Bukowski,
2011), may not be helpful to a struggling peer. Setting and enforcing standards associated with
popular group norms may be behaviors oriented toward group-level change, whereas providing

27
emotional support and opportunities for self-disclosure may instead be focused on aiding in
individual peers’ adjustment or cultivating dyadic-level harmony.
In summary, these findings suggest that social attributes of problem-talk partners and
dyadic exchanges during problem-talk sessions warrant concurrent investigation. Although the
present study found that problem-talk partners’ social attributes and reputations may play a role
in adolescents’ psychosocial adjustment, we do not have insight into how this process works.
One idea is that well-liked adolescents can engage with their peers in emotionally supportive or
validating ways that buffer them against the self-reinforcing nature of depressive symptoms
(Aikens & Litwack, 2011; Coyne, 1976), and it may also be possible that well-liked problem-talk
partners with a high level of interpersonal competence can model behavioral correlates of
healthy emotional adjustment to struggling peers.
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study contributed new insights into how the social attributes of problem-talk
partners may influence adolescents’ adjustment outcomes, particularly for those adolescents who
report depressive symptomatology. However, there are several important limitations of the
current investigation that prompt discussion and consideration in future peer relations research.
Gender
One limitation of this study is how gender was assessed. Participants were essentially
presented with a proxy for biological sex, a dichotomous “gender” item of “male” or “female,”
which did not allow for nonbinary, transgender, or other gender non-conforming youth to
accurately report their gender. Approximately N = 42 participants in the full sample did not
provide an answer to this item. This indicates the need for a different approach to assessing
gender to prevent missing data.

28
On a related note, the relations between depressive symptomatology, problem-talk styles,
and social attributes were not assessed separately for same- and mixed-gender dyads. In addition
to the extant findings that girls may place greater emphasis on emotional support, social
relations, and self-disclosure (Berndt, 1982; Frankel, 1990), some researchers have found that
girls are more likely to engage in problem-talk with same-sex peers, whereas boys are more
likely to nominate cross-sex peers as problem-talk partners (Barstead et al., 2013; Consedine, et
al,. 2007; Dolgin et al., 1991). It is possible that nuance in the differential outcomes of problemtalk styles is not fully captured without comparing same- and mixed- gender dyads. Further
research may benefit from a closer look at how same- and mixed-gender problem-talk
partnerships may have differential consequences for adolescents’ adjustment outcomes.
Furthermore, nonbinary or other gender nonconforming adolescents’ approaches to
problem-talk are not well studied nor understood. The dichotomous gender item employed in the
present study does not allow for nuanced interpretations of how these adolescents’ gender
expressions may influence some aspects of the problem-talk dynamic, including how support is
given or withheld, and how these interpersonal behaviors may align with or deviate from gendernormative problem-talk styles. Additionally, a dichotomous measure does not clarify whether
peers perceive those behaviors as normative.
Although perhaps not a perfect measure for non-binary or gender non-conforming youth,
Gulgoz et al. (2022) proposed a well-validated and highly consistent continuous measure of
gender for youth. This single item prompted children to place an “X” on a slider line between
boy and girl to indicate the extent to which they felt like a boy or girl. When used in tandem with
a measure of biological sex, this type of measurement approach may progress the adolescent
literature towards greater accuracy in the measurement of complex social constructs like gender.

29
Furthermore, this type of measure can shed light on how differences between biological sex,
gender identity, and expected gender-normative behavior may have differential bearings on
problem-talk outcomes. Finally, considering the wealth of gender differences in the peer
relations literature (especially those related to salient features of adolescent problem-talk and
whether or not adolescents view self-disclosure as a valuable use of time, see Rose et al., 2012),
perhaps a more nuanced approach to measuring gender can provide greater insight into
adolescents whose interpersonal dynamics differ from normative expectations.
Cultural Context
The potential influences of cultural context, SES, and racial/ethnic norms on adolescent
problem-talk were not explored in the present study. Benner et al. (2017) emphasized that the
social transitions associated with adolescence should be investigated with cross-cultural and
demographic lenses, because sources and types of support may not be identical across these
variables. The authors found that, in a majority low-income Latinx sample, boys were more
likely to experience an increase in depressive symptomatology during the transition from middle
to high school (Benner et al., 2017).
The findings in Benner et al. (2017) are notable in that, generally speaking, extant
research reports that girls endorse greater adjustment difficulties during the changes associated
with adolescence than boys (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; Nolen-Hoeksema & Hilt, 2013;
Mojtabai et al., 2016; Prinstein, 2007) – and that parents and caregivers tend to anticipate these
struggles for girls (Benner et al., 2017). Furthermore, Benner et al. (2017) found that immigrant
versus native-born status had further implications for adolescents’ adjustment as they navigated
the transition to the high school peer group, with immigrant youth experiencing less adjustment
difficulties than native-born adolescents. These findings prompt greater exploration of how

30
demographic variables may augment expected group norms and to whom youth look for support
during transition.
Multidimensional Social Attribute Scores
The composite social preference score adopted in the present study considers the
multidimensional nature of how well-liked a student is in their peer group. For example, the
same adolescent may be well-liked by several peers at school but disliked by another set of peers
for reasons that do not relate to that child’s social power in the peer group (Cillessen & Marks,
2011). This composite score is consistent with the sociometrics favored by the extant peer
relationships research (Coie et al., 1982; Cillessen & Marks, 2011).
The widely used social preference score of “acceptance” minus “rejection” (Coie et al.,
1982) is theoretically robust, because the same adolescent could be liked or disliked by different
youth within the same peer group based on stereotypical tropes, such as “nerds” or “jocks.”
However, if popularity reflects social visibility and power, it is reasonable to infer that a popular
youth’s social power and influence could mildly fluctuate, but it may be unlikely that same
adolescent would be nominated as both unpopular and popular during a single wave of data
collection. Further explorations of the construction of popularity may benefit from further
inclusion of both composite constructs to establish a consistent history of correlations between
the two (Cillessen & Marks, 2011).
Types of Problem-Talk
Although some adolescents in the present study nominated different peers as emotionfocused and solution-focused problem-talk partners, the Jaccard Index of .86 indicates a high
degree of similarity between the two groups (Jaccard, 1912; Loh & Sheng, 2014). We provided
theoretical rationale in the present study that emotion-focused and solution-focused problem-talk

31
may elicit different reactions among peers based on varying social, emotional, and instrumental
needs (Berndt, 1982; Buhrmester, 1990; Rose et al., 2014, 2016; Selfhout et al., 2009;
Spiekerman & Rose, 2024). However, the high degree of overlap between peers nominated for
these categories suggests that, at least for the present sample, peers may not be differentiating so
strongly between categories that stratification across problem-talk types is statistically warranted.
It is possible that, given future replication of a high similarity coefficient among peers
nominated for distinct categories of problem-talk partners, further adolescent research may
benefit from collapsing these types into one larger problem-talk category for streamlining of
statistical analyses. It is important to note, however, that not much is known about if or how
youth stratify peers into different problem-talk partnerships. Extant problem-talk research
demonstrates that many different types of utterances and responses constituting emotional and
instrumental support may take place during the same discussion (Rose et al., 2014; Spiekerman
& Rose, 2024). Furthermore, it is not well-known if intentional stratification of partners reflects
a developmental process through which adolescents learn to lean on different peers for varying
purposes, (i.e., emotional versus instrumental support) based on their own needs, peers’
attributes, or subsequent adjustment outcomes. Care should be taken to ensure that nuances in
peer attributes and nomination categories are preserved during the measurement process to
construct valid groups for post-hoc comparisons.

32
Conclusion
Cultivating interpersonal closeness with peers is a salient concern of adolescence (Berndt,
1982; Buhrmester, 1990), and depressed peers who initiate problem-talk may be making bids for
emotional support rather than looking for input on how to solve an acute problem. Furthermore,
the findings in the present study suggest that comparing the social competencies and goals of
preferred and popular adolescents is a worthy challenge in the pursuit of understanding
differential outcomes of adolescent problem-talk. Overall, these findings broadly support the
idea that the social attributes of adolescents’ chosen problem-talk partners may influence their
psychosocial adjustment. Further research is needed to investigate potential mediating pathways
between problem-talk partners’ attributes and adjustment outcomes. Future studies should
incorporate greater nuance and dimensionality to the study of adolescent problem-talk such that
the links between interpersonal skills, social attributes and reputations, and outcomes of
problem-talk can come into clearer focus.

33
References
Abrahami, A., Selman, R. L., & Stone, C. (1981). A developmental assessment of children’s
verbal strategies for social action resolution. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 2(2), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(81)90035-6
Aikins, J. W. & Litwack, S.D. (2011). Prosocial skills, social competence, and popularity. In.
Cillessen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (Eds., pp. 3-24). (2011). Popularity in
the peer system. The Guilford Press.
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:
Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology (1965), 87(1), 49–74.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49
Adams, R., & Laursen, B. (2001). The organization and dynamics of adolescent conflict with
parents and friends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 97–110.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00097.x
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Sage Publications, Inc.
Bagwell, C. L., & Schmidt, M. E. (2011). Friendships in childhood and adolescence. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Barstead, M. G., Bouchard, L. C., & Shih, J. H. (2013). Understanding gender differences in corumination and confidant choice in young adults. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 32(7), 791-808. doi:101521jscp2013327791.
Beck ,A. T. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York: Int. Univ Press; 1976.
Becker, B., & Luthar, S., S. (2007) Peer-perceived admiration and social preference: Contextual
correlates of positive peer regard among suburban and urban adolescents. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 17, 117-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2007.00514.x
Benner, A. D., Boyle, A. E., & Bakhtiari, F. (2017). Understanding students’ transition to high
school: Demographic variation and the role of supportive relationships. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 46(10), 2129-2142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0716-2
Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child
Development, 53(6), 1447–1460. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130071
Bowker, J. C., & Weingarten, J. (2022). Temporal approaches to the study of friendship:
Understanding the developmental significance of friendship change during childhood and
adolescence. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 63, 249–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2022.04.005

34
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during
preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61(4), 1101–1111.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1130878
Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., & Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep:
Friendship in childhood and adolescence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bukowski, W. M. (2011). Popularity as a social concept: Meanings and significance. In.
Cillessen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (Eds., pp. 3-24). (2011). Popularity in
the peer system. The Guilford Press.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2005.00343.x
Cillessen, A. H. N. & Marks, P. E. L. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In.
Cillessen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (Eds., pp. 25-56). (2011). Popularity in
the peer system. The Guilford Press.
Cillessen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (Eds.). (2011). Popularity in the peer system.
The Guilford Press.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A
cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-
570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557
Collins, B., & Raven, B. (1968). Group structure: Attraction, coalitions, communication, and
power. In G. Indzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 4, pp. 102-204). New York: McGraw Hill.
Consedine, N. S., Sabag-Cohen, S., & Krivoshekova, Y. S. (2007). Ethnic, gender, and
socioeconomic differences in young adults’ self-disclosure: Who discloses what and to
whom? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(3), 254-263. doi:
10.1037/1099-9809.13.3.254
Coyne, J.C. (1976) Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 28-40. doi:
10.1080/00332747.1976.11023874.
Cuadros, O., & Berger, C. (2016). The protective role of friendship quality on the wellbeing of
adolescents victimized by peers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(9), 1877–1888.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0504-4
del Valle, J. F., Bravo, A., & López, M. (2009). Parents and peers as providers of support in
adolescents’ social network: A developmental perspective. Journal of Community
Psychology, 38(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20348

35
Dijkstra, J. K., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Borch, C. (2013). Popularity and adolescent friendship
networks: Selection and influence dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 49(7), 1242–
1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030098
Dolgin, K. G., Meyer, L., & Schwartz, J. (1991). Effects of gender, target’s gender, topic, and
self-esteem on disclosure to best and midling friends. Sex Roles, 25(5–6), 311–329.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289759
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1986). Stress processes and depressive symptomatology. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 95(2), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.95.2.107
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54(3), 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.466
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health
status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50(3), 571–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.571
Frankel, K. A. (1990). Girls’ perceptions of peer relationship support and stress. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 10(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431690101005
Gulgoz, S., Edwards, D., & Olson, K. R. (2022) Between a boy and a girl: Measuring gender
identity on a continuum. Social Development, 31, 916-929.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12587
Helsen, M., Vollebergh, W., & Meeus, W. (2000). Social support from parents and friends and
emotional problems in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(3), 319–335.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005147708827
Huang, Y., Bullock, A., Liu, J., Wang, Z., Xu, G., & Sang, B. (2022). Co-rumination with
friends exacerbates association between peer victimization and adjustment in
adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 80, 101410-.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101410
Jaccard, P. (1912). The distribution of flora in the alpine zone. New Phytologist,11, 37-50.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x
Klima, T., & Repetti, R. L. (2008). Children’s peer relations and their psychological adjustment:
Differences between close friendships and the larger peer group. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly Journal of Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 151–178.
https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2008.0016
Kovacs, M. (1985). The children’s depression inventory. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995-
998.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of
perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development (Oxford,
England), 19(1), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00522.x

36
Laursen, B., & Veenstra, R. (2021). Toward understanding the functions of peer influence: A
summary and synthesis of recent empirical research. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 31(4), 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12606
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 415-469). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Loh, C. S., & Sheng, Y. (2014). Maximum similarity index (MSI): A metric to differentiate the
performance of novices vs. multiple-experts in serious games. Computers in Human
Behavior, 39, 322-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.022
Mayeux, L., Houser, J. J., & Dyches, K. D. (2011). Social acceptance and popularity: Two
distinct forms of peer status. In. Cillessen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (Eds.,
pp. 25-56). (2011). Popularity in the peer system. The Guilford Press.
Merikangas, K. R., Nakamura, E. F., & Kessler, R. C. (2009). Epidemiology of mental disorders
in children and adolescents. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 11(1), 7–20.
https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2009.11.1/krmerikangas
Mojtabai, R., Olfson, M., & Han, B. (2016). National trends in the prevalence and treatment of
depression in adolescents and young adults. Pediatrics, 138(6), e20161878.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1878
Niu, L., Jin, S., Li, L., & French, D. C. (2016). Popularity and social preference in Chinese
adolescents: Associations with social and behavioral adjustment. Social Development
(Oxford, England), 25(4), 828–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12172
Nilsen, W., Karevold, E., Røysamb, E., Gustavson, K., & Mathiesen, K. S. (2013). Social skills
and depressive symptoms across adolescence: Social support as a mediator in girls versus
boys. Journal of Adolescence, 36(1), 11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.08.005
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Hilt, L. M. (2013). Handbook of Depression in Adolescents (1st ed.).
Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809518
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression
during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 424-443.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.424
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity:
Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18(2), 125–
144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018002001
Pellegrini, A. D., Roseth, C. J., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Solberg, D. W. (2011). Popularity as a form
of social dominance: An evolutionary perspective. In. Cillessen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D.,
& Mayeux, L. (Eds., pp. 123-139). (2011). Popularity in the peer system. The Guilford
Press.

37
Prinstein, M. J. & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression
associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310-
342. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0015
Prinstein, M. J. (2007). Moderators of peer contagion: A longitudinal examination of depression
socialization between adolescents and their best friends. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 36(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701274934
Rodkin, P. C., Ryan, A. M., Jamison, R., & Wilson, T. (2013). Social goals, social behavior, and
social status in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1139–1150.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029389
Roisman, G. I., Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). Salient and emerging
developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development, 75(1), 123-133.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00658.x
Rose, A. J. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 73(6),
1830-1843. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00509
Rose, A. J. (2021). The costs and benefits of co‐rumination. Child Development Perspectives,
15(3), 176-181. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12419
Rose, A. J., Glick, G. C., Smith, R. L., Schwartz-Mette, R., & Borowski, S. K. (2017). Corumination exacerbates stress generation among adolescents with depressive symptoms.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(5), 985-995.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0205-1
Rose, A. J., Schwartz-Mette, R. A., Glick, G. C., Smith, R. L., & Luebbe, A. M. (2014). An
observational study of co-rumination in adolescent friendships. Developmental
Psychology, 50(9), 2199-2209. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037465
Rose, A. J., Schwartz-Mette, R. A., Smith, R. L., Asher, S. R., Swenson, L. P., Carlson, W., &
Waller, E. M. (2012). How girls and boys expect disclosure about problems will make
them feel: Implications for friendships. Child Development, 83(3), 844–863.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01734.x.
Rose, A. J., Smith, R. L., Glick, G. C., & Schwartz-Mette, R. (2016). Girls’ and boys’ problem
talk: Implications for emotional closeness in friendships. Developmental Psychology,
52(4), 629-639. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000096
Rubin, K., Fredstrom, B., & Bowker, J. (2008). Future directions in…friendship in childhood
and early adolescence. Social Development, 17(4), 1085–1096.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00445.x
Rudolph, K. D. (2009). The interpersonal context of adolescent depression. In S. NolenHoeksema & L. M. Hilt (Eds.), Handbook of depression in adolescents (pp. 377–418).
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

38
Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications
for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 305-
314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406072789
Schwartz, D., Ryjova, Y., Luo, T., Malamut, S. T., Zhang, M., Taylor, L. M., Omary, A. (2023).
Social adjustment of problem-talk partners moderates associations between selfperceived victimization and depressive symptoms. Research on Child and Adolescent
Psychopathology, 51(3), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-022-00992-4
Schwartz-Mette, R. A., & Rose, A. J. (2012). Co-rumination mediates contagion of internalizing
symptoms within youths' friendships. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1355–1365.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027484
Selfhout, M. H., Branje, S. J., & Meeus, W. H. (2009). Developmental trajectories of perceived
friendship intimacy, constructive problem solving, and depression from early to late
adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(2), 251–264.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9273-1
Shin, H. (2017). Friendship dynamics of adolescent aggression, prosocial behavior, and social
status: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(11), 2305–
2320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0702-8
Shulman, S., & Laursen, B. (2002). Adolescent perceptions of conflict in interdependent and
disengaged friendships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(3), 353–372.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00037
Shulman, S., Laursen, B., Kalman, Z., & Karpovsky, S. (1997). Adolescent intimacy revisited.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(5), 597-617.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024586006966
Spiekerman, A. M., & Rose, A. J. (2024). Associations between adolescent friends’ responses
during problem talk and depressive symptoms. Developmental Psychology, 60(4), 778–
790. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001685
Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83
Twenge, J. M., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2002). Age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and
birth cohort differences on the children’s depression inventory: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology (1965), 111(4), 578–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
843X.111.4.578
Vijayakumar, N., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2020). Self-disclosure during adolescence: Exploring the
means, targets, and types of personal exchanges. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31,
135-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.005

39
von Salisch, M., Zeman, J., Luepschen, N., & Kanevski, R. (2014). Prospective relations
between adolescents’ social-emotional competencies and their friendships. Social
Development, 23(4), 684–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12064
Waldrip, A. M., Malcolm, K. T., & Jensen-Campbell, L. A. (2008). With a little help from your
friends: The importance of high-quality friendships on early adolescent adjustment.
Social Development, 17(4), 832–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00476.x

40
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables
Note. Welch-Satterthwaite t-test was used due to unequal variances across groups.
Full sample Boys Girls
Variable M SD M SD M SD t p
1. T1 popularity of emotionfocused partners
.16 .72 .14 .67 .19 .81 -0.74 .460
2. T1 popularity of solutionfocused partners
.15 .78 .15 .78 .18 .84 -0.38 .701
3. T1 popularity of friends .20 .67 .17 .69 .25 .71 -1.08 .281
4. T1 social preference of
emotion-focused partners
.08 .54 .05 .56 .10 .56 -0.92 .358
5. T1 social preference of
solution-focused partners
.11 .61 .10 .69 .13 .59 -0.55 .583
6. T1 social preference of
friends
.20 .38 .17 .38 .25 .40 -1.93 .054
5. T1 CDI .40 .30 .31 .26 .46 .32 -4.87 .000
6. T2 CDI .41 .30 .35 .24 .47 .33 -3.51 .001

41
Table 2: Correlations Among All Study Variables
Note. *
p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. T1 popularity of
emotion-focused
partners
1.00 .71*** .69** .08 .06 .24*** -.07 -.07 -.04
2. T1 popularity of
solution-focused
partners
-- 1.00 .82*** .03 .06 .22*** -.07 -.09 -.05
3. T1 popularity of
friends
-- -- 1.00 .07 .06 .36*** -.09 -.09 -.07
4. T1 social preference
of emotion-focused
partners
-- -- -- 1.00 .53*** .41*** -.14** -.20*** -.01
5. T1 social preference
of solution-focused
partners
-- -- -- -- 1.00 .53*** -.16** -.16** -.01
6. T1 social preference
of friends
-- -- -- -- -- 1.00 -.16** -.12* -.11*
7. T1 CDI -- -- -- -- -- 1.00 .72*** -.01
8. T2 CDI -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.00 -.07
9. Gender -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.00

42
Table 3: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Social Attributes of Problem-Talk
Partners and T2 Depressive Symptomatology
Emotion-Focused
Problem-Talk
Step
Effects Added to
Model B SE B sr2 p
1 T1 CDI 0.75 0.05 0.70 0.48 .000
Gender 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 .857
Partners’ social
preference -0.06 0.02 -0.11 0.01 .017
Partners’ popularity -0.01 0.02 -0.03 0.00 .476
Main Effects Model R2 = 0.52, F(4, 262) = 73.34, p < .000
2 Gender x partners’
social preference 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 .675
Gender x partners’
popularity 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 .872
Partners’ social
preference x partners’
popularity 0.06 0.03 0.11 0.01 .031
Full Model R2 = 0.52, F(7, 259) = 42.94, p < .000
Solution-Focused
Problem-Talk
Step
Effects Added to
Model B SE B sr2 p
1 T1 CDI 0.75 0.05 0.71 0.49 .000
Gender 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 .795
Partners’ social
preference -0.04 0.02 -0.07 0.00 .112
Partners’ popularity -0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.00 .522
Main Effects Model R2 = 0.51, F(4, 262) = 71.46, p < .000
2 Gender x partners’
social preference 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 .440
Gender x partners’
popularity 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 .890
Partners’ social
preference x partners’
popularity 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 .496
Full Model R2 = 0.51, F(7, 259) = 40.69, p < .000
Note. All variables were entered simultaneously. Sr2 is the squared semi-partial correlation coefficient.

43
Table 4: Exploratory Multiple Regression Analyses of Social Preference and Popularity of
Friends vs. Problem-Talk Partners
Emotion-Focused Problem-Talk
Effect B SE B sr2 p
T1 CDI 0.75 0.05 0.70 0.48 .000
Gender 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 .836
Mean Social Preference of
Friends 0.00 0.04 -0.00 0.00 .961
Mean Social Preference of
Emotion-Focused Partners -0.06 0.03 -0.11 0.01 .022
Full Model R2 = 0.52, F(4, 262) = 73.07, p < .000
Effect B SE B sr2 p
T1 CDI 0.77 0.05 0.72 0.50 .000
Gender 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00 .701
Mean Popularity of Friends 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 .618
Mean Popularity of EmotionFocused Partners -0.03 0.02 -0.07 0.00 .251
Full Model R2 = 0.51, F(4, 262) = 70.47, p < .000
Solution-Focused Problem-Talk
Effect B SE B sr2 p
T1 CDI 0.76 0.05 0.71 0.49 .000
Gender 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 .805
Mean Social Preference of
Friends -0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.00 .800
Mean Social Preference of
Solution-Focused Partners -0.03 0.03 -0.07 0.00 .177
Full Model R2 = 0.51, F(4, 262) = 71.28, p < .000
Effect B SE B sr2 p
T1 CDI 0.77 0.05 0.72 0.50 .000
Gender 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00 .640
Mean Popularity of Friends 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.00 .556
Mean Popularity of SolutionFocused Partners -0.03 0.03 -0.08 0.00 .311
Full Model R2 = 0.51, F(4, 262) = 70.32, p < .000

Asset Metadata

Creator Taylor, Leslie Marie (author)

Core Title Social attributes of adolescents’ problem-talk partners predict changes in depression

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Psychology

Degree Conferral Date 2024-12

Publication Date 11/06/2024

Defense Date 11/05/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adolescence,depression,OAI-PMH Harvest,peer relationships,popularity,problem-talk,social preference

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Advisor Schwartz, David (committee chair), Beam, Christopher (committee member), Moll, Henrike (committee member)

Creator Email lmtaylor@usc.edu,theleslietaylor@gmail.com

Unique identifier UC11399DBD1

Identifier etd-TaylorLesl-13616.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-TaylorLesl-13616

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Taylor, Leslie Marie

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20241108-usctheses-batch-1221 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The current investigation explores the role of problem-talk partners’ social status in the link between problem-talk and adjustment outcomes for youth reporting depressive symptomology. Two hundred sixty-seven adolescents (Mage = 14.4 years old, 152 girls) completed a short-term prospective study consisting of two waves of data collected one year apart. Adolescents completed self-report questionnaires measuring depressive symptomatology (CDI). Participants nominated peers as emotion-focused or solution-focused problem-talk partners, and also nominated peers for an array of social variables, including social preference and popularity. Social preference of emotion-focused problem-talk partners was associated with a decrease in CDI score from T1 to T2. Popularity of emotion-focused problem-talk partners was not associated with change in depressive symptomatology. Main effects for gender were not found, nor was gender found to moderate the relation between emotion-focused problem-talk and depressive symptomatology. These results shed light on how adolescents may decide on peers with whom they can discuss their troubles and challenges. Furthermore, these findings prompt additional exploration of the roles of popularity and social preference in problem-talk partnerships.