Implicit Theories of Friendships:

Examining the Roles of Growth and Destiny Beliefs in Children’s Friendships

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

BY

Sara Gayle Kempner

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

W. Andrew Collins, Ph.D., Nicki R. Crick, Ph.D.

August 2008

© Sara Gayle Kempner 2008

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisors, Andy Collins and Nicki Crick. Andy, thank you for being a mentor and advisor to me and supporting the development of my interests. Your continuing dedication to my education means so much to me. Nicki, you welcomed me into your lab and allowed me to broaden my research experiences. I am grateful for your nurturance and support.

I would like to thank my committee members Richard Weinberg and Jeffry Simpson. Rich, you have been a great supporter of all my interests in graduate school. Jeff, it was in your close relationships seminar where the ideas for this project first emerged. Thank you for being a part of this project.

I owe a great deal of gratitude to the schools, teachers, and children who participated in this study and shared their thoughts with me. Especially one child who asked me how I was going to use their answers to get a Ph.D. After explaining that I would put their answers into a computer, analyze it, and write a paper the child remarked, “Well that sounds pretty easy!”

I would like to thank all the undergraduates who helped collect and enter data. Rachel Kruzel, I do not think I could have done all of this without your enthusiasm and support for this project.

I would also like to thank my family who has supported me wholeheartedly through all of my pursuits. Mom and Dad, you have always expected the best from me and done everything you could to make sure I achieved it. I am very lucky to have a wonderful family who is interested in and supportive of my interests. You have been there when I needed you and reminded me that I could do this.

Last, but certainly not least, I could not have written this dissertation without my own friends. To my friends who have been supporting me since applying to graduate school seemed like the biggest challenge, you helped make this possible. I am proud and lucky to call you my friends. To the friends that I made in graduate school, your wisdom and support over these years has been invaluable. I am proud to call you my colleagues and friends.

i

Abstract

Individuals formulate implicit theories about the nature of friendships, which influence their motivations and behaviors in friendships. In the present study, a measure of implicit theories of

friendship was developed and tested in a sample of 166 sixth grade children. Children also

completed measures assessing the importance of friendship qualities as well as specific

behaviors in their friendships with their best friends. Results of the study validated the measure

of implicit theories of friendship and showed that growth beliefs were positively related to

intimacy, conflict resolution and validation and caring in children’s friendships. Destiny beliefs

were not directly related to features of children’s friendships. Gender, satisfaction in the

friendship, and the length of the friendship moderated the relation between implicit theories of

friendship and the importance of friendship qualities and behaviors in the friendship.

Implications of the findings as well as developmental considerations are discussed. Future

directions for the study of implicit theories of friendship are presented.

ii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements...... i

Abstract...... ii

List of Tables...... v

List of Figures...... vi

Introduction...... 1

The Significance of Friendships...... 1

The Role of Representational Models in Social Behavior...... 3

Implicit Theories...... 6

Gender Differences...... 10

Overview and Hypotheses...... 11

Methods...... 15

Results...... 22

Discussion...... 36

References...... 50

Appendix A...... 58

Appendix B...... 59

Tables...... 60

Figures...... 67

iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics for Scales

Table 2. Factor loadings for Implicit Theories of Friendship Measure.

Table 3. Correlations between growth and destiny theories for validation purposes.

Table 4. Correlations between growth and destiny theories and peer behaviors.

Table 5. Correlations between growth and destiny theories and friendship qualities.

Table 6. Correlations between implicit theories and friendship qualities by gender.

Table 7. Effects of Destiny and Growth scales on Friendship Qualities.

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. The interaction between destiny and growth beliefs predicting children’s ratings of

how upset they would be if there was conflict in their friendship with their best friend.

Figure 2. The two‐way interaction between friendship length and growth beliefs predicting the

value of conflict resolution in the friendship.

Figure 3. The two‐way interaction between friendship length and growth beliefs predicting the

value of validation and caring behaviors in the friendship.

Figure 4. The three‐way interaction between friendship length and growth and destiny beliefs

predicting intimate exchange in the friendship.

Figure 5. The two‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and destiny beliefs predicting

relational aggression in the friendship.

Figure 6. The two‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and destiny beliefs predicting

levels of conflict, both to and from the best friend.

Figure 7. The three‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and growth and destiny

beliefs predicting the importance of conflict resolution in the friendship.

Figure 8. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting relational

aggression in the friendship.

Figure 9. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting intimate

exchange in the friendship.

Figure 10. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting satisfaction

with the friendship.

v

Introduction

Individuals vary in their beliefs and expectations about what a friendship is and how

friends should behave. Social cognitive approaches to interpersonal relationships are replete in

social psychology research, and while developmental psychologists have studied social cognition

with respect to individuals’ functioning, less research has explicitly explored the developmental

linkages between social cognition and friendships. In particular, very little is known regarding

how individuals formulate theories about the nature of friendships and how these theories

influence functioning both in individuals and friendships. One area of research that has focused

on how individuals differ in their conceptualizations of attributes is the study of implicit theories

(Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995a). Much of the work in this field has focused on achievement and

social judgment (Dweck, 2000), but more recently researchers have extended the study of

implicit theories to relationships (Franiuk, Cohen, & Pomerantz, 2002; Knee, 1998; Knee, Patrick,

& Lonsbary, 2003). This research has shown important connections between individual’s implicit

theories of romantic relationships, whether they believe in romantic destiny (destiny beliefs) or

relationships develop over time (growth beliefs), and their goals and behavior in romantic

relationships. The application of implicit theories to the study of friendships can provide

interesting insights into the relation between individual’s theories of friendship and behavior.

The goal of the present research is to examine associations between growth and destiny beliefs

about friendships and behavior and qualities of children’s friendships.

The Significance of Friendships

Theoretical arguments have been made for the developmental significance of

friendships (Buhrmester & Furman, 1986; Sullivan, 1953). Much of the current work on the

1

significance of friendships is grounded in the theoretical explanations of Sullivan (1953). Sullivan

argued that friendships, which emerge during early adolescence, present a unique

developmental context for the development of certain social skills. Up until early adolescence,

Sullivan argued that children’s interpersonal needs are satisfied within the peer context.

However, the adolescence period marks the need for greater intimacy and closeness that can

only be satisfied within friendships. Buhrmester and Furman (1986) expanded on Sullivan’s

original theorizing by highlighting the unique skills that are necessary for and develop within

friendships. These skills include compassion, empathy, and loyalty. In line with Sullivan’s

theoretical stance on friendship, empirical research has supported the position that different

social competencies are required for friendships than for peer relationships. In one study

children’s friendship quality was predicted by the goals and strategies children use in response

to conflict, irrespective of their standing within their peer group (Rose & Asher, 1999). Thus,

neglecting to study friendships risks missing important information about children’s functioning.

Research in the past two decades has made advances in demonstrating that friendships

are an important context of development and contribute to individual competence and behavior

(Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Although many studies of friendship suggest that having a

friend is a predictor of positive adjustment, over inflating the positive benefits of friends must

be cautioned. Friendships are complicated and understanding who a child’s friend is as well as

the quality of their friendship are important features that must be considered when studying

how experiences with friends affect adjustment (Hartup, 1996).

Historically, studies of friendship conceptions have focused on the normative shifts

occurring in the way children and adolescents reason about friendships and formulate

2

expectations within friendships across their development (Bigelow, 1977). These studies show that adolescents are far less egocentric in their thought and show more complexity in their

reasoning abilities than children. Thus, adolescents begin to focus more on aspects of intimacy,

trust, and faithfulness with their friendships as opposed to more concrete qualities (Buhrmester,

1996; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). However, few studies have examined individual differences

in children’s conceptions of friendship and the correlates of these differences, both at the

individual and dyadic level (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995; Rubin et al., 2006).

Studies of social cognition are beginning to look at cognition about friendships, as

opposed to cognition about peers generally or specific friends. This is an important area of

research given that we know that social cognitive variables play an important part in behavior

and that deficits in social‐cognitive processing may contribute to difficulties in the peer group

(Rubin et al., 2006). Focusing on individual differences in how adolescents theorize about

friendships, rather than cognitions about the self or a peer will provide more information about

differences between friendships. The present research will examine how implicit theories about

friendships are related to children’s behaviors and friendship qualities.

The Role of Representational Models in Social Behavior

The role of social cognition in understanding behavior is not new to the field of

psychology or development. Several lines of theory and research have posited that behavior

across relationships and development can best be understood by considering the cognitive

structures that develop with relationship experiences. Bowlby (1973) posited the notion of

internal working models as the intrapyschic mechanism that carries attachment representations

of the self and others based on primary attachment relationships with caregivers during infancy.

3

These representations guide individuals’ subsequent behavior in relationships later in life.

Similarly, social‐cognitive theorists have proposed that relational schemas are the cognitive link

between relationship experiences and future behavior. Baldwin (1992) argues that individuals

generalize repeated experiences and interactions into an interpersonal script that includes

expectations, goals, and feelings regarding the self and other in interaction. These scripts may

influence relational schemas which then guide future social information processing. Baldwin

states that there should be a clear link between relational schemas and behavior, however, to

date little research has been able to substantiate the proposed association between relational schema and behavior (Holmes, 2000).

Much of the research on attachment theory and friendship has looked at the association

between attachment classifications or representations and aspects of friendships. Many studies

have looked at the longitudinal association between attachment organization during infancy and

peer and friendship functioning in early and middle childhood. For example, Elicker, Englund,

and Sroufe (1992) in reviewing literature on security of attachment and aspects of social

competence from 12 months to 6 years of age report that attachment security has been found

to be related to later peer competence and individual functioning in social contexts. They also

found that children with secure attachment histories from infancy were more likely to form

friendships at a summer camp when they were approximately 11 years old. Studies like these

have made important contributions to attachment theory; however, they focus on connecting

attachment experiences in infancy to later behavior without considering current representations

of relationships. Understanding how primary caregiver attachment relationships are carried

forward to internal working models of other relationships is much less understood; however,

some studies are beginning to undertake this challenge (Carlson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2004). 4

Research on relational schemas has also made empirical connections between

representations and behavior. Rudolph, Hammen, & Burge (1995) found that children’s

representation of peers was related to their peer competence. Children, between seven and

twelve years of age, with negative representations of their peers, including interpreting

behaviors of the peer as more negative and believing that peers engaged in negative behaviors

to hurt the child, had lower quality interactions with an unfamiliar peer during a conflict task.

Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanpää, and Peets (2005) examined children’s self‐schema and peer

relational schema, finding that a positive view of oneself was related to the endorsement of

agentic goals, but a positive perception of peers was related to the endorsement of communal

goals. Furthermore, the interaction of self and peer schemas influenced social goals, such that

the effects of self‐perception varied depending on the type of peer schema. While studies of

relational schemas include perceptions of the self and perceptions of the partner, many are still

neglecting the relationship component. The proposed implicit theories of friendship seek to

remedy this neglected facet of study by focusing specifically on the individual’s perception of

the friendship.

One of the most empirically tested representational models in the study of peer

relationships is the Social Information Processing Model (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Similar to

internal working models and relational schemas, Crick and Dodge proposed a mental “database”

that stores previous relational experiences and guides future mental processing and behavior in

social situations. In a longitudinal study of peer knowledge structures and externalizing

behavior, Burks and colleagues (Burks, Dodge, Price & Laird, 1999) highlighted the importance of

knowledge structures in perpetuating antisocial behavior. Children were followed for nine years,

from elementary school to high school. Results indicated that adolescents’ knowledge structures 5

were related to both their concurrent and future levels of externalizing problems. Furthermore, knowledge structures, assessed in the sixth year of the study, mediated the relation between early and later externalizing behaviors.

Implicit Theories

Much research on representations has focused on individual’s beliefs about the self and

others, but few have considered and studied representations at the level of relationships. In

order to address this limitation, the present research seeks to integrate implicit theories into the

study of representations and friendships. Implicit theories have been used to study individual’s

thoughts about the malleability of human attributes (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995) although

much of the research has not been interpersonal in nature. In their work, Dweck and colleagues

(see Dweck, 2000 for a review) broadly proposed that an entity theory is a belief that attributes

are fixed and rigid, whereas an incremental theory is a belief that attributes are malleable.

Research on implicit theories of intelligence has suggested that the way in which individuals

view the stability of intelligence influences the attributions they make for their own behavior,

the goals they bring to situations, and the way they react to challenging tasks and failure (Dweck

& Leggett, 1988). Children who endorse an entity theory of intelligence are more likely to give

up when facing challenging tasks because they view failure as a sign of their insufficient ability.

Thus, these individuals prefer tasks in which they can succeed and obtain positive judgments

from others. On the other hand, children who endorse an incremental theory of intelligence

prefer challenging tasks where they can practice their developing skills and potentially learn new

skills.

6

Recent research has applied a similar pattern of implicit theories to romantic relationships; demonstrating that individuals hold implicit theories and goals within their

romantic relationships that are analogous to the theories and goals in achievement and social

situations. Individuals enter romantic relationships with expectations of how the relationship

will develop and the amount of effort necessary for the relationship to succeed (Franiuk et al.,

2002; Knee et al., 2003). Implicit theories of relationships capture these different expectations

and motivations in individuals’ relationships. Knee and colleagues (Knee, 1998; Knee et al., 2003)

distinguished between destiny and growth theory of relationships. Destiny theorists believe that

relationships are either “meant to be” or not, and nothing can be done to change a relationship

or romantic partner. These individuals don’t see the value in working on their relationships

because they believe that things will naturally work out if the relationship is meant to last.

Growth theorists, in contrast, believe that relationships are meant to be developed, and that

any challenges that arise can be overcome. Furthermore, they believe that relationships can

grow closer with work and progress over time.

In line with Dweck and colleagues’ work on implicit theories, researchers in the implicit

theories of the romantic relationship area have examined the relations between implicit

theories of relationships and relationship qualities. One focus of researchers has been on the

longevity of relationships. Knee (1998) found that initial assessments of relationship satisfaction

and closeness were more salient to individuals who held destiny theories. Relationships that

were initially rated as less satisfying and less close by destiny theorists were more likely to

dissolve compared to relationships of growth theorists. Similarly, Franiuk and colleagues (2002)

found that individuals with destiny theories were more likely than growth theorists to end a

relationship if they initially reported that their partner was not their soulmate. In addition, 7

perceiving one’s partner as an ideal match was beneficial to individuals holding a destiny theory, but when the partner was not an ideal fit, it was detrimental to the relationship. Taken together,

these findings suggest that destiny theorists place an emphasis on initial relationship and

partner qualities when evaluating the viability of the relationship.

An important predictor of satisfaction in any relationship is whether or not the

individual’s needs are being met. Research on implicit theories of romantic relationships

suggests that relationship satisfaction was higher when the individual held a destiny theory and

the partner matched the individual’s ideal for a romantic partner (Franiuk et al., 2002, 2004;

Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, & Patrick, 2001). Thus, when the partner was right,

holding a destiny theory may promote greater satisfaction in the relationship than a growth

theory. However, holding a destiny theory when the partner does not meet the individual’s ideal

standards was associated with less satisfaction with the relationship. For growth theorists

relationship satisfaction was unrelated to how well the partner fit the individual’s ideal

standard.

Researchers have also considered relationship functioning based on the implicit theories

of relationships that individuals hold. When conflicts arose in relationships, growth theorists

were more likely to try to resolve the conflicts, as opposed to destiny theorists, who tended to

give in during arguments (Franiuk et al., 2002; Knee, 1998). Findings regarding satisfaction in

relationships reveal that simply knowing the theory of an individual is not enough. Relationship

satisfaction was higher for destiny theorists when they believed their partner was ideal, but

lower when they reported that their partner did not match their ideal. However, growth

theorists were less vulnerable to their perceptions of their partner when it came to their

8

relationship satisfaction. These findings suggest that attention to both general relationship

beliefs as well as specific relationship level factors are important to understanding relationship

satisfaction.

Research on implicit theories has provided great insight into many domains of human

behavior. The findings presented here have clearly demonstrated a link between the theories

people hold about relationships and their subsequent behavior. This theoretical framework lays

the foundation for exploring implicit theories in other domains. The findings from romantic

relationship theories suggest that implicit theories do not just measure individual attributes, but

individuals also apply these theories to their relationships. Given the relations found between

implicit theories and behavior, it is important to understand how these theories function within

friendships. The salience of friendships during early adolescence makes this a fertile time to

examine the role of implicit theories in friendships.

The definitions of implicit theories of friendship, used for the present study, are in line

with the definitions of implicit theories of romantic relationships. The defining feature of a

growth theory is the belief in friendship development. Here, individuals believe that friendships

require work and effort to succeed and grow. These individuals attempt to maintain their

friendships and view obstacles that arise in their friendship as an opportunity to further develop

the friendship. In terms of their friendship, they place an emphasis on friendship development

and closeness. They recognize that friendships are dynamic and are considerate to fluctuations

in behavior and qualities of the friendship. The defining feature of a destiny theory is the belief

in friendship fate. Here, individuals believe that friendships will either work or not, and

ultimately the fate of the friendship is out of each partners’ hands. These individuals attempt to

9

diagnose the validity of the friendship; is this friendship worth their involvement? In terms of

their friendship, they place an emphasis on their initial compatibility and success in hitting it off

as an indicator of the friendship’s viability. They pay close attention to specific events in the

friendship as markers of the fate of their friendship. They see that some friendships are just not

meant to be and it may be a waste of time to put effort into trying to maintain that friendship.

Gender Differences

Results are often mixed when it comes to identifying gender differences in studies of

friendship and social cognition. Studies of implicit theories of romantic relationships have

generally found no difference in theory endorsement for men and women (Franiuk et al., 2002;

Knee et al., 2001), but research on friendship consistently finds differences in content and

social‐emotional adjustment for boys and girls (Rose, 2007). Research has shown that when it

comes to relationships, females are more likely to focus on social‐emotional and relationship

maintenance behaviors whereas males focus more on dominance and using threats when

conflicts arise (Crick & Zahn‐Waxler, 2003; Maccoby, 1990; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). These

differences in gender roles in relationships will likely play a role in implicit theories of friendship

and the behaviors chosen when confronting relationship issues. Gender differences may also

result from the structure of children’s friendships. Males’ friendships tend to be a part of their

larger social network, whereas females focus more on one‐on‐one friendships (Rose & Rudolph,

2006).

Compared to boys, girls rate their friendships as more intimate (Buhrmester, 1990) and

supportive (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Studies of children’s goals in social situations have

demonstrated several differences in the goals that boys and girls choose. Boys have been found

10

to choose more goals oriented towards control (Chung & Asher, 1996), retaliation (Rose &

Asher, 1999), and agency (Ojanen, Grönroos, Salmivalli, 2005; Salmivalli, et al., 2005; Zarbatany,

Conley, & Pepper, 2004). Girls have been found to endorse more intimacy (Jarvinen & Nicholls,

1996) and relationship maintenance goals (Chung & Asher, 1996; Rose & Asher, 1999). Overall,

findings across studies suggest that girls are more focused on relationships and interpersonal

engagement, but boys are more focused on agentic goals. These gender differences have

implications for social cognition (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Given girls’ focus on relationship

development, it is possible that they will be more likely to endorse growth theories of friendship

compared to boys.

Overview and Hypotheses

The goal of the present research was to develop a measure of implicit theories of

friendship and examine the associations between implicit theories of friendship and children’s

behavior and friendship qualities.

Hypothesis 1

The first set of hypotheses serves to validate the measure of implicit theories of

friendship. The convergent and discriminant validity of the destiny and growth scales will be

assessed by examining their associations with similar measures as well as the stability of growth

and destiny beliefs over the two phases of the study. In line with existing research on implicit

theories and friendship, the following associations are hypothesized:

a. The growth and destiny scales should be uncorrelated with each other.

11

b. The Peer Attachment Quality measure will be positively, although only moderately,

correlated with the growth scale, but not correlated with the destiny scale.

c. Growth and destiny scales will be uncorrelated with measures of self‐worth.

d. Growth and destiny scales will be uncorrelated with teacher‐reported measures of

emotional health and popularity/acceptance.

e. Teacher ratings of socially helpless behavior should be positively correlated with the

destiny scale. The social helplessness scale and the destiny scale were both derived from

implicit theories of intelligence’s learned helpless orientation. Both are based on the

premise that, when the going gets tough in relationships, children who score highly on

these measures show little persistence and make few attempts to resolve problems.

f. Children’s peer relationships, specifically their caring and relationally inclusive behavior,

should be positively correlated with the growth scale. However, the destiny scale should

be uncorrelated with relationally toned peer behavior.

g. Growth scales should be highly correlated across the two phases of the study. Destiny

scales should be highly correlated across the two phases of the study.

Hypothesis 2

Once the validity of the scales has been established it is important to examine the association

between different implicit theories of friendships and qualities of children’s friendships. Given

that this is a new line of research on implicit theories, analyses will explore associations with

many of the scales included in the assessment. However, given the theoretical underpinnings of

the growth and destiny implicit theories of friendship, imply the following associations: 12

a. The following subscales of the Friendship Quality Measure will be positively

correlated with the growth scale: Intimate exchange, validation and caring, and

conflict resolution. No direct associations are expected with the destiny scale

and subscales from the Friendship Quality Measure.

b. The following subscales from the Importance of Friendship Quality Measure are

expected to be positively correlated with the growth scale: conflict resolution,

intimate exchange, and validation and caring. No direct associations are

expected with the destiny scale and subscales from the Importance of

Friendship Quality Measure.

Hypothesis 3

Following initial independent correlations between growth and destiny theories, further

analyses will examine growth and destiny theories jointly. Assuming that initial analyses show

that growth and destiny theories are statistically independent dimensions, analyses will examine

the association between functioning and the joint contributions of both implicit theories of

friendship. These analyses will serve as a more stringent test of the association between implicit

theories and functioning.

Hypothesis 4

Theoretically, the effects of implicit theories should be moderated by experiences and

qualities in the friendship. Previous research on implicit theories of romantic relationships also

supports this assertion, finding that implicit theories interact with the initial satisfaction of

romantic relationships to predict commitment and coping in the relationship (Franiuk et al.,

13

2002, 2004; Knee, 1998). Children’s history in a friendship should influence the qualities of their

friendship, just as their beliefs in implicit theories should. The next set of analyses will examine

whether gender and relationship features, such as friendship length and satisfaction, moderate

the association between belief in growth and destiny theories and friendship functioning. The

following relations are hypothesized:

a. The length of the friendship as well as the implicit theories of friendship belief held by

children should be related to outcomes in the friendship. Children high on the growth

scale should be highly invested and committed to friendships, regardless of the length.

However, children low on the growth scale may not show as much concern or

investment in newly developed friendships compared to long‐term friendships.

b. Destiny belief and satisfaction should moderate negative features of friendship, such as

conflict and aggression. Negative features in the friendship should be a signal to children

high on the destiny scale that the relationship is not working; thus they would be more

likely to terminate the friendship. In contrast, children low on the destiny scale should

have more tolerance of negative behaviors.

c. Additionally, satisfaction may play an important role in determining the extent to which

children value resolving conflicts in their friendship. If they are unhappy, high growth

beliefs should make them want to save the friendship, thus resolution should be

important. However, if they are high in destiny beliefs and less invested in saving the

friendship, they may place little value in conflict resolution.

d. Gender will be examined as a moderator of implicit theories. It is expected that girls will

show more intimate behaviors and greater valuing of intimacy in their friendships 14

compared to boys. It is likely that these differences in behaviors and values will be

associated with the effects of implicit theories on friendship qualities.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from eight sixth grade classrooms in twin cities public

elementary schools. Three schools, from two school districts, agreed to participate in the study.

Sixth grade classrooms in elementary schools were recruited because the participating children

would be in early adolescence, making it more likely that they would have more intimate and

close friendships. In addition, because these classrooms were in elementary schools, the

children would spend the majority of their day with one teacher, who would be ideally suited to

report on children’s behavior.

Of the 211 students enrolled in the eight classrooms participating in the study, 166

children participated in the study. The majority of children not participating in the study were

excluded because they neglected to return consent forms (n = 31), but a few parents declined to

let their children participate (n = 14). There were no differences between those children who

participated and those who did not participate did not differ on ethnicity or free and reduced

lunch status (a marker of socioeconomic status); however, boys were less likely to participate

than girls (t(209) = ‐3.53, p < .01).

Of the 166 children participating in the current study there were 96 girls (58%) and 70

boys (42%). The sample was relatively diverse with an ethnic composition of 67.5% Caucasian,

12.7% Black, 9.6% Hispanic, and 10.2% Asian. Information on children’s free and reduced lunch

15

status was available for only 5 of the 8 classrooms (n = 102 children), of whom 32% qualified for

free and reduced lunch. The three classrooms that did not disclose free and reduced status lunch information are located in a more affluent suburb.

Procedure

Researchers went to each classroom and briefly explained the study to the children.

Parental consent was obtained by sending a letter home with the children describing the study

and encouraging parents to contact researchers if they had any questions. A consent form was

included with the letter. Parents could indicate whether or not they wanted their child to

participate. Children returned the signed consent forms to their teachers, which were collected

by the researchers prior to administering questionnaires.

Approximately one week later researchers returned to the classrooms to administer

questionnaires. Before beginning, children assented to their participation in the study.

Researchers emphasized that their participation was voluntary and that they didn’t have to

answer anything they didn’t want to. The confidentiality of their responses was also

emphasized. Children were told that their answers would be confidential and that no one,

including their teachers and classmates would know what they wrote down. Questionnaires

were passed out to the children in manila file folders. Children then propped up the folders on

their desks for privacy. All of the questionnaires were read aloud to the children to ensure their

understanding of the items. After completing the questionnaires, children returned the

questionnaires in the folders. The entire session took between 45 minutes and 1 hour. Children

received a notebook and a pencil for completing the questionnaires.

16

At this visit, questionnaires were left with teachers to complete at their convenience for

each child participating in the study. Teachers were paid $30 for completing the measures.

Teachers notified the researcher when they had finished completing the questionnaires (this

ranged from 3 days to 3 weeks after the questionnaires were left with teachers).

A second phase of data collection occurred four months later to assess the stability of

ITFs. Children completed the same measures in the second phase as in the first phase.

Additionally, teachers completed the same questionnaires in wave two as in wave one.

Child Measures

Implicit Theories of Friendship. A 14‐item measure was developed by the author to

assess children’s implicit theories of friendship. The items reflected either a growth or destiny

approach to friendships. Children rated the extent to which they agreed with the statements

(see appendix A for a list of items). Items for the scale were based on items used to measure

implicit theories of romantic relationships (Knee et al., 2003), but adapted to apply to

friendships. Results of factor analyses of the items used in the measure identified seven items

that loaded onto a growth beliefs subscale and four items that loaded on to a destiny scale.

Items that loaded on each of the scales were averaged to create destiny and growth theory

scales. Higher scores on each of the scales represent greater endorsement of the theory.

Children’s Peer Relationships. This measure was included to assess children’s

interactions with their peers at school broadly as opposed to more specific qualities of their

friendships. The subscales in this 15 item measure include: caring acts (e.g., “Some kids try to

cheer up other kids who feel upset or sad. How often do you do this,” “Some kids say or do nice

things for other kids. How often do you do this?”), relationally aggressive acts (e.g., “Some kids 17

try to keep certain people from being in their group when it is time to play or do an activity.

How often do you do this,” “Some kids tell their friends that they will stop liking them unless the

friends do what they say. How often do you tell friends this?”), isolation from peers (e.g., “Some

kids do things alone most of the time. How often do you do this,” “Some kids play by themselves

a lot at school. How often do you do this?”), negative affect (e.g., “Some kids feel sad at school.

How often do you feel this way,” “Some kids feel upset at school. How often do you feel this

way?”), and relational inclusivity (e.g., “When other kids are saying mean things about a person,

some kids stand up for that person. How often do you do this,” “When other people seem left

out of a group, some kids try to help them get into the group. How often do you do this?”).

Children rated how frequently they engaged in the behaviors on a 1‐5 Likert type scale (1 =

never, 5 = all the time). Items for each subscale were averaged to create subscale scores.

Inventory of Peer Attachment. In order to assess children’s peer attachments the

Inventory of Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) was included. This 25 item

measure included three subscales: communication (8 items), trust (10 items), and alienation (7

items). Children rated how true each statement was for them on a 1‐5 Likert type scale (1 =

never true, 5 = always true). Sample items included “My friends know when I'm upset about

something, ” “My friends accept me as I am,” “My friends don't understand what I'm going

through these days.” Subscales were created according to Armsden and Greenberg (1987).

Items for each subscale were summed to create subscale scores. An overall quality of

attachment score was created by summing the trust and communication scores and subtracting

the alienation score.

18

Interpersonal Goals. A shortened version of The Interpersonal Goal Inventory (Ojanen,

Grőnroos, & Salmivalli, 2005) was included to measure children’s goals in social situations. The original measure included 33 items on 8 subscales. Only three subscales were used for the

current study because they were more directly related to the goals and hypotheses of the

present study then the excluded subscales were. The items included in the study represented

different goals in social situations with peers. Children were asked to rate how important each

of the following goals were, communal (e.g., “You feel close to them,” “Everyone feels good.”),

separate (e.g., “You do not give away too much about yourself,” “You keep your thoughts to

yourself.”), and submissive (e.g., “They do not get angry with you,” “You are able to please

them.”). Items from each of the subscales were averaged to create an overall score for each of

the three goal conditions. Higher scores indicated greater endorsement of that social goal.

Self‐worth. The general self‐worth Items from Harter’s (1982) Self‐Perception Profile for

Adolescents were used to measure children’s self‐worth. This five item scale presents children

with two contrasting statements (e.g., “Some kids like the kind of person they are, but other kids

wish they were someone else.”) and asks children to decide which of the two statements is

most like them and to what degree it is like them (“sort of true for me” or “really true for me”).

Scores on the five items were averaged to create an overall general self‐worth measure with

higher scores indicating greater self‐worth.

Assessment of Best Friendship. Before assessing children’s relationship with a best friend

we asked them to identify their best friend. Children were presented with and read a

description of a best friend (“A best friend is someone who you spend a lot of time with,

someone who knows you very well, and someone who you can talk to about your feelings and

19

things that happen to you.”). Children were then asked to write down the name of their best

friend. This was not limited to other children in their classroom and could include anyone they

felt was their best friend if that friend matched the description provided. They were then asked

to indicate the gender of their best friend and how long they had been friends. To ensure

consistency, children were provided with 6 month to 1‐year intervals to choose from in

describing the length of their best friendship(less than 6 months, 6 months‐1 year, 1‐2 years, 2‐3

years, and more than 3 years). Children were reminded that the next set of questions focused

specifically on their friendship with the person whom they had identified as their best friend.

To assess qualities of the best friendship the Friendship Qualities Measure (FQM) was

included. Parker and Asher (1993) originally had developed a measure of friendship quality to

assess various aspects of children’s friendship with their best friend. Grotpeter and Crick (1996)

further adapted this measure by adding additional scales assessing the qualities of children’s

friendship. The measure used in the present study included 38 items and included the following

subscales: overt aggression from friend (e.g., “My best friend pushes and shoves me when s/he

is mad at me.”), relational aggression from friend (e.g., “My best friend won’t let me hang out

with him/her when s/he is mad at me.”), conflict resolution (e.g., “It is easy to get over

arguments with my best friend.”), intimate exchange I‐subject intimate toward friend (e.g., “I

can talk with my best friend about the things that make me sad.”), intimate exchange II‐friend

intimate toward subject (e.g., “My best friend can tell me about his/her problems.”), subject

desire for exclusivity (e.g., “I feel jealous if I see my best friend hanging out with another kid.”),

friend demands of exclusivity (e.g., “My best friend would rather hang out with me alone, and

not with other kids.”), conflict I‐anger toward friend (e.g., “I get mad at my best friend a lot.”),

conflict II‐anger from friend (e.g., “My best friend disagrees with me a lot.”), validation and 20

caring (e.g., “My best friend tells me I am good at things.”), companionship and recreation (e.g.,

“My best friend picks me as a partner for things.”), and satisfaction (e.g., “How is this friendship going?”). Children rated how true each statement was for their best friendship on a 1‐5 Likert

type scale (1 = never true, 5 = always true). Items for each subscale were averaged to create

subscale scores. Higher scores indicate more of that behavior in the friendship.

The Importance of Friendship Quality Measure (IFQM) was developed by Grotpeter and

Crick (1996) to parallel the Friendship Quality Measure. The Importance of Friendship Quality

Measure assesses the relative importance of specific friendship qualities. The measure used for

this study was shortened to 12 items and asked children how upset they would be if certain

things happened in their friendship with the best friend they identified earlier. The subscales

included, help and guidance (e.g., “How upset would you be if you needed help and advice and

your friend didn’t give it to you?”), conflict resolution (e.g., “How upset would you be if it was

hard to get over arguments with your friend?”), intimate exchange (e.g., “How upset would you

be if you couldn’t tell your friend about your problems?”), conflict (e.g., “How upset would you

be if you and your friend argued?”), and validation and caring (e.g., “How upset would you be if

your friend didn’t make you feel important and special?”). Children rated how upset they would

be on a 1‐5 Likert type scale (1 = not at all upset, 5 =very upset). Items for each subscale were

averaged to create subscale scores. Higher scores indicated that children placed more

importance on that quality in the friendship with their best friend.

Teacher Measures

Teachers were asked to rate each child in their class who participated on various

measures of social behavior.

21

Social Helplessness. To assess children’s social helplessness in peer interactions teachers completed a twelve item questionnaire (Fincham, Hokoda, & Sanders, 1989). Items included,

“Makes few attempts to resolve disagreements that occur with other children,” “Makes negative comments about him/herself when rejected by another child even though she/he

actually does have other friends,” “Makes degrading comments about his/her ability to get on

with other children when unable to join peers in social activity.” Scores across items were

averaged to create a social helplessness score with higher scores indicating greater social

helplessness.

Emotional and Peer Competence. To assess children’s general emotional health and

popularity/acceptance in the classroom, teachers were presented with two paragraphs, one

describing an emotionally healthy child and one describing a popular/accepted child, and were

asked to rate on a 1‐5 Likert type scale the extent to which the paragraphs described the

participating child. Higher scores on the two items indicated greater emotional health and

greater popularity/peer acceptance.

Results

Analysis Plan

Initial analyses, outlined in the first hypothesis, focused on the validation of the implicit

theories of friendship scale developed for this study. Exploratory factor analysis examined the

underlying factor structure of the scale developed. Results of the factor analysis were confirmed

through reliability analyses. Growth and destiny theory scales were formed by averaging the

scale items that represent each theory. Discriminant validity of the theory subscales was

assessed by correlating the computed subscales with peer attachment quality, self‐worth, 22

emotional health, popularity/acceptance, and social helplessness. For the purposes of

establishing the stability of growth and destiny beliefs correlations using both Time 1 and 2 data

were completed. Time 2 data was used for the purposes of validation and establishing stability,

however, the remainder of analyses focused on Time 1 data only.

Correlational analyses were done to assess the relation between growth and destiny

theories and assessments of children’s social functioning and their friendship quality as outlined

in hypothesis three.

To understand relations between implicit theory and functioning, an individual’s destiny

and growth theory endorsement must be considered jointly, as described in hypothesis three.

Therefore, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed with both growth and

destiny theories entered at Step 1. Additionally, an interaction term combining growth and

destiny theories was created and entered at Step 2 to test the joint effects of growth and

destiny theories. Significant interactions, after controlling for the main effects of each theory,

were explored further. All independent variables were centered prior to being entered in

regression analyses according to Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003).

As noted in the fourth hypothesis, subsequent analyses looked at the moderating role of

gender, relationship length, and relationship satisfaction in the relation between implicit

theories and functioning. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses with friendship qualities as

the criterion variables were performed. All independent variables were centered prior to being

entered in regression analyses according to Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). All

independent variables were entered and interpreted at Step 1. The two‐way interaction terms

were entered and interpreted at Step 2. Finally, the three‐way interaction terms were entered

23

and interpreted at Step 3. Significant interactions were plotted to determine the nature of the

association.

Implicit Theories of Friendship Measure Development and Validation: Hypothesis 1

Scale Development. The 14‐item measure of Implicit Theories of Friendship consisted of

7 items relevant to growth beliefs and 7 items relevant to destiny beliefs. To confirm the

subscale structure of the measure, principal components analysis with varimax rotation was run.

The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2. Items were retained for the growth and

destiny scales based on their factor loadings as well as their contribution to the overall reliability

analyses of the final growth and destiny scales. Reliability analyses confirmed the validity of the

scales (growth scale, α = .60; destiny scale α = .70).

Gender and ethnic differences. In the present sample, gender differences were

inconsistent across the two time points and on the growth and destiny scales. In line with

predictions, girls scored higher on the growth scale than boys at both Time 1 and 2. Girls and

boys did not differ on their responses on the destiny scale, however they did differ on their

responses on the growth scale in Time one. Girls scored higher than boys (M = 3.93, SD = .57; M

= 3.75, SD = .55, respectively) on the growth scale, t(156) = ‐2.06, p < .05. At Time two boys and

girls differed on both the growth and the destiny scales. Girls scored higher than boys on the

growth scale (M = 3.81, SD = .60; M = 3.53, SD = .73, t(145) = ‐2.57, p < .05), whereas, boys

scored higher than girls on the destiny scale (M = 2.59, SD = .1.02; M = 2.29, SD = .84, t(149) =

2.00, p < .05). Results from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant differences

among ethnic groups on either growth or destiny scales at Time one. At Time two, a significant

difference between ethnic groups emerged on the destiny scale (F(3, 147) = 3.52, p < .05), such

24

that Asians (M = 2.97, SD = .90) were more likely to endorse destiny theory beliefs than

Caucasians (M = 2.27, SD = .82).

Convergent and discriminant validity. Further support for the validity of the implicit

theories of friendship measure comes from the correlations between growth and destiny scales

and measures of individual and relationship functioning. Several hypotheses (1a‐e) were

presented regarding the nature of these correlations, and the results are presented in Table 3.

As expected, the growth and destiny scales were not significantly correlated, r(157) = ‐.10, p

=.23.

Further validation for the Implicit Theories of Friendship measure comes from the

correlations between the growth scale and the measure of peer attachment. As expected, the

growth scale was positively correlated with overall peer attachment quality (r(138) = .22, p <

.01) as well as the communication (r(150) = .40, p < .001) and trust (r(151) = .15, p < .05)

subscales. Though statistically significant, these correlations were only moderate. The moderate

size indicates that, although the peer attachment and growth beliefs measure similar features,

the growth scale can be distinguished from measures of peer attachment. As expected the

destiny scale was not significantly correlated with peer attachment quality (r(139) = .06, p = .47),

nor was it correlated with any of the subscales (r(151) = .04, p = .65, communication; r(151) = ‐

.08, p = .34, alienation; r(153) = .02, p = .85, trust).

Hypotheses 1c and 1d concerned the distinctiveness of the Implicit Theories of Friendship

measure from other, more global assessments of children’s social functioning and competence.

Table 3 presents the results of these correlations. As expected, there was no association with

25

children’s reports of self‐esteem and growth and destiny beliefs (r(148) = .07, p = .41; r(150) =

.02, p = .80, respectively).

The correlation between teacher’s ratings of children’s emotional health and destiny

beliefs was not significant (r(157) = .01, p = .92), but there was a marginally significant

correlation between emotional health and growth beliefs (r(155) = .14, p < .10).

Hypothesis 1e held that the destiny scale should be positively correlated with teacher’s

reports of social helplessness. However, the social helplessness was not significantly correlated

with the destiny scale (r(152) = .06, p = .50) or the growth scale (r(150) = ‐.08, p = .32).

Table 4 presents the correlations between growth and destiny scales and children’s

reports of behavior with peers and goals when with peers. As was predicted in hypothesis 1f,

the growth scale was positively correlated with caring acts (r(155) = .39, p < .001) and

relationally inclusive behavior (r(149) = .31, p < .001) as rated on the Children’s Peer

Relationship Scale. Additionally, the growth scale was positively correlated with children’s

ratings of isolation (r(157) = .19, p < .05) and negatively correlated with relationally aggressive

acts (r(156) = ‐.18, p < .05). Growth beliefs were positively correlated with communal goals

(r(151) = .28, p < .001), but not submissive or separate goals (r(155) = .07, p = .37, r(151) = ‐.04, p

= .65). With the exception of relationship inclusivity, (r(152) = ‐.17, p < .05), destiny beliefs were

not significantly correlated with children’s peer behaviors or interpersonal goals (ps > .25).

Implicit theories of friendship stability. Hypothesis 1g argued that there should be stability in growth and destiny beliefs across time. Correlations across the two time points, four months apart, were analyzed to assess the stability in implicit theories. The correlation between implicit theories of friendship from Time 1 to Time 2 was robust. Both the growth and destiny 26

scales were positively and significantly correlated (r (142) = .49, p < .001; r(146) = .43, p < .001,

respectively) across the two phases. Similar to the gender differences identified in mean

differences on the scales, boys and girls differed in stability, although the correlations for both

genders on both scales were significant. For girls, the correlation was stronger on the growth

scale (r(80) = .63, p < .001) than the destiny scale (r(83) = .40, p < .001). Boys’ correlation was

stronger for the destiny scale (r(63) = .46, p < .001) than the growth scale (r(.32) = .67, p < .01).

The reciprocal nature of children’s friendships, whether their best friend also identified

them as their best friend, may also be important to consider when looking at the stability of

growth and destiny beliefs over time. There were no mean differences on the growth and

destiny scales at either Time 1 or 2 based on the friendship being reciprocated or not (Growth

scale Time 1: M = 3.79, SD = .54; M = 3.86, SD = .57, t(156) = .606, p = .55; Growth scale Time 2:

M = 3.88, SD = .52; M = 3.66, SD = .69, t(145) = ‐1.48, p = .14; Destiny scale Time 1: M = 2.48, SD

= 1.04; M = 2.36, SD = .82, t(158) = ‐.65, p = .51; Destiny scale Time 2: M = 2.65, SD = .77; M =

2.37, SD = .95, t(149) = ‐1.39, p = .17). However, the reciprocal nature of the friendship could

impact the stability of growth and destiny beliefs over time. Having a close friendship dissolve or

developing a closer relationship with a friend would likely influence the implicit theories children

hold about friendships. In terms of the growth scale, stability was greater when the child’s

friendship was reciprocated1 at Time 1 (r(23) = .67, p < .001, reciprocated; r(119) = .49, p < .001, not reciprocated) and Time 2 (r(43) = .63, p < .001, reciprocated; r(99) = .45, p < .001, not reciprocated). For the destiny scale, stability was greater when children didn’t have a reciprocal

1 Children’s best friendship was considered reciprocal if the best friend listed the original child as their best friend as well. If children listed someone not participating in the study (whether other students at the school or not) it was not possible to see if the friendship was reciprocal and thus considered not reciprocated. 27

friendship at Time 1 (r(25) = .30, p = .15, reciprocated; r(121) = .46, p < .001, not reciprocated) or

Time 2 (r(42) = .42, p < .01, reciprocated; r(104) = .43, p < .001, not reciprocated).

Growth and Destiny Theory Relations with Friendship Qualities: Hypothesis 2

Analyses presented here focused on exploring the associations between growth and

destiny scales and qualities of children’s friendships. Hypothesis 2 addressed how the

theoretical underpinnings of growth and destiny beliefs would translate into children’s actual

behavior in friendships as well as the relative importance children place on aspects of their

friendships. Correlations between growth and destiny scales with the FQM and the IFQM were

conducted to address this question and the results are presented in Table 5.

The qualities of children’s friendships were in line with the expected associations.

Growth beliefs were positively correlated with conflict resolution (r(152) = .17, p < .05), intimate

exchange, both to and from friends(r(149) = .27, p < .001; r(153) = .26, p < .001), and validation

and caring (r(153) = .35, p < .001). These correlations support the hypothesis that belief in

growth is associated with friendships that emphasize intimacy, compassion, and a dedication to

resolving conflict. In contrast, belief in destiny was not significantly correlated with any of the

friendship qualities (ps > .17).

Growth belief was positively associated with all of the subscales on the IFQM (r(153) =

.17, p < .10, conflict resolution; r(149) = .32, p < .001, intimate exchange; r(152) =.26, p < .001, conflict; r(157) = .35, p < .001, validation and caring; r(156) =.24 p < .01, help and guidance), representing the value that children who score highly on growth place on having a positive and

intimate friendship. In stark contrast, destiny belief was not significantly correlated with any of

the subscales on the IFQM (ps > .19). The largest correlation, although not significant, was on 28

the conflict subscale (r(154) = .11, p = .19), highlighting how upset children who scored highly on destiny would be if there was any conflict in their friendship. Further analyses will examine the

more complex relation between implicit theories of friendship and friendship qualities.

Gender differences. The correlations, separated by gender, between growth and destiny

beliefs and friendship qualities are presented in Table 6. Overall, there were few differences

between girls and boys on the subscales of the FQM. Of note, boys and girls showed significant

correlations in opposite directions between growth beliefs and conflict towards friend (r(66) =

.25, p < .05, boys; r(152) = ‐.24, p < .05, girls). Interestingly, the significant correlations between

the subscales of the IFQM and growth beliefs seemed to be driven primarily by boys and not

girls.

The Mutual Influence of Growth and Destiny Theories on Friendship Qualities: Hypothesis 3

The independence of the growth and destiny scales allows for the effects of each scale

to interact with one another and required more stringent tests of the effects of implicit theories.

Thus, it was important to investigate whether growth and destiny beliefs interact in predicting

friendship qualities. A series of hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted with each of

the friendship qualities shown in Table 5 entered as the criterion and growth and destiny scales

entered at Step 1 and the interaction of the scales entered at Step 2. The results of these

analyses are presented in Table 7.

Similar to the raw correlations presented in Table 5, controlling for destiny beliefs had

little effect on the relation between growth beliefs and friendship qualities (β = .17, p < .05,

FQM Conflict Resolution; β = .27, p < .001, FQM Intimate Exchange I; β = .24, p < .01, FQM

Intimate Exchange II; β = .35, p < .001, FQM Validation and Caring; β = .16, p < .10, FQM 29

Companionship and Recreation; β = .15, p < .10, IFQM Conflict Resolution; β = .32 p < .001, IFQM

Intimate Exchange; β = .27, p < .001, IFQM Conflict; β = .36, p < .001, IFQM Validation and

Caring; β = .23, p < .01, IFQM Help and Guidance). To further test the association between

growth beliefs and friendship qualities additional variables were added in Step 1 to control for

features of the friendship. All associations between growth beliefs and friendship qualities

presented in Table 7 remained significant after controlling for the length of the relationship.

When controlling for gender all effects remained statistically significant with the exception of

conflict resolution on the FQM which dropped to marginally significant (β = .15, p < .10), and

companionship and recreation on the FQM (β = .14, p = .11) and conflict resolution on the IFQM

(β = .10, p < .21) which both dropped to nonsignificance. Similarly, when controlling for

friendship satisfaction, conflict resolution, both on the FQM and IFQM, dropped to marginally

significant (β = .13, p < .10; β = .14, p < .10, respectively) and companionship and recreation on

the FQM (β = .12, p = .13) was no longer significant, but all other associations remained

significant.

In examining the association between destiny beliefs and friendship qualities while

controlling for growth beliefs, no significant relations emerged. In line with theoretical

predictions, this finding suggests that the effect of destiny beliefs on friendship qualities is

indirect, such that outcomes of destiny beliefs are dependent on aspects of the friendship.

These associations will be examined in subsequent sections.

An interaction between growth and destiny beliefs emerged when predicting conflict

resolution on the IFQM, F(3, 147) = 5.83, p < .01, β = .15, p < .05, R2 = .11. This interaction remained significant when controlling for friendship satisfaction (F(6, 143) = 3.25, p < .01, β =

30

.17, p < .05), but was only marginally significant when controlling for friendship length (F(6, 143)

= 4.12, p < .001, β = .14, p < .10) and gender (F(6, 144) = 6.64, p < .001, β = .14, p < .10). Figure 1

presents the regression derived from the interaction of growth and destiny beliefs at Step 2.

Overall, children high in growth beliefs showed more concern over conflict in their friendship

than children low in growth beliefs. Children low on destiny showed little variation in concern

over conflict based on growth belief. However, high endorsement of both growth and destiny

beliefs was associated with high levels of concern over conflict, whereas high endorsement of

destiny beliefs with low endorsement of growth beliefs was associated with little concern over

conflict in the friendship.

Interactions between Destiny and Growth Theories and Friendship Qualities: Hypothesis 4

While the associations between implicit theories of friendship and friendship qualities

illustrate how growth and destiny beliefs are related to values and behaviors in children’s

friendships, the relation between implicit theories and functioning is likely to be influenced by

other factors in the friendship. Given prior findings regarding implicit theories of romantic

relationships, the present research examined the moderating roles of relationship length,

relationship satisfaction, and children’s gender.

The moderating role of length. It has already been shown that growth beliefs are

positively correlated with valuing conflict resolution and validation in a friendship, but having a

friendship that has lasted longer should also be related to children’s valuing of these features.

To examine the relation between friendship length and implicit theories hierarchical multiple

regressions were run with friendship qualities as the criterion. At Step 1 the growth scale,

destiny scale, and friendship length were entered. At Step 2, the two‐way interactions between

31

growth, destiny, and length were entered. Finally, in Step 3, the three‐way product term was

entered. The length of the friendship had few main effects on friendship qualities at Step 1. Only

conflict resolution, β = .21, p < .01, and validation and caring, β = .17, p < .05, were associated

with friendship length. There were no direct associations between length of the friendship and

the subscales of the IFQM.

Interactions between growth beliefs and friendship length predicted both the conflict

resolution, F (6, 143) = 1.77, p = .11, β = ‐.17, p < .05, R2 = .07, and validation and caring, F (6,

147) = 4.95, p < .001, β = ‐.15, p < .05, R2 = .17, subscales on the IFQM. Figures 2 and 3,

respectively, show the breakdown of these interactions. Both interactions highlight the

importance of growth beliefs in predicting what children value in a friendship. For both conflict

resolution and validation and caring, being higher on the growth scale was associated with

greater importance of these friendship qualities, regardless of length. When friendships were

shorter in length, children demonstrated less valuing of these friendship qualities when they

were low on the growth scale. Children who were low on the growth scale, but had more long‐

term friendships evidenced higher levels of valuing these friendship qualities.

The length of the friendship interacted with both growth and destiny beliefs to predict

the intimate exchanges in friendships, F (7, 139) = 4.17, p < .001, β = ‐.238, p < .01, R2 = .17. The

breakdown of this interaction is presented in Figure 4. High destiny, low growth children with

short‐term friendships exhibit the lowest levels of intimate exchange in their friendships. In

contrast, high destiny, low growth children who have been in long‐term friendships exhibit high

levels of intimate exchange in the friendship. Children who are low on the destiny scale do not

exhibit many intimate behaviors with their friend unless they are also high on the growth scale.

32

These findings highlight the importance of considering both the length of time children have been involved in a friendship as well as their implicit theories of friendships.

The moderating role of satisfaction. Much research on implicit theories of romantic

relationships has pointed to initial relationship satisfaction as an important moderator in

understanding the effects of destiny beliefs on relationship longevity and coping strategies

(Franiuk et al., 2002, 2004; Knee, 1998). For the current study, we did not assess children’s initial

level of satisfaction with their best friendship, but we did ask about their current level

satisfaction (“how well is this friendship going,” and “how happy are you with this friendship?”).

Given this limitation, associations with destiny beliefs, in particular, are still expected because

destiny theorists should be evaluating their friendships continuously, not just at the beginning.

A series of hierarchical multiple regressions were performed with friendship qualities as

the criterion. At Step 1 the growth scale, destiny scale, and friendship satisfaction were entered.

At Step 2, the two‐way interactions between growth, destiny, and friendship satisfaction were

entered. The three‐way product term was entered in Step 3. Several friendship qualities were

predicted directly by friendship satisfaction in Step 1. These included: overt aggression, β = ‐.27,

p < .001, relational aggression, β = ‐.52, p < .001, conflict resolution, β = .38, p < .001, intimate

exchange, β = .38, p < .001, conflict, β = ‐.33, p < .001, and validation and caring, β =.43, p < .001.

Satisfaction was not directly related to the subscales of the IFQM.

Analyses confirmed a significant effect of destiny beliefs and satisfaction on relational

aggression, F (6, 144) = 10.88, p < .001, β = .22, p < .01, R2 = .31. The interaction is presented in

Figure 5. An important caveat is that this scale is assessing the relational aggressive behavior

directed toward the child from the friend, and not the relationally aggressive behavior of the

33

child. Overall, relationally aggressive behaviors are lower when children report greater satisfaction. Satisfaction appears to be more strongly related to relationally aggressive behaviors in the friendship when children were lower on the destiny scale than high on the destiny scale.

The levels of conflict in the friendship, both directed toward the friend and from the

friend, were moderated by an interaction between destiny beliefs and level of satisfaction (F (6,

143) = 5.48, p < .001, β = .31, p < .001; F (6, 146) = 7.65, p < .001, β = .21, p < .05, respectively).

Graphs decomposing both of these interactions are presented in Figure 6. Children high on the

destiny scale reported similar levels of conflict regardless of their satisfaction with their

friendship. A similar picture emerged in conflict from the friend, although there was a decrease

in conflict behavior for high destiny children as satisfaction increased.

A three way interaction between growth theories, destiny theories, and satisfaction was

significantly related to children’s valuing of conflict resolution in the friendship, F (7, 143) = 2.35,

p < .05, β = ‐.24, p < .05, R2 = .10. Overall, when children’s belief in growth was low there was

little variation in their valuing of conflict resolution. Differences emerged when children were

high on the growth scale. As would be expected these children who were also low in destiny and

highly satisfied in their friendship exhibited a high valuing of conflict resolution. However, when

children were high on growth, low on destiny, and not satisfied, they exhibited low levels of

valuing of conflict resolution. This does not seem to fit with what would be expected for children

high on the growth scale. Children who were high on the destiny scale and high on the growth

scale exhibit more valuing of conflict resolution when they were less satisfied with the

friendship than when they were highly satisfied.

34

The moderating role of gender. Given the gender differences present in the correlations

between implicit theories and friendship qualities, it was important to consider the moderating

role they may play in predicting friendship outcomes. To address this, hierarchical multiple

regressions were conducted with friendship qualities as the criterion. At Step 1 the growth scale,

destiny scale, and gender were entered. At Step 2, the two‐way interactions between growth,

destiny, and gender were entered. Finally, in Step 3, the three‐way product term was entered.

Several expected main effects of gender were identified at Step 1. For example, boys engaged in

more overt aggression than girls, F (3, 148) = 2.40, p < .10, β = ‐.18, girls were more intimate in

their friendships than boys, F (3, 144) = 8.69, p < .001, β = .280, and girls showed more concern

on all subscales of the IFQM, (Fs > 8.6, ps < .001).

Several significant interactions between growth, destiny, and gender emerged. Growth

and destiny beliefs interacted with gender to predict relational aggression in the friendship, F (7,

144) = 1.91, p < .10, β = .19, p < .05, R2 = .09. Decomposing this interaction (see Figure 8) shows

that children low on growth exhibited about the same level of relational aggression, regardless

of destiny beliefs and gender. However, when children were high on growth, girls exhibited

more relational aggression when they were high on destiny as opposed to lower on destiny

beliefs, but boys exhibited a different pattern. Boys substantially decreased levels of relational

aggression when low on destiny.

A gender by growth, by destiny interaction also emerged for predicting intimate

exchange in friendships, F (7, 140) = 5.60, p < .001, β = ‐.24, p < .01, R2 = .22. A graphical

presentation of this interaction is presented in Figure 9. Girls, almost consistently, exhibited

more intimate exchange in their friendships than boys. When high on growth beliefs, girls

35

demonstrated more intimate exchange than boys regardless of destiny beliefs. When children

were low on growth beliefs, boys exhibited more intimate exchange when they were low on

destiny than when they were high on destiny. In contrast, girls exhibited more intimate

exchange when they were high on destiny than when they were low on destiny.

Lastly, an interaction between growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and gender emerged

when predicting satisfaction in the friendship, F (7, 148) = 2.27, p < .05, β = ‐.23, p < .01, R2 = .10.

Decomposing this interaction revealed a complex relation between implicit theories and gender

in friendship satisfaction (see Figure 10). Both boys and girls who were low in destiny beliefs

were similar in satisfaction when they were also low in growth. This satisfaction level changed

little for girls that were high in destiny. However, satisfaction dropped significantly for boys that

were low in destiny beliefs and high in growth beliefs. Overall, the highest levels of satisfaction

were when children scored high on growth, but only for boys that were also high in destiny and

girls that were low in destiny. For boys, they seem most satisfied when they were either high on

both implicit theories or low on both.

Discussion

The goal of the present research was to examine the associations between implicit

theories of friendships and friendships, drawing on the theoretical framework laid out in implicit

theories research and previous work on friendships.

Nature of the variables

Measurement. The primary objective of the current research was to develop and

validate a measure of Implicit Theories of Friendship. One area of controversy in the implicit

36

theories research has been how to best measure implicit theories. While Dweck and colleagues

(Dweck, 2000) have measured implicit theories of intelligence on a bipolar continuum (entity

theories representing one end and incremental theories on the opposite end), studies of implicit

theories in romantic relationships suggest that these theories are better conceptualized as

independent dimensions (Franiuk et al., 2002). In line with the results of implicit theories of

romantic relationships research, factor analyses supported a two‐factor structure for implicit

theories of friendship, representing a growth and destiny scale. Measuring each dimension on

an independent continuum allows each implicit theory of relationships to contribute uniquely to

the prediction of behavior (Knee et al., 2003). The independence of growth and destiny scales

were further supported by the lack of significant correlation between the two scales.

Validation. Hypotheses regarding the association between similar measures of

representation and friendship and implicit theories were generally supported. Growth beliefs

were significantly correlated with peer attachment quality in the expected direction; however,

the moderate size of the correlation indicated that, while the constructs share similar features,

they are unique. The lack of significant correlations between growth and destiny beliefs and

measures of self‐worth demonstrated that implicit theories are not just a measure of general

self‐perception. It could also be argued that children who score highly on the growth scale are

more socially competent or accepted with their peers and that children who score highly on the

destiny scale are less socially competent, however the results do not completely support this

argument. Teacher’s ratings of children’s emotional health and popularity/acceptance were not

significantly correlated with the destiny scale, but the growth scale was positively correlated

with the measure of emotional health. This marginal correlation could be related to how

children navigate the social world of the classroom. Children who score highly on the growth 37

scale may be better suited to resolve conflicts that arise in the peer setting and may be more accepting of peers and less quick to judge them. This may not be the case for children who score highly on the destiny scale. Teacher’s observations of this behavior in the classroom could be

implicated in the marginal correlation between the emotional health and growth scales.

A significant correlation between teacher’s ratings of social helplessness and the destiny

scale would be positively correlated, however, this was not found. The lack of correlation

between the two scales may be due to the fact that teachers are completing the social

helplessness scale and children are completing the destiny scale. Teacher’s observations of

children are limited to the classroom and playground, thus most of the interactions they

observe are with peers and not children’s friendships. The destiny scale asks children to think

specifically about friendship. Children may be drawing on information and experiences that

teachers do not have access to.

While implicit theories of friendship assess children’s beliefs about friendships, there

should be overlap in their behavior with peers. Many of the skills required for acceptance by the

peer group are also required for successful involvement in friendships (Asher, Parker, & Walker,

1996). The positive correlation between the growth scale and isolated behavior is somewhat

surprising. It is possible that children who score highly on the growth scale are focused on

developing close friendships and may be more removed in social contexts with peers or lack the

appropriate strategies to negotiate peer experiences. Rose and Asher (1999) found that

children’s friendship quality was predicted by the goals and strategies children use in response

to conflict, irrespective of their standing within their peer group. Thus, some children may be

38

much better at establishing and maintaining close friendships, but unaccepted by their peers because of the goals they select.

The destiny scale was uncorrelated with peer behaviors with the exception of relationship inclusivity. In reviewing the items that compose this scale they focus on intervening when another peer is being excluded or picked on. It could be that children who score highly on

the destiny scale prefer to avoid disagreements in both friendships and peer relationships, thus

they may be more reluctant to step in when a peer is being victimized because they might then

be involved in a disagreement. The correlations with interpersonal goals are in line with the

original hypothesis. The positive correlation between communal goals and growth beliefs is in

line with growth theory in that relationships are valued and children believe that they can

develop friendships with peers. The lack of correlations with destiny beliefs fits as well. In

particular, children scoring highly on the destiny scale may be reluctant to endorse communal

goals with peers because they are not focused on developing relationships with peers when

they do not know if they would be good friends.

Stability. Studies of implicit theories across domains tend to support their stability.

Franiuk and colleagues (2002) found that across their eight month study, implicit theories of

romantic relationships remained relatively stable, even across different relationship partners.

Bukowski, Newcomb, and Hoza (1987) found stability in children’s conceptions of friendship, or

their beliefs about what characteristics were most central to friendships, across a one year

period from sixth to seventh grade. While the results of this study do support stability of implicit

theories of friendship over a four month period, results did vary depending on whether it was a

growth or destiny theory and whether or not children had reciprocated friendships. The stability

39

of growth beliefs was related to children having a reciprocated best friend. Being in a reciprocated friendship is important for growth theorists and experiencing this likely reinforces their growth beliefs. Destiny beliefs, in contrast, were slightly more stable when they did not

have a reciprocated friendship. Given the theoretical nature of destiny beliefs, they are less

dependent on a stable, reciprocated friendship to reinforce their beliefs. In fact, their beliefs are

more likely to be reinforced if they experience unreciprocated friendships. This finding supports

the theoretical differences between growth and destiny implicit theories of friendship.

One limitation of the study was that identifying the reciprocity of children’s friendships

was not exact because children were allowed to identify friends that were not in the classroom,

thus making it impossible to assess reciprocity if the identified best friend was not participating

in the study. Additionally, children often have multiple friends and best friends (Furman, 1993).

Choosing which friend to identify as the best friend was often difficult for children. In many

instances, a triad of friends was identified such that friend A would chose friend B, friend B

would chose friend C and friend C would chose friend A. Note here that none of these children

would be identified as having a reciprocated friendship, but when looking across the three

children, there is some reciprocity amongst the friends.

Previous research has shown that implicit theories are subject to manipulation under

experimental conditions, suggesting that, while stable, implicit theories are malleable (Dweck &

Leggett, 1988; Franiuk et al., 2004). Knee and colleagues (2003) suggest the likelihood of

relationship experiences modifying an individual’s implicit theory. This modification of

representations based on experience is supported by attachment theory and research (Collins &

Sroufe, 1999; Sroufe, 1997; Sroufe & Waters, 1977) If an adolescent has a close friendship that

40

abruptly ends, they may reevaluate their growth theory beliefs and may adopt more of a destiny

theory, believing that there is little they can do to maintain a relationship that is destined to

end. While this study was able to look at reciprocity amongst friends in examining stability,

future studies may want to consider more specific relationship experiences that may influence

the stability and change of implicit theories.

Associations with Behavior

Further support for the theoretical differences between growth and destiny theories

comes in the relations between implicit beliefs and behavior. Growth beliefs were positively

correlated with intimate exchanges in friendships, conflict resolution, and validation and caring.

Furthermore, growth beliefs were associated with greater valuing of conflict resolution, intimate

exchange, avoiding conflict, validation and caring, and help and guidance. These associations

remain when destiny beliefs are controlled for and additional qualities of the friendship,

including length, satisfaction and gender, are controlled for, indicating the strength of these

associations. Destiny beliefs, however, do not show any direct associations with qualities of

children’s friendships. This finding highlights how context dependent destiny theorists are in

their friendships. Growth theorists value intimacy and conflict resolution regardless of

satisfaction or length; however, destiny theorists place more emphasis on the features of the

friendship. They are more likely to show intimacy when the friendship has lasted longer, possibly

using that as validation that this friendship is meant to be and thus warrants their investment.

The interaction between growth and destiny beliefs in predicting the importance of

avoiding conflict is consistent with predictions. Children who highly endorse both growth and

destiny beliefs not only value their friendships, but also fear conflict as sign of trouble. Thus,

41

they would be concerned if conflict was present in their friendship because it would suggest

problems in the friendship, which they value, and might signal dissolution of the friendship.

Findings across studies of implicit theories imply that there is a complex relation, between not

only implicit theories, but also the role of friendship qualities is important when predicting

relationship outcomes.

Friendship length. Results of the present research supported the moderating role of

length in predicting friendship outcomes. Growth beliefs interacted with friendship length to

predict conflict resolution and validation and caring. In line with the theoretical predictions of

implicit theories higher growth theories predicted higher levels of conflict resolution and

validation and caring regardless of friendship length. The role of friendship length came in when

children were low on the growth scale. Longer friendships, compared to shorter friendships,

demonstrated greater conflict resolution and validation and caring. This finding suggests that

even if children do not endorse growth beliefs, their friendships can demonstrate just as much

caring and conflict resolution if they are longer in length. Without growth beliefs, children need

time to develop these features in their friendships.

Intimate exchange to the friend was predicted by a three‐way interaction between

growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and friendship length. High destiny, low growth children with

short‐term friendships exhibited the lowest levels of intimate exchange in their friendships. This

is likely because they are still attempting to diagnose the viability of the friendship. In contrast,

high destiny, low growth children who have been in long‐term friendships exhibited high levels

of intimate exchange in the friendship. Given the length of the friendship, they have had time to

diagnose the viability of the friendship and thus, despite being low in growth beliefs, they share

42

intimate behaviors with their friend. Children who were low on the destiny scale exhibited more

intimate behaviors with their friend when they were also high on the growth scale. These

findings highlight the importance of considering both the length of time children have been

involved in a friendship as well as their implicit theories of friendships.

Satisfaction. Previous research has also highlighted the importance of satisfaction in

combination with implicit theories. The current research also showed the importance of

satisfaction, particularly in relation to destiny beliefs, in predicting negative qualities in the

friendship, as well as the importance of resolving conflict. Interactions between destiny beliefs

and satisfaction predicted relationally aggressive behaviors as well as conflict in the friendship.

Satisfaction appears to be more strongly associated with relationally aggressive

behaviors in the friendship for children low on the destiny scale more than children high on the

destiny scale. There is a marked decline in relationally aggressive behaviors as satisfaction

increases for children low in destiny beliefs, but little change in relationally aggressive behaviors

for children high on the destiny scale. While this finding seems counterintuitive, thinking about

the possible functions of relationally aggressive behavior may explain the finding. Relationally

aggressive behaviors are used by one person to control or manipulate their relationship with

another person. Children who are high on the destiny scale may view the relationally aggressive

behaviors of their friends as an attempt to prevent conflict and keep the behaviors of friends in

line with what is expected. Thus, they may not be as dissatisfied when their friend is being

relationally aggressive towards them as a child who is low in destiny beliefs.

Given the theoretical underpinnings of destiny theory, conflict should signal problems in

the friendship and thus, lead to dissolution of the friendship. Significant interactions between

43

destiny beliefs and satisfaction predicted both conflict to and from the friend. High destiny children showed little variation in their conflict levels based on satisfaction. This finding was surprising, but high destiny theorists may not show much variation in their levels of conflict

because they dissolve the friendship before conflict escalates too high. They may not be as

satisfied with their friendship, but conflict should be a deal breaker for destiny theorists. The

association between low destiny beliefs and satisfaction illustrates that children scoring low on

the destiny scale are exhibiting more conflict when they are unsatisfied in a relationship, but

very little when they are satisfied. A similar picture emerges in the conflict from the friend,

although there is a decrease in conflict behavior for high destiny children as satisfaction

increases. This steeper decrease in conflict may be due to the fact that children cannot

necessarily control the conflict they are receiving from their friend, whereas they have more

control over their own use of conflict behaviors toward the friend. The conflict they are

receiving may be a warning for them that the friendship won’t last and thus they are less

satisfied.

The significant interaction between growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and satisfaction

predicting the importance conflict resolution highlights the likely mutual influence of growth

and destiny beliefs. The children scoring highly on the growth scale showed the greatest

variability in their valuing of conflict resolution. As was expected, the children that valued

conflict resolution the most were high on growth, low on destiny, and highly satisfied.

Somewhat surprising was the finding that the children who rated highly on the importance of

conflict resolution were high on both growth and destiny, but low on satisfaction. This is likely

due to the competing beliefs of high growth and destiny endorsement. Their growth beliefs

suggest they should maintain and develop this relationship, but their destiny beliefs suggest that 44

if they are unsatisfied they should dissolve the friendship. They may value conflict resolution as

an attempt to salvage the friendship. Children high on destiny and highly satisfied probably

display little valuing for conflict resolution because they probably are not experiencing much

conflict if they are highly satisfied. It was unanticipated that children that are low on destiny and

unsatisfied also display little value of conflict resolution because their high growth belief should

heighten their value of conflict resolution despite their satisfaction level. The lack of satisfaction

may be influencing the lower value of conflict resolution.

Gender. The results of the analyses looking at the moderating role of gender revealed a

complex relation between gender and implicit theories in predicting friendship qualities. The

interaction between growth and destiny beliefs and gender predicted relational aggression in

children’s friendship. Interesting patterns emerged for boys and girls. Boys experienced the

most relational aggression in their friendships when they were high on growth beliefs and low

on destiny beliefs, but less when they had higher destiny beliefs. Girls, however, experienced

more relational aggression when they were high on growth beliefs and high on destiny beliefs,

but less when they were higher on destiny beliefs. Boys, unlike girls, seem to be involved in

friendships with more relational aggression when they have higher growth beliefs and lower

destiny beliefs. These results contradict previous findings that there is more relational

aggression in girls’ friendships than boys’ (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996), but point to the importance

of social cognitive processes in understanding behavior in friendships. The different effects of

destiny beliefs for boys and girls also suggest that the implicit theories may function differently

for boys and girls in certain contexts. This is an important question that should be addressed in

future research.

45

The three‐way interaction between growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and gender also

predicted intimate exchange by children. Girls clearly display more intimate exchanges in their

friendships than boys do, a finding consistent in the literature (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985;

Maccoby, 1998; Rose, 2002; Zarbatany et al., 2000). Variation in intimate exchange occurred

when children were low on the growth scale. Both boys and girls exhibited similar levels of

intimate exchange when low on both growth and destiny scales. However, when low on growth

beliefs, boys exhibit less intimate exchange when they are high on destiny beliefs, but girls

exhibit more intimate exchange when they are high on destiny beliefs. Maybe as part of

diagnosing the validity of their friendships boys with high destiny beliefs are more guarded in

disclosing to friendships, but girls display more of themselves to their friends.

Satisfaction in children’s friendships was also predicted by the three‐way interaction

between growth beliefs, destiny beliefs, and gender. Similar to the previous findings, opposite

patterns emerge for boys and girls in examining satisfaction. Children are most satisfied when

they are high on growth, but this is only when boys are high on destiny and girls are low on

destiny. Satisfaction for these boys and girls does decline as their growth beliefs decrease, but

the decline is steeper for boys. The steeper patterns of change for boys may indicate that they

are more sensitive to the effects of implicit theories when evaluating their satisfaction in

friendships. Many studies of gender differences have examined mean level differences between

boys and girls, but very few studies have looked at the moderating role of gender (Rose, 2007;

Schmidt & Bagwell, 2007). The findings here suggest that gender differences represent more

than girls and boys being higher or lower on measures, but that there are different effects for

boys and girls. Decomposing the roles of gender and implicit theories in predicting friendship

qualities is complex and needs to be addressed in future studies. 46

Developmental Considerations

The transition from middle childhood to adolescence is marked by biological

maturation, but many cognitive and social changes are also occurring that have important

implications for interactions friends. As children make this transition, they begin spending more

time outside of the family and more time with peers and friends. In fact, when Furman and

Buhrmester (1992) asked children and adolescents who they turn to for support, they found

that by the tenth grade, same‐sex friends had surpassed parents as the most frequent source of

support for adolescents. By this time friendships are also characterized by greater intimacy,

reciprocity, and trustworthiness than friendships during childhood (Buhrmester, 1990; Furman

& Bierman, 1984; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). The cognitive abilities that emerge in early

adolescence support and allow for more in‐depth processing of friendships (Keating, 2004).

Greater abstraction in thought and hypothetical and multidimensional thinking all contribute to

adolescents’ ability to process their social world. This maturity in cognition likely plays a major

role in the greater complexity and closeness seen in friendships. These cognitive changes are

also likely to influence adolescents’ understanding and expectations of friendships (Bigelow,

Tesson, & Lewko, 1996).

The children in the present study were in sixth grade, right in the middle of this shift

from middle childhood to adolescence. This timing may have many implications for the

conclusions that can be drawn from this study. As the basis of children’s friendships shift from

proximity and similarity to intimacy and reciprocity, it is likely that their implicit theories of

friendship are being revised as well. Thus, the modest stability seen in growth and destiny

theories may be partly due to the changing features children are experiencing in their

47

friendships. Additionally, their cognitive growth during this time period may also be influencing how they think about friendships. If this study were to be replicated in a sample of older adolescents it is likely that some of the findings would be different.

Future Directions

Several future directions have been mentioned already, but additional future directions merit noting here. One important area of future relationship research would be investigating the concordance of friends’ implicit theories about friendship. Does the agreement between friends’ theories matter for relationship outcomes? Research looking at both self and friend

perceptions of the friendship suggests that it might. Burk and Laursen (2005) found that friends

who held discrepant perceptions of the negative aspects of their friendship had more negative

friendships than friends who had concordant perceptions of their friendship. Investigating both

friends’ implicit theories of friendship and their concordance could provide more information

about their friendship and its quality than just examining the implicit theory of one friend.

The current study asked children to rate growth and destiny items based on their

general beliefs about friendships, and not specifically about one friendship. There are conflicting

views about whether one should examine general or specific relationship beliefs. Fletcher &

Kininmonth (1992) argue for the importance of studying general relationship beliefs. They

acknowledge that cognitions about specific relationships will be different from general

relationship cognitions, but that specific relationship cognitions are often clouded by other

relationship factors. Others have argued that a better picture of relationships is obtained by

measuring cognitions about specific relationships (Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000). Furman

(2001) argues for a hierarchy of relationship representations. Here, individuals hold general

48

relationship representations, broad representations of specific relationship types, and specific

relationship representations. While studies examining the cognitions related to a specific

friendship should provide important information about children’s functioning, the present study

examined how more generalized implicit theories interact with aspects of a friendship in

predicting behavior. Investigating the representations individuals hold about specific friendships

and how general and specific implicit theories of friendship influence each other and behavior is

an important direction for future research.

While the present study provided important information regarding the association

between implicit theories of friendship and qualities of children’s friendship, little is known

about the specific behaviors that children use in their friendship. Research on implicit theories

of romantic relationships has shown that destiny theorists use more negative (Knee, 1998) and

passive (Franiuk et al., 2002) coping strategies compared to growth theorists. The present study

did not allow for the study of explicit behaviors within friendships, but rather general qualities of

the friendship. Investigating specific behaviors and strategies that children use in their

friendships based on their implicit theories of friendships would be an interesting avenue of

future study.

Conclusions

The present research highlights the importance of considering the implicit theories

children hold about friendships in understanding their behavior in friendships and the qualities

that they value in these friendships. As expected, endorsement of growth beliefs was associated

directly with greater intimacy and valuing of friendships. Effects of destiny beliefs were indirect

and depended on children’s satisfaction in their friendship. Complex interactions between

49

implicit theories of friendship and gender as well as friendship qualities also emerged. These findings suggest interesting effects of holding different combinations of growth and destiny beliefs when combined with certain features of friendships. The findings here lead to many more questions regarding the role of implicit theories of friendship in understanding children’s

behavior and the qualities of their friendships. Many important avenues of future research have

been suggested. Continuing the study of implicit theories of friendships promises a greater

understanding of the role of social cognition in friendships.

50

References

Armsden, G. C. & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:

Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well‐being in adolescence.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427‐454.

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, & W.

W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence (pp.

366‐403). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461‐484.

Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children’s friendship expectations: A cognitive‐developmental study. Child

Development, 48, 246‐253.

Bigelow, B. J., Tesson, G., & Lewko, J. H. (1996). Learning the rules: The anatomy of children's

relationships. New York: Guilford Press.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic.

Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment

during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101‐1111.

Buhrmester, D. (1996). Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental

contexts of early adolescent friendship. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W.

Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship during childhood and adolescence (pp.

158‐185). New York: Cambridge University Press.

51

Buhrmester, D. & Furman, W. (1986). The changing functions of children’s friendships: A neo‐

Sullivan perspective. In V. Derlega & B. Winstead (Eds.), Friendships and social

interaction (pp.41‐62). New York: Springer.

Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., & Hoza, B. (1987). Friendship conceptions among early

adolescents: A longitudinal study of stability and change. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7,

143‐152.

Burk, W. J. & Laursen, B. (2005). Adolescent perceptions of friendship and their associations

with individual adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29,156‐

164.

Burks, V. S., Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., & Laird, R. D. (1999). Internal representational models of

peers: Implications for the development of problematic behavior. Developmental

Psychology, 35, 802‐810.

Carlson, E. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2004). The construction of experience: A longitudinal

study of representation and behavior. Child Development, 75, 66‐83.

Chung, T. & Asher, S. R. (1996). Children’s goals and strategies in peer conflict situations. Merrill‐

Palmer Quarterly, 42, 125‐147.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences. (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, W. A. (1997). Relationships and development during adolescence: Interpersonal

adaptation to individual change. Personal Relationships, 4(1), 1‐14.

Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: Interpersonal

contexts of adolescent development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(1), 55‐62.

52

Collins, W. A. & Sroufe, L. A. (1999). Capacity for intimate relationships: A developmental

construction. In W. Furman, C. Feiring, & B. Brown (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on

adolescent romantic relationships (pp. 125‐147). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In W.

Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4, Socioemotional

processes (pp. 1003‐1067). New York: Wiley.

Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing

mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74‐101.

Crick, N. R. & Zahn‐Waxler, C. (2003). The development of psychopathology in females and

males: Current progress and future challenges. Development and Psychopathology, 15,

719–742

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self‐theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.

Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and

reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267‐285.

Dweck, C. S. & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social‐cognitive approach to motivation and personality.

Psychological Review, 95, 256‐273.

Elicker, J., Englund, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Predicting peer competence and peer

relationships in childhood from early parent‐child relationships. In R. Parke & G. Ladd

(Eds.), Family‐peer relationships: Models of linkage (pp. 77‐106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fincham, F. D., Hokoda, A., & Sanders, R. (1989). Learned helplessness, test anxiety, and

academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. Child Developmen, 60, 138‐145.

53

Fletcher, G. J. O. & Kininmonth, L. (1992). Measuring relationship beliefs: An individual

differences measure. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 371‐197.

Franiuk, R., Cohen, D., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2002). Implicit theories of relationships: Implications

for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships, 9, 345‐367.

Franiuk, R., Pomerantz, E. M., & Cohen, D. (2004). The causal role of theories of relationships:

Consequences for satisfaction and cognitive strategies. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1494‐1507.

Furman, W. (1993). Theory is not a four‐letter word: Needed directions in the study of

adolescent friendships. New Directions for Child Development, 60, 89‐103

Furman, W. (2001). Working models of friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

18, 583‐602.

Furman, W. & Bierman, K. L. (1984). Children’s conceptions of friendship: A multimethod study

of developmental changes. Developmental Psychology, 20, 925‐931.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of their personal relationships in

their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016‐1024.

Furman, W. & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of

personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103‐115.

Gest, S. D., Graham‐Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and

unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric

status. Social Development, 10, 23‐40.

Grotpeter, J. K. & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship.

Child Development, 67, 2328‐2338.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87‐97.

54

Harter, S., Waters, P. & Whitesell, N. R. (1998). Relational self‐worth: Differences in perceived

worth as a person across relational contexts among adolescents. Child Development, 69,

756‐766.

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental

significance. Child Development, 67, 1‐13.

Hartup, W. W., Brady, J. E., & Newcomb, A. F. (1983). Social cognition and social interaction in

childhood. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social

development: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 82‐109). Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Holmes, J. G. (2000). Social relationships: The nature and function of relational schemas.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 447‐495.

Jarvinen, D. W. & Nicholls, J. G. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals, beliefs about the causes of

social success, and satisfaction in peer relations. Developmental Psychology, 32, 46‐55.

Keating, D. P. (2004). Cognitive and brain development. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.),

Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 45‐84). New York: John Wiley.

Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic

relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 360‐370.

Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit theories of

relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal? Personality and Social

Psychological Bulletin, 27, 808‐819.

Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations

toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41‐55.

55

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American

Psychologist, 45, 513‐520.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, comning togethe: Cambridge, MA:

Belknap Press,

Newcomb, A. F. & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta‐analytic review.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306‐347.

Ojanen, T., Grönroos, M., Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s

social goals: Links with peer‐reported behavior and Sociometric status. Developmental

Psychology, 41, 699‐710.

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.

Pietromonaco, P. R. & Barrett, L. F. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do we

really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General Psychology, 4, 155‐

175.

Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior

and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844‐872.

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

1830‐1843.

Rose, A. J. (2007). Structure, content, and socioemotional correlates of girls’ and boys’

friendships. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 53, 489‐506.

56

Rose, A. J. & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes:

Potential trade‐offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys.

Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98‐131.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In

W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3,

Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). New York: Wiley.

Rudolph, K. D., Hammen, C., & Buge, D. (1995). Cognitive representations of self, family, and

peers in school‐age children: Links with social competence and sociometric status. Child

Development, 66, 1385‐1402.

Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpää, J., & Peets, K. (2005). “I’m ok but you’re not” and other peer‐

relational schemas: Explaining individual differences in children’s social goals.

Developmental Psychology, 41, 363‐375.

Schmidt, M. E. & Bagwell, C. L. (2007). The protective role of friendships in overtly and

relationally victimized boys and girls. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 53, 439‐460.

Sroufe, L.A. (1997). Psychopathology as an outcome of development. Development and

Psychopathology, 9(2), 251‐268.

Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child

Development, 48(4), 1184‐1199.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Zarbatany, L., McDougal. P., & Hymel, S. (2000). Gender‐differentiated experience in the peer

culture: Links to intimacy in preadolescence. Social Development, 9, 62‐79.

57

Appendix A

Items from the Implicit Theories of Friendship Questionnaire developed for this study.

Participants rated on a scale of 1‐5 the extent to which they agreed with each of the

statements.

Growth

• Arguments are an opportunity to improve friendships.

• With enough effort, any friendship can work.

• Friendships often fail because people do not try hard enough.

• Problems in a friendship can bring friends closer together.

• It is important to me to work on improving the quality of my friendships.

• The best kind of friendship develops slowly over time.

• I like friendships where I can learn new things about myself and my friend.

Destiny

• Friends either get along or they don’t.

• I like friendships that just click.

• Friendships that don’t work out were never meant to be.

• If a friendship is not meant to be there is no point in trying to make it work.

• It is important to me that my friends and I agree.

• Problems at the beginning of a friendship are a sign that the friendship won’t last.

• To last, a friendship must seem right from the start.

58

Appendix B

Final items used for the Growth and Destiny Scales.

Growth Items

• Arguments are an opportunity to improve friendships.

• With enough effort, any friendship can work.

• Problems in a friendship can bring friends closer together.

• It is important to me that my friends and I agree.

• It is important to me to work on improving the quality of my friendships.

• The best kind of friendship develops slowly over time.

• I like friendships where I can learn new things about myself and my friend.

Destiny Items

• Friendships that don’t work out were never meant to be.

• If a friendship is not meant to be there is no point in trying to make it work.

• Problems at the beginning of a friendship are a sign that the friendship won’t last.

• To last, a friendship must seem right from the start.

59

Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics for Scales

n M SD ITFa Growth 158 3.85 0.57 Destiny 160 2.38 0.86 CPRSb Caring Acts 158 3.66 0.65 Negative Affect 159 2.17 0.73 Relational Aggression 159 1.64 0.53 Isolation 160 1.85 0.79 Relationship Inclusivity 152 3.33 0.74 Peer Attachment Communication 152 27.49 5.98 Alienation 150 15.20 4.43 Trust 154 42.45 5.93 Overall Quality 140 54.86 13.74 Interpersonal Goals Submissive 157 3.26 0.57 Separate 154 2.28 0.69 Communal 153 3.14 0.50 Global self‐esteem 151 3.37 0.60 Best Friend Length 159 4.13 1.19 FQMc Overt Aggression 155 1.24 0.48 Relational Aggression 154 1.59 0.52 Conflict Resolution 155 3.06 0.57 Intimate Exchange 1 152 4.15 0.86 Intimate Exchange 2 155 4.21 0.84 Subject Desire for Exclusivity 152 1.75 0.64 Friend Desire for Exclusivity 154 1.69 0.52 Conflict 1 155 1.85 0.67 Conflict 2 157 1.76 0.64 Validation and Caring 156 4.19 0.76 Companionship and Recreation 135 4.20 0.66 Satisfaction 160 4.72 0.50 IFQMd Conflict Resolution 154 2.92 0.76 Intimate Exchange 152 2.54 0.97 Conflict 155 2.61 0.65 Validation and Caring 160 2.65 1.01 Help and Guidance 159 2.38 0.84 Emotional Health e 162 4.04 0.87 Popular/Acceptance e 162 3.83 0.92 Social Helplessness e 157 1.48 0.64 a Implicit Theories of Friendship Questionnaire, b Children’s Peer Relationship Scale, c Friendship Qualities Measure, d Importance of Friendship Qualities Measure, e Teacher reported measures

60

Table 2. Factor loadings for Implicit Theories of Friendship Measure.

Destiny Growth Factor Factor g Arguments are an opportunity to improve friendships. ‐.36 .45 Friends either get along or they don’t. .43 .01 g With enough effort, any friendship can work. ‐.07 .46 I like friendships that just click. .30 .31 Friendships often fail because people do not try hard .35 .27 enough. d Friendships that don’t work out were never meant to be. .67 .01 d If a friendship is not meant to be there is no point in trying .65 .04 to make it work. g Problems in a friendship can bring friends closer together. ‐.43 .43 g It is important to me that my friends and I agree. .11 .58 g It is important to me to work on improving the quality of .11 .76 my friendships. g The best kind of friendship develops slowly over time. .05 .50 d Problems at the beginning of a friendship are a sign that .70 ‐.10 the friendship won’t last. g I like friendships where I can learn new things about .03 .59 myself and my friend. d To last, a friendship must seem right from the start. .69 .11 g Indicates items retained for the growth scale. d Indicates items retained for the destiny scale.

61

Table 3. Correlations between growth and destiny theories for validation purposes.

Growth Destiny Growth ‐.097 Destiny ‐.097 Peer Attachment Quality .220** .062 Communication .394*** .037 Alienation .054 ‐.079 Trust .162* .016 Self‐esteem .069 .021 Emotional Healtha .136† .009 Popularity/Acceptancea ‐.026 .093 Social Helplessnessa ‐.083 ‐.055 a Teacher reported measures

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

62

Table 4. Correlations between growth and destiny theories and peer behaviors.

Growth Destiny CPRS a Caring Acts .389*** ‐.086 Negative Affect .080 ‐.009 Relational Aggression ‐.180* .070 Isolation .189* .051 Relationship Inclusivity .306*** ‐.167* Interpersonal Goals Submissive .073 .093 Separate ‐.037 .024 Communal .281*** .025 a Children’s Peer Relationship Scale

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

63

Table 5. Correlations between growth and destiny theories and friendship qualities.

Growth Destiny FQM a Overt Aggression ‐.096 ‐.048 Relational Aggression ‐.011 .044 Conflict Resolution .168* ‐.008 Intimate Exchange I .271*** ‐.106 Intimate Exchange II .260*** ‐.112 Subject Desire for Exclusivity .004 .000 Friend Desire for Exclusivity ‐.033 ‐.012 Conflict I ‐.034 .020 Conflict II .045 ‐.065 Validation and Caring .353*** ‐.067 Companionship and Recreation .149† .100 Satisfaction .132† ‐.030 IFQM b Conflict Resolution .154† ‐.071 Intimate Exchange .323*** ‐.030 Conflict .258*** .106 Validation and Caring .354*** ‐.048 Help and Guidance .238** ‐.033 a Friendship Qualities Measure, b Importance of Friendship Qualities Measure

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

64

Table 6. Correlations between implicit theories and friendship qualities by gender.

Growth Destiny Girls Boys Girls Boys FQM a Overt Aggression ‐.021 ‐.117 ‐.057 ‐.068 Relational Aggression ‐.105 .140 .185† ‐.165 Conflict Resolution .079 .226† .039 ‐.041 Intimate Exchange I .270* .202 ‐.023 ‐.187 Intimate Exchange II .218* .229† .109 ‐.295* Subject Desire for Exclusivity ‐.082 .097 .115 ‐.191 Friend Desire for Exclusivity ‐.069 .012 .094 ‐.171 Conflict I ‐.239* .253* .039 ‐.038 Conflict II .033 .133 .003 ‐.191 Validation and Caring .278** .379** ‐.078 ‐.024 Companionship and Recreation .244* ‐.019 .131 .069 Satisfaction .118 .107 ‐.130 .097 IFQM b Conflict Resolution .037 .172 ‐.071 .006 Intimate Exchange .253* .350** ‐.032 .039 Conflict .072 .429*** .033 .296* Validation and Caring .197† .471*** .030 ‐.099 Help and Guidance .146 .270* .097 ‐.173 a Friendship Qualities Measure, b Importance of Friendship Qualities Measure

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

65

Table 7. Effects of Destiny and Growth scales on Friendship Qualities.

Friendship Quality Growth β Destiny β Growth x Destiny β

FQMa Conflict Resolution .170*

Intimate Exchange I .267***

Intimate Exchange II .244**

Validation and Caring .348***

Companionship and Recreation .158†

IFQMb Conflict Resolution .151†

Intimate Exchange .323***

Conflict .273*** .154*

Validation and Caring .358***

Help and Guidance .234**

Note. Friendship Qualities not reported did not reach significance. In each analysis destiny and growth theories were entered and interpreted at Step 1, the two‐way interactions were entered and interpreted at the Step 2. Only significant results are presented here. a Friendship Qualities Measure, b Importance of Friendship Qualities Measure

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

66

6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 Low Growth 3 High IFQM: Conflict 2.5 Growth 2 1.5 1 Low Destiny High Destiny

Figure 1. The interaction between destiny and growth beliefs predicting children’s ratings of how upset they would be if there was conflict in their friendship with their best friend.

67

6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 Low Growth 3 High Growth 2.5 2 IFQM Conflict Resolution 1.5 1 Low Length High Length

Figure 2. The two‐way interaction between friendship length and growth beliefs predicting the value of conflict resolution in the friendship.

68

6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 Low Growth 3 High Growth 2.5 2

IFQM Validation and caring IFQM Validation 1.5 1 Low Length High Length

Figure 3. The two‐way interaction between friendship length and growth beliefs predicting the value of validation and caring behaviors in the friendship.

69

5

4.5

4 (1) High Destiny, High Length 3.5 (2) High Destiny, Low Length 3 (3) Low Destiny, High Length 2.5 (4) Low Destiny, Intimate Exchange Low Length 2

1.5

1 Low Growth High Growth

Figure 4. The three‐way interaction between friendship length and growth and destiny beliefs predicting intimate exchange in the friendship.

70

6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 Low Destiny 3 High Destiny 2.5

Relational Aggression 2 1.5 1 Low Satisfaction High Satisfaction

Figure 5. The two‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and destiny beliefs predicting relational aggression in the friendship.

71

6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 Low Destiny 3 High Destiny 2.5 2 Conflict Toward Friend Conflict Toward 1.5 1 Low Satisfaction High Satisfaction

6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 Low Destiny 3 2.5 High Destiny

Conflict From Friend Conflict From 2 1.5 1 Low Satisfaction High Satisfaction

Figure 6. The two‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and destiny beliefs predicting levels of conflict, both to and from the best friend.

72

5

4.5

4 (1) High Destiny, High Satisfaction 3.5 (2) High Destiny, Low Satisfaction 3 (3) Low Destiny, High Satisfaction 2.5 (4) Low Destiny, Low Satisfaction 2 IFQM Conflict Resolution 1.5

1 Low Growth High Growth

Figure 7. The three‐way interaction between friendship satisfaction and growth and destiny beliefs predicting the importance of conflict resolution in the friendship.

73

5

4.5

4 (1) High Destiny, Girls 3.5 (2) High Destiny, Boys 3 (3) Low Destiny, Girls 2.5 (4) Low Destiny, Boys

Relational Aggression 2

1.5

1 Low Growth High Growth

Figure 8. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting relational aggression in the friendship.

74

5

4.5

4 (1) High Destiny, Girls 3.5 (2) High Destiny, Boys 3 (3) Low Destiny, Girls 2.5

Intimate Exchange (4) Low Destiny, Boys 2

1.5

1 Low Growth High Growth

Figure 9. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting intimate exchange in the friendship.

75

5

4.9

4.8 (1) High Destiny, Girls 4.7 (2) High Destiny, Boys 4.6 Satisfaction (3) Low Destiny, Girls 4.5 (4) Low Destiny, Boys 4.4

4.3

4.2 Low Growth High Growth

Figure 10. The 3‐way interaction between Growth, Destiny, and Gender predicting satisfaction with the friendship.

76