Connecting Feelings of School Belonging to High School Students’ Friendship Quality Profiles

Abstract

Utilizing a person-centered approach, the present study explored 614 adolescents’ reports of self-disclosure, help, conflict, and conflict resolution with a close friend to investigate variability in profiles of friendship quality, whether gender and gender homophily and ethnicity homophily of friends are associated with profile membership, and how the profiles relate to feelings of school belonging. A latent profile analysis revealed three profiles of friendship: an ideal friendship profile (25.57% of the sample), a realistic friendship profile (54.56%), and a somewhat problematic friendship profile (19.87%). Compared to adolescents in the somewhat problematic profile, female adolescents were more likely to have a realistic or ideal friendship profile than males. Adolescents with ideal and realistic friendship profiles reported the highest feelings of school belonging; those in the somewhat problematic profile reported the lowest school belonging. The advantages of attending to profiles that incorporate multiple dimensions of friendship quality to understanding the social and academic experiences of adolescents are discussed.

Keywords

Latent profile analysis friendship quality school-belonging gender difference friend similarity/homophily friendship profile/pattern

It is well established that having high-quality friendships in adolescence is associated with positive qualities such as higher self-esteem (Hartup & Stevens, 1999), peer-rated sociability (Berndt et al., 1999), and a sense of school belonging (Hamm & Faircloth, 2005). Additionally, such friendships can mitigate the adverse outcomes of negative peer experiences like depression (Kochel et al., 2017) and internalizing distress (You & Bellmore, 2012). On the flip side, low-quality friendships are linked to perceived loneliness (Woods et al., 2009), peer rejection, peer victimization, and social anxiety (La Greca & Harrison, 2005).

For almost three decades, friendship quality has been conceptualized as multi-dimensional (Bukowski et al., 1994; Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003) and comprised of both positive (e.g., companionship, intimacy, help) and negative (e.g., conflict) friendship features (Berndt, 2002). However, even when multiple dimensions are measured, in practice friendship quality in adolescence has been represented as a single score that subtracts scores for negative features from scores for positive features (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993) or by focusing on only select dimensions (e.g., van Rijsewijk et al., 2020). What remains unknown is whether friendship quality features work together multi-dimensionally to predict adolescents’ psychosocial experiences.

The present study uses a person-centered latent variable approach to investigate whether adolescents report differential friendship quality profiles, whether profile membership is associated with gender and/or gender and ethnicity homophily in the friendship, and whether members of profiles differ in their levels of feelings of school belonging.

Friendship Features

The multidimensional construct of friendship (Bukowski et al., 1994; Thien et al., 2018) specifies that an adolescent’s friendship quality should be understood from the standpoint of various features of friendship. A popular measure of friendship quality developed by Parker and Asher (1993), the Friendship Quality Questionnaire (FQQ), is widely used among adolescence researchers (e.g., Perry et al., 2020; Dwyer et al., 2010). The FQQ identifies six features of friendship: 1. Validation and caring (e.g., supporting ideas); 2. Conflict resolution (e.g., making up after having a fight); 3. Conflict and betrayal (e.g., arguing); 4. Help and guidance (e.g., providing help to one another); 5. Companionship and recreation (e.g., sitting together at lunch); 6. Intimate exchange (e.g., telling one another about their problems). Bukowski et al. (1994) identified five similar features of friendship quality in child and adolescent friendships: 1. Help (aid (e.g., providing lunch money), protection from victimization (e.g., giving protections when needed)); 2. Play/companionship (e.g., spending free time together); 3. Conflict (e.g., fighting); 4. Security (trust/reliable alliance (e.g., feeling secure in confiding), transcending problems (e.g., resolving arguments quickly), which is made up of qualities similar to both intimate exchange and conflict resolution; 5. Closeness (reflected appraisal (e.g., being happy for friends), affective bond (e.g., wanting to be together)). Both scales were originally designed for children and early adolescents (9–12 years old) but have been used with older adolescents too (e.g., Demir & Urberg, 2004; Nelson & DeBacker, 2008). Four features of friendship quality are common across the two scales and are likely to be particularly relevant to older adolescents: 1. Intimate exchange; 2. Help; 3. Conflict, 4. Conflict resolution.

Parker and Asher (1993) describe intimate exchange as an individual’s self-disclosure by sharing personal information and feelings. As self-disclosure is a commonly used term for this process within intimate relationships (e.g., Vijayakumar & Pfeifer, 2020), and is noted as a developmental hallmark for adolescence (Berndt, 2002), we use the term “self-disclosure” for this study. Self-disclosure is a process in which personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences are shared with others (Derlega et al., 1993; Berndt, 2002). With the maturity of language and cognition, there is an increase in self-disclosure within friendships starting at pre-adolescence (around 10–13 years old) (Buhrmester & Prager, 1995; Bauminger et al., 2008). According to the linear increase hypothesis, this is expected to continue through adolescence (Valkenburg et al., 2011). Self-disclosing to friends promotes interpersonal processes such as emotional closeness (McNelles & Connolly, 1999; Rose, 2002) and the initiation and maintenance of online relationships (e.g., Liu & Brown, 2014; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007).

Help refers to the efforts that one friend makes to another by offering support and guidance with challenges and everyday tasks (Parker & Asher, 1993) and continues to be identified as a feature of friendships in recent scholarship (van Rijsewijk et al., 2020). Helping behavior is associated with the ability to initiate new relationships (Wentzel & Erdley, 1993), promote long-lasting friendship (Cillessen et al., 2005; van Rijsewijk et al., 2020), and receive feelings of greater friendship satisfaction (Parker & Asher, 1993).

Conflict describes arguments, disagreements, annoyance, or mistrust between friends (Parker & Asher, 1993). Higher scores on conflict typically co-occur with lower scores on the other features (Spencer et al., 2013). Any type of relationship has ups and downs. It is difficult to completely avoid conflict in close relationships such as parent-child relationships, romantic relationships, and close friendships, but conflict might impact relationships in a negative way. For instance, conflict in parent-adolescent relationships affects the parents’ and adolescents’ emotions (Hollenstein & ‬Lewis‬, 2006), negotiation patterns (Granic, 2005), and long-term relationship qualities (Branje, 2018). Conflicts also impact romantic partners, such that failure to recover from conflict effectively undermines romantic partners’ present and future relationships (Salvatore et al., 2011). It is reasonable to expect that conflict plays a similar negative role in friendships. In alignment with this expectation is evidence that a higher level of conflict is linked to lower friendship stability (Bukowski et al., 1994).

Parker and Asher (1993) describe conflict resolution as “the degree to which disagreement in the relationship is resolved efficiently and fairly” (p. 613). Just as relationships experience varying levels of conflict, so too will friendships experience varying levels of resolution of those conflicts that may be independent of the level of conflict (Croft & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2014, for a review). As two friends encounter a conflict, their efficacy in resolving it might be more crucial than the numbers or frequencies of conflicts (Laursen, 1993). Adolescents who maintain positive and effective conflict resolution strategies tend to benefit not only their friendships (Gao et al., 2017) but also family (Van Doorn et al., 2011) and romantic relationships (Salvatore et al., 2011). According to a study on friendship stability, the management of conflict resolution matters more than the frequency of conflicts (Bowker, 2004).

In summary, different features of adolescents’ friendships relate to their social experiences. Most of this work has been conducted by measuring and testing the features independently of one another. Our study takes the next step of investigating whether and how the features might work together in predicting social experiences.

Friendship Profiles

Previous research on friendship quality consistently indicates that positive friendship features (e.g., intimacy, help, conflict resolution) are positively correlated with each other (Parker & Asher, 1993; Woods et al., 2009); whereas conflict is negatively correlated with each of those (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993). In Bukowski et al.’s (1994) study, the range in correlations between subscales is .13–.61 and in Parker and Asher’s (1993) work the range is .16–.75. In some studies, researchers have found a two-factor structure for friendship quality in adolescents, reflecting positive and negative characteristics (Berndt & McCandless, 2009). They have utilized a numerical composite score as an indicator of friendship quality that adds up scores of positive dimensions and then subtracts the score of the negative dimension from that; adolescents with higher composite scores are believed to have better friendship quality (e.g., Berndt, 2002). Investigating friendship quality using variable-centered approach glosses over the multiple dimensions and, therefore, may not capture the richness of the construct of friendship. Variable-centered approach have come under growing criticism for their possible inability to fully “capture the configurations of factors that collectively explain behavioral processes” (Bauer & Shanahan, 2007). A step beyond this is studies using exploratory factor analysis to yield two dimensions (positive and negative) that are then examined individually as indicators of friendship quality (e.g., Normand et al., 2020).

To our knowledge, only three studies have examined how the multiple dimensions of friendships form profiles within adolescents. One mixed-method study explored the friendship profiles among 213 ethnic minority high schoolers from low-income families with their same-sex, closest friends (Way et al., 2001). Using the self-reported Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) scale that includes both positive (e.g., intimacy, affection, reliable alliance, satisfaction) and negative facets (e.g., conflict, and antagonism), four types of friendship profiles were revealed from cluster analysis. The ideal profile (32% of the sample) had the highest scores on positive dimensions such as intimacy and affection, and the lowest scores on negative dimensions such as conflict compared to all other friendship profiles. The average profile (29%) had slightly lower scores on both positive and negative dimensions compared to the ideal profile. The disengaged profile (20%) had the lowest scores on positive dimensions and an intermediate score on negative dimensions compared to all others. The engaged profile (19%) had higher scores on positive dimensions and the highest negative ones compared to all others. The disengaged profile had significantly more male participants, while the ideal friendship profile had significantly more female participants. Using the same cluster analysis approach with the FQQ (Parker & Asher, 1993), Sakai et al. (2020) examined friendship profiles among elementary and middle school students in Japan. With a self-reported questionnaire from one partner, three profiles of friendships emerged: conflict superiority, good, and thin. The friendship profile of good is the same as the ideal profile found in Way et al. (2001). The conflict superiority profile is very similar to the engaged profile in Way et al.’s (2001) study. The thin profile, which has the lowest scores on both positive and negative dimensions, was unique to this sample (Sakai et al., 2020). Like Way et al.’s (2001) study, female students were more likely to report a good friendship (Sakai et al., 2020). Using the NRI (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) for the friendship scale, Hiatt et al. (2015) ‘s longitudinal study on friendship profiles found similar results as Way et al.’s (2001). Their cluster analysis yielded four friendship profiles labeled high (26.7% of the sample), low (23.7%), moderate discrepant (35.2%), and high discrepant (14.4%) (Hiatt et al., 2015). The high quality friendship was the most stable profile for adolescents from 6^th to 7^th grade (Hiatt et al., 2015).

Latent Class Modeling Approach to Identifying Friendship Profiles

Given the multidimensional concept of friendship, a person-centered approach such as Latent Class Modeling (LCM) is beneficial for identifying the constellations of friendship indicators that jointly explain an adolescent’s friendship quality. Variable-centered models are unable to capture the combinations of factors that work together to explain behavioral processes and are unable to draw attention to the inherent heterogeneity within groups (Li et al., 2019). Person-centered approaches treat individuals as cohesive entities and strive to uncover friendship groupings with similar profiles across a variety of dimensions of friendship quality. Latent Class Modeling (LCM) is a person-centered approach that identifies potential groups based mainly on the participants’ observable responses (Clogg, 1988; Eshghi et al., 2011). Unlike other classification models (e.g., classical hierarchical, k-means cluster analyses) that rely on a clear cutoff point (Eshghi et al., 2011), LCM suggests class memberships based on posterior probability with maximum likelihood estimators (Eshghi et al., 2011; Muthén & Muthén, 2000). Therefore, a significant benefit of the LCM approach is that the estimated variabilities of group memberships allow different variances and variabilities in the sample between individuals and even within groups. Exploring friendship profiles and adolescents’ subjective experiences provides critical information regarding the differences between and within friendship groups in adolescents’ lives (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). In addition, LCM allows the predictors, covariates, and outcome variables to be entered into the model simultaneously (Nylund et al., 2007). Therefore, the LCM approach has been widely adopted to examine the variability of the configuration of various indicators across peer relationships (e.g., friends’ social support types, Bohnert et al., 2010; friendship network types, Miche et al., 2013), to identify subsets with more homogeneous patterns of those indicators among themselves.

Aim 1 of the present study is to use LPA to estimate adolescents’ friendship profiles with a close friend. Four dimensions from the self-reported measure of the FQQ (Parker & Asher, 1993) are included: self-disclosure, help, conflict, and conflict resolution. Two friendship profiles were anticipated based on previous studies on friendship profiles. One type of profile is the ideal profile with high scores on all positive dimensions and a low score on conflict. This was expected to be the biggest proportion of the sample because of the nature of the closest friendship. The second unique profile that was expected contains more conflict and relatively fewer positive friendship features such that it would be similar to the conflict superiors profiles in the Sakai et al. (2020) study.

Covariates of Friendship Profiles

Gender differences have been demonstrated in studies of friendship profiles (i.e., Sakai et al., 2020; Way et al., 2001), with females more commonly in the friendship profile of good or ideal than males. Studies on specific friendship features of adolescents’ dyadic friendship qualities also show this difference. Females report more intimacy (Lansford & Parker, 1999) and self-disclosure (Valkenburg et al., 2011) than do males. Females also are reported by their best friends as providing more help than are males (e.g., Woods et al., 2009). In studies examining gender differences in strategies and goals of conflict resolution, when females reported using a prosocial goal to resolve a conflict with friends, they tended to positively solve the problem more often than did males (De Wied et al., 2007; Rose & Asher, 1999). Aim 2 is to examine how gender relates to friendship profiles. It is expected that females are more likely to be in the ideal profile than are males.

In addition to adolescents’ gender, another factor that may impact adolescents’ friendship profiles is the extent to which the friends in the dyad are similar to each other. Friendship homophily describes the extent to which adolescents share characteristics with their friends and is one of the most critical determinants of friendship choice (Graham et al., 2014) but its relationship to friendship quality has not been explored. Adolescents prefer a same-ethnicity friend over a different-ethnicity friend even in conditions where equal opportunity for either exists (Graham et al., 2009). This preference becomes more prominent during adolescence. Moody (2001) found that a same-ethnic friendship was more than twice as likely as a cross-ethnic friendship among adolescents. Whether this preference is linked to a particular friendship profile is unknown, but studies show that same-versus cross-ethnic friendships benefit adolescents differently. Some studies find that same ethnicity friendship is associated with a more robust sense of ethnic identity (e.g., Chen & Graham, 2017; Syed & Juan, 2012), whereas others find that cross-ethnicity friendships support youth’s understanding of other ethnicities’ experiences, languages, and cultures (Graham et al., 2014). Same-gender friendships are also more common than cross-gender friendships (e.g., McDougall & Hymel, 2007). However, cross-gender friendship becomes more prevalent in mid-to-late adolescence (Felmlee et al., 2012). Besides, previous profile studies did not examine cross-gender friendships. Thus, while the patterns of preferences suggest that friendship homophily in gender and ethnicity will be the most typical for these adolescents, it remains unknown whether homophily will be more likely in certain friendship profiles. Aim 3 of the present study was to investigate how friendship homophily of ethnicity and gender are each associated with friendship profiles.

Friendship Profiles and School-Belonging

School-belonging is defined as “the extent to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in the school social environment” (Goodenow & Grady, 1993, p. 80). The context-process-outcomes model (Roeser et al., 1996) proposed that adolescents’ perceptions of the context (e.g., perceived friendship characteristics) in their school setting relate to their feelings of the school as a motivational process and, in turn, to the outcomes of their psychological and behavioral adjustment at school. Delgado et al. (2016) examined this model with Latino 7^th −12^th graders and found a positive relationship between friendship and school-belonging. Qualitative (e.g., Hamm & Faircloth, 2005; Parker, 2010) research supports the idea that having a friend at school facilitates adolescents’ sense of school belonging. Uncovering the qualities of the friendship is likely to be even more important to predicting school belonging because a meta-analysis with 51 quantitative studies on school-belonging found that moderate to strong associations were found between school-belonging and measures related to the quality of friendship, such as having caring relationships at school (Allen et al., 2018). Aim 4 of the present study was to examine how friendship profiles predict school-belonging) when school belonging is added as a distal variable in the LPA model. It was expected that adolescents’ friendship profiles vary on their perceived school belonging such that the ideal friendship profile will yield the highest level of school belonging compared to any other profiles that may emerge.

The Present Study

The present study was designed to address four aims that contribute to both the conceptual and methodological study of close friendships in adolescence. To test whether friendship is best conceptualized as comprised of multiple dimensions that function together (Aim 1), we utilized LPA to estimate friendship profiles. We examined the significance of gender to this multidimensional measure of friendship to understand if the gender differences that are notable for individual friendship qualities are captured in the friendship profiles (Aim 2). We evaluated the importance of homophily to friendships by moving beyond reporting on whether adolescents are more or less likely to have same or other gender/ethnicity friends to testing whether both gender and ethnic homophily are associated with particular friendship profiles (Aim 3). Finally, while there is evidence that friendship profiles predict psychological adjustment (Way et al., 2001) this is the first test of whether friendship profile membership predicts school outcomes (Aim 4).

Method

Participants

Participants were 614 10^th grade adolescents (51.7% females, M_age = 15.78, SD_age = .66) who were recruited from four public high schools in Wisconsin, California, and Oregon, which serve ethnically diverse and low SES student populations. The self-reported ethnicity of the participants includes 46 African American (7.2% of the sample), 63 Asian (9.8% of the sample), 223 Caucasian (34.7%), 170 Latina/o Mexican American (26.2%), 21 Pacific Islander (4.2%), 17 Native (1.7%), 99 more than one ethnicity (15.4%), and 3 who indicated another ethnicity (.5%).

Procedure

The data were collected in the Spring of 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 as part of a multi-site study on the link between high school students’ social experiences and their academic and psychosocial adjustment. Parental consent and written assent were received from each participant. A total of 684 participants signed both the parental consent form and the student assent form. 50 participants did not complete any of the surveys because they were absent on the day of data collection, and 70 participants had missing values on the outcome variable (school belongingness). Because these data could not be used, the final sample size is 614 (89.77% of the 684 who consented and assented). Facilitated by school administrators, participants completed the questionnaire at the participant’s school. It took about 30 mins to complete the survey; participants received $10 for completing any portion of the survey. All procedures were approved by the IRB at each affiliated university and the school districts in which the data were collected.

Measures

Ethnicity and Gender of the Participants

Participants reported their ethnicity and gender. For ethnicity, participants were asked to choose one of eight options: “African/African American/Black”, “Asian/Asian American”, “Caucasian/White”, “Mexican American/Latino(a)/Hispanic”, “Pacific Islander/Filipino”, “Native American/Alaskan Native”, “More than one” or “Other”. For the last two options, they also were asked to indicate their ethnicity in a space provided. Gender was assessed by asking students to choose one of two options: boy and girl.

Friendship Homophily (Same Gender & Ethnicity)

Participants were asked to identify their closest friend in their grade at the school by writing down the friend’s first name and last initials. They were asked to do this so that all questions about their closest friend were completed with one specific friendship in mind (You & Bellmore, 2012). Students also identified the gender of the friend by marking a box labeled “a boy” or “a girl”. This allowed for calculating whether the participant and their friend were of the same or different genders. 487 participants (83%) reported a same gender closest friend. Participants identified the perceived ethnicity of the friend in relation to their own ethnicity by marking only one box either “the same ethnicity as me”, or “a different ethnicity as me”. 321 participants (55.7%) reported a same-ethnicity closest friend.

Perceived Closest Friendship Quality

A revised version of the Friendship Qualities Questionnaire (FQQ, Parker & Asher, 1993) was used in the present study. Slight revisions were made in the format of the questions to better encourage adolescents to think about specific actions and experiences within their friendship. An example of a change is the switch from the original wording, which had only actions such as “tell each other secrets” to the new format that incorporated the friendship into each item (e.g., “my friend and I tell each other secrets”). The present scale included four dimensions of friendship quality, including self-disclosure (4 items), help (9 items), conflict (6 items), and conflict resolution (2 items). Example items are “My friend, and I tell each other secrets” (self-disclosure), “My friend would help me if I needed it” (help), “My friend and I argue a lot” (conflict), and “My friend and I talk about how to make ourselves feel better if we are mad at each other” (conflict resolution). Participants rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“No way!”) to 5 (“For sure yes”) how true each statement was for their closest friends. The means of each dimension will be used in the latent profile analysis where higher scores indicate more of the behavior with the closest friend. In this sample, the alpha coefficient for each subscale was .82 (self-disclosure), .84 (help), .80 (conflict), and .73 (conflict resolution).

School Belonging

School belonging was assessed by 12 items that measured feelings of comfort, security, and belonging adopted and revised from Goodenow (1993) ‘s Psychological Sense of School Membership scale. Example items are “I feel close to people at my school” and “I feel like I am a part of my school”. Items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“No way!”) to 5 (“For sure yes”). A mean of items was calculated, such that a higher score reflects a stronger perception of school belongingness. The alpha coefficient for this sample was .85.

Results

Preliminary Results

Before proceeding with the main analyses, descriptive details were explored for each key variable. Three sets of t-tests were used to investigate differences in the means of the four dimensions of friendship and school belongingness for each gender, friendship gender homophily, and friendship ethnicity homophily. As shown in Table 1, males reported lower scores on all the positive features of friendship quality, higher scores on conflict compared to females, and higher school belongingness than females. Participants with the closest friend of a different gender than their own reported higher help, self-disclosure, conflict resolution, and conflict and lower school belonging than those with a same-gender closest friend. Participants with a closest friend of a different ethnicity than their own reported higher scores on help and conflict resolution.
Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviation of Main Study Variables and Gender, Same Gender, and Same Ethnicity Comparisons.

Variables Gender Friend Gender Homophily Status Friend Ethnicity Homophily Status

Males Females Cohen’s d Same Different Cohen’s d Same Different Cohen’s d

M (SD) M(SD) t M(SD) M(SD) t M(SD) M(SD) t

Conflict 2.20 (.60) 2.00 (.63) −4.15^* .62 2.05 (.62) 2.28 (.57) 3.60^* .61 2.11 (.62) 2.05 (.60) −1.11 .61

Help 3.89 (.64) 4.17 (.56) 5.61^*** .60 4.03 (.62) 4.12 (.53) 1.49 .61 3.99 (.63) 4.11 (.54) −2.38^* .59

Self-disclosure 3.48 (.79) 4.03 (.71) 8.97^*** .75 3.74 (.82) 3.94 (.61) 2.89^* .79 3.72 (.81) 3.85 (.75) 1.96 .78

Conflict res 3.24 (.94) 3.63 (.82) 5.43^* .88 3.40 (.91) 3.71 (.77) 3.49^ .88 3.38 (.90) 3.54 (.84) 2.25^* .88

School belonging 3.30 (.67) 3.10 (.70) −3.51^*** .69 3.21 (.68) 3.13 (.74) −1.07 .69 3.18 (.71) 3.22 (.68) .58 .69

Note. Conflict Res. = Conflict Resolution.

^p < .05; ^p < .01, ^p < .001.

The bivariate correlations between dimensions of friendship quality and school belongingness are presented in Table 2. Help, self-disclosure, and conflict resolution were positively correlated with each other. Conflict between friends was negatively correlated with help and self-disclosure. Help and conflict resolution were positively correlated with school belonging.
Table 2.
Bivariate Correlations between Dimensions in the Friendship Quality Scale and the Outcome Variable.

1 2 3 4 5

1.Conflict

2.Help −.25

3. Self-disclosure −.17 .66**

4.Conflict resolution −.09* .51 .62

5. School belonging −.15 .16* .04 .15**

M 2.10 4.04 3.77 3.44 3.20

SD .62 .61 .80 .90 .68

n 605 594 601 611 611

Note. For Likert scale “1 = no way!” “5 = for sure yes”.

p < .05; p < .01, p < .001.

Latent Profile Modeling of Friendship Profiles

The present study estimated the LPAs using Mplus through the R package MplusAutomation (Hallquist & Wiley, 2018).

The results of the LPAs are divided into three parts. First, the results of the latent profile analyses for friendship profiles without any covariates or distal outcome (Unconditional Model) are presented. Second, the exploration of how covariates (i.e., gender, friendship gender homophily, friendship ethnicity homophily) link to friendship profile (Conditional Model with the covariates and distal outcomes added simultaneously) are presented. Third, results between friendship profile and school belonging in the conditional model are presented. The methodical procedures for each model, including model building and validating procedures and model results guided by Nylund et al.’s (2007) latent class analysis, are reviewed.

Unconditional Model of Friendship Profiles

To explore the friendship profiles among adolescents (Aim 1), the unconditional LPA models (1 through 5 latent profiles enumeration) were estimated using four subscales of friendship quality (mean scores of help, self-disclosure, conflict, and conflict resolution) without covariates or distal outcomes. Missing values were estimated using the maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) in this unconditional model. The fit indices and the group sizes of the 1- to 5-profile models of friendship profiles are summarized in Table 3. The LPA model fit was evaluated with the following fit indices: Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian inform criteria (BIC), adjusted Bayesian inform criteria (aBIC), Entropy, the p-value for Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (pLMR), and p-value for Bootstrap likelihood ratio test (pBLRT). A lower AIC, BIC, and BIC score indicates a better fit for the data. For LMR and BLRT, a p-value less than 0.05 means that the model with one fewer class should be rejected in favor of the estimated model with more classes (Lo et al., 2001). With a value range from 0 to 1, entropy is an indicator of classification accuracy. Higher values of Entropy are considered better accuracy of classification.
Table 3.
Unconditional Model: Fit Indices for the LPA Model with 1 through 5 Latent Profiles (N = 336).

Profile AIC BIC aBIC pLMR pBLRT Entropy Group size

1-C 2-C 3-C 4-C 5-C

1-profile 5284.93 5320.29 5294.89 614

2-profile 4883.72 4890.93 4849.66 0.000 0.000 0.748 197 417

3-profile 4652.13 4731.69 4674.53 0.000 0.000 0.764 122 335 157

4-profile 4595.66 4697.32 4624.30 0.387 0.000 0.803 158 123 11 322

5-profile 4563.66 4687.42 4598.53 0.062 0.000 0.839 6 9 325 151 123

Note. Values in Bold indicate the selected fitting model.

AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; aBIC = adjusted BIC; pLMR = p values for Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test for K versus K-1 profiles; pBLRT = p values for Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test.

The 4- and 5-profile solutions had the lowest AIC, BIC, and aBIC values across all the other solutions, but did not have significant pLMR values. Moreover, the 4-profile and 5-profile solutions included a profile that was deemed too small to understand as a meaningful group (i.e., n = 11, 1.9%) (see Nylund-Gibson et al., 2022 and Yang, 2006 for guidance on choosing solutions). Therefore, the 3-profile solution was selected as the optimal solution for the data, as it presented better overall fit indices than 1- and 2-profile solutions and yielded meaningful and precise classification. The probabilities for the three latent profiles were 0.905, 0.915, and 0.837. The 3-profile solution’s entropy value (0.764) indicates a precise classification.

Additionally, even though this is not necessary for LPA that rely on multivariate correlations among indicators, we conducted Wald tests and Omnibus testing to determine whether the four LPA indicators are each significantly different among the three profiles (e.g., we compared the conflict mean values for Profiles 1, 2 and 3 to one another and we compared the help mean values for Profiles 1, 2, and 3 to one another, and so on). The means of each LPA indicator differed significantly between each profile. In Figure 1, the three-profile result is presented with the four friendship features on the x-axis, while the y-axis presents the mean score of each indicator. Looking at the line connected with round circles, it shows that this profile is characterized by high scores on the positive features of friendship, e.g., help, self-disclosure, and conflict resolution, and the lowest score on conflict. This is thought to be the ideal friendship profile with a close friend. Therefore, we labeled this profile the “ideal” profile; it was estimated to be 25.57% of the sample. The second profile is very similar to the conflict superiors profile (Sakai et al., 2020). Looking at the line connected with squares, it shows that this profile is characterized by the lowest scores in the positive features of friendship but the highest score in conflict. Thus, with relatively high conflict and less positive friendship features, we labeled this profile the “somewhat problematic” profile; it was estimated to be 19.87% of the sample. The third profile, which is depicted with the line connected with triangles, was characterized by middle scores of both positive and negative features of a friendship. It was estimated to describe 54.56% of the sample. We labeled this, the profile that reflected the largest proportion of the sample, as the “realistic” profile.
Figure 1.
Final friendship quality profiles study.

Conditional Model

Table 4 shows the characteristics of the three profiles based on adolescents’ gender, friends’ homophily of gender (gender congruence), and friends’ homophily of ethnicity (ethnicity congruence). The covariates and the distal variable were added to this conditional model simultaneously. Because the model fit can change when adding covariates and distal variables, we explored the 2- to 5-class LPA model to estimate the optimal profile. The fit indices of the conditional models of LPA consistently pointed to the three-profile solution.
Table 4.
Characteristics of the Three Profiles.

Variables Somewhat Problematic (19.87%) Realistic (54.56%) Ideal (25.57%)

Gender

Males 63 151 78

Females 57 178 79

Same gender

Same 88 254 128

Different 22 53 22

Same ethnicity

Same 62 166 80

Different 47 137 64

To explore how gender (Aim 2) and friendship homophily (Aim 3) are associated with friendship profiles, we conducted a multinomial logistic regression using the R3STEP approach (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014; Nylund-Gibson et al., 2022) simultaneously, in which the given latent three-profile variable was regressed on the binary gender variable (1 = male, 0 = female), ethnicity congruence (1 = same, 0 = different), and gender congruence (1 = same, 0 = different). Table 5 displays the unstandardized estimates for the covariates and closest friendship profiles within the model. As shown in Table 5, there is a gender difference in the somewhat problematic profile compared to the realistic and ideal profiles. The gender logistic regression coefficients for the somewhat problematic profile indicate that compared to the realistic and ideal profile, male adolescents are more likely to have the somewhat problematic friendship profile than females. Similarly, the gender difference was observed between realistic and ideal profiles. The logistic regression coefficient for the ideal profile indicates that compared to those in the realistic profile, males are more likely to have a realistic friendship than females. No profile differences were found for either gender or ethnicity congruence.
Table 5.
Log Odds Coefficients and Odds Ratio for Three-Profile Model with Gender, Gender Congruence, and Ethnicity Congruence.

Somewhat Problematic VS. Ideal Somewhat Problematic VS. Realistic Ideal VS. Realistic

B (SE) t Odds ratio B (SE) t Odds ratio B (SE) t Odds ratio

Male^a 2.51 (.38) 6.55 12.32^* 1.98 (.36) 5.53 7.25^* −.53 (.27) −1.94 .59^*

SameGender^b 1.94 (.69) 2.83 6.96 1.88 (.67) 2.81 6.55 −.06 (.31) −.20 .94

SameEthnicity^c .73 (.34) 2.16 2.08 .82 (.32) 2.59 2.28 .09 (.25) .36 1.10

Note. Logit estimation (B), standard errors (SE), Somewhat Problematic and Ideal are the reference profile in the corresponding comparison.

p < .05; p < .01; ^p < .001.

^aReference Category = Female.

^bReference Category = Different Gender.

^cReference Category = Different Ethnicity.

Friendship Profile Differences in Perceived School-Belonging

To assess whether school-belonging varies by friendship profile (Aim 4), LPA with the covariates mentioned above was estimated using the BCH method, a suggested method for estimating a continuous outcome variable (Nylund-Gibson et al., 2019).

The results show that the mean school belonging scores differed across the three profiles (X² (2) = 6.84, p < .05). As expected, the ideal friendship profile is associated with the highest school belonging, whereas the somewhat problematic friendship profile is associated with the lowest school belongingness (See Figure 2). To test whether friendship profiles differ in their mean school-belonging score, a series of pairwise tests using chi-square were run via the BCH method (Bolck et al., 2004) in MplusAutomation. This method relied on the probabilities of profile membership for everyone derived from the three-profile model and then examined how the mean of the distal variable (school-belonging) differed across these profiles (see Nylund-Gibson et al., 2019). As a result, there was a significant difference in school belonging when comparing the somewhat problematic and realistic profile, X² (2) = 4.13, p = .04, and the somewhat problematic and ideal profile X² (2) = 6.23, p = .01, but not the realistic and ideal profile X² (2) = .16, p > .05. In sum, adolescents with realistic or ideal friendship profiles rated higher perceived school belonging than adolescents with somewhat problematic friendships.
Figure 2.
Friendship quality profiles and school belongingness.

Discussion

This study provides a comprehensive assessment of the multidimensional framework of friendship by evaluating the co-occurrence of four friendship features (i.e., help, self-disclosure, conflict, and conflict resolution) and how they are differentially linked together to predict perceived school belonging among adolescents. The study also offers new insights into the significance of gender to multidimensional measures of friendships. By not only establishing distinct profiles with LPA but also showing that they are meaningfully related to key variables associated with peer group functioning, the study has theoretical, methodological, and practical implications.

Using a person-centered LPA approach, the study revealed how four friendship features co-function to reflect close friendship quality. Three distinct profiles, ideal, realistic, and somewhat problematic, were found. Each profile has been observed in a previous study but no study to date has reported the overall pattern of the three reported here together nor their relation to covariates beyond gender. Thus, we view these findings as an extension of the existing work. The ideal and somewhat problematic friendship profiles were found in Sakai et al. (2020) with Japanese youth, while the realistic friendship profile is similar to the average profile in Way et al. (2001) with US ethnic minority high schoolers. That no single study has replicated the exact same groups may be a function of the different measurements used or differences in the populations studied but the fact that there are empirical similarities that link the small literature of friendship profiles together supports the notion of measuring friendship quality multi-rather than uni-dimensionally.

This study also extended the existing work by showing that gender is related to friendship profiles. The gender differences that were observed show that female adolescents are more likely to have a realistic or ideal friendship profile (compare to the somewhat problematic profile) than their male counterparts. That female adolescents exhibit higher quality friendship profiles in general compared to male adolescents extends conclusions from prior studies that examined the independent features of friendship (e.g., Gao et al., 2017; van Rijsewijk et al., 2020) and those that focused on friendship profiles (Sakai et al., 2020; Way et al., 2001).

The most consequential finding for practical implications of the study is that the friendship profiles predict school adjustment. As hypothesized, adolescents in the ideal friendship profile reported the highest feelings of school belonging. This is consistent with Roeser et al.’s (1996) comprehensive model of school belonging and adds supporting evidence that individual factors, such as adolescents' friendship profiles, can contribute to structuring environments, affecting feelings about the environment, and influencing behavioral outcomes at school. Since adolescents spent much more time with friends and peers than any other adults (Brown & Larson, 2009; Dijkstra & Veenstra, 2011), friendships among high school students are likely to be important. The current study provides evidence that friendships play a comparable role in fostering a greater sense of school belonging, similar to the role that teacher-student interaction had in the original Roeser et al. (1996) model, and further extends the finding that friends' social support is positively related to the sense of school belonging (Garcia-Reid et al., 2005). Adolescents with ideal and realistic friendships are more likely to receive the necessary social and academic support from their best friends than adolescents with somewhat problematic friendships. With adequate social and academic support from friends, teenagers may find it easier to understand and adjust to the social norms at school, form positive peer connections (Garcia-Reid et al., 2005), and achieve academic success, all of which can increase their positive feelings toward school (Garcia-Reid et al., 2005; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006).

With an eye toward the practical implications, it is important to note that the students’ perceived school belonging did not statistically differ between the ideal and realistic friendship profiles, but it was only adolescents with somewhat problematic friendships who rated significantly lower school belonging than all others. Adolescents in the somewhat problematic profile seem to be the most vulnerable to suffer not only dyadic difficulties but also social group difficulties and that may translate into academic difficulties. This finding suggests targeted school-based interventions should start with adolescents with somewhat problematic friendship profiles.

Limitations

Although new insights about adolescent friendships were gained from both the results and the method used here, some limitations in the present study need noting. First, the cross-sectional design of the present study prevented us from exploring the stability of the identified friendship profiles and drawing directional conclusions between friendship profiles and school belonging. Hiatt et al. (2015) ‘s longitudinal study explored adolescents’ friendship profile stability from 6^th to 7^th grade, but further studies on friendship profile should examine friendship stability in other developmental periods using longitudinal LPA or latent transition analysis. Second, only four friendship features were included as indicators of the friendship profile. Future studies should include more features of friendship quality (such as companionship/time spent together) to ensure individual differences in friendship experiences are fully captured. Third, the present study relies on self-reports from only one source, which might include biased information about a friendship. Without knowing about their closest friend’s opinion of their relationship, researchers cannot have a comprehensive understanding on the friendship as a whole. It would be ideal to have reports from both the adolescent and their close friend. Fourth, while some fit indices suggested a 4-profile solution, we opted not for the 3-profile solution because the 4^th profile was only 1.8% of the sample. Although our sample size is sufficient for the LPA analyses, we undertook, a larger sample size would allow us to feel more confident in making conclusions about the stability of a profile that represents such a small percentage of the sample. Finally, we did not examine how school level factors (e.g., ethnic composition) may affect adolescents' friendships. More ethnically diverse contexts would allow for more adolescents to have cross-ethnic closest friends and so the significance of ethnic congruence is likely to also differ as a function of school context.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study established three unique friendship profiles based on perceptions of self-disclosure, help, conflict, and conflict resolution within a close friendship and established that gender was associated with profile membership and that high schoolers’ school belonging differed by friendship profiles. In practice, it may be worthwhile to inform teens themselves, parents, and individuals who work with teens, such as teachers, about the complexity of friendships so that they are aware that multiple dimensions contribute to an adolescent’s friendship experience. It is helpful to know having a friendship profile with moderate levels on most friendship features seems to be good enough to protect high schoolers from not feeling like they belong at school but that being lower on the positive qualities while also experiencing conflict in the friendship is worrisome.

Variables	Gender	Friend Gender Homophily Status	Friend Ethnicity Homophily Status
Conflict	2.20 (.60)	2.00 (.63)	−4.15^***	.62	2.05 (.62)	2.28 (.57)	3.60^***	.61	2.11 (.62)	2.05 (.60)	−1.11	.61
Help	3.89 (.64)	4.17 (.56)	5.61^***	.60	4.03 (.62)	4.12 (.53)	1.49	.61	3.99 (.63)	4.11 (.54)	−2.38^*	.59
Self-disclosure	3.48 (.79)	4.03 (.71)	8.97^***	.75	3.74 (.82)	3.94 (.61)	2.89^*	.79	3.72 (.81)	3.85 (.75)	1.96	.78
Conflict res	3.24 (.94)	3.63 (.82)	5.43^***	.88	3.40 (.91)	3.71 (.77)	3.49^**	.88	3.38 (.90)	3.54 (.84)	2.25^*	.88
School belonging	3.30 (.67)	3.10 (.70)	−3.51^***	.69	3.21 (.68)	3.13 (.74)	−1.07	.69	3.18 (.71)	3.22 (.68)	.58	.69

	1	2	3	4	5
1.Conflict
2.Help	−.25**
3. Self-disclosure	−.17**	.66**
4.Conflict resolution	−.09*	.51**	.62**
5. School belonging	−.15**	.16***	.04	.15**
M	2.10	4.04	3.77	3.44	3.20
SD	.62	.61	.80	.90	.68
n	605	594	601	611	611

Profile	AIC	BIC	aBIC	pLMR	pBLRT	Entropy	Group size
1-profile	5284.93	5320.29	5294.89				614
2-profile	4883.72	4890.93	4849.66	0.000	0.000	0.748	197	417
3-profile	4652.13	4731.69	4674.53	0.000	0.000	0.764	122	335	157
4-profile	4595.66	4697.32	4624.30	0.387	0.000	0.803	158	123	11	322
5-profile	4563.66	4687.42	4598.53	0.062	0.000	0.839	6	9	325	151	123

Variables	Somewhat Problematic (19.87%)	Realistic (54.56%)	Ideal (25.57%)
Gender
Males	63	151	78
Females	57	178	79
Same gender
Same	88	254	128
Different	22	53	22
Same ethnicity
Same	62	166	80
Different	47	137	64

	Somewhat Problematic VS. Ideal	Somewhat Problematic VS. Realistic	Ideal VS. Realistic
Male^a	2.51 (.38)	6.55	12.32^*	1.98 (.36)	5.53	7.25^*	−.53 (.27)	−1.94	.59^*
SameGender^b	1.94 (.69)	2.83	6.96	1.88 (.67)	2.81	6.55	−.06 (.31)	−.20	.94
SameEthnicity^c	.73 (.34)	2.16	2.08	.82 (.32)	2.59	2.28	.09 (.25)	.36	1.10

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research reported in this article was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant #R305A170559.

Open Research Statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not currently available. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained via email: abellmore@wisc.edu.

ORCID iD

Tingting Fan

References

Allen

Kern

M. L.

Vella-Brodrick

Hattie

Waters

(2018). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181

Bauer

D. J.

Shanahan

M. J.

(2007). Modeling complex interactions: Person-centered and variable-centered approaches. In Little

T. D.

Bovaird

J. A.

Card

N. A.

(Eds), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 255–284). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Bauminger

Finzi-Dottan

Chason

Har-Even

(2008). Intimacy in adolescent friendship: The roles of attachment, coherence, and self-disclosure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(3), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508090866

Berndt

T. J.

(2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00157

Berndt

T. J.

Hawkins

J. A.

Jiao

(1999). Influences of friends and friendships on adjustment to junior high school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(1), 13–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/23093308

Berndt

T. J.

McCandless

M. A.

(2009). Methods for investigating children's relationships with friends. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds), Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups (pp. 63–81). The Guilford Press.

Bohnert

A. S.

German

Knowlton

A. R.

Latkin

C. A.

(2010). Friendship networks of inner-city adults: A latent class analysis and multi-level regression of supporter types and the association of supporter latent class membership with supporter and recipient drug use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 107(2–3), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.09.012

Bolck

Croon

Hagenaars

(2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mph001

10.

Bowker

(2004). Predicting friendship stability during early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(2), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431603262666

11.

Branje

(2018). Development of parent–adolescent relationships: Conflict interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12278

12.

Brown

B. B.

Larson

(2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (pp. 74–103). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004

13.

Buhrmester

Prager

(1995). Patterns and functions of self-disclosure during childhood and adolescence. In Rotenberg

(Ed), Disclosure processes in children and adolescents (pp. 10–56). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511527746.002

14.

Bukowski

W. M.

Hoza

Boivin

(1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre-and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the friendship qualities scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594113011

15.

Chen

Graham

(2017). Same-ethnic, interethnic, and interracial friendships among Asian early adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27(3), 705–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12309

16.

Cillessen

A. H.

Jiang

X. L.

West

T. V.

Laszkowski

D. K.

(2005). Predictors of dyadic friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000360

17.

Clogg

C. C.

(1988). Latent class models for measuring. In Langeheine

Rost

(Eds), Latent trait and latent class models (pp. 173–205). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5644-9_9

18.

Croft

C. D.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2014). Friendship conflict, conflict responses, and instability: Unique links to anxious and angry forms of rejection sensitivity. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8), 1094–1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613518972

19.

Delgado

M. Y.

Ettekal

A. V.

Simpkins

S. D.

Schaefer

D. R.

(2016). How do my friends matter? Examining Latino adolescents’ friendships, school belonging, and academic achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1110–1125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0341-x

20.

Demir

Urberg

K. A.

(2004). Friendship and adjustment among adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.02.006

21.

Derlega

V. J.

Metts

Petronio

Margulis

S. T.

(1993). Self-disclosure. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.2307/352796

22.

De Wied

Branje

S. J.

Meeus

W. H.

(2007). Empathy and conflict resolution in friendship relations among adolescents. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 33(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20166

23.

Dijkstra

J. K.

Veenstra

(2011). Peer relations. In Brown

Prinstein

(Eds), Encyclopedia of Adolescence (2, pp. 255–259). Academic Press. https://doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-373915-5.00079-6

24.

Dwyer

K. M.

Fredstrom

B. K.

Rubin

K. H.

Booth-LaForce

Rose-Krasnor

Burgess

K. B.

(2010). Attachment, social information processing, and friendship quality of early adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509346420

25.

Eshghi

Haughton

Legrand

Skaletsky

Woolford

(2011). Identifying groups: A comparison of methodologies. Journal of Data Science, 9(2), 271–291. https//doi.org/10.6339/JDS.2011.09(2).929

26.

Felmlee

Sweet

Sinclair

H. C.

(2012). Gender rules: Same-and cross-gender friendships norms. Sex Roles, 66(7), 518–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0109-z

27.

Furman

Buhrmester

(1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1016–1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016

28.

Gao

Bian

Liu

R. D.

Oei

T. P.

(2017). Conflict resolution in Chinese adolescents’ friendship: Links with regulatory focus and friendship satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 151(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1270887

29.

Garcia-Reid

P. G.

Reid

R. J.

Peterson

N. A.

(2005). School engagement among Latino youth in an urban middle school context: Valuing the role of social support. Education and Urban Society, 37(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124505275534

30.

Gifford-Smith

M. E.

Brownell

C. A.

(2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41(4), 235–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(03)00048-7

31.

Goodenow

(1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(199301)30:1%3C79::aid-pits2310300113%3E3.0.co;2-x

32.

Goodenow

Grady

K. E.

(1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1993.9943831

33.

Graham

Munniksma

Juvonen

(2014). Psychosocial benefits of cross‐ethnic friendships in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85(2), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12159

34.

Graham

Taylor

(2009). Race and ethnicity in peer relations research. In Rubin

Bukowski

Laursen

(Eds), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 394–413). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-6491

35.

Granic

‬I.

‬(2005). ‬Timing ‬is ‬everything—developmental ‬psychopathology ‬from ‬a ‬dynamic ‬systems ‬perspective. Developmental Review, ‬25(3-4), 386–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.10.005

36.

Griffin

D. W.

Bartholomew

(1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.430

37.

Hallquist

M. N.

Wiley

J. F.

(2018). MplusAutomation: an R package for facilitating large-scale latent variable analyses in M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334

38.

Hamm

J. V.

Faircloth

B. S.

(2005). The role of friendship in adolescents’ sense of school belonging. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(107), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.121

39.

Hartup

W. W.

Stevens

(1999). Friendships and adaptation across the life span. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(3), 76–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00018

40.

Hiatt

Laursen

Mooney

K. S.

Rubin

K. H.

(2015). Forms of friendship: A person-centered assessment of the quality, stability, and outcomes of different types of adolescent friends. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.051

41.

Hollenstein

‬T.

‬Lewis‬

‬M. ‬D.

(2006). ‬A ‬state ‬space ‬analysis ‬of‬ emotion ‬and fiexibility ‬in ‬parent–child interactions. Emotion, 6(4), 656–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.4.656

42.

Kochel

K. P.

Bagwell

C. L.

Ladd

G. W.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2017). Do positive peer relations mitigate transactions between depressive symptoms and peer victimization in adolescence? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 51(2017), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.04.003

43.

La Greca

A. M.

Harrison

H. M.

(2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_5

44.

Lansford

J. E.

Parker

J. G.

(1999). Children’s interactions in triads: Behavioral profiles and effects of gender and patterns of friendships among members. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.80

45.

Laursen

(1993). Conflict management among close peers. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1993(60), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219936005

46.

Cao

Lan

Zheng

Chen

Zhou

Fang

(2019). The association between transition pattern of marital conflict resolution styles and marital quality trajectory during the early years of Chinese marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(1), 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517721380

47.

Liu

Brown

B. B.

(2014). Self-disclosure on social networking sites, positive feedback, and social capital among Chinese college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.003

48.

Mendell

Rubin

(2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88(3), 767–778. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/88.3.767

49.

McDougall

Hymel

(2007). Same-gender versus cross-gender friendship conceptions: Similar or different? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(3), 347–380. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2007.0018

50.

McNelles

L. R.

Connolly

J. A.

(1999). Intimacy between adolescent friends: Age and gender differences in intimate affect and intimate behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0902_2

51.

Miche

Huxhold

Stevens

N. L.

(2013). A latent class analysis of friendship network types and their predictors in the second half of life. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(4), 644–652. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbt041

52.

Moody

(2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 679–716. https://doi.org/10.1086/338954

53.

Muthén

L. K.

(2000). Integrating person-centered and variable‐centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24(6), 882–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb02070.x

54.

Nelson

R. M.

DeBacker

T. K.

(2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 170–189. https://doi.org/10.3200/jexe.76.2.170-190

55.

Normand

Mikami

A. Y.

Savalei

Guiet

(2020). A Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model of friendship quality and comorbidities in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychological Assessment, 32(7), 698–704. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000824

56.

Nylund

K. L.

Asparouhov

Muthén

B. O.

(2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396

57.

Nylund-Gibson

Garber

A. C.

Singh

Witkow

M. R.

Nishina

Bellmore

(2022). The utility of latent class analysis to understand heterogeneity in youth coping strategies: A methodological introduction. Behavioral Disorders, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429211067214

58.

Nylund-Gibson

Grimm

R. P.

Masyn

K. E.

(2019). Prediction from latent classes: A demonstration of different approaches to include distal outcomes in mixture models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(6), 967–985. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1590146

59.

Parker

E. C.

(2010). Exploring student experiences of belonging within an urban high school choral ensemble: An action research study. Music Education Research, 12(4), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2010.519379

60.

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(4), 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.611

61.

Perry

N. B.

Dollar

J. M.

Calkins

S. D.

Keane

S. P.

Shanahan

(2020). Maternal socialization of child emotion and adolescent adjustment: Indirect effects through emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000815

62.

Roeser

R. W.

Midgley

Urdan

T. C.

(1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.408

63.

Rose

A. J.

(2002). Co–rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 73(6), 1830–1843. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00509

64.

Rose

A. J.

Asher

S. R.

(1999). Children’s goals and strategies in response to conflicts within a friendship. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.69

65.

Sakai

Murohashi

Sugawara

Matsumoto

Aizawa

(2020). Relation between the quality of best friendship and emotional problems in elementary and junior high school students小中学生における親友関係の質と情緒の問題との関連. The Japanese Journal of Personality, 28(3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.2132/personality.28.3.10

66.

Salvatore

J. E.

Kuo

S. I. C.

Steele

R. D.

Simpson

J. A.

Collins

W. A.

(2011). Recovering from conflict in romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Psychological Science, 22(3), 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397055

67.

Spencer

S. V.

Bowker

J. C.

Rubin

K. H.

Booth-LaForce

Laursen

(2013). Similarity between friends in social information processing and associations with positive friendship quality and Conflict. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 59(1), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.59.1.0106

68.

Syed

Juan

M. J. D.

(2012). Birds of an ethnic feather? Ethnic identity homophily among college-age friends. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1505–1514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.012

69.

Thien

L. M.

Shafaei

Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

(2018). Specifying and assessing a multidimensional friendship quality construct. Child Indicators Research, 11(4), 1321–1336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9462-y

70.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.267

71.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Sumter

S. R.

Peter

(2011). Gender differences in online and offline self‐disclosure in pre-adolescence and adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1348/2044-835x.002001

72.

Van Doorn

M. D.

Branje

S. J. T.

VanderValk

I. E.

De Goede

I. H. A.

Meeus

W. H. J.

(2011). Longitudinal spillover effects of conflict resolution styles between adolescent-parent relationships and adolescent friendships. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(1), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022289

73.

Van Rijsewijk

L. G.

Snijders

T. A.

Dijkstra

J. K.

Steglich

Veenstra

(2020). The interplay between adolescents’ friendships and the exchange of help: A longitudinal multiplex social network study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12501

74.

Vijayakumar

Pfeifer

J. H.

(2020). Self-disclosure during adolescence: Exploring the means, targets, and types of personal exchanges. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.005

75.

Way

Cowal

Gingold

Pahl

Bissessar

(2001). Friendship patterns among African American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents from low-income families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501181002

76.

Wentzel

K. R.

Erdley

C. A.

(1993). Strategies for making friends: Relations to social behavior and peer acceptance in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 29(5), 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.5.819

77.

Woods

Done

Kalsi

(2009). Peer victimization and internalizing difficulties: The moderating role of friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.005

78.

Yang

C. C.

(2006). Evaluating latent class analysis models in qualitative phenotype identification. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50(4), 1090–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.11.004

79.

You

J. I.

Bellmore

(2012). Relational peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment: The mediating role of best friendship qualities. Personal Relationships, 19(2), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01365.x

80.

Zimmer-Gembeck

Chipuer

Hanisch

Creed

McGregor

(2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 911–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008

Variables	Gender				Friend Gender Homophily Status				Friend Ethnicity Homophily Status
	Males	Females		Cohen’s d	Same	Different		Cohen’s d	Same	Different		Cohen’s d
	M (SD)	M(SD)	t	Cohen’s d	M(SD)	M(SD)	t	Cohen’s d	M(SD)	M(SD)	t	Cohen’s d
Conflict	2.20 (.60)	2.00 (.63)	−4.15^***	.62	2.05 (.62)	2.28 (.57)	3.60^***	.61	2.11 (.62)	2.05 (.60)	−1.11	.61
Help	3.89 (.64)	4.17 (.56)	5.61^***	.60	4.03 (.62)	4.12 (.53)	1.49	.61	3.99 (.63)	4.11 (.54)	−2.38^*	.59
Self-disclosure	3.48 (.79)	4.03 (.71)	8.97^***	.75	3.74 (.82)	3.94 (.61)	2.89^*	.79	3.72 (.81)	3.85 (.75)	1.96	.78
Conflict res	3.24 (.94)	3.63 (.82)	5.43^***	.88	3.40 (.91)	3.71 (.77)	3.49^**	.88	3.38 (.90)	3.54 (.84)	2.25^*	.88
School belonging	3.30 (.67)	3.10 (.70)	−3.51^***	.69	3.21 (.68)	3.13 (.74)	−1.07	.69	3.18 (.71)	3.22 (.68)	.58	.69

	Somewhat Problematic VS. Ideal			Somewhat Problematic VS. Realistic			Ideal VS. Realistic
	B (SE)	t	Odds ratio	B (SE)	t	Odds ratio	B (SE)	t	Odds ratio
Male^a	2.51 (.38)	6.55	12.32^*	1.98 (.36)	5.53	7.25^*	−.53 (.27)	−1.94	.59^*
SameGender^b	1.94 (.69)	2.83	6.96	1.88 (.67)	2.81	6.55	−.06 (.31)	−.20	.94
SameEthnicity^c	.73 (.34)	2.16	2.08	.82 (.32)	2.59	2.28	.09 (.25)	.36	1.10