Journal of Adolescence 2001, 24, 429–445
doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0374, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
The quality of adolescents’ friendships: Associations with
mothers’ interpersonal relationships, attachments to parents
and friends, and prosocial behaviors
DOROTHY MARKIEWICZ, ANNA BETH DOYLE AND MARA BRENDGEN
Adolescents’ friendship quality and observed emotional expression with their best
friends were predicted from reports of their mother’s interpersonal relationships—
specifically the quality of her marriage and social network. Two models explaining
these relationships received support. Consistent with an Attachment Theory model,
adolescents’ perceptions of marital quality predicted attachment security with mother,
father and friends. Security of attachment to friends in turn predicted best friendship
quality, but not affective behavior with the friend. A Social Learning Theory model
was also supported, in which perceptions of both marital quality and mother’s social
network quality predicted adolescents’ prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior in turn
predicted both best friendship quality and affective behavior with the friend.
# 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents
Introduction
Most studies of the contributions of family and social network relationships to children’s peer
relations have focused primarily on young children, and have often examined peer-group
acceptance and social behavior. The close, emotional nature of family relationships implies,
however, that their most important links may be to the quality of close peer relationships,
i.e. friendships. Friendships are of central importance to the well-being of children from
middle childhood onwards (Bukowski et al., 1993). During adolescence children’s friendships
become increasingly intimate and more comparable to those of adults (Furman and
Buhrmester, 1992). The present study explores associations between the quality of the
mothers’ interpersonal relationships, specifically her marriage and social network, and the
quality of adolescents’ closest friendships. Two theoretical models, Attachment Theory and
Social Learning Theory, suggest different specific mechanisms linking parental interpersonal
relationships with the quality of children’s friendships.
According to Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980), attachment is an affectional bond whose
function is the provision of safety and security to the child. Children who experience
responsive and sensitive caretaking from their mother develop secure attachment to her,
positive expectations about her as a social partner, and socially competent interaction styles.
Current relationship theory stresses the central importance of the child’s security of
attachment to the mother for other close personal relationships, including friendships
(Sroufe and Fleeson, 1986; Elicker et al., 1992). In line with this notion, research has
indicated that the quality of the child’s early attachment to the mother predicts the child’s
later acceptance by and competence with peers (e.g. Waters et al., 1979; LaFreniere and
Sroufe, 1985). Other research indicates that adolescents’ and young adults’ current
Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed to: Dorothy Markiewicz, Applied Human Science,
Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1M8 (E-mail:
markie@vax2.concordia.ca).
0140-1971/01/040429+17 $3500/0
# 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents
430
D. Markiewicz et al.
attachment styles are also significantly associated with the quality of their relationships with
peers (e.g. Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991; Simpson et al., 1992; Kerns and Stevens,
1996). The postulated mechanism of linkage is the child’s internal working model or schema
of self and of other in attachment-relevant situations (Bowlby, 1969; Bretherton, 1985). This
schema serves as a filter for cognitive and affective attachment-relevant information and
experience on both a conscious and an unconscious level. The working model tends to
remain stable throughout childhood (Bretherton, 1985; Main et al., 1985), and is thought to
become more autonomous from experience during adolescence, though also to be somewhat
modifiable by life stress or new experiences (Thompson et al., 1982; George and Solomon,
1991).
Developmental changes in attachment during adolescence are expected as older children
work on the important tasks of becoming more autonomous from parents, and of developing
friendships of greater intimacy and supportiveness. However, parents continue to serve as an
important source of emotional security (Allen and Land, 1999). Although adolescents’
perceptions of their own need for help decline from late childhood to adolescence, their
reports of parental availability at times of stress remain constant and important to
attachment (Lieberman et al., 1999). Allen and Land (1999) point out that parents’
continued availability as attachment figures may facilitate their children’s ability to ‘‘explore
(emotionally)’’, to separate from them and to form close relationships with peers.
Several studies have demonstrated that close friends may serve as attachment figures
among adolescents and young adults. Buhrmester (1992) found that adolescents’ long-term
relationships (e.g. close friends, romantic partners) were characterized by close affectional
bonds and age-appropriate proximity-seeking, separation protest, secure-base, and safehaven behavior patterns analogous to parent-child patterns. Similarly, Fraley and Davis
(1997) found that although most young adults used their parents as their main attachment
figures, with long term relationships attachment-related functions were transferred to best
friends and romantic partners.
Notably, there is some evidence of generalization from parent attachment to peer
attachment (e.g. Armsden and Greenberg, 1987; Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991; Elicker
et al., 1992; Furman and Wehner, 1994). Kobak and Sceery (1988) suggest that secure
attachment to the mother contributes to the child’s ability to regulate negative emotions
constructively, to express more positive feelings, and thus to interact more effectively.
Similarly, secure attachment to friends may be expected to promote the adolescents’ ability
to express emotions openly and constructively in close relationships. As such, attachment to
peers could mediate the link between attachment to parents and adolescents’ friendship
relations.
While attachment to parents may influence children’s friendships through its effect on the
child’s attachment to their friends, the security of the child’s attachment to parents may in
turn be determined by the quality of the marital relationship. Parents’ marital conflict is
expected to influence children’s and adolescents’ attachment security to mothers, by
reducing the responsiveness and effectiveness of her parenting (Kerig et al., 1993; Davies and
Cummings, 1994; Erel and Burman, 1995; Cowan et al., 1996). In addition, strained marital
relationships may lead to fathers’ increased marginalization in the family and distancing from
their children (Kerig et al., 1993) and thus reduce his physical and emotional availability. As
previously noted, parental availibility continues to be essential to adolescents’ secure
attachment to parents. Thus, marital quality is expected to influence attachment security to
both parents.
Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships
431
Attachment to father versus mother, for preschool children, has been found to
differentially predict peer relations and adjustment (Youngblade and Belsky, 1992;
Youngblade et al., 1993). During adolescence, attachment to father versus mother may
evolve differentially. Mothers of adolescents tend to remain emotionally involved with both
sons and daughters, but fathers tend to become more distant with their daughters but not
sons (Youniss and Smollar, 1985). From early to late adolescence both boys and girls rate
fathers increasingly lower on quality of affect, support and proximity (Paterson et al., 1994).
Adolescent girls perceive their fathers as less available than do younger girls, and report being
less dependent on their fathers than their mothers (Lieberman et al., 1999). On the other
hand, Hosley and Montemayor (1997) point out that, although research on father–
adolescent relationships paints them as more distant that those with mothers, fathers are
likely to make unique contributions. Fathers may express caring and closeness through
shared activities; and although they spend less time with adolescents than mothers do, this
time tends to be leisure time. Both adolescent boys and girls report enjoying interactions
more, and having less conflict with fathers than with mothers. Thus mothers and fathers may
influence their adolescents’ security and attachment quality in different ways. More research
is needed to examine the effects of the security of attachment with each parent on
adolescents’ peer relationships.
According to Social Learning Theory, parents directly influence their children’s social
experiences with peers through coaching and/or shaping appropriate social behaviors (Lollis
et al., 1992). For children beyond preschool age, who spend more time in social interactions
away from parents, such direct influence is less frequent and appropriate (Ladd and Golter,
1988). Parents also influence their children’s peer relations indirectly (Parke et al., 1988) for
example through behaviors modeled in interactions with the child (Putallaz and Heflin,
1990), and also with spouse and adult friends (Gottman and Katz, 1989). In line with this
notion, both marital quality and maternal friendship relations have been found to be
associated with the presence and quality of children’s friendship relations (Hetherington
et al., 1979; Homel et al., 1987; Doyle et al., 1994; Sharabany, 1994). In these studies,
however, the putative mediators (e.g. attachment security according to the Attachment
model and/or social skills according to the Social Learning model) were not measured, and
thus the theoretical linking mechanisms were not empirically tested.
Social Learning Theory suggests that a good marital relationship and good parental
friendship relations may positively affect children’s friendships through children’s observations of these adult interactions, which in turn may lead to children’s acquisition of relevant
social behavior patterns, especially prosocial behaviors. That is, parents may model positive
social behaviors in their relationships, such as a prosocial style, which their children may
observe and imitate. Therefore, according to Social Learning Theory, adolescent’s prosocial
behavior is the intervening variable linking mother’s interpersonal relationship quality to the
adolescents’ friendship quality and behavior with close friends.
The mechanisms implied and the behaviors stressed in Social Learning Theory differ from
those implicated in Attachment Theory. Modeling research has emphasized the child’s
imitation of the behavior of the valued, prosocial model. The sequence includes the
children’s observing and judging as supportive and helpful mothers’ interactions with spouses
as well as with friends, and then integrating these perceptions into guides for their own
behaviors with others. The adolescents’ perceptions are likely to correspond to some degree
with the behaviors observed. However, the perceptions themselves are important since they
convey the salient aspects of the adolescents’ constructions based on their observations of
432
D. Markiewicz et al.
these relationships. This model emphasizes the prosocial, caregiving behaviors observed and
imitated, rather than the underlying emotional experience of the child with the mother.
Attachment Theory, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of the mother’s
responsiveness and sensitivity to the child in consolidating the child’s emotional security and
expectations concerning the receipt of care from her and perhaps from others. Marital quality
is assumed to influence children’s attachment to parents, but a mother’s relationships with
her social network are not emphasized in this model. Friendships, particularly those of
adolescents and adults, may involve both the care-giving and the attachment systems
(Weiss, 1974). Therefore, the Attachment Model and the Social Learning model may each
contribute complementary explanations of the processes linking parents’ personal relationships and adolescents’ friendships.*
In summary, the present study was designed to compare the relative utility of two models
of the role of parental influences on adolescent friendships, the first based on Attachment
Theory and the second based on parental modelling of behaviors in interpersonal
relationships. These models emphasize different processes, but these may operate
concurrently, and are not necessarily contradictory. Using path analysis we tested the two
models and the associated hypothesized mechanisms: (1) applying Attachment Theory, we
suggest that the parents’ marital quality would predict the adolescent’s attachments to
mother and to father, which in turn would predict the adolescent’s attachment to close
friends, which would then predict the adolescent’s friendship quality and behaviors with the
close friend (see Figure 1). Of particular interest was the quality of the adolescent’s
emotional expression with the friend, since attachment relationships have been identified as
central in learning patterns of expression and regulation of affective processes (Kobak and
Sceery, 1988; Allen and Land, 1999). (2) Social Learning Theory, on the other hand, would
suggest that mothers and fathers with higher marital quality would model prosocial behaviors
and attitudes with their spouses, which the adolescents would observe and imitate with close
friends, which in turn would lead to higher quality friendships and behaviors with close
friends. The theory would also suggest that the quality of the mother’s own peer relationships
(which reflects mother’s extrafamilial as well as family interactions) would be observed by the
adolescents, who would imitate mother’s prosocial behaviors with their own peers, which in
turn would contribute to the quality of adolescents’ close friendships (see Figure 2).
Method
Subjects
A sample of 69 adolescents (45 girls and 24 boys) and 69 of their friends from three suburban
Montreal high schools served as participants. They were recruited with a 61 per cent
acceptance rate from a population of adolescents (64% girls) who had participated in a larger
study two years earlier. The majority of the subjects were in grade nine (n=33) and grade ten
*In the present study the focus was on the child’s perceptions of the mother’s (not father’s) friendship and marital
quality. This choice was based on the following reasons: prior research has generally found mothers to have a greater
influence on their children’s attachment security than did fathers (Van Ijzendoorn, 1995; Cowan et al., 1996). Also,
the child’s perceptions of the mothers’ relationships could be validated using the mothers’ own ratings of these
relationships, since mothers were more willing than fathers to provide this information. Throughout adolescence
mothers spend more time with children than do fathers, and are thus more available as models with friends (Larson
et al., 1996). Finally, the relatively small size of the sample available in this study necessitated limiting the number of
variables in the tests of the two models.
Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships
433
Figure 1. The theoretical model linking perceived mother’s personal relationships with adolescents’
best friendship experience based on attachment theory.
Figure 2. The theoretical model linking perceived mother’s personal relationships with adolescents’
best friendship experience based on social learning theory.
434
D. Markiewicz et al.
(n=26), with the remainder in grades seven (n=4) and eight (n=6). The majority were
white and middle class (Hollingshead, 1975; four factor index, M=41.06, S.D.=11.2). Target
subjects and their friends were recruited by letters sent to their homes, and were paid $20 for
their participation. Only data from subjects from two-parent families are included in the
present study. Mothers of the target adolescents, recruited earlier by letters sent home from
the school, had also participated in the previous phase of the study.
Adolescent security of attachment
Adolescents’ attachment to each target figure (mother, father, friends) was measured
using an adaptation of the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew and Horowitz,
1991). Subjects rated the extent to which each one of four paragraphs representing
secure, dismissing, preoccupied, or fearful styles, was descriptive of themselves. This rating
was made three times with respect to themselves in relation to each of the target
figures (mother, father, friends). The RQ attachment ratings have been validated with
attachment styles determined by interviews, with self-report measures of self-concept and
interpersonal functioning, as well as with other self-report measures of attachment
(Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991; Griffin and Bartholomew, 1994; Bartholomew and
Shaver, 1998). For the present study, the adolescents’ self ratings on only the secure
paragraphs were used as indices of their security of attachment to mother, attachment to
father, and attachment to friends.
Adolescents’ perceptions of mother’s marital quality and friendship
relationships
Two instruments were developed to assess adolescents’ perceptions of the quality of their
mothers’ (1) marital relationships and (2) friendship relationships (Spaleny, 1995). The
Perceptions of the Marital Relationship scale was constructed using items taken from the
Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale and from the Wright (1985) Acquaintance Description
Form for spouses. Five items from the former scale were selected on the basis of high
item-total correlations. Nine items were selected from the latter questionnaire, including
four measuring tension in the relationship, and five assessing positive aspects of the
relationship, again on the basis of high item-total correlations. Items were reworded
such that adolescents rated the extent to which the item was true for their mother
(1=‘‘never true’’, 5=‘‘always true’’; e.g. ‘‘Even when my mom has done poorly on some
important tasks, my dad helps her feel good about herself.’’). The Perception of Mother’s
Social Network scale was constructed using items from the Social Relationship Network
Questionnaire (Veroff, 1996), reworded to tap the adolescents’ perceptions of mother’s
extent and satisfaction with her social network on a five-point scale from 1=‘‘never true’’ to
5=‘‘always true’’ (e.g. ‘‘My mom’s relationships with her friends are very satisfying.’’, ‘‘My
mom is generally satisfied with her friends’ support or help.’’). Again, four items with the
highest item-total correlations were selected. Internal consistency for both scales was high
(Perceptions of Marital Relationship, alpha=0?92; Perceptions of Mother’s Social Network,
alpha=0?84). These scales correlated significantly with mothers’ own reports of the same
relationships obtained two years earlier: r=0.34 (p50?01) for Mother’s Social Network;
r=0?52, (p50?01) for Marital Relationship, supporting the validity of these measures.
However, as noted earlier, adolescents’ perceptions were considered important variables in
their own right in the models.
Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships
435
Adolescents’ prosocial behavior
This five-item scale was taken from the Feelings and Behavior Questionnaire of the National
Longitudinal Survey of Children (Statistics Canada, 1995). The internal consistency of this
scale was marginally adequate (alpha=0?56). Subjects rated on a three-point scale the
degree to which items were true of themselves (1=‘‘Never or not true’’ to 3=‘‘Often or very
true’’). Items indicate the subjects’ performance of helpful, empathic behaviors (i.e. ‘‘I will
invite bystanders to join in a game’’; ‘‘I show sympathy to (feel sorry for) someone who has
made a mistake’’; ‘‘I volunteer to help clean up a mess someone else has made’’; ‘‘I will try, if
there is an argument, to stop it’’; ‘‘I comfort a person (friend, brother or sister) who is crying
or upset.’’).
Friendship qualities scale (FQS)
Adolescents rated the quality of their friendship with their partner on the FQS (Bukowski
et al., 1994). This 23-item scale provides five subscales: companionship, help/support,
closeness, security and conflict. Bukowski et al. (1994) report that items were selected to
minimize scale overlap while maintaining high internal consistency (alphas=0?64 to 0?83).
The FQS has been demonstrated to discriminate between reciprocated and nonreciprocated
friendships. Of the original FQS items, 16 were adapted in the present study and one added,
in order to more clearly focus on the dyadic relationship, rather than on the friend or the self
(e.g. ‘‘My friend and I play games and do other activities together.’’ ‘‘My friend and I disagree
about many things’’). For the pairs of friends in the present study, the correlations between
pair ratings of the friendship subscales ranged from r=0?39 (for security) to 0?65
(for companionship) on the subscales. In the present study, a total friendship quality score
was calculated by first reverse-scoring the conflict subscale and then averaging all five
subscale scores.
Videotaped discussion sessions
Pairs of friends participated in videotaped discussions of three topics (adapted from Kerns
et al., 1996) chosen to heighten emotional involvement: (1) a pre-set social problem,
(2) free discussion of ‘‘what each does that angers the other’’, and (3) ‘‘kids you both know’’.
The order of tasks was counterbalanced across dyads within each gender group. Subjects had
8 minutes, which they timed with a digital timer, to discuss each topic. The testing occurred
in the high schools, in a small room equipped with video camera. The videotaped
interactions were coded according to procedures adapted from Julien et al., 1987). Two
coders blind to other information about the subjects rated the target subjects’ verbal and
non-verbal behavior directed towards the friend. In the current study the focus was on
ratings of the frequency and intensity of Positive and Negative Affect, since as noted earlier
attachment styles are important in the expression and regulation of affective processes
(Kobak and Sceery, 1988). These ratings assessed the positive (e.g. joyful, interested) and
negative (e.g. angry, sad) non-verbal cues associated with the voice, face and body of target
subjects. For the present analyses, a combined score of the quality of affective behavior with
the friend was created (positive–negative affect).
Preliminary observations indicated that little affect or interaction was elicited by the
predefined social problem. Thus only the ‘‘anger’’ and ‘‘kid’’ tasks were coded. Ratings were
averaged across tasks; weighted kappas for positive and negative affect, based on 25 per cent
of the sessions which were rated by both coders, were 0?66 and 0?73, respectively.
436
D. Markiewicz et al.
Procedure
Adolescents who participated in the initial study were contacted again by letter and invited
to complete questionnaires in small groups at school (including the mother and father
version of the RQ and their perceptions of their mothers’ views of the marital relationship
and her peer friendships) and to participate in a videotaped discussion with a friend. They
were asked to nominate three friends from their school who might also be contacted and
invited to participate. The first-named friend was contacted by letter, explained the
objectives of the study, and invited to participate. If this friend did not agree, the second
friend was approached, and if not available the third was asked. On average, targets rated
their partner as either being their closest or second closest friend (M=1?58, S.D.=0?97).
During the video testing session, approximately one month later, all adolescents completed a
second series of questionnaires, including the friend version of the RQ, self-ratings of their
own prosocial behavior, and the measure of the quality of their best friendship.
Results
Analytical procedure
The two alternative models predicting the quality of adolescents’ best friendship and the
behavior with best friend were tested in a path analytic framework using the LISREL VIII
software package (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). For that purpose, two separate models were
specified according to the expected relations among the variables as outlined in Figures 1 and
2—one model based on Attachment Theory, the other based on Social Learning Theory. In
the first model (see Figure 1), based on Attachment Theory, friendship quality and affective
behavior with a best friend were regressed on adolescents’ attachment security to friends,
which in turn was regressed on adolescents’ attachment security to mother and father.
Attachment security to mother and father, in turn, were regressed on parents’ marital quality.
In the second model (see Figure 2), based on Social Learning Theory, friendship quality and
affective behavior with best friend were regressed on adolescent prosocial behavior. Prosocial
behavior, in turn, was regressed on perceived parents’ marital quality and mothers’ friendship
network.{ In Table 1, the bivariate correlations among all study variables as well as the
respective standard deviations are presented. As can be seen in Table 1, gender was related
to three of the four putative mediating variables (i.e. to attachment to father and attachment
to peers for the Attachment Model and to child prosocial behavior for the Social Learning
model) and gender was also related to both outcome variables. Thus, in order to avoid
statistical confounds, gender was partialled out in the analyses.
The Maximum-Likelihood method was used for model estimation because, when based on
rather normally distributed data as is the case in the present study, this estimation technique
is preferable to other estimation methods even with smaller sample sizes (Raykov and
Widaman, 1995). In order to assess the relative value of the two alternative models for the
{
In addition to the regression paths, a correlation was specified between friendship quality and affective behavior
with best friend in both models. Although not directly relevant to the two theoretical models, this correlation was
freely estimated because friends’ interactional patterns have been suggested to be related to the quality of their
friendship (Berndt and Hanna, 1995). In addition, in the first model, because adolescents’ attachment security to
mother and father are often correlated (Youngblade et al., 1993; Lieberman et al., 1999), they were allowed to covary.
In the second model, parents’ marital quality and mothers’ friendship network were allowed to covary because those
two variables also have been found to be related (Voss et al., 1999).
Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships
Table 1
Correlations and standard deviations of all variables used in the analyses
A.
B.
A. Gender
1?0
B. Perceived
70?11
1?0
marital quality
0?00
0?35**
C. Perceived
mother’s friendship network
D. Attachment
0?14
0?19
to mother
E. Attachment 70?29* 0?40***
to father
F. Attachment
0?26* 0?30*
to friends
G. Adolescent
0?20t 0?27*
prosocial
behavior
H. Quality of
0?21t 0?23t
best friendship
I. Affective
0?40***0?07
behavior with
best friend
Standard
deviations
437
0?48
0?95
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
1?0
0?22t
1?0
0?20
0?41***
0?32** 0?26*
0?30*
0?27*
0?36** 0?13
1?0
70?12 1?0
0?18 0?24*
1?0
70?11 0?48*** 0?40***
1?0
0?15
0?18
0?06 0?12
0?40***
0?29*
1?0
0?73
1?81
1?83 1?49
0?36
0?76
1?89
n=69. Gender is coded such that 0=boys and 1=girls. tp50?10; *p50?05; ** p50?01; *** p50?001.
prediction of the quality of adolescents’ best friendship and their affect with their best friend,
the two models were examined and compared with respect to the following criteria: First,
overall fit to the data was assessed for each model using two comparative fit indices, the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI, Bentler, 1990), which is a normed index with a maximum of 1,
and the Incremental Fit Index (IFI, Bollen, 1989), which is a non-normed index whose
maximum can exceed 1. In addition, a residual based fit index, the Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA, Browne and Cudeck, 1993) was used. These fit indices have
been shown to perform well even in very small samples (Bentler, 1990; Marsh and Balla,
1994), whereas descriptive indices such as the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI, Joreskog and
Sorbom, 1996) and the Root Mean Square Residual (RMR, Jorskog and Sorbom, 1996) are
severely affected by sample size (Marsh et al., 1988). For the CFI and IFI, values around 0?9
or higher are acceptable; for the RMSEA, values around 0?05 or less are acceptable. Second,
it was examined whether the regression paths in the two models were in accordance with the
respective theoretical expectations both in terms of direction of effect and statistical
significance. Because of the small sample size, statistical trends (i.e. p50?10) were
interpreted. Third, we examined the amount of variance explained by each model with
respect to the two outcome variables (i.e. the quality of adolescents’ best friendships and
their affect with their best friend). Notably, because the same variables are not included in
the two models, they could not be directly compared in terms of model fit. Therefore, the last
two criteria were especially crucial for comparing the relative contribution of each of the two
models in explaining the potential mechanisms linking mothers’ interpersonal relationships
with their adolescents’ friendship experiences.
438
D. Markiewicz et al.
Attachment theory model
For the first model, the initial specification yielded a somewhat low overall model fit,
w2 (7, n=69)=15?11, p50?05, CFI=0?85, IFI=0?87, RMSEA=0.?13. Inspection of the
residuals and LISREL modification indices revealed that the inclusion in the model of a
direct regression path from perceived marital quality to adolescents’ attachment to peers
would result in a significant improvement of model fit. After inclusion of this regression path,
the results showed excellent model fit, w2 (6, n=69)=3?68, n.s., CFI=1?00, IFI=1?04,
RMSEA=0?00. Moreover, inspection of the residuals and LISREL modification indices from
the revised model showed that no additional relations among the variables other than those
specified were required to improve model fit. In line with theoretical expectations, perceived
marital quality positively predicted adolescents’ attachment security marginally with mother,
b=0?21, p50?10, and significantly with father, b=0?39, p50?01, which were also positively
correlated with each other, r=0?40, p50?01. In turn, attachment security to both parents
predicted adolescents’ attachment security with friends. Specifically, in line with
expectations, adolescents with secure attachment to their mothers were also more securely
attached to their friends, b=0?32, p50?05. In contrast to expectations, however,
attachment security with father was inversely related to attachment security with friends,
b=70?36, p50?01. Furthermore, adolescents’ secure attachment to friends was directly
predicted by perceived marital quality, b=0?41, p50?001. Attachment security with friends,
in turn, was positively related to the quality of adolescents’ best friendships, b=0?45,
p50?001, again in line with the theoretical expectations. In contrast to expectations,
however, attachment security with friends did not predict adolescents’ affective behavior
with their best friends, b=0?02, n.s. Finally, higher quality of adolescents’ best friendships
was marginally related to more positive affective behavior with the best friend, r=0?22,
p50?10. Overall, 21 per cent of the variance of the quality of adolescents’ best friendships
was explained by the Attachment Theory model. None of the variance of adolescents’
affective behavior with the best friend, however, was explained by this model. The
standardized regression paths among the variables obtained for the model based on
Attachment Theory are presented in Figure 3.
Social learning theory model
For the second model, the initial model specification revealed an acceptable overall model fit
to the data, w2 (6, n=69)=6?78, n.s., CFI=0?98, IFI=1?98, RMSEA=0?04. Inspection of
the residuals and LISREL modification indices showed that no additional relations among
the variables other than those specified were required to improve model fit. The results
showed that there was a positive correlation between perceived marital quality and perceived
mothers’ friendship network, r=0?35, p50?01. In line with theoretical expectations, there
was a trend for both perceived marital quality and perceived mothers’ friendship network to
positively predict adolescents’ prosocial behavior, b=0?22, p50?10, and b=0?23, p50?10,
respectively. In turn, higher levels of prosocial behavior predicted a higher quality of
adolescents’ best friendships, b=0?37, p50?01, and also more positive affective behavior
with the best friend, b=0?35, p50?01. In contrast to the results in the previous model,
however, the residual correlation between the quality of adolescents’ best friendships and
their affective behavior with the best friend failed to reach significance in the Social Learning
Theory model, r=0?10, n.s. Overall, 14 per cent of the variance of the quality of adolescents’
best friendships, and 12 per cent of the variance of adolescents’ affective behavior with best
friend were explained by the Social Learning Theory model. The standardized regression
Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships
439
Figure 3. Empirical model linking perceived mother’s personal relationships with adolescents’ best
friendship experience based on attachment theory. Standardized regression coefficients based on
LISREL maximum-likelihood estimates are presented. For simplicity, coefficients that are not significant
at p50?10 and correlation coefficients are not presented, although they are reported in the text.
paths among the variables obtained for the model based on Social Learning Theory are
presented in Figure 4.
Discussion
The present study examined two models linking the quality of mother’s interpersonal
relationships with her adolescent’s friendship quality and behaviors. According to
Attachment Theory, as indicated in Figure 1, perceptions of parents’ marital quality were
expected to predict the adolescent’s attachment security with mother and with father. These
attachments were then expected to predict the adolescent’s attachment security with friends,
which in turn was expected to predict the best friendship quality and affective behavior with
the best friend. The results partially supported this model. As expected, perceptions of
marital quality predicted the adolescent’s attachment security to both mother and father.
Perceptions of marital quality also directly predicted attachment security to friends. However,
although attachment to mother positively predicted attachment security to friends,
440
D. Markiewicz et al.
Figure 4. Empirical model linking perceived mother’s personal relationships with adolescents’ best
friendship experience based on social learning theory. Standardized regression coefficients based on
LISREL maximum-likelihood estimates are presented. For simplicity, coefficients that are not significant
at p50?10 and correlation coefficients are not presented, although they are reported in the text
unexpectedly, attachment security to father was inversely related to attachment security to
friends. Finally, attachment security to friends predicted best friendship quality, but did not
predict affective behaviors exhibited with a friend.
Adolescents’ attachment to mothers indirectly predicted adolescents’ friendship quality
through its effect on attachment security to friends. This is consistent with our expectations
and with prior research suggesting that attachment to parents versus friends may predict
different aspects of children’s development. Paterson et al. (1995) found that adolescents’
attachment to parents was related to a broad range of measures of adjustment, including selfesteem, coping abilities, and social competence; whereas peer attachment only correlated
(significantly and equally strongly, however) with social competence. Lempers and ClarkLempers (1992) also found that attachment to parents more strongly predicted self-esteem
than did peer attachment, but that peer attachment was more important for the
development of social competence and intimacy. These and our results are consistent with
the view that the general sense of security children feel in their relationships with parents
may have broad effects on their general well-being, but factors operating specifically within
the peer domain may particularly influence friendship relationships.
Attachment security to fathers was negatively associated with friend attachment security
in our model and so merits further consideration. A similar counterintuitive finding was
noted by Youngblade et al. (1993), with five-year olds observed interacting with their friends.
These children’s attachment to fathers was assessed in infancy and at 13 months using the
Strange Situation. Those more securely attached to fathers were rated as less cooperative,
less positive, and showed less coordination with their friends. During adolescence, as noted
Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships
441
earlier, children’s relationships with fathers (but not mothers) tend to become more
emotionally distant. However, adolescents report that interactions with fathers (vs. mothers)
are more enjoyable (Hosley and Montemayor, 1997). One interpretation of both Youngblade
et al. (1993) and our results is that those who are most securely attached to father may be
overly dependent on him for stimulation and entertainment. Consequently, they may be less
interested or involved in their peer group, and ultimately, less securely attached with friends.
Alternatively, those who are not secure in relations with friends may turn to fathers instead.
Future research specifically designed to test this hypothesis is needed before firm conclusions
may be drawn.
One might speculate about why only friendship quality and not affective behavior with the
friend would be predicted from friend attachment. Although attachment specifically taps
emotional security felt during stress, both measures of friend attachment and friendship
quality, reflect the adolescent’s conscious evaluation of their peer relationships in terms of
help, security, support, closeness and companionship. Affective behavior, on the other hand,
might reflect adolescents’ general comfort level and pleasure with friends more than
conscious judgments about them.
Finally, in the attachment model the direct link between perceptions of marital quality
and friend attachment had not been specifically predicted. Adolescents who perceive
their parents to be happily married may experience their homes as more secure and supportive,
and close relationships in general to be more mutually supportive and satisfying; and
may develop generalized expectancies that others, including peers, will be accepting and
dependable.
According to Social Learning Theory, as indicated in Figure 2, perceptions of mother’s
marital quality and friendship network quality were expected to predict the adolescent’s
prosocial behavior, which in turn would predict friendship quality and affective behavior with
best friend. This model was fully supported by the results of the second analysis. Both
perceptions of marital quality and of mother’s friendship network quality were marginally
significantly correlated with adolescents’ prosocial behaviors. In addition, the more prosocial
the adolescents’ behavior, the higher quality their friendship and the more positive emotion
they expressed with the best friend during the observed interactions. These results are
consistent with the view that adolescents imitate the quality of the marital and maternal
friendships they observe. The adolescents’ perceptions of the quality of each of these
relationships predicted prosocial behavior of adolescents with about equal strength. This
suggests that both types of mothers’ close peer relationships served as models of warmth and
prosocial behavior in adolescents’ own peer relationships. In addition, the present results
extend earlier findings of the correlation between marital quality, maternal friendship quality,
and children’s friendship quality (Doyle et al., 1994) to include not only adolescents’ selfrated friendship quality, but also observed affective behavior with friends.
The results of this study suggest that distinctions should be made between the acquisition
of felt security (positive expectations of the receipt of care from significant others) and of
prosocial behaviors (caregiving behaviors) which contribute to friendship quality. The
present study separately assessed the attachment and caregiving systems; through
attachment to friends and prosocial behaviors respectively. The importance of distinguishing
between the attachment and caregiving systems has been noted previously, by Bowlby (1969)
as well as others (e.g. Furman and Wehner, 1994). The two models suggest that distinct
family factors (i.e. marital relations vs. maternal friendships) may be predictive of each of
these systems, and merits examination in future research with larger samples.
442
D. Markiewicz et al.
A number of limitations of this study and suggestions for future research deserve
consideration. First, because the variables potentially influencing children’s friendship quality
and behavior with best friend were assessed simultaneously, the directional relationships
among these variables can not be clearly determined. That is, although our models suggest
that mother variables influence adolescent variables, the reverse is also plausible. For
example, adolescents who are securely attached to their parents may contribute to a more
pleasant home environment, and thus to greater marital satisfaction, and even perhaps to the
quality of mothers’ extrafamilial relationships. In addition, a third variable such as genetic
temperament may underlie all of the attachments measured. Second, much of the data are
self-reported, but the differential nature of the pathways found argues for the validity of the
patterns observed. Third, the use of situations for observations that even more clearly arouse
the attachment system or the caregiving system might lead to stronger effects on observed
behavior with friends. Fourth, the relatively small sample size given the modeling technique
used, limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the generalizability of our findings.
Thus, although the fit indices used in the present study have been shown to yield reliable
results even in sample sizes smaller than the present one, replication studies with larger
samples are needed. Fifth, the measure of adolescents’ prosocial behavior was only marginally
internally consistent and not a commonly used one. Thus further research with better
measures, including observational measures of adolescents’ prosocial behaviors and of parents
with their own friends, is needed to replicate the findings reported here. Finally, future tests
of the models proposed should include father as well as mother measures of marital and
friendship quality, using larger samples.
Overall, however, the present study suggests that both Attachment Theory and Social
Learning Theory contribute to our understanding of potential mechanisms linking the
quality of mother’s marital and social network relationships with adolescent’s friendship
quality and behavior. First, the quality of mother’s extra-familial relationships (social
network) and of her marital relationship seem to be associated with the adolescent’s prosocial
behaviors. Marital quality is also associated with peer attachment security. Second, both
prosocial behavior and peer attachment security seem to relate to the quality of the best
friendship. Finally, distinctions should be made between caregiving, attachment and
affiliative behaviors in future research on adolescents’ friendships.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada, and by the Quebec Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide à la
Recherche. We wish to thank Linda Spaleny, Alexandra Cope, Suzanne Marcotte, and Anne
LaCasse for their help in data collection and coding. We also thank the Sault Saint Louis and
Baldwin-Cartier School Boards, as well as the parents and adolescents for their collaboration.
References
Allen, J. P. and Land, D. (1999). Attachment in Adolescence. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory,
Research and Clinical Applications, Cassidy, J. and Shaver, P. R. (Eds). New York: Guilford Press,
pp. 319–335.
Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships
443
Armsden, G. C. and 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.
Bartholomew, K. and Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a fourcategory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Bartholomew, K. and Shaver, P. (1998). Methods of assessing adult attachment. Do they converge? In
Attachment theory and close relationships, Simpson, J. A. and Rholes, W. S. (Eds). New York:
Guilford, pp. 25–45.
Baumrind, D. (1975). The contribution of the family to the development of competence in children.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 14, 12–37.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fix indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Berndt, T. J. and Hanna, N. A. (1995). Intimacy and self-disclosure in friendships. In Disclosure processes
in children and adolescents. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development, Rotenberg, K. J.
(Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–77.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological
Methods & Research, 17, 303–316.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 50, 3–35.
Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing structural
equation models, Bollen, K. A. and Long, J. S. (Eds). Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 111–135.
Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In Children’s sibling
relationships, Bou, F. and Dunn J. (Eds). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, pp. 192–240.
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B. and Boivin, M. (1993). Popularity, friendship and emotional adjustment
during early adolescence. In New directions for child development: Close friendships in adolescence,
Laursen B. (Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 24–38.
Bukowski, W., Hoza, B. and Boivin, M. (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, 471–485.
Cowan, P. A., Cohn, D. A., Cowan, C. P. and Pearson, J. L. (1996). Parents’ attachment histories and
children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors: Exploring family systems models of linkage.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 53–63.
Crowell, J. A. and Feldman, S. S. (1988). Mothers’ internal models of relationships and children’s
behavioral and developmental status: A study of mother–child interaction. Child Development, 59,
1273–1285.
Davies, P. and Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411.
Doyle, A. B., Markiewicz, D. and Hardy, C. (1994). Mothers’ and children’s friendships:
Intergenerational associations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 363–377.
Elicker, J., Englund, M. and Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Predicting peer competence and peer relationships in
childhood from early parent–child relationships. In Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage,
Parke, R. and Ladd G. (Eds). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, pp. 77–106.
Erel, O. and Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent–child relations:
A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–132.
Fraley, R. C. and Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close
friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131–144.
Furman, W. and Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal
relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115.
Furman, W. and Wehner, E. A. (1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescent romantic
relationships. In Advances in adolescent development, Vol. 6: Personal relationships during adolescence,
Montmayor, R. and Adams, G. R. (Eds). Newbury Park, California: Sage, pp. 168–175.
George, C. and Solomon, J. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of the family system: Children’s
representations of the family in doll play. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, April 1991. Seattle, Washington.
444
D. Markiewicz et al.
Gottman, J. M. and Katz, L. F. (1989). Effects of marital discord on young children’s peer interaction
and health. Developmental Psychology, 25, 373–381.
Griffin, D. W. and Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions
underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 433–445.
Grych, J. A. and Fincham, F. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual
framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M. and Cox, R. (1979). Play and social interaction in children following
divorce. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 26–49.
Homel, R., Burns, A. and Goodnow, J. (1987). Parental social networks and child development. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 159–177.
Hosley, C. A. and Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In The role of the father in child
development, Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 162–178.
Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific
Software International.
Jouriles, E. N., Barling, J. and O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Predicting child behavior problems in maritally
violent families. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 15, 165–193.
Kerig, P. K., Cowan, P. A. and Pape Cowan, C. (1993). Marital quality and gender differences in
parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 931–939.
Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L. and Cole, A. K. (1996). Peer relationship correlates of the mother-child
relationship in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 32, 457–466.
Kerns, K. and Stevens, A. (1996). Parent–child attachment in late adolescence: Links to social
relations and personality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 323–342.
Kobak, R. and Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation
and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135–146.
Ladd, G. W. and Golter, B. S. (1988). Parents’ management of preschoolers’ peer relations: Is it related
to children’s social competence? Developmental Psychology, 24, 109–117.
LaFreniere, P. and Sroufe, A. (1985). Profiles of peer competence in the preschool: Interrelations
between measures, influence of social ecology, and relation to attachment history. Developmental
Psychology, 21, 56–69.
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G. and Holmbeck, G. C. (1996). Changes in adolescents’ daily
interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and transformation.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 744–754.
Lempers, J. D. and Clarke-Lempers, D. S. (1992). Young, middle and late adolescents comparisons of
the functional importance of five significant relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21,
54–96.
Lieberman, M., Doyle, A. B. and Markiewicz, D. (1999). Developmental patterns in security of
attachment to mother and father in late childhood and early adolescence: Associations with peer
relations. Child Development, 70, 202–213.
Lollis, S., Ross, H. and Tate, E. (1992). Parents’ regulation of children’s peer interactions: Direct
influences. In Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage, Parke, R. D. and Ladd, G. (Eds). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 255–281.
Main, M., Kaplan, N. and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to
the level of representation. In Growing points in attachment theory and research. Bretherton, I. and
Waters, E. (Eds). no. 50, pp. 66–106.
Marsh, H. W. and Balla, J. R. (1994). Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of
sample size and model parsimony. Quality & Quantity, 28, 185–217.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R. and McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-Fit Indexes in Confimatory Factor
Analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.
Park, K. and Waters, E. (1989). Security of attachment and preschool friendships. Child Development,
60, 1076–1081.
Parke, R., MacDonald, K., Beitel, A. and Bhavnagri, N. (1988). The role of the family in the
development of peer relationships. In Social learning systems approaches to marriage and the family,
Peters, R. and McMahon, R. (Eds). New York: Brunner Mazel, pp. 17–44.
Paterson, J. E., Field, J. and Pryor, J. (1994). Adolescents’ perceptions of their attachment relationships
with their mothers, fathers, and friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 579–600.
Mothers’ and adolescents’ relationships
445
Paterson, J., Pryor, J. and Field, J. (1995). Adolescent attachment to parents and friends in relation to
aspects of self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 365–376.
Putallaz, M. (1987). Maternal behavior and children’s sociometric status. Child Development, 58,
324–340.
Putallaz, M. and Heflin, A. H. (1990). Parent-child interaction. In Peer rejection in childhood, Asher,
S. R. and Coie, J. (Eds). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–216.
Radin, N. (1981) Role of father in cognitive, academic and intellectual development. In The role of
father in child development, Lamb M. E. (Ed.). 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, pp. 379–427.
Raykov, T. and Widaman, K. F. (1995). Issues in Applied Structural Equation Modeling Research.
Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 289–318.
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. N. and Pierce, G. R. (1987). A brief measure of social support:
Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 497–510.
Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate friendship scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric properties
and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 449–469.
Simpson, J., Rholes, W. and Nelligan, J. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an
anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 434–446.
Spaleny, L. (1995). The development of the Children’s Perception of Mothers’ Relationships Scale. Honours
Thesis. Montreal: Concordia University.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage
and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.
Sroufe, A. and Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In Relationships
and development, Hartup, W. and Rubin, R. (Eds). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, pp. 57–71.
Statistics Canada. (1995). National Longitudinal Survey of Children: Survey Instruments for 1994–95.
Government of Canada, pp. 95–01.
Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M. and Estes, D. (1982). Stability of infant-mother attachment and its
relationship to changing life circumstances in an unselected middle-class sample. Child
Development, 53, 144–148.
Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant
attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the adult attachment interview.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403.
Veroff, V. (1996) An integration of friendship and social support: relationships with adjustment in college
students. PhD thesis, Montreal, Concordia University.
Voss, K., Markiewicz, D. and Doyle, A. B. (1999). Friendship, marriage and self-esteem. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 16, 103–122.
Waters, E., Wippman, J. and Sroufe, A. (1979). Attachment, positive affect and competence in the peer
group: Two studies in construct validation. Child Development, 50, 821–829.
Weiss, R. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Doing unto others, Rubin, Z. (Ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, pp. 17–26.
Wright, P. H. (1985). The acquaintance description form. In Understanding personal relationships: An
interdisciplinary approach, Duck, S. and Perlman, D. (Eds). London: Sage Publications, pp. 39–62.
Youngblade, L. M. and Belsky, J. (1992). Parent–child antecedents of 5-year-olds’ close friendships:
A longitudinal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 28, 700–713.
Youngblade, L. M., Park, K. A. and Belsky, J. (1993). Measurement of young children’s close friendship:
A comparison of 2 independent assessment systems and their associations with attachment
security. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 563–607.
Youniss, J. and Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relationship with mothers, fathers and friends. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.