Adolescent same-sex and opposite-sex best friend interactions.

McBride, Cami K. ; Field, Tiffany

Several studies have highlighted the critical importance of friendship in human development (Goldstein, Field, & Healy, 1989; Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1983). A recent review of the literature on friendship revealed that children with close friends showed better academic performance, were less likely to drop out of school, and had lower rates of juvenile delinquency and adult psychopathology (Parker & Asher, 1987). Another review emphasized that the DSM-III-R uses lack of close peer relationships as a criterion for a number of psychiatric disorders of childhood (Reisman, 1985).

Intimate friendship seems to be one of the most salient characteristics of adolescence, more so than in previous developmental stages (Buhrmester, 1990). A study that compared preadolescents with adolescents found that intimate friendship is more important to adolescents (Buhrmester, 1990). The study also noted that competence in peer relationship skills is a greater concern for adolescents than for preadolescents.

The present study examined the interactions of adolescent best friend pairs in the same manner as a study by Field, Greenwald, Morrow, Healy, Foster, Guthertz, and Frost (1992) on preadolescents. In that research preadolescent best friends, as compared with acquaintances, showed more matching of positive behavioral states and lower stress as evidenced by lower cortisol levels. The present study used the same paradigm to determine whether adolescent best friend pairs show similar matching of behavior states during interactions and whether there are differences across same-sex and opposite-sex interactions at a time when opposite-sex friendships are developing. The opposite-sex friendship assessment was new to this study.

Few studies have compared same-sex friendships with opposite-sex friendships in adolescents. A discontinuity in opposite-sex friendship might be expected because of the erotic element (Sharbany, Gershoni, & Hoffman, 1981). Opposite-sex friendship is considered a learning stage for mature sexual relations and has been considered a more intimate form of friendship than same-sex friendship in adolescence (Sharbany et al., 1981). However, because of the relative novelty, opposite-sex interactions may not be as relaxed.

Questions addressed in this study were whether personality characteristics, such as self-esteem and extraversion, would be important factors in opposite-sex friendships versus same-sex friendships. Would opposite-sex friends be more matched in their behavior states than would same-sex friends, or would they be less matched because high school juniors have less experience with opposite-sex friends? Opposite-sex friends might engage in more polite turn-taking rather than being in similar behavior states of animation and playfulness. Also, cortisol levels may be higher in opposite-sex friends than in same-sex friends because the erotic element may elicit more stress during the interaction (Sharbany et al., 1981).

To examine these questions, adolescents were videotaped in samesex and opposite-sex best friend pairs during a conversation on any topic. The videotapes were later rated for concordance of behavior states. In addition, saliva samples were collected to determine the subjects' cortisol levels before and after the interaction. The subjects also completed questionnaires in which they rated their interaction and the likability and characteristics of their partner. They were also asked to complete self-esteem, peer intimacy, depression, and anxiety scales.

METHOD

Subjects and Procedure

Forty-eight high school juniors (24 males and 24 females) were asked to participate in the study and to name their best same-sex friend and best opposite-sex friend who attended the same high school. Their best friends were then invited to participate with them. The average age of the adolescents was 16.3 years (range = 15-17). Their ethnic distribution was 35% Hispanic, 33% white, 18% African American, and 14% other, consistent with the high school distribution. Fifty-seven percent of their parents were married, 89% had at least some college, and over 49% had a graduate school degree. Eighty-two percent of their parents earned more than $30,000, and the sample averaged 2.3 (middle to upper middle SES) on the Hollingshead Index.

Selection of best friend pairs. The students were asked to provide demographic information (age, sex, race) and the names of their best same-sex friend and best opposite-sex friend within the same high school grade. The questions used to ascertain best friends were: "I spend the most time with -----"; "I know ----- the best"; and "I have lunch with_ the most." The students named as best friends were then asked to participate and to answer the same questions. The students who designated one another on two out of three of the above questions were matched in pairs.

Same-sex and opposite-sex best friend interactions. The best friend pairs were seated face-to-face across a table and asked to have a conversation on any topic. The interaction lasted 10 minutes and was videotaped. A mirror was propped next to one friend so that the image on the video screen showed the dyad side by side. Immediately after the conversation, an observer rated each adolescent on interaction behavior.

Instruments

Adolescent questionnaires. The questionnaires were administered after the interactions so as not to influence students' mood state. The self-esteem, peer intimacy, depression, and anxiety scales were administered only after the first session, and the same-sex/opposite-sex interaction order was counterbalanced. Feelings about the interaction and partner ratings were obtained after both same-sex and opposite-sex interactions.

Feelings scale. Conversation comfort, or how the adolescents felt during the interaction, was tapped using a 5-point Likert scale that included the following positive bipolar ratings: relaxed, friendly, interested, calm, self-conscious, enthusiastic, confident, involved, happy, in charge of the situation, natural, and pleasant. The scale was the same as that used in the Field et al. (1992) study, with items generated on a face validity basis in a study by Warner et al. (1987).

Partner rating. The students were asked to rate how much they liked their conversation partner on a 5-point Likert scale. The 12 items were the same as those used in the study by Field et al. (1992): (a) the way he/she looks, (b) his/her personality, (c) the things he/she said, (d) the way he/she talks, (e) the way he/she smiles/laughs, (f) his/her ideas, (g) the way he/she listens, (h) the way he/she laughs at things, (i) the way we share ideas, (j) the way he/she looks at me, (k) the way we take turns talking, and (l) the way we have fun together talking.

Self-esteem scale. This scale asked the students to compare themselves with their peers on a variety of descriptors, including confident, independent, angry, and moody. Students responded to questions that began: "Compared to my peers I would say that I am in general . . . (e.g., happy: less, the same, or more)."

Peer intimacy scale. This scale measured students' level of intimacy with best friend. There were eight questions (e.g., "How much do you share your inner feelings or secrets with your best friend?"), with answers ranging from not at all to very much and higher scores signifying greater intimacy.

Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977). This scale assesses depression levels by asking subjects to compare their feelings during the preceding week on items representing the primary symptoms of depression. A 4-point Likert scale (rarely or none of the time, some or little of the time, a lot of the time and most or all of the time) measures subjects' feelings.

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). This questionnaire assesses level of current situational anxiety. It consists of 40 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale (not at all, somewhat, moderately, and very much so).

Extraversion Scale (Buck, 1975). Buck's internalizer-externalizer scale was used to determine the adolescents' extraversion-introversion. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, from not at all characteristic to always characteristic. Examples of items are: "I am warm and friendly to others," "I am shy," and "I have many friends."

RESULTS

Within-subjects repeated-measures analyses of variance were conducted with gender as the grouping variable and type of interaction (same-sex/opposite-sex) as the repeated measure. Interaction effects were analyzed using post hoc Bonferroni t tests.

As can be seen in Table 1, a group by repeated-measures interaction effect and post hoc comparisons indicated that females scored higher on the "How I felt" measure, suggesting greater comfort during samesex interactions than during opposite-sex interactions. Another group by repeated-measures interaction effect indicated that females also [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] assigned higher partner ratings than did males following same-sex interactions. Finally, female students spent more time in a playful behavior state during same-sex versus opposite-sex interactions, and male students spent more time in a playful behavior state during their interactions with females.

Intraclass correlation analyses were then conducted to determine whether the members of the dyads were similar to each other on personality traits and responses to their interactions and whether their state behaviors (interested, animated, playful) were correlated within dyads. As can be seen in Table 2, dyad members, whether female-female, male-male, or female-male, were not similar to each other either on the transitory mood states of depression (CES-D, M = 21, range = 9-47) and anxiety (STAI, M = 42, range = 28-59) or on more traitlike characteristics, namely extraversion-introversion (M = 92, range = 74-118) and self-esteem (M = 45, range = 38-50). However, on their responses to the interactions there were significant intraclass correlations for peer intimacy and partner ratings within the opposite-sex dyads. In addition, dyad members were similar on the amount of time they spent in an interested state independent of the type of interaction dyad. However, similarity on the time spent in an animated state was noted in dyad members only during male-male interactions, and similarity on the time spent in a playful state was noted in dyad members only during female-female interactions.

Table 2

Intraclass Correlations to Determine Similarity Within Same-Sex and
Opposite-Sex Dyads

 Same Sex Opposite Sex
Variable Female Male

Personality Assessment

CES-D (Depression) -.01 .02 -.01
STAI (Anxiety) -.02 .01 .00
Extraversion .03 .00 -.02
Self-esteem .01 .04 -.02

Responses to Interaction

"How I Felt" .02 .05 .04
Peer Intimacy .06 .01 .17(b)
Partner Rating -.01 .03 .23(b)

Interaction States

Interested .20(b) .21(b) .19(b)
Animated .06 .41(b) .05
Playful .29(b) .07 .06

* Significant at .05

** Significant at .01

Note: When an intraclass correlation is significant, each member
of the dyad is more correlated with each other than with another
person.

DISCUSSION

The most comfortable, playful interactions in this study on high school juniors appeared to be those between females. Females rated their same-sex interactions as more comfortable and their female partners more likable, and they engaged in more playful behavior together than did male-male or opposite-sex dyads. This could be due to females' having more experience with face-to-face interactions. Anecdotal observations suggest that adolescent females spend more time talking about relationships while males spend more time roughhousing. It is interesting in this regard that males were more playful during their interactions with females than with other males, as if learning how to be playful in face-to-face interactions with the more experienced females. Although we had anticipated that by their junior year these adolescents would be spending more time in heterosexual relationships and therefore rating them more optimally and showing more playful behavior, that did not appear to be true for this sample.

Because of assortative mating theories for selection of adult relationships, we expected within-dyad similarities on at least some mood state or personality variables. However, like the results of Field et al. (1992) for a sixth-grade sample, there did not appear to be any similarity between partners within any of the dyads for mood states (depression and anxiety) or for the two personality variables (extraversion and self-esteem). Anecdotally, we noticed no other physical or personality variables that might have been criteria for friend selection. The members of the pairs seemed extremely different at first glance.

The adolescents did, however, receive similar peer intimacy and partner ratings following opposite-sex interactions. And behaviorally, they spent similar amounts of time together in an interested state, and in an animated state in the case of male-male dyads and in a playful state in the case of female-female dyads. Basically, then, although there was very little similarity within dyads on self-ratings for mood and personality factors, the adolescents were often in the same behavior state as their partner during interactions, suggesting behavior matching or synchrony. These findings highlight the probability that the adolescents were in fact interacting with their best friends. In a previous study (Field et al., 1992), matching of behavior states, particularly optimal ones, was noted only among best friend pairs.

Further research is needed on how these friendships evolve. Determining whether a "comfort level" similar to that of female-female interactions in a face-to-face situation develops for males, and whether females come to experience that level of comfort and matching of playful behavior in their interactions with males, will require additional study even later in adolescent development than we had anticipated.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the adolescents who participated in this study and the research associates, Marc LeTourneau, Aaron White, Tory Field, and Shay Largie, who assisted in the data collection and coding. This research was supported by an NIMH Research Scientist Award (#MH00331) and an NIMH Research Grant (#MH46586) to Tiffany Field.

REFERENCES

Buck, R. (1975). Nonverbal communication of affecting children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 644-653.

Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61(4), 1101-1111.

Field, T., Greenwald, P., Morrow, C., Healy, B., Foster, T., Guthertz, M., & Frost, P. (1992). Behavior state matching during interactions of preadolescent friends versus acquaintances. Developmental Psychology, 28, 242-250.

Goldstein, S., Field, T., & Healy, B. (1989). Concordance of play behavior and physiology in preschool friends. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 242-250.

Greenberg, M.T., Siegel, J.M., & Leitch, C.J. (1983). The nature and importance of attachment relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 373-386.

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

Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Reisman, J.M. (1985). Friendship and its implications for mental health or social competence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 383-391.

Sharbany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hoffman, J.E. (1981). Girlfriend, boyfriend: Age and sex differences in intimate friendship. Developmental Psychology, 17, 800-808.

Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.C., & Lushene, R.E. (1970). The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Warner, R., Malloy, D., Schneider, K., Knoth, R., et al. (1987). Rhythmic organization of social interaction and observer ratings of positive affect and involvement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11(2), 57-74.

Cami K. McBride, Touch Research Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine.