Children's friendship relations: A meta-analytic review.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The climate of agreement existing between friends promotes socialization toward increased similarity.
“The”
From Peer Influences on Academic Motivation: Exploring Multiple Methods of Assessing Youths’ Most “Influential” Peer Relationships (2011) · cites this paper as Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995
Friendships provide a context in which adolescents can practice effective conflict resolution.
“friendships provide a context in which adolescents can practice effective conflict resolution (Newcomb and Bagwell 1995)”
From Transformation of Adolescent Peer Relations in the Social Media Context: Part 1—A Theoretical Framework and Application to Dyadic Peer Relationships (2018) · cites this paper as Newcomb and Bagwell 1995
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 134 · Cited by 869
- Authors
- Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Richmond (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 306-347
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2090491342
- Cited by
- 869
- References
- 134
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 44
- FWCI
- 15.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Keywords
- childhood friendship, peer relationships, friendship quality, peer acceptance, peer rejection, peer popularity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
