CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 87Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentBullying, Victimization, and AggressionAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Friends in high places: A dyadic perspective on peer status as predictor of friendship quality and the mediating role of empathy and prosocial behavior

Open access
Meuwese, Rosa, Cillessen, Antonius H. N., Güroğlu, Berna·2017·Social Development
DOI 10.1111/sode.12213
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Friendships and peer status play important roles in the social landscape of adolescents and are related to developmental outcomes. Yet, how peer status is related to friendship quality and what role social skills play in this association remains unclear. In this study, we use Actor–Partner Interdependence (Mediation) Modeling (Ledermann, Macho, & Kenny, 2011) to investigate how two forms of peer status, preference and popularity, are related to positive and negative friendship quality in mid‐adolescence. Results show that adolescents who are friends with more preferred (i.e., likeable) and popular adolescents report higher friendship quality. These partner effects were partially mediated by adolescents’ own prosocial behavior and their friends’ empathy levels. Higher levels of empathy of one's friend and one's own lesser preference for equity explained why adolescents were more satisfied in a friendship with highly preferred (i.e., likeable) adolescents. Interestingly, empathy was not a mediator for the link between friendship quality and popularity. These findings promote a better understanding of the interplay between different levels of social complexity (i.e., individual, dyadic and peer group level) in adolescence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/sode.12213

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Social sensitivity and peer importance increase markedly in adolescence, with friends becoming the main source of interaction and influence.

    “Another defining characteristic of adolescence is the marked increase in social sensitivity and the importance of peers (Somerville 2013). As adolescents strive for independence from their parents, the time spent with peers increases dramatically, and for the first time, friends rather than parents become the primary source of interaction and influence (Meuwese et al. 2017).”

    From Risk and protective factors for prospective changes in adolescent mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as Meuwese et al. 2017

    The paper’s introductory passage (indexed under Abstract; page unavailable) says adolescents spend increasingly more time with peers and have greater social exposure to friends than in early childhood. It does not say that this increase is dramatic, link it to independence from parents, or establish that friends become the primary source of interaction and influence rather than parents. The separate statement about social sensitivity is cited to Somerville, not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bateson, G. (1958). Naven. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  2. Cillessen, A., & Marks, P. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In A. H. N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25-56). New York: Guilford.
  3. Mayeux, L., Houser, J. J., & Dyches, K. D. (2011). Social acceptance and popularity. Two distinct forms of peer status. In A. H. N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 79-102). New York: Guilford.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Meuwese, R., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Güroğlu, B.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Meuwese, Rosa
ORCID
Venue
Social Development
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-10-09
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
503-519
ISSN
  • 0961-205X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9507
DOI
10.1111/sode.12213
OpenAlex
W2531550874
Cited by
87
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5
FWCI
5.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Social Development (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Research Council (ERC‐2010‐StG‐263234)
  • Organization for Autism Research (451‐10‐021)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
peer status, friendship quality, peer preference, peer popularity, empathy, prosocial behavior, adolescent friendships, dyadic mediation, peer relationships, middle adolescence

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