Navigating the Minefields of Adolescent Social Triangles: Adolescents' reactions to their friends' friends and romantic partners. Melanie A. Roth, M.S. and Jeffrey ...
Navigating the Minefields of Adolescent Social Triangles: Adolescents’ reactions to their friends’ friends and romantic partners
Melanie A. Roth, M.S. and Jeffrey G. Parker, Ph.D. Department of Psychology The Pennsylvania State University 412 Moore Bldg. University Park, PA 16801
ABSTRACT Jealous emotional responses, attributions of blame, and suggested behavioral responses to situations in which outsiders threaten friendships were studied in a group of 122 tenth- through twelfth-grade adolescents who were interviewed using hypothetical vignettes. Adolescents reported strong reactions of jealousy to both interference stemming from another, same-sex peer and interference stemming from a friend's involvement with his or her opposite-sex romantic partner. Participant's blamed their friend more than anyone else, and indicated that their most likely responses would be raise their concerns with the friend, distract themselves or ignore the situation, are find a way to include everyone in activities. A disposition toward jealousy played a major role in responses, as did the gender of the adolescent.
INTRODUCTION Friendship networks are an extremely important part of the adolescent’s social world. During the adolescent years, most individuals have one or two people they consider their “best friends” and several “close friends” or “good friends.” American teenagers report that their contact with friends consumes several hours of their day and numerous studies document that teens’ best friendships grow more intimate and exclusive during this period. Likewise, dating relationships become an increasingly important part of life during adolescence for most individuals. The vast majority of adolescents have had some dating experience by the time they are 15 years old. And, despite the short duration of most adolescent dating relationships, contact during these relationships tends to be frequent with most adolescents reporting that they see or speak to their romantic partner daily. As adolescents deepen their friendships or develop new friendship or romantic relationships complex social triangles are created that are a minefield of potential tension and trouble. Increasing intimacy with some friends can leave remaining friends feeling left out, neglected, and jealous. Likewise, the time teens devote to their budding romantic relationships can be perceived as betrayal or insensitivity by existing same-sex friends. To date, however, researchers have studied adolescents’ close relationships largely in isolation from the broader web of social relationships in which they are embedded. Hence the challenges that teens face as they refashion their friendship networks and integrate new romantic relationships are poorly understood. The primary purpose of the current study is to examine the similarities and differences in adolescents’ emotional and behavioral reactions to other same-sex peers and romantic partners who impose on their relationships with their friend. By comparing the dating and same-sex circumstances, we hope to extend emerging work on jealousy over friends (Parker, Low, Walker, & Biggs, in prep) and romantic partners (Roth & Parker, in press). Important differences exist between the threats to friendship implied by other same-sex peers versus opposite-sex romantic partners. Specifically, jealousy theorists have wrestled with the question of whether the threat posed to individuals by third parties who insinuate themselves into close relationships is primarily that of loss of relationship rewards (e.g., companionship, intimacy, attention, and assistance) or the symbolic loss of
ego status or self-esteem due to the unfavorable comparison implied by one’s partner’s preference for another over oneself. Whereas a loss of relationship rewards is common to both the dating and same-sex circumstances, only the same-sex circumstance poses the additional threat of negative social comparison, as teens normally do not see themselves and dating partners as rivals for the same role in a best friend’s life.
OBJECTIVES The present study examines adolescents’ emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses to outsiders’ interference in their same-sex friendships. The specific aims are: ⇒
To examine adolescents’ jealousy in response to their best friend’s involvement with other same-sex friends and how this compare to their jealousy in response to their best friend’s involvement his or her romantic partner. ⇒ To examine how adolescents’ attributions of blame in response to their best friend’s involvement with other same-sex friends compare to their attributions of blame in response to their best friend’s involvement his or her romantic partner. ⇒ To examine how adolescents’ behavioral responses to their best friend’s involvement with other same-sex friends compare to their behavioral responses to their best friend’s involvement his or her romantic partner. ⇒ To examine how gender and characteristic level of jealousy around friends affect responses in these two circumstances.
HYPOTHESES ⇒
Adolescents should feel the most jealous when faced with friendship intrusion due to a same-sex peer interloper, slightly less jealous when faced with friendship intrusion due to a romantic partner interloper, and the least jealous when faced with simple disappointment. ⇒ Girls should feel more jealousy than boys when faced with friendship intrusion. ⇒ Characteristically jealous adolescents should react more strongly to friendship intrusion than non-jealous adolescents. ⇒ Adolescents should hold their friends most accountable especially when faced with friendship intrusion due to a same-sex peer interloper, they should hold the interlopers slightly less accountable especially when faced with friendship intrusion due to a romantic partner, and they should not hold themselves accountable across contexts.
METHODS PARTICIPANTS 122 Adolescents 74 Females, 48 Males 10th, 11th, and 12th Grades
MEASURES Dating Experience Scale 7 participants who indicated that their best friend had no dating experience were excluded from all analyses. Friendship Jealousy Questionnaire (Parker, Low, & Wargo, 1999)
PROCEDURE Participants read 3 vignettes in which their plans to do something exciting with their best friend were thwarted due to: 1) the best friend's plans with their romantic partner, 2) the best friend's plans with another same-sex peer, or 3) incidental reasons not related to the friendship. Following each vignette participants rated their jealous emotional response and indicated how they would assign blame. Following the interloper vignettes, participants indicated their use of 7 types behavioral response: Dismiss & Deny ex. Just ignore the whole thing and say nothing Distract ex. Try to think of something to do to get your mind off what happened Voice ex. Talk to your (best friend) and tell him/her how you feel Include All ex. Plan a group activity that can include the three of you and other friends Exit ex. Find someone else to be best friends with instead of (best friend) Relational Aggression ex. Talk to (interloper) and tell her/him to stay away from (best friend) because she’s/he’s your best friend Passive Aggression ex. Give (best friend) the silent treatment
RESULTS JEALOUS EMOTIONAL RESPONSE A 3 (Context) x 2 (Gender) repeated measures ANOVA was done to determine the influence of context and gender on jealous emotional responses to the vignettes. This analysis indicated that there was a main effect for context, F(2,226)=45.72, p=.000. Adolescents had the strongest reactions of jealousy in the friend and romantic contexts, and experienced very little jealousy in the control context.
Jealous Emotional Reaction
Influence of Context on Jealous Emotional Reaction 4 3 a
a
2 b 1 0 Friend
Romantic
Control
Context
In addition, there was a significant main effect for gender, F(1,113)=11.85, p=.001, which indicates that, in general, girls (M=2.08) had stronger reactions of jealousy than did boys (M=1.55).
Influence of Characteristic Jealousy on Jealous Emotional Reaction
Jealousy
4 3 2 1 0 High
Low Level of Characteristic Jealousy
A 3 (Context) x 2 (Gender) x 2 (Characteristic Jealousy) repeated measures ANOVA was done to determine the influence of characteristic level of jealousy on jealous emotional response to the vignettes. This analysis indicated that there was main effect for characteristic level of jealousy F(1,111)=24.67, p=.000. Highly jealousy adolescents react with more jealousy, in response to friendship neglect, than adolescents who are not highly jealous.
ASSESSMENTS OF BLAME A 3 (Context) x 2 (Gender) x 3 (Target of Blame) repeated measures ANOVA was done to determine the effects of context, gender, and target of blame on attributions of blame. This analysis indicated that there was a main effect for target, F(2,226)=141.86, p=.000, such that, friends (M=1.52) were blamed for friendship neglect more than interlopers (M=.89) and self (M=.34). However, this main effect was qualified by an interaction with context, F(4,452)=16.50, p=.000.
Influence of Context on Assessments of Blame
Level of Blame
4 3 a
Friend
a
2
Romantic a
1
Control
a
b
b
0 Friend
Interloper
Self
Target of Blame
Adolescents blamed their friend and the interloper roughly equally in the friend and in romantic contexts. Adolescents did not blame themselves for friendship neglect in any context. In addition, there was an interaction between target and gender, F(2,226)=7.35, p=.001. Girls blame their friends for friendship neglect more than did boys.
Influence of Gender on Assessments of Blame
Level of Blame
4 3 2
Females
a
Males
b 1 0 Friend
Interloper Target of Blame
Self
BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE A 2 (Context) x 2 (Gender) x 7 (Behavioral Response) repeated measures ANCOVA was done to determine the effects of context and gender on use of behavioral responses, controlling for overall level of jealousy in response to the vignettes. This analysis produced a main effect for behavioral response F(6,678)=30.63, p=.000. Adolescents indicated that they would be more likely to use some responses more than others.
Main Effect for Behavioral Response 4 a
3
a
a
a
b
2
c
c
Exit
Rel. Agg.
1 0 Dismiss & Deny
Distract
Voice
Include All
Pass. Agg.
Behavioral Response
However, this main effect was qualified by gender F(6,678)=17.43, p=.000. There were some specific differences between the behavioral responses suggested by girls versus boys.
Influence of Gender on Behavioral Response 4 3 Female Male
2 1 0 Dismiss & Deny*
Distract
Voice*
Include All*
Pass. Agg.
Behavioral Response
Exit
Rel. Agg.
Finally, there was also an interaction between behavioral response and context, F(6,678)=2.37, p=.03, such that the behavioral responses suggested differed depending on the context of the friendship neglect.
Influence of Context on Behavioral Response 4 3 Friend
2
Romantic
1 0 Dismiss & Deny
Distract
Voice
Include All*
Pass. Agg.
Exit
Rel. Agg.
Behavioral Response
DISCUSSION As expected, adolescents had strong, negative reactions to interference of third parties in their best friendships. They expressed jealousy, viewed the best friend and interloper as blameworthy, and were motivated to respond in various ways. Moreover, they did not respond with the same level of negativity when the same disappointing friendship events were portrayed as unfolding without the interference of an outsider. Although it is understandable that jealous emotional and behavioral responses are specific to circumstances that involve interlopers, the decisiveness of the differences supports the importance in future research of distinguishing circumstances that involve jealousy from the larger class of conflicts and disappointments that crop up in friendship. Jealous circumstances and reactions appear to be unique in several ways from other reactions. Surprisingly, adolescents' reactions were largely the same, regardless of whether the person interfering in the relationship was a same-sex peer or the best friend's romantic partner. Had reactions to same-sex peers been more negative as expected, it would have supported the interpretation that teens' react particularly strongly to the implied negative social comparison that accompanies a best friend's presumed sudden interest in another peer of the same sex. One interpretation of the present findings is that teens take both kinds of interference "personally" and do not show much tolerance for a friend's desire to take time away from the relationship to cultivate a budding romantic relationship. This reaction is likely to dampen with age and experience with their own and friends' dating, and this question should be an important direction for future research.
Although all adolescents were distressed by the interference of others to some extent, compared to teens that are more sanguine about things, teens that independently reported that they habitually find such circumstances upsetting also expressed more upset around our vignettes. This finding is consistent with past research (e.g., Roth & Parker, in press; Parker et al., 1999) and lends urgency to further efforts to define, assess, and understand jealousy as an important dimension of individual differences in middle childhood and adolescence. An important direction for future research will be to better understand the origins of these differences. It might be productive, for example, to explore the self-esteem of dispositionally jealous individuals, as well as their history of security in family relationships. Consistent with previous studies (Roth & Parker, in press; Parker, et al., 1999), gender also played a significant role in the findings of this study. Girls reported a stronger disposition to jealousy over friends than did boys. Girls also reacted more negatively to the vignettes than did boys. Compared to boys, girls placed more blame on their friends for the disappointment. Finally, girls were less likely to react dismissively, more likely to voice their concerns with their friend, and more likely to seek a solution that could involve including everyone. Contrary to expectations, girls were not more likely than boys to react with relational forms of aggression, perhaps because this type of response was considered unlikely. Taken together, these results support claims regarding the importance of considering gender when evaluating friendships. It is possible that these differences are the result of the differences between males and females in the importance and investment placed on friendships. Of course, it is also possible that boys are minimizing their distress surrounding issues of friendship intrusions. Lastly, it should be acknowledged that the present research depended on adolescents' self-reports of their responses. Likewise, although designed to reflect realistic scenarios, the events employed in this study were hypothetical. Future research should incorporate observations of adolescents in relatively realistic circumstances, and might also recruit peers to serve as informants concerning an individual's likely response.
