Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Instrument Author:
Theoretical
Range
Observed
Range
Mean
SD
Alpha
Interitem r
-4 -4
-1.7 - 4
2.9
1.3
.96
.74
Satisfaction
-4 -4
-3.5 -4
2.5
1.6
.92
.74
0 - 8
.4 -8
6.3
1.5
.91
.67
Help
0 - 8
.0 -8
5.9
1.6
.89
.63
3
The decision to combine the four items on the Satisfaction scale was supported by the fact that they were
the only items that specifically mentioned friendship, by the finding that the internal consistency of the
Satisfaction scale was, if anything, improved with Item 10 on it (alpha = .92 vs. .91), and by the factor analysis
of the revision to the MFQ-RA in Study 2.
4
Two other methods were used to eliminate three items from each subscale: reiteratively computing factor
analyses and reiteratively computing Cronbach's alpha coefficients and dropping the worst item on each
iteration. These methods yielded results virtually identical to those reported in the text.
0 - 8
.0 -8
6.1
1.9
.94
.75
Reliable Alliance
0 - 8
.8 -8
6.6
1.6
.95
.79
Self-Validation
0 - 8
.4 -8
6.0
1.6
.91
.68
Emotional Security
0 - 8
.4 -8
6.1
1.7
.92
.71
for the six subscales (alphas: .89 to .95; inter-item rs: .63 to .79). Although the subscales were intercorrelated
[Mr(251) = .74; Range: .68 (Intimacy and Stimulating Companionship) to .83 (Intimacy and Emotional
Security)], they were analyzed independently because they tapped conceptually distinct functions, because the
subscale structure was supported by the results of the factor analysis, and because their intercorrelations were
lower than their Cronbach's alpha coefficients.
Validity
McGill Friendship Questionnaire-Respondent's Affection. Social desirability scores did not predict
Positive Feelings, r(82) = -.07, p > .05, or Satisfaction, r(82) = -.01, p > .05. That is, respondents' reports of
their feelings for their friend or their satisfaction with the friendship were apparently not influenced by a
tendency to respond in a socially desirable way, which supports the discriminant validity of the two subscales.
The two subscales were subjected to a Type of Friend x Gender MANOVA. Type of friend was
significant multivariately, F(2,241) = 43.39, p < .01, and univariately for both subscales (Table 2a). Participants
responding with reference to a best friend rated their positive feelings for the friend and their satisfaction with
the friendship higher than did participants responding with reference to a casual friend. Gender was also
significant multivariately, F(2,241) = 3.70, p < .05; women reported slightly higher positive feelings for the
friend than did men (3.0 vs. 2.7), F(1,241) = 6.73, p < .05, but they did not differ from men in satisfaction with
the friendship (2.5 vs. 2.4), F(1,241) = 2.22, p > .05.
Table 2
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Friendship Measures for Casual and Best Friends
Friend
Variable
Casual
Best
2.2
(1.4)
3.5
(0.8)
84.51**
Satisfaction
1.7
(1.7)
3.2
(1.1)
66.74**
5.6
(1.6)
6.8
(1.0)
54.44**
Help
5.3
(1.7)
6.4
(1.3)
30.98**
Intimacy
4.9
(1.9)
6.9
(1.2)
95.01**
Reliable Alliance
5.7
(1.7)
7.3
(1.0)
81.89**
Self-Validation
5.3
(1.7)
6.6
(1.2)
48.58**
Emotional Security
5.2
(1.9)
6.8
(1.3)
62.76**
SE B
R2
R2
1.35**
.14
.52
Gender
-.39**
.14
-.15
Stimulating Companionship
.10*
.05
.11
Help
-.01
.04
-.01
Intimacy
.15**
.05
.22
Reliable Alliance
.35**
.05
.43
Self-Validation
.01
.05
.01
Emotional Security
.10
.05
.13
.29**
Step 2
.45**
.74**
(b) Satisfaction
Step 1
Type of Friend
1.54**
.18
.48
Gender
-.29
.19
-.09
Stimulating Companionship
.14*
.07
.13
Help
.11
.07
.11
Intimacy
.17*
.07
.20
Reliable Alliance
.36**
.07
.35
Self-Validation
.05
.08
.05
Emotional Security
.01
.08
.01
.23**
Step 2
.40**
.63**
Scale
Observed
Range
Mean
SD
Alpha
Interitem r
-4 - 4
-.5 -4
3.4
0.8
.93
.64
Satisfaction
-4 - 4
-2.6 -4
3.1
1.2
.96
.78
0 - 8
3.2 -8
6.7
1.1
.84
.53
Help
0 - 8
2.0 -8
6.4
1.2
.84
.51
Intimacy
0 - 8
1.8 -8
6.8
1.4
.90
.64
Reliable Alliance
0 - 8
2.8 -8
7.2
1.1
.88
.59
Self-Validation
0 - 8
1.3 -8
6.3
1.4
.89
.61
Emotional Security
0 - 8
1.2 -8
6.4
1.3
.85
.56
.2 -19.2
7.2
4.5
.2 -19.2
5.6
4.4
McGill Friendship Questionnaire-Friend's Functions (Short). Factor analyses with oblique rotation were
used to verify the subscale structure of the MFQ-FFS. An initial six-factor solution applied to the 30 items
indicated that four Emotional Security items did not load (_ .40) on any factor, and the fifth item (48) loaded
with the Intimacy items. Although the Emotional Security subscale was retained for analysis, the factor
analysis was recomputed without its items. The five resulting factors (eigenvalues = 11.8, 2.2, 1.4, 1.2, 1.1)
accounted for 70.4% of the overall variance (47.1%, 8.7%, 5.4%, 5.0%, 4.3%); the absolute values of the
intercorrelations among the factors ranged from .25 to .48 (M|r| = .36). With only two exceptions, factor
Satis
Comp
Help
(a) Duration
As Friends
.09
.17*
.07
.05
.05
.10
.09
.03
As Best Friends
.16*
.21**
.15*
.14*
.16*
.17*
.15*
.13
(b) Self-Esteem
SE-Friend: r
b
partial r
.37**
.44**
.31**
.33**
.47**
.31**
.28**
.32**
.35**
.38**
.27**
.29**
.43**
.27**
.22**
.29**
.06
.08
.29**
.05
-.04
-.08
partial r
SE-Social
.11
.24**
.13*
.16*
.15*
.18**
.19**
.14*
SE-Romantic
.09
.08
.14*
.13
.12
.09
.11
.09
SE-Parent
.05
.08
.05
.02
.07
.15*
.04
.05
SE-Global
.03
.06
-.03
.06
-.01
.16*
.06
.03
Pos = Positive Feelings; Satis = Satisfaction; Comp = Stimulating Companionship; Intim = Intimacy; Rel
All = Reliable Alliance; Self-Validation; Em Sec = Emotional Security.
b
Cell entries are partial correlations between SE-Friend and each friendship measure, controlling
simultaneously for the other self-esteem measures.
Cell entries are partial correlations between SE-Friend and each friendship function measure, controlling
simultaneously for the other friendship function measures.
R2
SE B
R2
-.44**
.11
-.27
.07**
Stimulating Companionship
.19**
.05
.25
Help
.16**
.05
.25
Intimacy
.09
.05
.15
Reliable Alliance
.20**
.05
.26
Self-Validation
.00
.05
.01
Emotional Security
-.04
.06
-.07
.46**
.01
Step 2
.54**
(b) Satisfaction
Step 1
Gender
-.30
.16
-.12
Stimulating Companionship
.08
.08
.07
Help
.44**
.09
.44
Intimacy
.12
.08
.14
Reliable Alliance
.25**
.08
.22
Self-Validation
-.02
.07
-.02
Emotional Security
-.06
.10
-.07
Step 2
.43**
.44**
Aboud, F. E., & Mendelson, M. J. (November, 1992). Measurement and determinants of friendship quality.
Invited address to Conference on Friendship in Childhood and Adolescence, Montreal, Quebec.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during
preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101-1111.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child Development,
58, 1101-1113.
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & 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 Relationship, 11, 471-484.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349354.
Furman, W., & Adler, T. (1982). The Friendship Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the personal relationships in their social
networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1024.
Hartup, W. W., Laursen, B., Stewart, M. I. & Eastenson, A. (1988). Conflict and the friendship relations of
young children. Child Development, 59, 15901600.
Harter, S. (1985). Competence as a dimension of self-evaluation: Toward a comprehensive model of selfworth. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 55-122). New York: Academic Press.
Jones, D. C. (1991). Friendship satisfaction and gender: An examination of sex differences in contributors to
friendship satisfaction. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 8, 167-185.
Lewis, R. J., Winstead, B. A., & Derlega, B. J. (1989). Gender differences in volunteering for friendship
research. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 4, 623-632.
Mannarino, A. P. (1976). Friendship patterns and altruistic behavior in preadolescent males. Developmental
Psychology, 12, 555556.
Mendelson, M. J., & Aboud F. E. (1999). Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents and young adults: The McGill Friendship
Questionnaires. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 130132.
Mendelson, M. J., Aboud, F. E., & Lanthier, R. P. (1994). Personality predictors of friendship and popularity in kindergarten.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 113135.
Neemann, J., & Harter, S. (1986). Manual for the self-perception profile for college students. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Denver.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1989). Friendship Quality Questionnaire-Revised: instrument and administration
manual. University of Michigan.
Sapadin, L. A. (1988). Friendship and gender: Perspectives of professional men and women. Journal of Social &
Personal Relationships, 5, 387-403.
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: developmental and clinical analyses. New York: Academic
Press.
Sharabany, R. (1974). Intimate friendship among kibbutz and city children and its measurement. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hofman, J. E. (1981). Girlfriend, boyfriend: Age and sex differences in
intimate friendship. Developmental Psychology, 17, 800808.
Wright, P. H. (1974). The delineation and measurement of some key variables in the study of friendship.
Representative Research in Social Psychology, 5, 93-96.
Wright, P. H. (1988). Interpreting research on gender differences in friendship: A case for moderation and a
plea for caution. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 5, 367-373.
Wright, P. H. (1991). The Acquaintance description form: What it is and how to use it. Unpublished manuscript, University of
North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota.
Wright, P. H., & Scanlon, M. B. (1991). Gender role orientations and friendship: Some attenuation, but gender differences abound.
Sex Roles, 24, 551-566.
Somewhat
Disagree
-1
-2
Somewhat
Agree
1
Very Much
Agree
3
Items
Version
A Priori
Original
Revised Item
Aa
12
13
14
16
10
11
15
11
15
Subscales: A = Affection; S = Satisfaction; P = Positive Feelings; E = Evaluation (unanalyzed); minus sign = unused in
version.
Rarely
2
Once in
a While
4
Fairly
Often
6
Subscale / Item
Stimulating Companionship
is fun to do things with
tells me interesting things
14
22
makes me laugh
26
is exciting to talk to
36
is enjoyable to be with
38
is exciting to be with
47
12
16
23
helps me do things
25
34
40
46
Always
8
11
15
24
28
31
37
45
10
18
would want to stay my friend if we didn't see each other for a few months
20
30
32
42
44
would still want to be my friend even if I didn't have time to see her/him a
lot
Self-Validation
13
21
27
35
39
43
17
19
29
33
41
48