1

Research proposal

Title: Impact of Quality of Friendship and

Orientation of Forgiveness on Subjective Well

Being of Youth

Name of student: Khatija Yaqoob

Session: 2015 -17

Program: M.phil Psychology

Supervisors: Dr .Muhammad Saleem

The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

 2

Contents

Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------01

Literature Review-----------------------------------------------------------------------07

Objectives of study----------------------------------------------------------------------12

Hypothesis--------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

Method------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14

References--------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
 3

Chapter I

Introduction

Impact of Quality of Friendship and Orientation of Forgiveness on Subjective Well Being

of Youth

Quality of Friendship

Research in the field of friendship for years has focused on defining, classifying, and

differentiating the characteristics of a quality friend in typically developing children or

adolescents (Aoyama, Saxon & Fearon, 2007).

Friends during our lifespan serve a crucial role in happiness. They provide us delight and

companionship, help us become more self-aware, and provide support during difficult times.

Friendships are different than family relationships because we choose our friends and are

accepted by them based on intrinsic qualities and shared interests (Rushton & Bons, 2005).

Friendships are voluntary relationships between two individuals (Krappmann, 1996).

Friendships are characterized by reciprocity, commitment, and equality (Hartup, 1993). Because

adolescents spend a large amount of their time with friends, there are many opportunities for

transgressions or betrayals to occur (e.g., violations of commitment, loyalty, trust, and

confidence) (Jones, Cohn, & Miller, 1991). Another dimension of friendship is the adolescent’s

assessment of the quality of the friendship.

The quality of friendships is a good indicator of subjective well being during

adolescence. High friendship quality is comprised of both positive and negative features in which

a friendship should have high levels of intimacy, companionship and closeness and low levels of
 4

conflict. Higher quality friendships and social support provided by friends have been linked to

more positive adolescent adjustment and development (Hartup & Stevens, 1997; Simpkins,

Parke, Flyr, & Wild, 2006).

A high-quality friendship is characterized by high levels of pro social behavior, intimacy,

and other positive features, and low levels of conflicts, rivalry, and other negative features.

Bukowski and Hoza (1989) distinguished three aspects of friendships: the presence or

absence of a friendship, the number of friendships, and the quality of these friendships (Vaughn

& Elbaum, 1999). Quality of friendship, rather than number of friends and time spent with them,

is one of the most important aspects of friendship development in adolescence (Berndt, 1982;

Ciairano, Rabaglietti, Rogerro, Bonino & Beyers, 2007; Hartup & Stevens, 1997).

Friendship has been shown to indirectly and positively impact child and adolescent

relationships, as well as to cushion the transition into early adolescence. Reports of higher

quality friendships indicate higher well-being and self-esteem, less loneliness and better school

adjustment (Gaertner, Fite & Colder, 2010).

Friendship quality consists of positive and negative dimensions. Positive dimensions of

friendship are characterized by the relationship features of intimacy, companionship, and

equality whereas negative dimensions are characterized by conflict, competition, and aggression

(Berndt, 1996; Bowker, 2004; Buhrmester, 1996; Hawley, Little & Card, 2007).

Research shows positive effects of high-quality friendships. Longitudinal studies have

found that friendships perceived to be high in positive quality were associated with increases in

self-esteem (Berndt & Keefe, 1995) and low levels of loneliness (Parker & Asher, 1993).
 5

Friendship quality has also been found to be negatively related to depression and delinquency

(Windle, 1994).

Friends are defined as people who spend time together, participate in more intense social

activities together, and show higher rates of cooperation (Bowker, 2004). The importance of

friendships and the need to feel a sense of belonging, these feelings of loneliness and social

rejection can be extremely painful and damaging.

A quality friendship consists of a warm and close relationship in which there is

companionship and intimate disclosure and positive reciprocity (Bauminger et al., 2008; Bowker,

2004; Gaertner, Fite & Colder, 2010; Matheson, Olson & Weiner, 2007; Parker & Asher, 1993).

Quality friendships can be broken apart more specifically into validation and caring for

one another, companionship and recreation in spending time together outside of school, help and

guidance, intimate exchange of personal information and feelings, conflict and conflict

resolution (Parker & Asher, 1993). These additional features help identify and define the quality

of a friendship in all relationships from childhood to adulthood.

Adolescents spend a lot of time with their friends and peer groups and the quality of these

friendships can be a good measure of well being (Mendelson & Aboud, 2008). Within these new

friendships and relationships, young adolescents will begin to search for new forms of personal

identity (Erikson, 1963).

 6

Orientation of forgiveness

Forgiveness is a process (or the result of a process) that involves a change in

emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars view this intentional and voluntary

process, driven by a deliberate decision to forgive (Friedman, 2005).

Forgiveness is a response that holds an offender responsible for an offence while

replacing negative thoughts, emotions, and behaviors toward the offender with prosocial

responses. Forgiveness is facilitated by empathy and compassion for the humanity of the

offender, but forgiveness also results in less negative or even net positive emotions and

motivations toward the offender (Macnulty, 2007).

Seven criteria was used for defining forgiveness as (a) a shift in perception and

vision, (b) a shift in beliefs and attitudes, (c) a shift in affects, (d) a shift in self-

empowerment and self-responsibility, (e) a shift in choice, decision and intention, (f) a

shift from duality consciousness to oneness consciousness, and (g) a shift in the recognition of

the core qualities of a person (Jampolsky, 1979).

From this perspective forgiveness occurs when a person lets go of emotionally

backed judgments, grievances, attack thoughts and beliefs toward themselves and others so

that they can perceive the goodness, worth, magnificence, innocence, love, and peace in both

themselves and another person simultaneously (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000).

Forgiveness is a willingness to abandon one’s right to resentment, negative judgment, and

indifferent behavior toward one who unjustly hurt us, while fostering the undeserved qualities of

compassion, generosity and even love toward him or her (Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique,

J., 1998).
 7

Forgiveness can either be considered as a contextualized psychological process of change

with respect to a given transgressor and a given transgression or as a disposition (Allema &

Steiner, 2012).

Forgiveness is as fundamental and important as any topic in psychology. It embraces the

meaning of love and hate, the nature of dependency, the torments of envy, the problems of

narcissism and paranoia, as well as the tension between self-hatred and self-acceptance, between

striving for maturity and refusing to grow up” (Karin, 2001).

Subjective well being

Subjective well-being can be defined as quality of an individual’s life with regard to

both the presence and relative frequency of positive and negative emotions over time and

one’s overall satisfaction with life (Diener, 2000).

Subjective well-being/ life satisfaction tends to be stable over time and is strongly

related to personality traits. One of the researchers has argued that changing one’s

external circumstances has a temporary effect on life satisfaction but engaging in physical

or mental activities that enhances life satisfaction can lead to lasting improvements in

satisfaction in life (McCullough, Root & Cohen, 2006).

Subjective well being is composed of life satisfaction, the presence of positive affect, and

the absence of negative affect. Thus, a person is described as enjoying a high level of SWB if

he/she is satisfied with life, frequently experiences positive emotions and seldom feels negative

emotions. It is an important aspect of one’s psychological disposition and a mental state that

helps a person to maintain equilibrium, anchored in hope and optimism, even during the

adversities of life (Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999).

 8

The most common term used for the affective component of SWB is happiness. This is

measured either with a single question, ―How happy are you with your life-as-a-whole, or with

the use of affective scales based on the assumption that positive and negative affect are separate

and independent bipolar dimensions (Cummins, Gullone & Lau, 2002).

 9

Literature review

This chapter provides a review of literature related to quality of friendship, orientation of

forgiveness and subjective well being of youth. The first section of the review is related to

sources and effects of quality of friendship and orientation of forgiveness. The second section

includes a review of factors related to subjective well being. The third section reviews the

relationship between Quality of friendship, orientation of forgiveness and subjective well being.

The emergence of positive psychology in the 1990s has brought a paradigm shift in

understanding human behavior from human weaknesses an ailments to human strengths

and resources. This paradigm has implications not only in physical but also in behavioral

and emotional health in terms of speedy recovery, prevention and promotion of health.

Matheson, Olsen & Weiner (2007) most friendship research addresses the changes from

childhood into adolescence in typically developing students. Those features of friendship that

define typical adolescent relationships as high in quality are different than those that characterize

childhood relationships. While younger children emphasize proximity, similarity, transcending

contexts (i.e. spending time together in multiple situations/places) and companionship in their

friendships, adolescents emphasize support, conflict management, stability, trust, loyalty and

intimacy.

Gaertner, Fite & Colder (2010) a high quality friendship consists of a warm and close

relationship in which there is companionship and intimate disclosure and positive reciprocity.

Parker & Asher (1993) a Quality friendships can be broken apart more specifically into

validation and caring for one another, companionship and recreation in spending time together

outside of school, help and guidance, intimate exchange of personal information and feelings,
 10

conflict and conflict resolution .These additional features help identify and define the quality of a

friendship in all relationships from childhood to adulthood.

Worthington (1998) the meaning of happiness has been a topic of discussion since the

time of the ancient Greeks and continues to receive a good deal of attention today in a variety of

disciplines. Though the term happiness is commonly used so are a number of other related

terms such as: well-being, subjective well-being, quality of life, life-satisfaction, among

others. Our conceptualization of well-being lies close to the notion of subjective wellbeing

frequently discussed in psychology and we refer to it generally as well-being. There are a

number of ways of defining well-being. Some of the earlier definitions in psychology and

sociology focused on well-being as the ultimate goal of life.

Myers & Diener (1995) defined that Subjective well-being (SWB) is a broad term that

comprises of individuals‟ emotional reactions, domain-specific satisfactions, and life satisfaction

in general. Hence it refers to people’s cognitive and affective evaluations of their lives. In

conclusion, subjective well-being consists of three major components that are life satisfaction,

presence of positive affect, and relative infrequency of negative affect.

Diener et al., (1997) As the term “subjective” implies, the person is the most important

factor in evaluating his/her well-being and how s/he thinks and perceives the world determines

his/her SWB. In other words, people spontaneously experience moods and emotions, they have

the ability to evaluate what is happening to them as good or bad and so they have the ability to

judge their lives.

 11

Berndt (2002) although the topic of forgiveness received abundant theoretical and

empirical attention from social and clinical psychologists, forgiveness is a relatively

understudied concept in developmental psychology.

McCullough & Griswold (2008) Forgiveness has existed since the dawn of humankind.

The Accounts of forgiveness span millennia, from Homer’s Iliad and Shakespeare’s Tempest to

the Qur’an, the Torah, and the Christian gospels. Aristotle discussed forgiveness in Nicomachean

Ethics and other texts, as did Plato, Socrates, and Epicurus.

De Waal & Pokorny (2005) there are even indications of forgiveness among our

evolutionary ancestors suggesting a history of forgiveness that transcends not only cultures and

time but species as well.

Rhoades et al., (2007) Forgiveness has been similarly linked to wellbeing among

Americans following the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Academic studies of forgiveness have

come to transcend a broad swath of disciplines, particularly within the social sciences the

implications of forgiveness for justice, guilt, retribution, and restoration.

Some scholars have argued that forgiveness can best understood as a prosocial change

that takes place within the person who has been offended Others conceptualize forgiveness in

terms of behavioral changes toward the offender (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002).

Most relevant to the present dissertation, McCullough and colleagues (2000) defined

forgiveness as an intra-individual prosocial change toward a transgressor, situated in an

interpersonal context.
 12

The quality of friendships is a good indicator of subjective well being during

adolescence. Adolescents spend a lot of time with their friends and peer groups and the quality of

these friendships can be a good measure of well being. Within these new friendships and

relationships, young adolescents will begin to search for new forms of personal identity (Erikson

1963). These relationships are therefore critical to the emotional and social development of

the adolescent (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).

Marion, Laursen, Zettergren & Bergman (2013) Research shows that friendships are

associated with a greater sense of well-being, better self-esteem, and fewer social problems, both

concurrently and later in life. Peer and friendship relations in late childhood play an essential role

in children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development.

Moreover, there are many studies that examined the role of social relationships in well-

being or happiness of individuals by focusing on a range of close relationships, namely romantic

relationships, friendship, relationships with family and marriage. It is seen that all social

relationships; but particularly romantic relationships have important influence on happiness or

well-being of individuals (Argyle & martin, 2001)

In a similar study conducted by Demir, Ozdemir and Weitekamp (2006) the role of

multiple friendships, namely best and first and second close relationships, in happiness of 280

university students was examined. The main aim of the study was to investigate the role of

friendship quality and conflict in happiness. Results showed that gender was not a significant

predictor of happiness. Quality of best friendship was the only significant predictor of happiness

and accounted for the 8% of the 25variance in happiness. Finally, results of the study also
 13

revealed that young adults experienced greater happiness when the quality of both best and first

close relationships was higher.

Friendships are important in the lives of children, and generally provide them with

positive outcomes, such as a sense of security and social support, and opportunities to develop

emotionally and socially. At the same time, even in the closest friendship, it seems inevitable that

children sometimes feel offended or hurt (Burk & Laursen, 2005)

Laursen & Hafen (2010) this is unfortunate, as through forgiveness children are able to

restore and reestablish those relationships that are so crucial for their social and emotional

development. One may even argue that friendships in childhood are almost impossible to exist

for a long time without children’s ability to forgive the inevitable hurtful moments that take

place within these relationships.

Yet, the scientific literature on interpersonal forgiveness suggests that forgiveness

may be one of the keys toward understanding how humans maintain close bonds with

others( Karremans & Van Lange, 2008).

Consistent with research among adults by Karremans & Aarts(2007)some recent

evidence suggests that children tend to be more forgiving toward offending friends than

non-friends. Peets et al., (2013) demonstrated that hurt caused by a disliked (vs. liked)

transgressor resulted in more negative responses (hostile attributions, angry feelings) than hurt

caused by a liked peer. Moreover, friends (vs. non-friends or acquaintances) are more likely to

make concessions, and to continue their interactions when the conflict is solved .Such findings

support the notion that forgiveness is an important mechanism by which children maintain

friendships, despite the inevitable offenses that occur within them.

 14

Theoretical and empirical work suggests that forgiveness is associated with subjective

well-being (Toussaint & Webb, 2005). Cross-sectional studies have evidenced positive

associations between the dispositional tendency to forgive others and various indicators of

subjective well-being. For example, forgiving individuals report more positive effect, greater life

satisfaction, optimism, happiness, environmental mastery, and self acceptance (Hill & Allemand,

2010).

The main purpose of the current study was to examine whether youth tendency to forgive

is associated with subjective well-being. Importantly, we argue that the association between

youth forgiving tendencies and subjective well-being depends on the nature of the relationship in

which forgiveness occurs.

Objectives of study

The present study aims to:

 Determine the relationship between quality of friendship, orientation of forgiveness and

subjective well being among youth

 Assess the impact of quality of friendship on subjective wellbeing youth.

 Determine the effect of forgiveness on subjective well being among students.

 To examine the gender differences among in the above variables among college and

universities students.

 Check the quality of friendship and forgiveness on different age group among youth.

 To study high quality friendship will predicts more forgiveness in youth.

 15

Hypotheses

Some hypotheses which are assumed in this study are as:

 There is a significant relationship between quality of friendship, orientation of

forgiveness and subjective wellbeing among youth.

 It was hypothesized that quality of friendship having positive correlation subjective

wellbeing.

 It was hypothesized that forgiveness has positive effect on subjective well being among

students.

 It was assumed that female having high friendship quality towards forgiveness and

subjective wellbeing.

 It was hypothesized that adolescents has high friendship quality and forgiveness towards

subjective wellbeing among youth.

 It was hypothesized that higher quality of friendship predicted more forgiveness among

youth.
 16

Chapter II

Method

This chapter presents the methodology used to carry out the study. It discusses the

research setting, population, sample and sample determination, sampling technique, research

design, research instruments, procedure for data collection and data analysis. The procedure for

data collection and data analysis has been discussed.

3.1Participant Characteristics

This research will contain a number of 200 samples of both males and females. The

sample size in this research was 200.In this research sample has been to both male and female

students of government or private colleges and universities of Punjab. The total sample of the

study consisted of 200 students from four cities in Punjab, Pakistan .in addition the sample

belonged to 18 to 25 years of age group which is the minimum and maximum age limits. The

people who took in filling questionnaire were capable to understand Urdu and English properly.

3.2 Sampling Procedure

Random sampling will be used to take sample from the four cities of Punjab, Pakistan.

3.2.1 Inclusion Criteria

Students of RYKhan, Bahawalpur, Multan & Lahore doing studies in private or government

universities and colleges were taken to collect data.

3.2.2 Exclusion Criteria

Students who are doing studies from other cities or doing nothing will not be accessed.
 17

3.3 Sample Size

The minimum number of 50 participants was taken from each group, public and private

institutes respectively in each city Minimum total sample size of two tailed t-test is 146 with

power 0.85and alpha 0.05. 210 sample was taken for more validity and reliability.

3.4 Research Design

It was survey research design. It was quantitative, cross-sectional, and co-relational

study. The survey is one of the most popular and suitable methods for quantitative investigation.

Apart from the suitability, the questionnaire is used to because it is a straight forward method

and all of us sometimes have filled out questionnaires. In addition factual information can be

gathered from a large number of people.

3.5 Operational Definitions

3.5.1 Quality of Friendship

A quality friendship consists of a warm and close relationship in which there is

companionship and intimate disclosure and positive reciprocity (Bauminger et al., 2008).

3.5.2 Orientation of Forgiveness

Forgiveness is a process (or the result of a process) that involves a change in

emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars view this intentional and voluntary

process, driven by a deliberate decision to forgive (Friedman, 2005).

 18

3.5.3 Subjective Wellbeing

Subjective well-being can be defined as quality of an individual’s life with regard to

both the presence and relative frequency of positive and negative emotions over time and

one’s overall satisfaction with life (Diener, 2000).

3.6 Measures and Covariates

3.6.1 Demographic Information

Personal information will be obtained through items focusing on participant’s age, gender

education, profession and socio-economic status.

3.6.2 McGill Friendship Scale-Respondents Affection

The McGill Friendship Scale-Respondents Affection (MFQ-RA 1999) is a self

administered questionnaire designed to measure respondent’s affection towards their

friends. It is a 16 item questionnaire answered on a 9 point Likert scale, ranging from - 4 =

“very much disagree” to + 4 = “very much agree”. The respondent is required to reflect on

a friendship they have and select a score that reflects their fondness towards their friend for each

question asked. The scores are totaled and provide an overall measure of the respondent’s

affection towards their friend. The questionnaire was revised using a 1 – 9 scoring in

order to facilitate a more user friendly format for the sample size.

3.6.3 Heartland Forgiveness Scale

The Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS): It is a self administered questionnaire developed

by Thompson consisting of 18 items trait measure of forgiveness. There are six items to tap each
 19

of the three types of forgiveness- self, others or situation. Each item on the questionnaire has to

be rated on a 7-point scale. Scores on the HFS have correlated positively with scores on other

forgiveness measures; people scoring higher on HFS also s how more flexibility and trust, as

well as less hostility.

3.6.4 Subjective Wellbeing Inventory

The 40-item subjective well-being inventory (Sell.H and Nagpal.R.1992), is an inventory

that has eleven dimensions. The scoring is done according to the scoring key provided in the

manual. The items are grouped under the dimensions to which they belong and total score of

each dimension is calculated. Nineteen of the items elicit positive affect (i.e., whether one feels

happy, good, or satisfied about particular life concerns). Twenty –one items elicit negative affect

(i.e., unhappiness, worry, or regret about particular life concerns. The inventory had been

standardized with an adult population. The total sum of the 40 items gives the overall subjective

well-being score. The SUBI is scored by attributing the values 3, 2 and 1 to response categories

of positive items and 1, 2 and 3 to the negative items. Thus range of scores is 40 (minimum) to

120 (maximum). This scale has high inter-rater reliability, inter-scores reliability, and test-retest

reliability. The scale has been found to be highly significant and satisfactory in validity. Patil,

M.S. and Halyal, P.S (1999) have reported that the test retest reliability of the SUBI inventory is

0.79 and the validity is 0.86.

3.7 Procedure

Standardized assent was looked for from Applied Psychology Department. The participants (both

male &female) will be approached through random sampling and informed consent will be

taken; only the willing participants will fill the questionnaires. To check the validity and
 20

reliability of scales which has been used in research, for this first 30 participants are selected

from the sample to fill the questionnaires as part of a pilot study. The collected data will be

analyzed by applying related tests and hypothesis will be checked and result will be concluded.

3.9 Ethical Safety

To protect the welfare and rights of the participants, their anonymity was assured people

participated in the study only after I had obtained their voluntary and informed consent, as

suggested by Durrheim and Wassenaar (2002). The participants were informed of the nature of

the study before hand and were assured that they could cease to participate at any time during the

Process. Writing name and designation on questionnaire was optional. The respondents were

ensured secrecy and privacy of their giving information.

 21

References

Aoyama, I., Saxon, T. F. & Fearon, D. (2007). Internalizing Problems among Cyber bullying

Victims and Moderator Effects of Friendship Quality. Multicultural Education &

Technology Journal, (5) 2, 92-105.

Allemand, M. & Steiner, M. (2012). Situation-specific forgiveness and dispositional forgiveness:

A lifespan development perspective. In E. Kahls & J. Maes (Eds), Justice and conflicts:

Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 361-375). New York: Springer.

Argyle, M., & Martin, M. (2001). The psychological causes of happiness. In F. Strack, M.

Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being. An interdisciplinary perspective

(pp. 77- 100). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Burk, W. J., & Laursen, B. (2005). Adolescent perceptions of friendship and their associations

with individual adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 156

164.

Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friend’s influence on adolescent adjustment to school. Child

Development, 66, 1312–1329.

Cummins, R. A., Gullone, E., & Lau, A. L. D. (2002). A model of subjective well-being

homeostasis: The role of personality. In E. Gullone & R. A. Cummins (Eds.), the

universality of subjective wellbeing indicators (Vol. 16, pp. 7-46). Dordrecht: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.
 22

Demir, M., Ozdemir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2006). Looking to happy tomorrows with friends:

Best and close friendships as they predict happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8,

243-271.

De Waal, F. B. M., & Pokorny, J. J. (2005). Primate conflict resolution and its relation to human

forgiveness. Handbook of Forgiveness (pp.17-32). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in

close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 82, 956-974.

Friedman, P. (2005). The Relative Contribution of Forgiveness, Gratitude, Prayer, and

Spiritual Transcendence in Reducing Distress and Enhancing Well Being, Quality of

Life and Happiness. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Mid-Year ResearchConference

on Religion and Spirituality. Columbia, MD.

Hill, P., & Allemand, M. (2010). Forgivingness and adult patterns of individual differences in

environmental mastery and personal growth. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 245

250.

Hartup, W. W. (1993). Adolescents and their friends. In B. Laursen (Ed.), Close friendships in

adolescence (pp. 3-22). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, W. H., Cohn, M. G., Miller, C. E. (1991). Betrayal among children and adults. In K. J.

Rotenberg (Ed.), Children’s interpersonal trust (pp. 118-134). New York: Springer

Verlag.

Karin, R. (2001). The forgiving self. New York: Doubleday.

 23

Karremans, J. C., & Aarts, H. (2007). The roles of automaticity in forgiving close others.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 902-917.

Krappmann, L. (1996). Amicitia, drujba, shin-yu, philia, freundschaft, friendship: On the cultural

diversity of a human relationship. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup

(Eds.), The Company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 19-40).

New York: Cambridge.

Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). Forgiveness in personal relationships: Its

malleability and powerful consequences. European Review of Social Psychology, 19,

202-241.

Laursen, B., & Hafen, C. (2010). Future directions in the study of close relationships: Conflict is

bad (except when it’s not). Social Development, 19, 858-872

Marion, D., Laursen, B., Zettergren, P., & Bergman, L. R. (2013). Predicting life satisfaction

during middle adulthood from peer relationships during mid-adolescence. Journal of

Youth Adolescence, 42, 1299-1307

Macnulty WK. (2007). Self-schemas, forgiveness, gratitude, physical health, and subjective

well-being .Dissertation Abstract International.65:268.

Matheson, C., Olsen, R. J., & Weisner, T. (2007). A good friend is hard to find: Friendship

among adolescents with disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 112(5),

319-329. dol: 10.1352/0895-8017(2007)112

Myers, D. G. & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? journal of Psychological Science, 6(1), 10-18.
 24

Mendelson, M. J. & Aboud, F. (2008). Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents and

young adults: McGill friendship questionnaires. Canadian Journal of Behavioural

Science, 31, 130-132

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood:

Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction.

Developmental Psychology, 29, 611–621

Peets, K., Hodges, E. V. E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Forgiveness and its determinants depending

on the interpersonal context of hurt. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 131

14.

Rushton, J. P., & Bons, T. A. (2005). Mate choice and friendship in twins: evidence for genetic

similarity. Psychological Science, 16, 555-559.

Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Theoretical and empirical connections between forgiveness,

mental health, and well-being. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness

(pp. 207-226). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Windle, M. (1994). A study of friendship characteristics and problem behavior among middle

adolescents.Child Development, 65, 1764–1777.

Worthington E .L. Jr. (1998). an empathy humility-commitment model of forgiveness applied

within family dyads. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 59–76

25
26