Child Development, January/February 2012, Volume 83, Number 1, Pages 104–119

When Friends Disappoint: Boys’ and Girls’ Responses to Transgressions of

Friendship Expectations
Julie Paquette MacEvoy Steven R. Asher
Duke University
Boston College

In this study, the prevailing view that girls are pervasively more skilled in their friendships than boys was
challenged by examining whether girls respond more negatively than boys when a friend violates core friend-
ship expectations. Fourth- and fifth-grade children (n = 267) responded to vignettes depicting transgressions
involving a friend’s betrayal, unreliability, or failure to provide support or help. Results indicated that girls
were more troubled by the transgressions, more strongly endorsed various types of negative relationship
interpretations of the friend’s actions, and reported more anger and sadness than did boys. Girls also
endorsed revenge goals and aggressive strategies just as much as boys. These findings lead to a more complex
view of boys’ and girls’ friendship competencies.

Within the growing literature on children’s friend-
ships (Bukowski, Newcomb, & Hartup, 1996; New-
comb & Bagwell, 1995; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker,
2006), a general theme has emerged that girls make
better friends than do boys (see Rose & Rudolph,
2006, for a review of gender differences in chil-
dren’s peer relations). Specifically, research sug-
gests that girls are more competent at conflict
resolution, helping, and intimate disclosure (Buhr-
mester & Furman, 1987; Lansford & Parker, 1999;
Parker & Asher, 1993; Rose & Asher, 1999, 2004).
There appears to be a paradox, however, with
regard to gender differences in children’s friend-
ships (see Rose & Asher, 2011). The paradox is that
even though boys look worse on a variety of friend-
ship tasks than do girls, boys are not more lonely
than girls (Parker & Asher, 1993; Renshaw &
Brown, 1993), they report being just as satisfied
with their friendships as do girls (Furman & Buhr-
mester, 1985; Parker & Asher, 1993; Patterson,
This article is based on an unpublished doctoral dissertation
submitted to Duke University by the first author. An earlier ver-
sion of this article was presented at the March 2007 meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, Massa-
chusetts. The research was supported by fellowships awarded to
the first author from the Spencer Foundation and from Duke
University. We gratefully acknowledge the students and staff at
the elementary schools in Granville County, NC and Providence,
RI who took part in this research. We also thank Daniel Blalock,
Julie Buddensick, Keith Chan, Melanie Dirks, Kristina McDon-
ald, Alison Papadakis, and Elizabeth Van Hooser for their help
with data collection, data entry, or consultation on data analysis.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Julie Paquette MacEvoy, Department of Counseling, Develop-
mental, and Educational Psychology, Boston College, Campion
Hall 320, 140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA 02467.
Electronic mail may be sent to julie.macevoy.1@bc.edu.
Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990), and their friendships
are not any less stable than those of girls (Benenson
& Christakos, 2003; also see Rose & Rudolph, 2006).
In this article, we propose that one reason for the
gender paradox in children’s friendships is that
girls have greater difficulty with a particular
‘‘friendship task’’ that has received little attention
in the empirical literature, namely, responding to a
situation in which a friend violates a core friend-
ship expectation. It is possible that girls are no
more competent than boys at this task and, in fact,
it is possible that girls may respond even more
problematically to this task than do boys. The pre-
sent study examined whether boys and girls differ
in their responses to situations in which a friend
has violated a core expectation of friendship. That
is, we examined whether there are gender differ-
ences in how children react when a friend disap-
points them by committing a significant
transgression within the friendship. Specifically, we
were interested in how children interpret the
actions of their friend, their emotional reactions to
the situation, the kinds of goals and strategies they
would pursue, how severe they perceive the trans-
gressions to be, and how much they would be
thinking about the transgressions afterward.
Previous research has consistently demonstrated
that, by middle childhood, children come to have
well-defined expectations of their friends and
 2011 The Authors
Child Development  2011 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2012/8301-0009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01685.x

expect them to not only be good companions but
also to help them, share confidences, and be trust-
worthy and emotionally supportive (Bigelow, 1977;
Bigelow & La Gaipa, 1975; Furman & Bierman,
1984; Zarbatany, Ghesquiere, & Mohr, 1992). How-
ever, having well-developed expectations for
friends means that children open themselves up to
a certain kind of emotional vulnerability simply by
participating in friendships. Friends are not perfect,
and over time it is likely that even good friends will
violate one another’s expectations. For example, a
friend may fail to show up for a play date, betray a
confidence, neglect to give validation or emotional
support when it is needed, or not provide instru-
mental aid. Although research identifies reliability,
loyalty, emotional support, and the provision of
help as core expectations of both boys and girls, it
appears that there are gender differences in how
high children ‘‘set the bar’’ for their friends. For
example, Clark and Ayers (1993) found that both
boys and girls expect their friends to be loyal and
empathic, but girls expect their friends to be even
more loyal and empathic than do boys. It could be
that although boys and girls both expect their
friends to be loyal and emotionally supportive, girls
may demand or desire more from their friends in
order to feel that their friends have met their stan-
dards for loyalty and emotional supportiveness.
If girls have higher expectations of their friends
with regard to certain relationship provisions, they
may respond particularly negatively when one of
their expectations has been violated. Support for
this hypothesis comes from research on how chil-
dren respond to verbal aggression and to social and
relational aggression. For example, Whitesell and
Harter (1996) found that girls perceive being called
mean names by a friend to be more of a violation
of their expectations than do boys and that girls
report more emotional distress in this situation than
do boys. In another study, Paquette and Under-
wood (1999) found that following real-life incidents
in which children were the targets of socially
aggressive behaviors such as negative gossip, back-
stabbing, and friendship manipulation, girls
reported more negative emotion and reported
thinking more about the events than did boys.
Additional support for the hypothesis comes from
research on how children respond when a friend
spends time with others. Parker and colleagues
(Lavallee & Parker, 2009; Parker, Low, Walker, &
Gamm, 2005) have found that girls report more
jealousy in their friendships than do boys and
engage in more jealousy-driven surveillance of their
friendships than do boys. As this research group
Transgressions of Friendship Expectations 105
(Parker et al., 2005) has suggested, higher levels of
friendship jealousy may mean that girls have
higher expectations than do boys for exclusivity
within their friendships. Taken together, these stud-
ies suggest that perceived violations of core friend-
ship expectations may represent an area of
particular vulnerability in girls’ friendships.
The overarching goal of the current study was to
compare boys’ and girls’ responses to transgres-
sions of their friendship expectations. In previous
research in which children have been asked about
their responses to hypothetical vignettes depicting
minor conflicts with friends (e.g., an argument over
which game to play next), boys were found to
endorse higher levels of maladaptive goals, such as
trying to get even with their friend, and higher
levels of aggressive strategies (Rose & Asher, 1999).
In contrast, girls were found to more strongly
endorse relationship-maintenance goals and strate-
gies involving accommodation and compromise.
Importantly, this prior research focused on the
kinds of normative conflicts of interest that can
arise when two friends have different needs or
desires in a particular situation rather than on
transgressions of core friendship expectations. In
the present study, because we assessed how chil-
dren respond to the violation of core friendship
expectations, we anticipated that our findings
would not be consistent with previous research that
has found boys to be more hostile and aggressive
than girls in their goals and strategies. Specifically,
we hypothesized that girls would endorse mal-
adaptive goals and aggressive strategies just as
strongly, and perhaps even more strongly, than
would boys in response to situations in which a
friend violates a core expectation of friendship.
The methodology employed in this study
involved asking children to respond to a series of
hypothetical situations depicting violations of vari-
ous kinds of friendship expectations. In selecting
the specific types of friendship expectation trans-
gressions to be depicted in the vignettes, we drew
from research on children’s friendship expectations
(Bigelow, 1977; Bigelow & La Gaipa, 1975; Furman
& Bierman, 1984; Kahn & Turiel, 1988; Zarbatany
et al., 1992) and from a framework for conceptualiz-
ing the social tasks of friendship (Asher, Parker, &
Walker, 1996). Based upon this literature, we
designed a set of vignettes in which a friend fails to
provide validation or emotional support, fails to
provide instrumental help, commits an act of
betrayal, or is an unreliable partner. Hypothetical
vignettes methodology has been extensively used
in previous research (e.g., Dodge, 1980; Erdley &
106 MacEvoy and Asher
Asher, 1996; Hopmeyer & Asher, 1997; Jones, New-
man, & Bautista, 2005; Murphy & Eisenberg, 1996;
Parker et al., 2001; Rabiner & Gordon, 1992; Rose &
Asher, 1999, 2004; Sandstrom, Cillessen, & Eisen-
hower, 2003; Slaby & Guerra, 1988; Whitesell &
Harter, 1996). There is evidence that children’s
responses to hypothetical vignettes are positively
correlated with their real-life social behavior and
predict children’s real-life success in their relation-
ships (e.g., Chung & Asher, 1996; Crick, Grotpeter,
& Bigbee, 2002; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Rose &
Asher, 1999, 2004; Wichmann, Coplan, & Daniels,
2004).
The selection of goals and strategies utilized in the
present study was guided by previous research on
children’s goals and strategies in specific social situa-
tions (e.g., Chung & Asher, 1996; Delveaux & Dan-
iels, 2000; Erdley & Asher, 1996; Rose & Asher, 1999;
Troop-Gordon & Asher, 2005) as well as by pilot
testing in which children were asked open-ended
questions about their responses to friendship trans-
gressions that had actually happened to them.
Although a number of possible goals and strategies
are plausible responses for children to have, we
selected goals and strategies that were most repre-
sentative based on past research and the pilot testing.
We included goals aimed at trying to get revenge on
the friend, trying to keep the friend from being con-
trolling, trying to maintain the relationship, trying to
figure out why the transgression occurred, and try-
ing to keep from getting upset. Strategies included
verbally aggressing, terminating the friendship,
denial (i.e., ‘‘forgetting about it or pretending it did
not happen’’), and problem solving.
In addition to examining boys’ and girls’ goals
and strategies in response to transgressions of their
friendship expectations, we explored children’s
interpretations of the transgressions. Human beings
are motivated to find explanations for their social
partners’ behavior, especially for incidents that are
negative and relevant to self (Weiner, 1985). Inter-
preting the meaning of another person’s behavior
not only allows individuals to try to anticipate how
that person will treat them in the future (Kelley &
Thibaut, 1978), but also shapes how individuals
treat their social partners (Heider, 1958). To date,
research on children’s interpretations of their peer
interactions has generally focused on whether chil-
dren perceive the behavior of peers to be intentional
(Dodge, 1980; see also Gifford-Smith & Rabiner,
2004; Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, &
Monshouwer, 2002) and whether they perceive the
causes of their own and others’ social failures and
successes to be due to external versus internal
causes (Crick & Ladd, 1993; see also Sandstrom &
Zakriski, 2004). However, when a child experiences
a transgression of a friendship expectation, it is
likely that in addition to trying to figure out whether
the behavior was intentional and who is at fault, the
child makes other interpretations of the experience.
Specifically, a friendship transgression may be con-
strued as having sent a message about how the
friend views the child and the relationship (see
Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967, for an early
discussion of the ‘‘relationship statements’’ implic-
itly conveyed by the behavior of social partners).
For example, a transgression could be seen as a sign
that the friend does not care about the friendship,
does not respect the child, or was trying to push the
child around. In contrast, though, the transgression
could be interpreted as the friend simply being busy
and distracted rather than a reflection of the friend’s
view of the child or the relationship.
In the current study, then, we extend previous
research on children’s interpretations of their social
interactions by examining more closely the content
of their interpretations. Consistent with our pre-
mise that friendship expectation transgressions are
particularly threatening to girls, we hypothesized
that girls would be more likely than boys to inter-
pret their friends’ behavior as indicative of lack of
caring, lack of respect, or as a desire to control
them. Our selection of these specific types of nega-
tive interpretations was informed by Watzlawick
et al.’s (1967) discussion of the meta-level messages
that are communicated in relationship interactions
as well as by previous work on rejection sensitivity,
perceptions of disrespect, and interpretations of an
inequitable balance of power (Downey & Feldman,
1996; McDonald & Asher, 2007; Nisbett & Cohen,
1996).
We also hypothesized in this study that girls
would report more anger than would boys in
response to friendship transgressions. Research on
children’s observed and self-reported anger in
response to conflicts with a peer tends to show that
either boys experience more anger than girls or that
there are no gender differences in anger (Hubbard,
2001; Murphy & Eisenberg, 2002; Underwood,
Hurley, Johanson, & Mosley, 1999). Importantly,
though, this research has not assessed children’s
anger specifically in the context of friendship, par-
ticularly in situations in which a friend has violated
a core friendship expectation. It is possible that
when a friend violates a core expectation of friend-
ship, girls may experience more anger than do boys.
There is also a need to assess feelings of sadness
as well as anger. Research on children’s sadness in

response to conflicts with a peer tends to show that
either girls experience more sadness than boys or
that there are no gender differences in sadness
(Murphy & Eisenberg, 2002; Underwood et al.,
1999). Importantly, when presented with hypotheti-
cal vignettes involving conflicts with a friend, girls
reported significantly more sadness than did boys
(Whitesell & Harter, 1996). In the present study, we
hypothesized that, compared with boys, transgres-
sions of friendship expectations would lead girls to
endorse higher levels of sadness as well as higher
levels of anger.
Finally, we included two measures aimed
directly at learning how bothered boys and girls
would be by the friendship transgressions with
which they were presented. First, we asked chil-
dren to rate the severity of the transgressions. Sec-
ond, similar to what has been done in previous
work (Paquette & Underwood, 1999), we asked
children how much they would be thinking about
the transgressions 1 week after the episode took
place. We anticipated that girls would perceive the
transgressions to be more severe than would boys
and that they would report ruminating more about
the transgressions a week later (cf. Nolen-Hoek-
sema, Wisco, & Lyubomirksy, 2008).
In addition to being interested in mean-level
gender differences, we were also interested in
whether there would be gender differences in the
associations between children’s interpretations,
emotions, goals, and strategies. Several researchers
have recently emphasized the importance of exam-
ining whether boys and girls differ in the linkages
between variables (e.g., see Rose & Rudolph, 2006;
Underwood, 2003). These researchers have
described two ways of exploring for potential gen-
der differences. The first is the more traditional
method of examining mean-level gender differ-
ences. The second, which has been done less often,
involves exploring possible gender differences in
the associations between variables. Gender differ-
ences in the associations between variables would
suggest differences in the function of certain social
processes for boys versus girls.
Two specific linkages were of interest to us in this
study. First, we were interested in how the interpre-
tations children made of the friend’s actions related
to the emotions children reported. Scholars have
suggested ways in which children’s interpretations
of peer interactions and their emotions might be
related (see Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000, for a relevant
discussion). However, relatively little empirical
work exists on the topic. It seems plausible that chil-
dren’s interpretations of their friend’s behavior
Transgressions of Friendship Expectations 107
would be associated with certain emotional reac-
tions to transgressions of friendship expectations.
This proposed link is consistent with notions put
forth in the emotion literature that different apprais-
als result in varying emotional responses (see Saar-
ni, Campos, Camras, & Witherington, 2006). We
anticipated that the more children endorsed nega-
tive interpretations of the transgressions, the more
likely they would be to experience anger and sad-
ness. Past research on friendship-related processes
has shown no gender differences in the linkages
between variables (Parker & Asher, 1993; Rose &
Asher, 1999, 2004). Therefore, we did not expect
there to be any differences between boys and girls
with regard to the linkages between any of the inter-
pretations and emotions.
Second, we were interested in how children’s
emotional reactions connect to the goals they would
pursue and the response strategies they would
select. Given previous research on the association
between anger and aggression (see Berkowitz, 1993),
we hypothesized that the more angry children
reported they would be, the more strongly they
would endorse relationship-damaging goals and
strategies. In contrast, consistent with previous
research by Murphy and Eisenberg (2002) on chil-
dren’s emotional reactions to their peer experiences,
we anticipated that sadness would not be associated
with relationship-damaging goals and strategies,
but instead would be associated with more prosocial
goals and strategies. Here, too, based on past
research on friendship-related processes (Parker &
Asher, 1993; Rose & Asher, 1999, 2004), we did not
expect there to be differences between boys and girls
with regard to these linkages between emotions and
goals, or between emotions and strategies.
Method
Participants
Participants were fourth- and fifth-grade chil-
dren (approximate age 9- to 11-years-old) recruited
from 12 classrooms in two public elementary
schools. One of the elementary schools was located
in a rural area of the Southeastern United States
and the other school was located in a medium-
sized city in the Northeast. Children in both schools
came from lower-middle-class to middle-class back-
grounds. Of the 296 children who were invited to
participate, a total of 270 children (91.2%) were
granted parental permission. Three children moved
during the course of the study resulting in a final
sample size of 267 (134 boys and 133 girls). The
108 MacEvoy and Asher
sample was ethnically diverse with 49.3% European
American, 26.6% Latino, 21.5% African American,
and 2.6% Other. Preliminary analyses indicated that
there were no differences between children in the
two schools on any of the variables of interest.
Procedure
Data collection was conducted in two phases with
approximately 1 week between sessions. The first
half of the friendship transgression vignettes was
administered during the first session and the second
half of the vignettes was administered in the second
session. The vignettes were group administered and
all items were read aloud to the class while students
followed along. The order in which the vignettes
were presented was randomized across classrooms.
In response to each vignette, children were asked to
first rate how they would feel, then to rate their
strategies, then their goals, and then their interpreta-
tions. Our decision to order the administration of
the constructs in this manner was influenced by
Crick and Dodge’s (1994) social information pro-
cessing model, which suggests that children inter-
pret a social event, then decide upon a goal to
pursue, and then select a strategy to enact. Although
previous research in which similar vignette-based
constructs have been assessed has shown that the
order in which these constructs are assessed does
not appear to influence children’s responses (e.g.,
Chung & Asher, 1996; Rose & Asher, 1999), we still
wanted to avoid any potential priming effects of
interpretations upon goals and of goals upon strate-
gies. Therefore, we assessed these constructs in a
manner inconsistent with the order in which they
likely happen according to social information pro-
cessing theory. Accordingly, children were always
asked first about their emotions, then about their
strategies, followed by their goals, and then their
interpretations. Within each construct, the specific
order of the items (e.g., the various goals) was pre-
sented in a different random order in different class-
rooms. (Of note, two additional items were
administered. These items asked children how
much they would forgive their friend and how bad
they would feel about themselves following the
transgressions. These results are not presented in
this article for space reasons but may be obtained
from the authors.)
Friendship Expectation Transgression Vignettes
Children were presented with 16 hypothetical
vignettes each depicting a friendship expectation
transgression. There were four vignettes depicting
each of four friendship transgressions: (a) betrayal,
(b) failing to provide validation or emotional sup-
port, (c) failing to provide instrumental help, and
(d) being an unreliable partner. Within each trans-
gression category, an attempt was made to vary the
severity of the transgressions across vignettes.
In designing the final set of vignettes, pilot test-
ing was conducted with 20 children (10 boys and
10 girls). In the pilot testing, participants were first
asked to describe an incident in which their feelings
were hurt by a friend and how they responded
when this happened. They were then presented
with several vignettes depicting friendship trans-
gressions and were asked how they would feel if
the incidents actually happened to them. Results of
this pilot testing helped to ensure that the vignettes
we finally selected were representative of children’s
actual experiences of friendship transgressions and
that the vignettes elicited at least some negative
emotion. Pilot testing also indicated that the vign-
ettes used in the final measure were successful in
eliciting an adequate level of variability in the
degree of negative emotion children reported in
response to the transgressions. See Table 1 for an
example of a vignette from each of the four catego-
ries.
When administering the vignettes for the actual
study, children were instructed to imagine that the
situation in the vignette really happened to them
and that their friend in the story was a same-
gender peer. A practice vignette was included in
the measure to ensure that children understood the
questions as well as how to correctly use the rating
scales.
Emotions.. After being read each vignette, chil-
dren were first asked, ‘‘How would you feel if this
really happened to you?’’ They then rated how
angry, sad, and ‘‘okay’’ they would feel on three
separate 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot) scales. (It should be
noted that children were also asked to indicate how
hurt their feelings would be in response to each
vignette. The correlation between hurt feelings and
sadness was very high [.91] and the pattern and
strength of associations between hurt feelings and
the other variables of interest was the same as those
for sadness. Therefore, the results for hurt feelings
are not presented; however, these results can be
obtained from the authors.)
Strategies.. Children’s strategies were assessed
next by presenting the question, ‘‘What would you
say or do in this situation?’’ This question, which
has been used in previous research (Chung &
Asher, 1996; Erdley & Asher, 1996; Rose & Asher,
 Transgressions of Friendship Expectations 109

Table 1
Sample Vignettes From Each of the Four Friendship Expectation Transgression Categories

Transgression category Sample vignette

Betrayal One day you are really upset because you got a bad grade on your social studies
test. You tell your friend how upset you are about your bad grade. You also tell
your friend that you don’t want the other kids in your class to find out how
poorly you did. Later that day, though, you find out that your friend told a bunch
of kids in your class about your bad grade.
Lack of validation or emotional support You’re really upset because your pet is sick. You tell your friend about how sick
your pet is but your friend won’t listen to you talk about your pet and instead
says, ‘‘It’s no big deal—it’s just a pet.’’
Lack of instrumental help It’s lunchtime and you are so hungry that your stomach is growling. You sit down
at the lunch table in the school cafeteria and realize that you forgot your lunch at
home. You don’t have any money with you so you can’t buy any food. Your
friend is sitting next to you and has a really big lunch. So, you ask your friend if
you can have some food but your friend says ‘‘no.’’
Being an unreliable partner You and your friend are working on a school project together. You work really
hard on your part of the project and think you did a really good job. On the day
the project is due, though, you find out that your friend didn’t do the part of the
project that your friend was supposed to do. Because your friend didn’t do part of
the project, you both end up getting a bad grade on the project.

1999, 2004), was followed by four strategy options:
(a) verbal aggression (‘‘I would tell my friend that
he ⁄ she is a jerk’’ or ‘‘I would tell my friend to shut
up’’), (b) friendship termination (‘‘I would tell my
friend that I don’t want to be friends anymore’’), (c)
denial (‘‘I would forget about it or pretend it didn’t
happen’’), and (d) problem solving (‘‘I would find
a way to work things out with my friend’’). Chil-
dren responded to each strategy using a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from really disagree to really
agree to indicate how much they agreed that they
would carry out each strategy.
Goals.. To assess children’s social goals in
response to each vignette, participants were asked,
‘‘What would your goal be in this situation?’’ As in
previous research (Chung & Asher, 1996; Erdley &
Asher, 1996; Rose & Asher, 1999, 2004), children
were instructed that a goal is ‘‘something you are
trying to do or accomplish.’’ Using a 5-point scale
ranging from really disagree to really agree, children
rated five goal options: (a) revenge (‘‘I would be
trying to get back at my friend’’), (b) control (‘‘I
would be trying to keep my friend from pushing
me around’’), (c) friendship maintenance (‘‘I would
be trying to stay friends’’), (d) reasoning (‘‘I would
be trying to figure out why this happened’’), and
(e) tension reduction (‘‘I would be trying to keep
from getting upset’’).
Interpretations.. To assess children’s interpreta-
tions of why the transgression occurred, partici-
pants were asked, ‘‘Why would you think your
friend did this?’’ Four possible interpretations of
the friend’s behavior were offered: (a) lack of care
about the friendship (‘‘My friend doesn’t care about
our friendship’’), (b) lack of respect (‘‘My friend
doesn’t respect or value me’’), (c) control (‘‘My
friend was trying to push me around’’), and (d)
neutral (‘‘My friend didn’t mean to do anything
wrong’’). Children rated the degree to which they
would make each of the interpretations on a 1–5
scale ranging from not at all to a lot.
Perceived severity.. After rating each potential
interpretation, children’s perceptions of the severity
of the transgressions was assessed with the item,
‘‘How bad of a thing is this for a friend to do?’’
Participants were asked to rate this item from 1 (not
bad at all) to 5 (really bad).
Rumination.. Once all vignettes were presented,
an additional item was administered in the second
session to assess the extent to which children
would ruminate about the transgressions in each
category afterward. First, children were explicitly
reminded of the kinds of vignettes they had read in
each transgression category. For example, to
remind children of the betrayal vignettes, they were
told, ‘‘In some stories, your friend told one of your
secrets, talked about you behind your back, told
other kids about your bad grade, and told other
kids that you got pizza on your clothes.’’ Partici-
pants were then asked to rate how much they
would be thinking about this type of transgression
1 week later if it really happened. Ratings were
110 MacEvoy and Asher
made on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 10 (a lot). This
procedure was repeated for each of the four catego-
ries of transgressions.
Results
First, analyses aimed at data reduction and at the
assessment of the psychometric properties of the
friendship transgression measure are described.
Next, we examine whether there were mean-level
gender differences in children’s responses to the
friendship transgressions, including their interpre-
tations, emotions, goals, and strategies as well as
how severe they perceived the transgressions to be
and the extent to which they would ruminate about
the transgressions. Following this, we present a
series of hierarchical regression analyses designed
to address our research questions regarding the
linkages between variables. The first regression
analyses assess whether children’s interpretations
of why the transgressions occurred predict to their
emotional responses. The second set of regression
analyses examine whether children’s emotions pre-
dict to their goals and strategies. For each regres-
sion analysis, we examine whether the pattern of
linkages differ for boys versus girls.
Data Reduction and Psychometric Properties
Preliminary analyses were conducted to deter-
mine whether or not children’s responses to the
friendship transgression vignettes should be pooled
across the four transgression categories. First, Cron-
bach’s alpha scores were computed to examine the
internal reliability of the measure. The internal
reliability of each interpretation, emotion, goal, and
strategy was calculated separately for each trans-
gression category and then again across the four
transgression categories. As can be seen in Table 2,
although the internal reliability scores were gener-
ally adequate when examined within each trans-
gression category, they were considerably higher
when examined across categories. As an additional
check of whether we should pool the data across
the four transgression categories, for each trans-
gression category we separately examined the cor-
relations between the variables assessed in the
friendship transgressions measure (i.e., interpreta-
tions, emotions, goals, strategies, perceived sever-
ity, and rumination). The pattern of findings was
similar for all four of the transgression categories.
Accordingly, for ease of presentation as well as
increased internal reliability, children’s responses
to the transgressions were pooled across the trans-
gression categories for all analyses.
We next examined the correlations among chil-
dren’s responses with data pooled across the four
transgression categories (the authors can be con-
tacted for a complete table containing the raw cor-
relations between variables). There were several
high correlations among the different interpreta-
tions, among the different goals, and among the
different strategies. Therefore, we conducted
agglomerative hierarchical cluster analyses sepa-
rately for the four interpretations, five goals, and
four strategies. As has been done in previous
research (e.g., Rose & Asher, 1999), we conducted
cluster analysis rather than factor analysis because
it can be difficult to obtain stable factors from a
small number of items (e.g., only four interpreta-
tions).
Cluster analyses suggested a three-cluster solu-
tion for the interpretations. One cluster was the
Neutral Interpretation cluster, which consisted of
the neutral interpretation only. Another cluster was
the Control Interpretation cluster, which consisted
only of the interpretation that the friend was trying
to push you around. The third cluster was the
Devalued Interpretation cluster that included the
interpretation that the friend does not care about
the friendship and the interpretation that the friend
does not respect you.
A three-cluster solution was also suggested for
the goals. One of these clusters was a Revenge
Goal cluster, which was composed of only the
goal of trying to get even with the friend.
Another cluster was the Control Goal cluster,
which was composed only of the goal of trying to
get the friend to stop pushing you around. The
third goals cluster was a Relationship Mainte-
nance Goal cluster and included the goals of try-
ing to stay friends, trying to figure out why the
transgression occurred, and trying to keep oneself
from getting upset.
Lastly, cluster analysis of the strategies sug-
gested a three-cluster solution. One cluster was a
Problem Solving Strategy cluster that consisted
only of the strategy of finding a way to work
things out with the friend. The second cluster
was a Denial Strategy that consisted only of the
strategy of forgetting about the transgression or
pretending that it did not happen. The third clus-
ter was an Aggressive Strategy cluster that
included the strategies of verbally aggressing and
terminating the friendship.
To summarize, based on the cluster analyses,
each child was given three interpretation scores,
 Transgressions of Friendship Expectations 111

Table 2
Cronbach’s Alphas for Children’s Interpretations, Emotions, Goals, Strategies, and Perceived Severity

Lack of Lack of All types of

validation or instrumental Unreliable transgressions
Betrayal emotional support help partner combined

Interpretations
Lack of care about friendship .75 .77 .75 .78 .93
Lack of respect .75 .75 .75 .77 .93
Control .72 .75 .73 .76 .92
Neutral .69 .56 .66 .61 .88
Emotions
Angry .69 .63 .64 .61 .88
Sad .80 .74 .80 .78 .94
Okay .66 .56 .58 .60 .86
Goals
Revenge .81 .75 .77 .77 .94
Control .74 .73 .71 .72 .92
Friendship maintenance .84 .77 .75 .80 .94
Reasoning .76 .75 .77 .74 .93
Tension reduction .73 .63 .71 .72 .91
Strategies
Verbal aggression .86 .78 .82 .82 .95
Friendship termination .76 .74 .70 .78 .92
Denial .69 .67 .68 .66 .90
Problem solving .78 .73 .76 .75 .93
Perceived severity .76 .74 .69 .72 .91

three goal scores, and three strategy scores. Each of
these scores was the mean of the responses to all 16
of the hypothetical vignettes for a given cluster
(e.g., the Aggressive Strategy score was the com-
bined mean of a child’s ratings for verbal aggres-
sion and friendship termination strategies across
the 16 vignettes). Cronbach’s alpha scores for the
final set of variables ranged from .88 to .96, with a
mean of .93.
Boys’ and Girls’ Responses to Friendship Transgressions
A series of one-way multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVAs) were performed to test for
potential gender differences in children’s mean-
level endorsement of the interpretations, emotions,
goals, and strategies. The results of these
MANOVAs are reported below and F ratios from
follow-up univariate analyses of variance are
presented in Table 3.
Interpretations.. First, a MANOVA was conducted
to learn whether boys and girls differed in the
interpretations they made of the friendship trans-
gressions. A significant main effect for gender was
found, F(3, 266) = 12.44, p < .0001. Girls endorsed
the Devalued Interpretation and the Control Inter-
pretation significantly more than did boys (d = .61
and .27, respectively). There was no significant gen-
der difference in children’s endorsement of the
Neutral Interpretation.
Emotions.. Next, a MANOVA was conducted to
learn whether boys and girls differed in their emo-
tional responses to the transgressions. A significant
main effect for gender was found, F(3, 266) = 17.05,
p < .0001. Girls endorsed a significantly higher level
of anger than did boys (d = .43). Girls also endorsed
a significantly higher level of sadness than did boys
(d = .86). In contrast, boys reported feeling ‘‘okay’’
about the transgressions significantly more than
did girls (d = .36).
Goals.. A MANOVA was then performed to
examine possible gender differences in the types
of social goals that children would pursue in
response to the friendship transgressions. This
analysis revealed a significant main effect for gen-
der, F(3, 266) = 4.18, p < .01. Girls endorsed the
Relationship Maintenance Goal more than did
boys (d = .31). There was also a nonsignificant
trend for girls to endorse the Control Goal more
than did boys. There was no significant gender
difference in children’s endorsement of the
Revenge Goal.
Strategies.. Finally, a MANOVA was conducted
to learn whether boys and girls differed in the
112 MacEvoy and Asher

Table 3 friendship expectations. To examine this, a series

Mean Responses to Transgressions of Friendship Expectations as a of six separate regression analyses were per-
Function of Gender formed (i.e., a regression analysis predicting from
Girls Boys
each of the three interpretations to each of the
two emotions). In each regression analysis, grade
n = 133 n = 134 and ethnicity were controlled and interactions
between the variable of interest and gender were
M SD M SD F value
examined. Results are presented in Table 4. To
Interpretations avoid a redundant description of gender differ-
Devalued 3.20 1.02 2.57 1.06 24.49*** ences described earlier, we will not discuss sig-
Control 3.00 1.06 2.71 1.09 4.75* nificant effects for gender, although these are
Neutral 2.77 0.96 2.80 0.95 0.04 presented in the table. The Devalued Interpreta-
Emotions tion and the Control Interpretation both posi-
Angry 3.92 0.73 3.56 0.94 11.96** tively predicted anger as well as sadness in
Sad 3.65 0.97 2.73 1.15 50.30*** response to the transgressions. The Neutral Inter-
Okay 1.86 0.68 2.14 0.85 8.69** pretation that the friend did not mean to do any-
Goals
thing wrong negatively predicted anger but was
Revenge 2.93 1.17 2.69 1.24 2.50
not a significant predictor of sadness. Out of the
Control 3.82 0.95 3.60 1.09 3.25
Relationship maintenance 3.63 0.82 3.36 0.94 6.06*
six regression analyses performed, only one sig-
Strategies nificant interaction emerged (for the Control
Aggression 2.59 1.07 2.46 1.12 0.96 Interpretation). This interaction was not probed
Denial 2.64 1.01 2.65 1.04 0.01 because it was the only significant interaction out
Problem solving 3.34 1.17 3.21 1.10 0.93 of 18 possible interactions examined in this study
that was found to be significant, which suggests
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
that this was likely to be a chance finding.

response strategies they would select when faced

with the transgressions. A nonsignificant trend for
a main effect for gender was found, F(3,
266) = 2.11, p < .10. However, comparison of the
means revealed that there were no significant gen-
der differences in children’s endorsement of any of
the strategies.
Perceived severity and rumination.. Next, two t tests
were performed to examine potential gender differ-
ences in children’s perceived severity of the trans-
gressions and in the extent to which they would be
thinking about the transgressions afterward. Signifi-
cant gender differences were found in perceived
severity of the transgressions, t(265) = 3.56, p < .001
and in rumination, t(265) = 2.51, p < .05. Girls
(M = 3.85, SD = 0.63) perceived the transgressions
to be significantly more severe than did boys
(M = 3.54, SD = 0.75, d = .45) and girls (M = 6.26,
SD = 2.62) reported that 1 week later they would be
thinking about the incidents more than did boys
(M = 5.44, SD = 2.68, d = .31).
Do Children’s Interpretations Predict Their Emotional
Reactions to Friendship Transgressions?
The next set of analyses was performed to
examine whether children’s interpretations predict
their emotions in response to transgressions of
Do Children’s Emotional Reactions to Friendship
Transgressions Predict Their Goals and Strategies?
Regression analyses were next performed to
examine whether children’s emotions predict the
goals children indicated that they would pursue
and the strategies they selected in response to
transgressions of friendship expectations. In all, 12
separate regression analyses were conducted (i.e., a
regression analysis predicting from each of the two
emotions to each of the three goals and each of
three strategies). Again, in each regression analysis,
grade and ethnicity were controlled. In addition, in
all analyses in which anger was the predictor vari-
able, sadness was also controlled for. In analyses in
which sadness was the predictor variable, anger
was also controlled for.
The results of the regression analyses predicting
from emotions to goals are presented in Table 5
(again, to avoid redundancy, effects for gender are
not discussed here but are presented in the table).
As hypothesized, anger positively predicted both
Revenge and Control Goals and negatively predicted
Relationship Maintenance Goals. Also as hypothe-
sized, sadness negatively predicted Revenge Goals
and positively predicted Relationship Maintenance
Goals. In addition, sadness positively predicted Con-
trol Goals. Importantly, there were no significant
 Transgressions of Friendship Expectations 113

Table 4
Summary of Regression Analyses Predicting Children’s Emotions From Their Interpretations of the Friendship Transgressions

Anger Sadness

b t p Adjusted R2 b t p Adjusted R2

Devalued interpretation
Gender .19 3.20 .02 .44 .39 6.98 .00 .23
Devalued interpretation .71 10.62 .00 .26 3.35 .00
Gender · Devalued interpretation ).17 1.08 .28 .03 .16 .87
Control interpretation
Gender .45 3.15 .00 .35 .42 2.69 .01 .22
Control interpretation .67 9.53 .00 .27 3.57 .00
Gender · Control interpretation ).37 2.41 .02 ).06 .38 .71
Neutral interpretation
Gender .36 2.01 .05 .12 .43 2.46 .02 .16
Neutral interpretation ).23 2.85 .01 .07 .82 .41
Gender · Neutral interpretation ).19 1.01 .32 ).04 .21 .84

Note. Controlling for grade and ethnicity. Boys = 0; Girls = 1.

Table 5
Summary of Regression Analyses Predicting Children’s Goals From Their Emotional Reactions to the Friendship Transgressions

Revenge Control Relationship maintenance

b t p Adjusted R2 b t p Adjusted R2 b t p Adjusted R2

Anger
Gender .08 1.23 .22 .30 ).02 .32 .75 .16 .41 1.53 .00 .17
Anger .65 9.22 .00 .33 4.27 .00 ).26 3.41 .00
Gender · Anger ).30 1.14 .26 .06 .22 .82 ).39 1.38 .17
Sadness
Gender ).02 .30 .76 .30 .12 .67 .49 .17 .19 3.04 .00 .16
Sadness ).23 2.96 .00 .21 2.46 .02 .41 4.81 .00
Gender · Sadness .01 .05 .96 ).19 .89 .38 ).01 .03 .97

Note. Controlling for grade and ethnicity. Sadness was also controlled for in the analyses in which anger was the predictor. Anger was
also controlled for in the analyses in which sadness was the predictor. Boys = 0; girls = 1.

interactions with gender for any of the regression
analyses involving anger or sadness.
The results of the regression analyses predicting
from emotions to strategies are presented in Table 6.
Consistent with expectations, anger positively pre-
dicted Aggressive Strategies and negatively pre-
dicted the Denial and Problem-Solving Strategies. In
contrast, and again consistent with expectations,
sadness negatively predicted Aggressive Strategies
and positively predicted Problem Solving. Again,
there were no significant interactions with gender
for any of the analyses involving anger or sadness.
Discussion
The overarching purpose of this study was to
shed light on an apparent gender paradox in
children’s friendships. The paradox is that
although girls are often thought of as being bet-
ter at a variety of friendship tasks than boys,
tasks such as conflict resolution, intimacy, and
helping, boys report being just as satisfied with
their friendships, they are no more lonely than
girls, and their friendships are just as stable as
those of girls. In this article, we proposed that
one important factor that may help to explain
this paradox is that girls have particular diffi-
culty coping with transgressions of core friend-
ship expectations, including expectations for
reliability, loyalty, emotional support, and help-
ing. A psychometrically strong measure of chil-
dren’s reactions to transgressions of their
friendship expectations was created in this study.
Using this new measure, we examined potential
gender differences in children’s cognitive,
114 MacEvoy and Asher

Table 6
Summary of Regression Analyses Predicting Children’s Strategies From Their Emotional Reactions to the Friendship Transgressions

Aggression Denial Problem solving

b t p Adjusted R2 b t p Adjusted R2 b t p Adjusted R2

Anger
Gender ).26 1.10 .27 .37 .12 .46 .65 .18 .49 1.84 .07 .21
Anger .61 9.14 .00 ).47 6.17 .00 ).34 4.48 .00
Gender · Anger .26 1.04 .30 ).12 .44 .66 ).53 1.91 .06
Sadness
Gender ).02 .14 .89 .37 ).20 1.10 .27 .19 ).08 .45 .65 .18
Sadness ).15 2.08 .04 .13 1.55 .12 .35 4.21 .00
Gender · Sadness .00 .02 .98 .25 1.22 .22 .09 .46 .65

Note. Controlling for grade and ethnicity. Sadness was also controlled for in the analyses in which anger was the predictor. Anger was
also controlled for in the analyses in which sadness was the predictor. Boys = 0; girls = 1.

emotional, and behavioral responses to such
transgressions.
We found a number of significant gender differ-
ences that support our hypothesis that trans-
gressions of core friendship expectations are
particularly troubling for girls. First, it is clear that
girls were much more bothered by the transgres-
sions than were boys in that they perceived the
transgressions to be more severe and they reported
that they would think more about the transgres-
sions afterward than did boys. Second, compared
to boys, girls more strongly endorsed interpre-
tations that their friend devalued them and was
trying to control them. Third, with regard to emo-
tional responses, girls reported both more anger
and more sadness than did boys. Lastly, girls more
strongly endorsed the goal of trying to keep their
friend from pushing them around. According to a
number of indices, therefore, girls appear to be
more sensitive to transgressions of core friendship
expectations than are boys.
In addition to these significant gender differences,
it is also important to note that girls endorsed
revenge goals and aggressive strategies just as much
as boys did. Our findings stand in contrast to a large
body of previous research that has shown boys to be
more angry than girls and to pursue more maladap-
tive goals and aggressive strategies in their relation-
ships (e.g., Delveaux & Daniels, 2000; Murphy &
Eisenberg, 2002; Rose & Asher, 1999; see also Mac-
coby, 1998; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Importantly,
these previous findings have emerged from studies
that have generally focused on conflicts involving
limited resources or on social norm violations while
playing a game (Hubbard, 2001; Rose & Asher, 1999;
Underwood et al., 1999) rather than on transgres-
sions of core friendship expectations.
Although girls were clearly more bothered by the
transgressions than boys, it should be pointed out
that girls still endorsed higher levels of relationship
maintenance goals than did boys. It could be that
the priority for girls to have friends leads them to
try to maintain their friendships even when they are
very angry at their friend and believe that their
friend does not respect or care about them. This
could also explain why girls did not endorse aggres-
sive strategies significantly more than boys—
perhaps girls are aware that if they act upon their
anger, they risk permanently damaging or losing the
friendship. On the flipside, it is interesting to note
that boys endorsed revenge goals and aggressive
strategies just as much as girls did, even though they
did not perceive the transgressions to be as severe,
did not interpret the transgressions as negatively,
and did not feel as angry as girls. There are various
possible explanations for this finding. For example,
boys may be more likely to propose aggressive strat-
egies because they believe more in the legitimacy
of aggression (Erdley & Asher, 1998; Huesmann &
Guerra, 1997). Boys may also hold stronger negative
reciprocity beliefs (Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, &
Rohdieck, 2004; McDonald, 2008) in that they think
that if they have been wronged in some way by a
friend, they are justified in responding in kind
toward their friend. In addition, norms for the dis-
play of anger and aggression (i.e., ‘‘display rules’’;
Saarni, 1979) may keep girls from acting upon their
thoughts and feelings, but not prevent boys from
doing so. Previous research has shown girls to be
more likely than boys to employ display rules for
anger (Underwood, Coie, & Herbsman, 1992).
Another important issue needing attention is
why girls were more bothered by violations of core
friendship expectations than were boys. Research is

needed to better understand why this is the case.
Consistent with previous research (e.g., Clark &
Ayers, 1993), we do not think that boys and girls
necessarily have different expectations of their
friends. Just as girls do, boys likely expect their
friends to be reliable and trustworthy and to help
them when they need help. It may be, though, that
boys and girls use different criteria for deciding
whether a friend’s behavior meets expectations.
Consider, for example, a boy who is very worried
about whether his parents will divorce. He confides
in his friend, who says that he ‘‘guesses things will
be okay’’ and to ‘‘hang in there.’’ The boy may feel
supported by these brief but meaningful state-
ments. In contrast, for a girl to feel supported in the
same situation she might expect her friend to
repeatedly check in with her on how things are
going and even perhaps to ‘‘drop everything’’ if
she were to call and want to talk to her friend. In
this situation, both boys and girls might expect
their friend to provide emotional support, but boys
and girls may simply set the bar for their friends at
different levels. Consistent with this idea, Benenson
et al. (2009) recently found that college-aged
females reported being more bothered by the
behavior of their same-sex roommates than did
males. These authors suggest that, compared to
males, females may have higher standards for their
same-sex social partners. Of note, the Benenson
et al. research was conducted with young adults
whereas the present study was with children. It
will be important to study possible developmental
differences in the standards that males and females
set for their friends and in how they respond when
a friend disappoints them.
Importantly, the present findings also provide
support for the point that gender differences in
the mean level of variables do not imply gender
differences in the linkages between variables.
Although there were mean-level gender differ-
ences in children’s perceived severity of the
friendship transgressions and in their interpreta-
tions, emotions, and goals in response to the
transgressions, we found very little evidence of
gender differences in the linkages between chil-
dren’s interpretations and emotions, or the link-
ages between children’s emotions and their goals
and strategies. Indeed, of 18 regression analyses, a
significant gender interaction emerged for only
one analysis. These findings suggest that chil-
dren’s interpretations and emotions function in
similar ways for boys and girls.
Across gender, however, a number of interesting
linkages emerged that merit discussion because
Transgressions of Friendship Expectations 115
they shed new light on the associations between
children’s interpretations, emotions, goals, and
strategies. In the first set of linkages that we exam-
ined, we found that children’s interpretations of
why the friend committed the transgressions pre-
dicted to their emotional responses to the transgres-
sions. The more strongly children endorsed
interpretations that the friend devalued them or
was trying to control them, the more anger and
sadness they felt. That linkages between specific
interpretations and emotions are similar for boys
and girls speaks to the commonality of their core
needs to be valued, respected, and treated as auton-
omous in relationships (see Asher, MacEvoy, &
McDonald, 2008; Asher & McDonald, 2009). Fur-
thermore, given the finding that negative interpre-
tations (e.g., lack of caring, lack of respect, etc.)
were strongly associated with anger for both boys
and girls, our study suggests that a key component
in anger management programs for children (Loch-
man, Burch, Curry, & Lampron, 1984) should be to
focus on how children interpret their friend’s
behavior when things go awry.
In addition to examining how interpretations are
associated with children’s emotions, we also sought
to learn whether children’s emotions predict to the
kinds of social goals and strategies they pursue in
response to transgressions of their friendship
expectations. Results indicated that the more angry
children reported that they would feel, the more
strongly they endorsed revenge goals and aggres-
sive strategies and the less strongly they endorsed
relationship maintenance goals and problem-
solving strategies. It is interesting that although
children’s negative interpretations of the friendship
transgressions were related to both feelings of
anger and feelings of sadness, sadness was found
to function quite differently from anger with regard
to children’s goals and strategies in response to the
transgressions. Whereas anger predicted to goals
and strategies that would most likely result in the
deterioration of friendships, sadness predicted to
goals and strategies that would be more apt to lead
to the maintenance and even strengthening of
friendships for both boys and girls. In particular,
the more sadness children reported that they would
feel, the more strongly they endorsed relationship
maintenance goals and the more strongly they
endorsed problem-solving strategies. These find-
ings suggest that sadness can function as part of
the ‘‘social glue’’ that helps hold friendships
together.
Our results regarding the associations between
emotions and goals and strategies are consistent
116 MacEvoy and Asher
with those of Murphy and Eisenberg (2002) who
found anger to be associated with unfriendly goals
and destructiveness of behavior, and sadness to be
associated with friendly goals. However, our
results are only partially consistent with theories
and findings in the emotion literature on the func-
tion of different emotions. Building on Frijda’s
(1986) notion of ‘‘action tendencies,’’ Saarni et al.
(2006) have described how various emotions result
in tendencies to respond in different ways when
obstacles are presented to the attainment of either
social or instrumental goals. Whereas anger is said
to be associated with the tendency to take steps to
eliminate the obstacle, sadness is said to be associ-
ated with the tendency to disengage or passively
withdraw.
However, in this study sadness was positively
related to prosocial goals and strategies rather than
to withdrawal. There are a few potential explana-
tions for this finding. First, the transgressions we
presented to children occurred specifically in the
context of friendship and it may be that when sad-
ness occurs within friendships versus within rela-
tionships that do not have a close, shared history,
children are more likely to want to try to salvage
their relationship than to withdraw. Second, it may
be that sadness does lead to withdrawal when
offenses repeatedly occur within a relationship. In
our study, only two of the 16 transgressions made
any reference to the transgression being a repeat
occurrence. Follow-up analyses did not reveal chil-
dren to perceive these two transgressions to be
more severe than the other transgressions. The
repeat nature of the offenses was only mentioned
briefly in these two transgressions, though, and
was not emphasized. Chronic transgressions for
which the repetitive nature of the offenses is obvi-
ous might lead children to conclude that trying to
maintain their friendship is not worth the effort
because transgressions will likely occur again. In
this case, sadness may result in disengagement
when a person has no hope that the relationship
can be saved (see Richman & Leary, 2009, for a
recently proposed model of the association between
emotional reactions to social rejection, cognitive
appraisals of such experiences, and behavioral
responses). This hypothesis about the potential
effects of chronic violations of relationship expecta-
tions is consistent with research from the adult
marital literature in which sadness has been found
to predict the dissolution of marriages (see
Gottman, 1994). Perhaps in the face of chronic
difficulties, people lose hope about their relation-
ship and give up. If an individual has hope that the
relationship can be fixed, though, there might be
greater motivation to take steps toward reconcilia-
tion. Research is needed to examine the role of
chronicity in how children respond to transgres-
sions of their friendship expectations.
Another important direction for future research
will be to examine the causal relationship between
children’s interpretations, emotions, goals, and
strategies in response to friendship transgressions.
In this study, we conceptualized interpretations as
influencing emotions and emotions as in turn influ-
encing goals and strategies. Our conceptualization
was based on discussions in the literature of how
interpretations and emotions may be related (e.g.,
Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000; Saarni et al., 2006), but
tests of these associations are needed. For example,
the direction of effect between these variables could
be examined using path analyses on large sample
sizes or by conducting studies in which children’s
responses to friendship transgressions are experi-
mentally manipulated.
To summarize, the results of this study have the
potential to significantly qualify our understanding
of gender differences in relationships. The general-
ization that girls are more prosocial and empathic
in relationships (see Maccoby, 1998; Rose &
Rudolph, 2006) may not apply to situations in
which a friend has violated a core expectation of
friendship. Indeed, the pattern of gender differ-
ences in response to friendship transgressions may
help to explain why it is that even though girls
exhibit a large number of strengths in their friend-
ships (e.g., shared intimacy, emotional support),
girls’ friendships are not found to be more stable
than boys’ friendships nor are girls more satisfied
than boys with their friendships (see Rose & Asher,
2011). How children respond when a friend disap-
points them may be a critical part of the story.
References
Asher, S. R., MacEvoy, J. P., & McDonald, K. L. (2008).
Children’s peer relations, social competence and school
adjustment: A social tasks and social goals perspective.
In M. L. Maehr, S. Karabenick, & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 15, pp. 357–
390). Amsterdam: Emerald Press.
Asher, S. R., & McDonald, K. L. (2009). The behavioral
basis of acceptance, rejection, and perceived popularity.
In K. H. Rubin, W. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), The
handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp.
232–248). New York: Guilford.
Asher, S. R., Parker, J. G., & Walker, D. L. (1996). Distin-
guishing friendship from acceptance: Implications for

intervention and assessment. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F.
Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they
keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 366–
405). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Benenson, J. F., & Christakos, A. (2003). The greater
fragility of females’ versus males’ closest same-sex
friendships. Child Development, 74, 1123–1129.
Benenson, J. F., Markovitz, H., Fitzgerald, C., Geoffrey,
D., Flemming, J., Kahlenberg, S. M., et al. (2009). Males’
greater tolerance of same-sex peers. Psychological Sci-
ence, 20, 184–190.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences,
and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children’s friendship expectations:
A cognitive-developmental study. Child Development,
48, 246–253.
Bigelow, B. J., & La Gaipa, J. J. (1975). Children’s written
descriptions of friendship: A multidimensional analy-
sis. Developmental Psychology, 11, 857–858.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development
of companionship and intimacy. Child Development, 58,
1101–1113.
Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., & Hartup, W. W.
(1996). The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and
adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chung, T., & Asher, S. R. (1996). Children’s goals and
strategies in peer conflict situations. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 42, 125–147.
Clark, M. L., & Ayers, M. (1993). Friendship expectations
and friendship evaluations: Reciprocity and gender
effects. Youth & Society, 24, 299–313.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and refor-
mulation of social information-processing mechanisms
in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 74–101.
Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Rela-
tionally and physically aggressive children’s intent
attributions and feelings of distress for relational and
instrumental peer provocations. Child Development, 73,
1134–1142.
Crick, N. R., & Ladd, G. W. (1993). Children’s perceptions
of their peer experiences: Attributions, loneliness, social
anxiety, and social avoidance. Developmental Psychology,
29, 244–254.
Delveaux, K. D., & Daniels, T. (2000). Children’s social
cognitions: Physically and relationally aggressive strat-
egies and children’s goals in peer conflict situations.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 672–692.
Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s
aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51, 162–170.
Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive
biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Develop-
ment, 53, 620–635.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejec-
tion sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.
Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S.
(2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual differ-
Transgressions of Friendship Expectations 117
ences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 787–799.
Erdley, C. A., & Asher, S. R. (1996). Children’s social
goals and self-efficacy perceptions as influences on
their responses to ambiguous provocation. Child Devel-
opment, 67, 1329–1344.
Erdley, C. A., & Asher, S. R. (1998). Linkages between
children’s beliefs about the legitimacy of aggression
and their behavior. Social Development, 7, 321–339.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Furman, W., & Bierman, K. (1984). Children’s conceptions
of friendship: A multimethod study of developmental
changes. Developmental Psychology, 20, 925–931.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s percep-
tions of the personal relationships in their social net-
works. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016–1024.
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Rabiner, D. L. (2004). Social infor-
mation processing and children’s social adjustment. In
K. A. Dodge & J. B. Kupersmidt (Eds.), Children’s peer
relations: From development to intervention (pp. 61–79).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relation-
ship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations.
New York: Wiley.
Hopmeyer, A., & Asher, S. R. (1997). Children’s
responses to peer conflicts involving a rights infraction.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 235–254.
Hubbard, J. A. (2001). Emotion expression processes in
children’s peer interactions: The role of peer rejection,
aggression, and gender. Child Development, 72, 1426–1438.
Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s
normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
408–419.
Jones, D. C., Newman, J. B., & Bautista, S. (2005). A three-
factor model of teasing: The influence of friendship,
gender, and topic on expected emotional reactions to
teasing during early adolescence. Social Development,
14, 421–439.
Kahn, P. H., & Turiel, E. (1988). Children’s conceptions of
trust in the context of social expectations. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 34, 403–419.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations:
A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
Lansford, J. E., & Parker, J. G. (1999). Children’s interac-
tions in triads: Behavioral profiles and effects of gender
and patterns of friendships among members. Develop-
mental Psychology, 35, 80–93.
Lavallee, K. L., & Parker, J. G. (2009). The role of inflexi-
ble friendship beliefs, rumination, and low self-worth
in early adolescents’ friendship jealousy and adjust-
ment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 873–885.
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated
model of emotion processes and cognition in social
information processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118.
118 MacEvoy and Asher
Lochman, J. E., Burch, P. R., Curry, J. F., & Lampron, L.
B. (1984). Treatment and generalization effects of cogni-
tive-behavioral and goal-setting interventions with
aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 52, 915–916.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart,
coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Har-
vard University Press.
McDonald, K. L. (2008). Interpretations and beliefs associated
with children’s revenge goals in conflicts. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC.
McDonald, K. L., & Asher, S. R. (2007, May). Vengeful
reactions to minor conflicts of interest with friends,
roommates, and romantic partners. In S. R. Asher
(Chair), Overreacting to interpersonal events: Why people
make mountains out of molehills. Symposium conducted
at the annual meeting of the Association for Psycholog-
ical Science, Washington, DC.
Murphy, B. C., & Eisenberg, N. (1996). Provoked by a
peer: Children’s anger-related responses and their rela-
tions to social functioning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42,
103–124.
Murphy, B. C., & Eisenberg, N. (2002). An integrative
examination of peer conflict: Children’s reported goals,
emotions, and behaviors. Social Development, 11, 534–
557.
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s
friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 117, 306–347.
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The
psychology of violence in the South. Boulder, CO: West-
view.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirksy, S.
(2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psycholog-
ical Science, 3, 400–424.
Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J.
D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). Hostile attribution of
intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child
Development, 73, 916–934.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender
differences in young adolescents’ experiences of peer
victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242–266.
Parker, E. H., Hubbard, J. A., Ramsden, S. R., Relyea,
N., Dearing, K. F., Smithmyer, C. M., et al. (2001).
Children’s use and knowledge of display rules for
anger following hypothetical vignettes versus follow-
ing live peer interaction. Social Development, 10, 528–
557.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friend-
ship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer
group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social
dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611–621.
Parker, J. G., Low, C. M., Walker, A. R., & Gamm, B. K.
(2005). Friendship jealousy in young adolescents: Indi-
vidual differences and links to sex, aggression, and
social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 41, 235–
250.
Patterson, C. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Griesler, P. C. (1990).
Children’s perceptions of self and of relationships with
others as a function of sociometric status. Child Develop-
ment, 61, 1335–1349.
Rabiner, D. L., & Gordon, L. V. (1992). The coordination
of conflicting social goals: Differences between rejected
and nonrejected boys. Child Development, 63, 1344–
1350.
Renshaw, P. D., & Brown, P. J. (1993). Loneliness in mid-
dle childhood: Concurrent and longitudinal predictors.
Child Development, 64, 1271–1284.
Richman, L. S., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to dis-
crimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms
of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psy-
chological Review, 116, 365–383.
Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (1999). Children’s goals and
strategies in response to conflicts within a friendship.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 69–79.
Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (2004). Children’s strategies
and goals in response to help-giving and help-seeking
tasks within a friendship. Child Development, 75, 749–
763.
Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (2011). Boys’ friendships: What’s
good about being male? Manuscript submitted for publi-
cation.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex
differences in peer relationship processes: Potential
trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development
of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006).
Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In
N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.
Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 571–
645). New York: Wiley.
Saarni, C. (1979). Children’s understanding of display
rules for expressive behavior. Developmental Psychology,
15, 424–429.
Saarni, C., Campos, J. J., Camras, L. A., & Witherington,
D. (2006). Emotional development: Action, communi-
cation, and understanding. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development (pp. 226–299). New York:
Wiley.
Sandstrom, M. J., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Eisenhower, A.
(2003). Children’s appraisal of peer rejection experi-
ences: Impact on social and emotional adjustment.
Social Development, 12, 530–550.
Sandstrom, M. J., & Zakriski, A. L. (2004). Understanding
the experience of peer rejection. In J. B. Kupersmidt &
K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: From devel-
opment to intervention (pp. 101–118). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators
of aggression in adolescent offenders: I. Assessment.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 580–588.
Troop-Gordon, W., & Asher, S. R. (2005). Modifications in
children’s goals when encountering obstacles to conflict
resolution. Child Development, 76, 568–582.

Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls.
New York: Guilford.
Underwood, M. K., Coie, J. D., & Herbsman, C. R. (1992).
Display rules for anger and aggression in school-age
children. Child Development, 63, 366–380.
Underwood, M. K., Hurley, J. C., Johanson, C. A., &
Mosley, J. E. (1999). An experimental, observational
investigation of children’s responses to peer provoca-
tion: Developmental and gender differences in middle
childhood. Child Development, 70, 1428–1446.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967).
Pragmatics of human communication: A study of inter-
actional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York:
W.W. Norton.
Transgressions of Friendship Expectations 119
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement
motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–
573.
Whitesell, N. R., & Harter, S. (1996). The interpersonal
context of emotion: Anger with close friends and class-
mates. Child Development, 67, 1345–1359.
Wichmann, C., Coplan, R. J., & Daniels, T. (2004). The
social cognitions of socially withdrawn children. Social
Development, 13, 377–392.
Zarbatany, L., Ghesquiere, K., & Mohr, K. (1992). A con-
text perspective on early adolescents’ friendship expec-
tations. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 111–126.