Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 May 27.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Behav Dev. 2005;29(2):156–164. doi: 10.1080/01650250444000342

Table 4.

Adolescent adjustment as a function of friendship negativity groups

Friendship negativity group
Consistent low
Consistent medium
Consistent high
Low and medium
Medium and high
Low and high
Adjustment variable M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Self-reports
 Externalising problems 45.83a (11.1) 49.24 (9.7) 53.21b (10.6) 49.83 (10.2) 50.09 (10.0) 53.09b (9.6)
 Internalising problems 48.13 (9.7) 47.78 (9.5) 50.13 (9.3) 47.87 (10.5) 51.06 (10.2) 52.62 (10.5)
Mother reports
 Externalising problems 47.12a (10.2) 43.80a (10.6) 56.70a (8.9) 45.44a (10.8) 50.27 (10.6) 48.09 (7.2)
 Internalising problems
  Early-adolescence 43.75 (10.8) 48.00 (13.8) 54.44 (12.6) 47.60 (8.5) 50.00 (12.0) 51.89 (9.0)
  Mid-adolescence 47.08 (4.8) 38.00a (5.6) 52.33b (13.1) 46.83 (10.1) 50.83 (5.8) 58.00b (11.3)
 School grades
  Early-adolescence 3.28a (0.5) 2.77b (0.7) 2.96b (0.7) 2.84b (1.0) 2.79b (0.8) 2.04b (0.8)
  Mid-adolescence 3.16a (0.6) 2.76 (0.7) 2.07b (1.0) 2.67 (0.5) 2.46b (0.9) 2.49b (1.0)

N = 103 for contrasts involving mother reports; N = 282 for all other contrasts. Across rows, means with different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05 in Tukey’s HSD comparisons. Externalising problems and internalising problems percentile scores range from 25 to 100. School grades range from 0.00 (F) to 4.00 (A).