MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1177/01650254251396625

Медицинская библиотека · International journal of behavioral development · 2025

What's Best About Best Friends: Higher-Ranked Friend Nominations are More Stable and More Likely to be Reciprocated than Lower-Ranked Nominations.

Guillont Madeleine, Selover Molly, Kaniušonytė Goda, Laursen Brett

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

Best friends differ from other friends in terms of their perceived quality, but much is unknown about features that set them apart. The present study examines the stability and reciprocity of friend nominations as a function of their rank. Participants included 580 (312 girls, 268 boys) public primary- and middle-school students (ages 9-13) in Florida (U.S.) and Lithuania. Twice during a single academic year, participants nominated and rank-ordered friends from a roster of classmates. Stable friend nominees (i.e., nominated as a friend in the fall and the spring) and reciprocated friend nominees (i.e., friend nominations returned by the target) were ranked higher than unstable and unreciprocated nominees. Among those making 5 (the median) nominations at the outset, 1st and 2nd ranked friends were more stable and more likely to be reciprocated than 4th and 5th ranked friends. Similar results emerged among those making fewer friend nominations. Results did not differ across locations, underscoring the assertion that best friends ought not be equated with other friends in empirical studies of friendship.

Для цитирования: Guillont Madeleine, Selover Molly, Kaniušonytė Goda, Laursen Brett. What's Best About Best Friends: Higher-Ranked Friend Nominations are More Stable and More Likely to be Reciprocated than Lower-Ranked Nominations.. International journal of behavioral development. 2025. DOI: 10.1177/01650254251396625.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.