Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms and the “Tightknittedness” of
Friendship Groups
Sonja E. Siennick and Mayra Picon
Florida State University
Adolescents with depression have lower peer status overall, but tend to befriend each other. We examined the
“tightknittedness” of their friendship groups by testing whether adolescent friendship groups’ average levels of or vari-
ability in internalizing symptoms predict group cohesiveness. We used four waves (9th–12th grades) of survey and
social network data on 3,013 friendship groups from the PROmoting School-Community-University Partnerships to
Enhance Resilience study. Friendship groups with higher average depressive symptoms were less cohesive; groups
with higher average anxiety symptoms had greater reciprocity. Groups with greater variability in depressive symptoms
had greater density; variability in anxiety symptoms was not consistently associated with cohesion. The friendship
groups of depressed adolescents appear less cohesive than the “typical” adolescent friendship group.
When compared with their peers, adolescents with
more depressive symptoms have fewer friends,
have less stable friendships, and are more often
victimized and rejected by their peers (Chan &
Poulin, 2009; Kochel, Ladd, & Rudolph, 2012; Rose
et al., 2011; Stice, Ragan, & Randall, 2004). Yet
depressive symptoms also are a basis for friend-
ship formation, such that adolescents experiencing
these symptoms tend to be friends with each other
(Cheadle & Goosby, 2012; Hogue & Steinberg,
1995; Schaefer, Kornienko, & Fox, 2011). This
means that even if they have lower status in their
larger peer networks, many adolescents with
depressive symptoms do have friends, and those
friends often have depressive symptoms them-
selves. Thus many youth with depressive symp-
toms are likely embedded in friendship groups of
adolescents with similar symptoms. Yet we do not
know whether these friendship groups are as cohe-
sive as the groups formed by youth without
depressive symptoms, or whether they are
structurally weaker and thus not comparable sub-
stitutes, at least in terms of cohesion, for typical
friendship groups. Most studies of depressive
symptoms and peer networks have focused on
dyadic interactions or on individual adolescents’
status within entire social networks, rather than on
friendship groups.
This study examined whether friendship groups
comprised of adolescents with more depressive
symptoms are smaller and “looser,” or less tight-
knit, than groups characterized by fewer depres-
sive symptoms. It also examined whether groups
whose members vary more in their levels of
depressive symptoms are smaller and less tight-
knit. Finally, it distinguished between symptoms of
depression and symptoms of anxiety, which stud-
ies suggest may have opposite effects on friendship
cohesion (Rose et al., 2011). To our knowledge, this
is the first paper to describe the internal cohesive-
ness of friendship groups with members who have
varying.
Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms and the Tightknittedness” o.docx
1. Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms and the “Tightknittedness”
of
Friendship Groups
Sonja E. Siennick and Mayra Picon
Florida State University
Adolescents with depression have lower peer status overall, but
tend to befriend each other. We examined the
“tightknittedness” of their friendship groups by testing whether
adolescent friendship groups’ average levels of or vari-
ability in internalizing symptoms predict group cohesiveness.
We used four waves (9th–12th grades) of survey and
social network data on 3,013 friendship groups from the
PROmoting School-Community-University Partnerships to
Enhance Resilience study. Friendship groups with higher
average depressive symptoms were less cohesive; groups
with higher average anxiety symptoms had greater reciprocity.
Groups with greater variability in depressive symptoms
had greater density; variability in anxiety symptoms was not
consistently associated with cohesion. The friendship
groups of depressed adolescents appear less cohesive than the
“typical” adolescent friendship group.
When compared with their peers, adolescents with
more depressive symptoms have fewer friends,
have less stable friendships, and are more often
victimized and rejected by their peers (Chan &
Poulin, 2009; Kochel, Ladd, & Rudolph, 2012; Rose
et al., 2011; Stice, Ragan, & Randall, 2004). Yet
depressive symptoms also are a basis for friend-
2. ship formation, such that adolescents experiencing
these symptoms tend to be friends with each other
(Cheadle & Goosby, 2012; Hogue & Steinberg,
1995; Schaefer, Kornienko, & Fox, 2011). This
means that even if they have lower status in their
larger peer networks, many adolescents with
depressive symptoms do have friends, and those
friends often have depressive symptoms them-
selves. Thus many youth with depressive symp-
toms are likely embedded in friendship groups of
adolescents with similar symptoms. Yet we do not
know whether these friendship groups are as cohe-
sive as the groups formed by youth without
depressive symptoms, or whether they are
structurally weaker and thus not comparable sub-
stitutes, at least in terms of cohesion, for typical
friendship groups. Most studies of depressive
symptoms and peer networks have focused on
dyadic interactions or on individual adolescents’
status within entire social networks, rather than on
friendship groups.
This study examined whether friendship groups
comprised of adolescents with more depressive
symptoms are smaller and “looser,” or less tight-
knit, than groups characterized by fewer depres-
sive symptoms. It also examined whether groups
whose members vary more in their levels of
depressive symptoms are smaller and less tight-
knit. Finally, it distinguished between symptoms of
depression and symptoms of anxiety, which stud-
ies suggest may have opposite effects on friendship
cohesion (Rose et al., 2011). To our knowledge, this
is the first paper to describe the internal cohesive-
ness of friendship groups with members who have
4. 402
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6681-9225
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6681-9225
mailto:
friends on various emotional and behavioral
dimensions: selection, de-selection, influence, and
social withdrawal. The first, selection or homo-
phily, is based on the notion that people are
attracted to similar others (Berger & Calabrese,
1975) and implies that friends’ similarity in depres-
sive symptoms occurs because adolescents choose
to befriend youth who have levels of symptoms
similar to theirs. Indeed, an early longitudinal net-
work study of high school students found that
selection partly explained adolescent friends’ simi-
larity in internalized distress (Hogue & Steinberg,
1995). These findings have been replicated by more
recent studies on depressive symptoms (Kiuru,
Burk, Laursen, Nurmi, & Salmela-Aro, 2012; Van
Zalk, Kerr, Branje, Stattin, & Meeus, 2010) and on
social anxiety symptoms as well (Van Zalk, Van
Zalk, Kerr, & Stattin, 2011). Moreover, one of these
studies found evidence of a second process—de-
selection. Specifically, this study found that youth
were more likely to terminate friendships with
adolescents who became more dissimilar in terms
of depressive symptoms over a 1-year period
(Kiuru et al., 2012). Thus, one reason why adoles-
cent friends have similar levels of depressive
symptoms is that adolescents are more likely to
become and stay friends with other adolescents
who resemble them on this dimension.
5. Another reason involves a third process. Influ-
ence, or socialization, suggests that friends have
similar levels of depressive symptoms because they
influence each other’s symptoms and become
increasingly similar over time. This occurs through
mechanisms such as co-rumination, or excessively
discussing one’s problems within a friendship
(Rose, 2002). Hogue and Steinberg’s (1995) early
network study examined influence processes as
well, and found that males’, but not females’, inter-
nalized distress grew more similar to their friend-
ship groups’ levels over time. A later study using a
sample of third graders similarly found that chil-
dren’s levels of depressive and social anxiety
symptoms became more similar to the average
level of their friends’ symptoms over a 1-year per-
iod (Mercer & Derosier, 2010). Further evidence of
depression socialization comes from two longitudi-
nal studies of dyads that found that adolescents’
depressive symptoms were predicted by their best
friends’ symptoms, controlling for their initial
levels of depressive symptoms (Prinstein, 2007; Ste-
vens & Prinstein, 2005). A more recent study found
similar evidence of socialization of depressive
symptoms, but only among female best friend
dyads (Giletta et al., 2011). Other internalizing
symptoms may be transmitted in the same way.
One study, for example, found that friends, espe-
cially girls, tended to influence each other’s levels
of social anxiety over time (Van Zalk, Van Zalk,
Kerr, et al., 2011). This influence may be especially
strong in certain friendship groups: These same
authors also found that youth who affiliated with
“Radical” crowds, those comprised of Goths and
Punks, were most influenced by their peers’ social
6. anxiety (Van Zalk, Van Zalk, & Kerr, 2011).
Finally, a fourth process of social withdrawal
may contribute to the resemblance among friends
in depressive symptoms. Under this mechanism,
adolescents with depressive symptoms may with-
draw from peer interaction to avoid experiencing
stigma and negative interactions with others, or
because they perceive themselves as socially
incompetent (Altmann & Gotlib, 1988; Rudolph,
Hammen, & Burge, 1994). This social withdrawal
may exclude adolescents with depressive symp-
toms from normative peer networks, leaving them
to befriend other marginalized youth, including
those who are also experiencing symptoms. Consis-
tent with this, one study found that youth with
few friends, who often also had symptoms of
depression, tended to befriend each other, and this
indirectly created depression similarity among
friends (Schaefer et al., 2011).
In this paper, we do not test these microlevel
processes. Instead, we take as our starting point
the friendship groups that are formed by these pro-
cesses, and we examine the characteristics of those
groups. As we next describe, the processes that
make friends similar on depressive symptoms
might also create cohesive, tight-knit friendship
groups. However, a separate literature on group
functioning suggests that these symptoms instead
might undermine group cohesiveness.
Potential Associations Between Depressive
Symptoms and Group Structure
Membership in cohesive friendship groups could
7. offer many potential benefits to adolescents who
are experiencing depressive symptoms. These
groups are important contexts for development
and for flows of influence, information, and sup-
port among peers (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011;
De�girmencio�glu, Urberg, Tolson, & Richard, 1998;
Ellis & Zarbatany, 2007; Simons-Morton & Farhat,
2010). Tight-knit groups of friends with depressive
symptoms could offer group members more oppor-
tunities for supportiveness, intimacy, and sharing,
which could enhance their well-being (Buhrmester,
392 SIENNICK AND PICON
1990). They could also provide unified buffers
against the bullying and peer victimization that
adolescents with depressive symptoms are at risk
for experiencing (Kaltiala-Heino, Fr€ojd, & Mart-
tunen, 2010; Kochel et al., 2012).
Although research suggests that adolescents
with depressive symptoms have lower quality peer
relations in general, it is possible that these adoles-
cents still manage to form strong, cohesive friend-
ship groups. Theoretically, they have friendship
problems because their peers find some of their
behaviors aversive, such as their excessive reassur-
ance-seeking, their redirecting conversations to
focus on their problems, and their acting socially
helpless (Agoston & Rudolph, 2013; Coyne, 1976;
Prinstein, Borelli, Cheah, Simon, & Aikins, 2005;
Schwartz-Mette & Rose, 2016). However, if pro-
cesses of selection are at play—that is, if adoles-
cents with depressive symptoms choose to form
8. friendship groups with each other despite these
behaviors—then the behaviors may not undermine
the internal cohesiveness of those groups. Indeed,
there is evidence that some level of emotional dis-
tress may actually enhance these friendships by
prompting social support and self-disclosure (Hill
& Swenson, 2014). In addition, if processes of
socialization are at play, then the increased similar-
ity among members of depressed groups may
enhance group cohesiveness. In fact, research sug-
gests that processes such as co-rumination serve as
protective factors for friendship problems, even
when they worsen depressive and anxiety symp-
toms (Rose, 2002; Rose, Carlson, & Waller, 2007).
It thus is possible that groups comprised of adoles-
cents with depressive symptoms have strong inter-
nal connections despite their members’
symptomatology and lower status within the larger
peer network.
Yet that possibility is in contrast with predic-
tions from research on the impact of emotions on
small group functioning, which provides some of
the only existing group-level evidence on this topic.
That work, which tends to use adult samples, has
shown that group members’ affect and moods do
influence group performance and cohesion (Kelly
& Jones, 2012). Much of this research has focused
on group members’ positive emotions, which have
been found to facilitate within-group communica-
tion, reduce within-group conflict, and promote
within-group cooperation and bonding (Spoor &
Kelly, 2004). If negative emotions have the opposite
effect, depressive symptoms could worsen these
features of adolescent friendship groups. This may
be especially likely if adolescents with depressive
9. symptoms befriend each other less because they
like each other than because they have few alterna-
tive friendship opportunities, as under the social
withdrawal mechanism (Schaefer et al., 2011).
Without the positive mood and strong mutual lik-
ing that promote group cohesiveness, friendship
groups composed of adolescents with depressive
symptoms may be less tight-knit than the friend-
ship groups formed by their less depressed peers.
Research has yet to determine whether these symp-
toms enhance or undermine the internal cohesive-
ness of adolescent friendship groups.
Variation by Type of Internalizing Symptom and
Extent of Similarity
Two considerations complicate studies of this topic.
First, many past studies of depressive symptoms
and peer relations have not distinguished between
depressive and anxiety symptoms. Depression and
anxiety have distinct developmental courses (Cum-
mings, Caporino, & Kendall, 2014) and could have
different associations with peer problems. Yet in
this literature, depressive symptoms are often
examined as part of a broader “internalizing” or
“distress” construct that includes general anxiety.
Notably, this combined construct does not consis-
tently predict peer problems (Hill & Swenson,
2014; Hogue & Steinberg, 1995; Mcleod & Uemura,
2012). Indeed, studies that have separated the two
suggest that depressive symptoms drive the harm-
ful effects of internalizing symptoms on peer prob-
lems (de Matos, Barrett, Dadds, & Shortt, 2003;
Kennedy, Spence, & Hensley, 1989; Strauss, Lahey,
Frick, Frame, & Hynd, 1988). In fact, youth with
10. some forms of anxiety may have few peer prob-
lems at all (Chen, Cohen, Johnson, & Kasen, 2009;
de Matos et al., 2003). For example, general anxiety
symptoms have been found to be associated with
having more and higher quality friendships (Rose
et al., 2011) and less hostile peer interactions
(Rudolph et al., 1994). The differential effects of
depressive and anxiety symptoms could stem from
the fact that although both are characterized by
negative affect, only depression is characterized by
low positive affect (Rose et al., 2011), potentially
making adolescents’ anxiety less aversive to, or
even eliciting sympathy from, their peers.
A second consideration is whether heterogeneity
in, versus simply the average level of, depressive
symptoms within a friendship group is associated
with lower group cohesiveness. A group with a
moderate average level of depressive symptoms
could be composed of several adolescents who
DEPRESSION AND FRIENDSHIP GROUPS 393
each are experiencing moderate depression, or a
mixture of adolescents who are not depressed and
adolescents who are highly depressed. In the latter
case, the weaker homophily among group mem-
bers in depressive symptoms could undermine
group cohesiveness. Past research shows that peers
who are dissimilar in mood or behavior are more
likely to argue with, reject, and defriend each
other, perhaps because they experience relation-
ships with dissimilar others as less validating
(Bl€ote, Bokhorst, Miers, & Westenberg, 2012; Chow,
11. Tan, & Ruhl, 2015; Hafen, Laursen, Burk, Kerr, &
Stattin, 2011; Van Zalk et al., 2010; Wright, Giam-
marino, & Parad, 1986). In experimental studies as
well, people who are experiencing depression, anx-
iety, or bad moods prefer others who have the
same feelings over others who do not (Baker, Hud-
son, & Taylor, 2014; Rook, Pietromonaco, & Lewis,
1994; Rosenblatt & Greenberg, 1991). If dissimilar-
ity has the same impact on the multiple relation-
ships within friendship groups, then groups with
more internal variation on depressive or anxiety
symptoms could be less cohesive.
This Study
This study used survey and social network data
from a large community sample of adolescents to
examine the friendship groups of distressed adoles-
cents. First, we examined whether groups with
greater average within-group distress are smaller
and more loosely connected. In doing so, we distin-
guished between depressive and anxiety symp-
toms, which are often comorbid but which may
have opposite effects on adolescent friendships.
Second, we also examined whether groups whose
members have more dissimilar levels of distress
are smaller and more loosely connected. Based on
past work, we expected that group depressive
symptoms would be negatively associated with
measures of group cohesion; group anxiety symp-
toms would be unassociated or positively associ-
ated with group cohesion; and within-group
variability in these symptoms would be negatively
associated with measures of group cohesion.
METHOD
12. Data
Sample. Our data were from PROmoting
School-Community-University Partnerships to
Enhance Resilience (PROSPER), a place-rando-
mized substance abuse prevention trial in 28 public
school districts in rural Pennsylvania and Iowa
(Spoth, Greenberg, Bierman, & Redmond, 2004;
Spoth et al., 2013). The districts enrolled between
1,300 and 5,200 students each, were at least 95%
English-speaking, were economically diverse (with
an average of 29% of families eligible for free or
reduced cost school lunches), and were predomi-
nantly white (61–96%). For the prevention trial, dis-
tricts were blocked on size and location and
randomly assigned to have universal substance
abuse prevention programming implemented by
community teams, or to be in the control condition.
In this study, we found that intervention condition
did not moderate any of our results, so we used
data from both conditions.
PROSPER’s sample began with two successive
cohorts of adolescents who were in sixth grade in
the Fall semesters of 2002 and 2003 (N = 10,849).
Half were female and nearly all (98%) were age 11
or 12. Adolescents completed machine-scored
paper-and-pencil surveys about their attitudes,
behaviors, and friendships during class sessions.
Follow-up surveys were administered each spring
from 6th–12th grades; at each wave, students who
had moved into study schools were recruited to
join the study. At each survey, adolescents pro-
vided assent, and parents and guardians were con-
13. tacted by mail and had the opportunity to return a
form excluding their child from the study. At any
given wave, approximately 3% of adolescents and
4% of parents declined to participate, and approxi-
mately 5% of adolescents were absent. We used
survey and social network data from 9th–12th
grades (four waves), when adolescents reported on
their depressive and anxiety symptoms. Because
cohort did not predict any of our outcomes, we
used combined data from both cohorts in our anal-
yses. Our analytical sample was 48% male and 84%
white; 76% lived in two parent households; 22%
were eligible for free or reduced-cost lunch; and at
ninth grade, 94% were age 14 or 15 (mean = 14.8).
Friendship identification and friendship group
creation. The surveys asked adolescents to write
the names of up to two best friends and five addi-
tional close friends in their school and grade. Most
adolescents (94%) nominated at least one friend;
adolescents who made no nominations were more
likely to be male, non-White, from single-parent
households, and to be eligible for free lunch, and
had higher depressive and anxiety symptom scores
than adolescents who nominated friends. The
PROSPER staff was able to match over 83% of
friendship nominations to students on the schools’
394 SIENNICK AND PICON
class rosters. Only 2% of nominations matched
multiple names on the rosters and thus could not
be matched with certainty, and <1% were inappro-
priate choices (e.g., pop stars). The remaining 15%
14. matched no name on the school grade rosters and
presumably were not adolescents’ grademates.
Since the entire grade-level was targeted for partic-
ipation in the study, these data allowed us to map
out adolescents’ own personal friendship ties and
the complete within-grade school friendship net-
works that existed at the time of the survey, and to
link adolescents with their friends’ survey
responses.
PROSPER staff identified distinct mutually exclu-
sive friendship groups within the larger friendship
networks using computer algorithms designed to
delineate groups by maximizing modularity scores,
which are weighted functions of within-group com-
pared to cross-group ties (Moody, 2001). The algo-
rithm began with starting values based on factor
analysis (Gest, Davidson, Rulison, Moody, & Welsh,
2007), and iteratively evaluated whether the modu-
larity score would be improved by reassigning each
student to another group, by merging any groups, or
by splitting any groups. When no more improve-
ments to the score were found, that set of friendship
group assignments was kept. This approach identi-
fied 3,090 friendship groups with at least three mem-
bers. We excluded 16 (1% of) groups with 40 or more
members because “group” likely means something
different for groups of this size (cf. Kreager, Rulison,
& Moody, 2011; Rubin, Bukowski, & Bowker, 2015).
Group sizes ranged from 3 to 38 members, with an
average of approximately 10. We also excluded 61
(2% of) groups that were missing information on
cohesiveness. The remaining 3,013 unique friendship
groups were our analytical sample.
Measures
15. Friendship group cohesiveness. Once discrete
friendship groups were identified and the friend-
ship ties between individual group members were
mapped out, measures of group structure were cal-
culated. Our measures of cohesiveness follow those
used in past work (Gest et al., 2007; Kreager et al.,
2011; Rubin et al., 2015). Group size was a count
measure of the number of adolescents in the group.
Density was the proportion of pairs of adolescents
within the group who were friends with each other
based on their nomination lists. Reciprocity was the
proportion of friendship nominations from one
group member to another that were reciprocated
(i.e., the proportion of dyads who both included
each other on their friendship lists). Transitivity
was the proportion of triads in the group in which
all three members were friends (i.e., where the
friend of an adolescent’s friend also was friends
with that adolescent). Together these measures cap-
ture the size and “tight-knittedness” of the groups.
Creation of group-level predictor variables. Our
group-level predictors and control variables were
aggregated versions of the survey responses given by
the individual group members. For example, to create a
group’s average depressive symptoms score for a given
wave, we computed symptoms scale scores for the indi-
vidual adolescents within the group and then averaged
them. Prior to doing this, we addressed item-level miss-
ing data at each wave from individual adolescents’ sur-
veys using multiple imputation (Rubin, 1987). Two
percent of adolescents were missing information on one
or more depression or anxiety items, and 6% were miss-
ing information on one or more control variables. There
16. were only modest differences between these adolescents
and those with complete data (e.g., those groups differed
by an average of 1/6 of a standard deviation on the focal
variables).
Depressive symptoms. The surveys included
items tapping symptoms of depression, such as
depressed mood (e.g., feeling sad or appearing tear-
ful), feelings of guilt and worthlessness, and suicidal-
ity (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
Individual adolescents’ depressive symptoms scores
were the average of five items assessing whether in
the past 6 months they had experienced such depres-
sive symptoms (with each item scored 0–2; range of a
across waves = .83–.85). As described above, group
members’ scores were then averaged to create group-
level average depressive symptoms scores. The
within-group standard deviation of group members’
scores was our measure of the group’s variability in
depressive symptoms.
Anxiety symptoms. The surveys also included
items tapping symptoms of anxiety (e.g., excessive
anxiety and worry, muscle tension; American Psy-
chiatric Association, 2000). Individual adolescents’
anxiety symptoms scores were the average of three
items assessing such symptoms (each scored 0–2;
range of a across waves = .80–.83). Measures of
groups’ average anxiety symptoms and groups’
variability in anxiety symptoms were created using
the same strategies as for depression.
Control variables. Past research has identified
demographic correlates of group structure, such as
DEPRESSION AND FRIENDSHIP GROUPS 395
17. gender composition and group members’ family
structures and socioeconomic statuses, which may
confound the associations between group structure
and behavioral risk factors (Kreager et al., 2011).
We thus controlled for grade level (9–12), interven-
tion condition, group gender composition (all-male,
all-female, or mixed gender), and the proportion of
group members who were White, from two-parent
families, and eligible for free or reduced-cost
school lunch. Because reciprocity and transitivity
depend on the number of friendship ties within a
group, we also controlled for density in models of
those outcomes. Descriptive statistics for these and
other study variables are shown in Table 1.
Analytical Strategy
Our analyses were multilevel random effects
regression models predicting each measure of
group cohesiveness from the control variables and
either average levels of or variability in groups’
depressive and anxiety symptoms. The adolescents’
friendship groups were clustered within 29 schools,
violating the independence assumption of regres-
sion analysis. For instance, as shown in Table 1,
between 2% and 7% of the variance in each of our
outcomes fell between schools (vs. within schools).
Our use of multilevel regression models adjusted
our standard errors for this clustering through the
inclusion of variance components for school (Rau-
denbush & Bryk, 2002). Tests indicated that addi-
tional variance components were not needed for
18. grade (to address potential temporal autocorrela-
tion in the data) or for the main independent vari-
ables (to address potential variability in effects
across schools). We used linear models for all
group-level outcomes except the skewed count
variable group size, for which we used negative
binomial models.
RESULTS
We first examined the associations between
groups’ average internalizing symptoms and their
size and structure. Table 2 shows the results of
multilevel negative binomial and linear regressions
predicting each group cohesiveness outcome from
group-level depressive and anxiety symptoms.
Groups with higher average depressive symptom
scores were significantly smaller in size, less dense,
and had lower reciprocity of friendships, but did
not have significantly lower transitivity.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (N = 3,013 Groups)
Variable
Mean/%, by Grade
Range ICC9th 10th 11th 12th
Dependent variables
Group size 10.54 10.11 9.48 9.07 3–38 .02
Group density 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.04–1 .07
Group transitivity 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.42 0–1 .05
Group reciprocity 0.39 0.40 0.37 0.37 0–1 .03
19. Independent variables
Group’s average depressive symptoms 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.23 0–
1.16 .02
Within-group variation in depressive symptoms 0.34 0.34 0.33
0.30 0–0.94 .02
Group’s average anxiety symptoms 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.45 0–1.75
.01
Within-group variation in anxiety symptoms 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.47
0–0.98 .01
Control variables
Grade 9 10 11 12 9–12 –
Intervention condition 46% 47% 49% 50% 0–1 –
All male group 25% 26% 20% 21% 0–1 .02
All female group 25% 23% 25% 21% 0–1 .01
Mixed gender group 50% 51% 56% 58% 0–1 .04
Percent of group that is White 83% 86% 86% 87% 0–1 .62
Percent of group that lives with two parents 77% 77% 76% 76%
0–1 0
Percent of group eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 26%
22% 21% 18% 0–1 .03
N 885 751 738 639
Notes. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) represent the
proportion of variance in the variable that is between (vs.
within)
schools. ICCs are based on linear models for continuous
outcomes and logistic models for dichotomous outcomes.
Source: PROSPER Peers Study.
396 SIENNICK AND PICON
Examination of predicted values revealed that com-
pared with groups whose members had no depres-
20. sive symptoms, groups with elevated average
symptoms (1 standard deviation above the mean)
had on average 0.36 fewer members (9.38 vs. 9.74),
2% lower density (0.29 vs. 0.31), and 5% less
reciprocity (0.37 vs. 0.42). Supplemental analyses
revealed that depressive symptoms and transitivity
were negatively associated when density was
removed from the model, indicating that in groups
with higher average depressive symptoms there
were fewer ties to friends-of-friends because there
were fewer pairs of friends to begin with.
To further gauge the magnitude of the observed
associations, we compared the X-standardized coef-
ficients, which give the change in Y for a one-stan-
dard deviation increase in X, for group-level
depressive and …
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner