Friendship Motivation, Aggression, and Self-Esteem in Japanese Undergraduate Students

doi:10.4236/psych.2012.31002

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2012. Vol.3, No.1, 7-11

Published Online January 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.31002

Friendship Motivation, Aggression, and Self-Esteem in Japanese

Undergraduate Students

Ryo Okada

Faculty of Education, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan

Email: [email protected]

Received October 13th, 2011; revised November 14th, 2011; accepted December 17th, 2011

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among self-determined friendship motivation

(motivation for friendship formation), aggression, and self-esteem in a sample of 262 Japanese university

students. The hypothetical model posited that self-determined friendship motivation predicted lower le-

vels of aggression, which, in turn, predicted lower levels of self-esteem. The results showed that self-de-

termined friendship motivation predicted lower levels of anger, hostility, and physical aggression and that

hostility and anger predicted lower levels of self-esteem. Verbal aggression was found to be positively

associated with self-determined friendship motivation and self-esteem. The different relationships be-

tween self-determined friendship motivation and each facet of aggression are discussed.

Keywords: Friendship Motivation; Aggression; Self-Esteem; Self-Determination Theory

Introduction

During adolescence, friendship plays an important role in

one’s life. Hartup and Stevens (1997) stated that friends are

cognitive and affective resources that foster self-esteem and a

sense of well-being. A number of empirical studies have re-

vealed that friendship influences individuals’ well-being and

psychological adjustment (Lucas & Dyrenforth, 2006).

Researchers have recently examined the relationship between

friendship formation and motivation. Motivation for friendship

formation (i.e., friendship motivation) has been conceptualized

in various motivational theories, for example, achievement goal

theory (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006; Ryan & Shim, 2006),

self-efficacy theory (Matsushima & Shiomi, 2003; Patrick,

Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007), and social goal theory (Jarvinen &

Nicholls, 1996). Another theory, the self-determination theory

(Deci & Ryan, 2000) has proposed a comprehensive framework

for friendship motivation. It conceptualizes several types of

motivation in terms of the level of self-determination—external

regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and

intrinsic motivation. External regulation refers to motivation by

contingencies such as external rewards or punishment and mo-

tivation by others’ initiative. Sometimes, individuals continue

to talk to a certain friend merely because the friend talks to

them. This is an example of external regulation. Introjected

regulation refers to motivation stemming from feelings of anxi-

ety or shame. The purpose of behaviors motivated by intro-

jected regulation is to maintain one’s self-esteem. Individuals

guided by introjected regulation believe that they “should” form

and maintain friendships with others. Identified regulation re-

fers to motivation based on perceptions of the value and impor-

tance of the activity. For individuals motivated by identified

regulation, friendships are very important interpersonal rela-

tionships. However, they also see their friendships as means to

achieve other ends such as personal happiness and growth.

Intrinsic motivation refers to spontaneous motivation charac-

terized by fun and inherent enjoyment. In this motivational state,

the friendship is a purpose. Enjoying talking to and being in the

company of friends is an example of intrinsic motivation. Em-

pirical studies have examined the role of motivation in adoles-

cents’ friendship (Boiché & Sarrazin, 2007; Hawley, Little, &

Pasupathi, 2002; Senécal, Julien, & Guay, 2003).

The different types of motivation can be placed along a

self-determination continuum, with external regulation at the

lower end of the continuum and intrinsic motivation at the

higher end. The self-determination level of an individual’s mo-

tivation is characterized by the magnitude of these four types of

motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In empirical studies, Relative

Autonomy Index (RAI) was used to assess the level of self-

determination of the individuals’ motivation (Grolnick & Ryan,

1987; Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan, 2004). The RAI is

formed by weighting each subscale in accord with its underly-

ing scores on the self-determination continuum in the following

formula: RAI = (–2 × external regulation) + (–1 × introjected

regulation) + (1 × identified regulation) + (2 × intrinsic motiva-

tion). Higher scores of RAI represent higher levels of self-de-

termined motivation.

Previous studies have verified the importance of self-deter-

mined friendship motivation. Okada (2005) developed a scale

to measure friendship motivation and found that self-deter-

mined friendship motivation predicted prosocial behavior.

Richard and Schneider (2005) revealed that children with

higher levels of self-determined friendship motivation had more

relationship-maintaining goals and were liked by their peers.

Self-determined friendship motivation was also related to self-

disclosure (Okada, 2006), academic help-seeking (Okada, 2007),

social competence (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005), and ex-

perience of positive life events (Shahar, Henrich, Blatt, & Ryan,

2003). These findings suggest that self-determined friendship

motivation promotes adaptive behaviors and positive interac-

tions with friends.

Although the relationship between self-determined friendship

motivation and adaptive behaviors has been verified in some

R. OKADA

studies, few studies have examined the relationship between

self-determined friendship motivation and maladaptive behav-

iors during adolescence. On the basis of some relevant studies,

it was predicted that self-determined friendship motivation was

negatively associated with maladaptive behaviors. Knee, Lons-

bary, Canevello, and Patrick (2005), for example, observed

couples discussing their relationship conflicts and examined the

relationship between their motivations and behaviors. The re-

sults showed that individuals with higher levels of self-deter-

mined motivation for their relationships (i.e., couple motivation)

displayed less defensive behaviors such as blame and down-

playing problems. In addition, Richard and Schneider (2005)

found that external regulation for friendship, which represents

lower levels of self-determined friendship motivation, was

positively related to control and revenge goals in preadolescents

and early adolescents. On the basis of these findings, it was

hypothesized that self-determined friendship motivation pre-

dicted less maladaptive behaviors.

In examining the relationship between self-determined fri-

endship motivation and maladaptive behaviors, this study fo-

cused on aggression. Aggressive or hostile individuals tend to

receive less social support (Barefoot, Dahlstrom, & Williams,

1983), and aggression and hostility can lead to poor physical

health (Miller, Smith, Turner, Guijarro, & Hallet, 1996). There-

fore, determining the factors that predict aggression will be

useful viewpoint for researchers and practitioners in this field.

Buss and Perry (1992) developed the Buss-Perry Aggression

Questionnaire and found four facets of aggression—physical

aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. Later studies

revealed that these four facets of aggression were related to

depression (Gerevich, Bácskai, & Czobor, 2007), negative in-

terpersonal relationships (Harris, 1997), anger to mistreatment

(Felsten & Hill, 1999), aggressive responses to provocation

(O’Connor, Archer, & Wu, 2001), and daily negative affect

(Harmon-Jones, 2003). People with higher levels of self-de-

termined friendship motivation find fun and personal value in

their friendships and therefore, rarely act aggressively. On the

other hand, people with lower levels of self-determined friend-

ship motivation feel obligated and anxious about relationships

with their friends, so they are inclined to feel hostile and act

aggressively. Therefore, it was hypothesized that self-deter-

mined friendship motivation predicted lower levels of the four

facets of aggression.

In previous studies (Deci, Ryan, Gagné, Leone, Usunov, &

Kornazheva, 2001; Levesque, et al., 2004), self-esteem has

been examined as an outcome variable predicted by self-de-

termined motivation. Given that self-determined friendship

motivation would be positively related to self-esteem, it was

predicted that aggression would mediate the relationship. Ac-

cording to sociometer theory (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs,

1995), self-esteem is part of a psychological system that moni-

tors acceptance and rejection by others. People can gauge

whether they are accepted or rejected by others from changes in

their self-esteem. In support of this theory, the experimental

manipulations that convey rejection reduce participants’ self-es-

teem, whereas those that convey acceptance enhance their self-

esteem (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). Because aggression is

likely to lead to rejection by friends, aggressive individuals

would report lower levels of self-esteem.

In summary, the purpose of this study was to examine a

model in which self-determined friendship motivation would

predict lower levels of aggression, which, in turn, would predict

lower levels of self-esteem. The examination of the model

would reveal the role of motivation in adolescents’ friendship

from the side of maladaptive behaviors.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The participants comprised 262 Japanese university students

(101 men and 161 women) with a mean age of 20.10 years (SD

= 1.05). All participants were volunteers and were informed at

the start that the outcome and participation would not affect

their course grades. After the orientation, the participants filled

a questionnaire.

Measures

Self-determined friendship motivation was measured by the

Friendship Motivation Scale developed by Okada (2005). This

scale assesses the reasons for forming friendships and interact-

ing with friends. There are four subscales of four items each:

external regulation (e.g., “Because my friends would get mad at

me if I’m not with them”), introjected regulation (e.g., “Be-

cause I would feel anxious if I didn’t have any friends”), identi-

fied regulation (e.g., “Because I value getting to know my

friends better”), and intrinsic motivation (e.g., “Because I’m

glad to be intimate with my friends”). The instruction was

“Why do you have close relationships with your friends or

spend time together with your friends?” Participants were also

instructed that “friends” does not refer to specific friends but

friends in general. Participants were asked to rate each item on

a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 5 (true). The

reliabilities for each subscale were verified in a sample of

Japanese university students (Cronbach alphas ranged from .61

to .86, and test-retest coefficients during the three weeks ranged

from .68 to .80; Okada, 2005). In the present study, the alphas

for the subscales were .45 for external regulation, .74 for intro-

jected regulation, .80 for identified regulation, and .88 for in-

trinsic motivation. Although the value of external regulation

was relatively small, omission of an item slightly improved the

value (α = .55). The descriptive score of external regulation was

the average of the three items, and the descriptive scores of the

other three subscales were calculated by averaging each of the

four item scores. For the purpose of this study, the RAI was

calculated same as previous studies (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987;

Levesque, et al., 2004; Losier & Vallerand, 1994). The RAI is

formed by weighting each subscale in accord with its underly-

ing scores on the self-determination continuum in the following

formula: RAI = (–2 × external regulation) + (–1 × introjected

regulation) + (1 × identified regulation) + (2 × intrinsic motive-

tion). In the subsequent analyses, the RAI score was used as an

index of self-determined friendship motivation.

The Japanese version of the Buss and Perry Aggression

Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) developed by Ando, Soga,

Yamasaki, Shimai, Shimada, Utsuki, Oashi, and Sakai (1999)

was used to assess aggression. This scale consists of four sub-

scales of physical aggression (5 items; e.g., “If somebody hits

me, I hit back”), verbal aggression (6 items; e.g., “I tell my

friends openly when I disagree with them”), anger (5 items; e.g.,

“I have trouble controlling my temper”), and hostility (6 items;

e.g., “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind

my back”). Participants were asked to rate each item on a 5-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 5 (true). The

R. OKADA

reliabilities for each subscale were verified in a sample of

Japanese university students (Cronbach alphas ranged from .70

to .78, and test-retest coefficients during the three weeks ranged

from .70 to .80; Ando, et al., 1999). In the present study, the

alphas for the subscales were .78 for physical aggression, .75

for verbal aggression, .76 for anger, and .74 for hostility. The

descriptive scores of the four subscales were calculated by av-

eraging the item scores.

Self-esteem was measured with the Japanese version of Ro-

senberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (10 items) developed by Yama-

moto, Matsui, and Yamanari (1982). Participants were asked to

rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not true)

to 5 (true). The Cronbach alpha was .84 in the present study. The

descriptive score was calculated by averaging ten item scores.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among

Variables

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations among vari-

ables are presented in Table 1. Consistent with predictions, RAI

was negatively related to anger (r = –.24, p < .001) and hostility

(r = –.29, p < .001). The relation between RAI and physical

aggression was marginally significant (r = –.10, p < .10). Un-

expectedly, RAI was positively associated with verbal aggres-

sion (r = .18, p < .01). RAI was also positively related to

self-esteem (r = .25, p < .001). Anger and hostility were nega-

tively related to self-esteem (rs = –.18 and –.38, ps < .01, re-

spectively). Against predictions, verbal aggression was posi-

tively associated with self-esteem (r = .34, p < .001). The rela-

tion between physical aggression and self-esteem was nearly

zero (r = –.00, n.s.).

Examination of the Hypo thetical Model

It was hypothesized that self-determined friendship motiva-

tion would predict lower levels of aggression, which, in turn,

would predict higher levels of self-esteem. The hypothetical

model was constructed in the following manner. Paths from

RAI to four aggression scores and paths from four aggression

scores to self-esteem were postulated. Covariances among four

aggression scores were also included.

The model was tested using structural equation modeling

with AMOS 17.0. The model fit was assessed by the following

statistics (Byrne, 2001): the chi-square value (nonsignificant

values represent an acceptable fit), the Goodness of Fit Index

(GFI; values above .90 represent an acceptable fit), Adjusted

Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI; values above .90 represent an

acceptable fit), Comparative Fit Index (CFI; values above .90

represent an acceptable fit), and the Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA; values below .08 represent an ac-

ceptable fit).

The analysis showed that the hypothetical model adequately

fit the data, χ2 (1) = 1.95, n.s., GFI = 1.00, AGFI = .95, CFI =

1.00, and RMSEA = .06. The path from physical aggression to

self-esteem (β = .03) and the covariance between verbal ag-

gression and hostility (r = .03) were nonsignificant; these pa-

rameters were therefore fixed at zero in the final model. Be-

cause the path from RAI to physical aggression (β = –.10, p

< .10) and the path from anger to self-esteem (β = –.11, p < .10)

were marginally significant, these paths were freely estimated

again. The final model is depicted in Figure 1. The analysis

showed that the model adequately fit the data, χ2 (3) = 2.32, n.s.,

GFI = 1.00, AGFI = .98, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, and the

change of chi square values was also nonsignificant (Δχ2 (2) =

0.37, n.s.). The RAI predicted higher levels of verbal aggres-

sion (β = .18, p < .01) and lower levels of anger and hostility

(βs = –.24 and –.29, ps < .001, respectively). The path from

RAI to physical aggression was negative at a marginally sig-

nificant level (β = –.10, p < .10). Verbal aggression predicted

higher levels of self-esteem (β = .34, p < .001) and hostility

predicted lower levels of self-esteem (β = –.32, p < .001). An-

ger predicted lower levels of self-esteem at a marginally sig-

nificant level (β = –.11, p < .10).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine a model in which

self-determined friendship motivation would predict lower

levels of aggression, which, in turn, would predict lower levels

of self-esteem. Consistent with the hypothetical model, path

analyses showed that self-determined friendship motivation

predicted lower levels of anger, hostility, and physical aggres-

sion, and hostility and anger predicted lower levels of self-

esteem. People with higher levels of self-determined friendship

motivation are likely to feel less anger and hostility and to act

less aggressively in their relationships with friends, because

they are motivated by their interest in friends or the importance

of friendship. People who display less hostility and anger to-

ward friends are likely to be more accepted, and those who

interact with others in a hostile and angry manner tend to be

avoided and rejected. Hostility and anger lead to rejection by

Table 1.

Pearson correlations among variables, means, and standard deviations.

1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD

1. RAI 5.87 2.77

2. Physical aggression –.10† 2.70 0.81

3. Verbal aggression .18** .33*** 2.90 0.77

4. Anger –.24*** .42*** .18*** 2.84 0.84

5. Hostility –.29*** .29*** –.03 .43*** 3.03 0.72

6. Self-esteem .25*** –.00 .34*** –.18** –.38*** 3.13 0.68

†p < .10, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

R. OKADA

.99

.91

-.32

***

-.11

†

.34

***

.97

.18

-.24

***

-.29

***

-.10

†

.74

.94

RAI

Verbal

aggression

Anger

H o stility

Self-esteem

P h ysical

aggression

Figure 1.

A hypothetical model of the relationship among RAI, aggression subscales, and self-

esteem. The covariances among the aggression subscales are omitted in this figure. †p

< .10, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

others and could therefore decrease self-esteem, as suggested in

sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary, et al.,

1995).

It was surprising to find that self-determined friendship mo-

tivation predicted higher levels of verbal aggression, which, in

turn, predicted higher levels of self-esteem. This is an unex-

pected finding. A plausible explanation is that verbal aggres-

sion helps maintain relationships with friends. The content of

the items that tap verbal aggression (“I tell my friends openly

when I disagree with them,” “When people annoy me, I may

tell them what I think of them”) seems to be similar to assertion,

which is a component of interpersonal competence. Buhrmester,

Furman, Wittenberg, and Reis (1988) suggested that asserting

displeasure with others was an aspect of interpersonal compe-

tence and was positively related to social self-esteem. Soenens

and Vansteenkiste (2005) found that self-determined friendship

motivation predicted higher levels of social competence, which

was a similar construct to interpersonal competence. It can be

that people with higher levels of self-determined friendship

motivation maintain positive relationships with friends through

asserting their own opinion honestly, consequently maintaining

high self-esteem.

Physical aggression was not found to be significantly related

to self-esteem. Generally, aggression is likely to lead to rejec-

tion by others, and rejection will decrease self-esteem. On the

other hand, aggressive behavior can help in restoring self-es-

teem that has been lowered by negative evaluation and feed-

back (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). If the attempt to

restore self-esteem succeeds, aggression can be associated with

higher levels of self-esteem. The nonsignificant relationship

between physical aggression and self-esteem in this study may

partly reflect the need for aggressive responses as a means to

restore self-esteem.

The main contribution of this study was to reveal that friend-

ship motivation could influence self-esteem through lower lev-

els of maladaptive behaviors. Previous studies have mainly

examined the relationship between self-determined friendship

motivation and adaptive behaviors (Okada, 2007; Richard &

Schneider, 2005; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005). The present

study focused on aggression as a maladaptive behavior and

revealed the relationship between self-determined friendship

motivation and aggression. It was suggested that self-determined

friendship motivation not only promotes adaptive behaviors but

also suppresses aggressive and hostile behaviors.

It is important to note that some of the relationships found in

this study were relatively weak. For example, the path coeffi-

cient from RAI to physical aggression was –.10 in the path

analysis, although the value was marginally significant. This

may partly be because general aggression in daily life was ex-

amined in this study. Another line of research has examined

aggressive responses in specific situations manipulated experi-

mentally such as provocation, ego-threat, and social exclusion

(Baumeister, et al., 1996; O’Connor, et al., 2001; Twenge,

2006). Future studies should examine the relationship between

self-determined friendship motivation and aggression in situa-

tions manipulated to prompt aggressive responses.

There are some limitations to this study. First, the quality of

friendships has not been measured. From previous studies, it

was assumed that the good-quality relationships with friends

mediated the relationship between aggression and self-esteem

(Leary & Baumeister, 2000). If so, aggression (especially, hos-

tility and anger in this study) would predict poor relationships

with friends, which, in turn, would be associated with lower

levels of self-esteem. Future studies should examine the quality

of friendships as well. Second, all the variables were measured

simultaneously. The model examined in this study assumed the

causal order that self-determined friendship motivation affects

aggression, which, in turn, affects self-esteem. The simultane-

ous measurement, however, makes it difficult to interpret the

findings in terms of causality. For example, it may be that peo-

ple with lower levels of self-esteem display more hostility and

anger. To verify the causal relationships among self-determined

friendship motivation, aggression, and self-esteem, a longitudi-

nal measurement is required.

REFERENCES

Ando, A., Soga, S., Yamasaki, K., Shimai, S., Shimada, H., Utsuki, N.,

Oashi, O., & Sakai, A. (1999). Development of the Japanese version

of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ). Japanese Jour-

R. OKADA

nal

of Psychology, 70, 384-392. doi:10.4992/jjpsy.70.384

Barefoot, J. C., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Williams, R. B. Jr. (1983). Hostil-

ity, CHD incidence, and total mortality: A 25-year follow-up study

of 255 physicians. P sychosomatic Medicine, 45, 59-63.

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of

threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high

self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.

doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5

Boiché, J. C. S., & Sarrazin, P. G. (2007). Self-determination of con-

textual motivation, inter-context dynamics and adolescents’ patterns

of sport participation over time. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8,

685-703. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.10.004

Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988).

Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 5, 991-1008.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.991

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal

of Personality and Social Ps y c h o l o g y , 63, 452-459.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic

concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal

pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psy-

chological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kor-

nazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being

in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country: A cross-

cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 27, 930-942. doi:10.1177/0146167201278002

Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and

avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 32, 378-391.

doi:10.1177/0146167205282153

Felston, G. & Hill, V. (1999). Aggression Questionnaire hostility scale

predicts anger in response to mistreatment. Behaviour Research and

Therapy, 37, 87-97. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00104-1

Gerevich, J., Bácskai, E., & Czobor, P. (2007). The generalizability of

the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. International Journal of

Methods in Psychiatric Research , 16, 124-136.

doi:10.1002/mpr.221

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learn-

ing: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890-898.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.890

Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Anger and the behavioral approach system.

Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 995-1005.

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00313-6

Harris, J. A. (1997). A further evaluation of the aggression question-

naire: Issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research Therapy,

35, 1047-1053. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00064-8

Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the

life course. Psyc h ological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.355

Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Pasupathi, M. (2002). Winning friends

and influencing peers: Strategies of peer influence in late childhood.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 466-474.

doi:10.1080/01650250143000427

Jarvinen, D. W., & Nicholls, J. G. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals,

beliefs about the causes of social success, and satisfaction in peer re-

lations. Developmental Psychology, 32, 435-441.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.435

Knee, C. R., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A., & Patrick, H. (2005).

Self-determination and conflict in romantic relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social P s y chology, 89, 997-1009.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.997

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of

self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1-62). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995).

Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis.

Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology, 68, 518-530.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518

Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004).

Autonomy and competence in German and American university stu-

dents: A comparative study based on self-determination theory.

Journal of Educational Psycholo gy, 96, 68-84.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.68

Losier, G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1994). The temporal relationship be-

tween perceived competence and self-determined motivation. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 793-801.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9923014

Lucas, R. E., & Dyrenforth, R. S. (2006). Does the existence of social

relationships matter for subjective well-being? In K. D. Vohs, & E. J.

Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and

interpersonal processes (pp. 254-273). New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

Matsushima, R., & Shiomi, K. (2003). Developing a scale of self-effi-

cacy in personal relationships for adolescents. Psychological Reports,

92, 177-184.

Miller, T. Q., Smith, T. W., Turner, C. W., Guijarro, M. L., & Hallet, A.

J. (1996). A meta-analytic review of research on hostility and physi-

cal health. Psycholo gi c a l Bulletin, 119, 322-348.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.322

O’Connor, D. B., Archer, J., & Wu, F. W. C. (2001). Measuring ag-

gression: Self-reports, partner reports, and responses to provoking

scenarios. Aggr es si v e Behavior, 27, 79-101. doi:10.1002/ab.2

Okada, R. (2005). Development of a friendship motivation scale in the

framework of the self-determination theory. Japanese Journal of

Personality, 14, 101-112. doi:10.2132/personality.14.101

Okada, R. (2006). Effects of autonomous friendship motivation on

self-disclosure and adjustment. Japanese Journal of Personality, 15,

52-54. doi:10.2132/personality.15.52

Okada, R. (2007). Motivational analysis of academic help-seeking:

Self-determination in adolescents’ friendship. Psychological Reports,

100, 1000-1012. doi:10.2466/pr0.100.3.1000-1012

Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’

perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs,

and engagement. Journal of Educational P s ycholo gy, 99, 83-98.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83

Richard, J. F., & Schneider, B. H. (2005). Assessing friendship motiva-

tion during preadolescence and early adolescence. Journal of Early

Adolescence, 25, 367-385. doi:10.1177/0272431605276930

Ryan, A. M., & Shim, S. S. (2006). Social achievement goals: The

nature and consequences of different orientations toward social com-

petence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1246-1263.

doi:10.1177/0146167206289345

Sénecal, C., Julien, E., & Guay, F. (2003). Role conflict and academic

procrastination: A self-determination perspective. European Journal

of Social Psychology, 33, 135-145. doi:10.1002/ejsp.144

Shahar, G., Henrich, C. C., Blatt, S. J., & Ryan, R. (2003). Interper-

sonal relatedness, self-definition, and their motivational orientation

during adolescence: A theoretical and empirical integration. Devel-

opmental Psychology, 3 9 , 470-483. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.470

Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of

self-determination in 3 life domains: The role of parents’ and teach-

ers’ autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 589-

604. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y

Twenge, J. M. (2006). When does social rejection lead to aggression?

The influences of situations, narcissism, emotion, and replenishing

connections. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.),

The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bully-

ing (pp. 201-212). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Yamamoto, M., Matsui, Y., & Yamanari, Y. (1982). The structure of

perceived aspects of the self. Japanese Journal of Educational Psy-

chology, 30, 64-68.