My buddies better by imagining how things look from their perspective.” and “I normally have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.” Participants rated products on a 5-point scale (1 = false to five = pretty true) to indicate the extent to which the items described them. Items have been averaged to type an empathy composite score. For the current study, reliability coefficients for adolescents’ and their friends’ ratings had been .83 and .78, respectively. Intimacy and conflict management competence–Intimacy competence was assessed by the disclosure (7 products) and support (7 items) subscales from Buhrmester’s (1990) Adolescent Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (AICQ). Two example items are “How good are you at telling men and women private things about yourself?” and “How superior are you currently at creating a person really feel far better after they are unhappy or sad?” Conflict management competence was assessed by exactly the same questionnaire’s conflict management subscale (7 things). One example item is “How great are you at resolving disagreements in ways that make issues much better alternatively of worse?” Participants rated products on a 5-point scale (1 = poor at this to five = particularly fantastic at this) to indicate the extent to which the things described them. Corresponding items were averaged to kind the intimacy and conflict management composite scores. For the existing study, reliability coefficients for adolescents’ and their friends’ intimacy competence have been .92 and .91, respectively. Reliability coefficients for adolescents’ and their friends’ conflict management competence had been .83 and .81, respectively. Friendship closeness and discord–Participants’ perceptions of friendship closeness and discord have been assessed with all the Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI; Furman Buhrmester, 1985). This 30-item questionnaire measured 5 functions of relational closeness (companionship, intimate disclosure, emotional assistance, approval, and satisfaction) and 5 features of relational discord (conflict, criticism, dominance, stress, and exclusion). A single closeness item was “How satisfied are you together with your partnership with your partner?” One discord item was “How generally do you and this person argue with each other?” Participants rated how much/often every feature occurred in their partnership on a scale from 1 (By no means or hardly at all) to five (Often or exceptionally considerably). Composite Diosmetin indices for closeness and discord dimensions had been computed by averaging across the respective subscales. For the current study, reliability coefficients for adolescents’ and their friends’ friendship closeness scores have been .95 and .94, respectively. Reliability coefficients for adolescents’ and their friends’ friendship discord scores had been .84 and .82, respectively. Strategy of Analyses To account for the dyadic nature on the information, we restructured the data prior to conducting any analyses. Simply because no clear criterion existed to distinguish dyad members (as opposed to distinguishable pairs which include parent-child or opposite sex dyads), the designation of participants as “Friend A” and “Friend B” within the information set would be arbitrary. As opposed to assigning roles arbitrarily, we followed Kenny et al.’s (2006) suggestion and adopted the “double-entry method” to restructure our data set. Particularly, each member’s score was entered twice, once inside the column for Buddy A and once more PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21185336 within the column for Pal B (see Appendix A to get a hypothetical data set). Using the restructured information, both Friend A and Friend B would have identical indicates.