A Good Friend is Hard to Find: Friendship Among Adolescents With Disabilities

Abstract

We asked 27 Euro American teens ages 16 to 17 with developmental disabilities in Los Angeles to describe friendships. Eleven characteristics of friendship reported in the research literature (similarity, proximity, transcending context, companionship, reciprocity, mutuality, intimacy, support, trust/loyalty, conflict management, and stability) were mentioned by at least some teens. However, most teens focused on companionship, doing activities across contexts, similarity in interests/personality, sheer proximity, and stability. Gender did not influence number or types of themes reported. Teens with higher IQ/Vineland Communication scores mentioned more friendship themes and were less positive about their friendships. Most teens reported some satisfying friendships, and friendships between peers with developmental disability usually were more stable and positive than friendships with typically developing peers.

Parent and Teacher Perspectives on Friendships and Social Interactions of Secondary Students With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

“…Second, the participants' definitions of friendship for secondary students with significant intellectual and developmental disability focused on the components of friendship that are central to children's friendships, specifically proximity, transcending context, and companionship, rather than a broader range of characteristics, such as mutuality and intimacy, typical in friendships of adolescents and adults without disabilities (Bukowski et al, 1996;Matheson et al, 2007). This contrasts previous findings which indicated that parents may consider relationships between students with and without ASD to be friendship when mutuality and intimacy are present (Kuo et al, 2011).…”

“…We used the 11 components identified by Matheson et al (2007): proximity, similarity, transcending context (enacted in multiple environments), companionship, reciprocity (give-and-take relationship), mutuality (chosen by both individuals), help/support, conflict management, stability, trust/loyalty, and intimacy/disclosure. All definitions were independently coded by the first author and a trained graduate student, discussed until agreement, presented to the research team, and discussed with the peer debriefer (second author).…”

“…Matheson, Olsen and Weisner (2007) identified 11 components of friendship most commonly reported in extant research in developmental psychology: proximity, similarity, transcending context (enacted in multiple environments), companionship, reciprocity (give-and-take relationship), mutuality (chosen by both individuals), help/support, conflict management, stability, trust/loyalty, and intimacy/disclosure. The first four components are characteristic of children's friendships; the other components become more salient in friendships during adolescence and beyond (Matheson et al, 2007).…”

“…In a study of placements of almost 40,000 students in 15 states who participated in statewide accountability systems by completing an alternate assessment, the majority of such students (93%) received services in separate settings (Kleinert et al, 2015). The dearth of time with peers presents an inherent barrier to friendships because proximity and shared experiences are among the most important preconditions for friendships (Staub, 1998;Matheson et al, 2007;Thompson & Grace, 2001). If students do not share time and space, they will be less likely to develop friendships.…”

“…Direct support from parents and teachers appears to be a critical factor when students with IDD have developed and maintained friendships with peers without disabilities (Bauminger & Shulman, 2003;Calder, Hill, & Pellicano, 2012;Cuckle & Wilson, 2002;Matheson et al, 2007). As precursors to the development of friendships, parents and teachers increased the prevalence of social interaction opportunities between students with and without IDD and taught students to be more successful during such social interactions (Author, 2012;Carter, Asmus, & Moss, 2013).…”