Interviewers were clinical psychology graduate students and post-bachelor research assistants. They included four Black women who conducted 13% of the interviews, one Black man (2% of interviews), five White women (47% of interviews), three White men (25% of interviews), and one woman of unidentified ethnicity (11% of interviews). No attempt was made to match the sex and race of interviewers and interviewees. Interviewers were trained in general interviewing skills and on administering the PSI. This included reviewing the purpose of the PSI, observing a sample interview, and practicing the interview in pairs and in a group. Clinical psychology graduate students supervised the interviewers by reviewing audiotapes of practice interviews and interviews conducted in the schools. Interviewers were not approved to conduct interviews until they had demonstrated their competence based on completing at least three practice interviews that were recorded and reviewed by supervisors, who provided them with written feedback. Interviewers also received feedback based on recordings of at least their first three interviews with participants.

Interviews were conducted in classrooms or other spaces in the schools during the school day and lasted approximately one hour. Interviewers suspended the interview if another person came into the room to maintain participants’ privacy. The order of presenting the situations was randomized across participants. The focus of the current study was on the goals that participants generated for each situation. Interviewers restated the situation, including details provided by the participant such as the other person’s name and actions, and then asked, “What would be your most important goal? How would you want it to work out or end?” Follow-up questions asked students to explain the reason they identified each goal. Interviewers asked students to report additional goals until the student indicated they could think of no other goals. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and coded. A minimum of 20% of interviews were verified for transcription accuracy and 20% or more of all interviews were coded twice to evaluate inter-rater reliability.

The research team conducted open coding whereby several researchers read through the goals and identified broad categories. The resulting categories were triangulated with a priori categories of social goals developed in previous studies, including goals related to conflicts with friends (Rose & Asher, 1999), broader goals involving personal striving (Ewart et al., 2002), and goals suggested by prior qualitative research (author reference). Based on this review, a priori goals included relationship-maintenance, moral, tension reduction, instrumental-control, revenge, self-defense, sympathy, approval seeking, self-improvement, and competitive striving. During the triangulation process, several categories were combined, and a priori categories that were not supported by the open coding process were removed. A coding manual was developed that gave examples of each code from the pilot studies. See Table 1 for the final set of codes and their definitions. After coding was completed, transcripts were audited by experienced qualitative researchers to determine whether codes were appropriate.

Coders were clinical psychology graduate students who completed training that included reviewing a coding manual and coding examples from the pilot study. Standards for training were developed by two independent coding experts who were involved in the development of the interview and coding. Coding standards were based on codes assigned by both coders, or those agreed upon following discussion by the expert coders. Coders did not begin coding until they achieved reliability based on a kappa of .40 or greater and 80% or higher agreement between coders (Hartmann, 1977). Three coders rated each goal identified by participants. Final codes were assigned based on agreement by at least two of the three coders. Overall, acceptable inter-rater reliability was achieved between coders (kappas = .525 – .883). All three coders agreed 67% of the time and two of three coders agreed on the remaining 31%.

Instrumental-control goals involved participants’ efforts to gain control over the situation to meet their own needs. This was the most frequently mentioned theme, with 75% and 78% of students generating at least one instrumental-control goal in the close friend and peer situations, respectively. Some students stated that they wanted to control the relationship and prevent future conflicts in the close friend situation by no longer sharing secrets with the close friend. One male student said, “I’ll just tell him, ‘I’m not gon’ tell you nothing personal like that no more.’” Other students’ goals were to prevent the friend from spreading their secrets. A female student explained:

Several students mentioned goals that involved receiving a sincere apology from their friend. One male student stated that after an apology “everything would go back to normal.” Others said their goal would be to stop talking to their friend or end the friendship. For example, a female student said, “I probably wouldn’t be her friend. . . Because I don’t want to hang out with anybody that talks behind my back.” Several others indicated that a primary goal was to stop the specific problem. For example, one female student’s goal was that “There will be no more rumors about me or just everything just comes to an end.”

Several students reported similar goals for the peer situation. Some wanted to receive an apology, like one female student who said, “At the end, I want her to look me in my face and apologize to me.” Some indicated that an apology would resolve the situation because the provocateur did not have malintent. As one female student explained, “He didn’t really mean it. He was just trying to get to me.” In contrast to the close friend situation, few students mentioned repairing the relationship with the provocateur in the peer situation. Rather, some students indicated that they would not want further communication with the peer. Many students simply wanted to stop the peer from saying disrespectful things about them. One female adolescent’s goal was “for her to stop saying stuff about other people family and mine. . .’Cause if she says nothing else about everybody else family, then maybe she’ll stop get to fighting with people over this stuff.” In other words, preventing the peer from saying disrespectful things about others’ families might prevent fighting. Although preventing fighting was not a common explanation for instrumental-control goals in the close friend situation, multiple students reported that they wanted to gain control over the peer situation so that the conflict would not lead to a physical fight. Some suggested that a physical fight was inevitable if the situation continued, like this female student: “Because if she doesn’t forget about it and she just keeps talking about [it], it’s just gonna lead to bigger problems.” Several students implied that the situation could cause them to become so angry that they would fight their peer. As one female student said, “Imma get more mad and want to fight her.” Others stated that they might feel it was necessary to fight the provocateur to stand up for themselves and their family. In other words, fighting might be a final effort for adolescents to achieve their goal of controlling the situation.

Relationship maintenance goals involved wanting to maintain or improve the relationship or friendship with the other person, including specific aspects (e.g., trust). Over half (53.8%) of the students identified a relationship maintenance goal in the close friend situation. When discussing goals to repair or maintain their relationship with the friend who provoked them, students cited the length of the friendship as a reason to maintain the relationship, including a female student whose goal was as follows: “That we can still be friends. Because we’ve, like, been friends for a long time…Because she’s like my sister, and if we are not friends anymore, I don’t know what I would do.” Students did not want to lose a friend they had been friends with for a long time, or someone they considered to be one of their closest friends. A male student said, “I only have a few friends so he’s one of my closest friends so I wouldn’t want to lose that friendship with him.” Students also reported that they would still care about their friend even after the conflict. One female student said, “So she can know that I still love her and, and, I still want to be friends even though you might have told a lot of people.” Some students thought that maintaining the relationship would prevent future conflicts. They reported that they did not want to hold grudges or stay angry at a friend, and they did not want to create enemies. For example, a male student said, “if he was my friend for a long time, I would want him to still be my friend instead of being enemies.” Many students suggested that their sense of self or identity was related to having low conflict in their social relationships. One female student explained, “I just don’t want to be known as the person who, they, can like they can get mad easily.”

Some mentioned that trust was very important in their relationships. They reported that they wanted to repair the trust in their friendship and for their friend to prove that they were trustworthy again, like this female student: “I probably would want us to be friends again and probably make her do something that would – maybe I would trust her again.” Finally, some students wanted to maintain some level of friendship or relationship with the other person but expected some aspects of the friendship to be different. For example, one female student said:

In the peer situation, about 29% of students identified a relationship maintenance goal. In contrast to the close friend situation, none mentioned a need to trust the peer provocateur. Students did, however, reference the length of the relationship as a reason to maintain it. Similarly, students mentioned wanting to avoid “drama,” future conflicts, or having “enemies.” Adolescents generally indicated that they would want a peaceful resolution to the conflict, like this male student who said, “I don’t want to start any fights or nothing.” Even if they are not friends with the other person, students reported that they wanted to be “friendly” with them, such as this female student: “Um… I probably want us to be sorta friends…She don’t say nothing to me, I won’t say nothing to her. Hi, bye, how you doing? That’s it.”

Maintain image and reputation/self-defense was represented in open coding and subsumed three a priori categories: approval-seeking, competitive striving, and self-defense. Differentiating between image and reputation versus self-defense was difficult because most students perceived that maintaining a certain image was self-protective. These categories were therefore merged. This category included goals seeking to protect or improve how oneself is viewed by others through damage control, approval seeking, or self-defense tactics. Whereas 22% of students identified this goal in the close friend situation, only 5% did so in the peer situation. In the close friend situation, several students reported that their goal was to maintain their privacy in order to protect or repair their image. Some wanted to make others believe that the private information was not true, like one male adolescent who wanted to “make sure people knew they were lies.” Others wanted to correct or control the spread of false information. As one female student said, “instead of it expanding and spreading, just try to contain it so that it would eventually wear off easier.” Several students had goals to protect themselves and stop criticism by getting others to move past what happened. One female student stated: “I just want everybody to accept the fact that if it was an embarrassing that it happens and it’s over.” In the peer situation, students also reported wanting to protect themselves by maintaining the privacy of their secrets. For example, one female student said, “I wouldn’t really want the whole school to know my personal business.” Other goals involved reducing criticism, such as a male student who said, “I wouldn’t want anybody criticizing [me].”

Conflict avoidance goals were aimed at preventing escalation of the situation. A conflict avoidance goal was mentioned by 5% of students in the close friend situation, and 17% in the peer situation. In the close friend situation, students wanted to avoid actions that would lead to more conflict. For example, a male student said that they would avoid saying anything to their friend because “I don’t want it to just start up again.” Several youths said they wanted to stop the situation from escalating to a physical fight. One female student’s goal was “not to hit them” and a male adolescent wanted it to end “not in a fight… verbal or physical.” Similarly, in the peer situation, students reported that they would try to avoid the other person to prevent further conflicts. One female student wanted to “not deal with that person anymore… so I wouldn’t start any more problems with that person.” Students also reported wanting to avoid more conflict with the peer. One female student stated that their goal was “me and her not arguing… arguing is really not worth it, really.” Also as in the close friend situation, students wanted to avoid escalation to a physical fight. Some reported that they wanted to avoid fighting because it did not align with their identity. One female student explained, “Because I don’t, I’m not a fighting person. I wouldn’t like to fight, fight people.” Others thought a peaceful resolution would more effectively resolve the conflict, like a male adolescent who wanted “to solve the problem peacefully… because like, like I said before fighting really isn’t the answer to anything.”

Seek more information involved goals to obtain more information about the circumstances or figure out why it occurred. This goal was generated by about 11% and 10% of students in the close friend and peer situations, respectively. In the close friend situation, students wanted to learn why their friend shared the secret. As a male adolescent said, “My most important goal would be to find out why they…felt like they needed to tell a personal thing that I told them.” Some students wanted to figure out why it happened so they could continue being close friends. For example, a female student reported that their goal was “for her to tell me a reason why she did it so I can trust her more.” In the peer situation, participants also wanted to understand the motivation of the peer. Some suggested that there might be a reason for the peer to tease them. One female student said they would confront the peer: “Ask her, ‘What did I do [to] you to make you say that about my momma?’” A few students indicated that seeking more information might prevent the provocateur from teasing others about their family. As a male student explained, “I’d want to know why he’d talked bad about my parents – family… He would think about what he’s done and not do it again.”

Revenge goals included goals to get even, harm, or punish the other person, including through interpersonal means or by getting the other person in trouble with a third party. Although only 4% of students generated a revenge goal in the close friend situation, over 16% did so in the peer situation. In the close friend situation, students discussed revenge as a way to get back at their friend, such as a male student who wanted their friend to “get in trouble” because “he’s really not a friend if he’s spread a rumor about me.” A few students reported that they wanted to get even with the provocateur by making him or her understand how they felt. For example, a male student reported:

Students also generated goals to get even in the peer situation. For example, one female student said “I want her to hurt like it probably hurt me, it might hurt me… If my feelings are hurt, your feelings should be hurt 10 times worse than mines.” Students also mentioned goals related to getting justice. For example, a female student said: “I would want her to get what she deserves out of being rude… Because she, she just walks around being mean to people for no reason.” Multiple participants said they would want to get back at the other person so that the person would gain perspective and change their behavior. For example, one female student listed revenge as a goal because “I would want her to know how I felt the way she was treating me. So hopefully she would stop doing it to others, including me, so nobody else has to feel the way that I did.” Some students believed that getting revenge would prevent future conflict. For example, one male student’s goal was to get the perpetrator in trouble: “Him getting caught by a teacher… so he won’t do it to anyone else.”

Tension reduction goals involved reducing negative emotions, including anger, worry, or other distress. About 10% of students identified at least one tension reduction goal in the close friend and peer situations. In the close friend situation, some students wanted to avoid getting angry. A female student explained, “[I] Try not to let it bother me a lot… Because I don’t wanna just get mad over anything.” Several students reported that they would not want to worry about the conflict or that they did not consider the situation to be a major problem that needed to be addressed. For example, one female student said, “Well, I’d be like, ‘It’s okay, ‘cause I know that you can’t hold secrets in. And it’s really not a big deal.’” Students also thought that reducing tension would prevent conflict and stop others from talking about it, like this female student: “Well a goal would be to not like, bring any tension. To deal with it calmly.” A male student wanted to show others that “no one can really get to me.” They explained “if people think that can get to you, they will just keep trying until they finally do.” In the peer situation, students also wanted to reduce or eliminate their distress or worry about the situation. They often rationalized this goal because the disrespectful statement was not true. For example, a female student said that their goal was to “make sure I don’t let it get to me… because I know it’s not true.” Some students aimed to behave as though the conflict did not occur to avoid tension, like a female student who said they wanted to “brush it off and whatever happens just pretend that it didn’t even happen… I don’t want to like carry it with me after that.”

Moral goals emphasized doing the right or moral thing and teaching the other person that his or her actions were wrong. Although some revenge goals also touched on aspects of morals, these categories differed in their intent. Whereas revenge goals emphasized getting back at the other person to harm them or get even, moral goals involved the provocateur learning that their behavior caused harm, but not necessarily experiencing harm or hurt. Moral goals were identified by about 2% of students in the close friend situation, and 7% in the peer situation. In the close friend situation, several thought that the provocateur might not have understood the consequences of their actions, like this female student: “Sometimes people don’t realize that they’re hurting others until, you know, they get told that… ‘You know, I didn’t like what you did.’ And maybe they stop doing whatever.” In the peer situation, students also wanted the provocateur to realize the harm they were causing to others. One female student’s goal was “to have somebody let him know that what he said was not nice and that he shouldn’t do that…That way nobody else ever has to feel the way that he made me feel.” Although infrequent, a female adolescent emphasized that the peer needed to learn to respect others because being disrespectful could have serious consequences: “Because if we didn’t have respect for each other, we’ll probably be fighting all the time, and it wouldn’t be right, it’ll, it’ll be a blood—a blood bath.”

A small number of students wanted to avoid trouble with authority figures in both situations. For instance, in the close friend situation one female student said that her goals was, “for this not to show up in my record…Um, because at times and situations like this, I have a vibe that I might get in a fight or somethin’, and I don’t want for that to be on my record.” Similarly, in the peer situation a male adolescent wanted to avoid serious trouble that might result from conflict, saying, “I don’t feel like going to court.” Other students did not mention a specific authority figure but reported wanting to avoid getting in trouble in general.