Next Article in Journal
A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness of a Theory of Planned Behavior-Based Educational Intervention in Reducing Internet Addiction Among Adolescent Girls in Southern Iran
Previous Article in Journal
Suicidal Ideation in U.S. Adolescents Exposed to Neighborhood Violence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Adolescents
Volume 5
Issue 3
10.3390/adolescents5030032
adolescents-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Multi-Method Assessment of the Friendship Adjustment Trade-Offs of Social Perspective-Taking Among Adolescents

by
Rhiannon L. Smith
1,* and
Kaitlin M. Flannery
2
1
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
2
Department of Psychology, The State University of New York at Cortland, Cortland, NY 13045, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adolescents 2025, 5(3), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5030032
Submission received: 2 February 2025 / Revised: 9 June 2025 / Accepted: 1 July 2025 / Published: 8 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Adolescent Health and Mental Health)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Developmental theories posit that social perspective-taking, the social-cognitive process of adopting another person’s viewpoint to understand the person’s thoughts and feelings, is important for youths’ successful functioning in close relationships, yet this idea has received little empirical attention. Guided by a social-emotional adjustment trade-offs framework, the current study tested the proposal that adolescents’ (N = 300, M age = 14.76) social perspective-taking would be linked with positive aspects of friendship in terms of friendship quality but also maladaptive aspects of friendship, namely co-rumination (i.e., excessive problem discussion between friends). This study used a multi-method design including surveys, laboratory tasks, and observations and extended past work by considering multiple dimensions of social perspective-taking including ability, tendency, and accuracy. Results provided support for friendship adjustment trade-offs of social perspective-taking.

1. Introduction

Friendships are central relationships in the lives of youth, particularly in adolescence [1,2,3]. Youths’ social competence skills contribute to their successful friendships and therefore warrant attention [4]. This study examines social perspective-taking as one aspect of social competence proposed to be important for friendships.
Social perspective-taking is the social-cognitive process of adopting another person’s viewpoint to understand the person’s thoughts and feelings [5]. Much of past research on youths’ social perspective-taking has focused on their ability to take another’s perspective (e.g., [6,7,8]), and other dimensions of social perspective-taking largely have been ignored. In addition, although past research has examined the benefits of social perspective-taking for aspects of social functioning such as peer acceptance [9,10] and prosocial behavior [9,10,11,12], benefits for youths’ friendships rarely have been investigated. Moreover, little is known about potential costs of social perspective-taking. The current study assessed multiple dimensions of social perspective-taking, including ability, tendency, and accuracy. This study tested the proposal that social perspective-taking would be associated with friendship adjustment trade-offs in that social perspective-taking would be related to both positive and maladaptive aspects of friendship functioning. In particular, the current study proposes that social perspective-taking would be related to positive friendship quality but also co-rumination (i.e., excessive problem discussion between friends).

1.1. Social Perspective-Taking as a Multidimensional Construct

The bulk of past research has examined a single aspect of children’s and adolescents’ social perspective-taking, namely social perspective-taking ability. Social perspective-taking ability refers to whether a person is capable of considering others’ perspectives as separate from their own viewpoint [5]. Young children have not yet developed this ability (egocentrically focus on their own perspective), and it continues to develop in adolescence [5,13]. Early work in this area was based on Selman’s stage theory and documented youths’ progression through developmental stages of social perspective-taking ability (e.g., see [5] for a review, [14,15]). Subsequent research commonly dichotomized ability using pass/fail tasks to determine whether or not the youth is capable of social perspective-taking or related social understanding aptitudes such as theory of mind (e.g., [16,17]). Other work has used hypothetical situations to measure general level of ability (e.g., [6,8,18]). This type of research measures the highest level of social perspective-taking performance of which the youth is capable, but does not consider the youths’ typical application of these skills (i.e., their tendency to engage in social perspective-taking). Although this work has provided critical information regarding the development of social perspective-taking ability, a more nuanced approach which considers multiple dimensions of social perspective-taking is necessary for moving the field forward.
Indeed, researchers have called for attention to additional aspects of social perspective-taking apart from ability [19,20,21]. In the current research, social perspective-taking is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that includes the ability to engage in social perspective-taking, the tendency or propensity to do so, and the accuracy with which one is able to correctly infer the specific content of another person’s thoughts and feelings.
It has been argued that a person’s social perspective-taking ability, or capacity for understanding others’ thoughts and feelings, is distinct from their tendency to actually make attempts at understanding others by actively imagining things from the other person’s point of view [21,22]. In other words, a person may not necessarily apply or put to use the skills of which they are capable. For example, it is easy to imagine an individual who egocentrically focuses on their own opinions or feelings despite possessing the ability to consider those of the other person. Limited research has assessed both ability and tendency. One past study utilized a sample comprising 13 high school students selected for participation based on teacher-nominated difficulties with social perspective-taking or symptoms of social anxiety or Asperger’s and 18 adults who were identified as being especially skilled at social perspective-taking [23]. Analyses were conducted collapsing across the two groups. Results indicated that social perspective-taking ability and tendency were only moderately correlated, providing support for the distinction between these constructs. However, given that the sample of youth in this past study was limited to youth with social perspective-taking difficulties and was combined with a skilled adult sample, it is important to assess the relation between ability and tendency across adolescents with varying levels of ability.
Developmental theories posit that social perspective-taking is important for youths’ close relationships such as friendships [24,25,26]. However, research rarely has examined social perspective-taking in the context of youths’ actual relationships. Instead, hypothetical situations involving unknown targets are commonly used to assess social perspective-taking ability (e.g., [6,18]). Motivated by developmental theories, researchers have highlighted the need for studies that consider social perspective-taking in the context of youths’ real-life social relationships [21,27]. Therefore, the current study assesses adolescents’ social perspective-taking ability using a hypothetical situation as well as their tendency to engage in social perspective-taking in their real-life friendships.
Also in contrast to social perspective-taking ability is social perspective-taking accuracy. Whereas ability refers to whether an individual is developmentally capable of considering others’ perspectives as separate from one’s own, accuracy refers to the degree to which a person correctly infers the specific content of another person’s thoughts and feelings. Previous research has highlighted the distinction between the presence of social perspective-taking (ability) and the accuracy of one’s social perspective-taking [28]. An individual may have the ability to take another person’s perspective but may incorrectly infer the other person’s thoughts or feelings. For example, an adolescent may have a fully developed ability to consider other people’s perspectives but over- or under-estimate how much their friend cares about something. Accuracy in discerning others’ thoughts and feelings may be important for social relationships, (see [29,30] for relevant work among adults); however, research on accuracy has focused broadly on social skill training (see [31] for a review), and no studies have examined social perspective-taking accuracy in youths’ friendships. The current research aims to fill this gap.
The present study considers multiple dimensions of adolescents’ social perspective-taking including ability, tendency (self- and friend-reported), and accuracy and examines the relations among these dimensions. We have previously reported that ability and self-reported tendency are distinct [32], but associations including friend-reported tendency and accuracy have not previously been tested.

1.2. Friendship Adjustment Trade-Offs of Social Perspective-Taking

Social perspective-taking generally is considered to be an adaptive, positive aspect of social functioning that affords numerous benefits for adjustment. Indeed, research has shown that youths’ social perspective-taking is associated with a host of positive social adjustment indicators including peer-rated social competence [6], acceptance of others’ differences [33], better conflict negotiation strategies [34], greater peer acceptance [9,10], less peer rejection [8,9], less loneliness [8], and greater prosocial behavior, both directly [10] and through associations with sympathy [35].
Given its crucial role in social relationships, we hypothesized that social perspective-taking would be associated with positive friendship functioning in terms of friendship quality. Friendship quality has long been considered an important indicator of youths’ social-emotional adjustment [36]. Only one previous study has examined youths’ social perspective-taking in friendships and associations with friendship quality [21]. Although this past study found a positive association between social perspective-taking and friendship quality, an important limitation of the study was that only youths’ self-reported social perspective-taking tendency was assessed. The current study provides an extension by examining associations of social perspective-taking ability, self-reported tendency, friend-reported tendency, and accuracy with friendship quality.
It may be that youths’ ability to engage in social perspective-taking does little to benefit their friendships if they do not apply that ability in their interactions with friends. In contrast, a greater tendency to actively attempt to take a friend’s perspective may allow for mutual understanding and youths feeling as though the friend really “gets” them. Accuracy also may be important for friendship quality given past research among adults indicating that social perspective-taking accuracy was related to enhanced communication in relationships [29] and better ability to provide social support to relationship partners [30]. In the current research, it was hypothesized that social perspective-taking tendency and accuracy, but not ability, would be related to greater positive friendship quality.
Importantly, however, social perspective-taking may carry surprising costs as well. For example, past research has demonstrated links with greater sensitivity to teacher criticism [37] and maladaptive perfectionism [38]. Another study by Hoglund and colleagues [39] found that the impact of peer rejection and neglect on later maladjustment was exacerbated for children with more advanced social perspective-taking skills. The authors suggested that social perspective-taking skills may allow children to better recognize the peer maltreatment, leading them to feel worse over time. Social perspective-taking also may be used for Machiavellian purposes such as to manipulate others [40] or relationally aggress against them [31,41,42]. Accordingly, it is imperative to examine potential costs of social perspective-taking in addition to benefits.
In line with this idea and guided by Rose and Rudolph’s [43] theoretical framework which posits that youths’ peer relationship styles carry adjustment trade-offs, Smith and Rose [21] previously proposed that social perspective-taking would be associated with social-emotional adjustment trade-offs. Specifically, the study tested the idea that social perspective-taking simultaneously would be associated with benefits for friendship quality but would carry costs by promoting increased co-rumination. Co-rumination refers to excessive discussion of problems that involves rehashing, speculating, and focusing on negative affect [44] and has been considered in previous research as important for youths’ broader social-emotional adjustment [45]. Social perspective-taking tendency may lead to co-rumination because youth with a greater tendency to take their friend’s perspective may be especially understanding of the friend’s plight and may be particularly inclined to speculate about the possible causes and consequences of the problem. Additionally, social perspective-taking accuracy may be linked with co-rumination. Previous research found that social perspective-taking accuracy was associated with greater skills at providing social support [30], and this may extend even to maladaptive forms of social support such as co-rumination.
In support of these ideas, results from the previous study by Smith and Rose [21] indicated that social perspective-taking tendency was associated with co-rumination. However, the study was limited in that it only assessed one dimension of social perspective-taking (i.e., tendency) and relied exclusively on self-report measures. The present research extended this past work by assessing multiple dimensions of social perspective-taking and employing a multi-method design that included a hypothetical scenario test of social perspective-taking ability, self-report of social perspective-taking tendency, friend-reported social perspective-taking tendency, an objective test of social perspective-taking accuracy, self-reported co-rumination and laboratory observation of co-rumination. It was hypothesized that social perspective-taking tendency and accuracy, but not ability, would be related to greater co-rumination.

1.3. Gender Differences

Past research has demonstrated consistent gender differences indicating that girls have more advanced social perspective-taking compared with boys (e.g., [6,8,18,21,32,46,47]). In addition, girls report greater positive friendship quality compared to boys [3] and engage in co-rumination more than boys [3,44]. Accordingly, in the current study, we hypothesize gender differences favoring girls in social perspective-taking, friendship quality, and co-rumination. Although mean-level gender differences are expected, it is unknown whether social perspective-taking would be differently associated with friendship quality or co-rumination based on gender. As such, we do not put forth specific hypotheses regarding gender moderation but examine potential gender moderation effects on an exploratory basis.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The participants were 300 adolescents (178 girls and 122 boys in 150 same-sex friend dyads). The majority of participants were ages 12–18 (two participants were 11 and one participant was 19). The mean age of the sample was 14.76 (SD = 1.88). Participants were recruited by means of announcements made in schools, announcements posted on online news boards, and flyers posted in the local community. Interested youth or their parents contacted the researchers to arrange an appointment for participation. Youth visited a University laboratory with a friend. They were asked to choose a best or close same-sex friend who was their age and not a relative. For participants under 18 years of age, parental consent was obtained and youth also provided their own assent. Participants who were at least 18 years of age provided their own written consent. The ethnic–racial composition of the sample was 82% White, 7.7% Hispanic or Latino(a), 4.7% bi- or multi-racial, 2.7% Black or African American, and 2.7% Asian.

2.2. Procedure

Participants completed all study tasks and questionnaires during a single laboratory session lasting approximately two hours. Participants were informed they could leave the study at any time; none chose to do so. Participants were ensured that their responses would be kept confidential. Identification numbers were assigned in the data to maintain participant confidentiality.
Participants completed questionnaires in separate rooms, including one that asked them to list a problem they had recently encountered. Then, the friend pairs participated in a conversation task in which they were given 10 min to talk together about the problems they had listed. They were instructed to discuss each friend’s problem. They were also told that they could discuss the problems for as long as they wanted, after which time they could talk about something else or play with a jigsaw puzzle that was provided. Although all friend pairs participated in the conversation task, video recordings of the conversations used to assign observed co-rumination scores were available for 114 of the 150 dyads. In addition, the social perspective-taking ability measure was added midway through the study and was administered to 166 of the 300 participants (M age = 14.64, SD = 1.75; N girls = 98, N boys = 70). Compete data was available for all remaining measures.

2.3. Measures

Social perspective-taking ability: To assess social perspective-taking ability, youth were presented with a hypothetical vignette developed by Bosacki and Astington [6] depicting an ambiguous social interaction among three youths and were asked to describe the reason for one character’s behavior. Two comprehension questions were also included to ensure participants read and understood the story. All participants succeeded at the comprehension questions, and these responses were not used in analyses. In line with recommendations for measuring ability provided by Sackett, Zedeck, and Fogli [48], the researchers instructed the participants to take their time and answer the questions to the very best of their ability.
There is not a “correct” response to the open-ended item used in the current study, and, as such, it does not assess accuracy. Rather, following procedures outlined by Bosacki and colleagues [6,46], responses to the open-ended item were coded on a scale from 0 to 3, with higher scores reflecting more complexity in the ability to engage in social perspective-taking (e.g., attribution and integration of characters’ mental states, including motivations, thoughts, and feelings). In other words, the current measure assesses whether participants attribute mental states to others and integrate multiple perspectives, not what the attributed mental states are/whether they are the “correct” mental states. The second author and a trained research assistant double-coded over 20% of responses to check for reliability (ICC (2, 1) = 0.92). Any disagreements were discussed and agreed upon for the final scores.
Social perspective-taking tendency (self- and friend-reported): Youth completed a 22-item revised version of Smith and Rose’s [21] Social Perspective-Taking questionnaire (assessing their tendency to take the perspective of the friend with whom they participated. Four items that assessed whether the youth reported being “good at” social perspective-taking were dropped due to conceptual overlap with social perspective-taking accuracy. Examples of the retained items include “I try to see things from my friend’s point of view” and “I sometimes try to understand my friend better by imagining how things look from his or her perspective.” Participants indicated how well each item described them using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from does not describe me at all (0) to describes me very well (4). Scores for self-reported social perspective-taking tendency were the mean of the 18 retained items (Cronbach’s α = 0.85).
Youth also reported on their friend’s tendency to engage in social perspective-taking in the friendship. The items from the social perspective-taking questionnaire were reworded to describe the friend. For example, “I try to see things from my friend’s point of view” was reworded as “My friend tries to see things from my point of view.” Participants rated how true each statement was of their friend on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at all true (0) to very true (4). Each participant’s score for friend-reported social perspective-taking tendency was formed using their friend’s responses and was the mean across the same retained 18 items (α = 0.91).
Social perspective-taking accuracy: Participants’ accuracy at discerning their friend’s thoughts and feelings was assessed by calculating agreement on seven items measuring problem salience. Specifically, participants listed a problem they were currently experiencing and rated seven items on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 indicating how salient their problem is (e.g., how upsetting the problem is, how important it is, how hard it will be to solve, how hard it will be to feel better about the problem). An example item is “How upsetting is this problem?” with responses ranging from not at all upsetting (1) to very upsetting (5). These questionnaires were collected from the participants and a research assistant transcribed each participant’s listed problem onto a blank problem salience questionnaire, which was then provided to the participant’s friend. Youths were instructed to read the problem listed by their friend and respond to the seven problem salience items as they thought their friend had responded about their own problem. For each item, a difference score was computed by subtracting the friend’s rating from the participant’s own rating. The absolute values of the difference scores were averaged across the seven items and the resulting means were reverse-coded to create accuracy scores ranging from 1 to 4, so that higher scores reflected greater accuracy in the participant’s attempt at taking the friend’s perspective.
Friendship quality: Participants reported on the quality of their friendship specifically in regard to the friend with whom they participated in the current study. The 22 items from Rose’s [44] revision of Parker and Asher’s [49] Friendship Quality Questionnaire (FQQ) were used to assess positive features of the friendship including validation and caring, help and guidance, companionship and recreation, intimate exchange, emotional closeness, and conflict resolution. An example item is “My friend and I make each other feel important and special.” Youth rated how well each item described the friendship using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at all true (0) to really true (4). Total scores for the measure were the mean item scores (α = 0.95).
Self-reported co-rumination: Self-reported co-rumination was measured using Rose’s [44] Co-Rumination Questionnaire. Items assessed the extent to which youths typically co-ruminate with the friend with whom the youth participated. The scale consists of 27 items assessing aspects of co-rumination including mutual encouragement of problem talk, rehashing problems, speculating about causes and consequences of the problems, and dwelling on negative affect. An example item is “When we talk about a problem that one of us has, we will keep talking even after we both know all of the details about what happened.” Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at all true (1) to really true (5). Self-reported co-rumination scores were the mean of all items (α = 0.95).
Observed co-rumination: The video-recorded conversations about problems were transcribed verbatim, and two research assistants watched the recordings while following along with the written transcripts in order to code the conversations for co-rumination. Following Rose et al. [50] the conversations were rated on the extent to which they reflected co-rumination (i.e., characterized by mutual encouragement of problem talk, rehashing problems, speculating about causes and consequences of the problems, and dwelling on negative affect) using a 5-point Likert scale, which ranged from not at all or very little (1) to very much (5). The two research assistants were trained on the coding system developed by Rose et al. [50] and inter-rater reliability was established. The research assistants separately coded 5 practice videos and met after coding each one to discuss the codes and any discrepancies. Following this training period, the two coders double-coded over 20% of the remaining videos. Inter-rater reliability was strong (ICC = 0.97). Any disagreements were discussed and agreed upon for the final score.

3. Results

3.1. Data Analysis

First, descriptive statistics for all study variables were calculated, including skewness and kurtosis to check the distribution of the data. The data were normally distributed. Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 1. Assumptions including homoscedasticity were met for the analyses. All analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS 30. Multilevel models were conducted using the MIXED procedure.
Because adolescents participated in friend pairs, a multilevel modeling approach for handling nondistinguishable dyads was utilized to take into account nonindependence of scores due to similarity between friends [51]. In these models, individual participants (Level 1) are nested in friendship dyads (Level 2). These models estimate random intercepts and fixed slopes, and the covariance between these random effects is modeled using an unstructured variance–covariance structure. An additional advantage of this approach is that it does not require complete data [51]. Dyadic multilevel models were used for all of the following analyses, with the exception of analyses involving observed co-rumination. The observations of co-rumination were coded at the level of the dyad, and dyadic-level variables cannot serve as dependent variables in multilevel analyses [51,52]. Consequently, a t-test was run in the analysis testing gender differences in observed co-rumination and traditional regression analyses were used to test the associations of social perspective-taking with observed co-rumination. To examine whether the various aspects of social perspective-taking are distinct, associations among the different assessments of social perspective-taking (i.e., self-reported tendency, friend-reported tendency, accuracy, and ability) were analyzed. These results are presented in Table 2. Next, to test the hypothesis that girls would have higher social perspective-taking compared to boys, tests for mean-level gender differences were conducted. These results are presented in Table 3. Finally, analyses were conducted to test the hypothesis that social perspective-taking would be associated with friendship adjustment trade-offs. Specifically, models tested (a) associations of social perspective-taking with friendship quality and (b) associations of social perspective-taking with self-reported and observed co-rumination. These results are presented in Table 4. Although hypotheses were not put forth regarding gender moderation, exploratory analyses tested for potential gender moderation of these effects. These results are described below.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
NMSDSkewKurt
SPT Tendency S-R3002.820.51−0.360.10
SPT Tendency F-R3002.770.62−0.31−0.19
SPT Accuracy3003.030.53−0.891.17
SPT Ability1662.170.60−0.250.44
Friendship Quality3003.120.53−0.810.86
Co-rumination Obs2282.471.240.50−0.75
Co-rumination S-R3002.700.770.02−0.55
Notes. SPT = Social perspective-taking. S-R = Self-Report. F-R = Friend-Report. Obs = Observed.

3.2. Relations Among Dimensions of Social Perspective-Taking

Relations among the various assessments of social perspective-taking were computed, and these results are presented in Table 2. There was a significant positive association between self-reported tendency and friend-reported tendency. Accuracy was significantly and positively associated with friend-reported tendency. The relation between self-reported tendency and accuracy was positive and marginally significant. Ability was unrelated to self- and friend-reported tendency but was significantly and positively related to accuracy.
Table 2. Associations among assessments of social perspective-taking.
Table 2. Associations among assessments of social perspective-taking.
1.2.3.4.
1. SPT Tendency S-R --
2. SPT Tendency F-R 0.38 ***--
3. SPT Accuracy0.11 †0.18 **--
4. SPT Ability0.000.040.19 *--
Notes. Values are standardized coefficients from dyadic multilevel analyses. SPT = Social perspective-taking. S-R = Self-Report. F-R = Friend-Report. † p = 0.072, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

3.3. Gender DIfferences

Analyses testing mean-level gender differences revealed significant differences favoring girls for each social perspective-taking variable. These results are shown in Table 3. Notably, the effects were larger for self- and friend-reported tendency compared to ability and accuracy. Consistent with past research, girls reported higher positive friendship quality than did boys. Girls also self-reported and were observed to engage in more co-rumination compared with boys.
Table 3. Mean-level gender differences.
Table 3. Mean-level gender differences.
M (SD) GirlsM (SD) Boyst Value95% CI
LB, UB		d
SPT Tendency S-R2.98 (0.44)2.58 (0.50)6.54 ***0.28, 0.521.06
SPT Tendency F-R2.96 (0.57)2.50 (0.59)5.91 ***0.30, 0.610.96
SPT Accuracy3.09 (0.49)2.94 (0.58)2.19 *0.02, 0.290.36
SPT Ability2.28 (0.56)2.01 (0.63)2.69 **0.07, 0.470.60
Friendship quality3.30 (0.47)2.87 (0.51)6.18 ***0.29, 0.561.00
Co-rum Obs2.82 (1.30) 1.88 (0.86)6.56 ***0.66, 1.220.81
Co-rum S-R2.91 (0.69)2.38 (0.77)5.77 ***0.35, 0.710.94
Notes. Values are from dyadic multilevel analyses except traditional t-test values for observed co-rumination where the dyad is the unit of analysis. SPT = Social perspective-taking. S-R = Self-Report. F-R = Friend-Report. Co-rum = Co-rumination. Obs = Observed. d = Cohen’s d. CI = Confidence interval. LB = lower bound. UB = upper bound. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

3.4. Friendship Adjustment Trade-Offs of Social Perspective-Taking

To test the hypothesis that social perspective-taking would be associated with both positive and maladaptive friendship features, analyses examined associations of social perspective-taking with friendship quality and co-rumination. Results are presented in Table 4.
First, dyadic multilevel models were run for each of the social perspective-taking predictor variables with friendship quality as the dependent variable. Both self-reported tendency and friend-reported tendency were positively and significantly associated with friendship quality. The association between accuracy and friendship quality was positive and marginally significant. Ability was unrelated to friendship quality.
Next, a multilevel model was run for each of the social perspective-taking variables with self-reported co-rumination as the dependent variable. With the exception of social perspective-taking ability, each social perspective-taking variable was a significant positive predictor of self-reported co-rumination. Then, traditional regression analyses were run for each of the social perspective-taking variables with observed co-rumination as the dependent variable where the dyad is the unit of analysis for observed co-rumination. Social perspective-taking ability and friend-reported social perspective-taking tendency were not significant predictors of observed co-rumination. However, self-reported social perspective-taking tendency and social perspective-taking accuracy were positive predictors of observed co-rumination.
Table 4. Associations of social perspective-taking with friendship quality and co-rumination.
Table 4. Associations of social perspective-taking with friendship quality and co-rumination.
β
DV: Friendship Quality
SPT Tendency S-R0.64 **
SPT Tendency F-R0.43 **
SPT Accuracy0.11 †
SPT Ability−0.05
DV: Co-Rumination Self-Report
SPT Tendency S-R0.34 **
SPT Tendency F-R0.15 *
SPT Accuracy0.12 *
SPT Ability0.06
DV: Observed Co-Rumination
SPT Tendency S-R0.15 *
SPT Tendency F-R0.05
SPT Accuracy0.14 *
SPT Ability0.07
Notes. Values are standardized coefficients from dyadic multilevel analyses except in models with observed co-rumination as the dependent variable where the dyad is the unit of analysis and values are standardized coefficients from traditional regression analyses. SPT = Social perspective-taking. S-R = Self-Report. F-R = Friend-Report. † p = 0.05, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Exploratory analyses tested gender moderation of the effects. The previous models were run with gender and the interaction of gender with the social perspective-taking predictor variable included in the model. Only two significant interactions emerged. First, the interaction of gender with social perspective-taking ability in predicting self-reported co-rumination was significant (B = 0.43, p < 0.05). However, in models run separately for girls and boys, neither effect was statistically significant. Second, the interaction of gender with social perspective-taking accuracy in predicting observed co-rumination was significant (β = −0.88, p < 0.05). Models run separately for girls and boys revealed that social perspective-taking accuracy was a significant positive predictor of observed co-rumination for girls only (girls β = 0.21, p < 0.05; boys β = −0.09, ns).

4. Discussion

Social-cognitive understanding of others is an essential aspect of youths’ social competence and has pervasive impact on social functioning. Getting inside the mind of a relationship partner to imagine what the person is thinking and feeling facilitates smooth social interactions and mutual understanding. The current research examined youths’ social perspective-taking and associations with the quality of their friendships. This study is the first to do so using a multidimensional approach that considers social perspective-taking ability, tendency, and accuracy. Moreover, the present research offers the first multi-method investigation of the friendship adjustment trade-offs of social perspective-taking.
The findings regarding relations among the various assessments of social perspective-taking contribute to understanding social perspective-taking as a multidimensional construct. The most commonly studied dimension, ability, was related only to accuracy in this study; ability was unrelated to tendency. Previous work on general social skills (not specific to social perspective-taking) has distinguished skills (i.e., abilities) from traits (i.e., tendencies; [53]). Specific to social perspective-taking, researchers have similarly previously theorized a distinction between ability and tendency [21,22] and we have previously reported on the distinction between ability and self-reported tendency [32]. The current findings further demonstrate the distinction between ability and friend-reported tendency. Accuracy was related to friend-reported tendency, indicating that when the friend reports that the youth engages in social perspective-taking, the youth tends to also be good at it. Perhaps accurate efforts at social perspective-taking are especially likely to be noticed by a friend. Given the theoretical importance of social perspective-taking for close relationships [24,25,26], it is surprising that few previous studies [21,32] have assessed social perspective-taking tendency in youths’ friendships. The current finding for agreement between self-reports and friend-reports of social perspective-taking provides support for the validity of self-reports for capturing youths’ social perspective-taking in their friendships. This information will be beneficial for researchers in designing future studies for which collecting data from both friends is not possible.
As in previous studies [18,21,32,47], gender differences were found in social perspective-taking such that girls scored higher than did boys. Parent and peer socialization may play a role. For example, parents have been found to discuss the interpersonal context of emotions with daughters more than with sons [54], which may emphasize the importance of attending to and understanding others’ emotions among girls. Further, boys with more stereotypical gender beliefs tend to engage in less social perspective-taking in their friendships [32], suggesting that gendered socialization may influence boys to perceive efforts at understanding friends’ thoughts and feelings as feminine. In addition, boys tend to spend more time in large peer groups whereas girls spend a greater amount of time interacting with friends in dyads [43], which may afford more opportunities to practice social perspective-taking [8,55].
The current findings provide empirical support for the theorized importance of social perspective-taking for youths’ friendships. Youths’ tendency to engage in social perspective-taking in their friendship (as indicated by both self- and friend-report) was significantly related to positive friendship quality. Interestingly, social perspective-taking accuracy was only marginally related to friendship quality. Efforts to understand a friend’s perspective may matter more to the friendship than the youth’s accuracy in identifying the exact content of the friend’s thoughts and feelings. Youths expect friends to be understanding and validating of their experiences [56,57], but understanding the gist may be “good enough” to facilitate positive relationship interactions [58]. Also, our test of social perspective-taking accuracy was a particularly stringent one that required youths to identify the friend’s thoughts and feelings in the absence of nonverbal or conversational cues. Future studies could employ a video recall method used in adult research [59]. With this method, participants rate their own thoughts and feelings at specific points during a videotaped interaction between themselves and a relationship partner, typically a spouse. Participants also rate the spouse’s thoughts and feelings, and the two partners’ ratings are compared for accuracy. This approach allows the participant to gather information about the partner’s mental state using contextual cues.
A major contribution of the current study is the support found for friendship adjustment trade-offs of social perspective-taking. Specifically, social perspective-taking was associated with positive friendship quality but also co-rumination. The current study provides replication of the previous study testing these associations [21] and extends this past study by considering multiple dimensions of social perspective-taking and utilizing a multi-method design that included surveys, laboratory tasks, and observations among a large sample of adolescent youth. Although social perspective-taking has been shown in previous research to carry many benefits (e.g., [9,10,11]), the current findings caution against an unduly optimistic view of social perspective-taking. Further, these findings add to the developmental literature demonstrating that behavioral and social-cognitive styles can simultaneously carry both costs and benefits [43,60,61]. As such, it is imperative that researchers not dichotomize behavioral or social-cognitive styles as wholly positive or entirely negative, but instead take a more nuanced approach that reflects the complexity of effects.
Despite the strengths of the current study, there are also limitations that point to directions for future work. In the present research, social perspective-taking is conceptualized as contributing to friendship adjustment. However, no conclusions may be drawn about causality given the concurrent design, and longitudinal studies are needed. Additionally, this research was conducted with a relatively homogenous sample in terms of race and ethnicity. It will be of interest in future research to test whether the results hold across different racial/ethnic groups, as well as if they hold in cross-group friendships. For friendships in which youth differ from each other in terms of race/ethnicity, efforts at understanding the other person’s perspective and how it may differ from one’s own may be especially important to the success of the friendship.
Our findings have important theoretical and practical implications. The various aspects of social perspective-taking assessed in this study were differentially related to friendship adjustment, pointing to the theoretical importance of conceptualizing social perspective-taking as a multidimensional construct. In terms of practical implications for improving youths’ friendships and overall adjustment, the present findings suggest that interventions aimed at fostering social perspective-taking skills may be insufficient. Efforts also should be made to address how best to apply the skills youths possess, so that social perspective-taking may be used to their benefit rather than detriment.

5. Conclusions

The current results replicate past findings demonstrating that girls have more advanced social perspective-taking skills compared with boys and provide new evidence of distinctions among aspects of social perspective-taking. Having the ability to engage in social perspective-taking does not necessarily mean that youths will tend to employ this ability to make active attempts at understanding a friend’s thoughts and feelings. When they do tend to do so, their efforts have positive implications for the quality of their friendship. However, social perspective-taking is a skill not without costs. In the current study, it was associated with co-rumination (i.e., excessive discussion of problems) in friendships. Attention to potential costs as well as benefits of social-cognitive skills is warranted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.L.S. and K.M.F.; methodology, R.L.S. and K.M.F.; software, R.L.S.; validation, R.L.S. and K.M.F.; formal analysis, R.L.S. and K.M.F.; investigation, R.L.S.; resources, R.L.S.; data curation, R.L.S. and K.M.F.; writing—original draft preparation, R.L.S. and K.M.F.; writing—review and editing, R.L.S. and K.M.F.; visualization, R.L.S.; supervision, R.L.S.; project administration, R.L.S. and K.M.F.; funding acquisition, R.L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. This research was funded by an internal grant from the University of Connecticut awarded to Rhiannon L. Smith.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Connecticut (protocol number H12-118).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from non-minor participants and parents of minor participants, and written assent was obtained from minor participants.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bagwell, C.L.; Schmidt, M.E. Friendships in Childhood and Adolescence; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  2. Güroğlu, B. The power of friendship: The developmental significance of friendships from a neuroscience perspective. Child Dev. Perspect. 2022, 16, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rose, A.J.; Borowski, S.K.; Spiekelman, A.; Smith, R.L. Children’s friendships. In The Handbook of Childhood Social Development, 3rd ed.; Smith, P.K., Hart, C.H., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 487–502. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cillessen, A.H.; Bellmore, A.D. Social skills and social competence in interactions with peers. In The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 393–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Selman, R.L. The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding: Developmental and Clinical Analyses; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bosacki, S.; Astington, J.W. Theory of mind in preadolescence: Relations between social understanding and social competence. Soc. Dev. 1999, 8, 237–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Burack, J.A.; Flanagan, T.; Peled, T.; Sutton, H.M.; Zygmuntowicz, C.; Manly, J.T. Social perspective-taking skills in maltreated children and adolescents. Dev. Psychol. 2006, 42, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Devine, R.T.; Hughes, C. Silent films and strange stories: Theory of mind, gender, and social experiences in middle childhood. Child Dev. 2013, 84, 989–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Caputi, M.; Lecce, S.; Pagnin, A.; Banerjee, R. Longitudinal effects of theory of mind on later peer relations: The role of prosocial behavior. Dev. Psychol. 2012, 48, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oberle, E. Social-emotional competence and early adolescents’ peer acceptance in school: Examining the role of afternoon cortisol. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carlo, G.; Mestre, M.V.; Samper, P.; Tur, A.; Armenta, B.E. Feelings or cognitions? Moral cognitions and emotions as longitudinal predictors of prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2010, 48, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eisenberg, N.; Zhou, Q.; Koller, S. Brazilian adolescents’ prosocial moral judgment and behavior: Relations to sympathy, perspective taking, gender-role orientation, and demographic characteristics. Child Dev. 2001, 72, 518–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hollarek, M.; Lee, N.C. Current understanding of developmental changes in adolescent perspective taking. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022, 45, 101308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Selman, R.L.; Byrne, D.F. A structural-developmental analysis of levels of role taking in middle childhood. Child Dev. 1974, 45, 803–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Selman, R.L.; Demorest, A.P. Observing troubled children’s interpersonal negotiation strategies: Implications of and for a developmental model. Child Dev. 1984, 55, 288–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Białecka-Pikul, M.; Szpak, M.; Zubek, J.; Bosacki, S.; Kołodziejczyk, A. The psychological self and advanced theory of mind in adolescence. Self Identity 2018, 19, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Grueneisen, S.; Wyman, E.; Tomasello, M. ‘I know you don’t know I know…’ Children use second-order false-belief reasoning for peer coordination. Child Dev. 2014, 86, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gabriel, E.T.; Oberger, R.; Schmoeger, M.; Deckert, M.; Vockh, S.; Auff, E.; Willinger, U. Cognitive and affective Theory of Mind in adolescence: Developmental aspects and associated neuropsychological variables. Psychol. Res. 2021, 85, 533–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Gehlbach, H. A new perspective on perspective taking: A multidimensional approach to conceptualizing an aptitude. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 16, 207–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gehlbach, H.; Mu, N. How we understand others: A theory of how social perspective taking unfolds. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2023, 27, 282–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smith, R.L.; Rose, A.J. The “cost of caring” in youths’ friendships: Examining associations among social perspective taking, co-rumination, and empathetic distress. Dev. Psychol. 2011, 47, 1792–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eisenberg, N. Altruistic Emotion, Cognition and Behavior; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gehlbach, H.; Brinkworth, M.E.; Wang, M.T. The social perspective taking process: What motivates individuals to take another’s perspective? Teach. Coll. Rec. 2012, 114, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Piaget, J. The Moral Judgment of the Child; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  25. Selman, R.L. The child as a friendship philosopher. In The Development of Children’s Friendships; Asher, S.R., Gottman, J.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1981; pp. 242–272. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sullivan, H.S. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1953. [Google Scholar]
  27. Carpendale, J.I.M.; Lewis, C. Constructing an understanding of mind: The development of children’s social understanding within social interaction. Behav. Brain Sci. 2004, 27, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. O’Connor, T.; Hirsch, N. Intra-individual differences and relationship-specificity of mentalising in early adolescence. Soc. Dev. 1999, 8, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nickerson, R.S. How we know—And sometimes misjudge—What others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125, 737–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Verhofstadt, L.L.; Buysse, A.; Ickes, W.; Davis, M.; Devoldre, I. Support provision in marriage: The role of emotional similarity and empathic accuracy. Emotion 2008, 8, 792–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Batanova, M.D.; Loukas, A. Social anxiety and aggression in early adolescents: Examining the moderating roles of empathic concern and perspective taking. J. Youth Adolesc. 2011, 40, 1534–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Flannery, K.M.; Smith, R.L. The effects of age, gender, and gender role ideology on adolescents’ social perspective-taking ability and tendency in friendships. J. Soc. Pers. Relationships 2017, 34, 617–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chalmers, J.B.; Townsend, M.A.R. The effects of training in social perspective taking on socially maladjusted girls. Child Dev. 1990, 61, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Selman, R.L.; Beardslee, W.; Schultz, L.H.; Krupa, M.; Podorefsky, D. Assessing adolescent interpersonal negotiation strategies: Toward the integration of structural and functional models. Dev. Psychol. 1986, 22, 450–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Van der Graaff, J.; Branje, S.; De Wied, M.; Hawk, S.; Van Lier, P.; Meeus, W. Perspective taking and empathic concern in adolescence: Gender differences in developmental changes. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 50, 881–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bukowski, W.M.; Newcomb, A.F.; Hartup, W.W. The Company They Keep: Friendships in Childhood and Adolescence; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  37. Cutting, A.L.; Dunn, J. The cost of understanding other people: Social cognition predicts young children’s sensitivity to criticism. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2002, 43, 849–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gilman, R.; Rice, K.G.; Carboni, I. Perfectionism, perspective taking, and social connection in adolescents. Psychol. Sch. 2014, 51, 947–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hoglund, W.G.; Lalonde, C.E.; Leadbeater, B.J. Social-cognitive competence, peer rejection and neglect, and behavioral and emotional problems in middle childhood. Soc. Dev. 2008, 17, 528–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lonigro, A.; Laghi, F.; Baiocco, R.; Baumgartner, E. Mind reading skills and empathy: Evidence for nice and nasty ToM behaviours in school-aged children. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2014, 23, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Carreras, M.R.; Braza, P.; Muñoz, J.M.; Braza, F.; Azurmendi, A.; Pascual-Sagastizabal, E.; Cardas, J.; Sánchez-Martín, J.R. Aggression and prosocial behaviors in social conflicts mediating the influence of cold social intelligence and affective empathy on children’s social preference. Scand. J. Psychol. 2014, 55, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kaukiainen, A.; Björkqvist, K.; Lagerspetz, K.; Österman, K.; Salmivalli, C.; Rothberg, S.; Ahlbom, A. The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggress. Behav. 1999, 25, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rose, A.J.; Rudolph, K.D. A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 132, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Rose, A.J. Co–rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Dev. 2002, 73, 1830–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schwartz-Mette, R.A.; Shankman, J.; Dueweke, A.R.; Borowski, S.; Rose, A.J. Relations of friendship experiences with depressive symptoms and loneliness in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 146, 664–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bosacki, S.L. Theory of mind and self-concept in preadolescents: Links with gender and language. J. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 92, 709–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mestre, M.V.; Carlo, G.; Samper, P.; Malonda, E.; Mestre, A.L. Bidirectional relations among empathy-related traits, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. Soc. Dev. 2019, 28, 514–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sackett, P.R.; Zedeck, S.; Fogli, L. Relations between measures of typical and maximum job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1988, 73, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Parker, J.G.; Asher, S.R. Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Dev. Psychol. 1993, 29, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rose, A.J.; Schwartz-Mette, R.A.; Glick, G.C.; Smith, R.L.; Luebbe, A.M. An observational study of co-rumination in adolescent friendships. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 50, 2199–2209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Kenny, D.A.; Kashy, D.A.; Cook, W.L. Dyadic Data Analysis; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  52. Krull, J.L.; MacKinnon, D.P. Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2001, 36, 249–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Napolitano, C.M.; Sewell, M.N.; Yoon, H.J.; Soto, C.J.; Roberts, B.W. Social, emotional, and behavioral skills: An integrative model of the skills associated with success during adolescence and across the life span. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 679561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fivush, R.; Brotman, M.; Buckner, J.P.; Goodman, S.H. Gender differences in parent-child emotion narratives. Sex Roles 2000, 42, 233–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Maccoby, E.E. The socialization component. In The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart Coming Together; Maccoby, E.E., Ed.; Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  56. Clark, M.L.; Ayers, M. Friendship expectations and friendship evaluations: Reciprocity and gender effects. Youth Soc. 1993, 24, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. MacEvoy, J.P.; Asher, S.R. When friends disappoint: Boys’ and girls’ responses to transgressions of friendship expectations. Child Dev. 2012, 83, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Myers, M.W.; Hodges, S.D. Making it up and making do: Simulation, imagination, and empathic accuracy. In Handbook of Imagination and Mental Simulation; Markman, K.D., Klein, W.P., Suhr, J.A., Markman, K.D., Klein, W.P., Suhr, J.A., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 281–294. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ickes, W. Everyday Mind Reading: Understanding What Other People Think and Feel; Prometheus Books: Buffalo, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hawley, P.H.; Little, T.D.; Rodkin, P.C. Aggression and Adaptation: The Bright Side to Bad Behavior; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pomerantz, E.M.; Shim, S. The role of goal investment in self-regulation: Benefits and costs. In Handbook of Motivation Science; Shah, J., Gardner, W., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 393–404. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Smith, R.L.; Flannery, K.M. A Multi-Method Assessment of the Friendship Adjustment Trade-Offs of Social Perspective-Taking Among Adolescents. Adolescents 2025, 5, 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5030032

AMA Style

Smith RL, Flannery KM. A Multi-Method Assessment of the Friendship Adjustment Trade-Offs of Social Perspective-Taking Among Adolescents. Adolescents. 2025; 5(3):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5030032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Smith, Rhiannon L., and Kaitlin M. Flannery. 2025. "A Multi-Method Assessment of the Friendship Adjustment Trade-Offs of Social Perspective-Taking Among Adolescents" Adolescents 5, no. 3: 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5030032

APA Style

Smith, R. L., & Flannery, K. M. (2025). A Multi-Method Assessment of the Friendship Adjustment Trade-Offs of Social Perspective-Taking Among Adolescents. Adolescents, 5(3), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5030032

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop