Content uploaded by Marc Jambon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marc Jambon on Jan 29, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 1
Developmental Relations Between Children’s Peer Relationship Quality and Prosocial
Behavior: The Mediating Role of Trust
Marc Jambon & Tina Malti
Department of Psychology and Centre for Child Development, Mental Health, and Policy
University of Toronto Mississauga
Marc Jambon: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1183-1654
Tina Malti: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8241-1230
Conflict of interest statement: Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Marc Jambon, Department of Psychology and Centre for Child Development, Mental
Health, and Policy, University of Toronto Mississauga; Tina Malti, Department of Psychology
and Centre for Child Development, Mental Health, and Policy, University of Toronto
Mississauga, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto.
Marc Jambon is now at Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University.
This research was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
Foundation Scheme grant (FDN-148389) awarded to Tina Malti. We would like to offer our
sincere thanks to the families who participated, and the members of the Laboratory for Social-
Emotional Development and Intervention who assisted in the collection and processing of the
data.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marc Jambon, Offord
Centre for Child Studies, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster
University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Email: jambonm@mcmaster.ca
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2
This article has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Genetic Psychology,
published by Taylor & Francis. It is deposited under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which
permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
Jambon, M., & Malti, T. (2022). Developmental relations between children's peer relationship
quality and prosocial behavior: The mediating role of trust. Journal of Genetic
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2022.2030293
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 3
Abstract
Positive peer relationships are important for children’s prosocial development, yet the
mechanisms that explain how peers contribute to prosocial outcomes during the preschool and
early school years remain understudied. The present study used a prospective longitudinal design
to examine whether children’s degree of trust in others mediated the association between prior
peer relationship quality and later prosocial behavior in a Canadian sample (N= 150; T1 Mage=
4.53 years, 50% female). Primary caregivers (84% mothers) reported on children's peer
relationship quality (at age 4), trust in others (ages 4 and 5), and prosocial behavior (ages 4 and
6). Controlling for initial levels of trust and prosocial behavior at age 4, longitudinal path
modeling indicated that higher quality peer relationships directly predicted relative increases in
trust at age 5. In turn, increased trust at age 5 predicted relative increases in prosocial behavior at
age 6. Consistent with longitudinal mediation, the indirect effect of peer relationship quality on
later prosocial behavior via trust was also significant. Sensitivity analyses further indicated that
these effects held over and above the potential confounding influence of parental warmth and
externalizing behavioral problems (assessed at age 6). Programs designed to promote prosocial
skills in early childhood may benefit from an increased emphasis on building and maintaining
children's interpersonal trust.
Keywords: peers; trust; prosocial behavior; early childhood; longitudinal; mediation
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 4
Developmental Relations Between Children’s Peer Relationship Quality and Prosocial Behavior:
The Mediating Role of Trust
Prosocial behavior—voluntary action intended to benefit others—is a key indicator of
social competence in childhood. Children who readily help, comfort, and share with others
experience a wide range of positive developmental outcomes, including heightened
psychological well-being, high academic achievement, and low levels of behavioral problems
and associated emotional challenges (Eisenberg, et al., 2015). Individual differences in prosocial
behavior emerge during the preschool and elementary school years and remain relatively stable
throughout the lifespan (Côté, et al., 2002; Eisenberg, et al., 1999). There is also evidence that
interventions are more effective at promoting other-oriented behaviors when implemented at
younger ages when these tendencies are more fluid (Malti, Chaparro, et al., 2016). Given the
integral role of prosocial skills in children’s social lives, it is important to understand the
processes that give rise to individual differences in prosocial behavior early in life.
Among the multitude of factors implicated in the development of prosocial responding,
positive peer relationships are theorized to play an especially crucial role (Eisenberg et al., 2015;
Malti, et al., 2012: Rubin et al., 2013). Although children who are well-liked and accepted by
their peers are more likely to behave in a prosocial manner, the proximal mechanisms that
explain this association remain poorly understood. Clarifying how peers influence prosocial
tendencies in young children will aid future efforts to promote developmental competencies and
reduce the risk of maladaptive outcomes (Deater-Deckard, 2001; Malti, Chaparro, et al., 2016;
Taylor et al., 2016).
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 5
Scholars have posited that children's trust in others may constitute one pathway by which
peers contribute to prosociality (Carlo et al., 2010; Gross et al., 2017; Rotenberg, 2010). Through
repeated positive interactions with friends and other agemates, children form beliefs about others
as honest, reliable, and deserving of trust (Rotenberg, 2010). These trust beliefs, in turn, are
hypothesized to motivate the desire to engage in cooperative and caring interpersonal exchanges
in order to build and maintain harmonious social relationships (Carlo, et al., 2010). Despite this
theorizing, no research (to our knowledge) has empirically tested this proposed mediational
model using longitudinal data in young children. To address this gap, we employed prospective
longitudinal design to examine whether children’s trust in others mediated the link between the
quality of their peer relationships and prosocial outcomes from 4 to 6 years of age.
Peer Relationships and Prosocial Behavior
The formation of healthy peer relationships is critical for children's social-emotional
development (Hay, et al., 2004; Rubin, et al. 2013). Peer interactions provide children with
unique opportunities to build important skills, including role-taking, conflict resolution, and
cooperation. A wealth of research has shown that, compared to rejected or average children,
those who are well-liked and accepted by their peers are less aggressive, more sociable, and
possess more advanced social-cognitive and problem-solving skills (Rubin et al., 2013). In line
with these findings, studies have repeatedly documented an association between positive peer
relations and greater prosocial behavior in childhood (Asscheman et al., 2020; Gest, et al., 2001;
Sebanc, 2003; Slaughter, et al., 2002). For instance, Sebanc (2003) found that having a friend,
and experiencing greater levels of support in the friendship, were positively associated with
teacher ratings of prosocial behavior during the preschool years. Research by Gest et al. (2001)
further demonstrated that conceptually distinct dimensions of children's peer relations, including
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 6
number of friends, centrality in the peer network, and level of acceptance, were similarly and
independently associated with prosocial skills in 7- and 8-year-olds. These findings suggest that
both dyadic (e.g., friendships) and group-level peer processes (e.g., acceptance/rejection) are
important for prosocial development in childhood.
There is also accumulating longitudinal evidence that positive peer relations contribute to
later prosocial outcomes (Kuppens, et al., 2009; van den Bedem et al., 2019; Wentzel, et al.,
2004). A study by Malti, et al. (2012) found that, controlling for earlier sharing behavior, greater
peer acceptance at age 6 was associated with greater sharing behavior at age 7. Similarly, Crick
(1996) demonstrated that both peer acceptance and rejection in middle childhood predicted
relative increases and decreases (respectively) in prosocial behavior over a 6-month period. One
exception to this trend is an investigation by Denham and Holt (1993), which examined links
between peer likability and prosocial behavior over one-year in a relatively small sample (n =
43) of 3- to 4-year-olds. Consistent with other studies, the researchers found that preschoolers
who were liked by their peers were more prosocial at both time points, and earlier likeability
predicted later prosocial behavior (but not vice versa). However, this longitudinal effect was no
longer significant after controlling for initial levels of prosocial behavior, which may have been
partially the result of low power. This body of research indicates that positive peer experiences
are linked to children's prosocial behavior, concurrently and over time, yet less is known about
the psychological mechanisms that explain this association.
Trust as a Mediating Mechanism
A number of scholars have hypothesized that positive peer relationships may foster
prosocial behavior by promoting children’s trust in others (Carlo et al., 2010; Gross et al., 2017;
Rotenberg, 2010). Trust beliefs refer to the expectation that other people are honest, reliable, and
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 7
will refrain from causing harm (Rotenberg, 2010). From the perspective of attachment theory,
trust emerges out of early parent-child interactions and serves as a foundation for the formation
of intimate personal relationships across the lifespan (Ainsworth, 1973; Bernath & Feshbach,
1995). Sensitive and responsive caregiving promotes the formation of secure attachments, in
part, by informing children's cognitive representations or internal working models of others as
caring, dependable, and supportive (Gross, et al., 2017).
Although rooted in early parent-infant relationships, trust beliefs become strengthened
and consolidated with age through interactions with friends and classmates (Rotenberg &
Boulton, 2013; Rotenberg et al., 2004). Specifically, peer interactions characterized by support,
acceptance, and mutual respect serve to reinforce children's working models of others as reliable
and honest social partners (Bernath & Feshbach, 1995; Carlo et al., 2010; Keller, 1984;
Rotenberg & Boulton, 2013). For example, Chin (2014) found that 4- and 5-year-olds nominated
by their peers as being well-liked and enjoyable playmates also expressed a high degree of trust
in both friend and non-friend classmates (e.g., expecting others to keep secrets). Negative peer
experiences (e.g., rejection, victimization), by contrast, can foster a view of others as threatening
and unworthy of trust (e.g., hostile attribution biases; Dodge, 2006).
Possessing a high degree of interpersonal trust, in turn, may serve to engender feelings of
care and concern for others’ wellbeing, thus facilitating children’s motivation to build and
maintain positive interpersonal connections (Carlo et al., 2010; Gross, et al., 2017; Rotenberg,
2010). In line with this theorizing, research indicates that children more readily engage in
prosocial actions towards individuals they like and identify with compared to other social group
members (e.g., strangers, out-group members; Fehr, et al., 2008; Weller & Lagatutta, 2013; Yu,
et al., 2016), partly out of a desire to maintain or enhance the quality of the relationship (Barry &
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 8
Wentzel, 2006). Studies conducted in early and middle childhood have further shown that youth
who are more trusting of others are also more likely to engage in acts of helping, cooperating,
and sharing with their peers (Chin, 2014; Rotenberg et al., 2005; Song, et al., 2018; for an
exception see Malti, Averdjik et al., 2016). Conversely, children who perceive others to be
hostile and untrustworthy are more likely to engage in aggressive and antisocial peer interactions
over time (Lansford et al., 2010).
Taken together, there is considerable evidence that children's peer relationships, trust
beliefs, and prosocial tendencies are interrelated. Although internal working models play a key
explanatory role in theories linking early parent-child attachment relationships to later prosocial
outcomes (for an overview, see Gross et al., 2017), the extent to which trust functions as a
translational mechanism linking prior peer experiences to children’s prosocial development
remains unclear. Identifying the mechanisms by which peers may contribute children's prosocial
skills is especially necessary to inform intervention and prevention efforts aimed at enhancing
developmental competencies and reducing maladjustment (Deater-Deckard, 2001; Malti,
Chaparro, et al., 2016; Taylor, et al., 2017). This is particularly true during the preschool and
early school years, a time when children first enter the peer group and begin forming friendships
(Hay et al., 2004), when the internal representations of relationships forged in early infant-
caregiver attachments become consolidated and generalized to others (Booth-LaForce & Kerns,
2008), and when prosocial skills are most fluid and amenable to intervention (Eisenberg et al.,
2015; Malti, Chaparro, et al., 2016).
Current Study
Our central goal was to determine whether children's trust in others mediated the relation
between peer relationship quality and prosocial behavior over time. Using a prospective
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 9
longitudinal design from 4 to 6 years of age, we assessed caregiver questionnaire ratings of
children's peer relationship quality, trust, and prosocial behavior. We expected higher quality
peer relationships (higher levels of liking and acceptance and lower levels of rejection) at age 4
(Time 1; T1) to be positively associated with trust at age 5 (T2) and prosocial behavior at age 6
(T3), and that trust at age 5 would be positively associated with prosocial behavior at age 6.
Consistent with longitudinal mediation, we also expected to find a significant indirect effect of
peer relationship quality on prosocial behavior via trust. As mediation pertains to questions of
change, we controlled for initial levels of trust and prosocial behavior in all analyses. As such, an
indirect effect would suggest that earlier peer relationship quality contributes to changes in
interpersonal trust, which in turn facilitates subsequent changes in prosocial behavior. In light of
past evidence regarding demographic differences in peer relations, trust, and prosociality
(Eisenberg et al., 2015; Margie, et al., 2005; Rotenberg et al., 2005), we examined household
income, caregiver education, and child sex as control variables.
We also conducted sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of this model and strengthen
our confidence that observed effects were not due to other confounding factors (Little, 2013).
Parent-child relationships characterized by warmth and support facilitate the development of
healthy peer relations (Booth-LaForce & Kerns, 2008), trust (Bernath & Feshbach, 1995), and
prosocial tendencies (Daniel, et al., 2016). Research also indicates that prosocial and
externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, defiance), despite representing conceptually and
empirically distinct constructs, are inversely correlated during childhood (Eisenberg et al., 2015).
Moreover, the degree to which children exhibit problem behaviors in the home factors heavily
into caregiver's perceptions of their child's prosocial tendencies (Veenstra, et al., 2008). We
therefore tested a sensitivity model that controlled for the effects of parental warmth and
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 10
externalizing behaviors (assessed at age 6). Over and above the effects of these controls, the
continued presence of significant indirect effects of peer relationship quality on prosocial
behavior via trust would constitute stronger evidence in favor of longitudinal mediation.
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 150 children and their primary caregivers (84% mothers; 98%
biological parents) living in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. At T1, children were 4 years old
(Mage = 4.53 years, SD = .30; Range = 4.03 to 4.99) and were evenly divided between males and
females (n = 75 each). A total of 133 caregivers (89% of the initial sample) provided ratings at
the second time point (T2 Mage = 5.57 years, SD = .35, Range = 5.03 to 6.35 years). At the third
time point, 128 caregivers (85% of the initial sample) provided ratings (T3 Mage = 6.55 years, SD
= .36, Range = 5.96 to 7.97 years). Approximately 93% of caregivers reported being married or
in a domestic partnership. Caregivers’ self-reported highest level of education included 5% high
school or less, 1% apprenticeship or trade school, 17% college degree, 49% bachelor’s degree,
21% master’s degree, and 3% Ph.D.; 4% chose not to answer. The ethnic composition of the
sample was: 33% European, 27% Asian, 4% Central/South American, 6% other, 19% multi-
ethnic; 11% refused/chose not to answer. Slightly fewer than half of caregivers (41%) reported a
total yearly household income of $125,000 CAD or more, 23% reported making between
$80,000-$–$124,999 CAD, and 22% reported making $80,000 CAD or less; 14% chose not to
answer.
Procedure
Approval was obtained from the University of Toronto ethics board (# 00028256) prior to
the start of data collection. Participants were drawn from an existing university database of
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 11
families recruited from local community centers, events, and summer camps. We invited
contacted families who agreed to participate to attend the university laboratory for a total of three
annual testing sessions (T1 assessments took place between 2015 and 2017; T2 occurred
between 2016 and 2018; T3 occurred between 2017 and 2019). After providing written informed
consent, caregivers completed questionnaire ratings of all constructs using a touchscreen tablet.
Measures
Prosocial Behavior (Dependent Variable)
At T1 and T3, caregivers rated children's prosocial behavior using the five-item prosocial
behavior subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997; e.g.,
"considerate of other people's feelings"). The SDQ has been validated extensively for use across
diverse ages and populations (Stone et al., 2010). Responses were scored on a 7-point scale (0 =
never, 3 = about half of the time, 6= always) and averaged to create a single composite at each
time point, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of prosocial behavior (T1, T3 Guttman’s
Lamda-2 (λ2) = .81, .84).
Trust (Mediator Variable)
At T1 and T2, caregivers reported on children's trust beliefs using the three-item trust
subscale of the Holistic Student Assessment (HSA; Malti, et al., 2018; "thinks most people are
fair"; "trusts other people"; "believes most people can be trusted"). Prior studies have found the
HSA subscales to be reliable in child and adolescent samples and to correlate with other
established measures of social-emotional adjustment (Malti, et al., 2018; Song, et al., 2017).
Responses were scored on a 4-point-scale (0= not at all true, 3= almost always true) and
averaged to create a single composite at each wave, with higher scores reflecting greater trust in
others (T1, T2 λ2 = .76, .81).
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 12
Peer Relationship Quality (Independent Variable)
At T1, caregivers reported on the quality of children's peer relationships using a total of
eight items. Five items from the peer relationship problems subscale of the SDQ (e.g., "liked by
other children") were scored on 7-point scale (0 = never, 3 = about half of the time, 6= always).
Three additional items from the relationships with peers subscale of the HSA (e.g., "Gets along
well with peers") were scored on a 4-point-scale (0= not at all true, 3= almost always true). We
excluded a fourth item from the HSA subscale ("has friends s/he can trust") due to content
overlap with the trust scale. Preliminary analyses revealed an acceptable level of reliability for
the HSA scale (λ2 = .73) but not the SDQ scale (λ2 = .58). Given the widespread use of the SDQ
to assess social-emotional and behavioral competencies (Stone et al., 2010), however, it was
retained in the current study. After rescoring the HSA items onto a 7-point rating scale, we
averaged all eight items to create a single peer relationship quality composite (λ2 = .71), with
higher scores reflecting more positive relationships with peers.
Additional Variables
Control variables included yearly household income (1= less than $10k, 9= more than
$125k), caregiver education (1= less than high school, 7= Ph.D. or equivalent), and child sex (0=
female, 1=male). For the sensitivity analyses, we also included variables representing parental
warmth and child externalizing problems, both assessed at T3 (age 6). Parental warmth was
measured using the 8-item warmth/affection subscale of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection
Questionnaire-Short Form (PARQ: Rohner, 2005; e.g., "I make my child feel needed and
wanted"). Caregivers rated each question on a 7-point scale (0 = never, 3 = about half of the time,
6= always). Children's externalizing problems were measured using the 19-item aggressive
behavior syndrome scale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL: Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001),
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 13
which captures a range of problem behaviors involving aggression (e.g., "hits others),
oppositional defiance (e.g., "disobedient"), and attention deficit/hyperactivity problems (e.g.,
"can't stand waiting; wants everything now"). Caregivers rated each question on a 7-point scale
(0 = never, 3 = about half of the time, 6= always). We averaged all items within each scale to
create separate composites, with higher scores reflecting greater levels of warmth and support (λ2
=.83) and externalizing problems (λ2 =.94), respectively.
Analysis Plan
We used path modeling with observed variables to examine the hypothesized mediational
effect of peer relationship quality (predictor) on later prosocial behavior (outcome) through
interpersonal trust (mediator). All analyses were conducted using Mplus 8.4. We evaluated
model fit using established indices (see Little, 2013), including non-significant chi-square values,
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) values < .08, comparative fit index (CFI)
values > .90, and standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR) < .08. We tested the
significance of the indirect effect using bootstrapping procedures with bias-corrected 95%
confidence intervals (CI) based on 10,000 bootstrapped draws; a CI not containing zero reflects a
statistically significant indirect effect and was taken as evidence of mediation (MacKinnon,
2008).
We first examined bivariate correlations to ensure that the expected positive associations
between peer relationship quality, trust, and prosocial behavior over time were present. We then
tested a fully saturated path model containing all possible direct effects. Following best practice
guidelines to establish the most parsimonious model (Little, 2013), we subsequently constrained
all paths to zero that (a) were unnecessary for testing longitudinal mediation (e.g., T1 prosocial
behavior → T2 trust) and (b) did not approach significance (p > .10). In the final step, we tested
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 14
a sensitivity model that controlled for the effects of parental warmth and externalizing problems
on prosocial behaviors at T3 (age 6). Figure 1 provides a graphical depiction of the final path
models.
Missing Data
Rates of missing data ranged from 0% (sex, T1 ratings) to 16% (T3 parental warmth). All
133 caregivers who participated at T2 provided complete data. Of the 128 caregivers who
participated at T3, complete data were available for all but one (externalizing scale) or two
(warmth scale) families. Little’s missing completely at random (MCAR) test conducted on all
study variables was not significant, χ2 (58, N = 150) = 63.80, p = .28. This suggested that that the
likelihood of having missing data was not correlated with measures included in the study.
Follow-up analyses provided further support for this assumption: families who remained in the
study (n = 128) did not significantly differ from those who dropped out (n = 22) in terms of
demographic characteristics (child sex, caregiver education, income: ps = .16–.97) or primary
study variables (T1 assessments of peer relationships, trust, prosocial behavior: ps = .21–.58).
Missing data were therefore estimated under the missing-completely-at-random (MCAR)
assumption using full information maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors
(MLR).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among all study variables are presented in
Table 1. As expected, peer relationship quality, trust, and prosocial behavior were positively
correlated concurrently and over time (ps < .001). Trust and prosocial behavior were moderately
stable over time (ps < .001). Parental warmth and child externalizing problems were moderately
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 15
correlated with T3 prosocial behavior in the expected directions (ps < .001). Sex was not
significantly associated with peer relationship quality, trust, or T1 prosocial behavior (ps =.10 to
.76), but caregivers rated males as being less prosocial than females at T3 (p < .001). Higher
household income was associated greater trust at T1 and T2 (ps < .001). Caregiver education was
not associated with any of the main study variables and was excluded from subsequent analyses.
Mediation Model
An initial model including all possible regression paths revealed four pathways that were
both unnecessary for testing mediation and did not approach significance: T1 trust → T3
prosocial behavior (β = -.01, p = .98), T1 prosocial behavior → T2 trust (β = .123, p = .12), sex
→ T2 trust (β = -.06, p = .43), and income → T3 prosocial behavior (β = -.06, p = .39).
After constraining these pathways to zero, the revised model fit the data well: χ2 (4) =
4.81, p = .31, RMSEA = .037, CFI = .992, SRMR = .026. Parameter estimates for this revised
mediation model are depicted in Figure 1a. Controlling for initial levels of trust at T1, peer
relationship quality directly and positively predicted trust at T2 (p = .047). Controlling for initial
levels of prosocial behavior, T2 trust directly and positively predicted prosocial behavior at T3 (p
= .006). After accounting for prior prosocial behavior and trust, the direct effect of peer
relationship quality on T3 prosocial scores was no longer significant (p = .18). In support of
longitudinal mediation, however, the indirect effect of peer relationship quality on later prosocial
behavior through trust was significant. That is, children who experienced more positive and
supportive relationships with their peers demonstrated relative increases in trust from 4 to 5 years
of age, which in turn contributed to relative increases in prosocial behavior from 4 to 6 years of
age.
Sensitivity Analyses
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 16
A sensitivity model controlling for the effects of parental warmth and child externalizing
problems on T3 prosocial behavior fit the data well, χ2 (5) = 6.48, p = .26, RMSEA = .044, CFI =
.99, SRMR = .025. As shown in Figure 1b, both variables were uniquely associated with T3
prosocial behavior in the expected directions, and their inclusion accounted for an additional
15% of the variance in prosocial scores. Nevertheless, the indirect effect of peer relationship
quality on T3 prosocial behavior through T2 trust remained significant (see Figure 1b).
Discussion
Past cross-sectional research has found that children who are accepted and liked by their
peers are more trusting of others (Chin, 2014; Rotenberg & Boulton, 2014) and readily help,
share with, and comfort others in times of need (Hay et al., 2004; Rubin et al., 2015; Carlo et al.,
2010). Our goal was to build on and extend this prior work to determine whether trust serves as a
mediating mechanism linking the quality of children's peer relationships to the development of
prosocial tendencies across the preschool and early school years. The insights gained from this
investigation serve to further elucidate the proximal mechanisms linking peer experiences to
subsequent adjustment outcomes and may help to inform programs aimed at promoting prosocial
tendencies in young children.
We found that higher quality peer relationships at age 4 predicted relative increases in
prosocial responding two years later. Past longitudinal studies conducted with somewhat older
children have also shown that being accepted and liked by one’s peers enhances children's
willingness to assist others in times of need (e.g., Crick, 1996; Malti et al., 2012). Our findings
indicate that this process is already evident during the preschool years, a period when entry into
the peer group presents unique challenges and opportunities for the development of interpersonal
skills (Hay et al., 2004).
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 17
We also found that peer relationship quality was associated with relative increases in trust
from 4 to 5 years of age. Although trust emerges out of parent-infant attachment relationships
(Ainsworth, 1973; Gross, et al., 2017), healthy peer interactions are hypothesized to strengthen
and consolidate these nascent beliefs over time (Rotenberg & Boulton, 2013; Rotenberg et al.,
2004). Repeatedly interacting with conspecifics who are accepting and supportive reinforces
children's “benevolent” cognitive schema of others as reliable and honest (Carlo et al., 2010),
whereas experiences of rejection or victimization may foster a “malevolent” view of others as
threatening and unworthy of trust (Carlo et al., 2010; Dodge, 2006). Despite this theorizing, past
research examining the connections between peer experiences and children’s trust beliefs has
been limited to cross-sectional designs (for an exception with older children, see Malti et al.,
2012). By controlling for baseline levels, we expanded on this work to demonstrate that peer
relationships are associated with subsequent changes in trust. This is notable given that the
preschool and early school years constitute a key period for the formation of children's schemas
and attributions regarding others' intentions, motivations, and character traits (Dodge, 2006;
Rotenberg, 2010). In turn, the degree to which children view others as fundamentally trustworthy
or deserving of suspicion can have a cascading effect on future adjustment and behavior and may
be difficult to alter (Dodge, 2006; Lansford et al., 2010; Malti, Chaparro et al., 2016).
Beyond these direct effects, we also found support for our central hypothesis: higher
quality peer relationships at age 4 indirectly predicted prosocial behavior at age 6 via trust at age
5. Importantly, this pattern of effects persisted after controlling for potential confounds (e.g.,
parental warmth and externalizing problems) and baseline levels of trust and prosocial behavior.
As such, this constitutes some of the first evidence in favor of the assertion that children’s trust
beliefs serve as a translational mechanism linking past peer experiences to changes in prosocial
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 18
actions over time. Understanding the developmental processes that nurture children's prosocial
growth is of considerable interest given that individual differences in prosociality during the
preschool and early school years can have life-long repercussions for social adjustment and
interpersonal relationships (Eisenberg et al., 1999; Côté et al., 2002).
Promoting children’s prosocial skills is one of the primary goals of character
development and social-emotional learning programs (Malti, Chaparro, et al., 2016; Taylor, et
al., 2017). In addition to the current emphasis on building individual skills (e.g., emotion
regulation, decision- making) and affective tendencies (e.g., sympathy), such efforts may benefit
from an increased emphasis on enhancing children’s beliefs and cognitions about others. Indeed,
attachment theorists have long noted the important of trust in the formation of healthy
interpersonal relationships across the life course (Bernath & Feshbach, 1995; Gross et al., 2017).
Moreover, past research indicates that interventions aimed at reducing children’s negative and
hostile attributional styles, which are indicative of low trust in others, are effective at reducing
aggressive problem behaviors (see Dodge, 2006). That said, being indiscriminately or overly
trusting of others (e.g., naiveté) may also have negative consequences for children's social
adjustment (Rotenberg, et al., 2005). This suggests that a key component of healthy trust-
building is learning to delineate which characteristics and behaviors of others are worthy of one’s
confidence. Although our modest sample size precluded us from testing non-linear effects,
additional research with larger samples is needed to determine whether there exists an inflection
point or threshold at which the positive benefits of trust for prosocial outcomes begin to weaken
or reverse course.
Limitations and Future Directions
The biggest limitation of this study was our reliance on caregiver ratings for all main
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 19
constructs, which raises legitimate concerns about the potential for shared method biases and
corresponding inflation of effect sizes. Although the results of our sensitivity analyses suggest
that these effects may not be purely the product of mono-informant biases, it is important for
future research to capitalize on multi-method, multi-informant designs to increase confidence in
the robustness in these effects. Including teacher and peer reports is especially important given
that caregivers have fewer opportunities to observe their child interacting with peers outside the
home, and children may be more likely to engage in prosocial exchanges when parents are
nearby. Similarly, our trust measure primarily reflects caregivers’ perceptions of their child’s
beliefs about others. Although self-report measures of trust are frequently used in middle
childhood and adolescent populations, scales developed for use with younger children often
exhibit relatively poor psychometric properties (e.g., Betts et al., 2009). Examining how
caregiver ratings map onto children’s own self-reported trust beliefs would aid in the
development of valid and reliable instruments for assessing these beliefs in early childhood.
Given that we relied on broad, global questionnaire assessments, it is possible that the
observed pattern of results would vary depending on the specific type of peer experience, trust
target, or recipient of prosocial behavior under investigation. For instance, some youth who are
highly aggressive and prosocial with others are popular and powerful in their peer groups but are
not especially well-liked (Cillessen & Rose, 2005). Similarly, friendships characterized by
mutual respect and reciprocity may be more closely linked to greater trust in (and prosocial
actions towards) close others compared to acquaintances or strangers (Carlo et al., 2010).
Adopting a more nuanced approach to the assessment of these constructs, with particular
emphasis on parsing apart types of peer relationships, forms of trust, and types of prosocial
behavior, constitutes a critical next step for future inquiry.
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 20
Although our study design precluded us from testing reciprocal relations between peer
relations, trust, and prosocial behavior over time, highly prosocial children are also likely to
show subsequent increases in the quality of their peer relationships (Kuppens et al., 2009; Ma, et
al., 2020). Being the recipient of others' kindness is especially rewarding, and likely serves to
enhance the desire to reciprocate (Carlo et al., 2010), which in turn may further strengthen
children's perceptions of others as trustworthy. Future studies that include repeated assessments
of peer relationships characteristics and prosocial tendencies would enable a more robust test of
this hypothesized transactional process.
In summary, this study provides some of the first longitudinal support for the proposition
that trust beliefs mediate the relation between earlier peer relationship quality and future
prosocial behavioral tendencies. Importantly, these relations held after controlling for potential
confounds and prior levels of trust and prosociality. Programs designed to promote prosocial
skills in childhood may benefit from an increased emphasis on building and maintaining
children's trust in others.
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 21
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms & profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, &
Families.
Ainsworth, M. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. Cardwell & H.
Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research: Vol. 3. Child development and
social policy (pp. 1-94). University of Chicago Press.
Asscheman, J.S., He, J., Koot, S., Buil, J.M., Krabbendam, L., & van Lier, P.A. (2020).
Classroom peer preferences and the development of sharing behavior with friends and
others. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(5), 412-423. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0165025420911094
Barry, C., & Wentzel, K. (2006). Friend influence on prosocial behavior: The role of
motivational factors and friendship characteristics. Developmental Psychology, 42(1),
153–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.153
Bernath, M., & Feshbach, N. (1995). Children's trust: Theory, assessment, development, and
research directions. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80048-4
Betts, L.R., Rotenberg, K.J., & Trueman, M. (2009). The Early Childhood Generalized Trust
Beliefs Scale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24 (2), 175-185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.10.002
Booth-LaForce, C., & Kerns, K. (2008). Child-parent attachment relationships, peer
relationships, and peer-group functioning. In K. Rubin, W. Bukowski, & B. Laursen
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 22
(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 490-507). Guilford
Press.
Carlo, G., Randall, B., Rotenberg, K., & Armenta, B. (2010). A friend in need is a friend indeed:
Exploring the relations among trust beliefs, prosocial tendencies, and friendships. In K.
Rotenberg (Ed.), Interpersonal trust during childhood and adolescence (pp. 270-294).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750946.013
Chin, J. (2014). Young children's trust beliefs in peers: Relations to social competence and
interactive behavior in a peer group. Early Education and Development, 25(5), 601-618.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.836698
Cillessen, A., & Rose, A. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 102-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2005.00343.x
Côté, S., Tremblay, R., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., & Vitaro, F. (2002). The development of
impulsivity, fearfulness, and helpfulness during childhood: patterns of consistency and
change in the trajectories of boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
43(5), 609-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00050
Crick, N. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in
the prediction of children's future social adjustment. Child Development, 67(5), 2317-
2327. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131625
Daniel, E., Madigan, S., & Jenkins, J. (2016). Paternal and maternal warmth and the
development of prosociality among preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1),
114-124. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000120
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 23
Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining the role of peer relationships
in the development of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
42(5), 565-579. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00753
Denham, S., & Holt, R. (1993). Preschoolers' likability as cause or consequence of their social
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 271-275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.29.2.271
Dodge, K. (2006). Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the
development of aggressive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology,
18(3), 791-814. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579406060391
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I., Murphy, B., Shepard, S., & Cumberland, A. (1999). Consistency and
development of prosocial dispositions. A longitudinal study. Child Development, 70(6),
1360-1372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00100
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). Prosocial development. In R. Lerner
(Editor-in-Chief) & M. Lamb (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and
developmental science: Vol. 3. Socioemotional processes (7th ed., pp. 610-656). Wiley-
Blackwell.
Gest, S., Graham-Bermann, S., & Hartup, W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and unique
features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status.
Social Development, 10(1), 243-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00146
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.1997.tb01545.x
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 24
Gross, J., Stern, J., Brett, B., & Cassidy, J. (2017). The multifaceted nature of prosocial behavior
in children: Links with attachment theory and research. Social Development, 26(4), 661-
678. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12242
Hay, D., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 84-108. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-
9630.2003.00308.x
Keller, M. (1984). Resolving conflicts in friendship: The development of moral understanding in
every day life. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral
development (pp. 140-158). John Wiley.
Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., & Michiels, D. (2009). A longitudinal study of
childhood social behavior: Inter-informant agreement, inter-context agreement, and social
preference linkages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(6-7), 769-792.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347929
Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2010). Developmental
cascades of peer rejection, social information processing biases, and aggression during
middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 593–602.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579410000301
Little, T. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford.
Ma, T., Zarrett, N., Simpkins, S., Vandell, D., & Jiang, S. (2020). Brief report: Patterns of
prosocial behaviors in middle childhood predicting peer relations during early
adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 78, 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.11.004
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 25
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Malti, T., Averdijk, M., Zuffiano, A., Ribeaud, D., Betts, L., Rotenberg, K., & Eisner, M. (2016).
Children's trust and the development of prosocial behavior. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 40(3), 262-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415584628
Malti, T., Chaparro, M. Zuffiano, A., & Colasante, T. (2016). School-based interventions to
promote empathy-related responding in children and adolescents: A developmental
analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(6), 718-731.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1121822
Malti, T., Gummerum, M., Keller, M., Chaparro, M., & Buchmann, M. (2012). Early sympathy
and social acceptance predict the development of sharing in children. PloS One, 7(12),
e52017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052017
Malti, T., Zuffiano, A., & Noam, G. (2018). Knowing every child: Validation of the Holistic
Student Assessment (HSA) as a measure of social-emotional development. Prevention
Science, 19, 306-317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0794-0
Margie, N., Killen, M., Sinno, S., & McGlothlin, H. (2005). Minority children's intergroup
attitudes about peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(2),
251–269. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151005X26075
Rohner, R. P. (2005). Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ): Test manual. In R.
P. Rohner & A. Khaleque (Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and
rejection (4th ed., pp. 43–106). Storrs: Rohner Research Publications.
Rotenberg, K. (2010). The conceptualization of interpersonal trust: A basis, domain, and target
framework. In K. Rotenberg (Ed.), Interpersonal trust during childhood and adolescence
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 26
(pp. 8-27). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750946.002
Rotenberg, K., & Boulton, M. (2013). Interpersonal trust consistency and the quality of peer
relationships during childhood. Social Development, 22(2), 225-241.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12005
Rotenberg, K., & Boulton, M., & Fox, C. (2005). Cross-sectional and longitudinal relations
among children’s trust beliefs, psychological maladjustment and social relationships: Are
very high as well as very low trusting children at risk? Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 33(5), 595-610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-6740-9
Rotenberg, K., Fox, C., Green, S., Ruderman, L., Slater, K., Stevens, K., & Carlo, G. (2005).
Construction and validation of a children's interpersonal trust belief scale. British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 271-292.
https://doi.org/10.1348/026151005X26192
Rotenberg, K., MacDonald, K., & King, E. (2004). The relationship between loneliness and
interpersonal trust during middle childhood. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165(3), 233-
249. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.165.3.233-249
Rubin, K., Bowker, J., McDonald, K., & Menzer, M. (2013). Peer relationships in childhood. In
P. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology: Vol 2. Self and
other (pp. 309-360), Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199958474.013.0011
Sebanc, A. (2003). The friendship features of preschool children: Links with prosocial behavior
and aggression. Social Development, 12(2), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9507.00232
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 27
Slaughter, V., Dennis, M., & Pritchard, M. (2002). Theory of mind and peer acceptance in
preschool children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 545-564.
https://doi.org/10.1348/026151002760390945
Song, J., Colasante, T., & Malti, T. (2018). Helping yourself helps others: Linking children's
emotion regulation to prosocial behavior through sympathy and trust. Emotion, 18(4),
518-527. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000332
Song, J.., Zuffianò, A., & Malti, T. (2017, April). Social-emotional strengths assessment for
intervention: A validation of the parent-report Holistic Student Assessment for children.
Poster session presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial
Meeting, Austin, Texas.
Stone, L., Otten, R., Engels, R., Vermulst, A., & Janssens, J. (2010). Psychometric properties of
the parent and teacher versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for 4- to
12-year-olds: A review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13(3), 254-274.
https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10567-010-0071-2
Taylor, R., Oberle, E., Durlak, J., & Weissberg, R. (2017). Promoting positive youth
development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-
analysis of follow up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156-1171.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864
van den Bedem, N.P., Willems, D., Dockrell, J.E., van Alphen, P.M., & Rieffe, C. (2019).
Interrelation between empathy and friendship development during (pre)adolescence and
the moderating effect of developmental language disorder: A longitudinal study. Social
Development, 28(3), 599-619. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12353
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 28
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A., De Winter, A., Verhulst, F., & Ormel, J. (2008).
Prosocial and antisocial behavior in preadolescence: Teachers' and parents' perceptions of
the behavior of girls and boys. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(3),
243-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025408089274
Weller, D., & Lagattuta, K. (2013). Helping the in-group feels better: Children's judgments and
emotion attributions in response to prosocial dilemmas. Child Development, 84(1), 253-
268. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j. 1467-8624.2012.01837.x
Wentzel, K., Barry, C., & Caldwell, K. (2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on
motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 195-203.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.195
Yu, J., Zhu, L., & Leslie, A. (2016). Children’s sharing behavior in mini-dictator games: The
role of in-group favoritism and theory of mind. Child Development, 87(6), 1747-1757.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12635
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 29
Data Availability Statement
Participants of this study did not consent to their data being shared, so supporting data is
not available.
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 30
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables
M
SD
Observed
Range
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.
Income
8.07
1.56
1 to 9
–
.12†
.10
.10
.27**
.25**
.02
.01
-.09
-.03
2.
Education
4.99
0.98
1 to 7
–
.03
.00
.05
-.04
.01
-.05
-.05
.01
3.
Child sex (male)
0.50
0.50
0 or 1
–
-.09
.03
-.07
-.13†
-.29**
-.14†
.07
4.
T1 peer relationship quality
4.49
0.79
2.20 to 5.90
–
.45**
.38**
.45**
.38**
.35**
-.38**
5.
T1 trust
2.22
0.60
1.00 to 3.00
–
.57**
.35**
.31**
.14†
-.19*
6.
T2 trust
2.22
0.58
1.00 to 3.00
–
.35**
.43**
.35**
-.23*
7.
T1 prosocial behavior
4.38
0.98
1.80 to 6.00
–
.52**
.39**
-.40**
8.
T3 prosocial behavior
4.74
0.93
1.80 to 6.00
–
.58**
-.52**
9.
T3 parental warmth
5.56
0.43
4.38 to 6.00
–
-.48**
10.
T3 externalizing problems
1.44
0.79
0.00 to 4.26
–
Note. N = 150.
† p ≤ .10. * p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01.
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 31
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, TRUST, PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 32
Figure 1. Diagram of the a) revised mediation path model testing the hypothesized relations between peer
relationship quality, trust, and prosocial behavior from 4 to 6 years of age, and b) sensitivity analyses controlling for
the effects of parental warmth and externalizing problems on prosocial behavior at age 6. Parameter estimates reflect
standardized regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals. Covariances among exogenous predictors were
estimated but are not included in the Figure. Significant paths (p ≤ .05) are bolded.
