Cited by 270Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentAttachment and Relationship DynamicsEmotions and Moral Behavior

The ”cost of caring” in youths’ friendships: Considering associations among social perspective taking, co–rumination, and empathetic distress

Open access
Smith, Rhiannon L., Rose, Amanda J.·2011·Developmental Psychology

Abstract

The current research considered the costs of caring in youths' friendships. The development of a new construct, empathetic distress, allowed for a direct test of the commonly held belief that females suffer greater vicarious distress in response to close others' stressors and problems than do males. Empathetic distress refers to one's strongly sharing a relationship partner's distress over problems to the point of taking on the partner's distress and experiencing it as one's own. This new construct was examined in an ethnically diverse sample of early adolescents who responded to a series of questionnaires in their classrooms. Results indicated that girls did experience greater empathetic distress in friendships than did boys. In addition, the current research revealed that social perspective taking in friendships (i.e., the social-cognitive ability to infer and understand the friend's perspective) had adjustment trade-offs in that it predicted greater positive friendship quality but also greater empathetic distress in the friendship. Interestingly, the associations of social perspective taking with both positive friendship quality and empathetic distress were partially mediated by co-rumination or excessive discussion of problems. Applied implications of the findings that girls' greater social perspective taking and associated co-rumination contributed both to their greater positive friendship quality but also to greater costs of caring in the form of empathetic distress are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0025309

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The equal status of individuals and their peers allows them to share and understand feelings for each other to meet their needs, thus maintaining and promoting peer relationships. This may further enhance peer secure attachment.

    “The equal status of individuals and their peers allows them to share and understand feelings for each other to meet their needs, thus maintaining and promoting peer relationships. This may further enhance peer secure attachment [33,34].”

    From The Relationship between Empathy and Attachment in Children and Adolescents: Three-Level Meta-Analyses. (2022) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Discussion (page not supplied) reports that understanding friends’ perspectives and sharing problems are associated with positive friendship quality. It does not establish that peers’ equal status enables this process, that it meets their needs, or that it enhances secure peer attachment. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 59 · Cited by 270

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Eisenberg N Fabes RA Damon W Eisenberg N 1998 Prosocial development Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personality development 5 701 778 New York Wiley

Authors
Smith, R. L., & Rose, A. J.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Developmental Psychology
Published
2011-11
Volume
47
Issue
6
Pages
1792-1803
ISSN
  • 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0599
OpenAlex
W2106134613
Cited by
270
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Missouri
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH 073590)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
Keywords
youth friendship, social perspective taking, co-rumination, gender differences, early adolescents, friendship quality, mediation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Age Factors, Child, Empathy, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, Social Adjustment, Stress, Psychological, Friends

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review