University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perspective taking behavior and social outcomes in late adolescence

(USC Thesis Other)

Perspective taking behavior and social outcomes in late adolescence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 1

Perspective Taking Behavior and

Social Outcomes in Late Adolescence

Claire Burgess

University of Southern California

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 2
Abstract
Perspective taking is a social-cognitive ability that involves understanding the point-of-view of
another (Underwood & Moore, 1982). Associated with positive social outcomes (Eisenberg et
al., 1992; Underwood & Moore, 1982), perspective taking behavior may be particularly
important to measure during adolescence when youth begin to have intimate discussions with
friends, rather than parents (Franzoi & Davis, 1985; Ritter, 1979). Despite the importance of
perspective taking in late adolescence (Davis, 2004; Ritter, 1979), perspective taking has yet to
be in discussions between friends. In the present study, we measured statements of perspective
taking during conversations among 108 adolescent friend-pairs. We hypothesized that
perspective taking would be positively associated with adolescents’ parents’ and friend’s
perspective taking, and adolescents’ social support, social isolation and antisocial behavior.
Perspective taking was positively related to friend’s perspective taking and perceived social
support, although not associated with parent’s perspective taking, antisocial behavior, or social
isolation.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 3
Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………...…….…….……………………... 4

Perspective Taking and Development…………………………………………………………… 5
Measures of Perspective Taking…………………………………………………………………. 6
Perspective Taking and Social Support, Closeness, Social Isolation, and Antisocial Behaviors…8
Parental Influence on Perspective Taking..………...……………………..…………………….. 11
The Present Study……………………….………………………………………..…………….. 11
Method…………………………………………………………………………..…………….... 12

Participants…………………………………………………………………………..………….. 12

Procedure……………………………………………………………………..………………….13

Measures ……………………………………………………………………..………………….15

Results…..…………………………………...………………………..………………………….18

Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………………………..18

Hypothesis One………………………………………………………………………….……….18

Hypothesis Two……………………………………………………………………….…………19

Hypothesis Three…………………………………………………………………….…………..20

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..21

References……………………………………………………………………….……………....27

Tables….……………………………………………………………….………………………..35

Figures…………………………………………………………….……………………………..42

Appendices...…………………………………………………………………….………………43

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 4

Introduction
Perspective taking (PT) is a social-cognitive ability that involves understanding the point-
of-view of another person (Davis, 1983; Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005; Underwood & Moore,
1982). Many studies focus on the positive social outcomes associated with PT, including
altruism, prosocial behavior, and healthy social functioning (Carlo, Allen, & Buhman, 1999;
Davis, 1983; Eisenberg et al., 1992; Maner et al., 2002; Underwood & Moore, 1982; Uphoff,
Smith, & Stewart, 1983). PT may be related to cooperative outcomes due to increased
perceptions of similarity between oneself and other people, which may result in decreased
interpersonal conflict (Davis, 2004; Galinsky et al., 2005; Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000;
Lundell, Grusec, McShane, & Davidov, 2008; Myers & Hodges, 2011). In addition to conflict,
psychological aggression and aggressive behaviors have been negatively correlated with PT in
adolescent populations (Burack, Flanagan, Peled, Sutton, Zygmuntowicz, & Manly, 2006;
Peloquin, Lafontaine, & Brassard, 2011; Richardson, Hammock, Smith, Gardner & Signo, 1994;
Short & Simeonsson, 1986). Even though several self-report and interview studies support these
associations, no one to our knowledge has observed PT behavior among friends in relation to
these outcomes. In the present study we investigate whether an adolescent’s observed PT
behavior and his or her friend’s relates to parent’s PT and three important social outcomes: social
support, social isolation, and antisocial behaviors.
Social PT and affective PT are two types of PT that may occur in discussions among
friends.
1
Social PT is the ability to imagine what another is thinking about a social situation
(Marton, Wiener, Rogers, Moore, & Tannock, 2009; Selman, 1971; Underwood & Moore,
1982), and affective PT is the ability to understand how another person is feeling (Staub &

1
See Davis (2004) for a discussion on how empathy appears in interactions among friends.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 5
Eisenberg, 1981; Underwood & Moore, 1982). In their review of the PT literature, Underwood
and Moore (1982) state that affective PT, a necessary precursor to alleviating the pain of another,
has two overlapping components: PT and empathy. Both involve inferring the emotional state of
another; however, empathy additionally involves vicariously experiencing another’s emotional
state (Eisenberg, Zhou, & Koller, 2001; Underwood & Moore, 1982).
2
Neuroscientific findings
support this conceptual distinction between PT and empathy: brain regions involved in PT
activate anytime an individual is asked to empathize with his or her mother in a hypothetical
emotional scenario (Ruby & Decety, 2004). In the present study we examine social PT, affective
PT, and empathy.
Perspective Taking and Development
Early childhood PT development can be characterized by different stages of increasing
visual and epistemic abilities (Moll & Meltzoff, 2011). At age one, infants begin to share eye
gazes with others. As they grow, infants demonstrate understanding of what another perceives
and that what another perceives might be different from a different observer. Although these
developments are visual and knowledge-based, they may relate to social PT abilities later in
development (Hamilton, Brindley, & Frith, 2009).
In middle childhood through adolescence, children’s and adolescents’ ability to
recognize, distinguish, and anticipate the thoughts and feelings of others increases (Underwood
& Moore, 1982). Burack et al. (2006) examined children’s and adolescents’ PT and found, with
age, individuals increasingly remember information relevant to an non-protagonist, outsider
character in a story. Similarly, adolescents increasingly “spontaneously” take the perspective of
others in social situations (Hill & Palmquist, 1978, p. 13). Selman, Beardslee, Hickey Schultz,

2
Davis (1983) summarized the distinction between PT and empathic concern as cognitive and affective empathy.
For a review of how researchers define empathy in the literature, see Preston and de Waal (2011).
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 6
Krupa, & Podorefsky (1986) found a positive correlation between an adolescent’s age and his or
her 1) reflection on another’s needs in a hypothetical scenario, 2) consideration towards the
lasting implications of an action on a hypothetical relationship, and 3) complexity of feelings in
response to a social action. Thus in entering adolescence youth experience heightened social
cognitive abilities, demonstrated through increased complexity and spontaneity in their ability to
take the perspective of others.
Adolescence is a unique period for measuring PT due to the increased importance youth
place on peer interactions (Burack et al., 2006; Ritter, 1979; Selman et al., 1986). Beginning in
early adolescence, youth strive to belong to a social group and increasingly discuss intimate
information with peers, rather than parents (Franzoi & Davis, 1985; Newman & Newman, 2001;
Ritter, 1979). Peer interactions may be important, in part, because adolescents engage in
egocentric thoughts and create “imaginary audiences,” thinking others have the same self-critical
thoughts they have (Burack et al., 2006; Elkind, 1967). Interactions with close peers may give
adolescents the opportunity to query and mitigate their concern about the critical thoughts of
others. Late adolescents who have friends who understand them may reduce worry about the
thoughts of others. In close relationships, PT may be used to offer support and assuage anxiety.
In the present study we examine adolescents’ use of PT within the unique context of a peer
relationship, to investigate how perceptions of friend support relate to one’s own PT behavior.
Measures of Perspective Taking
Researchers measure PT using behavioral observations and interviews in children and
adolescents. Researchers use behavioral observations with children to study their ability to
understand that individuals can have different viewpoints on an entity based on their knowledge
or physical perspective (Moll & Tomasello, 2007; Moll & Meltzoff, 2011; Underwood & Moore,
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 7
1982). For instance, experimenters may ask a child about the orientation of an object in relation
to another individual (Hamilton et al., 2009). Investigators conduct interviews with both children
and adolescents, by presenting them with a story and then asking the child to either a) retell the
story from the perspective of a character who participated in only part of the story or b) reconcile
the needs of various individuals in a hypothetical situation (Index of Social Egotism, Chandler,
1973a; Bystander Cartoons Test, Chandler, 1973b; Interpersonal Negotiations Strategy, Schultz,
Yeates, & Selman, 1989). Researchers rate children and adolescents according to how well they
are able to take the perspective of a character who was not central to the story or situation.
In late adolescents and adults, investigators measure PT via self-report surveys such as
the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), which asks how often an individual imagines him or
herself in another’s place (Davis, 1980; 1983). Though numerous studies have measured PT
using the IRI (Davis, 1980; 1983; Franzoi & Davis, 1985; Hawk, Keijers, Branje, Van der
Graaff, de Wied, & Meeus, 2012; Peloquin et al., 2011; Perez-Albeniz & de Paul, 2004), the
accuracy of the IRI at assessing behavior is questionable due to biases arising from selective and
differential recall. Social-desirability could additionally affect scoring, with individuals over-
reporting their PT behavior.
An alternative way to measure PT is through behavioral observation. One benefit to using
behavioral observation is that it avoids the aforementioned biases of self-report. Adolescents,
being concerned how others view them (Elkind, 1967), may be especially prone to answer self-
report questions in a socially-desirable way. Additionally, naturalistic observation may be a
particularly appropriate measurement technique because PT is common in social interaction
(Brunye et al., 2012). Despite the strengths of behavioral observation, few studies examine
social-cognition in late adolescents and adults using observational data collection techniques
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 8
(Hill & Palmquist, 1978; Uphoff et al., 1983), and no studies, to our knowledge, examine PT in
late adolescents through behavioral observation.
3
Due to the increasing social interactions of
adolescents and the ecological-validity of behavioral observation (Davis, 2004; Ritter, 1979), we
behaviorally observe PT in adolescents’ discussions of social problems.
Perspective Taking and Social Support, Closeness, Social Isolation, and Antisocial
Behaviors
Inconclusive evidence suggests PT may be linked to securely attached, supportive
relationships. Attachment and social support both involve responding to another (Bowlby, 1969;
Devoldre, Davis, Verhofstadt, & Buysse, 2010; Peloquin et al., 2011). Secure attachment to
others may allow a person to take the perspective of another, activating a caregiving response
(Bowlby, 1969). Peloquin et al. (2011) found an association between secure attachment and PT
in women in intimate relationships. Secure attachment has also been empirically linked to and
construed as social support in friend relationships (Blain, Thompson, & Whiffen, 1993).
Devoldre et al. (2010) found that self-reported cognitive perspective taking predicted perceptions
of social support in college-age couple’s relationships. Although social support has been
associated with couples’ PT behavior, it is uncertain whether this link would hold for friend
relationships. We examine the unexplored relationship between perceived social support and PT
in friend-pairs.
Relatedly, it is unclear whether PT may be linked to close relationships. Ritter (1979)
found that perceived closeness would predict empathic statements individuals make towards
others. However, she considered the possibility that individuals who are very close experience
much of the same events and feelings, and therefore do not use PT in their relationships as

3
One study used behavioral observation to study a related construct, empathic accuracy, in conversations among
strangers upon first meeting (Ickes, Stinson, Bissonnette, & Garcia, 1990).
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 9
frequently as those who are less close. Wu & Keysar (2007a) supported this hypothesis in their
study on the knowledge overlap heuristic. They found that individuals who disclose a high
amount of information with one another tend to use more self-relevant and confusing language,
compared to those who do not share as much information with another. This finding would
suggest that due to overlapping knowledge between close friends, observed use of PT may be
diminished because speakers assume a shared understanding. It remains unclear if observed PT
among friends will be associated with perceptions of a close relationship.
Researchers have theorized an inverse link between PT and social isolation, defined as
the separation of oneself from a group or its values (Brown, Higgins, & Paulsen, 2003; Dean,
1961). Calabrese (1988) predicted that social-emotional support from a peer group would be
negatively associated with feelings of social isolation. Individuals with less frequent social
interactions may view themselves as less capable at social skills (O’Donnell, Schwab-Stone, &
Ruchkin, 2006; Short & Simeonsson, 1986). No study has empirically tested the link between
social isolation and PT, though two studies investigate PT and loneliness. Franzoi & Davis
(1985) administered the IRI to a sample of high school students. They found an inverse link
between PT and loneliness in adolescent females, yet in adolescent males the researchers found
no association. Uphoff et al. (1983) found that delinquent males ages 5-12 who the researchers
rated high on PT through two interview measures were more likely to engage in social
interactions than those who were rated low on PT. Given the inconsistency in findings, it is
unclear if PT will be negatively associated with social isolation.
Some findings suggest antisocial behavior, measured through surveys from teachers,
peers, and self-report, is negatively associated with PT (Burack et al., 2006; Richardson et al.,
1994; Short & Simeonsson, 1986). Burack and colleagues (2006) examined PT in maltreated and
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 10
non-maltreated youth ages 7-17. These researchers measured PT through two story interviews
(Interpersonal Negotiation Strategies, Schultz et al., 1989; Chandler’s Bystander Cartoons Test,
Chandler, 1973b) and found that higher perspective taking was associated with lower symptoms
of behavioral problems, per teachers’ ratings of all participants on the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL-TRF; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1986). Another study experimentally manipulated PT,
priming participants to take the perspective of a confederate (Richardson et al., 1994).
Richardson et al. demonstrated that merely suggesting someone take the perspective of another
resulted in college student-participants: a) saying less offensive things, b) feeling less aggressive,
and c) engaging in harmful behavior towards a confederate less, compared to participants who
were not instructed to engage in PT. Thus, priming individuals to take the perspective of another
has an inverse relationship to various aggressive behaviors committed against that person.
Short and Simeonsson (1986), however, found contrasting results when measuring PT
two different ways. In their study on adolescent males in training facilities, researchers gave
youth the Index of Social Egotism (Chandler, 1973a). Participant’s score on the story-interview
measure was negatively associated with aggressiveness, as rated by peers.
4
Researchers
measured PT one additional way, by asking participants to describe their same-sex friends and
coding their responses for how much other-orientation their answers demonstrated. PT measured
in this second way was not associated with aggression. These findings demonstrate that although
PT ability measured through story-interviews has been negatively linked with aggression,
observed statements of PT given in conversation about ones’ friends have not associated to
aggression. Because of the lack of research on behavioral PT in adolescence, we measure PT in a

4
Aggression was measured via peer-nomination. Individuals were placed into low and high groups based on others’
ratings of their aggression.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 11
novel context—conversations among friends—and examine its relationship with antisocial
behavior.
Parental Influence on Perspective Taking
Some research suggests parents may influence the occurrence of PT and conflict in their
children. Lundell et al. (2008) speculated that PT is taught from parent-to-child; however they
only measured mothers’ PT and not the children’s PT. Hawk et al. (2008) tested the association
between mother and child PT, and found a small, positive correlation. Lundell et al. (2008) tested
the relationship between a mother’s PT towards the child and a) child’s conflict intensity with
the mother and b) concern for the dyad. They found that mother PT related to lower child-
reported conflict intensity and increased concern for the dyad in the child. It is unknown
whether Lundell et al.’s mother-child findings might generalize to other conflictual interactions
among individuals outside the mother-child dyad. Potentially, the combination of greater child
and parent perspective taking may lead the child to less conflict with others due to increased self-
other overlap (Davis, 2004; Galinsky et al., 2005). Because Lundell et al.’s work does not test
child’s PT, we investigate whether the combination of child’s PT and parental PT may protect
against social isolation or antisocial behaviors in youth, or relate positively to social support. It
may be that the combination of child and parent PT buffers against antisocial behaviors.
However, parental and child PT may not protect against antisocial interactions with individuals
outside the family. We test whether PT from both parents and child PT taken together may
moderate antisocial behaviors in the child.
The Present Study
Our study had three hypotheses. First, we expected friends to demonstrate similar levels
of PT while discussing a problem with someone in their life with one another, and relatedly
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 12
closeness and length of relationship to be associated with high PT. Second, we predicted that PT
would be positively associated with perception of social support from peers and negatively
associated with antisocial behavior and feelings of social isolation. We predicted these findings
would hold intra-individually, and across the dyad, with PT talk in conversation positively linked
to social support and negatively linked to antisocial behavior, and social isolation in both the
speaker and the listener. Third, we hypothesized an association between parents’ and child’s PT.
Relatedly, we predicted an interaction between parents’ PT and child’s PT, such that the
combination of parent PT and child PT would be associated with high social support and
protective against antisocial behavior and social isolation.
Method
Participants
The 108 participating adolescent pairs (47 female pairs; 61 male pairs) consisted of one
youth from a longitudinal study on family conflict (described here as “youth” or “continuing
youth”) and a same-sex friend of that adolescent’s choosing (“friend”). Although 129 adolescent
dyads participated in this wave of data collection, only 111 youth elected to complete the
videotaped portion of the study. Two dyads’ data were excluded from analyses due to poor film
quality and another dyad was excluded because the youth had already participated in the study as
the friend of another continuing youth.
The sample was ethnically diverse; adolescents’ self-identification of race was 15.7%
African-American, 6.5% Asian, 57.9% Caucasian, 19.0% multiple races, and 1% American
Indian/Alaska Native or other Pacific Islander. Thirty-four percent of participants identified as
Hispanic/Latino as well as one of the above categories. At the time of participation in this study,
the mean age of the adolescents was 17.82 (SD = 1.28; range 14-24). Parents of continuing youth
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 13
reported family income of 30.7% less than $50,000, 29.3% $50,000-75,000, 17.3% $75,000-
$100,000, and 22.7% of over $100,000.
Families in the longitudinal study were originally recruited through flyers and
advertisements in two cohorts with the following inclusion criteria: mother, father, and child had
lived together three years or more; the family was willing to complete the procedures in English;
the family included a child aged 9-10 (cohort 1) or in grades 7-8 (cohort 2).
For this wave of data collection we contacted adolescents who previously participated via
email and/or telephone and invited them to a laboratory session with a friend. We asked youth to
think of up to three same-sex friends who might be willing to participate with them and to
contact one or more to determine if he or she would be interested in participating. Once the name
and contact information of a friend was obtained, we then contacted the friend and the friend’s
parent to describe the study and conduct parental consent. Youths’ parents were also contacted
for purposes of consent and data collection for another part of the study. Consent procedures for
the youth and friend were conducted when they arrived to the laboratory and only after we had
secured parental consented. The University Institutional Review Board approved all study
procedures. Participants were compensated $50 and two movie tickets each for participating in
the study.
Procedure
Participants entered the laboratory and began filling out a series of questionnaires in
separate rooms, including measures for this and other studies. The next part of participants’ visit
was the discussion task. The discussion task was patterned after the procedure of Piehler &
Dishion (2007). The purpose of the discussion task was to examine peer influence and support
by measuring affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes that occur during peer discussions.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 14
The task included nine prompts for adolescents to discuss for five minutes each. Topics ranged
from substance use to goals for the upcoming year; we focus on two of the nine topics
concerning social problems with others in the present study. For these two topics, each
adolescent was asked to think of a person with whom he or she had an unresolved issue.
Researchers gave each adolescent a pre-discussion-task questionnaire, stating: “From the list
below, put a check mark next to people who you have an unresolved issue or problem with.”
Participants placed a check mark next to one of several individuals, such as a brother, boss,
teammate (etc.). If participants selected no one, researchers prompted them to identify a person
of their own choosing.
After completing the discussion task survey, participants reunited from their separate
rooms and began the discussion task. The conversations were video-recorded in a room with two
large chairs facing a one way mirror, a table, two computers, and three small cameras.
Experimenters attached a microphone to each adolescent and began the discussion task by
prompting adolescents to have five-minute conversations on the nine different topics, one-at-a-
time. Experimenters stated: “This is a confidential videotaped discussion; we won’t share the
information with your parents or anyone else outside of [our] research team, so you can talk
freely... Please try to talk in as much detail as you can, and try to use up the full five minutes for
each discussion topic…Do you have any questions before you begin your discussions?”
Experimenters resumed: “For the next 45 minutes we would like you to talk about several topics.
You may have talked with each other about some of these things before and some may be new.
We’ll give you a cue card for each topic to help guide your discussion.”
For the first discussion, participants were prompted: “Now I’d like the two of you to talk
about a current problem with a person that [insert the continuing youth’s name] identified a few
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 15
minutes ago. [Youth’s name], you selected a few people on this list with whom you have an
unresolved issue. Please talk about why it is a problem and then if you’ve tried to solve it what
you did and if it worked. Then talk with [insert friend’s name] about ways you might solve the
problem and any ways that [friend’s name] could help. You’ll have five minutes for this
discussion. Here’s your card [experimenter places a cue card on the table in front of participants
to remind them of the topic]. Do you have any questions?” Participants’ cue cards reminded
them to talk about an unresolved issue the youth had. They were left alone for five minutes to
discuss the youth’s problem.
Researchers re-entered the room to provide similar instructions for the second discussion,
but instructed the dyad to discuss the friend’s problems. Participants were asked if they had any
questions and then left alone for five minutes to discuss the friend’s problem.
Measures
Coding. Two coders independently rated the video-recorded discussion. Coders learned
to code by first reading a manual describing the codes and the coding process developed by a
graduate student. Coders then practiced coding on nine videos. Researchers gave coders
feedback on the accuracy of their coding as they completed the nine practice codings.
The coding manual defined various behaviors a priori (Iturralde, 2011). This study
focuses on codes called “perspective taking of friend,” “emotional support,” and “perspective
taking of others.” According to the manual, perspective taking of friend (“PT of friend”) was to
be coded when a participant was “imagining or wondering about the motivations, feelings,
beliefs, or experiences” of the other individual in the room (e.g., “So you’re like, why am I here
now?”; Iturralde, 2011, p. 12). The second behavior, emotional support, was defined as either: 1)
making “expressions of empathy, sympathy, and caring,” 2) making “empathic sounds” such as
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 16
“aww,” etc. or 3) engaging in non-verbal mirroring of vulnerable emotion such as sadness (e.g.,
“Do you think you act that way because of your lack of caring in the relationship?”; Iturralde,
2011, p. 11). For analyses, codes for perspective taking of friend and emotional support were
combined. Last, perspective taking of others (“PT of others”) was defined as “imagining or
wondering about the motivations, feelings, beliefs, or experiences” of others outside the room,
especially by drawing inferences about why people do things they do (e.g., “I think your sister is
upset because she feels left out”; Iturralde, 2011, p. 9). This code and perspective taking of friend
were mutually exclusive, meaning that a rater could not code the same content in one
participant’s statement as both perspective taking of friend and perspective taking of others
concurrently.
Coders independently rated each video twice counterbalanced for order, with one coder
rated the youth first and a second coder rated the friend first. Coders assigned scores for
perspective taking of friend, perspective taking of others, and emotional support along with other
codes for a different study at the end of the 5-minute interval. These ratings captured both the
frequency and intensity of behaviors on a 0-3 scale (0 = none, 1 = some, 2 = a moderate amount,
and 3 = a lot).
The final coding scores used in analyses were calculated by averaging across raters and
across the two discussions. PT of friend was computed by taking the maximum of the PT of
friend rating and the emotional support rating for each rater in each discussion, to provide a
single score that comprised both cognitive and affective perspective taking towards the friend.
We created “PT total” by summing the final PT of friend and PT of others variables. Agreement
among raters was calculated via an intraclass correlation. The intraclass correlation coefficient
was .69 for PT of friend and .84 for PT of others.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 17
Closeness among Friends and Length of Relationship. Both youth indicated the length
of the relationship with their friend in months and years and their closeness to their friend, on a
six-point scale (0 = casual acquaintance and 5 = my closest friend). The average length of
friendship was 5.84 years (SD = 4.15, ranging from 0-18.17) and the average closeness rating
was 3.76 (SD = .99, ranging from 0.5-5).
Social Support. Perceived social support from others was measured through The
Inventory of Peer and Parent Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). This measure
assessed perceived social support from both peers and parents (Blain et al., 1993). Twenty-five
items assessed adolescents’ social support from peers, e.g., “I trust my friends,” on a 5-point
scale (0 = almost never/always never and 4 = almost always/always true). Continuing youth also
completed the parent-version of the IPPA, which included 29 items, e.g. “my parents encourage
me to talk about my difficulties.” For our sample the measure demonstrated an internal
consistency of α = .86.
Antisocial Behavior. Participants reported aggressive and antisocial behaviors through
18 items from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (CDC, 2011). Items assessed theft,
destruction of property, arson, use of verbal threats, and use of physical force. Answer choices
were rescaled on a 0-3 scale (0 = never and 3 = ten or more times; see Appendix B for rescaling
information). The measure demonstrated an internal consistency of α = .80.
Social Isolation. Participants reported on social isolation as part of a 57-item alienation
inventory using items from other measures (see Dean, 1961; Mau, 1992). We created a 12-item
social isolation scale to assess whether youth felt estranged or separated from social connections,
such as peers at school or familial relationships, e.g., “I feel cut off or estranged from people.”
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 18
Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = disagree strongly and 4 = agree strongly). Our
measure demonstrated internal consistency (α = .76).
Parental Perspective Taking. Youth filled out 11 items describing how much
understanding they feel from each parent, e.g., “my dad/mom understands what I’m going
through these days,” (Margolin, 2000). Of the 108 continuing youth completing the protocol,
103 individuals maintained contact with a father figure and completed the questionnaire. The
measure had a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never and 4 = always) for the mother and father. The
questionnaire demonstrated sufficient internal consistency (child’s rating of mother, α = .84;
child’s rating of father, α = .78).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 19. All missing data on individual items
within a measure were replaced with the mean item score for that individual. When a participant
failed to complete half of the items of a measure, their summed score for that measure was not
included in analyses. The sample sizes, means, standard deviations, and ranges of all study
variables are presented in Table 1. There were significant differences in PT by gender, such that
adolescent females tended to display more PT than males (PT of friend, t(214) = 2.72, p < .01;
PT of others, t(214) = 2.04, p < .05; PT total, t(214) = 2.94, p < .01). Additionally, young women
reported significantly less antisocial behaviors than young men (t(208) = -3.23, p < .01).
Hypothesis One
The first hypothesis, that adolescents would show similar levels of PT within dyads, was
partially supported. Table 2 presents pair-wise intraclass correlations among the members of
dyads on the coded PT behavior (see Griffin & Gonzalez, 1995 for a discussion of the use of
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 19
pairwise-calculated product-moments). Part a) of hypothesis one was supported: friends
demonstrated similar levels of the PT behavior during their discussions (PT of friend, r(106) =
.44, p < .001; PT of others, r(106) = .49, p < .001; PT total, r(106) = .53, p < .001). This finding
held for both men and women. To examine our second question within hypothesis one, we
calculated dyadic scores for closeness and length of relationship, reflecting the average of the
two friends. Table 3 presents findings on the relationship between youths’ average PT and
average closeness with their friends. There were no significant relationships between dyad
closeness and PT of friend, PT of others, or PT total. Furthermore, there were no significant
associations between the averaged length of a dyad’s friendship and their averaged PT behavior,
as indicated in Table 4. These null findings held for both young women and men, and for all PT
behaviors measured.
Hypothesis Two
The second hypothesis, that PT would be associated with social support and negatively
correlated with social isolation and antisocial behavior was partially supported. We conducted
bivariate correlations to examine the relationship between adolescents’ PT, social support, social
isolation, and antisocial behavior. Table 5 presents the results of hypothesis two, which indicate
that perceived social support from peers was positively associated with PT of friend and PT total,
as predicted. Additionally, social support was negatively associated with social isolation and
positively associated with participants’ age and antisocial behavior. Dyad closeness was
positively associated with individual social isolation. Length of relationship was positively
associated with closeness.
Multilevel path analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between a person’s
total PT (PT of friend and PT of others summed) and antisocial behavior, social isolation, and
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 20
social support peer. These analyses were conducted to account for dyadic dependency in the PT
behaviors. All path analyses were conducted in Mplus 5 (2007). Model fit was perfect for all
models because researchers estimated fully-saturated models. Two separate multilevel path
models were conducted (Figure 1), one to examine intra-individual relationships among variables
(self) and a second for across-individual effects (other person). In both the intra-individual and
across-individual models, PT total was significantly associated with perceived social support
from peers (β = .20, p < .01, self; β = .18, p < .01, other person). PT total was not associated with
antisocial behavior (β = -.04, p = .53, self; β = -.04, p = .59, other person) or with social isolation
(β = -.03, p = .74, self; β = -.02, p = .72, other person). To account for differences by age, gender,
perceived closeness and length of dyads’ friendships, researchers tested each of four variables as
moderators; however, found that none of them moderated the relationship between PT total and
the three outcome variables. In conclusion, PT related to perceived social support, but not
antisocial behavior and social isolation.
Hypothesis Three
Table 6 presents bivariate correlations between youths’ PT, youths’ perceptions of
parents’ PT, and youths’ social support from parents. Discrepant from our predictions, youth PT
was not associated with parents’ PT. Perceived social support from parents was significantly
associated with mothers’ and fathers’ PT.
To test whether parents’ PT moderates the relationship between child’s PT and our three
outcomes, we conducted three separate linear regressions were conducted for each of the three
outcome variables: social support from peers, antisocial behavior, and social isolation. Table 7
presents correlations among the variables entered in the moderation analyses. We found that PT
parents was negatively associated with social isolation in youth (r(104) = -.51, p < .001) and
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 21
positively associated with social support from peers (r(102) = .24, p < .05). To conduct a
hierarchical regression testing moderation, researchers effect coded gender as “-.5” in for
females and “.5” for males (see Enders & Tofighi, 2007). In step one, gender, PT parents, and
PT youth were entered as independent variables. In steps two and three, two-way and three-way
interaction terms were entered. Although no two-way or three-way interaction effects were
found, a main effect of gender was found for antisocial behavior (β = .22, t(104) = 2.27, p < .05).
Parent PT and youth PT total were not significant predictors of antisocial behavior (β = .-.16,
t(104) = -1.73, p = .09; β = .17, t (104) = 1.77, p = .08, respectively).
Discussion
Our study investigated statements of PT in conversations among late adolescent friends
discussing a social problem. We found similarity between late adolescents’ PT behavior and their
friend’s PT behavior. High PT was not related to friendships being closer or of longer duration.
Female adolescents demonstrated more PT behavior than male adolescents. PT was not related to
social isolation or antisocial behaviors; however, it was positively associated with perceptions of
social support. Parent and child PT were not associated with on another. Furthermore, parent PT
did not moderate the relationship between child PT and social support, social isolation, or
antisocial behaviors.
PT Behavior and Friendship
We found support for the hypothesis that close friends in late adolescence would make
PT statements with each other. We based this theory on literature finding that individuals
exchange more important social information with peers than with parents in adolescence, finding
value in their new peer social relationships (Blain et al., 1993; Franzoi & Davis, 1985).
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 22
Supporting our hypothesis, we found friend-dyads engaged in PT with one another in the context
of a conversation about a social problem, and that the friends showed similar amounts of PT.
One factor that may have affected the occurrence of PT in our study is the prompt we
gave participants. Prompting participants to talk a person with whom they have a problem and
how their friend in the room can help them may have elicited high PT behavior. If we reran the
present study and asked participants to either talk about a problem without asking for their
friend’s help or asking them to engage in everyday conversation about a topic of their choice, we
may find lower base rates of PT behavior.
Surprisingly, we found no support for an association between PT and the length of the
relationship of each dyad or closeness of the dyad. Perhaps being in a close, long-term friendship
means that one experiences the same events and interpretation of those events as one’s friends
(Ritter, 1979). An individual may not need to engage in PT to understand what a close friend is
experiencing; instead friends’ understanding may be unspoken. One finding that supports this
explanation is from Devoldre et al. (2010), who found that in couple’s relationships, the length of
the relationship had an inverse association with husband-to-wife allocation of emotional support.
This finding in combination with our null results suggests that individuals who are seeking
understanding may use PT as a way to increase their knowledge of what another is experiencing,
and that this process may not relate or may be negatively associated with how close they are.
Additional research is also needed to investigate how individuals use PT to anticipate the
thoughts and actions of third-parties in conversations (i.e., individuals who are brought up in
conversation, but who are not present). In the present study statements of PT about another
person outside the room were not linked with perceived social support from peers, though PT of
the friend in the room was. Thus, the cognitive ability to think as a third-party may be a related,
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 23
yet distinct display of PT. Researchers suggest that PT may be useful in interactions with
dissimilar or unfamiliar individuals because it helps one understand and anticipate others’
thoughts and behaviors (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008; Wu & Keysar, 2007b). Future
studies should investigate statements of PT towards a third-party and sequentially assess how a
statement of PT might aid individuals in social interactions with others.
Social Support and PT
Our hypothesis that PT behavior with a friend would be related to perceived social
support from peers was supported. This finding is congruent with Devoldre et al.’s (2010)
finding that perceptions of affective social support among couples related to cognitive
perspective taking. Their research also surprisingly found that empathic concern, most similar to
the PT of friend variable in the present study, was not related to social support. In the present
study, we found that PT of friend correlated positively with social support from peers, but that
PT of others did not. Due to our method of analyzing the discussions, we cannot draw
conclusions about whom participants were speaking about when they made a statement of PT to
a third-party.
PT Behavior and Antisocial Behavior
Contrary to expectation, we found no association between PT and self-reported antisocial
behavior. Burack et al. (2006) and Uphoff et al. (1983) similarly found that adolescent PT was
not associated with antisocial behavior as measured through Chandler’s Bystander Cartoons Test
(Chandler, 1973b). However, these results contrast with prior work that finds an association
between antisocial behavior and PT, as measured through other interview measures (Burack et
al., 2006; Short & Simeonsson, 1986) and experimental manipulation (Richardson et al., 1994).
It may be these prior works assessed an individual’s PT ability; however, they did not measure
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 24
the tendency of that individual to engage in PT during a conversation with a friend. PT ability
may demonstrate a negative association with antisocial behaviors, whereas PT behavior in
conversation with a friend does not. Because it remains unclear whether PT behavior
demonstrates a clear negative association to antisocial behavior, future work should examine PT
behavior and specific types of antisocial behavior.
5

Child and Parent PT
We found no support for our third hypothesis: that parent’s PT would relate to child’s PT,
and that parent’s PT would moderate the relationship between child’s PT and social outcomes. It
may be that the empirical link between mother’s PT and child’s conflict changes when a father’s
PT is included in analyses (Lundell et al., 2008). It may also be the case that no relationship
exists between a child’s report of his or her parent’s PT and the child’s own PT in discussions
with friends. As stated, it may be that PT behavior in discussions with a friend may not translate
to PT with other individuals, even parents. One finding consistent with this explanation is from a
Peloquin et al.’s (2011) study of husband-wife PT using an “IRI for Couples” questionnaire
(Peloquin & Lafontaine, 2010). Researchers found no relationship between a husband and wife’s
self-reported PT. We are interested in possible moderators of the relationship between child and
parent’s PT and future investigations that also examine father-child PT.
Future Directions
First, one limitation of the present study is that we did not account for individual
differences in factors contributing to the expression of PT. Shyness or extraversion may alter the
expression of PT, given research showing that personality characteristics affect expressions of
perspective taking and empathy (Brunye et al., 2012; Underwood & Moore, 1982). Comfort with

5
One meta-analysis reviews the effect size of social skills training, as measured through behavioral observation,
personality testing, etc. (Quinn, Kavale, Mathur, Rutherford, & Forness, 1999).
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 25
engaging in PT and exposure to PT were not directly assessed, either. It may be that some
individuals feel motivated or rewarded for engaging in PT. These constructs would have added
to our research, given findings on the social aspects of PT and social isolation (Cacioppo, Norris,
Decety, Monteleone, & Nusbaum, 2008; Davis, 2004).
Second, cultural background and norms may affect the expression of PT behavior (Wu &
Keysar, 2007b). Wu & Keysar found that PT demonstrated that differences exist among
participants from individualist versus collectivist cultures in eye-gaze behavior (fixation on
another’s eyes). Members of individualist cultures demonstrated less PT behavior with a
confederate than those from collectivist cultures. Despite having data on the self-reported racial
background of our participants, our sample size was too small to run analyzes that examine
individualist/collectivist differences.
Third, future work on PT observed in conversation should include other types of
measures of PT for cross-validation of behaviorally-observed PT. Concurrent measurement on
the IRI PT scale (Davis, 1980; 1983) would allow researchers to relate their findings back to a
wide literature of IRI studies (Konrath, O’Brien, & Hsing, 2011) and would add insight into PT
measurement. Specifically, it would be interesting to compare the factor structure of the IRI to
our measure, given that the IRI assesses use of PT more in disagreements than in friend
discussions. The “friendship” item on the IRI may be associated with our PT of friend variable
because both refer to one’s use of PT in interactions with friends.
Conclusion
Our study demonstrated that friends discussing a social problem with one another make
statements of PT. PT can be seen as a supportive behavior because it is used in discussions with
friends and is associated with one’s perception of social support from peers. This finding along
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 26
with the finding that PT relates to perceived social support is similar to Chartrand and Bargh’s
(1999) finding that perceptions of behavior is associated with that same behavior within oneself.
In our research PT was a dyadic process: the dependency of the behavior within dyads supports
the idea that PT behavior is a social phenomenon.
The present study adds to the literature by measuring statements of perspective taking in
an ecologically-valid way: through social interaction. Although we failed to find a link between
PT and social isolation and antisocial behavior in adolescents, the link between social support
and PT and the concurrent measurement of friend PT behavior adds new understanding to
research on PT behavior. Failing to find a link between PT and antisocial behavior using our
methodology leads to an important implication of the present study.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 27
References
Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1986). Manual for the child behavior checklist. Burlington:
University of Vermont.
Armsden, G.C., & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427-454. doi: 10.1007/BF02202939
Blain, M.D., Thompson, J.M., & Whiffen, V.E. (1993). Attachment and perceived social support
in late adolescence: The interaction between working models of self and others. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 8, 226-241. doi: 10.1177/074355489382006
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Volume 1: Attachment. London, England: The Hogarth
Press.
Brown, M., Higgins, K., & Paulsen, K. (2003). Adolescent alienation: What is it and what can
educators do about it? Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(3), 3-9. doi:
10.1177/10534512030390010101
Brunye, T.T., Ditman, T., Giles, G.E., Mahoney, C.R., Kessler, K., & Taylor, H.A. (2012).
Gender and autistic personality traits predict perspective-taking ability in typical adults.
Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 84-88.
Burack, J., Flanagan, T., Peled, T., Sutton, M., Zygmuntowicz, C., and Manly, J. (2006). Social
perspective-taking skills in maltreated children and adolescents. Developmental
Psychology, 42, 207-217. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.207
Caccioppo, J.T., Norris, C.J., Decety, J., Monteleone, G., & Nusbaum, H. (2008). In the eye of
the beholder: Individual differences in perceived social isolation predict regional brain
activation to social stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Science, 21(1), 83-92.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 28
Calabrese, R.L. (1988). The effects of family factors on levels of adolescent alienation. The High
School Journal, 71(4), 187-191.
Carlo, G., Allen, J., & Buhman, D. (1999). Facilitating and disinhibiting prosocial behaviors:
The nonlinear interaction of trait perspective taking and trait personal distress on
volunteering. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(3), 189-197.
doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2103_3
CDC. (2011). Youth risk behavior surveillance, 61(4). Retrieved from the weekly morbidity and
mortality report surveillance summaries website:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6104a1.htm?s_cid=ss6104a1_w
Chandler, M. (1973a). The picture arrangement subtest of the WAIS as an index of social
egocentrism: A comparative study of normal and emotionally disturbed children. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1, 340-349.
Chandler, M. (1973b). Egocentrism and antisocial behavior: The assessment and training of
social perspective-taking skills. Developmental Psychology, 9(3), 326–332.
Chartrand, T.L., & Bargh, J.A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and
social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893-910. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893
Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.44.1.113
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 29
Davis, M. (2004). Empathy: Negotiating the border between self and other. In L.Z. Tiedens &
C.W. Leach (Eds.), The social life of emotions (pp. 19-42). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Dean, D.G. (1961). Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. American Sociological Review,
26(5), 753-758.
Devoldre, I., Davis, M.H., Verhofstadt, L.L., & Buysse, A. (2010). Empathy and social support
provision in couples: Social support and the need to study the underlying processes. The
Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 259-284.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Troyer, D., Speer, A.L., Karbon, M., & Switzer, G.
(1992). The relations of maternal practices and characteristics to children’s vicarious
emotional responsiveness. Child Development, 63(3), 583-602.
Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Koller, S. (2001). Brazilian adolescents’ prosocial moral judgment and
behavioral relations to sympathy, perspective taking, gender-role orientation, and
demographic characteristics. Child Development, 72(2), 518-534.
Elkind, D. (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 38(4), 1025-1034.
Enders, C.K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel-
models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121-138. doi:
10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
Franzoi, S.L., & Davis, M. H. (1985). Adolescent self-disclosure and loneliness: Private self-
consciousness and parental influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
48(3), 768-780.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 30
Galinsky, A., Ku, G., & Wang, C. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering
social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 8(2), 109–124. doi:10.1177/1368430205051060
Galinsky, A., Maddux, W.W., Gilin, D., & White, J.B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head
of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in
negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2008.02096.x.
Galinsky, A., & Moskowitz, G. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression,
stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(4), 708-724. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708
Griffin, D., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlation analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable
case. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 430-439.
Hamilton, A.F., Brindley, R. & Frith, U. (2009). Visual perspective taking impairment in
children with autistic spectrum disorder. Cognition, 113, 37-44.
Hawk, S.T., Keijers, L., Branje, S.J., Van der Graaff, J., de Wied, M. & Meeus, W. (2012).
Examining the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) among early and late adolescents and
their mothers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 96-106. doi:
10.1080/00223891.2012.696080
Hill, J., & Palmquist, W. (1978). Social cognition and social relations in early adolescence.
International Journal of Behavioural Development, 1, 1-36.
doi:10.1177/016502547800100102
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 31
Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition:
Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59(4), 730-742.
Iturralde, E. (2011). Coding Manual. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Konrath, S.H., O’Brien, E.H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in Dispositional Empathy in
American College Students Over Time: A Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 15(2), 180-198. doi: 10.1177/1088868310377395
Lundell, L.J., Grusec, J.E., McShane, K.E., & Davidov, M. (2008). Mother-adolescent conflict:
Adolescent goals, maternal perspective-taking, and conflict intensity. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 18(3), 555-571. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00571.x
Maner, J.K., Luce, C.L., Neuberg, S.L., Cialdini, R.B., Brown, S., & Sagarin, B.J. (2002). The
effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1601-1610. doi:
10.1177/014616702237586
Margolin, G. (2000). Child’s View. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Marton, I., Wiener, J., Rogers, M., Moore, C., & Tannock, R. (2009). Empathy and social
perspective taking in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 107-118. doi: 10.1007/s10802-008-9262-4
Mau, R. (1992). The validity and devolution of a concept: Student alienation. Adolescence,
27(107), 731-741.
Moll, H., & Meltzoff, A.N. (2011). How does it look? Level 2 perspective-taking at 36 months
of age. Child Development, 82(2), 661-673. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01571.x
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 32
Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2007). How 14- and 18-month-olds know what others have
experienced. Developmental Psychology. 43(2), 309-317. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.43.2.309
Mplus 5 (2007). Mplus Statistical Software: Release 5. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Myers, M., & Hodges, S. (2011). The structure of self-other overlap and its relation to
perspective taking. Personal Relationships, np. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01382.x
Newman, B.M., & Newman, P.R. (2001). Group identity and alienation: Giving the we its due.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(5), 515-538.
O’Donnell, D.A., Schwab-Stone, M.E., Ruchkin, V. (2006). Developmental Psychopathology,
18(1), 215-232. doi: 10.1017/S0954579406060123
Peloquin, K., & Lafontaine, M.F. (2010). Measuring empathy in couples: Validity and reliability
of the interpersonal reactivity index for couples. Journal of Personality Assessment,
92(2), 146-157. doi: 10.1080/00223890903510399
Peloquin, K., Lafontaine, M.F., & Brassard, A. (2011). A dyadic approach to the study of
romantic attachment, dyadic empathy, and psychological partner aggression. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 28(7), 915-942. doi: 10.1177/0265407510397988
Perez-Albeniz, A., & de Paul, J. (2004). Gender differences in empathy in parents at high- and
low-risk of child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 289-300. doi:
10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.11.017
Piehler, T., & Dishion, T. (2007). Interpersonal dynamics within adolescent friendships: Dyadic
mutuality, deviant talk, and patterns of antisocial behavior. Child Development, 78(5),
1611–1624.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 33
Preston, S.D., & de Waal, F. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 25, 1-72.
Quinn, M.M., Kavale, K.A., Mathur, S.R., Rutherford, R.B., & Forness, S.R. (1999). A meta-
analysis of social skill interventions for students with emotional or behavioral disorders.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 54-64.
Richardson, D.R., Hammock, G.S., Smith, S.M., Garner, W., & Signo, M. (1994). Empathy as a
cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 275-289. doi:
10.1002/1098-2337
Ritter, E.M. (1979). Social perspective-taking ability, cognitive complexity and listener-adapted
communication in early and late adolescence. Communication Monographs, 46, 40-51.
Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2004). How would you feel versus how do you think she would feel? A
neuroimaging study of perspective-taking with social emotions. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 16(6), 988-999.
Schultz, L. H., Yeates, K. V., & Selman, R. L. (1989). The interpersonal negotiation strategies
(INS) interview: A scoring manual. Boston: The Group for the Study of Interpersonal
Development.
Selman, R. (1971). Taking another’s perspective: Role-taking development in early childhood.
Child Development, 42(6), 1721–1734.
Selman, R.L., Beardslee, W., Hickey Schultz, L., Krupa, M., & Podorefsky D. (1986). Assessing
adolescent interpersonal negotiation strategies: Towards the integration of structural and
functional models. Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 450-459.
Short, R.J., & Simeonsson, R.J. (1986). Social cognition and aggression in delinquent adolescent
males. Adolescence, 21(81), 159-176.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 34
Staub, E., & Eisenberg, N. (1981). Social cognition, affect, and behavior: An essay and review of
Robert Selman’s the growth of interpersonal understanding: developmental and clinical
analyses. Developmental Review, 1, 385-400.
Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin,
91(1), 143-173. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.143
Uphoff, J.W., Smith, C.L., & Stewart, B.J. (1983). Perspective-taking and social behavior in
behaviorally disordered boys. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association in Anaheim, California.
Wu, S., & Keysar, B. (2007a). The effect of information overlap on communication
effectiveness. Cognitive Science, 31, 169-181.
Wu, S., & Keysar, B. (2007b). The effect of culture on perspective taking. Psychological
Science, 18(7), 600-606.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 35
Table 1

Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Major Variables

Variable
n
M(SD) Range
All Participants Females Males Potential Actual
PT Friend 216 .73(.44) .82(.44)** .66(.42)

0-3 0-2
PT Others 216 .79(.64) .89(.68)* .71(.59)

0-3 0-2.75
PT Total 216 1.52(.85) 1.71(.85)** 1.37(.82)

0-6 0-4.25
PT Father
a
103

24.19(9.70) 23.98(10.35) 24.63(9.25)

0-44 0-43
PT Mother
a
108 27.59(9.37) 28.66(9.02) 26.77(9.63)

0-44 1-44
PT Parents
a
108 25.71(8.04) 26.29(7.35) 25.27(8.58)

0-88 6.5-41.5
Age 216

17.82(1.28) 17.75(1.15) 17.87(1.38)

0-100 14-24
Closeness
among
Friends
b

106 3.76(.99) 3.86(.92) 3.69(1.04)

0-5 0.5-5
Length of
Friend
Relationship
b

105 5.84(4.15) 5.69(3.95) 5.97(4.30)

0-24 0-18.17
Social
Support Peer
204 75.14(15.43) 76.90(15.10) 73.96(15.24)

0-100 28-100
Social
Support
Parent
a

105 92.58(12.06) 92.30(11.75) 92.81(12.40)

28-140 59-115
Social
Isolation
211 12.36(5.94) 12.67(6.17) 12.12(5.77)

0-48 2-32
Antisocial
Behavior
215 4.13(5.06) 2.88(4.62)** 5.03(5.10)

0-54 0-29

Note: PT Total = sum of PT of friend and PT of others; PT Parents = average of PT Mother and
PT Father, using the mother’s score only if the father’s score was not available.
a
Sample size reflects data collected on only the youth.
b
Sample size reflects the dyadic average
score, using one member’s score if the other member’s score was not available.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Two-tailed significance. Significant differences
by gender are indicated.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 36
Table 2

Correlations between Continuing Youth and Friend on Coded PT

Variable
All Participants
(n = 108 dyads)
Females
(n = 47 dyads)
Males
(n = 61 dyads)
PT Friend .44*** .54*** .32***
PT Others .49*** .40*** .57***
PT Total .53*** .45*** .57***

Note: PT Total = sum of PT of friend and PT of others.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Two-tailed significance.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 37
Table 3

Correlations between Friendship Closeness and PT

Variable
All Participants
(n = 106)
Females
(n = 47)
Males
(n = 59)
PT Friend .07 .23 -.08
PT Others .00 -.01 -.03
PT Total .03 .12 -.06

Note: Sample size reduced to only dyads in which at least one participant
completed the closeness measure. PT Total = sum of PT of friend and PT of
others.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Two-tailed significance.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 38
Table 4

Correlations between Length of Relationship and PT

Variable
All Participants
(n = 105)
Females
(n = 46)
Males
(n = 59)
PT Friend .04 .18 -.07
PT Others -.12 .01 -.21
PT Total -.07 .11 -.18

Note: Sample size reduced to only dyads in which at least one participant
completed the length of relationship measure. PT Total = sum of PT of friend and
PT of others.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Two-tailed significance.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 39
Table 5

Intercorrelations between Adolescent PT, Social Outcomes, and Relationship Variables

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. PT Friend
(n = 216)
--
2. PT Others
(n = 216)
.23** --
3. PT Total
(n = 216)
.69*** .87*** --
4. Social
Isolation
(n = 211)
.02 -.05 -.03 --
5. Antisocial
Behavior
(n = 215)
.01 -.04 -.03 .19** --
6. Social
Support Peer
(n = 204)
.19** .13 .19** -.48*** -.12 --
7. Age
(n = 216)
-.05 .06 .02 -.11 -.06 .14* --
8. Closeness
a

(n = 212)
.06 .00 .03 .14* .02 -.05 .05 --
9. Length of
Relationship
a

(n = 210)
.03 -.10 -.06 .03 .11 -.10 .07 .16* --

Note: PT Total = sum of PT of friend and PT of others.
a
Dyadic average scores were entered twice, once for each individual in the dyad.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Two-tailed significance.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 40
Table 6

Intercorrelations between Parents’ PT and Social Support and Youths’ PT

Note: Sample reduced to only continuing youth. PT Total = sum of PT of friend
and PT of others; PT Parents = average of PT Mother and PT Father, using the
mother’s score only if the father’s score was not available. Social Sup. Parent =
Social support parent.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Two-tailed significance.

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. PT Friend
(n = 108)
--
2. PT Others
(n = 108)
.15 --
3. PT Total
(n = 108)
.66*** .84*** --
4. PT Mother
(n = 108)
.12 .05 .10 --
5. PT Father
(n = 103)
-.09 .16 .07 .35*** --
6. PT Parents
(n = 108)
.04 .15 .13 .83*** .84*** --
7. Social
Sup. Parent
(n = 105)
.04 -.02 .00 .55*** .59*** .66*** --
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 41
Table 7

Intercorrelations between PT Youth, PT Parents, and Youth Outcomes

Note: Sample reflects data of only the continuing youths. PT Total = sum of PT of
friend and PT of others; PT Parents = average of PT Mother and PT Father, using
the mother’s score only if the father’s score was not available.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Two-tailed significance.

1 2 3 4 5
1. PT Total
(n = 108)
--
2. PT
Parents
(n = 108)
.13 --
3. Antisocial
Behavior
(n = 108)
.11 -.16 --
4. Social
Isolation
(n = 106)
-.07 -.51*** .25** --
5. Social
Support Peer
(n = 104)
.00 .24* .05 -.44*** --
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 42

Figure 1. Two separate multilevel path analyses depicting relationships between PT total and
antisocial behavior, social isolation, and social support peer within a person, as well as across the
dyad. Model fit was perfect due to fully saturated models. PT Total = sum of PT of friend and PT
of others; Social Sup. Peer = The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, peer form.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Two-tailed significance.

PT Total
(Self)
Antisocial
Behavior
(Other
Person)
Social
Isolation
(Other
Person)
Social
Sup. Peer
(Other
Person)
Antisocial
Behavior
(Self)
Social
Isolation
(Self)
Social
Sup. Peer
(Self)
PT Total
(Self)
-.04
-.03
.20** -.48***
.19*
-.08
.19*
-.48***
-.08
.18**
-.02
-.04
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 43
Appendix A
Social Support Measure
(Inventory of Peer and Parental Attachment; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987)

Parent Version

1. My parents respect my feelings.
2. I feel my parents are successful as parents.
3. I wish I had different parents.
4. My parents accept me as I am.
5. I have to rely on myself when I have a problem to solve.
6. I like to get my parents’ point of view on things I’m concerned about.
7. I feel it’s no use letting my feelings show.
8. My parents sense when I’m upset about something.
9. Talking over my problems with my parents makes me feel ashamed or foolish.
10. My parents expect too much of me.
11. I get upset easily at home.
12. I get upset a lot more than my parents know about.
13. When we discuss things, my parents consider my point of view.
14. My parents trust my judgment.
15. My parents have their own problems, so I don’t bother them with mine.
16. My parents help me to understand myself better.
17. I tell my parents about my problems and troubles.
18. I feel angry with my parents.
19. I don’t get much attention at home.
20. My parents encourage me to talk about my difficulties.
21. My parents understand me.
22. I don’t know whom I can depend on these days.
23. When I am angry about something, my parents try to be understanding.
24. I trust my parents.
25. My parents don’t understand what I’m going through these days.
26. I can count on my parents when I need to get something off my chest.
27. I feel that no one understands me.
28. If my parents know something is bothering me, they ask me about it.

Peer Version

1. I like to get my friends’ point of view on things I’m concerned about.
2. My friends sense when I’m upset about something.
3. When we discuss things, my friends consider my point of view.
4. Talking over my problems with my friends makes me feel ashamed or foolish.
5. I wish I had different friends.
6. My friends understand me.
7. My friends encourage me to talk about my difficulties.
8. My friends accept me as I am.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 44
9. I feel the need to be in touch with my friends more often.
10. My friends don’t understand what I’m going through these days.
11. I feel alone or apart when I am with my friends.
12. My friends listen to what I have to say.
13. I feel my friends are good friends.
14. My friends are fairly easy to talk to.
15. When I am angry about something, my friends try to be understanding.
16. My friends help me understand myself better.
17. My friends are concerned with my well-being.
18. I feel angry with my friends.
19. I can count on my friends when I need to get something off my chest.
20. I trust my friends.
21. My friends respect my feelings.
22. I get upset a lot more than my friends know about.
23. It seems as if my friends are irritated with me for no reason.
24. I tell my friends about my problems and troubles.
25. If my friends know something is bothering me, they ask me about it.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 45
Appendix B
Antisocial Behavior Measure
(CDC, 2011)

1. During the past year, how many times have you broken, damaged, or destroyed something
belonging to your parents, or other people in your family, on purpose?

Answer Participant Chose Rescored Answer
0 times 0

1 time 1
2-4 times 2
5-10 times 2
11 to 20 times 3
more than 20 times 3
Note: All items presented and scored as indicated above unless otherwise noted.

2. During the past year, how many times have you broken, damaged, or destroyed something
belonging to a teacher or a school, on purpose?

3. During the past year, how many times have you broken, damaged, or destroyed other things
belonging to other kids or adults, not counting things that belong to your family or school, on
purpose?

4. During the past year, how many times have you stolen, or tried to steal, something worth $5 or
less?

5. During the past year, how many times have you stolen, or tried to steal, something worth more
than $5?

6. During the past year, how many times have you broken into a building or car (or tried to break
in) to steal something or just look around?

7. During the past year, how many times have you taken some money at home that did not
belong to you, like from your mother’s purse or your parents’ dresser?

8. During the past year, how many times have you taken anything else at home that did not
belong to you?

9. During the past year, how many times have you written things or sprayed paint on walls,
sidewalks, or cars where you were not supposed to do that?

10. During the past year, how many times have you purposely set fire to a building, car, or other
property, or tried to do so?
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 46

11. During the past year, how many times have you snatched someone’s purse or wallet, or
picked someone’s pocket?

12. During the past year, how many times have you been cruel to an animal, or purposely hurt an
animal?

13. During the past year, how many times have you used verbal threats to get money or
something from another kid, or to get the kid to agree to something?

14. During the past year, how many times have you used physical force to get money or
something from another kid, or to get the kid to agree to something?

15. During the past year, how many times have you threatened to beat up another kid (or helped
a friend threaten to beat up another kid) just to scare the kid?

16. During the past year, how many times did you purposely take something from a store or
restaurant without paying?

Answer Participant Chose Rescored Answer
0 times 0

1 or 2 times 1
3-9 times 2
10-19 times 3
20-39 times 3
40 or more times 3

17. During the past year, how many times did you take things without asking, from other kids,
teachers or other adults at school?

Answer Participant Chose Rescored Answer
0 times 0

1 or 2 times 1
3-9 times 2
10-19 times 3
20-39 times 3
40 or more times 3

18. During the past year, how many times have you been in a physical fight?

Answer Participant Chose Rescored Answer
PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 47
0 times 0

1 time 1
2 or 3 times 2
4 or 5 times 2
6 or 7 times 2
8 or 9 times 2
10 or 11 times 3
12 or more times 3

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 48
Appendix C

Social Isolation Measure

Please rate each item by checking the appropriate box to indicate how much you agree or
disagree with each statement.

1. I feel happy with who my friends are.
2. I feel unfriendly toward others.
3. I feel cut off or estranged from people.
4. I feel connected to family.
5. I feel connected to friends.
6. I feel that people like me more than I like them.
7. I feel that I like people more than they like me.
8. I feel isolated from or unwanted by family.
9. I feel isolated from or unwanted by peers.
10. I feel like separating myself from family.
11. I feel like separating myself from peers.
12. I find myself purposely doing things to push people away (emotionally) from me.

PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE 49
Appendix D

Parental Perspective Taking Questionnaire
(Margolin, 2000)

Dad Version
1. I get upset a lot more than my dad knows about.
2. My dad understands me.
3. My dad doesn’t understand what I am going through these days.
4. My dad knows if I am having problems with a friend/teacher/boss/boyfriend or girlfriend.
5. My dad respects my feelings.
6. My dad respects my opinions.
7. My dad tries to understand what I’m going through, even if she isn’t always successful.
8. My dad knows if I am not feeling well physically.
9. My dad knows how to cheer me up.
10. My dad listens when I talk to her.
11. My dad remembers about big things going on in my life, for example, a big test, try-outs for
a team or play.

Mom Version
1. I get upset a lot more than my mom knows about.
2. My mom understands me.
3. My mom doesn’t understand what I am going through these days.
4. My mom knows if I am having problems with a friend/teacher/boss/boyfriend or girlfriend.
5. My mom respects my feelings.
6. My mom respects my opinions.
7. My mom tries to understand what I’m going through, even if she isn’t always successful.
8. My mom knows if I am not feeling well physically.
9. My mom knows how to cheer me up.
10. My mom listens when I talk to her.
11. My mom remembers about big things going on in my life, for example, a big test, try-outs for
a team or play.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Perspective taking is a social-cognitive ability that involves understanding the point-of-view of another (Underwood & Moore, 1982). Associated with positive social outcomes (Eisenberg et al., 1992

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Children's use of social and visual perspective-taking in reference resolution

PDF

Differential associations between same- and cross-ethnicity negative peer attitudes and adjustment outcomes among Vietnamese and Mexican American adolescents

PDF

Not just talk: observed communication in adolescent friendship and its implications for health risk behavior

PDF

Culture, causal attribution, and social support-seeking in Asian college students

PDF

Risky behaviors, interpersonal conflict, and their relation to fluctuations in adolescents’ diurnal HPA rhythms

PDF

A longitudinal study of sexual minority stress and behavioral health in sexual minority adolescents

PDF

Revision of the multisystemic therapy (MST) adherence coding protocol: assessing the reliability and predictive validity of adherence to the nine MST principles

PDF

Direct and indirect predictors of traumatic stress and distress in orphaned survivors of the 1994 Rwandan Tutsi genocide

PDF

Anthropomorphic sociality theory: how connections to nonhumans connect us to humans

PDF

Parental military service and adolescent mental and behavioral health: the role of adolescent-civilian parent interactions

PDF

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

PDF

Do you see what I see? Personality and cognitive factors affecting theory of mind or perspective taking

PDF

Negative peer relationships and academic failures as predictors of depressive symptoms in early adolescence

PDF

Actual and perceived social reinforcements of weight-related cognitions and behaviors in adolescent peer groups

PDF

Behavioral signal processing: computational approaches for modeling and quantifying interaction dynamics in dyadic human interactions

PDF

Popularity as a predictor of friendship affiliation in adolescence

PDF

Social status, perceived social reputations, and perceived dyadic relationships in early adolescence

PDF

Opportunity beliefs and behavioral outcomes in Latinx youth: an exploration of Ogbu’s cultural-ecological model

PDF

Children's ""mutuality demand"" in seeing, hearing, and speech

PDF

The egocentric social networks of Black adolescents and sources of racial socialization messages

Asset Metadata

Creator Burgess, Claire M. (author)

Core Title Perspective taking behavior and social outcomes in late adolescence

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 08/16/2013

Defense Date 05/15/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adolescence,antisocial behaviors,dyadic interaction,OAI-PMH Harvest,perspective taking,social isolation,social support

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), Huey, Stanley J., Jr. (committee member), Moll, Henrike (committee member)

Creator Email cmburges@usc.edu,smeesmee15@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-325353

Unique identifier UC11293873

Identifier etd-BurgessCla-2003.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-325353 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BurgessCla-2003-0.pdf

Dmrecord 325353

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Burgess, Claire M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA