Developmental Relations between Children’s Peer Relationship Quality and Prosocial Behavior: The Mediating Role of Trust
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".