Child Development, xxxx 2020, Volume 00, Number 0, Pages 1–18

Pathways From Childhood Sociomoral Sensitivity in Friendship, Insecurity,

and Peer Rejection to Adult Friendship Quality
Annekatrin Steinhoff Monika Keller
University of Zurich Max Planck Institute for Human Development

Across the life span, friendship is an important component of people’s support networks. This article explores
the developmental roots of adult friendship intimacy and satisfaction, taking into consideration the early inter-
play between sociomoral sensitivity in friendship, insecurity in peer contexts, and peer rejection. Data
(N = 176) came from the longitudinal study “Individual Development and Social Structure.” Respondents
were surveyed repeatedly from age 7 to 37 years. Autoregressive cross-lagged panel models show that socio-
moral sensitivity in friendship protects adolescents from peer rejection and is reciprocally associated with inse-
curity. Childhood and adolescent sociomoral sensitivity antecede early adult friendship intimacy, which, in
turn, antecedes friendship satisfaction in mid-adulthood. The findings indicate a sequence of pathways from
sociomoral sensitivity developed early in life to friendship quality in adulthood.

Across the life span, friendship is an important
social resource with the potential to support indi-
vidual growth and self-realization. During child-
hood and adolescence, friendships are main
contexts for the development of sociomoral compe-
tencies, including perspective taking, the under-
standing of rules and norms, and empathy
(Bukowski & Sippola, 1996; Caravita, Sijtsema,
Rambaran, & Gini, 2014; Keller, 1996). These com-
petencies, in turn, likely affect friendship quality in
sequential periods of life, thus enabling individuals
to establish intimate social bonds. The latter are
essential for identity development (Erikson, 1959;
Havighurst, 1976) and are typically prerequisites
for psychological well-being (Ryff & Singer, 2008).
Indeed, supportive friendships can help young peo-
ple navigate the potentially stressful transition to
adulthood (Bagwell et al., 2005), are consistently
associated with better mental health (Bagwell et al.,
2005; Cable, Bartley, Chandola, & Sacker, 2013) and
remain a vital component of adult social networks,
particularly during times of personal hardship (e.g.,
The data used in this study come from the project “Individual
Development and Social Structure,” also known as the “Iceland
Study,” which was directed by Wolfgang Edelstein, director
emeritus at the Max Planck Institute of Human Development in
Berlin. We thank Wolfgang Edelstein and Matthias Grundmann
for fruitful discussions and support. We are grateful to all our
Icelandic cooperation partners, including interviewers, teachers,
and interviewees.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Annekatrin Steinhoff, Jacobs Center for Productive Youth Devel-
opment, University of Zurich, Andreasstrasse 15, 8050 Zurich,
Switzerland. Electronic mail may be sent to steinhoff@jacobscente
r.uzh.ch.
Bokhorst, Sumter, & Westenberg, 2010). Given the
ongoing significance of friendship for humans thriv-
ing, it is important to understand how individual
differences in friendship quality emerge and carry
on over time. To date longitudinal studies on
friendship development from childhood to adult-
hood are largely missing.
The aim of this study was to address this gap by
examining pathways of friendship development
over three decades of life taking into consideration
age-related developmental tasks in the realm of pla-
tonic peer relationships. We conceptualize these
tasks as (a) the development of a moral sense in
close friendship (i.e., a sense of agency and respon-
sibility), mainly progressing during the period from
childhood to mid-adolescence and likely to be inter-
related with experiences and behaviors in the
broader peer context; (b) the formation of intimate
friendship by emerging adulthood; and (c) the real-
ization of satisfactory friendship in mid-adulthood.
We therefore explore stability and change in indi-
vidual differences in friendship patterns by investi-
gating a pathway from childhood and adolescent
sociomoral development to early adult and mid-
adult friendship characteristics. Data came from the
Icelandic longitudinal study “Individual Develop-
ment and Social Structure (IDSS)” (Edelstein, Keller,
& Schr€ oder, 1990), assessing individual develop-
ment in the cognitive, personality, and sociomoral
© 2020 Society for Research in Child Development
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2020/xxxx-xxxx
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13381
2 Steinhoff and Keller
domain from ages 7 to 37 years. When examining
friendship development, we consider that behaviors
and perceptions in particular relationships may be
shaped by broader relationship representations. The
IDSS project offers a rich database with information
on various aspects of individual development and
socialization. We make use of these rich data when
testing whether there are unique associations among
indicators of friendship development across the life
span.
Theoretical Considerations
We present our theoretical considerations in three
steps which describe the hypothesized sequence of
pathways from child to adult friendship develop-
ment. First, we introduce the concept of sociomoral
sensitivity (Keller, 1984, 1996) and explore whether
interrelations with (a) insecurity in peer contexts and
(b) peer rejection can help explain individual differ-
ences in friendship-related sociomoral sensitivity
during childhood and adolescence (for related stud-
ies in the IDSS project, e.g., Hart, Hofmann, Edel-
stein, & Keller, 1997; Hofmann, 1991; Schellhas,
1993). Second, we explore the significance of adoles-
cent socio-moral sensitivity for friendship intimacy
in emerging adulthood, considering links between
social-cognitive and socioemotional development
and friendship experiences (e.g., Bukowski & Sip-
pola, 1996; Rubin, Wojslawowicz, Rose-Krasnor,
Booth-LaForce, & Burgess, 2006). As a complemen-
tary framework, we consider how major life course
transitions shape young people’s development
(Buchmann & Steinhoff, 2017). Third, we explore dis-
tal effects of early adult friendship intimacy on mid-
adult friendship satisfaction, considering the role of
intimacy for satisfaction in symmetrical relation-
ships, including friendship (Finkenauer, Engels,
Branje, & Meeus, 2004; Sanderson, Rahm, & Beigbe-
der, 2005), and age-graded social support networks.
Sociomoral Sensitivity and Friendship
The concept of sociomoral sensitivity (Keller,
1984, 1996; Keller & Reuss, 1984) integrates social-
cognitive, affective, and moral processes in the indi-
vidual development of interpersonal understanding
and the interpretation of social and moral rules.
Sociomoral sensitivity is part of the self-concept
(Keller & Edelstein, 1991, 1993), including a sense
of agency and responsibility in close relationships.
It is based on social-cognitive abilities such as per-
spective taking, and its development proceeds
toward an increasingly sophisticated understanding
of the diverging expectations, interests, and action
capacities of the self and others in relationships
(here: friendship). Based on developmental inter-
views from childhood to adolescence in the longitu-
dinal study IDSS, Keller and her colleagues
described four developmental levels: (0) no differen-
tiation between the subjective perspectives of rela-
tionship partners (friends); (1) beginning
understanding of different subjective perspectives,
informed by individual needs, interests, and expec-
tations for friendship; (2) taking into account an
intersubjective perspective on shared standards in
the relationship; (3) a third person’s perspective on
the relationship which integrates generalized norms
with the requirements of particular situations (Kel-
ler, 1996, p. 132; Keller & Edelstein, 1991, p. 102;
Keller & Reuss, 1984). Being a morally sensitive
person and friend would mean to consider not only
both the self’s and the friend’s subjective perspec-
tives, including desires, feelings, expectations, and
action orientations, but also the rules and norms
that underlie the friendship bond.
Development from childhood to adolescence. Evi-
dence from the IDSS project has shown that late
childhood to mid-adolescence is a formative period
for the successive sophistication of sociomoral sensi-
tivity in friendship (Keller, 1996). Interindividual
differences in friendship-related sociomoral sensitiv-
ity are remarkably stable from ages 7 to 15 years
(Keller, 1996; Keller, Malti, & Dravenau, 2007). This
stability of interindividual competencies has also
been shown in other research (Colby, Kohlberg,
Gibbs, & Lieberman, 1983). Nevertheless, stability
coefficients from previous investigations indicate
that about 50%–60% of young people change rank
orders on sociomoral sensitivity across the years
(see Keller et al., 2007). Here we argue that behav-
iors in the broader peer context, and the peers’
responses, can play a vital role in these processes of
stability and change. We take insecurity expressed
in peer contexts as a first example and peer rejection
as a second example.
We assume that sociomoral sensitivity is a basis
of how adolescents interact with friends and peers
in general (see Keller, 1996). A child with a rela-
tively poor understanding of peers’ perspectives
and the rules underlying their relationships with
one another may shy away from interactions with
peers in order to avoid feelings of being or behav-
ing in ways that are “inadequate.” Similar argu-
ments have been made with regard to
developmental risks associated with social anxiety
and withdrawal from peers (Biggs, Vernberg, &
Wu, 2012; Rubin, Burgess, Kennedy, & Stewart,

2003; Rubin, LeMare, & Lollis, 1990). Lacking
friendship-related sociomoral competencies may
also increase risk for peer rejection; partly because,
on the dyadic level, poor sociomoral competencies
could make the child a rather unattractive relation-
ship partner for many peers, particularly for those
with a more sophisticated sociomoral understand-
ing. In turn, both insecurity and peer rejection are
likely to entail poorer opportunities to form close
dyadic bonds and further learn social competencies
relevant in friendship. When insecure children are
generally quiet in peer interactions and do not put
forward their sociomoral reasoning, they can also
not receive an authentic peer response to their inter-
personal understanding and their sociomoral devel-
opment may slow down further. Indeed, negative
peer experiences are associated with young people’s
social and emotional development (e.g., Ladd, 2006;
Storch & Masia-Warner, 2004), and poorer interper-
sonal understanding is linked with different aspects
underlying insecurity in peer contexts, such as feel-
ings of inferiority, anxiety, and shyness with nega-
tive affect (Banerjee & Henderson, 2001)—albeit
there is considerable heterogeneity among insecure
children in regards to their social skills (Gazelle,
2008). Overall, these arguments suggest bidirec-
tional associations between sociomoral sensitivity in
friendship and insecurity in peer contexts on the
one hand, and peer rejection on the other hand.
Associations with early adult friendship inti-
macy. When adolescents grow older, they increas-
ingly focus on mutual disclosure, trust, and
emotional comfort in friendship (e.g., Hartup & Ste-
vens, 1997), all of which we conceive as components
of friendship intimacy. Early adult women tend to
perceive and expect more intimacy than men, but for
both genders intimacy seems to be an important pre-
requisite for friendship satisfaction (Felmlee, Sweet,
& Sinclair, 2012; Jones, 1991). The motivation and
capacity to resolve conflicts and reach consensus
while taking into consideration the particularities of
the friend’s perspective besides one’s own are mark-
ers of a highly developed sociomoral sensitivity (Kel-
ler & Edelstein, 1993) and, at the same time, are a
likely prerequisite for establishing intimacy in friend-
ship (e.g., Buhrmester, 1990). Indeed, associations
among sociomoral competencies and friendship inti-
macy persist until early adulthood: In a sample of 21-
year-olds, perceived support and intimacy in friend-
ships were positively correlated with moral motiva-
tion—including moral decision making, emotion
attributions, and justifications (Malti & Buchmann,
2010). However, these associations have not been
investigated longitudinally.
Life-Span Perspective on Friendship Development 3
When assessing the longitudinal associations
between sociomoral sensitivity and friendship inti-
macy, it is important to consider that major life
course transitions after compulsory schooling often
demand the formation of new friendships. On the
one hand, transitions can offer opportunities to
renegotiate one’s position in the peer context (Shell,
Gazelle, & Faldowski, 2014) and thus limit the
potential impact of, for example, adolescent peer
rejection on early adult friendship quality. On the
other hand, forming new peer relationships, includ-
ing friendships, can be particularly challenging for
those who feel insecure (Oh et al., 2008). Existing
evidence also suggests that particularly after a
(school) transition, adolescents’ social and emo-
tional dispositions are formative for their friend-
ships (Goodwin, Mrug, Borch, & Cillessen, 2012),
for example, because they influence the selection of
new friends with similar dispositions. We therefore
assume that the level of sociomoral sensitivity
achieved by mid-adolescence, when compulsory
schooling typically ends, antecedes intimacy in
friendships at the beginning of adulthood. We
know of one other prospective longitudinal study
that has assessed the impact of earlier peer rejection
and friendship status on early adult friendships
(Bagwell, Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998). No signifi-
cant effects were found; but in contrast to our
approach, friendship status was conceptualized as
having (or not having) a mutual friendship (rather
than focusing on friendship-related competencies),
with assessments made in preadolescence.
Friendship Intimacy in Early Adulthood and Mid-Adult
Friendship Satisfaction
Until adulthood, friendships are linked with
identity formation, lifestyle, and individual func-
tioning within the broader social structures (Eve,
2002). Existing evidence also shows positive correla-
tions between well-integrated friendship networks
and adult psychological well-being (e.g., Cable
et al., 2013; Gillespie, Lever, Frederick, & Royce,
2015). However, the importance people ascribe to
close friendships, and the expectations they have
for friendship, may somewhat decrease and depend
on individual life circumstances, particularly mari-
tal status (Carbery & Buhrmester, 1998; Pahl &
Pevalin, 2005; Perilloux & Buss, 2008; Tashiro &
Frazier, 2003). While for the late adolescent and
early adult years, friendship intimacy might be seen
as a developmental milestone, the developmental
achievements typically related to mid-adult friend-
ship seem to be less generalizable. The concept of
4 Steinhoff and Keller
relationship satisfaction offers a framework to assess
the quality of relationships based on subjective eval-
uations (Schumm et al., 1986, p. 385). These evalua-
tions of relationships will be based on different
criteria depending on the individual life circum-
stances, needs, and interests that may be unknown
to the researcher. Nevertheless, some characteristics
that are likely to enhance the satisfactoriness of sym-
metrical relationships can be identified. They include
sensitive conflict management (see Bukowski & Sip-
pola, 1996; Cramer, 2000; Crockett & Randall, 2006;
Hartup & Stevens, 1997), the experience of trust, and
opportunity for self-disclosure (e.g., Finkenauer
et al., 2004; Jones, 1991; Meeks, Hendrick, & Hen-
drick, 1998). In turn, these aspects are closely linked
to the concept of intimacy (see Sanderson et al.,
2005), although the framework of friendship satisfac-
tion makes no assumptions about the exact degree
of intimacy needed in order to make a friendship
satisfactory. Rather, we assume that people with a
higher potential to establish intimacy will evaluate
their friendships more positively. Indeed, previous
research indicates that friendship intimacy con-
tributes to psychological need fulfillment and happi-
€
ness (Demir & Ozdemir, 2010). Given that early
adult friendship experiences offer a “training
ground” for general relationship conceptions and
behaviors (e.g., Barry, Madsen, Nelson, Carroll, &
Badger, 2009; Erikson, 1959; Sullivan, 1953), these
arguments suggest that people with intimate friend-
ships at the beginning of adulthood will be more
satisfied with their friendships later in life.
To date, long-term investigations of these associa-
tions are largely missing. One exception is a 30-year
longitudinal study by Marion, Laursen, Zettergren,
and Bergman (2013) who explored the effects of ado-
lescent friendship (age 15) on mid-adulthood rela-
tionship quality including, but not limited to,
friendship satisfaction. They found that friendship
moderates the link between adolescent peer rejection
and mid-adult relationship quality, but there was no
direct effect of the previous friendship experience.
However, similar to the Bagwell et al. (1998) study
cited earlier, friendship experiences were opera-
tionalized by asking whether the adolescents had at
least one friend, whereas the quality of friendship
during early adulthood was not considered.
The Role of Broader Relationship Representations,
Relationship Status, and Emotional Bias
While knowledge about the sequential pathways
of friendship development from childhood to adult-
hood is largely missing from the literature, the
broad field of attachment research has shown that
individual differences in relationship practices and
perceptions can be stable across long periods of the
human life span (e.g., Waters, Merrick, Treboux,
Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000). Attachment represen-
tations are often generalized (Hazan & Shaver,
1987) and attachment functions are typically trans-
ferred from parents to friends, and then romantic
partners, when young people grow older (Fraley &
Davis, 1997). In order to explore the associations
among friendship-related competencies and experi-
ences over long periods of time, we take into
account confounding effects of global relationship
representations or relationship status. The role of
children’s attachment representation (secure or inse-
cure attachment style, for details about the assess-
ments in IDSS, see Jacobsen, Edelstein, & Hofmann,
1994; Jacobsen & Hofmann, 1997) is taken into
account, because research has shown correlations
with children’s behaviors in peer contexts (e.g.,
Booth-LaForce & Oxford, 2008) and with socio-
moral sensitivity in friendship (evidence from IDSS:
Keller et al., 2007). When predicting early adult
friendship intimacy, we consider the role of parent-
child relationship quality perceived at the same age
(see Steinhoff, 2015; for a more general perspective
on family socialization in the IDSS project, see also
Grundmann, Dravenau, Bittlingmayer, & Edelstein,
2006). Finally, we will adjust effects on mid-adult
friendship satisfaction for marital status (Pahl &
Pevalin, 2005).
We also consider potential emotional bias in rela-
tionship representations and friendship formation,
particularly during transition periods when young
people need to establish new relationships (Good-
win et al., 2012). Methodologically we therefore
adjust path coefficients to adult friendship charac-
teristics for depressive symptoms.
Hypotheses
Three hypotheses link child and adolescent socio-
moral sensitivity and its associations with (a) inse-
curity in peer contexts and (b) peer rejection to
friendship experiences during adulthood. A fourth
hypothesis refers to the impact of broader relation-
ship representations and emotional bias.
Hypothesis 1: Previous analyses in the IDSS project (Kel-
ler, 1996; Keller & Wood, 1989; Keller
et al., 2007) revealed significant rank-order
stability of sociomoral sensitivity in friend-
ship across childhood and adolescence (ages
7–15 years). We hypothesize that there will

also be bidirectional effects between socio-
moral sensitivity and insecurity as well as
peer rejection: the higher the level of socio-
moral sensitivity is, the lower is the subse-
quent level of insecurity/peer rejection and
vice versa.
Hypothesis 2: We expect that individual differences in
mid-adolescent sociomoral sensitivity
(age 15 years) are antecedents of differ-
ences in friendship intimacy experienced
at the beginning of adulthood (around
age 22 years): the higher the respondents’
level of sociomoral sensitivity is in mid-
adolescence, the more friendship intimacy
they experience in early adulthood.
Hypothesis 3: We hypothesize that the experience of
friendship intimacy in early adulthood is
a precursor of relationship satisfaction
later in life: the higher the level of inti-
macy is in friendship at the beginning of
adulthood (around age 22 years), the
higher is the likelihood of being highly
satisfied with friendship in one’s late
thirties (around age 37 years).
Hypothesis 4: We assume that the predictive effects
hypothesized in H1–H3 hold when indica-
tors of broader relationship representa-
tions/emotional bias are controlled for.
Additional assumptions include: higher
levels of perceived closeness in the par-
ent–child relationship are associated with
higher intimacy in friendships at the
onset of adulthood (22 years); depressive
symptoms impair perceived intimacy with
friends.
Individual Development and Social Transitions
Childhood Adolescence
Age 7 – 9 Age 12 – 15
Socio-Moral Sensitivity in Friendship
Peer–Related Behaviors and Experiences
Figure 1. Conceptual model: Associations among sociomoral sensitivity in friendship and peer-related behaviors and experiences, and
their joint impact on friendship quality across the individual life span.
Note. Ages refer to the assessment points in our study.
Life-Span Perspective on Friendship Development 5
Figure 1 provides a graphical summary of the
expected developmental pathways (i.e., stability of
sociomoral sensitivity, insecurity in peer contexts and
peer rejection, and cross-lagged paths among the
concepts; and then predictive effects on subsequent
adult friendship experiences). The figure puts these
developmental pathways in a context of life phases
and associated social transitions, which may offer
opportunities for the renewal of peer relationships.
Method
The IDSS Project
Data are taken from the Iceland longitudinal
study “IDSS” (for detailed information on the
study, see especially Edelstein et al., 1990). The goal
of the study was to follow-up on cognitive, social-
cognitive, and sociomoral competencies; emotional
development; and personality from childhood to
adulthood. One particular focus is on the role of
social structures and socialization processes for
young people’s development across the life span
(Grundmann, 1998; Grundmann, Steinhoff, & Edel-
stein, 2011). Research based on the data from the
IDSS project has been widely published and is ref-
erenced only selectively in this article (see also
Steinhoff, 2015).
Sample
Data were collected from respondents aged 7 to
around 37 years between 1976 and 2007. The full
sample includes 193 respondents (45% female)
growing up in an urban (n = 121) or rural area of
Iceland. There were three phases of data collection:
(a) data were collected at the ages of 7, 9, 12, and
15 years to represent the period from childhood to
Emerging Adulthood Adulthood
Age 22 Age 37
Friendship Friendship
Intimacy Satisfaction
6 Steinhoff and Keller
mid-adolescence; (b) the respondents provided data
once at the beginning of adulthood at an age
between 21 and 23 years; (c) respondents were sur-
veyed once again at an age between 36 and 38.
Sample attrition mainly occurred after adolescence,
which is a common observation in longitudinal
studies (see Denissen, Asendorpf, & van Aken,
2008): for 87% of the original sample data are avail-
able across the first seven years until age 15. The
sample size then dropped to 112 participants at the
beginning of adulthood and increased again to 125
in mid-adulthood. For 41% of respondents, com-
plete data are available on all of the study variables
at all of the study waves. Data were collected using
questionnaires, tests, and personal interviews.
At the onset of the study, the urban sample was
stratified by parental socioeconomic status (SES; six
groups), children’s general ability level rated by a
teacher (high/low), and gender. Groups of approxi-
mately equal size were created that exhibit all pos-
sible combinations of parameter values on the
category variables gender (male/female), SES (six
groups from high to low), and general ability
(high/low). This sampling design was used in
order to disentangle the influences of sociocultural
environments and individual abilities on children’s
developmental trajectories. For more detailed infor-
mation on the study design and the urban subsam-
ple in particular, see Edelstein et al. (1990) and
Grundmann et al. (2006). In our analyses, we take
the sampling design into consideration by control-
ling for gender, the SES of origin and a measure of
the 7-year-olds’ cognitive ability that was assessed
in both subsamples (i.e., the rural and the urban
sample) and was positively correlated with the tea-
cher ratings of ability used in the urban-sample
stratification procedure (see Variables section for
more details).
Altogether, the sample of the IDSS study is
diverse with regard to childhood and adulthood
SES. Using a 6-point scale assessing fathers’ occupa-
tion (see Bj€ ornsson, Edelstein, & Kreppner, 1977),
25% of the children had a low SES (Category 1;
e.g., unskilled workers), 27%, 11%, 15%, and 12%
were in Categories 2–5, respectively, and 10% had
high SES (Category 6; e.g., academic professionals).
With regard to parental educational background,
18% of fathers had a postsecondary or academic
educational degree, 25% had an upper secondary
degree, and 57% had lower secondary education or
less. At the last survey wave (age 37), an attempt
was made to assess the respondents’ achieved SES
in a way comparable to the first wave’s assessment
(i.e., based on their occupation). The individuals
were assigned to one of three groups (low SES: e.g.,
unskilled workers; medium SES: e.g., technicians;
high SES: e.g., academic professionals, managers
typically with university degree). Two raters agreed
on these assessments. Twenty-eight percent of the
respondents had a low SES, 48% had a medium
SES, and 24% had a high SES. At that time, 46% of
the respondents were married and 33% were in a
steady partnership.
Variables
Main Study Variables
Sociomoral sensitivity in friendship was assessed by
means of semistructured interviews at the ages of 7,
9, 12, and 15 years (the concept was not included
in the survey waves during adulthood). A scale is
used that was developed by Keller and colleagues
(Keller, 1996; Keller & Edelstein, 1991; Keller &
Reuss, 1984). It describes the level of interpersonal
understanding articulated when discussing a hypo-
thetical dilemma based on the cognitive–structural
approach of friendship development and the
dilemma proposed by Selman (1980). The story is
about an everyday action dilemma occurring
between friends. It addresses conflicting expecta-
tions and interests of a protagonist, a good friend,
and a child who is new in class, as well as general
friendship obligations (e.g., keeping a promise). The
story can be found in the Appendix (A1).
The protagonist’s gender was matched with that
of the respondent, and the story’s content was
slightly modified over time so as to address age-
typical interests. Five components of sociomoral
sensitivity were derived from the discussions (Kel-
ler, 1996; Keller & Reuss, 1984): (a) understanding
of the situation, (b) reasoning about the action alter-
natives from which the protagonist can choose, (c)
anticipation of the consequences these different
actions have for the persons involved in the story,
(d) moral evaluation of the action alternatives, (e)
strategies for the resolution of conflicts that may
arise in the situation described. In addition to these
aspects, the assessments were based on the respon-
dents’ general conceptualization of “close friend-
ship” (Selman, 1980) and their understanding of the
meaning of “promises” (Colby et al., 1983). Topics
were scored for levels of development. A more
detailed description of the assessments and the rat-
ing procedures can be found in Keller (1996; see
also Keller & Wood, 1989), where also good

internal consistency among the different compo-
nents is reported (a ≥ .82 at all time-points). In this
study, we use the individual mean scores that were
computed across the topics and domains. On a
scale from 0 to 1, the sample mean of sociomoral
sensitivity in friendship is M (SD) = 0.29 (0.08), 0.41
(0.07), 0.51 (0.05), and 0.61 (0.06) at ages 7, 9, 12,
and 15 respectively.
For insecurity in peer contexts and peer rejection,
we use teacher reports which offer an observational
assessment of the adolescents’ regular interactions
with familiar peers in the classroom context at the
ages of 9, 12, and 15 years. The teachers rated the
frequency of their students’ behaviors on a 5-point
scale from 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always. For
insecurity, four items from Quay and Peterson’s
(1975) “Behavior Problem Checklist” are used (i.e.,
“[student] is shy“, “introvert”, “feels inferior”, “in-
secure”), with a = .86 at age 9, a = .84 at age 12,
and a = .81 at age 15. For peer rejection, four items
from Kohn’s (1977) “Competence Scale” are used
(e.g., “Others are unwilling to work with [stu-
dent]”), with Cronbach’s alpha at a = .77 at age 9,
a = .77 at age 12, and a = .70 at age 15. We com-
puted mean scales with higher values indicating
more insecurity/peer rejection. M (SD) = 1.87
(0.93), 2.07 (0.88), and 2.29 (0.91) for insecurity in
peer contexts at ages 9, 12, and 15; M (SD) = 2.36
(0.86), 2.48 (0.86), and 2.52 (0.80) for peer rejection
at ages 9, 12, and 15.
For assessing friendship intimacy at an age around
22 years, we use a six-item scale (e.g., “I can fully
rely on my friends”; “My friends console me when
I’m in trouble”). Cronbach’s alpha is adequate
(a = .84). Based on exploratory as well as confirma-
tory factor analyses (comparative fit index
[CFI] = .97, root mean square error of approxima-
tion [RMSEA] = .06, standardized root mean square
residual [SRMR] = .04), the scale was derived from
a larger set of items addressing experiences in peer
and friendship contexts (Steinhoff, 2015). The
respondents rated their agreement with the six
statements on a 5-point scale from total disagreement
to total agreement. The average score is M = 4.08
(SD = 0.33).
Satisfaction in friendship was evaluated at an age
around 37 years. As with the assessment of friend-
ship intimacy, this variable refers to generic friend-
ships (“How satisfied are you with your
relationships with your friends?”) with ratings on a
5-point scale from completely unsatisfied to very satis-
fied. We dichotomized the assessment due to its
highly skewed value distribution, thereby distin-
guishing respondents who reported to be “very
Life-Span Perspective on Friendship Development 7
satisfied” (63%) from those who reported some
lower level of satisfaction (37%). In preparation of
our analyses, we attempted to evaluate the reliabil-
ity and validity of this measure by exploring its
associations with related concepts, including satis-
faction with other types of relationships and global
life satisfaction (Steinhoff, 2015). Confirmatory fac-
tor analyses revealed that friendship satisfaction
loaded significantly on a latent factor shared with
partnership satisfaction and satisfaction with the
relationships with one’s own children (both
assessed at age 37 using a single item, as with
friendship satisfaction). This shared factor (relation-
ship satisfaction) in turn predicted global life satis-
faction at b = .39 (p < .01). However, friendship
satisfaction alone was uncorrelated with global life
satisfaction. We therefore deem the variable as an
adequate indicator of relationship satisfaction in a
particular social domain (i.e., friendship).
Affective Relationship Representations
The 7-year-olds’ attachment representation was
assessed based on their discussion of a picture-story
addressing the separation of parent and child
(Chandler, 1973). Validation of using the measure
to assess children’s attachment representation is
provided by Jacobsen et al. (1994; Jacobsen & Hof-
mann, 1997; see also Ziegenhain, Rottmann, &
Rauh, 1988). We recognize, however, that the mea-
sure also relies on the child’s social-cognitive under-
standing of relationships (Keller et al., 2007, pp.
132, 137). We use a binary variable to distinguish
children who were securely attached from those
with insecure attachment, including ambivalent,
anxious-avoidant, and disorganized attachment rep-
resentations. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents
were securely attached. This proportion is within
the range typically reported in the literature on
mid-childhood attachment styles (Del Giudice,
2008; Solomon, George, & De Jong, 1995).
Closeness in the parent–child relationship at around
age 22 was measured using a six-item scale. The
respondents were asked to think back to their ado-
lescent years and assess their level of agreement
with statements regarding parental support (e.g.,
“My parents were interested in my concerns”) on a
Likert-type 5-point scale and about their parents’
techniques when dealing with a parent–child con-
flict (e.g., “My parents tried to explain why their
opinion was different from mine”), with assess-
ments made on a 4-point scale (never to often). Con-
firmatory factor analyses showed that the six items
are indicators of one latent factor (model fit:
8 Steinhoff and Keller
v2 = 11.968 [p = .215], CFI = .993, RMSEA = .054;
see Steinhoff, 2015). In order to standardize the
responses given on the different scales, we used z-
transformations. Cronbach’s alpha for the six items
is a = .82, and we computed a mean scale where
higher values indicate closer parent–child relation-
ships (M = 2.00, SD = 0.72).
Marital status at around age 37 is a binary vari-
able that takes the value 1 when respondents were
currently in a steady partnership, including married
and unmarried couples (78%), and 0 when they
were not (22%).
Depressive symptoms at around age 22 were
assessed using the widely used “Center for Epi-
demiologic Studies Depression Scale.” This is an 18-
item self-report measure used to assess current
depressive symptomatology in nonpathological
samples. It was proven reasonably valid and inter-
nally consistent (Radloff, 1977). On a scale from 0
to 1, the mean score was M = 0.31 (SD = 0.19).
Additional Project Variables
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female), SES of origin and
cognitive ability will be included as control vari-
ables. The SES of origin was measured as a multidi-
mensional configuration of the parents’ (mostly
fathers’) occupation reported in Wave 1. Relative
income, educational prerequisites, and the degree of
responsibility and authority over others were taken
into account (Bj€ ornsson et al., 1977). We use a
dichotomous variable dividing the sample into two
groups of respondents with lower SES (49%) and
higher SES (51%) of origin.
The 7-year-olds’ general cognitive ability was
assessed using Raven’s (1960) Progressive Matrices.
The variable informs about the capability to derive
meaning from complex figures and to reproduce
information. We use the Raven score instead of the
teacher ratings which were used in the original
IDSS urban sample stratification procedure because
the teacher ratings are not available for the rural
sample. However, the two measures were closely
linked in the urban sample (r = .57, p = .000). On a
scale from 0 to 1, the sample mean of cognitive
ability at age 7 is M = 0.59 (SD = 0.33).
Attrition Mechanisms and Handling of Missing Data
We analyzed missing data patterns by compar-
ing the groups of respondents and nonrespondents
in the last survey wave with regard to the Wave 1
variables used in our investigation. Sixty-three per-
cent of the initial sample still participated in the last
wave, at age 37. Respondents who still participated
had significantly higher levels of cognitive ability
(age 7) than drop-outs: t(182) = 2.05, p = .042,
d = .32, which is a medium effect size, following
Cohen’s rules of thumb (1988, pp. 24–27). Respon-
dents with a secure attachment style in Wave 1
were more likely to keep participating in the study
than insecurely attached respondents (v2(1,
n = 181) = 7.81, p = .005, OR = 2.57). Study partici-
pation in the last survey wave was not related to
SES of origin, gender, or childhood sociomoral sen-
sitivity.
Assuming that data are “missing at random,” as
opposed to “missing completely at random” or
“not at random” (see Allison, 2002), we handled
missingness using the Full Information Maximum
Likelihood (FIML) estimation when testing our
models. In preparation of bivariate correlation anal-
yses, we carried out multiple imputation. All vari-
ables included in this study were used to formulate
the imputation model, and 30 data sets were cre-
ated. Multiple imputation and FIML are highly rec-
ommended features to handle missing data in
developmental research in order to reduce potential
bias that may arise due to attrition mechanisms (see
Enders, 2013; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Since FIML
is applied to endogenous variables only, a small
number of random missing values on exogenous
variables lead to a sample size of N = 176 in our
final models.
Statistical Procedure
In order to examine the developmental pathway
from child and adolescent sociomoral sensitivity
and peer experiences to early and mid-adult friend-
ship quality, we specified autoregressive cross-
lagged path models within a structural equa-
tion modeling framework. Two versions of the
same model were specified, including insecurity in
peer contexts (model A) and peer rejection (model
B) as an outcome and, in turn, antecedent of socio-
moral sensitivity during child and adolescent devel-
opment.
Stability of individual differences in sociomoral
sensitivity was estimated by specifying autoregres-
sive paths between adjacent time points from
school entry to the end of compulsory schooling
(i.e., from ages 7 to 9, 9 to 12, and 12 to 15).
Although the longitudinal stability of insecurity in
peer contexts and peer rejection was not at the core
of our theoretical argumentation, we thought it was
also mandatory to specify autoregressive paths for
these variables, given the longitudinal rank-order
 Life-Span Perspective on Friendship Development 9

stability reported in the literature for these variables

.35***(**)

deviated from the MI-based analysis, the level of the p-values from pairwise present data analyses is given in parentheses (note that in all of these cases the correlation coefficients
Note. Correlations are based on data with prior multiple imputation and the imputation model included all of the variables used in our study. The Maximum Likelihood Robust
estimator was used. Comparison with coefficients based on pairwise present data did not alter the interpretation of the results; where p-values from pairwise present data analyses
11.
(e.g., Ladd, 2006). Friendship intimacy at around
age 22 was specified as an outcome of sociomoral
sensitivity at age 15, and this effect was adjusted
for the potential impact of insecurity/peer rejection

.04
.11
10.
at the same age. The sequence of pathways is
completed by the estimation of an effect of early

.44***
adult friendship intimacy on friendship satisfaction

.08
.02
9.
in mid-adulthood at around age 37 (see also
Figure 1).
The residuals of endogenous variables that were

.60***
.38***
8.
concurrently assessed were allowed to covary. All

.01
.06
possible paths from control and context variables to
variables that were assessed at the same time point,

.45***
.46***
.61***

from the MI-based analyses were within the respective 90% confidence intervals of those from an analysis with pairwise present data).
or at a later time point, were estimated in a first

.13
.05
7.
step. These paths were then omitted from the mod-
els if they were not significant (p > .10) in order to

.44***
.38***
.53***
.35***
avoid overcontrol (Little, 2013). Control variables

.08
.04
6.
assessed in adulthood were included as endoge-
nous variables, with paths from variables assessed
at adjacent prior time points estimated freely if sig-

.56***
.49***
.44***
.39***
.39***
nificant (see also Steinhoff, 2015).

.01
.15
5.
We used the Maximum Likelihood Robust
(MLR) estimator implemented in MPlus V7
(Muthen & Muthen, 2012), taking into account that

.28***(**)

.26***(*)

.22*(†)
.36***

.35***

.28***
some variables in the models were skewed. Model

.21**
4.

.06
fit was evaluated based on chi-square (adequate
model fit is indicated when this test has a non-
significant result), RMSEA, CFI, and SRMR. Com-
.30***(**)
mon cut-off criteria proposed by Hu and Bentler
.45***
.30***
.27***

.39***
.35***
.39***
3.

(1999) were used as a guideline to assess the ade-

.15†
.11†
quacy of the models (RMSEA ≤ .06, CFI ≥ .95, and

Number of cases with valid data. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
SRMR ≤ .08). Because these fit indices are not avail-
able with categorical outcomes and using MLR, a
.28***(**)

.30***(**)

.23*(**)
linear model was estimated in a first step (i.e., treat- .16†(*)
.60***
.42***

.28***

.38***
.27***
.42***
2.

ing the mid-adulthood outcome as if it was contin-

uous) in order to explore model fit. In a
supplementary analysis, the mid-adulthood out-
.29***(**)

come was treated as categorical variable in order to

Bivariate Correlations Among the Main Study Variables

.55***
.41***
.52***

.44***
.36***
.36***
.50***
.34***
1.

.24*

check the robustness of the results and logistic

.08

regression odds ratios (OR) and confidence inter-

vals (CI) are reported.
169
162
182
176

169
181
165

112
125
169
181
165
Na

Results
6. Insecurity in peer context 12
7. Insecurity in peer context 15
5. Insecurity in peer context 9

12. Friendship satisfaction 37

Bivariate Correlations
3. Sociomoral sensitivity 12
4. Sociomoral sensitivity 15

11. Friendship intimacy 22

1. Sociomoral sensitivity 7
2. Sociomoral sensitivity 9

Bivariate correlations among the main study

10. Peer rejection 15

variables and autocorrelations for sociomoral sensi-

9. Peer rejection 12
8. Peer rejection 9

tivity in friendship, insecurity in peer contexts, and

peer rejection across the years are provided in
Table 1. Several findings are noteworthy. The auto-
Table 1

correlations of sociomoral sensitivity, insecurity,

and peer rejection suggest that, in all three
a
10 Steinhoff and Keller
domains, stability is higher between the ages of 9
and 12 than between 12 and 15. During the mid-
adolescent years, there is apparently more room for
change (in terms of interindividual differences) in
peer experiences and related learning. There are
also negative correlations between sociomoral sensi-
tivity and insecurity/peer rejection at all time
points. As expected, sociomoral sensitivity at age 15
is positively correlated with early adult friendship
intimacy at age 22. Interestingly enough, even
sociomoral sensitivity at the ages of 7 and 9 years
is positively correlated with early adult friendship
intimacy and the sizes of these correlations are sim-
ilar to that for sociomoral sensitivity at age 15.
There are no significant correlations among early
adult friendship intimacy and prior insecurity/peer
rejection, although there is, by trend, a negative
relation with insecurity in peer contexts. Finally,
friendship intimacy at an age of around 22 years is
positively correlated with friendship satisfaction
assessed 15 years later.
Path Models
Figure 2 shows standardized path coefficients
from the cross-lagged path models. The illustration
is limited to the pathways of main interest. Model
A addressed the interplay of sociomoral sensitivity
and insecurity in peer contexts across childhood
and adolescence, whereas model B focused on
sociomoral sensitivity and peer rejection. Both mod-
els show adequate fit to the data. All stability coef-
ficients between adjacent time points reach high
levels of significance, but, across time, more than
45% of the respondents change their rank orders in
Socio-Moral Socio-Moral
.48*** .47***
Sensitivity Sensitivity
(.48***) (.47***)
Age 7 Age 9
-.38*** -.13*
(-.37***)
Insecurity in Peer
.55***
Context
(.49***)
(Peer Rejection)
Age 9
Figure 2. Standardized estimates for the joint pathways from child and adolescent sociomoral sensitivity in friendship and insecurity in
the peer context (model A)/peer rejection (model B) to adult friendship quality. Results from model B are in parentheses.
Note. The illustration is limited to significant pathways of main interest; consult main text for a detailed description of model specifica-
tions. Model fit A: v = 77.03, df = 68, p = .212, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .03, comparative fit index
(CFI) = .98, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .07. Model fit B: v2 = 79.32, df = 66, p = .126, RMSEA = .03, CFI = .97,
SRMR = .07.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
sociomoral sensitivity and also in insecurity and
peer rejection. The results of both models show that
sociomoral sensitivity in friendship influences such
changes. Higher levels of sociomoral sensitivity
apparently encourage children and adolescents to
approach others and interact with them openly
(model A). Higher levels of sociomoral sensitivity
also protect children and adolescents from being
rejected by their classmates (model B). Interestingly,
while peer rejection does not have a feedback effect
on sociomoral development, the adolescents’ inse-
curity in the peer context at age 12 apparently
slows down further growth of sociomoral sensitiv-
ity until age 15. The findings therefore support our
hypothesis (H1) that sociomoral sensitivity in
friendship influences children’s and adolescents’
interactions with peers, which, in turn, foster socio-
moral development. However, unlike insecurity,
peer rejection is not a unique risk factor for a
slower development of sociomoral sensitivity.
In line with our expectations (H2), higher levels
of mid-adolescent sociomoral sensitivity in friend-
ship are followed by more intimacy experienced
with friends in early adulthood (age 22), after the
young people have graduated from compulsory
school. It is important to note again that these asso-
ciations hold while global relationship representa-
tions are controlled for.
The results also support our hypothesis (H3) that
early adult friendship experiences are an important
antecedent of the quality of friendships in mid-
adulthood. The higher the level of friendship inti-
macy reported at around age 22, the higher is the
likelihood of being very satisfied with one’s friend-
ships at an age around 37.
Socio-Moral Socio-Moral
.37***
Sensitivity Sensitivity
(.43***)
Age 12 Age 15 .17*
(.20*)
-.27***
Friendship Friendship
.37**
Intimacy Satisfaction
(.37**)
Age 22 Age 37
-.14†
(-.26***)
Insecurity in Peer Insecurity in Peer
.35***
Context Context
(.34***)
(Peer Rejection) (Peer Rejection)
Age 12 Age 15

Significant coefficients for control and context
variables (H4) can be found in the Appendix (A2).
Most importantly, these coefficients reveal that
secure attachment representations not only foster
sociomoral development (Keller et al., 2007), but
also protect children, to some degree, from peer
rejection. Securely attached children also tend to be
less insecure in the peer context. Similarly, cognitive
ability as assessed at the onset of schooling
decreases peer rejection and adolescent insecurity in
peer contexts, and supports sociomoral growth.
This is in line with previous research showing, for
example, that higher cognitive ability is related to
better social comprehension (Pellegrini, Masten,
Garmezy, & Ferrarese, 1987). As expected, per-
ceived intimacy with friends at the onset of adult-
hood is decreased by depressive symptoms and
increased by closeness with the parents. It is also
noteworthy that females report higher levels of inti-
macy with friends at age 22, but there were no gen-
der differences in friendship satisfaction at age 37.
Marital status was uncorrelated with friendship sat-
isfaction.
Robustness Checks and Follow-Up Analyses
We ran a set of follow-up analyses to check the
robustness of our results and to further explore
some surprising findings. First, in order to calculate
absolute fit indices, the results presented in Figure 2
were based on MLR estimations and the final out-
come (friendship satisfaction) was treated as if it
was continuous rather than categorical. We ran a
second version of the model, with the outcome trea-
ted as categorical, in order to check the robustness
of the results. The positive effect of early adult
friendship intimacy on friendship satisfaction in
mid-adulthood was replicated (OR = 2.72 [2.70],
95% CI = 1.25–5.93 [1.25–5.86]; results for model B
are in parentheses).
A second concern was that the sizes of the
bivariate correlations between sociomoral sensitivity
at the ages of 7 and 9 and early adult friendship
intimacy were as high as the size of the correlation
among sociomoral sensitivity at age 15 and friend-
ship intimacy. In order to identify the age at which
the achieved level of sociomoral sensitivity best pre-
dicts early adult friendship intimacy, we ran an
exploratory set of three models where sociomoral
sensitivity at age 15 and at another one of the pre-
vious time points were included as predictors (i.e.,
in the first model, we included an additional path-
way from sociomoral sensitivity at age 7 to early
adult friendship intimacy; in the second model, we
Life-Span Perspective on Friendship Development 11
omitted that path and entered one from age 9
instead; and, in a third model, a path from age 12
was included). The level of sociomoral sensitivity
achieved by the age of 9 was indeed the best
unique predictor of early adult friendship intimacy
(b = .18 [.22], p = .040 [.014]; results for model B are
in parentheses). These exploratory findings strongly
encourage further research on the significance of
early developmental achievements for adult life
outcomes.
Finally, in addition to models A and B, we tested
a full model including cross-lagged paths among
sociomoral sensitivity in friendship, insecurity in
peer contexts, and peer rejection, in order to deter-
mine whether there were unique associations
among each pair of constructs. Results are pre-
sented in the Appendix (A3). All significant cross-
lagged paths from models A and B remained signif-
icant, with one exception: the path from sociomoral
sensitivity at age 9 to insecurity in peer contexts at
age 12. This latter finding suggests that sociomoral
sensitivity and peer rejection in late childhood share
some of the variance that predicts insecurity in peer
contexts at age 12. With regard to the control vari-
ables, the results from models A and B were also
replicated, with the exception of the paths from
cognitive ability to insecurity in peer contexts at
age 15 and to peer rejection at ages 9 and 12 (ns) as
well as the path from secure attachment to peer
rejection at age 12 (ns).
Discussion
Our study provides novel insights into the develop-
ment of child and adolescent sociomoral sensitivity
in friendship and its distal impact on friendship
experiences in adulthood. Taking a life-span perspec-
tive, and using 30-year longitudinal data, the study
therefore advances knowledge about the role of early
sociomoral development for adult life outcomes. Our
analyses revealed a sequence of developmental path-
ways involving friendship experiences and compe-
tencies over three decades of life.
Development of Sociomoral Sensitivity in Friendship
From Childhood to Adolescence
Our first aim was to explore the reciprocal influ-
ences among sociomoral development and (a) inse-
curity in peer contexts and (b) peer rejection (H1).
Going beyond previous research, we were able to
show that individual differences in sociomoral sen-
sitivity are not only remarkably stable across time
12 Steinhoff and Keller
(Keller, 1996; Keller et al., 2007), but also driven by
feedback effects of young people’s interactions with
their peers. Higher early levels of sociomoral sensi-
tivity in friendship can apparently (a) decrease chil-
dren and adolescents’ insecurity when engaging in
peer relationships, perhaps by increasing their self-
confidence in peer interactions. Sociomoral compe-
tencies may also equip children with better social
comprehension in peer contexts, and therefore
advance their social interaction skills. These could,
in turn, decrease insecurity (Banerjee & Henderson,
2001). A similar interpretation may apply to our
finding that higher sociomoral competencies (b)
decrease risk for peer-rejection. Better understand-
ing and more sensitive handling of complex social
situations (as was assessed in the friendship
dilemma) may lead to more peer acceptance, and in
turn, less rejection. It is an intriguing finding of our
study that less insecure behavior then helps the
young people to further sophisticate their socio-
moral sensitivity. Perhaps, open and authentic
engagement in social interactions with peers
enabled the adolescents to learn from their peers’
responses to their sociomoral understanding. The
finding is in line with other researchers’ findings
that children with relatively poor social skills asso-
ciated with sociomoral competencies are less likely
than their age mates to get involved in peer rela-
tionships which foster their social skills develop-
ment (Rubin et al., 2003, 2006).
Another interesting finding of our study is that
sociomoral sensitivity in friendship constantly
decreases insecurity in peer contexts across the ado-
lescent years (in the full model: from ages 7 to 9,
and then from ages 12 to 15), but insecurity does
not have a feedback effect before mid-adolescence.
An explanation could be that, when adolescents get
older, the influence of their parents and teachers on
the quality of their peer contacts decreases and it
becomes more important that the adolescents
actively approach their peers in order to bond with
and learn from them. This would mean that insecu-
rity becomes increasingly formative for the quality
of one’s peer relationships, and the association with
sociomoral learning therefore strengthens across the
years. In order to support young people’s socio-
moral growth during the mid-adolescent years, it
may therefore be promising to plan interventions
that foster social skills development during child-
hood or increase insecure children’s opportunities
for easy social interactions with familiar peers.
Given the significant rank-order stability of
sociomoral sensitivity across time, and the addi-
tional impact of insecurity—which seems to be, in
itself, partly a behavioral manifestation of previous
sociomoral development—our findings show persis-
tent and cumulative developmental disadvantages
for children and adolescents whose sociomoral sen-
sitivity in friendship grows relatively slowly. To
our surprise, peer rejection does not play a forma-
tive role in this process, given that the level of peer
rejection did not predict the level of sociomoral sen-
sitivity once the autoregressive effects of sociomoral
sensitivity were controlled for. Apparently, aspects
of peer rejection that are independent from one’s
previous sociomoral sensitivity (and can therefore
not be interpreted as the peers’ “response”) do not
necessarily impair sociomoral learning. However, it
is important to keep in mind that our measures of
peer rejection were based on teachers’ observations
in the classroom context. Adolescents who experi-
ence rejection by their classmates could still have
more positive peer relationships in other social con-
texts (Kiesner, Poulin, & Nicotra, 2003). Further
research is therefore needed in order to illuminate
the associations among sociomoral development
and peer rejection in different social contexts. It is
also noteworthy that in our data peer rejection was
significantly and reciprocally associated with inse-
curity in peer contexts. Future research with larger
sample sizes may use more complex models, and
model comparisons, in order to disentangle the
associations among the triad of sociomoral growth,
insecurity in peer contexts, and peer rejection in
more detail. In particular, person-centered analytic
approaches could complement our variable-cen-
tered approach to help understand how sociomoral
sensitivity interacts with insecurity and peer experi-
ences in different groups of individuals (Gazelle,
2008), and how these groups then differ in their
friendship experiences across the life span.
Adolescent Sociomoral Development Antecedes Early
Adult Friendship Intimacy
One of the main contributions of our study is to
link adolescent development of sociomoral sensitiv-
ity in friendship to adult friendship quality. The
findings confirm our hypothesis (H2) that the level
of sociomoral sensitivity attained by the end of
compulsory schooling predicts intimacy in friend-
ship at the onset of adulthood. While previous
research showed relations between moral develop-
ment and intimate friendship bonds based on data
from children and adolescents only, and/or based
on cross-sectional data (Buhrmester, 1990; Malti &
Buchmann, 2010), our longitudinal study design
reveals distal effects of 15-year-olds’, and even

stronger effects of 9-year-olds’, sociomoral sensitiv-
ity on early adult friendship experiences. Interven-
tions that support child and adolescent sociomoral
development may therefore eventually help the
young people form supportive intimate bonds with
friends during the potentially stressful transition
period to adulthood.
It is noteworthy that neither mid-adolescent inse-
curity in peer contexts nor the experience of peer
rejection added to the predictive effect of socio-
moral sensitivity on early adult friendship intimacy.
Consistent with prior research (Shell et al., 2014), it
seems that life course transitions after compulsory
schooling can help adolescents overcome some of
their previous disadvantages in the realm of peer-
related behaviors and experiences and the associ-
ated risks with regard to friendship formation.
However, this does not mean that peer-related
behaviors and experiences during the adolescent
years are meaningless with regard to early adult
friendship quality. At least insecurity in peer con-
texts may play an indirect role, as it affects adoles-
cent sociomoral sensitivity, which, in turn, fosters
friendship intimacy.
Early Adult Friendship Intimacy Antecedes Mid-Adult
Friendship Satisfaction
As hypothesized (H3), higher levels of early
adult friendship intimacy increase the likelihood of
being highly satisfied with one’s friendships about
15 years later. Here our study adds to the scarce
longitudinal evidence of distal effects of adolescent
friendship experiences on adult relationship satis-
faction (Marion et al., 2013). While the previous
study by Marion and colleagues revealed that hav-
ing, versus not having, a friend in adolescence does
not directly affect mid-adult relationship satisfac-
tion, our investigation suggests that early adult
friendship experiences can set the stage for need
€
fulfillment in friendship (Demir & Ozdemir, 2010)
until mid-adulthood. As with other aspects of close
social bonds, such as attachment representations
(Waters et al., 2000), these findings indicate that
friendship patterns can be stable over long periods
of the life span. Yet, the sequential pathways
described here, and the medium effect sizes, also
indicate that friendship experiences change consid-
erably between childhood and mid-adulthood,
which may, at least partly, result from the various
social transitions pending during this period
(Arnett, 2004). However, while other studies have
shown correlations among marital status and some
characteristics of adult friendships (e.g., the choice
Life-Span Perspective on Friendship Development 13
of particular friends studied by Pahl & Pevalin,
2005), there was no correlation with adult friend-
ship satisfaction in our data.
The distal effect of early adult friendship inti-
macy on mid-adult friendship satisfaction may, at
least partly, be driven by the close associations
between intimacy and relationship satisfaction (e.g.,
Finkenauer et al., 2004; Jones, 1991; Meeks et al.,
1998). However, the individual criteria that
informed the respondents’ subjective evaluations of
their friendships at age 37 remain unknown. There-
fore, further investigations are needed in order to
better understand why people who experienced
higher levels of friendship intimacy at the onset of
adulthood are more likely to be satisfied with their
friendships later in life.
Limitations and Future Perspectives
Some limitations of our study deserve attention.
One is a lack of information on the quality of close
friendships during childhood and adolescence.
Autoregressive effects of sociomoral sensitivity in
friendship may indicate feedback loops among
sociomoral development and friendship experi-
ences; but further research is needed in order to
disentangle these interrelations and their links with
the more general peer experiences we addressed
here (see Bagwell et al., 1998; Sette, Baumgartner,
Laghi, & Coplan, 2016).
The assessments of insecurity in peer contexts
and peer rejection were based on teacher ratings.
Such observational measures provide valuable
insights into the behavioral development of stu-
dents. Nonetheless, it has been an important obser-
vation in previous research that data provided by
different informants (e.g., parents or students’ self-
reports) could provide different pieces of informa-
tion about an individual’s development and behav-
ior in the various social contexts of growing up (de
Los Reyes, 2011; Zuffian o, Sette, Colasante, Buch-
mann, & Malti, 2018). We therefore see our find-
ings, being based on teacher observations in the
classroom context, as one important piece of a lar-
ger puzzle.
Another caveat is that the assessment of mid-
adult friendship satisfaction was based on a dichot-
omized single item. In research on domain-specific
and global life satisfaction, the use of single item
measures is well established (see Hsieh, 2003), but
the skew of such measures, especially in the realm
of relationship satisfactions, calls for caution when
interpreting the respective results. Further research
is needed in order to zoom in on the various facets
14 Steinhoff and Keller
of friendship quality that people deem relevant for
themselves.
It is also important to keep in mind that our
assessments of adult friendship quality were both
based on self-reports about generic friends. In order
to make the picture more complete, future research
is needed that focuses on particular friendship
dyads or “best friends,” ideally assessing relation-
ship characteristics from both friends’ perspectives.
Given that one of the two subsamples used in
this study was stratified by childhood SES and cog-
nitive ability, the effects of these variables shall be
interpreted with caution and our findings need to
be replicated, ideally in research based on large,
representative community samples.
Finally, given that some variables were skewed or
binary, and due to the relatively small sample size,
parts of our study are exploratory; and although
there is path dependency among friendship experi-
ences from childhood to adulthood, the sizes of all of
the path coefficients were far from indicating perfect
correlations. We therefore regard our findings as
encouragement for further investigations of the
dynamics of friendships across the life span.
Conclusion
Our study is among the first ones exploring the
interlinked pathways of friendship-related competen-
cies, behaviors, and experiences across childhood, ado-
lescence, and the adult years. The distal effects are
remarkable, given the long-time interval between
some of the measurement time points. However, the
sizes of the coefficients were moderate and there was
no direct association between mid-adolescent socio-
moral competencies and mid-adult friendship experi-
ences. Our study therefore also shows that the ways in
which individuals bond with friends change consider-
ably during all of the life periods considered here.
Thus, much remains to be learned about potential
mediators and factors that interrupt the sequence of
friendship development. Better knowledge about how
social and individual factors interact longitudinally,
and how they shape people’s friendship networks,
could inform effective interventions that help young
people to bond with others in ways that improve their
satisfaction and well-being across the life span.
References
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. London, UK: Sage.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood. The winding road
from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford, UK and
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bagwell, C. L., Bender, S. E., Andreassi, C. L., Kinoshita,
T. L., Montarello, S. A., & Muller, J. G. (2005). Friend-
ship quality and perceived relationship changes predict
psychosocial adjustment in early adulthood. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 235–254. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0265407505050945
Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998).
Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors
of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140–153.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06139.x
Banerjee, R., & Henderson, L. (2001). Social-cognitive fac-
tors in childhood social anxiety: A preliminary investi-
gation. Social Development, 10, 558–572. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-9507.00180
Barry, C. M., Madsen, S. D., Nelson, L. J., Carroll, J. S., &
Badger, S. (2009). Friendship and romantic relationship
qualities in emerging adulthood: Differential associa-
tions with identity development and achieved adult-
hood criteria. Journal of Adult Development, 16, 209–222.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9067-x
Biggs, B. K., Vernberg, E. M., & Wu, Y. P. (2012). Social
anxiety and adolescents’ friendships: The role of social
withdrawal. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 802–823.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431611426145
ornsson, S., Edelstein, W., & Kreppner, K. (1977). Explo-
Bj€
rations in social inequality. Stratification dynamics in social
and individual development in Iceland. Berlin, Germany:
Max-Planck-Institut f€ ur Bildungsforschung.
Bokhorst, C. L., Sumter, S. R., & Westenberg, P. M.
(2010). Social support from parents, friends, classmates,
and teachers in children and adolescents aged 9 to 18
years: Who is perceived as most supportive? Social
Development, 19, 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-9507.2009.00540.x
Booth-LaForce, C., & Oxford, M. L. (2008). Trajectories of
social withdrawal from grades 1 to 6: Prediction from
early parenting, attachment, and temperament. Develop-
mental Psychology, 44, 1298–1313. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0012954
Buchmann, M., & Steinhoff, A. (2017). Social inequality,
life course transitions, and adolescent development:
Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 46, 2083–2090. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-017-0740-2
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interper-
sonal competence, and adjustment during preadoles-
cence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101–
1111. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130878
Bukowski, W. M., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Friendship and
morality: (How) are they related? In W. M. Bokowski,
A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company
they keep. Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp.
238–261). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cable, N., Bartley, M., Chandola, T., & Sacker, A. (2013).
Friends are equally important to men and women, but
family matters more for men’s well-being. Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health, 67, 166–171. https://
doi.org/10.1136/jech-2012-201113

Caravita, S. C. S., Sijtsema, J. J., Rambaran, A. J., & Gini,
G. (2014). Peer influences on moral disengagement in
late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 43, 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-013-9953-1
Carbery, J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Friendship and need
fulfillment during three phases of young adulthood.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 393–409.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598153005
Chandler, M. J. (1973). Egocentrism and antisocial behav-
ior: The assessment and training of social perspective-
taking skills. Developmental Psychology, 9, 326–332.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034974
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press,
Taylor & Francis Group.
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M.
(1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
48, 1–124. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165935
Cramer, D. (2000). Relationship satisfaction and conflict
style in romantic relationships. The Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 134, 337–341. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00223980009600873
Crockett, L. J., & Randall, B. A. (2006). Linking adolescent
family and peer relationships to the quality of young
adult romantic relationships: The mediating role of con-
flict tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23,
761–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506068262
de Los Reyes, A. (2011). Introduction to the special sec-
tion: More than measurement error: Discovering mean-
ing behind informant discrepancies in clinical
assessments of children and adolescents. Journal of Clin-
ical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15374416.2011.533405
Del Giudice, M. (2008). Sex-biased ratio of avoidant/am-
bivalent attachment in middle childhood. British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 26, 369–379. https://doi.
org/10.1348/026151007X243289
€
Demir, M., & Ozdemir, M. (2010). Friendship, need satis-
faction and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11,
243–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9138-5
Denissen, J. J. A., Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G.
(2008). Childhood personality predicts long-term trajec-
tories of shyness and aggressiveness in the context of
demographic transitions in emerging adulthood. Journal
of Personality, 76, 67–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2007.00480.x
Edelstein, W., Keller, M., & Schr€ oder, E. (1990). Child
development and social structure: A longitudinal study
of individual differences. In P. Baltes, D. L. Feather-
man, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development and
behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 151–185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Enders, C. K. (2013). Dealing with missing data in devel-
opmental research. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 27–
31. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12008
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected
papers. New York, NY: International University Press.
Life-Span Perspective on Friendship Development 15
Eve, M. (2002). Is friendship a sociological topic? European
Journal of Sociology, 43, 386–409. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0003975602001157
Felmlee, D., Sweet, E., & Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Gender rules:
Same- and cross-gender friendships norms. Sex Roles, 66,
518–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0109-z
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Branje, S. J., & Meeus,
W. (2004). Disclosure and relationship satisfaction in
families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 195–209.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00013.x-i1
Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation
and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and
romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131–
144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00135.x
Gazelle, H. (2008). Behavioral profiles of anxious solitary
children and heterogeneity in peer relations. Develop-
mental Psychology, 44, 1604–1624. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0013303
Gillespie, B. J., Lever, J., Frederick, D., & Royce, T. (2015).
Close adult friendships, gender, and the life cycle. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 709–736.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514546977
Goodwin, N. P., Mrug, S., Borch, C., & Cillessen, A. H.
N. (2012). Peer selection and socialization in adolescent
depression: The role of school transitions. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 41, 320–332. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10964-011-9723-x
Grundmann, M. (1998). Norm und Konstruktion: Zur Dialek-
tik von Bildungsvererbung und Bildungsaneignung [Norm
and construction: the dialectic of the transmission and attain-
ment of education]. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.
Grundmann, M., Dravenau, D., Bittlingmayer, U. H., &
Edelstein, W. (2006). Handlungsbef€ahigung und Milieu.
Zur Analyse milieuspezifischer Alltagspraktiken und ihrer
Ungleichheitsrelevanz [Capability and milieu. The analysis
of milieu specific daily practices and their relevance for
inequality]. Berlin, Germany: LIT.
Grundmann, M., Steinhoff, A., & Edelstein, W. (2011).
Social class, socialization and capabilities in a modern
welfare state: Results from the Iceland longitudinal
study. In O. Leßmann, H.-U. Otto, & H. Ziegler (Eds.),
Closing the capabilities gap. Renegotiating social justice for
the young (pp. 233–252). Opladen & Farmington Hills,
MI: Barbara Budrich.
Hart, D., Hofmann, V., Edelstein, W., & Keller, M. (1997).
The relation of childhood personality types to adoles-
cent behavior and development: A longitudinal study
of Icelandic children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 195–
205. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.33.2.195
Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and
adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121,
355–370. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.121.3.355
Havighurst, R. (1976). Developmental tasks and education.
New York, NY: McKay.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptual-
ized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.52.3.511
16 Steinhoff and Keller
Hofmann, V. (1991). Die Entwicklung depressiver Reaktionen
in Kindheit und Jugend. Eine entwicklungspsychopathologis-
che L€angsschnittuntersuchung [The development of depres-
sive reactions in childhood and adolescence. A developmental
psychopathological Investigation]. Berlin, Germany: Max-
Planck-Institut f€ ur Bildungsforschung.
Hsieh, C.-M. (2003). Counting importance: The case of life
satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social Indi-
cators Research, 61, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1021354132664
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jacobsen, T., Edelstein, W., & Hofmann, V. (1994). A longi-
tudinal study of the relation between representations of
attachment in childhood and cognitive functioning in
childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30,
112–124. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.30.1.112
Jacobsen, T., & Hofmann, V. (1997). Children’s attach-
ment representations: Longitudinal relations to school
behavior and academic competency in middle child-
hood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 33,
703–710. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.33.4.703
Jones, D. C. (1991). Friendship satisfaction and gender: An
examination of sex differences in contributors to friend-
ship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
8, 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407591082002
Keller, M. (1984). Resolving conflicts in friendship: The
development of moral understanding in everyday life.
In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality,
moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 140–158).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Keller, M. (1996). Moralische Sensibilit€at: Entwicklung in
Freundschaft und Familie [Moral sensitivity. Development
in friendship and family]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz/
Psychologie VerlagsUnion.
Keller, M., & Edelstein, W. (1991). The development of
socio-moral meaning-making: Domains, categories, and
perspective-taking. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz
(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Vol.
2. Research (Vol. 2, pp. 89–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Keller, M., & Edelstein, W. (1993). The development of the
moral self from childhood to adolescence. In G. G. Noam,
T. E. Wren, G. Nunner-Winkler, & W. Edelstein (Eds.),
The moral self (pp. 310–336). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keller, M., Malti, T., & Dravenau, D. (2007). Bindung,
Sozialisation und die Entwicklung sozio-moralischen
Denkens von der Kindheit bis zum Jugendalter: Befunde
einer L€angsschnittuntersuchung [Attachment, socializa-
tion, and the development of socio-moral thinking from
childhood to adolescence: findings from a longitudinal
study]. In C. Hopf & G. Nunner-Winkler (Eds.), Fr€ uhe
Bindungen und moralische Entwicklung: Aktuelle Befunde zu
psychischen und sozialen Bedingungen moralischer Eigen-
st€andigkeit [Early attachment and moral development: recent
findings on psychological and social conditions of moral inde-
pendence] (pp. 125–150). Weinheim, Germany: Juventa.
Keller, M., & Reuss, S. (1984). An action-theoretical recon-
struction of the development of social-cognitive compe-
tence. Human Development, 27, 211–220. https://doi.
org/10.1159/000272911
Keller, M., & Wood, P. (1989). Development of friendship
reasoning: A study of interindividual differences in
intraindividual change. Developmental Psychology, 25,
820–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.820
Kiesner, J., Poulin, F., & Nicotra, E. (2003). Peer relations
across contexts: Individual-network homophily and net-
work inclusion in and after school. Child Development, 74,
1328–1343. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00610
Kohn, M. L. (1977). Social competence, symptoms and under-
achievement in childhood. Washington, DC: Winston & Sons.
Ladd, G. W. (2006). Peer rejection, aggressive or with-
drawn behavior, and psychological maladjustment
from ages 5 to 12: An examination of four predictive
models. Child Development, 77, 822–846. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00905.x
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Malti, T., & Buchmann, M. (2010). Socialization and indi-
vidual antecedents of adolescents’ and young adults’
moral motivation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39,
138–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9400-5
Marion, D., Laursen, B., Zettergren, P., & Bergman, L. R.
(2013). Predicting life satisfaction during middle adult-
hood from peer relationships during mid-adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1299–1307. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9969-6
Meeks, B. S., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Com-
munication, love and relationship satisfaction. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 755–773. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0265407598156003
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide
(7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Oh, W., Rubin, K. H., Bowker, J. C., Booth-LaForce, C.,
Rose-Krasnor, L., & Laursen, B. (2008). Trajectories of
social withdrawal from middle childhood to early ado-
lescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 553–
566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9199-z
Pahl, R., & Pevalin, D. J. (2005). Between family and
friends: A longitudinal study of friendship choice. The
British Journal of Sociology, 56, 433–451. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00076.x
Pellegrini, D. S., Masten, A. S., Garmezy, N., & Ferrarese,
M. J. (1987). Correlates of social and academic compe-
tence in middle childhood. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 28, 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1469-7610.1987.tb01553.x
Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Breaking up romantic
relationships: Costs experienced and coping strategies
deployed. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 164–181. https://
doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600119
Quay, H. C., & Peterson, D. R. (1975). Manual for the
behavior problem checklist. Unpublished manuscript.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report
depression scale for research in the general population.

Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. https://
doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306
Raven, J. C. (1960). Guide to the standard progressive matri-
ces. London, UK: H. K. Lewis.
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Kennedy, A. W., & Stewart,
S. L. (2003). Social withdrawal in childhood. In E. J.
Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (pp.
372–406). New York, NY: Guilford.
Rubin, K. H., LeMare, L. J., & Lollis, S. (1990). Social
withdrawal in childhood: Developmental pathways to
peer rejection. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer
rejection in childhood (pp. 217–249). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, K. H., Wojslawowicz, J. C., Rose-Krasnor, L.,
Booth-LaForce, C., & Burgess, K. B. (2006). The best
friendships of shy/withdrawn children: Prevalence, sta-
bility, and relationship quality. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 34, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10802-005-9017-4
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and
become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psy-
chological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 13–
39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0
Sanderson, C. A., Rahm, K. B., & Beigbeder, S. A. (2005).
The link between the pursuit of intimacy goals and sat-
isfaction in close same-sex friendships: An examination
of the underlying processes. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 22, 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407505049322
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our
view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7,
147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.2.147
€
Schellhas, B. (1993). Die Entwicklung der Angstlichkeit in
Kindheit und Jugend: Befunde einer L€angsschnittstudie u€ber
€
die Bedeutung der Angstlichkeit f€
ur die Entwicklung der
Kognition und des Schulerfolgs [The development of anxiety
in childhood and adolescence: findings from a longitudinal
study on the significance of anxiety for the development of
cognition and school success]. Berlin, Germany: Max-
Planck-Institut f€ur Bildungsforschung, Ed. Sigma.
Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah,
F. C., Copeland, M., Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M. A.
(1986). Concurrent and Discriminant Validity of the Kan-
sas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 48, 381–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/352405
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal under-
standing: The developmental and clinical analyses. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Sette, S., Baumgartner, E., Laghi, F., & Coplan, R. J. (2016).
The role of emotion knowledge in the links between
shyness and children’s socio-emotional functioning at
preschool. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
34, 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12144
Shell, M. D., Gazelle, H., & Faldowski, R. A. (2014). Anx-
ious solitude and the middle school transition: A
diathesis 9 stress model of peer exclusion and victim-
ization trajectories. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1569–
1583. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035528
Life-Span Perspective on Friendship Development 17
Solomon, J., George, C., & De Jong, A. (1995). Children
classified as controlling at age six: Evidence of disorga-
nized representational strategies and aggression at
home and at school. Development and Psychopathology, 7,
447–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006623
Steinhoff, A. (2015). Emerging adults’ commitment to effec-
tively supportive friendships: A life-span perspective on
social cognitive and behavioral antecedents, and implications
for adult relationship satisfaction. Doctoral thesis, Univer-
sity of Muenster.
Storch, E. A., & Masia-Warner, C. (2004). The relationship
of peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in
adolescent females. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 351–362.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.03.003
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Tashiro, T., & Frazier, P. (2003). “I’ll never be in a rela-
tionship like that again”: Personal growth following
romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships,
10, 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00039
Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Alber-
sheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and
early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study.
Child Development, 71, 684–689. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-8624.00176
Ziegenhain, U., Rottmann, U., & Rauh, H. (1988). Test-
barkeit von 1 1/2 jahrigen Kindern innerhalb des vertrauten
haeuslichen settings in Abhangigkeit von der Bin-
dungssicherheit zur Mutter [Testability of 1.5-year-old chil-
dren in the familiar home setting dependent on the mother’s
attachment security]. Paper presented at the 35th Con-
gress of the German Psychological Association, Berlin,
Germany.
Zuffian o, A., Sette, S., Colasante, T., Buchmann, M., &
Malti, T. (2018). Cross-informant assessment of chil-
dren’s sympathy: Disentangling trait and state agree-
ment. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 4,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2018.00008
Appendix
A1: The Friendship Dilemma
The protagonist (actor) promised to meet his or
her best friend on their special meeting day.
Later, the protagonist receives a more attractive
invitation from a third child (movie or pop con-
cert depending on age) who has only recently
moved into the neighborhood. This invitation
happens to be at the same time the protagonist
had promised to meet the best friend. Various
psychological details are mentioned that compli-
cate matters further, for example, that the best
friend has problems he or she wants to talk
about and that he or she does not like the new
child. (Keller & Edelstein, 1991, p. 100)
18 Steinhoff and Keller

A2: Coefficients for Control and Context Variables

Table A2
Significant Path Coefficients (b) From Control and Context Variables

Independent variable ? Dependent variable Model A Model B

Depressive symptoms 22 Friendship intimacy 22 .20* .21*

Gender (female) .32*** .32***
Closeness with parents .34*** .35***
Gender (female) Sociomoral sensitivity 15 .11† .11†
Cognitive ability 7 Sociomoral sensitivity 12 .20*** .19**
Secure attachment 7 .19** .18**
Socioeconomic status 7 Sociomoral sensitivity 9 .20** .19**
Cognitive ability 7 Insecurity in peer contexts 15 .17*
Secure attachment 7 Insecurity in peer contexts 9 .11†
Cognitive ability 7 Peer rejection 12 .12†
Secure attachment 7 .16*
Cognitive ability 7 Peer rejection 9 .19**
Secure attachment 7 .18**

Note. Numbers next to variables indicate age (years).

†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

A3: The Full Model Including Cross-Lagged Relations Among Sociomoral Sensitivity, Insecurity in peer
Contexts, and Peer Rejection

Socio-Moral .49*** Socio-Moral Socio-Moral Socio-Moral

.46*** .39***
Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity
Age 7 Age 9 Age 12 Age 15
.20*
-.25***
-.38*** Friendship Friendship
.36**
-.31*** -.13† Intimacy Satisfaction
-.43*** Age 22 Age 37
Insecurity in Peer .51*** Insecurity in Peer .23** Insecurity in Peer
Context Context Context
Age 9 Age 12 Age 15

.14†

.27**

.53*** .29***
Peer Rejection Peer Rejection Peer Rejection
Age 9 Age 12 Age 15

Figure A3. Standardized estimates for the joint pathways from child and adolescent sociomoral sensitivity in friendship, insecurity in
the peer context, and peer rejection to adult friendship quality.
Note. The illustration is limited to significant pathways of main interest. Model fit: v2 = 131.67, df = 97, p = .011, root mean square error
of approximation = .05, comparative fit index = .95, standardized root mean square residual = .07.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.