“When you’re helping a person with a problem and they’re having the problem,you kind of feel the same way”: Internal State Language in Adolescents’ Disclosures to Siblings and Friends

Abstract

Self-disclosure, sharing personal and often affective information with others, is foundational for relationship development and well-being. Internal state language (ISL), or references to thoughts, emotions and desires, is one mechanism that may support these processes by helping adolescents communicate their experiences and signal their understanding of others. We examined ISL references during a hypothetical picture task in which early adolescents (N = 79) described how they would respond to social situations involving siblings and friends, specifically whether narrative characters would disclose personal information to one another or not. ISL use was comparable across disclosed and nondisclosed narratives, valence, and relationship contexts. However, for adolescents who seldom included disclosure to best friends in their narratives, frequent references to cognitions were linked with fewer descriptions of emotional support. These findings suggest that, beyond disclosure, ISL may reflect adolescents’ emerging socioemotional understanding and contribute to the development of social competence in close relationships.

Keywords

early adolescence internal state language self-disclosure sibling and peer relationships social-emotional development

Sharing information about the self is a vital feature of interpersonal relationships. Self-disclosure is the process of making the self known to others via a mutual and reciprocal exchange between the discloser and the recipient (Hargie, 2011). By early adolescence, many siblings engage in disclosing intimate information to one another and to close friends (Martinez & Howe, 2013). Youth may employ self-disclosure to build and maintain trusting relationships and to learn what is acceptable among their peers; by fostering self-knowledge and reflection, self-disclosure may indirectly support identity exploration during adolescence (Buhrmester & Prager, 1995; Korem, 2023). Through intimate disclosures with close social network members, youth communicate their thoughts, emotions, and goals using internal state language as a form of social support (Rubin et al., 2015). Given that self-disclosure helps individuals negotiate mutual understanding and construct meaning with others, such interactions provide a rich context for investigating how youth navigate their social relationships (Carpendale & Lewis, 2014; Rubin et al., 2015). Internal state language (ISL) is a useful linguistic index of socio-cognitive engagement in relationships during this period (Carpendale & Lewis, 2014). The present study investigated adolescents’ ISL in disclosure-related narratives based on various affective vignettes (e.g., conflict, helping) with siblings and friends.

The Role of Self-Disclosure in Children’s Relationships

Self-disclosure involves the intentional sharing of intimate, typically affective, information that is not readily available to a conversational partner (Howe et al., 1995; Tilton-Weaver et al., 2014); it is considered a key mechanism for increasing intimacy in close relationships (Tardy & Smithson, 2018). Hargie (2011) identified four disclosure components: (1) use of personal pronouns (e.g., “I”, “my”); (2) discussion of facts (name, age) or feelings (“I am having fun”); (3) object of disclosure as self (your experience) or others (reaction to others’ experience); and (4) referring to past, present, or future events. Thus, disclosures can be factual-descriptive (e.g., favorite color) or emotional (e.g., desires, problems) (Korem, 2023).

Social Penetration Theory addresses the significance of disclosing in personal relationships. This theory describes a progression from sharing basic, superficial information as a relationship begins to more intimate details as the relationship progresses as a means for establishing trust (Tardy & Smithson, 2018). During initiation, disclosures are often positive and help individuals determine if they want to develop a closer relationship; over time, individuals may disclose negatively valanced information to promote intimacy (Hargie, 2011; Tardy & Smithson, 2018). The notion of reciprocity suggests that revealing information is an indicator of liking and trust, thus encouraging the recipient to share information in return (Tardy & Smithson, 2018). Self-disclosure is ultimately viewed as a catalyst and method for intimate communication, supporting the formation and maintenance of relationships, a point we return to below.

Siblings and Friends as Recipients of Youth Self-Disclosures

Siblings and friends are prominent figures in the lives of youth and make unique and important contributions to their development. Thus, self-disclosure is an important skill for adolescents to develop and practice, especially considering the developmental competencies associated with effective disclosure (Korem, 2023). Apart from supporting relationship development and maintenance, self-disclosure gives adolescents an opportunity to seek and provide social and emotional support, to both siblings and friends, given the novel social expectations (e.g., increasing responsibility) and biological changes that occur during this period (Rubin et al., 2015). Disclosing also helps adolescents develop perspective-taking skills necessary to understand what is appropriate in their relationships with others (Korem, 2023). Self-disclosure is implicated in identity formation as peers provide adolescents with valuable feedback during a time of identity exploration (Rubin et al., 2015; Vijayakumar & Pfeifer, 2020).

Various factors facilitate or inhibit the incidence and degree of self-disclosure. For example, girls disclose more than boys (Buhrmester & Prager, 1995; Martinez & Howe, 2013); first-born children (or older siblings) disclose less than later-born children (or younger siblings), although disclosure increases with age (Hargie, 2011). Factors that may inhibit disclosure include shyness, introversion, low self-esteem, an external locus of control due to fear of embarrassment or rejection, or when youth draw attention only to themselves and not others (Hargie, 2011; Korem, 2023; Schwartz-Mette & Rose, 2009). Disclosures may be more easily reciprocated between equal-status individuals such as same-age friends (Korem, 2023). While some overlap exists in disclosure topics directed to siblings and friends, youth share information about interests, family, academic, and friendship issues; emotional self-disclosures, including support seeking; dating and romantic partners; and peers and peer conflict (Costello et al., 2025; Davis, 2012; Howe et al., 2001; Martinez & Howe, 2013; Vijayakumar & Pfeifer, 2020).

Self-Disclosure With Siblings

When sibling relationships are high in warmth this may promote intimacy and trust, thus encouraging the likelihood of disclosing (Hargie, 2011; Howe et al., 2001; Korem, 2023). In fact, sharing confidences with siblings is associated with higher sibling quality during early to mid-adolescence (Howe et al., 2001; Martinez & Howe, 2013). High quality sibling relationships (high warmth, low rivalry and conflict) are related to positive developmental outcomes (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), including increased empathy and emotional understanding of others (Howe et al., 2020). Using a vignette paradigm, Karos et al. (2007) demonstrated that sibling disclosure predicted socio-emotional skills in 5^th and 6^th graders (e.g., sharing experiences, providing comfort). Campione-Barr et al. (2015) indicated that the more adolescent siblings (age 12 to post-high school) disclosed to their brother, the better the latter’s emotional adjustment. However, older brothers’ disclosures about personal, multifaceted issues to younger sisters were associated with greater emotional maladjustment among girls.

Self-Disclosure With Friends

Friends are also key disclosure recipients for adolescents, especially among same-sex friends, with female friendships showing higher rates than males (Buhrmester & Prager, 1995). However, a trade-off effect occurs when dyads—especially females in positive, high quality friendships—engage in co-rumination, the repetitive discussion of problems or negative emotions (Rose et al., 2007). Associations between self-disclosure and friendship quality are evident across adolescence. For example, self-disclosing is negatively associated with conflict among best friends in grade 6 (Martinez & Howe, 2013). In a prospective cohort of 7^th and 8^th graders, perceiving friends as safe and supportive predicted greater self-disclosure and increased friendship quality—indexed by companionship, caring, and conflict resolution—a year later; self-disclosure also predicted future friendship quality (Costello et al., 2025).

Self-disclosure with friends has utility during adolescence, playing a role in both intimacy development and social validation (Rubin et al., 2015). Friends provide social and emotional support, helping youth work through age-related issues and concerns via in-person or online disclosures (Camara et al., 2017; Davis, 2012). Social feedback from friends reassures adolescents that they are not alone in their thoughts, feelings, and experiences (Buhrmester & Prager, 1995). Disclosing may also help reinforce this voluntary relationship by minimizing conflict (Martinez & Howe, 2013).

In one of the few studies comparing youth’s disclosures to both siblings and friends, Martinez and Howe (2013) examined early adolescents’ (grades 4 and 6) self-disclosures to siblings and friends and associations with relationship quality. There were no differences for disclosing to siblings or friends, but participants disclosed shared interests, peer conflicts, romantic interests, and academic concerns to best friends and family issues to siblings. Guo and colleagues (2023) investigated disclosure patterns between first-year undergraduates and their best friends, siblings, and romantic partners; best friends and romantic partners continue to be important disclosure recipients. Additionally, mixed-gender sibling dyads reported disclosing personal, multifaceted issues to their best friend more than same-gender sibling dyads. Male compared to female siblings disclosed multifaceted topics more to their romantic partner, while siblings with brothers compared to sisters disclosed more about prudential topics (e.g., consuming alcohol and drugs) to their best friend.

In sum, self-disclosing is foundational for building and maintaining relationships and has important developmental implications for youth’s well-being. Communication is embedded in this process, specifically, the ways that language is employed when disclosing to siblings and friends. ISL is one framework for understanding adolescents’ disclosures, which may offer deeper insight into how they communicate their emotions and thoughts.

ISL in Communications With Siblings and Friends

Socio-constructivist theory posits that meaning making is a shared process, occurring in communication with others in close relationships (Carpendale & Lewis, 2014). The beliefs, intentions, and desires exchanged in these interactions reveal youths’ understanding of their social relationships and, in turn, guides their approach to those relationships. Complementing this perspective, social information processing models emphasize that adolescents’ interpretations of their social interactions shape their behavior in close relationships (Rubin et al., 2015). During self-disclosures adolescents may reference internal states to communicate their experiences and demonstrate their understanding of the other person’s experience (Hargie, 2011; Korem, 2023). In fact, self-disclosure is associated with more reflective and emotional conversations, which might suggest that linguistic markers like ISL may index the relational meaningfulness of disclosure (Brummelman et al., 2024). These processes illustrate how socio-cognitive understanding translates into socio-emotional skills (e.g., providing emotional support), which are instrumental for prosocial behavior and enhancing relationship quality (Costello et al., 2023; Van Meegen et al., 2024).

ISL, sometimes called mental state language, encompasses terms that describe the thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and desires of oneself or others in four categories: cognitions (e.g., think, know); emotions (e.g., excited, tired); goals (e.g., hope, try), and preferences (e.g., like, dislike) (Leach et al., 2017; Longobardi et al., 2016). ISL is a key component of socio-emotional learning, the development of emotion awareness and regulation, the capacity to build and sustain healthy social relationships, and is associated with mental well-being (Bell et al., 2024; Longobardi et al., 2016). ISL references in children’s speech during the early years serves as a foundation for their learning about emotion understanding and social reasoning, which in turn scaffold later social-cognitive development (Bell et al., 2024; Mcfayden & Bruce, 2024).

Internal state references increase with age, including the breadth of ISL categories used. In the preschool years, children begin employing ISL, especially emotion terms, when describing sad rather than happy events in their communications (Welliver et al., 2024). Leach et al. (2015) reported no differences in children’s (M age = 4 years) ISL use during play with siblings and same-aged friends. In contrast, Hughes et al. (2007) observed that 3- and 4-year-olds employed more ISL during play with their siblings than friends. By late childhood and early adolescence (7-12 years), youth use more cognitive and emotion terms when processing negative events than positive events (Baker-Ward et al., 2005; Bauer et al., 2005). However, cognitive and emotional language did not differ by valence in a 13- to 16-year-old sample (Bohanek & Fivush, 2010). Given that the narrative affective context influences the use of cognitive and emotional ISL (i.e., traumatic vs. nontraumatic events; losing or winning a game) in younger samples, we might expect that early adolescents would use more cognitive and emotional language when describing negative events relative to positive events. Finally, Howe et al. (1995) observed that children in early childhood (older sibling 3-4 years; younger sibling 14 months) from families that promoted discussions of internal states were more likely to disclose information with their siblings four years later. In sum, early conversations about internal states may promote reciprocal and intimate self-disclosure between siblings over time. However, ISL has yet to be established as a reliable index for these outcomes during the early adolescent years. Thus, the current study describes early adolescents’ ISL use when narrating affective vignettes and whether it is a reliable and valid marker of socio-cognitive understanding.

The Present Study

Based on the theoretical and empirical literature (e.g., Howe et al., 2000), we addressed the conceptually and developmentally important question of how early adolescents use ISL in their disclosures to siblings and friends. Specifically, we investigated early adolescents’ use of ISL during a hypothetical picture task designed to measure their responses to negative and positive social situations. Children constructed narratives about five pictures depicting a same-gender child in various social contexts (e.g., fighting, having fun). Vignettes allow researchers to examine socio-cognitive processes that are grounded in a particular affective context (e.g., Hendriks et al., 2022) and were used in the current study to measure early adolescents’ propensity to include ISL references in their narratives regarding disclosing to a hypothetical sibling or friend. The Hypothetical Relationships Picture Task (HRPT) was used previously to measure how early adolescents understand and navigate affective interpersonal situations (Karos et al., 2007). First, we examined adolescents’ use of ISL when they indicated that the hypothetical character would self-disclose; we expected greater ISL use when the adolescents suggested that characters would choose to self-disclose (Tilton-Weaver et al., 2014). Second, we investigated early adolescents’ use of ISL in relation to the valence of the stories they narrated during the hypothetical task and whether the strength of this association differed by disclosure recipient. In line with Baker-Ward et al. (2005), we expected early adolescents to use more cognitive and emotional language when narrating negative hypothetical stories compared to positive stories. We also expected that adolescents would employ more emotional ISL when they suggested disclosing to a sibling during the hypothetical task compared to a friend (Hughes et al., 2007). Third, the moderating effect of relationship context on the association between adolescents’ use of ISL and socio-emotional understanding was assessed. Given the longevity of sibling relationship (Howe et al., 2020) and prior literature (Bell et al., 2024), we expected the association on the hypothetical task between ISL and socio-emotional understanding (i.e., emotional support, reciprocity, instrumental solutions) to be stronger for siblings than friends. Fourth, we examined whether adolescents’ reports of hypothetical characters’ willingness to disclose was associated with reports of their actual sibling and friend relationship quality. In line with Martinez and Howe (2013), we predicted positive associations between disclosing to sibling and friend characters during the HRPT and actual sibling and friend relationship quality. Analyses assessing birth order and grade differences were exploratory given the absence of studies examining ISL in adolescent conversations with same- or similar-aged close others.

Method

Participants

Participants included 79 adolescents recruited from grade 4 (21 male, 19 female; M age = 9.45 years, SD = 0.60) and grade 6 (18 male, 21 female; M age = 11.20 years, SD = 0.54). Adolescents identified the sibling they felt closest to and their best friend: for siblings, grade 4 M age = 9.75 years (SD = 4.18) and grade 6 M age = 11.20 years (SD = 3.38); for best friends, grade 4 M age = 9.43 years (SD = 0.81), grade 6 M age = 11.50 years (SD = 0.60). Regarding sibling birth order, 40 focal adolescents reported feeling closer to an older sibling, 38 identified a younger sibling, and one indicated their twin. Most sibling dyads were same-gender (girl-girl = 23, boy-boy = 29) and 27 were mixed-gender. The gender composition of best friends was 40 girls and 38 boys; only one adolescent identified an opposite gender best friend. The sample consisted predominantly of White children living in a large bilingual (French-English) urban community. All participants spoke English and came from lower- or middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds. Students were given parental consent forms at school that were returned to the teacher and adolescents provided assent. The study received ethics approval from Concordia University’s research ethics board and by Toronto Metropolitan University for the current study.

Procedure

All 79 participants completed the relationship quality measures in their classrooms. A semi-structured interview (Howe et al., 2000) about the topics and frequency of disclosures to their sibling and best friend were conducted individually in a private location (e.g., library) by trained RAs. The RAs administered the Hypothetical Relationships Picture Task (HRPT); all participants generated a story for each of five vignettes to assess socio-emotional understanding. The interview and HRPT were audio-recorded, counterbalanced, and later transcribed.

Measures

Sibling Relationship Quality

Participants completed the 48-item Sibling Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ, Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) measuring relationship quality with the sibling to whom they felt closest. Four dimensions were assessed on a 5-point rating scale (1 = hardly at all to 5 = extremely much): (a) warmth/closeness (e.g., “How much do you show your brother how to do things he doesn’t know how to do?”), (b) relative power/status (e.g., “How much does your sister tell you what to do?”), (c) conflict (e.g., “How much do you and your brother argue with each other?”), and (d) rivalry (e.g., “How much do you and your sister compete with each other?”). Cronbach’s alphas measured the subscales’ internal consistency: warmth/closeness (.91), conflict (.90), rivalry (.75), and relative power/status (.74).

Friendship Relationship Quality

Adolescents completed the 45-item Friendship Activity Questionnaire (FAQ, Bukowski et al., 1994) measuring the quality of their best friendship. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not true to 5 = really true) to assess five dimensions: (a) companionship (e.g., “My friend and I spend a lot of our free time together.”), (b) closeness (e.g., “I feel happy when I am with my friend.”), (c) help (e.g., “My friend and I help each other.”), (d) security (e.g., “I can trust my friend and rely upon my friend.”), and (e) conflict (e.g., “I can get into fights with my friend.”). Cronbach’s alphas measured the subscales’ internal consistency: help (.88), closeness (.84), conflict (.78), security (.71), and companionship (.68).

Semi-Structured Interview

The 15–20-min semi-structured, private interview consisted of 26 open-ended questions adapted from Howe et al. (2000) to include questions about friendship. Adolescents reported on whether they disclosed to their sibling and friend, the general topics of their disclosures (e.g., “What kinds of things do you tell your sibling/friend?”), frequency of disclosures (e.g., “How often do you share secrets?”), whether they disclosed problems (e.g., “Do you share special thoughts/problems with your sibling/friend?”), and the type of issues disclosed (e.g., “What kinds of problems do you tell your sibling/friend?”). Two coders, one blind to the study’s goals, conducted interrater reliability on a random subsample of interviews with Cohen’s kappa: topics disclosed to siblings (1.00) and friends (.97); problems disclosed to siblings and friends (both 1.00); and frequency of disclosure to siblings (1.00) and friends (.93). Discrepancies were resolved via discussion for all coding.

Hypothetical Relationships Picture Task

Participants completed the HRPT (Karos et al., 2007) during the private sessions with RAs. Of the original 8 pictures depicting affective relational vignettes, we utilized five depicting sibling or friend interaction. The vignettes illustrated the following: (1) two children arguing (arguing), (2) one child comforting another child (comforting), (3) a child having school problems (problems at school), (4) two children having fun (having fun), and (5) a child feeling mad (feeling mad; vignettes are available upon request). Images depicting same-gender character pairs were matched to the participant’s gender.

RAs introduced the situation depicted in each picture and asked adolescents to create a story about the characters (e.g., “In this picture, two children are fighting. Can you tell me a story about this picture?”). Participants were prompted to elaborate on the scenario, including the characters’ likely actions (e.g., “What would the people in the picture do?”), mental states (e.g., “What are the two children thinking?”), feelings (e.g., “What are the two children feeling?”), and possible solutions to resolve the situation (e.g., “What kind of solution can the two children come up with to solve the issue/problem?”). Last, participants were asked about the characters’ willingness to disclose (e.g., “Would they talk to anyone about the situation? Who?”).

HRPT Disclosures

Transcripts of the five narratives were coded for disclosure, namely whether the character(s) disclosed (yes/no) and the target of disclosure: sibling (1), friend (2), both (3), or neither (i.e., no disclosure or disclosure directed to adults only; Howe et al., 2002).

Internal State Language

ISL terms were coded according to four mutually exclusive categories: (a) goals, (b) cognitions, (c) emotions, and (d) preferences (see Table 1). Each story was coded for valence: positive (e.g., playing) or negative (e.g., bullying). Interrater reliability for ISL coding was conducted by two raters (one blind to study goals) for 24% (19/79) of the transcripts; Cohen’s kappa for overall ISL (.99), goals (.96), cognitions (.99), emotions (.97), and preferences (.99). Interrater reliability for valence was conducted by the first author and an RA unfamiliar with the study goals for 19% (15/79) of the transcripts; kappa for overall valence (.86); positive (.91) and negative (.89).

Table 1.

Definitions and Examples of HRPT Coding Scheme

Internal state language

(a) Goals: Terms that apply to goals, specifically desires, obligations, intentions, or attempts (e.g., want, have to, mean to, try)

(b) Cognitions: Terms that reflect a child’s beliefs (thoughts) or knowledge (e.g., deserve, might, think, worry)

(c) Emotions: Terms that indicate a positive, negative, or general (neutral) emotion or a physiological state (e.g., enjoy, scared, are you alright? tired)

(d) Preferences: Terms that express a preference (e.g., like/dislike, don’t care, traits like silly, funny)

Socio-emotional understanding outcomes of self-disclosure

(a) Emotional support: Indications of sympathizing or comforting (e.g., “The brother in the picture says, ‘It’s alright and there’s nothing to be scared of.’”)

(b) Reciprocity: Indication of sharing an experience (e.g., “I’d go and talk to my sister and ask for advice’ after fighting with a friend.”)

(c) Instrumental solution: Involves active support or practical solution after disclosure (e.g., “Tell him to go back to that person and tell them ‘I’m sorry’ and be friends again.”)

Socio-Emotional Understanding

The variables on the HRPT were previously coded for (a) emotional support, (b) reciprocity, and (c) instrumental solution (Howe et al., 2001) (See Table 1 for definitions and examples). For each category, a score of one was assigned when a reference was made during the narrative. Two coders (one blind to the study goals) conducted interrater reliability on a random subsample of transcripts: Cohen’s kappa for all three outcomes (.92).

Plan of Analysis

The data were analyzed using Jamovi (version 2.4.12; The jamovi project, 2023). First, to investigate patterns of adolescents’ ISL use during the HRPT, a 2 (Disclosure: yes/no) x 4 (ISL Category: goals, cognitions, emotions, preferences) repeated measures ANOVA was used. ISL use proportion scores were first calculated for each vignette narrative for use of each ISL category using a weighted average to account for variations in narrative lengths (e.g., arguing vignette goals proportion = total number goals terms divided by total number of narrative words). These were subsequently aggregated by disclosure by averaging the category’s proportion scores across all narratives in which disclosure was indicated by the participant (e.g., sum of goal proportions divided by number of disclosure-indicated narratives). An additional model included grade and gender to examine for possible effects.

Second, to determine adolescents’ use of ISL categories in relation to the valence of HRPT vignettes and whether the strength of this association differed by disclosure recipient, 4 (disclosure recipient) x 4 (ISL category) repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted. Two separate models were conducted for positive valance and negative valance. The children having fun vignette was positively valanced and the other four (arguing, comforting, problems at school, feeling angry) were negatively valanced. To create ISL composites for negative valance, the ISL proportions were aggregated (i.e., sum of category proportions for vignettes arguing, comforting, school problems, and feeling angry divided by 4). To capture the target of disclosures in the negative-valance vignettes, vignette-level disclosure codes were aggregated to create a modal disclosure target variable. Participants were categorized according to the target they mentioned most frequently across negative vignettes: 1 = sibling (three or more sibling-targeted disclosures), 2 = friend (three or more friend-targeted disclosures), 3 = sibling and friend target equally (e.g., three or more “both” codes or an equal number of sibling and friend codes), and 4 = mixed/no preference (remaining patterns, including inconsistent or absent disclosures). Additional models including gender were conducted for each valence condition to examine possible effects. Significant main effects, interactions, and post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction, where appropriate, are reported.

Third, hierarchical linear regressions tested the relation between ISL during the HRPT narratives and socio-emotional understanding, as well as moderating effects of relationship context. In the first step of each model, grand-mean centered scores for each ISL category across all vignettes and adolescents’ self-reported frequency of disclosure to their best friends and siblings were entered as predictors. The outcome variable in each model was the total socio-emotional understanding score (emotional support, reciprocity, instrumental support), calculated by summing scores across five vignettes (0 to 5). For each vignette, a score of 1 was assigned if the target behavior was present for a given variable, and 0 if it was absent (scores = 0-5 for each variable). In the second step, the interaction terms of each ISL category by disclosure frequency to best friends and siblings, respectively, were added to examine the moderating effect of relationship on the association between ISL and each socio-emotional understanding variable. Lastly, linear regressions examined associations between disclosure and participants’ sibling and friend relationship quality. Disclosure frequency was measured as a linear predictor, calculated as the sum of disclosures across the five hypothetical vignettes (scores 0 to 5).

Results

Tables 2 and 3 present adolescents’ responses during the Hypothetical Relationships Picture Task (HRPT), including disclosure patterns and ISL use across the five hypothetical vignettes. Overall, the propensity to disclose varied across vignettes; school problems (74.7%) was most frequent and children having fun (63.3%) was least frequent. Across vignettes, participants were more likely to disclose to friends than siblings; friend disclosure was most common in the having fun vignette (35.4%), with Grade 6 students reporting this more often (21.5%) than Grade 4 students (13.9%). Participants in both grades referenced cognitions most often in 80% of the vignettes. In contrast, preferences were referred to least often across grades and vignettes. Zero-order correlations are available in Supplementary Materials (Table S1).

Table 2.

Self-Disclosure and Disclosure Target During the HRPT

	Grade 4 (N = 40)		Grade 6 (N = 39)		Both grades (N = 79)
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Did the participant disclose?
Arguing
Yes	28	35.4	23	29.1	51	64.6
Comforting
Yes	29	36.7	25	31.6	54	68.4
School problems
Yes	30	38.0	29	36.7	59	74.7
Having fun
Yes	22	27.8	28	35.4	50	63.3
Feeling mad
Yes	29	36.7	27	34.2	56	70.9
Disclosure target
Arguing
Sibling	2	2.5	0	0.0	2	2.5
Friend	9	11.4	7	8.9	16	27.4
Comforting
Sibling	3	3.8	5	6.3	8	10.1
Friend	5	6.3	10	12.7	15	19.0
School problems
Sibling	3	2.8	0	0.0	3	3.8
Friend	10	12.7	13	16.5	23	29.2
Having fun
Sibling	1	1.3	3	3.8	4	5.1
Friend	11	13.9	17	21.5	28	35.4
Feeling mad
Sibling	0	0.0	1	1.3	1	1.3
Friend	12	15.2	11	13.9	23	29.1

Table 3.

Mean ISL Use by Hypothetical Scenario

Hypothetical scenario	ISL subcategory	Grade 4 mean (SD)	Grade 6 mean (SD)	Total mean (SD)
Arguing
	Goals	2.35 (2.96)	1.85 (1.98)	2.10 (2.52)
	Cognitions	6.53 (6.14)	5.44 (3.97)	5.99 (5.18)
	Emotions	4.45 (3.38)	4.59 (2.77)	4.52 (3.08)
	Preferences	0.70 (1.34)	0.54 (1.17)	0.62 (1.25)
Comforting
	Goals	1.95 (3.03)	1.26 (1.33)	1.61 (2.36)
	Cognitions	5.73 (6.54)	4.72 (3.61)	5.23 (5.29)
	Emotions	4.10 (2.93)	4.39 (2.36)	4.24 (2.65)
	Preferences	0.40 (0.74)	0.15 (0.43)	0.28 (0.62)
School problems
	Goals	3.08 (3.48)	2.05 (1.81)	2.57 (2.81)
	Cognitions	6.85 (6.77)	5.18 (4.15)	6.03 (5.66)
	Emotions	3.43 (2.48)	2.97 (2.58)	3.20 (2.52)
	Preferences	0.60 (0.84)	0.45 (0.72)	0.52 (0.78)
Having fun
	Goals	1.13 (1.32)	0.87 (0.98)	1.00 (1.17)
	Cognitions	3.88 (4.03)	3.13 (2.98)	3.51 (3.55)
	Emotions	3.05 (2.42)	2.85 (1.86)	2.95 (2.15)
	Preferences	0.65 (1.58)	0.23 (0.49)	0.44 (1.18)
Feeling mad
	Goals	3.05 (4.67)	2.51 (2.68)	2.79 (3.81)
	Cognitions	4.85 (4.80)	4.64 (3.41)	4.75 (4.15)
	Emotions	5.73 (3.72)	5.05 (2.97)	5.39 (3.37)
	Preferences	0.33 (0.62)	0.64 (1.14)	0.48 (0.92)

References to Internal States and HRPT Disclosures

To examine adolescents’ use of ISL when disclosure was indicated in the HRPT narratives, we conducted a repeated measures ANOVA. Mauchly’s test indicated that sphericity was violated for the ISL category factor and disclosure x ISL category interaction, thus Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied where necessary. There was no main effect of disclosure, F(1,55) = 0.053, p = .819, η²p = .001; adolescents did not differ in ISL use whether they disclosed or not. However, a significant main effect of ISL category emerged, F(1.96,136.89) = 91.95, p < .001, η²p = .630 (see Figure 1). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that emotion terms were referred to most frequently (M = 0.040, SE = 0.002), followed by cognitions (M = 0.038, SE = 0.003), goals (M = 0.015, SE = 0.001), and preferences (M = 0.004, SE = 0.001). Adding grade and gender to the model was not significant (p = .129 and p = .263, respectively). In sum, findings do not support our hypothesis that adolescents would reference ISL in their disclosures during the HRPT but suggest that early adolescents frequently reference cognitive and emotion terms in their narratives relative to other ISL categories.

Figure 1.

Internal State Language Use by Disclosure Group Across All Vignettes. Note. Plot displays mean ISL use proportions (± standard error) aggregated by disclosure for each adolescent during the task. Regardless of whether adolescents indicated disclosing during the task or not, participants referenced emotion and cognition terms the most, followed by goals and preferences. Bars that do not share a letter differ significantly at p < .05 (Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests).

ISL, Narrative Valence, and Relationship Context

A series of repeated measures ANOVAs examined the association between HRPT story valence and the patterns of adolescents’ ISL use, and any moderating effects of relationship context. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was violated for both models, therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied. A significant main effect of ISL was evident for both negative, F(1.99,153.45) = 47.36, p < .001, η²p = .381, and positive, F(1.89,141.82 = 10.24, p < .001, η²p = .120) vignettes. Adolescents’ use of the four ISL types was nearly identical between the positive and negative valanced vignettes (see Supplementary Materials Table S2). The between-subjects effect of self-disclosure target was not significant for negatively (F_1,77 = 0.06, p = .807, η²p = .001) or positively valanced vignettes, F(3,75) = 1.63, p = .190, η²p = .061. Gender was subsequently added to each model but was nonsignificant in both negative (F_1,76 = .641, p = .426, η²p = .008) and positive (F_1,74 = 0.0002, p = .988, η²p = .000) vignettes. Our hypotheses predicting greater use of cognitive and emotional ISL in negative than positive vignettes and greater emotional ISL in disclosures to siblings than friends were not supported.

ISL and Socio-Emotional Understanding Outcomes

A series of linear regressions investigated the association between ISL and the three socio-emotional understanding variables (reciprocity, emotional support, instrumental support) and if the frequency of best friend and sibling disclosures moderated this effect. The first model with emotional support as the outcome variable was nonsignificant (p = .129) in the first step. In the second step, adolescents’ references to cognitive terms negatively predicted instances of emotional support, B = −0.09, SE = 0.03, t(35) = −2.86, p = .01, 95% CI [−0.16, −0.03]. Interestingly, the frequency of adolescents’ disclosures to their best friend positively predicted their tendency to offer emotional support during the HRPT, B = 0.31, SE = 0.15, t(35) = 2.13, p = .04, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61], while disclosures to siblings had no effect, B = 0.09, p = .63. Further, disclosure frequencies to best friends moderated the relation between cognitions and emotional support, B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, t(35) = 2.67, p = .01, 95% CI [0.01, 0.04]. Simple slopes analysis revealed that the effect of cognitions on emotional support was significant for adolescents who rarely disclosed to their best friend, b = −0.07, t(35) = −2.44, p = 0.02, suggesting that for adolescents who seldom disclose to their best friend, references to cognition were linked with reduced emotional support (Figure 2), which did not support our hypothesis.

Figure 2.

Interaction Between Cognitions and Best Friend Disclosure Frequency on Emotional Support. Note. Simple slopes depicting the association between cognitive references and emotional support. The negative slope indicates that higher references to cognition were associated with lower perceived emotional support for adolescents who rarely disclose to their best friend.

The second model with reciprocity as the outcome variable was nonsignificant (p = .42). In both the first and second step of the model, there were no significant effects of ISL on reciprocity or moderation effects of the frequency of disclosures to best friends and siblings. The final model with instrumental solution as the outcome variable was also nonsignificant (p = .79), indicating no significant differences between the two steps.

Sibling and Friend Disclosures and Relationship Quality

To assess the relation between disclosure during the HRPT vignettes and actual sibling and friend relationship quality, linear regressions were employed, with participant gender added as a covariate. Neither participant gender nor sibling self-disclosure was related to overall sibling relationship quality (all ps > .05). When the subscales of the SRQ were considered separately, the frequency of sibling disclosures during the HRPT and the relative power/status subscale was negatively associated, B = −0.38, SE = 0.16, t(1) = −2.36, p = .02, partially supporting our hypothesis. The model explained 7% of the variance and indicated that disclosures to hypothetical siblings were associated with fewer power differentials in adolescents’ own sibling relationships. Follow-up analyses to examine whether birth order moderated the association between disclosure frequency and the four sibling relationship quality subscales were not significant (all ps > .05). Finally, the frequency of friend disclosures during the HRPT and overall friend relationship quality was nonsignificant, B = −0.01, SE = 0.05, t(1) = −0.11, p = .91.

Discussion

The present study examined early adolescents’ self-disclosures to siblings and friends, which extends the literature on critical, intimate relationships. We employed ISL as a framework for understanding adolescent disclosure given its central role in communication with close others and strong associations with socio-emotional development. Vignettes provided early adolescents with specific affective contexts to narrate, capturing their perceptions and understanding of how to navigate various social situations with similar-aged others. Adolescents’ willingness to disclose, relationship quality with their sibling and best friend, and narrative-based socio-emotional skills were examined in relation to ISL references made during the hypothetical task. Overall, our findings suggest that ISL may provide a meaningful lens for understanding early adolescents’ approach to affective social interactions.

Early Adolescents’ Patterns of ISL Use

Early adolescents frequently referenced internal states during the hypothetical task and demonstrated preferences for specific ISL categories, namely emotion and cognitive terms more than goals and preferences. The inclusion of ISL in the narratives highlights early adolescents’ developing proficiency in perspective-taking, especially the characters’ thoughts and feelings. This pattern contributes to evidence suggesting that socio-cognitive development is reflected in adolescents’ social understanding (Vijayakumar & Pfeifer, 2020). Responding in an emotionally attuned way via ISL may function as a behavioral indicator of these developing skills. For example, in the school problem vignette, one adolescent reflected on the character’s support of the other, “Maybe he’s thinking that hey he’s having problems and maybe I should help him because I might know some stuff that he doesn’t know.” Socio-cognitive skills are critical for providing social support in close relationships, including creating opportunities for others to disclose, a major function of relationships (Rubin et al., 2015). Perspective-taking skills also help youth to respond to others appropriately so as not to violate social expectations (Korem, 2023).

However, ISL use was not more prevalent when disclosure was indicated during the narratives. Referencing internal states is characteristic of everyday conversational language, for example during play, and is not exclusive to communications involving intimate information (Jara-Ettinger & Rubio-Fernandez, 2021; Leach et al., 2017). Given that the HRPT employs both interpersonal and affective vignettes, narratives may reflect aspects of early adolescents’ social understanding that extend beyond intimate disclosure. Namely, participants across grades employed ISL in their narratives even when disclosure was not indicated (e.g., “He would want to help”, “[He’s] scared cause he knows he’s going to get scolded by his parents”). Thus, our findings suggest that internal state references may not necessarily be more prevalent in self-disclosure contexts but may meaningfully index socio-cognitive development.

Scenario Valence and Relationship Context

Contrary to our hypothesis, adolescents’ references to cognitive and emotional states did not differ between positively and negatively valanced vignettes. Prior literature is mixed; some researchers reported younger children used more cognitive and emotional language when describing negative than positive events (Baker-Ward et al., 2005; Bauer et al., 2005; Welliver et al., 2024), whereas Bohanek and Fivush (2010) did not observe valence effects in their 13–16-year-old sample. Davidson and Welliver (2021) argue that describing negative events requires more ISL, as processing unpleasant experiences involves more meaning construction than positive events. Nonetheless, we argue, following Bohanek and Fivush (2010) that positive events also warrant meaning-making given the emphasis on mutual understanding with close others that occurs during adolescence. Adolescents may bond over sharing positive events that foster feelings of closeness and acceptance. Griffith and Hankin (2021) reported an increase in adolescents’ positive affect when they shared positive daily events with caregivers, which also increased parents’ positive responses. Further, sharing good news with others increased positive feelings about the event and promoted feelings of validation for emerging adults, especially with a responsive, enthusiastic listener (Reis et al., 2010). Thus, we advocate for investigating how adolescents share positive events with siblings and friends, including their linguistic features, to complement the co-rumination literature (e.g., Rose et al., 2007) and clarify how communicating positive versus negative experiences supports relational outcomes.

Drawing on relationships theory (Carpendale & Lewis, 2014) and the enduring nature of the sibling relationship (Howe et al., 2020), we predicted that adolescents would make more emotion references when disclosures were directed to siblings than friends, but this was not supported. Nevertheless, participants’ perceptions of the sibling relationship as one of the earliest contexts for socialization was reflected in some narrative responses. For instance, in reference to twin sisters comforting each other, one participant noted, “they’re thinking well I’m glad I have a sister here to help me and to talk to”, suggesting a perception of mutual emotional support and trust. However, the similarity of adolescents’ total emotional references to siblings and friends in the narratives may suggest that a more detailed examination is warranted to determine if the target of disclosure and specific context influences use of emotion terms (Davis, 2012; Martinez & Howe, 2013). For example, adolescents may use emotion words when disclosing to friends about peer conflict, but also to siblings when processing family-related issues. This speculation warrants further study, underscoring the need to consider relationship context when examining socioemotional communication during early adolescence.

ISL and Socio-Emotional Understanding

When examining associations between ISL and socio-emotional understanding as coded in the narratives, an effect emerged for best friend relationships and emotional support, but not instrumental support and reciprocity. When adolescents reported infrequent disclosure to their actual best friends, more frequent cognitive language was linked to lower levels of emotional support in the narratives. As adolescents transition from childhood to early adolescence, their friendships increasingly center on mutual understanding and emotional attunement (Rubin et al., 2015). A grade 4 participant captured this connection when reflecting on the characters in the comforting vignette: “They’re kind of thinking the same thing because…when you’re helping a person with a problem and they’re having the problem, you kind of feel the same way.” Such reflections demonstrate early adolescents’ ability to empathize cognitively and emotionally, while also highlighting the role of language in supporting social competence skills (Eisenberg et al., 2005). During adolescence, youth begin to grasp the dynamics of self-disclosure, wherein the listener is expected to respond meaningfully to what is shared (Tardy & Smithson, 2018). If adolescents are not skilled in emotional exchanges with friends, they may not respond in supportive, emotionally attuned ways when a peer discloses private information. In such cases, an overreliance on cognitive language, rather than emotions or goals (e.g., try, hope), may serve only to mirror the discloser’s feelings without offering meaningful support. This underscores language as a medium for expressing emotional understanding and a tool to cultivate emotional reciprocity, which is essential for relationships (Carpendale & Lewis, 2014; Rubin et al., 2015). Further research into this link may enable practitioners to help youth refine their communicative strategies with friends. In sum, these findings position ISL as both a mechanism and marker of adolescents’ evolving capacity to be emotionally supportive during interpersonal exchanges.

Disclosures to Siblings and Friends and Relationship Quality

Overall sibling or friend relationship quality was not associated with narratives including disclosure on the hypothetical task. However, a deeper look at sibling dynamics revealed that when adolescents’ narratives included disclosures to sibling characters, they were less likely to report power differentials in their actual sibling relationships. This is characteristic of high-quality sibling relationships whereby features such as low dominance and low power imbalance are associated with egalitarian interactions (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). Martinez and Howe (2013) also found that the more satisfied early adolescents were with their relationships, the more likely they were to report disclosing to others, particularly siblings. The authors further reported a significant positive association between sibling disclosure frequency and sibling warmth. Together these findings suggest that disclosure to siblings both actual and in the narratives is associated with specific facets of relationship quality rather than overall quality. In fact, as siblings approach adolescence, their relationship becomes more egalitarian (Howe et al., 2020). Our findings reflect a similar pattern in that self-disclosure, as a dynamic process between the discloser and target, is linked to decreased power differentials. Moreover, reciprocal interactions positively predict socioemotional problem solving in early adolescents (Karos et al., 2007). Indeed, the sibling relationship may constitute an early socialization context that shapes adolescents’ approaches to disclosure, which may be reflected in the quality and dynamics of later friendships and romantic relationships (Costello et al., 2024; Howe et al., 2020). Yet it is unclear why an association was not found for best friend relationship quality. It may be necessary to consider characteristics of the friendship (e.g., friendship stability, longevity) to better capture the relationship between disclosure and relationship quality (e.g., Schreuders et al., 2021). Together, these findings suggest that self-disclosure to siblings may serve as both a marker and mechanism of relational equality during early adolescence, warranting further consideration of how disclosure may function differently across relationship contexts.

Limitations and Conclusion

There are some limitations to the present study. First, the cross-sectional sample was predominantly White, highlighting the need for future longitudinal research to include more diverse cohorts. Also, a more robust sample might have revealed possible gender effects. Second, while vignettes were designed to elicit responses about how participants might navigate affective situations, they may not fully capture real-life interactions and responses. Third, only the focal adolescent’s perspective of actual self-disclosure and relationship quality was assessed, which does not capture the full complexity of dyadic sibling and friend dynamics. Nevertheless, nuanced insights into early adolescents’ perspectives regarding disclosure processes, ISL, and their social understanding were provided.

In sum, the current study demonstrated early adolescents’ proficiency in their use of ISL across affective contexts and disclosure targets, suggestive of their socio-cognitive development. We contribute to the literature on adolescent sibling and friend relationships by highlighting ISL as a meaningful lens for examining disclosures to important social partners. Disclosures provide an intimate context for early adolescents to receive support and sustain their relationships with social network members (Tardy & Smithson, 2018), while ISL bridges adolescents’ emotional understanding with the development of social competence in close relationships. Parents and teachers may support adolescents’ engagement in meaningful disclosures by teaching reciprocity and mirroring emotional language in addition to scaffolding disclosures of different valences and intensities (Korem, 2023). These steps will help youth develop a key skill that will serve them well in their relationships during adolescence and beyond.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material - “When you’re Helping a Person With a Problem and they’re Having the Problem, You Kind of Feel the Same Way”: Internal State Language in Adolescents’ Disclosures to Siblings and Friends

Supplemental material for “When you’re Helping a Person With a Problem and they’re Having the Problem, You Kind of Feel the Same Way”: Internal State Language in Adolescents’ Disclosures to Siblings and Friends by Patricia Forbes, Ryan J. Persram and Nina Howe in The Journal of Early Adolescence

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by an Undergraduate Student Research Award (USRA) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) granted to the first author. The original study was supported by a SSHRC grant to the third author. The authors thank all schools, families, and students for their participation and Marie-Hélène Brody, Lisa Fiorentino, Nadine Gariépy, Leigh Karavasilis, Alanna Lynch, Abby Ostien, Stephanie Peccia, Niyer Duncan, Safiyya Inhaam, and Ashley Maharaj for their research assistance.

ORCID iDs

Patricia Forbes

Ryan J. Persram

Nina Howe

Ethical Considerations

Studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Board at Concordia University for the original data collection and at Toronto Metropolitan University (#2023-370) for the secondary analysis. Parental consent was obtained via a consent form and assent was obtained from early adolescents.

Author Contributions

P.F. Co-conceptualized the project, conducted the data analysis, and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. R.P. Conceptualized and supervised the project, contributed to the study design and data interpretation, as well as provided revisions and feedback on manuscript drafts. N.H. Collected the data and provided critical feedback on the content and structure of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and publication of this article: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Patricia Forbes holds a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Toronto Metropolitan University in Toronto, Canada. She is currently a graduate student in clinical psychology at the University of Exeter in Exeter, United Kingdom. Her work focuses on the role internal state language plays in adolescents’ sibling and friend relationships.

Dr. Ryan J. Persram is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Toronto Metropolitan University in Toronto, Canada. His program of research investigates the interplay of adolescent sibling and friend relationship experiences and interactions on youth development.

Dr. Nina Howe is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Education at Concordia University in Quebec, Canada. Her research program examines how children co-construct meaning with their siblings and peers through play, teaching, imitation, and internal state language.

References

Baker-Ward

L. E.

Eaton

K. L.

Banks

J. B.

(2005). Young soccer players' reports of a tournament win or loss: Different emotions, different narratives. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6(4), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0604_4

Bauer

P. J.

Stark

E. N.

Lukowski

A. F.

Rademacher

Van Abbema

D. L.

Ackil

J. K.

(2005). Working together to make sense of the past: Mothers’ and children’s use of internal states language in conversations about traumatic and nontraumatic events. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6(4), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0604_2

Bell

Bierstedt

T. (A).

Ogren

Reider

L. B.

LoBue

(2024). Learning through language: The importance of emotion and mental state language for children’s social and emotional learning. Social and Emotional Learning: Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(3), Article 100061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sel.2024.100061

Bohanek

J. G.

Fivush

(2010). Personal narratives, well-being, and gender in adolescence. Cognitive Development, 25(4), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.08.003

Brummelman

Bos

P. A.

De Boer

Nevicka

Sedikides

(2024). Reciprocal sef‐disclosure makes children feel more loved by their parents in the moment: A proof‐of‐concept experiment. Developmental Science, 27(6), Article e13516. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13516

Buhrmester

Furman

(1990). Perceptions of sibling relationships during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 61(5), 1387–1398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02869.x

Buhrmester

Prager

(1995). Patterns and functions of self-disclosure during childhood and adolescence. In: Rotenberg

K. J.

(Ed.), Disclosure processes in children and adolescents (1st ed., pp. 10–56). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527746.002

Bukowski

W. M.

Hoza

Boivin

(1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the friendship activity questionnaire. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594113011

Camara

Bacigalupe

Padilla

(2017). The role of social support in adolescents: Are you helping me or stressing me out? International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2013.875480

10.

Campione-Barr

Lindell

A. K.

Giron

S. E.

Killoren

S. E.

Greer

K. B.

(2015). Domain differentiated disclosure to mothers and siblings and associations with sibling relationship quality and youth emotional adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1278–1291. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000036

11.

Carpendale

Lewis

(2014). The development of children’s understanding of social interaction. In: The Routledge international handbook of young children’s thinking and understanding (1st ed, pp. 123–132). Routledge.

12.

Costello

M. A.

Allen

J. P.

Womack

S. R.

Loeb

E. L.

Stern

J. A.

Pettit

(2023). Characterizing emotional support development: From adolescent best friendships to young adult romantic relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 33(2), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12809

13.

Costello

M. A.

Brehm

M. V.

Rivens

A. J.

Hunt

G. L.

Nagel

A. G.

Allen

J. P.

(2025). Support-seeking about social relationships with friends is associated with friendship quality, emotional support, and self-disclosure in adolescence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42(12), 3388–3410. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251371391

14.

Costello

M. A.

Pettit

Hellwig

A. F.

Hunt

G. L.

Bailey

N. A.

Allen

J. P.

(2024). Adolescent social learning within supportive friendships: Self‐disclosure and relationship quality from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 34(3), 805–817. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12947

15.

Davidson

A. J.

Welliver

M. E.

(2021). Internal state language and resolution strategies in preschoolers’ narratives about sad experiences. Early Child Development and Care, 191(6), 876–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1649669

16.

Davis

(2012). Friendship 2.0: Adolescents’ experiences of belonging and self‐disclosure online. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1527–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.013

17.

Eisenberg

Sadovsky

Spinrad

T. L.

(2005). Associations of emotion-related regulation with language skills, emotion knowledge, and academic outcomes. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(109), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.143

18.

Furman

Buhrmester

(1985). Children’s perceptions of the qualities of sibling relationships. Child Development, 56(2), 448–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129733

19.

Griffith

J. M.

Hankin

B. L.

(2021). Affective benefits of parental engagement with adolescent positive daily life experiences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(10), 2036–2051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01484-2

20.

Guo

Giron

S. E.

Lindell

A. K.

Campione-Barr

(2023). Gender-based associations between college students' disclosure to siblings and disclosure to best friends or romantic partners. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 69(3), 292–319. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2023.a928422

21.

Hargie

(2011). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice (5th ed). Routledge.

22.

Hendriks

Muris

Meesters

(2022). The influence of negative feedback and social rank on feelings of shame and guilt: A vignette study in 8- to 13-year-old non-clinical children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 53(3), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01143-4

23.

Howe

Aquan-Assee

Bukowski

W. M.

(1995). Self-disclosure and the sibling relationship: What did Romulus tell Remus? In: Rotenberg

K. J.

(Ed.), Disclosure processes in children and adolescents (1st ed., pp. 78–99). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527746.004

24.

Howe

Aquan‐Assee

Bukowski

W. M.

Lehoux

P. M.

Rinaldi

C. M.

(2001). Siblings as confidants: Emotional understanding, relationship warmth, and sibling self‐disclosure. Social Development, 10(4), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00174

25.

Howe

Aquan-Assee

Bukowski

W. M.

Rinaldi

C. M.

Lehoux

P. M.

(2000). Sibling self-disclosure in early adolescence. Merrill-Palmer. Quarterly, 46(4), 653–671. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23092569.

26.

Howe

Persram

R. J.

Bergeron

(2020). Sibling relationships in adolescence. In: Hupp

Jewell

(Eds.), The encyclopedia of child and adolescent development (1st ed, pp. 1–14). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171492.wecad410

27.

Howe

Rinaldi

C. M.

Jennings

Petrakos

(2002). No! The lambs can stay out because they got cozies”: Constructive and destructive sibling conflict, pretend play, and social understanding. Child development, 73(5), 1460–1473. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00483

28.

Hughes

Lecce

Wilson

(2007). “Do you know what I want?” Preschoolers’ talk about desires, thoughts and feelings in their conversations with sibs and friends. Cognition & Emotion, 21(2), 330–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600551691

29.

Jara-Ettinger

Rubio-Fernandez

(2021). Quantitative mental state attributions in language understanding. Science Advances, 7(47), eabj0970. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj0970

30.

Karos

Howe

Aquan‐Assee

(2007). Reciprocal and complementary sibling interactions, relationship quality and socio‐emotional problem solving. Infant and Child Development, 16(6), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.492

31.

Korem

(2023). Opening the door of self-disclosure: Supporting adolescents’ journey from loneliness to friendship. European Psychologist, 28(2), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000502

32.

Leach

Howe

Dehart

(2015). An earthquake shocked up the land!’ children's communication during play with siblings and friends. Social Development, 24(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12086

33.

Leach

Howe

DeHart

(2017). “I wish my people can be like the ducks”: Children’s references to internal states with siblings and friends from early to middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 26, Article e2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2015

34.

Longobardi

Spataro

Rossi-Arnaud

(2016). Relations between theory of mind, mental state language and social adjustment in primary school children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(4), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2015.1093930

35.

Martinez

Howe

(2013). Canadian early adolescents’ self-disclosure to siblings and best friends. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 4(2), 274. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs42201312212

36.

Mcfayden

T. C.

Bruce

(2024). Internal state language factor structure and development in toddlerhood: Insights from WordBank. Journal of Child Language, 51(4), 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000924000060

37.

Reis

H. T.

Smith

S. M.

Carmichael

C. L.

Caprariello

P. A.

Tsai

F.-F.

Rodrigues

Maniaci

M. R.

(2010). Are you happy for me? How sharing positive events with others provides personal and interpersonal benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018344

38.

Rose

A. J.

Carlson

Waller

E. M.

(2007). Prospective associations of co-rumination with friendship and emotional adjustment: Considering the socioemotional trade-offs of co-rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1019

39.

Rubin

K. H.

Bukowski

W. M.

Bowker

J. C.

(2015). Children in peer groups. In: Lerner

R. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (1st ed., pp. 1–48). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy405

40.

Schreuders

Braams

B. R.

Crone

E. A.

Güroğlu

(2021). Friendship stability in adolescence is associated with ventral striatum responses to vicarious rewards. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20042-1

41.

Schwartz-Mette

R. A.

Rose

A. J.

(2009). Conversational self-focus in adolescent friendships: Observational assessment of an interpersonal process and relations with internalizing symptoms and friendship quality. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(10), 1263–1297. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.10.1263

42.

Tardy

Smithson

(2018). Self-disclosure: Strategic revelation of information in personal and professional relationships. In: Hargie

(Ed.), The handbook of communication skills (4th ed, pp. 217–258). Routledge.

43.

The jamovi project . (2023). Jamovi Version 2.4. [Computer software]. https://www.jamovi.org

44.

Tilton‐Weaver

L. C.

Marshall

S. K.

Darling

(2014). What’s in a name? Distinguishing between routine disclosure and self‐disclosure. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(4), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12090

45.

Van Meegen

Van Der Graaff

Carlo

Meeus

Branje

(2024). Longitudinal associations between support and prosocial behavior across adolescence: The roles of fathers, mothers, siblings, and friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53(5), 1134–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01885-5

46.

Vijayakumar

Pfeifer

J. H.

(2020). Self-disclosure during adolescence: Exploring the means, targets, and types of personal exchanges. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31(1), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.005

47.

Welliver

M. E.

Davidson

A. J.

McCrary

(2024). Developmental differences in reported speech and internal state language in preschoolers’ personal narratives. Journal of Child Language, 51(2), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000923000168