The mediating role of empathy in the links between relationships with three socialisation agents and adolescents’ prosocial behaviours

Abstract

Previous studies have mostly focused on the socialisation role of parents on adolescents’ prosocial behaviours and there is relatively less work focusing on peers who are important socialisation agents for the development of prosocial behaviours in adolescence. Further, simultaneously examining the socialisation roles of multiple socialisation agents in prosocial behaviours and empathy development is even rarer. Thus, in the current study, we examined supportive and poor relationships with three socialisation agents (i.e., parents, peers in class, and peers in extracurricular activities) on adolescents’ prosocial behaviours, considering whether empathy mediates these relations. Additionally, we examined the links between supportive and poor relationships with peers in the class and extracurricular activities and adolescents’ prosocial behaviours, and the mediating role of empathy. The sample was 676 French adolescents (50% female, M_age = 14.35 years). Supportive relationships and poor relationships models were tested separately. We examined the relative strengths of three socialisation agents using three-socialiser and two-socialiser models. In the three-socialiser model, supportive relationships with parents and peers in the extracurricular activities were positively linked to adolescents’ empathy a year later, which, in turn, was positively linked to helping and caring behaviours. Additionally, poor relationships with parents were negatively linked to adolescents’ empathy a year later, which, in turn, was positively linked to helping and caring behaviours. In the two-socialiser model, both supportive relationships with peers in class and extracurricular activities were positively linked to adolescents’ empathy 1 year later, which, in turn, was positively linked to helping and caring behaviours but only for early adolescents. Lastly, in the two-socialiser model, poor relationships with peers in extracurricular activities were negatively linked to adolescents’ empathy 1 year later, which, in turn, was positively linked to helping and caring behaviours. In general, these results were robust across adolescents’ gender and age. Overall, results make several important contributions to the literature on the role of multiple socialisation agents and adolescents’ prosocial behaviours.

Keywords

Prosocial behaviours empathy parents peers socialisation relationship

Prosocial behaviours, defined as actions intended to benefit others (e.g., helping, sharing, cooperation, and caring), have gained increased attention in recent years (Eisenberg et al., 2015). These actions are associated with a number of positive personal outcomes (e.g., well-being, high self-esteem, academic achievement), relational outcomes (e.g., positive peer relationships, social competence), and behavioural outcomes (e.g., protective factors against delinquency, depression) (Carlo, 2014; Luengo Kanacri et al., 2017). Therefore, studies on the factors that promote prosocial behaviours is of vital importance to understand healthy adolescents’ development.

Developmental scholars emphasise the importance of the socialisation of prosocial behaviours and argue that multiple socialisation agents (e.g., parents and peers) can influence adolescents’ prosocial development (Carlo, 2014; Eisenberg et al., 2015). However, studies to date mostly focused on the socialisation influences of parents, and there are relatively less work focusing on peers in the development of empathy and prosocial behaviours (e.g., Carlo et al., 2018; Eisenberg et al., 2015; Guo & Feng, 2017; Silke et al., 2018). Simultaneously examining the socialisation influences of multiple socialisation agents on prosocial behaviours and empathy is even rarer. Thus, scholars highlight the need to investigate multiple socialisation agents that can potentially and simultaneously influence adolescents’ empathy and prosocial behaviours (Boele et al., 2019; Carlo et al., 2018; Silke et al., 2018). To address these gaps, the goal of this study was to examine (1) the links between supportive relationships with three socialisation agents (i.e., parents, peers in class, and peers in extracurricular activities) and adolescents’ prosocial behaviours, considering whether empathy mediates these relations; and (2) the links between supportive relationship with peers in class and peers in extracurricular activities and adolescents’ prosocial behaviours, considering whether empathy mediates these relations. Likewise, we also examined the patterns of poor relationships with these three socialisation agents in association with adolescents’ prosocial behaviours and the mediating role of empathy.

Theoretical Background

The bioecological theory emphasises the importance of proximal processes on individuals’ development and highlights the central role of certain socialisers like parents and peers operates in different proximal systems (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). However, parents have been the primary focus of research on antecedents of individuals’ prosocial development (Hoffman, 2000; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). To further explore the role of proximal processes on adolescent prosocial development, researchers need to examine different socialisation agents adolescents interact with. Developmental scholars argue that two of the most important socialisation agents in adolescents’ prosocial development are parents and peers (Boele et al., 2019; Eisenberg et al., 2015). Parents are considered as primary socialisation agents in the family context and adult role models in adolescents’ life (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Laursen & Collins, 2009), while peers are considered as primary socialisation agents outside the family context. Peers share the same interests, traits, social power, trust, equality and intimacy are the core elements of peer relationships (Brown & Larson, 2009; Wentzel, 2014).

Based on the self-determination theory and parenting literature (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), scholars identified six core dimensions of parenting (Skinner et al., 2005). These parenting dimensions are warmth versus rejection, structure versus chaos, and autonomy support versus coercion. Among these dimensions, warmth, structure, and autonomy support are thought to form supportive parent-child relationships, whereas rejection, chaos, and coercion are thought to form poor parent-child relationships. Further, these dimensions of relationship not only have been a frequent target of research focuses on parents, but they can also be applied to peer relationships (Boele et al., 2019; Furrer et al., 2014) and enable researchers to explore and evaluate the influence of different socialisation agents in adolescent prosocial development. To our knowledge, little research has attempted to simultaneously examine the roles of multiple socialisation agents on adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours. Thus, guided by these theories, the current study seeks to extend previous research and examine supportive and poor relationships with three socialisation agents, more specifically supportive and poor relationships with parents, supportive and poor relationships with peers in class and extracurricular activities.

Relationships with Parents and Adolescents’ Empathy and Prosocial Behaviours

The quality of parent-child relationships is one of the important socialisation influences during adolescence years, and a variety of parenting behaviours have been linked to adolescents’ prosocial behaviours and empathy (Silke et al., 2018; Spinrad et al., 2019). The current study seeks to focus on both supportive and poor parent-child relationships in relations to adolescents’ prosocial behaviours and empathy. Supportive parent-child relationship is often characterised by three main dimensions: (1) warmth, which refers to parental demonstration of love, affection, and acceptance, and being responsive to children’s needs; (2) structure, which refers to parents’ clear and coherent expectations for mature behaviours from their children and setting consistent and appropriate limits; and (3) autonomy support, which refers to the degree to which parents work to relate to their children’s worldviews, allow their children’s freedom of choice, show genuine respect and encourage their children to express their views and opinions (Skinner et al., 2005, p. 186). Supportive parents have affective bonds with their children, provide children with a sense of trust, and make their children feel secure. These positive qualities promote children’s sense of connection to and concern for others (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Spinrad et al., 2019). Moreover, supportive parent-child relationships may enhance children’s prosocial development through modelling (Bandura, 1986). Prior research has shown that supportive parenting behaviour can make children to be more sensitive to others and foster adolescents’ prosocial behaviours and empathy development (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Guo & Feng, 2017; Spinrad et al., 2019).

Conversely, poor parent-child relationship is often characterised by three dimensions: (1) rejection, which refers to parental hostility, dislike, aversion, harsh discipline and overt communication of negative feelings towards the children; (2) chaos, which refers to parental inconsistent, arbitrary, undependable, and unpredictable behaviours, lack of structure and lax discipline; and (3) coercion, which refers to restrictive, manipulative, and intrusive parenting and psychological control practises that involve parents controlling their children’s emotional state, beliefs, or psychological world (Skinner et al., 2005, p. 186). Parental rejection, chaos, and coercion can make children be worried about their own needs. Children with coercive, strict, and rejecting parents are more likely to have self-concerns. Because these children cannot overcome their self-concern, they are less likely to care about others and thus, they are less likely to have empathy skills and share with or help others (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Prior research has shown that poor parent-child relationships may diminish the development of prosocial behaviours and empathy (see Boele et al., 2019 for a meta-analytic review; Padilla-Walker et al., 2016).

Relationships with Peers and Adolescents’ Empathy and Prosocial Behaviours

Peer relations become more important in adolescence because adolescence is characterised by increased autonomy, individuation from parents, spending more time with peers than parents (Brown & Larson, 2009; Collins & Steinberg, 2006). Developmental scholars argue that peer relationships can provide a unique setting where adolescents can internalise social norms, reinforce each other for their adaptive behaviours, adopt peers valued behaviours, experience social exchanges and social learning, and find opportunities to develop empathy and prosocial behaviours (Collins & Steinberg, 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2015). Additionally, peer relationships are characterised by equality, mutuality, and reciprocity, which offer rich opportunities for practising empathy and prosocial behaviours among peers (Brown & Larson, 2009; Wentzel, 2014). Thus, peer relationships are particularly important for the development of prosocial behaviours in adolescence.

Several studies have found that adolescents tend to engage in prosocial behaviours and have higher empathy skills if they have strong attachment relationships to peers (e.g., Carlo et al., 2012; Laible et al., 2004) and if they have prosocial friends (e.g., Farrell et al., 2017; Shin, 2017). However, it is important to note that adolescents interact with a broad range of peers (Brown & Larson, 2009). For instance, several studies have found that deviant peer affiliation is negatively related to prosocial behaviours (e.g., Carlo et al., 2014; Maiya et al., 2020). Thus, the current study seeks to examine adolescents’ supportive and poor peer relationships both in class and extracurricular activities related to adolescents’ prosocial development. Class and extracurricular activities are thought to be two main peer groups in adolescents’ life.

Scholars suggest that the classroom represents an important setting not only to teach competencies, to transmit behavioural norms and standards but also to social-emotional functioning in adolescence (Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2009). Moreover, studies highlight that class constitutes a privileged space for meetings and interactions because they gather different peer communities together and promotes positive social development (Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2009). Similarly, extracurricular activities, which are school-based or community-based structured activities, are also microenvironments and have common features with the class (e.g., adult supervision, adherence to rules and schedules, and diverse group of peers; Vandell et al., 2015). However, extracurricular activities have different pedagogical and philosophical approach than class and focus on engagement, gaining hands-on experiences, child-driven experiential learning, and encouraging collaborative works among peers (Vandell et al., 2015, p. 305–306). Extracurricular activities offer a setting to adolescents to connect with diverse groups of peers and other adults and variety of opportunities for developing life skills outside the more restricted expectations of class and family settings (Vandell et al., 2015).

In this study, supportive peer relationship refers to peer interactions characterised by warmth, structure, and autonomy support. Warmth in peer relationship refers to acceptance, affection, caring for and respecting each other). Structure in peer relationship refers to consistency, reliability, and the exchange of the necessary information for functioning which creates a sense of competency and control because adolescents want to know what to expect from their peers. Lastly, autonomy support in peer relationship refers to feelings of encouragement of the self, provision of choice and expression of genuine preferences in interpersonal interactions (Furrer et al., 2014). Previous research has shown that peer relationships characterised by warm, structure, and autonomy support foster adolescents’ various types of positive outcomes, such as motivation and competence (see Furrer et al., 2014). However, research in empathy and prosocial behaviours in relations to supportive relationships with peers are limited (see Boele et al., 2019; Eisenberg et al., 2015). Thus, this study seeks to examine if adolescents’ supportive relations with their peers characterised by warmth, structure, and autonomy support in class and extracurricular activities is related to their empathy and prosocial behaviours.

In contrast, poor peer relationship refers to peer interactions characterised by (1) rejection, which includes a range of behaviours from outward hostility (e.g., bullying) to more subtle forms of neglect (e.g., indifference) (2) chaos, which refers to confusing, disorganised or unpredictable interactions that are fostered through insufficient or careless communication (e.g., teasing, telling lies, spreading rumours); and (3) coercion, which refers to manipulative, controlling, or enmeshed relations, devaluation of adolescent’s genuine preferences, ideas, feelings, and the sense of autonomy (Furrer et al., 2014, p. 109). Previous research has shown that peer relationships characterised by rejection, chaos, and coercion are related to adolescents’ various types of problem outcomes, such as externalising and internalising problems, victimisation, and depressive symptoms (e.g., Chen et al., 2015; Farrell et al., 2017). However, there is limited work focuses on the relations between poor peer relationships and adolescents’ empathy and prosocial behaviours. To extend previous work, we examine if adolescents’ poor peer relationships, characterised by rejection, chaos, and coercion, in class and extracurricular activities is related to their empathy and prosocial behaviours.

Mediating Role of Empathy

Prosocial development theory suggests that an important precursor for prosocial behaviours is empathy, which is a complex multidimensional construct (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Cognitive and affective empathy and personal distress are three most commonly theorised dimensions of empathy (Davis, 1983; Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2009). Cognitive empathy includes understanding others’ feelings and situations through perspective taking, whereas affective empathy includes feeling sorrow for others and sharing similar emotions with others through empathic concern. And personal distress refers to self-oriented feelings like anxiety stem from another’s distress (Davis, 1983; Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2009). Similarly, other scholars suggested that there are three core elements of empathy; these are self-regulation, affective arousal sharing, and emotion understanding (Decety, 2011). Based on these conceptualisations, Carré et al. (2013) suggested three dimensions of empathy: emotional contagion (automatic and unconscious matching others’ emotions), cognitive empathy (understanding others’ affects), and emotional disconnection (function as regulatory mechanism to protect self against pain and distress) (p. 680–681). Numerous studies have shown that empathy fosters prosocial behaviours, because the affective and cognitive processes of empathy provide the motivation to empathic behaviours including prosocial behaviours (see Carrizales et al., 2021; Eisenberg et al., 2015). However, there is work that demonstrates negative links between personal distress or emotional disconnection and prosocial behaviours because personal distress or emotional disconnection demotivates people to help needy others (see Eisenberg et al., 2015; Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2009).

Additionally, sociocognitive theorists (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000) argue that socioemotive traits (i.e., empathy) mediates the associations between relationships with socialisation agents and youth’s prosocial behaviours. Several empirical studies provide support for these arguments in samples of adolescents (e.g., Carlo et al., 2014, 2018). Based on existing research, in the current study, we examine if adolescents’ empathy mediates the links between supportive and poor relationships with three socialisation agents and adolescents’ prosocial behaviours.

The Current Study and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to examine the links between supportive and poor relationships with three socialisation agents and adolescents’ prosocial behaviours, and to what extent empathy mediated these relations. We hypothesised that supportive relationships with socialisation agents (warmth, structure, and autonomy support) would be positively linked to adolescents’ prosocial behaviours. Conversely, we hypothesised that poor relationships with socialisation agents (rejection, chaos, and coercion) would be negatively linked to prosocial behaviours. Moreover, we hypothesised that empathy would mediate these associations. Additionally, we expected that different socialisation agents would contribute differently to adolescents’ prosocial behaviours. Although adolescence is characterised by increased autonomy, individuation from parents, spending more time with peers than parents (Collins & Steinberg, 2006), parents still play important roles in adolescents’ prosocial development (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Thus, we expected that parents as primary socialisation agents would have a more important and specific effect compared to peers from class and extracurricular activities. Among peers, we expected that peers from extracurricular activity would contribute more specifically and importantly than peers from class. Lastly, given prior evidence on gender and age differences in empathy and prosocial behaviours across adolescence (see Eisenberg et al., 2015), we examined whether the hypothesised relations differed by gender and age.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were drawn from a three-wave longitudinal study on the role of socialisation agents in empathy and prosocial development in adolescence. The data were collected annually in the same month at the participating junior and high schools. In this study, we used data available at Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2 1 year after T1). The sample consisted of 676 French adolescents (50% of females) participating in extracurricular activities. Adolescents were between 10.61 and 17.80 (M_age = 14.35; SD = 2.02) years old at T1. Based on age at T1 two different groups were created, early adolescence group (42.3%, M_age = 12.11; SD = 0.57) and middle adolescence group (57.7%, M_age = 16.01; SD = 0.61). The sample is a nationally representative sample of adolescents in secondary school: 84.39% were from public and 15.61% from private schools, 47.07% were from High School including 21.35% vocational education. Adolescents reported their parents’ highest education as follows: 34% Master level, 26% Bachelor’s level, 18% upper secondary general education, 14% upper secondary vocational education, 3% lower secondary education, and 5% primary education.

After obtaining approval from academic institutions, adolescents and their parents received written information about the research prior to the study; the possibility of not participating was also explained in this letter. Parents and adolescents provided written informed consent. Students completed self-report questionnaires in the classroom during lesson time, with 1 hour reserved for completion. They were informed that participation was voluntary and that their responses were anonymous.

Schooling and Extracurricular Activities in France

The organisation of secondary education and extracurricular activities in France is slightly different from other countries. Secondary education consists of two cycles: Middle School (4 years, from 11 to 15 years old) and High School (3 years, from 15 to 18 years old). Students enrol at their town hall, which will assign a school close to the students’ home. Most schools have three to seven parallel classes depending on the school size. In secondary education, classes stay together across the school years. However, a reform in 2021, mandates that at the end of 10^th grade, besides the mandatory classes in core subjects, students will have to choose three specialities to better adapt their curriculum to their interest (arts, physical education, social studies). Contrary to the US or other countries, extracurricular activities in France are not school-based activities. They are structured out-of-class activities embedded in the affordance provided by the local community centres, sports, dance, music associations, leisure centres, and public swimming pools. The cities offer a number of taxpayer-funded options that are highly subsidised. The fees are paid on a sliding scale depending on household income. French adolescents have different socialisation experiences in the class and extracurricular activities given that these are two different contexts.

Measures

Supportive and poor relationships with socialisation agents (T1)

Adolescents self-reported their relationships with three socialisation agents (i.e., parents, peers in class, and peers in extracurricular activities) using the adapted version of the Parent as Social Context Questionnaire (PASCQ; Skinner et al., 2005). Parent as Social Context Questionnaire is a 20-item questionnaire designed to assess six dimensions of relationship on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all true, 5 = completely true). In the parent version, statements include “family members”. In the class peer group, we replaced the words “family members” by “classmates”. In the extracurricular peer group, we replaced the word “classmates” by “extracurricular activity peers”.

Warmth subscale assesses characteristics such as affection and appreciation (5 items, e.g., “My family enjoys being with me”, α = .84 family; α = .84 peers in class; α = .85 peers in extracurricular activities). Structure subscale assesses clear expectations and contingencies (2 items, e.g., “If I ever have a problem, my family helps me to figure out what to do about it”, α = .74 family; α = .76 peers in class; α = .69 peers in extracurricular activities). Autonomy support subscale includes items about freedom of expression and action (2 items, e.g., “My family let me do the things I think are important”, α = .60 family; α = .53 peers in class; α = .57 peers in extracurricular activities). Rejection subscale includes items to assess characteristics such as aversion and hostility (3 items, e.g., “I cannot count on my family when I need them”, α = .75 family; α = .69 peers in class; α = .74 peers in extracurricular activities). Chaos subscale assesses the characteristics of chaotic relations such as inconsistency and unpredictability (4 items, e.g., “My family keep changing the rules on me”, α = .83 family; α = .76 peers in class; α = .86 peers in extracurricular activities). Lastly, coercion subscale includes psychological control and restrictiveness items (4 items, e.g., “My family think there is only one right way to do things – their way”; α = .84 family; α = .82 peers in class; α = .88 peers in extracurricular activities). The questionnaire was translated from English to French by three independent researchers according to the recommendations of the International Test Commission (Hambleton, 2001).

Empathy (T2)

Adolescents completed the Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006), a 20-item questionnaire rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The empathy measure was adapted and validated in French (Carré et al., 2013). The scale includes three dimensions: emotional contagion (6 items, e.g., ‘I get caught up in other people’s feeling easily’, α = .73), cognitive empathy (8 items, e.g., ‘I can understand my friend’s happiness when she/he does well at something’, α = .75), and emotional disconnection (6 reverse-coded items, e.g., ‘I am not usually aware of my friend’s feelings’, α = .72) and shows good psychometric properties in other adolescents’ populations (see Cabedo Peris et al., 2022).

Prosocial behaviours (T2)

Adolescents self-reported their prosocial behaviours towards others using a validated French adaptation (Carrizales et al., 2017) of the Prosocial Behaviour Scale (Caprara et al., 2005). The French version assesses two types of prosocial behaviours: helping (6 items, e.g., ‘I try to help others’, α = .79) and caring (8 items, e.g., ‘I try to be close to and take care of those who are in need’) on a 5-point scale (1 = never/almost never, 5 = almost always/always). In the present study, in order to avoid possible overlap among items of the caring dimension and the empathy scale, only four items for the caring dimension were used, α = .75.

Control variables

Maternal education level (8 = elementary school or below, 1 = master or doctor degree) was included as a covariate in all analyses.

Plan of Analysis

To test the hypothesised associations, a series of longitudinal path analyses with latent variables using maximum likelihood robust estimation in Mplus Version 8.5 were performed (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Given the significant correlations among warmth, structure, and autonomy support; correlations among rejection, chaos, and coercion; and correlations among cognitive empathy, emotional contagion, and emotional disconnection ranging from small to moderate in effect sizes, we created latent variables using these constructs. These correlations are presented in Table 1. Several model fit indices were utilised in all models (good if CFI ≥ .95, adequate if CFI ≥ .90; good if RMSEA ≤ .06, adequate if RMSEA≤ .08; and good if SRMR ≤ .08; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of the Variables.

	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23
Parents T1
1.Warmth	4.47 (0.65)	—
2. Structure	4.22 (0.98)	.50^**	—
3. Autonomy support	3.19 (1.44)	.09^*	.11^**	—
4. Rejection	1.81 (0.99)	−.45^**	−.35^**	.01	—
5. Chaos	2.79 (1.44)	−.06	.02	−.74^**	.17^**	—
6. Coercion	2.15 (1.04)	−.35^**	-.32^**	.02	.46^**	.11^**	—
Peers in classroom T1
7.Warmth	3.56 (0.80)	.22^**	.12^**	.06	−.11^**	−.04	-.03	—
8. Structure	3.52 (1.02)	.14^**	.12^**	.09^**	−.12^**	−.09^*	−03	.60^**	—
9. Autonomy support	3.75 (0.86)	.20^**	.19^**	.04^*	−.15^**	.02	−.09^**	.53^**	.57^**	—
10. Rejection	2.27 (0.98)	−.15^**	−.10^**	.02	.25^**	.07	.23^**	−.47^**	−.42^**	−.34^**	—
11. Chaos	2.15 (0.89)	−.13^**	−.15^**	.12^**	.20^**	.03	.24^**	−.29^**	−.29^**	−.29^**	.52^**	—
12. Coercion	1.81 (0.90)	−.17^**	−.17^**	.08^*	.26^**	.02	.33^**	−.23^**	−.28^**	−.36^**	.46^**	.59^**	—
Peers in EA T1
13.Warmth	3.89 (0.83)	.21^**	11^**	.07	−.08^*	−.06	−.09^*	.22^**	.15^**	.17^**	−.11^**	−.09^*	−.16^**	—
14. Structure	3.71 (1.06)	.15^**	.21^**	.01	−.14^**	−.02	−.08^*	.06	.09^*	.10^*	−.03	−.01	−.08^*	.61^**	—
15.Autonomy support	3.95 (0.84)	.18^**	.19^**	.05	−.12^**	−.06	−.11^**	.12^**	.14^**	.17^**	−.05	−.08^*	−.15^**	.56^**	.59^**	—
16. Rejection	2.06 (0.99)	−.18^**	−.20^**	.04	.25^**	.04	.26^**	−.09^*	-.10^*	−.12^**	.20^**	.24^**	.29^**	−.44^**	−.43^**	−.35^**	—
17. Chaos	1.78 (0.95)	−.19^**	−.19^**	.10^*	.22^**	.05	.35^**	−.03	−.08	−.14^**	.15^**	.34^**	.39^**	−.39^**	−.32^**	−.36^**	.63^**	—
18. Coercion	1.73 (0.95)	−.23^**	−.28^**	.004	.29^**	.11^**	.38^**	−.07	−.11^**	−.14^**	.19^**	.30^**	.41^**	−.34^**	−.35^**	−.38^**	.54^**	.69^**	—
Empathy T2
19.Cognitive empathy	3.96 (0.64)	.18^**	.21^**	.06	−.16^**	−.07	−.16^**	.08^*	.13^**	.13^**	−.06	−.07	−.10^*	.14^**	.20^**	.16^**	−.12^**	−.15^**	−.19^**	—
20.Emotional contagion	3.66 (0.75)	.05	.08^*	.04	−.08	−.02	−.05	.02	.09^*	.12^**	−.02	.02	−.06	.05	.13^**	.12^**	−.08^*	−.05	−.10^*	.45^**	—
21.Emotional disconnection	3.56 (0.75)	.15^**	.14^**	.23^**	−.23^**	−.33^**	−.28^**	.01	.14^**	.10^**	−.15^**	−.11^**	−.19^**	.03	.11^**	.10^*	−.20^**	−.21^**	−.25^**	.38^**	.34^**	—
Prosocial behaviours T2
22. Helping	3.55 (0.64)	.12^**	.15^**	.05	−.07	−.01	−.10^**	.17^**	.22^*	.16^**	−.08^*	−.05	−.04	.12^**	.19^**	.16^**	−.07	−.06	−.09^*	.38^**	.37^**	.31^**	—
23. Caring	3.77 (0.71)	.13^**	.16^**	.19^**	−.10^*	−.17^**	−.08	.13^**	.16^*	.12^**	−.08^*	−.01	−.05	.12^**	.21^**	.17^**	−.10^*	−.07	−.09^*	.43^**	.42^**	.42^**	.60^**	—

Note. EA: Extracurricular Activities. **p < .01, *p < .05.

First, to test the relative strengths of three socialisation agents (i.e., parents, peers in class, and peers in extracurricular activities), we tested a three-socialiser model by putting parents, peers in class, and peers in extracurricular activities into a model and separately examined supportive and poor relationships. Next, as a follow-up analysis, to test the relative strengths of peers in class and peers in extracurricular activities, we tested a two-socialiser model by putting peers in class and peers in extracurricular activities into a model and separately examined their supportive and poor relationships. Moreover, a series of alternative models were tested considering the relative strength of parents versus peers in class and parents versus peers in extracurricular activities by separately examining supportive and poor relationships.

To test the significance of indirect effects, we conducted follow-up analyses using bias-corrected bootstrap method with 95% confidence intervals (MacKinnon et al., 2002). Lastly, we conducted multigroup analyses across gender and age to examine whether the pattern of associations differed between multiple groups. The participants were divided into two groups based on gender and age. Firstly, according to the criterion of gender, the sample was divided into a male group and a female group. Moreover, we divided participants into age-based groups, namely early adolescence, and middle adolescence group. Next, Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square difference test was conducted to examine the significance of change in chi-square statistics for the constrained model compared to the unconstrained model (Satorra & Bentler, 2010).

Missing Data Analyses

The percentage of missing values ranged from 2.5% to 6.8%. Although Little’s missing completely at random test (MCAR) was significant, χ² (378) = 508.50, p <.001. the normed chi-square (χ²/df) of 1.34 showed a good fit between the imputed and non-imputed sample scores, suggesting the pattern of missing data values was completely random (Bollen, 1989). Thus, we used full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation in Mplus version 8.5 to handle missing data (Enders, 2001).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among the main study variables are presented in Table 1. Study variables were normally distributed (the range between −3 and +3 of skewness and kurtosis values indicate normal distribution; Kline, 2016). In general, warmth, structure, and autonomy support with parents and peers are positively related to cognitive empathy, emotional contagion, emotional disconnection (reverse scored), helping and caring behaviours, and rejection, coercion, and chaos with parents and peers are negatively related to warmth, structure, autonomy support, empathy, and prosocial behaviours.

Path Analyses within Three-Socialiser Model

Here, we tested two main models. First, we tested supportive relationships with three socialisation agents (i.e., parents, peers in class, and peers in extracurricular activities). In this model, empathy (T2) was specified as a mediator in the associations from supportive relationships with parents, peers in class, and peers in extracurricular activities (T1) to adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours (T2) (see Figure 1(A)). Second, we tested poor relationships with three socialisation agents following the same logic as outlined above (see Figure 1(B)).

Supportive relationships with three socialisation agents

The hypothesised supportive relationships with three socialisation agents model fit the data well: N = 670, χ² (76) = 194.31, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .94, SRMR = .04. As shown in Figure 1(A), supportive relationships with parents (β = .27, SE= .08, p <.001) and supportive relationships with peers in extracurricular activities at T1 (β= 0.14, SE= 0.06, p= .030) were positively linked to empathy at T2. Supportive relationships with peers in class were positively linked to adolescents’ helping behaviours (β = .15, SE = .04, p = .001). Additionally, empathy was positively linked to adolescents’ helping (β = .53, SE = .05, p <.001) and caring behaviours (β = .65, SE = .04, p <.001). There were no other significant direct effects.

Multigroup analyses

First, we examined moderation by gender. The unconstrained supportive relationship model, χ² (168) = 320.74, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .93, SRMR = .06, and the constrained model, χ² (179) = 335.85, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .92, SRMR= .06, were not significantly different as determined by a chi-square difference test ΔS-Bχ² (11) = 14.95, p= .185. Second, we examined moderation by age. The unconstrained supportive relationship model, χ² (168) = 404.67, p <.001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .90, SRMR = .08, and the constrained model, χ² (179) = 420.22, p <.001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .90, SRMR = .08, were not significantly different as determined by a chi-square difference test ΔS-Bχ² (11) = 15.72, p= .152. These results suggest that the hypothesised model did not vary by adolescents’ gender and age.

Indirect effects

There were significant indirect effects from supportive relationships with parents to adolescents’ helping (β = .14, SE = .05; 95% CI [.05, .23]) and caring behaviours (β = .17, SE= .06; 95% CI [.06, .28]), through empathy. Additionally, there were significant indirect effects from supportive relationships with peers in extracurricular activities to adolescents’ helping (β = .07, SE = .04; 95% CI [.01, .14]) and caring behaviours (β = .09, SE= .04; 95% CI [.004, .17]), through empathy. There were no other significant indirect effects.

Poor relationships with three socialisation agents

The hypothesised poor relationships with three socialisation agents model showed a good model fit: N = 670, χ² (76) = 248.30, p <.001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .93, SRMR = .05. As shown in Figure 1(B), poor relationships with parents (T1) were negatively linked to empathy (T2) (β = −.31, SE = .09, p = .001). Empathy was positively linked to adolescents’ helping (β= 0.59, SE= 0.05, p <.001) and caring behaviours (β = .72, SE = .05, p <.001). There were no other significant direct effects.

Multigroup analyses

First, we examined moderation by gender. The unconstrained poor relationship model, N = 668, χ² (168) = 341.33, p <.001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .92, SRMR = .06, and the constrained model, χ² (179) = 353.67, p <.001, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.92, SRMR = .06 were not significantly different as determined by a chi-square difference test ΔS-Bχ² (11) = 12.54, p= .324. Second, we examined moderation by age, the unconstrained poor relationship model, N= 668, χ² (168) = 398.33, p <.001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .91, SRMR = .07, and the constrained model, χ² (179) = 414.83, p <.001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .91, SRMR = .07, were not significantly different as determined by a chi-square difference test Δχ² (11) = 15.72, p= .152. These results suggest that the hypothesised model did not differ based on adolescent gender and age.

Indirect effects

There were significant indirect effects from poor relationships with parents to adolescents’ helping (β = −.18, SE = .06; 95% CI [−.34, −.07]) and caring behaviours (β= −0.22, SE = .08; 95% CI [−.40, −.09]) through empathy. There were no other significant indirect effects.

Path Analysis within Two-Socialiser Model

Here, we performed the same steps specified above and tested supportive relationship with two socialisation agents in one model and tested poor relationship with two socialisation agents in another model. We specifically focused on the relative strengths of the socialisation roles of peers in class and extracurricular activities. Standardised model coefficients are graphically depicted in Figure 2(A) and (B). Additionally, we tested alternative models where we examined the relative strengths of parents versus peers in class and parents versus peers in extracurricular activities by separately examining supportive and poor relationships. These additional models yielded similar results to the three-socialiser model (see Figures S1 to S4 in Supplemental Materials).

Supportive relationships with two socialisation agents

The initial supportive relationship with peers in class and extracurricular activity model fit the data well: N = 670, χ² (45) = 84.39, p <.001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .98, SRMR = .04.

Multigroup analysis

We first examined moderation by gender, the unconstrained supportive relationship model, N = 668, χ² (102) = 168.45, p <.001, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = .05, and the constrained model, χ² (110) = 178.14, p <.001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .96, SRMR = .06, were not significantly different as determined by the chi-square difference test ΔS-Bχ² (8) = 9.62, p= .319. These results suggest that this model did not vary by adolescent’s gender.

Second, we examined moderation by age, the unconstrained supportive relationship model, N = 670, χ² (102) = 195.13, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .95, SRMR = .06 and the constrained model, χ² (110) = 212.96, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .95, SRMR = .07 were significantly different as determined by the chi-square difference test ΔS-Bχ² (8) = 17.85, p= .022, suggesting that the model differ based on adolescents’ age. We conducted follow-up analyses to identify the paths that different between early and middle adolescents.

Results showed that two paths were significantly different between early and middle adolescents. Compared with the unconstrained supportive relationship model, the constrained model (except the path from supportive relationships with peers in class to empathy) χ² (109) = 205.58, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .95, SRMR = .07 were not significantly different as determined by a chi-square difference test ΔS-Bχ² (7) = 10.25, p = .175. The link between supportive relationships with peers in class and empathy at T2 was significantly different between early and middle adolescence. The other constrained model (except the path from supportive relationships with peers in extracurricular activities to empathy) χ² (109) = 208.12, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .95, SRMR = .07 was not significantly different as determined by a chi-square difference test ΔS-Bχ² (7) = 12.98, p= .073. The link between supportive relationships with peers in extracurricular activities and empathy at T2 was significantly different between early and middle adolescence.

Final model fit the data well N = 670, χ² (108) = 203.93, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .95, SRMR = .06. As shown in Figure 2(A), in early adolescence, supportive relationships with peers in class at T1 (β = .23, SE = .11, p = .025) and supportive relationships with peers in extracurricular activities (β = .26, SE = .09, p = .003) were positively linked to empathy at T2. Empathy at T2 was positively linked to early adolescents’ helping (β = .55, SE = .05, p <.001) and caring behaviours (β = .66, SE = 0.04, p <.001) at T2. Additionally, supportive relationships with peers in class was positively linked to early adolescents’ helping behaviours (β = .13, SE = .04 p = .002). There were no other significant direct effects.

Additionally, in middle adolescence, supportive relationships with peers in extracurricular activities (β = .16, SE = .08, p = .049) were positively linked to empathy at T2. Empathy at T2 was positively linked to middle adolescents’ helping (β = .49, SE = .05, p <.001) and caring behaviours (β = .67, SE = .04, p <.001) at T2. Moreover, supportive relationships with peers in class was positively linked to middle adolescents’ helping behaviours (β = .14, SE = .04 p= .001). There were no other significant direct effects.

Indirect effects

For early adolescence, there were significant indirect effects from supportive relationships with peers in the class to adolescents’ helping (β = .13, SE = .05; 95% CI [.04, .23]) and caring behaviours (β = .16, SE = .06; 95% CI [.04, .27]) through empathy. Additionally, there were significant indirect effects from supportive relationships with peers in the extracurricular activities to adolescents’ helping (β = .14, SE = .05; 95% CI [.04, .25]) and caring behaviours (β = .17, SE = .06; 95% CI [.05, .30]). For middle adolescence, there were no significant indirect effects.

Poor relationships with two socialisation agents

The poor relationships with peers in class and extracurricular activities model showed a good model fit: N = 670, χ² (45) = 102.37, p <.001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .97, SRMR = .04. As shown in Figure 2(B), poor relationships with peers in extracurricular activities at T1 was negatively linked to empathy at T2 (β = −.26, SE = .07, p <.001). Empathy was positively linked to adolescents’ helping (β = .57, SE = .04, p <.001) and caring behaviours (β = .69, SE = .04, p <.001). There were no other significant direct effects.

Multigroup analysis

We first examined moderation by gender. The unconstrained poor relationship model, N = 668, χ² (102) = 155.80, p <.001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .97, SRMR = .05 and the constrained model, χ² (110) = 160.91, p <.001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .97, SRMR = .05 were not significantly different as determined by the ΔS-Bχ² (8) = 5.36, p= .718. Second, we examined moderation by age, the unconstrained poor relationship model, N= 668, χ² (102) = 201.13, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .95, SRMR = .05 and the constrained model, χ² (110) = 214.17, p <.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .95, SRMR = .06 were not significantly different as determined by a chi-square difference test ΔS-Bχ² (8) = 12.88, p = .116. These results suggest that this model did not vary by adolescent’s gender and age.

Indirect effects

The only significant indirect effects were from poor relationships with peers in extracurricular activities to adolescents’ helping (β = −.15, SE = .05, 95% CI [−.25, −.07]) and caring behaviours (β = −.18, SE = .05, 95% CI [−.30, −.08]) through empathy. There were no other significant indirect effects.

Discussion

In this longitudinal study, we examined the role of supportive and poor relationships with three socialisation agents (i.e., parents, peers in class, and peers in extracurricular activities) in predicting adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours through empathy. First, we found that supportive relationships with parents and peers in extracurricular activities were positively linked to adolescents’ empathy a year later, which, in turn, was significantly linked to higher levels of helping and caring behaviours. Additionally, supportive relationships with peers in class were positively linked to adolescents’ helping behaviours. Second, we found that poor relationships with parents were negatively linked to adolescents’ empathy a year later, which, in turn, was significantly linked to higher levels of helping and caring behaviours. Then, we tested relationships with peers in class and extracurricular activities, where we put both peers in class and extracurricular activities into a model and separately examined supportive and poor relationships. Here, we found that both supportive relationships with peers in class and extracurricular activities were positively linked to adolescents’ empathy 1 year later, which, in turn, was positively linked to helping and caring behaviours. Lastly, we found that poor relationships with peers in extracurricular activities were negatively linked to adolescents’ empathy 1 year later, which, in turn, was positively linked to helping and caring behaviours. In general, these results were robust across gender and age. Overall, these findings make several important contributions to the literature on the role of multiple socialisation agents and adolescents’ prosocial behaviours.

As expected, the results from the three-socialiser model provide evidence that both supportive and poor relationships with parents predict adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours through empathy. Consistent with previous findings suggesting that parental behaviours that are featured by warmth, responsiveness, and autonomy support are thought to promote adolescents’ prosocial behaviours; given those practices provide youth with a safe environment and encourage them to consider others’ needs (Carlo et al., 2018; Eisenberg et al., 2015). In contrast, parental behaviours that are harsh and controlling, are thought to thwart adolescents’ prosocial behaviours. Adolescents of controlling and power-assertive parents tend to experience over-arousal, become more self-, rather than other-oriented when facing needy others, and may withdraw from behaving prosocially (Hoffman, 2000). Empirically, studies have documented a relatively consistent and positive links from supportive parenting behaviours (e.g., warmth, responsiveness) to adolescents’ prosocial behaviours, and negative links from various poor and strict parenting practises (e.g., harsh parenting, coercion) to adolescents’ prosocial behaviours (Carlo, 2014; Padilla-Walker et al., 2016).

Interestingly, when we examined the relative strengths of supportive relationships with three socialisation agents, both supportive relationships with parents and peers in extracurricular activities, not peers in class, were positively linked to adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours through empathy. Only supportive relationships with peers in class significantly and directly predicted adolescents’ helping behaviours 1 year later. However, when we examined the relative strengths of poor relationships with three socialisation agents, only poor relationships with parents were negatively linked to adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours through empathy. Consistent with previous studies, these findings suggest that although the frequency of time spent with peers increase in adolescence (Brown & Larson, 2009), parents seem to play an important role in the socialisation of empathy and prosocial behaviours.

Additionally, the present study adds to accumulating evidence of the benefits of simultaneously considering three different socialisation agents to capture their relative influence on adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours 1 year later. The majority of prior studies focus on peers and prosocial behaviours and empathy did not consider simultaneously peers from different peer groups (e.g., Carlo et al., 2012; Maiya et al., 2020).

When we examined the relative strengths of two socialisation agents across class and extracurricular activities, the effects of supportive relationships were different across age. Supportive relationships with peers in class and supportive relationships with peers in extracurricular activities significantly predicted adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours through empathy in early adolescence. Supportive relationships with peers may enhance adolescents’ empathy, which, then are linked to prosocial behaviours (Boele et al., 2019; Luengo Kanacri et al., 2017). However, supportive relationships with peers in class were not significantly linked to middle adolescents’ empathy. One potential explanation could be that early adolescents is marked by a major transition from primary school to secondary school. During this developmental period, adolescents have strong needs for social identity, feeling of belonging which may be found primarily within the class. As peer relationships develop over time, adolescents become more selective that is characterised by similarity among peers (Brown & Larson, 2009). Interestingly, only supportive relationships with peers in early adolescence, but not in middle adolescence, were indirectly linked to adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours. This could be the result of all the developmental changes in cognition, specifically during early adolescence such as perspective taking, emotional recognition and regulation which are necessary for functioning in a social context.

Further, only poor relationships with peers in extracurricular activities were indirectly linked to adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours. These may be related to some particular features of extracurricular activities which might foster peer processes that are unique to these contexts (Berger et al., 2020). For instance, extracurricular activities have flexible curriculum, participation is voluntary, there are symmetrical and horizontal relationships, and adolescents experience a sense of group membership and consequently share a collective goal (see Berger et al., 2020, p. 2). All these qualities offer to adolescents a supportive environment where the development of their socioemotional skills, such as prosocial behaviours, are usually supported (Berger et al., 2020). By contrast, it might be possible that when adolescents perceive peer relationship within the extracurricular peer group as poor it negatively affects the adolescents’ prosocial behaviours compared to peers in class, considering that they are highly invested and have chosen to belong and participate specifically into these extracurricular activities. Perhaps most importantly, these findings highlight a potential new and exciting avenue for research on how peers from different peer groups, such as class and extracurricular activities, support adolescents’ prosocial development (empathy and prosocial behaviours).

Limitations

Several important limitations and directions for future work should be noted. First, despite the longitudinal design of the current study, no causal conclusion can be drawn. Future studies are needed to better ascertain direction of effects using other research designs such as interventions. Second, we used self-reported, paper and pencil measures to gather data. Although these findings were generally consistent with prior research, future studies will be needed with using multiple methods and reporters. Additionally, questions regarding supportive and poor relationships from parents concerned parents as a single unit. Future work will be helpful to disentangle the influence of mothers and fathers separately. Lastly, due to French state’s policy Act n 78, the collection and processing of personal data about race and ethnicity is prohibited. Thus, this information is not available for our sample.

Despite these limitations, the current findings suggest new insights and important avenues for future research. These findings revealed that a combination of socialisation influences (i.e., supportive and poor relationships with three socialisation agents) and adolescents’ individual characteristics (i.e., empathy) influence adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours. These findings can inform prevention and intervention programs aimed to foster adolescents’ helping and caring behaviours by encouraging supportive relationships with parents and peers and enhancing empathy skills. For instance, our findings suggest that prevention and intervention programs should cultivate children’s empathy and prosocial behaviours through enhancing supportive relationships with parents and peers characterised by demonstrations of high emotional warmth, autonomy support and structured relationship. Our findings also suggest that prevention and intervention programs should be aware of the negative effects poor parent-child and peer relationships characterised by indifference, aggression, neglect and psychological control have on adolescents’ empathy and prosocial development. Thus, in crafting interventions, it is important to consider targeted socialisation agents and specific relationships with these socialisation agents. Preventive efforts might focus on expanding adolescents’ and parents’ behavioural repertories that facilitate supportive relationships and decrease poor relationships.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Mediating Role of Empathy in the Links Between Relationships with Three Socialisation Agents and Adolescents’ Prosocial Behaviours

Supplemetary Material for The Mediating Role of Empathy in the Links Between Relationships with Three Socialisation Agents and Adolescents’ Prosocial Behaviours by Alexia Carrizales, Zehra Gülseven, and Lyda Lannegrand in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Alexia Carrizales

Zehra Gülseven

Open Research Statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research cannot be publicly shared but are available upon request. The data can be obtained by emailing: accarriz@purdue.edu. The materials used in the research cannot be publicly shared but are available upon request. The materials can be obtained by emailing: accarriz@purdue.edu

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material for this article is available online.

References

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

Berger

Deutsch

Cuadros

Franco

Rojas

Roux

Sánchez

(2020). Adolescent peer processes in extracurricular activities: Identifying developmental opportunities. Children and Youth Services Review, 118(2), 105457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105457

Boele

Van der Graaff

de Wied

Van der Valk

I. E.

Crocetti

Branje

(2019). Linking parent–child and peer relationship quality to empathy in adolescence: A multilevel meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(6), 1033–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00993-5

Bollen

K. A.

(1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Lerner

R. M.

Damon

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development. (pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Brown

B. B.

Larson

(2009). Peer relationships in adolescents. In Steinberg

R. M. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Vol. 2. Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 74–103). Wiley.

Cabedo Peris

Martí Vilar

Merino

Ortiz-Morán

(2022). Basic empathy scale: A systematic review and reliability generalization meta-analysis. Healthcare, 10(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10010029

Caprara

G. V.

Steca

Zelli

Capanna

(2005). A new scale for measuring adults’ prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77

Carlo

(2014). The development and correlates of prosocial behavior. In Killen

Smetana

(Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 208–234). Psychology Press.

10.

Carlo

McGinley

Hayes

R. C.

Martinez

M. M.

(2012). Empathy as a mediator of the relations between parent and peer attachment and prosocial and physically aggressive behaviors in Mexican American college students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(3), 337–357, https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407511431181.

11.

Carlo

Mestre

M. V.

McGinley

M. M.

Tur-Porcar

Samper

Opal

(2014). The protective role of prosocial behaviors on antisocial behaviors: The mediating effects of deviant peer affiliation. Journal of Adolescence, 37(4), 359–366, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.02.009.

12.

Carlo

Streit

Crockett

(2018). Generalizability of a traditional social cognitive model of prosocial behaviors to U.S. Latino/a youth. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(4), 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000188

13.

Carré

Stefaniak

D'Ambrosio

Bensalah

Besche-Richard

(2013). The basic empathy scale in adults (BES-a): Factor structure of a revised form. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032297

14.

Carrizales

Alexia

Branje

Susan

Lannegrand

Lyda

(2021). Disentangling between- and within-person associations between empathy and prosocial behaviours during early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 93, 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.10.006.

15.

Carrizales

Perchec

Lannegrand-Willems

(2017). Brief report: How many dimensions in the prosocial behavior scale? Psychometric investigation in French-speaking adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16(3), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1419952

16.

Chen

Drabick

D. A. G.

Burgers

D. E.

(2015). A developmental perspective on peer rejection, deviant peer affiliation, and conduct problems among youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46(6), 823–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0522-y

17.

Collins

A. W.

Steinberg

(2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In Eisenberg

Damon

Lerner

R.M.

(Eds.), Social, emotional, and personality development. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 1003–1067). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0316

18.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00860.x

19.

Decety

(2011). Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy.Emotion Review, 3(1), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910374662

20.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.

21.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T.L.

Knafo-Noam

(2015). Prosocial development. In Lamb

M. E.

Lerner

R.M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, Vol. 3: Socioemotional processes (7th ed., pp. 610–656). John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy315

22.

Enders

C. K.

(2001). The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models with missing data. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.6.4.352

23.

Farrell

A. D.

Thompson

E. L.

Mehari

K. R.

(2017). Dimensions of peer influences and their relationship to adolescents’ aggression, other problem behaviors and prosocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(6), 1351–1369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0601-4

24.

Furrer

C. J.

Skinner

E. A.

Pitzer

J. R.

(2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on students’ classroom engagement and everyday motivational resilience. National Society for the Study of Education, 113(1), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411601319

25.

Guo

Feng

(2017). The associations between perceived parenting styles, empathy, and altruistic choices in economic games: A study of Chinese children. Frontiers of Psychology, 8, 1664-1843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01843.

26.

Hambleton

R. K.

(2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.164

27.

Hoffman

M. L.

(2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.

28.

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), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

29.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2006). Development and validation of the basic empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 589–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010

30.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling 4th ed. Guilford Press.

31.

Laible

Carlo

Roesch

(2004). Pathways to self-esteem: The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 27(6), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.05.005

32.

Laursen

Collins

W. A.

(2009). Parent-child relationships during adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed.). Handbook of adolescent psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 3–42). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002002

33.

Luengo Kanacri

B. P.

Eisenberg

Thartori

Pastorelli

Uribe Tirado

L. M.

Gerbino

Caprara

G. V.

(2017). Longitudinal relations among positivity, perceived positive school climate, and prosocial behavior in colombian adolescents. Child Development, 88(4), 1100–1114. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12863

34.

Maccoby

E. E.

Martin

J. A.

(1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In P. H. Mussen, (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1–101). Wiley.

35.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Hoffman

J. M.

West

S. G.

Sheets

(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104, https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83

36.

Maiya

Carlo

Gülseven

Crockett

(2020). Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement, deviant peer affiliation, and school connectedness on prosocial behaviors in U.S. Latino/a youth. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(10–11), 2898–2917. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520941611

37.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2017). Mplus user’s guide ( 8th ed.). Author.

38.

Padilla-Walker

L.M.

Nielson

M.G.

Day

R.D.

(2016). The role of parental warmth and hostility on adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward multiple targets. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000157

39.

Satorra

Bentler

P. M.

(2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y

40.

Shin

(2017). Friendship dynamics of adolescent aggression, prosocial behavior, and social status: The Moderating role of gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(11), 2305–2320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0702-8

41.

Silke

Brady

Boylan

Dolan

(2018). Factors influencing the development of empathy and pro-social behaviour among adolescents: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 421-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.027.

42.

Skinner

Johnson

Snyder

(2005). Six dimensions of parenting: A motivational model. Parenting: Science and Practice, 5(2), 175–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0502_3

43.

Spinrad

T. L.

Eisenberg

(2009). Empathy, prosocial behavior, and positive development in schools. In Gilman

Huebner

E. S.

Furlong

M. J.

Gilman

Huebner

E. S.

Furlong

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools. (pp. 119–129). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

44.

Spinrad

T. L.

Eisenberg

Valiente

(2019). Parenting and children’s prosocial development. In Handbook of parenting: The practice of parenting, Vol. 5, (3rd ed., pp. 91–121). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429401695-4

45.

Vandell

D. L.

Larson

R. W.

Mahoney

J. L.

Watts

T. R.

(2015). Childrens activities. In W. F.

Overton

P. C. M.

Molenaar

(editors-in-chief), Bornstein

M. H.

Leventhal

(volume editors), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Ecological settings and processes in developmental systems (7th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 305–342). Wiley.

46.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2014). Prosocial behavior and peer relations in adolescence. In Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(Eds.), Prosocial Development (pp. 178–200). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.003.0009

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.27 MB