Longitudinal associations between prosocial behavior and behavioral problems across childhood: A robust random-intercept cross-lagged panel model.

Abstract

Prior studies have indicated that prosocial behavior might be a protective factor for developing internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems. However, little research has been conducted on within-person changes of prosocial behavior and behavioral problems over time. With random-intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPMs), the current study analyzed longitudinal associations between prosocial behavior and behavioral problems in two twin cohorts (98% Western European): in early childhood (age M = 4.77, SD = .58, 52% girls, N = 440) and middle childhood (age M = 7.94, SD = .67, 51% girls, N = 512). To obtain robust results, two parental reported questionnaires and an observational task were used as prosocial behavior assessments. In line with the literature, we found a significant between-person association between externalizing behavior and parent reported prosocial behavior in middle childhood, but not in early childhood. Some evidence indicated that changes in externalizing problems affect later prosocial behavior in middle childhood. Overall, however, the RI-CLPMs provided most support for the hypothesis that within-person changes in prosocial behavior are not related to within-person changes in behavioral problems. Thus, our findings did not support the hypothesis that increased prosocial behavior directly results in decreased behavioral problems, but emphasizes the need to take into account the multifaceted nature of prosocial behavior.

Are prosocial tendencies relevant for developmental psychopathology? The relations of prosocial behavior and empathy-related responding to externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and autism spectrum disorder

“…There are numerous studies examining longitudinal relations between EPs and prosocial behavior. In studies involving relatively sophisticated longitudinal statistical designs (e.g., taking into account stability of the constructs or looking at trajectories), researchers have found evidence consistent with the views that there is a negative relation between the trajectories of prosocial behavior and physical aggression (Nantel-Vivier et al, 2014), prosocial behavior affects future aggression/EPs (e.g., Padilla-Walker et al, 2018; also see Flynn et al, 2015), aggression/EPs affect subsequent prosocial behavior (Obsuth et al, 2015), relations are bidirectional (Memmott-Elison & Toseeb, 2023), or acrosstime predictive relations are nonsignificant (Laible et al, 2014) or mixed depending on the specific measure of prosocial behavior and if the analysis tapped between individual relations or withinindividual change (e.g., Zondervan-Zwijnenburg et al, 2022). In some studies with limited relations between the two constructs, longitudinal lags were a year or less (e.g., Perren et al, 2007).…”

“…Moreover, the presence of longitudinal data could help researchers to control for possible unmeasured time-invariant confounding effects via the inclusion of latent random factor(s). Memmott-Elison and Toseeb (2023), for instance, in a series of bivariate random intercept cross-lagged panel models, mitigated the risk of obtaining confounded reciprocal paths between prosocial behavior and IPs/EPs by accounting for stable, unmeasured between-person factors (e.g., individual differences such as intelligence, emotional stability) that could bias such cross-lagged effects (see also Zondervan-Zwijnenburg et al, 2022).…”

Adolescents’ perceptions of social risk and prosocial tendencies: Developmental change and individual differences

“…For example, during early adolescence, prosocial behavior may be linked to greater social risk aversion because both may reflect value placed on interpersonal relationships. In prior research, prosocial behaviors were correlated negatively with externalizing and aggressive behaviors during middle childhood (Hay et al, 2021;Zondervan-Zwijnenburg et al, 2022). In contrast, relatively older adolescents may be more willing to help others even when they perceive that their actions are risky, in part because they have higher moral reasoning skills, which enable them to evaluate and judge independently the morality of their social actions (Kohlberg, 1976).…”

“…Some research supports the hypothesis that prosocial behavior is linked to greater risk aversion during early adolescence, but prosocial behavior becomes linked to greater social risk tolerance by later adolescence. During middle childhood and early adolescence, youth who display more prosocial behavior also show less tolerance of social risk, in that they show fewer externalizing and aggressive behaviors, which contradict social expectations for appropriate social conduct (e.g., Hay et al, 2021;Zondervan-Zwijnenburg et al, 2022). Moreover, 7-9-year-old children generally only are willing to engage in prosocial risks (e.g., try to win a prize for another child), if it does not involve the risk of losing their own prize (Corbett et al, 2021).…”

Motivational Climate, Physical Self-Concept, and Social Relationships in Adolescents in Physical Education Classes: A Systematic Review

“…The subject of Physical Education (PE) comprises an essential academic component through its impact on wellbeing in school-aged children [4]. As a curricular discipline, PE is designed to play a meaningful role on the promotion of healthy lifestyles that provide opportunities for social relatedness in children [5], promoting prosocial and assertive behaviours and improving the development of diverse cognitive, physical, and emotional aspects [6,7].…”