Microsystemsare particularly crucial as they represent the child’s most immediate and direct interactions, such as family, school, and peer groups.
These environments profoundly shape a child’s development through daily interactions, relationships, and experiences.
Within microsystems, children learn social skills, develop emotional bonds, and form their initial understanding of the world.
The quality of these interactions can significantly influence a child’s cognitive, social, and emotional development, making microsystems a primary focus for understanding and promoting positive child outcomes.
Key Points
Rationale
Prosocial behavior, which includes cooperation, helping others, and kindness, has been associated with numerous positive developmental and behavioral outcomes in adolescence and adulthood (Eisenberg et al., 2006).
Understanding the factors that contribute to the development of prosocial behavior is crucial for promoting positive youth development.
Previous research has highlighted the importance of considering both biological and environmental influences on prosocial behavior development (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Boyce et al., 2021).
By including variables from the individual, microsystem,exosystem, andmacrosystemlevels, as well as considering biological family psychopathology and prenatal substance use as risk factors, this study sought to provide a comprehensive examination of promotive and protective effects on early adolescent prosocial behavior.
Method
Procedure
The study utilized alongitudinal design, collecting data from participants at ages 7 and 11. Data were collected through online questionnaires and phone interviews.
Sample
The analytic sample included 466 children who completed a prosocial behavior questionnaire at age 11.
Of these, 83% (n = 386) lived with non-genetically related adoptive parents, and 17% (n = 80) lived with at least one biological parent.
The sample was predominantly White Non-Hispanic (56.7%), with 23.0% identifying as multiple races, 13.1% as Black, and 7.3% as some other race or ethnicity.
Measures
Statistical Measures
The study employed multiple regression analyses to examine the effects of potential promotive and protective factors on prosocial behaviors at age 11.
Interaction terms were used to test for protective effects and differences across household types. Missing data were handled through multiple imputation using chained equations.
Results
Additional findings:
Insight
This study provides valuable insights into the complex interplay of factors influencing prosocial behavior development in early adolescence.
The finding that parental warmth consistently promotes prosocial behavior, even when accounting for various other factors, underscores the crucial role of positive parenting in shaping children’s social development.
This aligns with previous research highlighting the importance of warm, supportive parenting in fostering prosocial tendencies (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Padilla-Walker et al., 2018).
The differential effect of parental warmth in biological versus adoptive families in the context of prenatal substance use is particularly intriguing.
This finding suggests that the protective role of parental warmth may be more pronounced in environments where children face additional risks or challenges. It also highlights the complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors in shaping child outcomes.
This holistic perspective provides a more nuanced understanding of prosocial behavior development and emphasizes the need to consider both individual and contextual factors in future research and interventions.
Future research could further explore the mechanisms through which parental warmth influences prosocial behavior, particularly in different family contexts.
Additionally, longitudinal studies examining the stability of these effects into later adolescence and adulthood would be valuable.
Investigating potential cultural variations in the influence of parental warmth and other bioecological factors on prosocial behavior could also provide important insights.
Strengths
This study had several methodological strengths, including:
Limitations
This study also had several methodological limitations, including:
These limitations suggest caution in generalizing findings to more diverse populations or across different developmental periods.
They also highlight the need for future research using more diverse samples and additional methodologies to corroborate and extend these findings.
Implications
The findings of this study have significant implications for understanding and promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence.
The consistent positive effect of parental warmth on prosocial behavior underscores the importance of supporting positive parenting practices, particularly in contexts where children may face additional risks or challenges.
For clinical psychology practice, these results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing parental warmth could be particularly beneficial for promoting prosocial behavior in children, especially in families facing adversity such as prenatal substance use.
The differential effects observed in biological versus adoptive families also highlight the need for tailored interventions that consider the specific family context and potential genetic influences.
The study’s findings regarding the lower levels of neighborhood involvement, financial security, and neighborhood safety in biological households compared to adoptive households point to broader socioeconomic factors that may influence prosocial behavior development.
This suggests that comprehensive interventions addressing both family-level and community-level factors may be most effective in promoting positive youth development.
For policymakers, these results emphasize the importance of supporting programs that enhance parenting skills, particularly those focused on promoting warm, responsive parenting.
Additionally, efforts to address broader community factors such as neighborhood safety and financial security may indirectly support prosocial behavior development in children.
Educators and youth workers should be aware of the potential impact of family context on prosocial behavior and may need to provide additional support or interventions for children from more challenging family backgrounds.
The influence of variables such as biological family psychopathology and prenatal substance use on prosocial behavior highlights the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors in child development.
This underscores the need for a nuanced, individualized approach in both research and practice when addressing prosocial behavior in children and adolescents.
References
Primary reference
Bates, E. J., Berny, L. M., Ganiban, J. M., Natsuaki, M. N., Neiderhiser, J. M., Shaw, D. S., & Leve, L. D. (2023). Examination of promotive and protective effects on early adolescent prosocial behavior through a bioecological lens.Frontiers in Psychology,14, 1280346.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1280346
Other references
Boyce, W. T., Levitt, P., Martinez, F. D., McEwen, B. S., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2021). Genes, environments, and time: the biology of adversity and resilience.Pediatrics,147(2).https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-1651
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioecological model of human development.Handbook of child psychology, 1.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development(pp. 646–718). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Padilla‐Walker, L. M., Carlo, G., & Memmott‐Elison, M. K. (2018). Longitudinal change in adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family.Journal of research on adolescence,28(3), 698-710.https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12362
Keep Learning
Socratic questions for a college class to discuss this paper:
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
