The socialization of prosocial development

Tags: prosocial behavior, Zahn-Waxler, development, children, Child Development, Developmental Psychology, prosocial development, socialization, punishment, empathy, International Journal of Behavioral Development, corporal punishment, Oxford University Press, Social Development, behavioral control, agents of socialization, psychological control, parental control, Harvard University Press, Journal of Genetic Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, prosocial behaviour, antisocial behavior, Hastings, child relationship, antisocial behaviors, relational aggression, Journal of Early Adolescence, Young children, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, aggressive behavior, Socialization of Prosocial Development 663 Persson, Radke-Yarrow, aggressive behaviors, social competence, Guilford Publications, Joan E. Grusec, Handbook of child psychology, emotional expressiveness, problematic behaviors
Content: This is a chapter excerpt from Guilford Publications. Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, edited by Joan E. Grusec and Paul D. Hastings Copyright © 2007 TAheRSGoEcTiaSlizOaFtioSnOoCfIPArLoIsZoAciTalIODNevelopment CHAPTER 25 The Socialization of ProSocial development PAUL D. HASTINGS, WILLIAM T. UTENDALE, and CAROLINE SULLIVAN What prompts a toddler to offer his toy to a crying infant? Why does a pre- schooler invite a reluctant and withdrawn peer to join her circle of playmates? How does a schoolgirl pull herself away from a fun activity to comfort a classmate who has fallen and injured herself? What motivates a teenage boy to volunteer for an organization that delivers meals to shut-ins? Kind, caring, compassionate attitudes and helpful, comforting, altruistic behaviors characterize what are considered by many to be the finest qualities of human nature. They are also often overlooked, as another class of behaviors tends to capture the attention of media: Aggression, violence, crime, delinquency, and other selfish acts that harm and violate the rights of others. Social scientists have also given far more attention to antisocial and other problematic behaviors than to prosocial and other positive behaviors, as can be seen in many of the chapters of this Handbook. Yet, this negative side of behavior is only one facet of the complex and varied scope of what it is to be human. To fully understand the dynamic regulation of emotional, behavioral, social, and cultural processes, the more positive aspects of behavior cannot be ignored. Therefore, this chapter draws attention to that smaller, yet still substantial, literature that focuses on the positive: the socialization of prosocial development. We begin by briefly reviewing biological and environmental perspectives on the origins of the emotions and behaviors comprising prosocial development and the early experimental approaches to demonstrating how children's prosocial behavior could be shaped through adults' actions. We then evaluate the roles of various agents of socialization, including parents, siblings, peers, teachers, community and culture, in the develop- 638
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
ment of prosocial characteristics. We conclude by addressing four central questions: What aspects of socialization influence prosocial development? How do children contribute to their prosocial development? Why are there sex differences in prosocial development? Does the socialization of prosocial development have implications for understanding antisocial behavior?
THE ROOTS OF PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Prosocial behavior is defined herein as proactive and reactive responses to the needs of others that serve to promote the well-being of others. This definition casts a fairly wide net, and admittedly, one that is not strictly limited to "behavior." A range of affective and behavioral elements comprise the scope of prosocial development (Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, & Chapman, 1983), including empathy, sympathy, compassion, concern, comforting, helping, sharing, cooperating, volunteering, and donating. Indices of social competence are specifically excluded from this definition, including leadership qualities, popularity, sociability, and similar constructs. Early prosocial behavior may facilitate the development of social competence, as we consider while examining the research on peers, but the two are not redundant constructs. The strictest definition of altruism is sacrificing one's own gain in order to promote another's well-being. Prosocial behavior toward others does not necessarily require selfsacrifice, of course; it can also benefit the actor, or come with neither cost nor gain. The motivations for prosocial behavior are similarly diverse, as the actor may expect rewards or reciprocity, may fear repercussions for not being prosocial, or may only want to alleviate another's distress. Displays of concern for others may occur in the form of proactive efforts to prevent another coming to harm, spontaneous reactions to witnessed events, reparative actions after having been the cause of some distress to another, or compliant responses to directives or solicitations for assistance. These motivations and manifestations may comprise important distinctions for understanding prosocial behavior, but relatively little socialization research has addressed this issue. Evolutionary theory would hold that prosocial behavior has been retained in humans because it has proven to be advantageous and supported survival. However, traditional evolutionary theory usually depicts living beings as essentially individualistic, competitive, and selfish, and altruism has often been disregarded as evolutionarily untenable (Dawkins, 1976). In response, several sociobiologists have constructed models for how selfless other-oriented behaviors can improve genetic survival, through social reinforcement of altruism (Sober & Wilson, 1998). Psychophysiologists have shown that biological processes provide a basis for empathy and behaviors that aid others, providing further support for a genetic predisposition for prosocial behavior (Hastings, Zahn-Waxler, & McShane, 2005; Preston & de Waal, 2002). Psychoevolutionary theory requires the potential for genetic transmission of affective, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics. Behavior genetics analyses have shown that heritable, genetic influences strongly contribute to prosocial characteristics (see Hastings, Zahn-Waxler, & McShane, 2005). Both genetic and shared environmental influences make significant contributions to children's prosocial behaviors (Deater-Deckard, Dunn, O'Connor, Davies, & Golding, 2001; Scourfield, John, Martin, & McGuffin, 2004; Stevenson, 1997; Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, & Emde, 1992), and to the stability
of prosocial behaviors from infancy to the preschool years (Zahn-Waxler, Schiro, Robinson, Emde, & Schmitz, 2001). Thus, both sociobiological theories and behavior genetics research confirm a place for socialization in the development of prosocial behavior. Psychoevolutionary theory also underlies the functional theory of emotions. From this perspective, the affective root of actions that help others is empathy: the emotional capacity to apprehend the affective states of others, and to some extent share in their affective experiences. Empathy serves to motivate affiliative and caregiving actions that build social and emotional bonds with conspecifics, including offspring, family members, mates, and social group members. There is reasonably strong evidence for this link between the affective and behavior components of prosocial development (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). Empathy has long been posited as providing both the foundation for prosocial development and the mechanism for social influence over behavior. Many theoretical frameworks for understanding the ontogeny, socialization, and development of empathy and prosocial behavior put a primary emphasis on parents, including psychoanalytic theory, social learning theory, and social cognition theory (Eisenberg & Valiente, 2002; Grusec, Davidov, & Lundell, 2002). Perhaps the most thorough theoretical account has been provided by Hoffman (1970, 2000). Parents' management of disciplinary interactions using nonpunitive techniques that deemphasized firm parental control in favor of inductive reasoning, and particularly other-oriented reasoning focused on the needs of others, were seen as conducive to prosocial development. Moderately aroused, the child would orient on the parent but not be overwhelmed by the fear or anger that punitive control might elicit, so that the child could more effectively attend to the parent's socialization message. Alternative means of control, through emotional manipulations such as disapproval and love withdrawal, were not thought to be as strongly associated with internalization of prosocial values, although others have suggested these might promote reparative prosocial acts after transgressions by eliciting guilt (Zahn-Waxler & Kochanska, 1990). Many developmental researchers, including Zahn-Waxler and Radke-Yarrow, Eisenberg, and Grusec evaluated and extended the tenets of Hoffman's theory through the 1970s and 1980s. Increased recognition of the child's active role in socialization clarified some of the processes by which parenting might shape prosocial development. For example, inductive reasoning requires the child to actively reflect on and process the meaning of the parent's statements, which could increase the likelihood of the child's internalization of the message (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). The developmental forces of biology and environment do not work independently of each other, and children's actions and reactions are both shaped by and, in turn, shape the environment (Bell, 1968; Patterson, 1982; Sameroff, 1975). Individuals are born with varying dispositional propensities or capacities to feel empathy and engage in otheroriented caring actions. Parents and other agents of socialization respond to individual differences in the early-emerging emotional and social tendencies of infants and toddlers, tailoring their own actions in ways that foster or redirect dispositional traits. In turn, different children vary in their responsiveness to a given socialization event. The socialization of prosocial development progresses through the ongoing and dynamic exchanges between children and their parents, siblings, peers, teachers, and culture. This give-andtake nature of social influence underlies the complex processes shaping social and emotional development (see Kuczynski, 2003).
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
The Development of Prosocial Characteristics
Most analyses of prosocial characteristics indicate that they increase with age, with fairly rapid increases in the maturity and frequency of prosocial behavior in the toddler and preschooler period, and slower but continued increases thereafter, at least into early adulthood (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Pratt, Skoe, & Arnold, 2004). Some research suggests that the early course of development for specific prosocial behaviors such as sharing or helping may be more complex (Hay, Castle, Davies, Demitrou, & Stimson, 1999; van der Mark, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2002), but overall the general pattern is one of increasing development over at least the first two decades of life. Evidence for the stability of individual differences in prosocial characteristics in infancy and toddlerhood is mixed (Dunn & Munn, 1986; Hay et al., 1999; Pepler, Abramovitch, & Corter, 1981; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, & Chapman, 1992), but most studies of preschoolers and older children find low to moderate stability over 2 or more years. For example, there is modest stability in Elementary School-age children's observed and reported empathic responses (Zhou et al., 2002), adolescents' prosocial behavior toward peers (Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004), and young adults' valuing of concern for others (Pratt et al., 2004).
Gender and Development Gender is one of the most consistent correlates of prosocial behavior. Across many studies, girls and women have been found to be more prosocial than boys and men. For example, peers and teachers have been found to describe preschool-age, kindergarten-age, and elementary school-age girls as more prosocial than boys (Cфtй, Tremblay, Nagin, Zoccolillo, & Vitaro, 2002; Hastings, Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, Usher, & Bridges, 2000; Keane & Calkins, 2004; Russell, Hart, Robinson, & Olsen, 2003). However, compared to questionnaire reports, Observational Techniques tend to provide less consistent evidence of sex differences in prosocial characteristics (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Grusec, Goodnow, & Cohen, 1996; Hastings, Rubin, & DeRose, 2005; Zhou et al., 2002). Thus, apparent sex differences in the frequency of showing concern for others may be as much a function of perception as reality: a culturally shared belief that girls are made of "everything nice." We consider the links between gender, socialization, and prosocial behavior after reviewing the evidence.
THE EARLY RESEARCH: EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Early developmental research on the socialization of children's prosocial behavior was based in social learning theory and used laboratory experiments to test whether adults' actions could induce changes in children's prosocial behavior. Through the 1970s, experimental studies (e.g., Grusec, 1972; Harris, 1970; Yarrow & Scott, 1972) showed that children who saw an adult donate prize winnings to charity, or even simply saw adult models speak about the value of giving, were themselves more likely to give away their prizes after winning a game, compared to children who had not witnessed a generous model. Researchers investigated further to examine the nature of these learning effects. Children were more likely to emulate the generous behavior of a competent than an un-
skilled model (Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979), or of a model who was warm and familiar rather than distant and unfamiliar (Yarrow, Scott, & Waxler, 1973). The message as well as the messenger was determined to be important. Normative statements, such as "It is good to give" proved less effective than empathic or otheroriented inductions, such as "Those poor children will be so happy" (Perry, Bussy, & Frieberg, 1981). Children were more prosocial when inductions suggested positive affective results for the recipients ("They'll be happy if you do . . . ") rather than negative ("They'll be sad if you don't . . .") (McGrath, Wilson, & Frassetto, 1995). From social cognitive theory, researchers also examined influences of causal attributions, finding that children were more prosocial when their actions were ascribed to internal motivations or characteristics than when they were attributable to external pressures or rewards (Fabes, Fultz, Eisenberg, May-Plumlee, & Christopher, 1989). The effects of inductions and attributions were shown to persist across contexts and time, with children who had witnessed a generous model being more generous days or weeks later, especially when the model made dispositional attributions for her behavior (Grusec, Kuczynski, Rushton, & Simutis, 1978; Rushton, 1975). Thus, these studies provided evidence for internalization, or lasting effects of socialization, from brief learning experiences. Manipulating social contingencies could change children's prosocial behavior. But the effects were not universal. Children varied in the amount of prosocial behavior elicited, and a minority of children were not at all responsive to models, inductions, or attributions. Thus, not all children respond to and learn from a given socialization response equally. Outcome measures were somewhat limited, with researchers focusing on quantifiable behaviors such as donating and helping, and rarely considering impacts on the affective aspects of being prosocial. Finally, despite careful attention to design, most experiments included an element that limited their ecological validity: the models themselves. Children's reactions to unfamiliar adults in unfamiliar settings comprise a dubious basis for making clear inferences about socialization. Unfamiliar adults are not socialization agents in the everyday experiences of children, and how children respond to them may not generalize to how children react to familiar others-- parents, siblings, peers, and teachers--with whom they share a relationship history. For these and other reasons, tightly controlled laboratory experiments seemed to have fallen out of favor by the late 1980s. Having shown that adults' actions can cause most children to behave more or less prosocially, most researchers turned their focus to whether adults truly do have such influence in the real world. In particular, the question of parental influence over their own children's prosocial development became paramount.
FROM CAUSATION TO CORRELATION: A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE The majority of efforts to study the associations between parental socialization and children's prosocial behavior have used correlational, single time-point designs. These have at least three inherent limitations. It is not possible to (1) infer cause-and-effect relations, or distinguish parent influences on children from child influences on parents; (2) deduce the history of developmental and relationship processes that led the parent and child measures to be related in the ways that they were; or (3) infer if any lasting influences of socialization on prosocial behavior would be evident in the future.
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
These valid critiques might lead one to assume that, as a field, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the socialization of prosocial behavior. But the picture is not quite that bleak. Longitudinal research on the socialization of prosocial development has been going on for over three decades. Statistical advances have improved researchers' abilities to chart development and to rule out alternative explanations for relations between variables. The balance of this chapter is devoted to reviewing these investigations. Nonlongitudinal, correlational studies that do not consider mediating or moderating processes are only examined closely when other sources of insight are lacking. The focus is on extending our understanding of the relations between socialization agents, actions, and events and the development of prosocial characteristics by closely examining excellent research. This effort begins with research on parents as agents of socialization, where the bulk of the work on prosocial development has been focused. Research on the influence of siblings, peers, and teachers on prosocial development is then considered, followed by an examination of sociocultural and socioeconomic influences.
PARENTAL SOCIALIZATION OF PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Based primarily on correlational, single time-point studies, recent reviews have generally agreed on a consistent profile of childrearing that typifies the socialization experiences of more prosocial children (e.g., Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Grusec et al., 2002). Their parents are authoritative in style, balancing reasonable exertions of control and consistent expectations for maturity with flexibility and responsiveness to children's desires. These parents eschew harsh punishments, rigid strictness, and strong expressions of hostility or rejection. They are warm toward their children, enjoy shared activities, and provide praise more than criticism. They engage in prosocial acts themselves, encourage such behavior from their children, and provide explanations for these expected behaviors. But do such socialization experiences actually foster the further development of children's prosocial characteristics? Parenting Styles The dominant paradigm for studying parental socialization in the last 25 years of the 20th century was through the examination of parenting styles, or the usual patterns of control, responsiveness, warmth, and punishment that parents use most often, across contexts and over time, to manage their children's behavior. Authoritative parenting could support prosocial behavior by modeling other-oriented behavior that children may emulate, encouraging children to be more considerate and caring, and eliciting affection and connectedness that make children more receptive to efforts to foster concern for others (Hastings et al., 2000). An authoritarian style of parenting may undermine children's prosocial behavior by modeling a lack of concern for the needs of others, or engendering hostility and the rejection of parental socialization efforts. longitudinal studies support the suggestion that parenting styles Foster Children's prosocial development over time, but not always in the straightforward manner researchers have expected. In one study, mothers who were more authoritative and less authoritarian with preschoolers had children who showed more observed, mother-reported and teacher-reported prosocial behavior 2 years later (Hastings et al., 2000). Effects were evi-
dent when children's earlier prosocial behavior was controlled, suggesting maternal style contributed to prosocial development over and above the stability of children's behavior. In a study predicting prosocial behavior at 4 years from mother and child characteristics at 2 years, children were observed interacting with a researcher and their mother on one day and with peers but without their mother present on another day. Earlier maternal authoritative style predicted more prosocial responses to a researcher for girls who had been less inhibited toddlers (Hastings, Rubin, & DeRose, 2005). For girls who had been more inhibited, early maternal authoritarianism predicted more prosocial responses to the researcher but fewer prosocial responses to peers (Hastings, Rubin, Mielcarek, & Kennedy, 2002). These results could suggest that authoritative parenting supports autonomous prosocial behavior in girls who are dispositionally comfortable in challenging social circumstances, whereas authoritarian parenting induces more compliant prosocial behavior in dispositionally reticent girls. Low prosocial behavior in the peer context indicates that inhibited girls could not enact such behaviors spontaneously, without maternal direction or support. Kochanska (1991) found that mothers' authoritative style with toddlers predicted children's reports of making reparative actions after causing harm in a story-completion task, particularly for children who had been more inhibited or anxious as toddlers. It is possible that the difference in results across her study and that of Hastings, Rubin, and DeRose (2005) was because Kochanska focused on what children said they would do in challenging situations, whereas the other study observed children's actual responses to distress in others. Anxious children may internalize standards from authoritative parents and be aware of appropriate prosocial behavior but then be unable to act on this knowledge under socially challenging conditions. In a study of the contributions of parenting styles to adolescents' prosocial development, youths perceived that the extent to which they and their parents valued being kind, caring, and fair corresponded more closely when they saw their parents as more authoritative (Pratt, Hunsberger, Pancer, & Alisat, 2003). This harkens to the argument of Grusec and Goodnow (1994) that central to effective internalization is the parent's generation of a relationship in which the child is likely to be receptive to the parent's socialization message. It also suggests, though, that authoritative parents must themselves hold prosocial values, or subscribe to an "ethic of care," in order for their children to internalize such an orientation. Authoritative parenting and parental emphasis on caring for others has also predicted more mature values of caring for others over 4 years (Pratt et al., 2004). In turn, young adults' caring values were associated with their engagement in voluntary, other-oriented community activities. These analyses indicate that parenting styles make lasting contributions to prosocial development, in accord with hypothesized processes of internalization of parental expectations and societal values (Grusec, Goodnow, & Kuczynski, 2000). However, socialization research on these broad parenting styles has its limits. Specific parenting actions vary widely across contexts and depend on parents' goals (Hastings & Grusec, 1998; Grusec & Kuczynski, 1980). A given parent will not always behave in ways that match with a single defined style (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). Parenting styles are complex and multifaceted, and measures often combine parenting behaviors with parental attitudes and emotions, such that it can be difficult to infer the likely processes or mechanisms that explain associations between parenting styles and child outcomes. A parenting style may be
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
seen as providing the general context of the parent­child relationship, whereas specific parenting practices convey the means by which parents socialize desired outcomes (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
Specific Aspects of Parenting Behavior Many researchers have examined specific features of parental socialization practices in relation to children's prosocial development. These include control and discipline, induction and reasoning, warmth and sensitivity, modeling, and emotion socialization. It has been argued that the meaning and effects of specific socialization practices cannot be understood without attending to a range of contextual and process variables that shape parent­ child interactions (Grusec & Davidov, Chapter 11, this volume). For example, the goal underlying a parent's exertion of control, the child's perception of the legitimacy of that control, and the domain or activity that the parent is trying to control, will all contribute to the outcomes of the parent's efforts. Such a nuanced approach to examining the socialization of prosocial behavior has rarely been pursued. Despite this, some consistent associations between specific practices and prosocial development can be discerned from the research that has been completed.
Control and Discipline Researchers have examined aspects of parental control to determine which appear to foster, or to undermine, prosocial development. Recently, a distinction has been drawn between actions that exert behavioral versus psychological control (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994). Behavioral control encompasses the "rules and consequences" at the traditional core of parents' management of children's behavior, including regulations, directives, supervision, nonphysical punishment (e.g., withdrawal of privileges), and corporal punishment. Psychological control reflects parents' attempts to regulate their children's behavior by manipulating their emotions, thereby undermining their independence, selfesteem, and security with the parent­child relationship. It can include intrusive micromanagement or overprotective restrictions on activities and also criticism, derision, and rejection of the child (Rubin, Burgess, & Hastings, 2002).
BEHAVIORAL CONTROL Parents' use of control is associated with the socialization goals they hold for their children (Hastings & Grusec, 1998). Parents who value compliance and want to attain obedience use stricter control, forcefully asserting their authority. Parents' valuing and reinforcement of toddlers' compliant behavior predicted decreased prosocial behavior during peer interactions 2 to 3 years later (Eisenberg, Wolchik, Goldberg, & Engel, 1992). Mothers' simple prohibitions (e.g., "Stop that.") in response to toddlers' aggression predicted less spontaneous assistance toward others 5 months later (Zahn-Waxler, RadheYarrow, & King, 1979). However, gentle encouragement of toddlers' prosocial actions, through less controlling means such as suggestions and questions, did not predict prosocial behavior 5 months (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979) or 3 years later (Iannotti, Cummings, Pierrehumbert, Milano, & Zahn-Waxler, 1992). Thus, strictly controlling ac-
tions may act against young children's prosocial development, but parenting that suggests appropriate behaviors while allowing a child to have control over his or her exact course of action does not. Other works suggest that providing structure, standards, and supervision is important, however. Male youths who described their parents as having clear rules and high expectations reported that being kind and fair to others were important qualities 2 years later (Pratt et al., 2003). Adolescents who reported that their parents closely monitored their activities subsequently were more likely to engage in volunteer community work (Zaff, Moore, Papillo, & Williams, 2003). Establishing routine household chores that benefit other family members also appears to support youths' spontaneous helpfulness, particularly for girls (Grusec et al., 1996), although this has not been tested in longitudinal research. Punishment has often been found to be negatively correlated with children's prosocial characteristics (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996; Laible, Carlo, Torquati, & Ontai, 2004; Roberts, 1999). In a twin study of prosocial behavior that included parenting measures, Deater-Deckard and colleagues (2001) found that most of the significant negative relation between angry punishment, or "harsh parenting," and children's prosocial behavior was accounted for by shared environmental factors; genetic factors made negligible contributions to this relation. This supports the contention that angry, punitive parenting contributes to children's lowered prosocial behavior (see Moffitt & Caspi, Chapter 4, this volume), and not the potential counterargument that other dispositional child characteristics act to both elicit punishment and decrease prosocial tendencies. There are many ways in which punishment can be exercised. One aspect of punishment that has been looked at specifically is corporal punishment, or physical discipline. Eisenberg, Lennon and Roth (1983) found that mothers' corporal punishment was negatively correlated with preschoolers' empathy toward story characters. Ani and GranthamMcGregor (1998) found that highly prosocial boys in Nigeria received less physical punishment than highly antisocial boys; the two groups of boys did not differ in other aspects of parental discipline. In a retrospective report, college-age adults' reported receipt of mild physical punishment was uniquely associated with lower empathy, after controlling for parents' use of more severe physical punishment, critical psychological control, nonaggressive discipline, and induction (Lopez, Bonenberger, & Schneider, 2001). Roe (1980) found that more empathic 6­7-year-old children reported less physical punishment from parents, particularly fathers, 3 years later. In one study that broke with this pattern, Zahn-Waxler and colleagues (1979) did not find that mothers' physical restraint and punishment predicted toddlers' prosocial behavior 5 months later. Thus, most studies suggest physical discipline does not support prosocial development. Although some parents believe physical discipline promotes good behavior (Holden, Miller, & Harris, 1999), it may undermine prosocial behavior by implying that hurting others is acceptable, modeling aggression as a means of attaining goals, and instilling fear or anger that diminishes a child's receptivity to socialization efforts aimed at encouraging prosocial behavior. Without longitudinal studies, however, direction of effect remains a question. Less prosocial children might engage in more undesirable behaviors that elicit more punishment from parents, or they may elicit fewer feelings of warmth and closeness from parents, such that their physically punitive actions are less likely to be inhibited. Future research will need to address these issues. Overall, some longitudinal studies have shown that the actions comprising behav-
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
ioral control may undermine prosocial development, whereas other studies have suggested that such parenting may support prosocial development. The difference may lie in the specific ways in which parents manifest behavioral control. Studies of structuring and demands for mature or competent behavior generally showed positive relations, whereas studies of strict or rigid rules and punishment generally showed negative relations. Akin to the inference that might be drawn from the studies of authoritative and authoritarian styles, therefore, the effects of parents' behavioral control on children's prosocial development would appear to depend on how parents choose to express that control. More investigations that carefully distinguish between these aspects of behavioral control and take into account the context or "domain appropriateness" of parental control (Grusec & Davidov, Chapter 11, this volume) are needed to evaluate this possibility.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL The longitudinal investigations of parents' psychological control have generally shown that it does not support children's prosocial development, although results have been somewhat mixed. Mothers who were more intrusive and directed more negative affect toward their 14-month-old infants had children who showed decreasing empathy over 6 months (Robinson, Zahn-Waxler, & Emde, 1994). Mothers' disappointment, anger, and criticism with preschoolers predicted less empathy and prosocial behavior in mother reports 2 years later but not in observed responsiveness or in child or teacher reports (Hastings et al., 2000). Parents' lack of support for adolescents' autonomy also predicted lower concern for the welfare of others over 4 years, although this relation was weakened when the stability in youths' concerns were controlled (Pratt et al., 2004). However, Zahn-Waxler and colleagues (1979) did not find relations between maternal love withdrawal and toddlers' behavior toward others over 5 months, and Hastings, Rubin, and DeRose (2005) found that mothers' intrusive overprotection of toddlers predicted more prosocial responses to mothers 2 years later but not to an unfamiliar researcher. Overall, psychological control appears to act against children's prosocial development, although the specific associations may depend on how that control is manifest. Just as behavioral control seems to have facets that support prosocial behavior (structure and maturity demands) and others that do not (rigidity and punishment), so too might psychological control. Protective overcontrol might promote the development of particularly close ties between mothers and young children. This could point toward a mechanism by which overprotective parenting is reinforced: Seeing their children being warm and caring toward them, mothers may believe they are fostering good developmental outcomes. Children's competent and autonomous behavior in other relationships is diminished, however (Rubin et al. 2002), such that they might be less prosocial in their interactions with peers and others outside the home. Critical overcontrol by parents through rejecting, demeaning, or domineering actions may show a model of low regard for others' feelings, decrease children's confidence in the dependability of parental nurturance, and engender resentment that could undermine empathy across relationships.
Induction and Reasoning Parents use inductive reasoning to inform children of norms and principles, to explain why rules are necessary, to highlight the needs or well-being of others, and to illuminate
the effects of children's actions. Parents' other-oriented inductions could promote children's prosocial behavior through both cognitive and affective mechanisms. Being told the needs of another person could clarify a child's understanding of another's state. Especially for infants and very young children characterized by egocentrism and limited perspective-taking abilities, this may give necessary support for children's ability to identify others' distress and be aware of when their help could be effective. As inductions may clarify cause-and-effect relations, such as the adverse effects of hurtful acts, children may also increase in their understanding of their own agency, responsibility to avoid harm, and ability to make reparations. Although experiments have shown that other-oriented inductions are effective for eliciting prosocial behavior in children, studies of parental socialization have offered little support for the superiority of other-oriented inductions over other kinds of inductive reasoning. That may be due to the relative infrequency of other-oriented inductions in naturally occurring observations (Grusec, 1991). Thus, there are statistical limitations on researchers' ability to analyze the distinct effects of other-oriented inductions. However, causal modeling has supported Hoffman's (1970) hypothesized role for empathy as the mechanism linking parents' use of reasoning and children's prosocial behavior (Janssens & Gerris, 1992; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). One longitudinal study has supported the role of reasoning in prosocial development. Mothers' statements of principles against causing harm predicted toddlers' reparative actions after transgressions 5 months later, and inductions delivered with a strong emotional valence predicted their spontaneous helpfulness (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979). Expressing strong emotion may orient children's attention upon parents, such that the children are more likely to attend to the socializing message being delivered (Grusec & Lytton, 1988), although this might depend on the affective valence and contextual appropriateness of parents' emotional expressions. More longitudinal studies will be necessary to properly evaluate the developmental effects of reasoning and its modes of delivery. Including assessments of children's affective and social cognitive functioning could assist with understanding children's active part in the internalization process.
Modeling Parents may foster children's prosocial behavior by modeling concern for the needs of others through such activities as engaging in volunteer work or being caring and helpful toward others experiencing distress. The research associating parents' volunteer work, political activism, or selfless activities to their children's prosocial development is mostly correlational and often retrospective. Limited longitudinal research exists on modeling of prosocial behavior. Mothers' responsive caregiving to their toddlers' experiences of risk or distress predicted children's sympathy and helpfulness 5 months later, but maternal empathic concern toward others did not predict prosocial behavior over 5 months (ZahnWaxler et al., 1979) or 3 years (Iannotti et al., 1992). Eisenberg and her colleagues have shown that mothers' emotional reactions to evocative stimuli are correlated with children's prosocial characteristics, but a longitudinal study over the elementary school-age years did not find that mothers' empathic expressiveness to evocative pictures predicted children's later empathic responses to the pictures (Zhou et al., 2002). Thus, longitudinal studies have yet to produce clear evidence for the efficacy of pa-
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
rental modeling of prosocial behavior supporting children's prosocial development. Zahn-Waxler's research suggests that being the recipient of maternal prosocial actions, rather than merely witnessing mothers' kindness to others, may be necessary for young children to internalize prosocial patterns of responding, pointing to the potential roles of sensitivity and warmth.
Sensitivity, Warmth, and Attachment Maternal sensitivity to children's distress cues and emotional needs generally is thought to facilitate children's prosocial development. Robinson, Zahn-Waxler, and colleagues (Robinson & Little, 1994; Robinson, Zahn-Waxler, & Emde, 1994; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979) have often found that maternal sensitivity predicts infants' and young children's early empathic development; only one longitudinal study has not found this pattern (van der Mark et al., 2002). In a study of low-income first-time mothers, mothers' sensitivity with infants at 12 and 15 months predicted more prosocial responses to mothers' distress simulations at 21 and 24 months (Kiang, Moreno, & Robinson, 2004). Maternal sensitivity also mediated a negative relation between mothers' negative expectations about being a parent, assessed prenatally, and children's prosocial responses, indicating sensitivity can protect against the adverse effects of negative parenting attitudes. Sensitive parenting addresses an array of infant needs, soothes distress, and fosters safety and comfort. Thus, it may both support the development of early emotional self-regulation and serve as a model for compassionate otheroriented behavior. Many correlational studies have linked parental warmth or affection with children's prosocial characteristics (e.g., Clark & Ladd, 2000; Laible et al., 2004), although there are exceptions (e.g., Davidov & Grusec, 2006). Statistical modeling has shown that mothers' warmth directly predicts prosocial behavior when controlling for children's empathy (Janssens & Gerris, 1992). However, the evidence that parental warmth influences children's prosocial development from longitudinal studies is quite mixed. Maternal warmth toward 14-month-old infants predicted increasing, or stably high, empathy over 6 months, especially in girls (Robinson et al., 1994). Maternal warmth toward toddlers did not predict children's empathy or prosocial behavior at 5 years (Iannotti et al., 1992), nor did maternal warmth toward school-age children predict children's empathic responsiveness 2 years later (Zhou et al., 2002). Conversely, youths' perceptions of their parents' close and warm involvement in their lives has predicted higher rates of engaging in voluntary community work in early adulthood (Zaff et al., 2003). The argument has been made that parental warmth serves distinct developmental needs that would not affect prosocial development (Grusec & Davidov, Chapter 11, this volume). Most studies documenting positive relations between maternal warmth and prosocial behavior did not control for other aspects of behavior, such as sensitivity, so there could be other socializing actions that covary with warmth but carry the specific influences on prosocial development. Alternatively, comparing the longitudinal studies that did versus did not find that warmth predicted prosocial development, it may be that brief observations of affection during parent­child interactions are not adequate for assessing the role of warmth in supporting prosocial development. Rather than being a parent characteristic, warmth might be more effectively treated as a relationship quality.
Children may need to both receive and perceive warmth from parents as an ongoing component of their shared lives together in order for it to support their internalization of prosocial norms. Parents who are sensitive and responsive to their infants' signs of distress and provide a safe and secure caregiving context facilitate the formation of secure attachment relationships. When parents are insensitive, either unresponsive or inconsistently responsive to their infants' needs, infants are likely to form insecure attachments that lack trust and warm reciprocity. The quality of an attachment relationship may provide a history that gives meaning to present parent­child exchanges and shapes partners' expectations for future interactions. Infants' experiences of sensitivity, relief from distress, and reliable responses from parents may support their readiness to engage with and respond to the needs of others. Most studies of the links between the security of infants' or toddlers' attachment relationships with their parents and the children's prosocial behavior have shown that early attachment security predicts stronger prosocial development. Infants with secure attachment between 12 and 18 months have been found to be more sympathetic and helpful towards distressed peers at 3Ѕ years (Waters, Wippman, & Sroufe, 1979) and at 4 years (Kestenbaum, Farber, & Sroufe, 1989), compared to infants with insecure attachments. Iannotti and colleagues (1992) found that more securely attached toddlers were more prosocial toward peers 3 years later, and attachment security was a more robust predictor of peer-directed prosocial behavior than independent measures of maternal behavior. In one exception to this pattern, van der Mark and colleagues (2002) did not find that attachment security at 16 months predicted empathic concern 6 months later, although attachment security and empathic concern were positively correlated at 22 months. Attachment theorists posit that the mechanism for secure attachment relationships supporting prosocial development is through internal working models of attachment relationships (Mikulciner & Shaver, 2005). Children's internalization of secure relationship qualities may provide a basis for their empathic engagement with others and preparedness to act on the behalf of others. A secure attachment relationship has also been posited as providing support for children's development of emotion regulation, through the repeated experience of effective soothing from caregivers (Cassidy, 1994). Children with secure attachment histories may become less upset when they see someone else experiencing distress, such that they are able to empathize with that person's plight and offer assistance rather than become distressed and withdraw. Sensitivity toward infants' cues and needs may be the essential quality of parenting by which secure attachment is fostered, although warmth may also have a contributing role.
Emotion Socialization An increasing amount of attention has been given to parents' socialization of children's emotional development in recent years. Emotion socialization involves fostering children's understanding of their own and others' emotional experiences and children's ability to effectively regulate emotions. Although longitudinal research is lacking, several researchers have found that parents who effectively support their children's competent emotional functioning have children who are more empathic, sympathetic, helpful, and kind. Maternal explanations and discussions about emotions, openness to and encour-
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
agement of emotional expressivity, but limit-setting on emotions that might be hurtful to others have been associated with various indices of prosocial behavior (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes, & Murphy, 1996; Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, Carlo, & Miller, 1991; Eisenberg et al., 1992; Garner, 2003). Roberts (1999) found that mothers' encouragement of children's self-control of negative emotions was negatively related to daughters' prosocial behavior but positively related to boys' prosocial behavior; the converse tended to be true for fathers' emotion socialization. Both Roberts and Eisenberg et al. (e.g., 1991) have reported that positive relations between parents' emotion socialization and children's prosocial behavior are strongest in same-sex dyads. This may suggest that gender roles influence how affective arousal and emotion regulation are linked to prosocial behavior, although evidence of differing mother-specific and father-specific effects in children's social development tends to be quite limited (Hastings, Vyncke, et al., 2005). The assumption underlying these studies is that affective development furthers behavioral development. Empathy may function as a regulatory emotion, inhibiting selfish or aggressive acts and providing the foundation for children's prosocial actions (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). Parents may foster prosocial development by supporting children's empathy. There is evidence that children's empathy mediates some of the link between parental socialization and children's prosocial behavior, but few studies have evaluated the possible processes by which parental socialization affects empathy. Using modeling techniques, Strayer and Roberts (2004) found that school-age children's basic affective processes mediated the associations between parental socialization and children's empathy. Specifically, parents' greater maturity demands, warmth, and encouragement of expressiveness, and lower rejection and physical discipline, predicted children's greater insight into their own emotions and emotional expressiveness, and also lower anger. In turn, less angry but more expressive and insightful children were more empathic.
Fathers' Socialization of Prosocial Development Socialization researchers have not focused as much attention on the roles of fathers in children's prosocial development compared to mothers. The studies that have included fathers indicate that paternal influences may contribute to children's prosocial development. Several single time-point, correlational studies have documented relations between children's prosocial behavior and fathers' authoritative and authoritarian styles, inductive reasoning, discipline, and warmth that are similar to those seen with mothers (e.g., Dekovic & Janssens, 1992; Janssens & Gerris, 1992; Sturgess, Dunn, & Davies, 2001), although results have not been as consistent (e.g., Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992). There is evidence that fathers tend to be less aware of their children's prosocial activities (Grusec et al., 1996). Fathers' relative unawareness of children's prosocial behavior may offer fewer opportunities for fathers to reinforce or support prosocial development. Two longitudinal studies have shown that earlier paternal supportive parenting predicts more prosocial behavior within sibling (Volling & Belsky, 1992) and father­child relationships (Eberly & Montemayor, 1999). Focusing on emotion socialization, Roberts (1999) found that boys' prosocial behavior toward peers decreased over 3 years when fathers were more suppressing of their preschool-age sons' emotional expressiveness.
Conversely, Hastings, Rubin, and DeRose (2005) did not find any associations between fathers' self-reported authoritarian, authoritative or protective parenting of toddlers and the children's observed prosocial responses to mothers and experimenters 2 years later. Thus, the limited set of longitudinal analyses involving fathers suggests that the lasting influences of paternal socialization may be more limited than has been documented for mothers. Additional research on fathers certainly is warranted.
OTHER CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS AND PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Siblings Sibling relationships are often portrayed as a training ground for children to learn about social behavior, for good or for ill. There is some evidence to indicate that having siblings, and especially being an older sibling, might facilitate the development of prosocial behavior. This may be due to experiences of playing with and needing to accommodate one's behavior to another person who not only differs in desires and perceptions but is also less skilled and knowledgeable. Parents may also assign older siblings caregiving or supervisory roles of their younger siblings, such that their prosocial behavior is directly fostered and trained (see Dunn, Chapter 12, this volume). The quality of the sibling relationship itself may contribute to prosocial development. Following toddler-age and preschool-age siblings over 6 months, Dunn and Munn (1986) found that one siblings' greater prosocial behavior during interactions predicted more prosocial behavior from the other sibling subsequently. This pattern held for both younger and older children, showing that the positive quality of a sibling relationship may be self-perpetuating. However, in research with preschool-age to early elementary school-age children, Pepler and colleagues (1981) did not report any such developmental relations over an 18-month period. Friends and Peers Research on children's friendships and peer relationships show that more prosocial children and youths are more popular and well liked, and are more likely to have close friends (e.g., Clark & Ladd, 2000; Gest, Graham-Bermann, & Hartup, 2001). Causal modeling analyses indicate that being more prosocial facilitates children's greater popularity (Dekovic' & Gerris, 1994). But do more prosocial children elicit positive and accepting reactions from their agemates, or does being liked by peers or having a good friend facilitate prosocial development? A small set of longitudinal studies suggest both processes may be occurring. Following preschoolers over 3 years, Persson (2005) observed children's spontaneous helping, sharing, and altruism (unselfish concern for others) and distinguished initiating from receiving such behaviors from peers. Children who initiated more altruism in 1 year received more altruism from others in the subsequent year. The converse was not true: Receiving more prosocial acts did not predict children's behaviors in subsequent years. Thus, for preschoolers, prosocial behavior appeared to elicit reciprocity from peers. Children's social status among classroom peers has also been associated with prosocial development in adolescence. Rejected children in grade 6 were likely to show
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
less prosocial behavior and express less interest in pursuing prosocial goals in grade 8 than socially average peers (Wentzel, 2003). Following peer-rejected boys forward from grade 6 to grade 11, rejected boys who showed declining aggression also showed increasing prosocial behavior over this period, and by grade 11 they were less rejected, more accepted, more likely to be a friend, and more helpful (Haselager, Cillessen, Van-Lieshout, Riksen-Walraven, & Hartup, 2002). Thus, increases in prosocial behavior may have supported closer peer relationships. Close friends may have particularly strong influences on adolescents' prosocial development. Children's prosocial behavior increased from grade 6 to 8 when their friend in grade 6 was more prosocial than themselves but decreased strongly if the grade 6 friend was less prosocial (Wentzel et al., 2004). As well, having a more prosocial friend in grade 6 predicted stronger prosocial motivations in grade 8, which were concurrently associated with prosocial behavior. Similarly, youths who saw their high school peers as positive influences were more likely to engage in community volunteer work during adulthood (Zaff et al., 2003). Across development, being a more prosocial child appears to elicit positive responses and acceptance from peers. As well, older children and adolescents' peer relationships and friendships appear to be influential in the continuing development of prosocial motivations and behaviors. Parents may facilitate positive development by fostering their children's friendships with other children who are kind, caring, cooperative, and helpful. Intriguingly, mediational analyses also indicate that prosocial behavior serves as the link between parental socialization and children's popularity and acceptance by peers (Dekovic & Janssens, 1992). Thus, effective parental socialization can support and increase children's prosocial characteristics, which in turn will foster their social competence and elicit positive responses from other children, which could further support youths' continued prosocial development.
Teachers Correlational studies of children's prosocial characteristics and teachers' behaviors or the quality of the student­teacher relationship have found similar relations to those seen for parental socialization. Children tend to be more prosocial when teachers are affectively warmer, when their relationship is closer and less conflicted, and when children are securely attached to teachers (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Howes, 2000; Kienbaum, 2001; CopelandMitchell, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997). Teachers' directive or controlling behaviors seem to be less associated with children's prosocial behavior (Kienbaum, 2001). School-based interventions, akin to field experiments, have shown that teaching elementary school teachers proactive ways to prevent classroom aggression and praise positive behaviors increases 5- to 7-year-old children's self-reported sharing, helpfulness, and reparative behaviors (Flannery et al., 2003). The effect of school-related experiences has taken hold as a topic of intense interest in the area of early child care, perhaps due to the ever-increasing numbers of children enrolled in out-of-home infant care and toddler care. Some studies have found that children with more early child-care experience are more prosocial, while others find that the quality of the child-care facility matters more than the amount of time in child care (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2002). Overall, it would be valuable to conduct longitudinal studies of exactly which teacher and classroom qualities in one year predict children's prosocial behavior in later years.
SOCIOCULTURAL EXPERIENCES AND PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Community Involvement Volunteerism and involvement in community-minded activities have been associated with the development of prosocial characteristics in children and youths (Hart & Fegley, 1995; Pancer & Pratt, 1999). In a longitudinal study, Switzer, Simmons, Dew, Regalski, and Wang (1995) found that school-mandated involvement in "voluntary" activities over a year was associated with increases in young women's self-perceptions of being altruistic, and young men's continued involvement in community activities. High school students' consistent participation in extracurricular activities in or out of school has also been found to predict higher rates of engaging in community volunteer work in early adulthood (Zaff et al., 2003), beyond the contributions of parents and peers. Pratt and colleagues (2003) found that youths who described their "ideal" selves as kind and caring were more involved in community activities that focused on helping others, and involvement in community helping activities at 17 years predicted stronger commitment to being kind and caring at 19 years, over and above the stability of values. Together, these studies point toward the potential importance of positive community involvement for the prosocial development of adolescents and young adults. Being involved in other-oriented activities leads youths to increasingly value kindness, caring, and altruism as important personal qualities to which they aspire; presumably this value shift would support future prosocial activities. This could reflect a kind of active internalization, of becoming prosocial by doing prosocial. Youths with more prosocial tendencies probably are more inclined to enter into voluntary helping activities, but such participation also seems to be facilitated by attentive parenting and targeted school programs. Thus, encouraging adolescents' enrollment in volunteer work may be an effective way of promoting their prosocial development, as youths may incorporate their prosocial activities as an element of their selves.
Socioeconomic Status and Culture Some studies have shown that children from adverse family backgrounds, characterized by lower incomes or job status, younger and less educated parents, and nonintact families, are less prosocial than children from more privileged homes (e.g., Haapasalo, Tremblay, Boulerice, & Vitaron, 2000; Lichter, Shanahan, & Gardner, 2002). These effects could be the result of reduced availability of prosocial role models, experiences of stress or deprivation that increase children's self-focused concern, or socioeconomic status (SES) differences in parental socialization. Mothers and fathers from lower SES groups are characterized as more strongly punitive and power assertive and less responsive than parents from higher SES groups (e.g., Burbach, Fox, & Nicholson, 2004; Knight, Kagan, & Buriel, 1982). Thus, the links between lower SES and lower prosocial development may be mediated by compromised and maladaptive parental socialization, although this explanation has not been evaluated in longitudinal studies. Although the broad distinction between collectivist and individualist cultures is overly simplistic and may obscure intracultural variability, several researchers have suggested that children and youths in more collectivist cultures are more empathic, altruistic, helpful, or cooperative than children in individualist cultures (e.g., Knight et al., 1982; Zaff et al., 2003; for disconfirming reports, see Carlo, Koller, Eisenberg, Da Silva, &
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
Frohlich, 1996; Pilgrim & Rueda-Riedle, 2002). This may be due to collectivist cultures' deemphasis of individual needs or goals in lieu of attention to the needs of the broader community and the promotion of greater involvement of children in other-oriented activities (e.g., Whiting & Whiting, 1975). Cultural differences in parental socialization might serve as the means by which cultural differences in prosocial tendencies arise (Knight et al., 1982; Whiting & Whiting, 1975), although, as with the research on SES, there is a lack of longitudinal evidence.
ANSWERING SOME CENTRAL QUESTIONS Is There Consistent Evidence of Any Socialization Influences on Prosocial Development? Children are more prosocial when they have formed more secure attachment relationships with their parents; when their mothers and fathers are more authoritative than authoritarian in their style; when parents avoid punitive and strict discipline in favor of gentler control techniques; when they use reasoning and provide explanations; when they are sensitive to their children's needs and are warm with their children; and when they support their children's experience and regulation of emotions. Children are more prosocial when they come from stable and economically secure homes; have close and friendly relationships with their siblings; have experience in good-quality early child-care facilities; have kind, caring, helpful, and considerate peers and friends; and obtain experience taking care of the needs of others through volunteer and community activities. All these associations have been documented in longitudinal studies, in which the socializing event or action temporally preceded the observation of prosocial behavior. Most of these associations have been replicated across at least two independent investigations. Some attempts to replicate these findings have failed to show that earlier socialization predicts later prosocial development, but contradictory findings have been infrequent, suggesting that the developmental associations are reliable and valid. Each association is small to modest in magnitude, although this does not mean the effects are not meaningful. Whether these influences function cumulatively, independently, or even redundantly is largely unknown. What Is the Child's Role in Prosocial Development? The substantial genetic contribution to prosocial behavior cannot be overlooked, nor can children's active creation of opportunities to have their prosocial development supported by socializing forces. Children become more prosocial over time when they start out being more prosocial. When they behave in more prosocial ways toward family members, peers, and others, they receive support and reinforcement for their actions. Thus far, the most clear and consistent evidence for these kinds of bidirectional influences over prosocial development has emerged from longitudinal investigations of peer relationships. It seems likely that similar processes occur within family relationships; future research will need to document this. The research on parental socialization and on the aspects of childrearing that support prosocial development also implicates children's involvement in their own socialization. Affective mechanisms clearly are present, as children's empathic engagement with
others serves as one link between parental socialization and prosocial behavior in other contexts. It seems likely that children's social cognitive functions are similarly employed to promote the internalization of standards for prosocial behavior. Many parenting techniques that are linked to prosocial behavior require the child to actively process the socialization message, assess its meaning and relevance, determine how it can be enacted, and then choose to do so. Children's acceptance and internalization of parental efforts to support kindness, caring, and compassion may be facilitated by parents who are able to forge close and secure relationships with their children. Future studies should address these individual, dyadic, and relationship-level processes.
Why Are There Gender Differences in Prosocial Development? The majority of the longitudinal studies reviewed herein did not show that the relations between socialization and prosocial development differed much for boys and girls, suggesting that gender is not a robust moderator of socialization effects. In general, when sex differences were evident, most often socialization was found to predict prosocial outcomes more strongly in girls than boys. A few studies showed that different parenting practices predict similar outcomes for girls and boys. Given this modest evidence, and the fact that being female is associated with being more advanced in at least some aspects of prosocial development, it is worth considering how and why gender could play a role in the socialization of prosocial development. Gender could serve as a "summarizing" variable. To some extent, boys and girls differ in biological predispositions, experience different socialization from parents and peers, and receive differential sex-typed expectations from media and other conveyers of cultural norms. Thus, simply identifying gender may serve to capture an amalgamation of socializing forces that favor more or stronger prosocial (female) outcomes, or fewer or weaker prosocial (male) outcomes. Gender could moderate some effects of socialization on behavior. If there are biologically based sex differences in behavioral proclivities, similar childrearing experiences may foster divergent positive developmental trajectories. For example, authoritative parents who sensitively use gentle control could consistently respond to and reinforce whichever positive behaviors their young children manifest. If, on average, young girls express concern for others more often than young boys, and young boys more often show independence and autonomy, then the same approach to parenting could foster more prosocial and affiliative behaviors in girls and more competitive and assertive behaviors in boys (Hastings, Rubin, & DeRose, 2005; Leaper, 2002). Gender differences in prosocial behavior may arise as a function of parental goals for sex-typed socialization; parents may subtly alter or selectively express their parenting styles or behaviors in order to foster the outcomes they consider to be appropriate for sons and daughters (Zahn-Waxler, 2000). If young girls are expected to be more prosocial, their kind and caring actions may be noticed and reinforced more consistently than those of boys, such that culturally shared beliefs may drive reality. There are also mean-level differences in the socialization experiences of sons and daughters, such that girls are targeted for more of the parenting behaviors that support prosocial behavior and fewer of the actions that undermine it. Mothers of boys value aggression more highly than mothers of girls (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998), but aggressive boys are also more likely to receive harsh discipline from mothers than aggressive girls (Webster-
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
Stratton, 1996). Conversely, mothers of young girls are more likely to respond to aggression with other-oriented inductive reasoning than mothers of young boys (Smetana, 1989), and girls are more often encouraged to share as means of resolving disputes (Keenan & Shaw, 1994; Ross, Tesla, Kenyon, & Lollis, 1990). Many parenting techniques are used to similar extents for boys and girls, but there is reasonable evidence that boys receive more physical punishment (Lytton & Romney, 1991) and more authoritarian (Hastings, Rubin, & DeRose, 2005) and less authoritative parenting (Russell et al., 2003). These sex differences in socialization experiences certainly would lead to greater support from parents for girls' prosocial development. Whether parents raise their sons and daughters differently because of innate sex differences in children's behavioral tendencies, or because of culturally dictated stereotypes about desirable characteristics for sons and daughters, is more difficult to ascertain. The existence of a cultural stereotype that otheroriented concerns and prosocial behavior are prototypically feminine could also explain why gender differences are more consistent in questionnaire than observation measures, as parents, teachers, or other reporters express their expectations or biased beliefs. Finally, perhaps because of their own sex-typed biases, researchers may have defined prosocial behavior too narrowly. Such an issue has been noted in research on relational aggression; girls may be predisposed or socialized to show aggression differently than boys, but for decades researchers did not assess social forms of aggression (Underwood, 2002). Analogously, when asked to describe what it means to "be nice," more children suggest being socially inclusive than sharing or caring for others (Greener & Crick, 1999). Most measures of prosocial behavior do not include such affiliative actions. Males' understanding of prosocial behavior and their means of showing other-oriented concerns might differ from typically measured constructs, and aspects of their prosocial behavior may have been overlooked and underestimated. If males typically use a distinct set of behaviors than females to express prosocial values or motivations, they may be "differently prosocial" rather than "less prosocial."
What Does the Socialization of Prosocial Development Imply for the Understanding of Antisocial Behavior? It is common for people to think of prosocial and antisocial behavior as antithetical. The former involves caring about and acting toward the well-being of others. The latter is based on a lack of regard for, or an outright animosity toward, the rights of others and is shown through hurtful, damaging, and denigrating actions. It is reasonable to expect individuals who engage in more prosocial behavior than average to also engage in less antisocial behavior than average--and this is empirically valid, at least for adults. Yet some people clearly can manifest both behaviors, and developmental research has shown that young children even tend to do so. Miller and Eisenberg (1988) performed a meta-analysis almost 20 years ago, showing that empathy and sympathy were negatively correlated with antisocial characteristics from the school-age years forward, and the magnitude of this disconnect increased with age, but empathy and aggression were not negatively correlated in younger children. Recent studies also have shown positive relations between early prosocial and antisocial behavior. Highly aggressive toddlers were more empathic on various measures than toddlers with low aggression (Gill & Calkins, 2003). Preschoolers with few and many
externalizing problems were similarly empathic in responses to adults simulating distress (Zahn-Waxler, Cole, Welsh, & Fox, 1995). Kindergarteners' prosocial and antisocial behaviors also tend to be uncorrelated (Kienbaum, 2001), unless both are measured though teacher reports, producing negative relations (Clark & Ladd, 2000). The concurrent positive or nonsignificant relations of young children's prosocial and antisocial behavior mask a more complex, and somewhat paradoxical, pattern that unfolds over time. More prosocial toddlers and preschoolers are less aggressive and have fewer externalizing problems when they reach elementary school age (Haapasalo et al., 2000; Hay & Pawlby, 2003), whereas higher levels of early aggression predict lower levels of later prosocial behavior (Hastings et al., 2000; Keane & Calkins, 2004). Thus, early emerging antisocial behavior problems seem to be a risk factor for later deficits in prosocial behavior, and early prosocial behavior protects against later antisocial behavior. It appears that the period of transition from preschool age to elementary school age is a point of transformation in the relations between positive and negative social behaviors. This may arise from the normative developmental patterns of antisocial and prosocial behavior. Aggression peaks in the late toddler­early preschooler period and decreases thereafter (Tremblay, 2000); prosocial behavior clearly emerges in the early toddler years and increases thereafter (Zahn-Waxler & Hastings, 1999). These behavior patterns could be following independent trajectories, with the early positive, then nonsignificant, then negative correlations arising as artifacts of developmental convergence and divergence. The facts that early high aggression predicts later low prosocial behavior, and vice versa, would argue against this explanation, however. An alternative explanation is that prosocial and antisocial behaviors share a common origin, but children may follow divergent developmental pathways depending on experiences. Engaging in prosocial and antisocial behaviors requires active engagement with others; as such, they would both be supported by high approach motivations (Rothbart, Derryberry, & Hershey, 2000). Infants and toddlers who are temperamentally predisposed to approach others would have more opportunities for both helping and hurting others. Given their limited repertoire for attaining goals, socially engaged toddlers will invariably engage in conflict (Hay & Ross, 1982). However, aggressing against others should be more aversive for toddlers with a greater propensity for empathy. More sensitive and effective parents will also respond to toddler conflict and aggression in ways that support the development of alternative, less aggressive means of attaining social goals. Thus, socialization can direct young children's behavioral and emotional tendencies to foster their increasingly prosocial characteristics. As should be clear in comparing the research reviewed in this chapter to the research reviewed by Cavell, Hymel, Malcolm, and Seay (Chapter 2), Moffitt and Caspi (Chapter 4), and other contributors to this Handbook, antisocial and prosocial behavior share a number of socialization correlates and contributing factors: The same socialization influences that promote greater prosocial behavior also serve to diminish antisocial behavior, suggesting that the developmental processes or mechanisms affecting these behavior patterns are not independent. Studies have only begun to consider whether and how these developmental processes might be interconnected. There is evidence to suggest that supporting prosocial development serves to protect children against antisocial development and potentially decrease their problematic aggressive and destructive behaviors (Feshbach, 1983; Flannery et al., 2003; Hastings et al., 2000). The implication is clear: Efforts to curb violence should include actions to support
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
kindness. One intriguing direction for this approach emerges from the cumulative research on children's and adolescents' direct experience of prosocial behavior. This includes receiving empathic and nurturant care from parents, having community-minded and active parents, being responsible for siblings, doing regular other-focused household chores, and participating in unpaid caring and helpful community activities. Even if these experiences and tasks are not completely voluntary, children and youths appear to learn goodness by doing good.
CONCLUSIONS The study of the socialization of prosocial behavior has begun to generate consistent evidence of the impressive contributions made by parents, siblings, peers, teachers, community organizations, and cultures to the development of children's concern for the well-being of others. It is encouraging to see that prosocial behavior can be effectively supported, and prosocial development can be nurtured. Understanding that positive aspects of human functioning are subject to external influence, and that as a society we can act to reduce violence and aggression by supporting kindness and compassion, provides an opportunity to translate social science into effective Social Policy and practice. REFERENCES Ani, C. C., & Grantham-McGregor, S. (1998). Family and Personal Characteristics of aggressive Nigerian boys: Differences from and similarities with Western findings. Journal of Adolescent Health, 23, 311­ 317. Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120­1136. Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81­95. Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher­child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934­946. Burbach, A. D., Fox, R. A., & Nicholson, B. C. (2004). Challenging behaviors in young children: The father's role. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165, 169­183. Carlo, G., Koller, S. H., Eisenberg, N., Da-Silva, M. S., & Frohlich, C. B. (1996). A cross-national study on the relations among prosocial moral reasoning, gender role orientations, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 231­240. Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228­283. Clark, K. E., & Ladd, G. W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomy support in parent-child relationships: Links to children's socioemotional orientation and peer relationships. Developmental Psychology, 36, 485­498. Copeland-Mitchell, J. M., Denham, S. A., & DeMulder, E. K. (1997). Q-sort assessment of child­teacher attachment relationships and social competence in the preschool. Early Education and Development, 8, 27­39. Cфtй, S., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., & Vitaro, F. (2002). The development of impulsivity, fearfulness, and helpfulness during childhood: Patterns of consistency and change in trajectories of boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 609­618. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487­496. Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77, 44­58.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). Multiple risk factors in the develop- ment of externalizing behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 469­493. Deater-Deckard, K., Dunn, J., O'Connor, T. G., Davies, L., & Golding, J. (2001). Using the stepfamily genetic design to examine gene­environment processes in child and family functioning. Marriage and Family Review, 33, 131­156. Dekovic, M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1994). Developmental analyses of social cognitive and behavioral differences between popular and rejected children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 367­ 386. Dekovic, M., & Janssens, J. M. (1992). Parents' child-rearing style and child's sociometric status. Developmental Psychology 28, 925­932. Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1986). Siblings and the development of prosocial behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 265­284. Eberly, M. B., & Montemayor, R. (1999). Adolescent affection and helpfulness toward parents: A 2-year follow-up. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 226­248. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 701­ 778). New York: Wiley. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Murphy, B. C. (1996). Parents' reactions to children's negative emotions: Relations to children's social competence and comforting behavior. Child Development, 67, 2227­2247. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., Carlo, G., & Miller, P. A. (1991). The relations of parental characteristics and practices to children's vicarious emotional responding. Child Development, 62, 1393­ 1408. Eisenberg, N., Lennon, R., & Roth, K. (1983). Prosocial development: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 19, 846­855. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91­119. Eisenberg, N., & Valiente, C. (2002). Parenting and children's prosocial and moral development. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in parenting (2nd ed., pp. 111­142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenberg, N., Wolchik, S. A., Goldberg, L., & Engel, I. (1992). Parental values, reinforcement, and young children's prosocial behavior: A longitudinal study. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153, 19­36. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Geisheker, E. (1979). Content of preachings and power of the model/preacher: The effect on children's generosity. Developmental Psychology, 15, 168­175. Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Eisenberg, N., May-Plumlee, T., & Christopher, F. S. (1989). Effects of rewards on children's prosocial motivation: A socialization study. Developmental Psychology, 25, 509­515. Feshbach, N. D. (1983). Learning to care: A positive approach to child training and discipline. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12, 266­271. Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Liau, A. K., Guo, S., Powell, K. E., Atha, H., Vesterdal, W., & Embry, D. (2003). Initial behavior outcomes for the PeaceBuilders universal school-based violence prevention program. Developmental Psychology, 39, 292­308. Garner, P. W. (2003). Child and family correlates of toddlers' emotional and behavioral responses to a mishap. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 580­596. Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status. Social Development, 10, 23­40. Gill, K. L., & Calkins, S. D. (2003). Do aggressive/destructive toddlers lack concern for others? Behavioral and physiological indicators of empathic responding in 2-year-old children. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 55­71. Greener, S., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Normative beliefs about prosocial behavior in middle childhood: What does it mean to be nice? Social Development, 8, 349­363. Grusec, J. E. (1972). Demand characteristics of the modeling experiment: Altruism as a function of age and aggression. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 22, 139­148. Grusec, J. E. (1991). Socializing concern for others in the home. Developmental Psychology, 27, 338­342. Grusec, J. E., Davidov, M., & Lundell, L. (2002). Prosocial and helping behavior: Blackwell handbooks of
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
developmental psychology. In C. H. Hart & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 457­474). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child's internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4­19. Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Cohen, L. (1996). Household work and the development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 32, 999­1007. Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Kuczynski, L. (2000). New directions in analyses of parenting contributions to children's acquisition of values. Child Development, 71, 205­211. Grusec, J. E., & Kuczynski, L. (1980). Direction of effect in socialization: A comparison of the parent's versus the child's behavior as determinants of disciplinary techniques. Developmental Psychology, 16, 1­ 9. Grusec, J. E., Kuczynski, L., Rushton, J. P., & Simutis, Z. M. (1978). Modelling, direct instruction, and attributions: Effects on altruism. Developmental Psychology, 14, 51­57. Grusec, J. E., & Lytton, H. (1988). Social development: History, theory, and research. New York: SpringerVerlag. Haapasalo, J., Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., & Vitaro, F. (2000). Relative advantages of person- and variable-based approaches for predicting problem behaviors from kindergarten assessments. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 145­168. Harris, M. B. (1970). Reciprocity and generosity: Some determinants of sharing in children. Child Development, 41, 313­328. Hart, C. H., DeWolf, D. M., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D. C. (1992). Maternal and paternal disciplinary styles: Relations with preschoolers' playground behavioral orientations and peer status. Child Development, 63, 879­892. Hart, D., & Fegley, S. (1995). Prosocial behavior and caring in adolescence: Relations to self-understanding and social judgment. Child Development, 66, 1346­1359. Haselager, G. J. T., Cillessen, A. H. N., Van-Lieshout, C. F. M., Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2002). Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys across middle childhood: Developmental pathways of social behavior. Developmental Psychology, 38, 446­456. Hastings, P. D., & Grusec, J. E. (1998). Parenting goals as organizers of responses to parent­child disagreement. Developmental Psychology, 34, 465­479. Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., & DeRose, L. (2005). Links among gender, inhibition, and parental socialization in the development of prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 501­527. Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., Mielcarek, L., & Kennedy, A. (2002). Helping shy girls and boys to be helpful. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Hastings, P.D., Vyncke, J., Sullivan, C., McShane, K. E., Benibgui, M., & Utendale, W. T. (2005). Children's development of social competence across family types. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of Justice Canada: Family, Children & Youth Section. Hastings, P. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., & McShane, K. (2005). We are, by nature, moral creatures: Biological bases of concern for others. In M. Killen, & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 483­516). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hastings, P. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J., Usher, B., & Bridges, D. (2000). The development of concern for others in children with behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 36, 531­546. Hay, D. F., Castle, J., Davies, L., Demetriou, H., & Stimson, C. A. (1999). Prosocial action in very early childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 905­916. Hay, D. F., & Pawlby, S. (2003). Prosocial development in relation to children's and mothers' psychological problems. Child Development, 74, 1314­1327. Hay, D. F., & Ross, H. S. (1982). The social nature of early conflict. Child Development, 53, 105­113. Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Moral development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child development (Vol. 2, pp. 261­360). New York: Wiley. Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Holden, G. W., Miller, P. C., & Harris, S. D. (1999). The instrumental side of corporal punishment: Parents' reported practices and outcome expectancies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 908­919. Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher relationships and children's second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9, 191­204.
Iannotti, R. J., Cummings, E. M., Pierrehumbert, B., Milano, M.J. & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1992). Parental influences on prosocial behavior and empathy in early childhood. In J. Janssens & J. Gerris (Eds.), Child rearing: Influences on prosocial and moral development (pp. 77­100). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1992). Child rearing, empathy, and prosocial development. In J. M. A. M. Janssens & J. R. M. Gerris (Eds.), Child rearing: Influence on prosocial and moral development (pp. 57­75). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Predicting kindergarten peer social status from toddler and preschool problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 409­423. Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1994). The development of aggression in toddlers: A study of low-income families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 53­77. Kestenbaum, R., Farber, E. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Individual differences in empathy among preschoolers: Relation to attachment history. New Directions for Child Development, 44, 51­64. Kiang, L., Moreno, A. J., & Robinson, J. L. (2004). Maternal preconceptions about parenting predict child temperament, maternal sensitivity, and children's empathy. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1081­ 1092. Kienbaum, J. (2001). The socialization of compassionate behavior by child care teachers. Early Education and Development, 12, 139­153. Knight, G. P., Kagan, A., & Buriel, R. (1982). Perceived parental practices and prosocial development. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 141, 57­65. Kochanska, G. (1991). Socialization and temperament in the development of guilt and conscience. Child Development, 62, 1379­1392. Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents' use of inductive discipline: Relations to children's empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 3263­3277. Kuczynski, L. (2003). Beyond bidirectionality: Bilateral conceptual frameworks for understanding dynamics in parent­child relations. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent­child relations (pp. 1­24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Laible, D., Carlo, G., Torquati, J., & Ontai, L. (2004). Children's perceptions of family relationships as assessed in a doll story completion task: Links to parenting, social competence, and externalizing behavior. Social Development, 13, 551­569. Leaper, C. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 189­225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lichter, D. T., Shanahan, M. J., & Gardner, E. L. (2002) Helping others? The effects of childhood poverty and family instability on prosocial behavior. Youth and Society, 34, 89­119. Lopez, N. L., Bonenberger, J. L., & Schneider, H. G. (2001). Parental disciplinary history, current levels of empathy, and moral reasoning in young adults. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 193­ 204. Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents' differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267­296. McGrath, M. P., Wilson, S. R., & Frassetto, S. J. (1995). Why some forms of induction are better than others at encouraging prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 347­360. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Mental representations of attachment security: Theoretical foundation for a positive social psychology. In M. W. Baldwin (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 233­266). New York: Guilford Press. Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324­344. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). The interaction of child care and family risks in relation to child development at 24 and 36 months. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 144­156. Pancer, S. M., & Pratt, M. W. (1999). Social and family determinants of community service involvement in Canadian youth. In J. Youniss & M. Yates (Eds.), Roots of civic identity: International perspectives on community service and activism in youth (pp. 32­55). New York: Cambridge University Press. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family processes. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Pepler, D. J., Abramovitch, R., & Corter, C. (1981). Sibling interaction in the home: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 52, 1344­1347. Perry, D. G., Bussey, I., & Freiberg, K. (1981). Impact of adults' appeals for sharing on the development of altruistic dispositions in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 127­138.
The Socialization of Prosocial Development
Persson, G. E. B. (2005). Young children's prosocial and aggressive behaviors and their experiences of being targeted for similar behaviors by peers. Social Development, 14, 206­228. Pilgrim, C., & Rueda-Riedle, A. (2002). The importance of social context in cross-cultural comparisons: First graders in Colombia and the United States. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 283­295. Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., & Alisat, S. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of personal values socialization: Correlates of a moral self-ideal in late adolescence. Social Development, 12, 563­585. Pratt, M. W., Skoe, E. E., & Arnold, M. L. (2004). Care reasoning development and family socialisation patterns in later adolescence: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 139­147. Preston, S. D., & de-Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1­72. Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M. (1983). Children's prosocial dispositions and behavior. In P. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 469­545). New York: Wiley. Roberts, W. L. (1999). The socialization of emotional expression: Relations with prosocial behaviour and competence in five samples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 72­85. Robinson, J., & Little, C. (1994). Emotional availability in mother-twin dyads: Effects on the organization of relationships. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 57, 222­231. Robinson, J. L., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Emde, R. N. (1994). Patterns of development in early empathic behavior: Environmental and child constitutional influences. Social Development, 3, 125­145. Roe, K. V. (1980). Toward a contingency hypothesis of empathy development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 991­994. Ross, H., Tesla, C., Kenyon, B., & Lollis, S. (1990). Maternal intervention in toddler peer conflict: The socialization of principles of justice. Developmental Psychology, 26, 994­1003. Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Hershey, K. (2000). Stability of temperament in childhood: Laboratory infant assessment to parent report at seven years. In D. L. Molfese & V. J. Molfese (Eds.), Temperament and personality development across the life span (pp. 85­119). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Hastings, P. D. (2002). Stability and social­behavioral consequences of toddlers' inhibited temperament and parenting behaviors. Child Development, 73, 483­495. Rushton, J. P. (1975). Generosity in children: Immediate and long-term effects of modeling, preaching, and moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 459­466. Russell, A., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C. C., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Children's sociable and aggressive behavior with peers: A comparison of the US and Australian, and contributions of temperament and parenting styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 74­86. Sameroff, A. J. (1975). Early influences on development: Fact or fancy? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21, 267­ 294. Scourfield, J., John, B., Martin, N., & McGuffin, P. (2004). The development of prosocial behaviour in children and adolescents: A twin study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 927­935. Smetana, J. G. (1989). Toddlers' social interactions in the context of moral and conventional transgressions in the home. Developmental Psychology, 25, 499­508. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stevenson, H. C. (1997). Managing anger: Protective, proactive, or adaptive racial socialization identity profiles and African-American manhood development. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 16, 35­61. Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004). Children's anger, emotional expressiveness, and empathy: Relations with parents' empathy, emotional expressiveness, and parenting practices. Social Development, 13, 229­ 254. Sturgess, W., Dunn, J., & Davies, L. (2001). Young children's perceptions of their relationships with family members: Links with family setting, friendships, and adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 521­529. Switzer, G., Simmons, R., Dew, M., Regalski, J., & Wang, C. (1995). The effect of a school-based helper program on adolescent self-image, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 429­455. Tremblay, R. E. (2000). The development of aggressive behaviour during childhood: What have we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 129­141. Underwood, M. K. (2002). Sticks and stones and social exclusion: Aggression among girls and boys.
Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology. C. H. Hart & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 533­548). Malden, MA: Blackwell. van der Mark, I. L., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2002). Development of empathy in girls during the second year of life: Associations with parenting, attachment, and temperament. Social Development, 11, 451­468. Volling, B. L., & Belsky, J. (1992). The contribution of mother­child and father­child relationships to the quality of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 63, 1209­1222. Waters, E., Wippman, J., & Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Attachment, positive affect, and competence in the peer group: Two studies in construct validation. Child Development, 50, 821­829. Webster-Stratton, C. H. (1996). Early intervention with videotape modeling: Programs for families of children with oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder. In P. S. Jensen & E. D. Hibbs (Eds.), Psychosocial treatments for child and adolescent disorders: Empirically based strategies for clinical practice (pp. 435­474). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Sociometric status and adjustment in middle school: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 5­28. Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, A. K. (2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195­203. Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Oxford, UK: Harvard University Press. Yarrow, M. R., & Scott, P. M. (1972). Imitation of nurturant and nonnurturant models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 259­270. Yarrow, M. R., Scott, P. M., & Waxler, C. Z. (1973). Learning concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 8, 240­260. Zaff, J. F., Moore, K. A., Papillo, A. R., & Williams, S. (2003). Implications of extracurricular activity participation during adolescence on positive outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 599­630. Zahn-Waxler, C. (2000). The early development of empathy, guilt, and internalization of responsibility: Implications for gender differences in internalizing and externalizing problems. In R. Davidson (Ed.), Wisconsin symposium on emotion: Vol. 1. Anxiety, depression, & emotion (pp. 222­265). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P. D., Welsh, J. D., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Psychophysiological correlates of empathy and prosocial behaviors in preschool children with behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 27­48. Zahn-Waxler, C., & Kochanska, G. (1990). The origins of guilt: Current theory and research in motivation. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 36. Socioemotional development (pp. 183­258). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Zahn-Waxler, C., & Hastings, P. D. (1999). Development of empathy: Adaptive and maladaptive patterns. In W. van Haaften, T. Wren, & A. Tellings (Eds.), Moral sensibilities and education, Vol. I: The preschool child. Bemmel, The Netherlands: Concorde. Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1990). The origins of empathic concern. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 107­130. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. A. (1979). Child rearing and children's prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 50, 319­330. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28, 126­136. Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J. L., & Emde, R. N. (1992). The development of empathy in twins. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1038­1047. Zahn-Waxler, C., Schiro, K., Robinson, J. L., Emde, R. N., & Schmitz, S. (2001). Empathy and prosocial patterns in young MZ and DZ twins: Development and genetic and environmental influences. In J. K. Hewitt & R. N. Emde (Eds.), Infancy to early childhood: Genetic and environmental influences on developmental change (pp. 141­162). London: Oxford University Press. Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S. H., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Cumberland, A. J., & Shepard, S. A. (2002). The relations of parental warmth and positive expressiveness to children's empathy-related responding and social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 893­915.
Copyright © 2007 The Guilford Press. All rights reserved under International Copyright Convention. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, or stored in or introduced into any information storage or retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the written permission of The Guilford Press.
Guilford Publications 72 Spring Street New York, NY 10012 212-431-9800 800-365-7006

File: the-socialization-of-prosocial-development.pdf
Published: Wed Sep 20 22:23:58 2006
Pages: 27
File size: 0.2 Mb

The Case for Christ, 16 pages, 0.2 Mb

, pages, 0 Mb

Master of the Game, 271 pages, 1.09 Mb
Copyright © 2018