INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 1997, 20 (3), 509–527

Child Rearing, Prosocial Moral Reasoning, and

Prosocial Behaviour
Jan M.A.M. Janssens and Maja Deković
University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands

This study examined the relations between child rearing, prosocial moral
reasoning, and prosocial behaviour. The sample consisted of 125 children
(6–11 years of age) and both their parents. Child-rearing behaviour was
assessed by both observations at home and interviews with the parents;
prosocial moral reasoning by interviews with the children, and prosocial
behaviour by questionnaires élled in by their teachers and classmates. Positive
relations were found between prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial
behaviour, but only for the youngest children. Children growing up in a
supportive, authoritative, and less restrictive environment behaved more
prosocially and reasoned at a higher level about prosocial moral issues.

During the last decades many studies have examined the inèuences of child
rearing on child development . In this study, we focus on a child’s prosocial
development. Two aspects of prosocial development were examined:
prosocial behaviour and prosocial moral reasoning.
Prosocial behaviour refers to action on behalf of someone else that
involves a net cost to the actor. Such actions include sharing, comforting or
helping another in distress, and making a donation to someone in need.
Prosocial moral reasoning concerns reasoning about conèicts in which the
individual must choose between satisfying his or her wants and needs and
those of others in a context in which laws, punishments, authorities, formal
obligations, and other external criteria are irrelevant or de-emphasised
(Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979). According to Eisenberg’s theory about
prosocial development (Eisenberg 1982b; Eisenberg & Miller, 1992),
children’s reasoning about prosocial moral conèicts is ordered into éve
developmental stages or orientations, with each stage involving a more
advanced cognitive structure of social concepts than the prior stages. At a
lower level, a child is concerned with self-oriented consequences of

Requests for reprints should be sent to Jan Janssens, Institute of Family Studies, University of
Nijmegen, Postbox 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
This research was supported by a grant of the Dutch Organization for Scientiéc Research.

q 1997 The International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
510 JANSSENS AND DEKOVIĆ

behaviour. At higher levels, a child takes the other’s perspective or includes

internalised values in his/her reasoning.
The érst question addressed in this study concerns the relation between
prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviour. Although relationships
have been found between prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial
behaviour (Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Leiser, 1980; Eisenberg & Shell, 1986; Levin &
Bekerman-Greenberg, 1980; Rubin & Schneider, 1973; for a review see
Eisenberg, 1982b), the correlations found were moderate. Eisenberg
(1982a) suggested a variety of factors that may explain the magnitude of
these relations. First, the relation between prosocial moral reasoning and
prosocial behaviour might change as a function of age. Eisenberg (1987)
suggested that moral action and moral reasoning should become more
consistent with age. On the basis of studies in which it was found that persons
reasoning at higher levels demonstrate higher consistency between
reasoning and behaviour than persons reasoning at lower levels, she
suggested that people reasoning at higher levels may assign more
responsibility to the self for acting in a manner consistent with their choice of
behaviour. On the other hand, Blasi (1980) argued that the decision whether
or not to help depends on a variety of situational factors (e.g. the urgency of
the other’s need, the possible conèict of altruism with other moral
considerations, personal characteristics of the person in need). For older
children, these other situational cues may play a stronger role than merely
the prosocial motive to help. Because of their higher level of sociocognitive
development, older children not only reason at a higher level, but they are
also more capable of considering other situational cues that may impede
them from acting prosocially in a given situation, despite their motivation to
help. Younger children are less capable of considering all situational cues
and, therefore, may be more inclined to react impulsively from their own
directly experienced feelings. Thus, there are competing hypotheses about
the relation between age and the consistency between prosocial reasoning
and behaviour. To test these competing hypotheses, we studied children
from the érst, third, and éfth grades.
Another factor that may explain the magnitude of the relation between
prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviour concerns the domains in
which these two aspects of prosocial development have been assessed.
Eisenberg (1982a) discussed studies in which the situations used to assess
prosocial behaviour were different from those used to assess prosocial moral
reasoning. According to Eisenberg (1982a), cognitions and behaviour are
more closely related when examined in speciéc situations. In our study,
prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviour were examined in the
same domain helping peers.
The second aim of our study was to examine relations between child
rearing and the two aspects of prosocial development , prosocial moral
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
 PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 511

reasoning, and prosocial behaviour. Child rearing appears to play an

important role in the development of prosocial development (Eisenberg &
Mussen, 1989; Hoffman, 1975; Radke-Yarro w, Zahn-Waxler, & Chapman,
1983; Staub, 1979). Speciécally, we examined the relation between prosocial
development and two dimensions of child rearing that have traditionally
been identiéed as basic in parental behaviour, support, and control
(Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Support may be deéned as (Rollins & Thomas,
1979, p. 320): “behaviour manifest by a parent toward a child that makes
the child feel comfortable in the presence of the parent and conérms in the
child’s mind that he is basically accepted and approved as a person by the
parent.” Although it is possible to distinguish theoretically different aspects
of the support dimension, for example, warmth, nurturance, and
responsiveness (Staub, 1979), empirical data indicate that all these aspects
are closely related (Clarke-Stewart, 1973) and that they have a similarly
positive effect on child development (Grusec & Lytton, 1988). Therefore, in
this study parental support was deéned as encompassing warmth,
nurturance, and responsivene ss.
The second dimension of child-rearing behaviour is parental control.
Different relations have been found between parental control and child
outcome, depending on the deénition of control used. In some studies,
negative aspects of control were emphasised. This kind of control, which
Hoffman (1970) labelled “power assertion”, includes behaviour such as
physical punishment, deprivation of privileges and material resources, and
verbal threats. Becker (1964), using the term “restrictiveness”, deéned this
kind of control as strictness in enforcing rules, setting narrow limits on the
child’s behaviour, and frequent use of prohibitions. Baumrind (1971) has
labelled this kind of control “authoritarian child-rearing style”. Parental
control can also be exercised more democratically by using less coercive
methods, for example, by giving explanations of rules, offering reasons for
desired behaviour, pointing out the hurtful implications a child’s actions
hold for others, asking children to perform up to their ability, giving children
the opportunity to make their own decisions, and expecting mature
behaviour and a high level of responsibility.
Both forms of control were investigated in this study. We deéned
“restrictive control” as consisting of punitive control techniques,
directiveness, strictness in enforcing rules, and inhibition of undesirable
behaviour through negative feedback and reprimands. We deéned
“authoritative control” as consisting of encouragem ent towards the
development of independenc e and the use of reasoning and explanations .
It should be noted that, although support and control are theoretically
distinct dimensions of child rearing, empirical éndings indicate that they are
not independent (Dishion, 1990, Patterson & Bank, 1986; Patterson &
Dishion, 1985). Positive relations have been found between parental support
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
512 JANSSENS AND DEKOVIĆ

and authoritative control, and negative relations between these two

child-rearing behaviours and restrictive control (Deković, 1992; Deković &
Janssens, 1992; Janssens & Gerris, 1992). Therefore, it may be more
appropriate to consider child-rearing styles, than to speak about
independent child-rearing dimensions. Based on the relations found
between the three dimensions, child-rearing styles may be situated on a
continuum. At one pole of this continuum is a style characterised by parental
support and authoritative control and little use of restrictive control. At the
other pole is a style characterised by use of restrictive control and less
supportive and authoritative parenting.
With regard to the relation between child rearing and prosocial behaviour,
previous research indicates that there are positive relations between
parental support and prosocial behaviour (Feshbach, 1975; Hoffman, 1975;
Mussen, Rutherford, Harris, & Keasey, 1970; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow,
& King, 1979), positive relations between authoritative control and
prosocial behaviour (Feshbach, 1975; Grusec, 1982; Hoffman, 1975;
Hoffman & Saltzstein, 1967; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979), and negative
relations between restrictive control and prosocial behaviour (Hoffman,
1975). We hypothesised that these relations become stronger with age.
Although no study known to us has addressed this issue, studies which
examined age-related changes in parent-child interaction provide evidence
that parental interaction style changes with the child’s age (Maccoby, 1984).
For example, Kuczynski, Kochanska, Radke-Yarrow, and Girnius-Brown
(1987) found that maternal control strategies are especially likely to change
with the age of the child, with an increase in authoritative strategies, and a
decline in restrictive control. An increase in authoritative control may imply
that older children behave more prosocially. But consistent with this
approach we may hypothesise that the relation between child rearing and
prosocial behaviour is stronger for younger children. When parents are
more restrictive in controlling their younger children, these children would
be more hedonistically oriented and would behave less prosocially.
The evidence with regard to the relation between child rearing and
prosocial moral reasoning is sparse. Eisenberg and Miller (1992) draw some
tentative conclusions about socialisation correlates of prosocial moral
reasoning from the existing literature. Between the ages of 5 and 6 years,
children’s level of prosocial moral reasoning has been associated with
supportive, nonpunitive, nonauthoritarian child-rearing practices. Between
the ages of 7 and 8, relations between children’s level of moral reasoning and
maternal reports of nonrestrictive, nonpunitive child-rearing practices were
relatively weak (Eisenberg, Lennon & Roth, 1983). Between the ages of 9
and 10, these relations were even weaker. On the basis of these éndings,
Eisenberg and Miller (1992) suggested that the strength of the relation
between child rearing and prosocial moral reasoning changes with age.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
 PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 513

Because we selected children from the érst, third, and éfth grade, we were
able to analyse further age-dependen t relations between child rearing and
prosocial moral reasoning.
Most of the studies examining relationships between child rearing and
prosocial development have relied on parental self-reports as a major source
of data about parental behaviour. In order to obtain also more objective
estimates of child rearing in this study, we used two types of measures:
self-reports obtained through interviews; and observations of parental
behaviour.
Finally, another purpose of the present study was to examine the
behaviour of both parents in a family. Previous research has focused mainly
on the mother’s role in children’s prosocial development. A study by
Deković and Janssens (1992) yielded evidence indicating that fathers play an
important role in the child’s development of social competence. Other
studies that involved fathers yielded similar éndings (MacDonald, 1987;
MacDonald & Parke, 1984; Parke et al., 1989; Roopnarine, 1987). On the
other hand, Hart, Wolf, Wozniak, and Burts (1992) found that maternal, but
not paternal, discipline style was related to a child’s prosocial behaviour .
Since there have been few studies to date, it remains unclear how strong the
father’s role is in relation to that of the mother. To address this issue, we
assessed the relations between child rearing and prosocial development for
fathers and mothers separately.

METHOD
Subjects
The sample consisted of 125 families, each with a child attending either the
érst (20 boys and 20 girls), the third (19 boys and 19 girls), or the éfth grade
(24 boys and 23 girls) of an elementary school in the Netherlands. Families
were recruited from 22 elementary schools. In a letter, parents were asked
whether they, and their children, were willing to participate in the study; 125
families answered this letter aférmatively. From these families data were
obtained from all 125 children, 124 mothers, and 113 fathers. The
participating parents were predominantly highly educated; 43% of the
fathers and 30% of the mothers énished vocational college or university,
whereas 33% of the fathers and 42% of the mothers had a degree in
secondary general education or senior vocational training.

Measures
Prosocial Behaviour. We used two measures to assess prosocial
behaviour. The child’s prosocial behaviour was assessed by teachers and by
peers. Teachers may be more likely than peers to report on speciéc aspects
of prosocial behaviour, but they may put more emphasis on a child’s
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
514 JANSSENS AND DEKOVIĆ

interactions with adults than with peers. Peers, on the other hand, have
better access to relevant peer situations but they are, especially in the case of
younger children, only capable of describing the general nature of their
relationship in more global, relational terms, such as “being helpful” (Ladd
& Oden, 1979). As teacher ratings and peer-nominations tend to assess
different aspects of a child’s prosocial behaviour, we included both measures
in this study, so that we were able to examine relations between child rearing
and both types of prosocial behaviour .
First, we asked the teachers of the children to éll in Weir and Duveen’s
Prosocial Behaviour Questionnaire (PBQ) (Weir & Duveen, 1981). This
questionnaire consists of 20 items to be rated on a 6-point scale, according to
how descriptive each item is of a given child. The items included several
examples of interpersonal behaviours (helping, sharing, giving, co-
operating, responding to distress), whose common theme is a concern for
others (e.g. “Will try to help someone who has been hurt”, “Shows sympathy
to someone who has made a mistake”, “Offers to help other children who
are having diféculty with a task in the classroom”). Weir and Duveen
reported several éndings that support the concurrent validity of the PBQ.
The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the PBQ was 0.94. For each
child a mean score was computed. The higher the score, the more prosocial
the child was in the classroom, according to the teacher.
Secondly, we asked all classmates (25–30 children in each classroom) the
following question: “Name three children in your class who helped the most
other children.” For each child, the number of nominations received by
classmates was computed, and then divided by the total number of children
in the class to adjust for variation in the number of classmates. The higher
the score, the more the child was seen as helpful by classmates.
Because the correlation between the two indices of prosocial behaviou r
was modest ( r = .29; P , .05), we did not combine the two measures in a
composite score, thus enabling us to analyse differential effects of child-
rearing patterns on each prosocial behaviour measure.

Prosocial Moral Reasoning. Prosocial moral reasoning was assessed

using three stories developed by Eisenberg-Berg and Hand (1979) (the
birthday party, the swimming contest, the bully). Each of these stories
contained a conèict between the wants, needs, and desires of the story’s
protagonist and those of a needy other. The subjects were interviewed
individually at school, with the order of stories randomised across subjects.
The interviewer read each story to the child using illustrations to clarify the
story content. All stories were about a hypothetical third person of the same
age and sex as the subject. For all stories, the subjects were asked what the
story character should do and why he/she should act in that manner. The
children’s responses were tape-recorded and transcribed.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
 PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 515

First, each child was scored for the number of stories in which he or she
decided to help. Secondly, the level of prosocial moral reasoning was
assessed for each reason given by a subject to help or not to help. Following
Eisenberg’s (1982b) coding scheme, we distinguished between éve levels of
reasoning: the least development ally mature level (level I) is a hedonistic
orientation. At that level, the child is concerned with self-oriented
consequences of behaviour. A higher level (level II) is a “need of others”
orientation, characterised by concern for the physical, material, and
psychological needs of others. At level III (approval and stereotyped
orientation), stereotyped reasons to help or not to help are given, or helping
is governed by considerations of others’ approval. At level IV (empathic
orientation), the child takes the other’s perspective and sympathises with the
other in need. At level V (internalised orientation), reasoning is based on
internalised values. Children’s responses were coded by two independen t
coders. The inter-rater agreement (Cohen’s kappa) was 0.80. For each level,
the frequencies were computed (number of times the child used the type of
reasoning belonging to a particular level across stories). Next, a composite
measure representing the overall level of prosocial moral reasoning was
computed (Eisenberg, 1987; Eisenberg et al., 1983), by multiplying the
number of times the child reasoned at level I by 1 and by multiplying the
number of times a child referred to level II, III, IV, and V by 2, 3, 4, or 5,
respectively. These scores were then summed and divided by the total
number of reasons given by the subject. Thus, for each child a score was
computed representing his/her mean level of prosocial moral reasoning.
Eisenberg (1987) suggested that stronger and more consistent relations
between prosocial behaviour and prosocial moral reasoning may be
obtained by computing correlations between particular behaviours and
speciéc modes (e.g. hedonistic or empathic), rather than a summary index of
reasoning. However, because there were no instances of high-leve l
reasoning in children in the érst grade, and few instances of low-level
reasoning in children in the third and éfth grade, a summary index was used
to assess prosocial moral reasoning in this study. Higher scores on this index
reèected higher levels of reasoning.

Child-rearing Behaviour. Child-rearing behaviour was assessed by

observations and interviews. The interviews with the parents and the
observations of parent-child interaction took place at the subjects’ homes
during a single home visit. First, information regarding the family
background was obtained. After that, the family was observed while
working on social interaction tasks. Following this, each parent was
individually interviewed.
Mothers and fathers were observed while they worked together with the
child on two puzzles: Wiggly-block and Tangram-puzzle. Both puzzles were
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
516 JANSSENS AND DEKOVIĆ

quite difécult for the child to complete alone. Parents were instructed to
provide whatever help they felt their child needed, but they were asked not
to touch the pieces of the puzzle, because the child should do this by himself
or herself. Each of these two tasks lasted until the child completed the
puzzle, or 10 minutes had elapsed. If the child completed both puzzles in less
than 20 minutes, another Tangram-puzzle was presented to ensure that the
observation time for each family was at least 20 minutes.
A tape-recording was made of verbal interaction and later transcribed and
coded. The unit of analysis for coding was a parental utterance directed at
the child. Parental verbal behaviour was coded using the following three
categories (Cohen’s kappa for each category is in parentheses): (1) support
(0.91): offering help, active concern, sympathy, affection, and
encouragement (e.g. “It is good” or “It is difécult, isn’t it?”); (2) authoritative
control (0.88): giving explanations or suggestions, asking questions
stimulating the child about a solution (e.g. “Maybe you should try to énd
corners érst” or “How should the block at the corner look like?”; (3)
restrictive control (0.81): negative commands, restrictions, explicit or implicit
commands, or orders (e.g. “Don’t do that” or “Put it down”).
The frequency of each of these categories of behaviour was computed.
Because parents differed in their total amount of verbalisation during
interaction, the frequencies were then transformed into proportions by
dividing them by the number of utterances. Analysis of the parents’ verbal
behaviour indicated no signiécant differences in the frequencies of the three
categories of behaviour between the two puzzles. Thus, the data from both
tasks were combined in subsequent analyses.
As hypothesised , the three types of child-rearing behaviour were not
independent of each other. We conducted two factor analyses; one on the
three observation measures (support, authoritative control, and restrictive
control) used by mothers, and one on the three observation measures used
by fathers. It was clear from these two factor analyses that in all analyses only
one factor was sufécient to explain the variance of each of the three
measures included in each analysis (57% for the mother measures and 67%
of the father measures). The loadings of support, authoritative control, and
restrictive control were, respectively, 0.65, 0.57, and ≠0.98 for mothers; and
0.69, 0.71, and ≠0.97 for fathers. Based on these results we decided to
compute two factor scores using the regression method (SPSS Reference
Guide, 1990): one for the three observation measures (support,
authoritative control, and restrictive control) of mothers, and one for the
three observation measures of fathers. Factor scores computed with the
regression method have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1.
The higher a parental score on a factor, the more the parental child-rearing
pattern was characterised by parental support, use of authoritative control,
and a low level of restrictive control.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
 PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 517

Following the observation session, individual interviews were conducted

in order to present each parent with 10 hypothetical child-rearing situations
involving failures to act prosocially (e.g. hurting a child, teasing a peer, being
teased). Parents were asked to imagine that the main character of each story
was their own child. Following each story, parents were asked: “What, if
anything, would you do and/or say in such a situation, if your child behaves
this way?” Parents could give more than one response to each situation. The
anticipated strategies were coded using the following categories (Cohen’s
kappa for each category is in parentheses): (1) support (0.93): physical
affection; praising the child; comforting the child; accepting the child’s
offers; and showing understanding for the child’s behaviour (e.g. “I know it
must be difécult for you”); (2) authoritative control (0.79): asking and giving
explanations ; pointing out the consequences of the child’s behaviour for
others; explanations referring to others’ needs or motives; stimulating the
child to take the other’s perspective; stimulating the child to solve the
problem on his/her own, or to think about a solution, or to make a decision;
reminding the child of his/her own or mutually agreed decisions; pointing
out the child’s own responsibility for his/her behaviour; references to social
or moral values and norms (e.g. “You must learn to share with others”);
(3) restrictive control (0.88): isolating or ignoring the child, reprimands,
disapprovals, reproaches, directives, imperatives, physical punishment,
deprivation of privileges, threats of punishment (e.g. “If you do it again, I’ll
hit you”).
Individual scores represented the number of a given type of child-rearing
behaviour expressed as a proportion of the total number of reactions given
across the 10 situations.
As with the observation data, the three indices of child-rearing behaviou r
were not independent of each other. We conducted two factor analyses, one
on the three interview measures (support, authoritative control, and
restrictive control) of mothers, and one on the three interview measures of
fathers. From these two factor analyses it was clear that in all analyses only
one factor was sufécient to explain the variance of each of the three
measures included in each analysis (69% for the mother measures
and 72% of the father measures). The loadings of support, authoritative
control and restrictive control were 0.71, 0.84, and ≠0.92 for mothers; and
0.72, 0.89, and ≠0.92 for fathers, respectively. Based on these results we
decided to compute two factor scores using the regression method (SPSS
Reference Guide, 1990): one for the three interview measures (support,
authoritative control, and restrictive control) of mothers; and one for the
three interview measures of fathers. The higher a parental score on a
factor, the more the parental child-rearing pattern was characterised by
parental support, use of authoritative control, and a low level of restrictive
control.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
518 JANSSENS AND DEKOVIĆ

Because the correlations between the observation factor scores and the
interview factor scores were moderately strong (r = .48, P , .01 for mothers
and r = .51, P , .01 for fathers), we decided not to aggregate scores across
these two methods. Moreover, we wanted to analyse whether relations
between child rearing and prosocial development were of the same
magnitude, regardless of the method of data gathering. Another reason not
to aggregate scores was that fathers’ and mothers’ observation data may be
dependent on each other. Father and mother were observed while working
together with the child; therefore one parent may have inèuenced the other
parent’s behaviour during the tasks. It is impossible to say how many and
what kind of actual utterances might have been obtained while a parent was
observed working with the child alone. Interview measures were obtained
for each parent separately. Not aggregating the scores made it possible to
analyse whether the relation between child rearing and prosocial
development was consistent, regardless of whether the data about child
rearing was obtained from each parent separately, or from a task situation in
which both parents worked with their child. A énal reason not to aggregat e
scores across methods is that the observations assessed different child-
rearing situations rather than the interviews. Whereas interviews focused on
situations in which a child transgressed and parents were expected to
discipline, the observation task presented parents with a situation in which
the child required parental help. Zahn-Waxler et al. (1979) suggested that
this kind of situation may be especially relevant for the development of
prosocial behaviour.

RESULTS
In Table 1, the mean values for each of the measures of children’s prosocial
development are presented for each grade level, as a function of the sex of
the child. In order to examine grade and sex differences in the measures of
prosocial development (prosocial moral reasoning, prosocial behaviou r
according to teachers and classmates, and the number of stories resolved
prosocially), a 3 (grade) ◊ 2 (sex of child) multivariate analysis (MANOVA)
was conducted. This analysis yielded no signiécant main or interaction
effects. We found a signiécant univariate effect of grade level on prosocial
moral reasoning (F = 4.52, P , .05). The mean level of prosocial moral
reasoning for children in the érst grade (M = 1.94) was signiécantly lower
than the mean level for children in the third grade (M = 2.24) (F = 9.11, P ,
.01) and lower than the mean level for children in the éfth grade (M = 2.37)
(F = 10.99, P , .01). The mean level of prosocial moral reasoning for
children in the éfth grade did not signiécantly differ from the mean level for
children in the third grade.
We also found a signiécant univariate effect of sex on the mean number of
Eisenberg stories in which a child said he/she would help ( F = 6.74, P , .05);
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
 PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 519

TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) for Indices of Children’s
Prosocial Development

Indices of Prosocial Development

Prosocial Prosocial Nominated No. of Stories
Moral Behaviour as Most Resolved
Reasoning Teacher Helpful Prosocially
Grade 1
Boys 1.89(0.58 ) 3.92(0.99 ) 0.12(0.11 ) 2.26(0.99 )
Girls 2.02(0.30 ) 4.15(0.76 ) 0.15(0.11 ) 2.57(0.65 )

Grade 3
Boys 2.09(0.61 ) 4.18(0.78 ) 0.21(0.20 ) 2.23(1.01 )
Girls 2.35(0.44 ) 4.57(0.49 ) 0.15(0.13 ) 2.74(0.56 )

Grade 5
Boys 2.29(0.75 ) 4.27(0.77 ) 0.13(0.12 ) 2.59(0.73 )
Girls 2.46(0.71 ) 4.37(0.59 ) 0.18(0.15 ) 2.90(0.31 )

girls said that they would help more often than did the boys. t-Tests revealed
that children in the érst grade were less inclined to say that they would help
other children in the prosocial dilemma stories than children in the éfth
grade (t = 2.19, P , .05). No statistically signiécant differences were found
between children in the érst and third grade, or between children in the third
and éfth grade.
In Table 2 the mean values of the four child-rearing measures
(observation mothers, observation fathers, interview mothers, and interview
fathers), are presented for each grade level, sex of the child, and sex of the
parent. In order to examine the effects of grade level, sex of the child, and sex
of the parent on child rearing, a 3 (grade level) ◊ 2 (sex of child) ◊ 2 (sex of
parent) multivariate analysis (MANOVA) was conducted, with the last

TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) of Child-rearing Measures

Observation Observation Interview Interview

Father Mother Father Mother
Grade 1
Boys 0.04(0.96 ) 0.07(0.91 ) 0.08(1.01 ) ≠0.09(1.03 )
Girls ≠0.08(1.01 ) ≠0.01(1.09 ) 0.24(0.76 ) 0.21(0.62 )

Grade 3
Boys 0.23(0.99 ) 0.20(1.09 ) ≠0.23(0.88 ) ≠0.10(0.82 )
Girls 0.14(1.00 ) ≠0.01(1.10 ) ≠0.03(0.94 ) 0.13(1.05 )

Grade 5
Boys 0.01(0.98 ) 0.13(0.88 ) 0.06(1.17 ) ≠0.02(1.26 )
Girls ≠0.28(1.09 ) ≠0.35(1.00 ) ≠0.13(1.19 ) ≠0.10(1.09 )
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
520 JANSSENS AND DEKOVIĆ

factor being a within-subjects factor. This analysis yielded no signiécant

main or interaction effects. As Table 2 shows, in all groups, the mean factor
scores were close to zero.
Summarising the éndings of these analyses we may say that there were no
effects of grade, sex of child, and sex of parent on child rearing, and that the
effects of grade and sex of child on prosocial development were small.

Relations between Prosocial Moral Reasoning and

Prosocial Behaviour
The érst principal question addressed in this study concerned the relation
between prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviour. We computed
correlations between the indices of prosocial behaviour and prosocial moral
reasoning. For the total sample, it appeared that the two indices of prosocial
behaviour were positively related to the level of prosocial moral reasoning.
The higher that level was, the more prosocial a child, according to his/her
teacher (r = .17, P , .05) and according to classmates (r = .20, P , .05). Next,
partial correlations were computed between prosocial behaviour and
prosocial moral reasoning, partialising out grade level. The correlation
between prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviour according to
teacher disappeared (r = .12, n.s.); the relation between prosocial moral
reasoning and prosocial behaviour according to classmates remained ( r =
.18, P , .05).
In order to examine whether the strength of these relations between
prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviour changed with children’s
age, we computed correlations separately for each grade level. These
correlations are presented in Table 3. Only for children in the érst grade
were strong correlations found between prosocial moral reasoning and
prosocial behaviour. For children in the third and éfth grades, no relation
was found between level of prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial
behaviour.

TABLE 3
Correlations between Prosocial Moral Reasoning and Prosocial
Behaviour

Prosocial Moral Reasoning

Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 5
Prosocial behaviour
according to teacher 0.35* 0.15 ≠0.03
Nominated as
most helpful 0.34* 0.25 0.09
Total number of children 40 38 47
*P , .05.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
 PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 521

Relations between Child Rearing and Prosocial

Development
The second question addressed in this study concerned the relation between
child rearing and the prosocial development of a child. Correlation s were
computed between the indices of child rearing and the indices of prosocial
development. In Table 4, correlations between the indices of parental
behaviour, and the indices of prosocial development , are presented both for
the total sample and the three grade levels separately. Sex of the child was
not included in this table, because the relations found between child rearing
and prosocial development were almost identical for boys and girls. For the
total sample, it appeared that all relations examined between child rearing
and a child’s prosocial development were statistically signiécant. A
supportive, authoritative , and less restrictive child-rearing style was
associated with a higher level of reasoning about prosocial moral dilemmas
and with more prosocial behaviour, whether assessed by teachers or
classmates.

TABLE 4
Correlations between Child-rearing Patterns and Prosocial Development

Prosocial Prosocial Nominated

Moral Behaviour as Most
Reasoning Teacher Helpful
Total sample
Observation mother 0.21* 0.47** 0.35**
Observation father 0.24** 0.43** 0.37**
Interview mother 0.27** 0.45** 0.29**
Interview father 0.23** 0.38** 0.20**

Grade 1
Observation mother 0.46* * 0.53** 0.20
Observation father 0.46** 0.45** 0.20
Interview mother 0.47** 0.48** 0.24
Interview father 0.43** 0.35** 0.13

Grade 3
Observation mother 0.12 0.27 0.42**
Observation father 0.21 0.21 0.45**
Interview mother 0.31* 0.44** 0.28**
Interview father 0.21 0.38* 0.16

Grade 5
Observation mother 0.16 0.58** 0.41**
Observation father 0.19 0.63** 0.42**
Interview mother 0.21 0.50** 0.35**
Interview father 0.24 0.47** 0.30**
* P , .05; ** P , .01.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
522 JANSSENS AND DEKOVIĆ

To examine the effects of age on the strength of the relation between child
rearing and prosocial development , the correlations between child rearing
and the three indices of prosocial development were computed separately
for each age group. These analyses revealed that, according to the teacher,
prosocial behaviour was positively related to child rearing for all age groups.
A supportive, authoritative, and less restrictive environment was positively
associated with the child’s prosocial behaviour according to the teacher.
Secondly, it appeared that the number of nominations as most helpful was
also positively related to child rearing for children in the third and éfth
grade, but not for children in the érst grade. Thirdly, the correlation between
child rearing and the level of prosocial moral reasoning held only for the
children in the érst grade. For children in grade three or éve, nearly no
relation was found between child rearing and the level of prosocial moral
reasoning. The exception is the relation between maternal child rearing as
assessed by the interview method and the level of prosocial moral reasoning
of children in grade 3.

DISCUSSION
In this study, we examined the various relations between child rearing,
prosocial moral reasoning, prosocial behaviour, and age differences in these
relations. For the total sample, we found positive relations between the level
of prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviour. The correlations
found were statistically signiécant, but moderate. This was due to the fact
that the correlations only held for the youngest children (érst grade), and not
for older children (third and éfth grade).
The moderate relation found between prosocial moral reasoning and
prosocial behaviour is in agreement with the éndings of Eisenberg (1982b).
However, the énding that these relations held only for younger children and
not for older children contradicts Eisenberg’s hypothesis that a stronger
relationship between prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviou r
exists in older children. The present éndings may be explained by socially
desirable responses, which may be more pronounced in older than in
younger children. Younger children give more hedonistic reasons for their
decisions than do older children. It is possible that the answers of older
children were inèuenced by the realisation that they were being observed by
an adult interviewer. Younger children may be less conscious of the
presence of an adult during the interview. Their role-taking capacity is less
developed than the role-taking capacity of older children and therefore, they
do not realise that the interviewer may judge particular answers as less
desirable. Older children have already learned not to refer to hedonistic
motives; based on these considerations, it is possible that they have
concealed their egocentric motives to help, or not to help.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
 PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 523

The énding that the relation between prosocial moral reasoning and
prosocial behaviour held only for younger children may also be explained by
the fact that older children are more capable of considering other situational
cues (e.g. the urgency of the other’s need or personal characteristics of the
person in need), that may impede them to act prosocially in spite of their
motivation to help. Younger children are less capable of considering all
situational cues and, therefore, are more inclined to react impulsively. For
example, in the birthday story, they often seemed to be impulsive in saying
they would not help, and often referred to the sweet they would miss by
helping the child in need.
A third possible explanation as to why the relation between prosocial
moral reasoning and prosocial behaviour was found only in younger children
may be that the level of diféculty or cost of the prosocial act proposed in the
Eisenberg dilemmas is generally higher than that in the everyday situations
evaluated by the children’s teachers and peers. It is possible that the younger
children, owing to their lower level of social understanding, discriminate less
between these situations than do older children, who have more elements of
judgement with which to compare the situations and to decide whether to act
prosocially or not. Perhaps if we had conducted an evaluation of real
prosocial behaviour in difécult or costly situations we might have found a
greater relation between prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviou r
in the older age groups. Eisenberg and Shell (1986) suggested the possibility
that whereas advanced moral reasoning acts as a motivational force for
prosocial behaviour in especially difécult or costly situations, it is possible to
act more automatically in daily situations, when not so much diféculty is
involved, and therefore advanced moral reasoning is less of a factor.
For the total sample, we found that supportive, authoritative , and less
restrictive child rearing were positively associated both with reasoning about
prosocial moral dilemmas at a higher level and with more prosocial
behaviour, according to teachers and classmates. These relations were also
found by Eisenberg et al. (1983). Why may there be these relations between
child rearing and prosocial development ? With regard to the potential
inèuence of parental support, Hoffman (1963) suggested that support makes
the child feel secure and minimises self-concern; because it is not necessary
to worry about his or her own needs, the child has the opportunity to
consider the needs of others. As far as the positive correlation between
authoritative control and prosocial behaviour is concerned, Hoffman (1983)
has emphasised the positive inèuence of induction. According to Hoffman
and Saltzstein (1967), induction motivates the child to pay attention to the
victim’s harm and/or distress. The realisation that the child himself or herself
is the cause of that harm or distress evokes an empathic response in the child.
The child empathises with the victim and is motivated to repair the harm or
to relieve the distress. Baumrind (1971) and Maccoby and Martin (1983)
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
524 JANSSENS AND DEKOVIĆ

suggested that demandingness would be very important for the child’s

prosocial development , because by pointing out the social norms a parent
directly teaches a child about “right” and “wrong” in social relationships. A
negative effect of restrictive control on prosocial development was
explained by Hoffman and Saltzstein (1967) through referring to the anger
and fear evoked in a child by restrictive control; for example, after a child has
transgressed a norm. As a result, the child does not focus on the victim’s
harm or distress, but on the negative consequenc es the transgression has for
himself or herself. Therefore, power assertion may promote an egoistic
rather than a prosocial attitude.
Only for younger children were relations found between child rearing and
the level of prosocial moral reasoning. Children growing up in a supportive,
authoritative, and less restrictive environment reasoned at a higher level
about prosocial moral dilemmas than did children reared by a restrictive,
less supportive, and less authoritative parent. Perhaps younger children’s
reasoning about prosocial moral dilemmas does not depend on many cues;
they are inclined to refer directly to behaviour and motives they have
learned at home. A strong hedonistic orientation may be associated with less
supportive and more restrictive parental behaviour, whereas a more
altruistic orientation may be induced by supportive and authoritative
child-rearing behaviour. Perhaps older children are less inclined than
younger children to refer to parental ideas about helping, when asked to
react on hypothetical situations. For these children, a reaction to a prosocial
moral dilemma may depend on more factors than the values and norms
taught by parents. It may be for these reasons that the relation between child
rearing and level of prosocial moral reasoning was found only for younger
children.
For younger children, the number of nominations as most helpful was not
related to child-rearing patterns. This énding may be explained by the fact
that younger children do not help each other in the classroom as much as
older children do. In the Netherlands, children in the third and éfth grade
work together on cognitive tasks more often than younger children and that
may increase co-operation between classmates. Moreover, younger children
probably do not know each other as well as their older peers do, who have
supposedly been together longer.
Children’s age seems a more important moderating variable than the sex
of a child. In this study, no relation was found between the sex of a child and
parental behaviour; neither was it found that the relations between child
rearing and prosocial development were dependent on the sex of children.
In this study, both paternal and maternal child-rearing behaviour were
assessed through interviews and observations. In the past, relations between
child rearing and prosocial development have been studied only for mothers
and only using self-report measures. In this study we found that the
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
 PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 525

relationships between child rearing and prosocial development held for both
fathers and mothers, and held whether child rearing was assessed by
interviews or by observations.
With regard to the conceptualisation of child rearing, it must be noted that
the three dimensions of child rearing distinguished in this study were not
independent. Positive relations were found between parental support and
authoritative control, and negative relations were found between these two
child-rearing behaviours and restrictive control. In future, we need more
studies in which patterns of child rearing are related to child development,
instead of studies in which relations are examined between separate aspects
of child rearing and child development .
An issue in correlational studies such as this is the problem of the direction
of inèuence. This study examined concurrent relations between child
rearing and prosocial development, and therefore cannot directly support
any conclusions about causality. The parent-child relationship is probably
best described by a reciprocal-inèuence model (Bell & Harper, 1977), in
which both parent and child are active participants and processors of each
other’s input. Child rearing may inèuence the child’s prosocial development,
but the child’s level of prosocial development also affects the way in which
the parent interacts with the child.

Manuscript received January 1993

Revised manuscript received July 1995

REFERENCES
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Leiser, T. (1980). The development of altruistic behavior:
Empirical evidence. Developmental Psychology, 16 , 516–524.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monograph , 4 (Pt. 2), 1–103.
Becker, W.C. (1964). Consequences of parental discipline. In M.L. Hoffman & L.W.
Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 1, pp. 169–208). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Bell, R., & Harper, L. (1977). Child effects on adults. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc.
Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the
literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88 , 1–45.
Clarke-Stewart, A. (1973). Interactions between mothers and their young children:
Characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development , 38 (6–7), Serial No. 153, 1–109.
Deković, M. (1992). The role of parents in the development of child’s peer acceptance. Assen:
Van Gorcum.
Deković, M., & Janssens, J.M.A.M. (1992). Parents’ child-rearing style and child’s
sociometric status. Developmental Psychology , 28 , 925–932.
Dishion, T.J. (1990). The family ecology of boys’ peer relations in middle childhood. Child
Development 71, 874–892.
Eisenberg, N. (1982a) . Introduction. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial
behavior (pp. 1–21). New York: Academic Press.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
526 JANSSENS AND DEKOVIĆ

Eisenberg, N. (1982b). The development of reasoning regarding prosocial behavior. In N.

Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 219–249). New York:
Academic Press.
Eisenberg, N. (1987). The relation of altruism and other moral behaviors to moral cognition:
Methodological and conceptual issues. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Contemporary topics in
developmental psychology (pp. 165–189). New York: Wiley.
Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. (1979). The relationship of preschoolers’ reasoning about
prosocial moral conèicts to prosocial behavior. Child Development, 50, 356–363.
Eisenberg, N., Lennon, R., & Roth, K. (1983). Prosocial development: a longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 19 , 846–855.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P.A. (1992). The development of prosocial moral reasoning in
childhood and mid-adolescence. In J.M.A.M. Janssens & J.R.M. Gerris (Eds.), Child
rearing: inèuence on prosocial and moral development (pp.31–56). Amsterdam: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Shell, R. (1986). Prosocial moral judgment and behaviour in children: The
mediating role of the cost. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 426–436.
Feshbach, N.D. (1975). The relationship of child-rearing factors to children’s aggression,
empathy and related positive and negative social behavior. In J. de Wit & W.W. Hartup
(Eds.), Determinants and origins of aggressive behavior (pp. 427–436). The Hague: Mouton.
Grusec, J.E. (1982). The socialization of altruism. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of
prosocial behavior (pp. 139–165). New York: Academic Press.
Grusec, J.E., & Lytton, H. (1988). Social Development. History, theory and research. New
York: Springer.
Hart, C.H., De Wolf, D.M., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D.C. (1992). Maternal and paternal
disciplinary style: Relations with preschooler’s playground behavioral orientations and peer
status. Child Development, 63 , 879–892.
Hoffman, M.L. (1963). Parent discipline and the child’s consideration for others. Child
Development , 34 , 573–588.
Hoffman, M.L. (1970). Moral development. In H.P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s handbook
of child psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 261–359). New York: Wiley.
Hoffman, M.L. (1975). Altruistic behavior and the parent–child relationship. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology , 11, 937–943.
Hoffman, M.L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes in moral internalization. In E.T.
Higgins, D.N. Ruble, & W.W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development: A
sociocultural perspective (pp. 236–274). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, M.L., & Saltzstein, H.D. (1967). Parent discipline and the child’s moral
development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 5 , 45–57.
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: inèuence on
prosocial and moral development (pp. 57–77). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke-Yarrow, M., & Girnius-Brown, O. (1987). A
developmental interpretation of young children’s noncompliance. Developmental
Psychology, 23 , 799–806.
Ladd, G.W., & Oden, S. (1979). The relationship between peer acceptance and children’s
ideas about helpfulness. Child Development , 50, 402–408.
Levin, J., & Bekerman-Greenberg, R. (1980). Moral judgment and moral reasoning in
sharing: A developmental analysis. Genetic Psychological Monographs, 101, 215–230.
Maccoby, E.E. (1984). Socialization and developmental change. Child Development, 55,
317–328.
Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
 PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 527

interaction. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization,

personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.
MacDonald, K. (1987). Parent–child physical play with rejected, neglected, and popular
boys. Developmental Psychology, 23 , 705–711.
MacDonald, K., & Parke, R.D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent–child play interaction and
peer interactive competence. Child Development, 55, 1265–1277.
Mussen, P.H., Rutherford, E., Harris, S., & Keasey, C.B. (1970). Honesty and altruism
among preadolescents. Developmental Psychology , 3 , 169–194.
Parke, R.D., MacDonald, K.B., Burks, V.M., Carson, J., Bhavnagri, N., Barth, J.M., & Beitel,
A. (1989). Family and peer systems: In search of the linkages. In K. Kreppner & R.M.
Lerner (Eds.), Family systems and life-span development (pp. 65–92). New Jersey: Wiley.
Patterson, G.R., & Bank, L. (1986). Bootstrapping your way in the nomological thicket.
Behavioral Assessment, 4, 49–73.
Patterson, G.R., & Dishion, T.J. (1985). Contributions of families and peers to delinquency.
Criminology , 23, 63–79.
Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M. (1983). Children’s prosocial
disposition and behavior. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2.
Infancy and developmental psychobiology (pp. 469–545). New York: Wiley.
Rollins, B.C., & Thomas, D.L. (1979). Parental support, power and control techniques in the
socialization of children. In W.R. Burr, R. Hill, F.I. Nye, & I.L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary
theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 317–364). London: Free Press.
Roopnarine, J.L. (1987). Social interaction in the peer group: Relationship to perceptions of
parenting and to children’s interpersonal awareness and problem-solving ability. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology , 8 , 351–362.
Rubin, K.H., & Schneider, F.W. (1973). The relationship between moral judgment,
egocentrism, and altruistic behavior. Child Development, 44 , 661–665.
SPSS Reference Guide (1990). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Staub, E. (1979). Positive social behavior and morality: Socialization and development (Vol.
2). New York: Academic Press.
Weir, K., & Duveen, G. (1981). Further developmen t and validation of the Prosocial
Behaviour Questionnaire for use by teachers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
22, 357–374.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. (1979). Child rearing and children’s
prosocial initiations towards victims of distress. Child Development, 50 , 319–330.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

View publication stats