IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i22p12017-d680212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Socialisation on Children’s Prosocial Behaviour. A Study on Primary School Students

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Tintori

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Giulia Ciancimino

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Rossella Palomba

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Cristiana Clementi

    (Fondazione Movimento Bambino ONLUS, 00198 Rome, Italy)

  • Loredana Cerbara

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Background: Studying prosociality in children is a complex but relevant issue related to the qualitative development of human interactions. The main objective of the present study is to identify the psychosocial factors that most promote or inhibit the adoption of prosocial behaviours among children. Method: In Spring 2021, a survey was conducted amongst primary school children through a structured paper questionnaire. The data analysis has been carried out through bivariate and multivariate statistical techniques. Path analysis has been used. Results: The results highlight the role played by the parental education level, the perception of positive and negative emotions, the adherence to gender roles and the involvement in cyberbullying actions in predicting prosocial tendencies among children. On the other hand, adopting prosocial behaviours affects the screen-time as well as the devices’ interference in face-to-face interactions and the attitude towards school. Conclusions: The results are relevant and useful for the study of trends in prosocial behaviours among children. Family education level, individual status, peer interactions and social conditionings are variables that highly influence this multidimensional phenomenon. Further research is needed, including the definition of new measures and indicators concerning the context where children live and interact with others, with the aim of designing interventions aimed at facilitating relational well-being of children.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Tintori & Giulia Ciancimino & Rossella Palomba & Cristiana Clementi & Loredana Cerbara, 2021. "The Impact of Socialisation on Children’s Prosocial Behaviour. A Study on Primary School Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12017-:d:680212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12017/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12017/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angerer, Silvia & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Lergetporer, Philipp & Sutter, Matthias, 2015. "Donations, risk attitudes and time preferences: A study on altruism in primary school children," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 67-74.
    2. Martin Korndörfer & Boris Egloff & Stefan C. Schmukle, 2015. "A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior," Working Papers 1601, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    3. Martin Korndörfer & Boris Egloff & Stefan C Schmukle, 2015. "A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-48, July.
    4. Martin Korndörfer & Boris Egloff & Stefan C. Schmukle, 2015. "A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 808, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    5. Muhammad Hussain & Arab Naz & Waseem Khan & Umar Daraz & Qaisar Khan, 2015. "Gender Stereotyping in Family," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440155, July.
    6. James Andreoni & Nikos Nikiforakis & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Loredana Cerbara & Giulia Ciancimino & Antonio Tintori, 2022. "Are We Still a Sexist Society? Primary Socialisation and Adherence to Gender Roles in Childhood," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Antonio Tintori & Giulia Ciancimino & Loredana Cerbara, 2024. "How Screen Time and Social Media Hyperconnection Have Harmed Adolescents’ Relational and Psychological Well-Being since the COVID-19 Pandemic," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yanli Wang & Chao Yang & Yanchi Zhang & Xiaoyong Hu, 2021. "Socioeconomic Status and Prosocial Behavior: The Mediating Roles of Community Identity and Perceived Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Christian T. Elbæk & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Lene Aarøe & Tobias Otterbring, 2023. "Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. He, Ling & Tan, Chee-Seng & Pung, Pit-Wan & Hu, Jie & Tang, Hai-Bo & Cheng, Siew-May, 2023. "The role of parental rejection and poverty in the development of prosocial behavior among left-behind adolescents in rural China," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Shan Zhang & Xinlei Zang & Sainan Zhang & Feng Zhang, 2022. "Social Class Priming Effect on Prosociality: Evidence from Explicit and Implicit Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-9, March.
    5. James Andreoni & Nikos Nikiforakis & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    6. Gereke, Johanna & Schaub, Max & Baldassarri, Delia, 2018. "Ethnic diversity, poverty and social trust in Germany: Evidence from a behavioral measure of trust," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15.
    7. Rockenbach, Bettina & Tonke, Sebastian & Weiss, Arne R., 2021. "Self-serving behavior of the rich causes contagion effects among the poor," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 289-300.
    8. Fehr, Dietmar & Rau, Hannes & Trautmann, Stefan T. & Xu, Yilong, 2020. "Inequality, fairness and social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    9. Ting Wang & Xue Wang & Tonglin Jiang & Shiyao Wang & Zhansheng Chen, 2021. "Under the Threat of an Epidemic: People with Higher Subjective Socioeconomic Status Show More Unethical Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-14, March.
    10. Katarzyna Samson, 2018. "Trust as a mechanism of system justification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Yujie Zhao & Xinyue Zhou, 2022. "Income and geographically constrained generosity," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 766-787, June.
    12. Daria Denti & Alessandra Faggian, 2021. "Where do angry birds tweet? Income inequality and online hate in Italy," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 14(3), pages 483-506.
    13. Elisabeth Gsottbauer & Daniel Müller & Samuel Müller & Stefan T. Trautmann & Galina Zudenkova, 2020. "Social class and (un)ethical behavior: Causal versus correlational evidence," Working Papers 2020-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    14. Elisabeth Gsottbauer & Daniel Müller & Samuel Müller & Stefan T Trautmann & Galina Zudenkova, 2022. "Social Class and (Un)Ethical Behaviour: Causal and Correlational Evidence," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(647), pages 2392-2411.
    15. N Lettinga & P O Jacquet & J-B André & N Baumand & C Chevallier, 2020. "Environmental adversity is associated with lower investment in collective actions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-23, July.
    16. Quan, Sixiang, 2021. "Socioeconomic status and prosocial behaviors among Chinese emerging adults: Sequential mediators of parental warmth and personal belief in a just world," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    17. Suss, Joel H., 2023. "Higher income individuals are more generous when local economic inequality is high," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119632, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. James Andreoni & Nikos Nikiforakis & Jan Stoop, 2017. "Are the Rich More Selfish than the Poor, or Do They Just Have More Money? A Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23229, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Yen-Sheng Chiang & Jacqueline Chen Chen, 2019. "Does Inequality Cause a Difference in Altruism Between the Rich and the Poor? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 73-95, July.
    20. Matías Strehl Pessina, 2022. "Sectores de altos ingresos y preferencias por redistribución," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 22-15, Instituto de Economía - IECON.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12017-:d:680212. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.