Do Self Esteem and Family Relations Predict Prosocial Behaviour and Social Adjustment of Fresh Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the studies about prosocial behaviour and adolescent adjustment focus on some personality factors or peer group influence as separate sources of influence and do not take into account some important variables like self esteem and family relations. The aim of this paper is therefore to analyse the relationship between self esteem and family relations of a sample of Nigerian undergraduates as indicated by their prosocial behaviour and social adjustment. To achieve this, 294 fresh students who have spent at least 30 weeks in the university were randomly selected (using cross-sectional sampling method) from both Ambrose Alli and Adekunle Ajasin universities in Nigeria. Out of these were 161 (54.8%) males while 133 (45.2%) were females. Two hypotheses were stated and tested. Results revealed that self esteem and family relations independently predicted prosocial behaviour. Their joint prediction of prosocial behaviour was also significant [R2= .279, t = 9.07; p < .01]. Analysis of the second hypothesis also revealed that self-esteem independently predicted social adjustment but family relations did not predict social adjustment significantly. However, self-esteem and family relation jointly predicted social adjustment [R2= .384, t = 7.972; p < .01]. It was recommended that efforts to boost the new students’ self-esteem should not be spared and the relationship between family members should be cordial so as improve the level of prosocial behavior and social adjustment of individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".