Parenting and prosocial behaviors: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ascertaining whether and the extent to which different aspects of parenting are associated with prosocial behaviors could inform parenting programs in cultivating healthy development. Multilevel meta‐analyses ( k = 124) involving children and adolescents were conducted to examine associations between parenting and prosocial behaviors while accounting for demographic and study characteristics. Authoritative parenting ( r = .174, p < .001) was associated positively whereas authoritarian parenting ( r = −.107, p < .001) was associated negatively with prosocial behaviors. These associations remained robust across infancy, childhood, and adolescence in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. These associations also were invariant across child and parent gender. Moderating effects relevant to the type of prosocial behaviors under examination were identified. Authoritative parenting was associated positively with general, public, emotional, anonymous, dire, compliant, and other specific types of prosocial behaviors (e.g., sharing), but associated negatively with altruistic prosocial behaviors. Authoritarian parenting was associated negatively with general and altruistic prosocial behaviors, but not other specific types. Moderating effects relevant to study design and informant of parenting were found. No moderating effects were identified for the informant and target of prosocial behaviors. Associations of permissive (r = −.096, p < .01) and neglecting parenting ( r = −.054, p = .543) remain unclear due to insufficient number of studies and publication biases. Implications for theories, research, and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".