Social Predictors of Prosocial Behavior Among Filipino Adolescent College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prosocial behavior is an important developmental outcome in adolescence, yet studies in the Filipino context are limited, particularly in understanding the role of social factors. This study aimed to examine how empathy, moral reasoning, and social influences from parents, peers, and school predict prosocial behavior among Filipino adolescent college students. Using a descriptive-correlational design, data were collected from 100 participants aged 18–21 years through standardized online questionnaires: Prosocialness Scale for Adults, Toronto Empathy Questionnaire, Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (moral reasoning), Parent–Adult Child Relationship Questionnaire, Peer Relationships Scale, and Positive Youth Development Scale. Results indicated high levels of moral reasoning (M=125.0, SD=13.5) and empathy (M=47.7, SD=8.2), while scores for parental influence (M=53.3, SD=11.3), peer relationships (M=15.6, SD=2.5), school environment (M=83.5, SD=14.8), and prosocial behavior (M=65.3, SD=9.7) were moderate. Correlation analysis revealed significant positive associations between prosocial behavior and moral reasoning (r=0.49, p<0.01), empathy (r=0.29, p<0.01), parental influence (r=0.32, p<0.01), and school environment (r=0.43, p<0.01), with no significant correlation for peer influence. Multiple regression analysis indicated moral reasoning (β=0.33, p<0.05) as the strongest predictor, accounting for 23.9% of variance in prosocial behavior (F[5,74]=5.96, p<0.001). This suggests that, within this Filipino adolescent group, internalized moral values are more pivotal in shaping prosocial behavior compared to empathy or external social influences. These findings underline the importance of designing culturally responsive programs that specifically enhance moral reasoning to foster prosocial behaviors among Filipino adolescents effectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".