A Bioecological Lens: Promotive And Protective Effects On Early Adolescent Prosocial Behavior

The bioecological model, developed by Bronfenbrenner, views child development as influenced by multiple interacting systems surrounding the child.

Microsystems are particularly crucial as they represent the child’s most immediate and direct interactions, such as family, school, and peer groups.

These environments profoundly shape a child’s development through daily interactions, relationships, and experiences.

Within microsystems, children learn social skills, develop emotional bonds, and form their initial understanding of the world.

The quality of these interactions can significantly influence a child’s cognitive, social, and emotional development, making microsystems a primary focus for understanding and promoting positive child outcomes.

Bates, E. J., Berny, L. M., Ganiban, J. M., Natsuaki, M. N., Neiderhiser, J. M., Shaw, D. S., & Leve, L. D. (2023). Examination of promotive and protective effects on early adolescent prosocial behavior through a bioecological lens. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1280346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1280346

Key Points

• Parental warmth at age 7 was found to have a significant promotive effect on children’s prosocial behavior at age 11, even when controlling for other bioecological factors and risk factors.
• Parental warmth had a protective effect against prenatal substance use on prosocial behavior, but only for children raised in biological families, not adoptive families.
• Biological family internalizing behavior problems were associated with lower prosocial behavior in children at age 11.
• Children in adoptive households showed higher levels of prosocial behavior compared to those in biological households.
• Biological households had significantly lower levels of neighborhood involvement, financial security, and neighborhood safety compared to adoptive households.
• The study highlights the importance of considering multiple levels of a child’s bioecological system in understanding prosocial behavior development.
• While informative, the study had limitations such as a relatively homogeneous sample and reliance on self-reported measures for some variables.
• Understanding factors that promote prosocial behavior in children has universal relevance, as prosocial behavior is associated with positive outcomes across various domains of life.

Rationale

Prosocial behavior, which includes cooperation, helping others, and kindness, has been associated with numerous positive developmental and behavioral outcomes in adolescence and adulthood (Eisenberg et al., 2006).

Understanding the factors that contribute to the development of prosocial behavior is crucial for promoting positive youth development.

Previous research has highlighted the importance of considering both biological and environmental influences on prosocial behavior development (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Boyce et al., 2021).

The current study aimed to extend this understanding by examining prosocial behavior through a bioecological lens, considering factors at multiple levels of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007).

By including variables from the individual, microsystem, exosystem, and macrosystem levels, as well as considering biological family psychopathology and prenatal substance use as risk factors, this study sought to provide a comprehensive examination of promotive and protective effects on early adolescent prosocial behavior.

Furthermore, the study’s unique design, which included both adopted children and their biological siblings raised by birth parents, allowed for a more nuanced exploration of genetic and environmental influences on prosocial behavior development.

This approach addresses a gap in previous research by disentangling genetic and environmental contributions to prosocial behavior in different rearing contexts.

Method

Procedure

The study utilized a longitudinal design, collecting data from participants at ages 7 and 11. Data were collected through online questionnaires and phone interviews.

The dependent variable (prosocial behavior) was self-reported by children at age 11, while predictor variables were collected at age 7 and reported by rearing parents or trained interviewers.

Sample

The analytic sample included 466 children who completed a prosocial behavior questionnaire at age 11.

Of these, 83% (n = 386) lived with non-genetically related adoptive parents, and 17% (n = 80) lived with at least one biological parent.

The sample was predominantly White Non-Hispanic (56.7%), with 23.0% identifying as multiple races, 13.1% as Black, and 7.3% as some other race or ethnicity.

Measures

1. Prosocial Behavior: Measured using the Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at age 11.
2. Positive Affectivity: Assessed using the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire at age 7.
3. Parental Warmth: Measured using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales at age 7.
4. Neighborhood Involvement: Assessed using one item from the Dumisha Social Support Scale at age 7.
5. Neighborhood Safety: Evaluated by trained data collectors using an observational measure at age 7.
6. Religious/Spiritual Affiliation: Self-reported by parents at age 7.
7. Financial Security: Assessed using the Family Financial Questionnaire at age 7.
8. Biological Family Psychopathology: Indexed by composite measures of birth parent and birth family characteristics.
9. Prenatal Substance Use: Operationalized as a binary variable based on a perinatal risk index.

Statistical Measures

The study employed multiple regression analyses to examine the effects of potential promotive and protective factors on prosocial behaviors at age 11.

Interaction terms were used to test for protective effects and differences across household types. Missing data were handled through multiple imputation using chained equations.

Results

• Hypothesis 1: Parental warmth at age 7 had a significant promotive effect on prosocial behavior at age 11 (b = 0.07, p = 0.016).
• Hypothesis 2: No significant protective effects of parental warmth were found for the full sample.
• Hypothesis 3: The effect of parental warmth on the relationship between prenatal substance use and child prosocial behavior significantly differed by household type (b = -0.30, p = 0.025). Parental warmth had a protective effect against prenatal substance use in biological households but not in adoptive households.
• Hypothesis 4: Biological households had significantly lower levels of neighborhood involvement, financial security, and neighborhood safety compared to adoptive households. Children in biological families also showed lower levels of prosocial behavior at both age 7 and age 11.

Additional findings:

• Biological family internalizing behavior was significantly associated with lower child prosocial behavior (b = -0.17, p = 0.008).
• Children in adoptive homes reported significantly higher prosocial behavior than those in biological homes (b = 0.80, p = 0.010).

Insight

This study provides valuable insights into the complex interplay of factors influencing prosocial behavior development in early adolescence.

The finding that parental warmth consistently promotes prosocial behavior, even when accounting for various other factors, underscores the crucial role of positive parenting in shaping children’s social development.

This aligns with previous research highlighting the importance of warm, supportive parenting in fostering prosocial tendencies (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Padilla-Walker et al., 2018).

The differential effect of parental warmth in biological versus adoptive families in the context of prenatal substance use is particularly intriguing.

This finding suggests that the protective role of parental warmth may be more pronounced in environments where children face additional risks or challenges. It also highlights the complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors in shaping child outcomes.

The study extends previous research by employing a comprehensive bioecological approach, considering factors at multiple levels of influence.

This holistic perspective provides a more nuanced understanding of prosocial behavior development and emphasizes the need to consider both individual and contextual factors in future research and interventions.

Future research could further explore the mechanisms through which parental warmth influences prosocial behavior, particularly in different family contexts.

Additionally, longitudinal studies examining the stability of these effects into later adolescence and adulthood would be valuable.

Investigating potential cultural variations in the influence of parental warmth and other bioecological factors on prosocial behavior could also provide important insights.

Strengths

This study had several methodological strengths, including:

1. Longitudinal design allowing for examination of predictive relationships over time.
2. Inclusion of both adopted children and their biological siblings, enabling exploration of genetic and environmental influences.
3. Comprehensive assessment of factors across multiple levels of the bioecological model.
4. Use of validated measures for most constructs.
5. Consideration of both promotive and protective effects on prosocial behavior.
6. Sophisticated statistical analyses, including handling of missing data and testing for interaction effects.

Limitations

This study also had several methodological limitations, including:

1. Relatively homogeneous sample in terms of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, limiting generalizability to more diverse populations.
2. Reliance on self-reported measures for some variables, which may be subject to bias.
3. Unequal sample sizes between adoptive and biological families, potentially affecting statistical power for some comparisons.
4. Limited assessment of cultural factors that may influence prosocial behavior development.
5. Focus on a specific age range (7-11 years), which may not capture earlier developmental influences or later adolescent outcomes.
6. Inability to fully disentangle genetic and environmental influences due to the study design.

These limitations suggest caution in generalizing findings to more diverse populations or across different developmental periods.

They also highlight the need for future research using more diverse samples and additional methodologies to corroborate and extend these findings.

Implications

The findings of this study have significant implications for understanding and promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence.

The consistent positive effect of parental warmth on prosocial behavior underscores the importance of supporting positive parenting practices, particularly in contexts where children may face additional risks or challenges.

For clinical psychology practice, these results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing parental warmth could be particularly beneficial for promoting prosocial behavior in children, especially in families facing adversity such as prenatal substance use.

The differential effects observed in biological versus adoptive families also highlight the need for tailored interventions that consider the specific family context and potential genetic influences.

The study’s findings regarding the lower levels of neighborhood involvement, financial security, and neighborhood safety in biological households compared to adoptive households point to broader socioeconomic factors that may influence prosocial behavior development.

This suggests that comprehensive interventions addressing both family-level and community-level factors may be most effective in promoting positive youth development.

For policymakers, these results emphasize the importance of supporting programs that enhance parenting skills, particularly those focused on promoting warm, responsive parenting.

Additionally, efforts to address broader community factors such as neighborhood safety and financial security may indirectly support prosocial behavior development in children.

Educators and youth workers should be aware of the potential impact of family context on prosocial behavior and may need to provide additional support or interventions for children from more challenging family backgrounds.

The influence of variables such as biological family psychopathology and prenatal substance use on prosocial behavior highlights the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors in child development.

This underscores the need for a nuanced, individualized approach in both research and practice when addressing prosocial behavior in children and adolescents.

References

Primary reference

Bates, E. J., Berny, L. M., Ganiban, J. M., Natsuaki, M. N., Neiderhiser, J. M., Shaw, D. S., & Leve, L. D. (2023). Examination of promotive and protective effects on early adolescent prosocial behavior through a bioecological lens. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1280346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1280346

Other references

Boyce, W. T., Levitt, P., Martinez, F. D., McEwen, B. S., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2021). Genes, environments, and time: the biology of adversity and resilience. Pediatrics, 147(2). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-1651

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioecological model of human development. Handbook of child psychology, 1.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 646–718). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Padilla‐Walker, L. M., Carlo, G., & Memmott‐Elison, M. K. (2018). Longitudinal change in adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of research on adolescence, 28(3), 698-710. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12362

Keep Learning

Socratic questions for a college class to discuss this paper:

1. How might the findings of this study inform the development of parenting interventions aimed at promoting prosocial behavior in children?
2. What are the potential implications of the differential effects of parental warmth in biological versus adoptive families? How might this inform our understanding of gene-environment interactions in child development?
3. How do the socioeconomic differences observed between adoptive and biological families in this study relate to broader societal issues of inequality and child development?
4. Given the limitations of the study’s sample, how might the findings differ if replicated with a more diverse population? What additional factors should be considered?
5. How does this study’s bioecological approach enhance our understanding of prosocial behavior development compared to previous research focusing on fewer contextual levels?
6. What ethical considerations should be taken into account when conducting and interpreting research that compares outcomes between adopted and non-adopted children?
7. How might the findings of this study inform policy decisions related to family support, adoption, and early childhood intervention programs?
8. In what ways could future research build upon this study to further disentangle the genetic and environmental influences on prosocial behavior development?
9. How might cultural differences in parenting practices and values influence the relationship between parental warmth and prosocial behavior observed in this study?
10. What are the potential long-term implications of early prosocial behavior development for individual and societal outcomes? How might this inform early intervention strategies?