hira.hope.ac.ukhira.hope.ac.uk/id/eprint/983/1/(785834269) joa13-360r1... · web viewcivic...

Running Head: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, PROSOCIALITY, AND FAMILY DYNAMICS

1

Title: Trajectories of Prosocial Behaviors Conducive to Civic Outcomes during the Transition toAdulthood: The Predictive Role of Family Dynamics

Article Type: Special Issue: TransAduMediteranean-EARA

Keywords: prosocial behavior; filial self-efficacy; parental support; civic engagement; transition to adulthood; latent class growth analysis.

Corresponding Author: Dr. Bernadette Paula Luengo Kanacri,

Ph.D. Corresponding Author's Institution: 'Sapienza' University of

Rome First Author: Bernadette Paula Luengo Kanacri, PhD

Order of Authors: Bernadette Paula Luengo Kanacri, PhD; Concetta Pastorelli, PhD; Antonio Zuffianò; Nancy Eisenberg, PhD; Rosalba Ceravolo; Gian Vittorio Caprara, PhD

Manuscript Region of Origin: ITALY

Abstract: The current study explored the prediction of civic engagement by diverse trajectories of prosocial behaviors as well family dynamics (i.e., filial self-efficacy and relational parent-child support) across four times of assessment (from age 16-17 to age 22-23) during the transition to adulthood. Three different trajectories of prosocial behaviors were identified for 686 Italian youths: high- increasing (18%), medium-stable (48%), and low-stable (34%). An increasing pattern of change in prosocial behaviors was predicted by filial self-efficacy at age 16-17, which in turn mediatedlongitudinal relations to civic engagement and civic values at age 22-23. Results highlighted that during the transition to adulthood youths' beliefs about their ability to negotiate with their parents without losing autonomy and relatedness are relevant in promoting prosocial behaviors and civic involvement, especially in the context of Mediterranean countries.

© 2015. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Running Head: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, PROSOCIALITY, AND FAMILY DYNAMICS

1

Revision Notes

*Title Page (including author details)

Running head: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, PROSOCIALITY, AND FAMILY DYNAMICS 1

Trajectories of Prosocial Behaviors Conducive to Civic Outcomes

during the Transition to Adulthood: The

Predictive Role of Family Dynamics

Bernadette P. Luengo Kanacri1, Concetta Pastorelli1, Antonio Zuffianò2,Nancy Eisenberg3, Rosalba

Ceravolo2, Gian Vittorio Caprara1

1 Psychology Department, Sapienza University of Rome

2 Interuniversity Center for Research on Development of Prosocial and Antisocial Motivations,

Sapienza University of Rome

3 Department of Psychology, Arizona State University

Author Note

This research was partially supported by grants from the Spencer Foundation and W. T. Grant

Foundation to Albert Bandura, from the Italian Ministry of Education University and Research

(COFIN: 1998; 2000), and from the University of Rome ‘‘La Sapienza’’ to Gian Vittorio Caprara.

Correspondence should be addressed to Bernadette Paula Luengo Kanacri, Sapienza University of

Rome, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Roma (Italy). E-mail: p a ula.lu e n g o@unir o ma1.it

4

*Manuscript (without author details)Click here to view linked References

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, PROSOCIALITY, AND FAMILY DYNAMICS1

Trajectories of Prosocial Behaviors Conducive to Civic Outcomes

during the Transition to Adulthood: The

Predictive Role of Family Dynamics

Understanding the predictors of civic engagement is becoming a relevant task in

the agenda of developmental psychologists (e.g., Flanagan, Beyers, & Zukauskien, 2012;

Marzana, Marta, & Pozzi, 2012; Sherrod, Torney-Purta, & Flanagan, 2010; Youniss, et

al., 2002). Examining the relative contribution of family dynamics to the development of

civic commitment and values may elucidate the way these contextual influences operate

through the course of youth development. However, little research has examined

different routes to civic involvement or identified the developmental processes through

which family and parental influences are effective. Some scholars have argued that

adolescents who feel more connected to parents may come to feel more connected to the

community, leading to greater civic involvement (Smetana & Metzger, 2005; Flanagan

& Faison, 2001). Parents may also serve as models of civic action or may provide

children with opportunities to behave prosocially—e. g., to benefit others by helping,

caring, sharing (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). However, how family relationships

influence prosocial development during the life transition to adulthood and how these

behaviors might affect young adults’ civic outcomes merits further investigation. The

present study focuses on how family dynamics and different patterns of prosocial

behavior from adolescence (age 16–17) to young adult age (age 22–23) are conducive to

young adults’ civic engagement and civic values.

We studied youths living in Italy, a country where, as with some other south European

countries, the majority of young adults (age 18–25) still live at home. This prolonged

5

cohabitation probably results in closer parent-child interactions than in places where young

adults live independently (Scabini, Marta, & Lanz, 2006). In investigating family dynamics

6


during the transition to adulthood, we relied on the theoretical arguments proposed by

scholars (e.g., Collins & Laursen, 2006; Kuczynski, 2003) who argue for the importance

of assessing the agentic role youth may have in parent-child relationships, as well as the

role of parent-child support. Accordingly, in the current study, family dynamics were

studied through two main dimensions: the youths’ active role in promoting balanced

power and emotional relationships with parents—i.e., filial self-efficacy (Caprara,

Pastorelli, Regalia, Scabini, & Bandura, 2005)—and mutual youth-parent perceived

acceptance, responsiveness, and involvement (e.g., Scabini, Lanz, & Marta, 1999).

Emerging Adulthood in Italy: The Role of Family

There is now abundant literature exploring how young adults face emerging

adulthood, a phase of human development that occurs between the ages of 18 and 25 (see

Arnett, 2000) in which they postpone the acquisition of traditional adult roles such as full-

time jobs, marriage, and parenting. When compared to other European countries, Italy

presents a distinctive pattern, defined as ―the Italian latest-late‖ (Billari & Tabellini, 2010),

even in comparison to other Mediterranean countries that share a similar pattern. Recently,

Italian young adults have married on average at around age 35 (men) and 31 (women)

(Istituto Italiano di Statistica, 2012) whereas the mean age to become a parent is 31-32

for motherhood (Ammaniti, 2013) and 35 for fatherhood (Santamaria, 2011). Italy has

the highest percentage of youths (age 15–24) who are financially dependent on their parents

(74%) compared to Greece, Spain, and Portugal (71%, 67%, and 54%, respectively) as well

as northern European countries (e.g., 19% in Denmark and 39% in Sweden) (Billari &

Tabellini, 2010).

Despite these economic constraints, parental attitudes in Italy seem to encourage

grown children staying at home , and parent-child co-residence is positively associated with

parental happiness in Italy (the highest), Spain, and Portugal while it is negatively associated


in other European countries (Billari & Rosina, 2005). Moreover, Italian youths exhibited the

highest rate of happiness in terms of living with their parents (Billari & Tabellini, 2010).

Because several studies have stressed that satisfaction with family contributes to youth

adjustment (e.g., Scabini et al., 1999), the positive side of the Italian situation should be

viewed in light of this family satisfaction of parents and youth.

Italian families’ support and care of children may also foster the transmission of

values associated with civic involvement. Italian 14-year-olds are more civically competent

in regard to beliefs about democratic institutions and have more positive attitudes toward

civic participation than adolescents in other European countries (Hoskins, Villalba, &

Saisana, 2012). In older data (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,

2012) detailing the participation rates of young people (age 15–29) doing volunteer work,

Italy was slightly below the international average of 30.4%. However, Italian youths reported

higher percentages in terms of active affiliation in sports and cultural (51%) and humanitarian

or charitable organizations (18%) compared to the total average from around the world. Thus,

values of solidarity, cooperation, and civic participation are prominent for Italian youths.

Developmental Trends of Prosocial Behavior during the Transition to Adulthood

The benefits of helping others extend throughout development by bringing long-

term positive outcomes into adulthood (Barry, Padilla-Walker, Madsen, & Nelson,

2008; see Carlo, Crockett, Randall, & Roesch, 2007). For example, adolescents who

perform prosocial behaviors are inclined to develop a sense of belonging to a

community as young adults (e.g., Keyes, 1998; Van Willigen, 2000; Young & Glasgow,

1998). Despite its importance, few researchers have analyzed the prototypical enactment of

prosocial behaviors during the transition to adulthood. Eisenberg, Cumberland, Guthrie,

Murphy, and Shepard (2005), with a small, homogeneous sample (mostly upper middle-class

Euro-Americans), followed participants from age 15–16 to age 25–26 (). They found a cubic


trend for helping, with a general decline from late adolescence to the early 20s, followed by

an increase in early adulthood. A recent Italian longitudinal study of overall change in the

tendency to enact prosocial behaviors across 9 years found similar results: Prosocial behavior

declined from age 13 until approximately age 17, with a subsequent slight rebound until age

21 (Luengo Kanacri, Pastorelli, Eisenberg, Zuffianò, & Caprara, 2013).

Although these researchers considered mean-level change in prosocial behavior

during the transition to adulthood, others have analyzed age-related changes by identifying

subpopulations, focusing on childhood to early adolescence (Cotè, Tremblay, Nagin,

Zoccolillo, & Vitaro, 2002; Kokko, Tremblay, Lacourse, Nagin, & Vitaro, 2006) or

adolescence itself (Nantel-Vivier et al., 2009). However, the heterogenic change in prosocial

behavior during the transition from late adolescence to early adulthood has not been studied.

In the current study, we investigated the presence of different developmental groups

that could represent a more realistic picture regarding stability and change in prosocial

behavior over time. Moreover, trajectories may allow for more accurate analysis of

which predictors are associated with specific patterns of prosocial development as well

as subsequent positive outcomes, such as civic engagement.

Filial Self-efficacy and Relational Parent-Child Support as Antecedents of Prosocial

Behavior

The quality of child-parent interactions has been viewed as a contributor to individual

differences in prosocial behavior during childhood (e.g., Knafo & Plomin, 2006; see

Eisenberg et al., 2006); less attention has been paid to the role family processes in prosocial

development during adolescence and the transition into adulthood (see Carlo, Fabes, Laible,

& Kupanoff, 1999). Adolescence often is viewed as a period of increasing detachment

from the family in which the role of friends and the peer group is more prominent than

the influence of parents. However, parent-adolescent conflict diminishes over the course


of adolescence (see Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998) and successful youth development

requires negotiation of new family relationships and roles while maintaining rewarding

and affective ties (Scabini, 2000). It was with this in mind that the construct of filial self-

efficacy was developed in previous studies in order to capture youths’ perceived capability to

talk with their parents about personal problems, even when things are tense; express positive

feelings and manage negative emotional reactions toward their parents; get parents to

understand youths’ points of view on contentious issues; and influence parents’ attitudes and

social practices constructively (Caprara, Regalia, Scabini, Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 2004).

Caprara et al. (2005) found that filial self-efficacy during middle to late adolescence was

related to satisfaction with family life both concurrently and two years later. In this vein, we

adopted an agentic perspective of youth development (Bandura, 1997) and investigated

whether youths’ active role in promoting balanced power and emotional relationships

with parents may be associated with the tendency to behave prosocially over time.

To our knowledge, no researchers have analyzed the association of filial self-efficacy

with the enactment of prosocial behavior. However, one may argue that if youths perceived

themselves as agents sharpening their own life within the family and as efficacious when

managing relations with their parents, they might be prone to transfer the communicative and

empathic skills to other environments and relationships.

In addition, we investigated the role of a relational family variable, parental support.

Parental support typically refers to parents’ warmth, acceptance, responsiveness, and

involvement towards their offspring (e.g., Scabini et al., 1999). Scabini and Cigoli (1992)

proposed a construct of relational parent-child support that includes the youths’ perceived

tendency to both take care of and count on their mother/father. If parents provide youths with

a supportive environment, then youths might become more supportive of and responsive to


parental actions and consequently may also be more likely to consider others’ requests and

feelings outside the family context.

Although numerous researchers have examined the association between parental

support and children’s or adolescents’ prosocial behavior (e.g., Deater-Deckard, Dunn,

O’Connor, Davies, & Golding, 2001; Laible & Carlo, 2004), less attention has been paid to

this relation during the transition to adulthood. Some researchers (e.g., Flanagan & Tucker,

1999; Fletcher, Elder, & Mekos, 2000) have found that parental support predicts specific

kinds of prosocial behavior in organized contexts (e.g., young adults’ participation in

volunteer activities). Flanagan and Tucker (1999) argued that the way in which parents

interpret the world (i.e., their personal values), as well as the models of relationships offered

within the family, promote similar prosocial values in their offspring. Such findings suggest

that family dynamics might affect youths’ prosocial behaviors and, hence, youths’ civic

engagement. Moreover, mothers and fathers might differently provide and receive

support from their children. In particular, research in Italy supports a central role in

giving support for mothers compared to fathers (Rosnati, 1995; Scabini et al., 1999).

Consequently, it seemed appropriate to examine separately relational mother and

father support in sustaining prosocial development.

Prosocial Behavior and Civic Outcomes

Numerous researchers have asserted that civic engagement is a critical component in

youths’ development during the transition from adolescence to adulthood (e.g., Flanagan et

al., 2012), an age when people first exercise civic rights and duties (e.g., voting). Civic

engagement refers to a multi-component concept (Levine, 2007; Bobek, Zaff, Li, &

Lerner, 2009). Although some authors argue that civic engagement involves commitment to

political activities (Metzger & Smetana, 2009), there is an increasing consensus that civic

engagement includes a variety of behaviors carried out with the intent to improve the


community (Flanagan & Faison, 2001; Younnis et al., 2002) in public and non-profit contexts

(Obradovi & Masten, 2007). Some typical indicators of civic engagement are participation

in youth associations or organizations (e.g., Lerner, 2004), volunteering (Bobek, et al.,

2009), and involvement in specific actions as an active citizen (e.g., ―sign a petition to

support a good cause‖). Moreover, other scholars have evidenced the cognitive

component of civic action, such as the adherence to beliefs, attitudes, and values

(Bobek, et al., 2009). Zaff et al. (2003) suggested that youths’ attitudes and value

systems

contribute to the consistency of civic engagement over time. Young adults’ values, such as

benevolence and universalism, would be expected to have a strong relation to prosocial

behaviors (e.g., Caprara, Alessandri, & Eisenberg, 2012) and civic engagement (Luengo

Kanacri, Rosa, & Di Giunta, 2012). Whereas benevolence is related to concern for the well-

being of people in close relationships (family, school, neighborhood), universalism is related

to behaviors associated with helping people and society as a whole (Schwartz, 2006). These

self-transcendent values may contribute to civic values and to positive youth

development (Lerner et al., 2005). Indeed, investigators have found positive associations

between civic engagement and civic values (see Amnà, 2012; Carlo et al., 1999; Marta,

Rossi, & Boccacin, 1999). Thus, we examined two dimensions of civic outcomes: the

behavioral one, civic engagement (e.g., Bobek, et al., 2009), and the cognitive one,

including values of benevolence and universalism. The simultaneous consideration of a

behavioral facet of civic engagement and a cognitive aspect (i.e., self-transcendence

values) is a unique feature of the current study.

Regarding the relations between prosocial behavior and civic outcomes, some

scholars have suggested that early behaviors involving cooperation, helping, sharing,

and emotions such as empathy are related to later concern for others on a more

generalized level (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1999). Consistent with this view, some studies


have considered prosociality as a precursor to a generalized civic domain (Clary et al.,

1998; Reinders & Youniss, 2006; Sherrod, 2005; Yates & Youniss, 1996). In fact, as

argued by Eisenberg et al. (2006), the concept of agape, or altruistic love universalized

to all humanity (Post, 2001), seems to be relevant to extending caring or helping

behaviors outside one’s own group. In a similar way, Batson, Ahmad, and Tsang (2002)

called attention to the collective-interest of prosocial actions and motives.

The Current Study

To our knowledge, the present study was the first to examine different

trajectories of prosocial behaviors from age 16–17 to age 22–23 and whether they

mediated the relations between family dynamics and two differential facets of civic

engagement (i.e., behavioral and cognitive) during the transition to adulthood. We built

on previous findings in which filial self-efficacy was related to adaptive functioning

(Caprara, Pastorelli, et al., 2005; Caprara et al., 2006); adolescents’ sense of efficacy in

dealing with local politics (i.e., an indicator of civic involvement) was related with their

experiences in handling conflict between their parents (Serek, Lacinová, & Macek,

2012); and relational parent-child support were related with prosocial behaviors (Deater-

Deckard et al., 2001; Eberly & Montemayor, 1998; Flanagan & Tucker, 1999; Laible &

Carlo, 2004). We thus hypothesized that high levels of filial self-efficacy and relational

parent-child support at age 16–17 would predict membership in stable high and/or

increasing trajectories of prosocial behaviors from age 16–17 to age 22–23. This, in turn,

was expected to predict civic engagement and civic values over time (Clary et al., 1998;

Yates & Youniss, 1996).

Based on previous findings of sex differences in parental support in Italian

samples (Graziano, Bonino, & Cattelino, 2009; Scabini, 2000), and in prosocial

behaviors (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) it seemed possible that the sex of the youths or


parents (Scabini et al., 1999) might have an effect on the results. Thus, we examined the

role of both the mother and the father as predictors of prosocial behaviors and civic

outcomes over time. We also considered the sex of the youths as a covariate in the

analysis of prediction by family dynamics of prosocial trajectories and civic outcomes.

Method

Sample and Design of the Longitudinal Study

Six hundred and eighty-six adolescents (332 females, 354 males) took part in the

current study. Participants were originally drawn from the two public junior high schools in

Genzano, a community located near Rome. Participants were 16–17 years old at Time 1 (T1;

M = 16.48; SD = .80 years; 49% males), 18–19 years old at Time 2 (T2; M = 18.61; SD = .54

years; 48% males), 20–21 years old at Time 3 (T3; M = 20.11; SD = .66 years; 46.6% males),

and 22–23 years old at Time 4 (T4; M = 23.04; SD = .71; 40.4% males). According to

national statistics and profiles, our sample reflected Italian society in terms of its

sociodemographic and occupational characterization of the population in those years

(Istituto Italiano di Statistica, 2002; see Table 1).

Overall, the project adopted a staggered, multiple-cohort designi. Due to the need to

maximize the number of participants at relevant ages as well as the availability of the

measures, we began in 1998 (Wave 6), with one group of participants (cohort): 16- and

17-year-olds (Group 1: Wave 6). The same group was prospectively assessed at Wave 8 (at

age 18 to 19 for Group 1), and another group was assessed (at age 16–17 for Group 2). These

two groups were prospectively assessed in Wave 9 (age 20 to 21 for Group 1; age 18 to 19

for Group 2) and Wave 10 (age 22 to 23 for Group 1; age 20 to 21 for Group 2). Because no

significant cohort effects were found for sociodemographic and major study variables, the

two groups were combined based on their age and were examined from age 16 and 17

(considered Time 1 in this study) to age 22–23 (Time 4); Time 2 was age 18–19 and Time 3


was age 20–21; ns = 647, 663, 507, and 213 (1 cohort only), respectively. Prosocial

behaviors were assessed at Time 1 (T1), 2 (T2), 3 (T3), and 4 (T4). Filial self-efficacy and

relational parent-child support were assessed only at T1; civic outcomes were assessed

at T4.

From 1993 (Wave 1) to 1998(Wave 7), the retention rate was, on average (i.e., across

both cohorts), 73.7%; from 1998 (Wave 7) to 2004 (Wave 10), it was 61.2%. No significant

differences were found in the means of the demographic characteristics or any study variables

between participants who provided complete data and those who attrited.

Procedures

At T1 and T2, parents gave their signed consent and children were free to decline

participation (2% declined). Three trained researchers administered a series of confidential

questionnaires in the classroom. At T3 and T4, when many participants were in college,

youths were contacted by phone, and questionnaires were sent by mail and returned by

participants during scheduled meetings in the school.

Measures

Prosocial behaviors. Participants rated (1 = never/almost never true; 5 = almost

always/always true) their prosociality (i.e., the tendency to act in prosocial ways) on a 16-

item scale that assessed sharing, helping, taking care of others’ needs, and empathizing with

others’ feelings (e.g., ―I try to help others‖ and ―I try to console people who are sad‖)

(Caprara, Steca, Zelli, & Capanna, 2005). The psychometric properties of the Prosociality

Scale have been validated in Italy (Caprara et al., 2005; alphas at T1 to T4 = .91–.94).

Filial self-efficacy. Participants rated their perceived filial self-efficacy using nine

items from the Perceived Filial Self-efficacy Scale (Caprara et al., 2004). The items assessed

(1 = not well at all; to 7 = very well) adolescents’ beliefs in their capabilities to influence

parental attitudes and social practices constructively (e.g., ―How well can you get your


parents to understand your point of view on matters when it differs from theirs‖; ―How well

can you get your parents to pay attention to your needs even when they are preoccupied with

their own problems‖; alphas = .90–.92).

Relational parent-child support. Participants rated (1= I strongly agree, to 5= I

strongly disagree) their relational parent-child support with 13 items (Scabini, 2000; Scabini

& Cigoli, 1992), separately for mothers and fathers. Some items assessed youths’ perceived

level of father/mother support (e.g., ―I can count on my father/mother when I need

something‖) whereas others assessed the level of the youths’ support of their parents (―When

needed, I help my father/mother‖; alphas = .89–.93, respectively).

Civic engagement. Civic engagement was determined to be a latent variable

encompassing three types of behaviors (see Sherrod et al., 2010): belonging to civic

associations involvement as an active citizen, and volunteering. Participants were asked to

indicate their degree of involvement in different associations (e.g., cultural and student

associations) on four items (1 = never, to 4 = regular participation; alpha =.81). Self-reports

on three additional items (1 = never, to 5 = often/very often) assessed involvement as an

active citizen (e.g., ―sign a petition to support a good cause,‖ ―giving money to a political or

social campaign‖; alpha = .69 ) Volunteering was assessed with one item (1 = never, to 5 =

regular participation) pertaining to the amount of time dedicated to volunteer work during

the past 12 months.

Civic values. Two civic-relevant values, universalism and benevolence, were

assessed using the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) (Schwartz et al., 2001). The PVQ

includes 40 short verbal assertions divided into 10 basic values that describe a person’s goals,

aspirations, or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a particular value. For each

portrait (four items), respondents indicated similarities to the person in the example on a scale

ranging from 1 (not like me at all) to 6 (very much like me). In this study, self-transcendence


values were defined as latent variables encompassing benevolence (e.g., ―He/She always

wants to help the people who are close to him/her‖) and universalism (e.g., ―It is important to

him/her to protect the weak in society‖; alphas = .91 and 94, respectively).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Zero-order correlations among all the observed variables of the study, as well as

their means and standard deviations, are presented in Table 2.

Latent Class Growth Analysis for Prosocial Behaviors Data

Latent class growth analysis (LCGA) (Nagin, 1999), computed with Mplus 5.1

(Muthen & Muthen, 2006) with a full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation of

missing data, was used to identify homogeneous classes of trajectories of prosocial behavior.

Statistical and theoretical reasons support the selection of the number of classes. Entropy

values have a range of 0–1, where 1 corresponds to the case in which all individuals have a

probability of 1 for one class and 0 for others. In general, scholars recommended an entropy

level of 0.6 or higher (Clark & Muthén, 2009). In addition, following Tofighi and Enders

(2007), we used the sample-size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (SSBIC) as well as

the nested model test Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio (LRT) (Lo, Mendell, & Rubin,

2001) as fit indices. Significant LMR indicated that the fit improved when more latent classes

were included and lower values (closer to zero) of SSBIC reflect better fit. One-, two-, three-,

and four-class models for prosocial behavior were tested for linear and quadratic patterns of

longitudinal change. Because quadratic growth terms were not significant for any class

models, the best final solution was represented by the linear model (see Table 3). Following

Uher et al. (2010), and because the four trajectory solution presented one class with a very

low proportion of subjects (27 subjects = 4% of the sample), we found that the three

trajectory solution provided the most interpretable description of prosocial development. This


solution presented an adequate classification quality, as evidenced by an entropy value of

0.72 and average posterior class probabilities given modal class assignment ranging from

0.86 to 0.89. The smallest class (n = 120, or 18% of the sample; 26% male) included

participants with high initial levels of prosocial behaviors at age 16–17 (mean intercept =

4.36, p < .01), whose prosocial responding significantly increased over time, reaching its

highest level at age 22–23 (mean linear slope = 0.04, p < .01). The next largest class (n = 231,

34% of the sample; 44% male) exhibited a medium initial level of prosocial behavior which

was stable across time (mean intercept = 3.72, p < .01; mean linear slope = 0.01, p = .24).

The final class (N = 231, or 48% of the sample; 33% female) had a low initial level of

prosocial behavior, which was stable across time (mean intercept = 3.02, p < .01; mean linear

slope = 0.00, p = .48). From this point forward, these three classes are referred to as the high

and increasing (HI), the medium and stable (MS), and the low and stable (LS) classes,

respectively (see Figure 1).

Longitudinal Mediation

We used structural equation modeling (SEM; Mplus 6, Muthén & Muthén, 2010)

to examine if family dynamics (i.e., filial self-efficacy and relational parents support) at

the age of 16–17 predicted civic outcomes (i.e., civic engagement and civic values) in

early adulthood (age 22–23), both directly and indirectly, through the probabilities of

belonging to the HI and the LS groups of prosocial development from ages 16–17 to

ages 22–23. Model fit was evaluated following standard procedures (Kline, 2010): χ2

likelihood ratio statistic, comparative fit index (CFI), and the root-mean-square error of

approximation (RMSEA) with associated 90 percent confidence intervals (90% CI) was

considered. Because the χ2 is sensitive to large sample sizes, we accepted CFI ≥ .90, and

RMSEA < .08 as indicative of acceptable model fit (Kline, 2010).


In entering the posterior probabilities, we excluded the probability of group

membership for one group because the posterior probabilities of group membership in

each group added up to 1 for a given individual (e.g., the independent variables would

be perfectly correlated). We decided to exclude the probability of being in the normative

group (medium stable) because it was less informative in terms of our research

questions. Furthermore, we controlled for the effect of sex (see Figure 2). Controlling

for sex, high levels of filial self-efficacy at age 16–17 were positively associated with HI

trajectory membership, which in turn predicted civic engagement and civic values in

early adulthood. The HI trajectory membership mediated the relations between filial

self-efficacy at age 16–17 with civic engagement (95% CI = .00, .07) and civic values

(95% CI = .01, .06) in early adulthood. In addition, high levels of filial self-efficacy at age

16–17 were directly associated with civic values in early adulthood. The probability of

membership in the LS trajectory significantly mediated the inverse association between

filial self-efficacy and civic values (95% CI = .02, .08). These results suggest that youths

who exhibited more filial self-efficacy at age 16–17 tended to follow the HI trajectory of

prosocial behaviors, which in turn predisposed them to higher levels of civic

engagement during early adulthood. Moreover, youths with low levels of filial self-

efficacy tended to follow the LS trajectory of prosocial behaviors, which in turn

predicted lower levels of adherence to civic values in early adulthood. Finally, maternal

and paternal support did not predict prosocial trajectories or civic outcomes.

Discussion

We sought to advance the existing literature on the development of civic

engagement by analyzing the role of some aspects of family dynamics on civic outcomes

through prosocial behaviors from late adolescence to early adulthood in Italian youths.

In particular, we examined prediction by filial self-efficacy and relational parent-child


support of young adults’ civic engagement and civic values as mediated by

developmental trajectories of prosocial behaviors.

Participants of the current study exhibited three different developmental pathways,

from late adolescence to early adulthood, in their prosocial responding. Two trajectories

(around 80% of the total sample) exhibited stability over time despite starting at different

initial levels of prosocial behavior at age 16–17 (i.e., moderate and low). The patterns in

these two trajectories were in line with previous findings of stable trajectories across

adolescence (Kokko et al., 2006; Nantel-Vivier et al., 2009). The most promising pattern of

development of prosocial responses was the linear increasing trajectory. Even if smaller in

number (18% of the total sample) than the other two groups, this trajectory might be expected

due to increases in sociocognitive skills during adolescence (see Eisenberg et al., 2006) as

well as empirical findings regarding an increasing mean pattern of change from age 17 to age

21 (Luengo Kanacri et al., 2013). Adolescents from this increasing group started with the

highest levels of prosocial behaviors at age 16–17 and continued to increase in prosocial

behavior over time,.

In regard to the relations among family dynamics (i.e., filial self-efficacy and

relational parent-child support), prosocial trajectories, and youth civic outcomes, when

the family predictors and membership in two trajectories (i.e., high increasing and low

stable) were used as simultaneous predictors of civic outcomes, both a direct effect and

indirect mediated effects (through the membership of different prosocial trajectory

groups) were found. Regarding direct effects, high filial self-efficacy at age 16–17

predicted high levels of adherence to civic values six years later. This result is in

accordance with studies that, even if not aimed at the study of an agentic dimension of

youth personality (i.e., filial self-efficacy), highlighted the effect of constructive and

balanced positive relations with parents on civic involvement with the community (e.g.,


Smetana & Metzger, 2005). Thus, it is reasonable that youths’ beliefs that they could

maintain a balance between affect and autonomy in their relationship within their

family during late adolescence might prepare youths to have positive attitudes towards

others of the immediate environment (i.e., benevolence) and the collective context (i.e.,

universalism). However, no direct effect of filial self-efficacy on the behavioral facet of

civic outcomes (civic engagement) was found. Also the directs effects from relational

parent-child support to either civic outcomes were not supported.

Indeed, in line with arguments for the need to find developmental mechanisms in

the relation between family dynamics and civic engagement (e.g., Flanagan & Faison,

2001), our results sustain the mediating role of two different prosocial pathways. In

particular, we found that adolescents’ high filial self-efficacy predicted the development

of a high increasing trajectory of prosocial behaviors, which in turn mediated the

relation to higher levels of both civic engagement and civic values at the age of 22–23. In

addition, adolescents who felt less efficacious to regulate autonomy and affect in their

relationships with parents (i.e., low filial self-efficacy) were less involved in prosocial

behavior over time and, perhaps as a consequence, were less inclined to endorse civic

values. These findings are in accordance with other studies that, even if not focusing on

prosociality, suggest that higher levels of filial self-efficacy lead to more positive

adjustment (e.g., Caprara et al., 2005). One might hypothesize that youths in a family

environment in which they are active participants in building a balanced relationship

with parents are more likely to view cooperation and respect as relevant values guiding

the quality of relations outside of the family context. In this way, family dynamics might

facilitate youth civic involvement through providing opportunities for the exercise of

prosocial behaviors over time.


Prosocial trajectory membership did not mediate the relation between parent-

child support and civic outcomes. In zero-order correlations, parental support was

correlated only with universalism values (although, in general, it was positively related

to level of prosocial behavior). Perhaps parental support at younger ages is related to

the development of prosocial behaviors and civic engagement/values. In late

adolescence, the more proactive dimension of filial functioning (i.e., filial self-efficacy)

may be more relevant in maintaining autonomy and relatedness with parents and then

in supporting prosocial behaviors and civic outcomes during emerging adulthood.

Indeed, in line with previous research (Clary et al., 1998; Marta, et al., 1999; Yates &

Youniss, 1996), youths in the high-increasing trajectory of prosocial behaviors were those

who were more involved in civic behaviors and adhered to civic values at ages 22–23. These

results highlight a kind of a ―virtuous circle‖ inherent to behaviors of helping, caring, and

sharing, which are conducive to collective spheres of prosocial actions as civic engagement

(Batson et al., 2002).

A limitation of the study is that we did not examine reciprocal relations among

prosocial behaviors and family dynamics during the transition to adulthood. In addition,

although the use of a validated scale to assess prosociality could be viewed as an advantage in

terms of measurement issues, the inclusion of other reports (especially from parents) would

add validity to the current findings. Nevertheless, as previously argued (Nantel-Vivier et al.,

2009), prosocial behaviors may become more private over time, and self-reports are a

relevant source of information, especially after childhood.

Despite these limitations, our results highlight the prominent role of youths in actively

promoting balanced relationships with their parents (Bandura, 1997). The relation of filial

efficacy with emerging adults’ increasing prosociality suggests that youths’ feelings of

contributing to the quality of the parent-child relationship are important for their


other-oriented values, as well as for prosocial behaviors which in turn enhance further

civic active involvement.

In Italy, as in the Mediterranean area, connectedness within families is valued

relatively more than independence (Reher, 1998), and positive ways to build filial autonomy,

in a context of parental warmth and supportiveness, may be important for positive

development. From this standpoint, the relation of higher levels of filial self-efficacy to the

trajectory of high increasing prosocial behaviors suggests that youths are protagonists and not

merely passive receptors of parents’ initiatives and teaching efforts. During adolescence and

the transition to adulthood, youths’ beliefs about their ability to negotiate with their parents

without losing autonomy and relatedness may promote their positive functioning,

especially in the context of Mediterranean countries.

Creating safer, more cohesive and interdependent societies that can use creative

and innovative strategies to solve their social problems requires targeted actions in

order to promote active citizenship. Our results suggest that it might be possible to

facilitate the civic participation of young people in Mediterranean countries through

promoting the active, agentic role of adolescents in the parent-child relationship and

youths’ prosocial behavior, both of which might encourage a more collective mode of

prosocial responding.


References

Ammaniti, M. (2013). La rivincita del figlio unico/2 [The revenge of the only child/2].

[journal website]. Retrieved from http://ricerca.repubblica.it

Amnà, E. (2012). How is civic engagement developed over time? Emerging answers from a

multidisciplinary field. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 611-627.

doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.011

Arnett, J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through

the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY US: Freeman.

Barry, C., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Madsen, S. D., & Nelson, L. J. (2008). The impact of

maternal relationship quality on emerging adults' prosocial tendencies: Indirect

effects via regulation of prosocial values. Journal Of Youth And

Adolescence, 37(5), 581-591. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9238-7

Batson, C., Ahmad, N., & Tsang, J. (2002). Four motives for community

involvement. Journal Of Social Issues, 58(3), 429-445. doi:10.1111/1540-

4560.00269

Billari, F., & Tabellini, G. (2010). Italians Are Late: Does It Matter?. In J. B. Shoven (Ed.),

Demography and the Economy (pp. 371-412). Chicago, US: University of Chicago

Press.

Billari, F., & Rosina A. (2005, April). 'Mamma' and the diffusion of cohabitation: the Italian

case. Paper presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting,

Philadelphia, PA.

Bobek, D., Zaff, J., Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral

components of civic action: Towards an integrated measure of civic


engagement. Journal Of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 615-627.

doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.005

Caprara G.V., Alessandri G., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Prosociality: The contribution of traits,

values and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102,

1289–1303. doi:10.1037/a0025626

Caprara, G. V., Regalia, C., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Assessment

of Filial, Parental, Marital, and Collective Family Efficacy Beliefs. European Journal

of Psychological Assessment, 20, 247-261. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.20.4.247

Caprara, G., Pastorelli, C., Regalia, C., Scabini, E., & Bandura, A. (2005). Impact of

Adolescents' Filial Self-Efficacy on Quality of Family Functioning and Satisfaction.

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 71-97. doi:10.1111/j.1532-

7795.2005.00087.x

Caprara, G., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A New Scale for Measuring Adults'

Prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 77-89.

doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77

Carlo, G., Crockett, L. J., Randall, B. A., & Roesch, S. C. (2007). A latent growth curve

analysis of prosocial behavior among rural adolescents. Journal Of Research On

Adolescence, 17(2), 301-324. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00524.x

Carlo, G., Fabes, R. A., Laible, D., & Kupanoff, K. (1999). Early adolescence and

prosocial/moral behaviour II: The role of social and contextual influences. The

Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 133-147. doi:10.1177/0272431699019002001

Clark, S. & Muthén, B. (2009). Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included

in the analysis. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/relatinglca.pdf

Clary, E., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P.

(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional


approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516-1530.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516

Collins, W., & Laursen, B. (2006). Parent-Adolescent Relationships. In P. Noller, J. A.

Feeney (Eds.) , Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes (pp. 111-125).

Hove England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis (UK).

Côté, S., Tremblay, R.E., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., & Vitaro, F. (2002). The development of

impulsivity, fearfulness, and helpfulness during childhood: patterns of consistency

and change in the trajectories of boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 43, 609-618. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00050

Deater-Deckard, K., Dunn, J., O'Connor, T. G., Davies, L., & Golding, J. (2001). Using the

stepfamily genetic design to examine gene-environment processes in child and family

functioning. Marriage & Family Review, 33, 131-156. doi:10.1300/J002v33n02_02

Eberly, M. B., & Montemayor, R. (1998). Doing good deeds: An examination of adolescent

prosocial behaviour in the context of parent–adolescent relationships. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 13, 403-432. doi:10.1177/0743554898134003

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Shepard, S. A. (2005). Age

Changes in Prosocial Responding and Moral Reasoning in Adolescence and Early

Adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 235-260. doi:10.1111/j.1532-

7795.2005.00095.

Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N.

Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and

personality development (5th ed., pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial behavior. In W. Damon & R.

M. Lerner (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg, (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:


Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.; pp. 646–718). New

York, NY: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G.

(1999). Consistency and development of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study.

Child Development, 70, 1360-1372. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00100

Flanagan, C. Beyers, W., Žukauskienė, R. (2012). Political and civic engagement

development in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35(3), 471-473.

DOI:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.010

Flanagan, C. A., & Faison, N. (2001). Youth civic development: implications of research for

social policy and programs. Social Policy Report, 15, 3-16. Retrieved from:

http://www.srcd.org/publications/social-policy-report

Flanagan, C. A., & Tucker, C. (1999). Adolescents' explanations for political issues:

Concordance with their views of self and society. Developmental Psychology, 35,

1198-1209. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1198

Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. R., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences on adolescent

involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 29-48.

doi:10.1207/SJRA1001_2

Graziano, F., Bonino, S., & Cattelino, E. (2009). Links between maternal and paternal

support, depressive feelings and social and academic self-efficacy in adolescence.

European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 241-257. doi:

10.1080/17405620701252066

Hoskins, B., Villalba, C.M.H., & Saisana, M. (2012). The 2011 Civic Competence Composite

Indicator (CCCI-2). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

doi:10.2788/68609


Istituto Italiano di Statistica (2002). Annuario statistico italiano 2002 [Italian yearbook of

statistics 2002]. Rome: ISTAT

Istituto Italiano di Statistica (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/75517. Rome: ISTAT

Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140.

Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Parental discipline and affection and children's

prosocial behavior: Genetic and environmental links. Journal Of Personality And

Social Psychology, 90(1), 147-164. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.147

Kokko, K., Tremblay, R. E., Lacourse, E., Nagin, D. S., & Vitaro, F. (2006). Trajectories of

Prosocial Behaviour and Physical Aggression in Middle Childhood: Links to

Adolescent School Dropout and Physical Violence. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 16, 403-428. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00500.x

Kuczynski, L. (2003). Beyond bidirectionality: Bilateral conceptual frameworks for

understanding dynamics in parent-child relations. In L. Kuczynski

(Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 3-25). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229645.n1

Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support

and control to adolescent social competence, self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 19, 759-782. doi:10.1177/0743558403260094

Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., & Collins, W. (1998). Reconsidering changes in parent–child

conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 69(3), 817-832.

doi:10.2307/1132206


Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and Civic Engagement among America’s

Youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., &

... von Eye, A. (2005). Positive Youth Development, Participation in Community

Youth Development Programs, and Community Contributions of Fifth-Grade

Adolescents: Findings From the First Wave Of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth

Development. The Journal Of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.

doi:10.1177/0272431604272461

Levine, P. (2007). The Future of Democracy: Developing the Next Generation of

American Citizens. Hanover, NH: Tufts University Press.

Lo, Y., Mendell, N.R., & Rubin, D.B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal

mixture. Biometrika, 88, 767-778. doi: 10.1093/biomet/88.3.767

Luengo Kanacri, B. P., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Zuffianò, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2013).

The development of prosociality from adolescence to early adulthood: the role of

effortful control. Journal of Personality, 81, 302-312. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12001

Luengo Kanacri, B. P., Rosa, V., & Di Giunta, L. (2012). The mediational role of values in

linking personality traits to civic engagement in Italian youth. Journal of

Prevention

& Intervention in the Community, 40, 8-21. doi:10.1080/10852352.2012.633064

Marta, E., Rossi, G., & Boccacin, L. (1999). Youth, solidarity and civic commitment in Italy:

An analysis of the personal and social characteristics of volunteers and their

organizations. In M. Yates & J. Youniss, (Eds.), Roots of Civic Identity: International

Perspectives on Community Service and Activism in Youth (pp.73-96). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge.


Marzana, D., Marta, E., & Pozzi, M. (2012). Young adults and civic behavior: The

psychosocial variables determining it. Journal Of Prevention & Intervention In

The Community, 40(1), 49-63. doi:10.1080/10852352.2012.633067

Metz, E. C., & Youniss, J. (2005). Longitudinal Gains in Civic Development through School-

Based Required Service. Political Psychology, 26, 413-437. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

9221.2005.00424.x

Metzger A. & Smetana J. G. (2009). Adolescent Civic and Political Engagement:

Associations Between Domain-Specific Judgments and Behaviour. Child

Development, 80, 433-441. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01270.x

Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2010). Mplus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition. Los

Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semiparametric, group-based

approach. Psychological Methods, 4, 139-157. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.2.139

Nantel-Vivier, A., Kokko, K., Caprara, G. V., Pastorelli, C., Gerbino, M. G., Paciello, M., . . .

Tremblay, R. E. (2009). Prosocial development from childhood to adolescence: a

multi informant perspective with Canadian and Italian longitudinal studies. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 590–598. doi:10.1111/ j.1469-

7610.2008.02039.x

Obradovi, J. & Masten, A. S. (2007). Developmental antecedents of young adult civic

engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 11, 2-19. doi:

10.1080/10888690709336720

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). OECD Family Database.

Paris: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/oecdfamilydatabase.htm

Page, M. C., Braver, S. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2003). Levine's guide to SPSS for analysis

of variance (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.


Post, S. G. (2001). The tradition of agape. In S. G. Post & L. G. Underwood

(Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in

dialogue (pp. 51–64). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population and

Development Review, 24, 203-234. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ Reinders, H.,

& Youniss, J. (2006). School-based required community service and civic

development in adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 2-12.

doi:10.1207/s1532480xads1001_1

Rosnati, R. (1996). Comunicazione e supporto familiari e aspettative per il futuro in età

adolescenziale [Communication and family support and expectations for the

future in adolescence]. Archivio Di Psicologia, Neurologia E Psichiatria, 57(2-3),

280-299.

Santamaria, C.C. (2011). L’orologio biologico di papà [Dad’s biological clock]. [journal

website]. Retrieved from http://www.style.it.

Scabini, E. (2000). Parent–child relationships in Italian families: Connectedness and

autonomy in the transition to adulthood. Psicologia: Teoria E Pesquisa, 16, 23-30.

doi:10.1590/S010237722000000100004

Scabini, E., & Cigoli, V. (1992). La scala di supporto genitori e figli. [Parent-Adolescent

Support Scale]. Unpublished Manuscript.

Scabini, E., Lanz, M., & Marta, E. (1999). Psychosocial adjustment and family relationships:

A typology of Italian families with a late adolescent. Journal of youth and

adolescence, 28, 633-644. doi:10.1023/A:1021614915850

Scabini, E., Marta, E., & Lanz, M. (2006). The transition to adulthood and family relations:

An intergenerational perspective. New York, NY US: Psychology Press.


Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and

empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001).

Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a

different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-

542. doi:10.1177/0022022101032005001

Schwartz, S.H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications.

Comparative Sociology, 5, 137–182. doi: 10.1163/156913306778667357

Šerek, J., Lacinová, L., & Macek, P. (2012). Does family experience influence political

beliefs? Relation between interparental conflict perceptions and political efficacy

in late adolescence. Journal Of Adolescence, 35(3), 577-586.

doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.001

Sherrod, L. R. (2005). Ensuring Liberty by Promoting Youth Development. Human

Development, 48, 376-381. doi:10.1159/000088256

Sherrod, L.R., Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C. (2010). Handbook of Research on Civic

Engagement in Youth. Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Smetana, J. G., & Metzger, A. (2005). Family and Religious Antecedents of Civic

Involvement In Middle Class African American Late Adolescents. Journal Of

Research On Adolescence, 15(3), 325-352. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00099.x

Tofighi, D., & Enders, C.K. (2007). Identifying the correct number of classes in growth

mixture models. In G. R. Hancock & K. M. Samuelsen (Eds.), Advances in latent

variable mixture models (pp. 317-341). Greenwhich, CT: Information Age.

Uher R., Muthen B., Souery, D., Mors, O., Jaracz, J., Placentino, A., . . . McGuffin, P.

(2010). Trajectories of change in depression severity during treatment with


antidepressants. Psychological Medicine, 40, 1367-1377.

doi:10.1017/S0033291709991528

Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. The

Journals Of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences And Social

Sciences, 55B(5), S308-S318. doi:10.1093/geronb/55.5.S308

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996). A developmental perspective on community service in

adolescence. Social Development, 5, 85-111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

9507.1996.tb00073.x

Young, F. W., & Glasgow, N. (1998). Voluntary social participation & health. Research

On Aging, 20(3), 339-362. doi:10.1177/0164027598203004

Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen, R.

(2002). Youth civic engagement in the twenty-first century. Journal Of Research On

Adolescence, 12, 121-148. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.00027

Zaff, J. F., Moore, K. A., Papillo, A. R., & Williams, S. (2003). Implications of

extracurricular activity participation during adolescence on positive

outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 599–630.


Table 1

Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Family of origin characteristicsIntact families 92.2% (T1)

89.5% (T4)

Single parent (separated or divorced) 6.1% (T1)

8.9% (T4)

Parents’ educationElementary school

Middle school

High school

University

Post university

14.5% (Father) 19.1% (Mother)





Youths Marital status at T4

Single, never married 98.5%

Married 0.4%

Living conditions at T4

Still living at home 93.1%

With new family 1.0%

With other relatives 1.1%

Alone 1.5%

Cohabitation 2.5%

Youths Employment status at T4*

Employed 47.3%

Attending University 44.9%

Attending University and Working 7.7%

Note. T1= Time 1 (ages 16-17); T4= Time 4 (ages 22-23); *30.4% of youths have a

permanent contract.

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, PROSOCIALITY, AND FAMILY DYNAMICS 30

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Prosocial Behavior, Family Dynamics and Civic Outcomes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131. PB age 16-172. PB age 18-19

1.65** 1

3. PB age 20-214. PB age 22-23

.57**

.64**..63**

.64**1

.73** 15. Fil Eff age 16-17 .27** .25** .26** .34** 16. F-Supp age 16-17 .19** .17** .15** .11 .51** 17. M-Supp age 16-17 .25** .24** .23** .14† .56** .65** 18. Benevolence .37** .45** .60** .65** .40** .23** .23** 19. Universalism .36** .38** .51** .52** .42** .11 .17* .72** 110. Volunteerism .16* .17* .21** .24** .02 .05 .11 .29** .26** 111. Civic Associat. .09 .13† .13† .17* .14† .00 .02 .09 .08 .47** 112. Civic actions .11 .14† .20** .22** .03 .02 .05 .23** .25** .83** .45** 113. Sex .31** ..32** .27** .33** -.02 -.04 .10* .23* .19** .15* -.03 .10 1

Mean 3.61 3.62 3.68 3.75 4.44 3.87 3.96 4.44 4.62 1.78 1.92 1.45 —Standard deviation 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.67 1.10 0.65 0.58 0.87 0.85 1.18 0.54 0.59 —

Note: PB = prosocial behaviors; Fil Eff= Filial Self-efficacy; F-Supp= Relational Father-Child Support; M-Supp =Relational Mother-Child support; Civic Associat. = Participation in Civic Associations; age = age of assessment. † p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01.


Table 3Model Fit Statistics and Means for the Latent Class Growth Analysis of Prosocial Behaviours – Linear Model

Model LL SSBIC PP Entropy M Intercept M Slope LMR

2-class linear model -1513.379 3050.248 0.89 0.67 4.026*** 0.029*** 417.391***

0.90 3.200*** 0.008ns

3-class linear model -1615.157 3263.871 0.85 0.72 3.718*** 0.016ns 180.336***

0.88 4.365 *** 0.038***

0.89 3.019*** 0.010ns

4-class linear model - 1589.692 3223.008 0.84 0.74 2.343*** 0.054** 48.457*

0.81 3.156*** 0.006ns

0.89 4.324*** 0.050***

0.85 3.779*** 0.010ns

Note. LL= Log likelihood; SSBIC = Sample-size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion; PP = Posterior probabilities; M Intercept =

Intercept mean; M Slope = Slope mean; LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test. *p < .05, **p <.01, ***p < .001.


Figure Captions

Figure 1. Estimated Growth Curves for Latent Class Growth Analysis with three Trajectories

of Prosocial Behaviours

Note. LCGA Fit Indices: Log likelihood: -1615.157; Sample Size-Adjusted Bic: 3263.871;

Entropy: 0.72

Figure 2. SEM of Trajectories of Prosocial Behaviors Predicting Civic Outcomes

Note. All the reported parameters are standardized. Volunt. = Volunteerism; Civic Assoc. =

Participation in Civic Associations. *p < .05; **p < .01. Fit indices: 2 (22) = 31.509, p =.08;

SRMR = .03; RMSEA =.03 (90% CI= .000-.042). All paths were estimated, only significant

paths were shown.


5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00Age 16-17 Age 18-19 Age 20-21 Age 22-23

Medium Stable 48%

High Increasing 18%

Low Stable 34%


i With four different cohorts recruited during four consecutive school years. Annual assessments

were conducted until 1998 (Waves 1 to 6). Since then, the project has focused on the transition from

adolescence to emerging adulthood with assessments two years apart (Waves 7 to 10).

hira.hope.ac.ukhira.hope.ac.uk/id/eprint/983/1/(785834269) joa13-360r1... · web viewcivic...

Documents