Longitudinal relations between adolescents' self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends and family

Journal of Adolescence 57 (2017) 90e98

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Longitudinal relations between adolescents' self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends and family Xinyuan Fu a, *, Laura M. Padilla-Walker b, Michael N. Brown b a b

Department of Psychology, School of Sociology and Psychology, Central University of Finance and Economics, China School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 11 September 2016 Received in revised form 23 February 2017 Accepted 4 April 2017 Available online 10 April 2017

The present study examined age-trends and longitudinal bidirectional relations in selfesteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family over a four-year time period (age 11 to 14). A total of 681 adolescents were recruited in the United States (51% girls, 28% single parent families). A longitudinal panel model was conducted and the results showed that adolescent self-esteem was associated longitudinally with subsequent prosocial behavior toward strangers, and earlier prosocial behavior toward strangers promoted subsequent self-esteem. There were no such bidirectional relations between self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward friends and family. Findings also highlight the complexity of adolescent development of selfesteem and the multidimensional nature of prosocial behavior. Discussion focuses on understanding the dynamic interplay between adolescent selfesteem and prosocial behavior. © 2017 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-esteem Prosocial behavior Longitudinal panel model

Prosocial development during adolescence is becoming increasingly acknowledged as important by parents, educators, and psychologists (e.g., Knight, Carlo, Basilio, & Jacobson, 2015). Prosocial behavior, defined as voluntary behavior intended to benefit another (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006), is positively correlated with psychosocial adjustment in adolescents, such as warding off aggression (Sebanc, 2003), reducing mental health problems like anxiety and depression (Haroz, Murray, Bolton, Betancourt, & Bass, 2013), and promoting academic achievement (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000). Despite substantial research on the antecedents (e.g., parenting style; Carlo, Mestre, Samper, Tur, & Armenta, 2011) and consequences (e.g., well-being; Aknin et al., 2013) of prosocial behavior, a significant gap in research remains in understanding the relation between adolescents' self-evaluation and prosocial behavior. Given the socioemotional changes during adolescence that influence prosocial behavior (Carlo, 2014) and the salience of self-esteem during adolescence (Birkeland, Melkevik, Holsen, & Wold, 2012), there is utility in examining the relations between adolescents' self-esteem and prosocial behavior. 1. Prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family Although many studies to date have treated prosocial behavior as a global construct, recent research has highlighted the multidimensional nature of prosocial behavior (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014). Multidimensionality can be represented in

* Corresponding author. 39 Xueyuan South Rd., Haidian, Beijing, 100081, China. E-mail address: [email protected] (X. Fu). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.04.002 0140-1971/© 2017 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

X. Fu et al. / Journal of Adolescence 57 (2017) 90e98

91

many different ways (e.g., forms of prosocial behavior such as helping, sharing, and comforting; Dunfield, 2014), but the current study focused on multidimensionality regarding targets (strangers, friends, and family) toward whom prosocial behavior is directed (e.g., Padilla-Walker, Dyer, Yorgason, Fraser, & Coyne, 2015). Existing research has shown that the antecedents and consequences of prosocial behavior vary as a function of target. Theoretically, individuals who help strangers are more likely to do so because of dispositional traits (such as sympathy or self-regulation) and other-oriented considerations like getting others out of trouble or promoting others' welfare, whereas helping friends or family is more often a function of relationship norms and is motivated by an effort to preserve or maintain the relationship (Eberly & Montemayor, 1998; Lewis, 2014). In practice, adolescents feel it is more satisfying and important to help when there is a close relationship between the receiver and giver of prosocial behavior (Killen & Turiel, 1998), but prosocial behavior toward strangers has been found to be more directly protective (e.g., against delinquency, aggression) than is prosocial behavior toward friends and family (Padilla-Walker, Carlo, & Nielson, 2015). Therefore, distinguishing prosocial behavior as a function of target is important, and in the current study we focused on how adolescents' self-esteem was associated with prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. 2. Longitudinal trajectories and gender differences of self-esteem and prosocial behavior during adolescence There are relatively few studies that have examined changes in self-esteem or prosocial behavior longitudinally during adolescence, and those that have do not consider the two behaviors together and reveal somewhat inconsistent results. Evidence show increases (O'Malley & Bachman, 1983), decreases (Robins & Trzesniewski, 2005), or no changes (Birkeland et al., 2012) in self-esteem across adolescence. Studies on adolescent prosocial development show decreases until approxi , & Caprara, 2013), no changes (Flynn, Ehrenreich, Beron, & mately age 17 (Luengo Kanacri, Pastorelli, Eisenberg, Zuffiano Underwood, 2014), or different trajectories for prosocial behavior toward different targets (Padilla-Walker et al., 2015). Thus, in the present study we examined how both self-esteem and prosocial behavior changed over time. In addition, research suggests that developmental changes of self-esteem vary as a function of adolescent gender, but reveals somewhat inconsistent results. Some researchers found that males tend to increase and females tend to decrease in self-esteem from early adolescence through late adolescence to early adulthood (Block & Robins, 1993), whereas others found that both genders drop in self-esteem during adolescence, but females do so to a much greater extent (Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling, & Potter, 2002). Studies also provide evidence that girls have higher levels of prosocial behavior than do boys (e.g., Carlo, Crockett, Randall, & Roesch, 2007), and suggest that the difference may increase throughout adolescence due to girls' greater societal pressures to be helpful and kind compared to boys (Nielson, Padilla-Walker, & Holmes, 2017). Therefore, we explored gender differences in trajectories of adolescent self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family, and also examined gender as a moderator of the links between self-esteem and prosocial behaviors. 3. The role of self-esteem on prosocial behavior Individuals with high global self-esteem are generally confident of their abilities, whereas those with low self-esteem doubt their capacities in many areas (Brown, Collins, & Schmidt, 1988). The difference between adolescents with high and low self-esteem may shape different levels of competence in coping with prosocial emergency and emotional situations  et al., 2014). Because inferential evidence suggests a link between feelings of competence and prosocial behavior (Zuffiano (Eisenberg, VanSchyndel, & Spinrad, 2016), it is logical to assume that adolescents with higher levels of self-esteem would engage in more prosocial behavior. Indeed, there is empirical evidence suggesting that adults who had higher self-esteem invested more hours in volunteer service (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001), and we expected this association to be similar for adolescents. There is no research of which we are aware that distinguishes between self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward different targets, but given the somewhat higher cost of prosocial behavior toward strangers and the potential added level of discomfort interacting with strangers (Padilla-Walker & Fraser, 2014), self-esteem, as a fundamental, global, and stable manifestation of self-evaluation (Judge & Bono, 2001), might be particularly important for prosocial behavior toward strangers. In contrast, prosocial behavior toward friends and family are differentially motivated, with relationship quality and relationship roles playing more significant roles as predictors (Lewis, 2014; Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014; Rusbult & Agnew, 2010). A relational approach to prosocial development also highlights different aspects of relationships (e.g., parent-child or friend connectedness) as the most important predictors of prosocial behavior within that relationship (Amato, 1990; Eberly & Montemayor, 1998; Lewis, 2014), while dispositional traits (such as self-esteem) seem to be less salient. Therefore, selfesteem might not as consistently predict prosocial behavior toward friends and family as toward strangers. Taken together, we expected to see a positive relation between self-esteem and prosocial behavior, and expected a more consistent link with self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers than toward friends and family. 4. The role of prosocial behavior on self-esteem While self-esteem might be associated with prosocial behavior, prosocial behavior might also be associated with future self-esteem. Empirical evidence has shown that the direct effect of prosociality on self-esteem was statistically significant  et al., 2014). In addition to direct evidence, during the transition from middle adolescence to young adulthood (Zuffiano

92

X. Fu et al. / Journal of Adolescence 57 (2017) 90e98

prosocial behavior may foster self-worth through others' gratitude and acknowledgment, and also provide a means for bolstering feelings about the self. Research shows that prosocial behavior induces feelings of social worth, especially after receiving expressions of gratitude from the targets (Grant & Gino, 2010). In this way, prosocial behavior may foster self-worth and more global self-esteem. Another piece of indirect evidence is that prosocial behavior may benefit individuals in the following aspects: (a) providing distraction from one's troubles; (b) enhancing the sense of meaning and value in one's life; (c) increasing perceived competence; (d) improving mood and positive emotions; and (e) promoting social integration (Midlarsky, 1991). All these benefits are relevant to self-esteem and provide theoretical evidence to the assumption that prosocial behavior would increase self-esteem. Thus, we aimed to extend existing findings by examining the effects of prosocial behavior toward different targets on self-esteem during early adolescence. Helping strangers is often more challenging for adolescents because strangers are not in one's in-group and teens may not interact with strangers regularly or repeatedly (Padilla-Walker & Fraser, 2014). Facing and coping with greater challenges in helping strangers than helping friends or family might foster self-esteem more effectively. Therefore, we expected that prosocial behavior toward strangers might be more strongly associated with later self-esteem compared to prosocial behavior toward friends and family.

5. The current study The current study aimed to explore the longitudinal trajectories of adolescents' self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family, and how change over time might vary as a function of gender. We also examined the longitudinal bidirectional relations between adolescents' self-esteem and prosocial behavior over a 4-year period (age 11 to 14). We hypothesized that adolescents' self-esteem would be associated longitudinally with subsequent prosocial behavior, and that earlier prosocial behavior would also promote subsequent self-esteem. We also explored whether such bidirectional relations would be more consistent between self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers than toward friends and family. Based on the inconsistent findings regarding trajectories and gender differences of self-esteem and prosocial behavior during adolescence, we did not have specific hypotheses regarding how boys' and girls' trajectories would differ over time. Because few studies have found that correlates of prosocial behavior differ by gender (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Knafo-Noam, 2015), we did not expect gender to moderate the relations between adolescents' self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family.

6. Method 6.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 681 adolescents taken from five different time points of a longitudinal project that took place from 2007 to 2011 (Project name masked for blind review), each approximately 1 year apart. Data were restructured by age instead of wave because of the large age range at each wave, and the current sample covered ages 11 to 14 (51% girls, 28% single parent families). Seventy-one percent of the participants were European American, 9% were African American, and 20% were from other ethnic groups or were multiethnic. Fifty-eight percent of mothers and 69% of fathers had a bachelor's degree or higher. With regard to monthly household income, 36% made less than $4,000, 31% made between $4000 and $6,000, and the remaining 33% made more than $6000. At the initial wave, participants were recruited from two cities in the western United States, and were randomly selected from targeted census tracts that mirrored local school districts. Of the eligible families contacted, those agreeing to participate resulted in a 65% response rate. Of the families who participated at Time 1, 93% had complete data at Time 5. At each wave of data collection, researchers visited the family's home and administered questionnaires that were completed in the home (with family members in separate rooms when possible). It is important to note that all study variables at age 11 were missing upwards of one third of responses due to the restructuring by age, and prosocial behavior toward friends and family at age 12 were also missing upwards of one third of responses because these measures were not given until Time 2.1 However, the original data set (before it was restructured by age) had less than 5% missing data, and because the age of the child at the first interview was random (in the range from 10 to 14), data missing at age 11 due to the child not being 11 at the time were missing completely at random and Mplus's default data imputation program was used to deal with these missing values.

1 We examined whether means of self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers at age 12, 13 and 14, as well as prosocial behavior toward friends and family at age 13 and 14 were different between the participants with missing data (at age 11 and 12) and those with full data. Ten t-tests were conducted respectively. Results showed that differences only occurred in prosocial behavior toward strangers at age 12 (t ¼ 9.28, df ¼ 639, p < 0.001) and 14 (t ¼ 2.46, df ¼ 649, p ¼ 0.014), as well as prosocial behavior toward friends at age 13 (t ¼ 2.03, df ¼ 631, p ¼ 0.043).

X. Fu et al. / Journal of Adolescence 57 (2017) 90e98

93

6.2. Measures 6.2.1. Self-esteem Adolescents' self-esteem was assessed using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Adolescents responded to 10 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include, “I certainly feel useless at times” and “on the whole, I am satisfied with myself.” Five negative items were reverse coded with higher mean scores representing higher self-esteem. The scores were treated as categorical because of their non-normal distribution and the reliabilities from age 11 to age 14 were 0.92, 0.91, 0.93, and 0.94, respectively (McDonald, 1999). Four latent variables were created for these items and measurement invariance across time was tested. Partial invariance was reached (only the factor loadings of 4 items at age 11 were not equivalent; Estimator: WLSMV; DX2(23) ¼ 34.44, p ¼ 0.059), with factor loadings ranging from 0.54 to 0.90. 6.2.2. Prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family Adolescents' prosocial behavior was measured from child-reports of a modified version of the kindness and generosity subscale of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The original measure was designed to assess behavior in general, and the current study adapted nine of these original items to assess prosocial behavior toward strangers (e.g., “I help people I don't know, even if it's not easy for me”). Similar items were adapted to assess prosocial behavior toward friends (nine items; e.g., “I go out of my way to cheer up my friends”) and family (nine items; e.g., “I really enjoy doing small favors for my family”) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not like me at all) to 5 (very much like me). Items toward each target closely mirrored one another in an attempt to measure the same construct across targets. All the scores were treated as categorical because of their non-normal distribution and the reliabilities of prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family from age 11 to age 14 were 0.86e0.88, 0.94e0.96, and 0.94e0.95, respectively. Latent variables for prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family at all four age points were created and measurement invariance of these three variables across time was tested, respectively. Partial invariance was reached for prosocial behavior toward strangers (only the factor loading of 1 item at age 14 was not equivalent; Estimator: WLSMV; DX2(23) ¼ 34.33, p ¼ 0.061), for prosocial behavior toward friends (only the factor loadings of 5 items at age 11 were not equivalent; Estimator: WLSMV; DX2(19) ¼ 29.67, p ¼ 0.056), and for prosocial behavior toward family (only the factor loadings of 2 items at age 11 were not equivalent; Estimator: WLSMV; DX2(22) ¼ 32.79, p ¼ 0.065). Factor loadings for prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family ranged from 0.52 to 0.80, from 0.67 to 0.91, and from 0.58 to 0.93, respectively. 7. Results 7.1. Descriptive statistics, correlations, age trends, and gender differences General means, standard deviations and correlations for all the study variables are presented in Table 1. All the variables were positively correlated with one another.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations between adolescent self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. 01

02

03

04

01. 02. 03. 04.

Self-esteem_11 Self-esteem_12 Self-esteem_13 Self-esteem_14

e 0.84** 0.66** 0.49**

e 0.75** 0.61**

e 0.77**

e

05. 06. 07. 08.

PB_Strangers_11 PB_Strangers_12 PB_Strangers_13 PB_Strangers_14

0.40** 0.34** 0.31** 0.27**

0.30** 0.33** 0.27** 0.23**

0.24** 0.27** 0.30** 0.25**

09. 10. 11. 12.

PB_Friends_11 PB_Friends_12 PB_Friends_13 PB_Friends_14

0.32** 0.24** 0.22** 0.18**

0.19** 0.23** 0.20** 0.16**

13. 14. 15. 16.

PB_Family_11 PB_Family_12 PB_Family_13 PB_Family_14

0.38** 0.31** 0.27** 0.25** 4.04 0.65

M SD

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

0.14** 0.17** 0.16** 0.19**

e 0.81** 0.72** 0.63**

e 0.75** 0.68**

e 0.86**

e

0.20** 0.22** 0.24** 0.17**

0.09* 0.14** 0.14** 0.15**

0.58** 0.49** 0.43** 0.35**

0.45** 0.56** 0.44** 0.37**

0.50** 0.53** 0.59** 0.48**

0.31** 0.34** 0.31** 0.27**

0.31** 0.34** 0.40** 0.34**

0.22** 0.25** 0.33** 0.33**

0.53** 0.48** 0.42** 0.37**

0.44** 0.53** 0.45** 0.42**

4.07 0.62

4.02 0.66

4.02 0.70

3.03 0.74

3.40 0.74

0.48** 0.52** 0.56** 0.58**

e 0.73** 0.73** 0.62**

e 0.79** 0.68**

e 0.76**

e

0.41** 0.48** 0.51** 0.44**

0.38** 0.46** 0.46** 0.51**

0.61** 0.48** 0.45** 0.39**

0.50** 0.60** 0.49** 0.43**

0.44** 0.49** 0.55** 0.44**

3.11 0.74

3.21 0.74

4.16 0.70

4.28 0.63

4.26 0.65

Note. PB ¼ prosocial behavior. 11e14 indicate the ages of the adolescents. *p < 0.05,

**

p < 0.01.

13

14

15

16

0.37** 0.41** 0.41** 0.52**

e 0.80** 0.75** 0.64**

e 0.85** 0.77**

e 0.77**

e

4.29 0.69

3.97 0.77

4.01 0.80

3.91 0.81

4.00 0.83

94

X. Fu et al. / Journal of Adolescence 57 (2017) 90e98

In order to determine differences in means over time, as well as potential interactions between age and gender, we conducted four repeated measures ANOVAs with each study variable (self-esteem, prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family) with all four age points as within-group variables and gender as a between-group variable (see Fig. 1). The main effect of age for self-esteem was not significant (F(3, 344) ¼ 1.85, p ¼ 0.137, partial eta2 ¼ 0.02), while the interaction effect between age and gender was significant (F(3, 344) ¼ 5.73, p ¼ 0.001, partial eta2 ¼ 0.05), with a significant linear pattern (F(1, 346) ¼ 11.25, p ¼ 0.001, partial eta2 ¼ 0.03). Follow-up analyses suggested a decrease in girls' self-esteem and stability in boys' self-esteem over four years. Both the main effect of age (F(3, 342) ¼ 10.96, p < 0.001, partial eta2 ¼ 0.09) and the interaction effect between age and gender (F(3, 342) ¼ 3.35, p ¼ 0.019, partial eta2 ¼ 0.03) for prosocial behavior toward strangers were significant. Linear and cubic patterns were significant for the main effect of age (linear: F(1, 344) ¼ 27.62, p < 0.001, partial eta2 ¼ 0.07; cubic: F(1, 344) ¼ 4.84, p ¼ 0.028, partial eta2 ¼ 0.01), and only a linear pattern was significant for the interaction effect (F(1, 344) ¼ 8.55, p ¼ 0.004, partial eta2 ¼ 0.02). Follow-up analyses suggested a steady increase in girls' prosocial behavior toward strangers and an initial increase for boys from age 11 to 12, with a decrease by age 13, followed by another slight increase to age 14 (“increase-decrease-increase” pattern). The main effect of age for prosocial behavior toward friends was significant (F(3, 354) ¼ 7.10, p < 0.001, partial eta2 ¼ 0.06) with a significant linear pattern (F(1, 356) ¼ 19.58, p < 0.001, partial eta2 ¼ 0.05), while the interaction effect between age and gender was not significant (F(3, 354) ¼ 0.60, p ¼ 0.619, partial eta2 ¼ 0.01). Follow-up analyses suggested increases in prosocial behavior toward friends over four years for both girls and boys. The main effect of age (F(3, 346) ¼ 1.37, p ¼ 0.251, partial eta2 ¼ 0.01) and the interaction effect between age and gender (F(3, 346) ¼ 0.92, p ¼ 0.433, partial eta2 ¼ 0.01) for prosocial behavior toward family were both not significant, suggesting stability in prosocial behavior toward family over four years for both girls and boys. Next, a number of t-tests were conducted to see if means varied as a function of gender (see Fig. 1). All were significantly different (p < 0.01 or p < 0.001) except self-esteem at age 11 and 12 (age 11: girls 4.06 vs. boys 4.03; age 12: girls 4.04 vs. boys 4.10), and prosocial behavior toward strangers at age 11 (girls 3.08 vs. boys 2.96). Girls reported lower levels of self-esteem at age 13 (girls 3.96 vs. boys 4.09) and 14 (girls 3.93 vs. boys 4.11) than did boys, and had higher levels of prosocial behavior toward strangers from age 12 to 14 (age 12: girls 3.52 vs. boys 3.27; age 13: girls 3.27 vs. boys 2.94; age 14: girls 3.40 vs. boys 3.02), toward friends (age 11: girls 4.42 vs. boys 3.88; age 12: girls 4.51 vs. boys 4.03; age 13: girls 4.51 vs. boys 4.00; age 14: girls 4.55 vs. boys 4.01), and toward family (age 11: girls 4.10 vs. boys 3.83; age 12: girls 4.16 vs. boys 3.86; age 13: girls 4.04 vs. boys 3.79; age 14: girls 4.16 vs. boys 3.83) than did boys.

Fig. 1. Growth trajectories of Adolescent Self-esteem and Prosocial Behavior Toward Strangers, Friends, and Family. Note. PB ¼ prosocial behavior.

X. Fu et al. / Journal of Adolescence 57 (2017) 90e98

95

7.2. Longitudinal panel model Using Mplus software, we conducted a panel model using all four time points of adolescent self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Because of the complexity of the longitudinal panel model, factor scores were saved for all latent study variables and entered in the panel model. Sampling site was used as a control variable in the model. Initial model fit (without any constraints) was adequate (X2(69) ¼ 309.14, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.98, TLI ¼ 0.95, RMSEA ¼ 0.07). Given mean gender differences found above, we first conducted a multiple group model as a function of adolescent gender. Model fit decreased significantly when all rank-order stability and cross-lagged paths were constrained to be equal across gender (DX2 (30) ¼ 49.53, p < 0.05). Then paths were freed one at a time and it was determined that all rank-order stability paths could not be constrained across gender. Therefore, the final multiple group model had good model fit with all crosslagged paths constrained to be equal across gender (DX2 (18) ¼ 26.14, p ¼ 0.097). Next, rank-order stability and cross-lagged paths were constrained to be equal across age points, and the chi-square difference was significant (DX2 (28) ¼ 248.23, p < 0.001), suggesting a decrease in model fit when the above paths were constrained to be equal across time. Then paths were freed one at a time and it was determined that all rank-order stability paths and cross-lagged paths from both prosocial behavior toward friends and toward family to self-esteem could not be constrained across age points. Therefore, the final model had good model fit with cross-lagged paths from self-esteem to prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family, and from prosocial behavior toward strangers to self-esteem constrained to be equal across age points (X2(156) ¼ 325.15, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.98, TLI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.06). Chi-square difference between the final and the unconstrained (across ages) model was not significant (DX2 (8) ¼ 9.42, p ¼ 0.308). As shown in Fig. 2, results suggested that bidirectional cross-lagged paths between adolescent self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers were statistically significant (self-esteem predicting prosocial behavior toward strangers: b ¼ 0.04, p < 0.01; prosocial behavior toward strangers predicting self-esteem: b ¼ 0.06, p < 0.001), suggesting that self-esteem was longitudinally associated with prosocial behavior toward strangers, and prosocial behavior toward strangers was longitudinally associated with self-esteem at all ages. On the other hand, among all the cross-lagged paths between adolescent selfesteem and prosocial behavior toward friends and family, only the two paths from prosocial behavior toward friends at age 11 to self-esteem at age 12 (b ¼ 0.07, p < 0.01) and from prosocial behavior toward family at age 13 to self-esteem at age 14 (b ¼ 0.10, p < 0.01) were significant (negatively). Examinations of the zero-order relations between prosocial behavior toward friends/family and self-esteem demonstrated that prosocial behavior toward friends/family were positively correlated with later self-esteem. Therefore, these two significant paths were both statistical suppressor effects that are unreliable, and should be considered with caution. Subsequent analyses suggested that these suppressor effects stemmed from colinearity between prosocial behavior toward friends/family and self-esteem at the same age point (as the suppressor effects were present only when self-esteem was in the model). Thus, these paths were likely not meaningful and were not interpreted.

Fig. 2. Longitudinal Panel Model Between Adolescent Self-esteem and Prosocial Behavior Toward Strangers, Friends, and Family. Note. PB ¼ prosocial behavior. 11e14 indicate the ages of the adolescents. All values are standardized. Dashed arrows represent paths free to vary as a function of gender (values for girls are before the slash). X2(156) ¼ 325.15, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.98, TLI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.06. Endogenous error correlations and control variables are not shown in figure for parsimony. Only significant paths are shown. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

96

X. Fu et al. / Journal of Adolescence 57 (2017) 90e98

Sampling site was significantly associated with girls' prosocial behavior toward family at age 12 (b ¼ 0.07, p < 0.05) and prosocial behavior toward strangers at age 14 (b ¼ 0.10, p < 0.01). With regard to overall variance, 60% of the variance of selfesteem, 58% of the variance of prosoical behavior toward strangers, 56% of the variance of prosoical behavior toward friends, and 74% of the variance of prosocial behavior toward family were accounted for at age 14 for girls; 61% of the variance of selfesteem, 67% of the variance of prosoical behavior toward strangers, 49% of the variance of prosoical behavior toward friends, and 68% of the variance of prosocial behavior toward family were accounted for at age 14 for boys. 8. Discussion The current study examined trajectories and longitudinal bidirectional relations between self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family across early adolescence. Girls reported a decrease in self-esteem over time, whereas boys reported no differences. Girls' and boys' reports of prosocial behavior over time varied as a function of target. Further, adolescents' self-esteem was bidirectionally associated with prosocial behavior toward strangers, whereas no such bidirectional relations existed between self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward friends and family. 8.1. Development of self-esteem and prosocial behavior in early adolescence Boys and girls had the same level of self-esteem at age 11, and over time boys' self-esteem remained stable, but girls' declined, which are inconsistent with prior findings (Block & Robins, 1993; Robins et al., 2002), but support the claim that decline in self-esteem across adolescence occurs predominantly among girls (Robins et al., 2002). Researchers have offered numerous explanations for this gender difference, ranging from maturational changes associated with puberty to socialcontextual factors associated with the differential treatment of boys and girls (Robins & Trzesniewski, 2005). For example, the maturational changes associated with puberty may lower the self-esteem of both boys and girls, but the physical changes may have a more profound effect on girls (Bolognini, Plancherel, Bettschart, & Halfon, 1996; Rosenberg, 1986). However, there is also evidence showing that gender does not affect the trajectory of self-esteem (e.g., Orth, Robins, & Widaman, 2012; Robins & Trzesniewski, 2005). Thus, continued research is needed to address the role of gender on the development of adolescent self-esteem. In addition, results of the current study showed increases in prosocial behavior toward strangers for girls, but an “increasedecrease-increase” pattern in prosocial behavior toward strangers for boys. Findings also showed increases in prosocial behavior toward friends and stability in prosocial behavior toward family for both girls and boys. These findings are somewhat inconsistent with those demonstrating decreases in prosocial behavior during this period (e.g., Carlo et al., 2007; Luengo Kanacri et al., 2013), or no changes (Flynn et al., 2014), but support the claim that prosocial development differs as a function of targets (e.g., friends versus classmates, Berndt, 1985; Padilla-Walker et al., 2015). In general, girls showed a more robust increase of prosociality than boys. It is inconsistent with previous research showing that both genders drop in prosocial behavior across early to middle adolescence, but boys drop more rapidly than girls (Carlo et al., 2007). The gender difference of the current study might be due to heightened social pressure that girls likely feel to conform to gender stereotypes of being empathic and helpful (Eisenberg et al., 2006), while boys would not feel the same pressure because masculine gender roles mandate that boys should be emotionally aloof rather than empathic (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000; Nielson et al., 2017). Future research should explore the potential mechanisms behind the different trajectories of prosocial growth for boys and girls. 8.2. Reciprocal relations between adolescent self-esteem and prosocial behavior Consistent with hypotheses, the current study suggested evidence for reciprocal relations between adolescent self-esteem and prosocial behavior toward strangers, though effects were generally small. The findings supported the claim that the relation between self-esteem and prosocial behavior is likely bidirectional (Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, 2004). It is possible that adolescents in the current study with higher levels of self-esteem felt more competent to assist others in need (Brown et al., 1988), and were therefore more likely to do so. Researchers have argued that people with low self-esteem are lacking in satisfaction of basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness (Ryan & Brown, 2003), whereas satis, 2003; Pavey, faction of these three core psychological needs promotes engagement in prosocial activities (Gagne Greitemeyer, & Sparks, 2011). Thus, it is possible that adolescents with higher self-esteem had greater satisfaction of needs that lead to internalization than those with lower self-esteem, and then were able to engage in higher levels of prosocial behavior. The result that earlier prosocial behavior toward strangers also promoted subsequent self-esteem is consistent with previous research demonstrating that prosocial behavior is a significant predictor of self-esteem in college students (Laible et al., 2004). Adolescents who engage in higher levels of prosocial behavior are more likely to reap the benefits of feeling good about their involvement in such positive activities (Yates & Youniss, 1996), and this demonstration seems to be particularly true for prosocial behavior toward strangers. It is also of note that the items measuring prosocial behavior in the current study related to micro-level events (e.g., small favors for others) and macro-level events (e.g., volunteering), which suggests that both types of behavior may contribute to increases in one's self-esteem. Future research should examine additional nuances of prosocial behavior and even consider how different types of prosocial behavior might differ as a

X. Fu et al. / Journal of Adolescence 57 (2017) 90e98

97

function of target. For example, it is possible that comforting is more common toward family member or friends, while helping might be more common toward strangers. This and other facets of multidimensionality are fruitful avenues for future research, especially as they relate to self-evaluation. This study adds to a growing body of research highlighting the protective role of prosocial behavior toward strangers (Haroz et al., 2013; Padilla-Walker et al., 2015) and suggests additional utility in involving adolescents in such behaviors. As research has found that prosocial behavior toward other targets (e.g., family) has an indirect effect (via relationship quality, e.g., mother-child connection) on adolescent developmental outcomes (e.g., depression, delinquency; Padilla-Walker et al., 2015), future research should also consider how prosocial behavior toward friends and family might be indirectly associated with self-esteem during adolescence. 8.3. Limitations and contributions Several limitations should be noted. First, the study relied on self-report questionnaires and the reports were from a single source (i.e., adolescent reports), which might lead to common method biases and weaken the robustness of the results. Second, although the sample was relatively large, it would be desirable to conduct such studies in more ethnically diverse samples to determine whether such findings are present among other ethnic groups, especially those groups with different values regarding family loyalty and interpersonal relationship (e.g., Asian adolescents). Third, though this study had the strength of a longitudinal design, it was relatively short-term across a 4-year period of early adolescence, and researchers should continue to examine these patterns into later adolescence. Despite these limitations, the current study yields supportive evidence for longitudinal, reciprocal relations between adolescents' self-esteem and prosocial behavior. The findings also have potential implications for educational programs targeted at adolescents' positive development. For example, parents and teachers should encourage adolescents to engage in more frequent and higher quality prosocial behavior (e.g., helping strangers, volunteering) as one potential avenue of fostering self-esteem, especially during early adolescence. Acknowledgment This research was supported by the Family Studies Center at BYU, the School of Family Life, and the College of Family Home and Social Science at BYU, and we recognize the generous support of the many private donors who provided support for this project. We thank those families who were willing to spend valuable hours with our team in interviews and the many students who assisted in conducting the interviews. This article was also supported by 2016 Young Teachers’ Development Fund from Central University of Finance and Economics (QJJ1624) and 2016 Academic Advancement Program from School of Sociology and Psychology, Central University of Finance and Economics. References Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., … Norton, M. I. (2013). Prosocial spending and well-being: Crosscultural evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 635e652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031578. Amato, P. R. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly, 31e43. Berndt, T. J. (1985). Prosocial behavior between friends in middle childhood and early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 5(3), 307e317. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/0272431685053005. Birkeland, M. S., Melkevik, O., Holsen, I., & Wold, B. (2012). Trajectories of global self-esteem development during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35(1), 43e54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.06.006. Block, J., & Robins, R. W. (1993). A longitudinal study of consistency and change in self-esteem from early adolescence to early adulthood. Child Development, 64(3), 909e923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02951.x. Bolognini, M., Plancherel, B., Bettschart, W., & Halfon, O. (1996). Self-esteem and mental health in early adolescence: Development and gender differences. Journal of Adolescence, 19(3), 233e245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.1996.0022. Brown, J. D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt, G. W. (1988). Self-esteem and direct versus indirect forms of self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 445e453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.445. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children's academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11(4), 302e306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00260. Carlo, G. (2014). The development and correlates of prosocial behavior. In M. Killen, & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 208e234). NY: Psychology Press. 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), 301e324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00524.x. Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Tur, A., & Armenta, B. E. (2011). The longitudinal relations among dimensions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2), 116e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025410375921. Dunfield, K. A. (2014). A construct divided: Prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(958). http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00958. Eberly, M. B., & Montemayor, R. (1998). Doing good deeds: An examination of adolescent prosocial behavior in the context of parent-adolescent relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13(4), 403e432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743554898134003. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Series Ed.) & W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Eds.) (6th ed.,, Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., Vol. Ed., pp. 646e718). New York, NY: Wiley. Series. Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). Prosocial development. In R. M. Lerner, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 1e47). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Eisenberg, N., VanSchyndel, S. K., & Spinrad, T. L. (2016). Prosocial motivation: Inferences from an opaque body of work. Child Development, 87(6), 1668e1678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12638. Flynn, E., Ehrenreich, S. E., Beron, K. J., & Underwood, M. K. (2014). Prosocial behavior: Long-term trajectories and psychosocial outcomes. Social Development. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12100. Advance online Publication.

98

X. Fu et al. / Journal of Adolescence 57 (2017) 90e98

, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199e223. Gagne http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869. Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 946e955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017935. Haroz, E. E., Murray, L. K., Bolton, P., Betancourt, T., & Bass, J. K. (2013). Adolescent resilience in Northern Uganda: The role of social support and prosocial behavior in reducing mental health problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(1), 138e148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00802.x. Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703e726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.126.5.703. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traitsdself-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stabilitydwith job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80e92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1. 80. Killen, M., & Turiel, E. (1998). Adolescents' and young adults' evaluations of helping and sacrificing for others. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 355e375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0803_4. Knight, G. P., Carlo, G., Basilio, C. D., & Jacobson, R. P. (2015). Familism values, perspective taking, and prosocial moral reasoning: Predicting prosocial tendencies among Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(4), 717e727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12164. Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. C. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviours. Journal of Adolescence, 27(6), 703e716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.05.005. Lewis, M. E. (2014). Parents as recipients of adolescent prosocial behavior. In L. M. Padilla-Walker, & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 305e326). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. , A., & Caprara, G. V. (2013). The development of prosociality from adolescence to early adulthood: Luengo Kanacri, B. P., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Zuffiano The role of effortful control. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 302e312. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Midlarsky, E. (1991). Helping as coping. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 238e264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nielson, M. G., Padilla-Walker, L., & Holmes, E. K. (2017). How do men and women help? Validation of a multidimensional measure of prosocial behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 56, 91e106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.02.006. Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span development of self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1271e1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025558. O'Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1983). Self-esteem: Change and stability between ages 13 and 23. Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 257e268. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0012-1649.19.2.257. Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2014). Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Padilla-Walker, L. M., Carlo, G., & Nielson, M. G. (2015). Does helping keep teens protected? Longitudinal bidirectional relations between prosocial behavior and problem behavior. Child Development, 86(6), 1759e1772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12411. Padilla-Walker, L. M., Dyer, W. J., Yorgason, J. B., Fraser, A. M., & Coyne, S. M. (2015). Adolescents' prosocial behavior toward family, friends, and strangers: A person-centered approach. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(1), 135e150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12102. Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2014). How much is it going to cost me? Bidirectional relations between adolescents' moral personality and prosocial behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 37(7), 993e1001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.07.008. Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011). Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 905e917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211405994. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2005). Self-esteem development across the lifespan. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 158e162. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00353.x. Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tracy, J. L., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2002). Global self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 17(3), 423e434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.3.423. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept from middle childhood through adolescence. In J. Suls, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 107e136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rusbult, C. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2010). Prosocial motivation and behavior in close relationships. In M. Mikulincer, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions and behavior (pp. 327e345). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2003). Why we don't need self-esteem: On fundamental needs, contingent love, and mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 71e76. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449046. Sebanc, A. M. (2003). The friendship features of preschool children: Links with prosocial behavior and aggression. Social Development, 12(2), 249e268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00232. Thoits, P., & Hewitt, L. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(2), 115e131. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/ stable/3090173. Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence. Social Development, 5(1), 85e111. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-9507.1996.tb00073.x. , A., Alessandri, G., Kanacri, B. P. L., Pastorelli, C., Milioni, M., Ceravolo, R., … Caprara, G. V. (2014). The relation between prosociality and self-esteem Zuffiano from middle-adolescence to young adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 24e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.041.