Prosocial Behaviour of Adolescents in Relation to Gender ...

33SOCIOLOGY Volume 5. Number 2

Prosocial Behaviour of Adolescentsin Relation to Gender, Age, Size ofCity and Culture Area1

Do Thi Le Hang*, PhanThi Mai Huong*,Dinh Thi Hong Van**, La Thi Thu Thuy*

Abstract: The objective of this research is to compare the differences of prosocialbehaviour by gender, age, region and size of city. A sample survey using structuredquestionnaires was conducted among 994 adolescents (43.4% male), with the averageage of 14, in 6 provinces/cities in 3 regions, including Hanoi and Ninh Binh in the North,Hue and Quang Tri in the Central region and Ben Tre and Ho Chi Minh City in the South ofViet Nam. The results showed that there are significant differences in prosocial behaviourof adolescents by gender, age, cultural region and size of city.

Keywords: prosocial behaviour; support behaviour; adolescents, Viet Nam.

1. Introduction

1.1. Prosocial behaviour

Prosocial behaviour has been investigated by researchers since the 1960s whenpsychologists increasingly paid attention to issues such as crime, including murder. Up tonow, the term prosocial behaviour has not yet been understood consistently (Lukačikovaá,2011).

According to Eisenberg, Fabes and Spinrad (2006), when an individual has to performor become involved in voluntary activities that benefit other people, this action is calledprosocial behaviour. In this respect, prosocial behaviour aims are more than internal

SociologyISSN 0866-7659

Vol.5, No. 2 (Dec 2017): 33 - 44Institute of Sociology, Hanoi, Viet Nam

www.ios.vass.gov.vnemail: [email protected]

1 This research was funded by Viet Nam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development(NAFOSTED) under grant number VI1.1-2013.12.* Institute of Psychology (IOP), Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences.** Department of Psychology and Education Hue University of Education, Viet Nam.

motivation of these actors. Knickerbocker (2011) argued that prosocial behaviours aresharing, supporting, rescuing, and helping. It can be seen that prosocial behaviour is closelyrelated to positive behaviour in the interests of other people (Batson et al., 2003).

Piliavin and colleagues (1991) maintain that prosocial behaviour is an action defined bythe social system which is beneficial to others and is operated by the political system.Actions which aim to promote the interests of others, according to these authors, includehelping, sharing, cooperating, consoling and donating to charity.

Agreeing with these opinions, Carlo and colleagues (2007) stated that prosocialbehaviour is always seen as beneficial to others. They emphasized that prosocial behaviouris significantly related to the development of adolescents. Developing various prosocialbehaviours for adolescents leads to having positive perceptions, know how to relievepersonal pain, and empower their own images (Carlo & Randall, 2002).

Regarding prosocial behaviour, Feldman (1985), Bierhoff (2005), Výrost (2008) arguedthat prosocial behaviour can be understood as altruism (as cited by Lukačiková, 2011). Inreality, however, these are two different concepts. Chou (1998) argued that prosocialbehaviour is understood as an exemplar while altruism is seen as a motivation to help others.Prosocial behaviour often relates to psychological characteristics and social rewards grantedfor those who perform social support behaviour. Over time, individuals can benefit from lifesince prosocial behaviour becomes more common in society (Knafo, Weiner & Dubrovsky,2011).

Adolescence is the age at which social behaviours are formed and they thrive. At thisstage, young people have experienced great physical, psychological, and social changes.As a result, this has motivated the youth to seek for social support (Sprinthall & Collins,1995). The process of developing social behaviour, including prosocial behaviour, makesyoung people more likely to be friendly, law-abiding, less aggressive and anxious (Eisenberg& Fabes, 1998). Young adults with prosocial behaviour are often those who have capacityto communicate; to self-regulate their needs; to feel remorse and to regret their wrongdoings;to show restraint when tempted to do wrong, and to display kindness toward other people(Hoffman, 1970; Mischel et al., 1989).

In our opinion, the term “prosocial behaviour” suggests the acts of promoting socialnorms, supporting human relationships. It must be human behaviour, the act of helpingothers and the wider community which is different from selfishness.

1.2. Prosocial behaviour in different social and demographic groups

Gender and Age

Maccoby (2002), and Zakriski et al. (2005) believe that there are differences betweenmen and women in expressing prosocial behaviour. Pursell et al. (2008) concluded thatwomen tend to express prosocial behaviour more than men. Concurrently, Dietz et al. (2002)also found that women place more emphasis on altruistic social psychological values than

34 SOCIOLOGY Volume 5. Number 2


men. These authors said that the differences between men and women in prosocialbehaviour are due to the difference between the two groups in the process of socialization.Women are taught to be caring, while men are taught to compete with other people.

Research on relationship between gender and altruism suggests that generally womentend to engage in helpful behaviours faster and more often than men (Rushton, 1982), andthe principle of social responsibility is more prominent in women than in men (Smithson,Amato & Pearle, 1983). Such differences are due to gender roles, in which women are oftenthought to be faster, more empathetic, and more socially supportive than men who areexpected to be independent (Eisenberg et al., 2006).

Another research by Chou (1998), however, did not show differences between men andwomen in engaging volunteering activities, one type of prosocial behaviour. Similar to Chou'sconclusion, Ma (2005) examined the relationship between gender and prosocial behaviouramong 505 adolescents in China, showing no statistically significant differences betweenmales and females in prosocial behaviour. The results from meta-analysis by Eagly andCrowley (1986) even showed an opposite result that men are more likely to perform altruisticbehaviours than women.

Dovidio et al. (1991) argued that in certain situations, such as when there is a need tointervene in perceived danger, men are more willing to help others than women do.Charbonneau and Nicol (2002) also found that in certain situations women had higherscores than men in altruism. However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Size of areas

One of the set issues when researching support behaviours is that whether they areimplemented at different levels and in various urbanized areas such as small towns or largecities. Milgram (1970) explained that the proportion of prosocial behaviour of rural dwellersis higher than that of their urban counterparts due to the fact that city dwellers are moresuspicious of their neighbors.

Steblay (1987), in his meta-analysis on support behaviours based on the classificationof population sizes in different cities, showed an inverse relationship between populationsize and support behaviours. According to him, population density is a more importantindicator for the level of implementing prosocial behaviours rather than population size whencomparing prosocial behaviours in rural and urban areas. High population density can leadto an overload of information as well as reducing the implementation of personalresponsibility (Levine et al., 1994). Kort and Ayvalouglu (1981, cited in Bierhoff, 2005) carriedout support behaviours in four Turkish cities came to the same conclusion.

The aforementioned findings show that gender influences prosocial behavioursinconsistently across different cultures. On the other hand, the results have not shownwhether the interaction between age and gender has a significant impact on prosocialbehaviour or not.



Viet Nam is a country with three regions which are the North, the Central and the South,with distinct geographical, residential and cultural characteristics. Comparing prosocialbehaviour of adolescents by gender, age, region and population size will allow to ascertainhow these factors affect the behaviours.

The objective of this research is to clarify the types of prosocial behaviours amongVietnamese adolescents and whether these behaviours are influenced by gender, age, andlocation (size of city, culture area) or not.

2. Method

2.1. Sampling area and participants

With the purpose to examine variation of prosocial behaviours by residence (populationsize and culture), the research was conducted in three regions: the North (Ninh Binh andHanoi), the Central (Quang Tri and Hue), and the South (Ben Tre and Ho Chi Minh City).Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) are the cities with the largest population size in VietNam, with 6,936,900 people in Hanoi and 7,818,200 people in HCMC in 2014. Thepopulation in HCMC was 6.1 times the population in Ben Tre, about seven times in Hue, 8.4times in Ninh Binh and twelve times in Quang Tri (General Statistics Office, 2015).

Of the 994 adolescents who took part in this research, 430 were male (43.3%), 552 werefemale (55.5%) with twelve participants not disclosing their sex; 184 students were 12-yearsold in grade 7 (18.5 %), 169 were 13 years old in grade 8 (17.0%), 216 were 14 years oldin the 9th grade (21.7%), 207 were 15 years old in grade 10 (20.8%), and 182 were 16 yearsold in grade 11 (18.3%); 36 students did not report their grade. 127 students were fromHanoi (12.8%), 160 from Ninh Binh (16.1%), 167 from Thua Thien Hue (16.8%), 192 fromQuang Tri (19.3%), 167 from Ben Tre (16.8%), 164 from HCMC (16.5%) and 17 unreportedadolescents. Their mean age was 14.1 (SD = 1.409).

2.2. Data preparation

The prosocial behaviour questionnaire included fourteen items expressing supportiveactions (helping the disabled, helping someone when they ask for), shared responsibility(volunteering at school/ in class that other students are hesitant to do) and participating involunteer activities (doing charity, participating in community activities). A 4-level Likert scalewas applied from 1 corresponding to “never” to 4 meaning “quite a lot of times”. Cronbach'salpha reliability of scale was 0.820.

Variables: Age is a two-categories variable with secondary school age (from 12 to 14years old) and high school age (from 15 to 16 years old). Students in grades 7, 8, and 9 areclassified as the secondary school group, while students in grades 10 and 11 are classifiedas the high school group.



The size of city is based on the population density of the targeted city. Ho Chi Minh Cityand Hanoi are categorized as densely populated cities and the rest are classified as lessdensely populated.

Region include three categorical values in which Hanoi and Ninh Binh are in the North,Thua Thien Hue and Quang Tri in the Central and Ho Chi Minh City and Ben Tre in theSouth.

Prosocial behaviour variable is calculated by the average scores of all the items.

Factor analysis: Exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation was used to identifythe types of prosocial behaviour among Vietnamese adolescents.

t-test: was used to compare differences in prosocial behaviour types among gender, ageand city size.

One-way anova: was applied to indicate the differences in the types of prosocialbehaviour among the three regions.

The research was conducted in classrooms with permission from the head teacher andschool administrators as well as the voluntary participation of the students. Students areintroduced to the objectives of the research and they were taken through the questionnaire.The average response time is about 15-20 minutes.

3. Results

3.1. Types of prosocial behaviour

Results of exploratory factor analysis with principal component method extracted threefactors of the prosocial behaviour in the adolescent sample. The three factors explain 47.3%of variance. They represent three types of prosocial behaviour, with a narrow range ofbehaviour and behavioural features. The first type included six behaviours which werehelping people in the community and volunteering. They are named Public HelpingBehaviours. The second type consists of four behaviours based on relationships andtolerance. Here, although tolerance was implemented in a public place, it is placed into thesecond type. It is likely that adolescents paid attention to the concept of “tolerance” morethan “in a public place”. This type aims at peer relationships. The third type consists of fourbehaviours, so called share and support which included sharing and supporting actions topeople around them without any requests from others. This type aims at ethical standards.



Table 1. Extraction of adolescent’s prosocial behaviour pattern by exploratory factoranalysis

Source: Research project VI1.1-2013.12.

Considering the average score for each type of prosocial behaviour, it is evident thatVietnamese adolescents at present are now more predominant in the type of support basedon relationship and tolerance (average score was 3.19, SD= 0.538). The next was the typeof public support (average score = 2.81, SD = 0.559) and the third was the type of shareand support (average was 2.76, SD = 0.614).

3.2. Gender differences in prosocial behaviour

Based on an overall score, the results generally show that men and women do not differin prosocial behaviour (t = -1.76, p =.079). However, given a particular type of behaviours,the statistics indicate that men and women are statistically significantly different in the formof relationship and tolerance (t = -3.385, p < 0.01). Women tend to show support behavioursto friends more than men. In addition, the data also show a similarity between males andfemales in the level of implementing support behaviour in public and the behaviour of sharingand support.





Table 2. Mean of prosocial behaviour score by gender

Note: ** p < 0.01Source: Research project VI1.1-2013.12.

3.3. Age difference in prosocial behaviour

The results of t-test for the average score of prosocial behaviour showed significantdifferences between secondary school and high school students (t = - 2,271, p = 0.023), inwhich older students performed more prosocial behaviour than younger ones. It is moreobvious in the first and second behaviour types but not in the third type.

Table 3. Mean of prosocial behaviour by age

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.Source: Research project VI1.1-2013.12.

3.4. Effect of gender and age interaction

The two-way anova compares the mean differences in prosocial behaviour betweengender and age to determine whether there is an interaction between those two variableson the prosocial behaviour score.

The results showed that interaction between gender and age on prosocial behaviour(PSB) is significant at the level of 0.01 (F = 7.154, p = 0.008). That means the effects ofgender on PSB scores were not the same for both the secondary school and the high school

groups. At the secondary school age, the prosocial behaviour scores among girls weresignificantly higher than those by boys, however, in high school, prosocial behaviour scoresamong boys were higher than those for girls (although this difference was not statisticallysignificant). The girl’s prosocial behaviour scores of the two school levels were almost thesame, meanwhile, the scores for the secondary school boys were lower than for the highschool boys. It can be seen that the effects of gender on prosocial behaviour were influencedby age.

3.5. Size of city difference in prosocial behaviour

T-test comparisons were also conducted to determine differences in prosocial behaviouramong students of different ages and city sizes. The results show that students in lesspopulated cities tend to perform public prosocial behaviours and sharing – supportingbehaviours more than those in densely populated cities such as Hanoi and HCMC. Theresults also show that students in busy cities such as Hanoi and HCMC performedbehaviours in terms of relationship and tolerance more than those in small cities. However,these differences are not statistically significant.

Table 4. Mean of prosocial behaviour score by size of city

Note: *p < 0.05.Source: Research project VI1.1-2013.12.

3.6. Cultural areas difference in prosocial behaviour

In general, Vietnamese culture is diverse and various with a large number of differentethnic groups, geographic regions, cultures and histories. Therefore, there are certaincultural differences among regions. The Red River basin is considered a cradle of traditionalVietnamese culture. The residents in this area are mostly northerners. They tend to preservetraditional customs, hence, their ways of life and their thinking are more influenced bytradition. Over the long period of Chinese domination, the northern culture was more or lessinfluenced by their neighbours. Meanwhile, the south is the land of migrants with favourablenatural conditions. The cultural mix is characteristic in this area. The southerners aregenerous, respectful and open. Chinese culture has less influence on the southern culture



than the northern one. The central region is of difficult natural conditions, narrow soils, highmountains, harsh climates and a lot of natural disasters. Thus, people from Central VietNam are more industrious, highly tolerate, sharing and economical. With different culturalcharacteristics of each region, the prosocial behaviour of the adolescents in such threeregions is expected to be different.

The results of One-way anova analysis show that, in general, adolescents in the Centralhad higher prosocial behaviour scores than those in the North and the South (F = 3,262with p<0.05). Considering this difference in each type of behaviour, more specific resultswere seen in the first type. Prosocial behaviour among adolescents in the central does notdiffer much from the northern young people but obviously differs from the southerners.

4. Discussion

Prosocial behaviour has two fundamental types, helping and altruism (Dovidio & Penner,2001), or moral behaviours (Gustavo, et al. 1999). Dovidio, et al. (1991) proposed thatprosocial behaviour is a multilevel perspective, micro, meso and macro levels dependingon the range of behaviour. Micro level of analysis deals with intention to help and explainswhy a person does not take action when needed. Meso level of analysis addressesbehaviours that help with interpersonal relationships. Macro level is about organizedbehaviours, like volunteering. This research has illustrated prosocial behaviour types basedon their scopes and characteristics, but from a different perspective such as publicbehaviour, behaviour in relationships as well as supportive but disadvantaged behaviours.In these forms, helping behaviour based on relationships is similar to Dovidio's meso level.The public helping behaviour is similar to the behaviour of Dovidio's macro level. This showsthat prosocial behaviour is a universal characteristic across different cultures and amongdifferent ages, and thus, the types of prosocial behaviours are similar.

Adolescence is an age of social changes and strong emotions. While misbehaviour isbecoming more common among adolescents as well as being an extremely serious socialproblem (Lance, 2003), in that circumstance, raising prosocial behaviour is absolutelyimportant. Considering the level of implementation of prosocial behaviours, it appears thatfor Vietnamese adolescents, behavioural support in relationships is expressed more clearlythan public support behaviour. Supporting and sharing behaviours can create disadvantagesfor the person while benefiting others at the lowest level. It shows that at this age, the rangeand social environment for helping behaviour appear to be relatively defined and narrow.This means that social space of the adolescents is also narrow. This may be the results ofthe educational process at home, at school and at the same time they reflect social andcultural values. This is a matter of concern in educating children to help them betterunderstand the patterns and cultural norms of the outside world, not just in their ownnetwork.



The demographics (gender, age, education level, and living area) are related to thephysical and social status of each individual. The purpose of the research was to investigatethe prosocial behaviour of adolescents in the relationship with such characteristics. Thesurvey data show the differences between men and women in social behaviour. There werecertain behaviours females undertook more than males (based on relationship andtolerance). The research results are consistent with the previous research findings on thesimilarities between men and women in PSB as a whole (Ma, 2005), as well as showing inparticular cases (Dovidio et al., 1991; Charbonneau & Nicol, 2002).

The results also show that students of different ages have different prosocial behaviours.The prosocial behaviour point of secondary school age adolescents is lower than that ofhigh school age youth. The results of this research are consistent with the conclusions byFabes et al. (1999) that the older the child, the more likely they are to aim to engage onprosocial behaviour. This trend tends to be higher in adults. To explain this, many researchershave suggested that adolescence is a period when many changes occur (Simmons,Burgeson & Reef, 1988; Wigfield, Eccles & Pintrich, 1996). PSB represents children’s socialdevelopment. The older they are, the less they focus on themselves, and the more they careabout others. In this research, we found that only girls in secondary school (12-14 yearsold) had a significantly higher prosocial behaviour score than boys, not at the age of 15-17.Thus, it is possible to see the social development among girls moving faster than that amongboys aged 12-14. After this period, girls do not change very much in propensity to doprosocial behaviour, while boys began to develop prosocial behaviour.

Regarding prosocial behaviour differences across different regions, the results show thatprosocial behaviour scores among students in large cities were lower than that among thosein smaller areas. For adolescents living in an environment with high urban pressure andpopulation density (Hanoi and HCMC), the distance in relationships becomes bigger, sodirect interactions seem to be occurring less. The research shows the physical environment(such as, noise, light, etc.) (Mathews & Canon, 1975) and the social environment (populationdiversity, culture, etc.) (Levine et al., 1994) can affect a person's support behaviour. Manystudies from the United Kingdom, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan show thatpeople living in the city are less likely to have support behaviour than those in thecountryside (Hedge & Yousif, 1992; Yousif & Korte, 1995). Milgram (1970) explains thaturban-rural differences are due to coping with the overload of external stimulation, citydwellers only focus on individual events to have support behaviours. This research has beenconsistent with previous studies by Hedge and Yousif (1992), Yousif and Korte (1995),Milgram (1970), revealing that there is less support behaviour in the city than in thecountryside. Furthermore, the research highlights that the implementation of prosocialbehaviour is not only different by region but also by size of the area. In a larger area, eachperson performs less prosocial behaviour.

The results are also consistent with the results of the afore-mentioned studies,suggesting that people in urban areas focus on helping those who are familiar withthemselves.



In terms of cultural regions, the statistical results show that adolescents in the Centralwere more likely to use public support than those in the other two regions. This may indicatethat the prosocial behaviour in adolescents is influenced by cultural factors. Therefore, it isnecessary to consider the prosocial behaviour of adolescents from cultural perspective. Theresults also pave the way to upcoming research on prosocial behaviour.

5. Conclusion

In summary, this research shows that there are three types of adolescents’ prosocialbehaviour which are public support behaviour, public support behaviour based onrelationship as well as supportive and sharing behaviour. They are different by socialdemographic characteristics such as gender, age, size of city and region of residence. Ingeneral, the results show the evidence of the impact of these factors on prosocial behaviourin adolescences which contribute to further research to better understand the factors thataffect prosocial behaviour as well as the formation and development of these types of socialbehaviour. This would be an approach contributing to reducing adolescence’s misbehaviour.

References

Batson, D. C., & Powell, A. A.,. 2003. Hand book of Psychology. In Weiner, I. B (Eds)Bierhoff, H. W. 2005. Prosocial Behaviour. Taylor & Francis Inc.Carlo, G. & Randall, B. A. 2002. The development of a measure of prosocial behaviour for late

adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1): 31-44.Carlo, G., Crockett, L. J., Randall, B. A., & Roesch, S. C. 2007. A latent growth curve analysis of

prosocial behaviour among rural adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17: 301-324.

Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. A. M. 2002. Emotional interligence and prosocial behaviours inadolescents. Psychological Report, 90 (2): 361-370.

Chou, K. L. 1998. Effect of age, gender, and participation in volunteer activities on the altruisticbehaviour of Chinese adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159: 195-201.

Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. C. 2002. Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social ScienceQuarterly, 83 (1): 353-364.

Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A., & Clark, R. D.,. 1991. The arousal: Cost-reward model and the process of intervention: A review of the evidence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.),Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 12. Prosocial behaviour (pp. 86-118).

Dovidio, J.F & Penner L.A. 2001. Helping and altruism, In: Blackwell Handbook of social psychology :Interpersonal processes, Edited by Garth J.O. Fletcher, Margaret S. Clack: 162-195. BlackwwellPublishers Ltd.

Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, H. 1986. Gender and helping behaviour: A meta-analytic review of the socialpsychology literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100 (3): 283-308.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. 1998. Prosocial development. In W. Colby (Ed.), Handbook of ChildPsychology (5th ed., Vol. 3: 701-798). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., & Spinrad, T. 2006. Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, &R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol.3 Social emotional and personalitydevelopment (6th ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son.

Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Kunanoff, K., & Laible,D. 1999. Early adolescence and prosocial/ moralbehaviour I: The role of individual processes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19: 5-16.

General Statistics Office of Viet Nam, 2015. Statistical Yearbook of Viet Nam. Publisher of GeneralStatistics Office of Viet Nam,




Gustavo Carlo, Richard A. Fabes, Deborah Laible, Kristina Kupanoff. 1999. Early Adolescence andProsocial/Moral Behaviour II: The Role of Social and Contextual Influences. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, Vol. 19 No. 2: 133-147.

Hedge, A., & Yousif, Y. H. 1992. Effects of urban size, urgency, and cost of helpfulness: A cross-culturalcomparison between the United Kingdom and the Sudan. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,23: 107-115.

Hoffman, M.L. 1970. Moral development. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.). Carmichael’s Manual of ChildDevelopment (3rd ed.: 261-359). New York: Wiley.

Knafo, A., Weiner, M., & Dubrovsky, I. 2011. How teachers and schools can promote prosocialbehaviour. Retrieved from www.education.com/reference/article/prosocial-behaviour/

Knickerbocker, R. L. 2011. Prosocial behaviour. Retrieved from www.learningtogive.org/papers/paper52.html

Lance, J. R. 2003. The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Adolescent DeviantBehaviour. The thesis of Master of Science in Familly and Human Development. Utah StateUniversity.

Levine, R. V., Martinez, T. S., Brase, G., & Sorenson, K. 1994. Helping in 36 U. S. cities. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 67:,69-82.

Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A., Philbrick, K. 2001. Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 5: 543-560.

Ma, H. K. (2005). The relation of gender-role classifications to the prosocial and antisocial behaviourof Chinese adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(2), 189-202.

Maccoby, E. E. 2002. Gender and group process: A developmental perspective. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 11(2): 54-58.

Mathews, K. E., & Canon, L. K. 1975. Environment noise level as a determinant of helping. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 32: 571-577.

Michaela Lukačikovaá. 2011. Prosocial behaviour of adolescent in school and after-school environment,School and Health 21, Education and Healthcare: 211-215.

Milgram, S. 1970. The experience of the living in cities. Science, 167: 1461-1468.Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., and Rodriguez, M.L. 1989. Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244: 933-

938.J. Philippe Rushton. 1982. Social theory learning, http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/

2015/02/personality-prosocial-social-learning-2-rushton-ethics-4-1982.pdfSimmons, R. G., Burgeson, R., & Reef, M. J. 1988. Cumulative change at entry to adolescence. In M.

R. Gunnar & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Development during the transition to adolescence. TheMinnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Steblay, N. M. 1987. Helping behaviour in rural and urban environments: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, Vol 102(3): 346-356.

Sprinthall, A., & Collins, W. A. 1995. Adolescent psychology a development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Pursell, G. R., Laursen, B., Rubin, K. H., Booth-LaForce, C., & Rose-Krasnor, L. 2008. Gender

difference in patterns of association between prosocial behaviour, personality and externalizingproblems. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(2).

Yousif, Y., & Korte, C.,. 1995. Urbanization, culture, and helpfulness: Cross-cultural studies in Englandand the Sudan. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 474-489.

Zakriski, A. L., Wright, J. C., & Underwood, M. K. (2005). Gender similarities and differences inchildren’s social behaviour: Finding personality in contextual patterns of adaptation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 88(5): 844-855.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Pintrich, P. R. 1996. Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In D.C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan:148-185.


Prosocial Behaviour of Adolescents in Relation to Gender ...

Documents

Transcript of Prosocial Behaviour of Adolescents in Relation to Gender ...