The role of psychosocial school conditions in adolescent prosocial behaviour

Abstract

This study examined how psychosocial conditions at school are associated with prosocial behaviour, a key indicator of positive mental health. Participants were 3,652 Swedish Grade 9 students from the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study. Structural equation modelling demonstrated that students who experience more manageable school demands and greater social support from teachers and classmates are more likely to display caring, sharing, and cooperative behaviours. However, those that feel acutely stressed, particularly girls, also reported greater prosocial behaviour. Teacher support played a greater role in girls' prosocial behaviour and perceptions of school demands than boys'. The findings extend knowledge of the importance of psychosocial work conditions for adolescent health to positive mental health.

Keywords

Adolescence prosocial behaviour school demands SDQ social support stress

Psychosocial working conditions within the school context, such as school demands and social support can influence adolescents’ physical and psychological health (Modin, Östberg, Toivanen, & Sundell, 2011; Plenty, Östberg, Almquist, Augustine, & Modin, 2014). However, investigations of adolescent health and health behaviours tend to focus on problematic facets, overlooking possible influences on positive aspects. Well-being is not simply the absence of ‘problems’ (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and the role of psychosocial factors at school in promoting strengths are less well understood. Therefore, the current study examines the role of school demands, stress, and social support in adolescents’ prosocial behaviour, a positive indicator of mental well-being.

A widely used screening tool for assessing psychological adjustment in adolescents is the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997). This instrument consists of five subscales that measure emotional and behavioural functioning and is applied in clinical settings and as a research tool around the world. The first four subscales reflect developmental difficulties (emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity-inattention, and peer problems) and have been examined extensively. However, the fifth subscale, prosocial behaviour, reflects developmental strengths and surprisingly little attention has been paid to the correlates of this aspect of the instrument. Prosocial behaviour refers to voluntary actions that primarily benefit others and can involve cooperativeness, helpfulness, sharing, or empathy (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). As prosocial behaviour is associated with a range of positive social, cognitive, and affective outcomes comprising well-being (Denham & Brown, 2010; Layous, Nelson, Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, & Lyubomirsky, 2012) it is considered an important indicator of psychological adjustment (see Weinstein & Ryan, 2010).

However, experiencing excessive work demands and poor social support can challenge individuals' prosocial tendencies (Chang, Russell, & Yang, 2007; Twenge, Baumeister, De Wall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007). Social support typically involves trust, respect, and affiliation (emotional support) and also practical guidance to reach goals (instrumental support). One benefit of social support is that it facilitates openness and sensitivity to others' needs (Twenge et al., 2007). If individuals perceive a supportive social environment they are more likely to behave in a socially cohesive way. Accordingly, positive relationships with teachers and peers are associated with greater prosocial goals and behaviour, particularly those involving empathy (Wentzel, 2014; Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney, 2010).

Social support can also function as a key resource for meeting challenges and through this process is associated with greater physical and psychological health (Bergh, Hagquist, & Starrin, 2010; Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000). It is thought to provide a secure emotional base from which individuals can manage stressors without fixating on evaluative concerns and fear of failure (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). Therefore, social support can reduce the likelihood of stress and its adverse effects by facilitating adaptive coping (Kaplan, Cassel, & Gore, 1977; Zimmer-Gembeck & Locke, 2007). In line with this perspective, students with weaker social support tend to become anxious and self-doubting more easily than students with stronger support (Legault, Green-Demers, & Pelletier, 2006; Martin, Marsh, McInerney, Green, & Dowson, 2007).

While work demands (such as time pressures and workload) are an inevitable part of life, excessive pressure can be detrimental to well-being. Individuals who perceive fewer stressors and experience less stress tend to display greater prosocial behavior (Brophy-Herb, Lee, Nievar, & Stollak, 2007; Weinstein & Ryan, 2011). Prosocial actions require being outwards focused and empathetic to others’ needs and the capacity for these sorts of actions may be limited when feeling psychologically strained (Chang et al., 2007). This may mean that if students focus excessively on stressors such as school demands, the resulting stress can trigger over-arousal and greater self-focus, which in turn may lead to less empathy and helping behaviour (Carlo, Crockett, Wolff, & Beal, 2012; Wentzel & McNamara, 1999). On the other hand, there is also evidence that stress and prosocial behaviour may be positively associated (Von Dawans, Fischbacher, Kirschbaum, Fehr, & Heinrichs, 2012). Increased prosocial behaviour may reflect a need to reduce negative feelings stemming from acute stress. Strategies such as ‘befriending’, creating and maintaining social networks can function as protective responses that can generate additional resources during challenging events or periods (Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2000). From this perspective, a positive association between stress and prosocial behaviour that reflects a coping mechanism may be expected.

Prosocial behaviour as well as school demands, stress, and social support are associated with gender differences during adolescence. Girls usually show higher rates of prosocial behaviour and are more relationally orientated than boys (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). However, they also tend to report greater school demands as well as academic worry and stress (Brolin Låftman & Modin, 2012: Murberg & Bru, 2004; Plenty & Heubeck, 2013). These differences in evaluative concerns and interpersonal relations may mean that school demands and social support play a greater role in girls' prosocial behaviour than boys' (Rudolph & Conley, 2005). Some evidence even suggests that positive associations between stress and prosocial behaviour are characteristic of a female gender-stereotyped support-seeking coping style (Taylor et al., 2000).

The current study

Research on psychosocial conditions at school and adolescent health has largely focused on negative aspects and numerous studies have applied the SDQ but largely ignored the prosocial subscale. Although ratings of school stress and social support (as well as gender differences) tend to worsen during secondary school (Currie et al., 2012), an understanding of how these experiences relate to positive psychological adjustment is lacking. In response, the current study will apply a strengths-based approach and explore how social support, demands, and stress are associated with students' prosocial behaviour. It will also distinguish between the associations that school demands (stressors) and current stress share with social support and prosocial behaviour.

The proposed model is presented in Figure 1. Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) we will examine whether social support and school demands share direct associations with prosocial behaviour. We will also test the mediating role of stress in these relationships. It is expected that social support from teachers and classmates will function as a coping resource and thus be associated with reduced school stress and greater prosocial behaviour. As school demands represent stressors, they are expected to positively relate to school stress and negatively to prosocial behaviour. The associations that school stress shares with prosocial behaviour will be evaluated to consider the opposing hypotheses that it impedes versus promotes prosocial behaviour through coping processes. Gender moderation effects in the function of demands, stress and social support will also be explored.
Figure 1.
Hypothesized predictive model.

Method

Participants and procedure

This study draws on data from Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC). The HBSC study is an ongoing cross-national project carried out in collaboration with the World Health Organisation that aims to improve understanding of adolescent health and well-being. The current study was based on Swedish data from 3,699 Grade 9 students (girls 49.91%; boys 50.19%; ∼ 15 years of age) from 180 school classes from the 2005/06 and 2009/10 surveys. In Sweden Grade 9 is the final year of compulsory schooling and like many other European and North American countries, this period is associated with the highest rates of perceived school demands and stress, particularly amongst girls (Currie et al., 2012).

The Swedish National Institute of Public Health (SNIPH) collected the data (Swedish National Institute of Public Health, 2011). The sample was recruited using cluster sampling in two steps. First, a randomized sample of schools across Sweden was selected and then one class within each school was recruited. Students completed self-report questionnaires during normal lesson time, with 45 minutes reserved for completion. They were informed that participation was voluntary and that their responses were anonymous. See Currie, Gabhainn, and Godeau (2009), Currie et al. (2011), Currie et al. (2012) and Roberts et al. (2009) for details regarding the survey design and data collection process. The current study received approval from the Regional Ethics Committee, Stockholm and the authors received permission from the SNIPH to use the de-identified data.

Measures

Prosocial behaviour

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997) was used to assess prosocial behaviour. The prosocial subscale consists of the five following statements describing sharing, caring, helping, kind and considerate behaviours: ‘I usually share with others’ (e.g. sweets, games, food); ‘I am helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill’; ‘I am kind to younger children’; ‘I often volunteer to help others’ (parents, teachers, children); ‘I try to be nice to other people. I care about their feelings’. Students rate themselves on a three-point response scale (‘not true’, ‘somewhat true’, and ‘certainly true’). Although Goodman and colleagues (Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998; Goodman, 2000; Goodman, 2001) report satisfactory reliability and validity of the prosocial subscale (Cronbach's alpha ranging between 0.65–0.66.) and full SDQ, some have questioned the factor structure, particularly within Swedish samples and across gender (Essau et al., 2012; Hagquist, 2007; Svedin & Priebe, 2008; Van de Looij-Jansen, Goedhart, De Wilde, & Treffers, 2011). Therefore, it was of interest to evaluate the suitability of prosocial scale within the current sample.

The measures of school demands and social support each comprised of three indicators. Teacher support assessed perceptions of teachers as fair, friendly, and available: ‘Our teachers treat us fairly’, ‘Most of my teachers are friendly’, and ‘If I need extra help I can get it from teachers’.

Classmate support assessed peer affiliation and helpfulness: ‘Students in my class get along together’, ‘Most in my class are nice and helpful’, and ‘Other students accept me as I am’.

School demands represented stressors based on the perceived workload of schoolwork, i.e.: ‘I have too much schoolwork’, ‘I find schoolwork difficult’, and ‘I find schoolwork tiring’.

Students rated their agreement with the statements on a five-point scale ranging from ‘absolutely disagree’ to ‘absolutely agree’. In previous publications using HBSC data, these subscales have shown good validity and reliability (Haapasalo, Välimaa, & Kannas, 2010; Torsheim & Wold, 2001; Torsheim, Wold, & Samdal, 2000).

School stress was measured with the following item, ‘How stressed do you feel from schoolwork?’ with four response options ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much’.

Statistical analyses

Across all variables, less than 5% of data was missing. The following analyses are based on 3,652 participants with data available. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using Mplus Version 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012) was performed using a two-step model-building process: First establishing the measurement model and then testing the structural associations between the latent factors. All analyses controlled for clustering of students within school to produce adjusted model fit indices and to ensure that standard errors were not over estimated. All items were treated as ordered-categorical, using a weighted least squares estimator. The chi-square test statistic, as well as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were used to evaluate model fit. CFI and TLI values above 0.95 reflect excellent fit, while a RMSEA below or near 0.06 indicates an acceptable fit of data to a model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Modification Indices (MI) were examined to empirically identify potential sources of model misfit. However, MI suggestions were evaluated conservatively and only conceptually feasible paths were added.

Multigroup CFAs were performed to assess measurement invariance across gender to confirm that the subscale items functioned similarly across these groups (Meade & Lautenschlager, 2004). Support for measurement invariance is accepted if model fit does not decrease significantly as equality constraints across groups are imposed on features of the model (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989). However, in large samples chi-square tends to be oversensitive (Barrett, 2007) and so changes in fit indices greater than 0.01 were also used as indicators of measurement non-invariance (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). The first multigroup CFA allowed all factor loadings, thresholds and residuals to be freely estimated across gender. Subsequent models progressively held each feature of the model equal across the two groups. Multigroup SEM was also performed to examine the moderating role of gender in associations amongst the factors by comparing models with the structural paths freely estimated across gender to models with the paths held equal.

Results

Model fit and invariance of the measurement model

A series of CFAs were performed to confirm the factor structure of the SDQ prosocial subscale. As presented in Table 1, excellent model fit was observed across the whole sample and for boys and girls separately. However, partial measurement invariance across gender was observed. The item caring (‘I am helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill’) showed a slightly higher factor loading for boys than girls. Also, at a given level on the prosocial latent factor, girls were more likely to endorse a higher category of caring than boys. Allowing this item to vary resulted in measurement invariance. The psychosocial working conditions subscales for school demands and social support (teacher and classmate) showed an excellent three-factor structure (x² = 160.87, df = 24, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.039) and measurement invariance across gender (x² = 246.78, df = 0.78, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.035, x² diff = < 0.05).
Table 1.
Model fit and measurement invariance of the SDQ prosocial behaviour scale

X ² df CFI TLI RSMEA x² diff

Whole sample 35.27 5 0.99 0.99 0.041

Boys 29.52 5 0.99 0.98 0.052

Girls 31.11 5 0.98 0.97 0.054

No constraints 59.87 10 0.99 0.97 0.052

Factor + thresholds 136.83 18 0.97 0.97 0.060 < 0.001

Factor + thresholds (partial) 63.57 16 0.99 0.99 0.040 0.05

Factor loadings + thresholds + residuals 136.56 23 0.97 0.98 0.052 0.16

Note: Partial model: Item caring factor loading and thresholds free to vary across gender.

Descriptive statistics

The mean ratings and internal reliability are presented in Table 2 and correlations amongst the factors in Table 3 (see Supplemental Material Tables 1–2 for correlations amongst the observed variables). The SDQ prosocial behaviour scale showed strong reliability, as did the other scales. As expected, girls reported significantly greater prosocial behaviours, as well as greater school demands and stress than boys. However, boys reported stronger classmate support than girls. Although the correlation between stress and prosocial behaviour was weaker than anticipated, all other correlations amongst the factors were in the expected direction. Despite a strong correlation between school demands and stress, the associations these two variables shared with prosocial behaviour differed somewhat and preliminary analyses revealed no multicollinearity problems (all Variance Inflation Factors < 2). Thus, the empirical evidence supported the conceptual rationale for applying school demands (stressors) and stress as separate but related constructs.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics

Whole sample Boys Girls

Range αAlpha Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD U

Prosocial behaviour 0–2 0.71 1.52 0.39 1.42 0.40 1.63 0.35 −16.81*

School demands 1–5 0.76 3.68 0.82 3.60 0.87 3.76 0.76 −5.31*

Stress 1–4 - 2.59 0.89 2.37 0.87 2.82 0.86 −15.14*

Teacher support 1–5 0.75 3.86 0.74 3.86 0.79 3.85 0.68 1.24

Classmate support 1–5 0.81 4.02 0.76 4.05 0.76 3.99 3.96 2.75

Note: α = Cronbach's alpha; p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001; Gender differences examined using Mann–Whitney U-Tests.

Table 3.
Correlations amongst the factors

PB SD SS TS CS

Prosocial behaviour −0.24 0.01 0.39 0.31

School demands −0.26 0.68 −0.43 −0.15

School stress −0.13 0.56 −0.29 −0.15

Teacher support 0.31 −0.29 −0.36 0.36

Classmate support 0.28 −0.09 −0.22 −0.47

Note: Boys presented in lower diagonal and girls presented in upper diagonal;

PB = Prosocial behaviour; SD = School demands; SS = School stress; TS = Teacher support; Classmate support.

Predictive model

Results for the final SEM model are presented in Figure 2 (x² = 473.82, df = 82, p < 0.05; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.036). As expected, school demands showed a positive association with school stress, while teacher and classmate support showed negative associations with school stress (R² = 0.40). Each of school demands, school stress as well as teacher and classmate support were significantly associated with prosocial behaviour (R² = 0.17). Prosocial behaviour was negatively predicted by school demands and positively by teacher and classmate support. However, prosocial behaviour was also positively predicted by school stress.
Figure 2.
Final predictive model

Guided by modification indices and model fit indicators, an additional path was added to the model, with greater teacher support predicting lower school demands (R² = 0.12). Although the effect of teacher support on prosocial behaviour was mostly direct, there was evidence of partially mediating pathways through: a) school demands (β = 0.08); b) stress (β = −0.02); and c) both school demands and school stress (β = −0.04). The association between classmate support and prosocial behaviour was also weakly mediated through school stress (β = −0.02).

Three significant gender moderation effects were observed. Teacher support showed a stronger effect on prosocial behaviour and also school demands for girls than boys. The positive effect of school stress on prosocial behaviour was also stronger for girls than boys.

Discussion

This study found that experiences of school demands, stress, and social support are associated with adolescents' prosocial behaviour, an indicator of positive psychological adjustment. Furthermore, positive relationships with teachers were particularly relevant to girls' prosocial behaviour and also their experiences of school demands. Although heavier school demands were associated with less prosocial behaviour, greater school stress was related to greater prosocial behaviour, especially for girls.

Consistent with expectations, the extent to which adolescents felt welcomed, respected,and supported by others within the school environment was associated with greater well-being, as represented by prosocial behaviour. Furthermore, greater social support from both teachers and peers was also directly associated with lower school stress, albeit relatively weakly. This supports assumptions that social support can function as an important resource by promoting adaptive coping, reducing the likelihood that individuals become psychologically strained. However, the current findings also demonstrated that teacher support played an important role in school demands. In this sense, emotional and instrumental support can shape individuals' responses to stressors (Twenge et al., 2007; Zitek, Jordan, Monin, & Leach, 2010) by influencing how situations are perceived and appraised (Calvete & Connor-Smith, 2006). It appears that students who experience more positive relationships with their teachers also perceive fewer school demands. In order to reduce school stress, steps to improve teachers' capacity to provide practical and emotional support may assist indirectly by reducing students' assessments of stressors. Alternatively, encouraging students to engage with teachers' as a resource through behaviours such as help-seeking may also be beneficial.

Both hypotheses regarding links from school demands and stress to prosocial behaviour were supported. Consistent with expectations that greater school stressors would be associated with a reduced capacity for maintaining an outwards and empathetic focus, school demands negatively predicted prosocial behaviour. However, a positive association was observed between school stress and prosocial behaviour. Unlike school demands, which reflected the general burden of schoolwork experienced by students, the measurement of school stress reflected perceived current stress. This distinction is important because experimental studies have found that acute stress can instigate prosocial behaviour as a type of coping mechanism through network or resource building (see Taylor, 2006). While acute or current stress may initially trigger prosocial tendencies, it is unlikely that persisting pressures (as reflected in the measure of school demands) would be associated with greater empathetic and cooperative characteristics.

At the bivariate level, stress and prosocial behaviour shared a weak negative relationship. However, a suppression effect was observed when school demands were included in the SEM model. A suppressor (or sometimes called enhancer) increases the predictive value of another variable when included in a regression model (McFatter, 1979; Pandey & Elliott, 2010). It does so by accounting for some of the over-lapping variance in another predictor, leaving more visible, the unique relationships between the predictor and outcome variable (Pandey & Elliott, 2010). Perhaps school stress can be thought of as involving two elements: The first relating specifically to academics and the second relating to social relations. As school demands and school stress were strongly correlated, in the multivariate model school demands probably accounted for the work-orientated aspect of stress. In this sense, the positive association between stress and prosocial behaviour may reflect a remaining social facet (which experimental studies have demonstrated to be positively linked with prosocial behaviour; Von Dawans et al., 2012) or another facet of stress. The single-item measure of school stress provided a crude indicator of students' subjective school stress stemming from stressors, conceptualized as school demands. A measure that captures the multidimensionality of school stress however would shed more light on these associations and also better distinguish between stressors* and current stress.

Similar to previous findings, girls in the current study reported greater school demands and stress as well as prosocial behaviour than boys (Brolin Låftman & Modin, 2012; Eisenberg et al., 2006). Furthermore, the positive association between stress and prosocial behaviour was primarily observed amongst girls, possibly indicating a female-typed stress coping style (Taylor et al., 2000). As girls tend to be more relational orientated (Rose & Rudolph, 2006), they may be more sensitive or responsive to others' problems and interpersonal situations than boys (Zahn-Waxler, Cole, Welsh, & Fox, 1995), particularly when they themselves feel vulnerable. A greater relational orientation amongst girls may help us understand gender differences in mean ratings of these constructs and also why teacher support was more relevant to school demands and prosocial behaviour for girls than boys.

As the positive pathway between stress and greater prosocial behaviour was primarily observed for girls, perhaps tendencies, such as perfectionism or neuroticism, which are more common in girls (Garcia-Banda et al., 2011; Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2011) could help explain this gender difference. Individuals who report a greater prosocial orientation may also feel more conscientious or concerned about ‘achieving’ in a range of evaluative situations and tasks, including both academic and social spheres. Indeed, a previous study found that adolescent peers rate perfectionists as more prosocial than non-perfectionists (Gilman, Adams, & Nounopoulos, 2011). This is consistent with findings that girls tend to be more concerned with pleasing others than boys. However, if excessive prosocial behaviour stems from a neurotic or anxiety-orientated response, then this explanation raises questions about the inherent ‘healthiness’ of prosocial behaviour, particularly as it is presented as a strength in the SDQ.

It is likely that the associations amongst prosocial behaviour, demands, stress, and social support involve reciprocal processes. For example, students with greater prosocial attributes may have a more positive outlook, leading them to form more supportive relationships and cope better with school pressures (Layous et al., 2012). Nevertheless, experimental studies have demonstrated that prosocial behaviours can change when stress and social acceptance are manipulated (Twenge et al., 2007; Von Dawans et al., 2012). Further experimental and longitudinal investigations are needed to understand the causal pathways amongst these factors and to differentiate the processes linking stressors versus current (acute) stress with prosocial behaviour. In addition, as prosocial behaviour is multifaceted and often associated with age changes (Carlo, Crockett, Randall, & Roesch, 2007; Eisenberg, Cumberland, Guthrie, Murphy, & Shepard, 2005), future research could examine the possibility of unique relationships between stress processes and different dimensions of prosocial behaviour across adolescence. Some estimates, such as the effect of teacher and classmate support on school stress, were quite small. As the current study was based on a large sample size, there is an increased chance that these associations reflect Type I error, observing false effects. However, the estimates for social support on school stress were adjusted effects, after the influence of school demands were accounted for. In this sense, the direct effect of social support on stress is expected to be relatively smaller. Nevertheless, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and future studies can seek to replicate these associations.

To the authors' knowledge this is one of the first studies to explicitly focus on the prosocial subscale of the SDQ and the psychosocial correlates of this construct. The current study observed excellent psychometric properties for the self-report prosocial subscale, with internal reliability corresponding to values reported by Goodman and colleagues (Goodman et al., 1998; Goodman, 2000; Goodman, 2001). However, some evidence for partial measurement invariance of the caring item was observed (where girls were more likely to report this behaviour) and this is consistent with gender differences observed in a study of Dutch adolescents (Van de Looij-Jansen et al., 2011).

There is some chance that the SDQ's self-report measure of prosocial behaviour presents social desirability effects. For example, students with a highly perfectionist or even neurotic orientation may be inclined to exaggerate their prosocial behaviour, possibly inflating associations with school demands, stress, and social support. However, the confounding effect of social desirability across the whole sample are probably small considering that a) students knew their responses were anonymous; b) self-report SDQ data predicts psychiatric diagnoses (Goodman, 2001); and c) SDQ self-reports of prosocial behaviour positively correlate with ‘objective’ parent and teacher ratings (Goodman, 2001). Nevertheless, it is possible that some students may be inclined to inflate their prosocial actions. Therefore, it would be of value to replicate the current findings using peer or teacher reports.

Practical implications

The current study focused on a period during which adolescents in most European and North American countries are in their final year of compulsory school and many report being stressed (especially girls) (Currie et al., 2012; West, Edge, & Stokes, 1999). Therefore the current findings, although based on a Swedish sample, are also relevant for practitioners in other countries. Importantly, students in similar educational contexts are likely to benefit if staff and mental health programs pay attention to students' strengths, such as prosocial actions. Educators and mental health practitioners can consider how the social atmosphere and demands placed on students may work to promote (or impede) cooperative behaviour. By doing so, instead of only minimizing symptoms, we can assist students' well-being to thrive in a holistic sense.

Furthermore, while students need to be challenged, teacher support plays an important role in balancing school demands so that they are not perceived as overwhelming. This highlights the importance of taking teachers' capability to provide support (e.g. workload and extracurricular obligations) into consideration when seeking to boost student coping and well-being. Encouraging prosocial behaviour amongst youth is likely to have far-reaching positive outcomes by benefiting the school community as a whole. Increased social support and greater prosocial behaviour are likely to work together dynamically to build a more positive school climate, which in turn, promotes psychological well-being amongst students (Denny et al., 2011).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that demands, stress, and social support within the school context are related to prosocial behaviour, a positive indicator of adolescent psychological well-being. It also validated the psychometric properties and correlates of the prosocial subscale of the SDQ, an understudied aspect of this widely used screening instrument. The current findings extend previous research on psychosocial school conditions by demonstrating that they are relevant to positive psychological adjustment, in addition to emotional complaints (Modin et al., 2011; Plenty et al., 2014). Rather than focusing on weaknesses and difficulties, interventions and therapies designed to address student well-being should also consider how experiences of school demands, stress, and social support can promote adolescents' positive psychological adjustment.

	X ²	df	CFI	TLI	RSMEA	x² diff
Whole sample	35.27	5	0.99	0.99	0.041
Boys	29.52	5	0.99	0.98	0.052
Girls	31.11	5	0.98	0.97	0.054
No constraints	59.87	10	0.99	0.97	0.052
Factor + thresholds	136.83	18	0.97	0.97	0.060	< 0.001
Factor + thresholds (partial)	63.57	16	0.99	0.99	0.040	0.05
Factor loadings + thresholds + residuals	136.56	23	0.97	0.98	0.052	0.16

	Whole sample	Boys	Girls
Prosocial behaviour	0–2	0.71	1.52	0.39	1.42	0.40	1.63	0.35	−16.81***
School demands	1–5	0.76	3.68	0.82	3.60	0.87	3.76	0.76	−5.31***
Stress	1–4	-	2.59	0.89	2.37	0.87	2.82	0.86	−15.14***
Teacher support	1–5	0.75	3.86	0.74	3.86	0.79	3.85	0.68	1.24
Classmate support	1–5	0.81	4.02	0.76	4.05	0.76	3.99	3.96	2.75**

	PB	SD	SS	TS	CS
Prosocial behaviour		−0.24	0.01	0.39	0.31
School demands	−0.26		0.68	−0.43	−0.15
School stress	−0.13	0.56		−0.29	−0.15
Teacher support	0.31	−0.29	−0.36		0.36
Classmate support	0.28	−0.09	−0.22	−0.47

Footnotes

Note

We would like to thank Lilly Augustine and the Swedish National Institute of Public Health for giving us access to the data which made this study possible. Vårdalstiftelsen (Idéprovningen, grant no. 2011--25/333) and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE, grant no 2006-1637) has financed this study.

Author biographies

Stephanie Plenty is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Centre for Health Equity Studies, Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet. Her main research interests address the importance of social conditions for positive development in both clinical and non-clinical populations. This includes a focus on how psychosocial factors within the school context can influence health and well-being, particularly in relation to stress and coping.

Viveca Östberg has been working on welfare research in general as well as health inequalities, and in both instances the focus has been on children and adolescents. In recent studies, she has focused on the living conditions in family and school as health determinants among young people.

Bitte Modin is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Health Equity Studies, Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet. She has studied both short- and long-term health implications of children’s early social environment. Her current research largely focuses on various aspects of the school environment (e.g. work load and social relations) and their relationship with young people’s health in Sweden and other countries.

References

Barrett

(2007) Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences 42(5): 815–824. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018.

Bergh

Hagquist

Starrin

(2010) Social relations in school and psychosomatic health among Swedish adolescents – the role of academic orientation. European Journal of Public Health 21(6): 699–704. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckq140.

Brolin Låftman

Modin

(2012) School-performance indicators and subjective health complaints: Are there gender differences? Sociology of Health and Illness 34(4): 608–625. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01395.x.

Brophy-Herb

H. E.

Lee

R. E.

Nievar

M. A.

Stollak

(2007) Preschoolers' social competence: Relations to family characteristics, teacher behaviors and classroom climate. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 28(2): 134–148. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.12.004.

Byrne

B. M.

Shavelson

R. J.

Muthén

(1989) Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement in variance. Psychological Bulletin 105(3): 456–466. doi: 10.1177/1094428106298973.

Calvete

Connor-Smith

J. K.

(2006) Perceived social support, coping, and symptoms of distress in American and Spanish students. Anxiety, Stress and Coping 19(1): 47–65. doi: 10.1080/10615800500472963.

Carlo

Crockett

L. J.

Wolff

J. M.

Beal

S. J.

(2012) The role of emotional reactivity, self-regulation, and puberty in adolescents' prosocial behaviors. Social Development 21(4): 667–685. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00660.x.

Carlo

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(2): 301–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00524.x.

Chang

Russell

E. J.

Yang

(2007) Emotional strain and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis and review. Work and Stress 21(4): 312–332. doi: 10.1080/02678370701758124.

10.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 9(2): 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.

11.

Cohen

Gottlieb

B. H.

Underwood

L. G.

(2000) Social relationships and health. In: Cohen

Underwood

L. G.

Gottlieb

B. H.

(eds) Social support measurement and intervention. A guide for health and social scientists, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–25.

12.

Currie

Nic Gabhainn

Godeau

(2009) The Health Behaviour in School-aged Children: WHO Collaborative Cross-National (HBSC) study: Origins, concept, history and development 1982–2008. International Journal of Public Health 54(2): 131–139. doi: 10.1007/s00038-009-5404-x.

13.

Currie

Grieber

(2011) Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study protocol: Background, methodology and mandatory items for the 2009/10 survey, Edinburgh: CAHRU.

14.

Currie

Zanotti

Morgan

Currie

de Looze

Roberts

(2012) Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2009/2010 survey, Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

15.

Denham

S. A.

Brown

(2010) ‘Plays nice with others’: Social–emotional learning and academic success. Early Education and Development 21(5): 652–680. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2010.497450.

16.

Denny

S. J.

Robinson

E. M.

Utter

Fleming

T. M.

Grant

Milfont

T. L.

(2011) Do schools influence student risk-taking behaviors and emotional health symptoms? Journal of Aolescent Health 48(3): 259–267. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.06.020.

17.

Eisenberg

Cumberland

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(3): 235–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00095.x.

18.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.) & W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 646–718). 6th ed. New York, NY: Wiley.

19.

Essau

C. A.

Olaya

Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous

Pauli

Gilvarry

Bray

(2012) Psychometric properties of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire from five European countries. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 3(3): 232–245. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1364.

20.

Garcia-Banda

Servera

Chellew

Meisel

Fornes

J. Cardo

(2011) Prosocial personality traits and adaptation to stress. Social Behavior and Personality 39(10): 1337–1348. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.10.1337.

21.

Gilman

Adams

Nounopoulos

(2011) The interpersonal relationships and social perceptions of adolescent perfectionists. Journal of Research on Adolescence 21(2): 505–511. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00689.x.

22.

Goodman

(1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines 38(5): 581–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x.

23.

Goodman

(2000) Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. The British Journal of Psychiatry 177(6): 534–539. doi: 10.1192/bjp.177.6.534.

24.

Goodman

(2001) Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 40(11): 1337–1345. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015.

25.

Goodman

Meltzer

Bailey

(1998) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. International Review of Psychiatry 15(1–2): 173–177. doi: 10.1007/s007870050057.

26.

Haapasalo

Välimaa

Kannas

(2010) How comprehensive school students perceive their psychosocial school environment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 54(2): 133–150. doi: 10.1080/00313831003637915.

27.

Hagquist

(2007) The psychometric properties of the self-reported SDQ – an analysis of Swedish data based on the Rasch model. Personality and Individual Differences 43(5): 1289–1301. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.022.

28.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

29.

Kaplan

B. H.

Cassel

J. C.

Gore

(1977) Social support and health. Medical Care 15: 47–58.

30.

Layous

Nelson

S. K.

Oberle

Schonert-Reichl

K. A.

Lyubomirsky

(2012) Kindness counts: Prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer acceptance and well-being. PloS one 7(12): e51380.doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051380.

31.

Legault

Green-Demers

Pelletier

(2006) Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology 98: 567–582. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567.

32.

Martin

A. J.

Marsh

H. W.

McInerney

D. M.

Green

Dowson

(2007) Getting along with teacher and parents: The yields of good relationships for students' achievement motivation and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling 12(2): 109–125. doi: 10.1375/ajgc.17.2.109.

33.

McFatter

R. M.

(1979) The use of structural equation models in interpreting regression equations including suppressor and enhancer variables. Applied Psychological Measurement 3: 123–135. doi: 10.1177/014662167900300113.

34.

Meade

A. W.

Lautenschlager

G. J.

(2004) A monte-carlo study of confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement equivalence/invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 11(1): 60–72. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM1101_5.

35.

Modin

Östberg

Toivanen

Sundell

(2011) Psychosocial working conditions, school sense of coherence and subjective health complaints: A multilevel analysis of ninth grade pupils in the Stockholm area. Journal of Adolescence 34(1): 129–139. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.01.004.

36.

Murberg

T. A.

Bru

(2004) School-related stress and psychosomatic symptoms among Norwegian adolescents. School Psychology International 25(3): 317–332. doi: 10.1177/0143034304046904.

37.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012) Mplus user's guide, 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

38.

Pandey

Elliott

(2010) Suppressor variables in social work research: Ways to identify in multiple regression models. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 1(1): 28–40. doi: 10.5243/jsswr.2010.2.

39.

Plenty

Heubeck

B. G.

(2013) A multidimensional analysis of changes in mathematics motivation and engagement during high school. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Psychology 33(1): 14–30. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2012.740199.

40.

Plenty

Östberg

Almquist

Y. B.

Augustine

Modin

(2014) Psychosocial working conditions: An analysis of emotional symptoms and conduct problems amongst adolescent students. Journal of Adolescence 37(4): 407–417. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.03.008.

41.

Roberts

Freeman

Samdal

Schnohr

C. W.

de Looze

M. E.

Nic Gabhainn

. the International HBSC Study Group (2009) The Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: Methodological developments and current tensions. International Journal of Public Health 54(2): 140–150. doi: 10.1007/s00038-009-5405-9.

42.

Roeser

R. W.

Midgley

Urdan

T. C.

(1996) Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioural functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology 88: 408–422. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.408.

43.

Rose

A. J.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2006) A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin 132(1): 98–131. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98.

44.

Rudolph

K. D.

Conley

C. S.

(2005) Socioemotional costs and benefits of social–evaluative concerns: Do girls care too much? Journal of Personality 73: 115–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00306.x.

45.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000) Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist 55(1): 5–14. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5.

46.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

Gosling

S. D.

Potter

(2011) Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(2): 330–348. doi: 10.1037/a0021717.

47.

Svedin

C. G.

Priebe

(2008) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a screening instrument in a community sample of high school seniors in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 62(3): 225–232. doi: 10.1080/08039480801984032.

48.

Swedish National Institute of Public Health (SNIPH) (2011) Health behavior in school-aged children in Sweden 2009/10, (Report No. 2011:27). Östersund: Swedish National Institute of Public Health.

49.

Taylor

S. E.

(2006) Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15: 273–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00451.x.

50.

Taylor

S. E.

Klein

L. C.

Lewis

B. P.

Gruenewald

T. L.

Gurung

R. A. R.

Updegraff

J. A.

(2000) Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review 107(3): 411–429. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.411.

51.

Torsheim

Wold

(2001) School-related stress, support, and subjective health complaints among early adolescents: A multilevel approach. Journal of Adolescence 24(6): 701–713. doi: 10.1006/jado.2001.0440.

52.

Torsheim

Wold

Samdal

(2000) The Teacher and Classmate Support Scale: Factor structure, test–retest reliability and validity in samples of 13-and 15-year-old adolescents. School Psychology International 21(2): 195–212. doi: 10.1177/0143034300212006.

53.

Twenge

J. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

DeWall

C. N.

Ciarocco

N. J.

Bartels

J. M.

(2007) Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(1): 56–66. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56.

54.

Van de Looij-Jansen

P. M.

Goedhart

A. W.

De Wilde

E. J.

Treffers

P. D.

(2011) Confirmatory factor analysis and factorial invariance analysis of the adolescent self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: How important are method effects and minor factors? The British Journal of Clinical Psychology 50(2): 127–144. doi: 10.1348/014466510X498174.

55.

Von Dawans

Fischbacher

Kirschbaum

Fehr

Heinrichs

(2012) The social dimension of stress reactivity: Acute stress increases prosocial behavior in humans. Psychological Science 23(6): 651–660. doi: 10.1177/0956797611431576.

56.

Weinstein

Ryan

R. M.

(2010) When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(2): 222–244. doi: 10.1037/a0016984.

57.

Weinstein

Ryan

R. M.

(2011) A self-determination theory approach to understanding stress incursion and responses. Stress and Health 27(1): 4–17. doi: 10.1002/smi.1368.

58.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2014) Prosocial behaviour and peer relations in adolescence. In: Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(eds) Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 178–200.

59.

Wentzel

K. R.

Battle

Russell

S. L.

Looney

L. B.

(2010) Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 32: 193–202. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002.

60.

Wentzel

K. R.

McNamara

C. C.

(1999) Interpersonal relationships, emotional distress, and prosocial behavior in middle school. The Journal of Early Adolescence 19(1): 114–125. doi: 10.1177/0272431699019001006.

61.

West

Edge

Stokes

(1999) Secondary education across Europe: Curricula and school examination systems (Clare Market Papers No.14), London: Centre for Educational Research, London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

62.

Zahn–Waxler

Cole

Welsh

Fox

(1995) Psychophysiological correlates of empathy and prosocial behavior in preschool children with behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology 7: 27–48. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400006325.

63.

Zitek

E. M.

Jordan

A. H.

Monin

Leach

F. R.

(2010) Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(2): 245–255. doi: 10.1037/a0017168.

64.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Locke

E. M.

(2007) The socialization of adolescent coping behaviours: Relationships with families and teachers. Journal of Adolescence 30: 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.03.001.

	Whole sample				Boys		Girls
	Range	αAlpha	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	U
Prosocial behaviour	0–2	0.71	1.52	0.39	1.42	0.40	1.63	0.35	−16.81***
School demands	1–5	0.76	3.68	0.82	3.60	0.87	3.76	0.76	−5.31***
Stress	1–4	-	2.59	0.89	2.37	0.87	2.82	0.86	−15.14***
Teacher support	1–5	0.75	3.86	0.74	3.86	0.79	3.85	0.68	1.24
Classmate support	1–5	0.81	4.02	0.76	4.05	0.76	3.99	3.96	2.75**