Parenting and prosocial behaviors in Nicaraguan adolescents: The roles of prosocial moral reasoning and familism

Abstract

Despite the surge of interest in understanding the socializing role of parents on youth prosocial behaviors, studies on the socialization of prosocial behaviors in Latinx adolescents residing in their native countries are lacking. This study examined the relations among supportive and strict parenting, prosocial moral reasoning, familism values, and six types of prosocial behaviors in parents and youth residing in Nicaragua. Participants were 265 secondary school students (M_age = 14.85 years, SD = 1.33; 62% female) from San Marcos, Nicaragua. We found partial support for the hypothesized effects. Specifically, strict parenting was positively linked to approval-oriented moral reasoning, which in turn, was positively linked to public prosocial behavior and negatively linked to altruistic prosocial behavior. Higher strict parenting was directly linked to higher emotional prosocial behavior. Moreover, supportive parenting was positively linked to adolescents’ familism values and dire and public prosocial behaviors, and it was negatively related to approval-oriented moral reasoning. Additionally, familism value was positively linked to compliant and emotional prosocial behaviors and negatively linked to altruistic prosocial behavior. These findings were robust across adolescents’ gender. Overall, these findings have implications for traditional and culture-specific models of prosocial behaviors and extend our understanding of the roles of parenting, sociocognitive and value traits, and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors to Latinx parents and youth residing in their native country.

Keywords

Culture familism Nicaragua parenting prosocial behavior prosocial moral reasoning

Prosocial behaviors (i.e., actions aimed to benefit others such as helping, sharing, cooperation) are key indicators of moral development and healthy social functioning (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000). Parents are deemed primary socialization agents in children’s prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000). However, prosocial development occurs in the broader sociocultural ecology of the child and various culture-specific mechanisms also influence its development (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009). Further, intervening mechanisms are identified to account for the relations between parenting and children’s prosocial behaviors (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009; Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000). For instance, sociocognitive traits, such as prosocial moral reasoning (i.e., thinking about opportunities to help distressed others that present one’s own needs against those of the distressed others), are deemed as one major mechanism (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000). Cultural scholars suggest that culture-specific mechanisms, such as familism values (i.e., affinity to, identity with, and obligation to, the family unit), also function as an intervening mechanism in the relations between parenting and prosocial behaviors (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009). Perhaps more importantly, simultaneously examining the mediating roles of both cultural values and sociocognitive traits is important because such research contributes to the development of culturally-integrative developmental theories (Raffaelli et al., 2005). Thus, this study aimed to examine the relations among supportive and strict parenting, prosocial moral reasoning, familism values, and six types of prosocial behaviors in parents and youth residing in Nicaragua.

Theoretical frameworks

Social and cognitive models of prosocial behaviors have highlighted the importance of parenting and socioemotive and sociocognitive influences on youth prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000). Cultural development scholars asserted the need to study children’s development in their ecological niches (Super & Harkness, 1986; Whiting & Edwards, 1988). These latter theorists note that parents socialize their children in their own sociocultural settings and child development occurs as a function of parental beliefs, cultural values, practices, and their physical settings. Based on these theoretical models, Carlo and de Guzman (2009) suggested the Ecocultural Model of Latinx Youth Prosocial Development which depicts the influences of parenting styles and practices on Latinx youth prosocial behaviors via intrapersonal mediating mechanisms (e.g., prosocial moral reasoning, familism values). There is a growing body of evidence that supports the model in U.S. Latinx youth (e.g., Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Knight & Carlo, 2012). However, this model has not been tested among Latinx youth who reside in Latin American countries. Further, given that youth develop in unique cultural niches and each Latin American culture (e.g., Nicaraguan) have unique features that may differentially influence youth development, it is necessary to examine ethnic youth development in those niches to better ascertain the generalizability of this model and to inform policy and intervention efforts in those niches (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009; Super & Harkness, 1986; Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Therefore, we examine the generalizability of the Ecocultural Model of Latinx Youth Prosocial Development in a sample of Latinx youth who live in Nicaragua.

Nicaraguan families and prosocial behaviors

Nicaragua is the largest yet second poorest country in Central America (World Bank, 2017). Nicaragua, like most Latin American countries, has a predominantly collectivist and interdependent orientation (see Oyserman et al., 2002; Vázquez & Panadero, 2016). This is because group orientation, family unit, and group cooperation are highly valued by most Nicaraguans (Walker & Wade, 2017; White et al., 2017). Additionally, a substantial percentage of Nicaraguan families have relatively low levels of formal education, many Nicaraguans live with extended family members (e.g., grandparents, aunts, uncles), and most families earn their keep from agriculture (Vázquez & Panadero, 2016; Walker & Wade, 2017; White et al., 2017; World Bank, 2017). These characteristics are all deemed exemplary of a collectivist cultural context (Kağıtçıbaşı, 1997; Triandis, 1995) and of a society that strongly encourages an interdependent-relational orientation (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). In this cultural context, parents rely on obedience-oriented socialization and authoritarian parenting styles and their socialization messages emphasize a strong connectedness to family and respect to family members (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007; Keller et al., 2006). Further, helping, sharing, and interpersonal responsibilities are highly emphasized during the socialization process, and children are socialized to help around the household (Köster et al., 2015). Indeed, such patterns are consistent with scholars’ characterization of commonly held socialization goals and practices in Nicaragua (Moscardino et al., 2009).

Family plays an essential role in most Latinx families and cultures (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009; Halgunseth et al., 2006). Although there is wide variability within Latinx cultures, Latinx parents tend to endorse respect, compliance, and obedience, and use controlling parenting practices (e.g., physical guidance, protective and monitoring behaviors) (Halgunseth et al., 2006). As a result, these parents might set strict rules and intervene more often in their children’s decision-making than non-Latinx parents. Because such parenting behaviors are motivated by a concern for their children, perceived as normative, and accompanied by warmth, these parenting behaviors help mitigate undesired child outcomes (Halgunseth et al., 2006).

Moreover, many Latinx parents endorse strong familism values and emphasize connectedness to family and community, and interdependence on the family, family loyalty, obligation, and identity to the family during the socialization process (Halgunseth et al., 2006; Knight et al., 2011; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2009). Indeed, consistent with these patterns, high levels of familism and respect values are observed among Nicaraguans (Walker & Wade, 2017; White et al., 2017). Further, commonly held socialization goals among Nicaraguan mothers emphasize obedience, respect, familism, and prosocial values (Moscardino et al., 2009). Gil and Vega (1996) also found that Nicaraguan Americans tend to hold strong familism values. In addition, other cultural values such as religiousness, humility, and the notion of bien educado (i.e., developing good character) might be strongly endorsed in Latinx families (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009; Knight et al., 2010). Such socialization attitudes and practices foster the internalization of familism values, moral values (e.g., kindness, fairness, generosity), an orientation to others, and prosocial behaviors in Latinx youth (Knight & Carlo, 2012).

Parenting and prosocial behaviors

Parental support and control are the two most theorized parenting dimensions in socializing children’s prosocial behaviors (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Supportive parenting (i.e., warmth and using verbal inductions in disciplining children’s behavior) fosters children’s prosocial behavior, whereas strict parenting (i.e., using firm and consistent controlling strategies in disciplining children’s behavior) generally undermines children’s prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Children with supportive parents tend to have other-oriented concerns (e.g., empathic concern for others’ needs) and are more likely to display prosocial behaviors (see Eisenberg et al., 2015). In contrast, children with strict and power assertive parents tend to have more self-concerns and fear of punishment, and they are less likely to have other-oriented concerns and exhibit prosocial behaviors (see Eisenberg et al., 2015). There is substantive supportive evidence for these expected relations across mostly White, European American youth samples (see Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000). However, as noted earlier, cultural scholars suggest that the relations between parenting and youth outcomes could vary across cultures.

Moreover, recent advances in the study of prosocial behaviors espouse the importance of investigating specific forms of prosocial behaviors (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014). Carlo and Randall (2002) suggested six common types of prosocial behaviors in adolescents: (a) emotional prosocial behaviors are displayed in emotionally evocative situations, (b) dire prosocial behaviors are exhibited in emergencies, (c) compliant prosocial behaviors are requested by others, (d) public prosocial behaviors are displayed in front of others, (e) anonymous prosocial behaviors are presented without the knowledge of other individuals, and (f) altruistic acts are primarily intended to benefit others without expecting any personal benefit. Based on this typology, one might expect differentiated links between specific parenting practices and specific forms of prosocial behaviors. Thus, due to the distinct cultural norms of parenting behaviors in Latinx groups (Halgunseth et al., 2006) and the different requirements for acquiring specific prosocial behaviors, relations between parenting and specific types of prosocial behaviors could be complex (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009; Knight & Carlo, 2012).

To date, research findings on the relations between parenting and specific forms of prosocial behaviors in U.S. Latinx youth are mixed. In one longitudinal study, as expected, authoritative mothers and fathers (i.e., high levels of support, moderate demandingness) were found to foster U.S. Mexican adolescents’ emotional, dire, and compliant prosocial behaviors (Carlo, White et al., 2018). Furthermore, no-nonsense fathers’ practices (i.e., relatively low support, moderate demandingness) were unrelated to youth prosocial behaviors. However, in another study, mothers’ supportive parenting was positively related to altruistic, but negatively to public prosocial behaviors for U.S. Mexican boys (Davis et al., 2015). For U.S. Mexican girls, however, mothers’ supportive parenting was positively linked to dire, compliant, altruistic, but negatively linked to public, prosocial behaviors. In this same study, strict and firm parenting behaviors were found to be positively associated with U.S. Mexican youth’s (both boys and girls) emotional, dire, and compliant prosocial behaviors (Davis et al., 2015). In a study of U.S. Latinx youth (i.e., majority of whom [81%] self-identified as Mexican heritage youth), parental support was positively linked to public, but negatively linked to altruistic, prosocial behaviors (Carlo, Streit, & Crockett, 2018).

As can be surmised, although there is substantive research on parenting and youth prosocial behaviors in Latinx families, such work is limited to families who reside in the U.S. (e.g., Carlo, White et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2015; Knight & Carlo, 2012). Findings from these youth cannot be generalized to Latinx youth across all Latin American cultures. More specifically, such research findings might not generalize to families in Nicaragua. Thus, there is a need for studies that investigate the relations between parenting and prosocial behaviors in Latin American youth residing in their native country.

Relations between parenting practices and prosocial moral reasoning

Oftentimes, youth are faced with a dilemma situation to choose to help or not help needy others. Under these circumstances, youth consider a range of reasons for choosing a course of action. The study of youth thinking in these circumstances is referred to as prosocial moral reasoning (Eisenberg, 1986). One commonly reported, developmentally early emerging form of prosocial moral reasoning is approval-oriented moral reasoning or an orientation to gain the approval of others (Eisenberg, 1986). Because valuing and gaining approval from the family and the group is highly important in collectivist-oriented cultures, approval-oriented moral reasoning is commonly reported by adolescents from these cultures (e.g., Brazil and Turkey; see Carlo et al., 1996; Kumru et al., 2012, respectively). When individuals fail to receive group approval, they may feel shame and consider this to be losing face (Hui & Triandis, 1986). Thus, we focused on approval-oriented moral reasoning and expected that it might be related to parenting behaviors and prosocial behaviors.

Conceptually, parental support is positively, and strict (particularly punitive) parenting is negatively linked to youth’s prosocial moral reasoning (Eisenberg et al., 2015). However, studies of Latinx youth yield a mixed pattern of relations between these variables. In a study of U.S. Mexican adolescents, parental punitiveness was positively linked to approval-oriented moral reasoning but parental inductions (a form of disciplining often expressed in supportive parents) were unrelated to approval-oriented moral reasoning (Shen et al., 2013). The positive links between parental punitiveness and approval-oriented moral reasoning might be attributed to the relatively normative nature of high parental control in Latinx cultures (Halgunseth et al., 2006). In contrast, parental support might be expected to be either nonsignificantly or negatively related to approval-oriented moral reasoning because approval-oriented moral reasoning reflects a developmentally early emerging, self-oriented form of reasoning (Carlo et al., 1996).

Relations between parenting practices and familism

Another important correlate of parenting and prosocial behaviors is familism value (Knight & Carlo, 2012). Familism is the “feelings of obligation to one’s family, consideration of one’s family as a primary source of social and emotional support, and viewing one’s family as an important reference group in decision-making” (Knight et al., 2018, p. 378). Latinx supportive parents tend to socialize higher familism values in their children by establishing a warm family relationship, and by encouraging and modeling positive family behaviors (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Hernández & Bámaca-Colbert, 2016). In contrast, conceptually, strict parenting can increase children’s anger, anxiety, and fear of punishment and make them focus on self rather than others (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Additionally, strict parents may model aggression rather than positive family behaviors. Thus, it is possible that strict parenting may undermine the internalization of familism values. However, it is also possible that strict parenting behaviors may not undermine the internalization of familism values due to the relatively normative nature of such practices in Latinx cultures (Halgunseth et al., 2006).

Relations between both familism and prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviors

Scholars have found that familism is a strong predictor of emotional, dire, and compliant prosocial behaviors, which are commonly seen in the family context and directed toward family members (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Knight et al., 2016). In the interdependent-relational context of collectivist-oriented cultures, parents socialize their children to do household chores, including cleaning house and taking care of younger siblings (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007; Köster et al., 2015; Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Therefore, Latinx youth may display compliant prosocial behaviors by merely doing what their parents ask them to do (Knight & Carlo, 2012). Strong emphasis on familism values makes children emotionally interdependent on their family members for receiving support, particularly during crises or emergencies, which promotes emotional and dire prosocial tendencies (Knight & Carlo, 2012).

Familism is also positively linked to public prosocial behaviors (Knight et al., 2016) because placing higher importance on family can motivate individuals to gain their parents’ and other family members’ approval by helping them publicly (Carlo et al., 2011). Familism endorses strong connectedness to family members, which reduces helping out-group people and fosters focusing on family members (Knight & Carlo, 2012). Additionally, mutual reciprocity, group harmony, and cooperation among Latinx youth can lead them to engage in self-oriented, extrinsically motivated prosocial behaviors (e.g., public) and is less likely to lead to other-oriented, intrinsically motivated prosocial behaviors (e.g., altruistic) (Carlo et al., 2011). Indeed, studies showed that U.S. Latinx adolescents tend to report higher levels of public prosocial behaviors and lower levels of altruistic prosocial behaviors than non-Latinx adolescents (Carlo et al., 2011). Lastly, familism is positively linked to anonymous prosocial behaviors as well because Latinx people highly value face-saving to avoid humility and protect dignity (Carlo et al., 2011). Thus, they tend to help needy others anonymously. Researchers have shown that U.S. Latinx adolescents also reported higher anonymous prosocial behaviors than non-Latinx adolescents (Carlo et al., 2011).

In contrast to the studies on familism and specific forms of prosocial behaviors, to our knowledge, there are no known investigations of the relations between approval-oriented moral reasoning and specific types of prosocial behaviors in Latinx adolescents. Conceptually, we argue that approval-oriented moral reasoning would be positively associated with public and compliant prosocial behaviors. Because Latinx youth value gaining approval from family and others (Knight & Carlo, 2012), exhibiting prosocial actions in front of others and when helping is requested might be highly valued. Similarly, helping in dire and emotionally evocative situations might be conceived similar to compliant prosocial behaviors (i.e., requested assistance by the obvious need for help). Thus, approval-oriented moral reasoning might be positively linked to dire and emotional prosocial behaviors. In contrast, approval-oriented moral reasoning might be negatively linked to altruistic and anonymous prosocial behaviors because individuals engage in altruistic actions for strongly internalized and sympathy reasons and because helping anonymously would contradict their motive to gain other’s approval.

Prosocial moral reasoning and familism as mediators

According to Ecocultural Model of Latinx Youth Prosocial Development, prosocial moral reasoning and familism values both mediate the relations between parenting and prosocial behaviors (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009). Supportive and strict parenting are linked to youth prosocial behaviors because such parenting practices can foster or mitigate the acquisition of familism values or approval-oriented moral reasoning. This is because relatively high levels of supportive parenting and low levels of strict parenting can facilitate close positive family relationships and mitigate self-oriented forms of prosocial moral reasoning (e.g., approval-oriented; Eisenberg et al., 2015). In turn, familism values might predict prosocial moral reasoning, which in turn, might predict prosocial behaviors (Knight et al., 2014). However, previous studies have not examined the possible mediating effects of both prosocial moral reasoning and familism values in the relations between parenting practices and prosocial behaviors. Thus, building on previous research, we examined whether approval-oriented moral reasoning and familism values mediate the relations between parenting practices and youth prosocial behaviors in Nicaraguan families.

Study hypotheses

Based on conceptual models (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009; Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000) and previous findings in studies of U.S. Latinx youth, we expected that youth with supportive parents would report more and youth with strict parents would report less emotional, dire, and compliant, anonymous, and public prosocial behaviors. However, supportive and strict parenting would be negatively or not linked to altruistic prosocial behaviors. We expected that supportive parents would endorse higher familism values and lower (or not) approval-oriented moral reasoning. In contrast, strict parents would endorse less (or not) familism values and more approval-oriented moral reasoning. Further, familism values would be positively linked to emotional, dire, compliant, anonymous, and public prosocial behaviors, but it would be negatively linked to altruistic prosocial behaviors. Similarly, higher levels of approval-oriented moral reasoning would be linked to more emotional, dire, compliant, and public prosocial behaviors, but it would be linked to less anonymous and altruistic prosocial behaviors. Of particular importance, parenting behaviors would be indirectly linked to multiple types of prosocial behaviors via approval-oriented moral reasoning and familism values. Given significant gender differences in specific forms of prosocial behaviors (Xiao et al., 2019), we explored whether hypothesized relations vary by adolescents’ gender. Thus, we did not develop a-priori hypotheses regarding gender differences.

Method

Participants

Participants were 265 secondary school students (M_age = 14.85 years, SD = 1.33; 62% female) from a public school in a large-town San Marcos, Nicaragua. Among participants, 41% of the students were in 8th grade and 58% of the students were in 10th grade. A majority of the participants (54%) were Catholic Christian and (66%) reported that religion is very important for them and 60% of them attend church once a week. The average number of people living in the household was 6.62 (range from 2 to 20). Participants also reported that 47% of their mothers and 87% of their fathers were employed outside the home.

Data collection occurred in 2007. During that year, the researchers resided in San Marcos and observed both rural and urban elements (N. Woodward, personal communication, April 22, 2019). Inhabitants in San Marcos mostly engaged in agricultural activities. The town is approximately 45 miles away from the capital city (Managua). At that time, only a few people in the town had cars; however, public transportation was readily available compared to most of the other communities in the country. Most of the inhabitants had a radio or TV at home. However, Internet access was minimal at home and people mostly had access to the Internet at a few cyber cafes in the center of town. Because of the limited Internet and the agricultural-based economy, there was a strong family and community orientation. Indeed, consistent with the conceptualization of a collectivist-oriented and interdependent-relational, family-oriented community (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007), San Marcos could be considered typical of a Nicaraguan town. However, San Marcos was home to a university with accreditation in the U.S. and many Nicaraguan youth came to San Marcos for a college education. Moreover, although there was not a grocery store, there were several restaurants in town during that time that created a somewhat urban lifestyle (N. Woodward, personal communication, April 22, 2019).

Procedure

All measures were translated into Spanish and back-translated by bilingual researchers who were living in San Marcos. After obtaining approval from the public school principal and staff, signed consents from parents and youth assents were collected from 8th and 10th graders (we could not obtain permission from the 9th grade teachers). Recruitment and participation rates were high. The surveys were administered in the classrooms by two graduate students. Adolescents completed the survey package in approximately 60 minutes.

Measures

Supportive and strict parenting behaviors

Adolescents reported supportive and strict parenting using the revised version of Parent Behavior Measure (PBM; Ingoldsby et al., 2004) on a 4-point scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 4 = “Strongly Agree”). We conducted preliminary analyses to test the validity and reliability of the PBM to use with the Nicaraguan sample under study. First, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed with geomin rotation in Mplus version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Results yielded six factors that reflects: (1) supportive parenting (9 items, α = 0.76), (2) strict parenting (6 items, α = 0.68), (3) physical and timeout punishment (3 items, α = 0.58), (4) verbal punishment and interference (3 items, α = 0.48), (5) psychological coercion (2 items, α = 0.59), and (6) love and joy (3 items, α = 0.67). One item did not load on any factor and 1 item double-loaded. Second, we closely examined the face validity of each item, how they reflect each subscale and the Cronbach’s alpha levels of these six factors. Based upon the exploratory factor analysis, face validity, and the Cronbach’s alpha levels, and because we were specifically interested in supportive and strict parenting behaviors as outlined in the introduction, only supportive (9 items, α = 0.76; “Your parents have made you feel that she would be there if you needed her”) and strict (6 items, α = 0.68; “Your parents do not give you any peace until you do what she says”) parenting subscales were used in the current analysis. Lastly, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the supportive and strict parenting subscales. CFA model fit the data well: χ² (85) = 94.07, RMSEA = 0.02, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.05, and all standardized factor loadings were significant and varied from 0.35 to 0.61 for supportive and from 0.39 to 0.66 for strict parenting.

Familism

The Mexican American Cultural Value Scale (MACVS; Knight et al., 2010) is a self-report measure for adolescents that includes 50 items on a 5-point scale (1 = “Not at all” to 4 = “Completely”). In the current study, family support (6 items; “It is always important to be united as a family”; α = 0.65), family obligations (5 items; “A person should share their home with relatives if they need a place to stay”; α = 0.63), and family as referent (5 items; “Children should be taught to always be good because they represent the family”; α = 0.64) subscales were used. Based on the correlations among these three subscales (r’s ranged from 0.65 to 0.70, p’s < .001), a total score of familism (α = 0.86) was created (see for details Knight et al., 2014).

Approval-oriented moral reasoning

The Objective Measure of Prosocial Moral Reasoning (PROM; Carlo et al., 1992) is a self-report measure for adolescents that includes five moral stories. A sample story:

One day Mary/John was going to a friend’s party. On the way, she/he saw a girl/boy who had fallen down and hurt her/his leg. The girl/boy asked Mary/John to go to the girl’s/boy’s house and get her/his parents so the parents could come and take her/him to a doctor. But if Mary/John did run and get the girl’s/boy’s parents, Mary/John would be late to the party and miss the fun and social activities with her/his friends.

Adolescents were instructed to read each moral story; then they were asked to choose whether the main character in the story should help the person in need or not, or to indicate that they were not sure what the character should do. After choosing what the character should do, adolescents were asked to rate the importance of each reason why the character should help or not help a needy person on a 5-point scale (1 = “No importance” to 5 = “Great importance”). Each story includes one hedonistic reasoning item, one needs-oriented reasoning item, one approval-oriented reasoning item, one stereotypic reasoning item, and one internalized reasoning item. As in all prior studies (see Carlo et al., 1992), a proportional score for each subscale was calculated by dividing the total score of each subscale by the sum of five subscales. The final approval-oriented moral reasoning subscale (α = 0.68) shows the relative preference for this form of reasoning relative to other forms. Acceptable psychometric evidence of the PROM has been demonstrated in prior studies of Latin American adolescents (e.g., Carlo et al., 2008).

Prosocial behaviors

The revised version of the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM-R; Carlo et al., 2003) is a self-report measure for adolescents that includes 25 items on a 5-point scale (1 = “Does not describe me at all” to 5 = “Describes me very well”). The PTM-R consists of six subscales that cover the dimensions of emotional (5 items; “I tend to help others especially when they are really emotional”; α = 0.74), dire (3 items; “I tend to help people who are hurt badly”; α = 0.65), compliant (2 items; “I never wait to help others when they ask for it”; α = 0.42), altruistic (5 items; “I believe that donating goods or money works best when you get some benefit” [reverse scored]; α = 0.65), public (4 items; “I can help others best when people are watching you”; α = 0.77), and anonymous (5 items; “I prefer to donate money without anyone knowing”; α = 0.74) prosocial behaviors. Prior research shows acceptable psychometric properties in Latin American samples (McGinley et al., 2014).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among the main study variables were presented in Table 1. Study variables were well distributed, falling under the normal distribution range of skewness and kurtosis (the range between ±3 indicates normal distribution; Kline, 2016), except for the familism variable. Although the familism variable was under the normal distribution range for skewness, it was kurtotic (10.13). Maximum likelihood robust standard error (MLR) estimation method was used in Mplus version 8 for all analyses to handle the missing data and nonnormality (Enders, 2010; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). No variables had 2% or more missing values. We found several significant correlations among the main study variables (see Table 1). Supportive and strict parenting behaviors were positively correlated with each other. Supportive parenting behavior was positively correlated with familism values, whereas strict parenting was positively correlated with approval-oriented moral reasoning. Both supportive and strict parenting behaviors were positively correlated with public, emotional, and dire prosocial behaviors and negatively correlated with altruistic prosocial behaviors. Familism was positively correlated with public, emotional, dire, compliant, and anonymous prosocial behaviors, whereas it was negatively correlated with altruistic prosocial behaviors. Approval-oriented moral reasoning was positively correlated with public and negatively correlated with altruistic prosocial behaviors. All prosocial behaviors were significantly correlated with one another.

Table 1.

Bivariate correlations and descriptives statistics.

Variables	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.
1. Supportive Parenting	—
2. Strict Parenting	.15*	—
3. Familism Values	.26**	.11	—
4. AOPMR	−.10	.13*	−.01	—
5. Public	.18**	.17**	.16*	.26**	—
6. Emotional	.19**	.21**	.22**	−.03	.52**	—
7. Altruistic	−.12*	−.16*	−.15*	−.22**	−.72**	−.38**	—
8. Anonymous	.12	.12*	.13*	−.06	.40**	.59**	−.43**	—
9. Dire	.26**	.12*	.19**	−.02	.40**	.62**	−.30**	.55**	—
10. Compliant	.15*	.05	.18**	.01	.42**	.44**	−.35**	.50**	.51**	—
Mean	3.18	2.49	4.36	0.20	2.78	3.41	3.44	2.99	3.49	3.12
Standard Deviation	0.48	0.63	0.49	0.03	1.13	0.91	1.05	0.99	0.96	1.08
N	262	265	264	263	261	261	261	261	261	261

Note. AOPMR = Approval-Oriented Prosocial Moral Reasoning.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Path analyses

Analysis plan

We conducted path analysis to examine the associations between supportive and strict parenting and adolescents’ six types of prosocial behaviors, and the mediating roles of familism values and approval-oriented moral reasoning (see Figure 1). In the path model, supportive and strict parenting were specified as the exogenous variables and a correlation path between them was estimated. Familism values and approval-oriented moral reasoning were specified as mediators and a direct path was included from familism to approval-oriented moral reasoning. Six types of prosocial behaviors were specified as endogenous variables and residual errors of all types of prosocial behaviors were allowed to covary but are not shown in Figure 1 for simplicity reason. All direct relations among exogenous variables, mediators, and endogenous variables were estimated. Lastly, adolescents’ gender, age, and maternal employment, as a proxy of socioeconomic status, were included as statistical controls but are not shown in Figure 1. Participants reported that 47% of their mothers and 87% of their fathers were employed outside the home. Given the relatively high poverty rate in Nicaragua, two-parents’ employment outside the home might be an important indicator of their socioeconomic status as compared to one-parent employment.

Figure 1.

Relations between parenting and Nicaraguan adolescents’ prosocial behaviors, and indirect effects via approval-oriented moral reasoning and familism value.

Model fit indices

The goodness of model fit was assessed by using the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.06) with 95% confidence interval (CI), comparative fit index (CFI ≥ 0.90) Tucker-Lewis index (TLI ≥ 0.90), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR ≤ 0.08) (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Main model

A path analysis was conducted to examine the hypothesized relations. Adolescents’ gender, age, and maternal employment, as a proxy of socioeconomic status, were included as statistical controls. The model fit the data well: N = 259, χ² (6) = 4.44, p = .62, RMSEA (95% CI) = 0.00 (0.00, 0.07), CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.03, SRMR = 0.01. Six cases were not included in the analysis due to missing data. As seen in Figure 1, supportive parenting was positively linked to familism values and dire and public prosocial behaviors, and it was negatively linked to approval-oriented moral reasoning. Strict parenting was positively linked to approval-oriented moral reasoning and emotional prosocial behavior. Familism values were positively linked to compliant and emotional prosocial behaviors and negatively linked to altruistic prosocial behavior. Lastly, approval-oriented moral reasoning was positively linked to public prosocial behavior and negatively linked to altruistic prosocial behavior. There were no other significant links.

Multigroup analysis

We conducted a multigroup analysis to examine whether the patterns of associations vary by adolescents’ gender. Because participants were 8^th and 10^th graders, we controlled for adolescents’ age on mediators and outcomes. Results showed that the unconstrained model [χ² (4) = 1.13, p = .89, scaling correction factor for MLR = 1.151, RMSEA (95% CI) = 0.00 (0.00, 0.06), CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.12, SRMR = 0.01] was not significantly different than the constrained model [χ² (57) = 55.37 p = .54, scaling correction factor for MLR = 1.049, RMSEA (95% CI) = 0.00 (0.00, 0.05), CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.02, SRMR = 0.07] based on Satorra–Bentler Scaled (Satorra & Bentler, 2010) chi-square difference test: S–B χ² (53) = 54.53, p = .42. Results indicated that associations of interest did not differ by gender. Therefore, results were presented for entire sample.

Indirect effects

A follow-up bootstrap resampling analysis was conducted to estimate bias-corrected confidence intervals for significant indirect links (MacKinnon et al., 2002). Results showed that there was a significant indirect relation between strict parenting and altruistic prosocial behavior via approval-oriented moral reasoning (β = −0.03, SE = 0.02, p = .04, 95% CI [−0.07, −0.01]) and a significant relation between strict parenting and public prosocial behavior via approval-oriented moral reasoning (β = 0.04, SE = 0.02, p = .04, 95% CI [0.01, 0.09]). The indirect links between supportive parenting and compliant (β = .04, SE = .02, p = .06), emotional (β = .04, SE = .03, p = .11), and altruistic prosocial behaviors (β = -.03, SE = .02, p = .11) via familism values were not significant. The indirect links between supportive parenting and public (β = -.04, SE = .02, p = .10) and altruistic prosocial behaviors (β = .03, SE = .02, p = .09) via approval-oriented moral reasoning were not significant.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine whether supportive and strict parenting behaviors were linked to Nicaraguan adolescents’ six types of prosocial behaviors via their approval-oriented moral reasoning and familism values. Overall, we found partial support for the hypothesized effects. Specifically, strict parenting was positively linked to approval-oriented moral reasoning, which in turn, was positively linked to public and negatively linked to altruistic prosocial behavior. Strict parenting was positively linked to emotional prosocial behavior. Moreover, supportive parenting was positively linked to adolescents’ familism values and dire and public prosocial behaviors, and it was negatively related to approval-oriented moral reasoning. Additionally, familism values were positively linked to compliant and emotional prosocial behaviors, and they were negatively linked to altruistic prosocial behavior. These findings were robust across adolescents’ gender. These findings have implications for traditional and culture-specific models of prosocial behaviors and extend our understanding of the roles of parenting, sociocognitive and value traits, and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors to Latinx parents and youth residing in their native country.

Indirect effects of parenting on prosocial behaviors

As expected, and consistent with social and cognitive models of prosocial development (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000), the findings demonstrated that strict parenting was positively linked to approval-oriented moral reasoning and that approval-oriented moral reasoning was positively linked to public, but negatively linked to altruistic, prosocial behaviors in Nicaraguan youth. The present findings provide support for traditional prosocial development models that posit that sociocognitive traits could explain the relations between parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Although strict, punitive, and highly controlling parenting behaviors are thought to adversely influence children’s prosocial behaviors in European American samples (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000), such parenting practices are often accompanied by warmth and responsiveness, motivated by concern for children, and seen as relatively normative in Latinx cultures (Halgunseth et al., 2006). Consistent with this notion, we found that strict parenting was positively correlated with supportive parenting. Therefore, strict parenting in Nicaraguan cultural context might result in higher levels of a form of prosocial moral reasoning, especially if such moral reasoning orients youth toward interdependence and fostering communalism.

Contrary to hypotheses and prior theoretical models (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009; Eisenberg et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2000), supportive parenting was not linked to prosocial behaviors through approval-oriented moral reasoning or familism values. However, those indirect paths were in the expected direction and some of them close to be significant (p = .06). One possibility is that supportive parenting may not be enough by itself to predict Nicaraguan adolescents’ prosocial behaviors through these hypothesized mediators. This is consistent with the conclusions of a recent meta-analytic review that showed that warm, supportive, and responsive parenting practices were not strongly linked to several forms of prosocial behaviors, and some studies yielded nonsignificant links (Wong et al., 2020). In future research, it might be important to consider interactions between supportive and strict parenting in predicting Nicaraguan adolescents’ prosocial behaviors because these parenting practices accompany each other and are seen as relatively normative in Latinx cultures (Halgunseth et al., 2006). Further, it may be helpful to consider other specific parenting practices (e.g., use of parental rewards) aimed at socializing cultural values and prosocial moral reasoning. Because there are limited studies on these indirect links among parents and youth residing in Latin American countries, it is difficult to ascertain whether these findings reflect a phenomenon that is unique to the Nicaraguan cultural context. Nonetheless, the present findings provoke the need for further research on the relations between parenting and youth prosocial behaviors in native-residing Latinx families.

Direct effects among parenting, prosocial moral reasoning, familism, and prosocial behaviors

As hypothesized, supportive parenting was positively linked to adolescents’ familism values. These findings are consistent with the notion that supportive parents might transmit stronger familism values to their children by modeling, having a warm relationship, and teaching the importance of family (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Hernández & Bámaca-Colbert, 2016). Additionally, supportive parenting behaviors are conceptually parallel to the three dimensions of familism values (i.e., obligations, support, referent; Knight et al., 2010). Supportive parents encourage close and warm relationships with their children, which is thought to promote emotional support in the family context. Supportive parents are also more likely to meet their children’s physical, emotional and psychological needs, which might promote family obligations. And finally, all of these positive social and behavioral interactions are likely to foster greater affinity to the family unit. The present findings add to evidence from a native Spanish-speaking culture on the importance of supportive parenting in fostering stronger familism values.

Supportive parenting was negatively linked to adolescents’ approval-oriented moral reasoning. These expected findings suggest that gaining others’ approval as a consideration for whether to help others, which is a self-oriented form of reasoning (Eisenberg, 1986), is inconsistent with parents who provide relatively high levels of support. It might be that parental support fosters other- and care-oriented reasoning rather than self-oriented reasoning. Additionally, supportive parenting was positively and directly linked to adolescents’ dire and public prosocial behaviors in the current study. Supportive parents can teach their children to be empathic and sensitive to others’ needs (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Dire prosocial behaviors are displayed in emergency situations that require sensitivity and empathic responding (Carlo & Randall, 2002). Public prosocial behaviors, on the other hand, reflect helping in front of others, and supportive parents might have youth who are more willing to help their parents. Taken together, in general, these findings were consistent with the findings on such relations in U.S. Latinx families (e.g., Carlo et al., 2011).

As in a prior study of U.S. Mexican parents and adolescents (Davis et al., 2015), we found positive links between strict parenting and emotional prosocial behavior. Although one might expect that strict parenting undermines prosocial behaviors, the strict parenting measure used in the present study did not reflect the use of severe punishment or corporal punishment. Moreover, scholars have noted the positive social development consequences of parents who are moderately demanding (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Nonetheless, the complex pattern of relations between both supportive and strict parenting practices and specific forms of prosocial behaviors could help explain why sometimes parenting is weakly or nonsignificantly related to prosocial behaviors in prior studies (see Wong et al., 2020). Future research is warranted to further investigate the parenting correlates of specific forms of prosocial behaviors and in studies of native-residing Latin American parents and adolescents.

Consistent with prior evidence from the U.S. Latinx population, familism values were positively linked to compliant and emotional prosocial behaviors which are often displayed in the family context (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011). In many collectivist-oriented societies, parents socialize their children to obey parents, help around the house, do household chores and take care of their younger siblings (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007; Köster et al., 2015; Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Indeed, Nicaraguan mothers’ socialization goals emphasize obedience and familism (Moscardino et al., 2009). Thus, Nicaraguan youth might comply with their parents’ requests and expectations. In collectivist-oriented cultures, placing great emphasis on family and socializing children to be emotionally interdependent on their family members may promote the internalization of familism values and motivate individuals to turn to their family members when seeking and providing support, particularly in emotionally sensitive situations (Knight & Carlo, 2012; Knight et al., 2018). Thus, Nicaraguan youth with strong familism values may likely report higher emotional prosocial behaviors.

As expected, and consistent with prior research conducted among U.S. Latinx adolescents (e.g., Knight et al., 2014, 2016), we found a negative link between familism values and altruistic prosocial behavior. Familism values inherently foster a strong connection to the family and its members; thus, familism values may motivate individuals to prioritize their family members’ needs and reduce the tendency for helping out-group people without a mutual reciprocal benefit (Knight et al., 2014). Although these findings suggest that familism might undermine altruistic behaviors, there is research that demonstrates that relatively high levels of altruistic behaviors are evident when Latinx youth strongly endorse their ethnic identity and when report relatively high levels of moral reasoning (see Knight & Carlo, 2012). These latter findings suggest that altruistic behaviors might require the internalization of moral values and broader cultural values that orient youth toward helping others with little regard for self-benefit.

Limitations

There are several limitations to the present study. First, the present study is a cross-sectional research design and correlational in nature. Thus, causal inferences and the directions of effects cannot be drawn. Furthermore, there might be alternative causal models that have good model fit. Future studies are needed to better examine cause and effect relations using experimental (e.g., interventions) and/or prospective longitudinal research designs. Second, the sample size was moderate and collected from a public school in San Marcos, Nicaragua. The current sample of adolescents may not be representative of the entire Nicaraguan youth population. Thus, future studies with larger and more representative samples of Nicaraguan parents and youth are needed to confirm the present findings. Third, we used adolescents’ self-report measures to gather data. Future studies are needed to use multiple methods (e.g., multiple reporters, observations) to reduce possible shared method variance and social desirability concerns. However, because there was a differentiated pattern of findings, the possibility of strong general bias due to social desirability is reduced.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the present findings provide insights on the distinct roles of supportive and strict parenting, prosocial moral reasoning, and familism values in predicting distinct forms of prosocial behaviors in a sample of native-residing Latin American families. The findings yielded mixed overall support for traditional and culture-specific models of prosocial behaviors. Because the pattern of relations was complex, the findings demonstrate the need for more nuanced socialization models that account for the associations between specific parenting practices and specific prosocial behaviors. Moreover, some of the present findings were unexpected and distinct from findings in previous studies of U.S. Latinx parents and youth. These unexpected findings might be due to the unique cultural niche of Latinx parents and youth residing in Nicaragua (a predominantly collectivist-oriented culture) as distinct from Latinx parents and youth residing in the U.S. (a predominantly individualist-oriented culture). The findings provocatively suggest the need for additional studies in Latinx parents and youth residing in their native countries to inform culture-specific integrative models of youth prosocial behaviors. Such research could lead to the development of comprehensive and effective policy and intervention efforts for native-residing Latin American youth.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully thank Jamie Simpson and Nicholas Woodward for their help with data collection. We also gratefully appreciate the feedback of Drs. Jean Ispa, Amanda Rose, and Duane Rudy and the statistical advice of Dr. Francisco Palermo.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Zehra Gülseven

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are not available publicly but are available upon request. For information regarding the materials, please contact Dr. Gustavo Carlo at gcarlo@uci.edu.

References

Calderón-Tena

C. O.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

(2011). The socialization of prosocial behavior tendencies among Mexican American adolescents: The role of familism values. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021825

Carlo

de Guzman

(2009). Theories and research on prosocial competencies among U.S. Latinos/as. In Villarruel

F. A.

Carlo

Grau

J. M.

Azmitia

Cabrera

N. J.

Chahin

T. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of U.S. Latino psychology: Developmental and community-based perspectives (pp. 191–211). SAGE.

Carlo

Eisenberg

Knight

G. P.

(1992). An objective measure of adolescents’ prosocial moral reasoning. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0204_3

Carlo

Hausmann

Christiansen

Randall

B. A.

(2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431602239132

Carlo

Knight

G. P.

McGinley

Hayes

(2011). The roles of parental inductions, moral emotions, and moral cognitions in prosocial tendencies among Mexican American and European American early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 757–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610373100

Carlo

Koller

S. H.

Eisenberg

Da Silva

M. S.

Frohlich

C. B.

(1996). A cross-national study on the relations among prosocial moral reasoning, gender role orientations, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.231

Carlo

McGinley

Roesch

S. C.

Kaminski

J. W.

(2008). Measurement invariance in a measure of prosocial moral reasoning to use with adolescents from the USA and Brazil. Journal of Moral Education, 37, 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240802399368

Carlo

Randall

B. A.

(2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014033032440

Carlo

Streit

Crockett

(2018). Generalizability of a traditional social cognitive model of prosocial behaviors to U.S. Latino/a youth. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24, 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000188

10.

Carlo

White

R. M.

Streit

Knight

G. P.

Zeiders

K. H.

(2018). Longitudinal relations among parenting styles, prosocial behaviors, and academic outcomes in U.S. Mexican adolescents. Child Development, 89, 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12761

11.

Davis

A. N.

Carlo

Knight

G. P.

(2015). Perceived maternal parenting styles, cultural values, and prosocial tendencies among Mexican American youth. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 176, 235–252. htpps://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2015.1044494

12.

Eisenberg

(1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition and behavior. Erlbaum.

13.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Knafo-Noam

(2015). Prosocial development. In Lamb

M. E.

Lerner

M. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, Vol. 3, socioemotional processes (7th ed., pp. 610–656). Wiley Blackwell.

14.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.

15.

Gil

A. G.

Vega

W. A.

(1996). Two different worlds: Acculturation stress and adaptation among Cuban and Nicaraguan families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407596133008

16.

Grusec

J. E.

Goodnow

J. J.

(1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4

17.

Halgunseth

L. C.

Ispa

J. M.

Rudy

(2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77, 1282–1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00934.x

18.

Hernández

M. M.

Bámaca-Colbert

M. Y.

(2016). A behavioral process model of familism. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8, 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12166

19.

Hoffman

M. L.

(2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.

20.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

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

21.

Hui

C. H.

Triandis

H. C.

(1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002186017002006

22.

Ingoldsby

Schvaneveldt

Supple

Bush

(2004). The relationship between parenting behaviors and adolescent achievement and self-efficacy in Chile and Ecuador. Marriage & Family Review, 35, 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v35n03_08

23.

Kağıtçıbaşı

(1997). Individualism and collectivism. In Berry

J. W.

Segall

M. H.

Kağıtçıbaşı

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Social behavior and applications (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 1–49). Allyn & Bacon.

24.

Kağıtçıbaşı

(2007). Family, self and human development across cultures. Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

25.

Keller

Lamm

Abels

Yovsi

Borke

Jensen

Papaligoura

Holub

Tomiyama

A. J.

Wang

Chaudhary

(2006). Cultural models, socialization goals, and parenting ethnotheories: a multicultural analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105284494

26.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.

27.

Knight

G. P.

Berkel

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Gonzales

N. A.

Ettekal

Jaconis

Boyd

B. M.

(2011). The familial socialization of culturally related values in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 913–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00856.x

28.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

(2012). Prosocial development among Mexican American youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00233.x

29.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

Basilio

C. D.

Jacobson

R. P.

(2014). Familism values, perspective taking, and prosocial moral reasoning: Predicting prosocial tendencies among Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 717–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12164

30.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

Mahrer

N. E.

Davis

A. N.

(2016). The socialization of culturally related values and prosocial tendencies among Mexican American adolescents. Child Development, 87, 1758–1771. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12634

31.

Knight

G. P.

Gonzales

N. A.

Saenz

D. S.

Bonds

D. D.

German

Deardorff

Roosav

M. W.

Updegraff

K. A.

(2010). The Mexican American cultural values scales for adolescents and adults. Journal of Early Adolescents, 30, 444–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609338178

32.

Knight

G. P.

Mazza

G. L.

Carlo

(2018). Trajectories of familism values and the prosocial tendencies of Mexican American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 54, 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000436

33.

Köster

Schuhmacher

Kärtner

(2015). A cultural perspective on prosocial development. Human Ethology Bulletin, 30, 71–82.

34.

Kumru

Carlo

Mestre

M. V.

Samper

(2012). Prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behavior among Turkish and Spanish adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.2.205

35.

Maccoby

E. E.

Martin

J. A.

(1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In Hetherington

E. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). Wiley.

36.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Hoffman

J. M.

West

S. G.

Sheets

(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83

37.

McGinley

Opal

Richaud

M. C.

Mesurado

(2014). Cross-cultural evidence of multidimensional prosocial behaviors: An examination of the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM). In Padilla-Walker

Carlo

(Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 258-278). Oxford University Press.

38.

Moscardino

Bonichini

Valduga

(2009). Mother-infant interaction in cultural context: A study of Nicaraguan and Italian families. In Russo

De Luca

(Eds.), Psychology of family relationships (pp. 11–32). Nova Science Publishers.

39.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).

40.

Oyserman

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3

41.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(Eds.). (2014). Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach. Oxford University Press.

42.

Raffaelli

Carlo

Carranza

M. A.

Gonzales-Kruger

G. E.

(2005). Understanding Latino children and adolescents in the mainstream: Placing culture at the center of developmental models. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 109, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.134

43.

Satorra

Bentler

P. M.

(2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y

44.

Shen

Y. L.

Carlo

Knight

G. P.

(2013). Relations between parental discipline, empathy-related traits, and prosocial moral reasoning: A multicultural examination. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 994–1021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613479670

45.

Super

C. M

Harkness

(1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization at the interface of child and culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548600900409

46.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). New directions in social psychology. Individualism & collectivism. Westview Press.

47.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Alfaro

E. C.

Bámaca

M. Y.

Guimond

A. B.

(2009). The central role of family socialization in Latino adolescents’ cultural orientation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00579.x

48.

Vázquez

J. J.

Panadero

(2016). Chronicity and pseudo inheritance of social exclusion: Differences according to the poverty of the family of origin among trash pickers in León (Nicaragua). Human Rights Quarterly, 38, 379–390.

49.

Walker

T. W.

Wade

C. J.

(2017). Nicaragua: Emerging from the shadow of the eagle (6th ed.). Westview Press.

50.

White

Dietz

Mincey

Proctor

Jamos

Bobbitt-Boyce

Barber

(2017). Measuring hearing aid benefit in Nicaragua using cultural considerations. Clinical Archives of Communication Disorders, 2, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.21849/cacd.2017.00115

51.

Whiting

B. B.

Edwards

C. P.

(1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior. Harvard University Press.

52.

Wong

T. K.

Konishi

Kong

(2020). Parenting and prosocial behaviors: A meta-analysis. Social Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12481

53.

World Bank. (2017). Nicaragua paving the way to faster growth and inclusion: Systematic country diagnostic (Report No: 116484-NI). World Bank Group.© https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/27560License:CCBY3.0IGO

54.

Xiao

S. X.

Hashi

E. C.

Korous

K. M.

Eisenberg

(2019). Gender differences across multiple types of prosocial behavior in adolescence: A meta-analysis of the Prosocial Tendency Measure-Revised (PTM-R). Journal of Adolescence, 77, 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.09.003