Direct and indirect effects of maternal and sibling intimacy on adolescents’ volunteering via social responsibility values: A longitudinal study

Abstract

This study investigates the direct and indirect effects of maternal and sibling relational intimacy on adolescents’ volunteering behaviors via their social responsibility values. Participants included two adolescents (50% female; M age = 1 year) and one parent (85% female; M age = 45 years) from 682 families (N = 2046) from an ongoing longitudinal study. Adolescents self-reported their intimacy with mothers and siblings (Time 1), social responsibility values (Time 1), and volunteering (Times 1 and 2); parents reported on sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., gender, birth order, and family income). Results from a structural equation model indicated that after accounting for adolescents’ earlier volunteering, both maternal and sibling intimacy were indirectly related to greater volunteering via social responsibility values. There were no significant direct effects from maternal or sibling intimacy to adolescents’ volunteering. Results indicate that both mothers and siblings are important in socializing prosocial and civic values and behaviors during adolescence.

Keywords

Intimacy mothers siblings social responsibility values volunteering

Adolescents are capable of enacting positive social change through their prosocial and civic behaviors. Many youth engage in volunteering based on their desires to formally help others and contribute to society (Piliavin & Siegl, 2015). Volunteering is one important way for adolescents to act on their social responsibility values, which reflect personal commitments to improve community and society (Wray-Lake et al., 2016). Social responsibility values and volunteering sit at the nexus of the overlapping yet distinct domains of prosocial (to benefit others by helping, caring, sharing; Eisenberg et al., 2015) and civic (to improve community well-being and redress public concern issues; Ehrlich, 2000) development. Social responsibility values and volunteering have important implications for adolescent development (Piliavin & Siegl, 2015; Wray-Lake et al., 2016). For instance, social responsibility values are markers of psychosocial maturity (Greenberger, 1984) and general well-being (Rossi, 2001). Similarly, volunteering has well-documented benefits for adolescents including being linked to fewer problem behaviors (e.g., delinquency; Piliavin & Siegl, 2015) and better mental (e.g., self-esteem; Bang et al., 2020) and physical health (e.g., cardiovascular health; Schreier et al., 2013). In this manner, the cultivation of social responsibility values may benefit both the communities in which adolescents live and adolescents themselves.

Given the importance of social responsibility values and volunteering for adolescents’ positive development, it is essential to understand the socializing agents and processes that foster such values and behaviors. Scholars have identified parents and siblings as critical family-based socialization agents of adolescents’ prosocial values and behaviors (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014; Smetana et al., 2015). In general, research suggests that intimate maternal and sibling relationships can promote adolescents’ values like social responsibility and behaviors like volunteering (Bi et al., 2021; Mahatmya & Lohman, 2012). Moreover, the development of social responsibility values can motivate adolescents’ volunteering behaviors (Pratt et al., 2003; Silke et al., 2021). To date, most research has focused on parents as socialization agents of social responsibility values and volunteering in youth (Duke et al., 2009; White & Mistry, 2016). Despite the prominent contributions of sibling relationships to adolescent development (McHale et al., 2012), socialization research has often overlooked the influence of siblings (Smetana et al., 2015), and has not delineated their unique contributions in fostering prosocial and civic values and behaviors. The present study addresses this gap by examining the direct and indirect effects of both sibling and maternal relational intimacy on adolescents’ volunteering via their social responsibility values.

Theoretical underpinnings

According to the relational developmental systems theoretical perspective, development is malleable, and optimal development can be attributed to mutually beneficial and reciprocal interactions between an individual and their contexts, including their relational contexts (Lerner et al., 2014; Overton, 2013). Within this perspective, adolescents’ social responsibility values and volunteering are malleable to “ecological assets” or social resources such as positive bonds and supportive relationships with others (Benson et al., 2011). Socialization relationships characterized by trust, support, and respect may lead to social responsibility values and helping behaviors for several reasons. According to social capital theory, such relationships build positive bonds that youth want to reciprocate and pay forward, resulting in adolescents wanting to help, support, and care for others (Coleman, 1988). Additionally, warm and supportive relationships with family members can model prosocial behavior that adolescents internalize and emulate in other settings; build foundations for trust in others that is central to prosocial and civic values and behaviors; and communicate values of showing concern and care for others (Carlo, 2014; Eisenberg et al., 2015; Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012).

Further, multiple socialization agents (i.e., different family members) may dynamically foster prosocial and civic development in adolescents. Indeed, a relational developmental perspective, as well as other systems-based perspectives such as family (e.g., Cox & Paley, 2003) and ecological (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) systems theories, highlight how development is shaped by interactions across many relationships. Studying multiple socialization agents concurrently can provide a sense of the unique contributions of each in predicting youths’ prosocial and civic development (Steele et al., 2013). In fact, focusing on just one socialization agent such as parents may result in misjudging (and likely overestimating) that agent’s effects on social responsibility values and volunteering. Moreover, examining youths’ perceptions of intimacy in their relationships with parents and siblings may be particularly vital to understanding their socialization of social responsibility values and volunteering. Youth who perceive intimacy in their socialization relationships tend to be responsive to prosocial and civic messages by mothers (see Grusec & Goodnow, 1994) and potentially siblings (see Dunn, 1998). Therefore, we examined links from adolescents’ perceptions of intimacy with mothers and siblings simultaneously to assess their unique links with social responsibility values as well as volunteering.

Maternal and sibling intimacy and volunteering

Intimate parent–child relationships may be crucial for adolescents’ prosocial and civic development. Mothers are critical socialization agents of youths’ prosocial behaviors; indeed, warm and intimate mothers facilitate prosocial behaviors by fostering a care-based orientation toward others’ needs in adolescents (Carlo, 2014). Mothers can socialize children’s prosocial behaviors by forming positive parent–child bonds and by being responsive to youths’ socioemotional and psychological needs (Hoffman, 2000; Eisenberg et al., 2015). Further, warm and intimate mothers may engage in a range of prosocial parenting practices such as modeling helping behavior, having morally laden conversations about the importance of helping, and providing rewards to reinforce helping in adolescents (Carlo et al., 2007; Ottoni-Wilhelm et al., 2014). In fact, researchers have suggested that perceived intimacy and positive relationships with parents (in samples with predominantly mothers) are tied to greater volunteering (Duke et al., 2009; Mahatmya & Lohman, 2012) and other prosocial behaviors (Carlo et al., 2011; Padilla-Walker et al., 2016) among adolescents. For instance, Duke and colleagues (2009) found that perceptions of greater connectedness and shared activities with parents during adolescence predicted a higher likelihood of volunteering (i.e., community service, blood donation, and participation in community organizations) in young adulthood. Similarly, perceived relatedness and conversations with parents were associated with greater youth volunteering (i.e., partaking in charitable activities and offering tangible aid; Gonul et al., 2020). Therefore, it is likely that adolescents’ perceptions of maternal intimacy are associated with greater volunteering over time.

In addition to mothers, intimate sibling relationships may be vital for promoting adolescents’ prosocial behaviors. Because sibling relationships are more egalitarian than parent–child relationships (Buhrmester, 1992), siblings can uniquely socialize prosocial behaviors by attuning themselves to each other’s needs. Warm sibling interactions often facilitate a positive view of the self and greater social understanding, which can encourage prosocial behaviors toward others (Dunn, 1998). When siblings share close, intimate bonds instead of conflictual bonds, they are more likely to socialize each other’s helping behaviors through processes such as modeling, self-disclosure, and shared prosocial peer networks (Campione-Barr et al., 2015; McHale et al., 2012; Whiteman et al., 2011). Despite the theoretical importance of siblings, empirical research has largely neglected siblings as socialization agents of adolescents’ volunteering. In one recent study on siblings and civic engagement, Bi and colleagues (2021) found that perceived sibling intimacy was related to increased global civic behaviors, including volunteering. Other research on sibling relationship quality and prosocial behaviors has indicated that perceived sibling intimacy, support, and affection are cross-sectionally (Streit et al., 2018; 2020) and longitudinally (Harper et al., 2016; Padilla-Walker et al., 2010) associated with prosocial behaviors in adolescents and young adults. Based on this preliminary research, we anticipate that adolescents’ perceptions of sibling intimacy encourage their later volunteering.

Indirect effects via social responsibility values

A family climate characterized by intimate relationships can cultivate social responsibility values among adolescents (Cheng et al., 2021; Wray-Lake et al., 2015), and this may be important for the promotion of volunteering. Moral socialization scholars have theorized that warm and intimate parents use inductive reasoning about prosocial values, and parents’ use of intimacy, positive affect, and inductions encourages an internalization of prosocial values in their children (Grolnick et al., 1997; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). Researchers have found that positive relationship quality (e.g., closeness, democratic parenting) with parents, primarily mothers, is tied to greater social responsibility values (Gunnoe et al., 1999; Lenzi et al., 2014) and other prosocial values (Hardy et al., 2008; Barry et al., 2008). For instance, parent–youth closeness was related to greater social responsibility values in youth (Lenzi et al., 2014). Additionally, parents’ socialization practices (i.e., civic discussion, directives, and modeling) were positively associated with adolescents’ social responsibility values (White & Mistry, 2016; Zaff et al., 2008). Although relatively less is known about sibling influences on prosocial and civic values, it is likely that intimate sibling relationships encourage social responsibility values, independent of mothers, based on their unique effects on other-oriented emotions and cognitions such as empathic concern, perspective taking, and sympathy (Dunn, 2015; Harper et al., 2016; Lam et al., 2012). For example, in a sample of nearly 500 adolescent siblings, sibling intimacy was associated with higher levels of global positive values, inclusive of community responsibility (Killoren et al., 2021). Similarly, in Bi et al.’s (2021) study on siblings and civic engagement, sibling intimacy was positively related to global civic engagement attitudes, including those of responsibility toward the community in adolescents. Adolescents’ perceptions of both maternal and sibling intimacy may, therefore, facilitate their social responsibility values.

Furthermore, social responsibility values may drive volunteering behaviors among adolescents. Because personal values have a motivational component when internalized into one’s sense of self, values can guide and direct volitional behaviors (Manstead, 1996; Verplanken & Holland 2002). Behaviors congruent with specific values also tend to be rewarding and provide a sense of self-consistency (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). Applied to social responsibility values, engaging in prosocial behaviors like volunteering can be fulfilling for adolescents who hold social responsibility values that reflect their concern for the greater good. Research supports the notion that social responsibility values are related to more volunteering among adolescents (Cemalcilar, 2009; Neufeind et al., 2014; Porter, 2013). In one study, White (2021) found that adolescents with higher social and community responsibility showed a greater likelihood of volunteering. In another, Crocetti and colleagues (2012) found that youths’ social responsibility values were linked to their future expected volunteering. Moreover, social responsibility values can mediate associations between relational contexts and volunteering behaviors. For example, social responsibility values mediated relations from parenting (i.e., civic values and engagement) and other relational contexts (e.g., friends and community) to general civic behaviors (including but not limited to volunteering) among adolescents in one recent study (Silke et al., 2021). Research, however, that examines whether youths’ social responsibility values undergird associations between perceptions of intimacy in multiple family relationships (i.e., siblings’ and mothers’) and volunteering is lacking.

Present study

Building on theories of prosocial and civic socialization (Carlo, 2014; Coleman, 1988; Lerner et al., 2014) and prior empirical scholarship (e.g., Bi et al., 2021; Duke et al., 2009), the primary aim of this study was to examine the direct and indirect effects of adolescents’ perceptions of maternal and sibling intimacy on their later volunteering via their social responsibility values. We hypothesized that both maternal and sibling intimacy would be uniquely and positively related to social responsibility values, which would in turn be positively related to adolescents’ later volunteering behaviors (accounting for earlier volunteering). Similarly, both maternal and sibling intimacy were expected to directly and positively predict adolescents’ volunteering behaviors. Importantly, by exploring the simultaneous associations between maternal and sibling intimacy, social responsibility values, and volunteering, the present study explicates the relative strengths of multiple family socialization agents in ways that have been lacking in earlier published research.

Based on previous research on sociodemographic characteristics predicting prosociality, we included gender (Van der Graaff et al., 2018), birth order (Pike et al., 2005), and family income (Mustillo et al., 2004) as moderators (or covariates in the absence of moderation) in our analyses. Socialization agents (e.g., parents) might foster greater nurturance, caring, and prosocial behaviors in girls compared to boys (Gilligan, 1982), which could help explain gender-specific prosocial developmental trends (Van der Graaff et al., 2018). Further, earlier-born siblings could exert greater influences on later-born siblings’ prosocial behaviors by teaching them other-oriented prosocial skills like sympathy and conflict resolution (Dunn, 1998; Recchia & Howe, 2009). Additionally, family income is known to affect socialization practices and prosocial behaviors (Carlo et al., 2011), and socialization practices facilitating youths’ volunteering might be more prominent under conditions of high relative to low socioeconomic status (Mustillo et al., 2004). Given the lack of research on multiple socialization agents and prosocial and civic values and behaviors, we explored whether hypothesized associations between maternal and sibling intimacy, social responsibility values, and volunteering differed by gender, birth order, and family income.

Method

Participants

Participants included two adolescent aged siblings and one parent from 682 families (N = 2048) from an ongoing longitudinal study called the Parent, Adolescent, and Sibling Study (PASS). At Time 1, adolescents (n = 1364) were, on average, 14.45 (SD = 1.54; Range = 8.83–18.50) years old. Adolescents identified as female (50%), male (50%), and transgender (<1%). Participating parents (M age = 45.15 years, SD = 5.37) were predominantly mothers (85%) and biological parents (97%). A majority of the parents identified as White (87%), followed by Black/African American (9%), and other (4%) racial groups. Five percent of parents identified their ethnicity as Latino. The sibling dyads included 353 same-gender pairs, 327 mixed-gender pairs, and two dyads with a transgender older sibling. Most siblings were biologically related (97%); 2% were step-siblings and 1% were adopted siblings. In terms of income, 21% of parents reported household incomes below $59,999, 22% between $60,000 and $99,999, 27% between $100,000 and $149,999, and 30% above $150,000.

Procedure

The sample was recruited from families with adolescents from five states in the Midwestern United States (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). A survey research firm provided a sampling frame for families that included at least one child in eighth, ninth, or 10th grade. Parents were sent letters informing them of the study’s purpose and eligibility criteria. Families were eligible if they had two adolescent children, with an older sibling in eighth, ninth, or 10th grade, and a younger sibling in fifth through ninth grade. The letter contained a unique eight-digit code for parents to enter on a website for screening. On this website, interested parents provided demographic information, and then were provided feedback about participation.

Eligible parents were asked to provide contact information (i.e., email addresses and telephone numbers) for themselves and their two participating children, and then were directed to information about the consent process. Parents provided informed consent for themselves and their participating children. Following the receipt of consent, emails were sent to each participant with a link to participate in the Time 1 survey. Youth provided informed assent before completing the survey. Overall, 1448 parents that received letters logged on to the eligibility screener website, 1008 families of which were eligible and invited to participate. Of these eligible families, 682 had all three family members participate in Time 1. Each family member received $30 for completion of the Time 1 survey, designed to take between 30 and 60 minutes (Mdn = 38 minutes for parents; Mdn = 38 minutes for youth). Time 1 data were collected between March 2019 and March 2020.

Data for Time 2 were collected between July 2020 and February 2021. Specifically, the 682 participating families were sent reminder letters about Time 2 of the longitudinal study which included their unique eight-digit code. After logging on to the study website, participants provided consent or assent and received links via email for their web-based surveys. Compared to Time 1, the Time 2 survey took roughly the same amount of time for parents (Mdn = 38 minutes) and slightly less time for youth (Mdn = 29 minutes). Each family member received $40 for completion of the Time 2 survey. All study procedures for PASS were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Utah State University.

Of the 2046 participants from Time 1, 1893 (92%; 650 parents and 1243 adolescents) completed the Time 2 survey. Families in which all three members participated in both assessments did not differ from Time 1 only participants in age or gender of parent, older child, or younger child; parent education or income; or parent race, marital status, or work status. Additionally, there were no significant differences between the groups for any of the key study variables (i.e., relational intimacy, social responsibility values, and volunteering) or covariates.

To reduce survey burden and overall costs (Graham et al., 2006) and improve efficiency and data quality (Raghunathan & Grizzle, 1995), PASS utilized a three-form planned missing data design (Graham et al., 1996; 2006) at both time points. For scales with more than four items, 25% of items were randomly missing across the survey, creating datasets that are missing completely at random, therefore introducing no bias (MCAR; Little & Rubin, 2002). Given the MCAR nature of these variables, unbiased and efficient regression estimates can be obtained for these scales through maximum likelihood robust (MLR) estimation.

Measures

Maternal intimacy

Maternal intimacy was measured using eight items at Time 1. These items originally came from the Social Relations Questionnaire (Blyth et al., 1982), which assessed the degree to which participants felt accepted, sought advice from, and disclosed inner feelings, in different relational contexts. The measure was later revised by Blyth and Foster-Clark (1987), and we tailored the items to ask specifically about mothers. Example items included, “How much does she accept you no matter what you do?” and “How important is she to you?” Items were on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Some, 4 = A lot, and 5 = Very much). Higher scores indicated more maternal intimacy (M = 3.75, SD = .81, α = .87). The measure has been well-validated in prior research on maternal intimacy among adolescents (Whiteman et al., 2011a).

Sibling intimacy

Similar to maternal intimacy, at Time 1, youths’ report of intimacy with their siblings was assessed using Blyth and Foster-Clark’s (1987) eight-item measure. Example items included, “How much do you go to (Sibling Name) for advice/support?” and “How much do you share your inner feelings or secrets with (Sibling Name)?” Items were on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Some, 4 = A lot, and 5 = Very much). Higher scores suggested more sibling intimacy (M = 3.11, SD = .83, α = .86). The measure has been widely used to assess sibling intimacy in previous studies with adolescents (Killoren et al., 2021).

Social responsibility values

Social responsibility values were measured using three items from the Social Responsibility Values Scale (Wray-Lake et al., 2012) at Time 1. On a four-point scale from 1 (Not Important) to 4 (Extremely Important), youth rated how important the following were in their lives: “Being a leader in my community,” “Making a contribution to society,” and “Working to correct social and economic inequalities.” Higher scores indicated greater social responsibility values (M = 2.55, SD = .86, α = .82). This measure has shown construct validity in prior work with adolescent samples (Wray-Lake et al., 2015).

Volunteering

Adolescents’ hours spent volunteering were measured at Times 1 and 2 with the question: “In a typical month, about how many hours do you spend volunteering (not part of a class project, graduation requirement, or court-ordered requirement) to help other people or to help make your community a better place?” (Syvertsen et al., 2015). Adolescents indicated the number of hours they volunteered using a slider bar that ranged from 0 to 40 hours (Time 1: M = 4.24, SD = 6.03; Time 2: M = 3.33, SD = 4.99; r = .47, p < .001). This measure has demonstrated construct validity in past research conducted with adolescents (Wray-Lake et al., 2017).

Demographic covariates

Parents reported demographic information at Time 1, including adolescents’ gender (50% female, 50% male, less than 1% transgender), birth order (50% older, 50% younger) and household income (continuous from 1 to 14 in $10,000 increments up to $100,000, then $50,000 increments to >$250,000). At Time 2, parents updated demographic information as needed such as family income (T1: M = 9.49, SD = 3.45; T2: M = 9.67, SD = 9.67, SD = 3.36). Gender (0 = male, 1 = female), birth order (0 = earlier-born, 1 = later-born), and family income (0 = $90,000–$99,000 or lower, 1 = $100,000–$149,000 or higher; based on the median $100,000–$149,000) were dummy coded to be included as covariates.

Analytic plan

A structural equation model was used to test direct and indirect associations between adolescents’ maternal and sibling intimacy, social responsibility values, and volunteering. In this approach, we modeled adolescents’ maternal intimacy, sibling intimacy, and social responsibility values as latent variables and volunteering as a manifest variable. We accounted for planned missingness using the maximum likelihood robust (MLR) estimator in Mplus, version 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). We also addressed the nested nature of the data (i.e., siblings clustered within families) using the family identification variable as the clustering variable.

First, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to establish measurement models of latent variables at the item level (i.e., maternal intimacy, sibling intimacy, and social responsibility values). Second, we estimated the structural model with maternal and sibling intimacy (Time 1) as correlated latent exogenous variables, social responsibility values (Time 1) as the latent mediator, and volunteering (Time 2) as the manifest endogenous variable. Third, adolescents’ gender, birth order, and family income at Time 1 were entered as statistical covariates by specifying their covariances with the exogenous variables, and directional paths to the mediating and endogenous variables. We also accounted for the stability coefficient from adolescents’ volunteering at Time 1 to Time 2. All direct relations from maternal and sibling intimacy (Time 1) to social responsibility values (Time 1) and volunteering (Time 2), and social responsibility values (Time 1) to volunteering (Time 2) were estimated. Additionally, indirect effects were calculated for the role of social responsibility values in relations from maternal and sibling intimacy to volunteering. Finally, multiple group analyses were conducted to assess moderation by gender, birth order, and family income in the hypothesized relations between maternal and sibling intimacy, social responsibility values, and volunteering.

In structural equation modeling, the model is considered to fit the data well if the chi-square test of model fit is non-significant, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is less than or equal to .06, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index is greater than or equal to .95, and the standardized root mean residual (SRMR) values are less than or equal to .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Model fit is considered acceptable even if the chi-square test of model fit is significant (in case of large sample sizes), and if the RMSEA is less than or equal to .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), the CFI and TLI are greater than or equal to .90 (McDonald & Ho, 2002), and the SRMR is less than or equal to .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive and correlational analyses were conducted. All continuous variables (i.e., maternal intimacy, sibling intimacy, and social responsibility values) were normally distributed (skewness ranged from −.76 to .02; kurtosis ranged from −.87 to .30) with the exception of volunteering. The volunteering variables were skewed (Time 1 = 2.77; Time 2 = 2.96) and kurtotic (Time 1 = 10.24; Time 2 = 11.77), and therefore, square root transformed to approximate a normal distribution at each time point (following transformation, skewness ranged from .73 to .76; kurtosis ranged from .36 to .38).

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among the primary study variables. At the bivariate level, maternal and sibling intimacy at Time 1 were positively correlated with social responsibility values at Time 1. Social responsibility values at Time 1 were positively related to volunteering at Time 1 and 2. Sibling intimacy, but not maternal intimacy, was positively related to volunteering at Time 1 and Time 2. Maternal and sibling intimacy at Time 1 were positively correlated. Volunteering at Time 1 was also positively correlated with volunteering at Time 2.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Maternal intimacy (Time 1)	—
2. Sibling intimacy (Time 1)	.38^**	—
3. Social responsibility (Time 1)	.17^**	.16^**	—
4. Gender (Time 1)	.10^**	.20^**	.14^**	—
5. Birth order (Time 1)	.07^*	.04	−.09^**	−.02	—
6. Family income (Time 1)	.07^*	.00	.07^*	−.06^*	.00	—
7. Volunteering (Time 1)	.05	.08^**	.26^**	.16^**	−.15^**	.02	—
8. Volunteering (Time 2)	.05	.09^**	.28^**	.16^**	−.14^**	.06	.54^**	—
Mean (SD)	3.75 (.81)	3.11 (.83)	2.55 (.86)	—	—	—	1.56 (1.35)	1.33 (1.26)

Note.* p < .05, ** p < .01.

Partial correlations revealed that at Time 1, maternal intimacy was positively correlated with social responsibility values (r = .12, p < .001), after controlling for the effects of sibling intimacy. At Time 1, sibling intimacy also was positively correlated with social responsibility values (r = .11, p < .001), accounting for maternal intimacy. Additionally, sibling intimacy at Time 1 was positively correlated with volunteering at Time 1 (r = .07, p = .02) and Time 2 (r = .08, p = .01), controlling for maternal intimacy at Time 1. There were no significant partial correlations between maternal intimacy at Time 1 and volunteering at Time 1 or Time 2.

Structural equation model

The measurement model for the maternal intimacy CFA demonstrated acceptable model fit: χ²(20) = 144.08, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .95, TLI = .93, SRMR = .04. Factor loadings for all eight maternal intimacy items were significant and ranged from .48 to .81. Similarly, the CFA model for sibling intimacy demonstrated acceptable model fit: χ²(20) = 138.49, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .94, TLI = .91, SRMR = .05. All eight items loaded significantly on the sibling intimacy latent variable and ranged from .48 to .75. For social responsibility values, the CFA model was fully saturated; factor loadings (.72–.84) for the three items were significant. Additionally, the overall measurement model with maternal intimacy, sibling intimacy, and social responsibility values as correlated latent variables showed acceptable model fit: χ²(149) = 631.948, p < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, SRMR = .05.

Direct effects

The structural model (see Figure 1) was specified with maternal intimacy and sibling intimacy (Time 1) as predictors, social responsibility values as the mediator (Time 1), and volunteering¹ (Time 2) as the outcome (covariates were adolescents’ volunteering, gender, birth order, and family income at Time 1). Table 2 depicts the direct associations among maternal and sibling intimacy, social responsibility values, and volunteering. Results indicated that Time 1 maternal intimacy (β = .15, p < .001) and sibling intimacy (β = .12, p < .05) were both positively associated with adolescents’ social responsibility values concurrently. In turn, adolescents’ social responsibility values were positively related to their Time 2 volunteering behaviors (β = .17, p < .001). There were no significant direct links between maternal or sibling intimacy and adolescents’ volunteering, after accounting for indirect links via social responsibility values. These findings were robust net of the covariates of gender, birth order, and family income at Time 1, as well as net of prior levels of volunteering at Time 1. The effect sizes for the mediating and endogenous variables were as follows: social responsibility values (R² = .10, p < .001) and volunteering (R² = .33, p < .001).

Figure 1.

Structural equation model results: Direct and indirect effects of maternal and sibling intimacy on volunteering via social responsibility values. Standardized coefficients for relations among maternal and sibling intimacy, social responsibility values, and volunteering. Indirect effects from maternal intimacy (ab = .03, SE = .01, p = .003) and sibling intimacy (ab = .02, SE = .01, p = .023) to volunteering via social responsibility values were significant. Adolescents’ volunteering, gender, birth order, and family income at Time 1 were specified as covariates but excluded from the figure for parsimony (see Table 2 for covariate effects). The abbreviations mi (1–8), si (1–8), and sr (1–3) denote factor loadings for the maternal intimacy, sibling intimacy, and social responsibility latent variables, respectively. * p < .05, *** p < .001.

Table 2.

Direct associations among maternal and sibling intimacy, social responsibility, volunteering, gender, birth order, and family income.

	b	SE	p	β	SE	p
Maternal intimacy (Time 1) → social responsibility (Time 1)	.12^***	.03	<.001	.15^***	.04	<.001
Sibling intimacy (Time 1) → social responsibility (Time 1)	.09^*	.04	.02	.12^*	.05	.01
Social responsibility (Time 1) → volunteering (Time 2)	.27^***	.06	<.001	.17^***	.03	<.001
Maternal intimacy (Time 1) → volunteering (Time 2)	.00	.04	.96	.00	.03	.96
Sibling intimacy (Time 1) → volunteering (Time 2)	.03	.04	.54	.03	.03	.54
Gender (Time 1) → social responsibility (Time 1)	.20^***	.05	<.001	.13^***	.03	<.001
Birth order (Time 1) → social responsibility (Time 1)	−.18^***	.04	<.001	−.12^***	.03	<.001
Family income (Time 1) → social responsibility (Time 1)	.12^*	.05	.02	.08^*	.03	.02
Volunteering (Time 1) ←→ social responsibility (Time 1)	.25^***	.04	<.001	.25^***	.04	<.001
Gender (Time 1) → volunteering (Time 2)	.11	.06	.08	.04	.03	.08
Birth order (Time 1) → volunteering (Time 2)	−.10	.06	.08	−.04	.02	.08
Family income (Time 1) → volunteering (Time 2)	.09	.07	.15	.04	.03	.15
Volunteering (Time 1) → volunteering (Time 2)	.45^***	.03	<.001	.48^***	.03	<.001
Maternal intimacy (Time 1) ←→ sibling intimacy (Time 1)	.48^***	.03	<.001	.48^***	.03	<.001
Maternal intimacy (Time 1) ←→ gender (Time 1)	.05^**	.02	.002	.09^**	.03	.002
Maternal intimacy (Time 1) ←→ birth order (Time 1)	.04^**	.01	.003	.07^**	.02	.003
Maternal intimacy (Time 1) ←→ family income (Time 1)	.04^*	.02	.02	.08^*	.03	.02
Maternal intimacy (Time 1) ←→ volunteering (Time 1)	.07	.04	.14	.05 .03 .14
Sibling intimacy (Time 1) ←→ gender (Time 1)	.12^***	.01	<.001	.23^***	.03	<.001
Sibling intimacy (Time 1) ←→ birth order (Time 1)	.01	.01	.34	.02	.02	.34
Sibling intimacy (Time 1) ←→ family income (Time 1)	.00	.02	.86	.01	.04	.86
Sibling intimacy (Time 1) ←→ volunteering (Time 1)	.14^**	.05	.004	.10^**	.04	.004

Note. Covariances between the covariates of volunteering (Time 1) and gender, birth order, and family income (Time 1) were specified but omitted from the table. ^* p < .05, ^** p < .01, ^*** p < .001.

Indirect effects

Using MLR, we found significant indirect effects from maternal intimacy to volunteering via social responsibility values (ab = .03, SE = .01, p = .003) and sibling intimacy to volunteering via social responsibility values (ab = .02, SE = .01, p = .023). We verified the indirect effects using ML with bias-corrected bootstrapping and found identical effects from maternal intimacy (ab = .03, SE = .01, 95% CI = 0.012, 0.046) and sibling intimacy (ab = .02, SE = .01, 95% CI = 0.004, 0.040) to volunteering via social responsibility values.

Multiple group differences

Satorra–Bentler chi-square (S–B χ²) difference tests were used to test multiple group differences by gender (male vs. female), birth order (earlier-born vs. later-born), and family income (≤$90,000–$99,000 vs. ≥ $100,000–$149,000) in the hypothesized relations between maternal and sibling intimacy, social responsibility values, and volunteering. For gender-moderation, the constrained model, χ² (383) = 981.49, p < .001, scaling correction = 1.11, was not significantly different than the unconstrained model, χ² (377) = 970.33, p < .001, scaling correction = 1.11, based on the S–B χ² difference test, S–B Δχ² (6) = 10.13, p = .12, suggesting no differences in the hypothesized relations between boys and girls. Similarly, for birth order-moderation, the constrained model, χ² (383) = 1176.07, p < .001, scaling correction = 1.09, was not significantly different than the unconstrained model, χ² (377) = 1162.43, p < .001, scaling correction = 1.10, based on the S–B χ2 difference test, S–B Δχ² (6) = 12.14, p = .06, implying no differences between earlier- and later-born adolescents. For family income-moderation, the constrained model, χ² (383) = 949.30, p < .001, scaling correction = 1.10, was also not significantly different than the unconstrained model, χ² (377) = 942.80, p < .001, scaling correction = 1.10, based on the S–B χ² difference test, S–B Δχ² (6) = 4.80, p = .57, suggesting no differences between adolescents from relatively low versus high income families. Results are, therefore, reported for the full sample, accounting for the main effects of gender, birth order, and family income as covariates.

Discussion

Examining the distinct contributions of mothers and siblings in fostering adolescents’ prosocial and civic values and behaviors, including elucidating the link between social responsibility values and volunteering, is an important area of research inquiry. As such, the current study investigated the direct and indirect associations (via social responsibility values) between adolescents’ perceptions of maternal and sibling intimacy and volunteering. Overall, we found support for study hypotheses that maternal and sibling intimacy were indirectly related to adolescents’ volunteering through their social responsibility values. Moreover, the strengths of the direct and indirect associations among mothers’ and siblings’ intimacy, social responsibility values, and volunteering were relatively similar, suggesting that mothers and siblings uniquely and complementarily contribute to youths’ prosocial and civic values and behaviors.

As hypothesized, we found that maternal intimacy was positively associated with adolescents’ social responsibility values. In turn, adolescents’ social responsibility values predicted their volunteering behaviors, after accounting for volunteering a year earlier. This finding suggests that mothers continue to remain key socialization agents of prosocial and civic values during adolescence, and adolescents’ internalized values translate to their prosocial and civic behaviors. Adolescents who perceive warmth, intimacy, and positive affect in relationships with their mothers may be more receptive to their mothers’ prosocial value-oriented messages (see Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). This finding is consistent with moral socialization research that highlights the centrality of parents in cultivating prosocial values (Barry et al., 2008) and specifically, social responsibility values (Lenzi et al., 2014; White & Mistry, 2016). Adolescents who internalize personal values committed to the greater good are also likely to actively contribute to society by formally helping. This is in accord with research that suggests that a stronger endorsement of social responsibility values is tied to higher levels of volunteering and prosocial behaviors (Cemalcilar, 2009; Neufeind et al., 2014). Importantly, this study adds to extant research by focusing on social responsibility values, which is an understudied explanatory mechanism linking maternal intimacy to volunteering.

Importantly, we found a similar indirect association from sibling intimacy to adolescents’ volunteering via social responsibility values. Specifically, greater sibling intimacy was indirectly associated with higher levels of adolescents’ volunteering through their endorsement of social responsibility values, net of adolescents’ earlier volunteering. This finding suggests that siblings distinctly socialize prosocial and civic values above and beyond mothers, and this value endorsement predicts their helping behaviors. Given the more egalitarian nature of sibling relationships (Buhrmester, 1992), siblings may uniquely encourage social responsibility values by serving as a safe relational context to practice prosocial and civic skills. We provide the first evidence for adolescents’ perceptions of sibling intimacy fostering multidimensional civic engagement outcomes such as social responsibility values and volunteering (see Bi et al., 2021 for an examination of siblings and global civic engagement in young adults). These findings also add to the scant longitudinal literature on sibling positive relationship quality and prosociality (e.g., Harper et al., 2016; Padilla-Walker et al., 2010). Moreover, these results help explicate the prosocial and civic value to behavior link in the context of sibling relationships by presenting the positive association between social responsibility values and volunteering.

We found no direct associations from maternal or sibling intimacy to adolescents’ volunteering, after accounting for the indirect pathways via social responsibility values. Intimate relationships with mothers and siblings may be necessary, but not sufficient predictors of adolescents’ helping behaviors. As adolescents gain autonomy and differentiate themselves from their family relationships (see Brown & Larson, 2009), mothers’ and siblings’ direct (but not indirect) influences on their volunteering may decline. While intimate family relationships may not directly encourage volunteering, mothers and siblings may communicate prosocial values of care for others and lay the foundations for social trust that are prerequisites to adolescents’ prosocial and civic behaviors (Carlo, 2014; Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012). Prior studies that examine only direct links from parental and sibling intimacy to adolescents’ volunteering (e.g., Bi et al., 2021; Duke et al., 2009) without investigating intervening factors may be failing to account for the process through which intimacy facilitates volunteering. This finding is also in accord with research that supports indirect instead of direct relations from parents to prosocial behaviors via intervening prosocial values (e.g., Barry et al., 2008; Davis et al., 2018). Nevertheless, more research is needed to confirm the direct effects of different family socialization agents, particularly siblings, on adolescents’ volunteering when mediating value-based mechanisms are considered.

Notably, the relative strengths of the parent and sibling effects on social responsibility and volunteering were similar. The standardized coefficients for the relations from maternal and sibling to social responsibility values and the indirect effects from maternal and sibling intimacy to volunteering were close in magnitude. Although a well-established body of research documents the importance of parents as socialization agents of adolescents’ prosocial and civic values and behaviors (Carlo et al., 2011a; Gonul et al., 2020; Silke et al., 2021), our study highlights that siblings are equally important in socializing adolescents’ social responsibility values and volunteering. This set of findings is in line with relational developmental systems (Lerner et al., 2014; Overton, 2013) and other prosocial and civic socialization (Coleman, 1988; Carlo, 2014) perspectives that adolescents’ social responsibility values and volunteering are a product of dynamic social interactions in multiple relational contexts, including parents and siblings.

Additionally, the predictive role of parent and sibling relationships on adolescents’ social responsibility values and volunteering were robust across adolescents’ gender, birth order, and family income. While prior research has suggested potential gender, birth order, and family income differences in the socialization of youths’ prosocial and civic development (Mustillo et al., 2004; Pike et al., 2005; Van der Graaff et al., 2018), we found that parents and siblings may socialize social responsibility values and volunteering similarly across male and female, earlier- and later-born, and low- and high-family income adolescents. The field, however, would benefit from more research assessing similarities versus differences in the family socialization of prosocial and civic values and behaviors by key demographic characteristics.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the importance of the study contributions, our findings should be interpreted in light of some study limitations. First, maternal intimacy, sibling intimacy, and social responsibility values were assessed at the same occasion. Although our findings account for prior volunteering, longitudinal data from three (or more) occasions of measurement would yield stronger temporal inferences about the indirect effects via social responsibility values. Second, generalizability is primarily restricted to primarily White, working-to-upper-middle-class families with at least two adolescent children in the US Midwest. While this sample is ethnoracially representative of the population of the five states from which families were recruited (81.4% White, 12% Black, and 9.2% Latinx; US Census Bureau, 2019), future research with more ethnically, racially, and socioeconomically diverse samples is needed to highlight the varied socialization experiences of social responsibility values and volunteering in ethnic-racial minority and low socioeconomic status families (e.g., Perez et al., 2010). Third, we lacked detailed information on certain demographic characteristics (e.g., gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability status) in this study, which should be explored in future research on family relationship quality, social responsibility values, and volunteering. Fourth, while mothers are considered primary moral socialization agents (Eisenberg et al., 2015), more work on fathers and extended family members as socialization agents of adolescents’ social responsibility values and volunteering is needed. Lastly, we focused only on the family socialization of volunteering as a form of civic engagement. Future work should investigate how family members differentially socialize multiple forms of formal and informal helping.

Conclusions

Our study highlighted mothers and siblings as key socialization agents of social responsibility values and, in turn, volunteering behaviors among adolescents. Maternal and sibling intimacy provided essential foundations for adolescents’ prosocial and civic values and behaviors. As expected, mothers socialized greater volunteering longitudinally by promoting social responsibility values in adolescents through warm and intimate relationships. Furthermore, intimate sibling relationships predicted greater social responsibility values and subsequently more volunteering, above and beyond intimate mother-adolescent relationships. These findings have important implications for theory and practice. Specifically, extant theories of prosociality and civic engagement can benefit from greater consideration of siblings as critical socialization agents in addition to mothers. Further, interventions targeting positive youth development can aim to foster positive and intimate relationships with both siblings and mothers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01AA025331 (to Shawn D. Whiteman). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

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.

ORCID iDs

Sahitya Maiya

Jenna C Dayley

Note

References

Bang

Won

Park

(2020). School engagement, self-esteem, and depression of adolescents: The role of sport participation and volunteering activity and gender differences. Children and Youth Services Review, 113, 105012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105012.

Bardi

Schwartz

S. H.

(2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602

Barry

C. M. N.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Madsen

S. D.

Nelson

L. J.

(2008). The impact of maternal relationship quality on emerging adults’ prosocial tendencies: Indirect effects via regulation of prosocial values. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9238-7

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

Syvertsen

A. K.

(2011). The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41, 197–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386492-5.00008-7

S. S.

Lam

C. B.

Chung

K. K. H.

(2021). Sibling relationships and civic engagement: A longitudinal study of Chinese young adults. International Journal of Psychology, 56(1), 138–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12685

Blyth

D. A.

Foster-Clark

F. S.

(1987). Gender differences in perceived intimacy with different members of adolescents’ social networks. Sex Roles, 17(11–12), 689–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287683

Blyth

D. A.

Hill

J. P.

Thiel

K. S.

(1982). Early adolescents’ significant others: Grade and gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilial adults and young people. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11(6), 425–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01538805

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Damon

Series Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (Vol, pp. 793–828). Wiley.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.

10.

Brown

B. B.

Larson

(2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (pp. 74–103). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004

11.

Buhrmester

(1992). The developmental course of sibling and peer relationships. In Boer

Dunn

(Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 19–40). Erlbaum.

12.

Campione-Barr

Lindell

A. K.

Giron

S. E.

Killoren

S. E.

Greer

K. B

(2015). Domain differentiated disclosure to mothers and siblings and associations with sibling relationship quality and youth emotional adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1278–1291. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000036

13.

Carlo

(2014). The development and correlates of prosocial moral behaviors. In Killen

Smetana

J. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 208–234). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203581957.ch10

14.

Carlo

McGinley

Hayes

Batenhorst

Wilkinson

(2007). Parenting styles or practices? Parenting, sympathy, and prosocial behaviors among adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(2), 147–176. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.168.2.147-176

15.

Carlo

Mestre

M. V.

Samper

Tur

Armenta

B. E.

(2011a). The longitudinal relations among dimensions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410375921

16.

Carlo

Padilla-Walker

Day

(2011b). A test of the economic strain model on adolescents’ prosocial behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4), 842–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00742.x

17.

Cemalcilar

(2009). Understanding individual characteristics of adolescents who volunteer. Personality and Individual Difference, 46(4), 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.009

18.

Cheng

W. Y.

Cheung

R. Y.

Chung

K. K. H.

(2021). Understanding adolescents’ perceived social responsibility: The role of family cohesion, interdependent self-construal, and social trust. Journal of Adolescence, 89, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.04.001

19.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology , 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943

20.

Cox

M. J.

Paley

(2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01259

21.

Crocetti

Jahromi

Meeus

(2012). Identity and civic engagement in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35(3), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.003

22.

Davis

A. N.

Carlo

Streit

Schwartz

S. J.

Unger

J. B.

Baezconde-Garbanati

Szapocznik

(2018). Longitudinal associations between maternal involvement, cultural orientations, and prosocial behaviors among recent immigrant Latino adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(2), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0792-3

23.

Duke

N. N.

Skay

C. L.

Pettingell

S. L.

Borowsky

I. W.

(2009). From adolescent connections to social capital: Predictors of civic engagement in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.007

24.

Dunn

(1998). Siblings, emotion, and development of understanding. In Braten

(Ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny: Studies in emotion and social interaction (pp. 158–168). Cambridge UniversityPress.

25.

Dunn

(2015). Siblings. In Grusec

J. E.

Hastings

P. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 182–201). The Guilford Press.

26.

Ehrlich

(2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. Oryx.

27.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Knafo-Noam

(2015).Prosocial development. In Lamb

M. E.

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (pp. 610–656). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy315

28.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

29.

Gonul

Işık

Güneş

(2020). A multigroup analysis of family climate and volunteering: The mediating role of parental conversations in emerging adulthood. Applied Developmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1796666.

30.

Graham

J. W.

Hofer

S. M.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(1996). Maximizing the usefulness of data obtained with planned missing value patterns: An application of maximum likelihood procedures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31(2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3102_3

31.

Graham

J. W.

Taylor

B. J.

Olchowski

A. E.

Cumsille

P. E.

(2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.323

32.

Greenberger

(1984). Defining psychosocial maturity in adolescence. Advances in Child Behavioral Analysis and Therapy, 3, 1–37.

33.

Grolnick

W. S.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In Grusec

J. E.

Kuczynski

(Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). Wiley.

34.

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(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4

35.

Gunnoe

M. L.

Hetherington

E. M.

Reiss

(1999). Parental religiosity, parenting style, and adolescent social responsibility. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(2), 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431699019002004

36.

Hardy

S. A.

Padilla‐Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(2008). Parenting dimensions and adolescents’ internalisation of moral values. Journal of Moral Education, 37(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240802009512

37.

Harper

J. M.

Padilla‐Walker

L. M.

Jensen

A. C.

(2016). Do siblings matter independent of both parents and friends? Sympathy as a mediator between sibling relationship quality and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12174

38.

Hoffman

M. L.

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

39.

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), 1–55. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/1070-5519909540118

40.

Killoren

S. E.

Wheeler

L. A.

Updegraff

K. A.

McHale

S. M.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2021). Associations among Mexican-origin youth’s sibling relationships, familism and positive values, and adjustment problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000801

41.

Lam

C. B.

Solmeyer

A. R.

McHale

S. M.

(2012). Sibling relationships and empathy across the transition to adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(12), 1657–1670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9781-8

42.

Lenzi

Vieno

Santinello

Nation

Voight

(2014). The role played by the family in shaping early and middle adolescent civic responsibility. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(2), 251–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613485822

43.

Lerner

R. M.

Wang

Champine

R. B.

Warren

D. J.

Erickson

(2014). Development of civic engagement: Theoretical and methodological issues. International Journal of Developmental Science, 8(3–4), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-14130

44.

Little

R. J. A.

Rubin

D. B.

(2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. Wiley.

45.

Mahatmya

Lohman

B. J.

(2012). Predictors and pathways to civic involvement in emerging adulthood: Neighborhood, family, and school influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(9), 1168–1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9777-4

46.

Manstead

A. S. R.

(1996). Attitudes and behaviour. In Semin

G. R.

Fiedler

(Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 3–29). Sage.

47.

McDonald

R. P.

M.-H. R.

(2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64

48.

McHale

S. M.

Updegraff

K. A.

Whiteman

S. D.

(2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 913–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01011.x

49.

Mustillo

Wilson

Lynch

S. M.

(2004). Legacy volunteering: A test of two theories of intergenerational transmission. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00036.x

50.

Muthén

L.K.

Muthén

B.O.

(1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

51.

Neufeind

Jiranek

Wehner

(2014). Beyond skills and structure: Justice dispositions as antecedents of young citizens’ volunteering and political participation. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2166

52.

Ottoni-Wilhelm

Estell

D. B.

Perdue

N. H.

(2014). Role-modeling and conversations about giving in the socialization of adolescent charitable giving and volunteering. Journal of Adolescence, 37(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.10.010

53.

Overton

W. F.

(2013). A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17(2), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2013.778717

54.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(Eds.). (2014). Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.001.0001

55.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Harper

J. M.

Jensen

A. C.

(2010). Self-regulation as a mediator between sibling relationship quality and early adolescents' positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(4), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020387

56.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Nielson

M. G.

Day

R. D.

(2016). The role of parental warmth and hostility on adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward multiple targets. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000157

57.

Perez

Espinoza

Ramos

Coronado

Cortes

(2010). Civic engagement patterns of undocumented Mexican students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192710371007

58.

Pike

Coldwell

Dunn

J. F.

(2005). Sibling relationships in early/middle childhood: Links with individual adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.523

59.

Piliavin

J. A.

Siegl

(2015). Health and well-being consequences of formal volunteering. In Schroeder

D. A.

Graziano

W. G.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 494–523). Oxford University Press.

60.

Porter

(2013). Moral and political identity and civic involvement in adolescence. Journal of Moral Education, 42(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2012.761133

61.

Pratt

M. W.

Hunsberger

Pancer

S. M.

Alisat

(2003). A longitudinal analysis of personal values socialization: Correlates of a moral self‐ideal in late adolescence. Social Development, 12(4), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00249

62.

Raghunathan

T. E.

Grizzle

J. E.

(1995). A split questionnaire survey design. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(429), 54–63. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2291129

63.

Recchia

H. E.

Howe

(2009). Associations between social understanding, sibling relationship quality, and siblings’ conflict strategies and outcomes. Child Development, 80(5), 1564–1578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01351.x

64.

Rossi

A. S.

(Ed.). (2001). Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains of family, work, and community. University of Chicago Press.

65.

Schreier

H. M.

Schonert-Reichl

K. A.

Chen

(2013). Effect of volunteering on risk factors for cardiovascular disease in adolescents: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(4), 327–332. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1100

66.

Silke

Brady

Boylan

Dolan

(2021). Empathy, social responsibility, and civic behavior among Irish adolescents: A socio-contextual approach. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 41(7), 996–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431620977658

67.

Smetana

J. G.

Robinson

Rote

W. M.

(2015). Socialization in adolescence. In Grusec

J.E.

Hastings

P. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of socialization. Theory and research (2nd edition., pp. 60–84). Guilford.

68.

Steele

Rasbash

Jenkins

(2013). A multilevel simultaneous equations model for within-cluster dynamic effects, with an application to reciprocal parent-child and sibling effects. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029316

69.

Streit

Carlo

Killoren

S. E.

(2020). Family support, respect, and empathy as correlates of US Latino/Latina college students’ prosocial behaviors toward different recipients. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(5), 1513–1533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520903805

70.

Streit

Carlo

Killoren

S. E.

Alfaro

E. C.

(2018). Family members’ relationship qualities and prosocial behaviors in US Mexican young adults: The roles of familism and ethnic identity resolution. Journal of Family Issues, 39(4), 1056–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16686134

71.

Syvertsen

A. K.

Wray-Lake

Metzger

(2015). Youth civic and character measures toolkit. Search Institute.

72.

US Census Bureau . (2019). Quick facts: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, United States. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/PA,OH,IL,WI,US/PST045219

73.

Van der Graaff

Carlo

Crocetti

Koot

H. M.

Branje

(2018). Prosocial behavior in adolescence: Gender differences in development and links with empathy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 1086–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0786-1

74.

Verplanken

Holland

R. W.

(2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434

75.

White

E. S.

(2021). Parent values, civic participation, and children’s volunteering. Children and Youth Services Review, 127, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106115

76.

Whiteman

S. D.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(2011a). Family relationships from adolescence to early adulthood: Changes in the family system following firstborns’ leaving home. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00683.x

77.

Whiteman

S. D.

McHale

S. M.

Soli

(2011b). Theoretical perspectives on sibling relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3(2), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00087.x

78.

White

E. S.

Mistry

R. S.

(2016). Parent civic beliefs, civic participation, socialization practices, and child civic engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 20(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1049346

79.

Wray-Lake

Flanagan

C. A.

(2012). Parenting practices and the development of adolescents’ social trust. Journal of Adolescence, 35(3), 549–560. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.09.006

80.

Wray-Lake

Maggs

J. L.

Johnston

L. D.

Bachman

J. G.

O'Malley

P. M.

Schulenberg

J. E.

(2012). Associations between community attachments and adolescent substance use in nationally representative samples. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(4), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.030

81.

Wray-Lake

Metzger

Syvertsen

A. K.

(2017). Testing multidimensional models of youth civic engagement: Model comparisons, measurement invariance, and age differences. Applied Developmental Science, 21(4), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2016.1205495

82.

Wray-Lake

Rote

W. M.

Gupta

Godfrey

Sirin

(2015). Examining correlates of civic engagement among immigrant adolescents in the United States. Research in Human Development, 12(1–2), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2015.1010343

83.

Wray-Lake

Syvertsen

A. K.

Flanagan

C. A.

(2016). Developmental change in social responsibility during adolescence: An ecological perspective. Developmental Psychology, 52(1), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000067

84.

Zaff

J. F.

Malanchuk

Eccles

J. S.

(2008). Predicting positive citizenship from adolescence to young adulthood: The effects of a civic context. Applied Developmental Science, 12(8), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690801910567