Empathy,Social Responsibility,and Civic Behavior Among Irish Adolescents: A Socio-Contextual Approach

Abstract

Research suggests that empathy and positive social values are important drivers of youth prosocial and civic action. However, theory and research indicate that young people’s civic behaviors are also shaped by their socio-contextual experiences. Drawing on a sample of 533 adolescents from public secondary schools in the Republic of Ireland, this research employed structural equation modeling to examine whether youth’s (cognitive and affective) empathy and social responsibility values mediated the relationship between youth’s social (parents, peers, school, and community) contexts and their civic behavior. Results suggest that youth’s cognitive empathy and social responsibility values appear to mediate the relationship between a number of social-contextual experiences and youth’s civic behavior. Overall, the findings from this research have important implications for research and practice.

Keywords

empathy prosocial behavior civic engagement positive youth development

Adolescence has been identified as a central period for the development of prosocial and empathic responding (Chase-Lansdale, Wakschlag, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995; Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Valiente, 2018). Researchers propose that the development of empathy and social responsibility values among young people is key to enhancing civil society and promoting greater individual and social well-being (Levine, 2013; Malin & Pos, 2015; Smith, Kendall, & Knighton, 2018; Verplanken & Holland, 2002; Wagaman, 2011). Evidence from an array of international research points to a strong connection between greater youth empathic or prosocial/civic responding and a wealth of social and developmental benefits, including increased psychological functioning (Martela & Ryan, 2016; Miller, Kahle, & Hastings, 2015; Zuffianò et al., 2014), greater cognitive performance (Ballard, Hoyt, & Pachucki, 2018; Gerbino et al., 2018), improved interpersonal relationships (Attili, Vermigli, & Roazzi, 2010; Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2014), enhanced social competency skills (Allemand, Steiger, & Fend, 2015; Sallquist, Eisenberg, Spinrad, Eggum, & Gaertner, 2009), and lower prejudice (Nesdale, Griffith, Durkin, & Maass, 2005). Research indicates that youth engagement in empathic and prosocial responding not only promotes greater social and emotional adjustment during adolescence (Lenzi et al., 2012; Schmidt, Shumow, & Kackar, 2007), but also appears to have long-term consequences, setting the stage for responsibility and citizenship throughout the life span (Allemand et al., 2015; Crocetti et al., 2016; Hope & Jagers, 2014; Zaff et al., 2011). It is now proposed that the promotion of empathy, social responsibility, and prosocial or civic behavior among young people should be a priority concern for research and practice (Konrath, O’Brien, & Hsing, 2011; Malin & Pos, 2015; Rossi, Lenzi, Sharkey, Vieno, & Santinello, 2016).

According to positive youth development frameworks (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Lerner, Wang, Champine, Warren, & Erickson, 2014; Overton, 2015), youth’s developmental outcomes are shaped by various person-context dynamics. Theorists suggest that youth’s developmental learning and behaviors are influenced by the relationships or experiences that occur within their individual social contexts (Gayman, Fraser-Thomas, & Baker, 2017; Osher, Cantor, Berg, Steyer, & Rose, 2018). It is proposed that exposure to positive, social environments during adolescence helps promote positive developmental and behavioral outcomes (Lerner et al., 2014). Evidence from previous empirical research confirms that the development of empathy, social responsibility, and civic engagement is significantly linked to one’s social-ecological experiences (Lerner et al., 2014; Rossi et al., 2016; Silke, Brady, Dolan, & Boylan, 2019; Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2014; Wilkenfeld, Lauckhardt, & Torney-Purta, 2010). In particular, research suggests that youth’s proximal social contexts (e.g., parents, peers, schools, and communities) play a key role in molding their empathic attitudes/values and guiding their civic behaviors (Carlo, White, Streit, Knight, & Zeiders, 2017; Davis, 2018; Evans & Smokowski, 2015; Jaureguizar, Ibabe, & Straus, 2013; Lenzi, Vieno, Pastore, & Santinello, 2013; Miklikowska, 2017; O’Brien & Kauffman, 2013; Torney-Purta, Barber, & Wilkenfeld, 2007). For example, research has indicated that adolescents whose parents, or friends, model or encourage prosocial values tend to show higher levels of empathy and greater civic participation (Da Silva, Sanson, Smart, & Toumbourou, 2004; Flanagan & Sherrod, 1998; Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011). Similarly, studies have found a connection between educational practices at school and youth’s empathic and civic responding (Rossi et al., 2016), while a variety of other research has shown that youth’s social values and behaviors are also linked to their involvement with their local communities (Atkins & Hart, 2003). For these reasons, researchers frequently contend that the seeds of civic engagement first germinate within the intimate relationships and contexts that encompass young people’s daily lives (Wray-Lake & Syvertsen, 2011).

Conversely, it is also argued that youth’s developmental outcomes are shaped by their individual characteristics and internal processes (Gayman et al., 2017; Lerner et al., 2014; Osher et al., 2018). Research has identified positive links between youth’s prosocial/civic responding and their efficacy beliefs, personality traits, or emotional regulation skills (Alessandri et al., 2014; Caprara, Alessandri, Di Giunta, Panerai, & Eisenberg, 2010; Lockwood, Seara-Cardoso & Viding, 2014). Notably, both theory and research emphasize the role that empathy and positive social/moral values play in motivating prosocial and civic action (Bernhardt & Singer, 2012; Eisenberg et al., 2018; Luengo Kanacri et al., 2016; Metzger et al., 2018; Pratt, Hunsberger, Pancer, & Alisat, 2003; Smith et al., 2018). According to social empathy theory, both social responsibility and empathy are necessary prerequisites for promoting engagement in social justice–related behaviors (Segal, 2011). In addition to these direct effects, researchers propose that empathy and social responsibility may also have indirect associations with youth’s prosocial and civic responding (Crocetti, Jahromi, & Meeus, 2012; Hardy & Carlo, 2005). For example, research has shown that empathy and social responsibility significantly mediate the relationship between various parenting factors and youth’s prosocial behavior (Mesurado & Richaud, 2017; Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011; Pierotti, 2016). Indeed, there is now a growing consensus that in order to generate a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of adolescents’ civic development, greater understanding of how individual and contextual factors interact to influence behavior is needed (Gayman et al., 2017; Lerner et al., 2014; Malin & Pos, 2015). However, there appears to be a dearth of empirical research examining how youth’s individual characteristics mediate or moderate the relationship between youth’s proximal social contexts and their prosocial/civic behavior (Cuff, Brown, Taylor, & Howat, 2016; Rossi et al., 2016; Vasconcelos, Hollis, Nowbahari, & Kacelnik, 2012). In particular, there is a lack of research investigating whether both social responsibility and empathy mediate the relationship between youth’s civic behavior and different aspects of their social environments.

In conclusion, a large body of research attests to the importance that multiple social contexts (e.g., parents, peers, schools, and communities) play in the socialization of youth’s empathic attitudes, social values, and civic behaviors. Although researchers propose that empathy and social responsibility are central to the promotion of civic behavior, there is a lack of research examining how youth’s empathy and social responsibility values mediate the relationship between various socio-environmental contexts and their civic engagement. Thus, the current research sets out to extend existing knowledge and understanding about the relationship between youth’s social contexts and their empathic and civic responding. This study aims to examine whether youth’s civic behaviors, empathic attitudes, and/or social responsibility values are significantly linked to their experiences or relationships within their proximal social contexts (e.g., parents, peers, schools, and communities). Specifically, this study employs a structural equation model to examine (a) whether there are significant, direct links between youth’s parental, peer, school, or community contexts and their civic behavior, and (b) whether the relationships between youth’s civic behavior and their parental, peer, school, or community contexts are mediated by youth’s empathic attitudes and social responsibility values.

Method

Participants

A total of 533 (266 male, 262 female, five other) adolescents from nine public secondary schools located in the Republic of Ireland participated in this research. Schools were recruited to the study through a stratified randomly sampling approach and participants were recruited from within participating secondary schools. All participants were enrolled in their second year of secondary education and were aged between 13 and 16 years ( $\bar{X}$ = 13.75, SD = .54). The majority of participants (88%) identified as Irish. Approximately, 8% identified as being from other European countries and the remaining 4% identified as non-European.

Instruments

Parental factors

Two aspects of the parental context were assessed in the current study: Parent Social Responsibility and Parent Civic Engagement. Parent Social Responsibility (Flanagan, 2013) was assessed through a seven-item scale, which measures youth’s perceptions of parental encouragement of social responsibility values (e.g., “My parents/guardians encourage me to be helpful to others, especially the less fortunate”). Responses are scored on a scale of 1 to 5, where higher scores indicate greater parental promotion of social responsibility values. Parent Civic Engagement (Flanagan, Syvertsen, & Stout, 2007) was assessed by a three-item scale, with responses ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicated greater youth reported parental engagement in prosocial behaviors within their community (e.g., “My parents/guardians do volunteer work in the community”).

Peer factors

Prosocial Friend Norms (Farrell, Thompson, & Mehari, 2017) were assessed through the use of a six-item Likert-type scale, with scores ranging from 1 to 5. Adolescents were asked to indicate how often their friends engaged in a variety of prosocial activities (e.g., “Help people without expecting something back?”). Higher scores represented greater prosocial norms among friendship groups.

School factors

Civic Education was assessed using Flanagan et al.’s (2007) Social Analysis scale, which is used to measure the extent of civic education adolescents receive in school (e.g., “In our classes, we learn about problems in our society and what causes them”). Responses are scored on a four-item scale, which ranges from 1 to 5. Higher scores are indicative of greater levels of civic education. Open Classroom Climate (Flanagan et al., 2007) was also measured to assess the degree to which adolescents are encouraged to share their opinions in class (e.g., “In our classes, students are encouraged to express opinions”). Adolescents were asked to respond to this four-item scale, on a range of 1 to 5, where higher scores were indicative of a more open classroom environment.

Community factors

Community Connectedness (Wray-Lake, DeHaan, Shubert, & Ryan, 2017) was measured using a six-item scale, which assessed the degree to which young people feel a sense of connection to and within their local communities (e.g., “In general, people in my community work together to solve problems”). Items are scored on a range of 1 to 5 and higher scores are representative of a greater sense of neighborhood connectedness.

Empathy

Affective and Cognitive empathy were assessed using the Empathic Concern and Perspective-Taking subscales of the interpersonal reactivity index (Davis, 1983). Affective Empathy was assessed through the use of the seven-item Empathic Concern subscale, where responses were scored on a range of 1 to 5 (e.g., “I am often quite touched by things that I see happen”). Higher scores are indicative of higher levels of affective empathy. Cognitive Empathy was measured through the use of the seven-item Perspective-Taking subscale, which is also scored on a scale of 1 to 5 (e.g., “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective”). Higher scores on this scale are indicative of higher levels of cognitive empathy.

Social responsibility

The Youth Social Conscience scale (Bebiroglu, Geldhof, Pinderhughes, Phelps, & Lerner, 2013) was used to assess adolescents’ Social Responsibility Values. The Youth Social Conscience scale is a six-item scale that assesses the sensitivity and sense of responsibility of youth regarding problems in society. Specifically, adolescents were asked to indicate the extent to which a number of values (e.g., “Helping other people”; “Speaking up for equality”) were important to them. Responses are scored on a scale of 1 to 5, where higher scores were indicative of greater social responsibility values.

Civic engagement

Youth Civic Behavior was assessed using the Voight and Torney-Purta (2013) Civic Behavior Scale. This scale consists of nine items, scored on a scale of 1 to 5, and measures the extent to which adolescents voluntarily engage in a number of civic behaviors both in and outside school (e.g., “Offer to help someone at school”; “Help make your community a better place for people to live”). Higher scores represent higher levels of youth civic engagement.

Procedure

All students in their second year of education at participating secondary schools were invited to take part in this research. The researcher outlined the aims and objectives of the study to prospective participants, and any student interested in participating in this study was required to return a signed parental consent and personal assent form to the school. All students who returned signed parental consent and assent forms, and were present on the day of research, were gathered as a group in a specified classroom. Pen-and-paper booklets containing the questionnaire items were distributed to all participating students. This survey took approximately 30 to 40 minutes for students to complete. The researcher and a designated member of school staff remained with the students during the research process. Once students had completed the questionnaire to their satisfaction, they were thanked for their participation and debriefed.

Ethical Considerations

Full ethical approval for this research was granted by the research ethics committee at the authors’ associated university. Informed consent and assent were sought from all participants and data were collected on an anonymous and confidential basis.

Results

SEM analyses were conducted to examine whether youth’s parent (Parent Social Responsibility values and Parent Civic Engagement), peer (Prosocial Friend Norms), school (Classroom Climate and Civic Education), and community (Community Connectedness) contexts were directly linked to their civic engagement. Indirect relationships between these social factors and youth’s civic behaviors, through youth’s affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and social responsibility values, were also assessed using this SEM analysis. All missing data were handled using the EM algorithm. All quantitative data were analyzed using a combination of PASW Statistics 22 (IBM, 2017), and AMOS V.23 (IBM, 2017).

Descriptive Statistics

An overview of adolescents’ mean level of responding on all contextual, mediator, and outcome variables is shown in Table 1. In relation to the contextual factors (e.g., Community Connectedness, Civic Education, Classroom Climate, Friend Prosocial Norms, Parent Civic Engagement, and Parent Social Responsibility), a review of these mean scores and scale ranges indicated that youth endorsed moderate to high scores on all contextual factors, apart from perceptions of parental civic engagement, which was relatively low. Similarly, adolescents reported having moderately high levels of social responsibility values, affective empathy, and cognitive empathy, but endorsed low scores on the youth civic behavior scale. A full overview of adolescents’ pattern of responding on all measures, including means, standard deviations, scale ranges, normal distribution, and reliability estimates is provided in Table 1. As can be seen here, all factors evidenced good or acceptable levels of internal consistency, with alpha levels ranging from .66 to .89. Whereas all scales showed acceptable kurtosis levels (<3), two factors (Parent Social Responsibility and Youth Social Responsibility) showed evidence of skewness (e.g., skewness > .80; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). However, deviations from normal skewness are to be expected in large sample sizes (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Reliability, and Normal Distributions.

Contextual factors	$\bar{X}$	SD	Possible range	Attained range	Skew	Kurtosis	(α)
Parent social responsibility	30.60	4.43	7-35	10-35	−1.24	1.72	.88
Parent civic engagement	8.14	3.29	3-15	3-15	.24	−.82	.79
Prosocial friend norms	22.66	4.58	6-30	6-30	−.66	.54	.82
Civic education	14.84	3.55	4-20	4-20	−.64	.09	.86
Classroom climate	13.83	4.01	4-20	4-20	−.34	−.54	.83
Community connectedness	29.84	6.52	8-40	8-40	−.47	−.20	.88
Youth social responsibility	24.98	4.39	6-30	6-30	−.90	.67	.89
Affective empathy	25.96	4.84	7-35	8-35	−.21	.02	.73
Cognitive empathy	23.16	4.64	7-35	7-35	.00	.30	.66
Youth civic behavior	25.85	7.53	9-45	9-45	.35	−.44	.83

Correlational Analyses

Prior to testing the hypothesized structural equation model, correlational analyses were carried out to examine associations between the six contextual indicators and youth’s empathy, social responsibility values, and civic behaviors. Specifically, bivariate correlation analyses were conducted to examine the preliminary patterns of associations among the following factors: Parent Social Responsibility, Parent Civic Engagement, Prosocial Friend Norms, Civic Education, Classroom Climate, Community Connectedness, Youth Social Responsibility, Affective Empathy, Cognitive Empathy, and Youth Civic Behavior. Significant, positive associations were observed between the majority of factors. As seen in Table 2, only one nonsignificant correlation was observed. Youth’s affective empathy and parents’ civic engagement were not significantly related.

Table 2.

Correlations Between All Contextual, Mediator, and Outcome Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Parent social responsibility	—
2. Parent civic engagement	.31**
3. Prosocial friend norms	.36**	.27**
4. Civic education	.27**	.27**	.34**
5. Classroom climate	.25**	.24**	.33**	.53**
6. Community connectedness	.35**	.40**	.44**	.41**	.47**
7. Youth social responsibility	.38**	.18**	.40**	.35**	.30**	.38**
8. Affective empathy	.31**	.03	.31**	.26**	.25**	.28**	.49**
9. Cognitive empathy	.25**	.15**	.32**	.22**	.29**	.35**	.42**	.46**
10. Civic behavior	.26**	.48**	.35**	.32**	.35**	.44**	.41**	.23**	.23**

p < .05. **p < .001.

SEM Analyses

A multiple mediator structural equation model was employed to examine the direct and indirect links between Parent Social Responsibility, Parent Civic Engagement, Prosocial Friend Norms, Social Analysis, Classroom Climate, and Community Connectedness, and youth’s civic behavior. Three mediators (Affective Empathy, Cognitive Empathy, and Social Responsibility) were included in the model (see Figure 1). In order to assess the fit/adequacy of the model, assessments of the relevant fit indices (chi-square, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA], Chi-square/Degrees of Freedom [CMIN], standardized root mean squared residual [SRMR], comparative fit index [CFI], and Tucker–Lewis index [TLI]) were carried out, following recommended guidelines set forth by Byrne (2016) and Kline (2011). In addition to these model-fit indices, modification indices (MI) and expected parameter change (EPC) values were reviewed to determine whether additional model parameters should be specified. Model re-specifications were only made provided MI and EPC values were large and theoretical justification for the changes was established (Byrne, 2016). Model fit and Delta Akaike information criterion (AIC) values were reassessed after each change to the model to ensure that any new parameter added made a significant improvement to the model. All model parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood estimation.

Figure 1.

Mediation model showing standardized estimates for all significant (*p < .05. **p < .001) direct and indirect effects.

In order to examine the goodness of fit of the proposed mediation model, a number of preliminary analyses were conducted. First, the factor structure of the proposed latent constructs was examined through confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). In general, factor loadings were significant and varied from .37 to .89 (see Online Appendix A). However, two items on the perspective-taking scale evidenced item loadings lower than .3. A simple structural equation model was then specified in order to examine the direct effects of Parent Social Responsibility, Parent Civic Engagement, Prosocial Friend Norms, Social Analysis, Classroom Climate, Community Connectedness, Affective Empathy, Cognitive Empathy, and Social Responsibility on Youth Civic Behavior. This simple model evidenced mediocre fit, χ²(1722) = 3705.71, p < .001; Q = 2.15; RMSEA = .047 (90% confidence interval [CI] = [.044, .049]); CFI = .86; TLI = .85, SRMR = .07; AIC = 4043.71; and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) = 4766.78. Finally, the meditation model was specified, examining the direct effects of Parent Social Responsibility, Parent Civic Engagement, Prosocial Friend Norms, Social Analysis, Classroom Climate, and Community Connectedness on Youth Civic Behavior, through Affective Empathy, Cognitive Empathy, and Social Responsibility. This mediation model yielded acceptable model fit: χ²(1717) = 3395.16, p < .001; Q = 1.97; RMSEA = .043, 90% CI = [.041, .045]; CFI = .88; TLI = .88, SRMR = .06; AIC = 3743.16; and BIC 4487.62, and accounted for 55% of the variance in youth civic behavior (R² = .55). Although the chi-square test is significant and the CFI and TLI fit indices are below the recommended cutoff levels of .90, all remaining fit indices evidenced good model fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). As the mediation model evidenced better model fit than the simple model, this model was retained, and is the model referred to hereafter. A visual overview of the structural equation model, tested in the current research, is provided in Figure 1.

Overall, results showed that parent social responsibility exerted significant, positive effects on all mediators—affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and social responsibility, but was not found to have any direct association with youth’s civic behavior. In addition, community connectedness was positively associated with all mediator variables—affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and social responsibility, but had no direct link with civic behavior. Significant positive effects were also found between prosocial friend norms and affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and social responsibility although no relationship between youth’s prosocial friend norms and civic behaviors was observed. Classroom climate was found to have a significant association with cognitive empathy, while civic education was significantly linked to youth’s social responsibility values. Parent civic engagement was not significantly related to either youth’s cognitive empathy or social responsibility values. However, a significant, negative relationship between parent civic engagement and youth’s affective empathy, and a significant, positive relationship between parent civic engagement and youth civic behavior, were found. Higher levels of cognitive empathy and youth social responsibility values were also significantly associated with greater levels of youth civic behavior. A summary of all significant and nonsignificant regression weights, including standardized and unstandardized estimates, and standard errors (for direct effects) is provided in Online Appendix B.

In order to determine evidence of mediational effects, all indirect effects were evaluated for significance at the p < .05 level, with 95% CIs established through bootstrapping techniques, implemented using 10,000 bootstrap samples (following recommendations specified by Hayes, 2013). Significant indirect effects are represented by an appropriate alpha level (p < .05) and a lower (L) and upper (U) bound CI range that does not contain zero (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). A full summary of all indirect model effects is outlined in Table 3. As can be seen in this table, affective empathy did not produce any significant indirect effects on youth civic behavior. However, some significant indirect effects, through youth’s cognitive empathy and social responsibility values, were observed. In particular, significant, indirect effects between parent social responsibility and youth civic behavior through youth social responsibility (B = .07, p = .001) and cognitive empathy (B = .03, p = .03) were observed. Similarly, both community connectedness and prosocial friend norms were found to have indirect links with youth’s civic behavior through increased social responsibility values (B = .06, p = .01; B = .07, p = .001) and cognitive empathy (B = .04, p = .02; B = .03, p = .02). Classroom climate (B = .02, p = .04) was indirectly linked to youth civic behavior through increased cognitive empathy, while civic education at school (B = .05, p = .01) had a positive, indirect relationship with youth civic behavior through increased social responsibility.

Table 3.

Tests of the Mediating Effects of Empathic Concern, Social Responsibility, and Perspective-Taking on Youth Civic Behavior, Including Upper (U) and Lower (L) CIs.

Predictors	Direct effect		Total effect		Indirect effect (M = AE)				Indirect effect (M = SR)				Indirect effect (M = CE)
	Direct effect		Total effect				95% CI				95% CI				95% CI
	B	p	B	p	B	p	L	U	B	p	L	U	B	p	L	U
Parent social responsibility	−.10	.22	.01	.87	.01	.44	−.02	.07	.07	.001	.03	.16	.03	.03	.002	.08
Parent civic engagement	.34	.003	.30	.003	−.01	.41	−.05	.02	−.03	.12	−.07	.01	−.01	.09	−.04	.002
Classroom climate	.07	.21	.11	.09	.003	.36	−.01	.04	.01	.62	−.03	.05	.02	.04	.001	.07
Community connectedness	.10	.21	.22	.01	.01	.46	−.02	.07	.06	.01	.02	.15	.04	.02	.01	.11
Prosocial friend norms	.06	.36	.17	.01	.004	.36	−.01	.04	.07	.001	.03	.13	.03	.02	.01	.09
Civic education	−.03	.59	.02	.65	.01	.41	−.02	.05	.05	.01	.01	.11	.003	.63	−.02	.03

Significant indirect effects (p < .05) are highlighted in italics.

CI = confidence interval; M = mediator; AE = affective empathy; SR = social responsibility; CE = cognitive empathy.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine whether adolescents’ civic behaviors were directly linked to their contextual experiences, or whether youth’s empathy and responsibility values mediated this relationship. Significant support for a mediated model was observed, with results suggesting that there is an important link between youth’s social-contextual experiences and their civic actions, and that this relationship may be explained by differences in youth’s perspective-taking abilities and social responsibility values. Overall, this research identified six specific aspects of youth’s social milieu (e.g., parent social responsibility, parent civic engagement, prosocial friend norms, classroom climate, civic education, and community connectedness) that appear to be significantly associated with their (cognitive and affective) empathy, social responsibility values, and/or civic behaviors. However, notable differences in the nature of these relationships emerged. In addition, differences in how youth’s cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and social responsibility attitudes mediated the relationship between each individual socio-contextual predictor and youth’s civic behavior were also transparent.

First, important differences in the type of associations found between youth’s affective empathy, cognitive empathy, social responsibility values, and their civic behaviors were observed. In particular, findings from the mediated structural equation model revealed that, whereas cognitive empathy and social responsibility were both significantly, and positively, related to youth’s civic behavior, no significant connection between youth’s affective empathy and civic behavior was found. These findings conflict with other theoretical and empirical evidence, which contends that both aspects of empathy (i.e., the understanding of others’ emotions and the ability to experience feelings of concern for others) are key motivators of prosocial action (Eisenberg, Eggum, & Di Giunta, 2010; Hoffman, 2000; Segal, 2011). However, recent research has proposed that while both affective and cognitive empathy may facilitate prosocial responding they may be associated with different types of prosocial or civic behavior (Silke, Brady, Boylan, & Dolan, 2018; Van Lissa, Hawk, & Meeus, 2017; Verhofstadt et al., 2016). Research indicates that differences in “feeling” versus “understanding” may result in different forms of prosocial engagement, with some evidence suggesting that cognitive empathy may be more associated with social justice behaviors than affective empathy (Decety & Yoder, 2015; Van der Graaff, Carlo, Crocetti, Koot, & Branje, 2018). It is argued that cognitive empathy is a more powerful predictor of civic behavior than affective empathy as it may be more adaptive in certain situations and can help expand one’s circle of care and understanding to include unfamiliar others (Decety & Yoder, 2015; Powell & Roberts, 2017). The findings from the current research have notable implications as they not only highlight the importance of examining the relationship between civic behavior and both components of empathy, but also suggest that both empathy and responsibility values play a key role in predicting youth civic engagement.

A number of interesting findings also emerged regarding the relationship between youth’s social contexts and their empathic and civic responding. Results indicated that parents’ encouragement of social responsibility was directly associated with greater youth affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and responsibility values. In addition, although findings revealed no direct connection between parent social responsibility and youth civic behavior, a positive, indirect connection through increased youth social responsibility and cognitive empathy skills was observed. On the other hand, parent civic engagement, another aspect of the parental context, was the only aspect of the social environment found to have direct associations with youth’s civic behavior. In the current study, higher levels of parent civic engagement were linked to greater youth involvement in civic activities, which is consistent with findings observed in other international research (Jessor & Turbin, 2014; Lai, Siu, & Shek, 2015). In contrast, parent civic engagement was found to be negatively associated with affective empathy. It is possible that this relationship may be reflective of a suppression effect as no significant correlations were observed between these two variables. Although further research is needed to explore this relationship further, the current findings have relevance for research and practice as they suggest that while aspects of the parental context can exert positive effects on adolescents’ civic and empathic responding, they may also have negative ramifications, which highlights the complex nature of this relationship.

In addition to these two parental factors, youth’s civic behavior was found to be indirectly associated with both community connectedness and prosocial friend norms. Results indicated that having friends who engage in more prosocial behaviors and feeling a greater sense of connection with one’s community were associated with higher levels of youth civic behavior through increased cognitive empathy and social responsibility values. Community connectedness and prosocial friend norms were also positively associated with greater affective empathy. These findings have applied relevance as they indicate that youth’s civic and empathic development are intricately linked to their experiences and interactions within their wider social networks. Research and policy may benefit from further considering the potential role that friends and communities play in facilitating youth civic engagement.

Furthermore, while both classroom climate and civic education were also found to be indirectly associated with youth civic education, these connections were found to occur through alternative mediators. Results indicated that experiencing an open classroom climate in school was associated with greater cognitive empathy skills, which in turn was linked with greater civic action. Similarly, greater levels of civic education in school were associated with greater youth civic engagement, but through increased social responsibility. These findings indicate that although interactive classroom discussions may be important tools for enhancing young people’s perspective-taking abilities, learning about civic/societal issues in school may be more relevant for helping to instill youth with a greater sense of social responsibility. Thus, the current findings have relevance for research and practice as they not only add to a growing body of literature which suggests that schools play an important role in shaping youth’s civic and empathic development (Acosta et al., 2019; Luengo Kanacri et al., 2017), but also suggest that youth’s empathy and responsibility values may be uniquely affected by different aspects of the school’s learning environment.

Strengths, Limitations, and Implications of the Research

This research provides a number of important implications and suggestions for both future research and policy or practice. One major strength of the current research is that the mediation model tested here was found to evidence acceptable model fit and account for a large percentage of the variance (approximately 55%) in youth civic behavior. Thus, this research advances the literature by providing further empirical support for a social-contextual approach to youth civic engagement. Although previous research has indicated that youth’s civic engagement can be impacted by their social experiences (Rossi et al., 2016; Wray-Lake et al., 2016), this research is among the first to show that the relationship between youth’s social-contextual experiences and their civic responding is mediated by both their (cognitive) empathy and responsibility values. Moreover, the findings from the current study have further implications for policy and practice as they show that adolescents’ empathy and civic responding are influenced by their experiences and relationships across multiple, different social contexts, including those experienced at home (e.g., with parents) and within their wider communities (e.g., at school, or with friends and neighbors; Evans & Smokowski, 2015; Lenzi et al., 2013; Wray-Lake & Syversten, 2011). Hence, results suggest that applied initiatives, which aim to promote greater civic and empathic responding among young people, may benefit from utilizing a multidimensional approach that targets both interpersonal (e.g., parents, peers) and organizational (e.g., school, community) social networks.

Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge a number of potential limitations associated with this research. First, it should be noted that 45% of the variance in youth’s civic behavior remained unaccounted for by the current contextual model. This suggests that other social or individual factors are also likely to play a role in influencing youth’s civic engagement (see Alessandri et al., 2014; Davis, 2018) and further comparative research examining the relationship between other individual or contextual factors and youth’s civic/empathic responding is called for. In addition, it is important to acknowledge that although “significant,” the indirect relationships observed between the five social-contextual factors (e.g., parent social responsibility, civic education, classroom climate, prosocial friend norms, and community connectedness) and youth’s civic behaviors were all relatively weak. Although, these low effect sizes may be due to the small observed sample size, these low effect sizes may also indicate that these social contexts are more strongly associated with youth’s empathic attitudes and social values than with their civic behaviors. It is also important to note that the current research is cross-sectional in nature and assumptions about the direction of effects should be interpreted with caution (Levin, 2006). Further experimental and longitudinal research, which utilize a larger sample size, would be beneficial in order to be able to infer more causal inferences. Another limitation of the study is the reliance on self-reported instruments. Future research would benefit from including data from multiple respondents in order to reduce the potential impact of common method variance. Finally, as this research was carried out in an Irish cultural context, it is important to recognize the cultural homogeneity of the current research participants and acknowledge that these findings may not generalize beyond this specific cultural context.

Conclusion

This research provides a number of key insights. Results indicate that youth’s empathy, social responsibility, and civic behavior are linked to their experiences and relationships within the parent, peer, school, and community domains. However, findings suggest that these contextual factors are linked to youth’s empathic and civic responding in different ways. In addition, this research indicated that, whereas youth’s cognitive empathy and social responsibility values appear to mediate the relationship between youth’s social contexts and their civic behaviors, affective empathy has no direct or indirect links with this type of youth civic behavior. Overall, the findings from this research have important implications for practice and policy, and provides evidence to suggest that a multidimensional approach is key for cultivating greater empathy and civic responding among young people. Nonetheless, greater research in this area is still needed in order to gain further insight into how other social-ecological processes impact youth’s prosocial or civic engagement.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jea-10.1177_0272431620977658 – Supplemental material for Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Civic Behavior Among Irish Adolescents: A Socio-Contextual Approach

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jea-10.1177_0272431620977658 for Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Civic Behavior Among Irish Adolescents: A Socio-Contextual Approach by Charlotte Silke, Bernadine Brady, Ciara Boylan and Pat Dolan in The Journal of Early Adolescence

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-jea-10.1177_0272431620977658 – Supplemental material for Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Civic Behavior Among Irish Adolescents: A Socio-Contextual Approach

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jea-10.1177_0272431620977658 for Empathy, Social Responsibility, and Civic Behavior Among Irish Adolescents: A Socio-Contextual Approach by Charlotte Silke, Bernadine Brady, Ciara Boylan and Pat Dolan in The Journal of Early Adolescence

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

All authors are associated with the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre and the School of Sociology and Politics at National University of Ireland (NUI), Galway.

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: The authors acknowledge the Irish Research Council for funding this research under their Research for Policy and Society scheme (grant number: RfPS/2016/28).

ORCID iD

Charlotte Silke

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Charlotte Silke works as a postdoctoral researcher with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Child and Family Research Centre on the Youth Empathy and Social Values (YES) project.

Bernadine Brady is a lecturer at the School of Political Science and Sociology, National University of Ireland (NUI), Galway and a senior researcher with the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre.

Ciara Boylan is a postdoctoral researcher at the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre on the YES project.

Pat Dolan is director of the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre and a lecturer in the School of Political Science and Sociology, NUI Galway. He holds the prestigious UNESCO Chair in Children, Youth and Civic Engagement, the first to be awarded in the Republic of Ireland.

References

Acosta

Chinman

Ebener

Malone

P. S.

Phillips

Wilks

(2019). Understanding the relationship between perceived school climate and bullying: A mediator analysis. Journal of School Violence, 18, 200-215. doi:10.1080/15388220.2018.1453820

Alessandri

Luengo Kanacri

B. P.

Eisenberg

Zuffiano

Milioni

Vecchione

Caprara

G. V.

(2014). Prosociality during the transition from late adolescence to young adulthood: The role of effortful control and ego-resiliency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1451-1465. doi:10.1177/0146167214549321

Allemand

Steiger

A. E.

Fend

H. A.

(2015). Empathy development in adolescence predicts social competencies in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 83, 229-241. doi:10.1111/jopy.12098

Atkins

Hart

(2003). Neighborhoods, adults, and the development of civic identity in urban youth. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 156-164. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_6

Attili

Vermigli

Roazzi

(2010). Children’s social competence, peer status, and the quality of mother-child and father–child relationships: A multidimensional scaling approach. European Psychologist, 15(1), 23-33. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000002

Ballard

P. J.

Hoyt

L. T.

Pachucki

M. C.

(2018). Impacts of adolescent and young adult civic engagement on health and socioeconomic status in adulthood. Child Development, 90, 1138-1154. doi:10.1111/cdev.12998

Bebiroglu

Geldhof

G. J.

Pinderhughes

E. E.

Phelps

Lerner

R. M.

(2013). From family to society: The role of perceived parenting behaviors in promoting youth civic engagement. Parenting, 13, 153-168. doi:10.1080/15295192.2013.756352

Bernhardt

B. C.

Singer

(2012). The neural basis of empathy. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35, 1-23. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150536

Byrne

B. M.

(2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Caprara

G. V.

Alessandri

Di Giunta

Panerai

Eisenberg

(2010). The contribution of agreeableness and self-efficacy beliefs to prosociality. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 24(1), 36-55. doi:10.1002/per.739

11.

Carlo

White

Streit

Knight

G. P.

Zeiders

K. H.

(2017). Longitudinal relations among parenting styles, prosocial behaviors, and academic outcomes in US Mexican adolescents. Child Development, 89, 577-592. doi:10.1111/cdev.12761

12.

Catalano

R. F.

Hawkins

J. D.

(1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. Seattle: University of Washington.

13.

Chase-Lansdale

P. L.

Wakschlag

L. S.

Brooks-Gunn

(1995). A psychological perspective on the development of caring in children and youth: The role of the family. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 515-556. doi:10.1006/jado.1995.1037

14.

Crocetti

Jahromi

Meeus

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

15.

Crocetti

Moscatelli

Van der Graaff

Rubini

Meeus

Branje

(2016). The interplay of self-certainty and prosocial development in the transition from late adolescence to emerging adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 30, 594-607. doi:10.1002/per.2084

16.

Cuff

B. M.

Brown

S. J.

Taylor

Howat

D. J.

(2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8, 144-153. doi:10.1177/1754073914558466

17.

Da Silva

Sanson

Smart

Toumbourou

. (2004). Civic responsibility among Australian adolescents: Testing two competing models. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 229-255. doi:10.1002/jcop.20004

18.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

19.

Davis

M. H.

(2018). Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. London, England: Routledge.

20.

Decety

Yoder

K. J.

(2015). Empathy and motivation for justice: Cognitive empathy and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict sensitivity to injustice for others. Social Neuroscience, 11(1), 1-14. doi:10.1080/17470919.2015.1029593

21.

Eisenberg

Eggum

N. D.

Di Giunta

(2010). Empathy-related responding: Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 143-180. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x

22.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Valiente

(2018). Emotion-related self-regulation and children’s social, psychological, and academic functioning. In Balter

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 268-295). New York, NY: Routledge.

23.

Evans

C. B.

Smokowski

P. R.

(2015). Prosocial bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2289-2307. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0338-5

24.

Farrell

A. D.

Thompson

E. L.

Mehari

K. R.

(2017). Dimensions of peer influences and their relationship to adolescents’ aggression, other problem behaviors and prosocial behaviour. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1351-1369. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0601-4

25.

Flanagan

C. A.

(2013). Teenage citizens: The political theories of the young. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

26.

Flanagan

C. A.

Sherrod

L. R.

(1998). Youth political development: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 447-456. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01229.x

27.

Flanagan

C. A.

Syvertsen

A. K.

Stout

M. D.

(2007). Civic measurement models: Tapping adolescents’ civic engagement (CIRCLE Working Paper 55). College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).

28.

Gayman

A. M.

Fraser-Thomas

Baker

(2017). Relational developmental systems metatheory: A conceptual framework to understand and promote older adults’ involvement in sport. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 14(1), Article 12. doi:10.1186/s11556-017-0182-6

29.

Gerbino

Zuffiano

Eisenberg

Castellani

Luengo Kanacri

B. P.

Pastorelli

Caprara

G. V.

(2018). Adolescents’ prosocial behavior predicts good grades beyond intelligence and personality traits. Journal of Personality, 86, 247-260. doi:10.1111/jopy.12309

30.

Hardy

S. A.

Carlo

(2005). Religiosity and prosocial behaviours in adolescence: The mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Moral Education, 34, 231-249. doi.org/10.1080/03057240500127210

31.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Methodology in the social sciences. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

32.

Hoffman

M. L.

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

33.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

M. R.

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.

34.

Hope

E. C.

Jagers

R. J.

(2014). The role of sociopolitical attitudes and civic education in the civic engagement of Black youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 460-470. doi:10.1111/jora.12117

35.

IBM. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM.

36.

Jaureguizar

Ibabe

Straus

M. A.

(2013). Violent and prosocial behavior by adolescents toward parents and teachers in a community sample. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 451-470. doi:10.1002/pits.21685

37.

Jessor

Turbin

M. S.

(2014). Parsing protection and risk for problem behavior versus pro-social behavior among US and Chinese adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1037-1051. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0130-y

38.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

39.

Konrath

O’Brien

Hsing

(2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 180-198. doi:10.1177/1088868310377395

40.

Lai

F. H.

Siu

A. M.

Shek

D. T.

(2015). Individual and social predictors of prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 3, Article 39. doi:10.3389/fped.2015.00039

41.

Lenzi

Vieno

Pastore

Santinello

(2013). Neighborhood social connectedness and adolescent civic engagement: An integrative model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 45-54. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.003

42.

Lenzi

Vieno

Perkins

D. D.

Santinello

Elgar

F. J.

Morgan

Mazzardis

(2012). Family affluence, school and neighborhood contexts and adolescents’ civic engagement: A cross-national study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 197-210. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9489-7

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. doi:10.3233/DEV-14130

44.

Levin

K. A.

(2006). Study design III: Cross-sectional studies. Evidence-Based Dentistry, 7(1), 24-25. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375

45.

Levine

(2013). We are the ones we have been waiting for: The promise of civic renewal in America. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

46.

Lockwood

P. L.

Seara-Cardoso

Viding

(2014). Emotion regulation moderates the association between empathy and prosocial behaviour. PLOS ONE, 9(5), e96555.

47.

Luengo Kanacri

B. P.

Eisenberg

Thartori

Pastorelli

Uribe Tirado

L. M.

Gerbino

Caprara

G. V

. (2017). Longitudinal relations among positivity, perceived positive school climate, and prosocial behavior in Colombian adolescents. Child Development, 88, 1100-1114. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12863

48.

Luengo Kanacri

B. P.

González

Valdenegro

Jiménez-Moya

Saavedra

Mora

E. A.

… Pastorelli

. (2016). Civic engagement and giving behaviors: The role of empathy and beliefs about poverty. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 256-271. doi:10.1080/00224545.2016.1148006

49.

Malin

A. J.

Pos

A. E.

(2015). The impact of early empathy on alliance building, emotional processing, and outcome during experiential treatment of depression. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 445-459. doi:10.1080/10503307.2014.901572

50.

Martela

Ryan

R. M.

(2016). The benefits of benevolence: Basic psychological needs, beneficence, and the enhancement of well-being. Journal of Personality, 84, 750-764. doi:10.1111/jopy.12215

51.

Mesurado

Richaud

M. C.

(2017). The relationship between parental variables, empathy and prosocial-flow with prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 843-860. doi:10.1007/s10902-016-9748-7

52.

Metzger

Alvis

L. M.

Oosterhoff

Babskie

Syvertsen

Wray-Lake

(2018). The intersection of emotional and sociocognitive competencies with civic engagement in middle childhood and adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(8), 1663-1683. doi:10.1007/s10964-018-0842-5

53.

Miklikowska

(2017). Development of anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence: The role of parents, peers, intergroup friendships, and empathy. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 626-648. doi:10.1111/bjop.12236

54.

Miller

J. G.

Kahle

Hastings

P. D.

(2015). Roots and benefits of costly giving: Young children’s altruism is related to having less family wealth and more autonomic flexibility. Psychological Science, 26, 1038-1049. doi:10.1177/0956797615578476

55.

Nesdale

Griffith

Durkin

Maass

(2005). Empathy, group norms and children’s ethnic attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 623-637. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.08.003

56.

O’Brien

D. T.

Kauffman

R. A.

(2013). Broken windows and low adolescent prosociality: Not cause and consequence, but co-symptoms of low collective efficacy. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 359-369. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9555-1

57.

Osher

Cantor

Berg

Steyer

Rose

(2018). Drivers of human development: How relationships and context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 1-31. doi:10.1080/10888691.2017.1398650

58.

Overton

W. F.

(2015). Processes, relations, and relational-developmental-systems. In Overton

W. F.

Molenaar

P. C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 9-62). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

59.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Christensen

K. J.

(2011). Empathy and self-regulation as mediators between parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 545-551. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00695.x

60.

Pierotti

S. L.

(2016). Testing a US Mexican cultural value transmission model of maternal socialization of youth civic responsibility values and prosocial behaviors (Doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, SC.

61.

Powell

P. A.

Roberts

(2017). Situational determinants of cognitive, affective, and compassionate empathy in naturalistic digital interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 137-148. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.024

62.

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, 563-585. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00249

63.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316

64.

Rossi

Lenzi

Sharkey

J. D.

Vieno

Santinello

(2016). Factors associated with civic engagement in adolescence: The effects of neighbourhood, school, family and peer contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 1040-1058. doi:10.1002/jcop.21826

65.

Sallquist

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Eggum

N. D.

Gaertner

B. M.

(2009). Assessment of preschoolers’ positive empathy: Concurrent and longitudinal relations with positive emotion, social competence, and sympathy. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 223-233. doi:10.1080/17439760902819444

66.

Schmidt

J. A.

Shumow

Kackar

(2007). Adolescents’ participation in service activities and its impact on academic, behavioral, and civic outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 127-140. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9119-5

67.

Segal

E. A.

(2011). Social empathy: A model built on empathy, contextual understanding, and social responsibility that promotes social justice. Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 266-277. doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.564040

68.

Silke

Brady

Boylan

Dolan

(2018). Factors influencing the development of empathy and prosocial behaviour among adolescents: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 421-436. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.027

69.

Silke

Brady

Dolan

Boylan

(2019). Social values and civic behaviour among youth in Ireland: The influence of social contexts. Irish Journal of Sociology, 28(1), 44-64. doi: 10.1177/0791603519863295

70.

Smith

B. G.

Kendall

M. C.

Knighton

(2018). Rise of the brand ambassador: Social stake, corporate social responsibility and influence among the social media influencers. Communication Management Review, 3(1), 6-29. doi:10.22522/cmr20180127

71.

Spinrad

T. L.

Eisenberg

(2014). Empathy, prosocial behavior, and positive development in schools. In Gilman

Huebner

E. S.

Furlong

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 90-106). New York, NY: Routledge.

72.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

73.

Torney-Purta

Barber

C. H.

Wilkenfeld

(2007). Latino adolescents’ civic development in the United States: Research results from the IEA Civic Education Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 111-125. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9121-y

74.

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, 1086-1099. doi:10.1007/s10964-017-0786-1

75.

Van Lissa

C. J.

Hawk

S. T.

Meeus

W. H

. (2017). The effects of affective and cognitive empathy on adolescents’ behavior and outcomes in conflicts with mothers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 158, 32-45. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.01.002

76.

Vasconcelos

Hollis

Nowbahari

Kacelnik

(2012). Pro-sociality without empathy. Biology Letters, 8, 910-912. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0554

77.

Verhofstadt

Devoldre

Buysse

Stevens

Hinnekens

Ickes

(2016). The role of cognitive and affective empathy in spouses’ support interactions: An observational study. PLOS ONE, 11(2), Article e0149944. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149944

78.

Verplanken

Holland

R. W.

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

79.

Voight

Torney-Purta

(2013). A typology of youth civic engagement in urban middle schools. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 198-212. doi:10.1080/10888691.2013.836041

80.

Wagaman

M. A.

(2011). Social empathy as a framework for adolescent empowerment. Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 278-293. doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.564045

81.

Wilkenfeld

Lauckhardt

Torney-Purta

(2010). The relation between developmental theory and measures of civic engagement in research on adolescents. In Sherrod

L. R.

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

C. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 193-219). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

82.

Wray-Lake

Syvertsen

A. K.

(2011). The developmental roots of social responsibility in childhood and adolescence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 11-25. doi:10.1002/cd.308

83.

Wray-Lake

DeHaan

C. R.

Shubert

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Examining links from civic engagement to daily well-being from a self-determination theory perspective. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 166-177. doi:10.1080/17439760.2017.1388432

84.

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. doi:10.1037/dev0000067

85.

Zaff

J. F.

Kawashima-Ginsberg

Lin

E. S.

Lamb

Balsano

Lerner

R. M.

(2011). Developmental trajectories of civic engagement across adolescence: Disaggregation of an integrated construct. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 1207-1220. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.07.005

86.

Zuffianò

Alessandri

Kanacri

B. P. L.

Pastorelli

Milioni

Ceravolo

… Caprara

G. V.

(2014). The relation between prosociality and self-esteem from middle-adolescence to young adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 24-29. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.041

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB