Children and Youth Services Review 120 (2021) 105680

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Socioeconomic status and prosocial behaviors among Chinese emerging

adults: Sequential mediators of parental warmth and personal belief in a
just world
Sixiang Quan *
School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, Shaanxi Provincial Key Research Center of Child Mental and Behavioral Health, Xi’an, China
School of Education Science, Shaanxi Xueqian Normal University, Xi’an, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study aims to explore the association between family socioeconomic status (SES) and prosocial behaviors
Family socioeconomic status and whether parental warmth and personal belief in a just world (PBJW) play sequential mediating roles. Data
Parental warmth were obtained from a cross-sectional sample of Chinese emerging adults (N = 960, Mage = 20.23 years, 54.5%
Personal belief in a just world
female) who completed a set of questionnaires on family SES, parental warmth, PBJW, and prosocial behaviors.
Prosocial behaviors
Results showed that the relationship between family SES and general prosocial behaviors was mediated by
parental warmth, but not by PBJW. More importantly, the relationship between family SES and general prosocial
behaviors was sequentially mediated by parental warmth and PBJW. In addition, the examination of sub-
dimensions of prosocial behaviors revealed that the mechanism from family SES to these different types of
prosocial behaviors was the same as the mechanism from family SES to general prosocial behaviors. These
findings provide evidence for ecological systems theory and highlight that to elevate prosocial behaviors among
emerging adults with low family SES, attention should be paid to parental warmth and emerging adults’ per­
ceptions of justice.

1. Introduction
Prosocial behaviors are defined as individuals’ behaviors that aim to
benefit others intentionally and voluntarily (Eisenberg, Spinrad, &
Knafo-Noam, 2015). Prosocial behaviors have a positive association
with individuals’ social adjustment (Wentzel, 2012), peer relationships
(Padilla-Walker, Fraser, Black, & Bean, 2015), academic achievements
(Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000), and
well-being (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). These positive outcomes have
prompted researchers to investigate the predictors of prosocial behav­
iors. Previous research has demonstrated that self-beliefs (Alessandri,
Caprara, Eisenberg, & Steca, 2009), parenting styles (Carlo, White,
Streit, Knight, & Zeiders, 2017), family environment (Hur, Taylor,
Jeong, Park, & Haberstick, 2017), and community connectedness (Lenzi,
Vieno, Pastore, & Santinello, 2013) were all associated with prosocial
behaviors. According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory,
individuals’ behaviors are not only shaped by personal characteristics
but also by the distal or proximal factors of the microsystem which was
closest to them (Bronfenbrenner, 1986, 1977). According to this theory,
we know that family socioeconomic status (SES) is a distal factor of the
microsystem, parental warmth is a proximal factor of the microsystem,
and personal belief in a just world (PBJW) is a personal characteristic
variable. Single factors cannot totally explain prosocial behaviors; thus,
a systematic and comprehensive study is necessary.
Although numerous researchers have examined the associations be­
tween environmental factors, such as family SES or parental warmth,
and children and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors (e.g., Llorca, Richaud,
& Malonda, 2017; Ruiz-Ortiz, Braza, Carreras, & Muñoz, 2017), less
attention has been paid to the transition to adulthood, despite its
importance. Undergraduates are emerging adults. Emerging adulthood
refers to a phase of human development that occurs between the ages of
18 and 25 (Arnett, 2000). During this stage, although in many ways they
are fully mature, emerging adults tend to be fairly dependent on their
parents (Fingerman & Yahirun, 2016). Most undergraduates benefit
from their parents’ continued economic support, which helps them to
afford their enrollment fees and living expenses (Wang, 2016). In
addition, Chinese families create interdependence between parents and
children. Parents offer frequent guidance and are continually involved

* Address: School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, 199 South Chang’an Road, Xi’an 710062, China.
E-mail address: quansixiang2011@126.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105680
Received 12 June 2020; Received in revised form 30 October 2020; Accepted 30 October 2020
Available online 17 November 2020
0190-7409/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Quan
in their children’s lives. This involvement is not restricted to children in
younger age groups. Chinese emerging adults remain in close contact
with their parents, seeking advice on important decisions, and consid­
ering their needs and desires (Wang, Yi, Wu, Pearce, & Huang, 2018).
Such findings suggest that family SES and parental warmth may still
have an impact on prosocial behaviors among Chinese emerging adults.
Therefore, exploring the relationships among these variables in Chinese
emerging adults is meaningful.
1.1. Family SES and prosocial behaviors
SES represents the relative position of an individual or a group and
their social resources compared to others in a given social system
(Strickhouser & Sutin, 2020). Family SES is a multidimensional
construct that is measured by parental education level, parental occu­
pation level, and family income (Bateman, 2014). By definition, in­
dividuals with higher family SES are more affluent, have higher
positions, and possess more resources than those with lower family SES.
Family SES is related to a range of cognitive, socioemotional, and health
outcomes in children, with effects beginning prior to birth and persisting
into adulthood (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Previous studies have
asserted that individuals with lower family SES tend to exhibit fewer
prosocial behaviors (Korndörfer, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2015; Li, Song, &
Xie, 2019). Prosocial behaviors often require resources such as money
(Sun, Tan, Cheng, Chen, & Qu, 2015), time (Bartlett & Desteno, 2006),
or other resources (Messer et al., 2017) to benefit others. Individuals
with lower family SES have fewer economic resources, less opportunity
to go to elite schools or universities (Oakes & Rossi, 2003), and more
stress in their close relationships (Gallo, Bogart, Vranceanu, & Mat­
thews, 2005). Faced with such living circumstances, they are inclined to
pay more attention to their own welfare and prioritize their own needs,
thus reducing prosocial behaviors (Xie & Li, 2018). However, another
study indicated that there was no significant relationship between SES
and prosocial behaviors (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2018). Thus, we
speculate that there are mediators between family SES and emerging
adults’ prosocial behaviors.
As previously noted, several factors have been associated with pro­
social behaviors (Silke, Brady, Boylan, & Dolan, 2018), including the
interaction of multiple environmental factors and personal characteris­
tics (Kaur et al., 2019). Previous studies found that SES was significantly
correlated with prosocial behaviors (Evans & Smokowski, 2015).
However, according to ecological system theory, family SES is a distal
factor that affects the family’s ability to provide support for their chil­
dren in family systems, thereby indirectly affecting individuals (Bron­
fenbrenner, 1986). That is to say, family SES may affect individuals’
outcomes by affecting some mediators (Xing, Liu, & Wang, 2019).
Studies have revealed that the proximal factor of parental warmth
(Malonda, Llorca, Mesurado, Samper, & Mestre, 2019) and personal
characteristic of PBJW (Bègue, 2014) both contribute to prosocial be­
haviors. Additionally, family SES was shown to be positively correlated
with parental warmth (Yuan, Sun, Chen, Liu, & Xue, 2020) which, in
turn, positively relates with PBJW (Dalbert & Radant, 2004). Therefore,
it is reasonable to speculate that parental warmth and PBJW may
mediate family SES and prosocial behaviors separately and sequentially.
1.2. The mediator of parental warmth
Parental warmth, a central component of parenting, refers to parents
adopting affection, concern, responsiveness, comfort, and supportive
communication or behaviors in parent–child interactions (Baumrind,
1991). Parental warmth could strengthen psychological adjustment
(Khaleque, 2013), improve mental health (Rohner & Britner, 2002), and
prompt prosocial development (Carlo, Mestre, Samper, Tur, & Armenta,
2011). Studies have mostly shown that parental warmth has a positive
relationship with prosocial behaviors (Llorca et al., 2017; Malonda et al.,
2019; Ruiz-Ortiz et al., 2017). Parental warmth could prompt
2
Children and Youth Services Review 120 (2021) 105680
individuals’ prosocial behavior in two ways. First, warm parents serve as
a model for compassionate behaviors that are intended to benefit others
(Hastings, Utendale, & Sullivan, 2007). Second, if a warm parenting
style is used, parent–child interactions are more reciprocal and egali­
tarian. Individuals would then, in turn, exhibit more warm and caring
behaviors toward their parents or others (Grusec & Davidov, 2010).
Ecological systems theory asserts that distal factors may influence
individuals’ outcomes through proximal factors (Bronfenbrenner,
1986). Lareau (2002) advocated that family SES accounted for parenting
differences between low-SES families and high-SES families. Specif­
ically, high-SES parents tend to adopt “concerted cultivation” parenting.
These parents prioritize helping their children develop their talents,
such as through sports or music lessons. Parents’ leisure preferences
become subordinate to their children’s, and parents believe that chil­
dren’s desires should be taken seriously. Conversely, low-SES parents
tend to adopt “accomplishment of natural growth” parenting. These
parents establish limits; within those limits, children are free to fashion
their own pastimes. Children are viewed as being subordinate to adults.
Lastly, low-SES parents tend to use directives rather than negotiate
(Lareau, 2002, 2003). It seems that most parents love their children and
want the best for them, but differences in family SES can influence the
resources parents are able to draw on and the strategies they adopt in
supporting their emerging adult children (Lareau & Cox, 2011).
Further, the family stress model asserts that low family SES acts as a
stressor on parents and has an adverse effect on parents’ emotions, be­
haviors, and relationships, which undermines parents’ capacity to pro­
vide nurturing care and emotional warmth for their children (Conger &
Conger, 2002). Furthermore, a lack of warmth in a child-rearing envi­
ronment makes individuals feel insecure and unstable (Davis & Cum­
mings, 1994), ultimately impeding individual development. Empirical
studies have also demonstrated that higher family SES has a positive
effect on parental warmth (Wu, Zhang, Cheng, Hu, & Rost, 2015; Xing
et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2020). In addition, in the Chinese context,
although the government may provide help for parents in low-SES
families, the stance of the government has been to emphasize that the
responsibility for childcare mainly lies with the family, and that the
government may only intervene if children are at risk (Wong, Ma, &
Chan, 2019). Based on prior theoretical and empirical grounds, it is
reasonable to expect that parental warmth would mediate the rela­
tionship between family SES and prosocial behaviors (Hypothesis 1).
1.3. The mediator of PBJW
PBJW refers to individuals believing that the world they live in is just
toward them (Lerner & Miller, 1978). Justice motive theory indicates
that individuals need to believe that the world is orderly, stable, and a
place where they get what they deserve and deserve what they get
(Lerner, 1977). As a valuable personal resource, PBJW could protect
individuals from suffering and motivate them to behave benevolently
(Bègue, Charmoillaux, Cochet, Cury, & Suremain, 2008). Studies have
proven that PBJW is associated with an increased desire to engage in
prosocial behaviors (Bègue, 2014). Individuals with higher PBJW are
more likely to engage in helping victims (Silver, Karakurt, & Boysen,
2015), donating to those in need (Bègue et al., 2008), activities that
benefit organizations (Spence, Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2011), and
altruistic behaviors (Jiang, Chen, & Wang, 2017).
As for the relationship between family SES and PBJW, research has
shown that PBJW may vary according to differences in family SES (Yu,
Zhao, Wang, & Li, 2018). Chinese emerging adults with lower family
SES have lower PBJW than individuals with higher family SES (Yu et al.,
2018; Zhou & Guo, 2013). Individuals with lower family SES are more
likely to experience unfairness, be more vigilant to threats, and face
more uncontrolled life events (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinsch­
midt, & Keltner, 2012). In contrast, higher family SES individuals sys­
tematically experience more fairness in their personal lives than those
with lower family SES (Thomas & Napolitano, 2017). They may have the
S. Quan
privilege of learning about the unfairness of the world in a more abstract
manner and thereby do not feel as threated by injustices (Laurin, Fitz­
simons, & Kay, 2011; Thomas & Napolitano, 2017). Based on prior
research, it is reasonable to predict that PBJW would mediate the rela­
tionship between family SES and prosocial behaviors among Chinese
emerging adults (Hypothesis 2).
1.4. The three-path mediation effect of parental warmth and PBJW
Regarding the relationship between parental warmth and PBJW,
extant research indicates that parental warmth is a crucial factor in the
development of PBJW (Dalbert & Radant, 2004). PBJW is shaped by
individuals’ interactions with their parents. If individuals perceive their
parents as emotionally warm, supportive, and respectful, they are more
likely to believe that the world is just and orderly, thus developing
higher PBJW (Dalbert & Radant, 2004). In contrast, if individuals
perceive that their parents are emotionally apathetic and feel rejected,
they are more likely to believe that this world is unfriendly, hostile, and
dangerous (Rohner & Brothers, 1999), thus developing lower PBJW.
According to theory and empirical studies, we speculated that family
SES influences Chinese emerging adults’ prosocial behaviors through
the sequential mediating roles of parental warmth and PBJW (Hypoth­
esis 3).
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and procedures
In the present study, an anonymous cross-sectional sample was
recruited during 2019–2020 via advertisements posted at four univer­
sities in two central and western cities in China. Undergraduates who
wanted to participate were asked to contact the researchers, and the
researchers then sent them the online questionnaires via a social media
platform, such as QQ (a widely used telecommunication application in
China, similar to Skype) or WeChat. There were 960 participants (54.5%
female, Mage = 20.23 years, SD = 1.46) in this study. Each participant
signed an informed consent form and all of them completed the set of
questionnaires online. All participants were asked to answer each item
on the questionnaires; otherwise, they could not successfully submit
them. It took about 15 min to complete all questionnaires. We promised
that all collected data would be kept confidentially and used only for
research purposes. Each participant volunteered to participate in this
study and received no compensation for their participation.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Family socioeconomic status (SES)
Family SES was measured by parental education level, parental
occupation level, and family income. Parental education level was rated
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (primary school or lower) to 5 (master’s
degree or higher), with higher numbers indicating greater educational
attainment. To quantitatively measure parental occupation, Shi and
Shen (2007) coded parental occupations into five levels according to the
Professional Reputation Index compiled by Li (2005). This has been
widely used in China. According to Shi and Shen (2007), parental
occupation was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (unemployed,
temporary workers, farmers) to 5 (professional senior managers and senior
professional technicians), with higher numbers indicating higher occu­
pational prestige (Li, 2005). Family income was rated on a 6-point scale
ranging from 1 (less than 3,000¥ per month) to 6 (higher than 20,000¥ per
month), with higher numbers indicating greater household income. All
participants were asked to report the education level and occupation of
their parents and their family income. We standardized and then aver­
aged both parents’ education, occupation, and family income levels to
create a composite measure of SES (Crosnoe & Huston, 2007). Higher
scores represented higher levels of family SES.
3
Children and Youth Services Review 120 (2021) 105680
2.2.2. Parental warmth
The Chinese version of the parental warmth scale of Egna Minnen av
Barndoms Uppfostran (EMBU; Perris, Jacobsson, Linndstrom, Knorring,
& Perris, 1980) was adopted to assess perceived parental warmth. This
4-point scale (1 = never, 4 = always) consists of 14 items (7 for mothers,
7 for fathers; e.g., “when I am unhappy, my mother/father console me
and cheer me up”). Cronbach’s α was 0.96 in the current study.
2.2.3. Personal belief in a just world (PBJW)
The Chinese version of the Personal Belief in a Just World Scale
(Dalbert, 1999; Su, Zhang, & Wang, 2012) was adopted to assess
emerging adults’ personal justice beliefs. This 6-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 6 = strongly agree) consists of 7 items. The items include
statements such as “I believe that I usually get what I deserve.” Higher
scores indicate a higher faith in justice. Cronbach’s α was 0.92 in the
current study.
2.2.4. Prosocial behaviors
The Chinese version of the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (Carlo &
Randall, 2002; Kou, Hong, Tan, & Li, 2007) was adopted to assess the
participants’ tendencies to adopt prosocial behaviors in different con­
ditions. This 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
consists of 26 items. This scale measures 6 dimensions of prosocial be­
haviors, including public (4 items, e.g., ”When people are watching me I
can help others best”), anonymous (5 items, e.g., “I prefer to donate
money anonymously”), altruism (4 items, e.g., “If I help someone, I feel
that they needn’t help me in the future”), compliant (5 items, e.g., “I
never hesitate to help others when they ask for it”), emotional (5 items,
e.g., “when I can comfort a distressed person it is most fulfilling to me”)
and dire (3 items, e.g., “It is easy for me to help others who are in a dire
situation”). The average score of all 6 subscales was used to present
general prosocial behavior in the current study. Cronbach’s α for the
total scale and the public, anonymous, altruism, compliant, emotional,
and dire subscales were 0.95, 0.83, 0.85, 0.82, 0.83, 0.84, and 0.79,
respectively.
2.3. Statistical analysis
In the current study, SPSS and Mplus 8.0 were used to analyze the
data. Data were analyzed in three steps: first, we conducted preliminary
analyses of common method variance using SPSS; second, the correla­
tion analysis among measured variables was conducted using SPSS;
third, the sequential mediation model was estimated using Mplus 8.0.
The bootstrap estimation procedure (with 10,000 replications) was used
to estimate the significance of the indirect effects. In this step, we first
estimated the sequential mediation model with general prosocial
behavior as the dependent variable. Then, we estimated the sequential
mediation model with the sub-dimensions of prosocial behaviors as the
dependent variables. Five model fit indices were examined to evaluate
model fit: χ2/df ratio, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis
Index (TLI), Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Stan­
dardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). χ2/df ratio <2, TLI and
CFI greater than 0.95, RMSEA below 0.06, and SRMR below 0.08 indi­
cate excellent model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
3. Results
3.1. Assessment of common method variance
Since all variables were measured by self-report, it was necessary to
examine common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003). All items on the questionnaires were included in a
principal component factor analysis. Nine factors were extracted, with
the first factor explaining 28.42% of the variance. The results suggested
that common method variance bias was not a serious problem in the
current study.
S. Quan Children and Youth Services Review 120 (2021) 105680

3.2. Correlation analysis
Means, standard deviations, and correlation scores are presented in
Table 1. Results showed that SES was significantly positively related to
parental warmth, PBJW, and public prosocial behaviors. Parental
warmth was significantly positively related to PBJW, general prosocial
behaviors, and all six sub-dimensions of prosocial behaviors. PBJW was
also significantly positively related to general prosocial behaviors and
all six sub-dimensions of prosocial behaviors.
3.3. Mediation analyses
To examine whether parental warmth and PBJW mediate the rela­
tionship between family SES and prosocial behaviors, we performed
sequential mediation analyses in Mplus 8.0 with gender and age as
covariates. We first estimated the sequential mediation model with
general prosocial behaviors as the dependent variable. The hypothesized
model with all direct paths between the study variables showed an
excellent fit to the data. The indices were as follows: χ2 = 5.46, χ2/df =
0.68, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA < 0.001(90% CI = [0.000, 0.029]),
SRMR = 0.008. All path coefficients were significant, except for the
pathway from SES to PBJW (β = 0.05, p = 0.146) and the pathway from
SES to general prosocial behaviors (β = − 0.03, p = 0.36). After elimi­
nating the insignificant paths, the second model was estimated. This
model also showed an excellent fit to the data. The indices were as
follows: χ2 = 8.81, χ2/df = 0.88, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA < 0.001
(90% CI = [0.000, 0.032]), SRMR = 0.012. We compared these two
models and found no significant differences, Δχ2 = 3.35, Δdf = 2, p >
0.05. Nonetheless, the latter model was more concise; therefore, the
latter model was accepted. The path coefficients are presented in Fig. 1
(a). Specifically, the significant coefficients in the model suggested that
parents from higher SES families may have higher parental warmth, and
higher parental warmth may be associated with stronger PBJW and
more general prosocial behaviors. Stronger PBJW was also related to
more general prosocial behaviors. These results suggested that parental
warmth and PBJW might mediate the relationship between family SES
and general prosocial behaviors. The mediation effects of parental
warmth and PBJW were tested for significance using the bootstrap
estimation procedure in Mplus 8.0. From the dataset (N = 960), 10,000
bootstrap samples were generated using random sampling with
replacement. Table 2 shows the indirect effects and their associated 95%
confidence intervals (CI). Significance was determined if the 95% CI did
not include zero. Bootstrapping analysis indicated that all indirect ef­
fects were significant. Specifically, SES indirectly affected general pro­
social behaviors via parental warmth, and parental warmth – PBJW.
These results indicated that the association between SES and general
prosocial behaviors can be considered to be fully mediated by a simple
mediator (parental warmth) and a three-path mediator (parental
warmth – PBJW).
Then, we estimated the sequential mediation model with the sub-
dimensions of prosocial behaviors as the dependent variables. All the
methods and estimate procedures were the same as those described
above. The hypothesized model with all direct paths between the study
variables showed an excellent fit to the data. The indices were as fol­
lows: χ2 = 11.48, χ2/df = 0.88, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA < 0.001
(90% CI = [0.000, 0.029]), SRMR = 0.006. All path coefficients were
significant, except for the pathways from SES to PBJW and to the six
types of prosocial behaviors. After eliminating the insignificant paths,
the second model was estimated. This model also showed an excellent fit
to the data. The indices were as follows: χ2 = 22.68, χ2/df = 1.13, CFI =
1.00, TLI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.012 (90% CI = [0.000, 0.031]), SRMR =
0.010. We compared these two models and found no significant differ­
ences, Δχ2 = 11.20, Δdf = 7, p > 0.05. Nonetheless, the latter model was
more concise; therefore, the latter model was accepted. The path co­
efficients are presented in Fig. 1(b). We also tested the significance of the
mediation effects. The results are presented in Table 2. Bootstrapping
analysis indicated that all indirect effects were significant. Specifically,
SES indirectly affected public, anonymous, altruistic, compliant,
emotional, and dire prosocial behaviors via parental warmth, and both
parental warmth and PBJW. These results suggested that the mecha­
nisms between SES and the six types of prosocial behaviors are the same
as the mechanism between SES and general prosocial behaviors.
4. Discussion
The main objective of this study was to investigate the psychological
basis for the link between family SES and prosocial behaviors by
examining their interrelationship with parental warmth and PBJW. The
results indicated that the relationship between family SES and prosocial
behaviors was mediated by parental warmth, but not by PBJW. More­
over, parental warmth and PBJW sequentially mediated the relationship
between family SES and prosocial behaviors.
The results suggested that family SES was associated with individual
prosocial behaviors through parental warmth. Family SES as a distal
factor in ecological systems was expected to affect individuals indirectly
(Krishnan, 2010). Low-SES families may experience greater stress than
high-SES families; thus, parents with low family SES may have trouble
providing emotional warmth, support, and responsiveness to their
children (McLoyd, 1990). In contrast, parents with high family SES have
more financial and emotional resources to invest in their children and
are more likely to engage in more warm and less harsh parenting (Wu
et al., 2015). The warm manner in which their parents interact with

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlation scores among variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Gender 1
2. Age 0.29** 1
3. SES 0.03 − 0.15** 1
4. PW − 0.00 − 0.01 0.21** 1
5. PBJW − 0.01 − 0.01 0.12** 0.34** 1
6. General PB 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.26** 0.41** 1
7. Public PB 0.13** 0.02 0.09** 0.19** 0.33** 0.74** 1
8. Anonymous PB 0.07* 0.03 0.03 0.17** 0.30** 0.83** 0.48** 1
9. Altruistic PB − 0.08* − 0.03 0.03 0.26** 0.36** 0.84** 0.44** 0.70** 1
10. Compliant PB − 0.02 − 0.01 0.01 0.21** 0.34** 0.87** 0.61** 0.64** 0.69** 1
11. Emotional PB − 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.26** 0.35** 0.88** 0.60** 0.63** 0.72** 0.70** 1
12. Dire PB − 0.05 − 0.02 0.05 0.24** 0.40** 0.84** 0.58** 0.61** 0.71** 0.69** 0.73** 1
M 0.46 20.23 − 0.02 3.02 4.33 3.68 3.45 3.59 3.86 3.65 3.72 3.88
SD 0.50 1.46 0.73 0.73 0.78 0.51 0.68 0.63 0.61 0.58 0.59 0.60

Note. N = 960. PW = parental warmth; PB = prosocial behaviors. Gender was dummy coded with female = 0 and male = 1.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

4
S. Quan
Fig. 1. The sequential mediation model between SES and (a) general prosocial behaviors (b) sub-dimensions of prosocial behaviors. All coefficients are standardized.
Gender and age were controlled. To simplify the model, the covariates are not presented. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
family members or others would then be imitated and identified by their
children (Bandura & Walters, 1977). If children internalize these warm
interactions, they will exhibit more prosocial behaviors (Ngai, Xie, Ng, &
Ngai, 2018).
In addition, the relationship between family SES and prosocial be­
haviors was not mediated by PBJW. According to ecological systems
theory, the distal factor (family SES) may influence the family’s ability
to support individuals and their interaction manner with family mem­
bers, thereby indirectly influencing individuals through mediation
processes (Krishnan, 2010). This result is consistent with previous
findings (McLoyd, 1990; Wu et al., 2015) where it was suggested that
family SES was not directly associated with personal characteristics, but
rather caused a change in proximal factors such as parental warmth,
then associated with individual development.
More importantly, the sequential mediation effect of parental
warmth and PBJW between family SES and prosocial behaviors were
significant. This means that PBJW depends on parental warmth. The
more parental warmth individuals have experienced, the higher their
PBJW (Umemura & Šerek, 2016). According to ecological systems the­
ory, the distal factor (family SES) could link to individual outcomes
(prosocial behaviors) through the proximal factor (parental warmth).
Individuals are important agents in ecological systems, and their par­
ents’ influence is largely determined by the personal characteristics of
5
Children and Youth Services Review 120 (2021) 105680
them (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Krishnan, 2010). In the current study,
parents in higher SES families were found to provide more warmth,
support, and care for their children, and as parental warmth was posi­
tively associated with the development of PBJW, this could thereby have
prompted the likelihood of developing prosocial behaviors.
In addition, researchers have suggested that prosocial behaviors are
complex and multidimensional (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014). There­
fore, our study further analyzed the relationship between family SES and
specific forms of prosocial behaviors. Specifically, public prosocial be­
haviors are helping behaviors performed in front of others meant to gain
social acceptance. Anonymous prosocial behaviors refer to helping
when others are not aware of this help. Altruistic prosocial behaviors are
when an individual helps others with no expectation of rewards or
benefits for themselves. Compliant behaviors refer to helping others
when directed by others to do so. Emotional prosocial behaviors are
helping behaviors in situations that are emotionally intense. Lastly, dire
prosocial behaviors are defined as helping in crises (Carlo & Randall,
2002). The results of these specific forms of prosocial behaviors were all
consistent with general prosocial behaviors. This suggests that the psy­
chological basis for the link between family SES, parental warmth,
PBJW, and general prosocial behaviors or specific prosocial behaviors
was the same. Unlike individuals who grow up in an individualistic
context, Chinese emerging adults grow up in a collectivistic context and
S. Quan Children and Youth Services Review 120 (2021) 105680

Table 2 theory also emphasizes its reciprocal nature. However, the current study
Testing the magnitude and statistical significance of the mediation effect. only explored the impact of the family environment on individuals. The
Outcomes Model pathways Estimated 95% CI relationships among these variables may be more complicated than the
present hypotheses. Hence, the impact of individuals on their environ­
General PB SES → Parental Warmth → General 0.032 [0.016,
PB 0.052] ment needs to be conducted in future studies. Third, data on household
SES → Parental Warmth → PBJW → 0.027 [0.017, size and current SES were not collected. Future studies that also control
General PB 0.039] for household size and current SES are needed. Fourth, this study only
Public PB SES → Parental Warmth → Public PB 0.019 [0.004, targeted Chinese emerging adults. Studies have concluded that
0.038]
SES → Parental Warmth → PBJW → 0.022 [0.015,
parenting is influenced not only by the family but also by social context,
Public PB 0.033] which includes ethnicity and culture (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002).
Anonymous SES → Parental Warmth → 0.017 [0.003, Future studies should target samples from different countries to further
PB Anonymous PB 0.034] clarify whether the relationships among family SES, parental warmth,
SES → Parental Warmth → PBJW → 0.021 [0.013,
PBJW, and prosocial behaviors would be the same as in the current
Anonymous PB 0.031]
Altruistic PB SES → Parental Warmth → Altruistic 0.035 [0.019, study.
PB 0.054]
SES → Parental Warmth → PBJW → 0.023 [0.015, 5. Conclusions
Altruistic PB 0.034]
Compliant PB SES → Parental Warmth → 0.025 [0.009,
Compliant PB 0.045]
To conclude, both environmental factors and personal characteristics
SES → Parental Warmth → PBJW → 0.022 [0.014, are important for emerging adults’ prosocial behaviors. The relationship
Compliant PB 0.034] between family SES and prosocial behaviors was simply mediated by
Emotional PB SES → Parental Warmth → 0.037 [0.020, parental warmth and sequentially mediated by parental warmth and
Emotional PB 0.057]
PBJW. Increased SES, more parental warmth, and stronger PBJW may
SES → Parental Warmth → PBJW → 0.022 [0.014,
Emotional PB 0.033] increase the likelihood of developing prosocial behaviors among
Dire PB SES → Parental Warmth → Dire PB 0.027 [0.013, disadvantaged groups.
0.045]
SES → Parental Warmth → PBJW → 0.027 [0.017, Founding source
Dire PB 0.039]

Note. N = 960. CI = confidence interval; PB = prosocial behaviors.
are deeply influenced by Confucianism (Chen, Yu, Zhang, Li, & McGue,
2015). Initiating helping others is a traditional Chinese virtue. They are
more likely than others to consider assisting people in multiple situa­
tions. Public, anonymous, altruistic, compliant, emotional, and dire
prosocial behaviors are all commonly expressed among Chinese
emerging adults. Parental warmth and PBJW both play important roles
in mediating the relationship between family SES and public, anony­
mous, altruistic, compliant, emotional, and dire prosocial behaviors.
These findings provide valuable insights into multidimensional proso­
cial behaviors and fully reveal the mechanism between family SES and
different types of prosocial behaviors.
This study has several practical implications. The results shed light
on the relationship between family SES and prosocial behaviors. These
findings may provide valuable guidance toward effective psychological
interventions to encourage emerging adults’ prosocial behaviors. First, it
is important that the government and policy-makers pay special atten­
tion to economically disadvantaged families and provide subsidies for
them to reduce their life stress. Second, a particular focus could be
placed on improving parental warmth. Parents could be encouraged to
establish a sensitive and caring relationship with their children and
frequently provide them with warmth and emotional support. Parents
who cannot treat their children with warmth and care should be trained
in community service centers on how to interact with their children
warmly under the guidance of family professionals. Third, educators or
school counselors could try to teach emerging adults to distinguish be­
tween challenges and unfairness, so that they could develop a stronger
PBJW. In summary, strategies aimed at increasing the income of
disadvantaged families, improving parental warmth, and elevating
emerging adults’ PBJW might have beneficial effects on prosocial
behaviors.
We acknowledge several limitations of this study. First, the cross-
sectional design of this study makes it impossible to examine causal
relationships. Future studies should utilize a longitudinal design to
determine the causal relationship between these variables. Second,
ecological systems theory stipulates that a child’s development is shaped
by various systems in the environment and their interrelationships. This
This work was supported by the Shaanxi Xueqian Normal University
Scientific Research Foundation (2019ZDRS07).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sixiang Quan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Alessandri, G., Caprara, G. V., Eisenberg, N., & Steca, P. (2009). Reciprocal relations
among self-efficacy beliefs and prosociality across time. Journal of Personality, 77(4),
1229–1259.
Arnett. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bartlett, M. Y., & Desteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it
cost you. Psychological Science, 17(4), 319–325.
Bateman, L. B. (2014). Socioeconomic Status, Measurement. The Wiley Blackwell
Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior, and Society, 2227–2232.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In
P. A. Cowan, & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family Transitions (pp. 111–163).
Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Bègue, L. (2014). Do just-world believers practice private charity? Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 44, 71–76.
Bègue, L., Charmoillaux, M., Cochet, J., Cury, C., & Suremain, F. D. (2008). Altruistic
behavior and the bidimensional just world belief. American Journal of Psychology,
121(1), 47–56.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 21(3), 371–399.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental psychology of human development.
American Psychologist, 32, 513–532.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000).
Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11
(4), 302–306.
Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Tur, A., & Armenta, B. E. (2011). The longitudinal
relations among dimensions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral

6
S. Quan
reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
35(2), 116–124.
Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors
for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31–44.
Carlo, G., White, R., Streit, C., Knight, G. P., & Zeiders, K. H. (2017). Longitudinal
relations among parenting styles, prosocial behaviors, and academic outcomes in US
Mexican adolescents. Child Development, 89(2), 577–592.
Chen, J., Yu, J., Zhang, J., Li, X., & McGue, M. (2015). Investigating genetic and
environmental contributions to adolescent externalizing behavior in a collectivistic
culture: A multi-informant twin study. Psychological Medicine, 45(9), 1989–1997.
Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected
findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 64(2), 361–373.
Crosnoe, R., & Huston, A. C. (2007). Socioeconomic status, schooling, and the
developmental trajectories of adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(5),
1097–1110.
Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal
belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 79–98.
Dalbert, C., & Radant, M. (2004). Parenting and young adolescents’ belief in a just world.
In H. In Sallay, & C. Dalbert (Eds.), The justice motive in adolescence and young
adulthood: Origins and consequences (pp. 589–596). London and New York:
Routledge.
Davis, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An
emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). Prosocial development. In
R. M. Lerner, L. S. Liben, & U. Mueller (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and
developmental science, cognitive processes (pp. 1–47). New Jersey, US: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
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
(12), 2289–2307.
Fingerman, K. L., & Yahirun, J. J. (2016). Emerging adulthood in the context of family. In
J. J. Arnett (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Emerging Adulthood (pp. 163–176). New
York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
Gallo, L. C., Bogart, L. M., Vranceanu, A., & Matthews, K. A. (2005). Socioeconomic
status, resources, psychological experiences, and emotional responses: A test of the
reserve capacity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 386–399.
Greitemeyer, T., & Sagioglou, C. (2018). Does low (vs. high) subjective socioeconomic
status increase both prosociality and aggression? Social Psychology, 49(2), 76–87.
Grusec, J. E., & Davidov, M. (2010). Integrating different perspectives on socialization
theory and research: A domain-specific approach. Child Development, 81, 687–709.
Hastings, P. D., Utendale, W. D., & Sullivan, C. (2007). The socialization of prosocial
development. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization:
Theory and research (pp. 638–664). New York: Guilford Press.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6, 1–55.
Hur, Y. M., Taylor, J., Jeong, H. U., Park, M. S., & Haberstick, B. C. (2017). Perceived
family cohesion moderates environmental influences on prosocial behavior in
Nigerian adolescent twins. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 20(3), 226–235.
Jiang, H., Chen, G., & Wang, T. (2017). Relationship between belief in a just world and
internet altruistic behavior in a sample of Chinese undergraduates: Multiple
mediating roles of gratitude and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences,
104, 493–498.
Kaur, A., Yusof, N., Hashim, R. A., Ramli, R., Dalib, S., & Isa, N. M. (2019). The role of
developmental assets for prosocial behaviours among adolescents in Malaysia.
Children and Youth Service Review, 107, Article 104489.
Khaleque, A. (2013). Perceived parental warmth, and children’s psychological
adjustment, and personality dispositions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 22(2), 297–306.
Korndörfer, M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2015). A large scale test of the effect of
social class on prosocial behavior. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0133193.
Kotchick, B. A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of
the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 11, 255–269.
Kou, Y., Hong, H. F., Tan, C., & Li, L. (2007). Revisioning prosocial tendencies measure
for adolescent psychological. Psychological Development and Education, 23, 112–117.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012).
Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor.
Psychological Review, 119(3), 546–572.
Krishnan, V. (2010). Early child development: A conceptual model. Early Childhood
Council Annual Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in Black families and
White families. American Sociological Review, 67, 747–776.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhood: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Lareau, A., & Cox, A. (2011). “Social Class and the Transition to Adulthood: Differences
in Parents’ Interactions with Institutions.” pp. In M. Carlson, & P. England (Eds.),
Social Class and Changing Families in an Unequal America (pp. 134–164). Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Laurin, K., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Social disadvantage and the self-
regulatory function of justice beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100
(1), 149–171.
Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2013). Neighborhood social
connectedness and adolescent civic engagement: An integrative model. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 34, 45–54.
7
Children and Youth Services Review 120 (2021) 105680
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms.
Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process:
Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051.
Li, C. (2005). Prestige stratification in the contemporary China: Occupational prestige
measures and socio-economic index. Sociological Research, 2(74), 74–102.
Li, H., Song, Y., & Xie, X. (2019). Altruistic or selfish? Responses when safety is
threatened depend on childhood socioeconomic status. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 50(5), 1001–1016.
Llorca, A., Richaud, M. C., & Malonda, E. (2017). Parenting styles, prosocial, and
aggressive behavior: The role of emotions in offender and non-offender adolescents.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1246.
Malonda, E., Llorca, A., Mesurado, B., Samper, P., & Mestre, M. V. (2019). Parents or
peers? Predictors of prosocial behavior and aggression: A longitudinal study.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2379.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children:
Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child
Development, 61, 311–346.
Messer, E. J. E., Burgess, V., Sinclair, M., Grant, S., Spencer, D., & Mcguigan, N. (2017).
Young children display an increase in prosocial donating in response to an upwards
shift in generosity by a same-aged peer. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 2633.
Ngai, S. Y., Xie, L., Ng, Y. H., & Ngai, H. L. (2018). The effects of parenting behavior on
prosocial behavior of Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services
Review, 87, 154–162.
Oakes, J. M., & Rossi, R. H. (2003). The measurement of SES in health research: Current
practice and steps toward a new approach. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 769–784.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (Eds.). (2014). Prosocial development: A
multidimensional approach. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Fraser, A. M., Black, B. B., & Bean, R. A. (2015). Associations
between friendship, sympathy, and prosocial behavior toward friends. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 25(1), 28–35.
Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Linndstrom, H., Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980). Development
of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61(4), 265–274.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Rohner, R. P., & Britner, P. A. (2002). Worldwide mental health correlates of parental
acceptance-rejection: Review of cross-cultural and intercultural evidence. Cross-
Cultural Research, 36(1), 16–47.
Rohner, R. P., & Brothers, S. A. (1999). Perceived parental rejection, psychological
maladjustment, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1
(4), 81–95.
Ruiz-Ortiz, R., Braza, P., Carreras, R., & Muñoz, J. M. (2017). Differential effects of
mother’s and father’s parenting on prosocial and antisocial behavior: Child sex
moderating. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 26, 2182–2190.
Shi, B. G., & Shen, J. L. (2007). Relationship between creativity and family
socioeconomic status, intelligence and internal motivation. Psychological
Development and Education, 23, 30–34 (in Chinese).
Silke, C., Brady, B., Boylan, C., & Dolan, P. (2018). Factors influencing the development
of empathy and pro-social behaviour among adolescents: A systematic review.
Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 421–436.
Silver, K. E., Karakurt, G., & Boysen, S. T. (2015). Predicting prosocial behavior toward
sex-trafficked persons: The roles of empathy, belief in a just world, and attitudes
toward prostitution. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 24(8), 932–954.
Spence, J. R., Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2011). Understanding daily
citizenship behaviors: A social comparison perspective. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32(4), 547–571.
Strickhouser, J. E., & Sutin, A. R. (2020). Family and neighborhood socioeconomic status
and temperament development from childhood to adolescence. Journal of
Personality, 8(3), 515–529.
Su, Z., Zhang, D., & Wang, X. (2012). Revising of belief in a just world scale and its
reliability and validity in college students. Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and
Brain Science, 21(6), 561–563.
Sun, L., Tan, P., Cheng, Y., Chen, J., & Qu, C. (2015). The effect of altruistic tendency on
fairness in third-party punishment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 820.
Thomas, K. J., & Napolitano, P. H. (2017). Educational privilege: The role of school
context in the development just world beliefs among Brazilian adolescents.
International Journal of Psychology, 52(S1), 106–113.
Umemura, T., & Šerek, J. (2016). Different developmental pathways from parental
warmth to adolescents’ trust in peers and politicians: Mediating roles of adolescent-
parent attachment and belief in a just world. Social Justice Research, 29(2), 186–205.
Wang, W., Yi, L., Wu, M. Y., Pearce, P. L., & Huang, S. S. (2018). Examining Chinese
adult children’s motivations for traveling with their parents. Tourism Management,
69, 422–433.
Wang Z. D. (2016). Why Chinese undergraduates can’t be financially independent?
Retrieved September 2, 2016, from zqb.cyol.com/html/2016-09/02/nw.
D110000zgqnb_20160902_4-02.htm.
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for
prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222–244.
Wentzel, K. R. (2012). School adjustment. In W. Reynolds, & G. Miller (Eds.), Educational
psychology: Handbook of psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 213–231). New York: Wiley.
Wong, M. M., Ma, J. L., & Chan, L. C. (2019). The impact of poverty on children in out-of-
home care services in a Chinese context and the application of multiple family group
therapy to enrich their family lives. Children and Youth Services Review, 97, 76–84.
S. Quan
Wu, L., Zhang, D., Cheng, G., Hu, T., & Rost, D. (2015). Parental emotional warmth and
psychological suzhi as mediators between socioeconomic status and problem
behaviours in Chinese children. Children & Youth Services Review, 59, 132–138.
Xie, X. N., & Li, X. P. (2018). The effect of subjective social class on prosocial behavior.
Studies of Psychology and Behavior., 16(4), 563–569.
Xing, X., Liu, X., & Wang, M. (2019). Parental warmth and harsh discipline as mediators
of the relations between family SES and Chinese preschooler’s inhibitory control.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 48, 237–245.
Children and Youth Services Review 120 (2021) 105680
Yu, G., Zhao, F., Wang, H., & Li, S. (2018). Subjective social class and distrust among
Chinese college students: The mediating roles of relative deprivation and belief in a
just world. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9908-5
Yuan, Y., Sun, X., Chen, Q., Liu, Z., & Xue, G. (2020). Family socioeconomic status and
youth leadership potential: Serial mediating effects of parental rearing behaviors and
youth self-esteem. Current Psychology (online).
Zhou, C. Y., & Guo, Y. Y. (2013). Impact of family social status on mental health:
Mediating role of belief in a just world. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21(4),
636–664.