840239

research-article2019
YASXXX10.1177/0044118X19840239Youth & SocietyHui et al.

Article
Youth & Society
1­–20
Having Less But Giving © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
More: Work Experience sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X19840239
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X19840239
and Prosocial Behavior journals.sagepub.com/home/yas

of Chinese Working-
Class Youth

Bryant P. H. Hui1 , Ngai Pun1 ,

Jack Linchuan Qiu2, and Anita Koo3

Abstract
Adolescent behavior is often negatively viewed especially regarding
work experience. By introducing a concept of prosocial behavior, our
study attempts to provide an alternative view on the effects of teenage
job and work experience. We hypothesized that work experience
could generate more prosocial behaviors. By surveying a large group of
working-class youth (N = 2,860) from eight Chinese vocational schools
and using structural equation modeling, we confirmed that the pattern
of “having less, giving more” could be found in our sample. Our findings
revealed that work experience could facilitate prosocial behavior via the
increase of knowledge of both contract-based rights and labor action.
By understanding working-class youth’s prosocial behavior as a positive
outcome of work experience, this study calls for further research on
other positive outcomes, such as cooperation, civic engagement, and
solidarity, among working-class youth.

1The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

2The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
3The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China

Corresponding Author:
Ngai Pun, Department of Sociology, The University of Hong Kong, 9/F., The Jockey Club
Tower, Centennial Campus, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Email: npun@hku.hk
2 Youth & Society 00(0)

Keywords
youth, SES, work experience, part-time job, prosocial behavior

Youth’s Prosocial Behavior

Identifying the intellectual heritage of sociological thinking, such as
Durkheim’s writings on solidarity and Sorokin’s analysis on altruistic love,
would help build the core values of altruistic sentiments and prosocial behav-
ior as basic attributes of social solidarity (see Jeffries, 2014). In recent years,
sociologists and psychologists have expanded inquiries on altruism, proso-
ciality, and social solidarity (Drinkard, 2017; Lindenberg, Fetchenhauer,
Flache, & Bunnk, 2006; Simpson & Willer, 2015). Broadly, prosocial behav-
ior can be conceptualized as a willingness to help, be fair and friendly to
others, and is a bedrock of civil society (Drinkard, 2017). Beneficial to indi-
vidual well-being in general (Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008), it serves as a
marker for resilience and youth’s positive development in specific (Larson &
Moses, 2017).
Although adolescent antisocial behavior catches more attention in youth
studies, scholars have highlighted the missing area of positive youth develop-
ment (Drinkard, 2017; Fu, Liu, Yang, Zhang, & Kou, 2018). Prior studies on
adolescent prosocial behavior attempt to fill this gap by researching the cor-
relations between child development and intellectual capacity in generating
prosocial behavior (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2002). Psychological research pro-
vides compelling evidence that individual motivations, intrinsic aspirations,
and social preference goals rather than extrinsic goals or material rewards
have stronger correlations with prosocial behavior (Fu et al., 2018; Wright,
Li, & Shi, 2014). Sociological studies instead show that socioeconomic fac-
tors such as childhood poverty (Lichter, Shanahan, & Gardner, 2002), family
and parental effects, neighborhood, and community engagement (Drinkard,
2017; Liang et al., 2018; Yoo, Feng, & Day, 2013), and even the media
(Wright, 2018) have complicated and yet significant relationships with
youth’s prosocial behavior. Moving beyond these studies emphasizing mul-
tiple socio-psychological and situational determinants of prosocial behavior,
we examine a missing link between work experience and adolescent proso-
cial behavior. We ask, “Under what socioeconomic and social contexts can
work experience possibly predict one’s prosocial behavior?”
Work experience in contemporary society is often taken as embodying a
fragmented workforce due to divisions among workers on the basis of race,
ethnicity, gender, education, skill, and other differences (Standing, 2011).
Recent debates on labor precarity and the “precariat class” have precluded
discussion on positive outcomes from work experience and work solidarity
Hui et al. 3

(Standing, 2011, 2017). Work experience among teenagers is often believed

to have a negative impact on human agency because of labor market competi-
tion and other social barriers (e.g., Robert & Saar, 2012; Weiss, Klein, &
Grauenhorst, 2014).
Contrary to widely held views against teenage work experience, this arti-
cle attempts to demonstrate that work experience can generate positive out-
comes of prosocial behavior in adolescent’s everyday practices. Studying
vocational students in China—most of whom coming from rural areas, shar-
ing working-class backgrounds, having part-time work experiences as well as
considerable in-group variation in socioeconomic status (SES)—we examine
the possibility of prosocial behavior found in school and daily life.

“Having Less, Giving More”: A Marker of Working-

Class Youth?
This study builds on a cross-fertilization between sociology and social psy-
chology in which individuals’ SES intersects with social context and social
mechanisms in shaping adolescent prosocial behavior. Piff, Kraus, Côté,
Cheng, and Keltner (2010) proposed a hypothesis of “having less, giving
more” and demonstrated that lower social class people exhibited more gener-
osity, more support for charity, more trust toward strangers, and more helping
behavior toward people in distress, possibly because of greater compassion
and commitment to egalitarian values. They successfully challenged the bias
that lower classes are less prosocial, prioritizing self-interest over the welfare
of others due to fewer resources, greater exposure to threat, and reduced
sense of personal control.
Similarly, Kraus, Piff, and Keltner (2009) maintained that lower social class
people are more sensitive to others and tend to be more socially engaged.
Moreover, acts of generosity and cooperation among lower class people facili-
tate relationships and strengthen bonds of mutual support. For those lacking
resources and working under precarious conditions, prosocial orientation can
generate a web of connections vital to survival in a threatening environment.
Hence, various studies echo that lower income individuals are more charitable
than those with higher income (e.g., Andreoni, 2001; Piff & Moskowitz, 2017).
Benefiting from extant literature, we intend to advance the hypothesis of
“having less, giving more” by zooming into a working-class youth sample
whose range of SES variation is much smaller than in previous studies.
Furthermore, our project focuses on work experiences which constitute a
context under which social relationships could be formed to achieve common
good.
4 Youth & Society 00(0)

Work Experience, Labor Rights Knowledge, and

Prosocial Behavior
It remains debatable whether youth’s work experience could generate posi-
tive or negative outcome. Although some show that working during school
year may have such negative outcomes as poor academic performance, higher
rates of school absenteeism, and risk of dropout (e.g., Schoenhals, Tienda, &
Schneider, 1998; Warren & Lee, 2003), others suggest that it appears to facil-
itate the educational attainment of low-promise youth (e.g., Staff & Mortimer,
2007). In line with the latter, our study contributes to an alternative view of
work experience by exploring the positive outcomes of adolescent behavior
through prosocial behavior. Our study focuses on vocational-school students,
almost half of whom taking up jobs either as part-timers or casual workers.
We hypothesize that working-class youth, especially those who have to work
during weekends, summer, and winter breaks, are more prosocial in everyday
practices. By surveying these students, we also examine what social condi-
tions and possible mechanisms would facilitate prosocial behavior.
It is common to find vocational-school students in China doing part-time
or summer jobs (Ling, 2015). The experience provides them opportunity to
join “a real school” of learning the work life. Students are expected to acquire
skills and knowledge related to employment, including knowledge of con-
tract-based rights and knowledge about labor action. We propose that, apart
from their understanding of basic protections, the knowledge of contract-
based rights acquired through work may enhance their awareness of labor
situation and consciousness of labor rights. This attainment of labor rights
knowledge may also involve sharing among students, which probably occurs
through a mutual support process, requiring altruistic spirit to share knowl-
edge for common good, as reflected by prosocial acts in everyday practices.
We therefore reckon that the understanding of contract-based rights may in
turn predict prosocial behavior.
Furthermore, students’ knowledge of labor action is expected to reflect
their inclination to join a group and depend on the group for protection and
problem-solving. As work experience increases, so does their understanding
of labor rights. These may further motivate their learning about labor action,
such as forming a mobilization strategy and organizing collective action (see
also Tiryakian & Morgan, 2014). The acquisition of this knowledge and the
collective awareness may also make them realize the importance of coopera-
tion, mutual support, and contribution to a common good, which is partially,
if not entirely, overlapped with the concept of prosocial behavior. Thus, we
theorize that the knowledge of labor action may possibly predict prosocial
behavior in everyday life.
Hui et al. 5

The Present Study: Prosocial Behavior Among

Working Youth
While situating our project in Chinese vocational schools, we construe
youth’s active learning process as acquiring labor rights knowledge through
part-time work, subsequently achieving the common good of prosocial
behavior. In this study, prosocial behavior in everyday life, conceptualized as
acts of informal and formal helping, is demonstrated through spontaneous
activities and daily support among vocational-school students and formal
participation in volunteering activities organized by their schools. We employ
cross-sectional survey design and structural equation modeling to examine
the effects of SES and work experiences of vocational students on their labor
rights knowledge and prosocial behavior.
Our study pioneers an exploration of positive outcomes from work experi-
ence and their relationship to prosocial behavior by providing two dimen-
sions of analysis. First, we study whether the social conditions (one’s SES)
predict prosocial behavior. Second, to understand the social mechanisms
behind the association, we look into the work experience of these students—
one’s job and labor rights knowledge. Specifically, we study whether SES (in
what conditions) and work experience (what kind of social context and when)
contribute to prosocial behavior among vocational students. They are mea-
sured as follows:

1. SES—individuals’ socioeconomic background in terms of household

income, parental education level, and rural or urban origins.
2. Work experiences—individuals’ engagement in labor relations such
as part-time or casual job and their active acquisition of knowledge of
contract-based rights and knowledge about labor action.

In short, we study whether SES as an objective dimension of social

condition and work experience as reflected by subjective acquirement of
labor rights knowledge would have a positive relationship with prosocial
behavior. Regarding the subjective work experiences, we employ a Labor
Rights Knowledge Scale (Hui & Pun, 2019) to understand vocational stu-
dents who need to take part-time jobs to support school expenses and daily
necessities.
This is the first study to examine how the SES of working youth and their
work experience influence prosocial behavior, indicated by informal helping
and formal school volunteering work, in the context of China. Four hypoth-
eses are formulated based on the above review:
6 Youth & Society 00(0)

Hypothesis 1: SES would negatively predict prosocial behavior, indicated

by informal helping and school volunteering work.
Hypothesis 2: Part-time work experience would have a positive impact on
both informal helping and school volunteering.
Hypothesis 3: Knowledge of contract-based rights would mediate the
effect of part-time job experience on both informal helping and school
volunteering.
Hypothesis 4: Knowledge of labor action would mediate the effect of
part-time job experience on both informal helping and school
volunteering.

Method
Participants and Procedure
This study was the quantitative arm of a large-scale mixed-methods
research project investigating the process of “learning-to-labor” among
working-class vocational-school youth in China. The present data set is
collected from a cross-sectional survey of 10th to 12th grade students aged
16 to 19 years from eight vocational schools located in the urban areas of
Anhui, Gansu, Guizhou, Inner Mongolia, and Zhejiang. Seven of these
schools are public, whereas only one is private. Across the eight schools,
data collected on family and class background, rural to urban migration,
gender ratio, and work experience share more commonalities than differ-
ences. Principals and teachers from these schools agreed to join the study
and facilitated data collection after they attended a conference for voca-
tional-school educators in 2017. A total of 7,308 potential respondents
from the schools were invited to participate in the study. Respondents were
asked to grant online informed consent before filling in our self-adminis-
tered survey using their computers or mobile devices. A total of 4,178
respondents signed the informed consent and completed the survey on vol-
untary basis without any monetary award. To identify careless responses
and ensure reliability (Maniaci & Rogge, 2014; Meade & Craig, 2012), we
embedded six bogus items in the questionnaire. After data cleaning by
excluding those who answered more than two bogus items incorrectly and
completed our survey in less than 15 minutes, our final sample consists of
2,860 respondents (1,385 females; Mage = 18.56, SD = 1.97). Therefore,
despite the limitation of non-probability sampling, this is a unique, high-
quality data set designed to address the significant theoretical questions
we decided to investigate.
Hui et al. 7

Measures
SES. We constructed a latent variable reflecting the respondents’ SES using
their parents’ monthly income (1 = US$0 to US$237, 2 = US$238 to US$475,
3 = US$476 to US$712, 4 = US$713 to US$950, 5 = US$951 to US$1,187,
6 = US$1,188 to US$1,425, 7 > US$1,425), father’s and mother’s education
level (1 = primary school or below, 2 = secondary school, 3 = high school,
4 = diploma, 5 = undergraduate or above), and their origin (official house-
hold registration being rural or urban).

Work experience. A single, dichotomous item (yes or no) indicates whether

respondents had part-time job experience during weekend, summer, or winter
vacation.

Informal helping. We employed the 5-item Self-Report Altruism Scale as a

measure of informal helping on everyday basis (Penner, 2002; Penner, Frit-
zsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995). Respondents indicated on a scale from 1
(never) to 5 (very often), the frequency with which they have engaged in
informal helping (α = .74). Sample items are “I have let a neighbor whom I
didn’t know too well borrow an item of some value (e.g., tools, a dish)” and
“I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger cross a street.”

School volunteering work. A single item “I have participated in school volun-

teering work” was used. Respondents were instructed to rate the frequency
from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).

Knowledge of contract-based rights and labor action. The Labor Right Knowl-
edge Scale was employed to assess respondents’ knowledge of contract-based
rights and labor action (Hui & Pun, 2019). The respondents indicated on a
scale from 1 (do not understand completely) to 5 (fully understand) the extent
to which they understand contract-based rights (seven items; α = .90) and
labor action (three items; α = .85). Sample items tapping knowledge of con-
tract-based rights are “Work injuries and occupational diseases can get statu-
tory compensation” and “Workers have to keep one copy of the labor
contract.” Sample items on labor action are “How to become a labor union
member” and “What collective action on labor protection is about.”

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among all variables were
examined before testing our hypothesized model. Maximum likelihood
8 Youth & Society 00(0)

estimation for a structural equation model (SEM) was then utilized to test the
fit of our model. All analyses were estimated in the lavaan package in R
(Rosseel, 2012). Model fit was assessed using comparative fit index (CFI),
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA). A model with CFI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08, and
RMSEA < 0.08 is considered as reflecting an acceptable fit to the data (Hair,
Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2010). To test the indirect effect of part-
time job experience on informal helping and school volunteering via knowl-
edge of contract-based rights and knowledge of labor action, we conducted a
bootstrap analysis in which bias-corrected confidence intervals were con-
structed by drawing 5,000 random samples with replacement from the full
sample.

Results
Descriptive Analysis
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of our variables of interest. In terms of
parents’ monthly income, 38% had US$0 to US$237, 33% had US$238 to
US$475, 13% had US$476 to US$712, 8% had US$713 to US$950, 3% had
US$951 to US$1,187, 2% had US$1,188 to US$1,425, and 3% had more than
US$1,425. Father’s education attainment was 39% primary school or below,
44% secondary school, 12% high school, 2% diploma, and 3% undergraduate
or above, whereas mother’s education attainment was 58% primary school or
below, 30% secondary school, 8% high school, 2% diploma, and 2% under-
graduate or above. Eighty-six percent of the respondents were from rural
areas and 14% from urban areas. It is clear that vocational students mainly
come from working-class families with rural background. Most respondents
are working-class youth. Among them, 47% reported to have part-time work
experience.

Correlational Analysis
Correlation coefficients among variables are presented in Table 2. The results
showed that the indicators of SES—parents’ income, r(2,858) = –.13,
p < .001; father’s education level, r(2,858) = –.06, p = .003; mother’s edu-
cation level, r(2,858) = –.08, p < .001; rural versus urban, r(2,858) = –.08,
p < .001—were negatively correlated with informal helping. Similarly, these
indicators were negatively correlated with school volunteering: parents’
income, r(2,858) = –.09, p < .001; father’s education level, r(2,858) = –.04,
p = .058; mother’s education level, r(2,858) = –.03, p = .123; rural versus
Hui et al. 9

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.

M (SD) or %

N = 2,860 Males (n = 1,475) Females (n = 1,385)

Age (years) 18.56 (1.97) 18.34 (1.91) 18.8 (2.00)
Parents’ income (US$)
0 to 237 38 35 40
238 to 475 33 30 36
476 to 712 13 15 11
713 to 950 8 9 7
951 to 1,187 3 4 3
1,188 to 1,425 2 3 1
>1,425 3 4 2
Father’s education
Primary or below 39 38 40
Secondary 44 43 45
High school 12 13 11
Diploma 2 3 1
Undergraduate or above 3 4 3
Mother’s education
Primary or below 58 56 60
Secondary 30 30 30
High school 8 10 7
Diploma 2 2 2
Undergraduate or above 2 2 1
Origins
Rural 86 85 87
Urban 14 15 13
Part-time job experience
Yes 47 48 47
No 53 52 53
KCBR 3.42 (0.77) 3.42 (0.79) 3.42 (0.75)
KLA 2.81 (0.80) 2.83 (0.81) 2.79 (0.80)
Informal helping 2.86 (0.77) 2.85 (0.77) 2.87 (0.78)
School volunteering 2.72 (1.14) 2.72 (1.14) 2.72 (1.14)

Note. KCBR = knowledge of contract-based rights; KLA = knowledge of labor action.

urban, r(2,858) = –.04, p = .023. Although father’s and mother’s education

levels are not statistically significant, they are in the predicted directions.
These preliminary results confirmed Hypothesis 1 that the respondents with
10
Table 2. Intercorrelations for the Measures (N = 2,860).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Age — .09*** –.15*** –.10*** –.17*** –11*** .05* .03 .01 .10*** .05*
2. Gendera — –.12*** .07*** .08*** –.04* –.02 .00 –.02 .01 .00
3. Parents’ income — .31 .36*** .15*** –.05* .14*** .06** –.13*** –.09***
4. Father’s education — .57*** .29*** .01 .10*** .07*** –.06** –.04
5. Mother’s education — .35 .00 .08*** .06** –.08*** –.03
6. Rural vs. urbanb — –.01 .05* .03 –.08*** –.04*
7. PTJE — .09*** .08*** .15*** .19***
8. KCBR .90 .60*** .13*** .15***
9. KLA .85 .15*** .21***
10. Informal helping .74 .51***
11. School volunteering —

Note. The reliability coefficients are found along the diagonal line. PTJE = part-time job experience; KCBR = knowledge of contract-based rights;
KLA = knowledge of labor action.
aMale = 1, female = 2.
bRural = 1, urban = 2.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hui et al. 11

relatively lower SES are more prosocial. The correlational results also dem-
onstrated that part-time job experience was positively correlated with infor-
mal help, r(2,858) = .15, p < .001, and school volunteering, r(2,858) = .19,
p < .001. In addition, knowledge of contract-based rights was positively cor-
related with part-time work experience, r(2,858) = .09, p < .001; informal
helping, r(2,858) = .13, p < .001; and school volunteering, r(2,858) = .15,
p < .001. In a similar vein, knowledge of labor action was positively corre-
lated with part-time job experience, r(2,858) = .08, p < .001; informal help-
ing, r(2,858) = .15, p < .001; and school volunteering, r(2,858) = .21, p <
.001. These results are in line with our hypotheses, and thus we could move
on to test them in a more stringent manner.

SEM Analysis
SEM was performed to test our hypotheses in one complete model. The SEM
results showed that our proposed model fitted the data well, χ2(178) =
1,326.26, p < .001, CFI = .95, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .05. Standardized
factor loadings ranged from .38 to .84 and were all statistically significant, ps
< .001 (see Table 3). As shown in Figure 1, SES negatively predicted infor-
mal helping, β = –.14, p < .001, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [–.18,
–.09], and school volunteering, β = –.08, p < .001, 95% CI = [–.12, –.03].
Part-time job experience positively predicted informal helping, β = .14, p <
.001, 95% CI = [.10, .18], and school volunteering, β = .17, p < .001, 95%
CI = [.13, .20]. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were confirmed.
Furthermore, we tested whether there was an indirect effect of part-time
work experience on informal helping and school volunteering through knowl-
edge of contract-based rights and/or knowledge of labor action. The results in
Figure 1 indicate that part-time work experience positively predicted knowl-
edge of contract-based rights, β = .10, p < .001, 95% CI = [.06, .13], which
in turn positively predicted informal helping, β = .09, p = .007, 95% CI =
[.02, .15], but not school volunteering, β = .02, p = .524, 95% CI = [–.04,
.07]. Consistently, results of bootstrap analyses showed that the indirect
effect of part-time work experience on informal helping was significant, β =
.008, p = .018, biased-corrected bootstrap 95% CI = [.002, .017], but not on
school volunteering, β = .002, p = .527, biased-corrected bootstrap 95% CI
= [–.004, .008]. In a parallel manner, part-time experience positively pre-
dicted knowledge of labor action, β = .09, p < .001, 95% CI = [.05, .12],
which in turn positively predicted both informal helping, β = .13, p < .001,
95% CI = [.06, .20], and school volunteering, β = .20, p < .001, 95% CI =
[.14, .26]. Similarly, results of bootstrap analyses also demonstrated signifi-
cant indirect effect of part-time job experience on both informal helping, β =
12 Youth & Society 00(0)

Table 3. Unstandardized and Standardized Factor Loadings.

Parameter estimates Unstandardized loading (SE) Standardized loading

SES Parents’ income 1.00 .45
SES Father’s education 1.08 (.06)*** .82
SES Mother’s education 0.99 (.05)*** .69
SES Rural vs. urban 0.22 (.01)*** .42
KCBR Item C1 1.00 .79
KCBR Item C2 0.98 (.02)*** .77
KCBR Item C3 0.97 (.02)*** .76
KCBR Item C4 0.95 (.02)*** .76
KCBR Item C5 0.90 (.02)*** .73
KCBR Item C6 0.99 (.02)*** .79
KCBR Item C7 0.90 (.02)*** .71
KLA Item L1 1.00 .84
KLA Item L2 1.01 (.02)*** .84
KLA Item L3 0.94 (.02)*** .77
Informal helping Item H1 1.00 .65
Informal helping Item H2 0.63 (.04)*** .38
Informal helping Item H3 1.03 (.04)*** .62
Informal helping Item H4 1.21 (.04)*** .69
Informal helping Item H5 1.13 (.04)*** .69

Note. SES = Socioeconomic status; KCBR = knowledge of contract-based rights; KLA =

knowledge of labor action.
***p < .001.

.011, p = .003, biased-corrected bootstrap 95% CI = [.005, .021], and school

volunteering, β = .017, p < .001, biased-corrected bootstrap 95% CI =
[.009, .028]. In summary, results of the mediation analysis supported
Hypotheses 3 and 4 except that the prediction of school volunteering by
knowledge of contract-based rights was not significant, although the correla-
tion was significant, and the path was in the predicted direction in the SEM.

Robustness Checks
We first added covariates of age and gender in our model. The change of model
fit is minimum, χ2(208) = 1,481.50, p < .001, CFI = .94, SRMR = .05,
RMSEA = .05, and the paths in our proposed model remain significant.
Because data were gathered from multiple schools, we repeated our SEM analy-
sis with school effect controlled. The fit indices of the model remained satisfac-
tory, χ2(290) = 2,403.00, p < .001, CFI = .92, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .04,
Hui et al. 13

Figure 1. Structural equation model testing the effect of socioeconomic status

and part-time job experience on prosocial behaviors (N = 2,860).
Note. SES is indicated by parents’ income, father’s education, mother’s education, and rural
versus urban. Knowledge of contract-based rights is indicated by seven items (i.e., C1-
C7). Knowledge of labor action is indicated by three items (i.e., L1-L3). Informal helping
is indicated by five items (i.e., H1-H5). Unstandardized (not italicized) and standardized
(italicized) beta coefficients with standard errors in parentheses are presented. Dashed lines
represent a nonsignificant relationship (p > .05). CFI = .95. SRMR = .05. RMSEA = .05.
SES = socioeconomic status; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean
square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.

and the significance of all paths is the same except the link between SES and
school volunteering is marginally significant (p = .077). Finally, the origin vari-
able is one of the observed variables for SES. People from urban area may be
less helpful than their rural counterparts (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). We
tested whether the negative relationship between SES and prosocial behavior
still holds if the origin variable is taken out of SES and used as a control vari-
able instead. The results remained unchanged, especially the direction and sig-
nificance of the link between SES and both informal helping and school
volunteering. The overall model fit remains satisfactory, χ2(207) = 2,051.66, p
< .001, CFI = .92, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .06.

Discussion
In China, family SES continues to affect adolescents’ educational opportu-
nity and cause inequality. This study focuses on vocational-school students,
who are often stigmatized as “losers” in the education system (Woronov,
14 Youth & Society 00(0)

2011, 2015) and labeled as “troublesome students” lacking motivation in

learning (Ling, 2015). These students often do part-time and casual work as
found in the present study. Despite the negative views, we discover strong
evidence of working-class students engaging in informal helping and school
volunteering.
Most importantly, our findings suggest that SES is negatively associated
with informal helping and school volunteering among Chinese working-class
youth. That is, working-class students with lower SES are more prosocial
than those with higher SES. Our correlational results demonstrate that the
lower the family income, the lower the education level of their family, and the
rural (vs. urban) origin of the students, the higher the tendency for them to
provide informal help and school volunteering. While the “having less, giv-
ing more” thesis can therefore be generalized to a specific group of working-
class youth with much smaller SES variation, extending Piff et al.’s (2010)
original idea, we have paid particular attention to the working-class youth
with higher SES who look less prosocial and give less.
Our study also contributes distinctively to the study of work experience by
providing ammunition to the “positive outcomes” camp (e.g., Staff &
Mortimer, 2007) and demonstrating the positive relationship between work
experience and prosocial behavior. Consistent with our prediction, working-
class youth with work experience showed higher levels of informal helping
and school volunteering than those without. An earlier study by Shirk (1978)
highlighted the specific practice of work in Chinese educational system,
especially during the Maoist period when work experiences were valued in
schooling and integrated in formal curriculum that combined manual labor
with study. Mao Zedong believed in the transformative power of labor to
achieve socialist egalitarianism (Shirk, 1978). Although our study could not
prove the magic power of work experiences during schooling, it did confirm
our prediction that students from poor families who work part-time are more
prosocial, which possibly generates mutual support when encountering prob-
lems and difficulties. Based on qualitative research (Smith & Pun, 2018),
students of lower SES were found to be prosocial and cooperative such as
sharing job information and tips for surviving in labor markets not only as
individuals but also as peer groups. Lacking resources did not necessarily
accelerate competition. Rather, working-class students tended to build strong
bonds and network among themselves to offset cheating and bullying in labor
market although many are premature to work legally.
One of the mediational paths demonstrates that work experience posi-
tively predicts higher levels of knowledge concerning contract-based rights,
which in turn predicts more informal helping. Probably because working-
class students realized that exploitation at work is not uncommon (e.g.,
Hui et al. 15

Brown & deCant, 2014; Pun & Koo, 2019), they learnt from their work expe-
rience that they must protect their basic labor rights so they were eager to
acquire knowledge of China’s Labor Contract Law. Students shared labor
rights knowledge that they learnt at school and sometimes discussed it vigor-
ously among their peers when facing wage arrears or work injuries (Smith &
Pun, 2018). Social connection and willingness to help are of particular impor-
tance to these working-class students who learnt how to cope with difficulties
that frequently happen. These social contexts in turn help nurture their proso-
cial behavior dispositions in their everyday practices.
Another mediational path shows that engaging in work is also associated
with higher levels of knowledge about labor action, which in turn predicts
more informal helping and school volunteering behaviors. Students with rich
work experiences possess higher levels of knowledge concerning trade union
as well, understanding better how to become union members compared with
those who have not worked. Paradoxically, while these students may have
higher levels of knowledge about labor action, most of them lack proper labor
relationship with employers. In other words, they are ineligible to join work-
place unions because legally they are regarded as “students” or “interns”
instead of “workers” (Chan, Pun, & Selden, 2015; Pun & Koo, 2015).
Although they cannot be protected officially by Chinese union, they know
how to organize collective action, how to fight back and obtain wage com-
pensation upon their “sweated labor.” Working as a waitron in evenings or
distributing real estate leaflets during weekends, these students are often sub-
jected to casual payment or sometimes no payment at all. Through working
with each other, they may encounter industrial conflicts when cooperative
and prosocial behaviors would emerge. Back to school, these students would
also actively participate in informal helping in everyday life and school vol-
unteering. Work experience during school year paradoxically produces posi-
tive outcome by nurturing a propensity to help others.

Implications and Conclusions

This article is the first attempt to understand youth’s prosocial behavior and
its relationship with work experience by bridging the social psychology con-
cept of prosocial behavior and sociological analysis of work experience con-
cerning the human agency of working-class youth. After an extensive
expansion of vocational education in China since the 1980s, nowadays about
half of Chinese youth end up in vocational schools (Koo, 2016). Vocational
schools provide fertile soil for the nurturing of Chinese working class whose
underage members learn, live, and work together. Working-class status is
often associated with increased antisocial and decreased prosocial behaviors
16 Youth & Society 00(0)

among adolescents (Machell, Disabato, & Kashdan, 2016). Similarly, child-

hood socioeconomic disadvantages are believed to generate negative effects
on later prosocial behavior among adolescents (Lichter et al., 2002). Our
study, however, observes helping behavior among students who come from
poor families, with parents receiving lower education, and often of rural ori-
gins. Yet, they demonstrate higher levels of prosocial behavior as indicated
by informal helping and school volunteering work. Shye (2010) provided a
systemic study of volunteering in relation to possible benefits. One possible
direction of future research on working-class youth is that volunteering activ-
ities may create beneficial effects on adolescents by attenuating antisocial
behavior through a negative relationship between volunteering work and
crime (Uggen & Janikula, 1999).
As Qiu (2009) contends in the broader category of China’s “information have-
less”: “‘less’ does not necessarily imply inferiority; it could also mean . . . less
commitment to the status quo” (p. 13). This article challenges negative views on
work experience and its impact on youth’s development by attempting to dis-
cover a variety of prosocial behaviors among vocational students. Work experi-
ence paradoxically could contribute to positive outcomes of life experience.
It is prudent to highlight three limitations of the present project, which
deserve further study. First, while the general “having less, giving more”
hypothesis is confirmed in this sample of working-class youth, whether work
experience during school year predicts positive outcome of prosocial behavior
in other youth groups needs further investigation. Second, it is possible that low
SES youth and high SES youth may exhibit different forms of prosociality.
Although it is widely accepted among psychologists to use informal helping
(i.e., self-reported altruism) and formal helping (i.e., school volunteer work) to
tap prosocial behavior, future research may cover other facets of prosociality,
such as monetary or blood donation (e.g., Cheng, Kwok, Cheung, & Yip,
2017). The third limitation is that we have no quantitative data on (a) the stu-
dents’ reasons for doing part-time job, such as financial necessity, gaining work
experience, and increase of labor market opportunities; (b) whether vocational
schools favor or support students’ part-time jobs—although they do require
internship for vocational learning; and (c) the nature of part-time work. We
encourage efforts to address these questions qualitatively and quantitatively.
Our findings call for more scrutiny on the relationships among prosocial behav-
ior, cooperation, and civic engagement among working-class youth.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Gao Hang, Hou Liqi, Lin Lin, Song Xinmiao, Vladislav Xu,
and Li De Pin for their support with data collection. Our deep appreciation to the
numerous school administrators, teachers, and pupils for participating in this project,
Hui et al. 17

especially those from Anqing Vocational & Technical College, E-Business Logistics
and High Speed Train Attendant Department, Inner Mongolia Linhe Number 1
Vocational School, Hang Jin Hou Qi Vocational Training Center, Inner Mongolia,
Inner Mongolia Huancheng Vocational Technical School, Lanzhou Modern
Vocational College, Shaanxi Institute of Technology, and Xiaogan Vocational School,
Hubei Province.

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, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the CRF, Research
Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (C5010-15G).

ORCID iDs
Bryant P. H. Hui https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3063-9297
Pun Ngai https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5725-6988

References
Andreoni, J. (2001). The economics of philanthropy. In N. J. Smelser & P. B.
Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences
(pp. 11369-11376). London, England: Elsevier.
Brown, E. V., & deCant, K. (2014). Abusing Chinese interns as subminimum indus-
trial labor. Asian-Pacific Law & Policy, 15, 150-195.
Chan, J., Pun, N., & Selden, M. (2015). Interns or workers? China’s student labor
regime. Asian Studies, 1, 69-98.
Cheng, Q., Kwok, C.-L., Cheung, F. T. W., & Yip, P. S. F. (2017). Construction
and validation of the Hong Kong Altruism Index (A-Index). Personality and
Individual Differences, 113, 201-208.
Drinkard, A. M. (2017). Predicting prosociality among urban adolescents: Individual,
family, and neighborhood influences. Youth & Society, 49, 528-547.
Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others pro-
motes happiness. Science, 319, 1687-1688.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou,
Q., & Carlo, G. (2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudi-
nal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 993-1006.
Fu, X., Liu, X., Yang, Y., Zhang, M., & Kou, Y. (2018). The role of relative intrinsic
aspirations in Chinese adolescents’ prosocial behaviors. Youth & Society, 50, 75-92.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18 Youth & Society 00(0)

Hui, B. P. H., & Pun, N. (2019). Labor rights knowledge and its correlates related
to positive job outcomes among vocational school students in Mainland China.
Manuscript in preparation.
Jeffries, V. (Ed.). (2014). The Palgrave handbook of altruism, morality, and social
solidarity: Formulating a field of study. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koo, A. (2016). Expansion of vocational education in neoliberal China: Hope and
despair among rural youth. Journal of Education Policy, 31, 46-59.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and
social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 992-1004.
Larson, A., & Moses, T. (2017). Examining the link between stress events and proso-
cial behavior in adolescents: More ordinary magic? Youth & Society, 49, 779-804.
Liang, B., Lund, T., Mousseau, A., White, A. E., Spencer, R., & Walsh, J. (2018).
Adolescent girls finding purpose: The role of parents and prosociality. Youth &
Society, 50, 801-817.
Lichter, D. T., Shanahan, M. J., & Gardner, E. L. (2002). Helping others? The effects
of childhood poverty and family instability on prosocial behavior. Youth &
Society, 34, 89-119.
Lindenberg, S., Fetchenhauer, D., Flache, A., & Bunnk, B. (2006). Solidarity and
prosocial behavior. In D. Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, B. Bunnk & S. Lindenberg
(Eds.), Solidarity and prosocial behavior: An integration of sociological and
psychological perspectives (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Springer.
Ling, M. (2015). “Bad students go to vocational schools!”: Education, social repro-
duction and migrant youth in urban China. The China Journal, 73, 108-131.
Machell, K. A., Disabato, D. J., & Kashdan, T. B. (2016). Buffering the negative
impact of poverty on youth: The power of purpose in life. Social Indicators
Research, 126, 845-861.
Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inat-
tention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 61-83.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data.
Psychological Methods, 17, 437-455.
Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained vol-
unteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447-467.
Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measuring the
prosocial personality. In J. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in per-
sonality assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having
less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 771-784.
Piff, P. K., & Moskowitz, J. P. (2017). The class-compassion gap: How socioeco-
nomic factors influence. In E. M. Seppälä, E. Simon-Thomas, S. L. Brown, M.
C. Worline, C. D. Cameron & J. R. Doty (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of com-
passion science (pp. 317-330). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pun, N., & Koo, A. (2015). A “world-class” (labor) camp/us: Foxconn and China’s
new generation of labor migrants. Positions, 23, 411-435.
Hui et al. 19

Pun, N., & Koo, A. (2019). Double contradiction of schooling: Class reproduction
and working-class agency at vocational schools in China. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 40, 50-64.
Qiu, J. L. (2009). Working-class network society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Robert, P., & Saar, E. (2012). Learning and working: The impact of the “double sta-
tus position” on the labour market entry process of graduates in CEE countries.
European Sociological Review, 28, 742-754.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal
of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36.
Schoenhals, M., Tienda, M., & Schneider, B. (1998). The educational and personal
consequences of adolescent employment. Social Forces, 77, 723-762.
Shirk, S. L. (1978). Work experience in Chinese education. Comparative Education,
14, 5-18.
Shye, S. (2010). The motivation to volunteer: A systemic quality of life theory. Social
Indicators Research, 98, 183-200.
Simpson, B., & Willer, R. (2015). Beyond altruism: Sociological foundations of
cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 43-63.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Smith, C. A., & Pun, N. (2018). Class and precarity: An unhappy coupling in China’s
working class formation. Work, Employment and Society, 32, 599-615.
Staff, J., & Mortimer, J. T. (2007). Educational and work strategies from adolescence
to early adulthood: Consequences for educational attainment. Social Forces, 85,
1169-1194.
Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. London, England:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Standing, G. (2017). The precariat in China: A comment on conceptual confusion.
Rural China, 14, 165-170.
Tiryakian, E. A., & Morgan, J. H. (2014). Solidarity, yesterday and today. In V.
Jeffries (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of altruism, morality, and social soli-
darity: Formulating a field of study (pp. 249-271). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Uggen, C., & Janikula, J. (1999). Volunteerism and arrest in the transition to adult-
hood. Social Forces, 78, 331-362.
Warren, J. R., & Lee, J. C. (2003). The impact of adolescent employment on high
school dropout: Differences by individual and labor-market characteristics.
Social Science Research, 32, 98-128.
Weiss, F., Klein, M., & Grauenhorst, T. (2014). The effects of work experience during
higher education on labour market entry: Learning by doing or an entry ticket?
Work, Employment and Society, 28, 788-807.
Woronov, T. E. (2011). Learning to serve: Urban youth, vocational schools and new
class formations in China. The China Journal, 66, 77-99.
Woronov, T. E. (2015). Class work: Vocational schools and China’s urban youth.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20 Youth & Society 00(0)

Wright, M. F. (2018). Popularity and social preference pressure from parents, friends,
and the media: Linkages to aggressive and prosocial behaviors. Youth & Society.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0044118X18773222
Wright, M. F., Li, Y., & Shi, J. (2014). Chinese adolescents’ social status goals:
Associations with behaviors and attributions for relational aggression. Youth &
Society, 46, 566-588.
Yoo, H., Feng, X., & Day, R. D. (2013). Adolescents’ empathy and prosocial behavior
in the family context: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42, 1858-1872.

Author Biographies
Bryant P. H. Hui is a research assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong.
His work focuses on prosociality, well-being, globalization, migration, and
acculturation.
Ngai Pun is a professor at the University of Hong Kong. Her research focuses on
migration, labor, gender, social economy, socialist history, and China.
Jack Linchuan Qiu is a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His
research focuses information and communication technologies, social class, global-
ization, Chinese society, communication policy, and communication and
development.
Anita Koo is an associate professor at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her
research focuses on education inequality, class stratification, and migrant population
in China.