Table 2. Correlations and descriptive statistics

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean(SD) 1. Parental attachment 3.80 (.56) 2. Positive induction .66* 3.36 (.40) 3. Punitiveness -.56** -.36* 1.66 (.43) 4. Agreeableness .43** .34* -.34* 3.81 (.53) 5. Empathic concern .34* .35* -.38* .69** 3.53 (.67) 6. Perspective taking .37 .14 -.11 .56** .56** 3.17 (.76) 7. Ascription of responsibility .23 .09 -.37* .31 .49** .35* 3.41 (.37) 8. Social responsibility .41** .25 -.15 .43** .44** .40* .50** 4.06 (.37) 9. Prosocial personality .21** .33** -.21** .80** .86** .66** .65** .75** .00 (1.00) *p< 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Discipline Styles Mediate the Relations between Parent-Child Attachment and Prosocial

Characteristics

Deanna M. Sandman and Gustavo Carlo

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

IntroductionFor years studies have shown that prosocial personality traits predict prosocial behaviors (i.e., behaviors intended to benefit others; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). Prosocial personality characteristics generally include sympathizing with others, taking the perspective of others, agreeableness, and feeling responsibility for others and society (Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2005). Several scholars have identified individuals who characteristically score high on these personality dimensions (Batson, 1997; Carlo et al., 1991; Staub, 2005). Individuals with this conglomeration of traits tend to help needy others more than those low in this orientation in a variety of contexts (see Carlo et al., 2009). However, the antecedents of prosocial orientation are less clear but important to understand in order to foster prosocial attitudes and behaviors in youth. Parents’ disciplinary practices and their effectiveness may be traced back to the warmth and quality of the parent-child relationship (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Kochanska, 1995). Two common discipline styles are punitiveness and positive induction. Punitiveness is associated with harsh punishments and love withdrawal, while positive induction entails discussing and reasoning with the child. Punitiveness is more often linked to aggression, while positive induction is related to more positive outcomes (Carlo et al., 2007; Hoffman, 2000; Van der Mark et al., 2002). The quality of parent-child attachment has also been linked to positive and negative outcomes (Arbona & Power, 2003; Laible, Carlo, & Raffaelli, 2000; Shaw & Dallos, 2005). Based on moral internalization theory (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994), one would expect that parents with warm, nurturing relationships would be more likely to use positive induction, and less likely to use punitiveness, practices. Thus, it was it was hypothesized that parent attachment would predict a prosocial personality factor (including agreeableness, empathy, perspective taking, social responsibility, and ascription of responsibility). Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the parental disciplinary practices of punitiveness and positive induction would mediate those relations.

Method•Participants were 176 Midwestern public university students who received class credit for completing a survey packet (58% women, M age = 19.30, 88% European American). • Parent attachment subscale of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) had 12 items, Cronbach’s α = .87, sample item is, “My parent respects my feelings”•Parent Disciplinary Styles (PDS; Ingoldsby, Schvaneveldt, Supple, & Bush, 2003) punitiveness subscale had 14 items, Cronbach’s α = .87, sample item is, “This parent will not talk to me when I displease him or her,” and positive induction had 11 items, Cronbach’s α = .86, sample item is, “This parent seems to approve of me and the things that I do”•Empathic concern subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983) had 7 items, Cronbach’s α = .77, sample item is, “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me”•Agreeableness scale had 10 items, Cronbach’s α = .78, sample item is, “I am interested in people” (Goldberg, 1999) •Prosocial personality factor included empathic concern, agreeableness, perspective taking (7 items, Cronbach’s α = .82, sample item is, “I try to look at everyone’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision”; Davis, 1983), social ascription of responsibility (8 items, Cronbach’s α = .60, sample item is, “It is the duty of each person to do their jobs the best they can”; Berkowitz & Lutterman, 1968), personal ascription of responsibility (28 items, Cronbach’s α = .78, sample item is, “Even if something you borrow is defective, you should still replace it if gets broken”; Schwartz, 1968)

ResultsA principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation was used to create a prosocial personality factor consisting of agreeableness, empathy, perspective taking, social responsibility, and ascription of responsibility. As hypothesized, a one-factor solution was found, with an eigenvalue of 2.80 and 56% of variance was accounted for. All five components positively contributed. Using Baron & Kenny’s (1986) mediation method, it was found that positive induction mediated the relation between parental attachment and empathy, and the relation between parental attachment and prosocial personality. However, punitiveness was negatively related to parent attachment and to agreeableness and prosocial personality but not empathy (see Tables 1 and 2). In summary, two mediation effects were found: a) positive induction mediated the relation between parental attachment and empathic concern, and b) positive induction mediated the relation between parental attachment and prosocial personality.

Discussion

This study found that positive induction disciplining practices mediated the relations between parent attachment and both empathy and prosocial personality. These findings are in accord with theories that suggest that secure attachment relationships form the basis for prosociality as well as with moral socialization theorists who posit that parents are important socializers of youth prosocial development.

In contrast, we found weak support for the mediating role of punitive disciplining techniques in the relations between parent attachment and prosocial traits. Perhaps prosocial traits are best fostered by warm, constructive, parental behaviors that model good self-regulation skills, teach moral values, and facilitate empathic emotions; whereas, punitive parental practices model anger, poor self-regulation skills, and inhibit empathic expressiveness.

As expected, there was support for a prosocial personality factor among college aged students. These findings add to the mounting evidence on a cluster of personality variables that are associated with prosocial behaviors, and may form the basis of a moral identity (Hardy & Carlo, in press; Penner et al., 1995). The present findings extend prior findings by including agreeableness as an element of the prosocial personality and by demonstrating the socialization basis for a prosocial personality.

Future research should examine whether these findings apply to children and young adolescents, and whether prosocial personality is indictive of moral behaviors and other positive developmental outcomes.

Figure 1. Positive induction mediates the relation between parent attachment and empathic concern

Figure 2. Positive induction mediates the relation between parent attachment and prosocial personality

Figure 3. Punitiveness mediates the relation between parent attachment and prosocial personality

Table 1. Summary of regressions

Empathic Concern Prosocial Personality

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Parent Attachment .17* -.07 .21** .03

Positive Induction .39** .30**

R2 .03 .12 .05 .10

R2 change .09** .06**

Model F 4.95* 11.93** 8.14** 9.81**

Parent Attachment .21** .16

Punitiveness -.14

R2 .05 .06

R2 change .02

Model F 8.14** 5.55**

Acknowledgements:Thanks to research assistants: Erik Armbrust, Angie Dunn, Elizabeth Grimes, Lauren Royal, Erin Minahan,

Keith McGuffey, Jamie Rubio