Poster #44 - Parents’ Perspectives on the Risks of their Children’s Prosocial Actions and Refusals

• In Event: Poster Session 19

Abstract

Parents play an important role in children’s prosocial socialization; typically, parents want their child to show care for others and help those in need (Hastings et al., 2014). Conversely, parents will also encourage their children to display self-protective behaviour in instances of physical, social, or emotional danger (Wray-Lake et al., 2012). Nevertheless, scholarship on prosocial socialization emphasizes the benefits of acting prosocially, but has less often considered the potential risks engendered by prosocial acts.

Relatedly, parents may be glad or regretful of their children’s prosocial choices. For instance, while parents may be glad that their child comforted their sibling (prototypical), they may be regretful that their child shared food with a friend (non-prototypical). The first objective of this study was to document the types of risk noted by parents in relation to their children’s past prosocial experiences, and how these varied across prototypical (e.g., glad that their child helped) and non-prototypical (e.g., glad that their child did not help) situations. Finally, with increasing age, the expression and outcomes of children’s prosocial behaviour can shift (Flook et al., 2019). As such, we also examined variations in parents’ descriptions of children’s prosociality and associated risks across two age groups.
The sample consisted of 164 parents, half of 8-10 year-olds (50% girls) and the rest between the ages of 13-15 (50% girls). In a semi-structured interview over Zoom, parents were asked to recount four events: when their child helped and they were glad (a) or regretful (b), and when their child did not help, and they were glad (c) or regretful (d). These conditions produced two prototypical, and two non-prototypical situations, where the former yields expected outcomes, and the latter deviates from classic narratives. Parents’ narratives were reliably coded for the type of prosocial act and the presence of various types of risk (see Table 1).
Pertaining to the five types of risk that emerged, parents most often referred to relational risks for their children (see Table 1). Overall, instrumental helping was the most commonly reported prosocial act, but was associated with the least amount of risk. Interestingly, sharing and comforting were the least common types of prosociality recounted, but were described as having the most potential for risk.

A GLMM revealed statistically significant effects of both age and event type. More specifically, parents of 13- to 15-year-olds (45%, SE = 0.03) recounted more instances of risk compared to parents of 8- to 10-year-olds (35%, SE = 0.03). Additionally, narratives in both non-prototypical conditions (Helping-Not Glad: 70%, SE =0.04; Not Helping-Glad: 67%, SE= 0.04) were more likely to refer to risk compared to the prototypical conditions (Helping-Glad: 10%, SE = 0.02; Not Helping- Not Glad: 28%, SE = 0.04).

Given the extensive role that prosocial behaviour plays in relationships, these findings underline parents’ recognition that some helpful acts for others may be harmful to oneself. By documenting how parents view the benefits and drawbacks of their children’s prosocial actions and refusals, these findings can ultimately elucidate the varied concerns that may inform prosocial socialization.

Authors

• Zoe Adler, Concordia University
  Presenting Author

• Nasim Tavassoli, Concordia University

• Holly E Recchia, Concordia University