Gender differences across multiple types of prosocial behavior in adolescence: A meta-analysis of the prosocial tendency measure-revised (PTM-R)

Sonya Xinyue Xiao, Emi C. Hashi, Kevin M. Korous, Nancy Eisenberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Literature on adolescent prosocial behavior (PB) has grown tremendously since the development of The Prosocial Tendency Measure-Revised (PTM-R), which includes subscales assessing different types of PB. However, findings of gender differences are inconsistent across studies. Thus, we computed meta-analyses to examine gender differences in adolescents’ PB. Further, we examined the moderating roles of type of PB, and various sample (i.e., mean age, gender composition, ethnic composition) and study (i.e., reporter type, measurement form, reliability) characteristics in gender differences in PB. Methods: Using online databases (e.g., ProQuest), journal article references, and conference programs, we identified a total of 46 records from 32 studies (215 effect sizes, N = 12,024) across the globe that had measured adolescents’ (age 10–18; 51% male) PB using the PTM-R or the PTM. Results: Gender differences in the PB were small to medium in magnitude (ds ranged from 0 to 0.35) for absolute gender differences (i.e., overall magnitude of gender differences regardless of which gender was higher). There were larger gender differences for gender-typed prosocial behaviors (e.g., altruistic, d = 0.35) than gender-neutral behaviors (e.g., anonymous, d = 0.03). The type of PB (i.e., altruistic, compliant, public, emotional, dire, anonymous) and region (i.e., European, U.S., traditional cultures, Asian) and were significant moderators. Conclusions: Although males and females generally are more similar than different in their prosociality, it is important to consider the type of PB when examining gender differences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)41-58
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Adolescence
Volume77
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2019

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Adolescent Behavior
Databases

Keywords

  • Adolescence
  • Culture
  • Gender differences
  • Meta-analysis
  • Prosocial behavior
  • PTM-R

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Social Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Gender differences across multiple types of prosocial behavior in adolescence : A meta-analysis of the prosocial tendency measure-revised (PTM-R). / Xiao, Sonya Xinyue; Hashi, Emi C.; Korous, Kevin M.; Eisenberg, Nancy.

In: Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 77, 12.2019, p. 41-58.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{52d2c70fc43b482f9b926144c735db51,
title = "Gender differences across multiple types of prosocial behavior in adolescence: A meta-analysis of the prosocial tendency measure-revised (PTM-R)",
abstract = "Introduction: Literature on adolescent prosocial behavior (PB) has grown tremendously since the development of The Prosocial Tendency Measure-Revised (PTM-R), which includes subscales assessing different types of PB. However, findings of gender differences are inconsistent across studies. Thus, we computed meta-analyses to examine gender differences in adolescents’ PB. Further, we examined the moderating roles of type of PB, and various sample (i.e., mean age, gender composition, ethnic composition) and study (i.e., reporter type, measurement form, reliability) characteristics in gender differences in PB. Methods: Using online databases (e.g., ProQuest), journal article references, and conference programs, we identified a total of 46 records from 32 studies (215 effect sizes, N = 12,024) across the globe that had measured adolescents’ (age 10–18; 51{\%} male) PB using the PTM-R or the PTM. Results: Gender differences in the PB were small to medium in magnitude (ds ranged from 0 to 0.35) for absolute gender differences (i.e., overall magnitude of gender differences regardless of which gender was higher). There were larger gender differences for gender-typed prosocial behaviors (e.g., altruistic, d = 0.35) than gender-neutral behaviors (e.g., anonymous, d = 0.03). The type of PB (i.e., altruistic, compliant, public, emotional, dire, anonymous) and region (i.e., European, U.S., traditional cultures, Asian) and were significant moderators. Conclusions: Although males and females generally are more similar than different in their prosociality, it is important to consider the type of PB when examining gender differences.",
keywords = "Adolescence, Culture, Gender differences, Meta-analysis, Prosocial behavior, PTM-R",
author = "Xiao, {Sonya Xinyue} and Hashi, {Emi C.} and Korous, {Kevin M.} and Nancy Eisenberg",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.09.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "77",
pages = "41--58",
journal = "Journal of Adolescence",
issn = "0140-1971",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gender differences across multiple types of prosocial behavior in adolescence

T2 - A meta-analysis of the prosocial tendency measure-revised (PTM-R)

AU - Xiao, Sonya Xinyue

AU - Hashi, Emi C.

AU - Korous, Kevin M.

AU - Eisenberg, Nancy

PY - 2019/12

Y1 - 2019/12

N2 - Introduction: Literature on adolescent prosocial behavior (PB) has grown tremendously since the development of The Prosocial Tendency Measure-Revised (PTM-R), which includes subscales assessing different types of PB. However, findings of gender differences are inconsistent across studies. Thus, we computed meta-analyses to examine gender differences in adolescents’ PB. Further, we examined the moderating roles of type of PB, and various sample (i.e., mean age, gender composition, ethnic composition) and study (i.e., reporter type, measurement form, reliability) characteristics in gender differences in PB. Methods: Using online databases (e.g., ProQuest), journal article references, and conference programs, we identified a total of 46 records from 32 studies (215 effect sizes, N = 12,024) across the globe that had measured adolescents’ (age 10–18; 51% male) PB using the PTM-R or the PTM. Results: Gender differences in the PB were small to medium in magnitude (ds ranged from 0 to 0.35) for absolute gender differences (i.e., overall magnitude of gender differences regardless of which gender was higher). There were larger gender differences for gender-typed prosocial behaviors (e.g., altruistic, d = 0.35) than gender-neutral behaviors (e.g., anonymous, d = 0.03). The type of PB (i.e., altruistic, compliant, public, emotional, dire, anonymous) and region (i.e., European, U.S., traditional cultures, Asian) and were significant moderators. Conclusions: Although males and females generally are more similar than different in their prosociality, it is important to consider the type of PB when examining gender differences.

AB - Introduction: Literature on adolescent prosocial behavior (PB) has grown tremendously since the development of The Prosocial Tendency Measure-Revised (PTM-R), which includes subscales assessing different types of PB. However, findings of gender differences are inconsistent across studies. Thus, we computed meta-analyses to examine gender differences in adolescents’ PB. Further, we examined the moderating roles of type of PB, and various sample (i.e., mean age, gender composition, ethnic composition) and study (i.e., reporter type, measurement form, reliability) characteristics in gender differences in PB. Methods: Using online databases (e.g., ProQuest), journal article references, and conference programs, we identified a total of 46 records from 32 studies (215 effect sizes, N = 12,024) across the globe that had measured adolescents’ (age 10–18; 51% male) PB using the PTM-R or the PTM. Results: Gender differences in the PB were small to medium in magnitude (ds ranged from 0 to 0.35) for absolute gender differences (i.e., overall magnitude of gender differences regardless of which gender was higher). There were larger gender differences for gender-typed prosocial behaviors (e.g., altruistic, d = 0.35) than gender-neutral behaviors (e.g., anonymous, d = 0.03). The type of PB (i.e., altruistic, compliant, public, emotional, dire, anonymous) and region (i.e., European, U.S., traditional cultures, Asian) and were significant moderators. Conclusions: Although males and females generally are more similar than different in their prosociality, it is important to consider the type of PB when examining gender differences.

KW - Adolescence

KW - Culture

KW - Gender differences

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Prosocial behavior

KW - PTM-R

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073685409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073685409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.09.003

DO - 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.09.003

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85073685409

VL - 77

SP - 41

EP - 58

JO - Journal of Adolescence

JF - Journal of Adolescence

SN - 0140-1971

ER -