Authoritative Child-Rearing Style

[TYPE THE COMPANY NAME]

[Type the document title]

[Type the document subtitle]

Sean Prinsen

[Pick the date]

[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.]

INDEX
PART A
1. Section A p. 4-9
Table 1: Biographical Information of Parents p.4
Table 2: Biographical Information of Children p.4
2. Section B
Table 3: Authoritative child-rearing style p.4
Table 4: Authoritarian child-rearing style p.5
Table 5: Permissive child-rearing style p.5
Table 6: Uninvolved child-rearing style p.5
3.

Section C
Table 7: Kind of prosocial behaviour: Empathy p.6
Table 8: Kind of prosocial behaviour: Awareness of wrong-doing p.6
Table 9: Kind of prosocial behaviour: Cooperation p.6
Table 10: Kind of prosocial behaviour: Helping behaviour p.7
Table 11: Kind of prosocial behaviour: Awareness of someone else’s problem p.7
Table 12: Kind of prosocial behaviour: Accommodating others p.7
Table 13: Total scores for prosocial behaviour p.7
Table 14: Total scores for child-rearing styles and prosocial behaviour p.8
4. Question 1 p.8
PART B p.9-17
“Prosocial behaviour is the outcome of multiple……factors”
a) Cultural Factors p.9
b) Socialisation of prosocial behaviour within the family p.11
c) The child’s individual characteristics p.15
d) Conclusion p.17
REFERENCES p.17
PLAGIARISM DECLARATION p.18
Part A:
1. Section A
Table 1:
Research partici-pant

Age Gender Ethnic group Marital
status Working or stay-at-home-parent Average time spend with child per week Num-ber of chil-dren

1

36
Female
White
Married
Stay-at-home
49 Hours
2

2

44
Female
Black
Separated
Working
32 Hours
4
Biographical information of parents

Table 2:
Biographical information of children
Child of Parent Age Gender Ordinal position in family

1
3 years
Female
Eldest child

2
5 years
Male
Youngest child

2. Section B
Table 3:
Authoritative child-rearing style
Question Number Scores of
Research Participant 1 Scores of
Research Participant 2
1 5 3
8 5 3
11 4 3
15 4 2
16 4 2
20 5 3
21 4 2
25 4 3
26 5 3
Total scores: 40 24

Table 4:
Authoritarian child-rearing style

Question number Scores of Research Participant 1 Scores of Research Participant 2
2 4 2
4 2 4
7 3 4
12 4 2
17 5 3
22 3 2
27 3 3
30 4 2
31 4 2
Total Scores 32 24

Table 5:
Permissive child-rearing style
Question number Scores of Research Participant 1 Scores of research participant 2
3 2 3
5 4 4
6 1 2
9 1 2
13 3 5
33 5 3
34 4 1
35 5 3
36 3 3
Total Scores: 28 26

Table 6:
Uninvolved child- rearing style
Question number Scores of research participant 1 Scores of research participant 2
10 1 2
14 1 3
18 2 3
19 1 3
23 1 2
24 2 2
28 2 2
29 1 1
32 1 1
Total scores: 12 19

3. Section C
Table 7:
Kind of prosocial behaviour: Empathy
Question Number Scores of the child of Research Participant 1 Scores of the child of Research Participant 2
4 3 3
17 4 3
18 4 3
19 4 3
25 4 3
26 4 3
29 4 3
31 4 3
Total scores: 31 24

Table 8:
Kind of prosocial behaviour: Awareness of wrong doing
Question Number Scores of the child of Research Participant 1 Scores of the child of Research Participant 2
20 5 2
21 4 2
22 4 2
23 5 2
24 4 2
Total Scores 22 10

Table 9:
Kind of prosocial behaviour: Cooperation
Question Number Scores of the child of Research Participant 1 Scores of the child of Research Participant 2
1 5 3
2 4 2
3 3 4
9 5 3
27 3 2
28 3 2
Total Score: 24 16
Table 10:
Kind of prosocial behaviour: Helping behaviour
Question Number Scores of the child of Research Participant 1 Scores of the child of Research Participant 2
5 2 2
8 2 2
11 2 2
12 2 3
Total Score: 8 9

Table 11:
Kind of prosocial behaviour: Awareness of someone else’s problem
Question Number Scores of the child of Research Participant 1 Scores of the child of Research Participant 2
6 2 2
7 2 1
16 4 3
32 4 2
Total Score: 12 8

Table 12:
Kind of prosocial behaviour: Accommodating others
Question Number Scores of the child of Research Participant 1 Scores of the child of Research Participant 2
10 4 2
13 3 3
14 3 2
15 4 2
30 4 2
Total Score: 18 11

Table 13:
Total scores for prosocial behaviour
Child of research participant Empathy Aware-
ness of wrong- doing Coopera-
tion Helping behaviour Awareness of someone else’s problem Accommo-
dating others Total
Scores:

1 31 22 24 8 12 18 115

2 24 10 16 9 8 11 78

Table 14:
Total scores for child-rearing styles and prosocial behaviour
Research Participant Child- rearing styles of parents
Prosocial behaviour of children
Authoritative
Authoritarian Permissive Uninvolved
1 40 32 28 12 115
2 24 24 26 19 78

Question 1
The mothers child-rearing styles were investigated with the use of questionnaires. Participant one is a white female, stay-at-home mother, and has a 3 year old daughter. Participant two is a black working female, with a 5 year old boy. When it comes to the type of styles they use, Participant one uses the following styles, in order of the most used to the least: 1) Authoritative, 2) Authoritarian, 3) Permissive, and 4) Uninvolved. Participant two uses the following styles, in order of the most used to the least: 1) Permissive, 2) Uses authoritative and authoritarian equally, and 3) Uninvolved.
The overall scores indicated that participant two’s son scored lower in pro-social behaviour than participant one’s daughter. It has been found that parents child-rearing styles affect the level of prosocial behaviour of their children. It is therefore possible that the authoritative style used by participant one could convey a sense of warmth and maturity, developing a social and moral maturity within their child which leads to higher prosocial behaviour. Participant two on the other hand uses a permissive style which, although warm and accepting, may lead to poorer academic performance and anti-social behaviour rather than prosocial behaviour.
It has been found that parents that engage in effective co-parenting leads to higher prosocial behaviour in their children. Participants one is married and has indicated that co-parenting occurs. The styles both parents use may have an impact on the higher prosocial level of their daughter. Participant two’s husband is absent and that might have an impact on the lower prosocial level of her son. Parental presence, rather than parental absence, plays an important role in children’s prosocial development. An example of this would be how fathers play an important role in the development of social competence. Mothers obviously contribute to this process. Each parent fulfills certain roles that are critical in prosocial development.
Studies have shown that girls are more prone to display empathy and pro-social behaviour than boys. This correlates with the results in this study in that participant one’s daughter displays a higher prosocial level than participant two’s son. Furthermore, the child’s position in the sibling dyad likely affects prosocial behaviour. First-born children, specifically more so with girls, might be more willing to help and intervene in a case of emergency. This idea correlates with the higher prosocial level of participants one’s daughter as she is the eldest, and the lower prosocial level of participant two’s son as he is the youngest in their family.
It is suggested that as cognitive skills improve with age the quality of prosocial behaviour increases. This does not correlate with the lower prosocial skill level of participant two’s son as he is older than participant two’s daughter but all the other factors might have had an influence on that. Participant two’s behaviour may be influenced by his siblings or care-givers as his mother only spends 20 hours a week with him. With the 40 hours a week participant one spends with her child, she has a greater influence on her son’s prosocial behaviour than participant two.
Part B:
Introduction
Prosocial behaviour is a voluntary behaviour with the intention of benefiting another with the underlying motive of increasing another’s welfare and is viewed as an act of selflessness (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Developing prosocial behaviour in children is linked to many factors. For the sake of clarity, this essay will discuss prosocial behaviour with regards to the following factors: 1) Cultural factors, 2) Socialisation within the context of the family, and 3) Individual personality characteristics (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
a) Cultural factors
Different types of research have been performed investigating the role of culture in the development of prosocial behaviour and as with most research the findings are mixed in that some argue that there are differences where others say there are not. This may be due to the fact that there are different cultural values and norms to be considered. Certain cultures emphasise the importance of different types of prosocial actions. For example, responding when asked and be silent when not. In addition, it has been found that moral reasoning is different across cultures. This adds to the difficulty in research of finding conclusive results. An example of this can be seen in the Aitutaki people, from Polynesia, and the Papago tribe, in Arizona, (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) who’s values are reflected in their prosocial behaviour. However, there are also cultures in which prosocial behaviours are limited and are just mostly rude and hostile. An example of this type of culture is the Ik of Uganda. (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Research has found that in cultures that display high levels of prosocial behaviour, people tend emphasis the importance of the following concepts: extended families, parenting styles (which tend to be warm and responsive) and the female role. In addition, people in these cultures tend to have dysfunctional jobs and the governments are mostly decentralized. Furthermore, members of families are assigned chores at an early age and are expected to from that point to take responsibility for their own financial savings and add to the family’s happiness and health. (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Cultures that are different in their religious views, values and level of modernity also differ in their prosocial behaviour. In some cultures, social responsibilities come before the needs of the individual. This difference in values is reflected in how they think and perceive prosocial behaviour (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Furthermore, the way people raise children is goal directed and is highly related to the culture they are brought up in, (Bornstein,1991; Kagitcibasi, 2007; Miller & Goodnow, 1995). In addition, similar parenting practices are viewed differently and have other meanings in other cultures (cited in Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, 2007). For example, in the US self-esteem is important whereas in Taiwan it is not (cited in Yagmurlu & Sanson, 2009). In a study done where they compare Australian and Turkish children living in Australia, findings support concerns that the Western models of human development are not actually applicable across the board (Gergen, Gulerce, Lock, & Misra, 1996). In this study it was found that the skills valued by cultures depend on the social and economic demands that are of importance at a given time. With this in mind, social skills that are perceived as weak or negative in one culture may be seen as positive in the next (Kagitcibasi, 1982). These findings are consistent with the observations made by Chao and Tseng (2002). From their observations they argue that the authoritarian parenting style can be differently interpreted by other/ non-Western cultures (cited in Yagmurlu & Sanson, 2009). In this study they argue that for Turkish Australian children control is defined in terms of guidance and structure and that it may have a positive influence on development of prosocial behaviour. However, When control is restrictive and punitive it influences development negatively (Chao & Tseng, 2002) (cited in Yagmurlu & Sanson, 2009).
Spivak and Howes (2011), in a study aimed to determine which elements of prosocial behaviour were significant across ethnic cultural groups, investigated the following : 1) Closeness of the teacher-child relationship, 2) Emotional tone of teacher-child interaction, 3) Social engagement/ pretend play, 4) Competency in pretend play with peers, and 5) Positive social interaction among peers. Of these 5, only 2 (social engagement and competence at engaging in social pretend play with peers) were argued to be prosocial behaviours found in all cultural groups; (cited in Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 1).
In an African-American community the ‘Ethnic differences in the consequences of physical punishment’ were research, (cited in Berk, 2013).

Their attitude towards discipline were very different from the white social workers that bought them together. They believe in physical punishment but no shouting, only talking nicely. If a parent shout he is out of control and it is abusive according to them. Good parenting is a complex combination of warmth, teaching, talking nicely and disciplining physically. But you can’t punish too harshly then you are doing it wrong. Interesting enough studies showed that in some cases children did respond positively to physical punishment. The difference seem to be that in black communities the punishment are culturally approved and given in a supportive environment in the aim to help the child to become responsible adults. Whereas in white communities they believe physical punishment is wrong so by the time resort to it they are highly agitated and the child might view it as

rejection.
Although authoritative parenting is broadly advantageous, ethnic minority parents often have very distinct child-rearing beliefs and practices that reflect cultural values and family context. E.g. Chinese parents describe their parenting as less warm and more controlling than Western parents. They are more directive in teaching and scheduling their children’s time as a way of fostering self-control and high achievement. They withhold praise because they believe it results in self-satisfied and poorly motivated children (Chao, 1994; Chen, 2001). They tend to use physical punishment, shaming their children and withholding love as forms of punishment. When these practices become excessive Chinese children display the same negative outcomes as Western children: poor academic achievement, anxiety, depression, and aggressive behaviour (cited in Berks, 2013). Some cultures believe that an emphasis on respect for parental authority is linked to high parental warmth, stronger positive feelings and strengthens family loyalty. In communities where crime-rate is high, parents might use firm methods of control for other reasons. Examples of these are to promote self-reliance, self-regulation and vigilance in their children as a means of safeguarding them from the world.
It has been found that the family structure and child-rearing styles buffer against stress and disorganisation caused by poverty. The extended-family household, in which one or more adult relatives live with the parent-child nuclear family unit, is a vital feature of ethnic minority family life that has enabled many families to rear children successfully, despite severe economic deprivation and prejudice (cited in Berks, 2013).

b) Socialisation of prosocial behaviour within the family
Child-rearing practices associated with mature moral reasoning combine warmth with exchange of ideas promote prosocial behaviour. Children and adolescents who gain most in moral understanding in succeeding years have parents who tell stories with moral implications and engage in moral discussions, encourage prosocial behaviour, and create a supportive atmosphere by listening sensitively, asking clarifying questions, and presenting higher level reasoning. They promote moral development using reasoning to discipline, and is attentive and receptive to the child’s ideas. In contrast, children whose parents use threats, lectures or make sarcastic remarks do not foster moral development in their children. The kind of parent who facilitates moral understanding is verbal, rational and affectionate and promotes a cooperative style of family life (cited in Berk, 2013). Authoritative Child-rearing style parents is such an example.
When a warm parent uses age-appropriate language with firm insistence that the child listens and complies, induction can be effective as early as 2 years old (cited in Berk, 2013). Preschoolers whose parents use this approach are more likely to refrain from wrongdoing, will confess and repair damages after misdeeds and generally display prosocial behaviour. As these preschoolers grow into adolescence, studies found that their moral identities are stronger than their peers whose parents use different parenting styles. Throughout childhood and adolescence, authoritative parenting is linked to many aspects of competence- an upbeat mood, self-control, task persistence, academic achievement, cooperativeness, high self-esteem, responsiveness to parents’ views, and social and moral maturity (cited in Berk, 2013).
The way parents force children to be obedient may lead, (cited Eisenberg, Wolchik, Goldberg, & Engel, 1992), to high levels of compliant prosocial behaviour but not to spontaneous prosocial behaviour. So the way the parent learn social skills to his child is also important, it shouldn’t be seen as a way to enforce but rather a way to shape your child.
Supporting behaviour studies by Hoffman and Saltzstein (1967) and Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow and King (1977), demonstrate somewhat of a shift from modeling influences to cognitive characteristics so that they would be able to see the perspective of another child and thereby increase the likelihood of his/her doing prosocial acts (cited in Mullis, Smith & Vollmers, 1983). But they still feel children need at least a moderate degree of control. Without control or effective limits on children’s behaviour, parents may find their socialization practices ineffective at enhancing prosocial behaviour. Both parents must work side-by-side to aid their children in the development of prosocial behaviour by providing them with verbal instructions and guidance techniques which focus the child’s attention on what effects his/her behaviour has on others (cited in Mullis, Smith & Vollmers, 1983). The kinds of behavioral problems exhibited by children at different ages may result in modifications of parental guidance behaviours over time.
Adults should use more reasoning about the consequences of acts and less bargaining with material rewards to induce prosocial behaviour for children who are responsive and attentive than for children who are not.
According to studies popular and rejected children have different family experience (cited in Dekovic & Janssens, 1992). The parents of popular children are more likely to adopt an authoritative style when interacting with their children. Parents of rejected children tend to endorse an authoritarian/ restrictive style. Parental child-rearing style is linked not only to the child’s sociometric status but also to the child’s social behaviour in a peer group. Social cognition is important for social effectiveness, it is possible that parents influence not only the child’s behaviour but also the way in which the child conceptualizes social relationships and interactional partners. Both parents’ child-rearing style and the child’s prosocial behaviour have an influence on the child’s success or failure in peer relationships. Fathers play an important role in the child’s development of social competence, just as important as mothers (cited in Dekovic & Janssens, 1992).
A study by Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow (1983), (cited in Robinson, Zahn-Waxler & Emde, 1994), suggests that maternal warmth and control are two of the more important reasons that influence many facets of social-emotional development. Researchers has found that mothers with sensitive comforting skills have children who have the ability to provide sensitive comforting. There are some evidence that children with secure attachments at a young age are more sympathetic at 3.5 years of age and display more prosocial behaviour and/or concern for others at approximately age 5 (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Whereas mothers that are negative and controlling had children who tended to decrease rather than increase in empathy from 14 to 20 months of age. Nurturance combined with directive child-rearing practices seems to promote the development of prosocial behaviour.
Family structure might play a role in the prosocial behaviour level. Parental presence versus absence may have effects on children’s prosocial development. Children are more willing to help if their parents are presents. Researchers Oliner and Oliner, 1988 (cited in Eisenberg, Wolchik, Goldberg, & Engel, 1992) found that parental examples of altruism behaviour are related to their children’s participation in altruistic activities. Children who has an absent father or mother, prosocial behaviour level might be influenced by not having that example.
Family size might also be a factor in a child’s prosocial skills’ level. Larger family’s children are more generous, helping and sharing behaviours but are slower to help in an emergency. Small families are more self-assured and intervene spontaneously to help someone else (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Frequency and valence of emotion expressed in the home appear to be linked to children’s prosocial behaviour. If there are a lot of conflict in the house siblings act as a buffer and are prosocially towards each other. Young children are more likely to respond with prosocial behaviour towards a parent, as well as with anger, distress, and support seeking, if familial conflict is frequent or is physical in nature. Negative emotion have been linked to low levels of sympathetic concern and high levels of personal distress. This finding can be understand if we if one views exposure to adult conflict as undermining children’s emotional security, inducing distress, and evoking coping responses from the child calculated to minimize the stress in his or her social environment. Given that children frequently cannot readily escape from conflict at home they often may attempt to alleviate their distress by intervening and comforting family members (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). That correlate with a study by Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow (1990), (cited in Robinson, Zahn-Waxler & Emde, 1994), that relationships in the family, including the marital relationship, are also expected to influence children’s empathic development because they serve as models for caring relationships. The general family atmosphere (divorce, loss of parent, disapproval of social behaviours etc.) effect prosocial behaviour.
Siblings are familiar and uninhibited with one another, they would be expected to play a considerable role in the development of children’s social understanding and interpersonal skills. Because older siblings often act as caregivers to younger siblings, the sibling relationship provides children with opportunities to learn about others’ needs and caring effectively for others. The child’s ordinal position in the sibling dyad likely affects opportunities and expectations for prosocial behaviour. Older children are more likely to enact prosocial behaviour directed towards younger siblings and younger siblings accept reciprocal roles by displaying high rates of compliance and modeling. Especially older sister are likely to engage in prosocial interactions with their siblings and due to gender roles would be expected to help, comfort and teach younger siblings. Children with sibling caregiving experience may develop relatively mature perspective-taking skills and therefore respond relatively appropriately and effectively in caregiving situations. It is possible that only children are not particularly prosocial (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
According to Renzaho & Karantzas (2010), the family environment is important in providing a context that fosters the development of empathic, caring and responsible children, and in buffering children in exhibiting behaviour difficulties during the formative years of life (cited in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 2010, Vol. 34, no 4).
According to Berk (2013), parents must tailor their disciplinary strategies according to their child’s personality e.g. gentle, mild, and patient tactics might work on fearful preschoolers but would have little effect on fearless, impulsive children. Power assertion would also work poorly as it undermines the child’s capacity for effortful control. Parents with impulsive children should foster conscience development by building a warm, affectionate relationship that promotes secure attachment and by combining firm correction of misbehaviour with induction.
Many studies (cited in Berk, 2013) show that having helpful models increases young children’s prosocial responses. They are more likely to copy someone’s behaviour that is warm and responsive that cold and distant. Children admire and therefore tend to imitate competent, powerful models like older peers and adults. Consistency between assertions and behaviour is also important, children would generally choose the most lenient standard of behaviour that adults demonstrate so when an adult say it is important to help others but doesn’t follow through the child would generally not do it as well.
Many parents are aware that spanking and yelling are ineffective disciplinary tactics. It would depend on the crime what sort of punishment a child would get. Frequent punishment however promotes only immediate compliance, not lasting changes in behaviour. The more harshly they are treated the more likely they are to develop serous lasting metal health problems which includes weak internalization of moral rules (cited in Berk, 2013). Hoffman and Saltzstein, (cited in Bar-tel, Nadler & Blechman, 1980) pointed out that the use of physical punishment is seen in a negative light without learning the child anything. It brings out intense hostility in the child and provides him with a model for how to express that hostility outwardly. It makes the child’s need for love less important, and provided functions as an obstacle to the feeling of empathy (cited in Bar-tel, Nadler & Blechman, 1980).When parents do decide to use punishment, consistency, a warm parent-child relationship and a clear explanation is crucial. The most effective forms of discipline encourage good conduct by building a mutually respectful bond with the child, letting the child know ahead of time how to act and praising mature behaviour (Zahn-Waxler & Robinson, 1995). Parent-child closeness leads children to heed parental demands because the child feels a sense of commitment to the relationship. Child-rearing practices associated with mature moral reasoning combine warmth, exchange of ideas, and appropriate demands for maturity.
c) The child’s individual characteristics
Some theorists like Hoffman (cited in Eisterstein & Fabes) have argued that humans are biologically predisposed to enact altruistic behaviour. Researchers like Matthews, Batson, Horn, & Rosenman (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) found in a twin study that 50 % of the altruism, empathy and nurturance was accounted for by genetic factors, the most of the other 50% was accounted for by differences in the environment of the twins and not by common shared environment.
Personality has a big influence on prosocial behaviour. A person that is flexible and has an open-minded approach to new information and experiences is linked to a higher ability level in moral reasoning (Matsuba & Walker, 1998). Open-minded young people are more socially skilled and have more opportunities for social participation. A big social life increases the opportunity to hear other people’s views and perspectives, which leads to open-mindedness, which will lead to moral insights. In contrast, adolescents who have difficulty adapting to new experiences are less likely to be interested in others’ moral ideas and justifications (cited in Berk, 2013).
It is highly likely that children’s temperament influence prosocial behaviour. Temperament refers to ‘inherited personality traits that appear early in life’ (cited in Stanhope, Bell & Parker-Cohen, 1987). Like sociability and shyness influence if and when children assist. Extroverts are significantly more likely than introverts to offer active help by going to the aid of the presumed victims. Introverts, instead of actively helping, are more open to offer passive help, such as volunteering information after the fact (cited in Stanhope, Bell & Parker-Cohen, 1987). A large Australian study, the Australian Temperament Project, has identified three main dimensions of temperament. They are flexibility (ability to adapt to new experiences), persistence (the ability to remain focused over time on an activity or task), and sociability (tendency to approach new people and situations versus shyness, (Prior, Sanson, Smart, & Oberklaid, 2000), (cited in Yagmurlu & Sanson, 2009). That correlate with a study by Goldsmith and Campos (1982), who consider both the timing of emotional responses and their intensity as important definitional features of temperament (cited in Robinson, Zahn-Waxler & Emde, 1994). Rothbart (1986), defines infant temperament as individual differences in reactivity and self-regulations. Self-regulating features include approach-avoidance of stimuli, attention regulation and self-soothing (cited in Robinson, Zahn-Waxler & Emde, 1994).
The degree of social competence or popularity also may affect the types of prosocial behaviours children choose to perform. Peer acceptance may affect children’s comfort level with helping peers. People who prefer to help in ways that do not involve social contact with peers may be less popular due to avoidance of peer-oriented prosocial behaviour (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Because cognitive abilities may underlie the ability to know how to react to others needs it would be logical to expect that there would be a correlation between measures of intelligence and prosocial behaviour, particularly in higher-level moral reasoning or the sophisticated cognitive skills. Research have found that there may be a difference in the quality but not the quantity of children’s prosocial behaviour with higher IQ (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). According to Hoffman (1982) perspective taking skills increase the likelihood that children would be able to understand and sympathize with other children that are in distress (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). This will also help children to understand the difference between when they themselves are in need or if someone else’s are in need and the reason behind why children emotionally react the way they react. This all leads to prosocial behaviour. Krebs & Van Hesteren (1994), proposed moral reasoning is also linked to their prosocial behaviour. Higher stages of moral reasoning will lead to higher quantity behaviour of altruism, greater social sensitivity and stronger feelings of responsibility (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Assertiveness and dominance also have been associated with the frequency and the type of children’s prosocial behaviours. Assertive children are relatively high in sympathy, personal distress reactions and prosocial behaviour, especially when they have to spontaneously help or share. A certain level of assertiveness may be necessary for many children to spontaneously approach other children that might be in need. Children who are not simply assertive but wants to dominate others may be low in prosocial behaviour. Nonassertive, nondominant children tend to be prosocial in respond to a request, apparently because they frequently are asked for help or sharing (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
It appears that there is a positive relation between children’s self-esteem and their prosocial behaviour, but more so for older children than younger children. Children who feel good about themselves may be able to focus on others’ needs because their own needs are being met, further, they may feel that they have the competencies needed to assist others (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Values and Goals is an important component in prosocial behaviour. People with values and goals have clarity about what they believe is right and about their own personal responsibility to act in ways that will correlate with those beliefs. It appears that older children and adolescents who have internal moral values are particularly likely to be altruistic (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
According to Block and Block, 1973 (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) prosocial children tend to be well regulated and low in impulsivity. People who are well regulated are unlikely to be overwhelmed by their negative emotion and probably are viewed by others as relatively low in negative emotion.
Children’s temporary mood also affects their helping or sharing. Especially older children will start to realise what they can gain from helping other for their own benefit and cost. If a child has been shown how to act in such a situation he/she will be more likely to help (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Age play a role in prosocial behaviour. Toddlers will be more willing to help their parents than their siblings or strangers whereas school-age children will assist sibling’s more than unknown peers. By adolescence, help is likely to be directed toward known peers as towards known, nonfamily’s adults. Children also tend to help people whom they like (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Gender plays an important role in prosocial behaviour. Females generally are expected and believed to be more responsive, empathic and prosocial than males. Whereas males are expected to be relatively independent and achievement oriented (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). That correlate with a study by Brody (1985), (cited in Robinson, Zahn-Waxler & Emde, 1994), that a more general tendency toward greater emotional expressiveness in females may underlie gender differences in empathy. Females are socialized to value the preservation of relationships and a sense of self that is in-relation-to-others. Males are socialized to become self-directed individuals.
d) Conclusion
We can conclude that many factors can influence the level of pro-social behaviour of a child and that it cannot be solely attributed to the type of child-rearing style used by parents. Some other outstanding factors that determine the development of prosocial behaviour during early childhood is the child’s gender, age, ordinal number in the family, personality, temperament, cognitive abilities, inherited traits, culture he/she grew up with and his family environment.
The research above correlates with the scores of the questionnaires completed by participant one and two in Part A. Participant one’s daughter have two present parents; is a girl; is the elders in the family; her mother is spending a lot of time with her and the child rearing style her parents are using are all leading to a higher prosocial skill level. Participant two have an absent father; is a boy; is the youngest in the family; his mother is working long hours; the child rearing style his mother is using might lead to his lower prosocial skills level. The difference in parenting style might be because of cultural differences, as we have seen in the research above, the black community believe in physical punishment but not talking loudly or strict, which might be seen in the Western community as a permissive parenting style.
The fact that participant two’s son is older than participant one’s daughter doesn’t correlate with the research that indicates that moral reasoning increases with age but all the other mentioned factors might be the reason.

REFERENCES
Bar-Tal, D., Nadler, A., & Blechman, N. (1980). The relationship between Israeli children’s helping behaviour and their perception of parent’s socialization practices. The Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 159-167.

Berk, L.E. (2013). Child Development (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Braten, S. (1996). When toddlers provide care: Infants’ companion space. Child Research, 3(4), 449-465.

Dekovic, M., & Janssens, M.A.M. (1992). Parents’ child-rearing style and child’s sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 925-932.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R.A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3: Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 701 - 755). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., Wolchik, S., Goldberg, L., & Engel, I. (1992). Parental values, reinforcement, and young children’s prosocial behaviour: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153(1), 19-36.

Kartner, J., Keller, H. (2010). Cognitive and social influences on early prosocial behaviour in two sociocultural contexts. Developmental Psychology, 46(4), 905-914.
Mullis, R.L., Smith, D.W., & Vollmers, K.E. (1983). Prosocial behaviors in young children and parental guidance. Child Study Journal, 13(1), 13-21.

Renzaho, A., Karantzas, G. (2010). Effects of parental perception of neighbourhood deprivation and family environment characteristics on pro-social behaviour among 4–12 year old children. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 34(4), 405-411.

Robinson, J.L., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Emde, R.M. (1994). Patterns of development in early
empathic behavior: Environmental and child constitutional influences. Social Development, 3(2), 125-145.

Spivak, A., Howes, C. (2011). Social and Relational Factors in Early Education and Prosocial Actions of children in diverse ethnocultural communities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57(1), 1-24.
Stanhope, L., Bell, R.Q., & Parken-Cohen, N.Y. (1987). Temperament and helping behavior in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 347-353.

Trommsdorff, G. (1991). Child rearing and children’s empathy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 387-390.

Yagmurlu, B., Sanson, A. (2009). Parenting and temperament as predictors of prosocial behaviour in Australian and Turkish Australian children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(2), 77-88.