Protocol: Practices and Program Components for Enhancing Prosocial ...

Protocol: Practices and Program Components for Enhancing Prosocial Behavior in Children and Youth: A Systematic Review Asha L. Spivak, Mark W. Lipsey, Dale C. Farran, Joshua R. Polanin Submitted to the Coordinating Group of: Crime and Justice Education Disability International Development Nutrition Social Welfare Other: Plans to co-register: No Yes

Cochrane

Maybe Date Submitted: Date Revision Submitted: Approval Date: Publication Date: 04 May 2015

Other

BACKGROUND The Problem What prompts a child to provide comfort to an injured schoolmate? Why does a kindergartener stand up for peer who is being bullied? What impels a teenage girl to spend her weekends volunteering at a homeless shelter? Prosocial behaviors or voluntary acts intended to help or promote the wellbeing of others (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989) are learned skills that accumulating research suggests have implications not only for constructively navigating interactions, relationships, and school and other group contexts but also for life in a civil society. Yet, strikingly, there is limited knowledge of the factors that affect the degree to which prosocial behavior is learned and enhanced. The focus of this quantitative review will be to clarify the types of instructional practices and programs that show evidence of effectively prompting children and youth to act in ways that help others. The benefits of prosocial behavior to lives of children and youth have been highlighted in the last few decades, and this quantitative synthesis of the research is designed to provide evidencebased directions for supporting these constructive, caring, and helpful behaviors in interactions, relationships, schools, homes, and communities. For children from preschool to high school, prosocial behavior has been linked to individual and interpersonal benefits including greater empathy, self-confidence, and antisocial impulse regulation, higher grades and educational aspirations, and more supportive relationships (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Johnson, Beebe, Mortimer, & Snyder, 1998; Larrieu & Mussen, 1986; Markiewicz, Doyle, & Brendgen, 2001). There is also evidence that prosocial behavior may serve as a protective factor against behaviors that pose a risk for adverse health and educational outcomes. For example, studies show that youth involved in interventions that engage them in volunteer service activities have lower rates of problem behavior, teen pregnancy, course failure, and suspension from school as compared to controls (Allen, Philliber, Herrling, & Kuperminc, 1997; Allen, Philliber, & Hoggson, 1990). The need to build prosocial competencies is underscored by studies that suggest high percentages of students lack skills to get along with others, work as part of a group, or cooperatively resolve interpersonal disputes (Johnson & Johnson, 1996; Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000). A large-scale international survey of 6th through 10th grade students (predominately in Europe and North America) found that over 30% of students did not report that they agreed or strongly agreed that most of their classmates are kind and helpful. Notably, in many countries, there was a decline with age in students reporting that classmates are kind and helpful (Currie et al., 2008; Iannotti, 2012). Of further concern, children from low-income households appear to enter kindergarten significantly behind their economically advantaged peers in socioemotional competence (Wertheimer, Croan, Moore, & Hair, 2003). This is particularly worrisome considering the pervasive schoolrelated disadvantages associated with poverty (Lee & Burkam, 2002). Collectively, this 1

The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

research signifies that more work needs to be done to better understand the educational supports that provide a springboard for prosocial development. Enhancing prosocial behavior in schools is a topic highly relevant to current educational reform initiatives. According to a recent report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Center for Child Well-being, education should offer opportunities for children and youth to cultivate social competencies and moral values (LMTF, 2013). Ministries and agencies with responsibility for education in various countries have proposed or mandated that schools introduce action plans and curricula to support students’ prosocial behavior (e.g., Ministry of Education, Ontario, Canada; Ministry of Education, New Zealand; Mulyavardhan program, Maharashtra, India). Several U.S. states (e.g., Pennsylvania, Washington) have also recently adopted learning standards for teaching prosocial competencies in early childhood and elementary education. However, inevitably, inefficient progress and failures in school reform will result with the current absence of clear evidence on the instructional practices and types of programs that lead to prosocial behavior. As Bergin (2014) points out, “Currently, there is a huge gap between research and practice [in the field of prosocial development], with many schools implementing interventions with small or unknown effects” (p. 296). The Intervention The scope of this review will focus on instructional practices or programs with behavioral or psychological content that are evaluated with respect to their impact on the prosocial behavior of children and/or youth. Particular emphasis will be on synthesizing aspects of content and delivery methods of interventions to better understand the active ingredients that appear to characterize more or less effective interventions. Our approaches to identifying which treatment components may be effective processes for change will be similar to those taken by prior reviews conducted by Chorpita and Daleiden (2009), Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger (2011), Kaminski, Valle & Filene and Boyle (2008), and Lipsey (2009a). The social science literature has operationalized prosocial behavior in various ways. Many studies use the term “prosocial behavior” interchangeably with indices of social and/or emotional competence (e.g., positive social behavior, empathy, on-task behavior, lack of maladaptive behavior). Although prosocial behavior is at times included as one of the behavioral dimensions measuring social and emotional competence, research suggests that prosocial behavior and other indices of social and emotional competence are related but still not conceptually or empirically redundant constructs (Cassidy, Werner, Rourke, Zubernis, & Balaraman, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 1996; Eisenberg et al., 2006). It is important to specify that this review will focus on only those interventions tested for impact on outcomes of prosocial behavior, including sharing resources, assisting others in need, comforting, cooperating, protecting someone from harm or bullying, and other acts intended to benefit others. 2


In the literature, there have been a variety of instructional practices and multi-component universal and targeted interventions evaluated for influence on prosocial development. Examples of tested instructional practices include, but are not limited to, positive behavioral reinforcement, induction, empathy arousal techniques, modelling, practice or rehearsal of prosocial behavior, external reward, socializer nurturance or emotional warmth, assignment of social responsibility, and engagement in volunteering activity. Multi-component programs evaluated for impact on prosocial responses reflect a varying focus on program content such as cooperative learning activities and games (Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson, 1996; Street, Hoppe, Kingsbury & Ma, 2004), prosocial models in media (Mares & Woodard, 2005), positive behavioral reinforcement (Flannery et al., 2003), emotion understanding (Malti, Ribeaud, & Eisner, 2012), relaxation practices (Lozada, D’Adamo & Carro, 2014) and community building in classrooms or schools (Solomon, Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi, 1996). This review seeks to make sense of this diverse literature in order to provide insights about whether practices and intervention programs are effective and to reduce the ambiguity about which components of intervention actually influence prosocial behavior. Eligible treatments can vary in any permutation of duration and intensity. Implementation of treatment can occur in classrooms, afterschool programs, home settings, and other natural contexts. Laboratory, institutional, or inpatient settings are ineligible. Only interventions that are implemented by adults will be included in the review: this review is focused on evaluating whether adults’ practices, dissemination of programs, organization of learning contexts (e.g., organizing cooperative learning groups), and delivery of media interventions can induce changes in the prosocial behavior of children and youth. How the Intervention Might Work Many theoretical and conceptual perspectives come to bear on understanding how the delivery method and content of different instructional practices and programs may function to enhance prosocial behavior in children and youth. SAFE is one framework for examining intervention delivery method that has been shown in prior meta-analytic review to delineate those programs that are associated with a host of positive outcomes (e.g., positive social behavior) for children and youth (Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). SAFE is comprised of four practices identified by whether or not intervention staff used “sequenced step-by-step training approach (S), emphasized active forms of learning by having youth practice new skills (A), focused specific time and attention on skill development (F) and were explicit in defining the skills they were attempting to promote (E)” (Durlak & Weissberg, 2012, p. 2-3). This review will examine whether interventions that meet SAFE criteria are associated with significant improvements in prosocial behavior. Particularly relevant to the current review is that although there is general consensus that the learning and enactment of prosocial behaviors are supported through guiding adults’ socialization practices and behavioral expectations, there is divergence among theoretical 3


explanations as to the major mechanisms responsible for influencing the production of prosocial behavior (e.g., Batson, 2012; Eisenberg et al., 2006; Hastings et al., 2007). Briefly, we describe many of the primary socialization mechanisms theorized to influence children’s prosociability and how these mechanisms have been investigated with respect to their impacts on prosocial behavior. These mechanisms include learning by doing, social learning, emotional literacy, other-orientation, moral instruction, mindfulness, behavioral/cognitive self-regulation, bystander-intervention training, friendship-making skills, caring community, diversity inclusion, civic and political participation, and adult responsiveness, emotional warmth, and nurturance as well as the development of socializers’ own social and emotional competence and knowledge of children’s social and emotional growth. These mechanisms will comprise the overarching categories of the content of practices and programs that will be coded in this review, and they are described more fully in Appendix A. This list is tentative and will be refined prior to the full-texting coding process. Learning by doing The role of learning by doing is underscored in many theories of prosocial development. Through experiences of providing help, care, and other prosocial actions, children are expected to learn prosocial skills, receive intrinsic rewards (e.g., feeling good about oneself) and social rewards (e.g., social approval), develop self-efficacy for prosocial conduct, and learn about others' feelings and perspectives, which, in turn, are predicted to motivate children’s future prosociability (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Staub, 2003). Intervention studies that examine outcomes of prosocial behavior have examined learning by doing activities such as assigning children the responsibility for others and engaging children in cooperative learning activities (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson, 1976; Staub, 1975; 1992). The influences of learning by doing activities that involve practice, rehearsal, or role-play of prosocial behavior have also been examined in the literature (Rosenhan & White, 1967; Staub, 1971a; White, 1972). Social learning According to social learning theory, social behavior is learned and shaped primarily through processes of observational learning (e.g., provision of positive models of behavior), positive behavioral reinforcement, behavioral expectations, and direction instruction. In these ways, socializers are theorized to provide important information regarding behavioral expectations and serve as resources and guides for learning and adopting behavior (Bandura, 1986). Studies have examined the impact on prosocial behaviors of social learning influences including provision of prosocial adult models (Staub, 1971b; Grusec & Skubiski, 1970; Rushton, 1975), praise, punishment, external rewards (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006; Bryan & Brickman, 1973; Gelfand, Hartmann, Cromer, Smith, & Page, 1975; Fabes, Fultz, Eisenberg, Plumlee, & Christopher, 1989; Ramaswamy & Bergin, 2009; Szynal-Brown & Morgan, 1983), and instructional prompts (Gelfand et al., 1975; Israel & Brown, 1979). Prosocial models in media (e.g., prosocial stories or television of programs) have also been studied (Mares & 4


Woodard, 2005). Emotional literacy Emotional literacy refers to the capacity to accurately recognize and label emotions in oneself and others as well as in stories, music, etc., to understand the causes and consequences of emotions, and to express and regulate emotions in socially adaptive ways (Brackett & Rivers, 2014). According to many theoretical accounts, emotional literacy underlies prosocial behavior and other social and emotional competencies (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). With reference to prosocial behavior, if a peer is in distress, the potential enactor of help needs to be able to make sense of the peer’s emotional cues, self-regulate emotional responses (e.g., distress might block helping responses), and show appropriate emotions when helping the child (e.g., expression of happiness would be inappropriate). Activities like socializers drawing attention to the feelings of a peer or storybook character, showing and labeling pictures of faces with different emotional expressions, and reading books about different feelings are examples of emotional literacy training (Joseph & Strain, 2003). Some interventions targeted at enhancement of prosocial behavior include teaching emotional literacy. For example, an evaluation by Ornaghi, Grazzani, Cherubin, Conte, and Piralli (2015) demonstrated that a conversational intervention concentrated on the nature, causes, and regulation of emotion had positive effects on the prosocial orientation of children in the treatment group versus control at posttest and the four-month follow-up. Other-orientation Perspective-taking, empathy, and sympathy are frequently posited sources of other-oriented motivation for prosocial behavior. These other-oriented mechanisms are theorized to enable understanding of others’ thoughts, feelings, desires, motivations, and intentions, which, in turn, may lead to prosocial action if an individual is in distress or need of help (or help would result in alleviating the distress or guilt of the potential helper) (Batson, 1991; Eisenberg et al., 2006; Feshbach, 1978; Hoffman, 2000; Staub, 1979). An array of adults’ techniques aimed at increasing children’s consideration for others have been tested for influence upon prosocial behavior in, for example, experiments on empathic arousal (Howard & Barnett, 1981; Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979; Ladd, Lange, & Stremmel, 1983), other-oriented inductive techniques (i.e., discipline techniques that include pointing out the consequences of children’s actions on others) (Ramaswamy & Bergin, 2009; Staub, 1971b), and otheroriented preaching (Eisenberg, 1983; Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979; Midlarsky & Bryan, 1972). It should be clarified that theoretically and empirically other-orientation and emotional literacy are related but also distinct and separable constructs. In essence, skills of emotional literacy (e.g., decoding, understanding, and regulating emotion) lay the foundation for perspective-taking, empathy, and sympathy.

5


Moral instruction Although the literature on moral instruction has been confounded by definitional debate, moral reasoning is commonly referred to as evaluations adhering to principles of fairness, justice, and/or concern for the welfare of others or society (Turiel, 1983). The underlying theoretical expectation is that the development of moral reasoning contributes significantly to prosocial behavior by having an impact on social sensitivity and responsibility, internalization of moral obligations, and guilt for wrongdoing (Eisenberg, 2000; Krebs & Van Hesteren, 1994). Interventions designed to move children to higher levels of moral development predominantly center on group discussions of real-life or hypothetical moral dilemmas or on moral exhortations (e.g., socializer remarks on the merits or virtues of prosocial behavior such as “It is good to help others”). Although the potential impact of moral instruction on prosocial behavior is largely theoretical with comparatively little empirical work, a few evaluations of interventions have investigated this impact (e.g., KrivelZacks, 1995; Grusec, Saas-Kortsaak, & Simutis, 1978). Mindfulness There, as yet, is no consensus on a definition of mindfulness (Chiesa, 2013). Mindfulness is characterized herein by an ability to concentrate on and attend to sensations, thoughts, feelings, and objects; describe and label feelings and thoughts with words; bear nonreactivity to inner experiences; and approach moment-to-moment experiences with awareness, openness, acceptance, and non-judgment (Baer, 2007; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006). Processes by which mindfulness training is thought to influence prosocial behavior include self-regulation of emotions and behavior and transcendence of the self to focus on the broader context (e.g., other people) (Roeser & Pinela, 2014). Mindfulness interventions include components of meditation, relaxation, and concentration practices; acceptance-based strategies; yoga and other movement practices; sense, breath, and body awareness; optimism training; and cultivation of present awareness of feelings, thoughts and sensations. Control group evaluations that include mindfulness training are relatively recent; however, a few have investigated effects on prosocial behavior in children (e.g., Flook, Goldberg, Pinger, & Davidson, 2015). It should be noted that mindfulness interventions often embed features of emotional literacy training (e.g., emotional self-regulation), but there is a focus on self-referential emotion or the inner experience. Such intervention features will be captured under the coding category of emotional literacy. Cognitive/behavioral self-regulation Increasingly, cognitive and behavioral self-regulatory capacities are viewed as core processes relevant to the learning and initiation of prosocial behavior (e.g., Hay & Cook, 2010). Although definitions vary, cognitive and behavioral self-regulation broadly refer to skills to inhibit impulsivity, maintain focus and attention, retain information, delay gratification, generate adaptive cognitive appraisals, and control behavior in service of externally imposed or personal goals or social acceptance (Baumeister, Schmeichel, & Vohs, 2007; Blair, 2009). 6


A variety of interventions will be coded under this category, including those with a focus on improving goal-directed behavior; modifying dysfunctional thinking; inhibiting inappropriate behaviors; and regulating behavior in accordance with contextual rules (for coding subcategories, see Appendix A). Interventions that incorporate features to improve self-regulatory skills are fairly common but are seldom evaluated for their impact on prosocial behavior, with some exceptions (e.g., Ooi, 2013). Bystander intervention training Children and youth often face situations where they witness bullying of and threats to peers. When they reach out and protect a peer from harm, they are enacting a form of prosocial behavior. Naturalistic research suggests that bystander interventions that support victims are rare (Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001). However, through increasing positive selfidentity, empathy, moral evaluations of bullying, comprehension of the harm of bullying, self-efficacy for defending, and self-determination, bystander interventions are thought to increase helpful reactions in bullying situations (Thornberg et al., 2012; Tsang, Hui, & Law, 2011). Although few control group interventions have been evaluated with respect to their effects on increasing bystander help or defense of bullied victims (Polanin, Esplanage, & Pigott, 2012; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), there have been a handful (e.g., Fonagy et al., 2009; Karna et al., 2011). Bystander interventions include components such as raising peer support for bullying intervention; increasing children’s feeling and empathy for victims; teaching strategies to intervene and support the victim and to cope when victimized; raising awareness about the harmful consequences of bullying and the social responsibility to help victims; and role-playing how to effectively intervene and defend a victim. Friendship-making skills Approaches to strengthening peer relationship skills include teaching children how to join in and suggest activities, start and have a conversation, display manners, give and accept compliments, invite peers to play, make and sustain friendships, and engage in prosocial behavior toward peers. According to Youniss (1980), the egalitarian structure of children's peer relations offers a salient context for children to learn prosocial behaviors as compared to hierarchical social relations such as those involving adults, which invoke more compliance-oriented behavior. Interventions aimed at promoting friendship skills occur predominantly in formal social and emotional learning programs. The Early Childhood Friendship Project is an example of one such program that incorporates lessons to help children learn friendship skills and has been investigated for influence on prosocial behavior (e.g., Ostrov et al., 2008). Caring community Interventions that strive to create caring communities (or social/group bonding to the school, peers, and/or community) are those that work to foster caring social relations, positive shared values and norms, fairness and respect, sense of connectedness to others and 7


of being valued and mutually supported, and commitment to relationships to others. There are various pathways through which caring communities might increase prosocial behavior. A pervasive explanation advanced by the Social Development Model is that when members of a community feel strongly committed to the community and espouse positive behaviors, norms, and values, they are likely to behave in accordance with those positive behavioral standards (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). It has also been hypothesized that social groups that produce strong bonds of attachment meet psychological needs for belonging, safety, autonomy, and competence, which, in turn, foster caring attitudes and behavior (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan 1991). The Child Development Project is an example of a program in which a major intervention component is to build caring communities in classrooms and schools. This program has been evaluated repeatedly for its causal impacts on prosocial behavior (e.g., Solomon, Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000; Solomon, Watson, Delucchi, Schaps, & Battistich, 1988). Diversity Inclusion Probably the most common theoretical framework that guides research investigating the effects of diversity inclusion is the Common In-Group Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009). This theory puts forth that experiences that heighten sense of belonging to more expansive groups or emphasize shared characteristics among diverse groups encourage individuals to conceive of themselves as members of a more inclusive community (e.g., school). With diminished intergroup boundaries and the subjective experience of positive group membership, interactions with members of the broader community are expected to become more positive, particularly toward members of other subgroups nested within this larger, shared identity. Enhancing the overlap between representations of the self and other is also a major mechanism thought to increase prosocial behavior (Batson, Sager, Garst, Kang, Rubchinsky, & Dawson, 1997). Interventions with a focus on diversity inclusion include activities that focus on enhancing positive intergroup attitudes and inclusiveness and raising awareness of bias and individual differences and similarities. Diversity inclusion can, at times, be similar to increasing social bonding except that it is targeted at developing sense of belonging by encouraging children to be inclusive of others of different backgrounds (e.g., ethnicity/race) or group membership (e.g., sports team). The Green Circle program is an example of a school-based intervention focused on increasing inclusiveness and respect for diversity, and it has been evaluated for influence on children’s sharing with individuals of similar and different race, gender, and body type (Houlette, Gaertner, Johnson, Banker, & Riek, 2004). Civic and political participation From volunteering at a homeless shelter to attending a political meeting on local affairs, civic and political participation refer to the many ways in which individuals actively participate in, shape, or improve a community and/or nation (Adler & Googin, 2005; Ekman & Amná, 2009). This participation is multidimensional. For example, Ekman & Amná (2009) 8


differentiate four forms of individual and collective civic and political participation: social involvement (e.g., attention on political or social issues), civic engagement (e.g., volunteering actions in a community), formal political participation (e.g., voting), and activism (e.g., participating in demonstrations). Developmental perspectives suggest that civic and political participation enhance social relatedness and support a shift in values toward greater social concern and prosocial norms, which subsequently foster prosocial proclivities (e.g., Yates & Youniss, 1996). Theories tend to underscore that voluntary civic and political participation increase prosocial tendencies. This presents a problem for testing causality because young people who self-select into civic and political activities may be more prosocially inclined. Therefore, it will be important to synthesize the results of studies (e.g., Caprara et al., 2014; Kahne, Chi, & Middaugh, 2006) that experimentally test whether interventions that increase such participation have an impact on prosocial behavior. Responsiveness, emotional warmth, and nurturance Although some theorists propose that emotionally warm and nurturant interactions with adults can increase children’s prosocial behavior (e.g., Staub, 1992), there is debate about how these types of interactions influence prosociability. Different causal mechanisms have been proposed such as socializers’ emotional warmth and nurturance fostering a secure attachment that provides a basis to care for others (Hastings et al., 2007), providing a secure base to confidently explore interactions that increase opportunities for children to develop social skills (White & Howe, 1998), increasing an openness to the needs of others because children feel as if their own emotional needs are being met (Hoffman, 2000), or decreasing inhibition of enacting prosocial behavior due to fear of disapproval (Staub, 1971b). It has also been argued that emotional warmth and nurturance do not directly influence prosocial behavior but instead enhance children’s receptivity to influence by adults’ other prosocializing practices (Hoffman, 1970). However, empirical studies provide mixed evidence toward this view, with experiments showing support for adults’ nurturance and emotional warmth directly and indirectly (and sometimes not directly but only indirectly through exposure to emotionally warm adults who also use instructional practices such as modeling) increasing children’s prosocial behavior (Grusec & Skubiski, 1970; Midlarsky & Bryan, 1967; Staub, 1971a; Yarrow, Scott, & Waxler, 1973). Development of socializers’ social and emotional competence and knowledge of children’s social and emotional development Jennings and Greenberg (2009) propose a model of the prosocial classroom that underscores the significance of cultivating educators’ social and emotional competence and wellbeing. Specifically, the researchers outline the importance of providing educators with training in emotional awareness and emotion-related processes, mindfulness to promote reflection and reduce stress, and knowledge on how children develop socially and emotionally. This is a paradigm shift, especially in reference to teacher training, as many social and emotional learning interventions purely provide adults with the curriculum to aid 9


children’s development. Parenting interventions are more likely to focus on the social and emotional competence of socializers. The ABCD Parenting Young Adolescent Program is an intervention that is, in part, targeted to support parental wellbeing through teaching parents acceptance-based strategies. The program has been shown to have positive effects on youths’ prosocial behavior (Burke, Brennan, & Cann, 2012). Why it is Important to do this Review The overall aim of this review is to generate evidence-based insights to help practitioners, policy-makers, and researchers understand the available evidence on the practices and types of programs that appear to have meaningful impacts on prosocial behavior in childhood and adolescence. Specifying the practices that are a good fit for different child populations is also a key goal of this review and has implications for situating the findings of the review and tailoring practice. What follows is an overview of prior research and reviews that examine causal influences on prosocial behavior in order to highlight gaps and limitations in the current state of the literature. Problematically, laboratory experiments have been by far the most common format for investigating influences on prosocial behavior. The inception of most experimental research on prosocial behavior occurred in the 1960s when there was great interest in testing whether adults’ actions could induce changes in children’s prosocial responses. Most early experiments were laboratory-based. Tightly controlled laboratory experiments significantly trailed off at the end of the 1970s, but they continue to be a popular method to study prosocial behavior. Generally, laboratory experiments have taken the form of researchers providing children in a treatment groups with a short one or two session exposure to an intervention intended to enhance or diminish children’s prosociability and then children’s prosocial behavior is measured directly following intervention, often under the direct supervision of the researcher. While laboratory experiments may at times provide glimpses of what can occur under certain conditions, they are likely limited in providing reliable inferences on whether interventions will have an impact on behavior in real world settings. There have been some more contemporary control group intervention studies conducted in natural settings (e.g., Honig & Pollack, 1990; Malti, Ribeaud, & Eisner, 2012; Ramaswamy & Bergin, 2009; Solomon, Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi, 1996). These studies, however, have not been comprehensively reviewed in the literature that covers prosocializing influences (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2006; Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989; Hastings et al., 2007). This represents a significant gap in existing narrative reviews. To date, there has been as yet no systematic review to indicate whether interventions in authentic contexts effectively enhance prosocial behavior or to suggest the content and delivery methods that characterize the more effective treatments. A few prior meta-analyses, however, speak to the potential to significantly impact prosocial behavior via formal planned instruction. One meta-analytic review found that comprehensive social emotional learning programs and skills for life programs in schools increase prosocial behavior in primary or 10


secondary school students in the immediate and longer term (Diekstra, Sklad, Gravesteijn, Ben, & de Ritter, 2008). Yet, the review included only a handful of studies with prosocial behavior outcomes and did not investigate the content features of programs that were associated with greater effectiveness. Another meta-analysis suggests positive effects of exposure to television programming with prosocial content on the prosocial behavior of children and youth (Mares & Woodard, 2005; for the original review that was updated, see Hearold, 1986). There have been meta-analyses that examine the impact of interventions on positive social behavior and general social and emotional skills. Recent quantitative reviews have indicated, for example, that comprehensive, multicomponent social and emotional learning programs in schools and after-school programs with a focus on the development of personal and/or social skills show significant impacts on the positive social behavior of children and adolescents (Durlak et al., 2011; Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010). Similarly, the general picture of a review of 19 meta-analyses was that social emotional learning programs and skills for life programs bolster the social and emotional skills of children and youth in elementary and secondary school (Diekstra & Gravesteijn, 2008). However, it remains unclear whether such interventions would also impact prosocial acts that serve to help or promote the wellbeing of others because prosocial behavior is not always included (or it is reflected in only a few items of a measure) in measures of positive social and emotional skills. It also remains problematic that currently there are no bases to draw conclusions about whether some instructional practices or programs may be more effective than others. Westen, Novotny, and Thompson-Brenner (2004) emphasize that research should move beyond evaluations of global packages of programs to identify the specific processes of change (i.e., treatment components) that account for intervention success. Application of meta-analytic techniques to this area represents a promising avenue for clarifying the distinct practices that produce the most desirable effects and the active ingredients that comprise the broader categories of effective programs. It has even been argued that evidence-based kernels, or specific behavior change practices, could add value to or be more efficient than comprehensive interventions (Embry & Biglan, 2008). Dissemination of concrete strategies instead of manualized treatment programs may facilitate practitioners’ more effective adoption and implementation. As Embry and Biglan (2008) observe, “Kernels have most features that Rogers (1995) identified as important in fostering dissemination. He observed that people are more likely to adopt and implement a practice if it is simple and easily tested, its effects are readily observable, it appears to offer an advantage over existing practices, it addresses an important problem, and it is compatible with existing practices” (p. 90). Another possible direction is that empirically supported instructional practices and program components could be used individually or in combination to develop new evidenceinformed procedures or programs (Embry & Biglan, 2008). Taking into account the accumulating literature highlighting school and policy maker 11


priorities, gaps in prior reviews, and the potential benefits of prosocial behavior for healthy and positive development, there is a need to comprehensively synthesize the full evidence base of methodologically rigorous studies that examine impacts of intervention on prosocial behavior in children and youth. Using a complex set of moderators outlined in this review’s methodology, this meta-analysis is designed to clarify the practices, specific program components, and delivery methods associated with meaningful increases in prosocial action. OBJECTIVES This quantitative review will summarize and evaluate the available evidence on the impacts of instructional practices and programs targeted to enhance prosocial behavior in children and youth. The focal research questions are as follows:   





 

Do practices and programs in authentic contexts effectively enhance prosocial behavior in children and youth? What is the magnitude and variability of effects? Which practices, intervention components, and delivery methods appear to be the most effective to employ? What is the evidence that teachers’ implementation of practices and programs in schools will meaningfully increase students’ prosocial behavior? Which intervention approaches appear most effective toward this aim? Do the findings suggest differential effects for participants with different demographic backgrounds and individual characteristics (e.g., age, children high in aggression), different socializers (e.g., teachers vs. parents) and different targets of prosocial behavior (e.g., familial vs. non-familial persons, same vs. different ethnicity/race)? Do the findings suggest differential effects by study design and setting characteristics, measure characteristics (e.g., method of report), and methodological characteristics (e.g., implementation problems, monitoring of intervention delivery)? Is there evidence of the persistence over time of intervention effects on prosocial behavior? What are the gaps in the literature and limitations to the evidence?

METHODOLOGY Criteria for including and excluding studies A study must meet all of the criteria set forth below to be eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Types of study designs Studies must use an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Studies without control conditions such as one-group pre-post designs will be excluded. Eligible comparison conditions may be no treatment, treatment as usual, placebo treatment, or any other similar 12


condition set up as a contrast to the treatment condition that should not have an impact (even a negative impact) on prosocial behavior. Studies without random assignment to treatment and control groups must include matched control groups, appropriate adjustments for pretest differences, or report of a pre-treatment variable with respect to an eligible measure of prosocial behavior or at least one social, emotional, cognitive, or academic skill variable. Social, emotional, cognitive, and academic skills are generally correlated with prosocial behavior (see Eisenberg et al., 2006). Types of participants The review will include studies with participants ages 3 to 18. This age range was selected to correspond to the ages of students in preschool through secondary school. One primary objective of the review is to provide relevant evidence-based indications of the instructional practices and types of programs that could be instrumental in educating students to be prosocial. The specified age range was also selected to capture the broad developmental stages of early childhood through adolescence, which are marked by high levels of brain plasticity and may provide optimal windows for intervention (Bradshaw, Goldweber, Fishbein, & Greenberg, 2012). In addition, longitudinal research indicates that prosocial acts in childhood and adolescence are predictive of prosocial acts in early adulthood (Eisenberg et al., 1999, 2002), which suggests that it may be of great consequence to focus efforts on enhancing helping behaviors in these developmental periods. There is one exclusion criterion based on participant demographic background characteristics. Studies are ineligible if more than 15% of participants have identified learning disabilities (e.g., mental disabilities/handicaps/impairments, autism spectrum disorder, cognitive deficits, traumatic brain injury, or enrollment in special education services) unless prosocial outcomes are reported separately for participants with and without identified learning disabilities. Types of interventions Interventions eligible for inclusion in this review will be required to meet several eligibility criteria. Only studies of universal or targeted intervention practices or programs evaluated for influence on prosocial behavior in children and/or youth will be eligible. Interventions must include behavioral and/or psychological content. Programs or practices may occur in a single exposure or be implemented over a longer-term (e.g., school year). For eligibility, interventions must be delivered or organized by a teacher, parent, or other adult (e.g., researcher, graduate student, school psychologist). Studies that only compare general early care, school, or afterschool (e.g., Sure Start, 21st Century Community Learning Centers) attendance with non-attendance will be ineligible. Although general early care, school, and afterschool programs often have standards for social and emotional learning, benchmarks or standards are not considered adequate enough to signify that social and emotional learning was integrated into instruction. Also, interventions that include pharmaceutical treatments will be excluded. 13


Types of outcome measures The outcome to be examined is prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior represents a broad category of voluntary acts intended to help or promote the wellbeing of others (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Sharing resources, providing assistance or comfort, cooperating, donating, volunteering, and community service/outreach are common examples of prosocial acts. There are no restrictions on the type of measure of prosocial behavior (e.g., observational measure, teacher report, peer report, vignette measure) or the time frame in which measures of prosocial behavior were collected following treatment. It should be noted that prosocial behavior is sometimes referred to as altruism. However, altruism generally refers to self-sacrificing actions that benefit others and do not involve selfgain (Rushton, 1982; Staub, 1978; Wispe, 1978). While altruistic behaviors are always prosocial, acts of prosociability are not always altruistic because prosocial behaviors do not require self-sacrifice and may even involve self-gain (e.g., social approval). In this metaanalysis, altruistic behavior will be included as a type of prosocial behavior. An eligible measure is one in which at least 75% of items reflect prosocial behavior (i.e., acts intended to help or benefit the wellbeing of others). If a measure includes items that do not reflect prosocial behavior, these items need to examine other social and emotional competencies, skills, behaviors, attitudes and/or perceptions. This means that outcome measures that include more than 25% of items on friendliness, empathy, sympathy, peer acceptance, popularity, antisocial impulse regulation, and other indices of non-prosocial social and emotional outcomes are not eligible. Item-level information of measures of social and emotional competence (e.g., moral behavior, friendship skills, compassionate behavior, ethical behavior, character development, citizenship engagement) will be reviewed to see if they are compatible with the eligibility criteria for a qualifying outcome measure. Duration of follow-up All follow-up measures of prosocial behavior collected on both treatment and comparison group samples will be included. It is an objective of this review to provide information on whether and which extant instructional strategies show evidence of longer-term effects. Types of settings Studies conducted in most natural settings are eligible (e.g., home, school, after school program, camp, neighborhood, YMCA). However, studies conducted in laboratory, incarcerated, or inpatient settings are ineligible due to external validity concerns including the potential limitation in providing reliable inferences about the effects of practices and programs on behavior outside laboratory or monitored settings. Geographical context Studies may have been conducted in any country. Social behaviors and relational processes 14


may dynamically interplay with culture (LeVine et al., 1994; Weisner, Gallimore, & Jordan, 1988), so broad cross-cultural comparability may be problematic. Consequently, the country of origin in which the research was conducted will be examined as a moderator in analysis. Publication language Studies must be reported in English. The choice to exclude studies from non-English language sources reflects the practical constraints in searching and translating literature not reported in English. Date of publication The date of publication or reporting of the study must be 1960 or later. Study of the effects on children’s prosocial behavior began predominantly in the 1960’s and 70’s, mainly in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe, when there was great interest in experimental work testing whether adults’ actions could induce changes in children’s prosocial responding. Social and psychological research on prosocial behavior rapidly accelerated in 1964 when the brutal stabbing of Katherine “Kitty” Genovese outside her apartment in Queens, New York while 38 neighbors and other witnesses did not assist or contact the police was highly publicized and ignited social scientists’ exploration into reasons for why individuals act in ways that help others (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). Overview of Potentially Relevant Study Characteristics and Moderators There have been meta-analyses and literature reviews with findings that bear on the study of prosocial action, particularly in that they suggest potential moderators of the effects of practices and programs on children’s prosocial acts. Moderator variables should provide clues to why there are differential treatment effects and account for methodological and procedural characteristics of studies in order to reduce possible sources of bias (Lipsey, 2009a). However, the ability to examine the selected study characteristics analytically will, of course, depend on how completely they are reported in the sample of eligible studies for the quantitative review. A descriptive analysis of relevant study and participant characteristics will also be helpful in elucidating the nature of the research, limitations to generalizability, and areas where the field may need additional research. Briefly, next are described the selected study characteristics and potential moderators displayed in Table 1. General study characteristics Study design, country of origin, date of publication or report, and study setting are study characteristics that may influence the results of a quantitative review and have important implications for external validity (Card, 2012). Particular attention will be made to study research design. Randomized experiments in which children or group of children (e.g., classrooms) were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups and data analysis was conducted at the level of random assignment will be compared to non-randomized studies 15


(and also studies that have only a small number of groups for cluster random assignment). Sample characteristics One overarching question that this review seeks to address is whether most children and youth can benefit from practices and programs intended to enhance prosocial acts. Gathering a large representative body of studies will be critical in providing evidence toward this end, but it will also be essential to empirically investigate the degree to which our results can be generalized by examining whether participant characteristics change the magnitude of effect size. Sample characteristics of age/grade-level, gender, ethnicity/race, socioeconomic status, and baseline levels of prosocial behavior will be tested as moderators. These sample characteristics have been identified as factors associated with prosocial behavior (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Penner et al., 2005). For example, a meta-analysis on gender and age differences in prosocial behavior suggests general trends of females showing more prosocial behavior than males and increasing prosociability across childhood (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, & Laible, 1999). However, it’s unclear from prior literature whether children’s background characteristics may influence treatment effects on prosocial behavior. A review of meta-analyses does provide evidence on the link between a few of children’s background characteristics and efficacy of social emotional learning programs and skills for life programs. Conclusions were that children from lower economic status families benefit as much or more than their more affluent peers and that children across age groups benefit, but there may be variations in the age groups that benefit the most (Diekstra & Gravesteijn, 2008). It is also of substantive interest as to whether children with emotional or behavioral issues are receptive (or less receptive) to increases in prosocial behavior through intervention. Responsiveness to intervention may be differential for children who have emotional or behavioral issues because they may be less likely to accurately encode social information or generate relational goals (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). In teasing out what works for whom, we hope to be able to formulate evidence-based recommendations, which can be further empirically evaluated, for working with populations of children with different characteristics and backgrounds. General intervention characteristics Instructional practices and programs vary in modality (i.e., targeted or universal intervention; single component vs. multicomponent programs; intervention in one or more contexts), format (i.e., treatment structure of individual versus group sessions), and dosage (i.e., frequency, intensity, and duration of a treatment). For practice, it is important to provide information on which service delivery variables are more conducive for increases in prosocial behavior. Meta-analyses of interventions that target teaching social and emotional skills suggest that treatments of short duration or low intensity often show smaller or insignificant effect sizes (Diekstra & Gravesteijn, 2008). Durlak et al. (2011) also found that multicomponent interventions (i.e., school programs with multiple components often supplemented with parent training and/or schoolwide initiatives) appear to be less effective 16


than single-component programs in increasing positive social behavior of children and youth; however, these meta-analytic findings may be tempered by indications that multicomponent programs had more implementation problems. This review will also provide evidence on the quantity and type of provider training and technical assistance associated with more effective delivery of instructional practices and programs. Durlak and DuPre’s (2008) review of the research on the impact of implementation on child outcomes suggests the importance of documenting program approaches to insure provider proficiencies in the skills to conduct the intervention and to deliver technical assistance such as retraining or emotional support. SAFE framework Based on meta-analytic findings, interventions focused on social, emotional and/or personal skills tend to improve a range of outcomes when they employ SAFE implementation practices including sequenced activities to achieve goals, active learning techniques to help participants acquire skills, focused time on social, emotional, and/or personal development, and explicit objectives for social, emotional, and/or personal skills (Durlak et al., 2010; 2011; Durlak & Weissberg, 2012). This meta-analysis will investigate whether effects on prosocial behavior are moderated by the use of SAFE practices. However, the SAFE features “focused” and “explicit” will be adapted to reflect a focus on prosocial behavior. Intervention content We also plan to investigate whether practices and interventions with different intervention components appear to be more or less effective in supporting prosocial responses. This has important implications for selection and implementation of interventions that may have larger effects. These broad categories of intervention components are outlined in Appendix A and were discussed in the section on how the intervention might work. Relationship of socializer (i.e., person providing treatment) to participant children The relationship that adult socializers have with participants might impact treatment effects. It has been argued that parents can have strong causal effects on their children’s learning and enactment of prosocial behavior (Eisenberg et al., 2006). However, there are also theoretical underpinnings that support and strengthen the case that teachers can make important contributions to facilitating children's prosocial behavior (e.g., Bandura, 1986). Because this review has an interest on whether educators can influence prosocial behavior, it will be important to provide evidence of whether the relationship of the socializer to the study participant (e.g., teacher, parent, unfamiliar adult) is a moderator of effect size. Explicitly, for generalization, future research, and practice and policy, it is key to provide indications of whether interventions used by non-familial familiar adults (e.g., teachers) and unfamiliar adults (e.g., researchers), who do not have the same kind of preexisting affective

17


bonds or patterns of social interchange that exist in parent-child relationships, produce positive behavioral change. Characteristics of prosocial behavior outcome measure For generalizing findings, it is important to examine how effect size relates to characteristics of measurement of prosocial outcomes. Toward this aim, the following moderators will be evaluated: measurement design (e.g., natural situation vs. experimentally designed or hypothetical situation; anonymous/unsupervised vs. supervised assessment of prosocial outcomes), method of report (i.e. self-report, other-report, observation), and construct measurement (i.e., 75% - 90% vs. < 90% of prosocial behavior items). Potentially, there may be limitations to external validity of prosocial outcomes assessed under the scrutiny of researchers or through the use of experimentally designed or hypothetical situations. It is also critical to examine how sustainable effects are. This has implications for gauging the amount of time required to deliver lasting interventions and for future research evaluating the importance of later booster sessions. For the studies that evaluate impacts following post-test assessment, moderator analyses will be conducted to explore the maintenance of the effects of intervention using categories of duration of follow-up (e.g., short-term, midterm, and long-term) or timing of follow-up (e.g., months following conclusion of the intervention). Table 1: Relevant Study Characteristics Category

Description

General study characteristics

A. B. C. D. E.

Design (i.e., random or non-random assignment) Country of origin Date of publication/report Setting (e.g., school, home, afterschool program) Publication status (e.g., published versus unpublished)

Sample characteristics

A. B. C. D. E. F.

Age or grade-level (a proxy for age when age is not reported) Gender Ethnicity/race Socioeconomic status Behaviorally at-risk (i.e., sample with behavioral issues) or not at-risk sample Baseline levels of prosocial behavior

General intervention characteristics

A.

SAFE framework

A. B. C. D.

18

Nature of intervention (i.e., single component vs. multicomponent programs; universal vs. targeted; intervention in one or more contexts) B. Format (e.g., one-to-one, small group, or whole group instruction) C. Dosage (i.e., number of sessions, length of sessions and intervention) D. Socializer training (i.e., quantity, type, and technical assistance) Sequenced (i.e., uses connected and coordinated activities to achieve outcomes) Active (i.e., uses active forms of learning) Focused (i.e., most components of intervention develop prosocial skills) Explicit (i.e., program targets prosocial behavior rather than targeting general social and emotional skills or positive development in general terms)


Category

Description

Categories of practices and program components

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N.

Learning by doing Social learning Emotional Literacy Other-orientation Mindfulness Cognitive/behavioral self-regulation Moral instruction Bystander intervention training Friendship-making skills Civic and political participation Caring community Diversity Inclusion Socializers’ responsiveness, emotional warmth, and nurturance Development of socializers’ social and emotional competence

Socializer-participant relationship

A.

Relationship to participant (familiar or unfamiliar; teachers, parents or other adults)

Characteristics of prosocial behavior outcome measure

A.

Characteristics of the target of prosocial behavior

A.

Methodological characteristics

A. B. C. D.

Measure design (i.e., assessment from natural situation vs. experimentally designed or hypothetical situation; anonymous/unsupervised vs. supervised assessment of prosocial behavior) B. Method of report (i.e., self-report, other-report, observation) C. Construct measurement (i.e., 75% - 90% vs. < 90% of prosocial behavior items) D. Length of follow-up period Relationship of target to enactor of prosocial behavior (e.g., familial vs. nonfamilial; friends, peers, teachers, and/or parents) B. Age (e.g., peers vs. adults) C. Gender D. Ethnicity/race E. Socio-economic status Risk of bias assessment Implementation problems reported by authors Monitoring of Intervention delivery Outcome measure reliability

Note. The SAFE framework has been slightly adapted from work developed by Durlak et al. (2011).

Characteristics of targets of prosocial behavior It has been suggested that characteristics of the target of prosocial behavior may influence prosocial behavior (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014). Characteristics of the relationship of the target to the enactor of prosocial behavior (e.g., familial vs. non-familial; friends, peers, teachers, and/or parents) and age, gender, ethnicity/race, and socio-economic status of the target will be examined in this review. There are different perspectives on how the identity of the target may influence prosocial behavior. Evolutionary biology perspectives would suggest that prosocial behaviors are more likely directed toward those that share kinship ties (e.g., Hastings, Zahn-Waxler, & McShane, 2005). Similar to this perspective, research has suggested that higher levels of prosocial behavior are directed toward family members and friends than strangers; however, there are also indications that children’s prosocial behavior may be more frequent toward peers than family members, but this finding may vary by age and culture (de Guzman, Carlo, & Edwards, 2008; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011). Other perspectives have suggested that prosocial behaviors may be 19


influenced by whether or not a target is clearly distressed or in need of help (e.g., Hoffman, 2000). Consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), the extent of homogeneity or heterogeneity of individuals’ background characteristics may also be a contextual factor with relevance for how individuals treat one another. The interpersonal effect of perceived similarity upon helping has been widely noted in the literature on prosocial behavior (e.g., Dovidio, Gaertner, Validzic, Johnson, & Frazier, 1997). That said, the ethnic/racial similarity of participants to the targets of prosocial behavior will be explored as a moderator of effect size. Taken together, these perspectives suggest that characteristics of the target of prosocial behavior (as outlined in the outcome measure of prosocial behavior) may potentially influence the magnitude of effect size. Methodological characteristics Assessing the validity and reliability of the research included in a meta-analysis improves understanding of the ways in which flaws in the conduct of studies may bias the results and influence the conclusions that can be drawn (Higgins et al., 2011). An assessment of the validity of studies will be evaluated using the risk of bias procedures outlined by Higgins et al. (2011). Additional data will be collected on implementation fidelity and problems and outcome measure reliability. If sufficient data are collected on these methodological characteristics, they will be tested as moderators of effect size. Screening for eligibility at the citation and abstract stage and full-text level Studies will be screened for inclusion in two phases. In phase 1, the citations and abstracts of research reports identified through the search process will be screened to assess eligibility using the citation and abstract eligibility screening procedures in Table 1, Appendix B. Following phase 1 screening, full-texts of potentially eligible research reports will be obtained. In phase 2, the full-texts of research reports eligible for inclusion in phase 1 will be screened to assess eligibility using the full-text eligibility screening procedures outlined in Table 2, Appendix B. Prior to phase 1 screening, screeners will receive comprehensive training involving detailed review of the rules for citation and abstract screening. Official phase 1 screening will not begin until the screeners achieve 100% agreement on the citation and abstract screening of 50 randomly selected research reports. In phase 1, screeners will serve as independent reviewers of all records to identify studies for potential inclusion. However, the lead author will randomly select 15% of each screener’s completed screenings in order to ensure that there has not been screener drift. If a screener has dropped more than 5% of potentially eligible research reports from the selected sample, the lead author will check all of the screener’s eligibility decisions. Prior to beginning phase 2 screening, similar training and reliability assessment will be conducted with reference to screening 10 reports at the full-text level with 100% reliability. In phase 2, screeners will also double screen 20% of eligible studies. In cases of screener 20


disagreement that cannot be resolved via discussion, the lead author will be consulted to resolve the final coding value. In both of phases of review, relevant meta-analyses and literature reviews will be identified and screened for additional relevant studies. Search strategy A systematic and comprehensive search strategy designed to identify all relevant studies and ensure representation of unpublished studies, conference proceedings, and other grey literature will be used to locate qualifying studies. The search will be conducted using electronic databases, internet search engines, citations in previous meta-analysis and literature review, citations in research reports screened for eligibility, conference listings, hand searches of relevant journals, and correspondence with experts in the field. There will be language and date of publication restrictions: only studies reported in English and published in 1960 and later will be included. Electronic databases British Library EThOS Google Google Scholar ISRCTN (current controlled trials) JSTOR LILACS (scientific and technical literature of Latin America and the Caribbean) metaREGISTER (for reviews to be hand searched for potentially eligible studies) National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System (NARCIS) National ETD Portal (South African theses and dissertations) National Library of Australia Trove Service Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) Open Grey (was SIGLE) PsycEXTRA Research Connections Social Science Research Network Theses Canada FirstSearch will be used to search ArticleFirst, PapersFirst, World Cat, and WorldCat dissertations  Web of Science will be used to search Social Sciences Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded  ProQuest will be used to search 24 databases: Alt-PressWatch, British Periodicals, CBCA Complete, Dissertations & Theses @ Vanderbilt University, Ebrary® e-books, ERIC, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), Latin American Newsstand, PAIS International, Periodicals Index Online, PRISMA (Publicaciones y Revistas Sociales y Humanísticas), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UK & Ireland), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text, ProQuest Education Journals, ProQuest                 

21


Psychology Journals, ProQuest Religion, ProQuest Research Library, ProQuest Science Journals, ProQuest Social Science Journals, ProQuest Sociology, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Social Services Abstracts, and Sociological Abstracts Table 2: Tentative Search Strategy in ProQuest Search Description Limit to the abstract

abs(Altruis* OR Prosocia* OR Help* OR Shar* OR Cooperat* OR Volunteer* OR Donat* Comfort* OR “Service learning” OR “Community Service*” OR “Community outreach*”) AND

Words can appear anywhere in the document

(Altruis* OR Prosocia* OR Help* OR Shar* OR Cooperat* OR Volunteer* OR Donat* OR Comfort* OR “Service learning” OR “Community Service*” OR “Community outreach*”) AND (Experiment* OR Quasi-experiment* OR Randomized OR Radomised OR Random assign* OR Randomly Assign OR RCT OR Trial OR Control Group* OR Control condition* OR Comparison Group* OR Comparison Condition* OR Causal Design* OR Treatment Condition* OR Treatment Group* OR Experimental Group* OR Experimental Condition*) AND (Child* OR Adolescen* OR Youth* OR Preadolescen* OR Student* OR Juvenile* OR Kid* or Pupil OR Teenage* OR Teen* OR Toddler OR Pre-teen OR Preteen OR Kindergarten* OR Youngster* OR Preschool* OR Prekindergarten* OR Pre-kindergarten*)

Additional limits

Date: After December 31 1959 Language: English Exclusion: Historical Newspapers; Audio & Video Works

Search terminology in electronic searches The tentative search strategy that will be used to search ProQuest is outlined in Table 2. The search will be further refined by using the limiting commands to exclude studies which are retrieved by the search strategy but clearly are unrelated to the topic of the review (e.g., medical research on Hodgkin's disease). For other databases, this search strategy will be adapted using relevant Boolean logic and limiting commands. Unfortunately, it is not possible to further limit by names of instructional practices as they widely vary and comprehensive programs will also be included in the review. Many older studies are not well classified in terms of their search terminology in electronic databases. In preliminary test searches, placing more limitations on the current planned search resulted in the loss of relevant studies. For electronic searches, the database thesauri will be consulted to include any additionally relevant subject and keyword terminology in the search process. In addition, the head social sciences librarian of the Jean and Alexander Heard Libraries at Vanderbilt University will be consulted regarding the search strategy in order to identify further restrictions that could be imposed in the search process without losing potentially relevant studies. Bibliography search of eligible research reports The reference lists of all eligible research reports (and near misses ineligible because of weak 22


study designs, etc.) will be scanned and screened for research reports not already identified. In addition, forward searching will occur for all eligible research reports in order to identify additional relevant studies (i.e., via Science Citation Index). Bibliography search of relevant meta-analyses and literature reviews Bibliographies of relevant meta-analyses and literature reviews found via the search process will be screened for research reports to include as part of this review. Some reviews have already been located during a preliminary search (e.g., Bar-Tal, 1976; Batson, 2012; Dovidio et al., 2006; Eisenberg, 1983; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989; Hastings et al., 2007; McCullough & Tabak, 2010; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2014; Nucci, Narvaez, & Krettenauer, 2014; Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014; Penner et al., 2005; Staub, 2003; Stürmer, & Snyder, 2010). Professional Organization Website Searching The websites of the professional organizations of the International Association of Applied Psychology, International Positive Psychology Association, American Psychological Association, and Society for Research on Child Development will be searched for potentially eligible research reports. There are also planned searches of websites of identified professional organizations that develop interventions designed to promote prosocial behavior (e.g., The Developmental Studies Center website). Hand searching After the electronic search is complete, the journals that include many eligible studies will be manually reviewed. Contact key authors in the field Key investigators who are known to be active in the field and experts identified during the review process will be contacted with a request to share any published, unpublished, and ongoing research relevant to the review. Description of methods used in primary research Study designs to be included in this review are described above. The two studies that follow exemplify the methods likely to meet the eligibility criteria for the review. Study 1 In a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design study, Ramaswamy and Bergin (2009) examined the effects of teacher reinforcement and induction on preschoolers’ spontaneous prosocial behavior in the classroom. Eight classrooms were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups (i.e., reinforcement only, induction only, reinforcement and 23


induction) or control. The sample consisted of 98 boys and girls between 3 and 5 years of age. The interventions were implemented in all but one treatment classroom for 7 weeks. Observational measures of children’s prosocial behavior in the classroom were taken before and after intervention, and the results were separately reported for the four conditions. Study 2 In an experimental design study, Staub (1971b) examined the impact of role-playing and induction on children’s helping and sharing behavior. Pairs of kindergarten children, randomly selected from a sample of 75 boys and girls, were assigned to one of three treatment groups (i.e., role playing, induction, role playing with induction) or a straw man comparison group. There were 2 treatment/control group sessions. A day following the 2nd treatment/control exposure, children were either assessed on whether they helped a distressed child or whether they shared material possessions with another child and helped an adult on a task. Four to 6 days later, children were given the assessment they had not received following treatment. Results were reported separately for the four conditions. Criteria for determination of independent findings In all probability, there may be cases in which eligible studies include a) more than one outcome of prosocial behavior for the same sample of participants (e.g., observational measure, and teacher-report measure), b) more than one treatment group and only one control condition, and/or c) more than one time point of data on an eligible outcome. The following methods will be used to handle multiplicity of data in primary studies. Prior to coding, efforts will be made to identify any overlap in research reports of the same study sample. Information in study reports such as authors, sample sizes, and treatment information will be used to identify multiple reports of a single study (e.g., dissertation and published article, short-term follow-up and longer-term follow-up). Studies stemming from the same sample will be given linking IDs (e.g., study 101.1, 101.2, 101.3) to indicate that full information from all linked reports should be used for coding under one report. If it is unclear whether reports of studies include independent findings, study authors will be contacted. In the event that a study reports more than one eligible outcome measure of prosocial behavior for the same sample of participants, all outcome data on prosocial behavior will be collected and coded. It is of substantive interest as to whether there are changes in the magnitude of effects according to the measure of prosocial behavior employed. There may be, for instance, potential limitations to external validity of prosocial behavior measures that rely on experimentally designed situations or hypothetical responses to vignettes or stories (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Generally, it appears that there are low to moderate correlations among measures of prosocial behavior collected through observation, teacherreport, parent-report, and self-report. This may be due, in part, to the context in which the prosocial behavior was reported. For example, parents and teachers are reporting on 24


different social contexts in which they observe a child’s interactions. As described in the statistical procedures section, the relations of the type of measure to effects of instructional practices and programs will be examined in analysis. In cases in which a primary study compares more than one treatment arm against a common control condition, all treatment group data will be extracted, analyzed, and reported because it is of substantive interest to examine the relative effects of different types of programs and instructional procedures. However, this situation is problematic because the treatment groups will share a common control group and therefore be correlated. If several studies include more than one treatment arm and only one control condition, robust variance estimation is planned to account for dependency in effect sizes. In the unlikely event that a study includes more than one treatment group and provides a separate control condition for each treatment group, each treatment-control comparison will be treated as a separate study. In cases in which more than one time-point of an eligible outcome is reported, all follow-up effects will be coded. Presumably, there will be relatively few studies with follow-up assessments. However, it is a key aim of this review to provide evidence on whether there are long-term impacts of instructional procedures on prosocial behavior or whether more research toward this aim is needed. Moderator analyses will be conducted to explore the maintenance of the effects of instructional strategies on prosocial behavior over time. Details of study coding categories All studies that meet the eligibility criteria in the citation and abstract and full-text screening will be coded using the tentative coding instrument in Appendix C. Much of the coding instrument has been modeled on codebooks developed by Lipsey and Chapman (2013), Tanner-Smith and Lipsey (2009), and Wilson and Lipsey (2012). Data extracted from primary studies will include information on methodology, design, treatment setting, treatment and control group characteristics, type of treatment, socializer characteristics, outcome measurement, etc. All of the study characteristics shown in Table 1 will be recorded using the coding instrument. In order to address potential risk of bias within primary studies and how such bias could impact the review results and conclusions, risk of bias will be assessed using the procedures outlined by Higgins et al. (2011). The five sources of potential bias include (1) selection bias (i.e., random sequence generation, allocation concealment), (2) performance bias, (3) detection bias, (4) attrition bias, and (5) reporting bias. For each source of potential bias, coders will provide a judgment of whether there is low, high, or unclear risk of bias. Coders will also describe the risk of bias reported by the researchers. Eligible studies will not be excluded on the basis of the risk of bias assessment. The results of the risk of bias assessment will be used as moderators/controls in analyses detailed below. Double coding of 20% of all eligible studies is planned. Periodic reliability assessments to protect against coder drift are planned for the first few weeks of coding. This review is 25


expected to be very large; thus, duplicate data extraction for all eligible reports is not expected to be feasible. If a study is found to be ineligible at the full-text coding stage, the reasons for ineligibility will be documented in a table. Any coding disagreements will be discussed and a consensus code will be used. In cases of coder disagreement that cannot be resolved via discussion, a third-party will be consulted to resolve the final coding value. Prior to coding, comprehensive training will involve review of coding rules and selected study results sections with potentially ambiguous phrasing, practice of research report coding, and discussion of coding discrepancies and areas of ambiguity in the coding manual. Inter-rater reliability checks will be conducted prior to coding the final set of eligible studies. Official coding will not begin until all coders achieve 90% agreement on a set of 20 randomly selected eligible research reports. Once the criterion for inter-rater percent of agreement is met, any disagreements on codes of the 20 studies will be discussed and a consensus code will be used, and the studies that meet reliability standards will be used as part of the final data. Data extraction forms for reliability, coding, and screening will be developed in Filemaker Pro. Statistical procedures and conventions The tentative analysis plan for the quantitative review is detailed below. Effect Size Metric Standardized mean difference effect sizes (Cohen’s d formula in Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) will be reported with adjustments of the small-sample correction factor to provide unbiased estimates of effect size (Hedges, 1981; Hedges & Olkin, 1985). For binary outcomes, the Cox transformation will be used to convert log odds ratios into standardized mean difference effect sizes (Sánchez-Meca, Marin-Martinez, & Chácon-Moscoso, 2003) because most outcomes are expected to be reported on a continuous scale. Effect sizes will be computed from data in primary studies in such forms as means, standard deviations, percentage, frequencies, t-tests, F-tests, p levels, and other quantitative statistics via conversion formulas provided by Lipsey and Wilson (2001). All effect sizes will be coded such that a positive effect size reflects greater prosocial behavior in the treatment group relative to the control. Effect sizes will be reported using a 95% confidence interval. Coders will document the computations used for the effect size estimates derived from each study. The distributions of effect sizes and sample sizes will be examined to identify potential outliers. The criteria for what constitutes an outlier will be calculated using the outer fence procedure outlined by Tukey (1977). If necessary, extreme values will be Winsorized, or recoded to more moderate values, to prevent distortion of the results (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Clustered data analysis issues Not accounting for clustering in studies may result in overestimating the precision of effect 26


size (Perera & Glasziou, 2007). For clustered data (e.g., studies that use classrooms as the unit of assignment to condition), we will adhere to the procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins & Green, 2011). Adjustments will be made using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Specifically, in cases of continuous outcomes, the effective sample size will be calculated by taking the study sample size and dividing it by the “design effect” (i.e., 1 + (average cluster size – 1) * ICC). For dichotomous outcomes, both number of participants and number of participants experiencing the event will be divided by the design effect. Study authors will be contacted if ICC information is not available in a research report. In cases in which ICCs are unobtainable from authors, we will consider other approaches to account for the effect of clustering such as selecting a close-matching ICC from our sample of ICCs (in terms of the outcome measure and nature of clusters) or another representative ICC reported in the literature (e.g., via existing databases of ICCs). Handling missing or incomplete data All reasonable attempts will be made to collect complete data on variables in the coding manual. Authors of reports will be contacted if sufficient information is not reported to calculate effect sizes or code selected moderators. If some studies continue to have missing data after contacting authors, missing moderator and effect size values will be estimated using multiple imputation methods. A series of imputed data sets will be generated using a program available for use with R statistical software (e.g., Amelia II; Honaker, King, & Blackwell, 2011). Using Rubin’s rules (1987), the imputed data sets will be pooled to obtain overall estimates and standard errors. Multiple imputation has been shown to have advantages of reducing bias of estimates and standard errors and reducing loss of information and power (Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010). The data will be examined for patterns of systematic missingness to explore whether there is evidence that data may be missing not at random (MNAR). However, the application of MNAR models is of wide debate (Enders, 2010). If evidence of MNAR is found, this limitation to the findings will be presented in the discussion section but not handled in analyses. Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize the current state of the literature and highlight gaps in the research on the impacts of programs and practices on the prosocial behavior of children and youth. Descriptives will be synthesized across primary studies on characteristics of methodology, participants, context, instructional strategies, socializers of prosocial behavior, recipients of prosocial behavior, and outcomes. Synthesis of Effect Sizes and Assessment of Heterogeneity of Effect Sizes Meta-regression methods are planned to examine the overall effects and variability of effects 27


of instructional practices and programs. If many eligible studies including several different treatment groups and one common control, multiple measures of the same underlying outcome, and multiple measures at different follow-periods, meta-regression with robust standard errors (RSE) will be used to model the dependencies in the data (see Hedges, Tipton, & Johnson 2010). This method would allow us to include multiple effect size estimates from the same study. Random effects models are planned to account for the heterogeneity between studies given the likely variation in study characteristics and for the importance of supporting generalization of the findings beyond the included studies (Borenstein et al., 2009). Random effects weighted mean posttest effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals for each study will be calculated and graphically shown in a forest plot, which will also display the average effect size across studies. Using random effects models will allow us to account for within study sampling variance and between study variability. Moderator Analyses If there is significant variability in effects (i.e., if the Q statistic indicates significant heterogeneity in effect sizes), moderator analyses will explore for whom and under what conditions instructional strategies appear to enhance prosocial behavior. Estimates of the residual Cochrane’s Q, I2, and τ2 will be used to assess residual variability in the effect sizes after inclusion of the potential moderators outlined in Table 1. Substantive categories of moderators (e.g., characteristics of the programs and practices and sample) will be evaluated within a regression framework to examine the association of thematically grouped moderator variables with study effect sizes (i.e., separate meta-regression models are planned for substantive groupings of moderators). However, first, relevant study characteristics (e.g., design, year of publication, country of origin) will be tested as moderators. Those methodological characteristics that are correlated with effect sizes will be included in all moderator analyses to correct for possible misidentification (e.g., overestimation or confounding with methodological variables) of the impact of substantive moderator variables (Lipsey, 2009b). While moderator analyses can elucidate important information for informing and improving research, practice and policy, there are important considerations to address. Confounded moderators make it difficult to delineate the situations that may account for differential intervention effects (Lipsey, 2003). In this review, interrelationships of moderator variables with effect size and each other will be carefully examined to try to disentangle probable key moderators and program and practice effects from variables that simply tend to co-occur due to aspects of study methodology, etc. If there are substantial correlations among moderators, analyses will be conducted to investigate the potential interactions among the moderators. Another concern is that sufficient data may not be reported on selected moderating variables to examine their relationship with effect size. In this case, it may be necessary to exclude variables from moderator analyses and examine them descriptively. 28


Publication Bias Publication bias stems from failing to detect unpublished studies. Underrepresentation of unpublished studies, which are more likely to have non-significant effects, can substantially bias effect size estimates (Borenstein et al., 2009). Although all reasonable attempts will be made to include unpublished research such as searching databases of conference proceedings and other grey literature and corresponding with experts in the field, some unpublished studies, particularly from decades past, will be unobtainable. Potential publication bias will be examined using Egger’s regression-based assessment of asymmetry of funnel plots (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997). If publication bias is suggested by the diagnostic test, then Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) trim and fill method will be used to impute the potentially missing effect sizes and then the combined effect will be recomputed. Sensitivity Analyses Several types of sensitivity checks will be conducted to investigate the robustness of the results. Sensitivity analyses will be used to examine how sensitive results are to 1) imputed effect size and moderator values, 2) Winsorized outliers, 3) inclusion of non-randomized studies, and 4) duration of follow-up. The potential impact of results from the sensitivity analysis on the findings will be addressed in the final review. Software for analyses Analyses will be performed using meta-analysis commands that run in the R statistical environment and Stata version 12 (StataCorp, 2011). Excel spreadsheets will be used for some effect size calculations and proportion to percent calculations (and perhaps other calculations such as months to years, etc.). Treatment of qualitative research We do not plan to include purely qualitative research. The focus of this review is on quantifying the impact of instructional practices and programs on prosocial behavior in children and youth. We do, however, anticipate that the great majority of eligible studies will not include qualitative data.

29


REFERENCES Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3, 236–253. doi:10.1177/1541344605276792 Allen, J. P., Philliber, S., Herrling, S., & Kuperminc, G. P. (1997). Preventing teen pregnancy and academic failure: Experimental evaluation of a developmentally based approach. Child Development, 64, 729-742. doi: 10.2307/1132122 Allen, J.P., Philliber, S., & Hoggson, N. (1990). School-based prevention of teenage pregnancy and school dropout: Process evaluation of the national replication of the Teen Outreach Program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 505– 524. doi: 10.1007/BF00938057 Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baer, R. A. (2007). Mindfulness, assessment and transdiagnostic processes. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 238–242. doi: 10.1080/10478400701598306 Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283504 Bar-Tal, D. (1976). Prosocial Behavior: Theory and Research. New York: Halsted Press. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495–509. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.3.495 Batson, C. (2012). A history of prosocial behavior research. In A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 243-264). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation and the executive function: The self as controlling agent. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 516–539). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30


Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96, 1652-1678, doi: 10.1257/aer.96.5.1652 Bergin, C. (2014) Educating students to be prosocial at school. In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial Development: A Multidimensional Approach (pp. 279-304) New York: Oxford University Press. Blair, C. (2009). Self-regulation and school readiness. The International Child and Youth Care Network. Retrieved from http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cyconline-oct2009blair.html Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. New York, NY: Wiley. Brackett, M. A, & Rivers, S. E. (2014). Transforming students' lives with social and emotional learning, In R. Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International Handbook of Emotions in Education (pp. 368-388). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Bradshaw C. P., Goldweber A., Fishbein D., & Greenberg M. T. (2012). Infusing developmental neuroscience into school-based preventive interventions: implications and future directions. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 41-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.04.020 Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A national survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and transform schools. Washington, D.C.: Civic Enterprises. Retrieved from http://casel.org/guide Burke, K., Brennan, L., & Cann, L. (2012). Promoting protective factors for young adolescents: ABCD Parenting Young Adolescents Program randomised controlled trial. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1315-1328. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.05.002. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302–306. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00260 Caprara, G. V., Kanacri, B. P. L., Gerbino, M., Zuffiano, A., Alessandri, G., Vecchio, G., Caprara, E., Pastorelli, C., & Bridglall, B. (2014). Positive effects of promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence: Evidence from a school-based intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 386-396. doi: 10.1177/0165025414531464

31


Card, N. A. (2012). Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research. New York: Guilford. Cassidy, K. W., Werner, R. S., Rourke, M., Zubernis, L. S., & Balaraman, G. (2003). The relationship between psychological understanding and positive social behavior. Social Development, 12, 198-221. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00229 Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories (pp. 149- 197). New York: Cambridge University Press. Chiesa, A. (2013). The difficulty of defining mindfulness: Current thought and critical issues. Mindfulness, 4(3), 255-268. doi: DOI 10.1007/s12671-012-0123-4 Chorpita, B. F., & Daleiden, E. L. (2009). Mapping evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: Application of the distillation and matching model to 615 treatments from 322 randomized trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 566579. doi: 10.1037/a0014565. Crick, N., & Dodge, K. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74 Currie, C., Gabhainn, S. N., Godeau, E., Smith, R., Currie, D., et al. (2008) Inequalities in young people's health: HBSC international report from the 2005/2006 survey. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen. Retrieved from: http://test.cp.euro.who.int/Document/E91416_prelim_ch1.pdf Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137 de Guzman, M. R. T., Carlo, G., & Edwards, C. P. (2008). Prosocial behaviors in context: Examining the role of children’s social companions. Int. J. Behav. Dev, 36, 538–546. doi: 10.1177/0165025408095557 Diekstra, R., & Gravesteijn, C. (2008). Effectiveness of school-based social and emotional education programmes worldwide. In Social and emotional education: An international analysis (pp. 255-312). Santender, Spain: Fu

32


Diekstra, R., Sklad, M., Gravesteijn, C., Ben, J., & de Ritter, M. (2008). Teaching social and emotional skills worldwide: A meta-analytic review of effectiveness. In Social and Emotional Education: An International Analysis (pp. 285-301). Fundación Marcelino Botin Report: Santander. Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L., & Saguy T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3– 20. doi:10.1177/1088868308326751 Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997). Extending the benefits of re-categorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401-420. doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1327 Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2006). The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology 41, 327-350. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0. Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2012). Afterschool Programs That Follow Evidence-Based Practices to Promote Social and Emotional Development Are Effective. Compendium on Expanded Learning. Retrieved from www.expandinglearning.org Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of schoolbased universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 474-501. doi: 10.1111/j.14678624.2010.01564.x Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 294–309. doi: 10.1007/s10464-0109300-6 Duval, S. J., &Tweedie, R. L. (2000) Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14,10-34. doi: 10.1177/0743558499141003 33


Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697. . doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665. Eisenberg, N. (1983). The socialization and development of empathy and prosocial behavior (Special report). East Haddam, CT: The National Association for Humane and Environmental Education. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Editor-in-Chief) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 701-778). New York: Wiley. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Karbon, M., Murphy, B. C., Wosinski, M., Polazzi, L., & Juhnke, C. (1996). The relations of children’s dispositional prosocial behavior to emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Child Development, 67, 974–992. doi: 10.2307/1131874 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., & Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial development. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 646–718). New York, NY: Wiley. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Geisheker, E., (1979). Content of preachings and power of the model/preacher: The effect on children's generosity. Developmental Psychology, 15, 168-175. doi: 10.2307/1131874 Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., et al. (2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 993–1006. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.27.5.849 Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and development of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 70, 1360-1372. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00100 Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., et al. (2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 993–1006. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.27.5.849 Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34


Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2009). Political Participation and Civic Engagement: Towards A New Typology. Youth & Society (Working Paper). Retrieved at http://www.oru.se /PageFiles /14371/Ekman%20and%20Amn%C3%A5%202009- 1.pdf Embry, D. D., & Biglan, A. (2008). Evidence-Based Kernels: Fundamental Units of Behavioral Influence. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review 11, 75-113. doi: 10.1007/s10567-008-0036-x Embry, D. D., Lipsey, M. W., Moore, K.A., & McCallum, D. F. (2013). Best Intentions are Not Enough: Techniques for Using Research and Data to Develop New Evidence-Informed Prevention Programs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/13/KeyIssuesforChildrenYouth/BestIntentions/rb_bestintent ions.cfm Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Eisenberg, N., Plumlee, T. M., & Christopher, F. S. (1989). The effects of rewards on children's prosocial motivation: A socialization study. Developmental Psychology, 25, 509-515. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.25.4.509 Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Kupanoff, K., & Laible, D. (1999). Early adolescence and prosocial/moral behavior I: The role of individual processes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 5-16. doi: 10.1177/0272431699019001001 Feshbach, N. D. (1978) Studies of empathic behavior in children. In B.A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (pp.1-47). New York: Academic Press. Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Liau, A. K., Guo, S., Powell, K. E., Atha, H., Vesterdal, W., & Embry, D. (2003). Initial behavior outcomes for the PeaceBuilders universal schoolbased violence prevention program. Developmental Psychology, 39, 292–308. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.292 Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum. Developmental Psychology, 15, 44-51. doi: 10.1037/a0038256 Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S. W., Vernberg, E. M., Nelson, J. M., Dill, E. J., Little, T. D., et al. (2009). A cluster randomized controlled trial of child-focused psychiatric consultation and a school systems-focused intervention to reduce aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 607–616. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02025.x.

35


Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Gelfand, D.M., Hartmann, D.P., Comer, C.C., Smith, C.L., & Page, B.D. (1975). The effects of instructional prompts and praise on children's donation rates. Child Development, 46, 980-983. doi: 10.2307/1128408 Gordon, M. (2005). Roots of empathy: Changing the world child by child. Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers Grusec, J. E., Saas-Kortsaak, P. & Simutis, Z. M. (1978) The role of example and moral exhortation in the training of altruism. Child Development, 49, 920–23. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.16.5.525 Grusec, J. E. & Skubiski, S. L. (1970). Model nurturance, demand characteristics of the modeling experiment, and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 352-359. doi: 10.1037/h0028985 Hastings, P. D., Utendale, W. T., & Sullivan, C. (2007). The socialization of prosocial development. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization (pp. 638–664). New York: Guilford Press. Hastings, P. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., & McShane, K. (2005). We are, by nature, moral creatures: Biological bases of concern for others. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 483-516). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hawkins D.L, Pepler D.J, Craig W.M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development. 10, 512–527. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00178 Hay, D. F., & Cook, K. V. (2010). The transformation of prosocial behavior from infancy to childhood. In C.A. Brownell & C.B. Kopp (Eds.), Socioemotional development in the toddler years (pp. 100-131). New York: The Guilford Press. Hay, D. F., & Pawlby, S. (2003). Prosocial development in relation to children's and mothers' psychological problems. Child Development, 74, 1314-27. doi: 10.1111/14678624.00609 Hearold, S. (1986). A synthesis of 1,043 effects of television on social behavior. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior: Vol. 1 (pp.66-135). New York: Academic Press.

36


Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. doi:10.2307/1164588 Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Hedges, L.V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M.C. (2010) Robust variance estimation in metaregression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods. 1, 39-65. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.5 Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C. et al., (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928 Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0. Oxford, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Honaker, J., King, G., & Blackwell, M. (2011). Amelia II: A program for missing data. Journal of Statistical Software, 45, 1-47. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v45/i07/paper Honig, A. S., & Pollack, B. (1990). Effects of a brief intervention program to promote prosocial behaviors in young children. Early Education and Development, 1, 438-44. doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0106_3 Houlette, M. A., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, K. M., Banker, B. S., Riek, B. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2004). Developing a more inclusive social identity: An elementary school intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 35–55. doi: 0.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00098.x Howard, J. A., and Barnett, M. A. (1981). Arousal of Empathy and Subsequent Generosity in Young Children. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 138, 307-308. doi: 10.1080/00221325.1981.10534147 Iannotti, R. J. (2012). Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC), 2005-2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR34792.v1

37


Israel, A. C., & Brown, M. S. (1979). Effects of directiveness of instructions and surveillance on the production and persistence, of children's donations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 27, 250-261. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(79)90046-8 Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. (2009). The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to child and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491-525. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325693 Johnson, M. K., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J. T., & Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism in adolescence: A process perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 309-322. doi: 10.1207/s15327795jra0803_2 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary schools. Review of Educational Research, 66, 459-506. doi:10.3102/00346543066004459 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Johnson, J., & Anderson, D. (1976) Effects of cooperative versus individualized instruction on student prosocial behavior, attitudes toward learning, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 446-452. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.68.4.446 Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies Social and Policy Report, 26, 3–22. Retrieved from http://www.ncflb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Social-and-Emotional-Learningin-Schools- From-Programs-to-Strategies.pdf Joseph, G., & Strain, P. S. (2003). Enhancing emotional vocabulary in young children. Young Exceptional Children, 6, 18-27. doi: 10.1177/109625060300600403 Kahne, J., Chi, B., & Middaugh, E. (2006). Building Social Capital for Civic and Political Engagement: The Potential of High-School Civics Courses. Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 387-409. doi:10.2307/20054169 Kaminski, J. W., Valle, A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A meta-analysis review of components associated with parent training program effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 36, 567–589. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9 Karna, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4–6. Child Development, 82, 311–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x

38


Krebs, D. L., & Van Hesteren, F. (1994). The development of altruism: Toward an integrative model. Developmental Review, 14, 103-158. doi:10.1006/drev.1994.1006 Krivel-Zacks, G. (1995). Effects of an intervention for facilitating social reasoning and prosocial behavior in preadolescents. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada. Ladd, G. W., Lange, G., & Stremmel, A. (1983). Personal and situational influences on children's helping behavior: Factors that mediate compliant helping. Child Development, 54, 488-501. doi: 10.2307/1129711 Larrieu, J., & Mussen, P. (1986). Some personality and motivational correlates of children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, 529–542. doi: 10.1080/00221325.1986.9914528 Lee, V. & Burkam, L. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71, 107- 118. doi:10.1111/14678624.00124 LeVine, R. A., Dixon, S., LeVine, S., Richman, A., Leiderman, P. H., Keefer, C. H., & Brazelton, T. B. (1994). Child care and culture: Lessons from Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2006). What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World? Unpublished manuscript. University of Chicago, Retrieved from: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/jep%20 revision%20Levitt%20%26%20List.pdf Lipsey, M. W. (2009b). Identifying interesting variables and analysis opportunities. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (pp. 147-158). NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Lipsey, M. W. (2009a). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–47. doi: 10.1080/15564880802612573 Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 69-81. doi: 10.1177/0002716202250791 39


Lipsey, M. W., & Chapman, G. (2013) Meta-analysis of Juvenile Delinquency Programs. Unpublished meta-analysis coding manual. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage. LMTF (Learning Metrics Task Force). 2013. Toward Universal Learning: Recommendations from the Learning Metrics Task Force. Montreal and Washington, D. C.: UNESCO Institute for Statistics and Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution. Lozada, M., D'Adamo, P., & Carro, N. (2014). Plasticity of altruistic behavior in children. Journal Of Moral Education, 43, 75-88. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2013.878244 Malti, T., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2011). The effects of two universal preventive interventions to reduce children’s externalizing behavior: A cluster-randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 677-692. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2011.597084. Mares, M. L., & Woodard, E. (2005). Positive effects of television on children’s social interactions: A meta-analysis. Media Psychology, 7, 301–322. doi: 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_4 Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A. B., & Brendgen, M. (2001). The quality of adolescents' friendships: Associations with mothers' interpersonal relationships, attachments to parents and friends, and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 429-445. doi: 10.1006/jado.2001.0374 Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-34). New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. McCullough, M. E., & Tabak, B. A. (2010). Prosocial behavior. In R. F. Baumeister and E. J. Finkel (eds.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 263-302). New York: Oxford. Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J. H. (1967). Training charity in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 408-415. doi: 10.1037/h0024399 Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J.H. (1972). Affect expressions and children's imitative altruism. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 195-203. Midlarsky, E., Bryan, J. H., & Brickman, P. (1973). Aversive approval: Interactive effects of modeling and reinforcement on altruistic behavior. Child Development, 44, 321-328. doi: 10.2307/1128054 40


Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2014), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Nucci, L., Narvaez, D., & Krettenauer, T. (2014). Handbook of Moral and Character Education (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge. Ooi, C. S. (2013). The Efficacy and Social Validity of a Group Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Young Migrants from War-affected Countries (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Curtin University, Australia. Ornaghi. V., Grazzani, I., Cherubin, E., Conte, E., & Piralli, F. (2015). 'Let's talk about emotions!': The effect of conversational training on preschoolers' emotion comprehension and prosocial orientation, Social Development, 24, 166-183. doi: 10.1111/sode.12091 Ostrov, J. M., Massetti, G. M., Stauffacher, K., Godleski, S. A., Hart, K C., Karch, K. M., Mullins, A. D., & Ries, E. E. (2009). An intervention for relational and physical aggression in early childhood: A preliminary study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 15-28. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.08.002 Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2014). Prosocial Development: A multidimensional approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Penner, I. A., Dovidio, J. E., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141 Perera, R., & Glasziou, P. (2007). A simple method to correct for the design effect in systematic reviews of trials using paired dichotomous data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 975-978. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.12.004 Polanin, J., Esplanage, D., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47-65. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/ Ramaswamy, V., & Bergin, C. (2009). Do reinforcement and induction increase prosocial behavior? Results of a teacher-based intervention in preschools. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23, 527- 538. doi: 10.1080/02568540909594679 Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147–166. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00049-1 41


Roeser, R. W., & Pinela, C. (2014). Mindfulness and compassion training in adolescence: A developmental contemplative sciences perspective. New Directions in Youth Development, 142, 9-30. doi: 10.1002/yd.20094 Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Rosenhan, D., & White, G. M. (1967). Observation and rehearsal as determinants of prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 424–431. doi: 10.1037/h0024395 Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rushton, J. P. (1982). Altruism and society: A social-learning perspective. Ethics, 92, 425 446. doi: 10.1086/292353 Rushton, J. P. (1975). Generosity in children: Immediate and long term effects of modelling, preaching, and moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 459– 466. doi: 10.1037/h0076466 Sánchez-Meca, J., Chacon-Moscoso, S., & Marin-Martinez, F. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8, 448–467. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.448 Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1-10. doi: 10.1037/a0018082 Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district study of educational changes: Direct and mediated effects of the Child Development Project. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 3-51. doi: 10.1023/A:1009609606692 Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1996). Creating classrooms that students experience as communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 719–747. doi: 10.1007/BF02511032 Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., Delucchi, K. L., Schaps, E., & Battistich, V. (1988). Enhancing children's prosocial behavior in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 527-554. doi: 10.3102/00028312025004527 StataCorp. (2011). Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

42


Staub, E. (1970). A child in distress: The effects of focusing responsibility on children on their attempts to help. Developmental Psychology, 2, 152-153. doi: /10.1037/h0028605 Staub, E. (1971b). A child in distress: The influence of nurturance and modeling on children's attempts to help. Developmental Psychology, 5, 124-132. doi: 10.1037/h0031084 Staub, E. (1992). The origins of caring, helping, and nonaggression: Parental socialization, the family system, schools, and cultural influence. In P. M. Oliner, L. Baron, L. A. Blum, D. L. Krebs, & M. Z. Smolenska (Eds.), Embracing the other: Philosophical, psychological, and historical perspectives on altruism (pp. 390-412). New York: New York University Press. Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press. Staub, E. (1979). Positive social behavior and morality: Socialization and development (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press. Staub, E. (2003). The psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults, and groups help and harm others. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Staub, E. (1975). To rear a prosocial child: Reasoning, learning by doing, and learning by teaching others. In D. DePalma & J. Folley (eds.), Moral development: Current theory and research. Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Staub, E. (1971a). Use of role-playing and induction in children's learning of helping and sharing behavior, Child Development, 42, 805-816. doi: 10.2307/1127450 Street, H., Hoppe, D., Kingsbury, D., & Ma, T. (2004). The game factory: Using cooperative games to promote pro-social behaviour among children Australian. Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 4, 86-99. Retrieved from http: //www.newcastle.edu.au/journal/ajedp/ Stürmer, M., & Snyder, S. (2010). The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Szynal-Brown, C., & Morgan, R. R. (1983). The effects of reward on tutor’s behaviors in a cross-age tutoring context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36, 196-208. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(83)90029-2 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7 - 24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 43


Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (2009). Brief intervention effects on adolescent and young adults’ alcohol consumption. Unpublished meta-analysis coding manual. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Thornberg, R., Tenenbaum, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., & Vanegas, G. (2012). Bystander Motivation in Bullying Incidents: To Intervene or Not to Intervene? Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13, 247–252. doi:10.5811/westjem.2012.3.11792 Tsang, S. K. M., Hui, E. K. P., & Law, B. C. M. (2011). Bystander position taking in school bullying: The role of positive identity, self-efficacy, and self- determination. The Scientific World Journal, 11, 2278-2286. doi:10.1100/2011/531474 Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review, Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. doi: 10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1 Tukey, J.W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weisner, T. S., Gallimore, R., & Jordan, C. (1988). Unpackaging cultural effects on classroom learning: Hawaiian peer assistance and child-generated activity. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19, 327–353. doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1988.19.4.05x0915e Wertheimer, R., Croan, T., Moore, K. A., & Hair, E. C. (2003). Attending kindergarten and already behind: A statistical portrait of vulnerable young children. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wpcontent/uploads/2003/01/Fatherhood-DADS-Survey-Framework.pdf Westen, D., Novotny, C. M., & Thompson-Brenner, H. (2004). The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: Assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 631–663. doi: 10.1037/00332909.130.4.631 White, G. M. (1972). Immediate and deferred effects of model observations and guided and unguided rehearsal on donating and stealing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 139-141. doi: 10.1037/h0032308 White, D. R., & Howe, N. (1998). The socialization of children’s emotional and social behavior by day care educators. In D. Pushkar, W.M. Bukowski, A. E. Schwartzman, D.M. Stack, & D. R. Whit (Eds.), Improving competence across the lifespan (pp. 7990). New York: Plenum Press.

44


Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2012). Meta-analysis of longitudinal predictors of antisocial behavior, substance use, school success or failure, and school readiness. Unpublished meta-analysis coding manual. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Wispe, L. (1978). Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping. New York: Academic Press. Yarrow. M. R., Scott, P., & Waxler, C. Z. (1973). Learning concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 8, 240-260. doi: 10.1037/h0034159 Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence, Social Development, 5, 85–101. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1996.tb00073.x Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development: A Sullivan-Piaget perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

45


REVIEW AUTHORS Lead review author: Name:

Asha L. Spivak

Title:

Institute of Education Sciences Postdoctoral Fellow

Affiliation:

Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University

Address:

230 Appleton Place, PMB 181

City, State, Province or County:

Nashville, Tennessee

Postal Code:

37203-5721

Country:

United States

Phone:

(615) 322-8540

Email:

[email protected]

Co-authors: Name:

Mark W. Lipsey

Title:

Director, Peabody Research Institute; Research Professor, Department of Human & Organizational Development

Affiliation:


Address:




Postal Code:

37203-5721

Country:

United States

Phone:

(615) 322-8540

Email:

[email protected]

Name:

Dale C. Farran

Title:

Senior Associate Director, Peabody Research Institute; Professor, Department

Affiliation:


Address:




Postal Code:

37203-5721

46


Country:

United States

Phone:

(615) 322-8540

Email:

[email protected]

Name:

Joshua R. Polanin

Title:

Institute of Education Sciences Postdoctoral Fellow

Affiliation:


Address:




Postal Code:

37203-5721

Country:

United States

Phone:

(615) 322-8540

Email:

[email protected]

ROLES AND RESP ONSIBL IITIES •

Content: Asha Spivak will lead on the overall content of the review and take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole. The study of prosocial behavior has been Dr. Spivak’s primary substantive area of focus in master’s and doctoral degree work and published research. Dale Farran, Professor at the Peabody College of Education and Human Development and Senior Associate Director of the Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, has been involved in research and intervention for at-risk children and youth for all of her professional career. With Dr. Farran’s expertise in areas of early childhood education, early intervention, curriculum evaluation, and socialization and cognitive development, she will bring considerable content knowledge of the literature and its practical applications and implications.

•

47

Systematic review methods, statistical analysis, & information retrieval: Mark Lipsey, Director of the Peabody Research Institute and Research Professor at the Peabody College of Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University, and Joshua Polanin, managing editor of the Method's Group and Chair of the Statistical Methods subgroup at the Campbell Collaboration and an Institute of Education Sciences postdoctoral fellow at Vanderbilt University, are highly expert in rigorous approaches to systematic review, meta-analysis, and systematic information retrieval. With consultation and oversight from Drs. Lipsey and Polanin, the systematic review and The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

meta-analysis will be conducted by Dr. Spivak. She has received some training to conduct the research activities through participation in an advanced graduate-level course on applied systematic review and meta-analysis. Two research assistants will need to be recruited to participate in report retrieval, reliability checks, eligibility selection, and coding of research reports. In addition, we will seek the support of the head social sciences librarian of the Jean and Alexander Heard Libraries at Vanderbilt University in order to identify holes in our search strategy (e.g., identify other databases or sources to search for relevant research reports). SOURCES OF SUPPORT Considering the scope of this systematic review and meta-analysis, additional external funding will be sought to support the project. DECLARATIONS OF INTE REST There are no known conflicts of interest. Although Joshua Polanin is a managing editor of the Method's Group and Chair of the Statistical methods subgroup at the Campbell Collaboration, he will not participate in any aspect of the peer review process for this submission. PRELIMINARY TIME FRAME October 2014 • Revise protocol based on reviews • Consult head social sciences librarian of the Jean and Alexander Heard Libraries at Vanderbilt University regarding the search strategy and additional relevant search databases • Train graduate assistants for systematic literature search and literature retrieval • Pilot test literature search procedures (with revisions as needed) • Literature search electronic databases, hard copy journals, meta-analyses, and literature reviews for potentially eligible published and unpublished studies • Obtain feedback on the screening and coding materials from graduate assistants and, as necessary, make clarifications and revisions to the review manual and other materials November 2014 – January 2015 • Train assistants and pilot test procedures for citation and abstract eligibility screening and fulltext screening • Obtain inter-rater reliability for citation and abstract eligibility screening and full-text screening (95% agreement on both the citation and abstract and full text screening of 30 randomly selected research reports) • Eligibility screen research report citations and abstracts • Eligibility screen full-text reports eligible at the citation and abstract screening phase • Additional search of potentially relevant research reports following full-text screening (e.g., forward and backward citation tracking) • Contact nationally and internationally known researchers in the field to locate potential additional studies

48


January 2015 – March 2015 • Train research assistants on study coding procedures • Pilot test study codes (with revisions as needed) • Obtain inter-rater reliability for study coding (90% agreement on coding a set of 20 randomly selected eligible research reports) • Extraction of data from research reports (1/3 of studies will be double coded and checked for reliability) April 2015 • Data Cleaning • Statistical Analysis April – July 2015 • Preparation of report July 2015 • Submit review to Campbell Collaboration PLANS FOR UPDATING THE REVIEW Asha Spivak will be responsible for updating the review in light of new evidence, comments, criticisms, and other developments (at least once every three years). AUTHOR DECLARATION Authors’ responsibilities By completing this form, you accept responsibility for preparing, maintaining and updating the review in accordance with Campbell Collaboration policy. The Campbell Collaboration will provide as much support as possible to assist with the preparation of the review. A draft review must be submitted to the relevant Coordinating Group within two years of protocol publication. If drafts are not submitted before the agreed deadlines, or if we are unable to contact you for an extended period, the relevant Coordinating Group has the right to de-register the title or transfer the title to alternative authors. The Coordinating Group also has the right to de-register or transfer the title if it does not meet the standards of the Coordinating Group and/or the Campbell Collaboration. You accept responsibility for maintaining the review in light of new evidence, comments and criticisms, and other developments, and updating the review at least once every five years, or, if requested, transferring responsibility for maintaining the review to others as agreed with the Coordinating Group. Publication in the Campbell Library The support of the Coordinating Group in preparing your review is conditional upon your agreement to publish the protocol, finished review, and subsequent updates in the Campbell Library. The Campbell Collaboration places no restrictions on publication of the findings of a 49


Campbell systematic review in a more abbreviated form as a journal article either before or after the publication of the monograph version in Campbell Systematic Reviews. Some journals, however, have restrictions that preclude publication of findings that have been, or will be, reported elsewhere and authors considering publication in such a journal should be aware of possible conflict with publication of the monograph version in Campbell Systematic Reviews. Publication in a journal after publication or in press status in Campbell Systematic Reviews should acknowledge the Campbell version and include a citation to it. Note that systematic reviews published in Campbell Systematic Reviews and co-registered with the Cochrane Collaboration may have additional requirements or restrictions for co-publication. Review authors accept responsibility for meeting any co-publication requirements.

I understand the commitment required to undertake a Campbell review, and agree to publish in the Campbell Library. Signed on behalf of the authors: Form completed by:

50

Date: 2/17/15


APPENDICES Appendix A. Tentative Instructional Practice and Program Components CATEGORY/Subcategory

Description

LEARNING BY DOING Actual experience of providing help, care, and other prosocial acts. * Note. Do NOT code volunteering here, code it under CIVIC AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION (VOLUNTEERISM). Cooperative learning

Structured cooperative learning activities in which groups of children are assigned to work together toward common goals on academic and nonacademic tasks.

Peer buddies

Children are paired into peer partners/buddies who practice or engage in prosocial behaviors (i.e., work on a project together).

Teamwork

Children work together as a team (e.g., sports team) and intervention is geared toward teambuilding (e.g., building connectedness, social inclusion).

Assigned social responsibility of helping peers

Children are assigned the social responsibility of engaging in prosocial behaviors toward peers (e.g., assignment of responsibility to teach a peer how to complete a task, participate in peer tutoring, or care for a younger child).

Assigned social responsibility of helping adults

Children are assigned the social responsibility of engaging in prosocial behaviors toward adults or to directly assist adults (e.g., helping grandparents, doing household chores).

LEARNING BY DOING SAME AS LEARNING BY DOING BUT the intervention is ONLY FOCUSED ON children’s - Non-prosocial focus general social competence (e.g., children are engaged in the actual experience of complimenting

others, using manners, and the like) AND NOT their prosocial behavior. LEARNING BY DOING Pretend experience of providing help, care, and other prosocial acts (PRETEND) Practice/ Rehearsal of Children are involved in practice or rehearsal of prosocial behavior. * Note: If children are asked prosocial behavior to enact roles, code as role-playing. If children are directed to imagine the perspectives,

emotions, or situations of others, code ALSO the correct category under other-orientation.

Role-playing

Children are provided role-playing activities wherein they enact a variety of prosocial roles (e.g., children enact situations in which one child needs help and the other child provides help, and sometimes this includes children exchanging roles in the helping scenario). Props such as puppets are sometimes used in role-play.

Performance feedback

Children are provided with performance feedback on their practice, rehearsal, and/or role-play of prosocial behavior.

LEARNING BY DOING SAME AS LEARNING BY DOING (PRETEND) BUT the intervention ONLY FOCUSED ON (PRETEND) children’s general social competence (e.g., children practice complimenting others, using - Non-prosocial focus manners, and the like) AND NOT their prosocial behavior. SOCIAL LEARNING (MODELING)

Model of prosocial behavior provided

Modeling of prosocial Adult socializer enacts prosocial behaviors (e.g., sharing food, helping someone, donating a prize behavior by socializer winning to charity). Modeling followed by Training that includes modeling followed by role-playing and performance feedback. role-playing and performance feedback Symbolic modeling

51

Adult provides description of a prosocial behavior he/she intends to do or has done.


CATEGORY/Subcategory

Description

Attention drawn to peer modeling of prosocial behavior

Adult points out or provides examples of children’s peers engaging in prosocial behavior.

Attention drawn to other’s modeling of prosocial behavior

Adult provides descriptions of others (aside from peers and themselves) engaging in prosocial behavior (e.g., descriptions of well-known altruists such as Mother Teresa).

TV models of prosocial behavior

Prosocial models are presented in television programming.

Video game models of Prosocial models are presented in video games. prosocial behavior Story models of prosocial behavior

Prosocial models are presented in literature or stories being read (e.g., story about a prosocial child or animal).

SOCIAL LEARNING SAME AS SOCIAL LEARNING (MODELING) BUT MODELS ONLY FOCUSED ON displaying (MODELING) general social competence (e.g., teacher modeled complimenting others, using manners, and the - Non-prosocial focus like) and NOT prosocial behavior. SOCIAL LEARNING (DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS OR EXPECTATIONS)

Communicated instructions or expectations for prosocial behavior such as verbal prompts, instructions, or commands (e.g., “I would like you to share your toys with Alessandro” or “You should share your toys with the play group”). Also, include here not especially constraining verbal encouragement of prosocial behavior (e.g., “Maybe it would be nice if you shared some of your toys with Alessandro” or “You may share some of your toys with Alessandro”).

SOCIAL LEARNING SAME AS SOCIAL LEARNING (DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS OR EXPECTATIONS) except the (DIRECT communicated instructions are FOCUSED ON children displaying general social competence INSTRUCTIONS OR (e.g., “I would like you to play nicely with Alessandro”) and NOT prosocial behavior EXPECTATIONS) - Non-prosocial focus SOCIAL LEARNING (REINFORCEMENT)

Techniques aimed at increasing children’s prosocial behavior through the use of external reinforcements to an individual and/or group.

External reward

Tangible rewards such as stickers, candy, extra playtime etc. are provided for prosocial behavior

Group reward

A group-oriented contingency system for prosocial behavior (i.e., reward for group contingent on prosocial behavior enacted by an individual or a group).

Positive reinforcement

Provides descriptive feedback, encouragement, and non-verbal cues of appreciation contingent on children’s prosocial behavior. This includes feedback such as praising, patting, or complimenting the child (e.g., ‘‘Thank you for helping Joseph with his homework’’). This type of intervention can also include publicly posted progress feedback for prosocial behavior.

Dispositional positive Dispositional positive reinforcement attributes children’s behavior to their intrinsic qualities (e.g., reinforcement “You are such kind children to help in the food drive for needy families”). Providing dispositional

descriptive feedback, encouragement, and non-verbal cues of appreciation contingent on children’s prosocial behavior includes feedback such as praising, patting, or complimenting the child while also attributing their actions to personal qualities.

Punitive technique for Deprivation of privileges or negative consequences for lack of prosocial behavior OR positive lack of prosocial OR behavior. positive behavior Punitive technique for Deprivation of privileges or negative consequences for inappropriate behavior (e.g., aggression, negative behavior maladaptive behavior).

52



Description

SOCIAL LEARNING SAME AS SOCIAL LEARNING (REINFORCEMENT) except the external reinforcements are aimed (REINFORCEMENT) at ONLY increasing children’s positive/adaptive social behavior (e.g., manners, on-task behavior, - Non-prosocial focus etc.) BUT NOT prosocial behaviors. This subcategory should NOT include any punitive

techniques. Code punitive techniques in the 2 prior subcategories.

EMOTIONAL LITERACY

Emotional literacy training involves instruction related to improving children’s capacities to accurately recognize emotions in the self and others (e.g., teaching children to read facial expressions and body language) as well as in objects (e.g., dolls), art, stories, music, etc.; understand the causes and consequences of emotions; understand the functions, sensations, triggers, automatic appraisals, and cognitions associated with specific affective states (e.g., anger, fear, sadness); label emotional experiences with an accurate and diverse vocabulary; communicate feelings and emotions; and express and regulate emotions in a healthy manner. This can also include adults helping children talk about their own and others’ emotions or providing opportunities for children to explore a wide range of feelings and the different ways those feelings can be expressed. Note: Make sure to differentiate emotional literacy training from intervention components that really involve other-orientation. For instance, if there is training focused on helping children imagine and/or feel the emotions of a person in a particular situation, it should be coded as empathy/sympathy/perspective-taking under other orientation. If children are being disciplined and asked to consider the emotions of others, it should be coded as induction or other-oriented induction.

Emotional literacy on A focus is on self-referential emotion or the inner experience, recognition, and/or understanding self-referential of one’s own emotions. Some of these intervention components are often included in mindfulness emotion training. Do not code emotional self-regulation here. Emotional literacy on Intervention on recognition and/or understanding of others’ emotions OR one’s own emotions in emotion in social social situations. Do not code emotional self-regulation here. situations Emotional selfregulation

Emotional self-regulation refers to children’s ability to control and modify negative or positive emotional reactions in a manner that is socially acceptable and/or in ways that allow them to accomplish their own or externally imposed goals. Teaching children skills and having them practice skills such as how to emotionally cope with meeting goals, emotionally react to situations such as failure and disappointment, and regulate anger are examples of emotional self-regulation training. Teaching a child a strategy such as deep breathing when she is angry is an example of an emotional self-regulation strategy.

Modeling of emotional Models of emotional literacy are provided. For example, adults model appropriate emotional literacy expressions and label their own positive feelings and self-regulation of negative feelings

throughout the course of the day.

OTHER ORIENTATION

Techniques aimed at increasing children’s understanding of and feeling for others. Note that if other-orientation training is focused on bystander intervention, code the category of bystander intervention instead.

Empathy/ Sympathy/ Perspective-taking

Empathy refers to imaginatively projecting oneself into the situation of another and having a similar emotional state. Sympathy refers to a state in which the subject feels "sorry for" a person, animal, story character, etc. as a result of perceiving the distress of the object or being. Perspective-taking refers to considering the perspectives or situation of another. Interventions here can include encouragement of children to consider or imagine others’ emotional states (e.g., distress), perspectives, needs, circumstances, etc. or to feel for or with others in need or distress. Also, eligible activities could, for example, include class discussion of media events that focus on enhancing understanding of the situation and perspectives of others. Note: If children are being disciplined for misbehaving and asked to consider the perspectives of victims, it should be coded as victim-oriented induction.

53



Description

Induction (i.e., form of Induction is a form of discipline that involves giving reasons to children for changing their discipline) misbehavior (usually aggression). It includes providing children with an awareness of the

consequences of their actions (e.g., “Kids are not going to want to play with you if you are not nice to them”), alternative behaviors (e.g., You could have asked Sally if she would share her blocks), explanations of the lack of constructiveness of misbehavior, and/or suggestion of acts of reparation. Victim-oriented induction (i.e., form of discipline focused on victims’ feelings)

Victim-oriented induction is the same a regular induction except it takes the form of providing children reasons for changing misbehavior by pointing out the negative consequences of their behavior on the feelings and thoughts of victims (e.g., directing child’s attention to another’s distress such as “It hurts Sally’s feelings when you yell at her” or other statements that tell a child how his/her actions make a victim feel). Do not also code empathy/sympathy/perspective-taking if empathy/sympathy/perspective-taking training is only used in combination with victim-oriented induction.

MORAL INSTRUCTION

Moral instruction is defined by the following four categories.

Moral dilemmas

Intervention includes group discussion of real-life or hypothetical moral dilemmas and/or practice or training in resolving moral dilemmas.

Moral decisionmaking

Intervention includes instruction in making decisions based on the consideration of ethical standards, fairness, justice, or the well-being of others or society.

Moral exhortation or preachings (normative)

Represents attempts to influence children’s future behavior by telling them about the merits or virtues of prosocial behavior such as remarking about the value of giving or helpfulness, but does not explicitly direct the children to engage in prosocial behavior and is not a disciplinary response to prior behavior. Normative moral exhortation/preaching does point out the effects of prosocial behavior on others. Examples of normative moral exhortations or preachings follow: “It is good to help others,” “Sharing is a good thing to do,” “We have a duty to help others in need” or adult provides children with a reason for why it is important to participate in a volunteering activity rather than attend a social event.

Moral exhortation or preachings (otheroriented)

Other-oriented moral exhortation/preaching includes pointing out the consequences of prosocial behavior for others (e.g., “It is good to share you toys with others. Sharing makes people happy”). Be careful not to confound this category with social norms.

MINDFULNESS

Mindfulness is defined herein by an ability to concentrate on and attend to sensations, thoughts, feelings, and objects; to describe and label thoughts with words (Note. If the focus is emotions, code under emotional literacy); to bear non-reactivity to inner experiences; and to approach moment-to-moment experiences with curiosity, awareness, openness, acceptance, and nonjudgment. Mindfulness interventions include meditation, contemplative relaxation (e.g., deep breathing, imaging of peaceful scenes), and concentration practices; acceptance-based strategies; yoga and other movement practices; awareness to a particular attentional object, whether it is the breath, body, sense, external stimuli, thoughts, or emotions; noticing when the mind has wandered from its object of attention (monitoring); returning attention back to the chosen object (shifting/cognitive flexibility); optimism training; cultivation of awareness of current feelings, thoughts and sensations; mindful awareness to daily activities like eating; self-regulation of attention so that it is maintained on immediate experience; practice of nonjudgmental investigation of ongoing experience; and set of daily intentions.

54



Description

COGNITIVE OR BEHAVIORAL SELFREGULATION

Behavioral/cognitive self-regulation interventions coded under this category must have a focus on one or more of the following: improving focus and attention on tasks (not objects, which is mindfulness), planning processes, effort, goal-directed behavior, flexible thinking, and independent working skills (e.g., self-imposed tasks); inhibiting impulsivity or negative or inappropriate behaviors; delaying gratification; modifying dysfunctional or irrational thinking; correcting cognitive distortions or attributional biases (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy); training on knowledge of triggers, automatic appraisals, and cognitions associated with specific affective states (e.g., fear, sadness); counseling for dysfunctional (inaccurate and/or unhelpful) thinking and behavior; generating adaptive cognitive appraisals; or regulating and monitoring behavior in the service of social acceptance or externally imposed or personal goals. Also, include interventions that have a focus on executive function (i.e., attention shifting, working memory, and inhibitory control). Interventions included here are those that are geared toward providing children with such skills to independently self-regulate OR those that are geared toward externally shaping the environment so that children learn to independently self-regulate. Do not code emotional self-regulation (code in emotional literacy) or bystander intervention training here.

Direct instruction of cognitive/behavioral regulation skills

Directly teaching children skills of self-regulating or self-monitoring cognitions or behavior (i.e., skills defined under the category COGNITIVE OR BEHAVIORAL SELF-REGULATION). This intervention in a school could, for example, include directly teaching children skills of selfregulating or self-monitoring cognitions or behavior to succeed in and adaptively navigate an education environment (e.g., how to follow directions from teachers, obey school rules, put up a quiet hand to ask questions in class, exert best efforts while doing class work and homework, or listen to teachers and peers while they are speaking),

External cognitive/behavioral management

External efforts are made to manage the external context to help children learn to independently self-regulate. For example, socializers establish structure or routine in an environment (e.g., predictable daily activities); monitor children’s behavior; impose disciplinary consequences for inappropriate behavior or for following and not following rules; communicate and enforce appropriate rules and limits for behavior; provide opportunities for children to practice rules; state rules positively and specifically (e.g., avoids words "no" and "don't"); keep rules to manageable number; and/or enforce limits and consequences consistently and fairly.

External corrective feedback

Corrective feedback is provided on alternative (and more appropriate) ways of handling situations when undesirable behavior occurs. Do not code induction here.

Anger management training

Anger management training including training to use self-control, respond appropriately to teasing, accept criticism, handle rejection, identify triggers, reduce anger through self-talk, soothing, or other strategies (e.g., push-ups, time-outs).

Counseling

Children are provided with individual counseling, therapy, psychotherapy, or group counseling.

BYSTANDER INTERVENTION

Bystander intervention training is focused on teaching children how to defend a peer against bullying and encouraging children to defend peers from bullying.

Strategies to enact bystander intervention

Teaching behavioral strategies for children to use in bystander intervention such as how to calm a situation, protect a victim, and talk to a bully.

Role-playing of bystander intervention

Role-playing how to effectively intervene and defend a victim. Role-play can include props such as puppets.

Increase empathy or sympathy for victims

Includes intervention components such as raising awareness about the harmful consequences of bullying for the victim and bully or having children imagine the feelings of victims or how they themselves would feel if they were being bullied. If empathy training is not focused on victims or bullying situation, code empathy/sympathy/perspective-taking under other-orientation.

Moral obligation

Practices tied to teaching children that they have a social or moral obligation to intervene when peers are being bullied.

55



Description

Peer mediators

Peers are tasked with the responsibility to intervene or motivate other children to stop the bullying.

Raising peer support for bystander intervention

Raising peer support for bystander intervention through such means as an anti-bullying campaign or posters advocating for preventing bullying.

FRIENDSHIP SKILLS

Approaches to strengthening peer friendship skills include teaching children how to join in and suggest activities, start and have a conversation (e.g., "partner chats," "turn-and-talk”), introduce oneself, display manners, give and accept compliments, invite peers to play, play with other children, make and sustain friendships, and the like. This also includes a focus on prosocial behavior toward peers but only in the context of peer friendships or relationships. Also, if the intervention includes a main focus on conversation (not on training how to enter into a conversation with a peer), then the communication category should be coded instead.

CIVIC AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Political and civic participation refer to the many ways in which individuals actively participate in, shape, or improve a community, neighborhood, or nation through political and non-political processes. Civic and political participation must be unpaid (i.e., no monetary or material compensation). Keep in mind that many terms are used to describe civic and political participation including community organizing, civic/service learning, civic dialogue, civic outreach, citizenship/political/civic/democratic engagement, social change, and community-based movement, but make sure that these terms fit with the provided definition of civic and political participation. The asterisk signifies that the behaviors rated under this category also conceptually fall under the category of LEARNING BY DOING.

* Donation

Giving money, food, and other material goods to a charity or people in need.

Civic and political awareness (Non-action)

Engagement in political and civic education and awareness such as learning about local, national, or international political processes or issues; learning about social justice or inequities; learning about how to change legislation; discussing politics and political issues; brainstorming ideas to solve a community problem; creating innovative solutions to social and civic problems or inequalities; learning about environmental or public health issues; and learning about the importance of neighborhood participation.

Political and civic participation (Action)

Active political and civic participation such as building grassroots movements involving communities; recruiting votes; organizing park cleanup programs; contacting political representatives; convincing people to vote for a party or a candidate; participating in political meetings; raising public consciousness about political issues; participating in neighborhood councils or campaigning activity; or meeting with various community or government leaders, media representatives, and community activists.

Activism

Participating in protests, strikes, demonstrations, or boycott of products.

*VOLUNTEERISM

Volunteering refers to the act of rendering of services for the benefit of the wider community. Volunteerism does not only include volunteering for a formal organization but it also includes helping friends, neighbors, or relatives. In order to code volunteerism, there should be no monetary or material compensation provided to the volunteer. Do not code donation here: Code it under CIVIC AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION. The asterisk signifies that the subcategories under this category also conceptually fall under the category of LEARNING BY DOING.

Volunteering for a humanitarian organization or purpose

Volunteering for a humanitarian organization or purpose in services focused on caring for people in need, improving collective welfare, fostering social justice, and/or providing healthcare, social service, environmental care, or community service. This category should also include service learning projects and participatory action research with a humanitarian focus (e.g., recycling program, cleaning up a neighborhood).

56


CATEGORY/Subcategory Volunteering – nonhumanitarian focus

Description

Volunteering with a non-humanitarian focus – includes volunteering for political (e.g., distributing folders or stickers for a political party), sports (e.g., water boy), and education (e.g., painting the school building) purposes or programs. Note that if there is a humanitarian focus (e.g., seeking to promote human welfare) of the listed types of volunteering, code instead Volunteering for a humanitarian organization or purpose.

CARING COMMUNITY Caring community is sometimes referred to as group/social/school bonding. This intervention type

refers to when children are offered opportunities to become a part of the classroom community so that each child feels accepted and gains a sense of belonging to a group (e.g., school, class, sports team). This includes interventions that directly work to increase caring and supportive social relations, positive shared norms and values, fairness and respect, civility, sense of connectedness to others and of being valued and mutually supported, positive social and emotional attachment to the group, and commitment to relationships to others. Fostering caring communities can also include adults interacting in a respectful manner with all children and ensuring that each child has an opportunity to contribute to the group. Remember that here the focus is on a positive group climate and caring about the group.

Prosocial norms

Communicated prosocial norms or values such as explaining social norms or standards for prosocial behavior (e.g., “We share in this classroom”). Make sure not to code moral exhortations here.

Classroom rules

Children participate in decision-making about classroom rules, plans, and/or activities.

Prosocial peer culture Peer group interventions to create a prosocial peer culture or climate. These types of

interventions are used mainly in schools settings.

DIVERSITY INCLUSION

Interventions include activities that focus on enhancing positive intergroup attitudes and inclusiveness and raising awareness of bias and individual differences and similarities. Diversity inclusion can, at times, be similar to increasing group bonding except it is targeted at developing sense of belonging by encouraging children to be inclusive of others from different backgrounds (e.g., gender, body type, economic status) or group membership (e.g., sports team). Also, it includes being respectful of and sensitive to children’s culture, background, and language.

Diversity inclusion (race / ethnicity / culture)

Diversity inclusion intervention includes a focus on people from different racial/ethnic/cultural backgrounds. Code both diversity inclusion categories if the intervention has a more expansive focus than only on those from different racial/ethnic/cultural backgrounds.

RESPONSIVENESS, EMOTIONAL WARMTH, AND NURTURANCE

Adult provides frequent displays of emotional warmth, nurturance, support, sensitivity and/or friendliness to children. This also includes interventions that involve adults cultivating supportive adult-child attachments or relationships.

SOCIALIZER SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE

There is a focus on socializers’ social and/or emotional competence (e.g., emotional awareness, self-management of healthy and positive emotional expressions, mindfulness to promote reflection and reduce stress). Note that most interventions purely provide adults with the skills to aid children’s development, which should not be coded under this category.

BACKGROUND ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Socializers are provided with background knowledge (e.g., theory, research, developmentally appropriate information) on how children develop prosocially and/or socially and emotionally.

Note. Intervention components are not mutually exclusive.

57


Appendix B. Eligibility Screening Procedures Table 1:

Citation and Abstract Eligibility Screening Procedures

Instructions If the research report is a literature review or meta-analysis on prosocial behavior or development or a related construct (see list), check here ☐ A research report should meet all of the following 9 criteria to be eligible. If a study does not fit one of following criteria, you should select “Drop” because it is ineligible. Please follow the screening scheme. We will make future limiting decisions when we have the full-text reports. APPLY TO ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONS: "Drop" (i.e., ineligible), "Keep" (i.e., eligible), OR code “999” if a study does not provide sufficient information to code. We want to be overly inclusive as to not miss a study that might be eligible for the review: Code “999” if there is ANY uncertainty. Questions

58

1. Are study subjects children or youth? A child/youth is defined as anyone between the ages of 3-18. College students are NOT eligible even though they could be within the tail end of the age range. The age of 18 was included to capture students who might be older in high school. However, if the study includes some children outside the age range (e.g., 2 to 4 or 15 to 19), it should NOT be disqualified at this stage because there may be relevant age breakouts. 2. Did the study take place in a natural setting? Studies conducted in natural settings are eligible (e.g., home, school, after school program, camp, neighborhood, YMCA). However, studies in nonnatural settings (e.g., laboratory, incarcerated, or inpatient settings, or boot camps regardless of whether participation is voluntary or involuntary) are ineligible. 3. Is the study reported in English? The study MUST be reported in English. However, the study DOES NOT need to be conducted in an English-speaking country, and the participants do not need to speak English. 4. Is the date of publication 1960 or later? The date of publication or reporting of the study must be 1960 or later even though the research itself might have been conducted prior to 1960. 5. The study does NOT include any pharmaceutical or medical treatments? Studies that include pharmaceutical/medical treatments are automatic exclusions. However, that the study is eligible if it includes a sample of children or youth with substance abuse problems or other medical issues. 6. The study does NOT exclusively consist of children with identified learning disabilities? Samples consisting exclusively of specialized populations with learning disabilities (e.g., mental or cognitive disabilities/impairments, autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury, special education services) are not eligible. However, inclusion of children with and without learning disabilities makes a study eligible because there may be relevant information for our target group. 7. Does the study include an outcome of school-age children’s prosocial behavior? A study is eligible if an behavioral outcome is described with any of the following (or similar, see list) prosocial behavior language: prosocial/prosociability/prosociality, social/socioemotional, interpersonal, psychosocial, positive, empathic, altruistic, altruism, moral, ethical, helping, sharing, donation, comforting, volunteerism, cooperation, cooperative learning, service learning, community outreach/service, other-oriented, actions that benefit others, competence-related process, citizenship, social justice. 8. Does this study mention any sort of intervention or treatment (e.g., school program, parenting program, community program, peer/sibling training, teacher/parent/researcher/peer practice or behavior, etc.)? It is critical to note that we are not just looking for comprehensive interventions such as school and parent/peer/teacher training programs. We are also looking for what are considered “mini-interventions.” Mini-interventions are individual practices, strategies, and/or behaviors tested as influence on children’s outcomes. 9. Does the study have an experimental or quasi-experimental design? To code “No” here at this screening phase, there would have to be clear indications that the study does not have an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Ineligibility could be determined, for example, from descriptions of ONLY a correlational, qualitative, or single subject A-B design or NO control group.


Table 2:

Full-text Eligibility Screening Procedures

Instructions Studies must meet ALL of the following 12 criteria to be eligible. If you select “No” for any of the first 12 questions, move on to screening the next study. Note that study item 1 should be coded “Unable to determine” if there is not enough item-level information on a measure to determine eligibility. Note that item 13 does not factor into eligibility. It is for prioritizing the full-text coding. Questions

59

1. Does the study include at least one outcome measure of prosocial behavior? Prosocial behavior outcomes measures are taken AFTER intervention (for questions, see manual or consult ALS). Prosocial behavior is an action intended to benefit another such as sharing, helping, comforting, cooperation, donation, volunteerism, or community service. Altruism is also eligible. An eligible measure is one that includes AT LEAST 75% of items that reflect prosocial behavior. If you do not have item-level measure information to determine whether at least 75% of items reflect prosocial behavior, the STUDY is ELGIBLE. If this is the case, select “Unable to Determine” AND continue coding items 2-11 and item 12 unless you mark “No” to one of the items 2-11. For studies that meet eligibility (i.e., 2-11 = yes), texts that describe the measures will be retrieved. Also, if a measure includes items that do not reflect prosocial behavior, ALL other items should examine some type of social and emotional competence, skill, behavior, attitude and/or perception or can indicate a lack of problem behavior, aggression, internalizing behaviors, or the like. Look at measure items of positive social behavior, morality/moral behavior, kindness, friendship skills, empathy, concern for others, compassionate behavior, ethical behavior, character development, other-oriented behavior, citizenship, and the like to see if they fit the eligibility criteria. 2. Does this study examine ANY type of intervention with behavioral or psychological content/components (e.g., school program, parenting program, community program, peer/sibling training, teacher/parent/researcher/peer practice or behavior, etc.)? See manual for specifics. 3. Does the study include quantitative prosocial behavior outcome data? 4. Does the study include at least one control group? Eligible control conditions can be no treatment, treatment as usual, placebo treatment, or any other similar condition set up as a contrast to the treatment condition that should not have an impact on prosocial behavior. 5. Does the study randomly assign or match participants to treatment and control groups OR is a pretest available or taken into account regarding group differences? Random assignment designs to treatment and control groups are eligible. Studies without control groups are never eligible. Studies in which the research participants were not randomly assigned to treatment and control groups are eligible if they include at least one of the following: matched control groups, appropriate adjustments for pretest differences, or report of pre-treatment variables using an eligible measure of prosocial behavior or at least one social, emotional, cognitive, and/or academic skill variable. 6. Are the study subjects children? A child is within the ages of 3-18. College students are NOT eligible even though they could be within the tail end of the age range. However, if the study includes some children outside and inside the age range (e.g., 2 to 4 year-olds or 15 to 19 yearolds), it should NOT be disqualified because we will code this age information in full-text coding. 7. Does the study primarily consist of children WITHOUT identified learning disabilities? For a study to be eligible, the sample must be primarily composed of participants WITHOUT identified learning disabilities. This means that NO MORE than 15% of participants have identified learning disabilities (e.g., learning/cognitive disabilities/impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, or special education enrollment). If no information is provided about whether children in the sample have learning disabilities, the study is eligible. However, if a study includes both children without learning disabilities and more than 15% of children with learning disabilities, check to see whether prosocial outcomes are reported separately for children without identified learning disabilities. 8. Did the study take place in a natural setting? 9. The study does NOT include any pharmaceutical or medical treatments? 10. Is the study reported in English? 11. Is the date of publication 1960 or later? 12. The study does not only compare early care, school, or afterschool (e.g., Sure Start, 21st Century Community Learning Centers) attendance with non-attendance? 13. Does the study include an instructional practice/program delivered or organized by an adult? The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

Appendix C. Coding Instrument I. GENERAL STUDY CHARACTERISTICS A study is defined as one research investigation that includes the same participants. Sometimes there are several different reports on a single study (e.g., dissertation and published article or two reports with the same participant sample where one examines short-term outcomes and another examines longer-term outcomes). In such cases, the coding should be done from the entire set of relevant reports using whichever is best for each item to be coded. Prior to coding, double check to make sure you have the full set of relevant reports (i.e., 101.a, 101.b, 101.c). In cases in which one research report describes more than one study (e.g., two interventions are described that have different sample participants and methods), each intervention should be uniquely identified and separately coded (i.e., 101.1, 101.2, 101.3). Note that if a study includes multiple outcomes of prosocial behavior, this, in itself, does NOT suggest that multiple studies should be coded. If you find a study ineligible at any time during coding, STOP and code it “Ineligible” AND provide a detailed explanation for ineligibility in the Excel INELIGIBILITY SPREADSHEET. If at any time you decide that a code should be amended, please immediately return to fix the issue. Every code counts. Moreover, some automatically generated information relies on what you have already answered. 1. Study ID #: ________ (up to 3 digits) 2. Date Coded ___ / ___ /___ (i.e., 01/01/15) 3. Coder Initials ________ (first and last name initials) 4. Did the study include multiple interventions? (e.g., If a report is composed of 2 eligible interventions with DIFFERENT methods and/or participants, STOP and code them as separate interventions, e.g., 101.1, 101.2). If you think YES is the answer, STOP coding this study and come speak with ALS. 1 = No 2 = Yes, multiple eligible interventions were conducted with one group of participants (Create a different study ID for each intervention, e.g., 101.1, 101.2, 101.3, and code each separately) 3 = Yes, multiple eligible interventions were conducted with different groups of participants (Create a different study ID for each study, e.g., 101.1, 101.2, 101.3, and code each separately) 5. How many research reports were considered in coding this study? ________ 6. If multiple reports/documents were used to code this study, indicate the supplemental report ID numbers ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ 7. First author’s last name ___________ 8. Year of publication/report ________ (enter four digits, e.g., 1997 or 999 if not reported) 9. Year study was completed __________ (enter four digits, e.g., 1997 or 999 if not reported

60


10. Source of study 1 = Journal Article 2 = Book 3 = Book Chapter 4 = Conference Paper/Presentation 5 = Dissertation or Thesis 6 = Report from Professional Organization 6 = Other ________ 999 = Unable to determine 11. Country in which study conducted 1 = U.S. 2 = Australia 3 = Canada 4 = European country _______ (specify) 5 = Other ________ (if applicable, list more than one country with each separated by a semicolon) 999 = Unable to determine 12. Role of evaluator(s) (i.e., author, research team) in delivery of treatment to children (Select one) 1 = Evaluator delivered treatment 2 = Evaluator did not deliver treatment but supervised or supported treatment (e.g., provided coaching or instruction during treatment) 3 = Evaluator was not involved in treatment delivery, supervision, or support; research role only 999 = Unable to determine 13. Intervention setting (i.e., location where intervention was delivered) (Select best one) 1 = Classroom during school hours 2 = Another location at school during school hours 3 = After school program in a school setting 4 = After school program in a community setting (e.g., YMCA) 5 = Home 6 = Other setting/s: specify all settings ___________________ (if more than 1, separate with semicolons, e.g., school; classroom) 999 = Unable to determine (Reminder: laboratory, inpatient, or incarcerated settings are ineligible) 14. If the intervention was implemented in early education settings or schools, what type of education program/s? 1 = Public (e.g., Head Start, public school) 2 = University/College laboratory school (code here instead of public) 2 = Private (e.g., private daycare program, private school) 3 = Mixture 4 = Not implemented in early education settings or schools 999 = Unable to determine

II. METHOD OF ASSIGNMENT TO TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS

When selecting the method of assignment, keep in mind the following: 

61

Studies must have at least one control group (e.g., control group is a group that was left alone, given some attention or sham treatment, given "usual" handling instead of special treatment, or "straw man" alternate treatment control not expected to be effective but used as contrast for treatment group of primary interest). If there is no control group, a study is ineligible. The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org



An eligible pretest refers to a measure of prosocial behavior OR at least one social, emotional, cognitive, or academic skill variable that is taken prior to treatment (i.e., prior to exposure to intervention NOT midway). A qualifying outcome of prosocial behavior is one that is defined in accordance with the eligibility criteria definition: Prosocial behavior (sometimes called altruism) is any action intended to benefit another such as sharing, helping, comforting, cooperation, donation, protecting someone from harm or bullying, or volunteerism (see the manual for a more extensive definition of prosocial behavior). A qualifying pretest measure has AT LEAST 75% of items that reflect prosocial behavior but it does NOT have to be operationalized in the EXACT same way as a posttest measure of prosocial behavior.

1. Select the method of assignment for the qualifying treatment and control groups in the study. A. Random assignment (e.g., flip of a coin, computer generated randomization): 1 ___ random assignment after matching on prosocial behavior (This means that participants were matched on at least one qualifying pretest measure of prosocial behavior AND THEN “matched sets” were randomly assigned to groups.) 2 ___ random assignment after matching on at least one non-prosocial qualifying pretest (i.e., social, emotional, cognitive, and/or academic skill variable) AND THEN “matched sets” were randomly assigned to groups 3 ___ random assignment after blocking by school/classroom/group on a pretest of prosocial behavior by group AND THEN “blocked sets” were randomly assigned to groups 4___ random assignment after blocking by school/classroom/group on non-prosocial qualifying pretest by group AND THEN “blocked sets” were randomly assigned to groups 5 ___ random assignment WITHOUT matching or blocking (i.e., studies wherein participants were randomly selected to be part of the treatment and control groups without matching or blocking by group) B. Nonrandom assignment, but matching occured (i.e., control group selected to match treatment group): 6 ___ nonrandom assignment but matched on at least one qualifying pretest measure of prosocial behavior 7 ___ nonrandom assignment but matched on at least one qualifying pretest measure of social, emotional, cognitive, or academic skills. C. Nonrandom, no matching (Descriptive data on at least one eligible pretest measure for both treatment and control groups must be available for a study with this design to be eligible OR an eligible pretest measure must be used in analyses as a covariate or in a propensity score approach): 8 ___ nonrandom assignment and no matching but at least one pretest measure of PROSOCIAL behavior is statistically accounted for in analyses 9 ___ nonrandom assignment and no matching but at least one NON-PROSOCIAL qualifying pretest measure is statistically accounted for in analyses 10 ___ nonrandom assignment and no matching but information on at least one PROSOCIAL behavior pretest measure is available for BOTH treatment and control groups (The study must provide this information separately for treatment/control groups) 11 ___ nonrandom assignment and no matching but information on at least one NON-PROSOCIAL qualifying pretest measure is available for BOTH treatment and control groups (The study must provide this information separately for treatment/control groups) D. Other options: 12 ___ nonrandom assignment, NO matching/blocking, and NO eligible matching, blocking, or pretest BUT the study does report that eligible pretest information was collected or reported in aggregate form for both treatment and control groups (Select this option and the study authors will be contacted. Stop coding, note the issue in the INELIGIBILITY

62


13 ___

SPREADSHEET, and check the option to contact study authors in the INELIGIBILITY SPREADSHEET). Other: Please consult ALS if ANOTHER random or quasi-random experimental study design is used (i.e., study has a treatment and control group) that would fit the above criteria, but you are unable to classify it.

2. Unit of assignment to treatment/control condition? (Select one) 1 = Individual child (i.e., some children assigned to treatment group, some assigned to control group) 2 = Classroom (i.e., whole classrooms or teachers assigned to treatment/control groups) 3 = School (i.e., whole schools assigned to treatment/control groups) 4 = Other Group: specify _______________________ (Please describe a different unit of assignment) 999 = Unable to determine 3. If matching or blocking was conducted prior to assignment to condition, select ALL of the following pretest child characteristics involved in matching or blocking (Select all that apply) 1 = Prosocial behavior 2 = Social competence (e.g., friendship-making skills, positive social behavior) 3 = Emotional competence (e.g., understanding of emotions, labelling of emotions) 4 = Antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression) 5 = Dysregulation (e.g., lack of self-regulation) 6 = Cognitive skill (e.g., problem-solving) 7 = Academic skill (e.g., GPA, standardized achievement assessment, math performance) 8 = Age 9 = Gender 10 = Ethnicity/Race/Culture 11 = Family SES (e.g., mother’s educational background, family income) 12 = Other: describe ______________________________________________ (i.e. Report any additional variables used in matching prior to assignment to condition. Separate each variable with a semicolon). 999 = Unable to determine III. CHARACTERISTICS OF ENTIRE PARTICIPANT SAMPLE In this section, details of the background characteristics of the entire participant sample in the study will be coded. Report the sample as described at the first wave of data collection. For the following questions, if exact percentages (or sufficient information to calculate percentages) are provided, report the information and skip the alphanumeric questions (1a, 2a). If sufficient information is not reported to calculate percentages, select unable to determine for the numeric questions and fill out the alphanumeric questions regarding estimates of sample background characteristics. 1. Number of participants in entire sample ___________ (Enter 999 for unable to determine) 2. Gender: Percent males in the ENTIRE child participant sample (If percent of males in the sample is not provided, you may be able to easily calculate the percent of males from the raw numbers provided in the total sample (i.e., number of males/total number of children in the sample). Use decimal rather than whole number, i.e., .42 NOT 42% OR 42; all male or 100% = 1; all female = 0) ___________ (Enter % or 999 for unable to determine) 2a. Best estimate of gender composition of children in the study (Make your best guess if some information is provided in the study) 1 = few males (95%) 999 = Unable to determine 3. Ethnicity/race: Enter percent of the ethnic/racial group makeup of the ENTIRE child participant sample (Use decimal such as .424 for 42.4%)  ___________ African American/Black  ___________ Asian American/Pacific Islander  ___________ Latino/Hispanic  ___________ White/Anglo/Caucasian/European descent  ___________ Other ethnic/racial group 999 = Unable to determine 3a. Predominant ethnicity/race of the ENTIRE child participant sample (Predominant means 60% or more of the sample, BUT make your best guess here if some information is provided in the study) (Select one) 1 = African American/Black 2 = Asian American/Pacific Islander 3 = Latino/Hispanic 4 = White/Anglo/Caucasian/European descent 5 = Other ethnic/racial group: specify ____________ 6 = No ethnic/racial group represents 60% or more of the sample 999 = Unable to determine 4. Specifics on ethnicity/race: If possible, make further distinctions of the ethnic/racial composition of the sample. Enter percent of the ethnic/racial group makeup in the ENTIRE child participant sample. (Use decimal such as .424 for 42.4%)). If the information you provided above cannot be further broken down, select unable to determine.  ___________ Black/African-American  ___________ Black/other country of origin (e.g., Belize, Guyana, Caribbean, West Indies)  ___________ East Asian (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese)  ___________ South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani)  ___________ Southeast Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai, Laotian)  ___________ Middle Eastern (e.g., Persian)  ___________ Pacific Islander (e.g., Samoan, Filipino)  ___________ Mexican/Mexican-American  ___________ Latino/other country of origin (e.g. Guatemala, Argentina, Caribbean, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic)  ___________ White/Caucasian/European descent  ___________ Multiethnic/Biracial Please specify _____________________________  ___________ Other Please specify (e.g., Native American, Eskimo) ________________________ 999 = Unable to determine 5. Percent of NON-White/Anglo/Caucasian/European decent in the ENTIRE child participant sample Report percent of total participants who are of Non-White/Anglo/Caucasian/European descent, sometimes referred to as minority children). ___________ (Enter % or 999 for unable to determine) 6. SES: Enter percent of the following socioeconomic groups in the ENTIRE child participant sample as described in the report (Use decimal such as .424 for 42.4%))  ___________ Low SES or free and/or reduced price lunch  ___________ Middle SES (e.g., working class)  ___________ Middle-Upper SES  ___________ Upper SES 64


999 = Unable to determine 6a. Best estimate of predominant socioeconomic composition of sample (Predominant means 60% or more of the sample, BUT make your best guess here if some information is provided in the study) (Select one) 1 = Majority Low SES 2 = Majority Middle-Low SES or Working Class 3 = Majority Middle-Upper SES 4 = Majority Upper SES 999 = Unable to determine 7. If SES of the sample was described in numeric categories (e.g., 20% of the parents reported $30,000$50,000 in income, etc.), please describe. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 8. English Language Learner (ELL) Status (A study must explicitly state that children are ELLs): Enter percent ELL children in the ENTIRE child participant sample (Use decimal such as .424 for 42.4%)) ___________ (Enter % or 999 for unable to determine) 6a. Best estimate of predominant ELL composition of sample (Predominant means 60% or more of the sample, BUT make your best guess here if some information is provided in the study. Do not code based on ethnicity/race information.) (Select one) 1 = no ELL 2 = few ELL (95%) 999 = Unable to determine 9. Mean age of participants in years _________ (Report in years. If age is reported in months, divide by 12. Enter 999 if mean age is not reported. If a study includes more than 15% of children above or below ages 318, it is ineligible and you should STOP coding and report the reason in the INELIGIBILITY SPREADSHEET) 10. Standard deviation (SD) of age of participants ___________________ (Report SD in years. If SD of age is reported in months, divide by 12. Enter 999 if SD of age is not reported) 11. Report the age in years of the youngest participant ___________________ (Enter 999 if not reported) 12. Report the age in years of the oldest participant ___________________ (Enter 999 if not reported) 13. What were the grade levels of the participants in the ENTIRE sample? (Check all that apply) 1 = Pre-Kindergarten 2 = Kindergarten 3 = 1st 4 = 2nd 5 = 3rd 6 = 4th 7 = 5th 8 = 6th 9 = 7th 65


10 = 8th 11 = 9th 12 = 10th 13 = 11th 14 = 12th 15 = Labelled as “early education” 16 = Labelled as “elementary school” 17 = Labelled as “middle school” 18 = Labelled as “junior high school” 19 = Labelled as “high school” 20 = Labelled as “primary school” 21 = Labelled as “secondary school” 22 = No grade level information provided 14. Location study participants are drawn from? 1 = Urban area 2 = Suburban area 3 = Rural area 4 = Mixture of areas: describe ______________ 999 = Unable to determine 15. Does the sample have any noted pre-existing problems? (Select one) 1 = None 2 = Externalizing behavior problems (e.g., aggression, violence, school disciplinary incidents, delinquency) 3 = Internalizing behavior problems (e.g., depression, social withdrawal, anxiety) 4 = Peer relationship problems (e.g., lacks friendship making skills) 5 = Physical health problems 6 = Substance use 7 = Multiple problems across above categories 8 = Other Problems (or if there are multiple problems across above categories): specify ______________ 16. What percentage of the participant sample had any of the pre-existing problems described in the previous question? (Use decimal such as .424 for 42.4%)) ___________ (Enter % or 999 for unable to determine or 888 for no pre-existing problems) 17. Provide a description of any UNIQUE characteristics of the sample (e.g., aboriginal sample). Also, report any quantitative information related to the description of any unique characteristics of the sample (e.g., 90% aboriginal sample) (If possible, cut and paste the description from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ IV. DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT GROUPS In this review, a qualifying treatment group is a group of children that receive the delivery of the intervention evaluated for influence on at least ONE qualifying outcome measure of children’s prosocial behavior. While there is often only one treatment group and one control group, it is possible to have a study with more than one treatment and/or control group. Head to head comparisons of different interventions are not eligible unless there is an eligible control group. If you find studies without a control group, STOP coding and describe the reason for ineligibility in the INELIGIBILITY SPREADSHEET. Identify ALL qualifying treatment groups that have mathematical or statistical 66


information (means, counts, ANOVA, t-tests, regression analyses, multilevel modeling etc.) on the outcome of prosocial behavior. If mathematical or statistical information is not provided separately for treatment and control groups, please note this in the INELIGIBILITY SPREADSHEET and the authors of the report will be contacted. 1. Total number of ELIGIBLE TREATMENT groups in the study ______ (Write #) 2. Complete the following: A. Provide a name for each ELIGIBLE TREATMENT group using the title of the intervention evaluated for influence on prosocial behavior as defined by the study authors (e.g., an intervention titled “Sweet Cheeks: A Prosocial Curriculum” could be named “sweet cheeks”). B. Next to each intervention, list a short description of the instructional practice/s or program. Instructional Practice / Program

Description of Instructional Practice/ Program in Report (provide a few word description)

V. TREATMENT GROUP/S CODING

One record will be created for EACH eligible TREATMENT group that you defined. In other words, studies with two eligible treatment groups will have two records, etc. Control group/s will be coded later. IMPORTANT: If you decide that you need to redefine the name of treatment group/s or change the number of treatment group/s, please return NOW (before continuing) to the section “DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT GROUPS,” and make the necessary changes before proceeding. The names of the treatment groups that you created will be automatically generated. 1. Treatment group _____________ (You will report the relevant information on EACH treatment group you already defined separately. Note. Treatment group names will be automatically generated here.) 2. Provide a brief description of the intervention (If possible, cut and paste the description of the intervention from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Provide a brief description of what the intervention entailed for this particular treatment group (If possible, cut and paste the description of the key elements of the instructional practice/s and/or interventions from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Select the format of delivery of the intervention to this treatment group. (Select All that apply) 67


1 = Individual children (i.e., one-to-one exposure) 2 = Small groups (e.g., small group instruction within a classroom, i.e., 6 or fewer children) 3 = Large group of children (e.g., teacher exposes the whole classroom or a large group, i.e., 7 or more children) 4 = Multiple large groups of children (e.g., multiple classrooms involved in the intervention) 5 = School/Institution wide intervention (i.e., whole school/s exposure, YMCA where all staff and children are involved in the intervention) 6 = Other/Mixed: describe __________________ 999 = Unable to determine 5. Provide a brief description of theoretical rationale (i.e., theories or reasons provided by authors) for why the intervention for this particular treatment group should work to increase prosocial behavior (If possible, cut and paste the description of the theoretical rationale from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report. Write “NR” if this information is not reported) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Provide a brief description of any mention of another intervention that the control or treatment group experienced that was not part of the tested intervention. (Important note: Only report interventions besides those listed in section IV, item 2 (Instructional Practice/Program) that were given to either the treatment or control groups, not both. Do not code any of the characteristics of non-focal interventions in this coding scheme, but describe the non-focal intervention here. For example, it might be mentioned that children in the treatment group were receiving Early Head Start programming but the children in the control group were those who were not in Early Head Start. Or it might be reported that some of the schools that served the control group were also implementing a conflict resolution program but this program was not part of the intervention. This description will likely be located in the methods section in the description of the sample or intervention site or the limitations discussion in the discussion section). (If possible, cut and paste the description of this information from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report. Write “NR” if this information is not reported) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

A. COMPONENTS OF THE INTERVENTION DELIVERED TO THE SPECIFIC TREATMENT GROUP Identify all the treatment components, elements, activities, experiences, etc. reported as part of the intervention. Note that, to qualify, a component should be something the treatment group received that the control group did not receive. At least one component must be rated for every intervention but as many components can be rated as needed to describe every distinct element reported. Use the following coding scheme: Which category/subcategory do I code? MAIN categories of interventions are indicated by all CAPS and highlighted in blue (e.g., LEARNING BY DOING). SUBCATEGORIES are indicated by non-capital letters and are not highlighted (e.g., Assigned social responsibility of helping). Not all MAIN categories have subcategories. The ALTERNATIVE categories are indicated by all CAPS and highlighted in light brown. Note that the coding categories/subcategories are not mutually exclusive, so a rating other than 0 (i.e., not present) should be made for all categories/subcategories that describe an intervention. Please pay close 68


attention to how a category/subcategory is defined in this coding manual because the constructs may be called by a different name in studies. When rating the main categories and subcategories (but not alternative main categories), keep the following in mind:  If the treatment is adequately described by the SUBCATEGORIES then provide a rating of 1, 2, or 9 to only the SUBCATEGORIES that describe the treatment components (i.e., 1, 2, or 9) and place a 0 for the MAIN category. Note that you can rate more than one subcategory.  If the treatment description sounds like it has some elements of the MAIN category but none of the subcategories describe the treatment, then only provide a rating of 1, 2, or 9 to the MAIN category that describes the treatment and place a 0 for all SUBCATEGORIES.  If the treatment is described by the SUBCATEGORIES but there are some elements of the treatment also included in the MAIN category, then provide a rating of 1, 2, or 9 for ALL of the relevant SUBCATEGORIES AND the MAIN category. When rating the alternative main categories, keep the following in mind:  Code the ALTERNATIVE CATEGORY If the treatment is not adequately described by the main category OR subcategories because the focus of the intervention component is not on prosocial behavior but on general social competence.  You should also code the ALTERNATIVE category and the MAIN CATEGORY AND/OR SUBCATEGORIES if the intervention component includes both a focus on prosocial behavior and social competence. How do I assign a significance rating to each category/subcategory (RATE UNDER SIGNIFICANCE)? It is important to assign a code to all treatment components for each intervention using the numerical scheme below. If the described intervention component is not included in the intervention, select 0. If the intervention includes the described component, initially assume that each such component will receive a rating of "1," (i.e., assign "1" to check off every item present). However, if there is any indication in the study report(s) that one or more components are of lesser scope or importance than others, then those secondary items should be coded "2." A component might be identified as secondary if:   

it is clearly a subcomponent of something else or there is a broad program type to be coded "1" and the component is only one aspect of the program (e.g., role-playing as one of several parts of a bystander intervention training session or an authentic communication session as part of a mindfulness intervention); it is provided to only a subset of participants or only occasionally in contrast to other components provided to all participants or on all occasions; some other distinction is made that shows that the component is not of equal importance, stature, or scope as others that are coded "1."

If there is no basis for distinguishing any components as having less importance, scope, stature, etc. than any other, code all as "1." If you have reason to doubt that all the components are at the same level, but a clear determination cannot be made about which should be coded "1" or "2," then code all the uncertain components as a "9.”


SIGNIFICANCE 0 = not included 1 = main component 2 = subcomponent 9 = intervention component present but significance unclear

LEARNING BY DOING 69




Cooperative learning Peer buddies Teamwork Assigned social responsibility of helping peers Assigned social responsibility of helping adults LEARNING BY DOING - Non-prosocial focus LEARNING BY DOING (PRETEND) Practice/ Rehearsal of prosocial behavior Role-playing Performance feedback LEARNING BY DOING (PRETEND) - Non-prosocial focus SOCIAL LEARNING (MODELING) Modeling of prosocial behavior by socializer Modeling followed by role-playing and performance feedback Symbolic modeling Attention drawn to peer modeling of prosocial behavior Attention drawn to other’s modeling of prosocial behavior TV models of prosocial behavior Video game models of prosocial behavior Story models of prosocial behavior SOCIAL LEARNING (MODELING) - Non-prosocial focus SOCIAL LEARNING (DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS OR EXPECTATIONS) SOCIAL LEARNING (DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS OR EXPECTATIONS) - Non-prosocial focus SOCIAL LEARNING (REINFORCEMENT) External reward Group reward Positive reinforcement Dispositional positive reinforcement Punitive technique for lack of prosocial OR positive behavior 70




Punitive technique for negative behavior SOCIAL LEARNING (REINFORCEMENT) - Non-prosocial focus EMOTIONAL LITERACY Emotional literacy is on self-referential emotion Emotional literacy is on emotion in social situations Emotional self-regulation Modeling of emotional literacy OTHER ORIENTATION Empathy/ Sympathy / Perspective-taking Induction (i.e., form of discipline) Victim-oriented induction (i.e., form of discipline) MORAL INSTRUCTION Moral dilemmas Moral decision-making Moral exhortation or preachings (normative) Moral exhortation or preachings (other-oriented) MINDFULNESS COGNITIVE OR BEHAVIORAL SELF-REGULATION Direct instruction of cognitive/behavioral regulation skills External cognitive/behavioral management External corrective feedback Anger management training Counseling BYSTANDER INTERVENTION Strategies to enact bystander intervention Role-playing of bystander intervention Increase empathy or sympathy for victims Moral obligation Peer mediators Raising peer support for bystander intervention FRIENDSHIP SKILLS 71




CIVIC AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION * Donation Civic and political awareness (Non-action) Political and civic participation (Action) Activism *VOLUNTEERISM Volunteering for a humanitarian organization or purpose Volunteering – non-humanitarian focus CARING COMMUNITY Communicating prosocial norms Classroom rules Prosocial peer culture DIVERSITY INCLUSION Diversity inclusion (race / ethnicity / culture) RESPONSIVENESS, EMOTIONAL WARMTH, AND NURTURANCE SOCIALIZER SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE SOCIALIZER BACKGROUND ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORIES Practice prosocial behavior with face-to-face contact with peers Playgroup or playtime with peers – Intervention includes designated time for playgroup or playtime interaction. Prosocial or positive behavior games – Intervention involves games by which children are expected to learn prosocial or positive behavior. Academic – Intervention includes academic content like science, math, language arts, etc. Authentic communication – Intervention involves active listening and responding openly and honestly to children‘s ideas and accepting their thoughts and opinions as having equal weight of those of adults. Socializers may, for example, encourage children’s open group discussion of issues or encourage children to talk about their personal experiences. Do not code moral dilemmas here. Communication skills – Intervention involves teaching communication skills. However, teaching emotion labels or words should be coded under emotional literacy. Family partnerships – Intervention works to build relationships between children’s families and intervention delivery personnel (e.g., welcomes families into the intervention site, parents volunteer at intervention site, connections are made with families). 72




Sports – Intervention involves sports, athletics, or athletic events. Arts – Intervention involves arts & crafts, drama, music, dance activities, etc. Literature – Intervention involves reading literature or listening to stories, etc. If coded under social learning do not code here. Electronic Media – Intervention involves electronic media (e.g., television programming, video games). If coded under social learning do not code here. Nature – Intervention involves activities in nature (e.g., hiking, nature walks). Code sports activities under sports. Conflict resolution training (e.g., learning how to negotiate conflict, problem-solve in the context of conflict, apologize, find alternative solutions, compromise, apologize, suggest solutions to conflict). Interpersonal problem-solving training (in social situations but not in the context of conflict situations) (e.g., brainstorming a number of possible solutions to social difficulties, training on evaluating solutions).

1. Provide a description of any other main intervention component not coded above. Describe with at least moderate detail if possible. (If possible, cut and paste the description of the additional intervention components from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report. Write “NA” if there are no additional intervention components). __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

A.1. Additional Intervention Components Delivered to Specific Treatment Group 1. Select the levels of intervention that were delivered (Check all that apply) 1 = Universal interventions take the broadest approach, targeting a general population that has NOT been identified on the basis of individual risk (e.g., poverty, high aggression, lack of social skills) 2 = Selective interventions target individuals or a population sub-group whose risk of developing behavioral or emotional problems or disorders (e.g., poverty, high aggression) is significantly higher than average but there is no diagnosis of a problem or disorder. 3 = Indicated/targeted interventions target high-risk individuals who are identified as having detectable signs or symptoms of a mental, emotional, or behavioral disorder following the diagnosis of a disorder. 999 = Unable to determine 2. Select the levels of intervention that were delivered in a school context (Check all that apply) 1 = Schoolwide support - intervention delivery training or intervention is delivered to all students, all staff, and all school settings. 2 = Classroom support - intervention is delivered to individual classrooms where teachers structure learning opportunities.

73


3 = Individual student support – only individual students in a classroom are provided with the intervention. 4 = This intervention was not delivered in a school context. 999 = Unable to determine 3. Aside from the child and/or youth participants, select any persons who also received some form of intervention (Note. Do not include those persons who delivered the intervention unless they also received intervention.) (Check all that apply) 1 = parents 2 = teachers 3 = teaching assistants 4 = counselors, behavior specialists, etc. 5 = administrators or other school personnel 6 = siblings 7 = other: describe ________________ 8 = only children received intervention 999 = Unable to determine

A.2. Use of Evidence-Based Training Procedures to Specific Treatment group: SAFE (adapted from Durlak et al., 2011 Appendix B)

For the following 4 questions, use this coding scheme:  1 = No: The component is not included as part of the specific treatment.  2 = Somewhat, but not a critical component: The component was used occasionally as an add-on (e.g., children were sometimes asked to imagine another’s situation when engaging in a volunteering activity).  3 = Yes, critical component: The component was used routinely when the intervention was delivered. 1. 1. Intervention devotes some time and activities to promoting non-prosocial social and/or emotional skills? 1 = No 2 = Somewhat, but not a critical component of the intervention 3 = Yes, critical component of the intervention 999 = Unable to determine 2. Intervention devotes some time and activities to promoting prosocial behavior? 1 = No 2 = Somewhat, but not a critical component of the intervention 3 = Yes, critical component of the intervention 999 = Unable to determine 3. Intervention targets specific non-prosocial social or emotional skill/s? (i.e., Ask yourself: Can you tell what specific social or emotional skill/s children are expected to acquire in the program) 1 = No 2 = Somewhat, but not a critical component of the intervention 3 = Yes, critical component of the intervention 999 = Unable to determine 4. Intervention targets prosocial behavior/s? (i.e., Ask yourself: Can you tell that children are expected to acquire prosocial behaviors in the intervention) 1 = No 2 = Somewhat, but not a critical component of the intervention 74


3 = Yes, critical component of the intervention 999 = Unable to determine 5. Does the intervention use a sequenced set of activities to achieve their objectives relative to skill development? (Note. The presence of a program manual or set of lesson plans signals Yes for this item. Several reports describe the use of “structured” skill activities. If so, also score Yes. If the report only mentions the name of a program or set of activities with which you are not familiar, write the program name down and we will discuss it. For programs attempting to promote self-esteem or cultural identity, the “skill” involved is a bit different. Are there any indications or explanations in the report of how the program activities are connected and build on each other to achieve their desired goal? Do children reflect on their actions or performance, are they asked to consider how it pertains to who they are and what positive features they possess? If the report only speaks generally about activities, e.g., recreational, youth development, field trips, etc., then code No.) 1 = No 2 = Yes 999 = Unable to determine 6. Does the intervention use active forms of learning to help children learn new skills? (Note. To be coded as active forms of learning, children must act on the material, try new behaviors, participate in role plays, or do behavioral rehearsal when practicing new skills. This item may not specifically concern prosocial behavior instruction but instead whatever skills the intervention is trying to support. Hands-on forms of learning are used. Children learn by doing. They practice doing new things as opposed to engaging in passive forms of learning that emphasize didactic instruction, lectures, or general discussions in which children primarily talk, but do not practice new behaviors). Do not score yes if most activities are lecture-oriented (didactic) or discussionoriented.) 1 = No 2 = Yes 999 = Unable to determine

B. DELIVERY OF INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE/S OR INTERVENTION PROGRAM/S TO SPECIFIC TREATMENT GROUP For the following questions, pay attention to how the author(s) reported the ACTUAL delivery of the invention to the specific treatment group. In other words, sometimes author(s) report the planned delivery of an intervention but then report that a DIFFERENT dosage of the treatment was ACTUALLY received by the child participants. If possible, you should report on the dosage of the intervention that the participants ACTUALLY RECEIVED. If this is not possible, make a best estimate with the information provided in the study. 1. Number of sessions during which the treatment group was exposed to intervention (Note: If the study says that the intervention takes place during 1 class period, report 1 session.) (Select one) 1 = __________ (Write exact number of sessions children were exposed) 2 = __________ (OR if exact information is not provided, estimate, if possible. If the average number of sessions of treatment exposure is provided, report the average here (e.g., 5.6). If a range of sessions is provided, select the middle number of the range, e.g., 3-5 sessions = 4) 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 2. Length in MINUTES of EACH session the treatment group was exposed to the intervention? (Multiply hours by 60 to get the minutes) (Select one) 1 = __________ (Write exact number of minutes of each session) 2 = __________ (OR if exact information is not provided, estimate, if possible. If the average number of minutes of sessions of treatment exposure is provided, report the average here (e.g., 72.5). If a range 75


of minutes of sessions is provided, select the middle number of the range, e.g., 3-5 sessions = 4. If the treatment occurs during a class period/s, report 60 minutes if no other information is provided) 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 3. Report the total HOURS of exposure across all sessions the treatment group was exposed to the intervention (Answering this question may require some math. Divide minutes by 60 to get hours.) (Select one) 1 = __________ (Write in decimals the exact number of hours) 2 = __________ (If exact information is not provided, estimate, if possible) 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 4. Frequency of treatment exposure to intervention. (Select best one) 1 = Daily (5x or more per week) 2 = 4 times per week 3 = 3 times per week 4 = 2 times per week 5 = Once a week 6 = 2 to 3 times per month 7 = Once a month 8 = Less than monthly 9 = One-time intervention 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 5. Was the frequency of treatment (i.e., the information you provided in the previous question) an approximation of exposure from information provided in the study? (Select one) 1 = No, exact frequency data was provided 2 = Yes, an approximation was made with information provided in the study 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported

C. SOCIALIZER TRAINING TO DELIVER (I.E., TRAINING PRIOR TO ANY DELIVERY) THE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE/S OR INTERVENTION PROGRAM TO THE SPECIFIC TREATMENT GROUP For the following 5 questions, socializer training only refers to training that was provided PRIOR to delivery of the instructional practice/s or program. Training refers to approaches to insure provider proficiencies in the skills necessary to deliver the intervention and to enhance providers’ sense of self-efficacy (Durlak & Dupre, 2008). 6. Did the socializer/s receive training to implement the instructional practice/s or intervention program to this treatment group? 1 = No 2 = Possible (hints or suggestions that training may have been present, but nothing clearly explicit) 3 = Yes 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 7. Did the socializer/s receive any training or educational information about children’s prosocial development or social and/or emotional development? (Select one) 1 = No 2 = Possible (hints or suggestions that training may have been present, but nothing clearly explicit) 3 = Yes 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 76


8. Did the socializer/s receive any training or information about children’s prosocial development or social and/or emotional development that emphasized why prosocial behavior or social and emotional development was important for children’s healthy development and wellbeing? (Select one) 1 = No 2 = Possible (hints or suggestions that training may have been present, but nothing clearly explicit) 3 = Yes 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 9. Report the total HOURS socializers received training to deliver the instructional practice/s or program to this treatment group (divide minutes by 60 to get hours) (Select one) 1 = __________ (Write exact number of hours using decimal format) 2 = __________ (If exact information is not provided, estimate, if possible) 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 10. Provide a brief description of the TRAINING received by the socializer/s who delivered the instructional practice/s or program to this particular treatment group (If possible, cut and paste the description of the key elements of the training (e.g., number and/or length of training sessions) from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report. Write “NR” if this information is not described.) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ D. SOCIALIZER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DURING IMPLEMENTATION (NOT BEFORE ANY DELIVERY) OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE/S OR INTERVENTION PROGRAM TO THE SPECIFIC TREATMENT GROUP For the following 3 questions, socializer technical assistance only refers to training that was provided DURING delivery of the instructional practice/e or intervention program. Technical Assistance refers to the combination of resources offered to providers once implementation begins and may include retraining in certain skills, training of new staff, emotional support, and mechanisms to promote local problem solving efforts (Durlak & Dupre, 2008). Please note that this coding is distinct from intervention fidelity (i.e., coding for monitoring and feedback of intervention implementation).

11. Is there evidence of ongoing technical assistance (e.g., supervision, emotional support, retraining, coaching, consultation, debriefing) for the socializers during their implementation of the instructional practice/s or program to this treatment group? (Select one) 1 = No 2 = Possible (hints or suggestions of ongoing support, but nothing clearly explicit) 3 = Yes, there was ongoing support 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 12. Report the total HOURS socializers received technical assistance to deliver the instructional practice/s or program to this treatment group (divide minutes by 60 to get hours) (Select one) 1 = __________ (Write exact number of hours using decimal format) 2 = __________ (If exact information is not provided, estimate, if possible) 77


999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 13. Provide a brief description of the technical assistance provided to the socializer/s who delivered the intervention to this particular treatment group. If possible, report specifics about the number of support sessions and number of minutes or hours of the support sessions (If possible, cut and paste the description of the key elements of the support provided to socializers. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report. Write “NR” if this information is not described.) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ E. SOCIALIZER/S DELIVERING INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE/S OR PROGRAM TO SPECIFIC TREATMENT GROUP

14. Number of socializers who delivered intervention to this specific treatment group? 1 = ___________ (Write exact #) 2 = ___________ (OR write approximate #) 999 = Unable to determine 15. Percent of socializers with a Bachelor’s degree? DO NOT INCLUDE socializers with a more advanced degree than a Bachelor’s degree in the percent (Select best one. If there is only one socializer and she/he has a bachelor’s degree but not a more advanced degree write 1 for 100%. You also have the options of writing 0 for 0%.) 1 = __________ (Use decimal such as .424 for 42.4%) 2 = __________ (If exact percent is not provided, estimate percent, if possible) 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 16. Percent of socializers with a master’s or doctorate degree? (Select best one) 1 = __________ (Use decimal such as .424 for 42.4%) 2 = __________ (If exact percent is not provided, estimate percent, if possible) 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 17. Do the socializers have certified teaching experience/credentials? (Select best one) 1 = No 2 = Yes 999 = Unable to determine/Not reported 18. Who directly delivered the instructional practice/s or program to this treatment group of children? This information is often reported in the methods section of a research report. (Select one) 1 = Teacher 2 = Teaching assistant 3 = Other school personnel (e.g., school psychologist, principal) 4 = Parent 5 = Peer 6 = Researcher, research assistant, graduate student 7 = Sibling 8= Other/Mixture: describe _____________ 999 = Unable to determine 19. Were the socializers familiar to the child (Select best one) 1 = No, unfamiliar (e.g., socializers were researchers, research assistants, etc.) 2 = Yes, familiar (e.g., socializers were familiar teachers, parents, peers etc.) 78


3 = Mixed familiar and unfamiliar socializers 999 = Unable to determine 20. Gender of socializer/s who delivered intervention to this treatment group? (Select one) 1 = Male/s only 2 = Female/s only 3 = Mixture: List percent male ____ AND percent female ____ (Use decimal such as .424 for 42.4%)) 999 = Unable to determine 21. Ethnicity/race of socializer/s who delivered intervention to this treatment group? (Select one) 1 = African American/Black. 2 = Asian American/Pacific Islander 3 = Latino/Hispanic 4 = White/European American/Caucasian 5 = Other ethnic/racial group (e.g., Native American, biracial) 6 = Mixed (e.g., Latino and Asian socializers) 999 = Unable to determine 22. Percent of ethnic/racial make-up of socializer/s who delivered the intervention to this treatment group? (Use decimal such as .424 for 42.4%))  ___________ African American/Black  ___________ Asian American/Pacific Islander  ___________ Latino/Hispanic  ___________ White/Anglo/Caucasian/European descent  ___________ Other ethnic/racial group (e.g., Native American, biracial) 999 = Unable to determine 22a. If you selected “Unable to determine” in the previous question, if possible, report the predominant ethnic/racial make-up of socializer/s who delivered the intervention to this treatment group (Predominant means 60% or more of the socializers, BUT make your best guess here if some information is provided in the study) (Select one) 1 = African American/Black 2 = Asian American/Pacific Islander 3 = Latino/Hispanic 4 = White/Anglo/Caucasian/European descent 5 = Other ethnic/racial group: specify ____________ 6 = No ethnic/racial group represents 60% or more of the sample 999 = Unable to determine IF THERE ARE OTHER TREATMENT GROUPS, PLEASE REMEMBER TO CODE THE ADDITIONAL TREATMENT GROUPS ON SEPARATE TABS. VI. DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL GROUPS

The group that does not receive the treatment is referred to as the control/comparison group. A control group qualifies for eligibility IF mathematical or statistical information (means, counts, ANOVA, t-test, regression analyses, etc.) is provided on at least ONE qualifying outcome of prosocial behavior for both treatment and control groups. Eligible control conditions may be "no treatment," "treatment as usual," “placebo treatment”, “comparison group,” or any other similar condition set up as a contrast to the treatment condition that is not expected to have any impact (even a negative impact) on prosocial behavior. While often there is only one control group and one treatment group, it is possible to have a study with more than one control and/or treatment group.

79


1. Total number of ELIGIBLE CONTROL groups in the study ________ (Write #) 2. What kind of ELIGIBLE control group/s are used? (Check ALL that apply) a. “Practice as usual” (Control group gets "usual" handling without the addition of the instructional practice/s or program aimed at increasing prosocial behavior. This would be for cases in which the control group is in the same context as the treatment group (e.g., classroom, school), but the control group does not receive any additional instructional practice or intervention program.) The difference between “no treatment control” and “practice as usual” is that for PAU to be coded, the control group must experience the same setting (e.g., school, classroom) as the treatment group. b. “No treatment" control (Control group gets left alone and receives absolutely no treatment and is not in the same setting as the treatment group, a waiting list control group is usually an example) c. Placebo control OR "Straw man" alternate treatment control (Controls get some attention or treatment not expected to be effective in increasing prosocial behavior but used as contrast for treatment group. This would also include cases in which the control group received some deliberately applied treatment that is not expected to have an influence on prosocial behavior) d. Study is ineligible ________ (Select this code if there is actually NO eligible control group. For example, a study may only compare 2 treatment groups. If you select this option, provide the reason for ineligibility in the INELIGIBILITY SPREADSHEET and code the next study) 3. Code the following: A. Provide a name for each ELIGIBLE CONTROL group with relevant characteristics about the group (e.g., control 1 PAU ages 3-5 and control 2 PAU ages 4-6 OR control 1 placebo OR control 2 PAU) B. Next to each eligible control group code the type of control group from the following: 1 = “Practice as usual” control 2 = “No treatment” control 3 = Placebo control of "straw man" alternate treatment control 4 = Not relevant, there was only one control group A. Control Group name

B. Type of Control Group

4. If there is MORE than one qualifying control group, select the ONE “best” control group in the study (The “best control groups are rank ordered: 1 is the best control group, 2 is the 2nd best control group, and 3 is the 3rd best control) 5. 6. 7. 8.

1 = “Practice as usual” control 2 = “No treatment” control 3 = Placebo control of "straw man" alternate treatment control 4 = Not relevant, there was only one control group

9. Complete the following: A. All of the names of the qualifying treatment groups that you defined earlier are automatically generated. B. Code one of the following: 80


1 = The “best” control group should be used as the comparison group for the specific treatment group. 2 = A “purposeful” control group should be used if the comparison group for the specific treatment group was selected based on study methods or child characteristics (e.g., age group). If there is MORE than one qualifying control group and treatment group AND there were specific control/treatment group contrasts or pairs,created with respect to specific characteristics, the purposeful control group should be used instead of a “best” control group. C. Select the name of the “Best” or “Purposeful” control group that should be the comparison group for each treatment group. Note. The names of the control groups that you created are automatically generated. A. Treatment group name 1 2 3 4 5 6

B. Select “Best” or “Purposeful” control group (1 = Best; 2 = Purposeful)

Autogenerate name Autogenerate name Autogenerate name Autogenerate name Autogenerate name Autogenerate name

C. Best/Purposeful control group name Autogenerate name Autogenerate name Autogenerate name Autogenerate name Autogenerate name Autogenerate name

IMPORTANT: FOR ALL REMAINING QUESTIONS, REPORT ON EITHER THE ONE “BEST” CONTROL GROUP OR THE “PURPOSEFUL” CONTROL GROUP/S. THE “PURPOSEFUL” CONTROL GROUP/S WOULD BE REPORTED IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ONE QUALIFYING CONTROL GROUP AND TREATMENT GROUP AND SPECIFIC CONTROL/TREATMENT CONTRASTS OR PAIRS WERE MADE BASED ON STUDY METHODS OR CHILD CHARACTERISTICS (E.G., AGE GROUP). VII. CONTROL GROUP/S CODING

A record will be created for the ONE eligible “best” CONTROL group. In the event that purposeful control groups were created based on study methods or child characteristics (e.g., 1 control/treatment group pair for children ages 4-6 and 1 control/treatment group pair for children ages 7-9), code all of the purposeful control groups. 1. Control group _____________ (Report the relevant information for the ‘best’ control group OR each of the purposeful control groups. Each control group should be reported in a separate tab. Note. Names of control groups will be automatically generated) 2. What type of “control condition” does this specific control group receive? (Select best one) 1 = “Practice as usual” control 2 = “No treatment” control 3 = Placebo control of "straw man" alternate treatment control 3. Provide a brief description of what this particular control group received. (If possible, cut and paste the description of what was done to the control group from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report) ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ IF THERE ARE OTHER PURPOSEFUL CONTROL GROUP/S THAT WERE USED, PLEASE REMEMBER TO CODE EACH CONTROL GROUP’S INFORMATION ON SEPARATE IDENTICAL TAB/S. 81


VIII. GENERAL INFORMATION ON POSTTEST AND FOLLOW-UP OUTCOME MEASURE/S OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Qualifying outcomes of prosocial behavior (e.g., dependent variable/s) are measures of children’s prosocial behavior taken AFTER intervention on which treatment vs. control group comparisons can be made. A qualifying outcome of prosocial behavior is one that is defined in accordance with the eligibility criteria definition: Prosocial behavior is any action intended to benefit another such as sharing, helping, comforting, protecting someone from harm or bullying, making restitution for antisocial behavior with a prosocial action, cooperation, donation, and volunteerism. Altruism is also an eligible type of prosocial behavior. An eligible measure is one that includes AT LEAST 75% of items that reflect prosocial behavior. Also, if a measure includes items that do not reflect prosocial behavior, ALL other items should examine some type of social and emotional competence, skill, behavior, attitude and/or perception or can indicate a lack of problem behavior, aggression, internalizing behaviors, or the like. Look at measure items of positive social behavior, morality/moral behavior, kindness, friendship skills, empathy, concern for others, compassionate behavior, ethical behavior, character development, other-oriented behavior, citizenship, and the like to see if they fit the eligibility criteria. Beware that sometimes a measure is referred to as a measure of prosocial behavior even though it would not fit the definition of prosocial behavior set forth by this meta-analysis. An outcome of prosocial behavior can be measured using any format (self-report, teacher/adult-report, peer-report, observational measure, etc.). However, if prosocial behavior is measured midway through treatment, DO NOT code a midway outcome anywhere. Report information on all qualifying outcome measures of prosocial behavior even if more than one outcome measure of a particular type of prosocial behavior is used. There are 2 types of outcomes of prosocial behavior that should be coded here: posttest and follow-up. They are defined as follows: Posttest outcome: A posttest measure of prosocial behavior can be taken right after treatment ends or after some period, but it is distinguished from a follow-up because it is the first measure taken after treatment ends, regardless of the time period between the end of treatment and posttest measurement. Follow-up outcome: Follow-up outcomes are measured after the post-test outcome. Some studies may measure prosocial behavior directly after treatment (i.e., posttest outcome) and then some days/weeks/months later (i.e., follow-up outcome). 1. How many eligible POSTTEST outcomes of prosocial behavior are measured in the study? Number ____________ 2. Select ALL types of eligible POSTTEST outcomes of prosocial behavior measured in the study a. Comforting b. Cooperation c. Helping d. Making restitution for antisocial behavior with an action that benefits the victim e. Protecting someone from bullying or harm f. Sharing g. Charitable Donation h. Volunteerism i. Mixed (i.e., measure is a combination of types of prosocial behavior listed above) j. Other, please describe: ______________ (Consult ALS ASAP if ANOTHER type of prosocial behavior is assessed as an outcome in a study) Definitions of Prosocial Behaviors: a. Comforting – removing distress, provision of emotional or physical support/comfort (e.g., soothing, consoling) b. Cooperation – working together with others to achieve a common goal or purpose (e.g., children build a collage together); teamwork; mutual assistance 82


c. Helping – provision of intangible assistance to a familiar person(e.g., retrieving an object out of reach, tutoring a peer) d. Protecting someone from bullying or harm e. Making restitution for antisocial behavior with an action that benefits the victim f. Sharing – giving up, dividing up, or bestowing a limited, tangible resource to a familiar person (e.g., giving ownership of an object to another, sharing food) g. Charitable Donation – providing tangible gifts of money or goods to a charitable organization (e.g., homeless shelter, environmental conservation group) or another unfamiliar person in need (e.g., needy child). In contrast, if a child is involved in a social interaction or provided with a hypothetical situation (e.g., vignette or story told to children), giving goods such as monopoly money/cookies to another known child would be coded as sharing. h. Volunteerism – giving of one’s intangible time and energy to help unfamiliar people, communities, animals, and/or the environment without being remunerated. Note: If volunteerism is directed toward a specific known individual (e.g., volunteering time to help a classmate or friend with a task), code instead as helping). 3. How many eligible FOLLOW-UP outcomes of prosocial behavior are measured in the study? Number ____________ 4. Select ALL types of eligible FOLLOW-UP outcomes of prosocial behavior measured in the study a. Comforting b. Cooperation c. Helping d. Protecting someone from bullying or harm e. Making restitution for antisocial behavior with an action that benefits the victim f. Sharing g. Charitable Donation h. Volunteerism i. Mixed (i.e., measure is a combination of types of prosocial behavior listed above) j. Other, please describe. ______________ (Consult ALS ASAP if ANOTHER type of prosocial behavior is assessed as an outcome in a study) 5. If possible, complete all of the following: A. List the name(s) of all eligible POSTTEST outcomes of prosocial behavior. Use the name(s) of prosocial behavior as defined by the coding manual (e.g., outcome 1 comforting, outcome 2 mixed prosocial behavior; OR if reported by age group: outcome 1 cooperation ages 4-5, outcome 2 cooperation ages 6-8; OR if more than one of the same type: outcome 1 sharing, outcome 2 sharing). B. If applicable, list the name of the FOLLOW-UP outcome measured in the EXACT same way (e.g., follow-up 1 comforting). If there is a FOLLOW-UP outcome measured in a DIFFERENT/UNIDENTICAL way than any of the POSTTEST outcomes, code 999 in section A and then write the name of the different FOLLOW-UP in section B. C. List the approximate (or exact) number of weeks that the FOLLOW-UP outcome was measured AFTER the POSTTEST outcome was collected. Divide days by 7 and round to whole number; multiply months by 4.3 and round; code 999 if cannot tell, but try to make an estimate if possible. Even if there is NO IDENTICAL POSTTEST, estimate the weeks the FOLLOW-UP was measured after the FIRST posttest in the study was collected. D. Was there more than 20% attrition between the posttest and follow-up? If there was a follow-up that did not have an identical POSTTEST, you should still document the attrition that occurred after the FIRST posttest in the study was collected. 1 = No 2 = Yes, in treatment group only 3 = Yes, in control group only 4 = Yes, in both groups 999 = Unable to determine 83


A. Posttest

B. Follow-up

C. Timing of Follow-up (i.e., weeks after posttest)

D. Attrition between posttest and follow-up

1 2 3 4 5 6 IX. DESCRIPTION OF IDENTICAL FOLLOW-UP OUTCOMES OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Report information on each qualifying identical follow-up outcome measure of prosocial behavior. ONLY report IDENTICAL FOLLOW-UP outcome/s here if the FOLLOW-UP outcome WAS measured in the EXACT SAME WAY as the posttest measure. 1. Select ONE identical follow-up outcome _____________ (You will report the relevant information on each identical follow-up outcome of prosocial behavior separately. Note. Automatically generate names of the follow-up outcomes measured in the exact same way as posttest) 2.

Was reliability reported for the identical follow-up outcome measure? 1 = No (If no, skip the next question) 2 = Yes

3. Report the following reliability information for the specific IDENTICAL follow-up outcome measure. Code 999 for items not reported. A. Report type of reliability coefficient reported for this specific identical follow-up measure (Report number) 1 = Internal consistency/Scale reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha (i.e., ), Kuder-Richardson (e.g., KR20), split-half reliability, Spearman Brown) 2 = Inter-rater reliability (also known as inter-rater/observer/coder agreement/reliability; e.g., Cohen’s kappa (i.e., κ), percent agreement, correlation between raters, intra-class correlation coefficient (i.e., ICC)) 3 = Test-retest reliability/Stability coefficient (e.g., Correlation coefficient, intra-class correlation coefficient (i.e., ICC)). B. Report specific name of reliability coefficient (e.g., Kuder-Richardson formula 20) C. Report reliability coefficient (Use decimal format, e.g., .43) D. Page number of report reliability coefficient is described E. List source of reliability estimate (Report number) 1 = Participants in this study 2 = Cited from another study A. Type of reliability coefficient

B. Specific name of reliability coefficient used in report

C. Reliability coefficient

1 2 3 84


D. Report Page number

E. List source of reliability estimate

IF THERE ARE OTHER IDENTICAL FOLLOW-UP OUTCOMES, CODE EACH ON SEPARATE TAB/S. X. DESCRIPTION OF POSTTEST AND UNIDENTICAL FOLLOW-UP OUTCOMES OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Report information on EACH qualifying posttest and UNIDENTICAL follow-up outcome measures of prosocial behavior. Only report a FOLLOW-UP outcome/s here if the FOLLOW-UP outcome was NOT measured in the exact same way as the POSTTEST measure. Important: If you decide to redefine the outcomes/follow-ups of prosocial behavior, please return now and make the changes to the section “General Information on Posttest and Follow-up Outcome Measure/s of Prosocial Behavior.” 23. Select ONE prosocial measure outcome _____________ (You will report the relevant information on each posttest and unidentical follow-up outcome of prosocial behavior separately. Note. Names of posttest and unidentical follow-up outcomes will be automatically generated.) 24. Type of measure 1 = Posttest 2 = Unidentical follow-up 25. Provide a brief description of the outcome measure of prosocial behavior you are coding (If possible, cut and paste the description of the specific outcome measure of prosocial behavior from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 26. What type of prosocial behavior was this outcome measure? (Select one) a. Comforting b. Cooperation c. Helping d. Protecting someone from harm or bullying e. Making restitution for antisocial behavior with an action that benefits the victim f. Sharing g. Charitable Donation h. Volunteerism i. Mixed (i.e., measure is a combination of types of prosocial behavior listed above) j. Other, please describe. ______________ 27. Source of information for the outcome measure (Select one) a. Child participant (e.g., self-report) b. Parent c. Peer d. Researcher e. Sibling f. Teacher g. Other/Multiple sources: describe ___________________ h. Unable to determine 28. Weeks prosocial behavior counted for the outcome measure? Approximate (or exact) time period over which prosocial behavior occurred and was measured, e.g., whether prosocial behavior 85


occurred during the last 2 months. (Code number of weeks, rounded to nearest whole number; divide days by 7 and round; multiply months by 4.3 and round; code 999 if cannot tell, but try to make an estimate if possible.) If the instructions for a measure inform the participant to “think about the past 2 months,” use 2 months to calculate the response for this item. Select “not applicable” if the measure only pertained to prosocial behavior occurring at the time of the measure (e.g., prosocial behavior measured through frequency observation, story situation). 1 = Weeks prosocial behavior measured: specify __________________ 2 = Not applicable 999 = Unable to determine 29. What method was used to measure the outcome of prosocial behavior? (Select best one) a. Natural observation (e.g., observing participants’ natural behavior in their own classrooms) b. Observation of behavior in experimentally designed situation c. Rating scale/Survey/Questionnaire/Checklist d. Vignette measure (i.e., children are asked what they would do in a hypothetical situation) e. Other: describe ___________________ f. Unable to determine 30. What type of scale for the measure was used? (Select best one) a. Dichotomy or polychotomy (e. g., prosocial behavior yes/no or occur/did not occur) b. Summed dichotomous items (e.g., sum of yes/no on list of prosocial behaviors) c. Average dichotomous items (e.g., average of yes/no on list of prosocial behaviors) d. Frequency or rate (e.g., raw number/count of incident; incidents per 20 children) e. Proportion (e.g., number of prosocial behaviors out of possible events provided to elicit prosocial behavior) f. Rating of amount of prosocial behavior, this is similar to frequency but in rating form (e.g., how often you did “x” behavior). g. Intensity index (rating scale of degree of prosocial behavior) h. More than one of above elements combined in composite measure i. Other: describe ___________________ i. Unable to determine 31. How many Items comprised the measure of this outcome? ________________ (Report number or 999 for unable to determine) 32. How many of the items of the measure were on prosocial behavior ____________ (Report number. Remember that if a measure does not have at least 75% of the items on prosocial behavior, the particular measure is ineligible.) 33. What does a higher score on this measure indicate? (This question is CRITICAL to coding effect sizes. Sometimes this information may not be provided explicitly in a research report. If this information is not provided explicitly, the results or discussion section of the research report may provide some clues or you may have to obtain the exact measure from a previously reported study). If you cannot determine direction, select UNABLE TO DETERMINE and contact ALS ASAP, then move on to coding the next study). 1 = Higher score equals LESS prosocial behavior or a WORSE outcome 2 = Higher score equals MORE prosocial behavior or a BETTER outcome 999 = Unable to determine 34. Provide the exact or approximate number of weeks AFTER the END of treatment when the outcome was measured (divide days by 7; multiply months by 4.3). (This question is very important. Please make ALL attempts to locate the information in the study. In the case of laboratory experiments, you will usually code “directly after treatment” unless the study notes otherwise.) (Select one.) 1 = Directly after treatment 86


2 = Number of weeks = ____________ (Write #) 999 = Unable to determine 35. Was reliability reported for the posttest or unidentical outcome measure? 1 = No (If no, skip the next question) 2 = Yes 36. Report the following reliability information for the specific outcome measure. Code 999 for items not reported. A. Report type of reliability coefficient reported for this specific outcome measure? (Report number) 1 = Internal consistency/Scale reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha (i.e., ) Kuder-Richardson (e.g., KR20), split-half reliability, Spearman Brown) 2 = Inter-rater reliability. (also known as inter-rater/observer/coder agreement/reliability; e.g., Cohen’s kappa (i.e., κ), percent agreement, correlation between raters, intra-class correlation coefficient (i.e., ICC)) 3 = Test-retest reliability/Stability coefficient (e.g., Correlation coefficient, intra-class correlation coefficient (i.e., ICC)) B. Report specific name of reliability coefficient (e.g., Kuder-Richardson formula 20) C. Report reliability coefficient (Use decimal format, e.g., .43) D. Page number reliability coefficient is described E. List source of reliability estimate (Report number) 1 = Participants in this study 2 = Cited from another study A. Type of reliability coefficient

B. Specific name of reliability coefficient used in report

C. Reliability coefficient

D. Report Page number

E. List source of reliability estimate

1 2 3 A. CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIPIENT OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR FOR SPECIFIC OUTCOME MEASURE For the following questions, report on whom the specific outcome measure designates as the recipient of prosocial behavior. The recipient of prosocial behavior is the person/s to whom the study participant/s directs their prosocial behavior (e.g., study participant donates to a friend or charity recipient). If a measure using the format of a story or hypothetical situation is presented to study participants and they are asked what they would do in a scenario/s, please consider the recipient of prosocial behavior in the story or particular situation as the recipient in the following questions. You may not have enough information to code some of the following information. Code what you can with the information provided in the study. Remember that the following questions only refer to the specific outcome measure of prosocial behavior you are currently reporting.

1. Who is/are the recipient/s of prosocial behavior for this measure? (Select one) 1 = Best/close friends (code this only if the recipient/s are referred to as close/best friends or the like in a report) 2 = Friend/s (code this only if the recipient/s are referred to as friends or the like in a report) 3 = Children 4 = Adolescents 5 = Peers of participants 87


6 = Siblings 4 = Adult socializers 5 = Adults other than socializers 6 = Animal/Non-human character in a story 7 = Charity (e.g., homeless shelter) 8 = Generalized measure (i.e., recipient could be any person) 9 = Mixed/Other: Describe ______________ 999 = Unable to determine 2. Did the measure examine recipient/s of prosocial behavior familiar to the child (Select best one) 1 = No, unfamiliar recipients (e.g., recipients were researchers, research assistants, unfamiliar individuals in a story, a charity) 2 = Yes, only familiar recipients (e.g., recipients were teachers, parents, peers, familiar individuals in a story) 3 = Mixed familiar and unfamiliar recipients 999 = Unable to determine 3. Report the degree of similarity of the ethnicity/race/culture of recipients and study participants for this particular measure of prosocial behavior (A study would have to spell out these procedural aspects of the measure or include demographics of the recipient in a report in order to code this question.) (Select best one) 1 = Recipients were ONLY of the SAME race/ethnicity/culture as study participants 2 = Recipients were ONLY of a DIFFERENT race/ethnicity/culture than study participants 3 = Mixed same and different race/ethnicity/culture recipients 999 = Unable to determine 4. Report the degree of similarity of the gender of recipients and study participants for this particular measure of prosocial behavior (A study would have to spell out these procedural aspects of the measure or include demographics of the recipient in a report in order to code this question.) (Select best one) 1 = Recipients were ONLY of the SAME gender as study participants 2 = Recipients were ONLY of a DIFFERENT gender than study participants 3 = Mixed same and different gender recipients 999 = Unable to determine 5. Report the degree of similarity of SES (e.g., poverty level, family socioeconomic status, free/reduced price lunch) of recipients and study participants for this particular measure of prosocial behavior (A study would have to spell out these procedural aspects of the measure or include demographics of the recipient in a report in order to code this question.) (Select best one) 1 = Recipients were ONLY of the SAME SES as study participants 2 = Recipients were ONLY of a LOWER SES than study participants 3 = Recipients were ONLY of a HIGHER SES than study participants 4 = Mixed HIGHER SES and LOWER SES recipients 999 = Unable to determine

B. ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON SPECIFIC OUTCOME MEASURE OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR For the following questions, report on the following characteristics for the specific outcome measure.

88


6. Did the outcome measure examine prosocial behavior in naturally occurring situations or experimentally designed situations? (Note. Prosocial behavior outcomes collected under experimentally designed situations are designed to elicit/measure a prosocial response (e.g., participant is asked to read a story and indicate whether the protagonist should help or not help a needy individual, an experimenter asks if a participant would like to donate some winnings to a charity). Prosocial behavior outcomes collected in naturally occurring situations would be those measures of prosocial behavior that are naturally delivered toward others in social interaction without prompts.) (Select one) 1 = Natural occurring situation for measuring prosocial behavior 2 = Experimentally designed situation for measuring prosocial behavior 999 = Unable to determine 7. Does the outcome measure examine prosocial behavior under emotionally evocative circumstances? (i.e., Some situations in which prosocial behavior is measured can be characterized as highly emotionally evocative. For example, a vignette measure that presents a child who has hurt her hand and is distressed and crying is an emotionally evocative situation. The option to help in this situation would be a measure of prosocial behavior that is coded “yes, emotionally evocative circumstance”) (Select one) 1 = No, neutral 2 = Potentially emotionally evocative (e.g., a person is in need of help but is not distressed/sad) 3 = Yes, emotionally evocative (i.e., distressed/sad persons are presented) 999 = Unable to determine 8. Were verbal options/requests provided for prosocial behavior to derive the measure of prosocial behavior (Select one) 1 = No verbal options/requests 2 = Yes, verbal options/request were provided for prosocial behavior (e.g., “You may give some of your winnings to a charity.”) 999 = Unable to determine IF THERE ARE OTHER OUTCOMES, PLEASE REMEMBER TO CODE EACH POSTTEST AND UNIDENTICAL FOLLOW-UP OUTCOME ON SEPARATE IDENTICAL TAB/S. XI. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PRETEST INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTING A PRETEST A qualifying pretest measure is collected BEFORE treatment begins. To be coded as a pretest measure, quantitative data on the pretest measure must be reported for treatment and control groups (e.g., means, standard deviations, ANOVA). You will need to carefully select the pretest/s to report, but not all studies will report a pretest. When selecting the correct pretest/s to code, consider the following:  The best pretest to code is one that uses the same measure as the post-test (i.e., MATCHED PRETEST).  ALL of the MATCHED pretests should ALWAYS be coded.  If there is only one eligible outcome of prosocial behavior, code ONLY ONE pretest.  If you have only one eligible pretest of prosocial behavior, you should code ONLY the eligible pretest of prosocial behavior UNLESS THERE ARE MATCHED PRETESTS.  If there are two eligible pretests of prosocial behavior but neither is a matched pretest, speak to ALS.  If there are no eligible pretests of prosocial behavior, you should select the ONE pre-test that is the closest match (in order of preference) from this list*:  Social competence (e.g., friendship-making skills, positive social behavior, measure with prosocial items but less than 75% of items on prosocial behavior and other items are on social competence)  Emotional competence (e.g., understanding of emotions, labelling of emotions) 89


   

Antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression, maladaptive behavior, disruptive behavior) Lack of self-regulation Cognitive skill (e.g., problem-solving) Academic skill (e.g., GPA, standardized achievement assessment, math performance)

* If there is more than one non-prosocial pretest of the type that you have selected to code, speak to ALS.

1. Do you have an eligible pretest? 1 = No 2 = Yes 2. If you have an eligible pretest, which eligible pretests will you code? 1 = One pretest of prosocial behavior that matches the post-test 2 = One pretest of prosocial behavior that does not match the post-test 3 = Multiple pretests of prosocial behavior to match the eligible post-tests 4 = One non-prosocial pretest XII. GENERAL INFORMATION ON ELIGIBLE MATCHED/UNMATCHED PRETEST MEASURE/S OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Only qualifying pretest/baseline measures of prosocial behavior should be reported here that fit the criteria for INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTING A PRETEST. To be coded as a pretest measure of prosocial behavior, quantitative data on the pretest measure of prosocial behavior must be reported for treatment and control groups (e.g., means, standard deviations, ANOVA). A qualifying pretest measure of prosocial behavior is one that is defined in accordance with the eligibility criteria definition. Beware that sometimes a measure is referred to as a measure of prosocial behavior even though it would not fit the definition of prosocial behavior set forth by this meta-analysis. If prosocial behavior is measured midway through treatment, DO NOT code a midway measure of prosocial behavior anywhere. 3. How many eligible PRETEST outcomes of prosocial behavior are measured in the study? Number ____________ 4. Select ALL types of eligible PRETEST outcomes of prosocial behavior measured in the study a. Comforting b. Cooperation c. Helping d. Protecting someone from bullying or harm e. Making restitution for antisocial behavior with an action that benefits the victim f. Sharing g. Charitable Donation h. Volunteerism i. Mixed (i.e., measure is a combination of types of prosocial behavior listed above) j. Other, please describe: ______________ (Consult ALS ASAP if ANOTHER type of prosocial behavior is assessed as an outcome in a study) Definitions of Prosocial Behaviors: a. Comforting – removing distress, provision of emotional or physical support/comfort (e.g., soothing, consoling) b. Cooperation – working together with others to achieve a common goal or purpose (e.g., children build a collage together); teamwork; mutual assistance 90


c. Helping – provision of intangible assistance to a familiar person(e.g., retrieving an object out of reach, tutoring a peer) d. Protecting someone from bullying or harm e. Making restitution for antisocial behavior with an action that benefits the victim f. Sharing – giving up, dividing up, or bestowing a limited, tangible resource to a familiar person (e.g., giving ownership of an object to another, sharing food) g. Charitable Donation – providing tangible gifts of money or goods to a charitable organization (e.g., homeless shelter, environmental conservation group) or another unfamiliar person in need (e.g., needy child). In contrast, if a child is involved in a social interaction or provided with a hypothetical situation (e.g., vignette or story told to children), giving goods such as monopoly money/cookies to another known child would be coded as sharing. h. Volunteerism – giving of one’s intangible time and energy to help unfamiliar people, communities, animals, and/or the environment without being remunerated. Note: If volunteerism is directed toward a specific known individual (e.g., volunteering time to help a classmate or friend with a task), code instead as helping). 5. If possible, complete all of the following: A. List the name(s) of all eligible PRETEST prosocial behavior measures. Use the name(s) of prosocial behavior as defined by the coding manual (e.g., pretest 1 comforting). B. If applicable, select the name of the POSTTEST outcome measured in the EXACT same way as the PRETEST. If there is a PRETEST measured in a DIFFERENT/UNIDENTICAL way than any of the POSTTEST outcomes, select 999. Note. Names of all posttest measure will be automatically generated with the additional option of 999. C. Was there more than 20% attrition between the pretest and posttest? (If there was a pretest that did not have an identical POSTTEST, you should still document the attrition that occurred after the FIRST posttest in the study was collected.) 1 = No 2 = Yes, in treatment group only 3 = Yes, in control group only 4 = Yes, in both groups 999 = Unable to determine A. Pretest

B. Posttest

C. Attrition between pretest and posttest

XIII. DESCRIPTION OF UNMATCHED/UNIDENTICAL PRETEST MEASURE OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Report information on one qualifying UNMATCHED/UNIDENTICAL pretest measure of prosocial behavior. Only report a PRETEST here if the PRETEST was NOT measured in the exact same way as the POSTTEST measure. Select the pretest of prosocial behavior that is closest to the eligible post-test/s. 91


1. Select ONE unidentical prosocial behavior pretest measure _____________ (You will report the relevant information on each pretest of prosocial behavior separately. Note. Names of unidentical pretests will be automatically generated.) 2. Provide a brief description of the unidentical prosocial behavior prestest you are coding (If possible, cut and paste the description of the prestest from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 3. What type/s of prosocial behavior were included this unidentical prosocial behavior pretest? (Select one) a. Comforting b. Cooperation c. Helping d. Protecting someone from harm or bullying e. Making restitution for antisocial behavior with an action that benefits the victim f. Sharing g. Charitable Donation h. Volunteerism i. Mixed (i.e., measure is a combination of types of prosocial behavior listed above) j. Other, please describe. ______________ 4.

Source of information for the unidentical prosocial behavior pretest? (Select one) a. Child participant (e.g., self-report) b. Parent c. Peer d. Researcher e. Sibling f. Teacher g. Other/Multiple sources: describe ___________________ h. Unable to determine

5. Weeks prosocial behavior counted for the unidentical prosocial behavior pretest? Approximate (or exact) time period over which prosocial behavior occurred and was measured, e.g., whether prosocial behavior occurred during the last 2 months. (Code number of weeks, rounded to nearest whole number; divide days by 7 and round; multiply months by 4.3 and round; code 999 if cannot tell, but try to make an estimate if possible.) If the instructions for a measure inform the participant to “think about the past 2 months,” use 2 months to calculate the number for this item. Select “not applicable” if the measure only pertained to prosocial behavior occurring at the time of the measure (e.g., prosocial behavior measured through frequency observation, story situation). 1 = Weeks prosocial behavior counted: specify __________________ 2 = Not applicable 999 = Unable to determine 6.

92

What method was used to measure the unidentical prosocial behavior pretest? (Select best one) a. Natural observation (e.g., observing participants’ natural behavior in their own classrooms) b. Observation of behavior in experimentally designed situation c. Rating scale/Survey/Questionnaire/Checklist d. Vignette measure (i.e., children are asked what they would do in a hypothetical situation) e. Other: describe ___________________ The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

f.

Unable to determine

7. What type of scale for the measure was used? (Select best one) a. Dichotomy or polychotomy (e. g., prosocial behavior yes/no or occur/did not occur) b. Summed dichotomous items (e.g., sum of yes/no on list of prosocial behaviors) c. Average dichotomous items (e.g., average of yes/no on list of prosocial behaviors) d. Frequency or rate (e.g., raw number/count of incident; incidents per 20 children) e. Proportion (e.g., number of prosocial behaviors out of possible events provided to elicit prosocial behavior) f. Rating of amount of prosocial behavior, this is similar to frequency but in rating form (e.g., how often you did “x” behavior). g. Intensity index (rating scale of degree of prosocial behavior) h. More than one of above elements combined in composite measure i. Other: describe ___________________ j. Unable to determine 8. 9. How many Items comprised the measure of this unidentical pretest? ________________ (Report number or 999 for unable to determine) 10. How many of the items of the measure were on prosocial behavior ____________ (Report number. Remember that if the measure does not have at least 75% of the items on prosocial behavior, the study is ineligible.) 11. What does a higher score on this measure indicate? (This question is CRITICAL to coding effect sizes. Sometimes this information may not be provided explicitly in a research report. If this information is not provided explicitly, the results section of the research report may provide some clues or you may have to obtain the exact measure from a previously reported study). If you cannot determine direction, STOP coding and contact ALS ASAP and then move on to coding the next study). 1 = Higher score equals LESS prosocial behavior or a WORSE outcome 2 = Higher score equals MORE prosocial behavior or a BETTER outcome 999 = Unable to determine XIV. DESCRIPTION OF PRETEST MEASURE OF SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL, COGNITIVE, OR ACADEMIC SKILLS

 Report information on ONE non-prosocial pretest measure of prosocial behavior. Only report a nonprosocial PRETEST here. If there are NO eligible pretests of prosocial behaviour, you should select the ONE pre-test that is the closest match (in order of preference) from this list:  Social competence (e.g., friendship-making skills, positive social behavior, measure with prosocial items but less than 75% of items on prosocial behavior and other items are on social competence)  Emotional competence (e.g., understanding of emotions, labelling of emotions)  Antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression, disruptive behavior)  Lack of self-regulation  Cognitive skill (e.g., problem-solving)  Academic skill (e.g., GPA, standardized achievement assessment, math performance)

1. Select the ONE non-prosocial pretest measure _____________ (You will report the relevant information on each pretest of prosocial behavior separately. Note. Names of non-prosocial pretests will be automatically generated.) 93


2. Provide a brief description of the non-prosocial prestest you are coding (If possible, cut and paste the description of the prestest from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 3. What type of non-prosocial pretest are you coding? (Select one) a. Social competence (e.g., friendship-making skills, positive social behavior) b. Emotional competence (e.g., understanding of emotions, labelling of emotions) c. Antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression) d. Lack of self-regulation e. Cognitive skill (e.g., problem-solving) f. Academic skill (e.g., GPA, standardized achievement assessment, math performance) 4.

Source of information for the non-prosocial pretest (Select one) a. Child participant (e.g., self-report) b. Parent c. Peer d. Researcher e. Sibling f. Teacher g. Other/Multiple sources: describe ___________________ h. Unable to determine

5. Weeks counted for the non-prosocial pretest? Approximate (or exact) time period covered by the measure, i.e., period over which social competence, emotional competence, etc. occurred, e.g., occurred during the last 2 months. (Code number of weeks, rounded to nearest whole number; divide days by 7 and round; multiply months by 4.3 and round; code 999 if cannot tell, but try to make an estimate if possible.) If the instructions for a measure inform the participant to “think about the past 2 months,” use 2 months to calculate the number for this item. Select “not applicable” if the measure only pertained to the pretest measured construct occurring at the time of the measure (e.g., frequency observation, story situation). 1 = Weeks non-prosocial pretest counted: specify __________________ 2 = Not applicable 999 = Unable to determine 1.

What method was used to measure the non-prosocial pretest? (Select best one) a. Natural observation (e.g., observing participants’ natural behavior in their own classrooms) b. Observation of behavior in experimentally designed situation c. Rating scale/Survey/Questionnaire/Checklist d. Vignette measure (i.e., children are asked what they would do in a hypothetical situation) e. Other: describe ___________________ f. Unable to determine

2. What type of scale for the measure was used? (Select best one) a. Dichotomy or polychotomy (e. g., pretest construct yes/no or occur/did not occur) b. Summed dichotomous items (e.g., sum of yes/no on list of pretest construct items) c. Average dichotomous items (e.g., average of yes/no on list of behaviors) d. Frequency or rate (e.g., raw number/count of incident; incidents per 20 children) e. Proportion (e.g., number of behaviors out of possible events provided to elicit the behavior) f. Rating of amount of pretest construct, this is similar to frequency but in rating form (e.g., how often you did “x” behavior). 94


g. h. i. j.

Intensity index (rating scale of degree of pretest construct) More than one of above elements combined in composite measure Other: describe ___________________ Unable to determine

3. What does a higher score on this measure indicate? (This question is CRITICAL to coding effect sizes. Sometimes this information may not be provided explicitly in a research report. If this information is not provided explicitly, the results section of the research report may provide some clues or you may have to obtain the exact measure from a previously reported study). If you cannot determine direction, STOP coding and contact ALS ASAP and then move on to coding the next study). 1 = Higher score equals a WORSE or LESSER outcome (e.g., more aggression, less socially competent behavior, less self-regulation) 2 = Higher score equals a BETTER outcome (e.g., increased social or emotional competence, less aggression) 999 = Unable to determine XV. DEMOGRAPHICS FOR TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS ON PRETEST, POSTTEST, AND FOLLOW-UP MEASURES Read the following instructions carefully. For each eligible pretest, posttest, and follow-up measure of prosocial behavior, the treatment and control group pairs that you assigned earlier will be automatically generated. Please make sure you are inputting the correct data for the type of effect size and outcome listed below. To code the demographic information of a treatment/control group, FIRST select “Method of report,” which refers to the form in which you are reporting the data. For example, for age, select whether you are reporting the information in years or months and select whether the information is reported as a mean (e.g., M = 4.3 years) or range (Note. Range does not have to be reported in exact terms. For example, a study could report that it was comprised of 4 to 5 year olds and that would count as the range). If you select range you will have the option of coding the span of the range (i.e., lowest age in group to highest age in group, so 4 and 5 year olds = 4 to 5). For pretest, posttest, and follow-up measures, report the specific demographics for the group of participants on whom the data were collected at the particular time point. This means that you should report on the participants who were actually included in the analyses. If, for instance, 3 participants in the treatment group drop out prior to the pretest measure, and you are not provided the gender and ethnicity/race information of those children, code the demographic information that is provided prior to attrition. However, you would code the treatment group as having 3 less children. Use the following classifications for White and Non-White: White: White, Caucasian, Eastern European, European descent, also sometimes referred to as “majority” but check what “majority” means in a study Non-white: Asian (i.e., Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, Pacific Islander) Black (i.e., Black, African American, Black - other country of origin) Latino (i.e., Latino, Mexican, Mexican American) Other ethnic/racial background (e.g., multi-ethnic/racial, Native American, or any other ethnic group not included above) Also sometimes referred to as “minority,” but check what “minority” means in a study Note: 

95

If you have already completed the control group information for a specific type of measure and outcome, the information will be automatically generated if the control group was the comparison group for the treatment group you are coding. The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

    

If the demographic data is reported by more than one method, ALWAYS choose to report the Count (i.e., #) and Mean instead of other options. Report percent in decimal format (e.g., .422 for 42.2%; 1 for 100%) If any of the specific information is not reported separately for treatment and control groups, you can report the demographics in aggregate format for both the treatment and control group for the specific measure you are reporting under the “TOTAL” section. Report the standard deviation (SD) of age using the exact same method of report (i.e., months or years) that you use for participants age If authors only report the age range instead of the mean age, the standard deviation of age will probably not be reported.

Please make ALL attempts to locate the following information in a study.

Automatically Generate Type of Measure (i.e., pretest, posttest, or follow-up) Automatically Generate Name of Measure Number of Participant s

Participants Age

SD Deviation of Age

Male Participant s

Female Participant s

White Non-White Participants Participant s

Select # OR %

Select # OR %

Select # OR %

TREATMENT (Generated Name) DATA Method of Report

Select Months OR Years AND Select Mean OR Range CONTROL (Generated Name) DATA Method of Report TOTAL Method of Report

Select Months OR Years AND Select Mean OR Range If hand entered Select Months OR Years AND Select Mean OR Range

If hand entered Select # OR %

Select # OR %

Select # OR %

Select # OR %

Select # OR %

Select # OR %





For the following questions, report the direction of the difference between the treatment and control group. Even if you could not code the precise demographic information above, the study may provide enough information to code the following questions. 1. Age 1 = favors treatment group (Treatment group is older) 2 = favors control group (Control group is older) 96


3 = favors neither (Exactly the same, reported as no difference, matched exactly) 999 = Unable to determine 2. Gender 1 = favors treatment group (Treatment group has fewer males) 2 = favors control group (Control group has fewer males) 3 = favors neither (Exactly the same, reported as no difference, matched exactly) 999 = Unable to determine 3. Ethnicity/race 1 = favors treatment group (Treatment group has more non-white participants) 2 = favors control group (Control group has more non-white participants) 3 = favors neither (Exactly the same, reported as no difference, matched exactly) 999 = Unable to determine OTHER OUTCOMES AND TYPES OF MEASURES (I.E., PRETEST, POSTTEST, FOLLOW-UP) FOR WHICH TREATMENT AND CONTROL COMPARISONS CAN BE MADE WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED TO CODE.

XVI. EFFECT SIZE CODING FOR TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS ON PRETEST, POSTTEST, AND FOLLOW-UP MEASURES Read the following instructions carefully. For each eligible pretest, posttest, and follow-up measure of prosocial behavior, the treatment and control group comparisons that you assigned earlier will be automatically generated. Complete all of the information for the specific treatment and control group comparison that can be found in the reports of a study. Please make sure you are inputting the correct data for the type of effect size and outcome listed below. There are 3 types of effect sizes that can be coded for each eligible outcome of prosocial behavior:  Pretest effect size - measures the difference between a treatment and comparison group before treatment (or at the beginning of treatment)  Posttest effect size - measures the difference between a treatment and control group after treatment on an outcome variable. A posttest can occur right after treatment ends or after some delay, but it is distinguished from a follow-up because it is the first measure taken after treatment ends, regardless of the time period between the end of treatment and posttest measurement.  Follow-up effect size - measures the difference between a treatment and control group after treatment, but follow-up refers to measurement AFTER the POSTTEST. Note:      

If you have already completed the control group information for a particular measure, some of the control group information will be automatically generated for each treatment/control group comparison in which the control group is the relevant comparison group. If both covariate adjusted means and raw means are reported, report covariate adjusted means. Covariate-adjusted means are a lot like regular means except that they are adjusted statistically for the effects of any covariates (e.g., gender, pretest). For options of Percent/Number Success/Failed, code dichotomous effect size data on percent failed/successful or number failed/successful (e.g., prosocial behavior occurred vs. did not occur). Use the raw values for Number Successful and Number Failed instead of percentages if both are provided. Only enter Number Successful/Failed or Percent Successful/Failed if either is given explicitly. If proportions successful and failed are provided instead of percentages, calculate the percent successful and failed using the table in the Excel spreadsheet titled “Other Calculations.”

Please make ALL attempts to locate effect size data in a study. 97


Automatically Generate Type of Measure (i.e., pretest, posttest, or follow-up) Automatically Generate Name of Measure Mean

Variance SD (i.e., Number (i.e., σ2) σ) Successfu l

Number Failed

Percent Successful

Percent Failed

TREATMENT (Generated Name) CONTROL (Generated Name) TOTAL DIFFERENCE t-value

Only include simple control vs. treatment comparison, no multiple regression Only include when a one way analysis is used with one degree of freedom, no repeated measures, etc. One degree of freedom comparison Odds ratio for differential treatment vs. control success or failure from a logistic regression Logged odds ratio for differential treatment vs. control success or failure from a logistic regression Report an effect size if a study reports it.

F-value (df =1) Chi-square (df =1) Odds Ratio Logged Odds Ratio Reported Effect Size Number of Clusters in Treatment (i.e., T) and Control (i.e., C)

T

C

Average cluster size T in treatment and control (Take average of cluster size) Cluster adjustments needed?

C

Unit of analysis (ALS will code)

Effect size not possible to code with above options? 98

If there was cluster level assignment (groups, e.g. classes, assigned to treatment and control), report the number of clusters in T & C. If there is individual level assignment, code 888 in T & C. If you cannot determine how many clusters were in each group, code 999 in T & C. If there was cluster level assignment (groups, e.g. classes, assigned to treatment and control), report the average number of students of clusters in T & C. If there is individual level assignment, code 888 in T & C. If you cannot determine average cluster size, code 999 in T & C. If study authors assigned participants to treatment and control groups at the cluster level AND the effect size data haven’t had cluster adjustments, then the effect sizes will need cluster adjustments. Analysis methods that appropriately handle clustered data include multilevel, mixed, or hierarchical linear models, variance components analysis, robust standard errors, or generalized estimating equations. Assign one of the following codes: 1 = Cluster adjustments not needed because of individual level assignment (i.e., there is no need to make cluster adjustments because the children were allocated to intervention individually not in groups (e.g., classroom, school). 2 = Cluster adjustments were made in analysis. 3 = Cluster adjustments needed but ignored in analysis. 999 = Unable to determine What was the level of analysis (Select one) 1 = Individual child 2 = Classroom 3 = School 4 = Other Group: specify _______________________ Was analysis of covariance, multilevel analysis, multiple regression analyses, or some other multivariate analysis procedure used to examine the effect of treatment OR could you not code the effect size data? Code: 1


= No (i.e., effect size data is coded); 2 = Yes (i.e., effect size not possible to code with above options) Page numbers

Provide the ICC

Effect size by Hand (ALS will code)

Report page numbers of study (and report ID if there is more than one report that you are using to code this study) where effect size information is found. Report this information even if you do not have enough information to code the above information. The intra-class correlation (i.e., ICC) that should be reported here is the proportion of the total variance that is due to between group variance (e.g., between groups, classrooms, etc). If the unit of assignment to treatment and control groups was any type of group, the ICC is an important for computing the cluster adjusted effect size. Report the ICC that derives from the analysis comparing the specific treatment and control group that you are coding. Also, sometimes authors report that analyses for cluster adjustments were not conducted because the ICC was small and then authors will report the ICC value, which you should report. If the unit of assignment to treatment/control conditions was the individual child rather than groups, no ICC will be reported. This should only be entered by ALS for cases where data to code an effect size is not apparent or more complex statistical procedures must be completed to get an effect size

1. If you could code the effect size information but there is something that you are uncertain about in regards to the effect size coding, please describe the issue below with relevant page number information (also report ID if there is more than one report that you are using to code this study). _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Were covariate adjusted means reported? (This should be stated in the study) 1 = No 2 = Yes 3. If covariate adjusted means were reported, list variables involved in the adjustment (e.g., prosocial behavior pretest, gender) _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Select ALL the covariates included in the most complex analysis conducted to test control and treatment group differences (e.g., complex procedure such as ANCOVA or multilevel modelling and includes covariates and cluster adjustments, if applicable) even if you could not code the effect size information. 1 = Pretest measure of prosocial behavior 2 = Pretest measures of social and/or emotional competence other than prosocial behavior 3 = Academic achievement or performance (e.g., GPA, standardized achievement assessment) 4 = Age 5 = Gender 6 = Ethnicity/Race 7 = Family SES (e.g., mother’s educational background, family income) 999 = Unable to determine 5. Describe any additional covariates in this complex analysis.

99


__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Numerically comparing treatment group scores to control group scores on this measure, the raw treatment vs. control group difference favors (i.e., shows more "success" for) which group? Note: Report this information, if available, even if the numerical values on the variables are not reported; e.g., author may indicate whether there is a difference or report significance without giving means, etc. for the groups. This item is critically important to the analysis and provides the direction for the effect size. Remember that you cannot rely on simple numerical values to determine which group is better off because rarely a lower number will be an indicator of more prosocial behavior. Sometimes it may be difficult to tell which group is better off. In situations where it is difficult to tell which group is better off, the results and discussions sections usually bring to light the direction of effect – e.g., the authors will often state verbally which group did better on the measure you are coding, even when it is not clear in the data table. (Check best one) 1 = treatment group favored 2 = control group favored 3 = neither (exactly equal) 4 = only report of statistical insignificance 5 = cannot tell 999 = not reported 7. If the study authors performed a statistical test that compared the treatment and comparison group on the measure you are coding, was it significant or not? Report what the author claims at WHICHEVER alpha level, etc. used. If only p-values are provided with no statement of what is judged statistically significant, code anything with p < .05 as significant. Use the most advanced analysis provided (e.g., analysis of covariance, multilevel modelling). 1 = significant 2 = not significant 3 = cannot tell 999 = not reported 8. Did the authors conclude that the specific intervention you are coding was beneficial for prosocial behavior? 1 = No, the authors did not conclude that the treatment was beneficial 2 = Yes, the authors concluded that the treatment was beneficial 3 = Mixed (yes and no) 4 = Unclear/no conclusion stated by authors OTHER OUTCOMES AND TYPES OF MEASURES (I.E., PRETEST, POSTTEST, FOLLOW-UP) FOR WHICH TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUP COMPARISONS CAN BE MADE WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED TO CODE.

XVII. FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES OR INTERVENTION PROGRAM IN A STUDY

Fidelity of implementation refers to the degree to which the instructional practice/s or program were delivered as intended or prescribed by the author(s) or researcher(s) (or their guiding theory/concepts). Think about whether or not all of the described major elements of the intervention are faithfully reproduced. Remember that you are reporting on fidelity of implementation for ALL of the treatment groups in a study.

100


1. Was the fidelity of implementation of the treatment/s monitored by the author/researcher or other research personnel to assess whether it was delivered as intended? (Select one) 1 = No, fidelity of implementation was not assessed 2 = Possible (hints or suggestions that fidelity of implementation was measured but no clear/explicit information is provided) 3 = Yes, fidelity of implementation was assessed 2. If implementation monitoring occurred, how was information collected? (Select one) 1 = Self-reports from socializers who delivered the instructional practice/s or program (e.g., teacher/researcher fills out a survey) 2 = Direct observations (e.g., researchers/research assistants directly observed the socializers during implementation of the instructional practice/s or intervention program and recorded information about the quantity, quality, or fidelity of implementation) 3 = Video or audio recording of sessions 4 = Some combination of the above data collection sources 5 = Other: describe ______________________ 6 = Cannot Tell 999 = Fidelity of implementation information was not collected 3. Was fidelity of implementation quantitatively measured and reported? (Select one) 1 = No 2 = Yes 999 = Fidelity of implementation information was not collected 4. Provide a brief description of how fidelity of implementation of the instructional practice/s or intervention program was measured. Report the extent to which fidelity of implementation was achieved quantitatively and/or qualitatively according to how the authors report it (i.e., use numbers and name the statistics that were used to assess fidelity of implementation and provide a description) (If possible, cut and paste the description of fidelity implementation measures. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report. Write “NR” if this information is not described. Code “999” if fidelity of implementation information was not collected.) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Did the authors report that their fidelity of implementation measures suggested that treatments were delivered as intended or appropriately delivered (i.e., without problems and variation in treatment delivery)? Sometimes authors will comment on issues in treatment delivery in the methods, results, discussion, or limitation sections of a research report. (Select one) 1 = No (i.e., treatment was not implemented as intended) 2 = Possible (hints or suggestions that fidelity of implementation issues may have been present, but nothing clearly explicit) 3 = Yes, treatment implemented as intended 4 = Not reported 999 = Fidelity of implementation information was not collected 6. Provide a brief description of any problems with fidelity of implementation of the instructional practice/s or intervention program (e.g., erratic attendance, treatment not delivered as intended (e.g., issues in quality or dosage of treatment), differences between treatment and control group settings, etc.). (If possible, cut and paste the description of fidelity implementation issues, which are often described in the discussion section. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report. Write 101


“NR” if this information is not described. Code “999” if fidelity of implementation information was not collected.) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Did the study report that fidelity of implementation issues possibly affected only SPECIFIC treatment group/s? First list the name of the treatment group/s that might have been effected and then describe the problems with fidelity of implementation for the specific treatment group/s. (If possible, cut and paste the description of fidelity implementation issues. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description came from in the research report. Write “NR” if this information is not described) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Did the socializers observe and document children’s progress throughout the intervention AND use the information to modify their instruction or intervention delivery? 1 = No 2 = Possible (hints or suggestions that documentation of issues and modification of intervention occurred, but nothing clearly explicit) 3 = Yes, documentation of issues and modification of intervention occurred. 4 = Not reported XVIII. RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENT

For the following questions 1-7 that pertain to the risk of bias, code one of the following: Low risk of bias - Bias, if present, is unlikely to alter the results seriously High risk of bias - Bias may alter the results seriously Unclear risk of bias - Insufficient information to permit judgment of low or high risk Note. Questions 1- 7 adapted from Higgins et al. (2011)

1. Random sequence generation? 1 = Low risk (i.e., random assignment to groups through computer generation, coin toss, etc.) 2 = High risk (e.g., non-random approaches to assignment, quasi-experimental design) 3 = Unclear risk 2. Allocation concealment? 1 = Low risk (i.e., participants and investigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment) 2 = High risk (i.e., inadequate concealment of allocation prior to assignment) 3 = Unclear risk 3. Blinding of outcome assessment? (i.e., bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors) 1 = Low risk (i.e., no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding) 2 = High risk (e.g., outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding of outcome assessment, outcomes are self-reported) 3 = Unclear risk 102


4. Incomplete outcome data? (i.e., attrition bias due to amount, nature, or handling of incomplete outcome data) 1 = Low risk (e.g., less than 20% missing outcome data, notable attrition is balanced across treatment and control groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups) 2 = High risk (e.g., more than 20% missing outcome data, imbalance in attrition across treatment and control groups) 3 = Unclear risk 5. Reporting bias? (i.e., reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting) 1 = Low risk (i.e., all prosocial behavior outcomes outlined in the methods section of all related reports are reported in the results section) 2 = High risk (i.e., not all of the study’s prosocial behavior outcomes (pre-specified in the methods section) are reported) 3 = Unclear risk 6. Control group contamination? (i.e., aspects of intervention that were directed at the treatment group/s also occurred in the control group/s) 1 = Low risk (i.e., the study appears to be free of control group contamination: what was done in the control group is clearly spelled out and there is no mention of control group contamination) 2 = High risk (e.g., possible control group contamination because the authors report that aspects of intervention that were delivered to the treatment group/s were also delivered to the control group/s) 3 = Unclear risk 7. Other sources of bias? 1 = Low risk (i.e., the study appears to be free of other sources of bias) 2 = High risk (e.g., significant baseline differences between treatment and control groups were not statistically adjusted, statistical analysis errors, low reliability or validity of key measures, unit of analysis errors) 3 = Unclear risk

XIX. AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS DRAWN ABOUT UNEXPECTED FINDINGS 1. If the treatment group/s in the study did not evidence increased/enhanced prosocial behavior at POSTTEST as compared to the control group/s, describe the specific reasons that authors provided for these unexpected findings. If there was more than one treatment group, please be specific about which treatment and control groups the explanation pertains to (i.e., ALL or list specific treatment group). This explanation is often found in the discussion or limitations section. If no explanation is provided, write “NR.” If the treatment group(s) showed significantly more prosocial behavior than the control group, write “NA.” (If possible, cut and paste the description from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description is found in the research report). ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. If the treatment group/s in the study did not evidence increased/enhanced prosocial behavior at FOLLOW-UP as compared to the control group/s, describe the specific reasons that authors provided for these unexpected findings. If there was more than one treatment group, please be specific about which treatment and control groups the explanation pertains to (i.e., ALL or list specific treatment group). This explanation is often found in the discussion or limitations section. If no explanation is provided, write “NR.” If the treatment group(s) showed significantly more prosocial behavior than the 103


control group or there was no follow-up, write “NA.” (If possible, cut and paste the description from the research report. Use quotes to signify when the description came directly from the research report. Also, note the page/s where the description is found in the research report). ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

XXI. ADULTS AND/OR CHILD PARTCIPANTS’ FEELINGS ABOUT THE INTERVENTION 3. Did anyone who delivered or participated in the intervention provide positive OR negative evaluations of the intervention? (Check all that apply) (This information is often reported in the methods section or a discussion of the limitations in the discussion section.) 1 = Child participants provided positive evaluations of the intervention 1 = Child participants provided negative evaluations of the intervention 3 = Children provided mixed reviews about the intervention (i.e., positive and negative) 4 = Persons who implemented the intervention reported positive evaluations of the intervention 5 = Persons who implemented the intervention reported negative evaluations of the intervention 6 = Persons who implemented the intervention gave mixed reviews (i.e., positive and negative) 7 = Adults who did not implement the intervention but were in the setting of the intervention reported positive evaluations of the intervention 8 = Adults who did not implement the intervention but were in the setting of the intervention reported negative evaluations of the intervention 9 = Adults who did not implement the intervention but were in the setting of the intervention gave mixed reviews (i.e., positive and negative)

104


Protocol: Practices and Program Components for Enhancing Prosocial ...

Protocol: Practices and Program Components for Enhancing Prosocial ...

Suggest Documents

Protective factors enhancing prosocial behavior and preventing ...

Program Components and Features

Video games and enhancing prosocial behaviour - People | UBC's ...

Patterns and Components for Enhancing Reusability and ... - CiteSeerX

Integrating Best Reporting Practices for Enhancing ... - Springer

prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behavior ...

Performance Enhancing Program - SportsTG

Mathematics Classroom Observation Protocol for Practices (MCOP2)

Authentication protocol for software and hardware components in

Authentication protocol for software and hardware components in ...

SePCAR: A Secure and Privacy-enhancing Protocol for Car Access ...

Facilitating Conservation Farming Practices and Enhancing ...

Facilitating Conservation Farming Practices and Enhancing ...

Clustering Software Components for Program ... - Semantic Scholar

The neural components of empathy: Predicting daily prosocial behavior

Enhancing Social Justice by Promoting Prosocial Values in Career ...

Prosocial behavior and gender

7 Best Practices of Prosocial Organizations in Youth ... - Ellen Ensher

7 Best Practices of Prosocial Organizations in Youth ... - Springer Link

The Development of Prosocial Moral Reasoning and a Prosocial ...

Child Rearing, Prosocial Moral Reasoning, and Prosocial ... - CiteSeerX

Prosocial Incentives 1 RUNNING HEAD: Prosocial ... - CiteSeerX

Prosocial Incentives 1 RUNNING HEAD: Prosocial ... - CiteSeerX

The Development of Prosocial Moral Reasoning and a Prosocial