View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Empathy and Creativity as Foundations and Predictors of How Prosocial Behavior Develops in Preschool Age Children

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Empathy and Creativity as Foundations and Predictors of How Prosocial Behavior Develops in Preschool Age Children
Language: English
Authors: Nahide Gungordu (ORCID 0000-0003-0613-8222), Maria Hernandez-Reif, David I. Walker, Stefanie A. Wind
Source: International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2025 19.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Empathy, Preschool Children, Prosocial Behavior, Predictor Variables, Creativity, Moral Values, Moral Development, Pictorial Stimuli, Task Analysis, Decision Making, Evidence Based Practice, Child Development, Early Intervention, Well Being, Parent Attitudes
DOI: 10.1186/s40723-025-00147-0
ISSN: 1976-5681
2288-6729
Abstract: The emergence of prosocial tendencies in early childhood is still not well understood and not commonly tested with direct measures. This study investigated predictors of prosocial behavior (i.e., prosocial decision-making and prosocial creativity) in 3-to-5-year-old children and explored the role of demographic factors on empathy and moral behavior. The children completed a series of child-appropriate computerized standardized picture-based tasks to evaluate their creativity, empathy, moral development, prosocial decision-making, and prosocial creativity. Parents completed questionnaires on their children's prosocial skills and empathy, while researchers used the children's task performance to determine their prosocial behavior and creativity. Binary and ordinal logistic regression indicated that children's age, creativity, and cognitive empathy played important roles in prosocial decision-making and prosocial creativity. These elements likely construct the foundation of children's prosocial behavior. Moral behavior was also important for prosocial decision-making, which was a precondition for prosocial creativity. A developmental pattern was also found for the emergence of empathy and moral behaviors, suggesting that these abilities may mature over time or may be learned as children mature. By focusing on early interventions and evidence-based educational practices, policymakers can support the holistic development of young children and set the foundation for their future well-being and societal contributions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1473412
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFM5_yD3mwkaR6J3_vgxtYNAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDD85Fyzpuaz3mF-XvgIBEICBm0OY_xUfbt-ZOa3KTQUIspH_Lpaa5SjTdA5kFyOcWjKGqLomTjpSjetj3GGPUBPpF-qMEvJBujn3pQJB4FQk3Zci2krrodwCuMPOJBSBW6kzynAYhEevrdDtzwzIZue5lT2Iw7uw8rBxd3hge_Tmq8r8IMoOtRUdH44nXxJas4Z5Qz9Yya5dS7kgcjaoq1HmXrWkXK-WBZeh8B8P
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0185809743;[ds0u]09jun.25;2025Jun11.02:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0185809743-1">Empathy and creativity as foundations and predictors of how prosocial behavior develops in preschool age children </title> <p>The emergence of prosocial tendencies in early childhood is still not well understood and not commonly tested with direct measures. This study investigated predictors of prosocial behavior (i.e., prosocial decision-making and prosocial creativity) in 3-to-5-year-old children and explored the role of demographic factors on empathy and moral behavior. The children completed a series of child-appropriate computerized standardized picture-based tasks to evaluate their creativity, empathy, moral development, prosocial decision-making, and prosocial creativity. Parents completed questionnaires on their children's prosocial skills and empathy, while researchers used the children's task performance to determine their prosocial behavior and creativity. Binary and ordinal logistic regression indicated that children's age, creativity, and cognitive empathy played important roles in prosocial decision-making and prosocial creativity. These elements likely construct the foundation of children's prosocial behavior. Moral behavior was also important for prosocial decision-making, which was a precondition for prosocial creativity. A developmental pattern was also found for the emergence of empathy and moral behaviors, suggesting that these abilities may mature over time or may be learned as children mature. By focusing on early interventions and evidence-based educational practices, policymakers can support the holistic development of young children and set the foundation for their future well-being and societal contributions.</p> <p>Keywords: Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Prosocial behavior, a unique and important human trait, is the act of voluntarily helping another without expecting compensation (Padilla-Walker & Carlo, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref1">83</reflink>]; Pfattheicher et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref2">86</reflink>]), such as helping a stranger who has fallen in the street, giving food to those in need, or helping an elderly neighbor remove debris from her home after a storm. In an average lifespan, prosocial behavior has a wide range of positive consequences, both for the person displaying the behavior and those on the receiving end of the prosocial behavior (Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref3">39</reflink>]). Early signs of prosocial behaviors link to positive physical and mental health. For example, children who display prosocial behavior show higher self-esteem (Bosacki, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref4">13</reflink>]), good academic success (Welsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref5">109</reflink>]), healthy social-emotional functioning (Eisenberg & Fabes, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref6">40</reflink>]), advanced perspective-taking skills (Davis & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]; Sassenrath et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref8">93</reflink>]), and moral reasoning (Cohen & Fink, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref9">20</reflink>]; Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref10">78</reflink>]). Thus, prosocial behavior in early childhood promotes later individual and collective benefits for society (Hirschi, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref11">55</reflink>]; Layous & Lyubomirsky, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref12">69</reflink>]). Some factors that might contribute to prosocial behavior include creativity, empathy, and moral behavior. Descriptions of these attributes follow below.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-3">Prosocial decision-making (Pro-DM) and prosocial creativity (Pro-C)</hd> <p>Prosocial decision-making (Pro-DM) refers to the process of making choices that prioritize the welfare and interests of others, often involving acts of kindness, cooperation, and helping behavior (Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]). It is rooted in cognitive and emotional processes such as empathy and moral reasoning, and is influenced by developmental, situational, and cultural factors (Decety & Cowell, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref14">31</reflink>]). Creativity is the outcome of original and practical ideas (Amabile et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]; Kang, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref16">64</reflink>]) and relates to affective and cognitive understanding and emotional sharing of others' experiences (Form & Kaernbach, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref17">46</reflink>]). Understanding others' perspectives intensifies the relationship drawn between intrinsic (or internal) motivation and creativity (Runco & Jaeger, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref18">91</reflink>]). Prosocial creativity (Pro-C) is the ability to produce a novel, effective, original, and convenient solution for another person's problem (Gungordu, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref19">53</reflink>]; Gungordu & Hernandez-Reif, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref20">54</reflink>]). Prosocial creativity emerged from the concept that both empathic tendencies and creativity begin with paying attention to others and/or your environment (Gungordu, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref21">53</reflink>]). Empathy related abilities and creativity are required to frame the problem and who experiences the problem. Once it is determined that a person has a problem, different alternatives may be produced to solve it, which might be where creativity within empathic actions occurs (Anderson, Cameron, & Beaty, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]). For instance, when people notice someone in distress, they may themselves begin to feel distressed; this stimulus provides a strong internal cue that another person needs help. In this case, the distress might prompt consideration of how to make another feel better, which, in turn, promotes helping behavior (McDonald & Messinger, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref23">77</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-4">Empathy</hd> <p>Empathy has been studied in multiple fields for more than a century and has been considered a motivational factor of prosocial behavior (Carlo & Randall, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>]; Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref25">43</reflink>]) and has two components (Cuff et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref26">25</reflink>]). <emph>Affective Empathy</emph> is an emotional phenomenon or ability to vicariously experience the feelings of others (Bryant, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>]). Individuals with affective empathy feel others' problems as if they were their own (Cooley & Schubert, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]; Maibom, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref29">72</reflink>]). <emph>Cognitive Empathy</emph> is the ability to recognize another person's emotional reaction in a social context (Dorris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]; Dymond, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]). This definition refers to the intellectual phenomenon (Borke, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]) that includes perspective-taking (i.e., the ability to understand another person's feeling, Cuff et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>]), mindreading (i.e., the ability to recognize that others have mental states that may differ from one's own, Whiten, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref34">110</reflink>]), emotion recognition (i.e., the ability to identify and interpret the emotional states of others based on various cues, Soto & Levenson, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref35">101</reflink>]), executive function (i.e., a set of cognitive processes that are necessary for controlling and managing beliefs, actions, and emotions to achieve goals, Decety, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>]; Diamond, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]) and theory of mind (i.e., ToM, the ability to understand that others have beliefs, desires, thoughts, and intentions that are separate from one's own, Farrant et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Genetics, imitation, neural development, temperament, parenting, and parent–child relationship are some factors that contribute to empathy development (McDonald & Messinger, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref39">77</reflink>]). In addition to these factors, education provides socio-cognitive advantages, advanced intellectual abilities, and the production of detailed ideas about others and the self (Berk, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]). Education is also generally related to income since higher socioeconomic status (SES) often provides access to better educational resources (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]; Reardon, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref42">89</reflink>]), thus SES might also play role in empathy (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref43">71</reflink>]; Schulreich et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref44">94</reflink>]). Seminal studies indicate that empathy develops with age together with a growing self/other distinction and improvements in the ability to experience and intellectualize others' emotional states (Borke, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]; Hoffman, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref46">56</reflink>]). Children's affective and cognitive empathic behaviors develop throughout preschool and older ages (Zhou & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref47">112</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-5">Moral development</hd> <p>As an interdisciplinary field, moral development is described as the process by which a person develops the sensibility, behaviors, beliefs, abilities, and habits that make them ethically mature (Pekarsky, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref48">84</reflink>]). The social domain theory (SDT) provides a structure for examining how children, adolescents, and adults reflect on, assess, analyze, organize, and comprehend the world (Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref49">105</reflink>]). One principle of STD is that people construct information from their experiences (Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref50">105</reflink>]). Another is that people manage domains of social knowledge when making judgments (Killen, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref51">66</reflink>]; Nucci, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref52">82</reflink>]; Smetana, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref53">97</reflink>]). Cognitive and emotional factors appear to play dominant roles in prosocial actions that are observed in children (Keller & Edelstein, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref54">65</reflink>]; Malti et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref55">74</reflink>]). These factors have not yet been combined into a single comprehensive theory that explains how moral judgments (i.e., processes of evaluating actions or behaviors based on moral principles or values; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref56">51</reflink>]) are made and how they develop over time (Garrigan et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref57">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-6">Theoretical framework</hd> <p>Prosocial behavior, which involves voluntary actions to benefit others, is influenced by multiple cognitive, emotional, and social factors as was mentioned. This study draws from key theoretical perspectives to examine predictors of prosocial behavior in preschool-age children.</p> <p> <emph>Empathy and Moral Development.</emph> Empathy, encompassing both affective and cognitive components (Cuff et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]), plays a critical role in motivating prosocial behavior (Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref59">43</reflink>]). The Social Domain Theory (Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref60">105</reflink>]) suggests that moral reasoning emerges through social interactions, with cognitive and emotional processes shaping moral judgments (Killen, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref61">66</reflink>]; Smetana, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref62">97</reflink>]). These perspectives highlight how children develop fairness perceptions and ethical decision-making, both of which contribute to prosocial tendencies.</p> <p> <emph>Creativity and Prosocial Decision-Making.</emph> Creativity, particularly prosocial creativity (Pro-C), enables individuals to generate novel and effective solutions to help others (Gungordu, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref63">53</reflink>]). Research suggests that creative individuals are more attuned to others' emotions and environmental cues (Runco & Jaeger, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref64">91</reflink>]), facilitating perspective-taking and prosocial problem-solving (Doron, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref65">33</reflink>]; Yang & Hung, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref66">111</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Demographic and Contextual Influences.</emph> Socioeconomic status (SES) and age shape prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral reasoning (Elenbaas, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref67">44</reflink>]; Malti et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref68">74</reflink>]). While higher SES is linked to greater empathy and fairness sensitivity, cognitive maturity enhances moral reasoning and prosocial decision-making (Smetana et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref69">98</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref70">100</reflink>]). Understanding these influences can provide insights into the developmental mechanisms underlying children's prosocial actions.</p> <p>This framework integrates theories of empathy, moral reasoning, and creativity to explore how these factors interact in predicting prosocial behavior during early childhood.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-7">Purpose and significance</hd> <p>While some studies show infants discriminate and prefer objects depicting helping-like or prosocial behavior (e.g., helper puppet) (Cowell & Decety, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref71">22</reflink>]; Van de Vondervoort & Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref72">106</reflink>]), the emergence of prosocial behaviors in early childhood is still not well understood and not commonly tested with direct measures. Identifying predictors of prosocial behavior in early childhood may help better explain how empathy and moral behavior develops in children. Understanding the predictors of prosocial behavior may also inform new school-based interventions aimed, for example, at decreasing bullying behaviors (Bower et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref73">14</reflink>]; Fu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref74">47</reflink>]) or preventing children's negative behavior towards others (Carlo, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref75">17</reflink>]; Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref76">41</reflink>]) while enhancing the development of children's self-esteem and academic achievement. The current study primarily aimed to understand the developmental process that preschool age children undertake to make voluntary choices to help others. The study also aimed to evaluate in this age group the process of producing a solution for a problem that requires helping in a novel way, also known as prosocial creativity (Pro-C).</p> <p>Conceptually, empathy is connected to prosocial behavior (Kamas & Preston, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref77">63</reflink>]) in that responding to someone in need is based on understanding another's experiences while regulating one's emotions (Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref78">78</reflink>]). Empathy is an evolved mechanism that motivates prosocial behavior (de Waal, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref79">28</reflink>]). Perhaps this is because prosocial behavior is driven by a desire to decrease the negative arousal produced from witnessing another's distress. Similarly, moral judgments might be connected to prosocial behavior because helping behavior is positively related to moral reasoning (Eisenberg, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref80">38</reflink>]; Carlo, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref81">17</reflink>]). Regarding creativity and prosocial behavior, the literature is scarce; however, it is suggested that creative people may be more aware of others' feelings because they are more sensitive or cognizant of environmental stimuli (Barron, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref82">8</reflink>]). Several studies have reported a relationship between perspective-taking and creativity (Doron, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref83">33</reflink>]; Grant & Berry, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref84">52</reflink>]; Yang & Hung, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref85">111</reflink>]). In moral developmental theories, individual differences in moral motivation are highlighted as explaining moral behavior (Rest, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref86">90</reflink>]). For instance, preschool age children with high moral motivation share more stickers in prosocial dilemma cases than children with low moral motivation (Malti et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref87">74</reflink>]). Also, studies suggest that age might play an important role in prosocial development (Benish-Weisman et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref88">10</reflink>]). Thus, we hypothesized that creativity, empathy, moral behavior, and age predict prosocial behavior.</p> <p>Regarding empathy and moral behavior, we aimed to learn whether demographics (e.g., age, gender, SES), relate to affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and moral behavior. Research indicated that low SES is connected to poor executive function development and high social-emotional problems in children (Baker & Brooks-Gunn, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref89">6</reflink>]; Raver et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref90">88</reflink>]), and high SES plays a positive role in empathy (Malti et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref91">74</reflink>]). A recent study suggests that SES shapes children's moral judgments of the distributions of resources, in other words fairness judgment (Peretz-Lange et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref92">85</reflink>]). Children with low SES are less able to perceive the importance of social rules (Huppert et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref93">59</reflink>]). However, another study found that children's moral development linked to perceived economic opportunities rather than SES (Elenbaas, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref94">44</reflink>]). Similar to empathy, age differences favoring older children have been reported in moral reasoning (Ball et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref95">7</reflink>]; Lane et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref96">68</reflink>]; Smetana et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref97">98</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref98">100</reflink>]). With increasing age, children become attentive to knowledge about social status distinctions and existing social and racial inequalities (Mandalaywala et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref99">76</reflink>]), which makes them willing to act when they believe inequities are unfair (Elenbaas, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref100">44</reflink>]). Studies also emphasize that cognitive maturity is important for moral judgment (Lane et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref101">68</reflink>]; Smetana et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref102">98</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref103">100</reflink>]). Thus, we hypothesized that older children with high SES will have more mature empathic skills and older children will have advanced moral development.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-8">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185809743-9">Participants</hd> <p>This study follows a positivist research paradigm, which assumes that knowledge is objective, measurable, and generalizable (Creswell & Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref104">23</reflink>]). A quantitative research design was employed to systematically examine the relationships between the variables. By utilizing standardized measures and statistical analyses, this approach allows for empirical testing of hypotheses and identification of patterns across a large sample.</p> <p>Prior to beginning the study, approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained, followed by the participants providing online consent documentation. The study incorporated participant recruitment using multiple recruiting methods (e.g., flyer advertisement via email, websites, social media, and/or other digital platforms), thus reaching interested parents with children aged between 3-to-5 years who were fluent in spoken English in the United States (US). Interested participants clicked on a link on the flyer to receive detailed study information and make an appointment. Screening processes resulted in 130 child-parent dyads for the study. After eliminating incomplete/missing responses, the final sample consisted of 122 child-parent dyads (<emph>child age Mtotal</emph> = 3.90, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.85; <emph>Mgirls</emph> = 3.73, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.84; <emph>Mboys</emph> = 4.07, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.83; Range: 3–5 years). Majority of the participants were White and were of middle SES (see Table 1). Parental occupational status was used as a proxy for SES using the International Classifications of Occupations (International Labor Office, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref105">62</reflink>]). Three SES levels emerged: low, middle and high based on unskilled occupations, lower professionals and higher professionals and leaders.</p> <p>Table 1 Children' demographic descriptive statistics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variables</p></th><th align="left"><p>Participant children's profile</p></th><th align="left"><p>% (n)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Age (in years)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>41.8 (51)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.0 (33)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.2 (38)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>Boy</p></td><td align="left"><p>47.5 (58)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Girl</p></td><td align="left"><p>52.5 (64)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Race</p></td><td align="left"><p>American Indian/Alaska Native</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.8 (1)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.4 (20)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Black or African American</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.0 (11)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td align="left"><p>73.8 (90)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.4 (9)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>No</p></td><td align="left"><p>92.6 (113)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Citizenship</p></td><td align="left"><p>USA</p></td><td align="left"><p>90.2 (110)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Others or dual (i.e., Australian, Bangladesh, Turkish, Nigerian, Sri Lankan, Indian, Canadian, Egypt, or German)</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.8 (12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bilingualism/multilingualism</p></td><td align="left"><p>Only English</p></td><td align="left"><p>70.5 (86)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>English and Other(s) (i.e., Spanish, Bengali, Tamil, French, Turkish, German, Yoruba, Hindi, Telugu, Chinese, Arabic, or Urdu)</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.5 (36)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Family SES</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 High</p></td><td align="left"><p>19.7 (24)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>2 Middle</p></td><td align="left"><p>54.9 (67)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>3 Low</p></td><td align="left"><p>25.4 (31)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>N</emph> = 122, <emph>SES</emph> socioeconomic status</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-10">Procedure-parents</hd> <p>Parents completed online questionnaires: a short demographic questionnaire, a short scale survey about their child's prosocial behavior (i.e., The Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire, SDQ), and a scale about their child's empathy (i.e., The Griffith Empathy Measure, GEM).</p> <p> <bold> <emph>The Demographic Questionnaire</emph> </bold> asked about parents' age, gender, education, and occupation and their child's age, gender, race, ethnicity, and language(s) spoken.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>The Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; </emph> </bold>Goodman, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref106">49</reflink>]<bold><emph>)</emph></bold> is a 3-point scale (0 = <emph>not true</emph>, 1 = <emph>true</emph>, and 2 = <emph>certainly true</emph>) behavioral screening questionnaire with five subscales: hyperactivity, conduct problems, emotional symptoms, peer relationships, and prosocial behavior. The SDQ has 25 items, and its prosocial subscale has five items. The SDQ is a validated and commonly used assessment of preschool age children's prosocial behavior and is reported to have acceptable alpha mean range for the total scale (0.83) and for prosocial subscale (0.74) (e.g., Becker, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref107">9</reflink>]). In the current study, the Cronbach's α level of the prosocial subscale was 0.71.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>The Griffith Empathy Measure</emph> </bold> (<bold><emph>GEM; </emph></bold>Dadds et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref108">26</reflink>]) is a well-known empathy evaluation tool in child development research with an affective empathy subscale (e.g., "this child cries or gets upset when seeing another child cry") and a cognitive empathy subscale (e.g., "this child can understand why other people get upset"). GEM employs a 9-point Likert type scale (−4 = strongly disagree to + 4 = strongly agree) and comprises 23 items. Good reliability has been reported for the global scale (0.81), and low (0.62) and good (0.83) reliability scores respectively, for the cognitive and affective subscales based on Cronbach's α indices. In the current study, the Cronbach α levels were acceptable/good for the global scale (0.84), and subscales (cognitive = 0.77 and affective = 0.86).</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-11">Procedure: children</hd> <p>All children completed tasks via a computer screen using previously recorded stimuli (i.e., Zoom meeting). A parent was in the room with the child during the sessions, which were recorded for later coding of children's responses. Children's computer tasks consisted of: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref109">1</reflink>) a warm-up trial, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref110">2</reflink>) a creativity task, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref111">3</reflink>) an empathy measurement assessment, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref112">4</reflink>) a moral judgment task, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref113">5</reflink>) a prosocial reasoning task (i.e., prosocial decision making and prosocial creativity). In all tasks, the illustrations conformed to the race and gender of each child. Biracial children were shown illustrations that most appropriately corresponded to their own skin tone. The illuminations were shown to the child based on demographic information received from the parents.</p> <p>A <bold><emph>Warm-Up Task</emph></bold> introduced the children to the study setup to help them feel comfortable answering questions. First, the researcher introduced herself to the parent and child, explained the tasks that would be conducted, and received the child's verbal assent to participate (Parental consent had been obtained via an online questionnaire prior to the start of the study). The warm-up part took about five minutes.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Multidimensional Stimulus Fluency Measure (MSFM)</emph> </bold> measures creativity and has been validated with preschool age children (Goodwin & Moran, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref114">50</reflink>]; Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref115">78</reflink>]; Singer, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref116">96</reflink>]). The MSFM consists of three subtests (two items per subtest): instances, pattern meanings, and uses. In the "instances" subset children are asked to name things that are red and things that are round. In the "pattern meanings" subset children are shown two odd-shaped three-dimensional objects and are asked to list what the objects might be. In the "uses" subset children are asked to name all uses for common objects, such as a box or paper. From these tasks, children receive a popularity score, which measures the total number of responses, and an originality score which is the total number of original responses a child provides that are given by less than 5% of the children (Goodwin & Moran, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref117">50</reflink>]). The two scores are summed up and reflect the total fluency score. The MSFM has been shown to have good internal consistency, stability, interrater reliability, and construct validity (Goodwin & Moran, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref118">50</reflink>]; Tegano et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref119">102</reflink>]), and its scores have been linked to preschool age children's naturalistic imaginative play behaviors in the classroom (Moran et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref120">79</reflink>]). In the current study, the "instances" subset was eliminated from the final analysis because of the possibility that the objects around children during the study influenced their choice of "red" and "round" instances during the Zoom meetings where each child was in a different environment. Thus, children's creativity was composed of the "pattern meanings" and "uses" subsets. Each creative response was rated by two researchers. A third researcher evaluated both researchers' ratings to confirm objectivity and reliability. Interrater reliability of the scale was calculated using the simple proportion agreement method (Morrissey, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref121">80</reflink>]), which for the different categories were (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref122">1</reflink>) pattern meaning (i.e., object-1) = 0.80, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>) pattern meaning (object-2) = 0.88, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref124">3</reflink>) uses (i.e., box) = 0.91, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref125">4</reflink>) uses (i.e., paper) = 0.93.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>The Empathy Measure for Preschoolers</emph> </bold> (<bold><emph>EMP; </emph></bold>Sezov, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref126">95</reflink>]) is a child storybook measure of affective and cognitive empathy. The assessment includes eight short vignettes designed to evoke four emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, and fear. Each vignette includes three colored illustrations and is accompanied by short narrations. After reading each vignette to the participant, the researcher asks, "How does the child in the story feel about this?" to measure cognitive empathy and "How do you feel after hearing this?" to measure affective empathy. Responses to these questions were scored as 4, if the response accurately matched the portrayed emotion; 3 if the response portrayed the emotion, but did not accurately match it (e.g., "sad" instead of "mad"); 2 if the response identified an emotion that was connected, but not like an emotion (e.g., "bad" instead of mad); 1 for incomplete or a partially inappropriate response (e.g., if the child talked about similar experience in the vignette but did not provide any emotion) and; a 0 if the child did not answer or if the child provided an inappropriate response. The total score reflected total empathy, and subscales comprised affective empathy and cognitive empathy. High internal consistency reliability has been reported for total empathy (Spearman–Brown coefficient = 0.976) and interrater reliability in the current study reached 0.97 for cognitive empathy and 0.96 for affective empathy based on the simple proportion agreement method, suggesting almost perfect interrater agreement. The order of the vignettes and questions was counterbalanced across participants.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Moral Judgment</emph> </bold> was measured using moral and conventional colored illustrations designed for this study. To reduce repetitiveness and time, children were shown one prototypical moral transgression illustration (e.g., morally wrong) that included hitting and one prototypical conventional transgression illustration (e.g., socially frowned upon) that included eating spaghetti with fingers (Ball et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref127">7</reflink>]). Interrater reliability, using the simple proportion agreement method, which calculates the percentage of times two independent raters agreed on their coding of participants' responses. This method is particularly useful when evaluating categorical data, as it provides a straightforward measure of consistency between raters. It reached 0.97 for the moral transgression scale and 0.98 for the conventional transgression scale in the current study. After showing each story on the computer screen, children were asked a standardized set of questions in a fixed order. Children's responses were coded along three different moral judgment scores (i.e., moral transgression and conventional transgression) from each illustration: severity, deserved punishment, and criterion judgments (Ball et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref128">7</reflink>]). For the criterion judgment category, we simplified the questions to appeal to 3-to-5-year-old children because several children had difficulties understanding the questions in the pilot study.</p> <p> <emph>Severity</emph> was measured by asking the child "Is it OK or not OK for (transgressor's name) to X (e.g., hit friend or eat dinner with fingers)?" If the child responded that it is not OK, they then were asked, "Is it a little bit bad or very bad?" Each response was coded on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (just ok) to 2 (a little bad) to 3 (very bad).</p> <p> <emph>Deserved Punishments</emph> were measured by asking, "Should (transgressor) get in trouble for X, like get put in time out?" If the child responded "Yes," they were asked, "A little bit of trouble or a lot?" Responses were coded on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (no punishment) to 2 (a little punishment) to 3 (a lot of punishment).</p> <p> <emph>Criterion Judgments</emph> were assessed by asking children questions regarding 1) authority independence, "What if the character's parent said it would be alright to X (e.g., hit or eat dinner with your fingers)? "Now is it OK or not OK for (transgressor's name) to?" If a child responded that it is not OK, they then were asked, "Is it a little bit bad or very bad?" 2) rule independence, "What if there were no rules about X? "Now is it OK or not OK for (transgressor's name) to X?" If a child responded that it is not OK, they then were asked, "Is it a little bit bad or very bad?", and 3) inalterability, "Who makes the rules (tells you what is right and wrong) at your house? What if (person named) decided to change the rule to say it was alright to X? (i.e., hit or eat dinner with your fingers). "Now is it OK or not OK for (transgressor's name) to X?" If a child responded that it is not OK, they then were asked, "Is it a little bit bad or very bad?" Responses were coded on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (just ok) to 2 (a little bad) to 3 (very bad). Mean scores were obtained separately for each item. Higher scores indicated greater authority independence, rule independence, and inalterability, and the total score reflected criteria judgments.</p> <p>So that helping could not be conflated with other problems, the sacrifice for the stories' focal character was witnessing an unfamiliar child slip into the mud, which caused the focal character to miss out on a fun planned activity if they helped. Similar to Weller's and Hansen Lagattuta's ([<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref129">108</reflink>]) design, an activity of likely value to children, but not critical to their well-being was selected, to eliminate floor or ceiling influences. All suggested helping acts were expected to sufficiently solve the needy/unfamiliar child's immediate problem without putting the focal character in danger or include obvious rewards.</p> <p>Two trained coders independently rated the prosocial decision of children's completions for the story by first reading through the transcribed completed stories to see the full range of responses. Then, they read the transcriptions a second time to rate prosocial decisions as 0 <emph>not prosocial</emph> (i.e., in support of the protagonist not helping or comforting other story characters in need) or 1 <emph>prosocial</emph> (i.e., in favor of the protagonist helping or comforting other story characters in need). This score was used to reflect children's Pro-social decision making (Pro-DM).</p> <p>The coders also rated each creative prosocial behavior (Pro C) on a scale from 0 (<emph>not prosocially creative</emph>) 1 (<emph>prosocially ordinary</emph>) 2 (<emph>prosocially creative</emph>) or 3 (<emph>very prosocially creative</emph>). Coders used a rubric and were instructed to use the full range of the scale and to avoid using the children's verbal ability or talkativeness as an indicator of creativity on prosocial behavior. For instance, a response deemed very prosocially creative should include an uncommon, novel, and interesting idea to solve the problem together with a variety of figures and details. Interrater reliability was calculated by using the simple proportion agreement method and found as 0.95 for Pro-DM and 0.96 for Pro-C.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-12">Statistical analyses</hd> <p>The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 26.0). First, a descriptive analysis was conducted for continuous categorical data. Then, Pearson correlational analysis between Pro-C and divergent thinking was calculated to determine convergent validity of the Pro-C task. A positive correlation was found between these tasks <emph>r</emph> = 0.340 <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. The main analyses and results are presented below.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-13">Results</hd> <p>Sufficient power was established with 120 participants for logistic regression models (Hosmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref130">60</reflink>]) to test 11 independent variables for Pro-DM: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref131">1</reflink>) age, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref132">2</reflink>) gender, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref133">3</reflink>) creativity (MSFM), (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref134">4</reflink>) affective empathy (EMP), (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref135">5</reflink>) cognitive empathy (EMP), (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref136">6</reflink>) moral transgression severity, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref137">7</reflink>) moral transgression punishments, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref138">8</reflink>) moral transgression criterion judgments, (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref139">9</reflink>) conventional transgression severity, (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref140">10</reflink>) conventional transgression punishments, and (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref141">11</reflink>) conventional criterion judgments. To test for Pro-C, the same 11 independent variables were used in addition to a measure of Pro-DM.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-14">Contributors of Pro-DM</hd> <p>To examine children's Pro-DM, a binary logistic regression analysis was conducted with the independent variables. The binary logistic regression analysis resulted in four independent variables (i.e., age, creativity, moral deserved punishment, and cognitive empathy), which as a set reliably distinguished between prosocial decision or not. Nagelkerke's <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> indicated that 17.2% of the overall variance was accounted for by the independent variables. Prediction success overall was 55.7%. However, a test of the full model against a constant only model was not statistically significant (χ<sups>2</sups> = 3.629, <emph>p</emph> > 0.001 with <emph>df</emph> = 8). This means that although the variables (i.e., age, creativity, moral deserved punishment, and cognitive empathy) individually contribute to the prediction of Pro-DM, as a group their overall contribution is non-significant. A Pearson correlation analysis further examined the relationship between Pro-DM and age, creativity, moral deserved punishment, and cognitive empathy. Pro-DM had statistically positive, but weak relationships to age (<emph>r</emph> = 0.22 <emph>p</emph> = 0.015), creativity (<emph>r</emph> = 0.25 <emph>p</emph> = 0.006), moral-deserved punishment (<emph>r</emph> = 0.19 <emph>p</emph> = 0.036), and cognitive empathy (<emph>r</emph> = 0.20 <emph>p</emph> = 0.028). A chi-square test of independence that was also performed to evaluate the relationship between age and Pro-DM was significant, <emph>χ2</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref142">2</reflink>), <emph>N</emph> = 122 = (5.972), <emph>p</emph> = 0.05. Age wise, 45.1% of 3-year-olds, 55.4% of 4-year-olds, and 71.1% of 5-year-olds chose to help the needy child.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-15">Contributors of Pro-C</hd> <p>To examine the contributions to Pro-C, an ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted with age, gender, creativity, empathy subscales, moral judgment subscales, conventional judgment subscales, and Pro-DM serving as independent variables. Participants' responses to the Pro-C question comprised the four groups for ordinal logistic regression from 0 (<emph>not prosocially creative</emph>) to 1 (<emph>prosocially ordinary</emph>) to 2 (<emph>prosocially creative</emph>) to 3 (<emph>very prosocially creative</emph>). Tolerance and VIF coefficients were checked and found not to exceed the critical values. A test of the full model against a constant only model was not statistically significant (χ<sups>2</sups> = 11.508, <emph>p</emph> > 0.001 with <emph>df</emph> = 10), suggesting that although the variables (i.e., age, creativity, cognitive empathy, and Pro-DM) individually contribute to the prediction of Pro-C, as a group their overall contribution was non-significant. Pearson correlational analysis indicated that Pro-C had significant positive weak relationships with age (<emph>r</emph> = 0.24 <emph>p</emph> = 0.007), creativity (<emph>r</emph> = 0.34 <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and cognitive empathy (<emph>r</emph> = 0.24 <emph>p</emph> = 0.007), and a significantly strong positive relationship with Pro-DM (<emph>r</emph> = 0.80, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001).</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-16">Qualifiers of affective and cognitive empathy (EMP)</hd> <p>An independent 3 (age: 3, 4, 5) × 2 (gender: boys, girls) × 3 (SES: low, medium, high) MANOVA was performed on empathy traits (i.e., affective empathy and cognitive empathy) based on children's responses to examine main effects and interactions. Regarding assumptions, to test for multivariate normality, Mahalanobis distances were calculated (cut-off = 13.82 for 2 dimensions) and no multivariate outliers were observed (Max = 5.96). Linearity assumption was met through examination of scatter plots. The assumption of multicollinearity was examined by calculating correlations between dependent variables performing collinearity statistics. Correlations between affective and cognitive empathy did not exceed 0.90 (<emph>r</emph> = 0.336, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001).</p> <p>The three-way MANOVA interaction was not significant. After removing the interaction, the analysis revealed significant differences between group means on a combination of dependent variables, Wilk's Λ = 0.847, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref143">8</reflink>, 214) = 2.319, <emph>p</emph> = 0.021, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.080. Specifically, a significant two-way age by SES interaction was found, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref144">4</reflink>, 108) = 4.477, <emph>p</emph> = 0.002, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.142 for preschool age children's affective empathy. Further analysis revealed that older children with high SES status (<emph>M</emph> = 28.5, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.57) showed higher affective empathy than younger children with low SES (<emph>M</emph> = 22.9, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.76) and middle SES (<emph>M</emph> = 19.9, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.69).</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-17">Qualifiers of affective and cognitive empathy (GEM)</hd> <p>An independent 3 (age: 3, 4, 5 years old) × 2 (gender: boys, girls) × 3 (SES; low, medium, high) MANOVA was performed on parent-reported empathy traits (i.e., affective empathy and cognitive empathy) to examine main effects and interactions. No multivariate outliers were observed in the study (Max = 5.96), and bivariate scatter plots between each pair of independent variables across each level of dependent variables revealed that the linearity assumption was met. Correlations between affective and cognitive empathy did not exceed 0.90 (<emph>r</emph> = 0.694, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), suggesting no substantial multicollinearity.</p> <p>Three-way and two-way interactions were not significant. After removing these interactions, we found a significant main effect for age, Wilk's Λ = 0.908, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref145">4</reflink>, 230) = 2.829, <emph>p</emph> = 0.026, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.047. Specifically, a significant univariate main effect of age was found on preschool age children's cognitive empathy, as reported by parents (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref146">2</reflink>, 116) = 5.151, <emph>p</emph> = 0.007, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.082).</p> <p>Using Bonferroni alpha corrected paired-sample t-tests to compare the affective and cognitive empathy scores for each age group, higher cognitive empathy scores were observed by both children's responses and parents' reports for children at 3-,<emph> t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref147">50</reflink>) = 6.386, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; 4-,<emph> t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref148">32</reflink>) = 5.801, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; and 5-years of age,<emph> t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref149">37</reflink>) = 5.379, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; (Fig. 1 for children responses; Fig. 2 for parent reports).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Children responses of affective and cognitive empathy mean score by children's age</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Parent reported affective and cognitive empathy mean score by children's age</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-18">Qualifiers of moral and conventional judgments</hd> <p>An independent 3 (age: 3, 4, 5 years old) × 2 (gender: boys, girls) × 3 (SES; low, medium, high) MANOVA was performed on moral judgments (i.e., moral transgression severity, moral transgression punishments, moral transgression criterion judgments) and conventional judgments (i.e., conventional transgression severity, conventional transgression punishments, moral conventional criterion judgments) to examine main effects and interactions. No multivariate outliers were observed in the study (Max = 5.96), and bivariate scatter plots between each pair of independent variables across each level of dependent variables revealed that the linearity assumption was met. Correlations between moral and conventional judgments did not exceed 0.90 (<emph>r</emph> = 0.477, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), suggesting no substantial multicollinearity.</p> <p>Three-way and two-way interactions were not significant. After removing these interactions, we found a significant main effect for age, Wilk's Λ = 0.821, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref150">12</reflink>, 222) = 1.923, <emph>p</emph> = 0.033, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.094. Specifically, a significant univariate main effect of age was found on preschool age children's moral transgression severity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref151">2</reflink>, 116) = 2.674, <emph>p</emph> = 0.073, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.011) (marginal), moral transgression punishments (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref152">2</reflink>, 116) = 5.650, <emph>p</emph> = 0.005, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.089), and moral transgression criterion judgments (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref153">2</reflink>, 116) = 3.227, <emph>p</emph> = 0.043, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.053), but not conventional judgments.</p> <p>Bonferroni-corrected paired sample <emph>t</emph>-tests showed that transgressions involving moral situations (e.g., hitting) were judged by children as more severe (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref154">121</reflink>) = 6.452, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), deserving more punishment (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref155">121</reflink>) = 9.052, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and more independent of authority and rules (i.e., criterion judgments; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref156">121</reflink>) = 10.077, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) than conventional situations. Across age, transgressions involving moral situations were judged more serious than conventional situations for: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref157">1</reflink>) severity: 3 years; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref158">50</reflink>) = 3.194, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; 4 years;<emph> t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref159">32</reflink>) = 2.789, <emph>p</emph> = 0.003; 5 years<emph>; t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref160">37</reflink>) = 6.003, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001 (See Fig. 3); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref161">2</reflink>) deserved punishment: 3 years; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref162">50</reflink>) = 4.844, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; 4 years;<emph> t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref163">32</reflink>) = 3.370, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; 5 years<emph>; t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref164">37</reflink>) = 8.674, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) (Fig. 4); and, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref165">3</reflink>) criterion judgments: 3 years; <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref166">50</reflink>) = 5.041, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; 4 years;<emph> t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref167">32</reflink>) = 5.272, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; 5 years<emph>; t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref168">37</reflink>) = 7.603, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) (Fig. 5).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Severity mean score by age and transgression type</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Deserved punishment mean score by age and transgression type</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Criterion judgment mean score by age and transgression type</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-19">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study was designed to understand what contributes to prosocial decision making (Pro-DM) and prosocial creativity (Pro-C) in the development of preschool age children's prosocial behavior. Pro-DM and Pro-C were found to be strongly related to each other, as expected. Pro-DM and Pro-C were also linked to creativity and cognitive empathy. Both creativity and empathic behaviors are essential for daily relationships and facilitate adaptation to a dynamic environment and motivate prosocial behaviors (Decety et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref169">30</reflink>]; Tie et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref170">103</reflink>]). Conceivably, creative individuals may be more aware of and better able to recognize other people's feelings in their environment because they may be more sensitive to environmental stimuli compared to less creative people (Barron, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref171">8</reflink>]). The few existing studies on empathy and creativity in adulthood show these factors are positively related (Alligood, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref172">2</reflink>]; Carlozzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref173">19</reflink>]; Cross et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref174">24</reflink>]). It is exciting to show a link between prosocial behavior, creativity, and empathy in young preschool age children, which has not previously been reported in the literature.</p> <p>The study results also show that prosocial behaviors develop and strengthen over the preschool 3-to-5-year age range. During their preschool years, children appear to become exacting with their prosocial actions, showing more prosocial behaviors to some groups than others (Kotaman & Aslan, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref175">67</reflink>]; Warneken & Tomasello, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref176">107</reflink>]). Theoretically, prosocial behavior develops throughout the early years and can be explained by linked improvements in social-cognitive understanding, emotional maturity, and the development of the self in connection to others (Arda Tuncdemir et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref177">5</reflink>]; Hoffman, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref178">57</reflink>]). Additionally, older preschool age children received higher scores for Pro-DM and creativity when compared to younger preschool age children. Because older children have more advanced cognitive capacity and role-taking abilities than younger children, a progressive developmental change in empathy related behaviors is expected (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref179">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings also showed an interaction between SES and children's age with older children with high SES status displaying higher affective empathy than younger children with low SES status. Low SES has been associated with low parental contribution to children's cognitive development, which may include providing less intellectually stimulating settings, lower parental participation in school education, and lower quality of time spent with children (Bradley et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref180">15</reflink>]; Zill et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref181">113</reflink>]). Low SES is also connected to low executive functioning development (Raver et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref182">88</reflink>]) and high SES has been connected to empathy (Malti et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref183">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this study, age was of distinct interest as empathic responding (Hoffman, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref184">58</reflink>]) and moral evaluations (Smetana et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref185">98</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref186">100</reflink>]) are developing as children's social skills and awareness changes. In the current study, the moral judgment associations varied when children were assessing severity, deserved punishment, or criterion judgments with 5- and 4-year-olds giving severe punishment for immoral acts more so than 3-year-olds. This indicates that older preschool age children have more mature judgments about moral transgressions than younger ones or that experience or age make children more judgmental. Higher criterion judgment scores require children to think about the consequences of immoral acts under different circumstances (e.g., with and without the presence of authority). Higher scores on criterion judgments index moral maturity (Ball et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref187">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results also indicated that transgressions including moral situations are judged as more serious, deserving more punishment, and more independent of authority and rules than conventional situations. Although moral and societal ideas may develop together (Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref188">105</reflink>]), from the social domain, theoretical view moral conceptions may initially require rigid judgments of right and wrong regarding cases of harm, justice, and rights. However, social-conventional conceptions emphasize unplanned and agreed-upon norms that govern social interactions in various social systems. Thus, moral transgressions are generally, but not always, regarded as more serious and deserving of punishment than traditional transgressions (Ball et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref189">7</reflink>]; Tisak & Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref190">104</reflink>]) because children perceive moral transgressions as emotionally evident and connect moral emotions with these situations (Smetana & Killen, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref191">99</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children's Pro-DM was predicted by their ratings on moral deserved punishment. This might be because moral development may facilitate children's prosocial behavior through the affective outcomes of their actions for the self (Hoffman, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref192">58</reflink>]; Malti & Latzko, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref193">75</reflink>]) and/or the affective concern for others (Malti et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref194">73</reflink>]). Another explanation is that children may become socialized to, or alternatively over time become progressively aware of why it is necessary to help others, which results in greater display of prosocial behavior (Malti et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref195">73</reflink>]). In sum, helping behavior is positively related to moral judgments (Li & Hu, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref196">70</reflink>]), even in early childhood (Carlo, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref197">17</reflink>]; Eisenberg, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref198">37</reflink>]). The findings suggest to policymakers to design environments that foster the development of creativity, empathy, and prosocial behaviors in preschool-age children, while also addressing the disparities caused by socioeconomic factors. In addition to these, funding can be allocated for longitudinal research to track the impact of early prosocial behavior, creativity, and empathy on children's later social, academic, and emotional outcomes. Also, community-based programs could be developed and aimed at educating parents on the importance of nurturing creativity and empathy in their children. By focusing on early interventions and evidence-based educational practices, policymakers can support the holistic development of young children and set the foundation for their future well-being and societal contributions. Until five years of age, fostering emotional competence and developing self-regulation are essential for laying the groundwork for long-term success in academics, personal growth, and social interactions, as well as supporting mental health and overall well-being (Housman, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref199">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-20">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>From a developmental standpoint, although we evaluated children's creativity, empathy, and morality, it is possible that other unmeasured factors, such as developmental profile and intelligence may further contribute to the findings. Further, we did not assess sibling influence, such as whether having siblings, the age gap between siblings, and/or having siblings of the same or opposite gender impact the development of young children's prosocial behavior. This information is important for further/future analysis for sibling relationships and empathy because girls with brothers tend to be more masculine and boys with sisters tend to be more feminine (Rust et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref200">92</reflink>]). Since masculinity and femininity are associated with different social tendencies—such as assertiveness and independence in masculinity and nurturance and empathy in femininity—these traits may influence how children engage in prosocial behaviors like helping, sharing, and comforting others. Children participated in child-friendly tasks on a computer screen during the meetings because of COVID-19 safety regulations. Although we were able to use direct children's measures in a short period, future studies may use face-to-face interactions to measure prosocial behaviors. In the preschool sample in the current study, we measured affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and prosocial behavior in general; we did not differentiate them with subcomponents of affective empathy (e.g., personal distress, empathic concern), cognitive empathy (e.g., fantasy, perspective-taking), and prosocial behavior (e.g., helping, sharing, comforting). Future studies might develop measurement tools to evaluate these variables with subcomponents to find more comprehensive results. For moral judgments, transgressions that include unfairness might be explored by future researchers. In the current study, we designed a prosocial creativity task appropriate for preschool age children, nevertheless, it remains for future longitudinal research to fully examine advantages of prosocial creativity on the development of prosocial behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-21">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We thank all study participants.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-22">Author contributions</hd> <p>The authors contributed equally to this article.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-23">Funding</hd> <p>No funding received.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-24">Availability of data and materials</hd> <p>Due to ethical concerns, supporting data cannot be made openly available.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-25">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185809743-26">Ethics approval and consent to participate</hd> <p>All subjects gave their informed consent and assent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of XXXX (Approval number: XXXX).</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-27">Competing interests</hd> <p>The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0185809743-28">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0185809743-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref109" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, G. R, Summers, M, & Christopherson, V. A. (1993). Age and gender differences in preschool children's identification of the emotions of others: A brief report. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 25(1), 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref110" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alligood MR. Testing Rogers's theory of accelerating change: The relationships among creativity, actualization, and empathy in persons 18 to 92 years of age. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 1991; 13; 1: 84-96. 10.1177/019394599101300106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M. Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal. 1996; 39; 5: 1154-1184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, S, Cameron, C. D, & Beaty, R. E. (2025). Creative empathy. Creativity Research Journal, 37(1), 71–93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref113" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arda Tuncdemir TB, Burroughs MD, Moore G. Effects of philosophical ethics in early childhood on preschool children's social–emotional competence and theory of mind. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2022; 16; 1: 5. 10.1186/s40723-022-00098-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref89" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baker CE, Brooks-Gunn J. Early parenting and the intergenerational transmission of self-regulation and behavior problems in African American Head Start families. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 2020; 51: 220-230. 10.1007/s10578-019-00921-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref95" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ball CL, Smetana JG, Sturge-Apple ML. Following my head and my heart: Integrating preschoolers' empathy, theory of mind, and moral judgments. Child Development. 2017; 88; 2: 597-611. 10.1111/cdev.12605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref82" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barron F. Creative person and creative process. 1969; Holt, Rinehart & Winston</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref107" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Becker J. Making sustainable development evaluations work. Sustainable Development. 2004; 12; 4: 200-211. 10.1002/sd.236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benish-Weisman M, Daniel E, Sneddon J, Lee J. The relations between values and prosocial behavior among children: The moderating role of age. Personality and Individual Differences. 2019; 141: 241-247. 10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berk LE. Development through the lifespan. 2013; Pearson</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borke H. Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy?. Developmental Psychology. 1971; 5; 2: 263. 10.1037/h0031267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bosacki SL. Psychological pragmatics in preadolescents: Sociomoral understanding, self-worth, and school behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2003; 32; 2: 141-155. 10.1023/A:1021861902463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bower JM, Carroll A, Ashman AF. Adolescent perspectives on schooling experiences: The interplay of risk and protective factors within their lives. International Journal of Educational Research. 2012; 53: 9-21. 10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradley RH, Corwyn RF, McAdoo HP, García Coll C. The home environments of children in the United States part I: Variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child Development. 2001; 72; 6: 1844-1867. 10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryant BK. An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development. 1982; 53; 2: 413-425. 10.2307/1128984</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlo, G. (2006). Care-based and altruistically based morality. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 551–579). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlo G, Randall BA. The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2002; 31: 31-44. 10.1023/A:1014033032440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlozzi AF, Bull KS, Eells GT, Hurlburt JD. Empathy as related to creativity, dogmatism, and expressiveness. The Journal of Psychology. 1995; 129: 365-373. 10.1080/00223980.1995.9914974</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen JR, Fink E. Moral reasoning and prosocial behavior in early childhood: The role of social influences. Child Development. 2021; 92; 1: 151-166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooley, C. H. (1998). On self and social organization (H.-J. Schubert, Ed.). University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cowell JM, Decety J. Precursors to morality in development as a complex interplay between neural, socioenvironmental, and behavioral facets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112; 41: 12657-12662. 10.1073/pnas.1508832112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2017; Sage Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cross I, Laurence F, Rabinowitch TC. Empathy and creativity in group musical practices: Towards a concept of empathic creativity. 2012; Oxford University Press: 337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuff BMP, Brown SJ, Taylor L, Howat DJ. Review of the concept. Emotion Review. 2014; 7: 1-10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dadds MR, Hunter K, Hawes DJ, Frost AD, Vassallo S, Bunn P. A measure of cognitive and affective empathy in children using parent ratings. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 2008; 39: 111-122. 10.1007/s10578-007-0075-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis AH, Jones KM. The role of perspective-taking in the development of prosocial behavior in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2020; 61; 2: 133-141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Waal FB. Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008; 59: 279-300. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decety J. The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans. Developmental Neuroscience. 2010; 32; 4: 257-267. 10.1159/000317771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decety J, Bartal IBA, Uzefovsky F, Knafo-Noam A. Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2016; 371; 1686: 20150077. 10.1098/rstb.2015.0077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decety J, Cowell JM. The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2014; 18; 7: 337-339. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamond A. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology. 2013; 64: 135-168. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doron E. Fostering creativity in school aged children through perspective taking and visual media based short term intervention program. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 23: 150-160. 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.12.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorris L, Young D, Barlow J, Byrne K, Hoyle R. Cognitive empathy across the lifespan. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2022; 64; 12: 1524-1531. 10.1111/dmcn.15263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J. Income effects across the life span. Consequences of growing up poor. 1997; Russell Sage Foundation: 596-610</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dymond RF. A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1949; 13; 2: 127. 10.1037/h0061728</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N. Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior (PLE: Emotion). 2014; Psychology Press. 10.4324/9781315746135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N, Eggum-Wilkens ND, Spinrad TLSchroeder DA, Graziano WG. The development of prosocial behavior. Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of prosocial behaviour. 2015; Oxford University Press: 114-136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, N, & Fabes, R. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 646 –718). Chichester, England: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TLEisenberg N. Prosocial development. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 20066; Wiley: 646-718</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N, Strayer JEisenberg N, Strayer J. Critical issues in the study of empathy. Empathy and its development. 1987; Cambridge University Press: 3-13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N, Zuffianò A, Spinrad TL. Are prosocial tendencies relevant for developmental psychopathology? The relations of prosocial behavior and empathy-related responding to externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and autism spectrum disorder. Development and Psychopathology. 2024; 36; 5: 2207-2217. 10.1017/S0954579424000063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elenbaas L. Perceptions of economic inequality are related to children's judgments about access to opportunities. Developmental Psychology. 2019; 55; 3: 471. 10.1037/dev0000550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farrant BM, Devine TAJ, Maybery MT, Fletcher J. Empathy, perspective taking, and prosocial behaviour: The importance of parenting practices. Infant and Child Development. 2012; 21: 175-188. 10.1002/icd.740</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Form S, Kaernbach C. More is not always better: The differentiated influence of empathy on different magnitudes of creativity. Europe's Journal of Psychology. 2018; 14; 1: 54. 10.5964/ejop.v14i1.1432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fu X, Li S, Shen C, Zhu K, Zhang M, Liu Y, Zhang M. Effect of prosocial behavior on school bullying victimization among children and adolescents: Peer and student–teacher relationships as mediators. Journal of Adolescence. 2023; 95; 2: 322-335. 10.1002/jad.12116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrigan B, Adlam AL, Langdon PE. Moral decision-making and moral development: Toward an integrative framework. Developmental Review. 2018; 49: 80-100. 10.1016/j.dr.2018.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 1997; 38: 581-586. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin LJ, Moran JD. Psychometric characteristics of an instrument for measuring creative potential in preschool children. Psychology in the Schools. 1990; 27; 3: 204-210. 10.1002/1520-6807(199007)27:3<204:AID-PITS2310270305>3.0.CO;2-K</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham J, Haidt J, Koleva S, Motyl M, Iyer R, Wojcik SP, Ditto PH. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in experimental social psychology. 2013; Academic Press: 55-130; 47</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant, A. M, & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gungordu, N. (2023). Foundations and predictors of prosocial behavior development across preschool years: Empathy, personality, and creativity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama Libraries).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gungordu, N, & Hernandez-Reif M. (2023). Foundations and predictors of prosocial creativity in preschool-age children. [Conference presentation]. Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), Salt Lake City, UT, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirschi T. The importance of prosocial behavior in childhood for future citizenship. Child Development Perspectives. 2018; 12; 2: 97-101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman MLEisenberg N, Strayer J. The contribution of empathy to justice and moral judgment. Empathy and its development. 1987; Cambridge University Press: 47-80</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman ML. Empathy and moral development. The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan. 1996; 35: 157-162. 10.5926/arepj1962.35.0_157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman ML. Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. 2007; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huppert, E, Cowell, J. M, Cheng, Y, Contreras‐Ibáñez, C, Gomez‐Sicard, N, Gonzalez‐Gadea, M. L,. & Decety, J. (2019). The development of children's preferences for equality and equity across 13 individualistic and collectivist cultures. Developmental Science, 22(2), e12729.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hosmer DW Jr, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. 2013; John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118548387; 398</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Housman DK. The importance of emotional competence and self-regulation from birth: A case for the evidence-based emotional cognitive social early learning approach. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2017; 11; 1: 13. 10.1186/s40723-017-0038-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Labour Office. (1990). International Standard Classification of Occupations: ISCO-88. Geneva: International Labour Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamas L, Preston A. Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2021; 92. 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101654101654</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang EJ. A multilevel analysis of factors affecting kindergartners' creative dispositions in relations to child-level variables and teacher-level variables. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2020; 14; 1: 11. 10.1186/s40723-020-00077-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller M, Edelstein WNoam GG, Wren TE. The development of the moral self from childhood to adolescence. The moral self. 1993; MIT Press: 310-336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Killen M. Children's social and moral reasoning about exclusion. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007; 16: 32-36. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00470.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kotaman H, Aslan M. Young children's trust and sharing decisions. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2024; 18; 1: 3. 10.1186/s40723-024-00128-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane JD, Wellman HM, Olson SL, LaBounty J, Kerr DCR. Theory of mind and emotion understanding predict moral development in early childhood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2010; 28: 871-889. 10.1348/026151009X483056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Layous K, Lyubomirsky S. The how, why, and when of prosocial behavior. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2014; 15; 3: 561-578</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li Q, Hu G. Positive impacts of perceived social support on prosocial behavior: The chain mediating role of moral identity and moral sensitivity. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023; 14: 1234977. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1234977</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu X, Zhang Y, Chen Z, Xiang G, Miao H, Guo C. Effect of socioeconomic status on altruistic behavior in Chinese middle school students: Mediating role of empathy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20; 4: 3326. 10.3390/ijerph20043326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maibom HLMaibom HL. Affective empathy. The Routledge handbook of philosophy of empathy. 2017; Routledge: 22-32. 10.4324/9781315282015-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malti, T, Dys, S. P, & Zuffianò, A. (2015). The moral foundations of prosocial behaviour. In Encyclopedia on early childhood development (pp. 1–5).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malti T, Gummerum M, Keller M, Buchmann M. Children's moral motivation, sympathy, and prosocial behavior. Child Development. 2009; 80; 2: 442-460. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01271.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malti T, Latzko B. Moral emotions. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. 2012; 2: 644-649. 10.1016/B978-0-12-375000-6.00099-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mandalaywala TM, Tai C, Rhodes M. Children's use of race and gender as cues to social status. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15; 6. 10.1371/journal.ponee0234398</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, N. M. & Messinger, D. S. (2011). The development of empathy: How, when, and why. In J. J. Sanguineti, A. Acerbi, & J. A. Lombo (Eds.), Moral behavior and free will: A neurobiological and philosophical approach (pp. 333–359). Rome, Italy: IF-Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller PA, Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Shell R. Relations of moral reasoning and vicarious emotion to young children's prosocial behavior toward peers and adults. Developmental Psychology. 1996; 32; 2: 210. 10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moran JD III, Milgram RM, Sawyers JK, Fu VR. Original thinking in preschool children. Child Development. 1983; 54: 921-926. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1983.tb00513.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrissey ER. Sources of error in the coding of questionnaire data. Sociological Methods & Research. 1974; 3; 2: 209-232. 10.1177/004912417400300204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers G. Children and animals: Social development and our connections to other species. 1998; Westview Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nucci LP. Education in the moral domain. 2001; Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605987</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Padilla-Walker, L, & Carlo, G. (2014). The study of prosocial development: Past, present and future. In L. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 3–16). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekarsky, D. (1998). The role of culture in moral development. In Parenthood in America (pp. 1–4).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peretz-Lange R, Harvey T, Blake PR. Socioeconomic status predicts children's moral judgments of novel resource distributions. Developmental Science. 2022; 25; 4. 10.1111/desc.13230e13230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfattheicher S, Nielsen YA, Thielmann I. Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2022; 44: 124-129. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Praszkier R. Empathy, mirror neurons, and SYNC. Mind & Society. 2016; 15; 1: 1-25. 10.1007/s11299-014-0160-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raver CC, Blair C, Willoughby M. Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds' executive function: New perspectives on models of differential susceptibility. Developmental Psychology. 2013; 49; 2: 292. 10.1037/a0028343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In Whither opportunity? Rising ınequality, schools, and children's life chances (pp. 91–116). Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco MA, Jaeger GJ. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 2012; 24; 1: 92-96. 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rust J, Golombok S, Hines M, Johnston K, Golding JALSPAC Study Team. The role of brothers and sisters in the gender development of preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2000; 77; 4: 292-303. 10.1006/jecp.2000.2596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sassenrath C, Vorauer JD, Hodges SD. The link between perspective-taking and prosociality—Not as universal as you might think. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2022; 44: 94-99. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schulreich S, Tusche A, Kanske P, Schwabe L. Higher subjective socioeconomic status is linked to increased charitable giving and mentalizing-related neural value coding. NeuroImage. 2023; 279. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120315120315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sezov, D. (2002). The contribution of empathy to harmony in interpersonal relationships (Publication No. 3057111) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer JL. The child's world of make-believe: Experimental studies of imaginative play. 1973; Academic Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smetana, J. G. (2006). "Social-cognitive domain theory: consistencies and variations in children's moral and social judgments," in Handbook of Moral Development, eds M. Killen and J. G. Smetana (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 119–154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smetana JG, Jambon M, Conry-Murray C, Sturge- Apple ML. Reciprocal associations between young children's developing moral judgments and theory of mind. Developmental Psychology. 2012; 48: 1144-1155. 10.1037/a0025891</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smetana JG, Killen M. Moral cognition, emotions, and neuroscience: An integrative developmental view. European Journal of Developmental Science. 2008; 2: 324-339</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smetana JG, Rote WM, Jambon M, Tasopoulos-Chan M, Villalobos M, Comer J. Developmental changes and individual differences in young children's moral judgments. Child Development. 2012; 83; 2: 683-696. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01714.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soto JA, Levenson RW. Emotion recognition across cultures: The influence of ethnicity on empathic accuracy and physiological linkage. Emotion. 2009; 9: 874-884. 10.1037/a0017399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tegano DW, Moran JD III, Godwin LJ. Cross-validation of two creativity tests designed for preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 1986; 1; 4: 387-396. 10.1016/0885-2006(86)90015-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tie, B, Yang, W, Huo, T, Gao, Y, Yang, X, Tian, D, Pelowski, M, & Qiu, J. (2024). Empathy to creativity: The associations between empathy and everyday creativity. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.13002​</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tisak MS, Turiel E. Variation in seriousness of transgressions and children's moral and conventional concepts. Developmental Psychology. 1988; 24: 352-357. 10.1037/0012-1649.24.3.352</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turiel E. The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. 1983; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van de Vondervoort JW, Hamlin JK. The early emergence of sociomoral evaluation: Infants prefer prosocial others. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2018; 20: 77-81. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warneken F, Tomasello M. Varieties of altruism in children and chimpanzees. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2009; 13: 397-402. 10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weller, D, & Hansen Lagattuta, K. (2013). Helping the in‐group feels better: Children's judgments and emotion attributions in response to prosocial dilemmas. Child Development, 84(1), 253–268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Welsh M, Parke RD, Widaman K, O'Neil R. Linkages between children's social and academic competence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology. 2001; 39; 6: 463-482. 10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00084-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whiten A. Natural theories of mind. 1991; Basil Blackwell</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang Z, Hung IW. Creative thinking facilitates perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2021; 120; 2: 278. 10.1037/pspa0000259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou Q, Chen S. The development of children's empathic behaviors: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology. 2009; 45; 1: 50-62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zill N, Moore KA, Smith EW, Stief T, Coiro MJChase-Lansdale PL, Brooks-Gunn J. The life circumstances and development of children in welfare families: A profile based on national survey data. Escape from poverty: What makes a difference for children. 1995; Cambridge University Press: 38-59</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nahide Gungordu; Maria Hernandez-Reif; David I. Walker and Stefanie A. Wind</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref190"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref200"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1473412
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Empathy and Creativity as Foundations and Predictors of How Prosocial Behavior Develops in Preschool Age Children
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nahide+Gungordu%22">Nahide Gungordu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0613-8222">0000-0003-0613-8222</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maria+Hernandez-Reif%22">Maria Hernandez-Reif</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+I%2E+Walker%22">David I. Walker</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stefanie+A%2E+Wind%22">Stefanie A. Wind</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Child+Care+and+Education+Policy%22"><i>International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy</i></searchLink>. 2025 19.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empathy%22">Empathy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prosocial+Behavior%22">Prosocial Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Values%22">Moral Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Development%22">Moral Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pictorial+Stimuli%22">Pictorial Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Task+Analysis%22">Task Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Intervention%22">Early Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1186/s40723-025-00147-0
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1976-5681<br />2288-6729
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The emergence of prosocial tendencies in early childhood is still not well understood and not commonly tested with direct measures. This study investigated predictors of prosocial behavior (i.e., prosocial decision-making and prosocial creativity) in 3-to-5-year-old children and explored the role of demographic factors on empathy and moral behavior. The children completed a series of child-appropriate computerized standardized picture-based tasks to evaluate their creativity, empathy, moral development, prosocial decision-making, and prosocial creativity. Parents completed questionnaires on their children's prosocial skills and empathy, while researchers used the children's task performance to determine their prosocial behavior and creativity. Binary and ordinal logistic regression indicated that children's age, creativity, and cognitive empathy played important roles in prosocial decision-making and prosocial creativity. These elements likely construct the foundation of children's prosocial behavior. Moral behavior was also important for prosocial decision-making, which was a precondition for prosocial creativity. A developmental pattern was also found for the emergence of empathy and moral behaviors, suggesting that these abilities may mature over time or may be learned as children mature. By focusing on early interventions and evidence-based educational practices, policymakers can support the holistic development of young children and set the foundation for their future well-being and societal contributions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1473412
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1473412
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1186/s40723-025-00147-0
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Empathy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prosocial Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pictorial Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Task Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Empathy and Creativity as Foundations and Predictors of How Prosocial Behavior Develops in Preschool Age Children
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nahide Gungordu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maria Hernandez-Reif
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David I. Walker
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stefanie A. Wind
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1976-5681
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2288-6729
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy
              Type: main
ResultId 1