Maternal and Paternal Parenting and Child Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis Using a Structural Equation Modeling Design

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the systematic search including n = number of studies, k = number of effect sizes.

Table 1. Study characteristics and assigned parenting dimension of the included studies in this meta-analysis.

Study	k	Study design	Country	N	Parenting dimension	Informant parenting	Informant prosocial behavior
Bar-Tal et al. (1980)	8	Concurrent	IL	153	Warmth, harsh	Child	Child
Blair and Perry (2019)	4	Predictive	US	955	Sensitivity	Parent	Mixed
Carlo et al. (2018)	24	Predictive	US	462	Warmth, harsh, inconsistent discipline, behavioral control	Child	Child
Chaparro and Grusec (2016)	4	Predictive	CA	111	Harsh, inconsistent discipline	Parent	Mixed
Daniel et al. (2016)	24	Combination	CA	381	Warmth	Parent	Parent
Davidov and Grusec (2006)	12	Concurrent	CA	106	Sensitivity, Warmth	Parent	Mixed
Deković and Janssens (1992)	12	Concurrent	NL	112	Warmth, sensitivity, behavioral control, harsh	Parent	Mixed
Eberly et al. (1993)	12	Concurrent	US	84	Warmth, psychological control, behavioral control	Child	Parent
Gryczkowski et al. (2018)	8	Concurrent	US	129	Behavioral control, harsh, inconsistent discipline	Parent	Child
Guevara et al. (2015)	2	Concurrent	CO	239	Behavioral control	Parent	Child
Guo and Feng (2017)	4	Concurrent	CH	494	Warmth, harsh	Child	Child
Hart et al. (1992)	2	Concurrent	US	106	Behavioral control	Parent	Observed
Hastings et al. (2007)	16	Predictive	CA	133	Warmth	Parent	Mixed
Kuppens et al. (2009)	6	Concurrent	BE	588	Behavioral control, support, psychological control	Mixed	Mixed
Lansford et al. (2018)	6	Combination	Multi	1,298	Warmth, behavioral control	Parent	Parent
Lux and Walper (2019)	12	Combination	DE	372	Inonsistent discipline	Parent	Child
Mccoy et al. (2013)	6	Predictive	US	235	Warmth, inconsistent discipline, psychological control	Mixed	Mixed
Newton et al. (2014)	8	Combination	US	1155	Sensitivity	Observed	Mixed
Padilla-Walker et al. (2016)^O	60	Predictive	US	500	Warmth, harsh	Mixed	Mixed
Padilla-Walker and Son (2019)^O	72	Combination	US	463	Warmth	Mixed	Mixed
Padilla-Walker et al. (2013)^O	6	Predictive	US	325	Warmth, behavioral control	Parent	Child
Putnick et al. (2015)^O	10	Combination	Multi	1,247	Warmth	Child	Child
Putnick et al. (2018)^O	12	Combination	Multi	1,144	Warmth	Parent	Child
Van Berkel, Groeneveld, et al. (2015)^O	2	Concurrent	NL	388	Sensitivity	Observed	Observed
Van Berkel, Van Der Pol, et al. (2015)^O	4	Concurrent	NL	302	Sensitivity	Observed	Observed
Williams and Berthelsen (2017)	4	Predictive	AU	4,007	Warmth, harsh	Parent	Teacher
Xing et al. (2017)	2	Concurrent	CH	325	Psychological control	Parent	Mixed
Zarra-Nezhad et al. (2014)	18	Concurrent	FI	314	Warmth, behavioral control, psychological control	Parent	Teacher
Zarra-Nezhad et al. (2018)	16	Combination	FI	200	Warmth, behavioral control	Parent	Parent

Note. k: number of effect sizes; N: total number of children in sample; IL: Israel; US: United States; CA: Canada; NL: The Netherlands; CO: Colombia; CH: Switzerland; BE: Belgium; DE: Germany; AU: Australia; FI: Finland.

^OOverlapping sample.

Figure 2. Funnel plot containing the effect sizes for parenting behavior—children’s prosocial behavior.

Figure 3. Funnel plots containing the effect sizes specifically for paternal parenting—children’s prosocial behavior, maternal parenting—children’s prosocial behavior, and maternal parenting—paternal parenting.

Table 2. Random effects model meta-analytic estimated pooled correlations (Pearson’s R) for relationship between parenting behavior and children’s prosocial behavior for fathers and mothers.

Moderator	#k	#ES	N	r (SE)	p	95% CI	95% PI	τ^2	I^2	Q	Q p
Total sample
P Parenting–Prosocial Behavior	29	187	14,627	.16 (.01)	<.001	[.14, .18]	[–.05, .36]	.01	83.31	1182.06	<.001
M Parenting–Prosocial Behavior	29	186	14,627	.17 (.01)	<.001	[.16, .19]	[–.04, .39]	.01	84.56	1335.38	<.001
P Parenting–M Parenting	29	129	14,627	.41 (.02)	<.001	[.37, .45]	[–.06, .87]	.06	98.50	9376.84	<.001
Parenting Dimension
P Control–Prosocial Behavior	16	45	4,450	.11 (.02)	<.001	[.08, .14]	[–.06, .27]	.01	72.01	141.58	<.001
M Control–Prosocial Behavior	16	45	4,450	.12 (.02)	<.001	[.09, .16]	[–.06, .31]	.01	76.93	185.53	<.001
P Control–M control	16	38	4,450	.45 (.03)	<.001	[.38, .52]	[.04, .87]	.04	97.96	1808.08	<.001
P Warmth–Prosocial Behavior	26	113	13,373	.19 (.01)	<.001	[.17, .21]	[–.01, .39]	.01	83.66	778.59	<.001
M Warmth–Prosocial Behavior	26	113	13,373		<.001	[.19, .23]	[.00, .42]	.01	85.40	872.28	<.001
P Warmth–M Warmth	26	66	13,373	.39 (.03)	<.001	[.33, .45]	[–.06, .85]	.05	98.32	5330.24	<.001
P Low Harsh Parenting–Prosocial Behavior	9	24	5,940	.09 (.01)	<.001	[.07, .11]	[.02, .16]	.00	36.11	38.69	.021
M Low Harsh Parenting–Prosocial Behavior	9	24	5,940	.11 (.01)	<.001	[.09, .13]	[.07, .15]	.00	14.40	28.65	.192
P Low Harsh Parenting–M Low Harsh Parenting	9	22	5,940	.42 (.06)	<.001	[.30, .54]	[–.15, .99]	.08	99.12	1750.31	<.001
Study design
P Concurrent–Prosocial Behavior	22	79	7,745	.18 (.02)	<.001	[.15, .21]	[–.06, .42]	.01	85.79	598.56	<.001
M Concurrent–Prosocial Behavior	22	78	7,745	.19 (.02)	<.001	[.16, .22]	[–.04, .42]	.01	84.98	608.14	<.001
P Concurrent–M Concurrent	22	53	7,745	.38 (.03)	<.001	[.32, .44]	[–.05, .81]	.05	97.69	2364.97	<.001
P Predictive–Prosocial Behavior	16	108	10,429	.14 (.01)	<.001	[.12, .16]	[–.03, .32]	.01	79.40	533.98	<.001
M Predictive–Prosocial Behavior	16	108	10,429	.16 (.01)	<.001	[.14, .18]	[–.03, .36]	.01	83.48	669.71	<.001
P Predictive –M Predictive	16	76	10,429	.43 (.03)	<.001	[.37, .48]	[–.07, .92]	.06	98.81	6981.44	<.001
Age child
P Pre-Adolescence–Prosocial Behavior	17	74	9842	.12 (.01)	<.001	[.09, .15]	[–.07, .32]	.01	79.73	394.09	<.001
M Pre-Adolescence–Prosocial Behavior	17	74	9842	.14 (.01)	<.001	[.11, .17]	[–.08, .35]	.01	82.85	475.48	<.001
P Pre-Adolescence –M Pre-Adolescence	17	65	9842	.37 (.03)	<.001	[.31, .43]	[–.07, .81]	.05	97.85	4795.64	<.001
P Adolescence–Prosocial Behavior	17	111	7,108	.18 (.01)	<.001	[.16, .20]	[–.02, .81]	.01	83.98	708.93	<.001
M Adolescence–Prosocial Behavior	17	110	7,108	.19 (.01)	<.001	[.17, .22]	[–.01, .40]	.01	84.63	800.68	<.001
P Adolescence –M Adolescence	17	62	7,108	.45 (.03)	<.001	[.39, .51]	[–.04, .94]	.06	98.87	4278.95	<.001

Note. P: paternal, M: maternal, r: Pearson’s r correlation coefficient; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; 95%PI: 95% prediction interval; τ²: Tau-squared (between study variance); I²: Higgin’s & Thompson’s I²; Q: Cochran’s Q; Q p : p-value of Q statistic.

Figure 4. Conceptual model with relative pooled associations between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting behavior, and children’s prosocial behavior. Note. ***p <.001.

Table 3. Estimated pooled partial associations (Pearson’s R) for the relationship between parenting behavior and children’s prosocial behavior for fathers and mothers using meta-analytic structural equation modeling.

Association	#k	#ES	N	r (SE)	95% CI	p
P Parenting–Prosocial Behavior	29	187	14,627	.10 (.01)	[.08, .13]	<.001
M Parenting–Prosocial Behavior	29	186	14,627	.12 (.02)	[.09, .15]	<.001
Δ Parenting				.02 (.02)	[–.02, .06]	.302
P Parenting–M Parenting	29	129	14,627	.37 (.05)	[.28, .46]	<.001

Note. P: paternal; M: maternal; Δ: difference in effect sizes for fathers and mothers; #k: number of studies; #ES: number of effect sizes; N: lower bound of the total number of participants; r: Pearson’s r correlation coefficient; 95% CI: 95% confidence intervals of Pearson’s r coefficient; p: p-value.

Figure 5. Overall effect sizes in our sample for the three moderation analyses we performed. A, B, and C represent three separate moderation analyses with A = parenting dimension (parental warmth, positive control, and low harsh parenting), B = study design (concurrent versus predictive), and C = average age of children in sample (pre-adolescence versus adolescence).

Table 4. Estimated pooled partial associations (Pearson’s R) for relationship between parenting behavior and children’s prosocial behavior for fathers and mothers in different subsamples using meta-analytic structural equation modeling.

Moderator	#k	#ES	N	r (SE)	95% CI	p
Parenting dimension
P Warmth–Prosocial Behavior	26	114	13,373	.13 (.02)	[.09, .17]	<.001
M Warmth–Prosocial Behavior	26	113	13,373	.14 (.02)	[.10, .19]	<.001
Δ Warmth				.01 (.03)	[–.04, .07]	.717
P Low Harsh Parenting–Prosocial Behavior	9	24	5,940	.11 (.04)	[.03, .17]	.003
M Low Harsh Parenting–Prosocial Behavior	9	24	5,940	.08 (.03)	[.02, .13]	.003
Δ Harsh Parenting				–.02 (.05)	[–.13, .06]	.666
P Control–Prosocial Behavior	16	45	4,450	.08 (.02)	[.03, .13]	<.001
M Control–Prosocial Behavior	16	45	4,450	.12 (.02)	[.07, .16]	<.001
Δ Control				.03 (.04)	[–.04, .11]	.423
Study Design
P Concurrent–Prosocial Behavior	22	79	7,745	.11 (.02)	[.07, .16]	<.001
M Concurrent–Prosocial Behavior	22	78	7,745	.15 (.02)	[.11, .18]	<.001
Δ Concurrent				.03 (.03)	[–.02, .08]	.259
P Predictive–Prosocial Behavior	16	108	10,429	.08 (.01)	[.06, .11]	<.001
M Predictive–Prosocial Behavior	16	108	10,429	.12 (.02)	[07, .16]	<.001
Δ Predictive				.03 (.02)	[–.01, .08]	.206
Age Child
P Pre-Adolescence–Prosocial Behavior	17	74	9842	.08 (.02)	[.05, .12]	<.001
M Pre-Adolescence–Prosocial Behavior	17	74	9842	.10 (.02)	[.05, .15]	<.001
Δ Pre-Adolescence				.02 (.03)	[–.03, .07]	.448
P Adolescence–Prosocial Behavior	17	111	7,108	.12 (.02)	[.08, .17]	<.001
M Adolescence–Prosocial Behavior	17	110	7,108	.15 (.02)	[.12, .18]	<.001
Δ Adolescence				.03 (.03)	[–.03, .08]	.275

Note. P: paternal; M: maternal; Δ: difference in effect sizes for fathers and mothers; #k: number of studies; #ES: number of effect sizes; N: lower bound of the total number of participants; r: Pearson’s r correlation coefficient; 95% CI: 95% confidence intervals of Pearson’s r coefficient; p: p-value.

Table 5. Differences in estimated pooled partial associations (Pearson’s R) for different subsamples within each moderator for fathers and mothers.

Moderator	r (SE)	95% CI	p
Parenting Dimension
ΔP Low Harsh – Warmth	–.02 (.04)	[–.10, .06]	.623
ΔM Low Harsh – Warmth	–.06 (.04)	[–.14, .01]	.088
ΔP Control – Warmth	–.05 (.03)	[–.11, .01]	.106
ΔM Control – Warmth	–.03 (.03)	[–.09, .04]	.367
ΔP Control– Low Harsh	–.02 (.04)	[–.11, .06]	.641
ΔM Control – Low Harsh	.04 (.04)	[–.04, .11]	.276
Study Design
ΔP Concurrent – Predictive	.03 (.02)	[–.02, .08]	.222
ΔM Concurrent – Predictive	.03 (.03)	[–.03, .09]	.323
Age Child
ΔP Adolescence – Pre-Adolescence	.04 (.03)	[–.01, .10]	.163
ΔM Adolescence – Pre-Adolescence	.05 (.03)	[–.01, .11]	.079

Note. P: paternal; M: maternal; Δ: difference in effect sizes; r: Pearson’s r correlation coefficient; 95% CI: 95% confidence intervals of Pearson’s r coefficient; p: p-value.

*Bar-Tal, D., Nadler, A., & Blechman, N. (1980). The relationship between Israeli children’s helping behavior and their perception of parents’ socialization practices. The Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 159–167. https://search-proquest-com.eur.idm.oclc.org/openview/f024970bfe73cae718fc0abf621961a9/1?cbl=1819178&pq-origsite=gscholar

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Blair, B. L., & Perry, N. B. (2019). Parental sensitivity and friendship development: The mediating role of cooperation. Social Development, 28(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12332

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Carlo, G., White, R. M. B., Streit, C., Knight, G. P., & Zeiders, K. H. (2018). Longitudinal relations among parenting styles, prosocial behaviors, and academic outcomes in U.S. Mexican adolescents. Child Development, 89, 577–592. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12761

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Chaparro, M. P., & Grusec, J. E. (2016). Neuroticism moderates the relation between parenting and empathy and between empathy and prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 62, 105–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.62.2.0105

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Daniel, E., Madigan, S., & Jenkins, J. (2016). Paternal and maternal warmth and the development of prosociality among preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 114–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000120

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77, 44–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00855.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Deković, M., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1992). Parents’ child-rearing style and child’s sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 925–932. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.925

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Eberly, M. B., Montemayor, R., & Flannery, D. J. (1993). Variation in adolescent helpfulness toward parents in a family context. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(3), 228–224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431693013003001

 Google Scholar

*Gryczkowski, M., Jordan, S. S., & Mercer, S. H. (2018). Moderators of the relations between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting practices and children’s prosocial behavior. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 49, 409–419. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-017-0759-3

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Guevara, I. P., Cabrera, V. E., Rocío Gonzalez, M., & Devis, J. V. (2015). Empathy and sympathy as mediators between parental inductive discipline and prosocial behavior in Colombian families. International Journal of Psychological Research, 8(2), 34–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.1508

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Guo, Q., & Feng, L. (2017). The associations between perceived parenting styles, empathy, and altruistic choices in economic games: A study of Chinese children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01843

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hart, C. H., Dewolf, D. M., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D. C. (1992). Maternal and paternal disciplinary styles: Relations with preschoolers’ playground behavioral orientations and peer status. Child Development, 63, 879–892. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01668.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hastings, P. D., McShane, K. E., Parker, R., & Ladha, F. (2007). Ready to make nice: Parental socialization of young sons’ and daughters’ prosocial behaviors with peers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.168.2.177-200

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., & Michiels, D. (2009). Measuring parenting dimensions in middle childhood: Multitrait-multimethod analysis of child, mother, and father ratings. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 133–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.133

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lansford, J. E., Godwin, J., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bornstein, M. H., Chang, L., Chen, B. B., Deater-Deckard, K., Di Giunta, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Pastorelli, C., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Steinberg, L., Tapanya, S., Alampay, L. P., Uribe Tirad, L. M., & Zelli, A. (2018). Longitudinal associations between parenting and youth adjustment in twelve cultural groups: Cultural normativeness of parenting as a moderator. Developmental Psychology, 54, 362–377. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000416

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lux, U., & Walper, S. (2019). A systemic perspective on children’s emotional insecurity in relation to father: Links to parenting, interparental conflict and children’s social well-being. Attachment and Human Development, 21, 467–484. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2019.1582597

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*McCoy, K. P., George, M. R. W., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2013). Constructive and destructive marital conflict, parenting, and children’s school and social adjustment. Social Development, 22, n/a–662. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12015

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Newton, E. K., Laible, D., Carlo, G., Steele, J. S., & McGinley, M. (2014). Do sensitive parents foster kind children, or vice versa? Bidirectional influences between children’s prosocial behavior and parental sensitivity. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1808–1816. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036495

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nielson, M. G., & Day, R. D. (2016). The role of parental warmth and hostility on adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward multiple targets. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 331–340. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000157

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Son, D. (2019). Longitudinal associations among routine disclosure, the parent–child relationship, and adolescents’ prosocial and delinquent behaviors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(6), 1853–1871. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518773900

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Padilla-Walker, L. M., Day, R. D., Dyer, W. J., & Black, B. C. (2013). “Keep on keeping on, even when it’s hard!”: Predictors and outcomes of adolescent persistence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(4), 433–457. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612449387

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Pastorelli, C., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Tapanya, S., Uribe Tirado, L. M., Zelli, A., Alampay, L. P., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., Chang, L., Deater-Deckard, K., Di Giunta, L., Dodge, K. A., & Oburu, P. (2015). Perceived mother and father acceptance-rejection predict four unique aspects of child adjustment across nine countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 56, 923–932. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12366

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Deater-Deckard, K., Di Giunta, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Pastorelli, C., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Tapanya, S., Tirado, L. M. U., Zelli, A., Alampay, L. P., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., & Bombi, A. S. (2018). Parental acceptance-rejection and child prosocial behavior: Developmental transactions across the transition to adolescence in nine countries, mothers and fathers, and girls and boys. Developmental Psychology, 54, 1881–1890. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000565

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Van Berkel, S. R., Groeneveld, M. G., Mesman, J., Endendijk, J. J., Hallers-Haalboom, E. T., van der Pol, L. D., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2015). Parental sensitivity towards toddlers and infant siblings predicting toddler sharing and compliance. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(8), 2270–2279. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0029-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Van Berkel, S. R., Van Der Pol, L. D., Groeneveld, M. G., Hallers-Haalboom, E. T., Endendijk, J. J., Mesman, J., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2015). To share or not to share: Parental, sibling, and situational influences on sharing with a younger sibling. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(3), 235–241. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414537925

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Williams, K. E., & Berthelsen, D. (2017). The development of prosocial behaviour in early childhood: Contributions of early parenting and self-regulation. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-017-0185-5

 Google Scholar

*Xing, S., Gao, X., Song, X., Archer, M., Zhao, D., Zhang, M., Ding, B., & Liu, X. (2017). Chinese preschool children’s socioemotional development: The effects of maternal and paternal psychological control. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1818), 1–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01818

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zarra-Nezhad, M., Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Zarra-Nezhad, M., Ahonen, T., Poikkeus, A. M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2014). Social withdrawal in children moderates the association between parenting styles and the children’s own socioemotional development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 55, 1260–1269. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12251

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zarra-Nezhad, M., Moazami-Goodarzi, A., Nurmi, J. E., Eklund, K., Ahonen, T., & Aunola, K. (2018). Children’s shyness moderates the associations between parenting behavior and the development of children’s pro-social behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(9), 3008–3018. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1134-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data and analyses that support the findings of this study are made openly available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MHX8E.