The effect of moral reasoning and values as the mediator towards student’s prosocial behaviour

Figures & data

Figure 1. Mediation Model Framework.

Table 1. Differences in Prosocial Behaviour based on Gender

	Gender	N	Mean Rank	t	Sig.
Community	Male	299	3.13
	Female	350	3.02
	Total	649		2.11	.03
Anonymous	Male	299	3.55
	Female	350	3.62
	Total	649		−1.45	.14
Anxiety	Male	299	3.47
	Female	350	3.52
	Total	649		−.77	.43
Emotion	Male	299	3.42
	Female	350	3.39
	Total	649		.69	.48
Request	Male	299	3.60
	Female	350	3.71
	Total	649		−1.65	.09
Altruism	Male	299	3.16
	Female	350	3.04
	Total	649		2.66	.00
Prosocial Behaviour	Male	299	3.63
	Female	350	3.76
	Total	649		.30	.76

Table 2. Differences in Prosocial Behaviour based on Residence

	Residence	N	Mean Rank	t	Sig.
Community	Urban	373	3.13
	Rural	276	3.02
	Total	649		.97	.33
Anonymous	Urban	373	3.55
	Rural	276	3.62
	Total	649		2.78	.00
Anxiety	Urban	373	3.47
	Rural	276	3.52
	Total	649		1.77	.07
Emotion	Urban	373	3.42
	Rural	276	3.39
	Total	649		1.36	.17
Request	Urban	373	3.60
	Rural	276	3.71
	Total	649		2.30	.02
Altruism	Urban	373	3.16
	Rural	276	3.04
	Total	649		−3.44	.00
Prosocial Behaviour	Urban	373	3.63
	Rural	276	3.76
	Total	649		2.22	.02

Figure 2. Mediation Model Framework A.

Table 3. The relationship between Religiosity and Student Prosocial Behaviours with Moral Reasoning as the Mediator Variable

Steps	DV	IV	β	t	P
1	Prosocial Behaviour	Religiosity	.606*	2.13	.00
2	Moral Reasoning	Religiosity	.074*	3.45	.00
3	Prosocial Behaviour	Moral Reasoning	.321*	3.42	.00
4	Prosocial Behaviour	Religiosity Moral Reasoning	.628*	1.57	.00

Figure 3. Mediation Model Framework B.

Table 4. Religiosity and Prosocial Behaviour with Internalization of Pure Value as the Mediator Variable

Steps	DV	IV	Β	T	P
1	Prosocial Behaviour	Religiosity	.606**	2.18	.02
2	Internalization of Pure Values	Religiosity	.801**	13.81	.00
3	Prosocial Behaviour	Internalization of Pure Values	.668**	3.42	.00
4	Prosocial Behaviour	Religiosity Internalization of Pure Values	.199**	.25	.00