A virtues approach to children’s kindness schemas

Figures & data

Figure 1. Random intercepts cross-lagged panel model (N = 320) with breadth of kindness schema repertoire and peer acceptance. Unstandardized estimates are displayed. Cross-lagged and autoregressive paths were constrained equal over time, whereas within-wave covariances were freely estimated. Breadth = breadth of kindness schema repertoire; Acceptance = peer acceptance. *** p < .001.

Table 1. Prototypicality of Virtues Exemplifying Kindness for 4^th and 5^th Graders.

	% of children	% of all responses	Priority
Generosity	57.09	27.87	1.62
Compassion	42.91	22.41	1.65
Misc Kind	39.86	16.48	2.25
Inclusion	31.42	12.05	2.20
Civility	23.99	9.32	2.54
Harm Avoidance	14.19	6.78	2.64
Not Kindness Rel	9.46	4.24	2.86
Gratitude	3.38	0.85	3.10

Note. Misc Kind = miscellaneous forms of kindness. Not Kindness Rel = not kindness relevant. Priority scores refer to the position in children’s lists, such that virtues with lower priority scores were listed earlier.

Table 2. Multilevel Regression Models Predicting Peer- and Teacher-Rated Kindness as a Function of Individual Virtues in Students’ Responses.

	Peer-Nominated Kindness			Teacher-Rated Kindness
	B	SE	p	B	SE	p
Intercept	.32	.03	< .001	4.11	.12	< .001
Demographics
Gender	.16	.01	< .001	.25	.08	.002
District	.07	.05	.208	−.32	.17	.083
Grade	.03	.02	.102	−.11	.10	.248
Kindness Virtues
Generosity	.02	.02	.217	.04	.08	.604
Compassion	.03	.01	.028	.10	.08	.216
Gratitude	−.02	.04	.567	.07	.23	.756
Inclusion	.05	.02	.002	.16	.09	.071
Civility	.02	.02	.195	.03	.10	.793
Harm Avoidance	−.01	.02	.617	.01	.12	.916
Misc Kind	−.01	.02	.491	−.08	.09	.401
Not Kindness Rel	−.02	.03	.429	−.03	.14	.829
Model Fit
AIC	−359.58			612.38
BIC	−308.06			663.71

Note. Bold values are statistically significant (p < .05). Unstandardized estimates and standard errors are displayed. Gender (0 = boy, 1 = girl), District (0 = District 1, 1 = District 2), Grade (0 = 4^th grade, 1 = 5^th grade). All kindness virtues are dichotomous (0 = virtue absent, 1 = virtue present). Misc Kind = miscellaneous forms of kindness; Not Kindness Rel = not kindness relevant. AIC = Akaike’s Information Criteria; BIC = Bayesian Information Criteria.

Table 3. Multilevel Regression Models Predicting Peer-Nominated and Teacher-Rated Kindness as a Function of Breadth of Kindness Schema Repertoire.

	Peer-Nominated Kindness				Teacher-Rated Kindness
	B	SE	p		B	SE	p
Intercept	.35	.03	< .001		4.19	.11	< .001
Demographics
Gender	.16	.01	< .001		.26	.08	.001
District	.07	.05	.218		−.32	.17	.083
Grade	.04	.02	.025		−.08	.10	.381
Kindness Virtues
Breadth of Kindness Schema	.01	.00	< .001		.03	.02	.150
Model Fit
AIC	−365.87				602.97
BIC	−340.11				628.64

Note. Bold values are statistically significant (p < .05). Unstandardized estimates and standard errors are displayed. Gender (0 = boy, 1 = girl), District (0 = District 1, 1 = District 2), Grade (0 = 4^th grade, 1 = 5^th grade). Breadth of Kindness Schema = breadth of kindness schema repertoire (group-mean centered). AIC = Akaike’s Information Criteria; BIC = Bayesian Information Criteria.

Data Availability Statement

Due to the nature of this research, parents did not agree to have their children’s data be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.