Introduction
Children’s behavior of surrendering is dynamic, and in the study of Flook, Zahn-Waxler, and Davidson (2019), not keeping is given a very appealing let-out on the changes children are going through at various stages of oiliness. This research clarified the nuanced changes as reasoning and social skills develop, and the differentiation of sharing motives is amplified by studying the turning points of preschool and late elementary school stages. The study addresses fundamental questions: What elements trigger prosocial behavior, and how do these circumstances influence people’s decision-making patterns? The research design investigates how the allocation of resources varies across different social situations and the specific features of the recipients. The comparison of the two nations in this research gives us more knowledge about how complicated prosocial behavior development can be. Such a gap is prominent in the literature on social-psychological issues related to development. The study gives a detailed description of the intricately woven web of cognitive development, socialization, and altruistic tendencies by outlining the impact of age on sharing behaviors among preschoolers and older elementary students. It brings research areas that tackle the challenge of improving various social outcomes ranging from early life to adulthood.
Methodology and Research Questions
Flook, Zahn-Waxler, and Davidson (2019) took a bold approach to research that is both thorough and insightful, namely, separating the development’s entangled embedded relationships between social perceptions and prosocial behavior. This section provides a detailed explanation of the research design, reveals the methodology, and explains why the study focuses on these topics (Flook et al., 2019). The studies apply a multivariate technique that is very effective for the interpretation of multiple factors as well as interactions. We can study this analytical approach using demographic variables like gender, parent education level, and ethnicity to determine the likelihood of sharing behaviors among different recipient categories. The study mainstreams these intrinsic differences by adopting this methodology.
Social decision-making study systems, for which various prosocial behaviors are marked in an organized framework in controlled experimental situations, are an essential part of the realization of the methodology. Thus, researchers can use such paradigms by watching and counting altruistic determinants and resource allocation tendencies through, for example, some tasks or scenarios simulating social interactions. The researchers instilled sharing situations to demonstrate free and cost-sharing cases, thus equipping the students with why they share in different situations (Flook et al., 2019). Whether for broader community requirements or unexpected circumstances, children’s spending elicits generosity and decision-making, while researchers study free sharing instances to observe spontaneous generosity and altruism. This method identifies whether the overall sharing pattern is, for instance, driven by contextual factors, social norms, or cognitive maturation that researchers need to comprehend when working on developmental differences in prosocial behavior.
Another point the research discusses is the connection between kids’ sharing attitudes and social bias and judgments, which will bring a new standpoint to the research problems. An analysis of what the receiver’s views do to their charm choices indicates the fundamental mechanisms that govern prosociality. A thorough investigation of this is crucial as it unravels how cognitive functions like empathy, taking perspectives, and moral reasoning come into play together with altruism (Flook et al., 2019). The main part of the study is evaluating children’s sharing behaviors and their fairness and social acceptability. These findings help better understand the social processes behind prosocial behavior. Analyzing the link between how kids perceive themselves and their decisions to share something gives the research study an impressive insight into how being a good person is determined in society (Flook et al., 2019). This procedure prefers the overall study of prosocial behavior, social cognition, and cognitive development in children and how they relate to each other.
The study has a scientific and systematic approach and thus serves as a sure method of studying the changes in prosocial behavior with age. The analysis becomes more realistic using multivariate research techniques and social decision-making models. It shows the issues of children’s sharing patterns that are typical for the different phases of their development (Flook et al., 2019). Additionally, unpacking the process whereby social judgments result in sharing the behaviors is the very new knowledge the study provides about the theories behind children’s prosocial behaviors.
Results and Interpretation
According to Flook, Zahn-Waxler, and Davidson (2019), there is empirical evidence showing how complexity in prosocial behavior is observed in children as they grow and the thought processes that direct their development. The research disclosed non-rational methods of resource utilization and social behavior effects on cognitive processes in children of different age groups (Flook et al., 2019).
Firstly, due to their advanced age, children exhibit more maturity in sharing behaviors than their younger counterparts. This distribution of resources to previous or new customers, as one example, illustrates that it operates on the principle of meeting ‘need or preference.’ Discrimination is the word regarding resource allocations; older children make better choices (Flook et al., 2019). They are prone to using this method as a guide that leads to giving more to those who need it or are deserving, and, on the contrary, they prevent others, those whom they consider not as worthy, from receiving it. It indicates the mature notions of justice and a well-developed sense of balance that children beyond primary school age have, and it also critically reflects how children at that level begin to understand the social environment.
Moreover, the research depicts that the underlying judgments are losing power among older kids, meaning they are adopting a more intelligent and independent decision-making mode. In older children, there is better discrimination between one’s actual behavior and what they think about it than in younger learners, who share purely as a result of processing people’s judgments about those who receive goods. It implies that when your children grow up, they learn about conventions and social duties that help them cope better with social situations by being more tactful and firmer (Flook et al., 2019). This projected interplay between prosocial behavior and cognitive growth is thought to be irrefutable due to the chronological aspects of sharing behavior and coming to conclusions. With the development of social capacity, children start to have a more intricate understanding of the social relations and factors that underlie the distribution of resources. Older children demonstrate more targeted sharing behaviors, which emerge due to their increasing cognitive complexity. It implies they can now consider more factors when making decisions about sharing stuff.
Besides, the findings also indicate that many channels, including cognitive and emotional factors, can be involved in the interplay through which prosociality emerges. Children’s cognitive advancement sustains prosocial behaviors relatively more than the impact of emotions, including empathy, moral reasoning, and sociological norms (Flook et al., 2019). Similarly, more follow-up research would be dedicated to exploring how these brain and social factors combine to induce different levels of prosocial behavior at various stages of development.
In addition, it notes that the children may encounter some difficulties based on these developmental trends, and this combination may result in their having social outcomes that are above par. Educators and lawmakers can get ready and craft sharing behavior promotion initiatives that elicit prosocial development by understanding the elements enhancing or inhibiting sharing at specific developmental stages (Flook et al., 2019). The study also highlights the deficit in insights about prosocial conduct. In particular, more ecologically sound measures that are reliable for people’s behavior in natural environments must be developed. Laboratory tasks, however, may be too simplistic to understand children’s sharing habits from the point of view of social decision-making in the real world. Future studies could involve using environment-friendly techniques such as longitudinal designs or observation studies, among others, to possess a richer picture of progressive prosociality under varying conditions.
In addition, Flook et al. (2019) show how social-emotional factors and cognitive development may be interconnected. In this way, they help gather new information about the development of prosocial behavior. The research shows new facets of the intra-group behavior development process manifested in the division of resources and social situation negotiation by revealing the progression dynamics of sharing actions and perceptions (Flook et al., 2019). New studies must be done to examine the dissimilarities in pre-existing and acquired factors that assist a child’s development and ensure guidance for future interventions to support positive social results.
Critical Analysis
Through Flook, Zahn-Waxler, and Davidson’s (2019) study, the developmental stage becomes a focus of scientific consideration, and we understand how prosocial behavior varies with the developmental stage. However, a thorough analysis identifies certain shortcomings that require attention for success. The researchers tried to ensure a large sample size to generalize findings across all generations. However, there is still a question regarding selecting members and the representative population within each age group (Flook et al., 2019). Though the study’s main goal is to address urban populations from the West, it might limit the applicability of the results to broader areas with different surrounding ecology. Unquestionably, individuals of various cultures demonstrate different levels of prosocial behavior due to some unique social norms and values besides socialization techniques. Accordingly, instead of just focusing on whether or not there are any cultural differences in prosocial behavior, it is important to explore the underlying reasoning for the observed variations.
Moreover, the cross-sectional research design constrains the limitation imposed on individuals’ prosocial development paths over time or specifies causality. Researchers can use longitudinal designs to find factors, indicators, or associates of people’s prosocial tendencies. The latter type of information allows researchers to explore the mechanisms and processes of prosocial progression more sophisticatedly (Flook et al., 2019). It can be achieved using longitudinal study participant tracing to identify how many diverse factors, such as parenting styles, peers, and socioeconomic status, play a role in prosocial development and in the way the modes of action of these factors related to the variation of developmental patterns in prosocial behavior are better understood.
In addition, the study oversimplified actual decision-making processes in real-world scenarios using forced-choice tasks and much less realistic circumstances. Numerous such observations might, however, not fully encompass the multiplicity of socio-interactions and the decision-making process in real-life situations, even though they contribute invaluable information about pair interactions and attributions (Flook et al., 2019). Ecologically valid measurements like observational studies and naturalistic experiments can increase the ecological validity of experimental results and create a more accurate picture of what children demonstrate in real prosocial behaviors in everyday life. Moreover, such methods as focus groups and interviews could improve the diversity of the quantitative reviews by clarifying the causes of the behavior and developing the logic system that defines the motives of kids sharing.
Moreover, some vital elements of prosocial behavior, like empathy, compassion, and collaboration, are ignored, probably because the geographic study only focuses on sharing behavior in particular social groundings. The exploration of the prosocial development domain needs to be thorough, and this is the only way the role played by several elements that characterize prosociality can be fully appreciated (Flook et al., 2019). It includes a wide range of behaviors aimed at contributing to the welfare of others. Follow-up studies are likely to employ a paradigm that enables the inspection of various prosocial behavior strands and the investigation of the necessary degree of interplay between them over time.
Even though Flook et al. (2019) provide vital information to help us realize that there is a development in the level of prosocial behavior with growing age, some of these issues still need to be resolved to improve knowledge. Future research could uncover a more profound picture of how prosociality’s mental, social, and cultural aspects interact with one another. The main obstacles the present study deals with are the complexity of the phenomena, the methodology, and the conceptualization of the issue of prosociality (Flook et al., 2019). There is a need for more rigorous research designs, such as longitudinal studies, ecologically valid measures, and historically
Conclusions and Future Directions
Besides pointing out the need for further exploration of the importance of research findings, this part of the article should also include future research directions that could help us better understand prosocial behavior formation and the social implications that come with it. Another significant aspect to investigate is how empathy, through what stage a person we would mostly come across, influences prosocial behavior. Although the article has focused on how imitation is caused by cognitive maturation, applying knowledge to developing empathy over time and cognitive and emotional processes is another crucial benefit (Flook et al., 2019). Researchers may explore the role of empathy in prosocial behavior and the types of interventions that could stimulate this virtue. One could also study the relationship between children’s empathy levels and their sharing patterns, especially with older children, who share less selectively.
In addition, one could research the mechanisms behind moral judgment and reflection, which can shed light on the mental elements or changes responsible for developing prosocial behavior. Exploring their progressing cognitive understanding of right and wrong and observing its influence on instructive practices will be meaningful. The causality of prosocial behaviors and individuals’ descent through moral development can be investigated through a series of longitudinal studies. In addition, the influence of socialization on prosocial development among different groups is considered with a view to the role of culture (Flook et al., 2019). Examining how peers, familial influence, and prevailing cultural norms affect positive social behavior can be very detailed, thus leaving a clearer understanding of the social developmental process.
In addition, it is equally important for the study to focus on how contextual variables, like socioeconomic position, the features of the surroundings, and educational contexts, affect the development of prosocial behavior. Even though the study by Flook et al. sheds light on the particular trends of such sensitive features as prosocial behavior, this is quite far from the depth of the topic, and there is a great desire to explore it further (Flook et al., 2019). Additional research on the mechanisms behind it, keeping in mind the connection between the environment and culture, and getting together other experts can unlock prosocial development’s mysteries and subsequently help develop good social outcomes.
Reference
Flook, L., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Davidson, R. J. (2019). Developmental differences in prosocial behavior between preschool and late elementary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 876. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00876
write