About this srcd poster session

---

Panel information
Panel 13. Moral Development

Abstract

---

Prosocial behaviors decrease slightly during the transition to adolescence (Flynn et al., 2014). However, youth who are perceived to be older and more mature than their chronological age often bear heightened expectations for prosocial behaviors (i.e., adultification; Posner, 2006). Furthermore, individual differences in pubertal development may influence adultification because physical maturation is linked with perceptions of older age (Rice, 2018). For instance, early maturing girls (compared to boys or later maturing girls) are more likely to be perceived as older, and the visibility of maturity (overt vs. covert changes in the body) may have unique psychosocial implications (Ge and Natsuaki, 2009; Natsuaki et al., 2021). However, little is known if or how puberty-related growth in different degrees of visibility influences prosocial behaviors. Therefore, this study explored prospective relations from overt and covert pubertal development (age 10) to observed expressions of prosocial behavior two years later (age 12), with an emphasis on uncovering differences based on sex assigned at birth.

Participants included 199 youth (51.2% female sex assigned at birth; 57.3% Latine) and their primary caregivers who participated in laboratory assessments at age 10 (N = 156; M = 10.54, SD = .34) and/or age 12 (N = 185; M = 12.25, SD = .35). At age 10, caregivers used the Pubertal Development Scale (PDS; Petersen et al., 1988) to report their child’s pubertal development (e.g., 1 = not yet started, 4 = seems completed; M = 2.08, SD = 1.00). Overt pubertal development was coded as the sum of skin changes, height, breast development (girls), and facial hair (boys), while covert pubertal development was coded as the sum for body hair, menstruation (girls), and voice changes (boys). At age 12, youth completed a series of laboratory interactions (e.g., help open the door, move a chair, offer mom water), which were coded for prosocial behavior (e.g., 0 = did not help, 2 = helped in both tasks; M = 1.35, SD = .52) by independent raters.

Neither overt (B = .067, SE = .052, p = .204) nor covert (B = .079, SE = .062, p = .209) pubertal development at age 10 predicted prosocial behavior at age 12. However, there was a significant interaction between child sex and youth’s covert pubertal development (B = -.169, SE = .076, p = .028) at age 10 when holding previous prosocial behavior constant. Specifically, girls’ covert pubertal development at age 10 predicted lower prosocial behavior at age 12 (b = -.090, SE = .043, p = .039), but this relation was not significant for boys (b = .079, SE = .062, p = .209). Unexpectedly, these findings suggest that girls with more advanced covert, rather than overt, pubertal development were less likely to engage in prosocial behaviors at age 12. One explanation for this pattern may be that girls internalize their maturation processes, especially when their maturation is not visible to others, which results in less prosocial behavior as they reach adolescence and shift more towards self-focused goals.

Author information

Author	Role
Destyni Brooke Cravens, University of California, Riverside	Presenting author
Misaki N. Natsuaki, University of California, Riverside	Non-presenting author
Tuppett M. Yates, University of California, Riverside	Non-presenting author

⇦ Back to session