How Conscientiousness Influences Prosocial Behavior Among Adolescents: The Role of Empathy and Social Support

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents, proposing a moderated mediation model in which empathy mediates the association and social support moderates both the direct and indirect pathways. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly given the growing interest in integrating personality traits and contextual factors in explaining adolescent prosocial development.

The study is based on a relatively large sample (N = 1065), employs validated measures, and applies appropriate statistical analyses. Overall, the manuscript has merit and contributes to the literature by examining individual (conscientiousness, empathy) and environmental (social support) factors simultaneously.

However, several conceptual, methodological, and presentation issues should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Major Comment

- Theoretical Framing Needs Further Deepening

The theoretical background is generally sound but somewhat descriptive. The manuscript would benefit from a stronger integration of the Norm Activation Model (Schwartz, 1973, 1977) and the empathy–altruism framework (e.g., work by C. Daniel Batson)

In particular, the mediating role of empathy could be theoretically strengthened. While the empathy–altruism hypothesis is mentioned, the authors could elaborate more clearly on why conscientiousness should enhance empathy. Is it through self-regulation? Moral internalization? Heightened responsibility? Greater perspective-taking due to rule adherence?

Additionally, the model assumes a directional process (conscientiousness → empathy → prosocial behavior), but given the cross-sectional design, alternative interpretations (e.g., reciprocal relations) should be discussed more explicitly

- Conceptual Clarification of Conscientiousness

The manuscript sometimes conflates conscientiousness with responsibility and social obligation. While related, these constructs are not identical. The authors should clarify whether they conceptualize conscientiousness primarily as self-regulation or as moral responsibility, or as social norm adherence.

A more precise conceptualization would help avoid construct overlap, especially with empathy and prosocial behavior

- Need for Stronger Integration with Experimental Prosocial Research

The literature review is heavily based on correlational and survey studies. To strengthen the theoretical grounding, the authors may consider integrating experimental research that links internal states (e.g., self-awareness, moral salience, empathic activation) to helping behavior.

For example, Scaffidi Abbate & Ruggieri (2008) provides experimental evidence that situational activation of self-awareness can increase willingness to help, highlighting the importance of internal psychological states in promoting prosocial behavior. This work would enrich the discussion by connecting personality-based prosociality with state-based mechanisms that heighten moral salience and helping intentions.

In addition, the authors could reference foundational experimental research on empathy-induced helping, such as work by Batson (e.g., Batson et al., 1991; 2015), which directly supports the empathy–altruism pathway proposed in this manuscript.

Including both references would provide a balanced theoretical grounding and avoid over-reliance on purely correlational evidence.

- Moderation Interpretation Needs Clarification

The moderated mediation findings are interesting, but their interpretation requires refinement:

• The manuscript suggests that social support enhances both direct and indirect effects. However, the conceptual rationale for why social support strengthens the conscientiousness–empathy link is not fully elaborated.
• Is social support enhancing emotional security, thereby allowing conscientious tendencies to translate more effectively into empathic engagement?
• Or does social support act as a moral reinforcement context?

The authors should clarify the psychological process underlying this moderation effect rather than describing it only statistically.

- Causal Language Should Be Softened

Given the cross-sectional design, the manuscript occasionally uses causal language (e.g., “conscientiousness predicts prosocial behavior” in a causal sense). The wording should be revised.

Minor Comments

• Several language issues and grammatical inconsistencies should be revised (e.g., “positively direct predicted,” “more stronger sense of altruism,” “lack of social support may experience social exclusion”).
• The figures could be visually improved for clarity.
• The discussion section is somewhat repetitive and could be streamlined.

 

Recommendation

The manuscript has clear potential but requires stronger theoretical integration, clearer construct differentiation, refined interpretation of moderation effects, reduced causal language, and improved engagement with experimental prosocial research.

Addressing the issues outlined above would substantially improve the conceptual contribution and overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your exceptionally thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. Your constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us strengthen the theoretical depth, practical relevance, and methodological rigor of our work. We have carefully addressed each point in the revised manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response.

1.Comment 1: Theoretical Framing Needs Further Deepening

Response: We sincerely thank you for this profound suggestion. According to your suggestion, we added the sentences as follows (line 178-189): “According to the Norm Activation Model (NAM) of prosocial behavior (Schwartz, 1973, 1977), altruistic behavior is guided by internalized personal norms, which are activated through awareness of responsibility, generating situation moral obligation that motivates helping. The model further incorporates social expectations and societal incentives as contextual influences on norm activation. Individuals high in conscientiousness typically exhibit heightened sensitivity to responsibility, reflecting chronic awareness of duties and obligations, which directs attention toward others’ distress and intensifies empathic responding (Abdullah et al., 2020; Chia & Tan, 2024; Suazo et al., 2020; Zahn-Waxler & Robinson, 1995). Consistent with the empathy–altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991), this empathic response fosters altruistic motivation and a strengthened sense of moral obligation, thereby promoting prosocial behavior.”

2. Comment 2: Conceptual Clarification of Conscientiousness.

Response: We appreciate your emphasis on actionable recommendations. To address this, we made modifications as follows (line 104-110): “According to the Big Five Taxonomy of traits, conscientiousness is one of the domains of personality traits (Goldberg et al. 1993), usually refers to individual differences in the propensity to regulate behaviors. For oneself, means to have clear goals and plans, be self-discipline, do things orderly and persevering, and for others and society, means responsible to others and society, manifested through adherence to social rules and norms, interpersonal responsibility and normative conformity (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Costantini & Perugini, 2016; Lindahl, 2023; Roberts et al., 2014).”

We also added new references as follows:

Costantini, G., & Perugini, M. (2016). The network of conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality, 65, 68–88.

3. Comment 3: Need for Stronger Integration with Experimental Prosocial Research.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. According to your suggestion, we added the sentences as follows (line 75-76): “Experimental research also provides evidence that situational activation of self-awareness can increase willingness to engage in helping behavior (Scaffidi & Ruggieri, 2008).” In line 167-170: “In addition, experimental studies also demonstrated that this empathic concern produces altruistic motivation and evokes a selfless desire to improve the welfare of others, regardless of personal emotional rewards (Batson 1991; 2015).”

We also added new references as follows:

81. Scaffidi Abbate, C., Ruggieri, S. (2008). A beggar, self-awareness and willingness to help. Current psychology letters, 24, 98-107.
82. Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(3), 413.
83. Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., & Stocks, E. L. (2015). The empathy-altruism hypothesis. The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior, 259-281.

4. Comment 4: Moderation Interpretation Needs Clarification.

Response: We are grateful for this insightful suggestion. According to your recommendation, in results section, we added following sentences (line 415-418): “The underlying mechanism may be that higher social support fosters emotional security, which in turn allows individuals with greater conscientiousness to redirect their attentional focus from internal to external demands, thereby facilitating the expression of greater empathy.”

In discussion section, we have integrated the previous content and made following modifications (line 513-529): “The moderating role of social support in the empathy-mediated indirect pathway between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior can be understood through the lens of Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which emphasizes how relational contexts shape the activation and expression of individual traits and socioemotional processes. Firstly, receiving social support, particularly emotional support from friends, parents, and teachers, can help adolescents experience feelings of warmth and comfort, develop a strong sense of security, and perceive that they are being cared for (Li et al, 2021). This, in turn, motivates them to offer assistances to others in need, which may conductive to the improvement of conscientiousness. Moreover, greater social support facilitates the development of higher empathy in adolescents, including enhanced perception of others’ emotions and an increased capacity to generate beneficial reactions to others’ situations (Chen & Xu, 2021). Additionally, social support can also provide adolescents with practical guidance, such as encouraging their participation in volunteer services, community activities, and other forms of social engagement. The more the external support they receive, the more positive emotional experiences they are likely to have, and the greater possibility to engage in external activities, thereby promoting the development of prosocial behavior more broadly (Esparza-Reig et al., 2022; Javed at al., 2025).”

5. Comment 5: Causal Language Should Be Softened.

Response: Thank you. We made following modifications (line 451-452): Conscientiousness was found to be positively correlated with prosocial behavior.

6. Comment 6: Minor Comments

Response: We have carefully corrected the grammatical inconsistencies and language issues as well as other similar errors. Specific corrections include:

• Revised “positively direct predicted” to “The results demonstrated a significant positive direct effect of conscientiousness on prosocial behavior”. (line 378-379)
• Revised “more stronger sense of altruism” to “Xia & Yang (2020) proposed that highly conscientious individuals exhibit a heightened altruistic orientation and are more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors that benefit others”. (line 128-130)
• Revised “lack of social support may experience social exclusion” to “Meanwhile, students with low levels of social support may perceive themselves as socially excluded and demonstrate diminished empathic concern for others”. (line 530-531)
• Following your recommendation, we have improved the visual presentation of all figures.
• In discussion section, we have integrated the previous content and removed the redundant restatements.

 

Thank you again for your time and expertise. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the quality of our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors examined the psychological mechanisms underlying the relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents, by constructing a moderated mediation model. Specifically, they investigated the mediating role of empathy and the moderating role of social support. Results showed that empathy partially mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior, and that social support moderated both the direct effect of conscientiousness on prosocial behavior and the indirect effect mediated by empathy.
I believe that the work is interesting for the readers of the journal and that the research results could provide an important contribution to the scientific literature on adolescent prosocial development. However, there are some revisions that I would suggest to the authors:

1.    In the introduction, the literature review appears to be sufficiently broad; however, in several passages it tends to be overcrowded with citations without offering an adequate critical synthesis. Some statements merely list studies without highlighting convergences or divergences among their findings. In my opinion, it would be more effective if the authors could reorganize these passages by grouping studies according to their conclusions and explicitly discussing where the evidence is consistent and where it is contradictory.
2.    The manuscript contains some typos that should be corrected before publication. For instance, at line 99, the reference “Lindahl, 203” appears to be incomplete and should likely read “Lindahl, 2023”. Additionally, at line 484, “Sec5ondly” is clearly a typographical error and should be corrected. The authors should carefully proofread the entire manuscript to identify and correct any similar errors.
3.    In the Methods section, the authors state that the students were selected from three different provinces in China (Zhejiang, Sichuan, and Shanxi). However, the sampling method is never described. In my opinion, it is important for the authors to specify this, as this has direct implications for the generalizability of the results and the reproducibility of the study.
4.    In the Results section, Table 1 reports the bivariate correlations among the main variables, but does not include means and standard deviations for any of the scales. In my opinion, it would be important for the authors to add descriptive statistics (M and SD) either directly in Table 1 or in a separate descriptive table. This information is essential for the reader to better understand the characteristics of the sample and to allow comparisons with future studies
5.     In the Results section, Table 2 reports coefficients using the notation b(SE), which typically refers to unstandardized regression coefficients. However, in the text the authors refer to the same values using the symbol β, which conventionally denotes standardized coefficients. In my opinion, the authors should clarify whether the coefficients reported in Table 2 are standardized or unstandardized, and ensure that the notation is consistent throughout the manuscript.
6.    The Discussion section tends to follow the Results in a somewhat mechanical way, without offering a deeper theoretical interpretation of the findings. In particular, the authors do not adequately explain why social support continues to moderate the direct relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior even after controlling for empathy. In my opinion, it would be important for the authors to discuss what psychological mechanism could account for this residual direct effect, and to connect this finding more explicitly to the theoretical framework presented in the introduction.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your exceptionally thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. Your constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us strengthen the theoretical depth, practical relevance, and methodological rigor of our work. We have carefully addressed each point in the revised manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response.

1.Comment 1: In the introduction, the literature review appears to be sufficiently broad; however, in several passages it tends to be overcrowded with citations without offering an adequate critical synthesis. Some statements merely list studies without highlighting convergences or divergences among their findings. In my opinion, it would be more effective if the authors could reorganize these passages by grouping studies according to their conclusions and explicitly discussing where the evidence is consistent and where it is contradictory.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our literature review. Following your advice, we have reorganized several paragraphs to better group studies by their conclusions. We added the sentences as follows (line 128-142): “Xia & Yang (2020) proposed that highly conscientious individuals exhibit a heightened altruistic orientation and are more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors that benefit others. However, other studies have revealed inconsistent findings. For instance, some scholars have pointed out that the influence of conscientiousness on prosocial behavior may not be direct, but rather operates through other psychological mechanisms (Batson, 2011; Eisenberg et al., 2006). A more recent study also found that adolescents with higher social responsibility were more capable of adjusting their behaviors based on moral obligations and values to meet social expectations, thereby engaging in more prosocial behaviors (Li et al., 2024). Aquino and Reed (2002) proposed that moral identity is an important predictor of moral behavior. Although the relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior has been widely established, the literature remains divided regarding "how" and "when" this relationship operates. These inconsistencies suggest that further integration of different theoretical perspectives is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms through which conscientiousness influences prosocial behavior.”

2. Comment 2: The manuscript contains some typos that should be corrected before publication. For instance, at line 99, the reference “Lindahl, 203” appears to be incomplete and should likely read “Lindahl, 2023”. Additionally, at line 484, “Sec5ondly” is clearly a typographical error and should be corrected. The authors should carefully proofread the entire manuscript to identify and correct any similar errors.

Response: Thank you for your careful reading and for pointing out the typographical errors in our manuscript. We apologize for these oversights.

We have corrected the specific errors you identified:

At line 110, the reference has been corrected to “Lindahl, 2023”.

At line 565, “Sec5ondly” has been corrected to “Secondly”.

Furthermore, we have conducted a thorough proofreading of the entire manuscript to identify and correct any similar typographical or formatting errors. We believe the revised manuscript is now free of such issues.

3. Comment 3: In the Methods section, the authors state that the students were selected from three different provinces in China (Zhejiang, Sichuan, and Shanxi). However, the sampling method is never described. In my opinion, it is important for the authors to specify this, as this has direct implications for the generalizability of the results and the reproducibility of the study.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. According to your suggestion, we added the sentences as follows (line 253-258): “Due to practical constraints, a convenience sampling method was employed. Schools in these three provinces, representing different geographical regions and levels of economic development in China, were approached for this study. These schools had existing collaborations with our research team. Within each province, two schools were selected, and three to four classes were chosen from each school and all students in these classes were invited to participate.”

4. Comment 4: In the Results section, Table 1 reports the bivariate correlations among the main variables, but does not include means and standard deviations for any of the scales. In my opinion, it would be important for the authors to add descriptive statistics (M and SD) either directly in Table 1 or in a separate descriptive table. This information is essential for the reader to better understand the characteristics of the sample and to allow comparisons with future studies.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the descriptive statistics. We completely agree that including means and standard deviations is essential for readers to interpret the characteristics of our sample and to facilitate comparisons with future studies. In response to your comment, we have revised Table 1 to include the means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for all main variables. The revised Table 1 can be found on page 8.

5. Comment 5: In the Results section, Table 2 reports coefficients using the notation b(SE), which typically refers to unstandardized regression coefficients. However, in the text the authors refer to the same values using the symbol β, which conventionally denotes standardized coefficients. In my opinion, the authors should clarify whether the coefficients reported in Table 2 are standardized or unstandardized, and ensure that the notation is consistent throughout the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your careful observation regarding the inconsistency in our coefficient notation. We apologize for this oversight. We confirm that the coefficients presented in Table 2 are standardized regression coefficients β. We have now revised Table 2 to clearly indicate that the values are standardized coefficients. Specifically, we have changed the column header from b(SE) to β(SE)." We have also carefully checked the entire manuscript to ensure that all these coefficients in the text consistently use the symbol β.

6. Comment 6: The Discussion section tends to follow the Results in a somewhat mechanical way, without offering a deeper theoretical interpretation of the findings. In particular, the authors do not adequately explain why social support continues to moderate the direct relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior even after controlling for empathy. In my opinion, it would be important for the authors to discuss what psychological mechanism could account for this residual direct effect, and to connect this finding more explicitly to the theoretical framework presented in the introduction.

Response: Thank you for this profound and constructive comment. In response to your insightful suggestion, we have added a new paragraph in the Discussion section to explore the psychological mechanisms that may account for this effect. In line 253-258, we added sentences “According to trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), social support may moderate the direct association between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior by facilitating the situational expression of conscientious traits in interpersonal contexts. Conscientiousness reflects a predisposition to be responsible, organized, and hardworking, but its expression in prosocial acts may depend on situational cues. A supportive social environment provides such cues—for instance, by creating social expectations of reciprocity, offering opportunities to help, or reinforcing prosocial norms. In this context, conscientious individuals are more likely to translate their sense of duty into actual prosocial behavior. Conversely, in low-support environments, even highly conscientious individuals may lack the contextual triggers or resources to act upon their prosocial intentions.”

Thank you again for your time and expertise. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the quality of our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript examining associations between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior among adolescents, with empathy tested as a mediator and perceived social support as a moderator. The topic is timely and relevant, and the proposed moderated-mediation model is conceptually appropriate. However, the manuscript requires revision to improve clarity, methodological transparency, and alignment between interpretive claims and the limits of a cross-sectional, self-report design.

 

Abstract

1) When first introducing participants, the abstract must include the sample size together with the key descriptive statistics (at minimum: N, mean age with standard deviation, and gender distribution in percentages).

 

Introduction

2) The Introduction would benefit from deeper integration of contextual and interpersonal factors, particularly those that arise from the family environment and parental behaviors. When discussing family-related influences on adolescents’ academic burnout and psychological distress, please incorporate recent evidence on parental interference and parenting styles that links certain parental behaviors with elevated school burnout and anxiety, lower engagement and self-efficacy, and increased depressive symptoms. Including this literature will help situate “active collaborative parenting” within a broader spectrum of family-level risk and protective factors. Relevant recent works include:

• Angelini, G., Buonomo, I., & Fiorilli, C. (2026). Parental interference in adolescents' choices and depressive symptoms: the role of self-efficacy, school anxiety, engagement, and burnout in a structural equation model. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 41(1), 19.
• Zhu, Q., Cheong, Y., Wang, C., & Tong, J. (2023). The impact of maternal and paternal parenting styles and parental involvement on Chinese adolescents' academic engagement and burnout. Current Psychology, 42(4), 2827–2840.

 

3) The hypotheses should be placed in a separate, clearly labeled paragraph to enhance visibility and facilitate evaluation of the analysis plan.

 

Method

4) Participant characteristics should be consolidated in the Participants subsection. The final analytic sample size (N), mean age with SD, age range, gender distribution (percentages), recruitment context (provinces and school levels), and explicit exclusion criteria should be presented together in a single, clearly structured paragraph.

 

5) Response rate and missing data. The manuscript reports that 16 questionnaires were excluded, but it does not provide the total number of questionnaires distributed, the number returned, the number excluded, or the resulting response rate. Please report all these numbers and explicitly describe how missing data were handled (e.g., listwise deletion, imputation; provide justification).

 

6) Each instrument’s subsection should give the instrument’s name (not just the variable label), original source, details of the Chinese adaptation/validation (if applicable), number of items and subscales, response anchors (italicize the anchors), sample items (italicize sample items), exact scoring procedure, and reliability indices for the present sample (ideally for each subscale). There is a typographical error in the Conscientiousness measure description: “(Zhang et al., 2022)., in which …” — please correct this and check for similar typos elsewhere. Given that CFA indices are presented for some scales, clarify whether confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for all multi-dimensional instruments and report fit indices consistently across measures; if CFAs were not conducted for certain instruments, acknowledge this as a limitation.

 

7) The Procedure subsection is sparse. Please describe the mode of administration (e.g., online platform, supervised classroom setting), timing and context of data collection (e.g., during school hours), average completion time, whether teachers or school staff were present, and what steps were taken to minimize evaluation pressure. Ethical safeguards should be reported in the Methods (not only at the end of the manuscript): include IRB approval (with reference number), parental consent procedures, adolescent assent, the voluntariness of participation, data protection and anonymity measures, and details about incentives (e.g., small gifts) and how these were judged to be non-coercive.

 

8) The Data Analysis section is currently too brief. Specify how variables were standardized (e.g., z-score transformation, grand-mean centering), whether coefficients reported in text and tables are standardized (β) or unstandardized (b), and whether covariates were entered in the mediator model, the outcome model, or both. Provide a conceptual justification for the choice of covariates (gender, age, grade, school) rather than presenting them as routine controls. Report R² values for the mediator and outcome models in the narrative and clarify the bootstrap procedure (number of resamples) and criteria for interpreting indirect effects (i.e., significance when bootstrap confidence intervals do not include zero).

 

Results

9) Avoid repeating descriptive demographic details that have already been presented in the Participants section.

 

10) Tables must clearly indicate whether coefficients are standardized (β) or unstandardized (b). Revise table notes to ensure clarity and consistency in reporting.

 

Discussion

11) The Discussion requires substantial strengthening. Several interpretations currently imply directionality or explanatory power (e.g., that conscientiousness or social support “enhances” prosocial behavior). Replace causal language with non-causal formulations appropriate for cross-sectional data (e.g., “was associated with,” “consistent with a pattern in which…”).

 

12) More explicitly acknowledge alternative explanations, including common method variance due to exclusive reliance on self-report, the shared measurement context, the possibility of reverse or bidirectional associations, and the cultural specificity of the sample.

 

13) Deepen integration with broader theoretical frameworks (e.g., personality–context interaction models, ecological systems perspectives, social-cognitive developmental models) to enhance the manuscript’s theoretical contribution.

 

Limitations and Conclusions

14) Expand the Limitations section beyond the standard note about the cross-sectional, self-report design. Discuss possible common method bias, limited generalizability due to regional sampling, potential measurement limitations if full validation evidence is lacking, and the interpretative limits of mediation analysis in the absence of temporal ordering.

 

15) The manuscript currently lacks a distinct Conclusions section following the limitations. Add a concise Conclusions paragraph that (a) summarizes the principal findings in non-causal terms, (b) states practical implications cautiously, and (c) recommends concrete next steps (e.g., longitudinal, multi-informant, or intervention studies) to test causal pathways.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your exceptionally thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. Your constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us strengthen the theoretical depth, practical relevance, and methodological rigor of our work. We have carefully addressed each point in the revised manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response.

1.Comment 1: When first introducing participants, the abstract must include the sample size together with the key descriptive statistics (at minimum: N, mean age with standard deviation, and gender distribution in percentages).

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the abstract. In response to your comment, we have revised the abstract as follows (line 16-19): “The study included 1081 middle school students from China, aged 13 to 18 years (M = 15.45, SD = 1.91). The sample consisted of 531 boys (49.12%) and 550 girls (50.88%), all of whom completed surveys on conscientiousness, empathy, social support, and prosocial behavior.”

2. Comment 2: The Introduction would benefit from deeper integration of contextual and interpersonal factors, particularly those that arise from the family environment and parental behaviors. When discussing family-related influences on adolescents’ academic burnout and psychological distress, please incorporate recent evidence on parental interference and parenting styles that links certain parental behaviors with elevated school burnout and anxiety, lower engagement and self-efficacy, and increased depressive symptoms. Including this literature will help situate “active collaborative parenting” within a broader spectrum of family-level risk and protective factors. Relevant recent works include:
Angelini, G., Buonomo, I., & Fiorilli, C. (2026). Parental interference in adolescents' choices and depressive symptoms: the role of self-efficacy, school anxiety, engagement, and burnout in a structural equation model. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 41(1), 19.

Zhu, Q., Cheong, Y., Wang, C., & Tong, J. (2023). The impact of maternal and paternal parenting styles and parental involvement on Chinese adolescents' academic engagement and burnout. Current Psychology, 42(4), 2827–2840.

Response: Thank you for this insightful and constructive suggestion. In response to your comment, we have incorporated the two studies you kindly suggested as follows (line 48-53): Parenting behaviors also play a crucial role in shaping adolescents’ psychological outcomes. Recent evidence highlights that not all forms of parental involvement are beneficial; for example, parental interference has been linked to increased depressive symptoms and burnout (Giacomo et al., 2026). Similarly, parenting styles and parental involvement predicted adolescent-reported academic burnout and engagement (Zhu et al., 2023). Besides, we also added these references:

Angelini, G., Buonomo, I., & Fiorilli, C. (2026). Parental interference in adolescents' choices and depressive symptoms: the role of self-efficacy, school anxiety, engagement, and burnout in a structural equation model. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 41(1), 19.

Zhu, Q., Cheong, Y., Wang, C., & Tong, J. (2023). The impact of maternal and paternal parenting styles and parental involvement on Chinese adolescents' academic engagement and burnout. Current Psychology, 42(4), 2827–2840.

3. Comment 3: The hypotheses should be placed in a separate, clearly labeled paragraph to enhance visibility and facilitate evaluation of the analysis plan.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. According to your suggestion, we have now moved the hypotheses to a dedicated paragraph at the end of the Introduction as follows (line 230-239):

Hypothesis 1: Conscientiousness was positively correlated with prosocial behavior among adolescents.

Hypothesis 2: Empathy mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior among adolescents.

Hypothesis 3: Social support moderates both the direct relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior and the indirect relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior mediated by empathy. Specifically, at higher levels of social support, both the direct relation and indirect relation between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior are stronger than those observed at lower levels of social support.

4. Comment 4: Participant characteristics should be consolidated in the Participants subsection. The final analytic sample size (N), mean age with SD, age range, gender distribution (percentages), recruitment context (provinces and school levels), and explicit exclusion criteria should be presented together in a single, clearly structured paragraph.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have now revised the Participants subsection in line 253-258: Due to practical constraints, a convenience sampling method was employed. Schools in these three provinces, representing different geographical regions and levels of economic development in China, were approached for this study. These schools had existing collaborations with our research team. Within each province, two schools were selected, and three to four classes were chosen from each school and all students in these classes were invited to participate.

5. Comment 5: Response rate and missing data. The manuscript reports that 16 questionnaires were excluded, but it does not provide the total number of questionnaires distributed, the number returned, the number excluded, or the resulting response rate. Please report all these numbers and explicitly describe how missing data were handled (e.g., listwise deletion, imputation; provide justification).

Response: Thank you for your meticulous attention to the reporting of our data collection and missing data procedures. According to your suggestion, we made modifications as follows (line 261-264): A total of 1081 questionnaires were distributed and returned. After screening for invalid responses (e.g., incomplete questionnaires, patterned answering), 16 invalid questionnaires were excluded via listwise deletion. Finally, a total of 1065 valid questionnaires were obtained in this study (valid response rate = 98.5%).

6. Comment 6: Each instrument’s subsection should give the instrument’s name (not just the variable label), original source, details of the Chinese adaptation/validation (if applicable), number of items and subscales, response anchors (italicize the anchors), sample items (italicize sample items), exact scoring procedure, and reliability indices for the present sample (ideally for each subscale). There is a typographical error in the Conscientiousness measure description: “(Zhang et al., 2022)., in which …” — please correct this and check for similar typos elsewhere. Given that CFA indices are presented for some scales, clarify whether confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for all multi-dimensional instruments and report fit indices consistently across measures; if CFAs were not conducted for certain instruments, acknowledge this as a limitation.

Response: Thank you. We have carefully revised the Methods section to address each of your points. We made modifications as follows:

In line 268-270: While the full BFI-2 consists of 60 items measuring five dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness. The present study employed only the 12 items comprising the Conscientiousness domain.

In line 276: Total scores were calculated by summing the 12 item scores.

In line 283-284: The scale consisted of 20 items across two dimensions: cognitive empathy (9 items) and affective empathy (11 items).

In line 288-289: Total scores were calculated by summing the 20 corresponding item scores.

In line 303-304: Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The total score was obtained by summing all 12 items.

In line 312-314: The scale consists of six subscales: Public (4 items), Compliant (5 items), Altruism (4 items), Anonymous (5 items), Dire (3 items), and Emotional (5 items).

In line 318-320: “I prefer to donate money anonymously” (Anonymous), “I tend to help people who are seriously injured or ill” (Dire), “I often help others when they are experiencing significant emotional distress” (Emotional).

In line 322: The total score was obtained by summing all 26 items.

Besides, we corrected the typographical error in the description of the Conscientiousness measure, reported reliability indices for each subscale in the present sample, and provided confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fit indices for each subscale.

7. Comment 7: The Procedure subsection is sparse. Please describe the mode of administration (e.g., online platform, supervised classroom setting), timing and context of data collection (e.g., during school hours), average completion time, whether teachers or school staff were present, and what steps were taken to minimize evaluation pressure. Ethical safeguards should be reported in the Methods (not only at the end of the manuscript): include IRB approval (with reference number), parental consent procedures, adolescent assent, the voluntariness of participation, data protection and anonymity measures, and details about incentives (e.g., small gifts) and how these were judged to be non-coercive.

Response: Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on the Procedure subsection. We have now expanded the Procedure subsection as follows (line 327-343):

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of authors’ University. Permission was also obtained from the participating schools. Prior to data collection, the researchers obtained the informed consents of the participants in advance. Data were collected during regular school hours. On the day of the survey, students were informed that participation was completely voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time without any penalty. To ensure anonymity, no identifying information (e.g., names or student IDs) was collected. With the assistance of schools’ computer teachers, participants completed an online questionnaire in school computer rooms under the supervision of trained research assistants. The computer teachers were present only to provide technical support and were not involved in administering the survey or interacting with students. Before the survey, the researchers explained the purpose of the study, emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers, and assured students of the confidentiality of their responses.

Participants completed online measures of conscientiousness, empathy, social support, and prosocial behavior. The average completion time was approximately 30 minutes. After finishing the questionnaire, each participant received a small gift as a token of appreciation. The gift was distributed after participation regardless of whether the student completed the survey.

8. Comment 8: The Data Analysis section is currently too brief. Specify how variables were standardized (e.g., z-score transformation, grand-mean centering), whether coefficients reported in text and tables are standardized (β) or unstandardized (b), and whether covariates were entered in the mediator model, the outcome model, or both. Provide a conceptual justification for the choice of covariates (gender, age, grade, school) rather than presenting them as routine controls. Report R² values for the mediator and outcome models in the narrative and clarify the bootstrap procedure (number of resamples) and criteria for interpreting indirect effects (i.e., significance when bootstrap confidence intervals do not include zero).

Response: Thank you for your thorough and insightful feedback on the Data Analysis section. We made following modifications to address your points.

In line 357-360: Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among key study variables are presented in Table 1. Prior to analysis, all continuous variables (conscientiousness, empathy, social support, prosocial behavior) were standardized as z-scores to facilitate interpretation of interaction effects in subsequent regression models.

On page 8 and 9: We confirm that the coefficients presented in Table 2 and Table 3 are standardized regression coefficients β. We apologize for this oversight. We have now revised Table 2 and Table 3 from b to β.

In line 372-376: Based on prior research documenting gender differences in prosocial behavior (Eisenberg et al., 2006), grade-related developmental changes in empathy and social support (Malti et al., 2016; Wang & Eccles, 2012), and potential school environment factors on adolescents’ social behavior (Luengo Kanacri et al., 2017), we included gender, age, grade, and school as covariates in both the mediation and moderated mediation analyses.

In line 388-389: The mediation effect accounted for 18% of the total effect.

9. Comment 9: Avoid repeating descriptive demographic details that have already been presented in the Participants section.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We removed redundant demographic information from the Results section. 

10. Comment 10: Tables must clearly indicate whether coefficients are standardized (β) or unstandardized (b). Revise table notes to ensure clarity and consistency in reporting.

Response: We apologize for this oversight. We have now revised Table 2 and Table 3 from b to β.

11. Comment 11: The Discussion requires substantial strengthening. Several interpretations currently imply directionality or explanatory power (e.g., that conscientiousness or social support “enhances” prosocial behavior). Replace causal language with non-causal formulations appropriate for cross-sectional data (e.g., “was associated with,” “consistent with a pattern in which…”).

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have carefully revised the sentences where language could be interpreted as causal or directional.

In line 452-453: Conscientiousness was found to be positively correlated with prosocial behavior.

12. Comment 12: More explicitly acknowledge alternative explanations, including common method variance due to exclusive reliance on self-report, the shared measurement context, the possibility of reverse or bidirectional associations, and the cultural specificity of the sample.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion to more explicitly acknowledge alternative explanations and limitations. We have now revised the Limitations subsection to include the following points:

In line 539-541: First, our study was based on the cross-sectional survey design, due to the lack of temporal precedence, we could not infer the causal inference from the mediation analysis on the relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior.

In line 543-545: Second, the data we collected in our study only used self-reporting method, which could introduce measurement error and potentially bias the structural relationships between constructs.

In line 551-555: Fourth, due to the limitations of our human resources, a limited number of the students participated in our study, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. To strengthen the external validity of the proposed model, future studies should recruit participants from more regions in China and analyze the influence of this demographic information.

13. Comment 13: Deepen integration with broader theoretical frameworks (e.g., personality–context interaction models, ecological systems perspectives, social-cognitive developmental models) to enhance the manuscript’s theoretical contribution.

Response: Thank you for this insightful and generative comment. In response, we have integrated the original content and made modifications as follows (line 551-555): “The moderating role of social support in the empathy-mediated indirect pathway between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior can be understood through the lens of Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which emphasizes how relational contexts shape the activation and expression of individual traits and socioemotional processes. Firstly, receiving social support, particularly emotional support from friends, parents, and teachers, can help adolescents experience feelings of warmth and comfort, develop a strong sense of security, and perceive that they are being cared for (Li et al, 2021). This, in turn, motivates them to offer assistances to others in need, which may conductive to the improvement of conscientiousness. Moreover, greater social support facilitates the development of higher empathy in adolescents, including enhanced perception of others’ emotions and an increased capacity to generate beneficial reactions to others’ situations (Chen & Xu, 2021). Additionally, social support can also provide adolescents with practical guidance, such as encouraging their participation in volunteer services, community activities, and other forms of social engagement. The more the external support they receive, the more positive emotional experiences they are likely to have, and the greater possibility to engage in external activities, thereby promoting the development of prosocial behavior more broadly (Esparza-Reig et al., 2022; Javed at al., 2025). Meanwhile, students with low levels of social support may perceive themselves as socially excluded and demonstrate diminished empathic concern for others.”

14. Comment 14: Expand the Limitations section beyond the standard note about the cross-sectional, self-report design. Discuss possible common method bias, limited generalizability due to regional sampling, potential measurement limitations if full validation evidence is lacking, and the interpretative limits of mediation analysis in the absence of temporal ordering.

Response: We appreciate your suggestions. We have now revised the Limitations subsection to include the following points:

In line 539-541: First, our study was based on the cross-sectional survey design, due to the lack of temporal precedence, we could not infer the causal inference from the mediation analysis on the relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior.

In line 543-545: Second, the data we collected in our study only used self-reporting method, which could introduce measurement error and potentially bias the structural relationships between constructs.

In line 551-555: Fourth, due to the limitations of our human resources, a limited number of the students participated in our study, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. To strengthen the external validity of the proposed model, future studies should recruit participants from more regions in China and analyze the influence of this demographic information.

15. Comment 15: The manuscript currently lacks a distinct Conclusions section following the limitations. Add a concise Conclusions paragraph that (a) summarizes the principal findings in non-causal terms, (b) states practical implications cautiously, and (c) recommends concrete next steps (e.g., longitudinal, multi-informant, or intervention studies) to test causal pathways.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have added Conclusions section at the end of the Discussion (line 577-585): “The present study identifies a significant positive association between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior among adolescents. It further demonstrates that empathy mediates the relationship between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior, while social support moderates both the direct path from conscientiousness to prosocial behavior and the indirect path mediated through empathy. This extends the literature on how individual traits shape prosocial behavior, providing empirically grounded insights for fostering prosocial development in adolescents. Future research should prioritize longitudinal designs or experimental manipulations to generate more robust evidence regarding causal associations between conscientiousness and prosocial behavior.”

 

Thank you again for your time and expertise. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the quality of our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed the authors’ responses to my previous comments, as well as the revised version of the manuscript. I would like to commend the authors for the quality of their revisions and for the thoughtful, thorough, and transparent way in which they have addressed all points raised in the earlier review.  I consider that the manuscript can be taken into consideration by the editor for publication