Family Functioning and Prosocial Behavior in School-Aged Children: A Quantitative Analysis of Relational Dynamics

Abstract

Prosocial behavior—children’s capacity to empathize, share, and cooperate—is essential for healthy emotional and social development. While family context plays a critical role in fostering these behaviors, the influence of overall family functioning remains underexplored. This study examines the association between perceived family functioning and prosocial behavior in school-aged children. A cross-sectional design was employed with a sample of 127 parents of children aged 6 to 12 years. Family functioning was assessed using the General Functioning Subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD), and child prosocial behavior was measured via the parent-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Analyses included Pearson correlations, linear regression, and group comparisons by gender, education, employment status, and subjective socioeconomic status. Higher family functioning (i.e., lower FAD scores) significantly predicted higher prosocial behavior scores (β = −1.48, R² = 0.12, p < 0.001). A significant difference in prosocial behavior was found between socioeconomic groups, with children from high-income families scoring significantly higher than those from middle-income families. However, family functioning accounted for a greater proportion of the variance than socioeconomic status. These findings underscore the role of family relational quality in shaping children’s social development and highlight its importance in early interventions.

1. Introduction

The social and emotional development of children is shaped within the framework of their most immediate environment—the family (LoBue & Ogren, 2022). Within this context, prosocial behavior—defined as voluntary actions intended to benefit others, such as helping, sharing, and empathizing—serves as a key developmental outcome associated with emotional intelligence, peer relationships, and long-term mental well-being (Cao & Chen, 2025; Oberle et al., 2023). Over the last decade, the study of prosocial tendencies has received renewed attention in developmental psychology and family studies, as researchers examine not only its emotional and cognitive underpinnings but also the structural and relational predictors that foster or hinder such behavior (Hay et al., 2021; R. Li et al., 2025; Malti & Speidel, 2024).

Among these predictors, family functioning has emerged as a central variable in contemporary research (Cui & Li, 2023; Cunha et al., 2025; González Moreno & Molero Jurado, 2023; Xie et al., 2025; Yao & Enright, 2023). Family functioning is typically conceptualized as the degree to which a family unit operates with effective communication, role clarity, problem solving, and emotional involvement among its members (Ramaswami et al., 2022). The construct draws from systemic family theory and is often assessed through multidimensional frameworks that capture emotional climate, interaction quality, and adaptability under stress. One widely used model is the McMaster Model of Family Functioning, which underpins the Family Assessment Device (FAD). The FAD–General Functioning Subscale, used in this study, provides a global index of relational health and dysfunction. Prior research has validated this measure across multiple cultures, and it has shown predictive value in child mental health outcomes, including internalizing and externalizing problems (Epstein et al., 1978; Ramaswami et al., 2022; Tsamparli et al., 2018).

Dysfunction in these areas has been linked to elevated behavioral problems in children and diminished social competencies (Pierce et al., 2022; Sanders et al., 2024). In contrast, healthy family functioning is associated with greater emotional regulation, attachment security, and prosocial attitudes (Brandão et al., 2022; Z. Li et al., 2024).

According to Bronfenbrenner’s (1999) Ecological Systems Theory, child development is shaped by nested environmental systems, ranging from immediate contexts like the family (microsystem) to broader cultural, socioeconomic, and historical influences (macrosystem). The family, as a primary microsystem, exerts a direct and sustained influence on children’s emotional and social development through daily interactions, role modeling, and relational climate (Devaney et al., 2023). Family functioning—defined by communication quality, emotional responsiveness, and problem-solving patterns—can either facilitate or hinder the development of prosocial behaviors such as empathy, cooperation, and altruism (Hay et al., 2021). This theoretical lens aligns with Family Systems Theory, which emphasizes that individual behavior develops in the context of reciprocal interactions and emotional patterns within the family system (Jespersen et al., 2021; R. Li et al., 2025; Tang et al., 2023).

Furthermore, while the ecological model is often applied cross-culturally, the nature and function of each system are shaped by cultural norms and expectations. In Greece, family roles and intergenerational bonds are particularly pronounced, meaning that family functioning may carry unique developmental implications. Thus, ecological theory offers a useful framework for situating this study, particularly when combined with cultural–psychological insights that highlight the specific values and relational scripts characteristic of Greek family life (Christoforou et al., 2021; Uskul et al., 2025).

Despite the established theoretical significance of family dynamics, empirical studies directly linking family functioning to prosocial behavior in middle childhood remain relatively sparse, particularly in Southern European and Mediterranean cultures, where family ties often follow culturally specific patterns of closeness and interdependence (Hay et al., 2021; Uskul et al., 2023, 2025; Yao & Enright, 2023). Furthermore, existing studies frequently lack detailed exploration into how dimensions of family functioning influence various facets of social behavior beyond general conduct problems or externalizing symptoms.

Greek families possess unique characteristics shaped by a combination of historical, cultural, and socio-economic factors. Although often grouped within the broader “Mediterranean” framework, Greek families maintain distinct relational structures and values. These include strong intergenerational bonds, frequent co-residence or close proximity between adult children and parents, and a collectivistic ethos emphasizing familial obligation, loyalty, and emotional interdependence (Christoforou et al., 2021; Uskul et al., 2025). Parenting in Greece often emphasizes emotional closeness, protective caregiving, and high parental involvement, with maternal figures typically playing central roles in day-to-day childrearing (Montoro-Gurich & Garcia-Vivar, 2019; Uskul et al., 2025). These cultural patterns shape how Greek children interpret and internalize family dynamics, particularly around emotional responsiveness and social obligations. These features of Greek family life—such as close parent–child proximity, strong affective ties, and high parental involvement—are especially relevant to prosocial development, which depends on emotional modeling, family communication, and the internalization of social norms. In tightly knit familial environments, children may be particularly sensitive to relational dynamics, making family functioning a critical influence on their social behavior.

Several studies have explored family functioning in the Greek context, noting how high emotional closeness and traditional role expectations can serve both protective and stress-inducing functions depending on the quality of interaction (Montoro-Gurich & Garcia-Vivar, 2019; Tsamparli et al., 2018). These findings are particularly relevant for the current study, which seeks to examine family functioning not merely as a general construct but as one influenced by specific cultural norms and relational expectations. By situating our analysis within the Greek context, we aim to address gaps in the literature that often treat Mediterranean or collectivist cultures as homogeneous, thereby overlooking the culturally specific dynamics that may influence children’s prosocial development.

Several international studies suggest that specific components of family functioning—such as emotional warmth, democratic discipline, and open communication—are positively associated with children’s empathy and willingness to cooperate (He, 2024; Tang et al., 2025). However, cultural variability in family roles and parenting styles complicates the generalization of findings across contexts (Lansford, 2022; Maciel et al., 2023). For example, while studies in North American populations often highlight autonomy-supportive parenting, Mediterranean contexts may emphasize intergenerational solidarity and familial obligation, which could produce different developmental trajectories (Christoforou et al., 2021; Distefano & Meuwissen, 2022).

To address this gap, the present study examines the association between family functioning and prosocial behavior among school-aged children. While existing research has emphasized the influence of parenting styles and individual family variables, fewer studies have focused on overall family functioning as a systemic construct. This study contributes to a growing understanding of how the quality of family interactions—such as communication, emotional involvement, and problem solving—may be linked to children’s social development. Although the McMaster Family Assessment Device provides subscale scores capturing distinct domains of family functioning, this study intentionally focuses on the general functioning score as a summary index of overall relational health. Prior research suggests that while subdomains such as affective involvement or communication are individually important, they often operate synergistically and are interdependent in shaping child outcomes (Caño González & Rodríguez-Naranjo, 2024).

Middle childhood (ages 6–12) represents a pivotal stage in the development of prosocial behaviors, as children begin to form more complex peer relationships, internalize moral standards, and gain increased autonomy from caregivers. During this period, the quality of family functioning may shape not only behavior at home but also the child’s capacity for empathy, cooperation, and social responsibility outside the family. This stage is also marked by heightened sensitivity to relational modeling, making it a developmentally appropriate window for examining links between family dynamics and prosocial tendencies (Blair et al., 2015; Malti & Speidel, 2024).

Research Aim and Hypotheses

The present study aims to investigate whether perceived family functioning is associated with prosocial behavior in school-aged children. The core objective is to determine the extent to which the quality of family functioning can predict variations in children’s prosocial tendencies, as reported by their parents. We hypothesized that higher family functioning would be associated with higher levels of children’s prosocial behavior, independent of possible demographic confounds.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Procedure

This study followed a cross-sectional, quantitative survey design aimed at examining the association between family functioning and prosocial behavior in school-aged children. Data collection took place in November 2024 in two primary education settings of a suburb in Athens, Greece. After receiving institutional approvals, questionnaires were distributed to parents. Athens was selected as the data collection site due to its demographic diversity and feasibility of institutional access. Participants were recruited through two public primary schools. School principals distributed study information and consent forms to all parents of enrolled children aged 6–12. Those who consented returned the forms and received the survey packets. Parents completed the surveys individually at home and returned them in sealed envelopes via their children. The data collection was anonymous and took approximately 15–20 min to complete. Surveys were collected during regular school hours and supervised by school staff, but participation occurred in private.

2.2. Participants

The final sample consisted of 127 adult parents or legal guardians, of whom 110 were mothers (86.6%) and 17 were fathers (13.4%), with a mean age of 42.7 years (SD = 6.3). Participants had children between the ages of 6 and 12 years, with a mean child age of 8.3 years (SD = 1.7). If participants had more than one child in the eligible age range, they were instructed to complete the survey based on their oldest child aged 6–12. This instruction was provided in the demographic questionnaire to standardize reporting. All participating children were in primary school and lived with the responding parent full-time. Participants were required to (1) be the biological, adoptive, or legal guardian of at least one child aged 6–12 years; (2) be fluent in Greek, as all materials were administered in Greek; and (3) provide informed consent. Fluency in Greek was required to ensure comprehension of standardized instruments, which were administered in their validated Greek versions. While this may introduce selection bias by excluding non-native speakers or immigrant families, it was necessary to maintain the linguistic integrity and psychometric validity of the measures. Exclusion criteria included (1) incomplete responses (more than 10% missing data) and (2) parents of children with diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorders (as per self-report). Of the 185 survey packets distributed, 138 were returned (74.6% response rate), and 127 met the inclusion criteria after screening for completeness and eligibility.

2.3. Instruments

2.3.1. Demographic Questionnaire

A custom-developed questionnaire gathered sociodemographic data, including parental age, gender, educational attainment, employment status, and subjective socio-economic status.

2.3.2. General Functioning Scale of the Family Assessment Device (FAD—GF)

The FAD—GF (Epstein et al., 1978) consists of 12 self-report items designed to assess overall family functioning. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree), with reverse scoring applied to certain items so that higher overall scores indicate lower family functioning. A mean score of ≥2.00 is conventionally used to identify clinically significant family dysfunction, as supported by the original scale developers (Epstein et al., 1978) and later validations (Caño González & Rodríguez-Naranjo, 2024). The FAD—GF has been adapted for the Greek context, demonstrating acceptable psychometric properties (Tsamparli et al., 2018). The Greek adaptation followed a translation–back translation process and was validated through confirmatory factor analysis and internal consistency checks in community samples of Greek parents. The current study used the Greek-language version developed and tested in Tsamparli et al. (2018). Internal consistency in the current study was good (α = 0.88). Due to copyright restrictions, individual items are not reproduced here; full content can be accessed in the original instrument publication (Epstein et al., 1978).

2.3.3. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)—Parent Version

Children’s behavioral functioning was evaluated through the parent-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997). This 25-item instrument assesses the following five subscales: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and prosocial behavior. Each item is rated on a 3-point scale (0 = not true to 2 = certainly true). The primary outcome variable was the Prosocial Behavior Subscale. The parent-reported SDQ has been previously validated for use in a Greek representative nationwide sample (Giannakopoulos et al., 2013); reliability in this study was acceptable for the prosocial scale (α = 0.76) and good for the total difficulties score (α = 0.81). Due to copyright limitations, we refer readers to (Goodman, 1997) for item-level details.

2.4. Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 29.0. We first computed descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages) and assessed the internal consistency of psychometric scales using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. We then examined bivariate relationships between family functioning, prosocial behavior, and demographic variables using Pearson’s correlations, independent samples t-tests, and one-way ANOVAs, as appropriate. Finally, we fitted simple and multiple linear regression models to assess whether family functioning predicted prosocial behavior, including an adjusted model controlling for perceived socioeconomic status. Given the relatively small sample size and the exploratory nature of this study, we prioritized the general functioning score to reduce the risk of statistical overfitting and to capture the global family climate as perceived by parents. Given the sample size (N = 127), all analyses were conducted with caution regarding generalizability, and the study was treated as exploratory in nature.

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characteristics

The final sample consisted of 127 parents—110 mothers (86.6%) and 17 fathers (13.4%) of children aged between 6 and 12 years. The children’s mean age was 8.3 years (SD = 1.7), and the gender distribution was fairly balanced, with 54.3% boys and 45.7% girls. In terms of educational background, just over half of the participants (50.4%) reported holding a university degree, while an additional 29.1% had pursued postgraduate studies. Most parents (82.7%) were employed at the time of data collection. In terms of subjective financial well-being, the majority of parents (74.0%) rated their family’s financial situation as moderate, while 13.4% perceived it as low and 12.6% as high. Regarding family functioning, 27.6% of participants met the cut-off for dysfunction (mean FAD—GF score ≥ 2.00), suggesting a substantial minority experiencing challenges in family communication, cohesion, or emotional responsiveness. A summary of these demographic characteristics is presented in

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample (N = 127).

Variable	Categories	n (%)
Gender of child	Male	69 (54.3%)
	Female	58 (45.7%)
Parent respondent	Mother	83 (65.4%)
	Father	44 (34.6%)
Education level	Secondary education	26 (20.5%)
	University degree	64 (50.4%)
	Postgraduate studies	37 (29.1%)
Employment status	Employed	105 (82.7%)
	Unemployed	22 (17.3%)
Socioeconomic status	Low	17 (13.4%)
	Middle	94 (74%)
	High	16 (12.6%)
Family dysfunction	Functional family	92 (72.4%)
	Dysfunctional family	35 (27.6%)

.

3.2. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability

Descriptive statistics and internal consistency coefficients for the study’s main psychometric scales are shown in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and reliability for main variables.

Scale/Subscale	Mean	SD	Min	Max	Cronbach’s α
SDQ—Prosocial	8.02	1.76	2	10	0.76
FAD—GF	1.71	0.40	1.00	2.83	0.88

SDQ: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; FAD—GF: Family Assessment Device—General Functioning.

. The children in this sample were generally perceived to exhibit high levels of prosocial behavior, with a mean SDQ—Prosocial score of 8.02 (SD = 1.76), within a possible range of 0 to 10. The highest observed score was 10, and over 50% of children scored 8 or higher, suggesting a population with predominantly strong social skills.

The mean score on the FAD—GF was 1.71 (SD = 0.40), with scores ranging from 1.00 to 2.83. Notably, while the majority of families were within the functional range, over one-quarter of respondents met the clinical threshold for family dysfunction. This variability in functioning created a valuable basis for exploring potential associations with child behavior.

Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s α) were acceptable to excellent across instruments. The prosocial subscale of the SDQ had a reliability coefficient of α = 0.76, while the FAD—GF scale achieved an α = 0.88, indicating strong internal cohesion in the assessment of family functioning.

3.3. Correlations Between Family Functioning and Prosocial Behavior

To examine the relationships between family functioning and behavioral characteristics, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated (see

Table 3. Pearson correlations: family functioning and prosocial behavior (N = 127).

Variable	1. SDQ—Prosocial	2. FAD—GF Score
1. Prosocial	—	−0.34 *
2. FAD—GF Score	−0.34 *	—

* p < 0.001. SDQ: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; FAD—GF: Family Assessment Device—General Functioning.

). As hypothesized, there was a statistically significant negative correlation between FAD—GF scores and children’s prosocial behavior (r = −0.34, p < 0.001). This suggests that children in families with stronger functioning (i.e., lower FAD—GF scores) tend to demonstrate greater prosociality as perceived by their parents. Similarly, when FAD—GF scores were dichotomized into functional and dysfunctional categories, the negative association with prosocial behavior remained significant (r = −0.27, p = 0.002).

3.4. Group Comparisons by Demographic Variables

To test whether prosocial behavior or family functioning differed based on demographic characteristics, independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVAs were performed for child gender, parental education level, and employment status. The results indicated no significant differences in prosocial behavior between boys (M = 8.04, SD = 1.78) and girls (M = 7.88, SD = 1.72), t(125) = 0.34, p = 0.74. Similarly, FAD—GF scores did not differ significantly by gender, t(125) = 0.38, p = 0.70.

Analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant differences in either prosocial scores or FAD—GF scores by parental education level or employment status, with all p-values exceeding 0.39. However, a significant difference emerged in prosocial behavior scores across levels of subjective socioeconomic status, F(2, 124) = 4.50, p = 0.013. Post hoc comparisons indicated that children from families reporting high levels of socioeconomic status exhibited significantly higher prosocial behavior scores than those from middle-income families (p = 0.023). No significant differences were found between low and middle or low and high financial well-being groups. In contrast, socioeconomic status was not significantly associated with family functioning scores (p = 0.445). These findings are summarized in

Table 4. Mean SDQ—Prosocial and FAD—GF Scores by demographic variables.

Variable	Group	SDQ—Prosocial (M ± SD)	FAD—GF (M ± SD)
Gender	Male	8.04 ± 1.78	1.71 ± 0.41
	Female	7.88 ± 1.72	1.67 ± 0.38
Education	Secondary	7.85 ± 1.85	1.74 ± 0.44
	University	8.09 ± 1.67	1.68 ± 0.39
	Postgraduate	8.05 ± 1.74	1.69 ± 0.38
Employment	Employed	8.00 ± 1.70	1.71 ± 0.39
	Unemployed	8.09 ± 1.99	1.70 ± 0.42
Socioeconomic status	Low	8.53 ± 1.42	1.65 ± 0.48
	Middle	7.76 ± 1.80	1.73 ± 0.39
	High *	9.00 ± 1.46 *	1.61 ± 0.42

Note: * significant difference from middle group at p < 0.05 (Tukey HSD). SDQ: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; FAD—GF: Family Assessment Device—General Functioning.

. A comparison of effect sizes indicated that family functioning explained a greater proportion of the variance in prosocial behavior (R² = 0.12) than did subjective socioeconomic status (η² = 0.067), reinforcing its role as a more central and consistent predictor in this sample.

3.5. Regression Analysis: Predicting Prosocial Behavior from Family Functioning

To assess whether family functioning independently predicted prosocial behavior, we conducted a simple linear regression with FAD–GF scores as the independent variable and SDQ–Prosocial scores as the dependent variable (

Table 5. Simple linear regression predicting prosocial behavior.

Predictor	B	SE	β	t	p
Constant	10.55	0.67	—	15.67	<0.001
FAD Score	−1.48	0.37	−0.34	−4.05	<0.001
Model R2	0.12

FAD—GF: Family Assessment Device—General Functioning.

). The model was statistically significant, F(1, 125) = 16.42, p < 0.001, explaining 12% of the variance in prosocial behavior (R² = 0.12). Higher family functioning (i.e., lower FAD–GF scores) was associated with higher prosocial scores (B = −1.48, SE = 0.37, β = −0.34, t = –4.05, p < 0.001).

Given the observed group differences in prosocial behavior by socioeconomic status, we conducted a second multiple linear regression to examine whether family functioning remained a significant predictor after controlling for SES. This adjusted model was also significant, F(3, 123) = 8.12, p < 0.001, accounting for 16.5% of the variance in prosocial behavior (R² = 0.165). Family functioning remained a significant predictor (B = −1.37, SE = 0.36, β = −0.32, t = –3.80, p < 0.001). Additionally, children from high-income families had significantly higher prosocial scores compared to those from middle-income families (B = 1.07, SE = 0.44, β = 0.20, t = 2.43, p = 0.017). There was no statistically significant difference between low- and middle-income groups (B = 0.58, SE = 0.38, β = 0.12, t = 1.53, p = 0.127).

Overall, these findings suggest that while subjective SES contributes to variation in children’s prosocial behavior, the quality of family functioning remains a stronger and more consistent predictor.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to explore the relationship between family functioning and prosocial behavior in school-aged children within the Greek context. Consistent with theoretical expectations and prior international findings, the results demonstrated that children raised in more functionally organized families—characterized by healthier communication, emotional support, and problem solving—exhibited significantly higher levels of prosocial behavior. Specifically, family functioning emerged as a significant predictor of prosociality, explaining 12% of the variance in parent-reported prosocial behaviors. These findings provide empirical support for ecological and systemic models of child development (Devaney et al., 2023; Navarro & Tudge, 2023), which emphasize the formative influence of family dynamics on social and emotional competencies.

The moderate negative correlation between family dysfunction and prosocial behavior aligns with a growing body of literature indicating that relational patterns within the home environment shape the development of empathy, cooperation, and altruistic tendencies in children (Cui & Li, 2023; Cunha et al., 2025; González Moreno & Molero Jurado, 2023; Xie et al., 2025; Yao & Enright, 2023). Recent studies have highlighted specific mechanisms through which family functioning influences social development—such as parental modeling of emotional regulation, the use of democratic discipline, and family climate factors like cohesion and affective involvement (Jespersen et al., 2021; Niven & López-Pérez, 2025; Tang et al., 2023).

Importantly, the findings of this study suggest that while subjective SES contributes to variation in prosocial behavior, the overall quality of family interactions remains a more consistent and substantial predictor. In a multiple regression model that included both family functioning and SES, family functioning continued to significantly predict prosocial outcomes. Children from high-income families exhibited higher prosocial scores than those from middle-income households, but no significant differences were observed between low- and middle-income groups. These results support the idea that, although SES plays a role, the relational dynamics within the family—such as emotional responsiveness, cohesion, and communication—may exert a stronger and more direct influence on children’s social development (Cui & Li, 2023; Cunha et al., 2025; González Moreno & Molero Jurado, 2023; Xie et al., 2025; Yao & Enright, 2023). Future research with larger samples could explore subdomain-specific effects, particularly as they relate to culturally salient dynamics in Greek families, such as emotional closeness and behavioral control.

Interestingly, children from families who rated their socioeconomic status as middle reported the lowest levels of prosocial behavior, even compared to those in the low SES group. This non-linear pattern is both unexpected and theoretically provocative. One possible explanation may lie in the psychosocial pressures experienced by middle-income families, who may face psychosocial pressures that affect family functioning, although this interpretation extends beyond the current data and should be considered speculative. By contrast, some low-income families—particularly those with strong cultural or community ties—may compensate for financial hardship through relational closeness, shared responsibility, or collective coping strategies that support children’s social development. Nonetheless, this finding should be interpreted cautiously and warrants further investigation in larger and more diverse samples.

Interestingly, while most families in the sample were classified as functional, a notable proportion scored above the clinical threshold for dysfunction. This observation mirrors trends seen in other Mediterranean contexts where socio-cultural pressures, economic challenges, and shifting family structures may contribute to strain in familial roles and communication (Montoro-Gurich & Garcia-Vivar, 2019; Uskul et al., 2023). It is plausible that in such settings, children’s prosocial behaviors are even more susceptible to disruptions in parental attunement and family cohesion.

From a practical perspective, the results underscore the value of supporting families through preventive interventions that enhance relational quality and conflict resolution skills. Programs aimed at improving emotional communication within families have shown promising effects in fostering prosocial behavior and reducing child maladjustment (Beelmann et al., 2022; Kjøbli et al., 2022). Clinicians, educators, and policymakers should therefore consider integrating family-focused approaches into child mental health and social development initiatives, particularly in regions where family identity remains a central pillar of cultural and emotional life.

Limitations

While the present study offers valuable insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference; although family functioning and prosocial behavior were significantly associated, we cannot determine directionality. Second, all data were based on parent reports, which may introduce bias due to social desirability or subjective interpretation. Including teacher or child self-reports would enhance measurement validity. Third, although we controlled for subjective SES in the regression analysis, other demographic variables such as parental education and employment were not included due to power limitations, and future studies with larger samples could explore more nuanced effects. Additionally, while validated Greek-language versions of the FAD and SDQ were used, cultural specificity may still shape parental perceptions and reporting. Finally, the use of convenience sampling from two urban schools in Athens limits generalizability. Broader samples from diverse regions and family types would strengthen external validity.

5. Conclusions

This study provides preliminary evidence for the role of family functioning in shaping children’s prosocial behavior, offering valuable insight into the psychosocial mechanisms that underpin healthy development during the school years. By using validated tools and a representative sample, the findings affirm that children from functionally supportive family environments are significantly more likely to exhibit empathy, altruism, and cooperation—traits that are foundational to academic success, emotional regulation, and long-term interpersonal well-being.

These findings tentatively suggest that social capacities may be shaped more by relational family processes than by demographic or socioeconomic indicators, though further research is needed to confirm this pattern.

As such, the present findings carry implications for both research and practice. For scholars, they offer a platform for further inquiry into specific family-level predictors of prosociality, while for practitioners, they signal the importance of including family systems interventions in efforts to promote prosocial development. In a time marked by shifting social structures and rising mental health challenges among youth, the family remains a vital setting in which the seeds of compassion, empathy, and social responsibility are either nurtured—or neglected.