S dimensions of prosociality extra so when making same-sex nominations than

S dimensions of prosociality extra so when producing same-sex nominations than when making opposite-sex nominations. Additional, as shown inside the bottom left of Figure 1, the correlations between same-sex and opposite-sex nominations for any provided prosociality variable (e.g., girls nominating girls on helpfulness correlated with boys rating girls on helpfulness) were pretty compact or negligible, suggesting that boys and girls nominated distinct peers whom they judged as helpful and kind. Taken together, the results depicted in Figure 1 suggest that the two measures of prosociality, kindness and helpfulness, tapped into distinct elements of prosocial behaviors.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgMarch 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleTABLE 1 | Bias-corrected-and-accelerated bootstrapped estimates and 95 self-confidence intervals of inter-correlations amongst all variables for boys. BB sort GB valuable GB sort BB CP 868596 liking GB liking Cog. empathy Aff. empathy Self-esteemSahdra et al.BB helpfulBB kind 0.14 (0.08?.20) 0.14 (0.08?.20) 0.64 (0.59?.68) 0.12 (0.06?.18) 0.14 (0.09?.20) 0.12 (0.06?.19) 0.ten (0.04?.16) 0.12 (0.06?.18) 0.09 (0.04?.15) 0.11 (0.05?.17) 0.07 (0.01?.13) 0.06 (-0.01?.12) 0.29 (0.21?.36) 0.02 (-0.04?.08) 0.12 (0.07?.18) 0.05 (-0.01?.ten) 0.04 (-0.02?.09) 0.004 (-0.07?.08) 0.11 (0.05?.16) 0.09 (0.03?.15) 0.08 (0.02?.15) 0.09 (0.03?.15) 0.43 (0.38?.49)-0.14 (-0.20 to -0.06) -0.01 (-0.08?.07)0.70 (0.66?.75) 0.85 (0.81?.89) 0.08 (0.02?.14) 0.82 (0.78?.86) 0.16 (0.ten?.21) 0.15 (0.09?.21) 0.13 (0.07?.19) 0.14 (0.08?.20) 0.87 (0.84?.90) 0.08 (0.02?.15) 0.07 (0.01?.14)GB helpful0.14 (0.08?.20)GB kind0.10 (0.04?.15)BB liking0.54 (0.49?.59)GB liking0.09 (0.03?.15)Cog. empathy0.14 (0.09?.19)Aff. empathy0.11 (0.05?.17)Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 0.37 (0.30?.43) BG sort GG beneficial GG sort BG liking GG liking Cog. empathy Aff. empathy 606143-89-9 supplier Self-esteem0.07 (0.01?.14) 0.07 (0.00?.14) 0.88 (0.85?.90) 0.48 (0.42?.54) 0.09 (0.03?.15) 0.10 (0.04?.16) 0.14 (0.08?.20) 0.17 (0.11?.23) 0.11 (0.05?.17) 0.13 (0.07?.19) 0.16 (0.11?.23) 0.08 (0.02?.15) 0.61 (0.56?.66) 0.03 (-0.03?.ten) 0.02 (-0.04?.09) -0.02 (-0.08?.05) 0.03 (-0.03?.08) 0.03 (-0.04?.ten) -0.03 (-0.09?.04) 0.01 (-0.06?.07) 0.04 (-0.03?.ten) 0.09 (0.02?.15) 0.06 (-0.01?.12) 0.07 (0.00?.13) 0.47 (0.42?.52) -0.02 (-0.08?.05) 0.20 (0.13?.27) -0.13 (-0.20 to -0.06) 0.02 (-0.05?.ten) 0.50 (0.44?.54) 0.63 (0.57?.68) 0.05 (-0.01?.10) 0.03 (-0.04?.09) -0.01 (-0.07?.05) 0.03 (-0.04?.09)Self-esteem0.11 (0.06?.17)Nonattachment0.14 (0.08?.19)Type: counts of peer nominations for becoming “often type and friendly toward other individuals;” helpful: counts of peer nominations for being “ready to lend a helping hand after they see someone in need of that;” liking: counts of peer nominations for becoming “liked essentially the most.” BB: boys nominating boys; GB: girls nominating boys; Cog. empathy: cognitive empathy; Aff. empathy: affective empathy.5 Prosocial peersTABLE 2 | Bias-corrected-and-accelerated bootstrapped estimates and 95 self-assurance intervals of inter-correlations between all variables for girls.BG helpfulBG kind0.82 (0.78?.85)GG helpful0.12 (0.06?.20)GG kind0.08 (0.01?.15)BG liking0.81 (0.78?.85)GG liking0.02 (-0.04?.09) -0.003 (-0.07?.06)Cog. empathy0.05 (-0.01?.11)Aff. empathy0.05 (-0.02?.11)Self-esteem-0.004 (-0.06?.05)Nonattachment0.03 (-0.03?.09)March 2015 | Volume six | ArticleKind: counts of peer nominations for becoming “often kind and friendly toward other people;” beneficial: counts of peer nominations for being “ready to lend a.S dimensions of prosociality much more so when generating same-sex nominations than when producing opposite-sex nominations. Additional, as shown inside the bottom left of Figure 1, the correlations amongst same-sex and opposite-sex nominations for any provided prosociality variable (e.g., girls nominating girls on helpfulness correlated with boys rating girls on helpfulness) were really modest or negligible, suggesting that boys and girls nominated different peers whom they judged as useful and type. Taken collectively, the outcomes depicted in Figure 1 recommend that the two measures of prosociality, kindness and helpfulness, tapped into distinct elements of prosocial behaviors.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgMarch 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleTABLE 1 | Bias-corrected-and-accelerated bootstrapped estimates and 95 self-confidence intervals of inter-correlations in between all variables for boys. BB sort GB beneficial GB type BB liking GB liking Cog. empathy Aff. empathy Self-esteemSahdra et al.BB helpfulBB kind 0.14 (0.08?.20) 0.14 (0.08?.20) 0.64 (0.59?.68) 0.12 (0.06?.18) 0.14 (0.09?.20) 0.12 (0.06?.19) 0.ten (0.04?.16) 0.12 (0.06?.18) 0.09 (0.04?.15) 0.11 (0.05?.17) 0.07 (0.01?.13) 0.06 (-0.01?.12) 0.29 (0.21?.36) 0.02 (-0.04?.08) 0.12 (0.07?.18) 0.05 (-0.01?.ten) 0.04 (-0.02?.09) 0.004 (-0.07?.08) 0.11 (0.05?.16) 0.09 (0.03?.15) 0.08 (0.02?.15) 0.09 (0.03?.15) 0.43 (0.38?.49)-0.14 (-0.20 to -0.06) -0.01 (-0.08?.07)0.70 (0.66?.75) 0.85 (0.81?.89) 0.08 (0.02?.14) 0.82 (0.78?.86) 0.16 (0.ten?.21) 0.15 (0.09?.21) 0.13 (0.07?.19) 0.14 (0.08?.20) 0.87 (0.84?.90) 0.08 (0.02?.15) 0.07 (0.01?.14)GB helpful0.14 (0.08?.20)GB kind0.ten (0.04?.15)BB liking0.54 (0.49?.59)GB liking0.09 (0.03?.15)Cog. empathy0.14 (0.09?.19)Aff. empathy0.11 (0.05?.17)Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 0.37 (0.30?.43) BG type GG valuable GG kind BG liking GG liking Cog. empathy Aff. empathy Self-esteem0.07 (0.01?.14) 0.07 (0.00?.14) 0.88 (0.85?.90) 0.48 (0.42?.54) 0.09 (0.03?.15) 0.10 (0.04?.16) 0.14 (0.08?.20) 0.17 (0.11?.23) 0.11 (0.05?.17) 0.13 (0.07?.19) 0.16 (0.11?.23) 0.08 (0.02?.15) 0.61 (0.56?.66) 0.03 (-0.03?.ten) 0.02 (-0.04?.09) -0.02 (-0.08?.05) 0.03 (-0.03?.08) 0.03 (-0.04?.ten) -0.03 (-0.09?.04) 0.01 (-0.06?.07) 0.04 (-0.03?.10) 0.09 (0.02?.15) 0.06 (-0.01?.12) 0.07 (0.00?.13) 0.47 (0.42?.52) -0.02 (-0.08?.05) 0.20 (0.13?.27) -0.13 (-0.20 to -0.06) 0.02 (-0.05?.ten) 0.50 (0.44?.54) 0.63 (0.57?.68) 0.05 (-0.01?.10) 0.03 (-0.04?.09) -0.01 (-0.07?.05) 0.03 (-0.04?.09)Self-esteem0.11 (0.06?.17)Nonattachment0.14 (0.08?.19)Sort: counts of peer nominations for being “often type and friendly toward others;” beneficial: counts of peer nominations for getting “ready to lend a assisting hand when they see a person in need of that;” liking: counts of peer nominations for getting “liked the most.” BB: boys nominating boys; GB: girls nominating boys; Cog. empathy: cognitive empathy; Aff. empathy: affective empathy.5 Prosocial peersTABLE 2 | Bias-corrected-and-accelerated bootstrapped estimates and 95 confidence intervals of inter-correlations amongst all variables for girls.BG helpfulBG kind0.82 (0.78?.85)GG helpful0.12 (0.06?.20)GG kind0.08 (0.01?.15)BG liking0.81 (0.78?.85)GG liking0.02 (-0.04?.09) -0.003 (-0.07?.06)Cog. empathy0.05 (-0.01?.11)Aff. empathy0.05 (-0.02?.11)Self-esteem-0.004 (-0.06?.05)Nonattachment0.03 (-0.03?.09)March 2015 | Volume six | ArticleKind: counts of peer nominations for being “often kind and friendly toward other people;” beneficial: counts of peer nominations for becoming “ready to lend a.