The Journal of Positive Psychology
Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rpos20
Does school kindness lead to greater school
engagement? Cross-sectional and longitudinal
evidence in the Philippine context
Jesus Alfonso D. Datu & Nansook Park
To cite this article: Jesus Alfonso D. Datu & Nansook Park (20 Dec 2023): Does school kindness
lead to greater school engagement? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence in the Philippine
context, The Journal of Positive Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2023.2297200
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2297200
Published online: 20 Dec 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 172
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpos20
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2297200
Does school kindness lead to greater school engagement? Cross-sectional and
longitudinal evidence in the Philippine context
Jesus Alfonso D. Datua and Nansook Parkb
a
Teacher Education and Learning Leadership Academic Unit – Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China;
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
b
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Studies have shown that kind school climates are linked to positive psychological outcomes.
Yet, there is scant evidence on how school kindness relates to subjective and objective
measures of academic success. This research addresses this gap by examining the associations
of school kindness with academic achievement and engagement using cross-sectional
(Study 1) and longitudinal (Study 2) designs among Filipino high school students. Study 1
demonstrated that school kindness positively predicted agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and
emotional engagement after controlling for demographic covariates and dispositional kind­
ness. School kindness marginally predicted subjective academic performance. Study 2 showed
that Time 1 school kindness positively predicted Time 2 behavioral engagement even after
controlling for demographic covariates and auto-regressor effects. Results suggest that foster­
ing kindness in school can be a potential route to facilitate students’ active participation in
academic activities.
Received 8 June 2022
Accepted 12 October 2023
Introduction
Kindness encompasses one’s inclination to engage in
behaviors that contribute to others’ welfare (Park &
Peterson, 2006). It is among the most highly valued
virtues in many societies (McGrath, 2015; Park et al.,
2006). Parents and teachers also want children to
develop kindness (Seligman et al., 2009). Further, an
abundant body of empirical evidence alludes to the
universal benefits of promoting kind acts in different
cultures (Layous et al., 2013). Indeed, psychologists
have recognized the far-reaching advantages of culti­
vating kindness in various contexts.
The growing scientific evidence highlighting the ben­
eficial effects of individual-level or trait kindness has
encouraged school policy makers, teachers, and psychol­
ogists to implement school-based kindness interven­
tions (e.g. Kind campus program; Ben’s Bells Project,
2015 and Mindfulness-based kindness curriculum; Flook
et al., 2015). As the pervasiveness of kindness in the
academic settings serves as an indicator of a positive
school climate (Binfet et al., 2016; Simons-Morton &
Crump, 2003), it is crucial to investigate how schoolbased kindness relates to desirable educational out­
comes. However, limited research has been done to
examine the association of school-based kindness with
various indicators of academic success.
KEYWORDS
Academic achievement;
academic engagement;
school kindness; positive
education
Therefore, this study intends to examine the associa­
tions of school kindness with academic engagement and
achievement in the Philippines via cross-sectional
(Study 1) and longitudinal (Study 2) research designs.
Specifically, we combined self-reported (Study 1) and
objective records (Study 2) of academic achievement to
provide evidence on how school-based kindness relates
to different markers of optimal academic functioning.
Kindness and psychological outcomes
Previous research has linked kindness to a diverse array
of optimal outcomes. Kind people are more likely to be
satisfied with their lives (Buchanan & Bardi, 2010; Datu &
Bernardo, 2020; Martínez-Martí & Ruch, 2014), feel posi­
tive emotions (Dunn et al., 2008; Pressman et al., 2015),
experience better social connections (Bartlett &
DeSteno, 2006), enjoy elevated peer acceptance
(Layous et al., 2012), exhibit optimal physical health
(Nelson-Coffey et al., 2017), demonstrate increased aca­
demic engagement (Datu & Bernardo, 2020), and gain
psychological well-being (Windsor et al., 2008). They are
also less likely to feel depressed (Gillham et al., 2011),
stigmatize people with mental illness (Vertilo & Gibson,
2014), experience negative emotions (Pressman et al.,
2015), demonstrate social avoidance goals (Trew &
CONTACT Jesus Alfonso D. Datu
jaddatu@hku.hk
Teacher Education and Learning Leadership Academic Unit – Faculty of Education, The University of
Hong Kong, Rm. 210, Runme Shaw Bldg, Pokfulam Rd, Hong Kong SAR, China
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2
J. A. D. DATU AND N. PARK
Alden, 2015), and have decreased risk for hypertension
(Burr et al., 2011). Undergraduate students who opted to
reciprocate acts of kindness they received from others
via performing kind acts to those who did not originally
carry out such altruistic activities (a.k.a. ‘pay it forward’),
experience increased levels of positive emotions and
reduced intensity of negative emotions (Pressman
et al., 2015). Even in clinical patients waiting to receive
outpatient psychological services, kind acts result in
increased life satisfaction, optimism, and perceived con­
nectedness (Kerr et al., 2015). Furthermore, achieving
desirable scores in both kindness and honesty is asso­
ciated with higher meaning in life (Allan, 2015).
Despite the number of investigations exploring the
link of dispositional or individual-level kindness to aca­
demic-related outcomes and wellbeing, there needs to
be more evidence on how organizational-level kindness
(e.g. school-based kindness) relates to optimal academic
functioning. As students commonly spend considerable
time in schools, this study focused on assessing how
school kindness might predict positive academic
outcomes.
School kindness, academic functioning, and
well-being outcomes
School kindness pertains to the extent to which proso­
cial or kind actions are observed and incentivized in
school settings (Binfet et al., 2016). Students with greater
perceptions of school kindness typically report how tea­
chers, non-teaching staff (e.g. admissions officer), and
peers help or support one another. Unlike other theore­
tically related constructs such as school safety – encom­
passing perceptions of feeling secured in school
contexts (Devine & Cohen, 2007), school belongingness –
pertaining to perceived sense of connectedness to
school (Goodenow & Grady, 1993), and positive relation­
ships at schools (Hamlin, 2020), which cover broader
aspects of positive school climates, school kindness
taps into a more specific feature – particularly focusing
on observing and propagating good deeds – of thriving
school conditions. School kindness has been related to
greater empathy, happiness, social goals, optimism,
a sense of connectedness in the classroom setting, aca­
demic self-efficacy, peer acceptance, and social skills
among primary and secondary school students in
Canada. However, since this study was conducted with
primarily European Canadian students, findings hold
restricted relevance for students embedded in nonWEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and
democratic; Henrich et al., 2010) societies. Moreover, as
the investigation adopted correlational analyses to
explore the association of school kindness with a wide
range of criterion measures, results could not offer
insights on the directional link between school kindness
and psychological functioning.
Datu and Park (2019) have explored whether school
kindness was related to different dimensions of per­
ceived academic engagement (i.e. agentic, behavioral,
cognitive, and emotional) in selected high school stu­
dents in the Philippines using a cross-sectional research
approach. The authors also assessed the indirect link of
school kindness to engagement via the intermediate
variable – achievement goal orientation (i.e. masteryapproach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach,
and performance-avoidance goals). Results have
demonstrated that school-based kindness is associated
with elevated agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and emo­
tional engagement. Furthermore, approach types of
goals (i.e. mastery-approach and performanceapproach goals) mediated the hypothesized positive
and indirect relationship of school-based kindness to
engagement dimensions.
In addition, Yurdabakan and Baş (2019) have exam­
ined the psychometric properties (i.e. structural and cri­
terion-related validity) of the Turkish version of the
School Kindness Scale among Turkish middle school
students using a cross-sectional design. They have
demonstrated that the scores from the unidimensional
model of school-based kindness were valid and reliable.
Also, evidence has supported the measurement invar­
iance of this hypothesized model of school kindness
across boys and girls. Furthermore, they have shown
that scores on school kindness were associated with
increased life satisfaction, resilience, and positive school
climate.
Recent studies have also shown that perceptions of
kindness in school settings matter for well-being. For
example, Datu et al. (2022) have demonstrated that
school kindness had indirect effects on positive emo­
tions and depression via the intermediate variable –
school belongingness among Filipino high school stu­
dents. Further, evidence reveals the associations of
school kindness with trait-level kindness and school
belongingness among secondary school students in
Hong Kong (Lee & Huang, 2021). These mental health
benefits appear to also apply in higher education set­
tings as prior research has revealed that perceptions of
kindness at university concurrently and longitudinally
predicted life satisfaction among Chinese undergradu­
ate students (Datu & Lin, 2021).
Nevertheless, the school-based kindness literature
needs to address conceptual and methodological issues.
First, existing studies (Binfet et al., 2016; Datu & Park,
2019; Lee & Huang, 2021; Yurdabakan & Baş, 2019)
adopted cross-sectional research designs, which are
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
susceptible to common method bias (Podsakoff, 2003).
Second, although Datu and Park (2019) have shown that
school-based kindness was associated with increased
academic engagement, the study’s small sample size
(n = 116) limits the potential generalizability of the
results to other student populations. Third, past investi­
gations (Datu & Park, 2019; Yurdabakan & Baş, 2019)
relied on self-reported measures of academic outcomes
(e.g. academic self-efficacy, engagement, and achieve­
ment goal orientation) and psychological functioning
(e.g. resilience and school climate) to generate evidence
on the academic-related correlates of school-based kind­
ness. More research is needed to understand how
school-based kindness fosters academic success.
Theoretical framework
Drawing on the positive school climate literature
(Durlak et al., 2011; Shochet et al., 2006; Thapa
et al., 2013), this study argues that school kindness
may be associated with increased academic engage­
ment and achievement. As school kindness resembles
different features of a positive school climate includ­
ing the presence of harmonious relationships (Thapa
et al., 2013), safety (Gaias et al., 2019; Lindstrom
Johnson, 2009), connectedness (Thapa et al., 2013),
and respect (Davis & Warner, 2018), this contextual
factor may likely relate to better learning processes
and outcomes in the academic setting. Studies have
shown how a positive school climate tracks academic
achievement and engagement outcomes (Davis &
Warner, 2018; Durlak et al., 2011; Whitlock, 2006).
Further, the social goals framework (Dowson &
McInerney, 2001) has underscored the importance of
espousing socially oriented goals (e.g. social concern
and affiliation) on students’ motivation and achieve­
ment. Studies have shown that academic goals linked
to helping others (i.e. social concern goals) were linked
to academic performance and other learning outcomes
(King et al., 2012; Suliman & McInerney, 2006; Watkins
et al., 2002; Wentzel, 1999, 2000). Indeed, previous
research findings indicate that engaging in prosocial
goals has academic benefits.
Past studies suggest that school kindness may
enhance academic outcomes as it was associated
with elevated academic self-efficacy (Binfet et al.,
2016), mastery-approach and performance-approach
goals (Datu & Park, 2019), school belongingness
(Datu & Lin, 2021; Lee & Huang, 2021), and academic
engagement (Datu & Park, 2019). However, there is
no evidence yet showing how school-based kindness
relates to subjective and objective indicators of aca­
demic achievement.
3
Importantly, school-based kindness may be linked to
academic achievement via the mediating role of aca­
demic engagement dimensions. This prediction corro­
borates existing literature on how positive contextual
factors such as strength-based parenting (Waters et al.,
2019), satisfaction of psychological needs (Wang et al.,
2019), relationship quality with parents as well as peers
(Hershberger & Jones, 2018), and positive peer relation­
ships (Fredricks et al., 2004) optimize desirable academic
functioning. For example, satisfaction of the basic needs
for relatedness, autonomy, and competence have been
associated with achievement through the mediating
effects of behavioral engagement (Wang et al., 2019).
In addition, Hershberger and Jones (2018) have demon­
strated that better relationship quality with parents and
peers was related to better academic achievement
through the mediating function of academic
engagement.
The present study
The overarching goal of this two-fold research was to
explore the link of school-based kindness with academic
engagement and achievement in high school students
in the Philippines. This study addressed methodological
limitations in previous studies by examining how schoolbased kindness predicted academic outcomes using
cross-sectional (Study 1) and longitudinal (Study 2)
research designs.
Study 1 explored the association of school-based
kindness with perceived academic engagement and
subjective academic achievement using a crosssectional design. To conceptualize academic engage­
ment, we adopted the four-factor model of student
engagement (Reeve & Tseng, 2011), which underscores
the theoretical value of examining how students: (a)
proactively contribute to teachers’ instructional activities
or agentic engagement; (b) energetically participate in
specific academic tasks or behavioral engagement; (c)
spend cognitive and other higher-order thinking com­
petencies when working on specific activities or cogni­
tive engagement; and (d) experience desirable emotional
states in academic activities or emotional engagement.
Reeve and Tseng (2011) have demonstrated that these
dimensions of engagement were associated with
increased satisfaction of the basic psychological needs
for autonomy, relatedness, and competence as well as
academic achievement. Furthermore, as previous inves­
tigations have shown a positive relationship between
dispositional kindness and academic outcomes
(Caprara et al., 2000; Datu & Bernardo, 2020), we con­
trolled for the influence of this variable in Study 1 to
offer a preliminary evidence on the unique contributions
4
J. A. D. DATU AND N. PARK
Figure 1. The hypothesized conceptual model among school-based kindness, engagement, and achievement.
of school-based kindness to achievement and engage­
ment outcomes.
However, the cross-sectional nature of Study 1 May
provide limited insights on how school-based kind­
ness relate to subsequent engagement and achieve­
ment outcomes. To address this methodological
shortcoming, Study 2 assessed the relationship of
school-based kindness to Time 2 academic engage­
ment dimensions, and objective academic perfor­
mance using a longitudinal design. We also
examined whether Time 2 engagement dimensions
mediated the indirect relationship of Time 1 schoolbased kindness to subsequent achievement.
Building on prior studies regarding the academicrelated benefits of school kindness (Binfet et al., 2016;
Datu & Park, 2019; Lee & Huang, 2021; Yurdabakan &
Baş, 2019), and positive school climate framework, we
tested the following hypotheses in the present study
(see Figure 1). We anticipated that school-based kind­
ness would be directly associated with both subjec­
tive (Study 1) and objective (Study 2) academic
achievement (Path 1). It was also expected that
school-based kindness would be concurrently
(Study 1) and longitudinally linked (Study 2) to all
dimensions of academic engagement (i.e. agentic,
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement).
In addition, we hypothesized that all dimensions of
engagement would be concurrently and predictively
associated with subjective (Study 1) and objective
(Study 2) academic achievement. Concerning media­
tion or indirect effects, we expected that schoolbased kindness would be concurrently (Study 1) and
longitudinally (Study 2) linked to increased agentic,
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement,
which would consequently relate to better subjective
(Study 1) and objective (Study 2) academic perfor­
mance. In other words, we predicted that agentic
(Path 2), behavioral (Path 3), cognitive (Path 4), and
emotional (Path 5) engagement would mediate the
hypothesized link of school-based kindness to aca­
demic performance.
Study 1: cross-sectional study on school
kindness, subjective academic performance,
and academic engagement dimensions
The objective of Study 1 was to examine the link of
school-based kindness to subjective academic achieve­
ment and academic engagement dimensions (i.e. agen­
tic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement)
using a cross-sectional design. Unlike the investigation
of Datu and Park (2019), which concentrated on how
school kindness contributed to achievement goal orien­
tation and engagement, this study explored whether
school kindness uniquely predicted subjective academic
achievement and engagement dimensions after control­
ling for dispositional kindness.
Methods
Participants
This study recruited 1,277 Filipino high school students
(Mage = 14.30, SDage = 1.44) from a government-funded
secondary school institution in Marikina City, Philippines.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
It is critical to understand the correlates of academic
engagement and achievement in Filipino public high
school students as past studies suggest that compared
to private school students, they had lower achievement
goals (Bernardo et al., 2014) and academic achievement
(Benito, 2013). The sample comprised 600 boys and 677
girls. There were 287 grade 7, 224 grade 8, 341 grade 9,
and 425 grade 10 students. These data were part of
a larger project that explored psychological antecedents
of academic achievement and engagement in selected
Filipino high school students.
Measures
Academic engagement. We utilized the 22-item
Academic Engagement Scale (Reeve & Tseng, 2011) to
assess the participants’ perceived agentic, behavioral,
cognitive, and emotional engagement. Here are sample
items: ‘During our class, I ask questions’. (agentic
engagement), ‘I pay attention in class’. (behavioral
engagement), ‘Class is fun’. (emotional engagement),
and ‘Before I begin to study, I think about what I want
to get done’. (cognitive engagement). Items were rated
on a 5-point likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree;
5 = Strongly agree). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
showed that the four-factor model of academic engage­
ment underpinned by agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and
emotional engagement dimensions had an acceptable
fit in the present sample: χ2 = 1301.26, df = 203, p < .001,
CFI = .92, GFI = .92, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .045 (.038, .053).
Furthermore, four dimensions of engagement exhibited
significant positive correlations. All the items signifi­
cantly loaded onto their respective engagement dimen­
sions at p < .001. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the
agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engage­
ment dimension subscales were .71, .78, .77, and .72,
respectively.
Dispositional kindness. Items in the kindness subscale
of Values-in-Action Youth (Park & Peterson, 2006) survey
were used to assess the participants’ tendencies to do
good deeds for others. Items were rated on a 5-point
likert scale with 1 suggesting ‘Not like me at all’ and 5
indicating ‘Very much like me’. Sample items include:
‘When my friends are upset, I listen to them and comfort
them’ and ‘When I hear about people who are sick or
poor, I worry about them’.. We only used five items in the
subscale, as adding the remaining items resulted in
a poor reliability estimate (α = .55) of the entire kindness
scale. CFA demonstrated that the unidimensional model
of dispositional kindness yielded a good fit in the current
study: χ2 = 15.69, df = 5, p < .001, CFI = .99, GFI = .99,
IFI = .99, RMSEA = .04 (.02, .07). All the items significantly
loaded onto the latent dispositional kindness construct
5
at p < .001. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the
kindness scale in this study was .67.
School kindness. We used the 5-item School Kindness
Scale (Binfet et al., 2016) to assess participants’ percep­
tions of kindness at school. Sample items in the scale
include: ‘Kindness happens regularly in my classroom’
and ‘At my school, I am encouraged to be kind’. Items
were marked on a 5-point likert scale, with 1 indicating
‘Disagree a lot’ and 5 suggesting ‘Agree a lot’. The result
of CFA showed that the fit indices of the unidimensional
model of school-based kindness were acceptable
(except for RMSEA) in the present sample: χ2 = 84.85,
df = 5, CFI = .94, GFI = .97, IFI = .94, RMSEA = .11 (.09, 13).
All the items significantly loaded onto the latent school
kindness construct at p < .001. In the current study, the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was .74. Past
studies showed that the reliability coefficients of this
scale were .71 in Turkish middle school students
(Yurdabakan & Baş, 2019) and .78 in Filipino high school
students (Datu & Park, 2019).
Subjective academic performance. Participants were
asked to report their perceived academic performance
by indicating, on a scale of 0–100%, how much they
demonstrated achievement in all academic subjects.
Higher scores would indicate better perceptions of aca­
demic performance. Past research showed that selfreported academic performance correlates highly with
objective measures of academic achievement, making it
a methodologically acceptable approach to assess stu­
dents’ achievement outcomes or academic performance
(Chao et al., 2019; Hattie, 2009).
Note that we used the English version of the School
Kindness Scale and Academic Engagement Scale in
Study 1.
Procedures
Before conducting this research, the first author
sought ethical clearance approval from the Human
Research Ethics Committee of [name of the university
undisclosed]. Then, he communicated the request to
conduct this investigation to the principal of the
target participating school. After getting the approval
to implement this research project, a full-time
research assistant and classroom teachers or advisers,
distributed active consent forms. They administered
a survey packet to students in their respective class­
rooms. The study was implemented in full compliance
with relevant ethical standards. On average, it took
around 30 minutes for students to accomplish the
survey packet.
6
J. A. D. DATU AND N. PARK
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlational analyses between school kindness, individual kindness, subjective academic achieve­
ment, and engagement dimensions.
1. School kindness
2. Dispositional kindness
3. Agentic engagement
4. Behavioral engagement
5. Emotional engagement
6. Cognitive engagement
7. Subjective academic performance
ϯ
α
.74
.67
.71
.78
.72
.77
-
M
3.68
3.73
3.23
3.82
3.81
3.62
84.99
SD
.76
.72
.72
.72
.74
.58
10.34
1
.32***
.26***
.37***
.31***
.37***
.07*
2
3
4
5
6
7
.18***
.44***
.39***
.42***
.06*
.26***
.28***
.34***
.04
.55***
.47***
.07**
.50***
.07*
.04
-
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Results
The results of descriptive, reliability, and correlational
analyses are described in Table 1. Specifically, both
school-based kindness and dispositional kindness were
positively correlated with agentic, behavioral, cognitive,
and emotional engagement. Likewise, dispositional
kindness and school-based kindness were positively cor­
related with perceived academic performance.
Behavioral and emotional engagement were positively
correlated with subjective academic performance.
To assess whether school-based kindness uniquely
predicts engagement and subjective academic perfor­
mance above and beyond the effects of demographic
covariates (i.e. age and gender) as well as dispositional
kindness, hierarchical regression analyses with demo­
graphic covariates and dispositional kindness as Step 1
predictors and school kindness as a Step 2 predictor
were conducted. Hypotheses regarding how school
kindness relates to engagement dimensions were fully
supported as school-based kindness positively predicted
agentic, β = .21, t = 7.80, p < .001, behavioral β = .24,
t = 9.30, p < .001, cognitive β = .21, t = 10.47, p < .001,
and emotional engagement, β = .19, t = 7.24, p < .001
even after controlling for demographic control variables,
and dispositional kindness. A combination of demo­
graphic covariates, dispositional kindness, and school
kindness explained 8.20% to 25.50% of the variance in
engagement. Yet, inconsistent with Path 1 of the
hypothesized conceptual model, school kindness did
not directly predict subjective academic achievement,
β = .73, t = 1.83, p < .10. Results of hierarchical regression
analyses are reported in Table 2.
Furthermore, we examined the indirect effects of
school-based kindness on subjective academic perfor­
mance through the intermediate variables – academic
engagement dimensions via conducting bias-corrected
bootstrapping analyses at 95% confidence interval (CI)
with 5,000 bootstrapping resamples via PROCESS Macro
(Hayes, 2017). Given that zeroes occurred between the
lower and upper limits of CI of all the indirect effects
estimates, there is no evidence that engagement dimen­
sions mediate the link of school-based kindness to per­
ceived academic performance. The findings of mediation
analyses are described in Table 3.
Brief discussion for study 1
The objective of Study 1 was to examine how school
kindness may be associated with perceived engagement
and subjective academic achievement in Filipino high
school students. In general, results corroborated our
hypotheses and findings from previous studies.
School-based kindness positively predicted agentic,
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement after
controlling for the influence of age, gender, and disposi­
tional kindness, which supported this study’s predictions
regarding the positive associations between schoolbased kindness and engagement dimensions. These
results suggest that beyond the potential effects of rele­
vant demographic variables (i.e. age and gender) and
dispositional kindness, students’ perceptions of kindness
at school relate to increased levels of perceived partici­
pation in different academic-related tasks.
However, our hypothesis regarding the direct effect
of school kindness on perceived academic performance
was not confirmed, as school kindness did not predict
subjective academic achievement. This result indicates
that perceptions of school kindness may not significantly
relate to perceived academic performance.
Study 2: longitudinal study on school-based
kindness and subsequent objective academic
performance, and academic engagement
dimensions
Study 1 demonstrated how school-based kindness
uniquely predicted all dimensions of academic
engagement after controlling for dispositional kind­
ness and relevant demographic covariates (i.e. age
and gender). However, due to the study’s cross-
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
7
Table 2. Hierarchical regression analyses of demographic covariates, dispositional kindness, and
school kindness as predictors of agentic engagement (Model 1), behavioral engagement (Model 2),
cognitive engagement (Model 3), emotional engagement (Model 4), and subjective academic
achievement (Model 5) in Study 1.
Model
1
2
3
4
5
Variable
Step 1
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
Step 2
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
School kindness
Step 1
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
Step 2
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
School kindness
Step 1
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
Step 2
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
School kindness
Step 1
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
Step 2
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
School kindness
Step 1
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
Step 2
Age
Gender
Dispositional kindness
School kindness
β
t
.01
.08*
.19***
.83
−2.02
6.79
.01
−.08
.17***
.21***
.64
−1.94
4.07
7.80
−.006
−.005
.44***
−.46
−.13
17.49
−.009
−.000
.36***
.24***
−.74
−.005
14.07
9.30
−.01
−.09**
.32***
−1.40
−2.92
15.53
−.02
−.08**
.25***
.21***
−1.74
−2.91
12.03
10.47
−.007
−.03
.44***
−.56
−.84
16.56
−.01
−.03
.38***
.19***
−.76
−.76
13.72
7.24
−.19
−.22
.82
−.96
−.38
2.02
−.20
−.21
.57
.73
−1.02
−.36
1.34
1.83
R2
.036
∆R2
.036***
.082
.046***
.197
.197***
.255
.058***
.160
.160***
.227
.067***
.179
.179***
.211
.033***
.004
.004
.006
.003ϯ
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
sectional nature and the reliance on exclusively selfreported measure of academic achievement, results
may be susceptible to common method bias. Against
these methodological shortcomings, Study 2 explored
the association of school-based kindness with subse­
quent perceived engagement dimensions and objec­
tive achievement outcomes using a longitudinal
design.
Table 3. Results of indirect effects of school-based kindness on
perceived academic achievement via engagement dimensions.
Methods
Subjective Academic achievement
Meditating variable
Agentic engagement
Behavioral engagement
Cognitive engagement
Emotional engagement
Indirect effects
.050
.129
−.118
.104
BCa 95% CI
−.134, .250
−.078, .355
−.358, .098
−.062, .287
Participants
381 Filipino high school students from a governmentfunded institution in Quezon City, Philippines, joined
this investigation. Students in government secondary
schools normally belong to low- and middle-income
families. The average age of participants was 14.32
8
J. A. D. DATU AND N. PARK
(SD = 1.67). The sample comprised 181 boys and 200
girls. There were 54 grade 7, 129 grade 8, 82 grade 9,
78 grade 10, and 38 grade 12 students. This study was
part of a larger project exploring longitudinal predictors
of academic achievement and engagement in Filipino
high school students.
Measures
Academic engagement. As in Study 1, we used the 22item Academic Engagement Scale (Reeve & Tseng, 2011)
to assess the participants’ perceived agentic, behavioral,
cognitive, and emotional engagement. CFA showed that
the four-factor model of Time 1 academic engagement
yielded an acceptable fit: χ2 = 361.85, df = 203, p<.001,
CFI = .92, GFI = .92, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .045 (.04, 05). The
agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engage­
ment had positive inter-factorial correlations. All items
significantly loaded onto their respective dimensions at
p < .001. Similarly, CFA demonstrated that the four-factor
model of Time 2 academic engagement had a good fit in
the present sample: χ2 = 400.91, df = 203, p < .001,
CFI = .92, GFI = .91, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .051 (.04, 06). As
expected, all dimensions of engagement had positive
inter-factorial associations. All items significantly loaded
onto their respective dimensions at p < .001.
a given academic year and promoting or retaining stu­
dents across year levels.
Procedures
The first author secured approval from the Human
Research Ethics Committee of [name of the university
undisclosed] to conduct a project identifying predic­
tors of positive academic outcomes among selected
Filipino high school students. Then, his research assis­
tant communicated the request to perform data col­
lection activities to the school administrator (e.g.
subject area coordinator) of the target participating
school. After getting the approval to conduct this
study, the research assistant distributed active consent
forms and administered Time 1 survey in
February 2018 and Time 2 survey in April 2018. There
was a 2-month interval between Time 1 and Time 2
survey administration. The surveys were administered
in the participants’ classrooms. On average, partici­
pants completed the survey packet in 30 minutes. As
the participants agreed to share their academic
achievement scores, classroom teachers provided
a copy of their overall academic performance scores.
Results
School kindness. In line with Study 1, we used the
5-item School Kindness Scale (Binfet et al., 2016) to
assess the participants’ perception of kindness at school.
The finding of CFA showed that the unidimensional
model of Time 1 school kindness yielded an acceptable
fit (except for RMSEA) in the present sample: χ2 = 25.03,
df = 5, p < .001, CFI = .92, GFI = .97, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .10
(.07, 14). Correlating error terms of item number 4 and
item number 5 significantly improved the model fit:
χ2 = 5.68, df = 4, p < .001, CFI = .99, GFI = .99, IFI = .99,
RMSEA = .03 (.00, 09). All items significantly loaded onto
the latent school kindness construct.
Note that we used the English version of the School
Kindness Scale and Academic Engagement Scale in
Study 2.
Preliminary analyses
One student missed the survey in Time 2, indicating
a 0.26% dropout rate from Time 1 to Time 2. The percen­
tage of missing responses for each item ranged from
0.30% to 2.4%. Little’s missing completely at random
(MCAR) test showed that the data were not missing
completely at random: χ2 = 1497.55, df = 1340, p < .01.
This implies that the pattern of missing responses or
data is not identical for all participants. Consistent with
the recommended approach in addressing data with
a similar pattern of missing responses (Little, 1988;
Schlomer et al., 2010), the expectation-maximization
(EM) imputation technique was used to manage the
missing data in this study. Then, the imputed dataset
was used in the succeeding statistical analyses.
Objective academic achievement. After getting the
consent of participants, classroom advisers shared
a class record indicating each student’s overall academic
achievement in all subject areas such as English, Science,
Mathematics, Filipino, Social Studies, Technology and
Livelihood Education, Entrepreneurship, as well as
Music, Arts, Physical Education, and Health. The overall
achievement score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher
grades indicating better academic performance. These
achievement scores are commonly used as a basis for
determining the final class standing of all students in
Descriptive statistics and correlational analyses
The results of descriptive, reliability, and correlational
analyses performed using SPSS are shown in Table 4.
Time 1 school-based kindness was positively correlated
with all dimensions of academic engagement (i.e. agen­
tic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional) at two separate
time points. Furthermore, Time 1 school kindness was
not significantly correlated to Time 2 academic achieve­
ment. Almost all dimensions of engagement (except for
agentic engagement) across two periods were positively
correlated with Time 2 academic achievement.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
9
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlational analyses between school kindness and academic engagement dimensions in Study 2.
r
1. Time 1 School kindness
2. Time 1 Agentic engagement
3. Time 1 Behavioral engagement
4. Time 1 Cognitive engagement
5. Time 1 Emotional engagement
6. Time 2 Agentic engagement
7. Time 2 Behavioral engagement
8. Time 2 Cognitive engagement
9. Time 2 Emotional engagement
10. Time 2 Academic achievement
ϯ
α
.70
.68
.75
.76
.66
.72
.80
.81
.70
-
M
3.59
3.25
3.88
3.89
3.66
3.32
3.84
3.66
3.84
80.45
SD
.65
.66
.63
.54
.67
.65
.67
.59
.66
3.90
1
.39***
.42***
.47***
.46***
.19***
.30***
.26***
.23***
.09ϯ
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.25***
.47***
.36***
.33***
.20***
.28***
.16**
.05
.63***
.62***
.17**
.47***
.44***
.38***
.40***
.62***
.21***
.39***
.48***
.36***
.32***
.18***
.39***
.41***
.43***
.28***
.29***
.46***
.40***
.03
.59***
.61***
.30***
.64***
.25***
.28***
-
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analyses on how Time 1 school kindness relate to subsequent agentic
engagement (Model 1), behavioral engagement (Model 2), cognitive engagement (Model 3), emotional
engagement (Model 4), and objective academic achievement (Model 5) after controlling for demographic
covariates and auto-regressor effects (except for model 5) in Study 2.
Model
1
2
3
4
5
Variable
Step 1
Age
Gender
Time 1 agentic engagement
Step 2
Age
Gender
Time 1 agentic engagement
Time 1 school kindness
Step 1
Age
Gender
Time 1 behavioral engagement
Step 2
Age
Gender
Time 1 behavioral engagement
Time 1 school kindness
Step 1
Age
Gender
Time 1 cognitive engagement
Step 2
Age
Gender
Time 1 cognitive engagement
Time 1 school kindness
Step 1
Age
Gender
Time 1 emotional engagement
Step 2
Age
Gender
Time 1 emotional engagement
Time 1 school kindness
Step 1
Age
Gender
Step 2
Age
Gender
Time 1 school kindness
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, ϯp < .10.
b
t
−.03
−.05
.32***
−1.30
−.79
6.70
−.03
−.06
.30***
.07
−1.34
−.88
5.66
1.28
.02
.09
.50***
1.14
1.34
9.93
.02
.09
.44***
.12*
1.24
1.36
8.11
2.31
.002
−.01
.51***
.10
−.22
10.29
.002
−.01
.49***
.04
.10
−.25
8.74
.81
.02
.03
.42***
.87
.52
8.95
.02
.03
.41***
.04
.89
.53
7.66
.72
.51***
2.18***
4.39
5.64
.50***
2.14***
.40
4.36
5.55
1.36
R2
.114
∆R2
.114***
.118
.004
.235
.235***
.246
.011*
.226
.226***
.227
.001
.192
.192***
.193
.001
.111
.111***
.115
.004
10
J. A. D. DATU AND N. PARK
Hierarchical regression analyses
To address the hypotheses about the association of
school kindness with subsequent engagement and
achievement outcomes, hierarchical regression analyses
were conducted via SPSS. Using different regression
models (i.e. Model 1, Model 2, Model 3, Model 4, and
Model 5) which tested the unique contributions of
school kindness to academic outcomes, age, gender,
and auto-regressor effects (e.g. Time 1 agentic engage­
ment and Time 1 behavioral engagement) were entered
as predictors in step 1. In contrast, Time 1 school-based
kindness was entered as a predictor in step 2. The results
of hierarchical regression analyses are reported in
Table 5.
In Model 1, where Time 2 agentic engagement served as
the dependent variable, results showed that a combination
of age, gender, and Time 1 agentic engagement explained
11.40% of the variance in the outcome. Adding Time 1
school kindness in step 2 did not significantly contribute
to the increase in the variance explained by demographic
covariates (i.e. age and gender) as well as Time 1 agentic
engagement ∆R2 = 0.004, n.s. Moreover, Time 1 school
kindness did not predict Time 2 agentic engagement
after controlling for demographic covariates and autoregressor effects.
In Model 2, where Time 2 behavioral engagement
operated as the dependent variable, findings showed
that demographic covariates and Time 1 behavioral
engagement accounted for 23.50% of the variance in
Time 2 behavioral engagement. Entering Time 1 school
kindness as a predictor in step 2 contributed to an addi­
tional 1.10% of the variance in Time 2 behavioral
engagement, ∆R2 = 0.004, p < .05. Time 1 school kind­
ness positively predicted Time 2 behavioral engagement
after controlling for demographic covariates and autoregressor effects.
In Model 3, where Time 2 cognitive engagement
served as the outcome variable, the result showed that
combination of age, gender, and Time 1 cognitive
engagement as predictor variables in Step 1 explained
22.60% of the changes in Time 2 cognitive engagement.
Adding Time 1 school kindness in the next step of the
regression model, however, did not provide incremental
variance above and beyond the contributions of demo­
graphic variables and Time 1 cognitive engagement,
∆R2 = 0.001, n.s. Time 1 school kindness did not predict
Time 2 cognitive engagement after controlling for age,
gender, and auto-regressor effects.
In Model 4, demographic covariates, Time 1 emo­
tional engagement, and Time 1 school kindness were
entered as predictors of Time 2 emotional engage­
ment. Step 1, which included age, gender, and Time
1 emotional engagement as predictor variables,
Table 6. Results of indirect effects of school-based kindness on
Time 2 academic achievement via Time 2 academic
engagement.
Time 2 Academic achievement
Indirect effects
BCa 95% CI
.333
.115
.170
.102, .620
.016, .406
.016, .406
Time 2 Behavioral engagement
Time 2 Cognitive engagement
Time 2 Emotional engagement
explained 19.20% of the variance in Time 2 emotional
engagement. Adding Time 1 school kindness as
a predictor variable in step 2 did not significantly
contribute to the increase in the variance explained
by demographic covariates and Time 1 emotional
engagement, ∆R2 = 0.001, n.s. Time 1 school kindness
did not predict subsequent emotional engagement
after controlling for demographic covariates and
auto-regressor effects.
Lastly, Model 5 explored whether Time 1 schoolbased kindness predicted Time 2 objective academic
achievement after controlling for age and gender. In
Step 1, age and gender explained 11.10% of the var­
iance in Time 2 academic achievement. Adding Time 1
school-based kindness as a predictor variable in step 2
did not yield additional increase in the variance
explained by such demographic factors. This hypoth­
esis about the longitudinal relationship of school kind­
ness to achievement was not supported as Time 1
school-based kindness did not predict Time 2 aca­
demic achievement.
Mediation analyses
As Time 1 school kindness was significantly related to
most Time 2 engagement dimensions but not with
Time 2 agentic engagement subsequent achieve­
ment, we tested whether Time 2 behavioral, cogni­
tive, and emotional engagement mediated the
indirect link between Time 1 school-based kindness
and Time 2 achievement using bias-corrected boot­
strapping analyses at 95% confidence interval based
on 5,000 bootstrapped resamples via the INDIRECT
Process (Hayes, 2017). Results showed that Time 2
behavioral and emotional engagement significantly
mediated the indirect association of Time 1 schoolbased kindness with Time 2 achievement. The find­
ings of multiple mediation analyses are reported in
Table 6.
Brief discussion for study 2
Study 2 aimed to assess the association of school-based
kindness with academic engagement dimensions and
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
achievement using a longitudinal design. Results failed
to show a relationship between school-based kindness
and most engagement dimensions and achievement
after controlling for demographic covariates and autoregressor effects.
Inconsistent with most predictions on the longitudi­
nal link of school kindness to engagement dimensions,
this study demonstrated that Time 1 school-based kind­
ness only positively predicted most of Time 2 behavioral
engagement after adding age, gender, and autoregressor effects as covariates. This result indicates that
school-based kindness was associated with increased
active participation in academic-related activities over
time. This result also showed a lack of association
between Time 1 school-based kindness and subsequent
achievement.
Furthermore, results of multiple mediation analyses
showed that Time 1 school-based kindness had indirect
effects on Time 2 academic achievement through the
mediating variables – Time 2 behavioral engagement,
cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement,
which supported Path 3, Path 4, and Path 5 of the
hypothesized conceptual model. These findings indicate
that behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement
might serve as psychological processes accounting for
the indirect relationship of school kindness to
achievement.
General discussion
There is an enormous body of evidence showcasing the
physical, emotional, and psychological benefits of kind­
ness (Curry et al., 2018; Nelson-Coffey et al., 2017; Otake
et al., 2006). However, previous literature mostly paid
attention to the impacts of individual-level kindness
(Gillham et al., 2011) and kindness interventions
(Buchanan & Bardi, 2010; Dunn et al., 2008; Layous
et al., 2012; Trew & Alden, 2015) on a wide range of
outcomes. At the same time, not so much is known
about how school-based kindness relates to academic
functioning. Against this backdrop, this two-fold
research provides insights into the association of schoolbased kindness with critical educational outcomes.
Generally, mixed evidence has been found regarding
school-based kindness’ concurrent and predictive link
to academic functioning.
The most consistent finding across studies points to
the positive association of school-based kindness with
behavioral engagement. These results suggest that
kind school climate may be linked to increased active
involvement in a wide range of academic activities. It
is probable that school kindness may be related to
higher levels of behavioral engagement as this
11
contextual variable has been linked to masteryapproach goals or desire to learn to master the con­
tent of learning materials (Datu & Park, 2019), confi­
dence in performing academic tasks (Binfet et al.,
2016), and resilience (Yurdabakan & Baş, 2019).
Although this research corroborated previous study
on the advantageous role of school kindness on beha­
vioral engagement (Datu & Park, 2019), it is the first
investigation to demonstrate how school kindness
may relate to behavioral engagement using crosssectional and longitudinal designs.
There is also converging evidence on the absence of
significant association between school-based kindness
and academic achievement in both studies. These results
imply that perceptions of school-based kindness may
not necessarily relate to better subjective or objective
academic performance. It is likely that school-based
kindness was not linked to increased achievement as it
may strongly relate to social aspects of students’ positive
academic functioning. Prior studies have shown, for
example, that school-based kindness was associated
with greater perceptions of school belongingness
(Datu et al., 2022; Lee & Huang, 2021). Future research
may consider testing the link of school-based kindness
to the social dimension of students’ engagement in
specific domains of academic performance.
Surprisingly, whereas Study 1 demonstrated that
school-based kindness was associated with better agen­
tic, cognitive, and emotional engagement in Study 1,
results of Study 2 showed that after controlling for age,
gender, and auto-regressor effects, school-based kind­
ness was not significantly linked to such domains of
academic engagement. These findings indicate a lack
of consistency in how school kindness predicts different
dimensions of active involvement in school. The differ­
ent methodological approaches used across studies
account for the inconsistent findings on the relationship
between school-based kindness and engagement.
Furthermore, findings of Study 2 showed that Time 2
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement
mediated the relationship of Time 1 school-based kind­
ness to Time 2 academic achievement. These results
indicate that cultivating kindness in school may operate
as an indirect pathway to academic performance
through its association with increased subsequent beha­
vioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement. Further,
these findings resemble previous literature on how posi­
tive contextual factors facilitate better achievement out­
comes through the mediating roles of engagement
dimensions (Hershberger & Jones, 2018; Wang et al.,
2019). It is likely that school-based kindness may relate
to better engagement and achievement outcomes, as
prior research has demonstrated that students with high
12
J. A. D. DATU AND N. PARK
perceptions of kindness at school tend to show greater
confidence in dealing with academic activities (Binfet
et al., 2016), intrinsic academic motivation (Datu & Park,
2019), and school belongingness (Datu et al., 2022; Lee &
Huang, 2021).
This research has specific conceptual and methodo­
logical shortcomings. First, given that both Study 1 and
Study 2 used correlational designs to examine the link of
school-based kindness to academic outcomes, it is not
possible to draw causal conclusions between kind
school climates and desirable school-related function­
ing. Future researchers can address this by designing
SEL programs that cultivate kindness in secondary
school student populations and examining the effects
of such interventions on academic and non-academic
outcomes. Second, as a self-reported measure of aca­
demic engagement dimensions was used across studies,
it is premature to infer a considerable association
between school kindness and engagement due to its
proneness to common method bias. Thus, it is recom­
mended in future investigations to utilize teacher-rated
or peer-rated engagement measures to provide more
precise estimates of students’ degree of active participa­
tion in academic-related activities. Third, caution should
be practiced when interpreting the findings of this
research due to the relatively low reliability coefficients
of the dispositional kindness in Study 1 as well as Time 1
school-based kindness, Time 1 agentic engagement, and
Time 1 emotional engagement in Study 2. Fourth, this
research focused on exploring the relationship of schoolbased kindness to academic outcomes among second­
ary school students in the Philippine setting, which may
have restricted generalizability to high school students
in other non-Western societies. Future research should
explore how school kindness facilitates meaningful aca­
demic outcomes using culturally diverse samples (e.g.
American, Canadian, Japanese, and Korean, among
others) to offer evidence on the cross-cultural robust­
ness of the school-based kindness construct in various
cultural communities. Fifth, as this investigation did not
assess other key demographic factors such as socioeco­
nomic status and number of siblings, exploring how
these variables might relate or interact with school kind­
ness in predicting key learning outcomes is important.
This research contributes to existing kindness litera­
ture in several ways. Consistent with previous research
on how school-based kindness was related to increased
agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engage­
ment using a cross-sectional design (Datu & Park,
2019), the results of Study 1 revealed that school-based
kindness is positively linked to such domains of engage­
ment. Yet, this study addresses the methodological lim­
itation of Datu and Park’s (2019) investigation by
demonstrating that school-based kindness is only
related to increases in subsequent behavioral engage­
ment using a longitudinal design. Moreover, whereas
extant studies have explored the benefits of school kind­
ness for a few academic outcomes like academic selfefficacy (Binfet et al., 2016), achievement goal orienta­
tion (Datu & Park, 2019), and academic engagement
(Datu & Park, 2019), this research examined the relation­
ship of school-based kindness to academic performance.
Specifically, this investigation (e.g. Study 1) demon­
strated that school-based kindness is marginally linked
to subjective academic performance but not to objective
academic achievement (Study 2). To date, this is the first
research of its kind to assess the role of school-based
kindness in students’ academic achievement outcomes.
As this research demonstrates that school-based kind­
ness concurrently and longitudinally relates to beha­
vioral engagement, school psychologists, teachers,
guidance counselors, and other school-based mental
health professionals are recommended to leverage kind­
ness-based educational activities to boost students’
active participation in a wide range of school activities.
Teachers may also consider integrating simple kindnessenhancing activities (e.g. counting and performing acts
of kindness) in Moral and Values Education lessons to
cultivate prosocial motives among children and
adolescents.
Acknowledgments
We thank Prof. Dennis McInerney for sharing valuable feedback
to improve the earlier version of this manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This research was partly funded by the Internal Research Grant
2017–2018 (RG 90/2017-2018 R) from The Education University
of Hong Kong awarded to the first author.
References
Allan, B. A. (2015). Balance among character strengths and
meaning in life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(5),
1247–1261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9557-9
Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial
behavior: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science,
17(4), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.
01705.x
Benito, N. V. (2013). NCAE Overview. In Presentation during the
National Conference on the Administration of the NCAE.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Department of Education, National Educational Testing and
Research Center.
Ben’s Bells Project. (2015). Kind campus. https://bensbells.org/
kindness-education/kindschools.
Bernardo, A. B., Ganotice, F. A., & King, R. B. (2014). Motivation gap
and achievement gap between public and private high schools
in the Philippines. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4),
657–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0213-2
Binfet, J. T., Gadermann, A. M., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2016).
Measuring kindness at school: Psychometric properties of
a school kindness scale for children and adolescents.
Psychology in the Schools, 53(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pits.21889
Buchanan, K. E., & Bardi, A. (2010). Acts of kindness and acts of
novelty affect life satisfaction. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 150(3), 235–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224540903365554
Burr, J. A., Tavares, J., & Mutchler, J. E. (2011). Volunteering and
hypertension risk in later life. Journal of Aging and Health, 23(1),
24–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264310388272
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., &
Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s
academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11(4),
302–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00260
Chao, C. N. G., McInerney, D. M., & Bai, B. (2019). Self-efficacy
and self-concept as predictors of language learning achieve­
ments in an Asian bilingual context. The Asia- Pacific
Education Researcher, 28(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40299-018-0420-3
Curry, O. S., Rowland, L. A., Van Lissa, C. J., Zlotowitz, S.,
McAlaney, J., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Happy to help? A
systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of per­
forming acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 320–329.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.014
Datu, J. A. D., & Bernardo, A. B. I. (2020). The blessings of
social-oriented virtues: Interpersonal character strengths
are linked to increased life satisfaction and academic success
among Filipino high school students. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 11(7), 983–990. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1948550620906294
Datu, J. A. D., & Lin, X. (2021). The mental health benefits of kind
university climate: Perception of kindness at university
relates to longitudinal increases in well-being. Applied
Research in Quality of Life, 17(3), 1663–1680. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11482-021-09981-z
Datu, J. A. D., Mateo, N. J., & Natale, S. (2022). The mental health
benefits of kindness-oriented schools: School kindness is asso­
ciated with increased belongingness and well-being in Filipino
high school students. Child Psychiatry & Human Development,
54(4), 1075–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01299-z
Datu, J. A. D., & Park, N. (2019). Perceived school kindness and
academic engagement: The mediational roles of achievement
goal orientations. School Psychology International, 40(5),
456–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034319854474
Davis, J. R., & Warner, N. (2018). Schools matter: The positive
relationship between New York City high schools’ student
academic progress and school climate. Urban Education, 53
(8), 959–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915613544
13
Devine, J., & Cohen, J. (2007). Making your school safe: Strategies
to protect children and promote learning. Teachers College
Press.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2001). Psychological parameters
of students’ social and work avoidance goals: A qualitative
investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 35–42.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.35
Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on
others promotes happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687–1688.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150952
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., &
Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’
social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of schoolbased universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1),
405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015).
Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in pre­
school children through a mindfulness-based kindness
curriculum. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 44–51. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0038256
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School
engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.
Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Gaias, L. M., Lindstrom Johnson, S., White, R. B. M., Pettigrew, J.,
& Dumka, L. (2019). Positive school climate as a moderator of
violence exposure for Colombian adolescents. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 63(1–2), 17–31. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12300
Gillham, J., Adams-Deutsch, Z., Werner, J., Reivich, K., CoulterHeindl, V., Linkins, M., Winder, B., Peterson, C., Park, N.,
Abenavoli, R., Conterom, A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011).
Character strengths predict subjective well-being during
adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(1), 31–44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.536773
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school
belonging and friends’ values to academic motivation
among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental
Education, 62(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.
1993.9943831
Hamlin, D. (2020). Can a positive school climate improve stu­
dent attendance? Evidence from New York City. American
Educational Research Journal, 58(2), 315–342. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0002831220924037
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800
meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach
(2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people
are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29. https://doi.org/10.
1038/466029a
Hershberger, M. A., & Jones, M. H. (2018). The influence of social
relationships and school engagement on academic achieve­
ment in maltreated adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 67(1),
98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.06.003
Kerr, S. L., O’Donovan, A., & Pepping, C. A. (2015). Can gratitude
and kindness interventions enhance well-being in a clinical
sample? Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1), 17–36. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9492-1
14
J. A. D. DATU AND N. PARK
King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2012). Studying for
the sake of others: The role of social goals on academic
engagement. Educational Psychology, 32(6), 749–776. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.730479
Layous, K., Lee, H., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Culture
matters when designing a successful happiness-increasing
activity: A comparison of the United States and South Korea.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(8), 1294–1303.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113487591
Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A.,
Lyubomirsky, S., & Krueger, F. (2012). Kindness counts:
Prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer
acceptance and well-being. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51380. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051380
Lee, C. J., & Huang, J. (2021). The relations between students’
sense of school belonging, perceptions of school kindness
and character strength of kindness. Journal of School
Psychology, 84, 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.
12.001
Lindstrom Johnson, S. R. (2009). Improving the school environ­
ment to reduce school violence: A Review of the literature.
Journal of School Health, 79, 451–465. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00435.x 10
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for
multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
Martínez-Martí, M. L., & Ruch, W. (2014). Character strengths
and wellbeing across the life span: Data from
a representative sample of German-speaking adults living
in Switzerland. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2014.01253
McGrath, R. E. (2015). Character strengths in 75 nations: An
update. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 41–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.888580
Nelson-Coffey, S. K., Fritz, M. M., Lyubomirsky, S., & Cole, S. W.
(2017). Kindness in the blood: A randomized controlled trial
of the gene regulatory impact of prosocial behavior.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 81, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.psyneuen.2017.03.025
Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., &
Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy people become happier
through kindness: A counting kindnesses intervention.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10902-005-3650-z
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competence and character
strengths among adolescents: The development and valida­
tion of the values in action inventory of strengths for youth.
Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 891–909. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.011
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character
strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 118–129. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17439760600619567
Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 885, 1010–1037.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Pressman, S. D., Kraft, T. L., & Cross, M. P. (2015). It’s good to do
good and receive good: The impact of a ‘pay it forward’ style
kindness intervention on giver and receiver well-being. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(4), 293–302. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17439760.2014.965269
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of
students’ engagement during learning activities.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for
missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0018082
Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M.
(2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom
interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934563
Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006).
School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in
adolescent mental health: Results of a community predic­
tion study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 35(2), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15374424jccp3502_1
Simons-Morton, B. G., & Crump, A. D. (2003). Association of par­
ental involvement and social competence with school adjust­
ment and engagement among sixth graders. Journal of School
Health, 73(3), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.
2003.tb03586.x
Suliman, R., & McInerney, D. M. (2006). Motivational goals and
school achievement: Lebanese-background students in
south-western Sydney. Australian Journal of Education, 50
(3), 242–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410605000303
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins D’Alessandro, A.
(2013). A review of school climate research. Review of
Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0034654313483907
Trew, J. L., & Alden, L. E. (2015). Kindness reduces avoidance
goals in socially anxious individuals. Motivation and Emotion,
39(6), 892–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9499-5
Vertilo, V., & Gibson, J. M. (2014). Influence of character strengths
on mental health stigma. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(3),
266–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.891245
Wang, Y., Tian, L., & Huebner, E. S. (2019). Basic psychological
needs satisfaction at school, behavioral school engagement,
and academic achievement: Longitudinal reciprocal rela­
tions among elementary school students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 56, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.003
Waters, L. E., Loton, D., & Jach, H. K. (2019). Does
strength‑based parenting predict academic achievement?
The mediating effects of perseverance and engagement.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(4), 1121–1140. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10902-018-9983-1
Watkins, D. A., McInerney, D. M., & Lee, C. (2002). Assessing the
school motivation of Hong Kong students. Psychologia, 45
(3), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2002.144
Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and inter­
personal relationships: Implications for understanding moti­
vation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1),
76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.76
Wentzel, K. R. (2000). What is it that I’m trying to achieve?
Classroom goals from a content perspective.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 105–115.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1021
Whitlock, J. L. (2006). Youth perceptions of life in school:
Contextual correlates of school connectedness in
adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 10(1), 13–29.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads1001_2
Windsor, T. D., Anstey, K. J., & Rodgers, B. (2008). Volunteering
and psychological well-being among young-old adults: How
15
much is too much? The Gerontologist, 48(1), 59–70. https://doi.
org/10.1093/geront/48.1.59
Yurdabakan, İ., & Baş, A. U. (2019). Factor structure, mea­
surement invariance, criterion validity, and reliability
of the school kindness scale: Turkish middle
school
sample.
Journal
of
Psychoeducational
Assessment, 37(8), 1002–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734282918803500