The Role of Cultural Diversity in Adolescents' Theory of Mind (ToM) and Prosociality: A Review of the Literature

The Role of Cultural Diversity in Adolescents' Theory of Mind (ToM) and Prosociality: A Review of the Literature | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Role of Cultural Diversity in Adolescents' Theory of Mind (ToM) and Prosociality: A Review of the Literature Huma Khalid, Zahra Karimi Valoojerdy, Victoria Talwar, Sandra Bosacki This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7357691/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Adolescence is a significant development period characterized by advances in cognitive abilities and evolving social relationships. A central skill that emerges is theory of mind, the ability to understand others’ thoughts, feelings and intentions, which underpins prosocial behaviors, such as empathy, cooperation, and helping. As cultural diversity becomes increasingly prominent in educational settings, adolescents' daily interactions in schools offer critical opportunities to practice mindreading and mentalization skills and to foster inclusive, prosocial behavior. This literature review systematically synthesizes findings from 19 empirical studies across diverse regions to examine how cultural exposure, values, and socialization practices influence adolescents’ ability to understand others’ mental states and engage in prosocial actions. Findings indicate that multicultural exposure, such as attending ethnically diverse schools or forming cross-ethnic friendships, is consistently associated with stronger perspective-taking and empathy. Cross-cultural comparisons further show that cultural values channel the meaning and outcomes of prosociality, with collectivist contexts emphasizing duty-based helping and individualist contexts framing it as personal choice or leadership. Moderating factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, and spirituality also emerged as influential. While most studies were school-based and cross-sectional, limiting causal conclusions and generalizability beyond studied regions, the synthesis highlights consistent benefits of inclusive and diverse environments. Practical and policy implications include fostering culturally responsive practices in schools and families, alongside interventions that reinforce positive identity and intergroup contact. Integrating cultural perspectives is therefore essential for a comprehensive understanding of adolescent social-cognitive development and prosocial behavior. Theory of Mind (ToM) Prosocial Behavior Cultural Diversity Adolescent Development Social Cognition Figures Figure 1 Introduction Adolescence is a critical period for the development of social cognitive skills and prosocial behaviors (Akagündüz Eğri̇Kilinç, 2023 ). Two key competencies that emerge during this time are theory of mind (ToM), the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others (Peterson et al., 2005 ; Maynard et al., 2025 ) as well as forming and managing social relationships with peers who play a significant role during adolescence (Brown & Larson, 2009 ). ToM involves multiple components, including social reasoning, understanding ambiguity, and recognizing social norm violations, all of which are influenced by various cognitive factors such as inhibitory control and language development, as well as the broader social context (Devine & Hughes, 2013 ; Osterhaus et al., 2016 ). Additionally, it helps adolescents navigate social interactions, and allows them to infer others’ beliefs, intentions, and emotions which underpins empathy and effective communication (Peterson et al., 2005 ). Research also shows that social experiences play a crucial role in the development of ToM or mentalization skills such as emotion recognition and perspective-taking. Devine and Hughes ( 2013 ) highlight that adolescents’ differences in ToM are shaped by a complex interplay of social and cognitive factors. ToM serves an important role in social competence along with other factors such as language proficiency (Milligan et al., 2007 ), family environment (Kennedy-Turner et al. 2025 ), peer interaction (Wang et al. 2023 ) that all together influence social behavior. For example, research found that children with similar ToM scores may behave differently depending on their social environments (Hughes & Leekam, 2004 ). Active discussions with family or frequent peer interactions provide essential practice in perspective-taking and forming friendships across ethnic groups exposes children to diverse perspectives and communicative styles that sharpen their mind reading skills (Devine et al., 2024 ). Therefore, children who grow up in socially stimulating, language-rich and diverse settings tend to show higher ToM skill than those in more restricted environments (Devine & Hughes, 2013 ; Hughes & Leekam, 2004 ). Beyond family and peer contexts, school environments and institutional diversity practices also play a role in shaping adolescents’ ToM. Studies increasingly highlight that supportive, inclusive classrooms and culturally diverse learning contexts can further enhance perspective-taking and mentalization skills (Bosacki et al., 2015 ; Devine et al., 2024 ). Furthermore, recent developmental research highlights how kindness serves as a foundation for realizing our humane potential and fostering peaceful, connected societies (Malti, 2025 ). Prosocial behavior is influenced by empathy and moral reasoning and contributes to social adjustment among peers (Carlo & Padilla-Walker, 2020 ). Higher ToM has been linked to greater empathy and more frequent prosocial acts (Caputi et al., 2012 ). For instance, adolescents with greater ToM and empathy are more likely to help peers with academic tasks, comfort friends, and participate in community services (Imuta et al., 2016 ). Notably, a recent meta-analysis of 53 studies confirmed a consistent and strong positive association between ToM, empathy, and prosocial behavior from early childhood through adolescence. Importantly, this relationship was evident across diverse developmental stages and cultural contexts, underscoring the universal role of social-cognitive understanding in fostering prosocial behavior (Qiu et al., 2024 ). In addition, research on peer exclusion judgments in culturally diverse contexts has shown that adolescents’ evaluations of exclusion often integrate moral reasoning with group identity considerations, reflecting how cultural norms shape both social cognition and prosocial responses (Ha et al., 2020 ). While most research focused on ToM and prosocial behaviour in Western contexts (Imuta et al., 2016 ) far less is known about how social-cognitive skills and related behaviors develop across diverse cultures. Notably, many widely used measures of ToM and prosociality were developed and validated in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) populations which prioritize individualism, autonomy (Brown et al., 2025 ; Corbera et al., 2025 ). Applying these tools in non-Western contexts, often without cultural adaptation, raises concerns about their cross-cultural validity (Corbera et al., 2025 ). Current Study Cultural diversity plays a significant role in shaping adolescents’ ToM and prosocial behaviors (Callaghan & Corbit, 2018; Main & Kho, 2020). In this context, we focus on both multicultural exposure (such as heterogeneous schools, or intergroup friendships) and cross-cultural exposure (such as migration, travel, or comparative cultural settings) (Güngör, 2023; Özdemir et al., 2021). These experiences can foster cognitive flexibility and perspective-taking, as adolescents navigate differing social norms and value systems (Todd & Galinsky, 2012; Özdemir et al., 2021). These repeated social adjustments may strengthen ToM abilities and sensitivity of contextual social cues (Devine et al., 2024 ). Additionally, cross-cultural studies show that norms for prosocial behavior vary widely across societies (Zhao et al., 2022 ; Siu et al., 2012), suggesting that multicultural adolescents may internalize a broader, more flexible set of prosocial values. Taking together, multicultural and cross-cultural insights are essential for understanding how culture shapes the ToM and prosocial behavior in adolescence. Based on this prior research and lack of reviews specifically examining the role of cultural diversity in adolescents’ ToM and prosocial development, this systematic review synthesizes recent empirical evidence on these influences. In this review, we address three core questions: (1) What evidence exists that cultural diversity (through cross-cultural differences or multicultural experiences) influences adolescents’ ToM and prosociality? (2) Which specific cultural factors contribute to variations in ToM and prosociality? (3) What research methods and theoretical frameworks are commonly used to study cultural influences on ToM and prosociality? By critically analyzing recent findings, we aim to build a culturally informed understanding of adolescent social development and identify strategies for promoting perspective-taking and prosociality in diverse contexts. Methods Search Strategy and Study Selection A systematic search was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ) and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD anonymized) A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October to December 2024 to identify peer-reviewed articles evaluating the role of cultural diversity on adolescents ToM and prosociality by using electronic databases Web of Science, Academic Search Premier, ERIC, and PsycINFO. Boolean combinations of keywords were used to capture studies related to adolescents, cultural diversity, and our outcome constructs. For example, search strings combined terms such as “adolescents” OR “teenagers” OR “youth” AND “cultural diversity” OR “cross-cultural” OR “multicultural” OR “ethnic” with terms for the outcomes of interest “theory of mind” OR “mindreading” OR “mentalizing” OR “social cognition” OR “perspective-taking” AND “prosociality” OR “prosocial behavior” OR “empathy”. Eligibility and Screening Studies were included if they were empirical, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2024, written in English (or translated into English), and focused on adolescents aged 11–18. Studies conducted in schools, communities, families, or multicultural/cross-cultural contexts were eligible, while clinical or purely medical settings were excluded. Non-peer-reviewed works, theoretical papers, books, editorials, and conference proceedings were also excluded. Table 1 summarizes the inclusion and exclusion criteria for article selection. Table 1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Article selection Criteria Include Exclude Date 2000–2024 Studies published before 2000 Geographic Location Any None Language English/ Translated into English All other languages Participants Adolescents aged 11–18 Younger children (< 12) and adults (if not interacting with adolescents) Peer Review Yes Non-peer reviewed Setting Schools, Community, Family, Cross-cultural, Multicultural Clinical or purely medical settings Study Design Any None Study Type Empirical Theoretical and conceptual pieces not directly related to cultural influences on ToM/prosociality Type of Publication Peer-reviewed journal articles Books, editorials, opinion pieces, dissertations, conference proceedings The initial search resulted in 366 articles. After removing 139 duplicates, 227 unique records remained for screening. Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers using the above criteria, following the PRISMA flow process for transparency​. This initial screening led to the exclusion of 110 records that clearly did not meet inclusion criteria, leaving 117 articles for full-text review. Each of these full-text articles was then examined in detail against the inclusion criteria. After full-text review, 19 studies were eligible and included in the final synthesis. Figure 1 illustrates the study selection flow. Data Extraction and Quality Appraisal Data from these studies were extracted using a structured form covering publication details, sample characteristics, cultural context, study design, and key findings related to our research questions. Any uncertainties during screening or extraction were resolved through discussion between the reviewers. To evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies was applied to all 19 studies. The checklist assesses eight domains: clarity of inclusion criteria, detailed description of study subjects and setting, validity and reliability of exposure measurement, use of objective and standard criteria for outcome measurement, identification of confounding factors, strategies to deal with confounding factors, validity and reliability of outcome measurement, and appropriateness of statistical analysis. Each domain was rated as “Yes,” “No,” or “Unclear,” with higher proportions of “Yes” responses indicating stronger methodological quality. Overall, most studies scored positively on inclusion criteria, clear description of participants and setting, and appropriate use of validated measures for Theory of Mind and prosocial behavior. However, the most common areas of concern were (1) insufficient identification or control of potential confounding variables such as socioeconomic status or language background, and (2) reliance on self-reported outcomes, which are subject to social desirability bias. In a minority of studies, small or homogeneous samples raised concerns regarding selection bias and generalizability. While these limitations do not invalidate the findings, they suggest that interpretations should be made cautiously, giving greater weight to results from studies with stronger designs and more comprehensive adjustment for confounders. Results Characteristics of Included Studies and Frameworks The 19 studies in this review encompassed a geographically diverse set of adolescent samples. There were 14 multicultural studies comparisons within the same country while the other five studies were conducted in cross cultural settings. Participants were generally between 11 and 18 years old, and sample sizes varied from modest to quite large. Almost all studies recruited adolescents in school settings, underscoring the central role of schools in adolescent social development. A range of methodological approaches was evident: roughly half the studies were cross-sectional surveys, with others using longitudinal or experimental designs. 16 studies in our sample focused on the adolescents prosociality, three measured the ToM while only one study (Khalili et al., 2023 ) explicitly measured both ToM and prosocial behavior within the same project, highlighting the relative scarcity of research that integrates these two outcome domains in a single cultural framework. Overall, the included studies provide a multifaceted but coherent dataset to address our research questions. Table 2 Characteristics of Included Studies Study Country Setting Sample size Primary Focus (ToM, Prosociality, or Both) Cultural Diversity Focus Aral et al., 2022 Germany School 503 adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Bosacki et al., 2015 Canada & Poland School 28 Euro-Canadian students & 23 Polish students ToM Cross-cultural Brittian et al., 2013 US School 749 Mexican American adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Calderón-Tena et al., 2011 US School 204 Mexican American adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Carlo et al., 2018 US Community and School 306 U.S. Latino/a adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Davis et al., 2021 US School 302 Latino/a adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Devine et al., 2024 UK School 730 adolescents ToM Multicultural Fu et al., 2024 China School 538 adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Heidelburg and Collins, 2022 US School 9 adolescent students & 3 faculty Prosociality Multicultural Khalili et al., 2023 Canada and Iran School 300 adolescents ToM and Prosociality Cross-cultural Lee et al., 2020 South Korea & US School 1,676 adolescents Prosociality Cross-cultural Özdemir et al., 2022 Sweden School 1065 students Prosociality Multicultural Schwartz et al., 2007 US School 347 Hispanic adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Scott et al., 2018 US School 14 African American boys, Prosociality Multicultural Spivak et al., 2015 US School 2,369 adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Wang et al., 2016 UK & Hong Kong School Sample 1: 118; Sample 2: 216 adolescents ToM Cross-cultural Xiao et al., 2024 US School Sample 1: 118 early adolescents Sample 2: 133 early adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Zhao et al., 2022 US School 547 U.S. Latinx adolescents Prosociality Multicultural Zhang et al., 2018 US and Canada School 934 early adolescents Prosociality Cross-cultural Discussion Influence of Cultural Diversity on ToM and Prosocial Behavior Across the body of cross-cultural and multicultural studies, there is clear evidence that adolescents’ ToM and prosocial behaviors are shaped by their cultural contexts. Theory of Mind Adolescents’ ability to infer others’ mental states (ToM) shows notable variation across cultural settings. For example, one cross-cultural study found that 9- to 16-year-olds in Hong Kong local schools performed worse on ToM tasks than age-matched British students. Interestingly, Hong Kong adolescents enrolled in Western-style international schools performed same as British students in ToM (Wang et al., 2016). This pattern suggests that educational context and teaching rather than broad East-West differences alone, can significantly impact ToM development. Classrooms that encourage open discussion and perspective-taking (more common in the UK and in international schools) appeared to foster adolescents’ ToM, whereas rote-learning environments were associated with delayed ToM understanding. Devine et al. (2024) showed that children in ethnically diverse classrooms had more advanced ToM than those in homogenous classrooms. Simply having daily interactions with peers from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and specially forming cross-ethnic friendships was associated with better perspective-taking and mindreading skills. This finding supports the notion that exposure to diverse viewpoints in one’s social environment can enrich social-cognitive development. Beyond ethnic diversity, other factors such as language experience, gender, and socioeconomic status also play significant roles in ToM development. Bilingualism, for instance, has been associated with enhanced ToM abilities (Devine et al., 2024). Children who grow up learning multiple languages often demonstrate superior perspective-taking and mindreading skills compared to monolingual peers (Yu et al., 2021). Gender differences have also been observed in ToM development. Research indicates that girls tend to outperform boys in tasks requiring understanding of others' mental states, possibly due to socialization practices that encourage emotional expressiveness and empathy in females (Bosacki & Astington, 1999; Chaplin & Aldao, 2013). Conversely, boys may be socialized towards more agentic and competitive behaviors, potentially limiting opportunities to develop nuanced social-cognitive skills (Kuhnert et al., 2017). These gender-specific socialization patterns contribute to the observed differences in ToM development between girls and boys. Socio-economic status (SES) is another influential factor in the development of theory of mind (ToM). Children from higher SES backgrounds often have greater access to resources and environments that promote language development and social interactions, which are crucial for ToM development (McDermott et al., 2023). Conversely, children from lower SES backgrounds may face challenges that can impede the development of these skills (Morales & Farkas, 2025). Research indicates that early experiences of adversity or low SES can alter the pace of neurodevelopment during childhood and adolescence, affecting cognitive functions related to ToM (Rakesh et al., 2023). Cultural context can also influence how ToM skills relate to other aspects of adolescents’ adjustment. For instance, Bosacki et al. (2015) compared adolescents in Canada and Poland and found cultural difference in the link between ToM and self-concept. In the Canadian sample, adolescents with stronger ToM tended to lower in certain self-concept domains like behavior and global self-worth, whereas Polish adolescents showed no such correlation. Moreover, Canadian teens often referenced personal experiences when explaining others’ thoughts in a ToM task, while Polish teens stuck more to the given story content. Such differences might reflect cultural norms around self-reflection and modesty: in the more individualistic Canadian context, adolescents might freely draw on personal perspective. Whereas in the more collectivistic Polish context, adolescents may approach social tasks more formally and less self-referentially (Bosacki et al., 2015). To sum up, these studies highlight that cultural diversity plays a multifaceted role in ToM development. Cross-cultural differences in schooling approaches and communication can lead to variations in ToM performance (Wang et al., 2016; Bosacki et al., 2015), while everyday interactions in diverse environments actively enrich adolescents’ social-cognitive skills (Devine et al., 2024). Prosocial Behavior Cultural context profoundly influences prosocial behaviors in adolescent actions like helping, sharing, comforting, or defending others. Several cultural patterns emerge in the literature regarding both the frequency of prosocial acts and the forms they take. Research shows that students who perceived a more positive, supportive school climate were more likely to behave prosocially, and less likely disrespectful to others (Aral et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2024; Luo et al., 2023). One longitudinal study comparing early adolescents in the United States and China found that prosocial behavior yielded different social outcomes in each context. In the U.S., adolescents who engaged in more helping and sharing became more popular with peers over time, whereas in China, prosocial behavior did not boost peer status (Zhang et al., 2018). In an individualist setting like the U.S., being kind and cooperative made adolescents more liked consistent with a cultural tendency to praise standout positive behavior, whereas in the collectivist Chinese context, helping others is seen as an expected norm or duty, and thus doing so may not earn special recognition. Beyond school climate and peer status, adolescents’ cultural identities and values shape their prosocial tendencies. A study by Schwartz et al. (2007) found that adolescents with a stronger ethnic identity showed higher prosocial behaviors especially with family and same-ethnic peers and better in academic outcomes. Similarly, several studies showed that familism, a cultural value emphasizing family loyalty, interconnectedness, and obligation is linked to greater empathy and prosocial action (Davis et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). Moreover, Calderón-Tena et al. (2011) reported that Mexican American adolescents whose mothers strongly endorsed familism had higher emotional empathy and parent-reported prosocial behaviors. Likewise, in a longitudinal study, Carlo et al. (2018) found that perceived support from parents and peers predicted high prosocial behavior. Study by Kho et al. (2023) observed that Latinx youth who endorsed familism and respect values were more likely to help in emotionally charged situations and comply with requests for help. Collectively, these findings support the idea that culturally transmitted values like ethnic pride and familism foster empathy and prosocial inclinations in adolescents. Conversely, studies show that cultural stressors can reduce prosocial behavior. Research found that adolescents who experienced ethnic discrimination showed lower altruistic and cooperative behaviors, likely due to mistrust or social withdrawal in the face of prejudice (Brittian et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2021). However, those works also noted an interesting pattern: some adolescents responded to discrimination by increasing certain prosocial behaviors in public or intergroup contexts (Davis et al., 2016). Importantly, exposure to diversity and inclusive norms can broaden prosocial behavior toward out-group members. Aral et al. (2022), studying adolescents in Germany, found that those who participated in heritage language programs and intercultural learning activities reported stronger intentions to support refugee peers. Spivak et al. (2015) showed that adolescents who formed and valued cross-ethnic friendships were more likely to exhibit prosocial behaviors across group lines. Similarly, Bayram Özdemir et al. (2022) found that immigrant-background students were more willing to intervene against ethnic-based bullying, but primarily in classrooms where teachers and peer norms clearly supported diversity. These findings indicate that meaningful intergroup contact, strong teacher-student emotional bonds, and a school climate of inclusion can cultivate broader prosocial orientations extending beyond one’s in-group. Several studies highlight the role of culturally relevant education programs in nurturing prosocial values. For instance, the Afrocentric social-emotional learning curriculum enhances cooperative behavior and empathy among Black adolescent boys by emphasizing unity and collective responsibility (Graves & Aston, 2018). Similarly, Heidelburg and Collins (2022) reported that culturally enriched program “Black to Success” enhanced social skills and engagement among African American youth, demonstrating that affirming cultural identity can promote prosocial development. Additionally, even when adolescents across cultures share similar levels of prosocial intent, the motives often differ (Scott et al., 2018). For example, Lee et al. (2020) found that academically gifted adolescents in Korea and the United States were committed to contributing to society, but Korean students framed their prosocial goals in terms of familial and community responsibilities, whereas American students emphasized individual leadership and innovation in service. Khalili et al. (2023) examined the relationship between ToM and prosocial behavior across different cultures; Canada and Iran. While higher ToM generally predicted greater prosocial behavior in both cultures, this association was moderated by gender and spirituality. For instance, highly spiritual girls with strong mindreading abilities did not consistently act prosocially, whereas boys with lower spirituality but advanced ToM demonstrated high prosocial engagement. This suggests that culture-specific values (like religious emphasis, faith orientations, and gender norms) channel when and how cognitive empathy results in prosocial behavior. In sum, the evidence for research question 1 demonstrates that adolescents’ development of ToM and prosocial behavior is not just a function of individual traits, but a dynamic response to their cultural environments. Cultural diversity provides both opportunities and challenges: multicultural interactions can expand an adolescent’s social understanding and empathy, while cultural norms and values set the tone for why and how adolescents choose to help others. The studies reviewed show that Eastern and Western schooling styles, collectivist vs. individualist value systems, family cultural strengths, and experiences of inclusion or exclusion all play a part in shaping adolescents’ social-cognitive skills and their inclination to behave prosocially. Key Cultural Factors Shaping ToM and Prosociality During the review, key factors identified as influencing ToM and prosociality in adolescents include educational practices, family and parenting practices, collectivist vs. individualist orientations, peer group diversity and identity, religion/spirituality, and socioeconomic or contextual factors. We summarize each in turn: Educational Practices Teaching styles and school norms are powerful factors of adolescents’ social-cognitive development. Classrooms that focus on inquiry, open discussion and perspective -taking learning tend to foster ToM skills in students (Wang et al., 2016). Likewise, school climates that promote caring and inclusive values see higher student prosocial behavior. Schools implementing explicit diversity-positive programs (e.g. heritage language classes, intercultural curricula) have been shown to encourage students to extend help and empathy toward peers from different backgrounds (Aral et al., 2022; Bayram Özdemir et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2023). Family and Parenting Culturally guided parenting values shape adolescents’ advance ToM and prosocial behaviors (Malti & Davidov, 2023; Planalp et al., 2025). Research has shown that in families where parents encourage considering others’ feelings, discussing emotions, and respect, adolescents often develop a “head start” in empathy and prosocial tendencies. For example, Latinx adolescents whose parents emphasize familism and communal responsibility tend to show greater emotional empathy and more frequent helping (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Carlo et al., 2018; Kho et al., 2023). However, research also found that children with higher empathic concern may experience increased personal distress and a higher risk of depressive symptoms, particularly when their mothers exhibit depressive symptoms (Planalp et al., 2025). Moreover, if family obligations become extreme, they can place undue pressure on adolescents, leading to stress and anxiety (Kho et al., 2023). Collectivism vs. Individualism Broad cultural values help explain differences in ToM and prosocial behavior. In more collectivist cultures (common in East Asia, the Middle East, parts of Latin America and Africa), maintaining group harmony and fulfilling duties to family or in-group are top priorities. Adolescents in these contexts often exhibit high prosocial behavior toward family and close peers because helping is a normative expectation. However, such help may be seen as routine and not earn special reward or recognition (Lu et al., 2018). In contrast, in individualist cultures (typical of the U.S., Canada, Western Europe), prosocial acts are usually voluntary and based on personal choice. Individualist settings also encourage helping beyond one’s immediate group, aligning with values of personal initiative and standing up for what is right (Schwartz et al., 2007; Spivak et al., 2015). These orientations are not absolute dichotomies subcultures and individual variation exist, but they provide a useful lens (Khalili et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2018). Peer Group Diversity and Identity Adolescents’ peer group and their own cultural identity also influence social cognition and behavior. Adolescents who have more cross-ethnic friendships tend to develop better ToM and more inclusive prosocial behavior (Devine et al., 2024; Spivak et al., 2015; Xiao et al., 2024). Additionally, adolescents with strong ethnic identity tend to show greater support and cooperation towards others, more due to their cultural teachings that emphasize community support (Schwartz et al., 2007). However, context remains crucial; even empathetic adolescents from minority groups are more likely to act on behalf of others when their environment (teachers, classmates) clearly values diversity and moral courage (Bayram Özdemir et al., 2022). Religion and Spirituality In many cultural contexts, religion is a key socialization force for moral values and prosocial behavior. Studies in our review suggest that these values can amplify prosocial tendencies, but their effect is intertwined with other cultural norms. For example, Khalili et al. (2023) found that spirituality influenced the ToM and prosocial behaviour differently for boys and girls in Iran, reflecting how religious norms around gender can channel behavior. In more religious societies, youth may feel a duty to help others (especially within their community) as part of their faith, whereas in more secular contexts prosocial behavior might be guided by secular ethics or school-based values programs (Graves & Aston, 2018). In summary, our synthesis for research question 2 indicates that cultural influences on adolescent ToM and prosocial behavior operate at multiple levels. Broad societal values, institutional practices, family socialization, peer dynamics, and other contextual factors all contribute to shaping social-cognitive outcomes. These factors often work in combination, for example, a supportive family can buffer a negative school climate, or a progressive school can counteract narrow home socialization underscoring the complex interplay between culture and adolescent development. Methodological Approaches and Theoretical Frameworks Research Designs and Methods Most of the reviewed studies utilized quantitative methods, with a large portion of the evidence that comes from cross-sectional design to compare adolescents’ groups from different cultural backgrounds at a single point in time. For instance, Wang et al. (2016) used matched samples of 9- to 16-year-olds in the UK and Hong Kong to measure ToM and executive function differences in a quasi-experimental design. A few studies also utilized longitudinal designs to track how cultural influences might accumulate over time. Fu et al. (2024) followed the Chinese students over two years to see how school climate in early adolescence predicts prosocial or bullying behaviors later. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2018) conducted a three-wave longitudinal study in the U.S. and China, assessing prosocial behavior and peer status every six months to examine developmental trajectories in each culture. Davis et al., (2016) and Davis et al. (2021) also used longitudinal models to examine how perceived discrimination predicts prosocial changes among Latinoyouth. In terms of data collection techniques, researchers often combined multiple measures to capture social-cognitive skills and behaviors. To assess ToM, performance-based tasks were common. Some studies employed Strange Stories test or animated triangles that measure the ability to attribute intentions to abstract figures (Bosacki et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016). Self-report questionnaires and peer/sibling reports were frequently used to gauge prosocial tendencies, given that prosocial behavior can be context-dependent (Carlo et al., 2018; Kho et al., 2023). A few studies incorporated observation or teacher reports, for example Luo et al. (2023) had teachers evaluate students’ prosocial conduct alongside student self-reports, leveraging the teachers’ cross-situational perspective. Bayram Özdemir et al. (2022) used a multilevel design integrating teacher tolerance norms and adolescent self-reports to assess social behavior. Theoretical Frameworks The research is grounded in a variety of theoretical frameworks that explain how culture might influence ToM and prosocial development. A prominent framework mentioned in several studies is socio-cultural theory, derived from Vygotskian ideas (Vygotsky, 1980), which posits that cognitive abilities like ToM develop through social interaction and cultural mediation (Wang et al., 2016; Xiao et al., 2024). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory was explicitly invoked in a couple of studies to organize findings: adolescents are seen as embedded in microsystems (family, peers, school) that are shaped by the overarching culture (Luo et al., 2023). Another, recurring theoretical angle was socialization and social learning theory. Researchers often presumed that children internalize the norms and behaviors modeled and rewarded by their culture. For instance, to explain why American adolescents who behaved prosocially gained popularity over time while Chinese adolescents did not, Zhang et al. (2018) drew on socialization theory: American teens might learn that helping others is an individual asset (a leadership or likability trait), whereas Chinese teens learn to help as an obligation that doesn’t set one apart. Thus, the meaning of prosocial behavior is culturally constructed through social feedback, consistent with social learning principles. Some studies from East Asian contexts discussed Confucian cultural frameworks, noting how doctrines valuing education and social harmony influence youth behavior and cognition (Luo et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2016). In more West-centric studies, theories like empathy-developmental models (Carlo et al., 2018) and moral reasoning frameworks have been explored. For instance, Malti et al. (2021) provides a comprehensive review of moral development in adolescence, highlighting the integration of moral emotions and reasoning. Nucci and Turiel (2009) discuss the complexity of moral development and education, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing moral reasoning from social conventions. Smetana and Turiel (2006) delve into the development of moral judgments during adolescence, focusing on the interplay between moral reasoning and social understanding. These studies underscore that while certain aspects of moral development may be universal, cultural contexts significantly influence the expression and prioritization of moral values. Importantly, a few dynamic and integrative frameworks have been proposed. Khalili et al. (2023) advanced a relational, cultural-developmental model which although not explicitly labeled as such, closely aligns with a dynamic systems perspective. They argue that researchers need to explore culture-context specific such as socioeconomic status (SES), spirituality, and gender norms in shaping the link between mentalization skills such as ToM and prosocial behaviour. Similarly, Heidelburg and Collins (2022) drew on critical race theory and the ecological validity framework to design a culturally grounded SEL intervention for African American youth. Across the studies, the theoretical through-line is that culture is a fundamental context for adolescent development, and frameworks that integrate cultural norms and values with developmental mechanisms (like learning, cognition, and motivation) are necessary to explain the observed variations in ToM and prosocial behavior. Strengths and Limitations of the Review A key strength of this work is its systematic methodology and highlights the importance of recognizing cultural context in the relation between mentalization and prosociality in youth. The review protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42025631972) and PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed, ensuring transparency and rigor. We conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases using broad keywords to capture relevant studies. Included studies were subjected to quality appraisal (using JBI tools), and most were judged to be of moderate to high methodological quality. In synthesizing 19 diverse studies, the review brings together cross-cultural comparisons and multicultural-sample research to provide a coherent picture of how culture shapes adolescent social development. Nonetheless, as a rapid review some limitations remain. Specifically, our search was limited to English-language publications from 2000-2024 and thus may have missed relevant non-English or very recent studies. The evidence base is also relatively small and skewed as most studies were school-based, and focused on targeted regions, which may limit generalizability. Many studies consisted of a cross-sectional design, which in turn prevented causal inferences about cultural effects. Additionally, heterogeneous methods and measures across studies precluded quantitative meta-analysis. Despite these limitations, the current findings draw on a variety of designs and settings, offering a robust and novel initial synthesis of this emerging field. The key contribution of our research is that it highlights areas in adolescent cognitive and social-emotional development that have been to date relatively unexplored - particularly the area of cultural context in the link between mentalization and prosocial cognitions and actions. Our findings provide the foundation to developing culturally informed and gender sensitive research and intervention programs for youth that explore mentalization and prosociality. Further Directions for Research Future work should address several identified gaps. First, there is a need for longitudinal and experimental studies to clarify causal pathways. Currently, most findings come from cross-sectional designs; prospective cohorts or intervention research (e.g. school programs promoting intercultural contact) could confirm how specific cultural exposures improve ToM and social and emotional behavior with a focus on prosociality. Second, researchers should measure ToM and prosocial behavior across culturally diverse contexts within the same study. To date, only one study explicitly examined these outcomes within a cultural context (Khalili et al., 2023). Third, future samples should be more diverse geographically and contextually and consider different ways to categorize countries and cultures in terms of majority and minority countries (Draper, 2025). Moreover, in agreement with Brown et al., (2025), we recommend studies in underrepresented regions (such as Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East), and settings outside formal schools (e.g. community programs or virtual environments) to ensure findings are globally relevant. Research should also engage broader participant demographics including rural youth, different socioeconomic strata, and fathers or other caregivers, not solely mothers. Fourth, multi-method approaches are also needed. Incorporating behavioral tasks, observational data, and reports from multiple informants (peers, parents, teachers) will strengthen measurement of ToM and prosociality beyond self-report. Moreover, the role of language, particularly bilingualism, in ToM development merits further investigation. Weimer et al. (2021) discuss how bilingual individuals often exhibit enhanced ToM abilities, possibly due to the cognitive demands of managing multiple language systems. This bilingual advantage suggests that language experience is a significant factor in social-cognitive development and calls for the need to explore how overlapping social identities influence social cognition and prosocial tendencies. Finally, future research could probe these pathways: do interventions that reinforce positive cultural identity buffer against the negative impacts of discrimination on prosociality? How can culturally informed and gender-sensitive curricula that emphasize global citizenship complement familistic values to promote helping beyond in-groups? By addressing these gaps with rigorous, culturally sensitive designs, future studies will build on this review’s foundation and further elucidate the role of cultural diversity in shaping adolescent social development. Conclusion This review highlights the crucial role that cultural context plays in shaping adolescents’ ToM and prosocial behavior. Cross-cultural comparisons and multicultural experiences show that diverse social environments enrich adolescent’s mind-reading abilities and empathy. Key cultural factors including schooling practices, family socialization, peer group diversity, and broader value orientations (collectivist vs. individualist norms) consistently emerged as drivers of variation in ToM and prosoical behaviors. Notably, exposure to inclusive, compassionate, and caring school climates and intergroup, cross-ethnic friendships is associated with better perspective-taking and willingness to assist out-group peers, whereas negative experiences such as ethnic bias tended to undermine altruism unless counteracted by strong cultural identity and community support. Overall, adolescence appears to be a sensitive period when social-cognitive skills are cultivated through culturally shaped interactions. These findings emphasize that researchers and practitioners must adopt a cultural-developmental lens: fostering empathy and cooperation in diverse societies will be most successful when approaches resonate with young people’s cultural identities and experiences. In sum, integrating cross-cultural evidence reveals that cultural diversity can be a powerful positive force in adolescents’ developmental pathways. Declarations Conflict of interest : The authors report no conflicts of interest. Funding: This research was funded in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, SSHRC IG anonymized. Author Contribution HK conceived of the study, conducted the literature search, conducted and coordinated the screenings and data extraction, and drafted the manuscript; ZKV participated in the screenings, data extraction and helped to draft the manuscript; SB participated in conceptualization of the study and making suggestionsfor editing manuscripts prior to submission. VT helped in making suggestions for editing manuscripts prior to submission. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC IG #435-2021-0098) for funding support. We also thank our colleagues for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions during the preparation of this manuscript. Data Availability The search strategy used for the systematic review is available to view in the pre-registered protocol, available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025631972All relevant data, including full reference lists at each stage of the review, data extraction, and quality appraisal information, are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Akagündüz Eğri̇Kilinç, D. (2023). Koruma ve bakim altindaki̇ ergenlerde zi̇hi̇n kurami ve prososyal beceri̇ler. Social science development journal , 41.https://doi.org/10.31567/ssd.1099 Aral, T., Schachner, M. K., Juang, L., & Schwarzenthal, M. (2022). Cultural diversity approaches in schools and adolescents’ willingness to support refugee youth. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 92 (2), 772–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12458 Bayram Özdemir, S., Yanagida, T., & Özdemir, M. (2022). Bystanders of ethnic victimization: Do classroom context and teachers’ approach matter for how adolescents intend to act? Child Development , 93 (5), 1540–1558. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13822 Bosacki, S., Bialecka-Pikul, M., & Szpak, M. (2015). The adolescent mind in school: Theory of mind and self-concept in Canadian and Polish youth. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth , 20 (4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2013.804423 Bosacki, S., & Astington, J. (1999). Theory of mind in preadolescence: Relations between social understanding and social competence. Social Development , 8 (2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00093 Brittian, A. S., O’Donnell, M., Knight, G. P., Carlo, G., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Roosa, M. W. (2013). Associations between adolescents’ perceived discrimination and prosocial tendencies: The mediating role of mexican american values. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 42 (3), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9856-6 Brown, A., Weiss, E., Suntheimer, N. M., Appiah, R., Aurino, E., & Wolf, S. (2025). Factorial and cultural validity of a social and emotional behavior measure in Northern Ghana. Applied Developmental Science , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2025.2474975 Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (1st ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004 Calderón-Tena, C. O., Knight, G. P., & Carlo, G. (2011). The socialization of prosocial behavioral tendencies among Mexican American adolescents: The role of familism values. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology , 17 (1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021825 Caputi, M., Lecce, S., Pagnin, A., & Banerjee, R. (2012). Longitudinal effects of theory of mind on later peer relations: The role of prosocial behavior. Developmental Psychology , 48 (1), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025402 Carlo, G., & Padilla‐Walker, L. (2020). Adolescents’ prosocial behaviors through a multidimensional and multicultural lens. Child Development Perspectives , 14 (4), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12391 Carlo, G., Streit, C., & Crockett, L. (2018). Generalizability of a traditional social cognitive model of prosocial behaviors to U.S. Latino/a youth. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology , 24 (4), 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000188 Chaplin, T. M., & Aldao, A. (2013). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin , 139 (4), 735–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030737 Corbera, S., Kurtz, M. M., Achim, A. M., Agostoni, G., Amado, I., Assaf, M., Barlati, S., Bechi, M., Cavallaro, R., Ikezawa, S., Okano, H., Okubo, R., Penadés, R., Uchino, T., Vita, A., Yamada, Y., & Bell, M. D. (2025). International perspective on social cognition in schizophrenia: Current stage and the next steps. European Psychiatry , 68 (1), e9. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.1776 Davis, A. N., Carlo, G., Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Cano, M. Á., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Oshri, A., Streit, C., Martinez, M. M., Piña-Watson, B., Lizzi, K., & Soto, D. (2016). The longitudinal associations between discrimination, depressive symptoms, and prosocial behaviors in u. S. Latino/a recent immigrant adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 45 (3), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0394-x Davis, A. N., McGinley, M., Carlo, G., Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Rosiers, S. E. D., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., & Soto, D. (2021). Examining discrimination and familism values as longitudinal predictors of prosocial behaviors among recent immigrant adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 45 (4), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254211005561 Devine, R. T., Grumley Traynor, I., Ronchi, L., & Lecce, S. (2024). Children in ethnically diverse classrooms and those with cross‐ethnic friendships excel at understanding others’ minds. Child Development , 95 (5), 1447–1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14085 Devine, R. T., & Hughes, C. (2013). Silent films and strange stories: Theory of mind, gender, and social experiences in middle childhood. Child Development , 84 (3), 989–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12017 Draper, C. E. (2025). Qualitative research on infant and child development in majority world countries. Infant and Child Development , 34 (4), e70039. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.70039 Fu, X., Zhang, M., Zhu, K., Li, S., Fu, R., Zhang, M., Guo, X., & Duan, J. (2024). Relations between school climates and bullying behaviors in Chinese adolescents: The mediating role of prosocial tendency. Acta Psychologica , 248 , 104335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104335 Graves, S. L., & Aston, C. (2018). A mixed‐methods study of a social emotional curriculum for Black male success: A school‐based pilot study of the Brothers of Ujima. Psychology in the Schools , 55 (1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22088 Ha, S. Y., Lin, T.-J., Li, W.-T., Kraatz, E., Chiu, Y.-J., Hong, Y.-R., Tsai, C.-C., & Glassman, M. (2020). Peer exclusion: A social convention or moral decision? Cross-cultural insights into students’ social reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture , 20 (1–2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340078 Heidelburg, K., & Collins, T. A. (2022). Development of black to success : A culturally enriched social skills program for black adolescent males. School Psychology Review , 52 (3), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001691 Hughes, C., & Leekam, S. (2004). What are the links between theory of mind and social relations? Review, reflections and new directions for studies of typical and atypical development. Social Development , 13 (4), 590–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00285.x Imuta, K., Henry, J. D., Slaughter, V., Selcuk, B., & Ruffman, T. (2016). Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology , 52 (8), 1192–1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000140 Kennedy-Turner, J., Nemeth, Z., & Anderson, L. (2025). Is familial expressed emotion associated with self-harm and suicidality in childhood and adolescence? A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-025-00261-7 Khalili, N., Bosacki, S., & Talwar, V. (2023). The moderating role of spirituality and gender in Canadian and Iranian emerging adolescents’ theory of mind and prosocial behavior. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 , 1134826. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134826 Kho, C., White, R. M. B., Zhao, C., Knight, G. P., & Roche, K. M. (2023). Familism values and psychological adjustment of Latinx adolescents in an emerging immigrant community: A five wave longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology , 59 (7), 1315–1326. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001554 Kuhnert, R.-L., Begeer, S., Fink, E., & De Rosnay, M. (2017). Gender-differentiated effects of theory of mind, emotion understanding, and social preference on prosocial behavior development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 154 , 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.10.001 Lee, S.-Y., Matthews, M., Shin, J., & Kim, M.-S. (2020). Academically gifted adolescents’ social purpose. High Ability Studies , 31 (1), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2018.1533452 Lu, T., Li, L., Niu, L., Jin, S., & French, D. C. (2018). Relations between popularity and prosocial behavior in middle school and high school Chinese adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 42 (2), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416687411 Luo, Y., Ma, T., & Deng, Y. (2023). School climate and adolescents’ prosocial behavior: The mediating role of perceived social support and resilience. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 , 1095566. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1095566 Malti, T. (2025). becoming humane : The development of kindness in an age of division. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 01650254251344602. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254251344602 Malti, T., & Davidov, M. (2023). Introduction: What is prosocial development? : definition, history, mechanisms. In T. Malti & M. Davidov (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Prosociality (1st ed., pp. 3–16). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108876681.002 Malti, T., Galarneau, E., & Peplak, J. (2021). Moral development in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 31 (4), 1097–1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12639 Maynard, M. L., Khalid, H., Karimi Valoojerdy, Z., Talwar, V., & Bosacki, S. L. (2025). Adolescent development in unprecedented times: A comparative study of theory of mind before and after covid-19. Adolescents , 5 (2), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5020011 Milligan, K., Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2007). Language and theory of mind: Meta‐analysis of the relation between language ability and false‐belief understanding . Child Development, 78 (2), 622–646. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x. Morales, M. F., & Farkas, C. (2025). Children’s theory of mind and family socioeconomic status: What can different approaches and contexts tell us about the same construct? Social Development , 34 (2), e12798. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12798 Nucci, L., & Turiel, E. (2009). Capturing the complexity of moral development and education. Mind, Brain, and Education , 3 (3), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01065.x Osterhaus, C., D’Urso, G., Koerber, S., & Bosacki, S. L. (2025). Theory of mind, self-perceptions, and peer popularity in middle childhood and early adolescence. Children , 12 (3), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12030281 Osterhaus, C., Koerber, S., & Sodian, B. (2016). Scaling of advanced theory‐of‐mind tasks. Child Development , 87 (6), 1971–1991. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12566 Bayram Özdemir, S., Özdemir, M., & Boersma, K. (2022). How does adolescents’ openness to diversity change over time? The role of majority-minority friendship, friends’ views, and classroom social context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 50 (1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01329-4 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ , n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Peterson, C. C., Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2005). Steps in theory‐of‐mind development for children with deafness or autism. Child Development , 76 (2), 502–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00859.x Planalp, E. M., Hilton, E. C., Van Hulle, C., Goldsmith, H. H., & Zahn‐Waxler, C. (2025). Empathy as a risky strength: Associations with parent and child depressive symptoms in middle childhood. Social Development , 34 (2), e12800. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12800 Qiu, X., Gao, M., Zhu, H., Li, W., & Jiang, R. (2024). Theory of mind, empathy, and prosocial behavior in children and adolescent: A meta- analysis. Current Psychology, 43(22), 19690–19707. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s12144-024-05762-7 Rakesh, D., Whittle, S., Sheridan, M. A., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2023). Childhood socioeconomic status and the pace of structural neurodevelopment: Accelerated, delayed, or simply different? Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 27 (9), 833–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.03.011 Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., & Jarvis, L. H. (2007). Ethnic identity and acculturation in Hispanic early adolescents: Mediated relationships to academic grades, prosocial behaviors, and externalizing symptoms. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology , 13 (4), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.4.364 Smetana, J. G., & Turiel, E. (2006). Moral development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Adolescence (1st ed., pp. 247–268). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756607.ch12 Spivak, White, Juvonen, & Graham. (2015). Correlates of prosocial behaviors of students in ethnically and racially diverse middle schools. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 61 (2), 236. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.2.0236 Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4 Wang, J. H., Merrin, G. J., Kiefer, S. M., Jackson, J. L., Huckaby, P. L., Pascarella, L. A., Blake, C. L., Gomez, M. D., & Smith, N. D. W. (2023). Peer relations of adolescents with adverse childhood experiences: A systematic literature review of two decades. Adolescent Research Review, 9 (4), 477–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-023-00226-8 Wang, Z., Devine, R. T., Wong, K. K., & Hughes, C. (2016). Theory of mind and executive function during middle childhood across cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 149 , 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.028 Weimer, A. A., Warnell, K. R., Ettekal, I., Cartwright, K. B., Guajardo, N. R., & Liew, J. (2021). Correlates and antecedents of theory of mind development during middle childhood and adolescence: An integrated model. Developmental Review , 59 , 100945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100945 Xiao, S. X., Gülseven, Z., Clancy, E. T., Liew, J., Carlo, G., Kim, S., & Jiang, S. (2024). Measuring early adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward diverse others: Considering multiple social identities. Journal of Adolescence , 96 (4), 841–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12305 Yu, C., Kovelman, I., & Wellman, H. M. (2021). How bilingualism informs theory of mind development. Child Development Perspectives , 15 (3), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12412 Zhang, X., Pomerantz, E. M., Qin, L., Logis, H., Ryan, A. M., & Wang, M. (2018). Characteristics of likability, perceived popularity, and admiration in the early adolescent peer system in the United States and China. Developmental Psychology , 54 (8), 1568–1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000544 Zhao, C., White, R. M. B., & Roche, K. M. (2022). Familism values, family assistance, and prosocial behaviors among u. S. Latinx adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence , 42 (7), 914–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316221078831 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7357691","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":508704680,"identity":"6b00df01-9b49-4108-b227-7544756991b0","order_by":0,"name":"Huma Khalid","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brock University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Huma","middleName":"","lastName":"Khalid","suffix":""},{"id":508704681,"identity":"6aa80fff-aa01-486d-9a75-d16a272c898e","order_by":1,"name":"Zahra Karimi Valoojerdy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brock University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zahra","middleName":"Karimi","lastName":"Valoojerdy","suffix":""},{"id":508704682,"identity":"d2c06cc2-8432-4db2-9bd6-9a4b4a9864e5","order_by":2,"name":"Victoria Talwar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"McGill University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Victoria","middleName":"","lastName":"Talwar","suffix":""},{"id":508704683,"identity":"52d380e7-87f6-4877-8a7f-d2210a7e5c8c","order_by":3,"name":"Sandra Bosacki","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brock University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sandra","middleName":"","lastName":"Bosacki","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-12 16:08:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7357691/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7357691/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92407374,"identity":"9fb834ae-93ea-43d0-8868-6f7dbcf2205b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-29 11:26:37","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40792,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlowchart of Search Process\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7357691/v1/4a8031fbd5439d9279b58409.png"},{"id":92407626,"identity":"f8a88ae7-30c7-4e78-821f-a5bea5d28542","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-29 11:34:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":928656,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7357691/v1/a2464382-e05a-4f7d-842b-0495508fed0f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Role of Cultural Diversity in Adolescents' Theory of Mind (ToM) and Prosociality: A Review of the Literature","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAdolescence is a critical period for the development of social cognitive skills and prosocial behaviors (Akagündüz Eğri̇Kilinç, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Two key competencies that emerge during this time are theory of mind (ToM), the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others (Peterson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Maynard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) as well as forming and managing social relationships with peers who play a significant role during adolescence (Brown \u0026amp; Larson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). ToM involves multiple components, including social reasoning, understanding ambiguity, and recognizing social norm violations, all of which are influenced by various cognitive factors such as inhibitory control and language development, as well as the broader social context (Devine \u0026amp; Hughes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Osterhaus et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, it helps adolescents navigate social interactions, and allows them to infer others’ beliefs, intentions, and emotions which underpins empathy and effective communication (Peterson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch also shows that social experiences play a crucial role in the development of ToM or mentalization skills such as emotion recognition and perspective-taking. Devine and Hughes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that adolescents’ differences in ToM are shaped by a complex interplay of social and cognitive factors. ToM serves an important role in social competence along with other factors such as language proficiency (Milligan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), family environment (Kennedy-Turner et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), peer interaction (Wang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) that all together influence social behavior. For example, research found that children with similar ToM scores may behave differently depending on their social environments (Hughes \u0026amp; Leekam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Active discussions with family or frequent peer interactions provide essential practice in perspective-taking and forming friendships across ethnic groups exposes children to diverse perspectives and communicative styles that sharpen their mind reading skills (Devine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, children who grow up in socially stimulating, language-rich and diverse settings tend to show higher ToM skill than those in more restricted environments (Devine \u0026amp; Hughes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Hughes \u0026amp; Leekam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond family and peer contexts, school environments and institutional diversity practices also play a role in shaping adolescents’ ToM. Studies increasingly highlight that supportive, inclusive classrooms and culturally diverse learning contexts can further enhance perspective-taking and mentalization skills (Bosacki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Devine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, recent developmental research highlights how kindness serves as a foundation for realizing our humane potential and fostering peaceful, connected societies (Malti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProsocial behavior is influenced by empathy and moral reasoning and contributes to social adjustment among peers (Carlo \u0026amp; Padilla-Walker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Higher ToM has been linked to greater empathy and more frequent prosocial acts (Caputi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, adolescents with greater ToM and empathy are more likely to help peers with academic tasks, comfort friends, and participate in community services (Imuta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, a recent meta-analysis of 53 studies confirmed a consistent and strong positive association between ToM, empathy, and prosocial behavior from early childhood through adolescence. Importantly, this relationship was evident across diverse developmental stages and cultural contexts, underscoring the universal role of social-cognitive understanding in fostering prosocial behavior (Qiu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, research on peer exclusion judgments in culturally diverse contexts has shown that adolescents’ evaluations of exclusion often integrate moral reasoning with group identity considerations, reflecting how cultural norms shape both social cognition and prosocial responses (Ha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). While most research focused on ToM and prosocial behaviour in Western contexts (Imuta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) far less is known about how social-cognitive skills and related behaviors develop across diverse cultures. Notably, many widely used measures of ToM and prosociality were developed and validated in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) populations which prioritize individualism, autonomy (Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Corbera et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Applying these tools in non-Western contexts, often without cultural adaptation, raises concerns about their cross-cultural validity (Corbera et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCurrent Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCultural diversity plays a significant role in shaping adolescents’ ToM and prosocial behaviors (Callaghan \u0026amp; Corbit, 2018; Main \u0026amp; Kho, 2020). In this context, we focus on both multicultural exposure (such as heterogeneous schools, or intergroup friendships) and cross-cultural exposure (such as migration, travel, or comparative cultural settings) (Güngör, 2023; Özdemir et al., 2021). These experiences can foster cognitive flexibility and perspective-taking, as adolescents navigate differing social norms and value systems (Todd \u0026amp; Galinsky, 2012; Özdemir et al., 2021). These repeated social adjustments may strengthen ToM abilities and sensitivity of contextual social cues (Devine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, cross-cultural studies show that norms for prosocial behavior vary widely across societies (Zhao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Siu et al., 2012), suggesting that multicultural adolescents may internalize a broader, more flexible set of prosocial values. Taking together, multicultural and cross-cultural insights are essential for understanding how culture shapes the ToM and prosocial behavior in adolescence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on this prior research and lack of reviews specifically examining the role of cultural diversity in adolescents’ ToM and prosocial development, this systematic review synthesizes recent empirical evidence on these influences. In this review, we address three core questions: (1) What evidence exists that cultural diversity (through cross-cultural differences or multicultural experiences) influences adolescents’ ToM and prosociality? (2) Which specific cultural factors contribute to variations in ToM and prosociality? (3) What research methods and theoretical frameworks are commonly used to study cultural influences on ToM and prosociality? By critically analyzing recent findings, we aim to build a culturally informed understanding of adolescent social development and identify strategies for promoting perspective-taking and prosociality in diverse contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch2\u003eSearch Strategy and Study Selection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA systematic search was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines (Page et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD anonymized) A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October to December 2024 to identify peer-reviewed articles evaluating the role of cultural diversity on adolescents ToM and prosociality by using electronic databases Web of Science, Academic Search Premier, ERIC, and PsycINFO. Boolean combinations of keywords were used to capture studies related to adolescents, cultural diversity, and our outcome constructs. For example, search strings combined terms such as “adolescents” OR “teenagers” OR “youth” AND “cultural diversity” OR “cross-cultural” OR “multicultural” OR “ethnic” with terms for the outcomes of interest “theory of mind” OR “mindreading” OR “mentalizing” OR “social cognition” OR “perspective-taking” AND “prosociality” OR “prosocial behavior” OR “empathy”.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eEligibility and Screening\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudies were included if they were empirical, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2024, written in English (or translated into English), and focused on adolescents aged 11–18. Studies conducted in schools, communities, families, or multicultural/cross-cultural contexts were eligible, while clinical or purely medical settings were excluded. Non-peer-reviewed works, theoretical papers, books, editorials, and conference proceedings were also excluded. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the inclusion and exclusion criteria for article selection.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Article selection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCriteria\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInclude\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclude\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2000–2024\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudies published before 2000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeographic Location\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAny\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLanguage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish/ Translated into English\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll other languages\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdolescents aged 11–18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYounger children (\u0026lt; 12) and adults (if not interacting with adolescents)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeer Review\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-peer reviewed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSetting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSchools, Community, Family, Cross-cultural, Multicultural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClinical or purely medical settings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy Design\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAny\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy Type\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical and conceptual pieces not directly related to cultural influences on ToM/prosociality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of Publication\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeer-reviewed journal articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBooks, editorials, opinion pieces, dissertations, conference proceedings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe initial search resulted in 366 articles. After removing 139 duplicates, 227 unique records remained for screening. Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers using the above criteria, following the PRISMA flow process for transparency​. This initial screening led to the exclusion of 110 records that clearly did not meet inclusion criteria, leaving 117 articles for full-text review. Each of these full-text articles was then examined in detail against the inclusion criteria. After full-text review, 19 studies were eligible and included in the final synthesis. Figure\u0026nbsp;1 illustrates the study selection flow.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Extraction and Quality Appraisal\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData from these studies were extracted using a structured form covering publication details, sample characteristics, cultural context, study design, and key findings related to our research questions. Any uncertainties during screening or extraction were resolved through discussion between the reviewers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies was applied to all 19 studies. The checklist assesses eight domains: clarity of inclusion criteria, detailed description of study subjects and setting, validity and reliability of exposure measurement, use of objective and standard criteria for outcome measurement, identification of confounding factors, strategies to deal with confounding factors, validity and reliability of outcome measurement, and appropriateness of statistical analysis. Each domain was rated as “Yes,” “No,” or “Unclear,” with higher proportions of “Yes” responses indicating stronger methodological quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, most studies scored positively on inclusion criteria, clear description of participants and setting, and appropriate use of validated measures for Theory of Mind and prosocial behavior. However, the most common areas of concern were (1) insufficient identification or control of potential confounding variables such as socioeconomic status or language background, and (2) reliance on self-reported outcomes, which are subject to social desirability bias. In a minority of studies, small or homogeneous samples raised concerns regarding selection bias and generalizability. While these limitations do not invalidate the findings, they suggest that interpretations should be made cautiously, giving greater weight to results from studies with stronger designs and more comprehensive adjustment for confounders.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eCharacteristics of Included Studies and Frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe 19 studies in this review encompassed a geographically diverse set of adolescent samples. There were 14 multicultural studies comparisons within the same country while the other five studies were conducted in cross cultural settings. Participants were generally between 11 and 18 years old, and sample sizes varied from modest to quite large. Almost all studies recruited adolescents in school settings, underscoring the central role of schools in adolescent social development. A range of methodological approaches was evident: roughly half the studies were cross-sectional surveys, with others using longitudinal or experimental designs. 16 studies in our sample focused on the adolescents prosociality, three measured the ToM while only one study (Khalili et al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) explicitly measured both ToM and prosocial behavior within the same project, highlighting the relative scarcity of research that integrates these two outcome domains in a single cultural framework. Overall, the included studies provide a multifaceted but coherent dataset to address our research questions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCharacteristics of Included Studies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSetting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrimary Focus (ToM, Prosociality, or Both)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCultural Diversity Focus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAral et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e503 adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBosacki et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCanada \u0026amp; Poland\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28 Euro-Canadian students \u0026amp; 23 Polish students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCross-cultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrittian et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e749 Mexican American adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCalder\u0026oacute;n-Tena et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e204 Mexican American adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCarlo et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunity and School\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e306 U.S. Latino/a adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDavis et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e302 Latino/a adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDevine et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e730 adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e538 adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeidelburg and Collins, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 adolescent students \u0026amp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 faculty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKhalili et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCanada and Iran\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e300 adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToM and Prosociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCross-cultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLee et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSouth Korea \u0026amp; US\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,676 adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCross-cultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026Ouml;zdemir et al., 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSweden\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1065 students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchwartz et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e347 Hispanic adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScott et al., 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 African American boys,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpivak et al., 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,369 adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUK \u0026amp; Hong Kong\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample 1: 118; Sample 2: 216\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eadolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCross-cultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eXiao et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample 1: 118 early adolescents Sample 2: 133 early adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZhao et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e547 U.S. Latinx adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMulticultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZhang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUS and Canada\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e934 early adolescents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsociality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCross-cultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInfluence of Cultural Diversity on ToM and Prosocial Behavior\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross the body of cross-cultural and multicultural studies, there is clear evidence that adolescents’ ToM and prosocial behaviors are shaped by their cultural contexts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheory of Mind\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdolescents’ ability to infer others’ mental states (ToM) shows notable variation across cultural settings. For example, one cross-cultural study found that 9- to 16-year-olds in Hong Kong local schools performed worse on ToM tasks than age-matched British students. Interestingly, Hong Kong adolescents enrolled in Western-style international schools performed same as British students in ToM (Wang et al., 2016). This pattern suggests that educational context and teaching rather than broad East-West differences alone, can significantly impact ToM development. Classrooms that encourage open discussion and perspective-taking (more common in the UK and in international schools) appeared to foster adolescents’ ToM, whereas rote-learning environments were associated with delayed ToM understanding. Devine et al. (2024) showed that children in ethnically diverse classrooms had more advanced ToM than those in homogenous classrooms. Simply having daily interactions with peers from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and specially forming cross-ethnic friendships was associated with better perspective-taking and mindreading skills. This finding supports the notion that exposure to diverse viewpoints in one’s social environment can enrich social-cognitive development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond ethnic diversity, other factors such as language experience, gender, and socioeconomic status also play significant roles in ToM development. Bilingualism, for instance, has been associated with enhanced ToM abilities (Devine et al., 2024). Children who grow up learning multiple languages often demonstrate superior perspective-taking and mindreading skills compared to monolingual peers (Yu et al., 2021). Gender differences have also been observed in ToM development. Research indicates that girls tend to outperform boys in tasks requiring understanding of others' mental states, possibly due to socialization practices that encourage emotional expressiveness and empathy in females (Bosacki \u0026amp; Astington, 1999; Chaplin \u0026amp; Aldao, 2013). Conversely, boys may be socialized towards more agentic and competitive behaviors, potentially limiting opportunities to develop nuanced social-cognitive skills (Kuhnert et al., 2017). These gender-specific socialization patterns contribute to the observed differences in ToM development between girls and boys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocio-economic status (SES) is another influential factor in the development of theory of mind (ToM). Children from higher SES backgrounds often have greater access to resources and environments that promote language development and social interactions, which are crucial for ToM development (McDermott et al., 2023). Conversely, children from lower SES backgrounds may face challenges that can impede the development of these skills (Morales \u0026amp; Farkas, 2025). Research indicates that early experiences of adversity or low SES can alter the pace of neurodevelopment during childhood and adolescence, affecting cognitive functions related to ToM (Rakesh et al., 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCultural context can also influence how ToM skills relate to other aspects of adolescents’ adjustment. For instance, Bosacki et al. (2015) compared adolescents in Canada and Poland and found cultural difference in the link between ToM and self-concept. In the Canadian sample, adolescents with stronger ToM tended to lower in certain self-concept domains like behavior and global self-worth, whereas Polish adolescents showed no such correlation. Moreover, Canadian teens often referenced personal experiences when explaining others’ thoughts in a ToM task, while Polish teens stuck more to the given story content. Such differences might reflect cultural norms around self-reflection and modesty: in the more individualistic Canadian context, adolescents might freely draw on personal perspective. Whereas in the more collectivistic Polish context, adolescents may approach social tasks more formally and less self-referentially (Bosacki et al., 2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo sum up, these studies highlight that cultural diversity plays a multifaceted role in ToM development. Cross-cultural differences in schooling approaches and communication can lead to variations in ToM performance (Wang et al., 2016; Bosacki et al., 2015), while everyday interactions in diverse environments actively enrich adolescents’ social-cognitive skills (Devine et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProsocial Behavior\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCultural context profoundly influences prosocial behaviors in adolescent actions like helping, sharing, comforting, or defending others. Several cultural patterns emerge in the literature regarding both the frequency of prosocial acts and the forms they take.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch shows that students who perceived a more positive, supportive school climate were more likely to behave prosocially, and less likely disrespectful to others (Aral et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2024; Luo et al., 2023). One longitudinal study comparing early adolescents in the United States and China found that prosocial behavior yielded different social outcomes in each context. In the U.S., adolescents who engaged in more helping and sharing became more popular with peers over time, whereas in China, prosocial behavior did not boost peer status (Zhang et al., 2018). In an individualist setting like the U.S., being kind and cooperative made adolescents more liked consistent with a cultural tendency to praise standout positive behavior, whereas in the collectivist Chinese context, helping others is seen as an expected norm or duty, and thus doing so may not earn special recognition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond school climate and peer status, adolescents’ cultural identities and values shape their prosocial tendencies. A study by Schwartz et al. (2007) found that adolescents with a stronger ethnic identity showed higher prosocial behaviors especially with family and same-ethnic peers and better in academic outcomes. Similarly, several studies showed that familism, a cultural value emphasizing family loyalty, interconnectedness, and obligation is linked to greater empathy and prosocial action (Davis et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). Moreover, Calderón-Tena et al. (2011) reported that Mexican American adolescents whose mothers strongly endorsed familism had higher emotional empathy and parent-reported prosocial behaviors. Likewise, in a longitudinal study, Carlo et al. (2018) found that perceived support from parents and peers predicted high prosocial behavior. \u0026nbsp;Study by Kho et al. (2023) observed that Latinx youth who endorsed familism and respect values were more likely to help in emotionally charged situations and comply with requests for help. Collectively, these findings support the idea that culturally transmitted values like ethnic pride and familism foster empathy and prosocial inclinations in adolescents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConversely, studies show that cultural stressors can reduce prosocial behavior. Research found that adolescents who experienced ethnic discrimination showed lower altruistic and cooperative behaviors, likely due to mistrust or social withdrawal in the face of prejudice (Brittian et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2021). However, those works also noted an interesting pattern: some adolescents responded to discrimination by increasing certain prosocial behaviors in public or intergroup contexts (Davis et al., 2016). \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Importantly, exposure to diversity and inclusive norms can broaden prosocial behavior toward out-group members. Aral et al. (2022), studying adolescents in Germany, found that those who participated in heritage language programs and intercultural learning activities reported stronger intentions to support refugee peers. Spivak et al. (2015) showed that adolescents who formed and valued cross-ethnic friendships were more likely to exhibit prosocial behaviors across group lines. Similarly, Bayram Özdemir et al. (2022) found that immigrant-background students were more willing to intervene against ethnic-based bullying, but primarily in classrooms where teachers and peer norms clearly supported diversity. These findings indicate that meaningful intergroup contact, strong teacher-student emotional bonds, and a school climate of inclusion can cultivate broader prosocial orientations extending beyond one’s in-group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral studies highlight the role of culturally relevant education programs in nurturing prosocial values. For instance, the Afrocentric social-emotional learning curriculum enhances cooperative behavior and empathy among Black adolescent boys by emphasizing unity and collective responsibility (Graves \u0026amp; Aston, 2018). Similarly, Heidelburg and Collins (2022) reported that culturally enriched program “Black to Success” enhanced social skills and engagement among African American youth, demonstrating that affirming cultural identity can promote prosocial development. Additionally, even when adolescents across cultures share similar levels of prosocial intent, the motives often differ (Scott et al., 2018). For example, Lee et al. (2020) found that academically gifted adolescents in Korea and the United States were committed to contributing to society, but Korean students framed their prosocial goals in terms of familial and community responsibilities, whereas American students emphasized individual leadership and innovation in service.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKhalili et al. (2023) examined the relationship between ToM and prosocial behavior across different cultures; Canada and Iran. While higher ToM generally predicted greater prosocial behavior in both cultures, this association was moderated by gender and spirituality. For instance, highly spiritual girls with strong mindreading abilities did not consistently act prosocially, whereas boys with lower spirituality but advanced ToM demonstrated high prosocial engagement. This suggests that culture-specific values (like religious emphasis, faith orientations, and gender norms) channel when and how cognitive empathy results in prosocial behavior.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn sum, the evidence for research question 1 demonstrates that adolescents’ development of ToM and prosocial behavior is not just a function of individual traits, but a dynamic response to their cultural environments. Cultural diversity provides both opportunities and challenges: multicultural interactions can expand an adolescent’s social understanding and empathy, while cultural norms and values set the tone for why and how adolescents choose to help others. The studies reviewed show that Eastern and Western schooling styles, collectivist vs. individualist value systems, family cultural strengths, and experiences of inclusion or exclusion all play a part in shaping adolescents’ social-cognitive skills and their inclination to behave prosocially.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Cultural Factors Shaping ToM and Prosociality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the review, key factors identified as influencing ToM and prosociality in adolescents include educational practices, family and parenting practices, collectivist vs. individualist orientations, peer group diversity and identity, religion/spirituality, and socioeconomic or contextual factors. We summarize each in turn:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducational Practices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeaching styles and school norms are powerful factors of adolescents’ social-cognitive development. Classrooms that focus on inquiry, open discussion and perspective -taking learning tend to foster ToM skills in students (Wang et al., 2016). Likewise, school climates that promote caring and inclusive values see higher student prosocial behavior. Schools implementing explicit diversity-positive programs (e.g. heritage language classes, intercultural curricula) have been shown to encourage students to extend help and empathy toward peers from different backgrounds (Aral et al., 2022; Bayram Özdemir et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily and Parenting\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCulturally guided parenting values shape adolescents’ advance ToM and prosocial behaviors (Malti \u0026amp; Davidov, 2023; Planalp et al., 2025). Research has shown that in families where parents encourage considering others’ feelings, discussing emotions, and respect, adolescents often develop a “head start” in empathy and prosocial tendencies. For example, Latinx adolescents whose parents emphasize familism and communal responsibility tend to show greater emotional empathy and more frequent helping (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Carlo et al., 2018; Kho et al., 2023). However, research also found that children with higher empathic concern may experience increased personal distress and a higher risk of depressive symptoms, particularly when their mothers exhibit depressive symptoms (Planalp et al., 2025). Moreover, if family obligations become extreme, they can place undue pressure on adolescents, leading to stress and anxiety (Kho et al., 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCollectivism vs. Individualism\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBroad cultural values help explain differences in ToM and prosocial behavior. In more collectivist cultures (common in East Asia, the Middle East, parts of Latin America and Africa), maintaining group harmony and fulfilling duties to family or in-group are top priorities. Adolescents in these contexts often exhibit high prosocial behavior toward family and close peers because helping is a normative expectation. However, such help may be seen as routine and not earn special reward or recognition (Lu et al., 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, in individualist cultures (typical of the U.S., Canada, Western Europe), prosocial acts are usually voluntary and based on personal choice. Individualist settings also encourage helping beyond one’s immediate group, aligning with values of personal initiative and standing up for what is right (Schwartz et al., 2007; Spivak et al., 2015). These orientations are not absolute dichotomies subcultures and individual variation exist, but they provide a useful lens (Khalili et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePeer Group Diversity and Identity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdolescents’ peer group and their own cultural identity also influence social cognition and behavior. Adolescents who have more cross-ethnic friendships tend to develop better ToM and more inclusive prosocial behavior (Devine et al., 2024; Spivak et al., 2015; Xiao et al., 2024). Additionally, adolescents with strong ethnic identity tend to show greater support and cooperation towards others, more due to their cultural teachings that emphasize community support (Schwartz et al., 2007). However, context remains crucial; even empathetic adolescents from minority groups are more likely to act on behalf of others when their environment (teachers, classmates) clearly values diversity and moral courage (Bayram Özdemir et al., 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReligion and Spirituality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn many cultural contexts, religion is a key socialization force for moral values and prosocial behavior. Studies in our review suggest that these values can amplify prosocial tendencies, but their effect is intertwined with other cultural norms. For example, Khalili et al. (2023) found that spirituality influenced the ToM and prosocial behaviour differently for boys and girls in Iran, reflecting how religious norms around gender can channel behavior. In more religious societies, youth may feel a duty to help others (especially within their community) as part of their faith, whereas in more secular contexts prosocial behavior might be guided by secular ethics or school-based values programs (Graves \u0026amp; Aston, 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, our synthesis for research question 2 indicates that cultural influences on adolescent ToM and prosocial behavior operate at multiple levels. Broad societal values, institutional practices, family socialization, peer dynamics, and other contextual factors all contribute to shaping social-cognitive outcomes. These factors often work in combination, for example, a supportive family can buffer a negative school climate, or a progressive school can counteract narrow home socialization underscoring the complex interplay between culture and adolescent development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodological Approaches and Theoretical Frameworks","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Designs and Methods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost of the reviewed studies utilized quantitative methods, with a large portion of the evidence that comes from cross-sectional design to compare adolescents’ groups from different cultural backgrounds at a single point in time. For instance, Wang et al. (2016) used matched samples of 9- to 16-year-olds in the UK and Hong Kong to measure ToM and executive function differences in a quasi-experimental design. A few studies also utilized longitudinal designs to track how cultural influences might accumulate over time. Fu et al. (2024) followed the Chinese students over two years to see how school climate in early adolescence predicts prosocial or bullying behaviors later. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2018) conducted a three-wave longitudinal study in the U.S. and China, assessing prosocial behavior and peer status every six months to examine developmental trajectories in each culture. Davis et al., (2016) and Davis et al. (2021) also used longitudinal models to examine how perceived discrimination predicts prosocial changes among Latinoyouth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of data collection techniques, researchers often combined multiple measures to capture social-cognitive skills and behaviors. To assess ToM, performance-based tasks were common. Some studies employed Strange Stories test or animated triangles that measure the ability to attribute intentions to abstract figures (Bosacki et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016). Self-report questionnaires and peer/sibling reports were frequently used to gauge prosocial tendencies, given that prosocial behavior can be context-dependent (Carlo et al., 2018; Kho et al., 2023). A few studies incorporated observation or teacher reports, for example Luo et al. (2023) had teachers evaluate students’ prosocial conduct alongside student self-reports, leveraging the teachers’ cross-situational perspective. Bayram Özdemir et al. (2022) used a multilevel design integrating teacher tolerance norms and adolescent self-reports to assess social behavior. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical Frameworks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research is grounded in a variety of theoretical frameworks that explain how culture might influence ToM and prosocial development. A prominent framework mentioned in several studies is socio-cultural theory, derived from Vygotskian ideas (Vygotsky, 1980), which posits that cognitive abilities like ToM develop through social interaction and cultural mediation (Wang et al., 2016; Xiao et al., 2024). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory was explicitly invoked in a couple of studies to organize findings: adolescents are seen as embedded in microsystems (family, peers, school) that are shaped by the overarching culture (Luo et al., 2023). Another, recurring theoretical angle was socialization and social learning theory. Researchers often presumed that children internalize the norms and behaviors modeled and rewarded by their culture. For instance, to explain why American adolescents who behaved prosocially gained popularity over time while Chinese adolescents did not, Zhang et al. (2018) drew on socialization theory: American teens might learn that helping others is an individual asset (a leadership or likability trait), whereas Chinese teens learn to help as an obligation that doesn’t set one apart. Thus, the meaning of prosocial behavior is culturally constructed through social feedback, consistent with social learning principles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome studies from East Asian contexts discussed Confucian cultural frameworks, noting how doctrines valuing education and social harmony influence youth behavior and cognition (Luo et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2016). In more West-centric studies, theories like empathy-developmental models (Carlo et al., 2018) and moral reasoning frameworks have been explored. For instance, Malti et al. (2021) provides a comprehensive review of moral development in adolescence, highlighting the integration of moral emotions and reasoning. Nucci and Turiel (2009) discuss the complexity of moral development and education, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing moral reasoning from social conventions. Smetana and Turiel (2006) delve into the development of moral judgments during adolescence, focusing on the interplay between moral reasoning and social understanding. These studies underscore that while certain aspects of moral development may be universal, cultural contexts significantly influence the expression and prioritization of moral values.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, a few dynamic and integrative frameworks have been proposed. Khalili et al. (2023) advanced a relational, cultural-developmental model which although not explicitly labeled as such, closely aligns with a dynamic systems perspective. They argue that researchers need to explore culture-context specific such as socioeconomic status (SES), spirituality, and gender norms in shaping the link between mentalization skills such as ToM and prosocial behaviour. Similarly, Heidelburg and Collins (2022) drew on critical race theory and the ecological validity framework to design a culturally grounded SEL intervention for African American youth. Across the studies, the theoretical through-line is that culture is a fundamental context for adolescent development, and frameworks that integrate cultural norms and values with developmental mechanisms (like learning, cognition, and motivation) are necessary to explain the observed variations in ToM and prosocial behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrengths and Limitations of the Review\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA key strength of this work is its systematic methodology and highlights the importance of recognizing cultural context in the relation between mentalization and prosociality in youth. The review protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42025631972) and PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed, ensuring transparency and rigor. We conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases using broad keywords to capture relevant studies. Included studies were subjected to quality appraisal (using JBI tools), and most were judged to be of moderate to high methodological quality. In synthesizing 19 diverse studies, the review brings together cross-cultural comparisons and multicultural-sample research to provide a coherent picture of how culture shapes adolescent social development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNonetheless, as a rapid review some limitations remain. Specifically, our search was limited to English-language publications from 2000-2024 and thus may have missed relevant non-English or very recent studies. The evidence base is also relatively small and skewed as most studies were school-based, and focused on targeted regions, which may limit generalizability. Many studies consisted of a cross-sectional design, which in turn prevented causal inferences about cultural effects. Additionally, heterogeneous methods and measures across studies precluded quantitative meta-analysis. Despite these limitations, the current findings draw on a variety of designs and settings, offering a robust and novel initial synthesis of this emerging field. The key contribution of our research is that it highlights areas in adolescent cognitive and social-emotional development that have been to date relatively unexplored - particularly the area of cultural context in the link between mentalization and prosocial cognitions and actions. Our findings provide the foundation to developing culturally informed and gender sensitive research and intervention programs for youth that explore mentalization and prosociality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFurther Directions for Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture work should address several identified gaps. First, there is a need for longitudinal and experimental studies to clarify causal pathways. Currently, most findings come from cross-sectional designs; prospective cohorts or intervention research (e.g. school programs promoting intercultural contact) could confirm how specific cultural exposures improve ToM and social and emotional behavior with a focus on prosociality. Second, researchers should measure ToM and prosocial behavior across culturally diverse contexts within the same study. To date, only one study explicitly examined these outcomes within a cultural context (Khalili et al., 2023). Third, future samples should be more diverse geographically and contextually and consider different ways to categorize countries and cultures in terms of majority and minority countries (Draper, 2025). Moreover, in agreement with Brown et al., (2025), we recommend studies in underrepresented regions (such as Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East), and settings outside formal schools (e.g. community programs or virtual environments) to ensure findings are globally relevant. Research should also engage broader participant demographics including rural youth, different socioeconomic strata, and fathers or other caregivers, not solely mothers. Fourth, multi-method approaches are also needed. Incorporating behavioral tasks, observational data, and reports from multiple informants (peers, parents, teachers) will strengthen measurement of ToM and prosociality beyond self-report. Moreover, the role of language, particularly bilingualism, in ToM development merits further investigation. Weimer et al. (2021) discuss how bilingual individuals often exhibit enhanced ToM abilities, possibly due to the cognitive demands of managing multiple language systems. This bilingual advantage suggests that language experience is a significant factor in social-cognitive development and calls for the need to explore how overlapping social identities influence social cognition and prosocial tendencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, future research could probe these pathways: do interventions that reinforce positive cultural identity buffer against the negative impacts of discrimination on prosociality? How can culturally informed and gender-sensitive curricula that emphasize global citizenship complement familistic values to promote helping beyond in-groups? By addressing these gaps with rigorous, culturally sensitive designs, future studies will build on this review’s foundation and further elucidate the role of cultural diversity in shaping adolescent social development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis review highlights the crucial role that cultural context plays in shaping adolescents\u0026rsquo; ToM and prosocial behavior. Cross-cultural comparisons and multicultural experiences show that diverse social environments enrich adolescent\u0026rsquo;s mind-reading abilities and empathy. Key cultural factors including schooling practices, family socialization, peer group diversity, and broader value orientations (collectivist vs. individualist norms) consistently emerged as drivers of variation in ToM and prosoical behaviors. Notably, exposure to inclusive, compassionate, and caring school climates and intergroup, cross-ethnic friendships is associated with better perspective-taking and willingness to assist out-group peers, whereas negative experiences such as ethnic bias tended to undermine altruism unless counteracted by strong cultural identity and community support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, adolescence appears to be a sensitive period when social-cognitive skills are cultivated through culturally shaped interactions. These findings emphasize that researchers and practitioners must adopt a cultural-developmental lens: fostering empathy and cooperation in diverse societies will be most successful when approaches resonate with young people\u0026rsquo;s cultural identities and experiences. In sum, integrating cross-cultural evidence reveals that cultural diversity can be a powerful positive force in adolescents\u0026rsquo; developmental pathways.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors report no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, SSHRC IG anonymized.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHK conceived of the study, conducted the literature search, conducted and coordinated the screenings and data extraction, and drafted the manuscript; ZKV participated in the screenings, data extraction and helped to draft the manuscript; SB participated in conceptualization of the study and making suggestionsfor editing manuscripts prior to submission. VT helped in making suggestions for editing manuscripts prior to submission. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe gratefully acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC IG #435-2021-0098) for funding support. We also thank our colleagues for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions during the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe search strategy used for the systematic review is available to view in the pre-registered protocol, available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025631972All relevant data, including full reference lists at each stage of the review, data extraction, and quality appraisal information, are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkag\u0026uuml;nd\u0026uuml;z Eğri̇Kilin\u0026ccedil;, D. (2023). Koruma ve bakim altindaki̇ ergenlerde zi̇hi̇n kurami ve prososyal beceri̇ler. \u003cem\u003eSocial science development journal\u003c/em\u003e, 41.https://doi.org/10.31567/ssd.1099\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAral, T., Schachner, M. K., Juang, L., \u0026amp; Schwarzenthal, M. (2022). Cultural diversity approaches in schools and adolescents\u0026rsquo; willingness to support refugee youth. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e92\u003c/em\u003e(2), 772\u0026ndash;799. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12458\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayram \u0026Ouml;zdemir, S., Yanagida, T., \u0026amp; \u0026Ouml;zdemir, M. (2022). Bystanders of ethnic victimization: Do classroom context and teachers\u0026rsquo; approach matter for how adolescents intend to act? \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e93\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1540\u0026ndash;1558. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13822\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBosacki, S., Bialecka-Pikul, M., \u0026amp; Szpak, M. (2015). The adolescent mind in school: Theory of mind and self-concept in Canadian and Polish youth. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Adolescence and Youth\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(4), 457\u0026ndash;469. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2013.804423\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBosacki, S., \u0026amp; Astington, J. (1999). Theory of mind in preadolescence: Relations between social understanding and social competence. \u003cem\u003eSocial Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 237\u0026ndash;255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00093\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrittian, A. S., O\u0026rsquo;Donnell, M., Knight, G. P., Carlo, G., Uma\u0026ntilde;a-Taylor, A. J., \u0026amp; Roosa, M. W. (2013). Associations between adolescents\u0026rsquo; perceived discrimination and prosocial tendencies: The mediating role of mexican american values. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(3), 328\u0026ndash;341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9856-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, A., Weiss, E., Suntheimer, N. M., Appiah, R., Aurino, E., \u0026amp; Wolf, S. (2025). Factorial and cultural validity of a social and emotional behavior measure in Northern Ghana. \u003cem\u003eApplied Developmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2025.2474975\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, B. B., \u0026amp; Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner \u0026amp; L. Steinberg (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Adolescent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e (1st ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCalder\u0026oacute;n-Tena, C. O., Knight, G. P., \u0026amp; Carlo, G. (2011). The socialization of prosocial behavioral tendencies among Mexican American adolescents: The role of familism values. \u003cem\u003eCultural Diversity \u0026amp; Ethnic Minority Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 98\u0026ndash;106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021825\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaputi, M., Lecce, S., Pagnin, A., \u0026amp; Banerjee, R. (2012). Longitudinal effects of theory of mind on later peer relations: The role of prosocial behavior. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(1), 257\u0026ndash;270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025402\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarlo, G., \u0026amp; Padilla‐Walker, L. (2020). Adolescents\u0026rsquo; prosocial behaviors through a multidimensional and multicultural lens. \u003cem\u003eChild Development Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 265\u0026ndash;272. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12391\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarlo, G., Streit, C., \u0026amp; Crockett, L. (2018). Generalizability of a traditional social cognitive model of prosocial behaviors to U.S. Latino/a youth. \u003cem\u003eCultural Diversity \u0026amp; Ethnic Minority Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(4), 596\u0026ndash;604. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000188\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChaplin, T. M., \u0026amp; Aldao, A. (2013). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e139\u003c/em\u003e(4), 735\u0026ndash;765. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030737\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorbera, S., Kurtz, M. M., Achim, A. M., Agostoni, G., Amado, I., Assaf, M., Barlati, S., Bechi, M., Cavallaro, R., Ikezawa, S., Okano, H., Okubo, R., Penad\u0026eacute;s, R., Uchino, T., Vita, A., Yamada, Y., \u0026amp; Bell, M. D. (2025). International perspective on social cognition in schizophrenia: Current stage and the next steps. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e(1), e9. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.1776\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis, A. N., Carlo, G., Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Cano, M. \u0026Aacute;., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Oshri, A., Streit, C., Martinez, M. M., Pi\u0026ntilde;a-Watson, B., Lizzi, K., \u0026amp; Soto, D. (2016). The longitudinal associations between discrimination, depressive symptoms, and prosocial behaviors in u. S. Latino/a recent immigrant adolescents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 457\u0026ndash;470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0394-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis, A. N., McGinley, M., Carlo, G., Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Rosiers, S. E. D., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., \u0026amp; Soto, D. (2021). Examining discrimination and familism values as longitudinal predictors of prosocial behaviors among recent immigrant adolescents. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Behavioral Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(4), 317\u0026ndash;326. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254211005561\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDevine, R. T., Grumley Traynor, I., Ronchi, L., \u0026amp; Lecce, S. (2024). Children in ethnically diverse classrooms and those with cross‐ethnic friendships excel at understanding others\u0026rsquo; minds. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1447\u0026ndash;1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14085\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDevine, R. T., \u0026amp; Hughes, C. (2013). Silent films and strange stories: Theory of mind, gender, and social experiences in middle childhood. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e84\u003c/em\u003e(3), 989\u0026ndash;1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDraper, C. E. (2025). Qualitative research on \u003cem\u003einfant and child development\u003c/em\u003e in majority world countries. \u003cem\u003eInfant and Child Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(4), e70039. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.70039\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFu, X., Zhang, M., Zhu, K., Li, S., Fu, R., Zhang, M., Guo, X., \u0026amp; Duan, J. (2024). Relations between school climates and bullying behaviors in Chinese adolescents: The mediating role of prosocial tendency. \u003cem\u003eActa Psychologica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e248\u003c/em\u003e, 104335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104335\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraves, S. L., \u0026amp; Aston, C. (2018). A mixed‐methods study of a social emotional curriculum for Black male success: A school‐based pilot study of the Brothers of Ujima. \u003cem\u003ePsychology in the Schools\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(1), 76\u0026ndash;84. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22088\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHa, S. Y., Lin, T.-J., Li, W.-T., Kraatz, E., Chiu, Y.-J., Hong, Y.-R., Tsai, C.-C., \u0026amp; Glassman, M. (2020). Peer exclusion: A social convention or moral decision? Cross-cultural insights into students\u0026rsquo; social reasoning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cognition and Culture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;2), 127\u0026ndash;154. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340078\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeidelburg, K., \u0026amp; Collins, T. A. (2022). Development of \u003cem\u003eblack to success\u003c/em\u003e: A culturally enriched social skills program for black adolescent males. \u003cem\u003eSchool Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(3), 316\u0026ndash;329. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.2001691\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHughes, C., \u0026amp; Leekam, S. (2004). What are the links between theory of mind and social relations? Review, reflections and new directions for studies of typical and atypical development. \u003cem\u003eSocial Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 590\u0026ndash;619. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00285.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eImuta, K., Henry, J. D., Slaughter, V., Selcuk, B., \u0026amp; Ruffman, T. (2016). Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1192\u0026ndash;1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000140\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKennedy-Turner, J., Nemeth, Z., \u0026amp; Anderson, L. (2025). \u003cem\u003eIs familial expressed emotion associated with self-harm and suicidality in childhood and adolescence? A systematic review.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAdolescent Research Review.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-025-00261-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhalili, N., Bosacki, S., \u0026amp; Talwar, V. (2023). The moderating role of spirituality and gender in Canadian and Iranian emerging adolescents\u0026rsquo; theory of mind and prosocial behavior. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, 1134826. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134826\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKho, C., White, R. M. B., Zhao, C., Knight, G. P., \u0026amp; Roche, K. M. (2023). Familism values and psychological adjustment of Latinx adolescents in an emerging immigrant community: A five wave longitudinal study. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1315\u0026ndash;1326. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001554\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuhnert, R.-L., Begeer, S., Fink, E., \u0026amp; De Rosnay, M. (2017). Gender-differentiated effects of theory of mind, emotion understanding, and social preference on prosocial behavior development: A longitudinal study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Child Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e154\u003c/em\u003e, 13\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.10.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, S.-Y., Matthews, M., Shin, J., \u0026amp; Kim, M.-S. (2020). Academically gifted adolescents\u0026rsquo; social purpose. \u003cem\u003eHigh Ability Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17\u0026ndash;42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2018.1533452\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu, T., Li, L., Niu, L., Jin, S., \u0026amp; French, D. C. (2018). Relations between popularity and prosocial behavior in middle school and high school Chinese adolescents. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Behavioral Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(2), 175\u0026ndash;181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416687411\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuo, Y., Ma, T., \u0026amp; Deng, Y. (2023). School climate and adolescents\u0026rsquo; prosocial behavior: The mediating role of perceived social support and resilience. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, 1095566. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1095566\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalti, T. (2025). \u003cem\u003ebecoming humane\u003c/em\u003e: The development of kindness in an age of division. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Behavioral Development\u003c/em\u003e, 01650254251344602. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254251344602\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalti, T., \u0026amp; Davidov, M. (2023). Introduction: What is prosocial development? : definition, history, mechanisms. In T. Malti \u0026amp; M. Davidov (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Cambridge Handbook of Prosociality\u003c/em\u003e (1st ed., pp. 3\u0026ndash;16). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108876681.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalti, T., Galarneau, E., \u0026amp; Peplak, J. (2021). Moral development in adolescence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research on Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1097\u0026ndash;1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12639\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaynard, M. L., Khalid, H., Karimi Valoojerdy, Z., Talwar, V., \u0026amp; Bosacki, S. L. (2025). Adolescent development in unprecedented times: A comparative study of theory of mind before and after covid-19. \u003cem\u003eAdolescents\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5020011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilligan, K., Astington, J. W., \u0026amp; Dack, L. A. (2007). Language and theory of mind: Meta‐analysis of the relation between language ability and false‐belief understanding\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eChild Development, 78\u003c/em\u003e(2), 622\u0026ndash;646. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorales, M. F., \u0026amp; Farkas, C. (2025). Children\u0026rsquo;s theory of mind and family socioeconomic status: What can different approaches and contexts tell us about the same construct? \u003cem\u003eSocial Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(2), e12798. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12798\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNucci, L., \u0026amp; Turiel, E. (2009). Capturing the complexity of moral development and education. \u003cem\u003eMind, Brain, and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(3), 151\u0026ndash;159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01065.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOsterhaus, C., D\u0026rsquo;Urso, G., Koerber, S., \u0026amp; Bosacki, S. L. (2025). Theory of mind, self-perceptions, and peer popularity in middle childhood and early adolescence. \u003cem\u003eChildren\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12030281\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOsterhaus, C., Koerber, S., \u0026amp; Sodian, B. (2016). Scaling of advanced theory‐of‐mind tasks. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1971\u0026ndash;1991. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12566\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayram \u0026Ouml;zdemir, S., \u0026Ouml;zdemir, M., \u0026amp; Boersma, K. (2022). How does adolescents\u0026rsquo; openness to diversity change over time? The role of majority-minority friendship, friends\u0026rsquo; views, and classroom social context. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(1), 75\u0026ndash;88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01329-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePage, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hr\u0026oacute;bjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., \u0026hellip; Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eBMJ\u003c/em\u003e, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeterson, C. C., Wellman, H. M., \u0026amp; Liu, D. (2005). Steps in theory‐of‐mind development for children with deafness or autism. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e76\u003c/em\u003e(2), 502\u0026ndash;517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00859.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePlanalp, E. M., Hilton, E. C., Van Hulle, C., Goldsmith, H. H., \u0026amp; Zahn‐Waxler, C. (2025). Empathy as a risky strength: Associations with parent and child depressive symptoms in middle childhood. \u003cem\u003eSocial Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(2), e12800. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12800\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiu, X., Gao, M., Zhu, H., Li, W., \u0026amp; Jiang, R. (2024). Theory of mind, empathy, and prosocial behavior in children and adolescent: A meta- analysis. Current Psychology, 43(22), 19690\u0026ndash;19707. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s12144-024-05762-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRakesh, D., Whittle, S., Sheridan, M. A., \u0026amp; McLaughlin, K. A. (2023). Childhood socioeconomic status and the pace of structural neurodevelopment: Accelerated, delayed, or simply different? \u003cem\u003eTrends in Cognitive Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(9), 833\u0026ndash;851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.03.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., \u0026amp; Jarvis, L. H. (2007). Ethnic identity and acculturation in Hispanic early adolescents: Mediated relationships to academic grades, prosocial behaviors, and externalizing symptoms. \u003cem\u003eCultural Diversity \u0026amp; Ethnic Minority Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 364\u0026ndash;373. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.4.364\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmetana, J. G., \u0026amp; Turiel, E. (2006). Moral development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams \u0026amp; M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eBlackwell Handbook of Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e (1st ed., pp. 247\u0026ndash;268). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756607.ch12\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpivak, White, Juvonen, \u0026amp; Graham. (2015). Correlates of prosocial behaviors of students in ethnically and racially diverse middle schools. \u003cem\u003eMerrill-Palmer Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e(2), 236. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.2.0236\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVygotsky, L. S. (1980). \u003cem\u003eMind in society: Development of higher psychological processes\u003c/em\u003e (M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, \u0026amp; E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, J. H., Merrin, G. J., Kiefer, S. M., Jackson, J. L., Huckaby, P. L., Pascarella, L. A., Blake, C. L., Gomez, M. D., \u0026amp; Smith, N. D. W. (2023). \u003cem\u003ePeer relations of adolescents with adverse childhood experiences: A systematic literature review of two decades.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAdolescent Research Review, 9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 477\u0026ndash;512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-023-00226-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Z., Devine, R. T., Wong, K. K., \u0026amp; Hughes, C. (2016). Theory of mind and executive function during middle childhood across cultures. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Child Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e149\u003c/em\u003e, 6\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.028\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeimer, A. A., Warnell, K. R., Ettekal, I., Cartwright, K. B., Guajardo, N. R., \u0026amp; Liew, J. (2021). Correlates and antecedents of theory of mind development during middle childhood and adolescence: An integrated model. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e, 100945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100945\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiao, S. X., G\u0026uuml;lseven, Z., Clancy, E. T., Liew, J., Carlo, G., Kim, S., \u0026amp; Jiang, S. (2024). Measuring early adolescents\u0026rsquo; prosocial behavior toward diverse others: Considering multiple social identities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e96\u003c/em\u003e(4), 841\u0026ndash;854. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12305\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu, C., Kovelman, I., \u0026amp; Wellman, H. M. (2021). How bilingualism informs theory of mind development. \u003cem\u003eChild Development Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 154\u0026ndash;159. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12412\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, X., Pomerantz, E. M., Qin, L., Logis, H., Ryan, A. M., \u0026amp; Wang, M. (2018). Characteristics of likability, perceived popularity, and admiration in the early adolescent peer system in the United States and China. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1568\u0026ndash;1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000544\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao, C., White, R. M. B., \u0026amp; Roche, K. M. (2022). Familism values, family assistance, and prosocial behaviors among u. S. Latinx adolescents. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Early Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(7), 914\u0026ndash;936. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316221078831\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Theory of Mind (ToM), Prosocial Behavior, Cultural Diversity, Adolescent Development, Social Cognition","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7357691/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7357691/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAdolescence is a significant development period characterized by advances in cognitive abilities and evolving social relationships. A central skill that emerges is theory of mind, the ability to understand others\u0026rsquo; thoughts, feelings and intentions, which underpins prosocial behaviors, such as empathy, cooperation, and helping. As cultural diversity becomes increasingly prominent in educational settings, adolescents' daily interactions in schools offer critical opportunities to practice mindreading and mentalization skills and to foster inclusive, prosocial behavior. This literature review systematically synthesizes findings from 19 empirical studies across diverse regions to examine how cultural exposure, values, and socialization practices influence adolescents\u0026rsquo; ability to understand others\u0026rsquo; mental states and engage in prosocial actions. Findings indicate that multicultural exposure, such as attending ethnically diverse schools or forming cross-ethnic friendships, is consistently associated with stronger perspective-taking and empathy. Cross-cultural comparisons further show that cultural values channel the meaning and outcomes of prosociality, with collectivist contexts emphasizing duty-based helping and individualist contexts framing it as personal choice or leadership. Moderating factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, and spirituality also emerged as influential. While most studies were school-based and cross-sectional, limiting causal conclusions and generalizability beyond studied regions, the synthesis highlights consistent benefits of inclusive and diverse environments. Practical and policy implications include fostering culturally responsive practices in schools and families, alongside interventions that reinforce positive identity and intergroup contact. Integrating cultural perspectives is therefore essential for a comprehensive understanding of adolescent social-cognitive development and prosocial behavior.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Role of Cultural Diversity in Adolescents' Theory of Mind (ToM) and Prosociality: A Review of the Literature","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-29 11:26:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7357691/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9d08995b-e74c-4d1f-8886-85268ae0fc54","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-29T11:26:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-29 11:26:33","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7357691","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7357691","identity":"rs-7357691","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}