A recent meta-analysis conducted by Hung and colleagues examined the effectiveness of school-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs for K–12 students’ prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is conceptualized as any voluntary behavior intended to benefit others, such as helping, sharing, comforting, and defending others. The researchers analyzed 66 studies and 157 effect sizes involving 52,914 youth.
Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges’ g, which includes a small sample bias correction to the effect size estimate to account for small studies. Because most studies contributed multiple effect sizes, the authors used a correlated effects (CE) model with robust variance estimation (RVE) to account for within-study dependence among effect sizes. Approach refers to whether an SEL program takes a curricular, interactional, structural, or combined approach. To examine whether the effect of SEL programs on prosocial behavior was moderated by sample, program, methodological, and publication characteristics, the authors conducted a mixed-effects meta-regression analysis with all moderators added to the model simultaneously. In total, they investigated 14 moderating variables such as approach, school level, urbanicity, and dosage.
The remaining moderating variables yielded no statistically significant differences. Results indicated that effects for rural, suburban, and combination areas were not statistically different from samples from urban areas. Results also indicated that effects were not statistically significantly different between samples with higher versus lower proportions of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. Effects of curricular and curricular combined with structural or interactional approaches were not significantly different from SEL programs that only used an interactional approach. Findings indicated that effects of studies delivered at Tier 2 were not statistically different from Tier 1 studies. Studies that used a quasi-experimental design and single-group pre–post design yielded similar effects on prosocial behavior compared to studies that used a randomized controlled trial. Effects were similar across different types of prosocial behavior measures. Effects from studies that did not meet baseline equivalence were not statistically significantly different from studies that met baseline equivalence, and effects from studies that did not report implementation fidelity were not statistically significantly different from studies that reported fidelity of implementation. Results indicated that effects from studies conducted across earlier decades were not statistically significantly different from studies conducted more recently, and effects were similar for peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies.
The authors further noted that most studies were conducted with elementary school children (56%), the majority implemented universal Tier 1 interventions (89%), and a curricular approach was the most common (77%). Additionally, a considerable proportion of studies did not report key demographic data, with 71% failing to report free or reduced-price lunch rates.
A key implication for practice from this meta-analytic review is that school-based SEL programs are effective in promoting K–12 students’ prosocial behavior, and that “more is not necessarily better” — a moderate dosage and moderate duration may be most ideal. Future policy and practice should take into account this “less is more” finding. At the same time, more research is needed involving secondary schools, rural schools, non-curricular approaches, and diverse student populations in order to fully understand the effectiveness of SEL programs.
Source (Open Access): Hung, C., Brass, N. R., Brockmeier, L., Bergin, C., Imler, M., & Luper, S. B. (2026). Social and Emotional Learning Programs and Students’ Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 00346543261438462.