Volume 6 / Issue 1 SPRING 2020

3 0 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 6 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 2 0 cover the prosocial behavior construct, and two items for aggressive (physical and verbal) behavior. In the PROS-8 instrument, two items referred also on hidden aggression and social lack of interest: “This person defames others (he at - tacks other in a hidden way)”, and “This person has no inter - est in others at all”. There were three forms used: self-report (Cronb. alpha =.70), peer-report (.86), and teacher-report (.90). In peer-report, every student evaluated three of his/her classmates. Teacher (of ethical education) was asked to evaluate all the classroom students. Life Meaningfulness Scale (LMS, Halama, 2002) . The scale consists 18 items including three dimensions based on three-component theory of meaning (Reker and Wong 1988), e.g. cognitive dimension consists of items related to overall life orientation, understanding of life and my place in the world (e.g. “I consider my life valuable and useful”), motivational dimension of the item in terms of goals, plans, strength and perseverance in their implementation (e.g. “my life is the things I am fully engaged in”) and the affective dimension of an item related to life satisfaction, fulfillment, and negatively disgust, a sense of monotony (e.g. “I am happy with my life, even if it is sometimes difficult”). Respondents agree on items on a 5-point scale from 1 (I disagree at all) to 5 (I agree at all). The higher the overall score, the higher the level of life meaningfulness. The reliability of the test was Cronb. alpha = .739 (T3), and .765 (T4). Teacher’s Interpersonal Behavior. TheQuestionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI, Wubbels and Levy 1991, adopted by Vašíčková 2015) allowed students to describe the teacher style of interaction. The instrument consists 48 items (half of them with negative formulation) covering eight factors: Leadership, Helping/Friendly, Understanding, Responsibility, Uncertain, Dissatisfied, Admonishing, and Strict, e.g. “He looks as though he doesn’t know what to do” (negative item for the leadership behavior factor). The reliability of the whole set of items was Cronb. alpha = .772 (T3), and .788 (T4). 3.4 Results (the 2nd study) As there are interesting repeatedly measured correlations between ethical education evaluation and teacher interpersonal behavior (see Table 2), this variable was assumed to strongly mediate the associations between ethical education and sense in life. Also the associations between EEE and meaning in life remain worthy to mention although the correlations are a little bit weaker comparing to previous stages of the longitudinal research (T3: T4: r=.202, p<.05). In other words, there are still remarkable differences between students who evaluate highly the ethical education, and who do not (see Table 3). However, there are eight various types of teacher interaction as well as three dimensions of meaning in life scale. To address our research questions, we have included these types and dimensions one by one in the models for each time (T1, T2), so that 48 different models were calculated (self-reported prosocial behavior score was included). Only few of them we present at this place. Based on data analysis for Time 1, prosocial behavior explains 19% of overall meaning of life score: R2 =.194, F(1, 364)=87.84, p<.001, ß=.441. Adding EEE, the model increased only slightly to 21%: R2 =.218, F(2, 263)=36.67, p<.001. But, even teacher interpersonal behavior explains rather great amount of EEE (e.g. organizational behavior: 38%, R2 =.384, F(1, 264)=164,27, p<.001, ß=.619), there is no growth when including teacher interpersonal behavior in the models of associations between prosocial behavior, EEE, and meaning in life: 21%, R2 =.218, F(3, 262)=24.37, p<.001 (for organizational behavior, in this case, but very similar for all the other types). As expected, based on virtue ethics theory emphasizing the role of emotions in character education, from the three dimensions of meaning in life, the affective dimension shows stronger associations comparing to overall meaning in life score: 24%, R2 =.241, F(2, 263)=41.83, p<.001. For Time 2, a striking finding is that explanation of the mod - el of relations between prosocial behavior and meaning in life dropped to only 6%: R2 =.063, F(1, 264)=17.70, p<0.001, ß=.251, and adding EEE to the model doesn´t increase the explanation level, by contrast, the t-statistics slightly decreased from p<0.001 to p=.037.