Correlation analyses presented in Table 12 indicated a differentiated pattern of associations among prosocialness, meaning in life, and psychological resilience dimensions. Prosocialness exhibited predominantly weak to low-to-moderate correlations with family cohesion (r = 0.08, Z = 0.08), presence of meaning in life (r = 0.23, Z = 0.23), search for meaning in life (r = 0.32, Z = 0.33), and resilience-related subdimensions such as structural style (r = 0.22, Z = 0.22), perception of future (r = 0.23, Z = 0.23), perception of self (r = 0.19, Z = 0.19), social competence (r = 0.21, Z = 0.21), and social resources (r = 0.16, Z = 0.16). These findings suggest that prosocial tendencies are modestly embedded within broader psychosocial resources rather than strongly overlapping with any single construct.

The presence and search for meaning in life were moderately correlated (r = 0.32, Z = 0.33), supporting their conceptual relatedness while maintaining empirical distinction. In contrast, associations between meaning in life dimensions and resilience subcomponents were generally weak or negligible, as reflected by low Z values (e.g., presence of meaning with structural style: r = −0.05, Z = 0.05; with family cohesion: r = −0.04, Z = 0.04), indicating limited direct overlap between meaning-related constructs and resilience resources at the bivariate level. More pronounced associations emerged among psychological resilience subdimensions themselves. Structural style demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with perception of future (r = 0.44, Z = 0.47), perception of self (r = 0.40, Z = 0.42), social competence (r = 0.34, Z = 0.35), and social resources (r = 0.28, Z = 0.28). Similarly, perception of future showed strong relationships with perception of self (r = 0.45, Z = 0.48), social competence (r = 0.38, Z = 0.40), and social resources (r = 0.41, Z = 0.43). Family cohesion was strongly associated with perception of self (r = 0.49, Z = 0.53), social competence (r = 0.47, Z = 0.51), and social resources (r = 0.57, Z = 0.64), indicating a tightly interconnected resilience structure.

Psychological resilience demonstrated consistently strong correlations with its core subdimensions, particularly perception of future (r = 0.66, Z = 0.79), family cohesion (r = 0.74, Z = 0.95), perception of self (r = 0.79, Z = 1.07), and social competence (r = 0.81, Z = 1.13). In contrast, its associations with presence (r = −0.04, Z = 0.04) and search for meaning in life (r = 0.08, Z = 0.08) were weak, underscoring that resilience and meaning in life represent related yet empirically distinct psychological domains. Overall, Fisher’s Z transformations corroborated the observed magnitude of correlation coefficients, with higher Z values clustering among resilience-related constructs and lower values characterizing associations involving prosocialness and meaning in life. This pattern suggests that while prosocialness and meaning are meaningfully connected to psychological resilience, their relationships are modest in strength and likely operate through complex, multivariate pathways rather than direct, isolated associations.

Psychological resilience and social competence showed a strong association, suggesting a close potential association. Fisher Z scores were reported due to their ability to stabilize the variance of correlation coefficients and facilitate meaningful comparisons across correlations.

The observed relationships among the variables provide preliminary support for a mediation model. Weak to moderate associations between prosocialness and meaning in life, structural style, and social functioning suggest that prosocial behavior may be indirectly influenced by these factors. Stronger associations among structural style, future orientation, family cohesion, self-perception, and social competence indicate potential pathways linking individual and social resources to prosocial tendencies. Additionally, psychological resilience showed strong to strong association with both personal and social attributes, highlighting its potential role as a key mediator within this network.

Multicollinearity diagnostics were examined using tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) values. As reported in Table 13, tolerance values for Meaning in Life and Psychological Resilience were 1.00, and the corresponding VIF values were also 1.00. These values are well within acceptable thresholds (tolerance > 0.20; VIF < 5), indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern in the regression analyses and that the parameter estimates can be interpreted with confidence.

Table 14 presents Cook’s Distance values for influential data points in the model. The minimum Cook’s Distance is 0.000, indicating that no observations exert extreme influence on the model. The maximum value is 0.050, suggesting the presence of some potentially influential observations that may affect parameter estimates. The mean Cook’s Distance is 0.001, with a standard deviation of 0.002, indicating that the influence of most data points is minimal and relatively evenly distributed. Although the maximum Cook’s Distance value remains below commonly used critical thresholds, its presence indicates that a small number of observations may exert disproportionate influence on the model. Therefore, additional robustness checks such as re-estimating the model after excluding these cases or conducting sensitivity analyses would help ensure that the reported findings are not driven by a limited number of influential observations and that the results remain stable across different model specifications.

The regression model summary presented in Table 15 provides an overview of the relationship between resilience, meaning, and prosocial behaviors. The r value of 0.40 indicates a moderate positive correlation between the predictor(s) and the outcome variable. The R-squared value of 0.16 means that 16% of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable(s). The adjusted R-squared, which accounts for the number of predictors, is also 0.16, suggesting that the inclusion of predictors does not substantially improve the model. Finally, the standard error of the estimate is 6.92, reflecting the average distance between the observed values and the predicted values, indicating a moderate level of variability in the predictions.

The ANOVA results presented in Table 16 demonstrate that the regression model is statistically significant. The regression sum of squares (SS = 11,808.66) compared to the residual sum of squares (SS = 61,453.82) indicates that the predictors explain a meaningful proportion of the total variance in the dependent variable. The model yields a highly significant F-value [F(2, 1,285] = 123.46, p < 0.001), confirming that the set of predictor variables collectively makes a statistically significant contribution to explaining variance in the outcome variable. These findings support the overall adequacy and explanatory power of the regression model.

The regression coefficients presented in Table 17 show the contribution of the predictor variables, Meaning in Life and Psychological Resilience, to the dependent variables, including resilience, meaning, and prosocial behaviors. The intercept of the regression model is 34.09, representing the expected value of the dependent variable when all predictors are zero. For Meaning in Life, the unstandardized coefficient (B) is 0.27, indicating that a one-unit increase in Meaning in Life is associated with a 0.27-unit increase in the dependent variable. The standardized coefficient (Beta) is 0.32, reflecting a moderate effect size. The t-value of 12.52 (p < 0.001) demonstrates that this predictor is highly significant.

For Psychological Resilience, the unstandardized coefficient (B) is 0.10, meaning that each one-unit increase in Psychological Resilience corresponds to a 0.10-unit increase in the dependent variable. The standardized coefficient (Beta) is 0.24, indicating a smaller effect size compared to Meaning in Life. The t-value of 9.33 (p < 0.001) confirms that this predictor is also statistically significant. Overall, both Meaning in Life and Psychological Resilience significantly contribute to the regression model, highlighting their meaningful roles in explaining variations in resilience, meaning, and prosocial behaviors among the participants.

Table 18 shows the appropriate fit index values (Gürbüz, 2021).

The goodness-of-fit indices displayed in Table 19 indicate that the measurement model for adult prosociality, meaning in life, and psychological resilience demonstrates an acceptable to good overall fit. The chi-square value is statistically significant (χ² = 44.59, df = 22), and the chi-square/df ratio of 2.03 falls within the commonly recommended threshold (< 3), indicating an adequate model fit. Incremental fit indices also support the robustness of the model: NFI (0.93), TLI (0.94), and CFI (0.96) all exceed the 0.90 criterion, reflecting strong comparative model performance. Furthermore, the RMSEA value (0.06) remains within acceptable limits (<0.08), indicating a reasonable approximation error. Collectively, these indicators provide evidence that the model fits the data well and supports the structural integrity of the constructs examined.

Table 20 indicates a significant relationship between prosocial behaviors and life meaning dimensions as well as psychological resilience (R = 0.44, R² = 0.197, p < 0.05). The regression analysis shows that the presence of meaning in life (t = 3.08, p = 0.002) and the search for meaning (t = 4.17, p < 0.001) significantly predict prosocial behaviors, together explaining 17.4% of the variance (F = 8.46, p < 0.05). Although these associated are statistically significant, the R² values (ranging from 0.16 to 0.197) indicate a modest level of predictive power, suggesting that prosocial behaviors among sport sciences students are influenced by additional psychological, social, and contextual factors not captured in the model. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted as meaningful but partial contributions rather than comprehensive explanations of prosocial behavior. Moreover, in line with prior methodological considerations, model fit indices such as χ² in the SEM analyses should be interpreted with caution, as χ² statistics are known to be sensitive to large sample sizes and may overestimate model misfit in large samples.

Table 21 indicates that the total effect of Psychological Resilience on Meaning in Life was not statistically significant (β = 0.007, 95% CI [−0.022, 0.036]). When Prosocial Behaviors were included in the model, the direct effect became statistically significant and negative (β = −0.038, 95% CI [−0.067, −0.008]), while the indirect effect via Prosocial Behaviors was positive and significant (β = 0.045, 95% CI [0.033, 0.058]). Additionally, both the partially mediated effect (β = 0.005, 95% CI [0.004, 0.006]) and the completely mediated effect (β = 0.082, 95% CI [0.060, 0.107]) were statistically significant, with the completely mediated effect showing a larger magnitude. Overall, these findings indicate that the relationship between Psychological Resilience and Meaning in Life operates primarily through Prosocial Behaviors.

Figure 1 shows the Structural Equation Model of the standard values of the Adult Social Behavior, Meaning in Life, and Adult Resilience Scales.

Figure 2 illustrates scatter plots with regression lines depicting the relationships among psychological resilience, prosocial behaviors, and meaning in life. The plots indicate positive linear associations between the variables, such that higher levels of psychological resilience are associated with greater prosocial behaviors, and both constructs are positively related to meaning in life.

This study examined the relationships among psychological resilience, prosocial behavior, and meaning in life among a sample of sports science students, contributing to the growing literature on positive psychological processes in educational and sport-related contexts. The findings indicate that prosocial behavior is positively associated with both the presence of and the search for meaning in life, consistent with prior research reporting links between helping behaviors and indicators of psychological well-being (Kasser et al., 2004; Penner et al., 2005). Similarly, positive associations were observed between resilience-related components such as perception of the future, family cohesion, social competence, and available social resources and prosocial behavior, aligning with studies emphasizing the interconnectedness of social–emotional resources and prosocial tendencies. Beyond these parallels, the present findings are conceptually consistent with recent daily-diary and longitudinal studies reporting bidirectional associations between prosocial behavior and meaning in life (Dakin et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022). Observing comparable relational patterns in sports science students a group characterized by competition, teamwork, and elevated physical and psychological demands extends the relevance of these associations to a distinct academic and performance-oriented population.

Within the context of sports and educational psychology, these findings align with prior evidence suggesting that resilience-related resources and meaning-making processes play a central role in athletes’ adaptive functioning, motivation, and social engagement (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2012; Gucciardi et al., 2008). In educational settings, meaning in life has been associated with greater engagement, persistence, and socially responsible behavior, suggesting that meaning-related processes may operate as motivational resources that support both individual well-being and interpersonal functioning (Hill et al., 2016; Steger, 2012). The present results therefore contribute to an integrative understanding of how resilience and meaning in life jointly relate to prosocial tendencies in sport-oriented educational environments.

The results are also congruent with theoretical perspectives such as Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, which emphasizes reciprocal relations among personal factors (e.g., meaning and resilience), behaviors (prosociality), and environmental influences, without implying unidirectional causality (Bandura, 1997). From an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) perspective, prosocial actions that align with personal values are theoretically linked to meaning-related processes, a pattern reflected in the observed associations within the proposed model (Hayes, 2022). The primary theoretical contribution of this study lies in testing a comprehensive three-variable structural model within a sports science student sample and demonstrating that prosocial behavior is differentially associated with resilience and the two dimensions of meaning in life. The findings suggest that the presence of meaning and the search for meaning relate to prosocial behavior in distinct ways, indicating that prosociality functions as a differentiated relational mechanism rather than a uniform construct across meaning dimensions. This nuanced pattern adds refinement to the existing literature.

Building on this distinction, the differentiated associations of the presence of meaning and the search for meaning with prosocial behavior provide important insight into the nuanced mechanisms linking psychological resilience, meaning, and social engagement. Specifically, the presence of meaning appears to reflect a more stable and integrated sense of purpose that is readily translated into sustained prosocial engagement, whereas the search for meaning may represent a more exploratory and motivational process that prompts prosocial behavior as a means of identity construction and value clarification (Steger et al., 2006; Park, 2010).

From this perspective, prosocial behaviors may serve distinct psychological functions depending on individuals’ meaning orientation: reinforcing existing meaning structures for those with a strong presence of meaning, while facilitating meaning-making processes for those actively searching for purpose. This distinction helps explain why resilience-related resources may be differentially channeled into social engagement, depending on whether individuals experience meaning as established or emerging (Van Tongeren et al., 2016).

By highlighting these differentiated pathways, the present findings extend existing models of resilience and meaning by demonstrating that prosocial behavior is not merely a uniform outcome of adaptive functioning, but a context-sensitive mechanism through which resilient capacities are socially expressed and meaning-related processes are enacted. This nuanced interpretation strengthens the theoretical contribution of the study by integrating motivational, social, and meaning-based perspectives within a single empirical framework.

Nevertheless, alternative interpretations of the observed relationships should be considered. Prior research suggests that meaning in life may prospectively relate to later prosocial behavior (Zhang et al., 2022), while other studies indicate that engagement in prosocial actions may be associated with subsequent increases in resilience. Accordingly, multiple directional pathways among meaning, prosociality, and resilience remain theoretically plausible. Given the cross-sectional design of the present study, the findings should be interpreted as evidence of associations rather than causal effects, and future longitudinal or experimental research is needed to clarify temporal ordering and directional dynamics. Regarding effect sizes, the regression model explained approximately 16% of the variance in prosocial behavior (R² = 0.16), indicating a statistically significant yet modest level of explained variance. In line with research in psychological and social behavior domains, this finding suggests that meaning in life and psychological resilience are relevant correlates of prosocial behavior, while accounting for only a limited portion of its variability. Prosocial behavior is influenced by a complex interplay of individual, interpersonal, and contextual factors; therefore, a substantial proportion of variance is likely attributable to other unmeasured influences, such as sport identity, team climate, coaching practices, or motivational environments. From this perspective, the present results should be interpreted as reflecting meaningful but partial associations rather than strong predictive effects. Importantly, the acceptable fit indices of the structural model support the adequacy of the model structure, while also underscoring the multifaceted nature of prosocial behavior.

The results of the mediation analysis indicate that psychological resilience does not have a direct influence on meaning in life unless it is expressed through prosocial behaviors. The non-significant total effect suggests that resilience alone may not be sufficient to enhance individuals’ sense of meaning. However, once prosocial behaviors were incorporated into the model, a significant indirect effect emerged, demonstrating that resilience contributes to meaning in life primarily by promoting socially oriented actions such as helping and cooperation.

Notably, the pattern observed in the mediation analysis where the direct effect of psychological resilience on meaning in life becomes negative after the inclusion of prosocial behaviors, while the total effect remains close to zero may be indicative of a statistical suppression effect. Suppression occurs when the inclusion of a mediator increases the predictive validity of an independent variable by accounting for variance that is irrelevant or opposing in direction to the outcome variable (MacKinnon et al., 2000; Paulhus et al., 2004). In the present context, this finding suggests that certain components of psychological resilience may relate to meaning in life in different or even competing ways unless resilience is behaviorally expressed through prosocial engagement.

From a theoretical perspective, this pattern is consistent with models proposing that resilience-related capacities such as emotional control or self-reliance may not inherently foster meaning unless they are translated into socially meaningful action (Bonanno and Burton, 2013; Park, 2010). Prosocial behaviors may therefore function as an activating mechanism that channels resilient capacities toward value-consistent goals, thereby clarifying the positive association between resilience and meaning in life. Similar suppression patterns have been reported in prior mediation research examining complex psychological constructs, where indirect pathways reveal meaningful associations that are obscured at the total-effect level (MacKinnon et al., 2007; Hayes, 2018).

Accordingly, rather than undermining the validity of the mediation model, the observed suppression effect underscores the importance of examining indirect pathways when studying multifaceted constructs such as resilience and meaning. This finding highlights that the contribution of psychological resilience to meaning in life may be conditional upon its expression through prosocial behaviors, offering a more nuanced theoretical interpretation of the mediation process.

One limitation of the present study concerns the assessment of prosocial behavior through self-report measures. Although such instruments are commonly used and effective for capturing individuals’ perceived tendencies, they may be influenced by social desirability, particularly in academic contexts that value ethical conduct, cooperation, and social responsibility. As a result, participants may have overreported prosocial behaviors. In addition to self-report bias, the exclusive focus on sports science students represents a further limitation that may constrain the generalizability of the findings. Students enrolled in sport-related programs may differ from those in other academic disciplines in terms of physical activity levels, team-based experiences, competitive orientation, and exposure to performance-related stressors, all of which may shape resilience, meaning-making processes, and prosocial behavior (Nicholls et al., 2009). Future studies should examine whether similar relational patterns emerge in more diverse student populations and across different educational or athletic contexts. Moreover, although the present study focused on key psychological resources, other potentially relevant variables such as athletic identity, motivational climate, coach–athlete relationships, or organizational culture were not included in the model. Incorporating such contextual factors in future research may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms underlying prosocial behavior in sport and educational settings.

In conclusion, this study advances understanding of the relational patterns among meaning in life, psychological resilience, and prosocial behavior in sports science students. The findings highlight meaningful associations among these constructs and suggest that prosocial behavior is closely intertwined with both resilience-related resources and meaning-related processes. These results offer practical implications for educational and sport-based programs aimed at supporting well-being, social functioning, and value-oriented engagement, while underscoring the need for future research designs capable of addressing model.

The present study provides robust evidence that prosocial behaviors are strongly associated with both meaning in life and psychological resilience among students in sports sciences. By testing these constructs simultaneously within a single structural model, the findings demonstrate that they form a coherent and statistically robust framework in which prosocial behavior occupies a central position rather than representing an isolated outcome. Importantly, the results indicate that psychological resilience does not exert a significant direct effect on meaning in life; instead, its association with meaning in life is largely accounted for when prosocial behaviors are included in the model, underscoring the explanatory role of prosociality within the overall model structure.

The novelty of this study lies in its integrated modeling of prosocial behavior, meaning in life, and psychological resilience constructs that have frequently been examined in isolation or through pairwise associations in prior research. By clarifying how these variables are jointly represented within a single model, the study advances the literature by offering a more comprehensive understanding of their interrelationships in sports science students. From an applied perspective, the findings highlight the practical relevance of incorporating prosocial behavior–oriented components alongside resilience-building efforts in teacher and coach education programs, as such integrated approaches may contribute to students’ sense of meaning, psychological well-being, and professional readiness in educational and training contexts.

This study contributes to the literature on the mediating role of prosocial behaviors in the relationship between psychological resilience and meaning in life, drawing on Bonanno’s Self-Regulation and Cognitive Control Theory (Bonanno, 2004, 2011). The study’s results suggest that creating opportunities for future teachers and coaches to engage in prosocial behaviors can enhance their psychological resilience and contribute to a greater sense of meaning in their lives (Bonanno, 2004; Bonanno, 2011). Enhancing individuals’ psychological resilience and sense of meaning in life can positively impact their academic success, thereby improving the educational process and their professional preparation.

In line with the study’s purpose, subject, and findings, it is recommended that applied courses be incorporated into the teaching and coaching department curricula, allowing students to engage in prosocial behaviors and participate in activities that promote social solidarity and cooperation. This would better prepare students for their professional roles and foster their development as positive role models.

Courses incorporating in-class group work with shared goals could be added to the curricula of coaching, physical education, and sports teaching students.

Integrating topics and courses related to prosociality and solidarity, including spiritual, cultural, religious, and national examples, into the curricula of teacher and coach candidates could help students develop into better role models in these dimensions.

Universities could establish partnerships with non-governmental organizations to facilitate students’ voluntary participation in these organizations during their education. This would contribute to the development of social responsibility awareness among students in these departments.

Based on the results of our study, which established a relationship between prosociality and meaning in life, as well as between prosociality and psychological resilience, environments promoting social solidarity and cooperation can be created for physical education and sports teacher and coach candidates. This would allow students to engage in prosocial behaviors, thereby contributing to their development as professional role models and enhancing their psychological resilience against the challenges they may encounter in their careers.

Our study also found that individuals exhibiting more prosocial behaviors are more likely to cope with stress, solve problems, develop diverse perspectives, and find life more meaningful compared to those exhibiting less prosocial and less social behaviors. Fostering a sense of meaning in life, which is crucial for individuals, can positively impact their lives by encouraging them to help others and build social relationships, while also developing their resilience, thus creating a positive cycle.

The research indicates that students in teaching and coaching departments can contribute to the development of students’ prosocial tendencies by incorporating teamwork-based studies and group work into their courses.