Factors that Influence the
Development of Prosocial Behavior
Why are some people good and others not as much? Prosocial behavior is the
behavior that people would describe as “good”; it is the caring about the rights and
well being of others. It encompasses feeling empathy and concern for others as well
as for society as a whole. The important thing to understand about prosocial
behavior is that it often times does not benefit the person that is doing it in any way.
As a developed trait, humans are not born with this behavior, and thus learn it from
societal institutions, be it the family, the school, etc. The development of prosocial
behavior is affected by factors in the school culture, jealousy, anxiety, socioeconomic status, gender, parental socialization, emotional expression, physical
aggression, video games, and the expectation of prosocial behavior.
In a study lead by J. Barr and Higgins-D’Alessandro, the researchers
evaluated changes in prosocial behavior, empathy and school culture. The
longitudinal study is focused around a sample of 30 adolescent students and their
examinations (twice within two years). 25 students were in the tenth and 5 were in
the eleventh grade during the first examination for the study. Out of those 30
students, 13 were from Just Community Schools and 17 were from traditional high
schools. The sample was assessed using three different tools. The School Culture
Scale is a 25-question survey that measures how the participants feel about their
school culture, such as fairness and respect in the classroom. The second tool, the
Self-Report Altruism Scale, was used in order to measure the frequency of prosocial
behavior in given situations by the participants. The third and final tool used in this
study was the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. This tool was used to assess empathy
in the individual participants.
According to the author, significant changes in socio-cognitive skills and
affective responses take place during adolescence. Because these changes have been
linked, both conceptually and empirically, with the development of prosocial
behavior, more research must be done o understand environmental influences on
prosocial behavior development, especially among adolescents.
Research done focusing on prosocial behavior has shown that prosocial
behavior is connected to perspective-taking abilities and emotional concern. This
study attempted to find out if changes in school culture were associated with
empathy and prosocial behavior. Using the three aforementioned tools, it was
concluded that no differences were found between the two schools regarding
prosocial behavior. However, the study does propose that it is possible that being in
an environment that promotes more positive school culture stimulates students to
minimize the avoidance of helping others.
In another study done by C. Culotta and S. Goldstein, how prosocial behavior
(among other things) was related to jealousy and social anxiety was examined. This
study had a diverse sample of 60 middle school students, made up of 29 girls and 35
boys (4 boys did not complete the survey and so could not be included in the
remainder of the study). The researchers used item from the Friendship Jealousy
Questionnaire (Parker et al., 2005) to measure jealousy and the Aggressive and
Prosocial Behavior Questionnaire (Boxer, et al., 2004) to measure prosocial
behavior.
The results of the study showed that pro-active prosocial behavior was
positively correlated with all of the variables researched in the study, including
jealousy and social anxiety. Another correlation that emerged was that relational
aggression was positively associated with proactive social behavior (among others).
When the participants described that they developed levels of social anxiety, they
also inclined to report more proactive prosocial behavior. The authors explain that
socially anxious middle school students experienced distress in social situations,
and so proactive prosocial behavior might be used in order to gain peer acceptance.
A study done by psychologists E. Flouri and N. Tzavidis focused on which of
the two variables is a better prosocial behavior and adolescent psychopathology
predictor, proximal or distal contextual risk. Proximal contextual risk is defined as
the number of confrontational life events experienced within the last year while
distal contextual risk is defined as the number of confrontational life events faced
before the last year. The sample for this study was made up of 119 children within
the age range of 11 to 18 that had a disadvantaged socio-economic background. The
researchers used the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to gather their
data. Along with measuring prosocial behavior, the SDQ measures hyperactivity,
colleague problems, emotive symptoms, and demeanor problems.
The study showed that both contextual risks could be linked as predictors for
adolescent psychopathology. Although distal contextual risk predicted broad and
externalizing psychopathology, the number of proximal adverse life events the
children experienced was a more reliable predictor of externalizing
psychopathology. Regarding prosocial behavior, the study found that neither
proximal nor distal risk was significant enough to be reliable predictors of prosocial
behavior, along with peer problems or emotional symptoms.
Hastings and Rubin contributed research focusing on the links among
gender, inhibition, and the socialization done by parents, and how that affects
prosocial behavior. They studied a total of 108 families in an attempt to find links
between inhibition (nature of expressing anxiety/distress towards unfamiliar
people or situations), parental socialization (how a child raises the child to act), and
gender. Out of the initial sample of families, 46 male and 42 female children along
with their parents participated in a 2-year follow up for the study. The sample was
made up of primarily Caucasian families (97%), and most families were of “average”
socioeconomic status.
The study concluded that the only direct predictor of prosocial behavior was
maternal protective parenting. The authors go on to explain that even though there
were few significant interaction terms linking gender, inhibition, or parenting, a
common factor that was present in all three was the maternal parenting measures
taken by the parents. The researchers concluded that the authoritative and
protective parenting of mothers towards their children’s development of prosocial
behavior. Regarding inhibition, the study could not show this variable as a predictor
of prosocial behavior in the toddlers. The study also concluded that, as predicted,
the girls studied in the sample showed more prosocial behavior, This is possibly
attributed to the idea that girls are more modifiable to maternal influence, or that
parents attempt to socialize their girl children with the stereotypical qualities of
females (caring, sympathetic, etc.).
Research done by M. McGrath and B. Brown shows the differences in
prosocial motives and behavior in children who come from a low-socioeconomic
background. The study sample was composed of a total of 122 children from
families considered to have low-socioeconomic statuses, with twenty percent of the
families living below the poverty level. The sample included children from both the
second-grade (31 girls and 30 boys) and fourth-grade (31 girls and 30 boys). The
researchers, in private interviews, began a story (a friend encouraging another to
give to the poor children that were new to a school) that each child had to complete.
The purpose of the study was to find developmental differences in the reasons
children from low-socioeconomic status families choose prosocial behavior.
When the children were being interviewed and described prosocial behavior,
statistical analysis showed fourth grades to comment on abstract prosocial
behavior, such as to become a friend to the children in the story, more likely. The
researchers also found that there were no notable correlations between the gender
of the child and the types of prosocial behavior that they described during the
interviews. Finally, McGrath and Brown concluded that, when it came to describing
a problem as being reacted to using prosocial behavior or not, younger girls and
older boys where more likely to choose prosocial behavior than their counterparts.
In 1999, William Roberts did a study in order to find links between the
socialization of children’s emotions and prosocial behavior. The five samples were
made up of 150 families. Three samples were from Toronto, Ontario, and the other
two samples were from Kamloops, British Columbia, and from Vancouver, BC,
respectively. The author states that although from very different locations, the
samples were not affected significantly by this factor (79% of all comparisons were
“replicated across [all] samples”).
Roberts indicates that the meta-analysis of the samples showed distinct links
between emotional socialization applications and children's capable behaviors.
Regarding boys, the author concluded that non-hostile behaviors with peers could
be linked to peaceful and non-castigatory responses to conflict. The study also
positively related the friendly demeanor shown by boys to the control of emotional
expression by maternal influences. Unlike the conclusions made about the boys, the
girls in the study showed no pattern in non-aggressive and friendly behavior. For
girls, the associations made between emotional socialization and prosocial
behaviors were not as frequent and, in general, to a lesser extent than those for
boys. The results generated by this study follow the trend of those done before it,
where “girls and boys may differ in the factors associated with prosocial behaviours,
with boys' prosocial behaviours more clearly and strongly linked with emotional
factors such as empathy and emotional expressiveness”, as cited by the author from
(Roberts & Strayer, 1996).
Another group of psychologists led by E. Romano did a study with the
purpose of looking for correlations or links between children’s physical aggression
and their prosocial behavior. This was fueled by the lack of research studies
measuring all three developmental contexts at the same time (individual, family,
and community). The study was made up of 2,745 children in the age range of two
to eleven years old. The children in the sample resided in one of 96 Canadian
neighborhoods. The researchers note that on average, physical aggression in
children decreases with age, while prosocial behavior increases with age. The
individual context analyzed in this study includes a child’s understanding of
society’s cues regarding prosocial behavior, and the children’s ability to control
emotions as they age. The context of family is referred to as communication
between family members, family income, and parenting behaviors. Lastly, the
community factors that can affect the child’s physical aggressiveness and prosocial
behavior include violence within the community, living conditions, and social
cohesion within the community.
The researchers were able to find statistical associations between the three
developmental contexts of the individual, the family and the community. They also
concluded that the results displayed a significant negative correlation between the
physical aggression of a child and that child’s prosocial behavior. The results
followed the trend that as a child increases; his/her physical aggression decreases
while prosocial behavior increases. With regards to gender, the researchers found
that, on average, boys had the tendency to show more physical aggression and less
prosocial behavior than the girls of the same age group. When speaking of the
developmental contexts, the study showed that 66 percent of the distinction in
physical aggression scores occurred between individuals, over 25 percent was seen
in the family context, and nearly 4 percent was in the community. In regards to
prosocial behavior, the results were extremely similar, with the only difference
being in the community (with 9 percent).
E. Rutten and a group of researchers did a study that focused on how teenage
antisocial and prosocial behaviors are affected by being athletes in youth sports
clubs and organizations. The study was made up of 260 male and female
participants from Amsterdam and Utrecht that were between twelve and eighteen
years old. The teenage participants were either soccer athletes or competitive
swimmers. These two sports were chosen to compare different sport settings;
soccer being a team contact sport, and competitive swimming an individual sport.
The exposure to the socio-moral atmosphere found in sports is hypothesized to
decrease antisocial behavior and increase prosocial behavior in the teenage athletes.
The data was analyzed using multilevel regression.
The researchers found that socio-moral atmosphere and coach to athlete
relationships were significant in the antisocial and prosocial behaviors of the
athletes. Having a positive socio-moral atmosphere, along with a good coach to
athlete relationship can be linked to low amounts of antisocial behavior (negatively
associated with) and high amounts of prosocial behavior (positively associated
with). It was also noted that more positive socio-moral atmosphere reports came
from the competitive swimmers, and better/more coach to athlete relationships
were reported by women athletes. Finally, the female athletes in this study reported
higher amounts of prosocial behavior than their male counterparts.
Using an inventory, J. Procházka and M. Vaculík focused on finding a
correlation between the prosocial behavior of 80 (39 female and 41 male) high
school students and the expectation of this behavior from others. Putting emphasis
on the social exchange theory and norm of reciprocity, the researchers hypothesized
that the participants would behave prosocially because the rewards for doing so
would be beneficial to them. The rewards could include being treated as they are
treating another, social acceptance, and many more. The norm of reciprocity is key
in this study, because of what it implies of both the person behaving prosocially and
whom they are helping. By helping others, the expectation of prosocial behavior can
manifest as the expectation in ones self to help others or the expectation that the
person being helped will return the help in the future. The methods used to measure
the levels of prosocial behavior included inventory and observation. These two were
implemented in three standardized situations, in all of which prosocial behavior was
possible.
The study was able to find a moderate correlation between prosocial
behavior and the expectation of it when participants reflected on past experiences.
In the part of the study that dealt with hypothetical situations, no links between
prosocial behavior and its expectations were found. The researchers point out that
participants could judge their expectations of prosocial behavior towards
themselves as egocentric, and that the expectation of said behavior would best be
measured by the expectation of prosocial behavior towards others. The study also
rejects the idea that the norm of reciprocity plays a significant role in prosocial
behavior. Finally, The effects of the social exchange theory could not be properly
measured in this study.
Psychologists O. Wiegman and E. van Schie focused on the effects of playing
video games on both aggressive and prosocial behavior in children. The sample was
made up of 278 children from The Netherlands. The group of participants was
selected from five different elementary schools in Enschede, and they were in the
seventh and eighth grades. The study also focused on the possible correlations
between aggressive video games and aggressive and prosocial behavior. The
amount of time spent playing videogames was measured by the children
themselves; something that the researchers explained thoroughly to each
participant until they all understood how to do so. In diaries, they all wrote one of
five responses daily, ranging from “Not” (did not play video games at all) to “more
than two hours”. In order to measure the aggressiveness of the participants, the
study used the peer-nomination technique. This technique allows the participants to
indicate who the children who exhibited aggressive behavior (such as fighting,
sticking out their tongues, etc.) were. The same technique was employed in order to
measure the prosocial behavior of other participants by participants.
Almost three fourths of the participants played video games at least once a
week while 17 of the participants played video games daily. The study found that
children who played a heavy amount of videogames (at least half of an our per day)
showed much less prosocial behavior than those who played a moderate amount of
video games (less than half of an hour per day) and than those who were nonplayers. The researchers concluded that the amount of time spent playing video
games was negatively correlated to prosocial behavior as a whole (groups). When
the analysis was done with the groupings of boys and girls, the above-mentioned
results were not prevalent. In the study, boys played more aggressive videogames
than girls on average. The study found a positive relationship between the number
of aggressive video games a child played and their aggressive behavior. When the
children were grouped by gender, the results were not the same for this part of the
study either. The study was able to confirm that boys who preferred aggressive
video games showed more aggressive behavior than those who did not prefer
aggressive videogames.
The school culture children are in, jealousy, anxiety, socio-economic status,
gender, parental socialization of the child, emotional expression, physical
aggression, video games, and its expectation all affect the development of prosocial
behavior to some extent. The most important thing to recognize from all ten studies
is that prosocial behavior is not something innate in a human being; it is something
that is learned through many different things throughout life. The more that
researchers, and the public, are able to understand the development of this
behavior, along with how to assist it’s growth and in turn inhibit anti-social
behavior, the more that members of society can benefit from each other.
References
Barr, J. J., Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2009). How adolescent empathy and prosocial
behavior change in the context of school culture: a two-year longitudinal
study. Adolescence, 44(176), 751-72. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology
Journals database.
Culotta, C. M., Goldstein, S. E. (2008). Adolescents' aggressive and prosocial
behavior: Associations with jealousy and social anxiety. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 169(1), 21-33. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology Journals
database.
Flouri, E., Tzavidis, N. (2008). Psychopathology and prosocial behavior in
adolescents from socio-economically disadvantaged families: The role of
proximal and distal adverse life events. European Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 17(8), 498-506. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology Journals
database.
Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., DeRose, L. (2005). Links among gender, inhibition, and
parental socialization in the development of prosocial behavior. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 51(4), 467-93. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology
Journals database.
McGrath, M. P., Brown, B. C. (2008). Developmental differences in prosocial motives
and behavior in children from low-socioeconomic status families. The Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 169(1), 5-20. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology
Journals database.
Roberts, W. (1999). The socialization of emotional expression: relations with
prosocial behaviour and competence in five samples. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 31(2), 72-85. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology
Journals database.
Romano, E., Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., Swisher, R. (2005). Multilevel correlates of
childhood physical aggression and prosocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 33(5), 565-78. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology
Journals database.
Rutten, E. A., Geert, J. J. M., Biesta, G. J., Schuengel, C., Dirsk, E., et al (2007). The
contribution of organized youth sport to antisocial and prosocial behavior in
adolescent athletes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(3), 255-64.
Retrieved from Proquest Psychology Journals database.
Procházka, J., Vaculík, M. (2011). The relationship between prosocial behavior and
the expectation of prosocial behavior. Studia Psychologia, 53(4), 363-72.
Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology Journals database.
Wiegman, O., van Schie, E. (1998). Video game playing and its relations with
aggressive and prosocial behavior. The British Journal of Social Psychology,
37, 367-78. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology Journals database.