A MULTI-SECTORAL STUDY ON PROSOCIAL BEHAVIORS AND EMPATHY
AMONG COLLEGES
A Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
University of St. La Salle
Bacolod City
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Psychology
GAYABAN, PATRICE YSABEL
GIMAY, KYLE ANGEL
JOMERO, PATRICIA MARIE
PEDIONGCO, ANGELICA THERESE
BSPS4-C
December 2022
APPROVAL SHEET
The thesis paper entitled “A MULTI-SECTORAL STUDY ON PROSOCIAL
BEHAVIORS AND EMPATHY AMONG COLLEGES” presented by partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Psychology of the University of St.
La Salle Undergraduate Programs has been evaluated and approved by the panel of
evaluators.
PANEL OF EVALUATORS
DR. LIBERTY OCHAVO
Member
MRS. PATRICIA L. QUEZON
Member
DR. BERNALDO ERES
Member
DR. CALVIN DAVE GANUB
Adviser
ABIGAILE ROSE MARY R. CAPAY, RPsy
Department Chair
ROWENA V. BAÑES, PhD, RGC, RPsy
Dean
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“At times, our light goes out and is rekindled by a spark from another person. Each of
us has cause to think with deep gratitude of those who have lighted the flame within us.” –
Albert Schweitzer
In light of the journey of making this thesis, we have been in a certain part of our lives
where we are about to lose hope and it is in the light of our loved ones that guided us to
continue and pursue finishing this milestone.
We would like to grab this opportunity to extend our deepest gratitude to all the
people that have been our backbone throughout this experience.
First of all, we would like to thank God Almighty for always giving us strength,
knowledge, and patience to overcome whatever obstacle and mental block that came our way.
We would also like to thank our dear adviser Dr. Calvin Dave Ganub, for guiding us
and pushing us to give our very best in our thesis.
To our beloved research teacher, Dr. Maria Soccoro Faminialagao, thank you for
giving us your full support and advice to fully help us in our chosen study.
To our Statistician, Mr. Chard Aye Alova, thank you for sharing your knowledge and
making our write-up much easier for us, we truly appreciate all your help.
Thank you to our panel members as well, Dr. Liberty Ochavo, Ms. Patricia Quezon,
and Dr. Bernaldo Eres, for giving us some insights to better our paper.
To our family, especially our parents, thank you for the unending love and support,
both financially and emotionally, finishing this paper wouldn’t be possible without you.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE
i
APPROVAL SHEET
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
……………………………………………………… 2
Statement of the Problem
……………………………………………………… 5
Hypothesis
……………………………………………………… 6
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
………………………………………
Scope and Limitations
………………………………………………………
Significance of the Study
………………………………………………………
Definition of Terms
………………………………………………………
Review of Related Literature
………………………………………………
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Design
………………………………………………………………
Respondents ………………………………………………………………………
Instruments ………………………………………………………………………
Data Gathering Procedure ………………………………………………………
Statistical Treatment
………………………………………………………
Ethical Considerations
………………………………………………………
REFERENCES
iv
APPENDICES
v
Abstract
This study is a quantitative, descriptive, comparative, and correlational research that aims to
determine the empathetic prosocial behavior among Colleges in a certain tertiary institution
in Bacolod City. This paper used two standardized test instruments (The Prosociality Scale
Questionnaire (Luengo Kanacri et al., 2021), and Basic Empathy Scale or the BES by Jolliffe
and Farrington), using a survey method to carry out the study. Respondents were categorized
by their demographics, age (specifically 18 and above), gender, college, and year level.
Determined by the criteria set to them, the respondents were 200 individuals most of which
are females and were identified using a stratified random method. According to the data
obtained, in terms of the profile demographics, results indicated that there is a significant
difference in terms of age and gender for the prosocial level and no significant difference for
college and year level and for all of the dimensions of the empathy level. Furthermore, this
can be an indication that age and gender could adequately account for the variations in
prosocial behavior level. The result also shows that there is a significant correlation between
prosocial behavior and empathy level.
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Empirical research has shown that empathy positively predicts prosocial behavior and
that the higher level of empathy, the greater attention to the feelings and needs of others, and
the more engagement in prosocial behavior (Van et al., 2018; Lindsey and Madera, 2021; 87
Marcelo et al., 2021; Orm et al., 2021). Prosocial behavior may not be as familiar to everyone
as empathy. Prosocial behavior is any activity taken by an individual to meet the needs or
increase the welfare of another, while empathy in simple text is feeling what others feel
(Decety, J. et al., 2016). Despite their differences, prosocial behavior and empathy are
connected. Some suggest that empathy alters the social landscape of our lives by encouraging
prosocial and nurturing behaviors, reducing violence, and promoting collaboration among
people in comparable social groups (Uzefovsky, F. et al, 2016). In addition, prosocial
behavior or drive is experienced when an emphatic response is combined with a desire to act
(Bartal, I. et al., 2016).
Prosocial comes from the word “Pro” which is a prefix of affirmation or a prefix
indicating a move forward and “Social” which relates to society and its organizations. As a
whole Prosocial behavior encompasses a broad range of actions in a spectrum that would
benefit the social environment rather than one's self. Some different subtypes of prosocial
behaviors are instrumental helping, cooperation, sharing, comforting, or informing others, all
emerging during the second year of life (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Helping behavior in humans
ranges from generous selfless acts to ignoring real needs (Gupta & Thapliyal, 2015).
Whilst Empathy as we know it is someone’s ability to recognize someone’s feelings,
the ability to take the perspective of and feel the emotions of another person, it is one of the
building blocks of morality. Empathy plays a critical interpersonal and societal role, enabling
sharing of experiences, needs, and desires between individuals and providing an emotional
bridge that promotes prosocial behavior (Riess, 2017). Empathy is also often regarded as a
multidimensional construct encompassing both affective and cognitive forms of empathy.
Empathy is essentially an emotional phenomenon. The defining feature of the empathic
experience consists of observers either coming to share another person’s emotional state or
experiencing some emotional state in response to others (Davis, 2022). Empathy can be
expressed in two ways, emotional and cognitive; emotional empathy can further be divided
into three components which are - first, feeling the same emotion as another person; second,
personal distress in response to another's plight; third, feeling compassion for another person.
Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is how well you as an individual perceive and
understand the emotions of another person, in this case, this is a skill wherein you can detect
or recognize another person’s emotional state.
Furthermore, in relation to this study, psychology has a significant role in society, it is
a broad concept that mainly deals with a human being’s emotional quotient and cognitive
decision-making. A person’s empathetic and prosocial behavior towards another can duly
affect the whole system. Humans in general exhibit prosocial behaviors daily that often get
masked and warped into the standard norm. Human nature, however, is fundamentally flawed
due to the fact that it is acts of selfishness in the making. Compassion is oftentimes very
deeply rooted in our nature and it manifests itself in different ways even when we are
unconsciously unaware of it manifesting. Psychologists are expected to have a much deeper
understanding of the said topics, this study mainly promotes just that, - to bestow knowledge
and widen the understanding of people in regard to empathy and prosocial behavior. This will
also contribute to the field of Psychology in gaining a much larger scope and more basis in
the existing idea on the said topic. The heart of the chosen institution’s core values showcases
that respect and love for the fellowman, thus this study tackles the depths of the institution’s
empathy and prosocial behavior. There are some studies that have shown that emotion has a
significant influence on individual prosocial behavior, and it is generally believed that
empathy shapes the landscape of our social lives by motivating prosocial and caregiving
behaviors, inhibiting aggression, and facilitating cooperation between members of a similar
social group (Decety et al., 2016).
This study aims to bridge the gap in this research topic and address the scarcity of
studies within this scope in the Philippines. Specifically, the researchers have yet to reach that
point where the members have viable sources of these chosen variables together in the local
settings. Thus, it will be very beneficial to the advancements of knowledge in terms of
psychology if the researchers, can bridge the missing gaps of literature even in our local
setting since a different environment yields different results.
Being empathetic can go a long way toward a positive relationship with people
around you, this can allow a human being to understand a person on a deeper level rather than
just on the surface of their personality. This study will revolve around empathy's possible
relationship or influence on prosocial behavior. The results of the study will be beneficiary to
the institution specifically to one of the offices of the institution, the Balayan, -Balayan is the
Social Development office in charge of the community extension program for social
development of the private tertiary institution. It is one of the institution’s concrete responses
to its commitment to social reform and transformation. The study will support the
institution’s full commitment by paving the way for the youth and the people outside of the
community with the utmost understanding to promote empathy and prosocial interactions
with the one’s the Balayan is helping with their programs.
Statement of the Problem
This study aims to determine the prosocial behaviors and empathy among the
multisector colleges of the private tertiary institution, this research specifically aims to
answer the following questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of the following:
A. Age
B. Gender
C. Year Level
D. Colleges
2. What is the Respondent’s level of prosocial behavior when taken as a whole in
terms of the following dimensions:
A. Sharing
B. Helping
C. Caring
D. Empathic/Sympathetic reactions
3. What is the Respondent’s level of Empathy when taken as a whole in terms of
the following dimensions:
A. Affective Empathy
B. Cognitive Empathy
4. Is there a significant difference between the level of prosocial behavior in
terms of:
A. Age
B. Gender
C. Year Level
D. Colleges
5. Is there a significant difference between the level of empathy in terms of:
A. Age
B. Gender
C. Year Level
D. Colleges
6. Is there a significant correlation between the level of prosocial behavior and
the level of empathy?
Hypothesis
1. There is no significant difference between the level of prosocial behavior in
terms of:
A. Age
B. Gender
C. Year Level
D. Colleges
2. There is no significant difference between the level of empathy in terms of:
A. Age
B. Gender
C. Year Level
D. Colleges
3. There is no significant relationship between the level of prosocial behavior
and the level of empathy.
Theoretical Framework
This study was anchored on the Theory of Reciprocity that branches out with two
succeeding theories: Group Influence Theories: Reciprocity and its Foundations on prosocial
behavior, and Empathy Theories: Compassion and Empathy as Drivers of Prosocial Behavior
(Costantini et al., 2019). From a theoretical perspective, human beings might be naturally
endowed with an altruistic and an egoistic gene, which can display during the sequential
interactions of variant clusters of exchangeable agents (Costantini et al., 2019). They are a
very complex, and ever-changing area of analysis. In relation to this, people’s emotions and
behaviors can be subjective and vary depending on the circumstances; hence, this analysis
focuses on the prosocial and empathy level of humans, and the researchers will analyze this
study using the said theories.
Evolutionary theories agree that prosocial tendencies exist in human beings because
people are genetically programmed to behave prosocially (Costantini et al., 2019). Prosocial
behavior is defined as intentionally sharing, partnering with minority groups, and assisting
and soothing peers, with the primary goal of supporting and comforting others. Group
influence theory focuses on the theory of reciprocity,- Reciprocity means that people reward
kind actions and punish unkind ones. Many prosocial behaviors that appear altruistic are
motivated by the norm of reciprocity, the theory considers that people evaluate an action's
kindness not only by its consequences but also by the intention underlying it. The theory
explains the relevant stylized facts of a wide range of experimental games (Falk &
Fischbacher, 2016). In addition, the existing theory claims that people behave pro-socially
and defer their actions in a group. The theory links to the sole purpose of this study which is
to know the prosocial behavior of College students when taken as a group ( Taken from
different Colleges).
On the other hand, empathy contains both emotional and cognitive components that
may be triggered when people empathize with others, leading to gratitude and prosocial
behavior (Wang and Wu, 2022). In addition, empathy has been associated with increased
prosocial activity and subjective well-being. According to Sanstock (2017), several
circumstances evoke empathic altruism for people in need, which has little to do with the
close relationship between the benefactor and the receiver. That is, empathy plays a key role
in prosocial behavior and two theories have been developed to explain such mechanisms as
empathic altruism and the empathic joy theory (Costantini et al., 2019). Furthermore, this
theory links empathy exerted by a person, and empathy being a drive for prosocial behavior.
The theory supports the claim of the study by connecting both empathy and prosocial
behavior in regard to the different dimensions that will be measured using the instrument
Basic Empathy Scale or the BES developed by Jolliffeand Farrington, and The Prosociality
Scale Questionnaire by Luengo Kanacri et al., 2021.
To sum up, empathy is a key element of prosocial behavior in this study, and it can
be a valuable factor for individuals, communities, and society. Prosocial behavior attempts to
ensure that those who require aid receive it, while others simply want to feel better about
themselves. People of all ages can show empathy in different ways by doing things that help
other people. The said theories can help better the researcher’s study to determine the
respondents' level of prosocial behavior and empathy dimensions.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework that was used based upon the core concepts incorporated
in the theoretical framework that will be presented in Figure 1 which describes the input that
consists of profile variables on the input box, the type of instrument used on the process box,
and the Prosocial behavior and empathy dimensions on the 3rd box. These are the following:
(Variables used for the input) Year level, Colleges, empathic/ sympathetic reactions, affective
empathy, cognitive empathy, etc. It shows the proposed connections between the profile
variables, prosocial behavior, and empathy, succeeding in the context of association or
dissociation. The conceptual framework provides the variables in their informative
disposition concerning Prosocial behavior and empathy based on the propositions explained
by the aforementioned theories.
The diagram below shows that the respondents will be grouped depending on their
colleges. They will also be asked about the different prosocial factors based on the
prosociality scale questionnaire. To be able to come up with the target aim of the study which
is to know the different levels of prosocial behavior and empathy of the different colleges, the
researchers will use a prosociality scale questionnaire as a guide and the Basic Empathy
Scale or the BES will also be used to measure their empathy level and Prosociality scale
questionnaire for the prosocial level.
Figure 1. A diagram showing the relationship of the variables used in the study.
Significance of the Study
This study will be beneficial to the following:
Academe. The findings of this study will be of advantage to the academe, for it will
support the reputation of the school to highlight the current conditions of the students. This
could also be beneficial to the academe, in particular those relevant to the students, as they
may.
Balayan. The Paper can help contribute to the advantage of the Private tertiary
institution, especially to the volunteers of the Balayan, this study can give further knowledge
to the volunteers on how to connect with the Balayan community specifically to those in
need.
Industrial Organization. This will help organizations assess individuals more if they
are qualified enough in their setting. Knowing the empathetic capabilities of an applicant will
allow the industry free reign over where they will assign their applicants in a way that will
benefit the organization at the same time provide an optimum environment for the candidate
to grow and improve under their tutelage.
Parents. This study can be a building ground for parents who want to further
understand and connect with their children on a deeper level. We cannot deny the fact that not
everyone has the luxury of having a deeper connection or good relationship with their
parents, this study may bridge the gap needed in order for parents and children to connect
better. This study can also serve as a helping guide to show parents their children’s
perspectives on the subject that they might not see eye to eye.
Students of the Institution. This study will allow students to further understand their
peers on a deeper level rather than just the surface level we are accustomed to. Knowing and
understanding a little bit more about your surroundings will allow you a better grasp of how
the world is to be handled, and this will give students a wider perspective on the grand
scheme of things.
Future researchers. This study may serve as a guideline or reference to future
proposals that have relevance to this topic. For future researchers, this study will be
significant since this will enable them to have ideas when they are conducting a study related
to this topic. It will be a tool for other future studies since documents or citations would be
given.
Scope and Limitation
This study focuses on empathy and prosocial behavior among colleges. The study will
take place on the premises of the University of the Private Tertiary Institution of Bacolod
City, Negros Occidental. It aims to determine the level of empathy and prosocial behavior of
the respondents and the correlation between the two. This analysis took a couple of months to
complete, it was able to give the researchers ample time to adequately analyze the findings
and procedures with effective results.
The data was gathered through In-depth survey forms, the study was conducted
face-to-face. Furthermore, the researchers were able to take into account the current situation
of the pandemic, in addition, due to health and safety restrictions, the data-gathering
procedure and the conduct of the study were accomplished in relevance with the COVID-19
protocols thus, prior to the research proper and giving out survey forms, the simulated
encounter, and orientation for the respondents was conducted using Facebook Messenger, and
Google forms since some of the respondents decided to due to some unforeseen health
hazards, the survey forms was sent online to the respondents that were not available to meet
the researchers on campus. The Prosociality Scale Questionnaire by (Luengo Kanacri et al.,
2021) for prosocial behavior and the Basic Empathy Scale BES developed by Jolliffe and
Farrington (2006) was used to measure the empathy level
The respondents of the study were bonafide students of the institution from the
different colleges,-College of Arts and Sciences, College of Engineering, College of Nursing,
College of Education, and College of Business and Accountancy. The sample size consisted
of 200 respondents from different colleges. The original plan of this study is to take from all
the sectors of the university starting from elementary students up to the graduates and
employees of the university, but because of some factors involved in regard to minors such as
taking into consideration sending out assent forms, and having parents question the school or
the motives of the study, and the researchers, the researchers decided to narrow down the
scope of the respondents to College students 18 years old and above. Respondents will be
informed before the actual conduct of the survey forms. A Stratified random sampling
technique was used in this study in which the researchers randomly selected a subset of
respondents from a population.
Due to this pandemic, there were a few limitations to this study. As mentioned, there
were some respondents who decided to participate in the study virtually, which restricted the
researcher's ability to properly communicate and ensure that the respondents understood and
were able to respond accordingly to the questions. In addition, some respondents also
encountered problems with their internet access that restricted their availability to participate
in the study. The researchers also had the inability to control the environment of the
respondents, which affected their mood and influenced their responses during the test.
For the respondents who agreed to participate in the study face-to-face, there were
some instances that caused a problem with time management and availability to meet
personally given that they might have inevitable personal matters they need to tend to that
hindered them from meeting the researchers. Also, because of the pandemic, some
respondents hesitated due to medical reasons. Furthermore, the scope of the study was the
colleges of the Private tertiary institution.
Definition of Terms
This section of the study includes the definition of the operational terms or how they
are being used in the study, conceptual terms, or what they mean.
Listed below are the key terms and their definitions, which constitute some
psychological jargon to further understand this study. In defining these terms, the researchers
included the conceptual and operational meanings of the words that will help in
understanding the said terms.
The following terms are defined in this study as follows:
Prosocial Behavior. Prosocial conduct is characterized as actions that benefit others,
such as assisting, cooperating, soothing, sharing, and donating (Ding et.al., 2018). In
addition, interactions between a benefactor and the person who is being aided constitute
prosocial conduct (Dovidio, J., et al., 2017). Operationally, this type of behavior is used in the
study as a behavior that benefits other people - actions that are good for other people.
Empathy. Empathy implies an active appreciation of other people’s feelings and
experiences (Goldstein, A., 2021). Empathy is the ability to grasp and comprehend the
thoughts and feelings of others. In addition, It is variously classified as a learned skill, a
talent, or an inborn ability with psychological and moral implications (Lanzoni, S., 2018).
Operationally, empathy is used in this study as the feeling of what others are feeling, and
sharing the same feeling with them. Like, involving the feelings of other people in your
feelings.
Review of the Related Literature
This review includes the conceptual and research literature which are related to the
research problems. They are presented using the thematic approach.
This review of related literature synthesizes different literature related to the study.
The themes include the nature of prosocial behavior, and empathy, along with the profile
variables.
Prosocial Behavior
The Psychology Press of Bierhoff, H. (2018), claims that this gives "an up-to-date
treatment of the social phenomenon of prosocial conduct, encompassing all key discoveries
in the domains of developmental and social psychology." The first section talks about many
different kinds of prosocial behavior, including how common they are in everyday life and
the debate between biological and cultural explanations for prosocial behavior. The second
and third sections emphasize social learning, responsibility, empathy, and guilt. The fourth
section looks at the prevalence of prosocial behavior, specifically the environmental and
psychological factors that keep people from engaging in much-needed prosocial behavior. In
the last part, the focus is on real-world applications, such as how to get more people to
volunteer with community groups and how to get more people to give first aid. This will be a
wonderful resource for social psychology and sociology undergraduate and graduate students,
as well as anyone interested in social services and volunteer organizations.
The Study of Prosocial Behavior
According to Padilla-Walker L. M. et al., (2015), a baby who gently strokes the hand
of another crying baby, a toddler who comforts a sibling after a painful fall, a child who
shares her crayons with a playmate in the hopes that the act will be reciprocated; a teenager
who assists his mother in taking out the trash; a young adult who rushes into a burning
building to save an unknown family; a woman who is kind to a man at work because she
wants him to like her; a grandfather who passes out flowers - all of these are examples of
prosocial conduct (that is, activities that help others), and they reflect a wide range of actions
at different stages of development. These actions are also necessary for human happiness and
survival.
Prosocial Behavior in Different Ages
According to Martin and Olson (2015), different theories about the development of
prosocial behavior in adolescents have been offered by researchers. Some argue that prosocial
behaviors such as helping and sharing must be learned and reinforced; others argue that
children have an initially indiscriminate prosocial drive that declines and becomes more
selective as they grow older; and still, others argue that even children's earliest prosocial
behaviors share some strategic motivations with adult prosociality (e.g., reputation
enhancement, social affiliation). Researchers examine empirical and observational studies on
children's helping and sharing actions in the first five years of life, focusing on the elements
that have been discovered to impact these behaviors and what these findings say about
children's prosocial motivations. The literature on adult prosociality is used to identify
parallels and gaps in the literature on prosocial behavior development. They discuss how the
evidence reviewed relates to key issues in developmental psychology, and they propose that
children's prosocial behaviors may be driven by a variety of motivations that are not easily
captured by the concept of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation and that they may be selective
early in life.
Prosocial Behavior During Adolescence
According to Brittian A. S., et al. (2015), prosocial activities have received more
attention in the developmental literature as a facet of teenagers' good development since the
1990s. The authors of this paper examine the literature on prosocial activities in adolescents.
As in previous theory and empirical studies, the authors begin by defining prosocial
behaviors. They focus on two key factors: socialization and cultural orientation, as
antecedents to teenagers' prosocial behavior. As a result, throughout this study, the writers
review existing material on prosocial behavior among various ethnic/cultural groups. The
authors conclude with recommendations for further research because few studies have
examined prosocial behavior among certain ethnic groups.
Adolescent behavior driven by care for others is regarded to show good social
functioning or prosocial actions (American Psychological Association, 2008). While much of
the early research focused on prosocial behaviors in young children (Garner, 2006), there are
various reasons to follow prosocial development into adolescence. Individuals develop
cognitive
capacities that allow them to better phenomenologically analyze and
psychologically interpret life experiences that may help or impede prosocial development
(e.g., home tasks and care for siblings) (Brown and Bigler, 2005).
Based on Longobardi E. et al. (2019), studied the effects of empathic concern,
perspective-taking, theory of mind (ToM), and receptive language on prosocial conduct in a
group of 8 to 11-year-old primary school students. Empathic care, perspective-taking, and
ToM all had direct favorable benefits on prosocial conduct, according to the findings. In
addition, gender mitigated the observed correlations, as perspective-taking and ToM were
positively and significantly linked with prosocial conduct in males but not in girls. Finally,
two indirect pathways were discovered: empathic concern partially mediated the relationship
between perspective-taking and prosocial conduct, and receptive language indirectly
influenced prosocial behavior by boosting ToM capacity. The implications for understanding
the impact of the four social-cognitive skills on prosocial development in children are
examined.
Prosocial Behavior in Adolescence: Gender Differences in Development and Links with
Empathy
According to Graaff, J., et al. (2018), although teenage prosocial conduct is linked to
a variety of favorable outcomes, longitudinal research on its development and predictors is
still lacking. This six-wave longitudinal study looked at how prosocial conduct changed
throughout adolescence, as well as the links between perspective-taking and empathic
concern. Adolescents who participated in the study reported on their prosocial actions,
empathy, and perspective-taking. The findings revealed significant gender disparities in
prosocial behavior development. Prosocial behavior in males was steady until age 14, then
increased until age 17, then decreased slightly thereafter. Prosocial behavior in girls increased
until they were 16 years old, then fell significantly. In terms of long-term relationships,
empathic concern was consistently linked to prosocial behavior. However, through its effect
on empathic concern, perspective-taking was only indirectly linked to prosocial conduct. The
idea that earlier prosocial activity predicts later empathy-related qualities was supported by
direction of effect tests, but only for girls. During adolescence, the findings explain methods
to promote prosocial actions by emphasizing moral feelings rather than moral cognitions.
Filipino Core Values Will Reflect on Prosocial Behavior
Based on Feygina, I. & Henry, P. (2015), all human cultures have relied on prosocial
and cooperative behavior to secure their survival and continuance throughout evolutionary
history. Cultures are thus oriented around the behaviors, norms, and institutions that have
evolved to maintain prosociality, while these practices vary in kind, degree, and organization.
The contribution of culture, including cultural variety across early tiny societies, to the
formation, spread, and prevalence of prosociality across the human species is discussed in
this chapter. We use the cultural adaptation literature to show that the social benefits of
collaboration encourage prosocial behavior at both the group and individual levels. Filipino
Core Values like compassion and mutual respect are behaviors that are very well rooted in
prosocial behaviors; these are behaviors that have been ingrained in our upbringing and
culture, it is already a norm growing up as a Filipino.
The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior
According to Dovidio J. F. et al., (2017), the book presents a new perspective on
prosocial behavior in the twenty-first century, written by four prominent researchers in the
field. The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior examines prosocial behavior from a
multilevel perspective, exploring the diverse influences that promote actions for the benefit of
others and the myriad ways that prosocial actions can manifest. It builds on the bystander
intervention work that has defined this area since the 1960s. The authors broaden the topic by
looking at biological and genetic characteristics that incline people to care about others'
well-being, as well as deliberate helping like volunteering and organizational citizenship
conduct, and cooperative behavior within and between groups. They discover the systems
that underpin a wide range of prosocial behavior, both common and unusual. Each chapter
starts with a prosocial conduct question and concludes with a summary that addresses the
question. The final chapter outlines the research-based queries and answers. To connect these
data together, conceptual models that enlarge and extend the multilevel approach to prosocial
behavior are employed. The book finishes with research ideas for the future. The Social
Psychology of Prosocial Behavior examines the evolution of altruistic tendencies and other
biological explanations for why humans are predisposed to be prosocial; how situations and
the motives elicited by these situations affect when and how people help; the causes and
maintenance of long-term helping, such as volunteering; how prosocial behavior changes
over time and the developmental processes responsible for these changes; the consequences
of prosocial behavior. This accessible work is appropriate for advanced courses in
psychology, sociology, management, political science, and communication on helping and
altruism or prosocial conduct, as well as for anybody interested in learning more about
prosocial behavior in general.
Empathy
According to Myers, W. and Hodges, D. (2017), one understands the other person's
experience as if it were one's own, but without actually experiencing it. The boundary
between self and others is maintained. Sympathy, on the other hand, is the feeling of being
moved by or responding to another person. Empathy is a broad term that refers to how
someone thinks and feels about what they think someone else is going through. Empathy
boosts one's chances of assisting others and displaying compassion.
A Study of Empathy in the Early and Middle Childhood Years
According to Demetriou, H. (2018), the reactions of children to distress in early and
middle childhood are examined in this chapter. Personal responsibility, peer similarity, peer
familiarity, and experience with other children are all explored in early life. The research on
empathy in middle childhood focuses on cognitive empathy, which is defined as
comprehension of distress, and emotional empathy, which is defined as feelings of distress, as
well as reactions ranging from helpful suggestions to confrontational suggestions. The study
examines the links between cognitive knowledge and vicarious emotion in order to determine
whether empathy is a viable construct and whether empathy is the subject of study.
A Meta-Analysis of Prosocial Media on Prosocial Behavior, Aggression, and Empathic
Concern: A Multidimensional Approach
According to Coyne, S., et al. (2018), studies studying the effects of exposure to
prosocial media on positive outcomes are rising in number and strength. However, recent
meta-analyses adopt a broad definition of prosocial media that ignores prosocial behavior's
multidimensionality. The goal of the said study is to conduct a meta-analysis on the effects of
prosocial media exposure on prosocial behavior, and aggression while looking at multiple
moderators that the prosocial behavior literature suggests are important to our understanding
of why people help others voluntarily. Exposure to prosocial media was linked to higher
levels of prosocial behavior, as well as lower levels of aggressive behavior, according to 72
research with 243 effect sizes. Several moderators, including participant age, area, media type
(active vs. passive), majors and study design, appear to have accounted for variation in the
model, according to moderation studies. In terms of multidimensional moderators, prosocial
media had a greater impact on strangers' prosocial behavior than any other target, as well as
on helping and prosocial thinking, but not on contributing or volunteering. There are
comparisons to other media effects meta-analyses, as well as implications for parents, media
producers, and researchers.
Role of Empathy and Prosocial Behavior
According to Meuwese R. et al., (2017), friendships and peer status are key aspects of
teenagers' social lives, and they are linked to developmental outcomes. However, it is unclear
how peer status influences friendship quality or what function social skills play in this
relationship. Researchers evaluate how two forms of peer status, preference, and popularity,
are connected to positive and negative friendship quality in mid-adolescence using
Actor–Partner Interdependence (Mediation) Modeling (Ledermann, Macho, & Kenny, 2011).
The findings reveal that adolescents who are friends with more favored (i.e. popular)
adolescents have better friendship quality. Adolescents' own prosocial behavior and their
friends' empathy levels somewhat mitigated these partner effects. Adolescents were more
content in friendships with highly favored (i.e., likable) adolescents due to their friend's
higher levels of empathy and their own lower preference for equality. Empathy was not found
to be a mediator in the relationship between friendship quality and popularity. These findings
help researchers better understand how distinct levels of social complexity (individual,
dyadic, and peer group) interact in adolescence.
Fostering Prosocial Behavior and Empathy in Young Children
According to Spinrad T. L. et al., (2018), there is a rising interest in learning how to
encourage prosocial conduct in young children (i.e. voluntary acts to benefit another). To
begin, researchers must distinguish between distinct sorts of prosocial conduct, empathy, and
compassion. They contend that sympathy and some forms of prosocial acts are most likely
intrinsically motivated, but others may be extrinsically motivated. Following that, they
highlight studies that have demonstrated that socializing techniques can predict individual
variations in early infants. socially beneficial behaviors. Finally, they discuss areas for future
investigation.
Positive Empathy and Prosocial Behavior: A Neglected Link
Based on Telle N. et al., (2015), empathy helps daily social interactions and has been
connected to prosocial behavior in the literature. There is strong evidence that there is a link
between experiencing empathy and acting prosocially. However, empathy, and the
relationship between empathy and prosocial conduct, in particular, has been researched
mostly in conjunction with negative emotions. Positive empathy has received less research,
and the link between positive empathy and demonstrated prosocial activity has not been
thoroughly examined. The goal of this paper is twofold: first, researchers review and
synthesize data on empathy for pleasant emotions, and second, they claim that people's
incentive to sustain a positive effect experience is a plausible mechanism relating positive
empathy with prosocial conduct.
Affective Empathy and Prosocial Behavior in Rodents
According to Kim S. W. et al., (2021), as social animals, humans require empathy to
function properly. Emotional contagion is the cognitive process of recognizing and sharing
the affective state of others, and it is the most basic form of affective empathy. Researchers
have been able to investigate the molecular, cellular, and circuit mechanisms of emotional
contagion using the observational fear test, an animal model of emotional contagion.
Observational fear is mediated through brain circuits involved in processing the affective
dimension of direct pain experiences, according to this research. A mouse can also respond to
lesser social cues caused by positive or negative emotional changes in another mouse, which
appears to be unrelated to the affective pain circuits. Additional research is needed to see how
distinct brain circuits contribute to the integration of diverse aspects of affective empathy.
The Neuroscience of Empathy and Compassion in Prosocial Behavior
According to Stevens, F., and Taber, K. (2021), empathy has various dimensions,
according to research in the scientific literature, therefore defining empathy as a single
all-encompassing concept may be misleading. Increased empathy has recently been
advocated as a way to boost prosocial behavior. However, there is conflicting evidence
suggesting empathy reduces pro-social conduct. This disagreement has caused uncertainty
about what empathy is and how important it is in encouraging prosocial conduct. This paper
will look at current breakthroughs in affective neuroscience to learn more about empathy and
how it relates to prosocial behavior. Individuals' reactions to affective empathy, such as
witnessing others' suffering, can cause emotional sorrow or empathic worry, which can alter
motivation for prosocial behavior. According to current research in affective neuroscience,
integrating compassion interventions with both affective and cognitive empathy increases the
likelihood of persons engaging in the prosocial activity.
The Influence of Emotion and Empathy on Decisions to Help Others
According to Xiao, W., et al. (2021), cognitive empathy largely refers to a person's
capacity to understand another person's feelings, whereas affective empathy refers to a
person's capacity to share another person's emotions, put oneself in another 's perspective and
show concern for another person's well-being. As a result, there is a conceptual and empirical
connection between empathy and prosocial conduct. According to the empathy-altruism
theory, improving the well-being of the person in need is the ultimate purpose of prosocial
conduct inspired by empathy.
Association between Empathy and Prosocial Behavior
According to Ding, F & Lu, Z (2016), empathy and prosocial behavior are related to
each other. In their study, empathy and prosocial behavior have a significant positive
relationship. A person's prosocial activity goes hand in hand with their empathy. Exhibiting
empathy traits showed that it is enclosed with prosocial behavior. Furthermore, individuals
need cognitive and emotional participation in the process of generating empathy for others,
and an individual’s prosocial behavior is also based on emotional and cognitive foundations.
Empathy includes individuals’ judgment and emotional experience of other people’s
behavior, making it easier to perceive others’ help-seeking demands and feelings, and
promoting individuals’ pro-social behavior towards others.
Investigating Adult Age Differences in Real-life Empathy, Prosociality, and Well-being
Using Experience Sampling
According to Pollerhoff, L. et al. (2022), throughout the adult lifespan, specifically
the young adult, social effect and cognition are unquestionably important; nevertheless, there
is a lack of concrete evidence and conflicting research on how prosociality and empathy
interact and grow through time. Young adults frequently experience empathy in daily life,
according to recent research utilizing ecological momentary assessment. Furthermore, better
prosocial conduct and subjective well-being were connected to having empathy. The contrast
between the affective (affect sharing, empathic concern, and compassion) and cognitive
(perspective taking) components of empathy is frequently the foundation for understanding
how empathy develops throughout the course of life. When compared to younger adults,
elderly adults showed increased empathy but diminished perspective-taking skills.
Empathy and Burnout: An Analytic Cross-Sectional Study Among Nurses and Nursing
Students
According to Ferri, P. et al. (2015), Empathy is a term used to describe the
extrapolation of human emotions to the natural world. Empathy is a crucial component of
high-quality nursing care and is linked to a higher patient satisfaction rate. Good nursing care
must include empathy since it increases patient satisfaction, overall health, and treatment
compliance, and decreases malpractice claims. According to the findings of their research,
age was negatively correlated with empathy. Female nursing students outperformed male
nursing students in all five BEES measures, but female nurses outperformed male nurses in
just one.
Prosocial Behavioral Tendencies and Orientation Towards Individualism - Collectivism
of Greek Young Adults
According to Lampridis, E. (2017), Any voluntary action carried out intending to
assist another person falls within the definition of prosocial behavior. Altruism and other
types of helpful behaviors can be grouped under the umbrella term of prosocial behavior. It is
conceivable for the prosocial activity to be motivated by a variety of factors, and it would be
simpler to describe these factors in terms of prosocial behavior categories. There is no such
thing as truly selfless altruism, and people typically engage in prosocial behavior for one of
four reasons: egoism (using others as a way to benefit oneself), altruism (using others as a
way to benefit others), collectivism (using others as a way to benefit the group), and
principlism (benefiting another to uphold a moral principle).
Prosocial Behavior Increases with Age Across Five Economic Games
According to Matsumoto, Y. et al. (2016), the study suggested two hypotheses, not
necessarily mutually exclusive, for the positive effect that age has in promoting prosociality.
The first is the individual learning hypothesis, that individuals learn the positive
consequences of acting in prosocial manners either directly or vicariously as they accumulate
life experiences. Thus, individuals behave prosocially when they detect cues suggesting
interdependence with others. The second is the situational change hypothesis that the nature
of social interactions people face changes as the social roles they play in their lives change
with age.
Situational Determinants of Cognitive, Affective, and Compassionate Empathy in
Naturalistic Digital Interactions
According to Powell, P. (2017), Empathy is a complex psychological phenomenon
that best describes a series of related but fundamentally separable emotional systems. Neither
empathy nor compassion is emotion. They refer to our reactions to other people's emotions.
Cognitive empathy makes us aware of what other people are feeling. Emotional empathy is
when you feel what the other person is feeling, while compassionate empathy is when you
want to help the other person deal with their situation and feelings. needs cognitive empathy,
but you don't need emotional empathy to have compassionate empathy. "Cognitive empathy"
or emotion recognition refers to the awareness and identification of the emotional states of
others. “Emotional empathy,” or emotional contagion, describes the subjective reflection of
another person's emotional state. "Compassionate empathy," or feelings of sympathy,
concern, and compassion for others, is theorized to be a common, but ambiguous,
consequence of her other two forms of empathy.
Theories for Computing Prosocial Behavior
According to Costantini, A. (2019), people exhibit a variety of supportive behaviors.
We often help out by taking co-workers and acquaintances, helping them move, or painting
their homes. You can also help strangers when someone has a minor accident, or support
charities to send money to victims of humanitarian crises. Helping an animal in need or
helping a fire brigade rescue a kitten from a tree feels good. We often have an unspoken
expectation that our helping actions will one day be rewarded, and we may be very
disappointed when those expectations are not met. It seems irrational from a broader point of
view, so many scholars in the social sciences have attempted and succeeded in clarifying the
factors behind human helping behavior. Prosocial behavior aims to explore and understand
the motives of support from an evolutionary perspective. Findings from the study of prosocial
behavior from socioeconomic and psychological perspectives. Based on the literature that
examines the underlying processes and determines the variables of support, we propose
stochastic and dynamic models that simulate prosocial behavior over time and replicate the
evolutionary process of support.
Performance of Emotional Cognition Education in College Students’ Psychological
Health Classroom
According to Zheng, Y., Yao, X., & Wang, Y. (2022), Today, academic research on
emotional cognition education in undergraduate psychology classrooms has certain
limitations. Some researchers primarily used purely abstract theories, such as educational
psychology and virtual variable methods, to conduct their research without any actual
practice. Most of the methods used to study emotional cognition pedagogy are outdated and
unable to play an adequate role in the rapidly changing modern education and contemporary
society. Further systematic research is needed on the problems and solutions of cognitive
education.
There are currently several studies on emotional cognition formation by scientists.
Alar-Zhan and other scholars have studied the different effects of different types and states of
emotion and cognition in different areas of the brain. reflected. These findings have
influenced and created a foundation for use in educational research. A study by Yidana et al.
investigated the effectiveness levels of teacher engagement in education and the effectiveness
of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. In addition, the sensitivity of classroom
participation efficiency to demographic characteristics was also considered. Research has
been conducted that highlights the close relationship between executive functioning and the
on-campus learning environment. (Executive function creates the learning environment, and
the learning environment facilitates the development of the executive function. Learning is,
they say, an advanced cognitive function that includes related aspects such as effect, reward,
self-efficacy, self-esteem, and empathy.) Falkstedt conducted an affective cognitive education
experiment on hundreds of Swedes to examine changes in cognitive and affective outcomes
after long-term affective cognitive education. Experiments have shown that people who
received long-term emotional cognitive education showed significant positive changes in this
area. Research by Reed H and other scholars suggests that, in current less-than-ideal
circumstances, using affective cognitive education as part of broader democratic education
can lead to diversity, equity, and inclusion in public life. achieved the broader social justice
goal of promoting Oliver and others have investigated quantitative comparisons of behavioral
similarity circuits in cognitive and emotional empathy. Yacuob and other scholars have
studied cognitive schema and emotion processing-based therapies to reduce social anxiety in
primary school students.
Empathy as a Driver of Prosocial Behaviour: Highly Conserved Neurobehavioural
Mechanisms Across Species
According to Decety, J. et al. (2016), In recent years, great progress has been made
toward a comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary processes that drive interspecies
social behavior and the neurobiological architectures that support them. A phenomenon that
unites individuals and has received much attention not only from the social and life sciences
but also from the general public is empathy. Empathy is widely believed to shape the
landscape of our social lives, motivate prosocial and compassionate behavior, curb
aggression, and promote cooperation among members of similar social groups. Also, not all
prosocial behavior is motivated by empathy. For example, cooperation is a fundamental
aspect of all biological systems, from bacteria to primates, and seems to follow a very simple
rule: Natural selection favors cooperation. In this case, cooperation may develop as a result of
"social persistence" and not explicitly as a result of empathy. Furthermore, it has been argued
that morality is distinct from empathy. In fact, empathy can conflict with morality and justice
by introducing prejudice. This is because these two abilities rely on different final and direct
mechanisms. Empathy is a powerful motivator for compassion and support behavior in many
species, but there is a distinction between experiencing empathy and coherent behavior. This
is an important issue because we do not argue that empathy is the only source of prosociality
or that empathy and prosocial behavior should be confused. The debate about the role of
empathy in prosocial behavior is plagued with disagreements and misunderstandings.
A Study of Prosocial Behavior and Self Concept of Adolescents
According to Gupta, D., & Thapliyal, G. (2015), adolescence is a critical period of
social development as it is susceptible to the influence of people with whom one forms
intimate relationships. During the youth stage, peer groups provide opportunities to develop
social skills such as empathy, sharing, and leadership. Many familial traits are also associated
with the development of prosocial and antisocial behaviors in children and adolescents.
Prosocial behavior is aimed at building positive, empathetic, supportive, and socially
responsible relationships for the benefit of others. Prosocial behavior promotes positive traits
that are beneficial to the child and society. Similarly, her self-concept is much more complex
and specific than it was in her childhood. Self-concept reflects how adolescents see
themselves in an area (or areas) where they believe success is important. Previous empirical
evidence indicates that acting prosocially and altruistically can reinforce a person's
self-concept. We conducted a survey of social behavior and self-concept, and also identified
the relationship between prosocial behavior and self-concept. The findings showed that
adolescents' overall self-concepts were average and favorable, with no significant differences
between male and female adolescent self-concepts. Adolescent prosocial behavior was
average and positive, and there was a significant difference in adolescent prosocial behavior
between males and females. A significant association was found between prosocial behavior
and adolescent self-concept.
Empathy Among Undergraduate Medical Students: A Multi-Centre Cross-Sectional
Comparison of Students Beginning and Approaching the End of their Course
According to Quince, T.A., Kinnersley, P., Hales, J. et al. (2016), a core element in
patient care, the trajectory of empathy during undergraduate medical education remains
unclear. Empathy is typically understood to consist of two capacities: a cognitive capacity
and an affective capacity. The cognitive capacity is the capacity to understand and value the
perspective of another person. The authors looked into whether male and female students
differed in this area and whether final-year undergraduate students recorded lower levels of
empathy than their first-year counterparts. According to some descriptions, empathy is a
multi-dimensional concept that consists of two main domains: the affective capacity to feel
sympathy and concern for another person, and the cognitive capacity to comprehend and
value the other person's viewpoint. It has been proposed that the cognitive component in a
clinical setting also includes the capacity to convey that understanding. Although studies of
the general population and medical students have shown that females are more empathic than
males, empathy is thought to be normally distributed throughout the population.
Attachment and the Development of Prosocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents: A
Systematic Review
According to Martins, M. et al. (2022), the link between security and the emergence
of prosocial behavior is a central tenet of attachment theory. Prosocial behavior is defined as
voluntary behavior intended to benefit others, such as helping, sharing, and comforting. A
secure child is more likely to feel and express concern for another person, leading to higher
levels of prosocial behavior. The effect of attachment relationships on kids' social, emotional,
and cognitive development has drawn more attention in recent years. An ongoing, affective
relationship with a caregiver promotes mental health and well-being throughout life,
according to formulations from psychoanalysis, ethology, developmental psychology, and
control systems theory. During childhood, it begins to function at a sensory-motor level
before shifting to a more symbolic level, enabling the child to reflect and discuss her own and
other people's feelings. Children actively create their internal working models of attachment
relationships while they are still young. This establishes attachment theory's fundamental role
as a theory of prosocial behavior. One of the central ideas of attachment theory is the
existence of a caregiving system (from adult to child), which is essential to understand the
emergence of behaviors like empathy, kindness, and care, which are characteristics of
sensitive interactions between adults and children.
A Cross-Sectional Study of Student Empathy Across Four Medical Schools in Denmark
— Associations between Empathy Level and Age, Sex, Specialty Preferences, and
Motivation
According to Hvidt, E. et al. (2022), medical students need professional empathy.
Professional empathy, defined in the medical literature as the ability to understand a patient's
suffering and concerns, the ability to communicate this understanding, and the intention to
help, has been linked to several positive patient and physician outcomes, including more
accurate diagnosis and treatment, higher patient satisfaction, and compliance, lower
complaints and lawsuits, and lower physician burnout and stress. Medical students with high
professional empathy scores have higher satisfaction with their education, lower stress, and
burnout, higher faculty ratings of overall clinical competencies, better patient-assessed
interpersonal skills, and better teamwork skills. Empathy differs across cultures, so the idea
that medical educational cultures share empathy is questionable. Putting these considerations
aside, studies in different cultural settings have found positive associations between empathy
scores and variables like age, sex, and specialty preferences, particularly for students who
prefer person- and relationship-centered specialties over technical/procedural ones. Finally,
studies have consistently found that intrinsic motivational factors for studying medicine, such
as a desire to care for patients, alleviate distress, and save lives, are positively associated with
empathy, unlike extrinsic factors like prestige, status, and future earning potential. Empathy
and private life—having children or not—are rarely studied. Empathy is a psychosocial factor
in parent–child, romantic, and human relationships, so these social details of respondents
should be considered when assessing student empathy scores.
Prosocial Behavior and Gender
According to Espinosa, M. & KOravik, J. (2015), economic games can teach us about
social preferences and prosociality, which is voluntary behavior that benefits others. The
determinants of human prosocial behavior and how it varies across socioeconomic contexts
and social framings have been examined using different benchmark games in the lab and
field. The study found gender differences in design manipulation reactions. Female social
behavior is more affected by social and emotional aspects of the experimental design, while
men adjust their behavior more when motivated to reason about their behavior. In data
separated by gender, only one gender reacts significantly to treatment. Within-subject data
sets support gender-specific treatment reaction tests. This study shows that gender affects
human prosociality because the mechanisms that promote or inhibit social behavior differ
between men and women. Since their social roles have differed for most of human history
and, depending on the social context, men and women behave differently in almost all
cultures, this should not be a surprise. If men and women behave differently in different
social contexts, we may see similar differences in the lab when subjects can associate a
framing.
The Influence of Social Support on the Prosocial Behavior of College Students: The
Mediating Effect Based on Interpersonal Trust
According to Guo, Y. (2017), The concept of responsibility plays a significant role in
all facets of morality. One of the most crucial elements of many positive mental qualities, a
healthy personality, and the encouragement of individual socialization are prosocial attitudes.
Young students' development of prosocial behavior is important for a society's growth,
progress, harmony, and stability as well as for the formation of social responsibility and
moral behavior. The development of prosocial behavior among college students has recently
come under increased scrutiny as a result of global educational reform. It was emphasized
that today, the challenge for higher education is to cultivate the moral conscience, morality,
civic obligations, and social responsibility of students. The study of college students'
prosocial behavior goes far beyond aiding in deepening the depth and scope of understanding
of the concept of prosocial behavior. That needs a theoretical investigation into the topic. The
outcomes of such research can support college students' success and socialization.
Additionally, it can offer the theoretical and practical foundation for moral education in
universities and colleges while promoting concepts and strategies for the moral education
necessary for modern social development.
Synthesis
The above collection of studies provides information in regards to the prosocial
behavior and empathy among the multi-sector colleges of the Private tertiary Institution.
Humans display a wide variety of helping behaviors. Concepts in relation to empathy such as
altruism, prosocial behavior, and kindness are comprehensively discussed in the literature but
it is not always clear how they relate to each other. The given studies explain prosocial
behaviors, how an individual act when put into a group and out of it, how they interact with
other people besides their peers, and how showing empathy is connected to it. The
above-mentioned studies will be able to show how prosocial behavior is inter-correlated to
the development and links with empathy. The main goal of this research paper is to know the
correlation between the empathic and prosocial behavior exhibited by the multi-sector
colleges of the Institution. This study also tries to determine the respondent’s level of
prosocial behavior and empathy and their relationship, but in regard to the aforementioned
studies, results vary from different variables such as the individual’s sex, age, year level, and
college. One strength of this study is that it is able to help Psychology majors have a deeper
understanding of their possible clients with coping and treatment apropos to their empathic
prosocial behavior as the local studies are limited as of now. This study is beneficial to bridge
the gap in this research topic, provide a new perspective and address the scarcity of studies
about prosocial behavior and empathy in the Philippines. In addition, the following studies
mentioned above were also able to raise proper discernment and awareness for people of
different ages. This study is also able to help and support the Balayan, and give further
knowledge to people in and out of the said community.
METHODS
This section describes the components of the study which relate to research
methodologies such as the research methodology such as research design, respondents,
research
instrument, data gathering
procedures, statistical treatment, and ethical
considerations.
Research Design
The study is a quantitative, descriptive, comparative, and correlational research that
aims to determine the empathetic prosocial behavior among Colleges; the respondents were
placed in a specific group depending on the College. Quantitative methods objectize the
events and facts and make them measurable. It utilizes a descriptive correlation design to
provide a relatively complete picture of what is occurring at a given time and allows testing
of expected relationships between and among variables and the making of predictions.
The descriptive design will be used to carry out this study and aims to describe
entities, occurrences, or conditions as they exist in nature. It explored the characteristics of a
population: resolved gaps within a unit, organization, or population; or investigated
differences in characteristics or behaviors between organizations or even countries (Siedlecki,
2020). The purpose of descriptive studies is to describe individuals, events, or conditions by
studying them as they are in nature (Siedlecki, S.,2020).
The comparative analysis will be used to compare the average of the dependent
variable across two or more groups. It requires normal distribution and the variance needs to
be comparable (Global, 2021).
The correlation is a statistical tool that is used frequently to describe the basic
relationships between cause and effect. It will be used to show how linearly connected the
two variables are to one another.
In gathering the data, the researchers will make use of the survey method. The survey
Method is a process used to gather information by asking questions to a predefined group of
people. By using the survey method, the researchers will be able to eliminate the basic
information of the respondents. Using the survey method will be beneficial to the researchers
as this will shorten the time needed to gather the information from the group.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study should meet the following criteria; college students who
are enrolled in the academic year 2022- 2023. The researchers were able to use a stratified
random method. Stratifying involves classifying sampling units of the population into
relatively homogeneous groups before (usually) selecting sample units. Strata are based on
information other than the characteristic being measured that is known to or thought to vary
with the characteristic of interest in such a way that the character is more homogeneous
within strata than among strata. Therefore, any feature that explains variation in the
characteristic of interest can be used as a basis for defining strata. Furthermore, in this study,
the researchers used a stratified random method since the researchers divided the sample into
different segments in every college.
The target sample size will consist of 200 individuals, the respondents will be
categorized according to what Colleges they belong to. The total number of respondents was
drawn using G*Power Analysis since the researchers were not able to get the total number of
the university. Hence, the need to use stratified random sampling for the data gathering. Table
1 shows the profile demographics of the respondents, this will entail details like age, sex, year
level, and college.
Table 1:
Demographics of the Respondents
Table 2:
Total gathered results
Data Gathering Instruments
The researchers will be using a standardized survey test entitled The Prosociality
Scale Questionnaire (Appendix), The Prosociality Scale was designed as a measure to assess
individual differences in a person’s tendencies to act in favor of others and has been proven
useful in several studies in different countries (e.g., Bandura et al., 1999; Cuadrado et al.,
2015; Pastorelli et al., 2015; Martí-Vilar et al., 2020). The scale was developed in Italy and
reflected different types of prosocial behavior (i.e., sharing, helping, and caring behaviors),
as well as empathic/sympathetic reactions. In this revised scale, items will be reworded to be
adequate for adolescents and adults, and new items related to empathic reactions (Luengo
Kanacri et al., 2021). For the prosociality scale, respondents rated (1= never/ almost never
true; 2= occasionally true; 3= sometimes true; 4 = often true; 5 = almost always/always true)
these tendencies will enact prosocial behaviors on the 16-item scale developed by Caprara et
al. (2005). For the measurement of the Empathy level of the respondents, the researchers
made use of the Basic Empathy Scale or the BES developed by Jolliffeand Farrington. The
BES consists of 20 items, which are divided into two factors: cognitive empathy (10 items)
and affective empathy (10 items) The BES has been globally administered in Chinese,
French, Italian, Portuguese, Slovak, Peruvian, and Spanish adaptations (Cabedo-Peris et al.,
2021). The 20-item questionnaire for the empathy scale was also rated the same as the
Prosociality scale (1= never/ almost never true; 2= occasionally true; 3= sometimes true; 4 =
often true; 5 = almost always/always true). The instruments used in this study were validated
by the panel members with the use of the Good and Scates Rating Scale. The rating has the
assumption of having the ideal score between 3.40-5.00, with the verbal interpretation of
good-excellent.
Table 1.
Verbal Interpretation Guide for the Validation of the Instrument.
Results showed that the instrument had an average rating of 4.5 which is interpreted as good,
therefore the instrument is valid.
Verbal Interpretation for The Prosociality Scale Questionnaire
For the verbal interpretation of the prosociality scale, to distinguish nominal data of
the value we used a five-point Likert scale to determine their attitude. The results of the
interval attitudes are labeled as follows: very high prosocial level, high prosocial level,
moderate prosocial level, low prosocial level, and very low prosocial level.
Verbal Interpretation for The Basic Empathy Scale or the BES for adults
Similar to the verbal interpretation for the empathy scale, the researchers used the
five-point Likert scale to determine the value of the empathy level of the respondents. The
attitudes of the interval are labeled as follows: very high empathy level, high empathy level,
moderate empathy level, low empathy level, and very low empathy level.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher asked permission or got the approval of the school authorities to
conduct the study. After the school authorities approved the paper, the researchers were able
to find a literary search and found an article to back up the assertion. Two instruments were
used in measuring the prosocial behavior and empathy of the respondents, The Prosociality
Scale Questionnaire by (Luengo Kanacri et al., 2021) for prosocial behavior and the Basic
Empathy Scale or the BES developed by Jolliffeand Farrington (2006) for the empathy level.
Before handing or sending the survey questionnaires, the researchers first gave a consent
form and letter of invitation to the respondents which allowed them to withdraw at any time if
they were no longer comfortable with the research questions. Researchers were able to
explain to the respondents what was expected of them prior to the actual research proper. In
reaching the respondents of the study, the researchers coordinated with different persons from
each year level and college that will fit the description criterion of the respondents for this
study, they were then picked randomly and asked to participate in the survey. There were
some instances that the respondents agreed to participate virtually, which prompted the
researchers to send out a link that directed them to the test via Google Form, which they were
able to answer with the day. In the first section of the google form, the Consent Form was
presented with adequate information on the rights of the respondents, and whether or not they
give consent to continue with the test. Respondents who chose to not give their consent
immediately lose access to the rest of the test. For the face-to-face interaction, researchers
were on campus having a printed copy of the survey questionnaires and giving out the survey
forms to students on campus. The printed copy also has a consent form and the moment that
respondents declined to answer they were respected gracefully.
Statistical Treatment
Results generated from the instrument used in this study were analyzed and
interpreted using the software program SPSS. Statistical analyses for this study entailed
aligning questions from The Prosociality Scale Questionnaire by (Luengo Kanacri et al.,
2021) instrument, which reflects different types of prosocial behavior (i.e., sharing, helping,
and caring behaviors) for the empathic response, and is non-parametric. For the measurement
of the Empathy scales demonstrated among the college students of the University of St.
Lasalle, the researchers will make use of the Basic Empathy Scale or the BES for adults
developed by Jolliffeand Farrington (2006).
G*Power Analysis is a tool utilized to help the researchers determine the smallest
possible sample size that is suitable in order to determine if the variables in the study’s effect
are at the desired level of significance of differences. In this study, G*Power was used to
determine the sample size for the respondents of the study.
In order to answer the first Statement of the Problem, the researcher used Frequency
Distribution. Hence, the frequencies for each of the profile variables were drawn up and
computed. This data set will allow the researchers a more broad view of the respondents’
profiles.
In order to answer the second Statement of the Problem, the central tendency “Mean”
and the standard deviation was drawn in order to see the level of prosocial behavior
depending on different dimensions of sharing, helping, caring, or empathetic/sympathetic
reactions.
In order to answer the third Statement of the Problem, the central tendency “Mean”
and the standard deviation were drawn to see the level of empathy depending on the
following dimensions: affective empathy or cognitive empathy.
To answer the fourth Statement of the Problem, there are several tests conducted to
determine the significant differences between the level of prosocial behavior in terms of the
profile variables: age, gender, year level, and college. One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s) with Post
Hoc Tests was used to determine the significant difference between the different age brackets,
it was also used to determine if there is a significant difference in terms of the year level and
if there is a significant difference in terms of being in different colleges. Mann-Whitney
U-test was used in order to determine if there is a significant difference between the level of
prosocial behavior in terms of sex.
In order to answer the fifth Statement of the Problem, here are several tests conducted
in order to determine the significant differences between the level of empathy in terms of the
profile variables: age, gender, year level, and college. One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s) with Post
Hoc Tests was used to determine the significant difference between the different age brackets,
it was also used to determine if there is a significant difference in terms of the year level and
if there is a significant difference in terms of being in different colleges. Mann-Whitney
U-test was used in order to determine if there is a significant difference between the level of
empathy in terms of sex.
In order to answer the sixth Statement of the Problem, a correlation matrix was drawn
in order to determine if there is a significant correlation between the level of prosocial
behavior and the level of empathy, the researchers decided on using Spearman’s rho value
since the scatterplot shows a non-linear trend instead of using Pearson’s.
Ethical Considerations
Prior to going through with the study and survey questionnaires, the study was able to
undergo ethical reviews by the SRERO. The researchers informed the respondents about
what was expected of them. The respondents were given a letter of invitation for the study
and a consent form. The respondents were able to acknowledge the said guidelines and agree
before the researchers continued sending out the questionnaire. The researchers were also
able to take into consideration the privacy and rights of the respondents, they were given the
option to remain anonymous or to have pseudonyms to protect their identity. All information
was kept solely for the purpose of this study, with no deception, and there was no leakage
with any of the recorded answers and information regarding the respondents. No respondents
were forced to participate against their will, in the moment that respondents decided to
withdraw, they were allowed. The researchers gave the utmost respect to all respondents in
this study, and the whole process was consensual.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the results and discussions of the gathered data to answer the
research statement of the problem of this study. Included in this section are the analysis and
interpretation of the gathered data. The data presented answers the Statement of the Problem
of this study and showed the discussion for the verbal interpretation of the said instruments.
Statement of the Problem 1
Table 1.1
Frequencies of the Demographics of the Study
Based on the criterion of this study, the respondents were bonafide students of the
tertiary department hence the age bracket this study observed is 18-24 years of age. As shown
in Table 1, The total number of respondents with the age of 18 years old is 13 people with a
total percentage of 6.50% of the sample population. The total number of respondents with the
age of 19 years old on the other hand is a total 47 people which makes up 23.50% of the total
sample population of the study. With 51 people in this age bracket, the group composed of
20-year-old people is the recorded highest number of respondents for this study, taking up
25.50% of the total sample size. The 21-year-old bracket, on the other hand, makes up 24%
of the total sample population of the study which corresponds to 48 total respondents. The
total number of respondents with the age of 22 comes up to 27 people in total, this makes up
13.50% of the sample. Lastly, the group of 24-year-old respondents has a total of 3
respondents which makes up 1.50% of the total sample population. All in all this data sums
up to a total of 100% cumulative percentage which represents the total number of respondents
represented in this study.
The data set also represents the data distribution of the respondents of this study in
terms of their Sex, based on their profile demographics. A total of 115 respondents were
determined to be “female” which totals up to 57.50% of the total percentage of respondents,
while its male counterpart adds up to 85 respondents, filling in the remaining 42.50% of the
total.
The total respondents were divided evenly between the year levels thus, each group is
represented by an even number of respondents. The total number of first-year respondents in
the study is 50 respondents which makes up 25% of the total sample population. The total
number for the second year on the other hand is also 50 respondents which makes up another
25% of the total data. The third-year respondents are also represented by 50 respondents
which makes up another 25% of the total respondents. Finally, the total number of fourth-year
respondents is 50 respondents which makes up the final 25% of the total respondents of the
study.
The total frequencies of the respondents in terms of their different colleges are also
evenly distributed. Hence, each college is represented by the same total number of
respondents per group. The College of Nursing has a total of 40 respondents which makes up
20% of the total sample respondents. The College of Education also retains the same number
of respondents which is 40, making up another 20% of the total sample size. The College of
Engineering and Technology is also represented by 40 respondents which comprises another
20% of the total. College of Arts and Sciences is represented by 40 respondents in total,
which is another 20% of the respondent’s total number. Lastly, the College of Business and
Accountancy also has 40 respondents which make up the final 20% of the respondents.
As a whole, the data presented in this part of the study serves as an answer to the
whole demographic of the respondents in the first statement of the problem, furthermore,
these data serve to represent the total number of respondents as well as their percentage
Originally, the researcher’s target respondent’s ages ranged from young children to
middle adulthood. However, the respondent’s age bracket is a stain on the paper for the
reason that the process will be time-consuming and may lead to delays and the fall of the
paper. Also, according to Spinrad, T.L., et al. (2018), empathy and prosocial behavior in
young children are not yet crystallized and can still be affected by some factors, either
intrinsically or extrinsically. On the other hand, according to Pollerhoff, L. et al. (2022),
middle- to late-adulthood individuals have fluctuating levels of empathy and prosocial
behaviors due to the experiences they had. The researchers finalized their respondent’s age
bracket to be young adults, who seem to fit the needs of the paper. In support of this,
according to Pollerhoff, L. et al. (2022), young adults need to develop and sustain
relationships with other people, and one key component is the ability to experience empathy
in reaction to another person's suffering, an emotion that is thought to spur prosocial
behavior. Although social engagement is unquestionably important for maturation, there are
currently studies addressing how prosociality and empathy change over time.
Statement of the Problem 2
Table 2
Level of Prosocial Behavior
According to the data in Table 2, the total respondents' levels of prosocial behavior
was categorized using these different dimensions: sharing, helping, caring, and
empathetic/sympathetic reactions. The mean score of the dimension sharing was observed to
be 3.8600 with a standard deviation of 0.7467 while the dimension “helping”, out of the 200
respondents the mean score of the data from this dimension is the highest by far in this group
which is 4.1875 with a standard deviation of 0.6743. On the other hand, the dimension
“caring” is sporting a 3.9375 mean score with a standard deviation of 0.6853. Empathic/
Sympathetic reactions’ mean score of 4.0020 with a standard deviation of 0.6864 is observed
to be the second highest just after the dimension “helping”. The overall total mean average
score of the Level of Prosocial Behaviour of the 200 total respondents was observed to be
3.9968 with a standard deviation of 0.6166.
Through verbal interpretation, it can be observed that the survey questionnaire
questions that target the respondent’s helping dimension are found to have the highest
responses and the one that has the highest mean score. This would indicate that the total
scores of the respondents’ average already have a higher indication since the total average
falls in the “high” category. Since the mean scores were above that of the lower division for
the “high prosocial level” category, it is determined that the scores for each of these
dimensions are under the “high prosocial level” category. For this table, it is observed that the
highest mean score is “helping” with 4.1875 mean scores and the lowest mean score is
“sharing” which holds a mean score of 3.8600. The dimensions “helping”, “sharing” and
“caring” all also encompass marks that fit the “high prosocial level”. The following score is
the dimension “empathic/sympathetic reaction” which also falls under the “high prosocial
level”. The researchers have determined that a score of “high prosocial level” indicates a very
good moral grounding but with little room for improvement and growth.
A lot of factors are believed to be affecting the idea of prosocial behavior. According
to Lampridis, E. (2017), religiosity and prosocial behavior are seen to be correlated. Religion
plays a significant role in exhibiting prosocial behavior. As with religiosity affecting
prosocial behavior, helping behavior is high among religious individuals. Based on the
results, Lampridis’ study can support the results of the study for the reason that the
respondents are residents of a Catholic school. It can be observed that through Catholic
practices (outreach programs, community engagements, charity works, and such), their
prosocial behavior, specifically helping behavior, is being molded. On the other hand, it is
seen that helping is more valuable than sharing because it is easier to offer. According to
Lampridis, E. (2017), the notion that helps the individual perform helping is that it is an
action that can be beneficial for both the helper and the receiver. Simply doing the act of
helping can be beneficial to the helper. To pile it up, the drive that makes an individual help
other people rather than share is the weight of the action and the selfless behavior that
benefits other people.
The researchers completely agree with the findings that 'helping' has the highest mean
among the other dimensions, because helping may give people a sense of purpose and make
them feel satisfied, fulfilled, and inspired. Furthermore, connecting with others can help an
individual feel more confident and at ease among new people, allowing them to overcome
social anxiety.
Statement of the Problem 3
Table 3
Level of Empathy
According to the data above, the Level of Empathy of the total sample population was
categorized into two Empathy dimensions, Affective and Cognitive Empathy. Out of the total
200 respondents, the mean data for Affective Empathy is 3.0130 with a standard deviation of
0.5065 while the Cognitive Empathy score on the other hand has a mean of 3.2240 with a
standard deviation of 0.4984. All in all, the level of empathy observed in this data set is
determined to have a mean of 3.1185 with a standard deviation of 0.4614.
Since the mean scores of the respondents in the Basic Empathy Scale is at the 3 mark,
most of the interpretation for this section falls within the “moderate empathy level”, Affective
Empathy has a mean score of 3.0130 which falls under the “moderate level” while Cognitive
Empathy which is slightly higher in terms of the mean score than the Affective Empathy has
a mean score of 3.2240 which also falls under the “moderate level” of data.
Helping others and exhibiting compassion toward others are more likely when a
person has empathy. According to Costantini (2019), found that empathy is one of the main
motivators of prosocial behavior and that people are only predisposed to help others if they
feel empathy for them. The results showed that the respondents have higher cognitive
empathy than affective empathy since people are more likely to understand another person’s
perspective. According to Powell (2017), cognitive empathy has been shown to anticipate
good social outcomes such as volunteering, awareness of injustice, and sympathy for others.
In addition, cognitive empathy may be more adaptive than affective empathy in this case. To
ramp up the empathy level to a higher level is to put more emphasis on others and
substituting assumptions with a sense of curiosity exposes people to empathy.
Cognitive empathy talks about a person’s understanding of another’s mental state,
while Affective empathy is the ability to share the feelings of others. In hindsight, the
researchers would agree that Cognitive empathy is much easier to relate to and to do, hence
the scores of which the respondents answer where cognitive empathy has a higher mean score
than its counterpart. Understanding how a person thinks, and understanding their beliefs can
be easier than actually being affected by another persons mental state.
Statement of the Problem 4
Table 4.1
One ANOVA (Fisher’s) of the level of Prosocial Behavior in terms of Age
According to the computation for the One-way ANOVA for the level of Prosocial
Behavior in terms of Age, since the p-value (p=0.0000) is less than 0.05, then the null
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is a significant difference in the Level of Prosocial
Behavior of the respondents in terms of Age. The researchers observed that there is a
significant difference in the level of prosocial behavior between the age groups, furthermore,
the One-way ANOVA shows the significant differences between the age group which
corresponds to F(6,193)= 4.8878, p=<.001.
Table 4.2
The level of Prosocial Behavior in terms of Age
Table 4.3
Post Hoc Tests for the level of Prosocial Behavior in terms of Age
According to Table 4.2, the total number of respondents who falls into the age group
of 18-year-olds has 13 respondents with a mean of 3.8724 and a standard deviation of 0.7734,
while the 19-year-olds have 47 total respondents with a mean of 4.1536 and a standard
deviation of 0.5522, 20-year-olds who has a high mean percentage in terms of the
respondents, has 51 total respondents in the group and a mean of 4.1071 and a standard
deviation of 0.4541. The total number of respondents in the age group 21 is 48 respondents
with a mean total of 4.0399 and a standard deviation of 0.5450. The age group of the
22-year-olds on the other hand has a total of 27 total respondents which has a mean score of
3.5910 and a standard deviation of 0.8014, this group bracket has a significantly lower result
than the rest of the group despite having a higher number of respondents than those of lower
count. The group of 23 years old is composed of 11 respondents with a mean average of
3.5754 and a standard deviation of 0.5902 while lastly, the group of 24 years old has a total of
3 respondents with a mean of 4.7069 and a standard deviation of 0.0883 since there are only
3 respondents in this group, the total scores are not as scattered and are not as deviant as the
other.
With the use of the Post-Hoc test, it is determined where the significant difference
lies. Hence, it has been observed that out of all the age groups, the 22-year-olds have a lower
mean average which means their prosocial behavior is much lower than the rest of the group.
Their standard deviation is also higher than the rest which constitutes a scatter in the
representation of their data, which indicates that most of the data from this age group are not
as linear with the mean as the rest.
Out of the recorded data for the level of prosocial behavior in terms of age, the
highest mean score for the age bracket is the 24-year-old group with a mean score of 4.7069
with a standard deviation of 0.0883. In contrast, the lowest mean score for this profile
variable is the 23-year-old group with a mean score of 3.5754 with a standard deviation of
0.5902. The mean difference between the highest and the lowest mean scores of the age
groups is -1.1316. Of the data presented, the different ages observed a mean score ranging
from 3.5 to 4.7. This indicates that ages 18 to 23 fall under the “high prosocial level” and the
24-year-old age bracket falls under the “very high prosocial level” group.
Based on the study of Matsumoto, Y. et al. (2016), prosocial behavior increases over
time as age affects prosociality. Age and prosocial behavior indicate a positive relationship
even after people reach young adulthood. An individual develops a prosocial behavioral
pattern as they age, age-related changes in prosociality take place together with a change in
focus from immediate to long-term gains. Different life- experiences are believed to be a
factor that affects the prosocial behavior of an individual as they age. The more individual
ages, the more they have experienced, and the more their prosocial behavior broadens and
enhances.
For the level of prosocial behavior in terms of age, the researchers also had a hard
time trying to understand why is there a difference in the 22 years old group with the rest and
what differs them from the younger ones and the ones older than them. Ultimately, the
researchers put it down to the fact that since they are primary in the age where they are the
graduating batch of students, time constraints and other factors may lead to diminishing
external manifestations of prosocial behavior to peers. The study also determined that the age
and prosocial behavior is directly proportional since the higher the age a person gets, the
more the manifestations of prosocial behavior is shown. This would further be backed by the
fact that since the respondents are being exposed to more activities as they progress in their
school journey, it is only natural that the more engagements and social activities they take
part in, the higher the possible manifestations of prosocial behavior can be.
Table 4.4
Mann-Whitney U-Test for the level of prosocial behavior in terms of sex
Table 4.5
Test of Normality for the Level of Prosocial Behavior
Table 4.6 Test of Normality for the Level of Prosocial Behavior
According to Table 4.4 which talks about the level of prosocial behavior in terms of
sex, since there are two variables when talking about sex, an independent samples t-test was
used to draw up the data. Since there is a violation in the assumption of normality with the
Shaprio-Wilk Test of Normality’s p-value (p=0.000) less than 0.05 level of significance,
therefore, Mann-Whitney U-test was used in this study. The p-value (p=0.034) for this
variable is less than 0.05, hence the researchers rejected the null hypothesis. Therefore, there
is a significant difference in the Level of Prosocial Behavior in terms of Sex. In this instance,
Females have a significantly higher level of Prosocial Behavior (mean=4.0912) than their
male counterparts(mean= 3.8690).
With the mean scores being on a higher end of the spectrum, the results fall on the
“high prosocial level” for both males and females. While the females can be observed as
significantly higher than the males in terms of prosocial behavior, they are still both classified
under the “high prosocial level” and since this is the case, the level of prosocial behavior
means that the respondents' data is scattered on the higher level of the spectrum and can be
considered to be on a good moral stand ground with a few minor improvements in terms of
engagements.
Female social behavior tends to be more affected by social and emotional aspects of
the experimental design, whereas men tend to adjust their behavior more than women when
subjects are motivated to reason further about their behavior (Espinosa, 2015). Several
different studies talk about how male and female social behaviors and the different factors
that shape their behaviors. According to the study conducted by Espinosa in 2015, the study
reveals that gender is an important element of human prosociality as the mechanisms
stimulating or inhibiting social behavior seem to differ across male and female subjects.
Norms and environmental factors also are one to watch out for since they can influence the
behaviors brought about. Furthermore, the studies of Espinosa can back up the results of the
study since they have concluded that women “appear” to be the ones that are more likely to
exhibit prosocial behavior but likewise, both males and females have a high chance of
exhibiting prosocial behavior equally and is actually malleable depending on the responses
and situation a person may face.
The researchers wholeheartedly agree with the literature presented in this results as it
was stated that although the females have a higher mean score which would indicate a higher
chance of exhibiting prosocial behaviors, the male counterparts did not lack all that much in
terms of being prosocial. Although they have a lower mean score than the females, the score
did not differ significantly, just enough that there is a difference but not enough that the gap
in the scores would mean having different levels of verbal interpretation.
Table 4.7
One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s) of the level of Prosocial Behavior in terms of Year Level
According to table 4.6, using the one-way ANOVA (fisher’s test). The researchers
determined the level of prosocial behavior in terms of year level, since the p-value (p=0.083)
is greater than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant
difference in the Level of Prosocial Behavior of the respondents in terms of Year Level. The
researcher observed that there is no significant difference between the year level, moreover,
the one-way ANOVA shows no significant difference between the year level which
corresponds to F(3, 196)=2.2621, p=0.083.
One of the most crucial elements of many positive mental qualities, a healthy
personality, and the encouragement of individual socialization are prosocial attitudes. Young
adult students' development of prosocial behavior is important for their maturation as well as
the society's growth, progress, harmony, and stability for the development of social
responsibility and moral behavior. According to Guo, Y. (2017), prosocial behavior correlates
with interpersonal trust and social support when it comes to college students. There was a
possibility that during the college days of an individual the support and trust that they are
encountering whether from themselves or other people are quite the same. This can conclude
that the level of prosocial behavior of an individual throughout their college life is similar
from the first day they stepped into the university. The findings of Guo’s study can be linked
to the results of the researcher’s study on why there is no significant difference in the
prosociality behavior of the different year levels
Ever since the unforeseen events of the pandemic happened, there are a lot of students
that had to stop school or at least underload their classes. This can be attributed to how hard it
was to maintain a stable life in terms of emotional, financial and even social aspects during
the tight demands of the pandemic. Hence, there are a lot of outliers that has scattered
through out the year levels making it difficult to really correlate them and figure out the
significant differences in terms of year level compared to sex and age. The researchers have
determined that the prosocial behaviors of the respondents did not differ significantly across
year levels since the institution has done its best to make sure that the activities and
engagements it has offered despite the shift in online and offline status will not be affected
and will continue to develop its students regardless of the current situation.
Table 4.8
One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s) of the level of Prosocial Behavior in terms of Colleges
Based on the data seen above, the researchers determined the Level of Prosocial
Behavior in terms of Colleges using one-way ANOVA. Given that the p-value (p=0.731) is
greater than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant
difference in the Level of Prosocial Behavior among the respondents in terms of Colleges.
The researcher observed that there is no significant difference between the colleges, in
addition, the one-way ANOVA shows no significant difference between the colleges which
corresponds to F(4, 195)=0.5066, p=0.731.
According to Coyne, S. M. et al (2018), the multidimensionality of prosocial behavior
includes the ongoing trend on social media, and the university an individual belongs to.
Social media has been defined as a dimension of prosocial behavior as everyone has been
using it. Social media users often post about good deeds they have done for someone or
things that will be helpful to other people. They are able to help, share, and care through
social media platforms. Furthermore, it is said that the university an individual belongs to can
also be considered a dimension of their prosocial behavior. Based on the values that an
institution has, it affects the prosocial behavior of an individual. Through the study of Coyne,
S. M. with his colleague, it can support the result of the researcher’s study on why the
different colleges have no significant differences in terms of the level of their prosocial
behavior. Due to the reason that their respondents stay in the same university, that gives
importance to core values including practices of prosocial behavior. Also, prosocial media
behavior can be considered, as young adults spend more time on social media than other age
groups.
The researchers also concur that the results are not surprising since it is believed that
since the respondents would roughly have the same community engagements and activities as
well as almost the same formation through the years, it is not overly surprising that grouping
the results in terms of “colleges” would not yield significant results. The researchers are
thrilled to find out that student formation did a good job in shaping the inherent attitudes of
the students equally.
Statement of the Problem 5
Table 5.1
One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s) of the Level of Empathy in terms of Age
Based on the computation of table 5.1, using the one-way ANOVA for the Level of
Empathy in terms of Age, since the p-value (p=0.075) is greater than 0.05. Then, the null
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the Level of Empathy
of the respondents in terms of Age. The researcher observed that there is no significant
difference between the age group, moreover, the one-way ANOVA shows no significant
difference between the age group which corresponds to F(6, 193)=1.0813, p=0.375.
Empathy can be a predisposition, more frequent in students and females, which
declines with the increase of both age and work activities, probably due to a psychological
defense mechanism against human suffering (Ferri, 2015). In the study conducted by Ferri in
2015, he emphasizes that varying degrees of social and environmental factors can influence a
person’s empathy. He further found out through his results that empathy and age are inversely
related wherein empathic tendencies decrease as a person’s age increases. However, in the
study conducted by the researchers, the age brackets are not that far apart since there are
limitations to the criteria brought about by the respondents of the study. Since the chosen
respondents of the study are only a few years apart in age range, there is less of a chance to
have overly significant differences in terms of age. Several studies across different regions of
the world have observed that there are less significant differences in terms of age when it
comes to empathy especially when it comes to a group that is composed of students primarily.
According to a cross-sectional study conducted in Denmark, explanations for this dominating
trend can be found within evolutionary psychology where empathy is viewed as a skill that
women have developed due to their evolutionary primary role as caretakers of children
(Hvidt, 2022).
Table 5.2
Mann-Whitney U-Test for the Level of Empathy in terms of Sex
Table 5.3
Results for the Tests of Normality
According to table 5.2, which talks about the level of empathy in terms of sex, since
there are two variables when talking about sex, and there is a violation in an assumption of
normality with Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality’s p-value (p=0.005) is less than 0.05 level of
significance, therefore Mann-Whitney U-test was used in this study. Since the p-value
(p=0.662) for this variable is higher than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is accepted.
Therefore, there is no significant difference in the Level of Empathy in terms of Sex.
Empathy is commonly understood as a critical factor in providing effective support,
but it has also been considered a primary path of vulnerability (Ferri, 2015). Based on the
study conducted by Ferri in 2015, females presented a statistically higher empathic capacity
than their male counterparts in the instrument used to measure empathy but no significance
was also reported on their findings when it is in terms of sex between respondents of their
study. This would indicate that while the females would have a higher empathic capacity, the
overall results of the research conducted were still inconclusive and even presented no
significant difference when the respondents are students.
It is well known that empathy defined as understanding the patient’s thought and
feeling has an impact on interpersonal relationship. People can be empathetic by putting
himself or herself at the other’s stance (Suh et al., 2019). Studies show that people are usually
known to have empathy and not in regard with sex specifically, with the current findings at
hand, the researchers concides that sex do not have any significant difference with a person’s
level of empathy and that it is in the nurturing stage that forms it.
Table 5.4
One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s) of the Level of Empathy in terms of Year Level
According to table 5.4, using one-way ANOVA for the Level of Empathy in terms of
Year Level. Given that the p-value (p=0.464) is higher than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is
accepted. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the Level of Empathy of the
respondents in terms of Year Level. The researchers observed that there is no significant
difference between the year level, in addition, the one-way ANOVA shows no significant
difference between the year level which corresponds to F(3, 196)=0.8586, p=0.464.
Studies in Portugal, Korea, Japan, Iran, Bangladesh, the USA, Croatia, Brazil, and the
UK reported either no change or an increase in empathy. In a study on the Performance of
Educational Cognition Education in the College, under the traditional psychological
classroom model, the questionnaire scores of the sophomore, junior, and senior students all
reached four points or more, and only the freshman students scored less than four points. The
applicability of a student is not high (Zheng, 2022). Empathy exists in a spectrum, every
living thing will one way or another experience bouts of empathy even when it is diminished
to an extent. But the respondents of this study are already fully grown undergraduates who
are already developed into full human beings, hence, are already past the age where
significant differences in the growth and development of empathy can be observed.
A lot of researches have reported that empathy is already present even at a young age,
children and adolescents who were more affected by other people’s distress, as assessed by
the affective empathy scale, were better able to understand why they were feeling, for
example, angry or upset (Overgaauw, 2017). Empathy as a whole is already inherent in us
and its growth pace has slowed down at the current age of the respondents of the study, less
difference can be observed at most since the year levels only have a few years gap with each
other.
Table 5.5
One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s) of the Level of Empathy in terms of Colleges
Based on table 5.5, the researchers determined the Level of Empathy in terms of
Colleges using one-way ANOVA, since the p-value (p=0.085) is higher than 0.05, then the
null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the Level of
Empathy of the respondents in terms of Colleges. We, researchers, observed that there is no
significant difference between the colleges, furthermore, the one-way ANOVA shows no
significant difference between the colleges which corresponds to F(4,195)=2.0786, p=0.085.
According to a study based on medical students, the results lead us to conclude that
on the measures used in this study, there is no evidence that final-year students are less
empathetic than those starting the course. The results for New Zealand also demonstrate no
significant differences in empathy between students starting and approaching the end of
undergraduate medical education (Quince, 2016). This would indicate that being in a certain
college would not have that much of an impact on the level of empathy, empathy as a whole
would be inherent to every living being hence, is already present in us even if it does not
show externally.
Since the active formation has always been constant throughout the different colleges,
with some variation in terms of activities here and there, it would be safe to assume that the
overall level of empathy should not differ much in terms of the colleges. This would be due
to the fact that the institution gives importance to giving its students the best of the best in
terms of formation and growth. Yearly activities, community engagement, mandatory
workshops or seminars and recollections can shape a student and there are only some of the
activities provided by the institution.
Statement of the Problem 6
Table 6
Correlation Matrix - The correlation between the level of prosocial behavior and the level of
empathy
Basing on table 6 talks about the correlation between the level of prosocial behavior
and the level of empathy. The researchers used Spearman rho since the scatterplot shows a
non-linear trend. The researchers used Spearman rho instead of Pearson since the assumption
of Pearson is not followed and it needs to show to be linear. Therefore, there is a significant
relationship between the level of prosocial behavior and the level of empathy with a
moderately weak positive correlation.
To support the result of this study, according to Ding, F. & Lu, Z. (2016), empathy
and prosocial behavior are positively correlated. Empathy goes hand in hand with the
showcase of prosocial behavior. Also, empathy has been known to be the basis for the
generation of individual prosocial behavior. Individuals with high empathy are more likely to
have a sense of inner feelings and needs of help-seekers – empathy with others, thereby
engaging in prosocial behavior. In addition, individuals need cognitive and emotional
participation in the process of generating empathy for others, and an individual’s prosocial
behavior is also based on emotional and cognitive foundations, so they are closely related.
In addition, empathy and prosocial behavior derive from different factors for them to
rise. According to the same article by Ding, F. & Lu, Z. (2016), emotions can be an important
motivator of acts of empathy and prosocial behaviors. Four basic emotions are stated:
happiness, sadness, anger, and fear. These emotions are considered to be components of
empathy and prosocial behavior. Additionally, cultural background affects the empathy and
prosocial behavior of an individual. Different teachings and values can play a role in
exhibiting empathy to others together with their prosocial behavior. Lastly, it is also said that
religious background may tend to contribute to the empathy and prosocial behavior of an
individual. Having different beliefs can influence the development of empathy and prosocial
behavior of an individual for they have their own beliefs and teachings. Different cultures and
religions contribute to the diversity of understanding the concept of empathy and prosocial
behavior.
There are many study that shows that empathy is a driver for prosocial behavior and
the researchers agree to the sentiments with the data gathered that a person’s level of
prosocial behavior correlates with empathy. Prosocial drive is experienced when an empathic
response is coupled with a motivation to act. However, high cost or lack of perceived ability
to help can reduce the motivation and prevent action. Furthermore, by terminating the
observed distress of others, an individual experiences a personal relief from tension (Suh et
al., 2019).
CONCLUSIONS
This section presents the summary of the findings, the conclusions based on the
findings, and the set of recommendations specifically addressed to future researchers and the
Balayan institution.
The study determined the Prosocial behavior and Empathy among college students in
a tertiary institution in Bacolod City. In terms of the profile demographics, the data obtained
indicate that most of the respondents who joined were females aged 18-24 years old.
Adolescence is a vital period in social development because adolescents can be easily
influenced by the people they develop close relationships. At the stage of adolescence, peer
groups offer the opportunity to develop social skills such as empathy, sharing, and leadership
(A STUDY of PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR and SELF CONCEPT of ADOLESCENTS,
n.d.). The whole data gathered explained the domains of the variables Prosocial behavior
(Sharing, Helping, Caring, and Empathic/Sympathetic reactions) with high, and Empathy
(Affective, and cognitive empathy). The data gathered shows that there is a significant
difference in the level of prosocial behavior in terms of AGE, and SEX, i.e., Females have a
significantly higher level of prosocial behavior Female results show 4.09 which is a High
prosocial level based on the verbal interpretation scale. In addition, it is also seen in the data
gathered that the highest prosocial behavior is the respondents aged 24 years old which is a
very high prosocial level based on the verbal interpretation scale. Furthermore, it is also
shown that the hypothesis was not rejected for both Year level and colleges since it is seen
that there is no significant difference between the prosocial behavior and the said factors. For
the Empathy level, the gathered data implies that the hypothesis was accepted, the data
indicates that there was no significant difference between the level of empathy in terms of
Age, Gender, Year level, and college.
The Respondent’s level of prosocial behavior when taken as a whole, is high, in terms
of the profile variables, while the results for the empathy level indicated a moderate level
when taken as a whole in terms of the profile variables. It is also seen in the data that the
highest dimension for prosocial behavior is Helping, and the lowest is sharing. According to
Decety et al., (2016), It is also critical to distinguish prosocial behavior from empathy. While
some forms of prosocial behaviors (i.e. helping and consolation) can be the outcome of
empathy, many other forms of prosocial behaviors (i.e. sharing) are not necessarily associated
with nor elicited by empathy. Thus, it is more appropriate to consider prosocial behavior as a
multidimensional construct rather than a global concept, as it is traditionally viewed. Much is
to be gained by recognizing and studying the different facets of prosocial behavior. Most
contemporary research in humans confirms early findings that there are weak or
non-significant correlations among various forms of prosocial behavior. With the overall
findings, it is conclusive that the prosocial behavior of college students when taken as a
whole does not differ based on what college, or year level they belong to, it implies that their
prosocial behavior only differs based on their gender (Male, or Female), and their age.
Empathy, on the other hand, accepts the hypothesis as it implies that there is no significant
difference. It can also be stipulated in the data gathered that there is a significant relationship
moderately weak positive correlation between the level of prosocial behavior and the level of
empathy, this means that the respondent’s level of empathy correlates with their prosocial
level, it also explains that the higher a person’s prosocial level goes, the higher their empathy
goes as well. Furthermore, Empathysreflects the natural ability to perceive and be sensitive
to the emotional states of others, coupled with a motivation to care for their well-being, The
ability to empathize, both in animals and humans, mediates prosocial behavior when
sensitivity to others' distress is paired with a drive towards their welfare (Decety et al., 2016),
this proves that empathy is a driver for prosocial behavior and that empathy as a whole is not
duly affected by other factors.
In light of the findings gathered from the study, it is irrefutable that Prosocial behavior
has more relevance in measuring the respondents’ attributes, hence the group suggests future
researchers, focus more on prosocial behavior and expand variables, traits, and dimensions
that are under the prosocial factor. In addition, since the original plan of this study was to
start from the youngest age range to fully gather the factor involving prosocial behavior,
future individuals interested in this study should widen their scope in terms of the age range
to fully grasp and understand the in-depth of the topic. They should also broaden the reach of
their study by gathering other possible respondents from other institutions. They should also
take into consideration supporting studies and literature, and to further continue with the
current study in the pursuit of fulfilling the research gap in the lack of local studies about
prosocial behavior and empathy level.
The findings of this study showed that students in the said institution are prone to
prosocial behavior specifically in helping, hence this can help the said university by being
able to further elaborate more charity and recreational activities that could fully foster the
current positive attitudes of their students. The findings and results of this study can also be
helpful in their search for any industrial organization because this can serve as a backbone in
being able to have a background in the said respondents and can give the institution an edge
in the industrial world. With these results parents, especially those who fit in the criterion of
this study can improve or at least retain the activities or the current dynamics preset in the
household that can elicit or increase the level of prosocial behavior. The findings can also be
of help to the students of the institution and future researchers if they are interested in the said
topic, then can build the gap in the current study, this study can help them in the continuation
of the data gathering and have more insights following the current dimensions and variables
stated in this study. Lastly, this study is specifically to assist and widen the scope of prosocial
behavior and empathy to help the Balayan community in creating more opportunities and
activities to create a building block for the person in and out of the community.
REFERENCES
Alleva, J. M., Gattario, K. H., Martijn, C., & Lunde, C. (2019). What can my body do
vs. how does it look?: A qualitative analysis of young women and men’s
descriptions of their body functionality or physical appearance. Body Image, 31,
71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.08.008
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Empathy. In Encyclopedia of social
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 297-298). SAGE Publications, Inc.,
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412956253.n179
Bierhoff, H.-W. (2018). Prosocial Behaviour (1st ed.). Psychology Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203989425
Brittian, A. S., & Humphries, M. L. (2015). Prosocial behavior during adolescence.
International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 19, 221-227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23190-5
Cabedo-Peris, J., Martí-Vilar, M., Merino-Soto, C., & Ortiz-Morán, M. (2021). Basic
Empathy Scale: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization
Meta-Analysis. Healthcare, 10(1), 29.
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10010029
Costantini, A., Scalco, A., Sartori, R., & Ceschi, A. (2019, April 3). Theories for
Computing Prosocial Behavior. ResearchGate; Society for Chaos Theory in
Psychology and Life Sciences.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332173009_Theories_for_Computing_
Prosocial_Behavior
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Holmgren, H. G., Davis, E. J., Collier, K. M.,
Memmott-Elison, M. K., & Hawkins, A. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of prosocial
media on prosocial behavior, aggression, and empathic concern: A
multidimensional approach. Developmental psychology, 54(2), 331–347.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000412
Davis, M. H. (2022). Empathy. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research,
443–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30715-2_20
Decety, J., Bartal, I. B.-A., Uzefovsky, F., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2016). Empathy as a
driver of prosocial behavior: highly conserved neurobehavioral mechanisms
across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 371(1686), 20150077. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0077
Demetriou, H. (2018). A Study of Empathy in the Early and Middle Childhood Years.
In Empathy, Emotion and Education (pp. 85-128). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54844-3_4
Ding, W., Shao, Y., Sun, B., Xie, R., Li, W., & Wang, X. (2018). How Can Prosocial
Behavior Be Motivated? The Different Roles of Moral Judgment, Moral
Elevation, and Moral Identity Among the Young Chinese. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00814
Ding, F., & Lu, Z. (2016). Association between empathy and prosocial behavior: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(8),
1159. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.01159
Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A., Schroeder, D.A., & Penner, L.A. (2006). The Social
Psychology of Prosocial Behavior (1st ed.). Psychology Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315085241
Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2016). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic
Behavior, 54(2), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001
Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.009
Ferri, P., Guerra, E., Marcheselli, L., Cunico, L., & Di Lorenzo, R. (2015). Empathy
and burnout: an analytic cross-sectional study among nurses and nursing
students.
Fiedler, S., Dshamilja, Hellmann, M., Angela, Dorrough, R., & Glöckner, A. (2018).
Cross-national in-group favoritism in prosocial behavior: Evidence from Latin
and North America. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(1), 42–60.
http://journal.sjdm.org/17/17818a/jdm17818a.pdf
Garner, P. (2006). Prediction of Prosocial and Emotional Competence From Maternal
Behavior in African American Preschoolers. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 12(2), 179–198.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.12.2.179‌
Global. (2021, June 23). Comparative studies definition and statistical analysis.
Globalstats Academic. Retrieved December 2022, from
https://www.en.globalstatistik.com/comparative-studies-definition-and-statistical
-analysis/
Goldstein, A. P., & Michaels, G. Y. (2021). Parenting Consequences. Empathy,
158–190. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003165095-7
Guo, Y. (2017). The Influence of Social Support on the Prosocial Behavior of College
Students: The Mediating Effect Based on Interpersonal Trust. English Language
Teaching, 10(12), 158-163.
Gupta, D., & Thapliyal, G. (2015). A Study of Prosocial behavior and Self Concept of
Adolescents. Journal on Educational Psychology, 9(1), 38–45.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1098159
Hersch, J. (2011). Skin color, physical appearance, and perceived discriminatory
treatment. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(5), 671–678.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2011.05.006
Hvidt, E., Sondergaard, J., Wehberg, S., Hvidt, N.C., & Andersen, C. A cross-sectional
study of student empathy across four medical schools in Denmark—associations
between empathy level and age, sex, specialty preferences, and motivation.
(2022). ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.1186\/s12909-022-03532-2
‌
Kim, S. W., Kim, M., & Shin, H. S. (2021). Affective empathy and prosocial behavior
in rodents. Current opinion in neurobiology, 68, 181-189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2021.05.002
Lampridis, E., & Papastylianou, D. (2017). Prosocial behavioral tendencies and
orientation towards individualism–collectivism of Greek young adults.
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(3), 268-282.
Lanzoni, S. (2018). Empathy: A history. Yale University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12987/9780300240924
Lockwood, P. L., Seara-Cardoso, A., & Viding, E. (2014). Emotion Regulation
Moderates the Association between Empathy and Prosocial Behavior. PLoS
ONE, 9(5), e96555. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096555
Luengo Kanacri, B. P., Eisenberg, N., Tramontano, C., Zuffiano, A., Caprara, M. G.,
Regner, E., Zhu, L., Pastorelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (2021). Measuring Prosocial
Behaviors: Psychometric Properties and Cross-National Validation of the
Prosociality Scale in Five Countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.693174
Martin, A., & Olson, K. R. (2015). Beyond good and evil: what motivations underlie
children's prosocial behavior? Perspectives on psychological science: a journal
of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(2), 159–175.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615568998
Matsumoto, Y., Yamagishi, T., Li, Y., & Kiyonari, T. (2016). Prosocial behavior
increases with age across five economic games. PloS one, 11(7), e0158671.
Meuwese, R., Cillessen, A. H., & Güroğlu, B. (2017). Friends in high places: A dyadic
perspective on peer status as a predictor of friendship quality and the mediating
role of empathy and prosocial behavior. Social Development, 26(3), 503-519.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12213
Overgaauw, S., Rieffe, C., Broekhof, E., Crone, E. A., & Güroğlu, B. (2017). Assessing
Empathy across Childhood and Adolescence: Validation of the Empathy
Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (EmQue-CA). Frontiers in
Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00870
Pollerhoff, L., Stietz, J., Depow, G.J. et al. Investigating adult age differences in
real-life empathy, prosociality, and well-being using experience sampling. Sci
Rep 12, 3450 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06620-x
Pornel, J. B., & Saldaña, G. A. (2013, December). Four Common Misuses of the Likert
Scale. ResearchGate; unknown.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309240449_Four_Common_Misuses_of_t
he_Likert_Scale
Powell, P. A., & Roberts, J. (2017). Situational determinants of cognitive, affective,
and compassionate empathy in naturalistic digital interactions. Computers in
Human Behavior, 68, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.024
Quince, T.A., Kinnersley, P., Hales, J. et al (2016). Empathy among undergraduate
medical students: A multi-center cross-sectional comparison of students
beginning and approaching the end of their course. BMC Med Educ 16, 92
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0603-7
Riess, H. (2017). The Science of Empathy. Journal of Patient Experience, 4(2), 74–77.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373517699267
Smith, P. B. (2015). To Lend Helping Hands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
46(6), 759–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115585141
Spinrad, T., & Gal, D. (2017). Fostering prosocial behavior and empathy in young
children. Current Opinion in Psychology (Volume 20, 2018, Pages 40-44). ISSN
2352-250X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.004.
Stevens, F., & Taber, K. (2021). The neuroscience of empathy and compassion in
pro-social behavior. Neuropsychologia, 159, 107925.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107925
Statistical Power Analysis - Statistics Solutions. (2021, August 10). Statistics
Solutions.
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/dissertation-resources/sample-size-calculatio
n-and-sample-size-justification/statistical-power-analysis/\
Suh, W. W., Cho, S. H., Yoo, J. Y., Kim, H. S., Song, H. R., Kim, W. J., Lee, S. M., &
Hong, M. (2019). Relationship between Psychological Correlates and Empathy
in Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Psychiatry Investigation, 16(10),
766–772. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2019.08.31
Telle, N., & Pfister, H. (2016). Positive Empathy and Prosocial Behavior: A Neglected
Link. Emotion Review, 8(2), 154–163.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915586817
Van der Graaff, J., Carlo, G., Crocetti, E., Koot, H. M., & Branje, S. (2018). Prosocial
behavior in adolescence: Gender differences in development and links with
empathy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 1086–1099.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0786-1
Xiao, W., Lin, X., Li, X., Xu, X., Guo, H., Sun, B., & Jiang, H. (2021). The Influence
of Emotion and Empathy on Decisions to Help Others. SAGE Open, 11(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211014513
Walker, L., & Carlo, G. (2015). Prosocial development. Oxford Scholarship Online.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.001.0001
Wang, W. and Wu, X. (2020). “Mediating Roles of Gratitude, Social Support and
Posttraumatic Growth in the Relation between Empathy and Prosocial Behavior
among Adolescents after the Ya’an Earthquake.” Acta Psychologica Sinica, vol.
52, no. 3, 2020, pp. 307–316., https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2020.00307.
Zheng, Y., Yao, X., & Wang, Y.(2022). Performance of Emotional Cognition Education
in College Students’ Psychological Health Classroom. (2022). ResearchGate.
https://doi.org/10.1155\/2022\/2802089
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT FORMS
APPENDIX D
The Prosociality Scale Questionnaire (Luengo Kanacri et al., 2021)
APPENDIX E
Basic Empathy Scale or the BES by Jolliffe and Farrington
APPENDIX F
G*Power Analysis for the determination of respondents
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H