Prosocial behavior
Prosocial behavior refers to intentional actions aimed at benefiting others, rather than oneself, encompassing activities such as donating, cooperating, assisting, and volunteering. These behaviors are often motivated by altruism, where individuals show empathy and concern for the well-being of others, sometimes at a personal risk or cost. Cultures around the world typically promote prosocial actions, as they nurture community bonds and mutual support. The presence of prosocial behavior in children is linked to their moral and social development, with their upbringing and social environment significantly influencing their propensity to help others.
Factors affecting prosocial behavior include individual characteristics, such as educational background and emotional temperament, as well as situational elements like the number of bystanders in a crisis, which can lead to the diffusion of responsibility. Research indicates that both males and females engage in prosocial behaviors, though they may differ in their motivations and the contexts in which they help. Additionally, the perception of altruism can be influenced by whether one's prosocial actions are publicly known or not. Understanding prosocial behavior is essential, especially in times of crisis, as shared experiences can foster altruistic tendencies within communities.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Prosocial behavior
Prosocial behavior consists of intentional actions that benefit another person rather than those that benefit oneself. They may consist of donating, cooperating, assisting, and volunteering that is motivated by altruism. Oftentimes, the behavior will include some risk or personal expense. For instance, if a person gives up their place in line for someone else, then that individual has lost the time and possibly money invested in having waited in line. Prosocial behaviors are often prompted by compassion and concern for the well-being of other people and is linked to the welfare of society. Most cultures encourage individuals to engage in prosocial behaviors, because doing so facilitates a feeling of community in which people respect and support each other. If members of a community feel excluded, they are less likely to engage in prosocial behaviors.
Overview
Prosocial behaviors are those in which one person helps another without any desire for a reward or compensation. These behaviors promote positive qualities that are advantageous for a community. A rise in prosocial behaviors should correlate with a reduction in disagreeable behaviors that are harmful to a community. Prosocial behavior witnessed by children typically correlates with children exhibiting those qualities themselves, which is part of their moral and social development.
Prosocial behavior is often linked with altruism, which is the selfless interest in assisting another individual. Altruistic deeds are likely to happen when one person feels empathy for the other. Some actions may seem altruistic but are actually performed with the expectation of reciprocity at a later date.
Prosocial behaviors are impacted by individual and situational factors. Individual factors may include a person’s educational background and childhood socialization. Social learning and operant conditioning bolster prosocial behaviors; if a child was raised in an environment where such deeds were normal and expected, chances are they will grow up to exhibit the same behavior. Most children are socialized to help others and become adults who are affected by a sense of responsibility, emotions, and agreeableness, which is related to prosocial thoughts and behaviors. Situational factors influence if a person will help or not. For instance, the number of people present in a crisis, such as when a bicyclist is hit by a car, will often determine if someone offers assistance or not. The fewer people present, the more likely individuals are to exhibit prosocial behavior by coming to the bicyclist’s aid. The more people present, the less likely they are to help due to the sociopsychological phenomenon of diffusion of responsibility.
Research has shown that males and females equally perform prosocial behaviors. Yet, females and males differ in their perceptions of prosocial behaviors. Females are more likely to perform behaviors that are relational and collective, whereas males are more likely to perform behaviors for a specific individual. Moreover, males and females are likely to perform prosocial behaviors based on social expectations, individual temperaments, and biological processes.
Five factors influence whether a person will exhibit prosocial behavior or not. First, the benefactor must acknowledge that something uncommon is occurring. Second, the benefactor must determine if the occurrence is urgent. Third, after acknowledging the crisis, the person must resolve whether to offer assistance. Fourth, the benefactor determines if they have the capacity to assist the recipient. Fifth, the benefactor makes the final decision to help.
Some research has shown that when people brag about prosocial behavior, perceptions of the braggart’s altruism depend on whether the prosocial behavior was already known or previously unknown. Those whose prosocial behavior was already known may be viewed as having less than altruistic motivations, while those whose prosocial behavior was previously unknown may be viewed as having altruistic motivations.
Psychologists have also often studied prosocial behavior in times of crises to understand how such shared experiences influence altruistic and empathic tendencies. After the beginning of the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which resulted in many societal restrictions aimed at controlling the spread of the virus, scientists conducted surveys to determine how people behaved both selfishly and prosocially during this trying period.
Bibliography
Berman, Jonathan Z., et al. “The Braggart’s Dilemma: on the Social Rewards and Penalties of Advertising Prosocial Behavior.” Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), vol. 52, no. 1, 2015, pp. 90–104.
Biglan, Anthony, and Sigrid S. Glenn. “Toward Prosocial Behavior and Environments: Behavioral and Cultural Contingencies in a Public Health Framework.” APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis, Vol 2: Translating Principles into Practice. Edited by Gregory J. Madden, et al. APA, 2013, pp. 255–75.
Brownell, Celia A., et al. “Socialization of Early Prosocial Behavior: Parents’ Talk about Emotions Is Associated with Sharing and Helping in Toddlers.” Infancy, vol. 18, no. 1, 2013, pp. 91–119.
Carpenter, Malinda, et al. “Being Mimicked Increases Prosocial Behavior in 18‐Month‐Old Infants.” Child Development, vol. 84, no. 4, 2013.
Eivers, Areana R., et al. “Concurrent and Longitudinal Links between Children’s and Their Friends’ Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior in Preschool.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 1, 2012, pp. 137–46.
Haller, et al. "To Help or Not to Help? Prosocial Behavior, Its Association with Well-Being, and Predictors of Prosocial Behavior during the Coronavirus Disease Pandemic." Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, 2022, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775032. Accessed 7 Aug. 2024.
Jaureguizar, Joana, Izaskun Ibabe, and Murray A. Straus. “Violent and Prosocial Behavior by Adolescents toward Parents and Teachers in a Community Sample.” Psychology in the Schools, vol. 50, no. 5, 2013, pp. 451–70.
McMahon, Susan D., et al. “Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior: Community Violence, Cognitive, and Behavioral Predictors among Urban African American Youth.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 2012, pp. 1–15.
Padilla‐Walker, Laura M., et al. “Is Disney the Nicest Place on Earth? A Content Analysis of Prosocial Behavior in Animated Disney Films.” Journal of Communication, vol. 63, no. 2, 2013, pp. 393–412.
"Prosocial Behaviour: Children and Teenagers Being Helpful and Valuing Others." Raisingchildren.net.au, Oct. 13, 2023, raisingchildren.net.au/toddlers/behaviour/encouraging-good-behaviour/prosocial-behaviour-kindness-children-teens. Accessed 7 Aug. 2024.
Sze, Jocelyn A., et al. “Greater Emotional Empathy and Prosocial Behavior in Late Life.” Emotion, vol. 12, no. 5, 2012, pp. 1129.