a0005

Prosocial Behavior, Development of

Nancy Eisenberg and Adrienne Sadovsky
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

1. Introduction prosocial behavior, and prosocial actions are affected by

2. The Development of Prosocial Behavior contextual factors as well as by individual differences in
3. Gender Differences temperament or personality. Prosocial tendencies are
4. Cultural Differences likely due to genetic factors as well as to socialization
5. Contextual Factors
both within the family and in the child’s larger social
6. Dispositional Factors
7. The Origins of Prosocial Behavior
world.
Further Reading

1. INTRODUCTION s0005

GLOSSARY
altruism Prosocial behavior that is motivated by sympathy or
moral values/concerns rather than by egoistic factors (e.g.,
concrete rewards, social approval, elimination of vicarious
distress to make oneself feel better).
empathy An affective response based on another person’s
emotion or condition that is similar to what the other per-
son is experiencing or would be expected to experience.
meta-analysis A procedure that statistically combines the
findings from a number of different studies to determine
whether a general finding holds across various empirical
studies.
prosocial behavior Voluntary behavior that is intended to
benefit another person.
sympathy Other-oriented concern that is often based on
empathy.
Prosocial behavior starts to develop early in life and
plays an important role in moral development. There
are cultural and gender differences in some types of
Prosocial behavior, or voluntary behavior intended to
benefit another person, is of obvious importance for
enhancing human relationships and for the smooth
functioning of society. Of particular importance is al-
truism, which sometimes is defined as prosocial behav-
ior that is motivated by sympathy or moral values/
concerns rather than by egoistic factors (e.g., concrete
rewards, social approval, elimination of vicarious dis-
tress to make oneself feel better). Unfortunately, it is
often difficult to differentiate the two; indeed, some
psychologists (and philosophers) claim that real altru-
ism does not exist. Thus, most of the existing empirical
work involves the study of prosocial behaviors that
may or may not be altruistically motivated.
Some theorists, such as Batson, believe that altruism
usually stems from an individual experiencing another’s
emotional state (i.e., empathy) or other-oriented con-
cern (i.e., sympathy). Other theorists, such as Eisenberg,
believe that prosocial behaviors (especially altruistic
ones) can be engendered by internalized moral values

Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, 137 #2004 Elsevier Inc.

VOLUME 3 All rights reserved.
 138 Prosocial Behavior, Development of
as well as by sympathy. Still others, such as Cialdini,
believe that prosocial behavior is motivated by hedo-
nism; for example, people help to improve their own
moods. Empirical studies have demonstrated that there
are associations between prosocial behaviors and both
sympathy and measures of individuals’ moral reasoning
and values. Empathy and sympathy are also believed to
inhibit cruelty toward others, although it is not clear
whether prosocial behavior and aggression are highly
negatively related (although both likely are affected by
empathy and sympathy).
s0010
2. THE DEVELOPMENT
OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Even infants can experience concern for others and have
the capacity to perform prosocial behaviors. By 10 to 14
months of age, infants frequently express agitation when
viewing others in distress. Self-distressed reactions when
viewing others in distress decrease in frequency during
the second year of life, and by 18 months of age infants
sometimes make efforts to comfort (e.g., by patting a
person) or help other people who are upset or sad,
especially their parents. In addition, even toddlers fre-
quently try to assist adults with household chores.
According to Hoffman, toddlers do not fully distin-
guish between their own inner states and other peo-
ple’s inner states; consequently, their attempts to help
are often egocentric (e.g., a toddler may bring a dis-
tressed peer to his or her own mother rather than the
peer’s mother). With age, children’s prosocial actions
become more situationally appropriate and sensitive to
others’ specific needs.
Meta-analytic reviews have shown that the frequency
of children’s prosocial behavior, including sharing, com-
forting, and instrumental helping, tends to increase
with age across childhood, although there is little differ-
ence in the frequencies of prosocial behavior between
younger and older adolescents. Age differences tend
to be greater in studies with experimental/structured
designs than in those with naturalistic or correlational
designs, and they also tend to be greater when prosocial
behavior is measured with self- or other-reports than
when it is measured with observations. Moreover, al-
though the consistency of prosocial behavior across
contexts is low during the early years of life, it becomes
more consistent with age and there are relatively clear
individual differences in prosocial tendencies by late
childhood and adolescence. However, there is some
consistency of prosocial tendencies over time, even
from the preschool years. For example, preschool chil-
dren who spontaneously engage in sharing behaviors
that involve some cost (e.g., giving up a toy) are more
sympathetic and prosocial as adolescents and adults.
Younger and older children also differ in the reasons
they report for their prosocial actions. Older children
are more likely to say that they assist for apparently
altruistic or other-oriented motives, whereas younger
children are more likely to assist to obtain material or
social rewards. Furthermore, with development, chil-
dren are more likely to resolve hypothetical moral
dilemmas regarding assisting others at a cost to them-
selves by referring to higher level moral justifications.
For example, preschoolers tend to verbalize primarily
hedonistic reasoning and some needs-oriented (primi-
tive empathic) reasoning. By school age, some children
begin to express concern about gaining approval,
enhancing interpersonal relationships, and behaving in
stereotypically ‘‘good’’ ways. During late elementary
school or thereafter, children start to verbalize reason-
ing reflecting abstract principles, internalized affective
reactions (e.g., guilt or positive affect about the conse-
quences of their behavior for others, living up to
internalized principles), self-reflective sympathy, and
perspective taking. From childhood into early adoles-
cence, children’s needs-oriented reasoning increases,
whereas hedonistic reasoning decreases. For most chil-
dren, reasoning concerning role taking, internalized
norms/rules/values, generalized reciprocity across mem-
bers of society, internalized affective reactions based on
concern about the consequences of their behavior for
others, and positive affect related to internalized values
and living up to those values is uncommon during
elementary school and increases with age from adoles-
cence into early adulthood. Nonetheless, people of all
ages sometimes express low-level, hedonistic moral
reasoning. Age-related changes in children’s prosocial
moral reasoning are of interest because higher level
reasoning likely reflects developmental changes in the
goals and motives underlying children’s prosocial be-
havior and has been correlated with the tendency to
engage in prosocial behavior.
3. GENDER DIFFERENCES s0015
Gender stereotypes regarding sex differences in proso-
cial behavior are common in American culture and
probably in numerous other cultures. In general, girls
and women are expected to be more caring and to
 Prosocial Behavior, Development of
engage in more prosocial behaviors than are boys and
men. Consistent with the stereotype, in meta-analytic
analyses, effect sizes indicate that girls reliably display
greater prosocial tendencies than do boys. For exam-
ple, in 1998, Eisenberg and Fabes found that girls
evidenced considerably greater kindness and consid-
eration for others than did boys (d = .42). Likewise,
girls shared and donated more than did boys, although
not to such a marked extent (d = .13), and also pro-
vided somewhat more instrumental help (d = .14). In
additional meta-analyses, investigators found that
girls exhibited greater empathy and sympathy than did
boys, at least on some types of measures (e.g., self-
reports, some observed behavioral measures). In
1999, Fabes and colleagues noted that these sex differ-
ences in prosocial tendencies become stronger during
adolescence as compared with early and middle child-
hood. Thus, there is support for a developmental
change in the expression of prosocial behaviors.
In contrast, examination of sex differences in adults’
prosocial behaviors has provided mixed results. In
1986, Eagly and Crowley found that men, but not
women, generally exhibited considerably greater help-
ing (d = .34). However, many of the studies with adults
involved helping strangers and performing instrumen-
tal tasks (e.g., changing a tire). These authors sug-
gested that men’s greater helping likely reflects the
conventional gender role-rooted expectation for men
to enact agentic behaviors or to ‘‘rescue’’ others (i.e.,
behave chivalrously) and that the findings likely dif-
fered for prosocial behaviors involving both caring and
recipients who are known.
Consistent with Eagly and Crowley’s speculations,
women have been found to display greater prosocial
tendencies than have men with regard to other indexes
of prosociality. For example, women deliver messages
containing greater emotional support and report
more sympathy and empathy than do men, both on
questionnaires and after being exposed to empathy-
inducing stimuli, although they generally do not dif-
fer on physiological or facial measures of empathy.
Furthermore, adolescent girls and adult women gen-
erally score higher on caring and other-oriented moral
reasoning.
It is important to emphasize that the strength of sex
differences fluctuated greatly across studies included in
the aforementioned meta-analyses. Myriad factors,
such as the design of the study, account for some
degree of the difference between women and men.
Nonetheless, the data do support the legitimacy of the
stereotypes regarding sex differences in prosocial
139
behaviors, at least when taking into account the type
of helping behavior. However, the finding that sex
differences in empathy and sympathy are stronger for
self-reports than for other methods of assessment is
consistent with the notion that people likely perceive
a greater gender difference in prosocial tendencies than
actually exists and respond accordingly.
4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES s0020
Prosocial tendencies appear to differ considerably
across cultures. For example, in some traditional cul-
tures such as the Ik in Africa, aggression and cruelty
are commonplace, whereas in some other cultures,
caring, helping, and supportive behaviors are fairly
commonplace. Anthropologists have found that chil-
dren in traditional cultures tend to assist family mem-
bers and neighbors more than do children in industrial
communities. Even in industrialized societies, children
from collectivist cultures that emphasize the well-being
of the larger social group (e.g., China) appear to be
more prosocial with peers than do children from indi-
vidualist cultures (e.g., the United States). However, it
is not known whether these cross-cultural differences
hold when unfamiliar people, rather than family mem-
bers, neighbors, and friends, are the targets of aid.
The reasons for observed cross-cultural and subcul-
tural differences in prosocial and cooperative behavior
are probably multiple and complex. Clearly, the value
placed on the well-being of others and on prosocial
behavior varies across societies and likely is taught to
children by parents and teachers as well as commu-
nicated through social norms. Some evidence suggests
that these expectations are communicated in everyday
life. For example, in cultures where children are expected
to be cooperative and help others, often as part of their
chores (e.g., when caring for siblings), children tend to be
relatively prosocial. Moreover, prosocial actions tend to
be viewed as more obligatory in collectivist societies than
in individualist societies. Also in collectivist societies,
privileges and social acknowledgment in the classroom
are dependent on group accomplishments rather than
individual accomplishments, so that children are rein-
forced for helping one another.
5. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS s0025
Children’s and adults’ prosocial behaviors vary con-
siderably as a function of the specific context. For
 140 Prosocial Behavior, Development of
example, people are more likely to help if they see
someone else—even a stranger—modeling prosocial
behavior. Moreover, there is evidence that children
and adults help more when they are in a good mood
and help less when they are sad or depressed (espe-
cially in the case of older children and adults).
Furthermore, factors such as the clarity of cues related
to the other person’s need, the cost and benefits
associated with a particular prosocial action, and the
salience of social norms regarding prosocial behavior
appear to influence whether people choose to help or
share with others.
s0030
6. DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS
Some people are more prosocial than others. Individual
differences in prosocial behavior have been linked to a
variety of aspects of personality or other dispositional
characteristics. For example, as already noted, people
who are prosocial are relatively prone to experience
empathy and sympathy for others. In addition, proso-
cial individuals tend to feel a sense of responsibility for
their actions and for others and also feel competent to
assist. During childhood, prosocial tendencies also
have been linked to being well regulated, socially com-
petent, emotionally positive, and sociable, although
nonassertive and less sociable children may be espe-
cially likely to perform compliant prosocial behaviors
that are requested by their peers (in part because they
have difficulty in asserting their own will). Thus, even
within cultures and across the sexes, characteristics of
individuals seem to contribute to their willingness and
ability to assist others.
s0035
7. THE ORIGINS OF PROSOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
Findings in twin studies support the common assump-
tion that there is a genetic component to prosocial
behavior and the tendency to empathize with others.
Nonetheless, individual differences in children’s sociali-
zation experiences in the home, school, and community
are linked to individual differences in their prosocial
behavior.
Prosocial children (and adults) tend to be those with
parents who model and value prosocial actions and
who apply ethical principles (especially those related
to caring and helping) to a broad spectrum of
humanity. Parents of prosocial children also tend to
use reasoning (inductions) when they discipline their
children (e.g., pointing out the consequences of chil-
dren’s behavior for others) and seldom resort to phys-
ical punishment or threats of punishment. In addition,
these parents tend to be authoritative and democratic
in their parenting style (i.e., are supportive and use
inductions while also clearly communicating their
expectations for appropriate behavior) and provide
opportunities for their children to assist others. In
general, parents of prosocial children also appear to
promote the development of children’s sympathy, and
sympathy appears to motivate altruistic caring
behavior.
Similarly, prosocial and cooperative behavior also
can be fostered in school-based programs that empha-
size rational discipline, cooperation, and prosocial
values and that include activities designed to heighten
children’s sympathy and understanding of others and
their feelings. In addition, a positive relationship be-
tween children and their teachers is associated with
children’s consideration for others and children’s
empathy with unfamiliar peers. Finally, there is a mod-
est positive relation between children’s viewing of
prosocial television programming and their prosocial
behavior. Thus, it appears that individual differences in
prosocial behavior are due to a variety of influences in
the home, media, and community.
See Also the Following Articles
Emotion n Gender and Culture n Stereotypes
Further Reading
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social–
psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological
approach. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping
behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychologi-
cal literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development.
In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3:
Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,
pp. 701–778). New York: John Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. (1989). The roots of prosocial
behavior in children. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Kupanoff, K., & Laible, D. (1999). Early
adolescence and prosocial/moral behavior: I. The role of
individual processes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 5–16.
 Prosocial Behavior, Development of
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development:
Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral
orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126,
703–726.
Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic person-
ality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York: Free
Press.
141
Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A.
(1995). The psychology of helping and altruism: Problems
and puzzles. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. M. (1975). Children of six
cultures: A psychocultural analysis. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J., & Emde, R. N. (1992). The
development of empathy in twins. Developmental
Psychology, 28, 1038–1047.