Foundations of Prosocial behaviour
Eisenberg & Fabes state that “prosocial behaviour is the outcome of multiple …factors” (1998, p 742). These include biological factors, cultural factors, socialisation within the family and within the broader society, and the individual characteristics of the child. Each of these four factors will be discussed. A heuristic model of prosocial development will also be discussed.
Empathy is an important precursor to prosocial development. Eisenberg & Fabes (1998) distinguish between empathy and sympathy in that they define empathy as an affection response that stems from an anxiety or understanding of another’s emotional circumstances and is similar if not identical to what the person is feeling or would be expected to feel, while sympathy is an affective response that often stems from empathy and consists of feelings of sorrow or concern for the individual in distress or need.
Biological determinants
It is probable that biological influences contribute towards individual differences in empathy and prosocial behaviour. However, a singular cause and effect has not been established and dynamics such as innate bias, heritability and neurology may not be unidirectional in their cause and effect.
Innate Bias toward Prosocial Predispositions
Several theorists maintain that humans are biologically predisposed to morally relevant emotions and behaviours (Wilson, 1975, cited in Berk, 2001, Hoffman, 1981, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). This is evidenced in a possible biological bias for global empathy displayed in the contagious crying of newborn babies. (Hoffman 1975, 1977, cited in Litvack-Miller & McDougall, 1997, cited in Robinson; Hoffman, 1981 cited in Eisenberg, 1998; Zahn-Waxler & Emde, Dondi, Simion & Caltran, 1999 cited in Berk 2001). Although, little is known about empathic expression during the first year of life a genetic basis for empathic expression is maintained. (Zahn-Waxler and Emde, Dondi, Simion & Caltran, 1999). A child in distress can elicit empathic concern from another child in its first year and can evoke prosocial acts in the second year (Berk, 1994, Zahn-Waxler and Radke-Yarrow, 1982; cited in Braten 1996) Eisenberg & Fabes (1998) argue that the fact that prosocial behaviour is as prolific as it is supports the fact that humans are innately equipped to engage in empathic and prosocial behaviours.
Heritability of Prosocial Inclinations
Twin studies have been used to consider the genetic involvement to individual differences in prosocial behaviour. If the correlations between scores on prosocial responding are higher for identical twins than for fraternal twins, the difference in scores is attributed to genetic effects as the environment is assumed to be roughly similar for the two types of twins. (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998)
Zahn-Waxler, Robinson and Emde (1992, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) observed twin children’s reactions to simulations of distress in others in both home and laboratory settings. At ages 14 and 20 months they found a genetic component to empathic concern and stability over time of empathy as well as either prosocial acts or maternal reports of prosocial acts.
Robinson, Zahn- Waxler and Emde’s (1994) research concurred with this, however, they point out the limitations of twin studies. The nature of rearing twins may be a confounding variable as twin may affect family routines and emotional experiences in ways that other sibling constellations to not. Early twin life may be more stressful with two children which may result in less inductive discipline, less enforcement of rules, less empathy and levels of warmth.
Neuropsychological Underpinnings of Prosocial Responding
An assessment of neurological aspects of prosocial behaviour may offer a link between genetics and obvious prosocial behaviour.
Panksepp (1986, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) asserts that brain opioids affect the extent to which social contact is reinforcing and that fluctuations in opioids and the underlying emotive system affect altruistic behaviour. Increased opioid production may affect play and gregarious behaviour, but it is also likely that play and gregarious behaviours may affect opioid production.
A possible neural basis in the limbic system for empathy (Hoffman 1981, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) is also suggested. MacLean (1985, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes 19989) concurs with this and extends this to the prefrontal neocortex.
In conclusion, most of the works on biological factors that contribute to prosocial behaviour is as a result on work on non-humans. The root of understanding childhood prosocial behaviour in is looking at how biological factors combined with prior environmental factors as well as the current context affect prosocial behaviour and developmental outcomes. Notably, the influence of biology is more likely to be probalistic rather than deterministic.
Cultural factors
There has been precious little work on culture and ethnicity in relation to prosocial behaviour.
What does seem to differ is cultural norms regarding the importance of harmony among people and social responsibility across cultures and subcultures (Stevenson, 1991, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Prosocial Moral Reasoning, Values and Beliefs can vary considerably between cultures that vary in degree of modernity and in religious and cultural beliefs. In some cultures helpfulness and social responsibility are valued more than individual rights, individual gain and achievement and these differences are reflected in attitude towards prosocial behaviour.
Research has consistently shown that children from traditional rural and semi-agricultural settings and relatively traditional subcultures are more cooperative that children from urban or Westernised cultures (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989, cited in Eisenbeg & Fabes, 1998). This research involved Mexican American children, but could be likened to rural black African traditions.
This also seemed to be the case when giving to a peer – Mexican American children give more to a peer than do Anglo Americans, whether this involves a cost to the self or not (Kagan & Knight, 1979, 1981; Knight, Nelon, Kagan & Gumbiner, 1982; Kagan & Madsen, 1972; Knight, Kagan & Buriel, 1981 all cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) The penchant to choose more for a peer is stronger in second-generation Mexican American children that third-generation children, intimating the effects of acculturation (Knight & Kagan, 1977, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998)
In South Africa there is a disparity in the focus on individual and community between white and traditional black African families respectively which would definitely make a difference in overt prosocial behaviour as research seems to suggest. However, with the urbanisation of black Africans, western individualisation has taken its toll and some acculturation may have taken place.
Socialisation within and outside the family
Socialisation in the family, specifically maternal behaviour, has been considered an important basis for the development of empathy and prosocial behaviour (Trommsdorf, 1991). Due to limitations in space I will focus on Parental Disciplinary Practices, Parental Warmth, Reinforcement and Modelling, and Socioeconomic Status. Other areas of concern include Parental Emphasis on Prosocial Values, Parental Socialisation of Emotion, Expression of Emotion at Home, Non-disciplinary verbalisations, Praise and Learning by Doing (The Foot-in-the-Door Effect).
Hoffman has suggested that a child’s empathic focus on others develops under two circumstances: when parents provide the child with warmth and affection, and when the parents use an inductive disciplinary technique which focuses on the consequences of the child’s behaviour as well as the needs of others (1963, cited in Bar-Tal, Nadler & Blechman, 1980)
Parental Disciplinary Practices
Parental disciplinary practices contribute considerably to the development of prosocial behaviour and are the focus of our research in this assignment.
The crucial issue seems to be whether the power and control exerted by the parent is excessive and arbitrary versus reasonable (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Parental valuing of mere compliance which is often associated with arbitrary overcontrol, has been connected to low level of prosocial behaviours with mothers and peers (Eisenberg, Wolchick, Goldberg & Engel, 1992, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Power assertive and punitive techniques of discipline and a punitive authoritarian parenting style have been found to be unrelated (Feshbach, 1978; Janssens & Gerris, 1992; Mussen, 1970; Olejnik & MMckinney, 1973 cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) or negatively related (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) to children’s prosocial behaviour, however, there have seldom been positive relations between power assertions and children’s prosocial behaviour (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). This concurs with findings by Eisenberg, Wolchik, Goldberg & Engel (1992) who found a correlation between parents’ emphasis on compliance and obedience and a lack of prosocial behaviour.
Strassberg, Dodge, Petit & Bates (1994, cited in Berk, 1991) have found that children with highly punitive parents have been found to be particularly aggressive and defiant outside the home. Numerous longitudinal studies have found that the more physical punishment children receive, the more maladaptive behaviour they manifest including anti-social behaviour (Brezina, 1999; Gunoe & Mariner 1997; cited in Berk, 2001)
Strict punishment also has a spin off effect. Parents often smack their children in response to an aggressive act – in a violent way – which is a less than ideal model! Children then learn to avoid the punishing adult who then loses opportunities to model effective behaviour. Parents are also rewarded for their punishing behaviour it that it offers immediate (albeit short-term) relief. This reinforces punishment as an alternative rather that inductive techniques or time-outs (Berk, 2001)
Inductive discipline involves giving reasons and explanations for requiring a change in the child’s behaviour (Dekovik & Janssens, 1992; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1997). Hoffman maintains that inductions are likely to promote moral development as they provoke an optimal level of stimulation for learning, eliciting the child’s attention without disrupting learning (1970, 1983, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes).
Restrictiveness / Authoritarian parents, who use more power assertive techniques, had children who were viewed as less prosocial while Authoritative / Democratic parents, who used more inductive techniques, seemed to have children who were viewed as prosocial by teachers (Dekovik & Janssens, 1992).
Kochanska (1995, cited in Berk, 2001) maintains that different disciplinary practices are necessary for children with different temperaments in order to evoke prosocial behaviour. This is discussed further in the section in temperament under Individual characteristics of the Child.
Parental Warmth and the Quality of the Parent-Child Relationship
Warm and responsive parents are also good models for prosocial behaviour as children seem to model the prosocial acts of an adult who is warm and responsive rather than one who is cold and distant (Yarrow, Scott & Waxler, 1973, cited in Berk, 2001)
However, research seems to be inconclusive in this arena that warm and supportive socializers produce prosocial children (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). There is support for the fact that mothers with sensitive comforting skills produce children with these skills (Burleson & Kunkel, 1995, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes) and well as the fact that sympathetic parents tend to produce same-sex children who are helpful at school (Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, Carlo & Miller, 1991; Eisenberg & McNally, 1993; both cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Whether empathetic parents produce empathetic children has mixed support in the literature (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
There is also support for the fact that children with secure attachments at a young age are more sympathetic at the age of 3.5 and display more prosocial act or concern for others at the age of 5 (Waters, Hay & Richters, 1986, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Staub (1992, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) suggests that the quality of early attachments is vital in developing a sense of connection with others and positive valuing of others, two factors that contribute to the intrinsic caring for other people (Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, Richarson, Susman & Martinex, 1994, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Other factors may moderate the link between parental warmth and prosocial acts. Authoritative parenting which includes democratic parenting with warmth and support, inductions, demandingness, suggests, information and positive comments seemed to evoke prosocial behaviour, whereas mothers who were cold and authoritative had children whose level of empathy decreased in the 6 months of the study from 14 to 20 months (Dekovik & Janssens, 1992)
Reinforcement and Modelling
According to Bandura’s (1977, cited in Eisenberg, Wolchik, Goldberg & Engel, 1992) social learning theory, parental operant conditioning or reinforcement of prosocial behaviour should be associated with increases in prosocial behaviour. Eisenberg, Wolchik, Goldberg & Engel (1992) investigated the connection between parental reinforcement of toddler’s prosocial responding and children’s peer-directed prosocial behaviour in the preschool years and found that parental reinforcement was negatively related to requests for compliance of prosocial behaviours.
Following up a child’s good behaviours with operant conditioning is insufficient to gain a moral response (Berk 1991). Behaviour needs to occur spontaneously before it can be reinforced. Much prosocial behaviour such as sharing, helping or comforting another in distress do not happen regularly enough initially to be explained by reinforcement. Berk (1991) suggests that children initially learn these behaviours through modelling – observing adults and other children engage in appropriate acts – which they then copy. This would explain Eisenberg, Wolchik, Goldberg & Engel’s (1992) results above.
Socioeconomic status
One might be forgiven for expecting socioeconomic status (SES) to be related to child prosocial behaviour; however, findings in this regard have been inconclusive (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). It is possible that higher SES is allied with some types of prosocial behaviour outside of the home, while lower SES is connected to prosocial behaviour inside the home environment (Call, Mortimer & Shanahan, 1995 cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). This concurs with logical reasoning that poorer children might be expected to participate in household chores out of necessity and be more likely to comfort others in distress (Whiting & Whiting, 1975, cited in Eisenberg, 1998)
Parental presence may enhance prosocial behaviour (Musun-Miller, 1991, cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) and this is linked to SES in that in lower income families or single-parent families the parents might not be at home, reducing opportunities for prosocial responding.
Particular limitation of research in this field include a possible overconfidence in parental reporting of prosocial responding, brief observation measures and a considerable amount of data from minority and non-Western cultures (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) Teachers ratings are often used as a valid and reliable method of scoring children’s prosocial behaviour at school (Dekovik & Janssens, 1992)
The child’s individual characteristics
Not much consideration has been given to the involvement of children’s individual characteristics in their tendency to behave prosocially. Many personal characteristics such as age and gender, temperament, intelligence and academic ability, moral reasoning and empathic ability, perspective taking, expressed motives, resilience and situational factors come into play. Due to space constraints the writer will focus on age and gender, and temperament.
Age and gender
Girls were found to be more empathetic that boys (Litvak-Miller & McDugall, 1997; Kienbaum, 2001)) and are considered to be more sociable and engage in more spontaneous prosocial behaviours (Eisenberg, Wolchik, Goldberg & Engel, 1992). Older children showed more empathic concern than younger children (Litvak-Miller & McDugall, 1997).This was supported by Bar-Tal, Raviv and Leiser (1980) and Mullis, Smith and Vollmers (1983).
Temperament
It might make sense to qualify that temperament is “inherited personality traits that appear later in life” (Buss & Plomin, 1984, cited in Stanhope, Bell & Parker-Cohen, 1987, p. 347). Temperament is generally considered to be largely biologically determined and manifest at birth albeit not necessarily discernible at that time, and is expected to show some change within continuity over the personage’s lifetime. (Stevenson & Graham, 1982, cited in Stanhope, Bell & Parker-Cohen, 1987, p. 347)
Stanhope, Bell & Parker-Cohen (1987) measure two aspects of temperament: sociability and shyness where they are not considered to be polar opposite as the Cartesian tradition and colloquial usage have defined. The literature defines sociability as the “tendency to prefer the presence of others to being alone” while shyness is described as “inhibited and awkward [behaviour with] casual acquaintances and strangers” (Buss and Plomin, 1984, cited in Stanhope, Bell & Parker-Cohen, 1987, p. 347).
The results of this research find that sociable children are more helpful in an unfamiliar laboratory environment, but not necessarily in a familiar home setting and suggest that temperament interacts with situational factors. Shy children were less helpful in the laboratory setting, but just as helpful at home where the environment and the people were familiar. Stanhope et al (1987) question whether helping is simply another form of sociability, which poses an interesting question.
Kochanska (1995, cited in Berk, 2001) maintains that different disciplinary practices are necessary for children with different temperaments in order to evoke prosocial behaviour. Children that are temperamentally inhibited at age 2-3 are easily distressed by punitive reprisals and are sooner encouraged by gentle psychological interventions such as propositioning, reasoning, courteous requests and distractions. These tactics are adequate to prompt them to internalise parental values and messages. This predicted the development of conscience at age 4 which was measured by not cheating in games, completing stories about moral issues with prosocial themes such as saying “I’m sorry”, not taking another child’s toys, and helping someone who is hurt.
On the other hand more impulsive children, who also respond to harsh reprimanding badly, but in this case with resentment and anger, are less likely to react to gentle tactical interventions by internalising parental values and messages. Rather it is a secure maternal attachment that predicts a mature conscience and prosocial development in these non-anxious children. Clearly the ideal would be to have both non-punitive disciplinary practices as well as a secure maternal attachment for children at this young age.
An integrative model of prosocial behaviour
Eisenberg and Fabes (1998) view prosocial acts as the product of many individual and situations factors. They have developed a simplified model of the major variable that they perceive to contribute to the process of prosocial behaviour. This heuristic model views biological factors as influencing both the child’s individual characteristics as well as parental experiences with the child. The child’s individual characteristics affect parental interactions and both of these combined with the objective qualities of the situation, affect the child’s subjective interpretation of the status quo. This will obviously affect whether the child responds prosocially or not.
The heuristic model is presented below. (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998)
Conclusion
Prosocial behaviours are voluntary actions intended to benefit another (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). This writer uses the term prosocial behaviour to include all “others-oriented” behaviour whether this is internally or externally motivated that is whether it is specifically altruistic or not. Empathy is an important precursor to prosocial development.
Prosocial behaviour may be the result of many factors. Biological determinants, cultural determinants, socialisation including but not exclusive to the family, as well as the individual characteristics of the child have been examined. No one of these factors can be considered independently, but it is rather the combination of these dynamics that form an integrated heuristic model to illustrate prosocial behaviour in children.
Reference List:
Berk, L.E. (2003). Child Development (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bar-Tal, D., Nadler, A. & Blechman, N. (1980). The relationship between Israeli children’s helping behaviour and their perceptions of parents socialisation practices. The Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 159-167.
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A. & Leiser, T. (1980) The development of altruistic behaviour: empirical evidence. Development Psychology, 16(5), 516-524.
Braten, S. (1006). When toddlers provide care: Infants’ companion space. Child Research, 3(4), 449-465)
Dekovik, M. & Janssens, M.A.M. (1002). Parent’s child rearing style and child’s sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 925-932.
Eisenberg. N. & Fabes, R.A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3: Social emotional and personality development (5th ed, pp. 701-755). New York: Wiley
Eisenberg, N., Wolchik, S., Goldberg, L. & Engel, I. (1992) Parental Values, Reinforcements and Young children’s prosocial behaviour: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153(1), 139-153.
Kienbaum, J. (2001). The socialisation of compassionate behaviour by child care teachers. Early Education and Development, 12(1), 139-153.
Litvack-Miller, W., McDougall, D. & Rinney, D.M. (1997)The structure of empathy during middle childhood and its relationship to prosocial behaviour. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 123(3), 303-324.
Mullis, R.L., Smith, D.W. & Vollmers, K.E. (1983) Prosocial behaviours in young children and parental guidance. Child Study Journal, 13(1), 13-21.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2002). The interaction of child care and family risk in relation to child development at 24 and 36 months. Applied Developmental Science, 6(3), 144-156.
Robinson, J.L., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Emde, R.M. (1994). Patterns of development in early empathetic behaviour: Environmental and child constitutional influences, Social Development, 3(2), 125-145.
Stanhope, L., Bell, R.Q. & Parken-Cohen, N.Y. (1987). Temperament and helping behaviour in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 347-353.
Trommsdorf, G. (1991). Child rearing and children’s empathy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 387-390.