developmental psychology 1981 eisenberg-berg

Upload: sutherlandra

Post on 06-Apr-2018

228 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    1/10

    Developmental Psycholoi1981, Vol. 17, No. 6, 77 -782 Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0012-1649/81/1706-0773$00.75

    Socialization of Prosocial Behaviorin the Preschool ClassroomNancy Eisenberg, Ellen Cameron, Kelly Tryon, and Renee DodezArizona State Universi tyThe purpose of the present s tudy was to examine the socialization of prosocialbehavior in the classroom and reciprocity in young children's social encounters.The natural ly occurr ing behav iors of 33 preschool children were videotaped inthe classroom. Instances of prosocial, defensive, and social behaviors were coded,as well as peer and teacher reactions to prosocial behaviors. Although teachersresponded positively to children's prosocial behaviors only a small percent of thetime, peers reacted positively a moderate proportion of the time. Children whofrequently responded to requests for prosocial behavior received fewer positivereactions from peers than children w ho complied with requests less often. Incontrast, teachers were more likely to react positively to girls who exhibited highlevels of "asked-for" (compliant) prosocial behaviors. The type of reactions achild received for prosocial behaviors was related to both the type of reactionsgiven to others' prosocial behav iors and positive sociability. Finally , frequentper fo rmance of spontaneous prosocial actions was related to a different patternof behaviors than w as frequency of prosocial behaviors in response to a request.

    In th e past decade, researchers frequentlyhave studied th e socialization of prosocialbehavior, that is , behavior intended to ben-efit another (cf. M ussen & Eisenberg-Berg,1977; Staub, 1979). Most of their research,however, has focused on one group of so-cializers, parents. Indeed, there is a majorgap in the literature concerning th e role ofpeers and teachers in the development ofprosocial behavior (Staub, 1979). This is anunfor tuna te oversight given the extensivecontact between most children and theirteachers and peers during the formativeyears.One w ay in which peers and teachers m ayaffect a child's prosocial development isthrough their reactions to the child's pro-social acts. Researchers have demonstratedthat peers' and teachers' reactions can shapeth e development of other social behaviorssuch as children's aggression (Patterson,Li t tman, & Bricker, 1967) and cross-sexplay (Serbin, Tonick, & Sternglanz, 1977)in the classroom. Further, according to the

    W e would like to thank th e parents, teachers, an dchildren in the Child Study Laboratory.Requests fo r reprin ts should be sent to Nancy Eisen-berg, Department of Psychology, Arizona State Uni-versity, Tempe, Arizona 85281.

    results of laboratory studies, children's pro-social behavior can be increased by the pro-vision of social rewards such as praise (Bar-ton, Olszewski, & M adsen, 1979; Doland& Adelberg, 1967; Gelfand, H a r t m a n n ,Cromer, Smith, & Page, 1975; Staub, 1979),although th e effects of these social rewardsin th e laboratory vary across individuals andare of questionable longevity (Staub, 1979).Of course, social reactions from significantothers in the child's real-life environmentover a period of time should have more sub-stantial and e nd urin g consequences.

    A t th e present time, there are relativelyfew data concerning teacher and peer re-actions to prosocial behaviors in the class-room. Nevertheless, it is clear tha t adults inth e classroom or in classroom-like settingscan enhance sharing behaviors (broadlydefined, including exchange of materialsduring cooperative play) by providing socialreinforcement for these behaviors in com-bination with techniques such as modeling,prompting, and reinforcement for t rue re -ports of sharing (Barton & Ascione, 1979;Barton, Olszewski, & Madsen, 1979; Rog-ers-Warren & Baer, 1976; Rogers-Warren,Warren, & Baer, 1977; Warren, Rogers-Warren , & Baer, 1976). However, it is notclear how frequently teachers provide posi-

    773

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    2/10

    774 E I S E N B E R G , C A M E R O N , TR Y O N , A N D DODEZtive feedback (posit ive reinforcement) forprosocial behaviors in the na tura l environ-m en t . Further , al though researchers havefound that peers seldom positively reinforceeach other 's prosocial behaviors with praiseor smiling (Barton et al., 1979), researchershave not determined how frequ ently childrenprovide general positive feedback (includingsocial interaction as well as specific praiseand smiling) for peers' prosocial behaviorsin the classroom setting. Thus , the first goalof the present research was to determine howfrequently children receive positive, nega-tive, or no (ne utra l) reactions from peers andteachers when they behave in a prosocialm a n n e r . The frequen cy with wh ich teachersand peers provide positive reinforcements( including positive social interaction) forprosocial acts has implications for the un-ders tanding of the socialization of prosocialbehavior .

    A second but related goal was to deter-m i n e if children who are more prosocial re-ceive a highe r proport ion of positive (o r neg-at ive) reactions to their prosocial behaviorst han do less prosocial children. If this werethe case, the data would be consistent withthe conclusion that children w ho frequ entlyact prosocially do so because they receivesome type of positive reinforcement (e.g.,at tent ion and praise) fo r doing so.It is also possible that th e amount and typeof peer and teacher reactions to prosocialbehavior are not related to frequency of achild's prosocial responding but to othercharacteristics of the child. For example,type of feedback received might be asso-ciated with the general social responsivity.Indeed, such an assumption is consistentwith a substan t ia l amount of research.A m o n g children, those who initiate verbalor physical behaviors towards others aremore often the recipients of such actions( K o h n , 1966). Similarly, initiation of posi-tive or negative behavior toward peers andreceipt of positive and negative behaviors arepositively related (Andersen, 1939; Charles-worth & H artup , 1967; Leiter , 1977; Staub& Fein berg, 1977 , cited in Stau b, 1979). Forexample , Lei ter (1977) found that childrenwho responded positively to behaviors initi-ated by peers received more agreeable re -

    actions when they themselves ini t iated in-teractions than children w ho reacted in lesspositive ways. Thus it is quite possible thatresponsive, positive children m ay elicit pos-itive reactions for prosocial acts (as well asm a n y other types of social behaviors) re -gardless of how often they help or share withothers.To sum ma rize, the p urpose of the presentstudy w as threefold: (a) to determine howfrequently children receive positive, nega-tive, or neutral (nonresponsive) reactionswhen they perform a prosocial behavior inthe preschool class; (b) to assess the rela-tionship between type of reaction receivedfo r prosocial behav iors and f requency of pro-social responding toward peers; and (c) todetermine if type of reaction received is re-lated to general sociability (frequency ofpositive social contacts) and positivity offeedback directed at peers. Further, w ewanted to examine these issues in relationto two different types of prosocial behavio rs:those spontaneous ly emitted and those per-formed in response to a peer 's request fo rassistance. By addressing these issues, wehoped to learn more about both th e social-ization of prosocial behavior in the classroomand reciprocity in young children's socialencounters.

    MethodSubjects

    Participants were 33 preschool children (18 boys, 15girls) aged 51-63 months in two classes. A ll were mid-dle-class Caucasians attending the second semester ofa preschool. The teachers were eight adults w ho servedas either teachers or teachers' aides in the classroom.Procedure

    The children's nat ura lly occurring behaviors durin gfree play were videotaped during the 1st hour of class(when all the children were indoors). The children werefilmed fo r 15 min utes a session (three times a w eek) forapproximately 9 weeks, until each child was taped fora m i n i m u m of 40 minutes ( range = 40-176 minutes ;M = 103 minutes). Position of the camera was deter-mined by dividing the classrooms into sections and thenmoving the camera every 5 min utes in a rando m, pre-determined order (with th e constraint that each area berecorded during each f i lming). Throughout the f i lming,one person ran the came ra wh ile another recorded per-t inent information regarding events that occurred justoutside th e camera's range (e.g., if a child outside th e

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    3/10

    PROSOCIAL B E H A V I O R 775camera's range asked a child who was being filmed toshare).

    CodingAll information on the videotapes was coded by twoobservers (one primary observer and one of two reli-ability observers). The children's social, prosocial, anddefensive behaviors were coded into a variety of cate-gories, as were peers' and teachers' reactions to the chil-dren's prosocial behaviors (see Table 1 for definitionsof the various behaviors). All instances of the specifiedbehaviors on the videotapes w ere used as data. However,th e only t ime a child's behavior w as coded twice in acritical sequence of events (one involving prosocial be-havior or a request for such behavior) was when the

    child asked a peer for a prosocial behavior and thenresponded after the peer complied (and these behaviorswere not examined in relation to one another) . Socia-bility was coded for each 30-sec interval; during eachinterval the coders noted the number of peers or adultswith w h o m a child engaged in positive social interac-tions. In the rare cases in which the object of a child'sdefensive or prosocial behavior was not on the videotape,notes taken by the observer during f i lming were con-sulted. W h e n the two coders disagreed on the codingof an important behavior, they discussed their perspec-tives, but the primary coder's decision (after reviewingth e tape) w as used for all analyses. Further , t ime thateach child appeared on the videotapes was recorded.Reliabilities

    Interrater reliabili ty was computed both w ith Pearsoncorrelation coefficients and as percent of exact agree-ment between coders (agreements/agreements and dis-agreements). Fur ther , tw o sets of interrater reliabilitymeasures were computed for each behavior in Table 1,one for each reliability observer with the primary coder.For the Pearson correlation coefficients, the mean in-terrater reliabilities (averaged across the two sets ofcoefficients) ranged from .75 to .99, with only impinge(.76) and negative peer feedback (.75) being less than.80 (subjects were the uni t of analysis) . Agreement onthe timing of how long a child was on the tape (com-puted for a subsample of the data) exceeded .99. Meanpercent of exact agreem ent w as greater than 70% forall categories, except impinge (which was 65%).The internal consistency of the measures of behaviorw as assessed by correlating frequency per minute of abehavior on the odd numbered videotapes with fre-quency per minute on the even numbered videotapes(tapes were numbered in chronological order). ThePearson correlations (with Spearman-Brown correc-tions) for spontaneo us and asked -for behaviors were ofmoderate strength, that is, rs(31) = .39 and .37, re-spectively; ps < .05. Comparable figures for positive,neutral , and negative responding were .26, .19, and .15;correlations for the remaining behaviors ranged froma low of .04 (verbal or physical objection) to .87 (so-ciability with peers).

    Resul tsAs the first step in the analyses, freq uenc ycounts for all categories except reactions to

    prosocial behaviors were converted to fre-quencies per minute. Next , the proport ionsof t imes that peers responded p ositively, neg-atively, or in a neutral manner to a subject'sprosocial behavior were computed (e.g.,num ber of prosocial incidents w he n a subjectreceived a posit ive response/number of pro-social incidents). Proportions rather thanfrequencies were used because peers couldonly respond as frequently as a target childexhibited prosocial behaviors (so more pro-social children had more oppor tun i t i es toreceive various types of feedback). Propor-t ions also were computed for subjects' pos-itive, neutral, or negative reactions to peers'prosocial behaviors and for positive reactionsfrom teachers (negat ive react ions were soinf requent they were not recorded, and neu-tral reactions were not coded because it fre-quently w as unclear if a nonresponsiveteacher saw a behavior or not).Type of Feedback Received fo r ProsocialBehavior

    The proportions of positive, negative, andneutral reactions subjects received frompeers for prosocial behaviors are presentedin Table 2. Approximately half the t ime,children elicited no real reaction (a nonre-sponsive, neutral reaction) when they be-haved prosocial ly . A l though the ch i ldren v ir-tually never received a negat ive react ion fo rcomplying with a request, spon taneo us pro-social actions occasionally were followed bynegative reactions from the recipient of thebehavior. This is probably because a spon-taneous prosocial behavior can be mis-interpreted (e.g., as an at tempt to in ter ferewith th e child's ongoing act ivi ties), w hereasth e occurrence of an asked-for behavior isanticipated (indeed initiated) by the poten-tial recipient of aid. Posit ive feedback,broadly defined (as enco m passing social in -teraction as well as m o re specific posit ivereactions, see Table 1), occurred approxi-mately 30% of the time fo r spontaneous pro-social behaviors (25% fo r girls, 34% forboys) and 48% of the t ime for asked-for be -

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    4/10

    776 EISENBERO, C A M E R O N , T R Y O N , AND DODEZTable 1Summary of Behavior Categories

    Behavior var iab le DefinitionProsocial behaviors (peer-directed)

    Spon taneous W itho ut specifically being asked verbally or nonverbally,th e child gives away or a l lows another temporary useof an object, at tempts to al lev ia te th e emot ionaldistress of another, or attempts to alleviate another'snonemot ional needs (e.g., assists by giving informat ion ,helps another with a task , offers an object notpreviously in the giver's possession; these behaviorswere no t coded as prosocial if they both occurred aspart of cooperative play an d involved completion of am u tu a l goal).Asked-for The child does any of the behaviors listed above inresponse to a peer's verbal o r nonve rbal request .

    Other social behaviorsSociabi l i ty Th e child exhibi ts posit ive social inte rac tion s with peers,including greeting, exchanging information, or simplyplaying together . These in teractio ns were grouped intw o categories: (a) directed at teachers, and (b)directed at peers.Asks for The child asks fo r help or assistance, verbally ornonverbal ly, from (a) teachers or (b) peers.Verbal or physical objection These ar e verbal or physical negative reactions to a

    request for an object or for help (e.g., th e childverbally refuses to share, pushes the asker aw ay , orcovers th e object in question).Impinge Th e child physically tries to take (grab) an object fromanother ch i ld .

    Reactions to prosocial behaviorsPositive The recipient of a prosocial act smiles, approves of theact, thanks th e benefactor, reciprocates, initiates socialinteract ion with th e benefactor , or susta ins in terac t ionwith th e benefactor .N e u t r a l The recipient does not notice th e act ion , ac ts pu zzled , oraccepts th e object or help with no other reaction.Negative The recipient ignores th e benefactor, grabs somethingfrom the benefactor , or reacts negatively (e.g., pushesor yells at the benefactor) .

    haviors (38% fo r girls, 57% for boys). This girls' spontaneous and asked-for behaviors,cannot be considered to be especially high respectively (see Table 2). Frequent ly th egiven th at children exhibited positive social teachers did not respond because they werebehaviors (sociability) that would be coded not in the vicinity of the child (a l though th eas positive feedback .8 7 times per minute . adult to child ratio ranged from 1:5 to 4 :15).Most of the time teachers did not respondpositively when a child behaved in a proso- Correlates of Type of Feedback Receivedc ia l manner . Teachers never responded pos- for Prosocial Behavioritively to any of the boys' prosocial behav iors To dete rm ine if type of feedback receivedand reacted positively to 11% and 5% of the for prosocial beh avior w as related to fre-

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    5/10

    Table 2Observational Measures: Means and Standard Deviations

    BehaviorSpontaneous prosocialAsked-for prosocialSociability peersSociability teachersAsked-for peersAsked-for eachersVerbal or physical objections/opportunities to defendImpingeReactions of peers tospontaneous prosocialbehaviors3PositiveNeutra lNegativeReactions of peers to asked-for prosocial behaviors"PositiveNeutralNegativePositive reaction of teachers toprosocial behaviors"SpontaneousAsked-forSubjects' reactions to prosocialspontaneous behaviors"

    PositiveNeutralNegativeSubjects' reactions to asked-for behaviors"PositiveNeutralNegative

    M. O J 5.029.565.607.031.030.274.010

    .250.575.175

    .375.597.041

    .114.053

    .387.500.113

    .271.7290

    FemalesSD.016.024.266.184.027.020.325.014

    .373.442.334

    .290.298.092

    .303.097

    .408.439.239

    .331.3310

    Range0-.0550-.073.150-1.14.360-.9200-.0860-.0660-1.000-.051

    0-1.000-1.000-1.00

    0-1.000-1.000-.250

    0-1.000-.250

    0-1.000-1.000-.750

    0-1.000-1.000

    M.028.0201.12.620.029.028.337.021

    .335.440.231

    .570.4300

    00

    .292.498.210

    .613.366.021

    MalesSD.020.016.493.243.026.042.302.022

    .321.254.242

    .457.457000

    .350.329.264

    .394.389.065

    CombinedRange0-.0610-.051.160-1.91.160-1.1800-.1020-.1700-1.000-.028

    0-1.000-1.000-.667

    0-1.000-1.00000

    0-1.000-1.000-.833

    0^1.000-1.000-.250

    M.022.024.870.616.030.029.309.016

    .301.494.208

    .484.504.018

    .048.023

    .338.499.163.473.514.012

    SD.019.020.490.215.026.033.308.020

    .332.340.277

    .340.396.063

    .200.068

    .375.379.253

    .401.403.050

    Range0-.0610-.073.150-1.91.160-1.180-.1020-.1700-1.000-.076

    0-1.000-1.000-1.00

    0-1.000-1.000-.250

    0-1.000-.250

    0-1.000-1.000-.833

    0-1.000-1.000-.250Note. Data are given in frequencies per m inu te unless specified as proportion." Proportions. -oJ-o

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    6/10

    778 E I S E NB E R G, C AM E R ON, T RY O N , A N D DODE ZTable 3T he Relationship Between Relative Frequency of Spontaneous and Asked-For Prosocial Behaviorsand Feedback From Peer Recipients and Teachers for These Behaviors

    ProsocialbehaviorSpontaneousAsked-for

    Females.61*-.26

    PositiveMales-.28-.57

    Peer feedback

    Both Females.10 .14-.47** .33

    Teacher feedbackNegative

    Males.20

    Both Females.10 -.22.35* .49

    PositiveMales Both

    .00.48**' p < .10. ** p < .05.

    quency of prosocial responding, frequenciesof asked-for or spontaneous prosocial be-havior (per minute) were correlated withmeasures of feedback (proportions). Sinceneu tral and posit ive feedback were high lynegatively related (correlations for girls andboys ranged from -.67 to -1.00) and onecan reduce the ipsative nature of the databy using only two of the three measures offeedback in analyses (Hicks, 1970), only theanalyses performed for positive and negativefeedback (and not neutra l feedback) will bereported.The results are presented in Table 3. Fre-quencies of various types of peer reactionsfo r spontaneous behaviors did not vary sig-nificantly according to how frequently achild performed this type of behavior . How-ever, children w ho frequent ly per formedasked-for behaviors (especially males) re-ceived fewer positive reactions from peersthan less compliant children. Finally, al-though teachers were more likely to respondpositively to the asked-for behaviors of girls

    w ho frequently performed such behaviorst han girls w ho exhibited few er asked-for be -haviors, teachers' reinforcement of these be-haviors was infrequent (5% of the t ime).The c orrelation s in Table 3 we re on lyslightly reduced when th e effects of socia-bility of the subject were partialed out (al-t hough the co rrelat ion betw een negative re-actions and frequency of asked-for behaviorsdropped to below the .10 level of signifi-cance).1To examine for reciprocity in peer reac-tions, type of reaction given by a part icularchild was correlated with type of responsereceived from peers. Proportion of negativereactions given w as unrelated to proport ionof negative reactions received. However, asis presented in Table 4, the proportion ofpositive feedback received by a child was

    1 It is impor tan t to note that the frequency of per-forming asked-for behaviors and the n u mb e r of timestha t children were asked to do so were highly correlated,K 3 1 ) = .95, p < .001.

    Table 4Simple and Partial Correlations Between Subjects' and Peers' Reactions to Children'sProsocial Behaviors

    Peers' reaction s

    Subjects' reactionsPositive to spontaneous Positive to asked-for

    Females Males Both Females M ales BothPositive to spontaneousPositive to ask ed-for

    .59*( .57*)-.19(-.35)

    .38( .38).15( .14)

    .43*( .44**).18( . 12 )

    .61*( .34).54( .35)

    .51*( .55*).17( .01)

    .51**( .54***).34( .07)Note. Correlat ions in parentheses ar e correlations fo r which th e effects of sociability have been partialed out .* p < .10. ** p < .05. ** * p < .01.

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    7/10

    PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 779Table 5Pearson Correlations Between Sociability and Type of Feedback Received fo r Prosocial Behaviors

    Sociabil i ty

    Peer feedback to subjectNegative spontaneousbehaviorsPosit ive_spontaneousbehaviorsNega t ive a ske d - f o rbehaviorsPositive asked-forbehaviors

    Females

    .04

    .23

    .2 3

    .69**

    With peersMales

    .32

    .05

    .57**

    With teachersBoth

    .2 2

    .1 6-.11

    .62****

    Females Males

    .01 -.20 -.42

    .68

    .33 .38*

    Both

    -.07-.29

    .33

    .53***Note. Empty cel ls indicate correlat ions could not be computed due to lack of var ia t ion for the variables.* p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. **** p < .001.

    related to type of reaction emitted by thechild, particularly with relation to the child'sspontaneous prosocial behaviors. Childrenwho w ere positive in response to others ' spon-taneo us prosocial beh aviors received positivereactions, w hereas n onrespo nsivenes s begotnonresponsiveness. This pattern of resultsessentially was retained even w h e n the ef-fects of sociability were partialed out of thecorrelations.Type of feedback received fo r prosocialbehavior also was related to the child's so-ciability frequenc y of positive social contacts(see Table 5). Children w ho received po sitivefeedback from peers fo r asked-for behaviorswere relatively social with both peers andteachers. Girls who were social with adultsalso tended to elicit negative reactions frompeers for their asked-for prosocial actions.Thus, children w ho received expressive feed-back (positive or negative) fo r asked-for be-haviors we re those w ho engaged in f r equen tsocial interactions with both teachers andpeers.Characteristics of Children who ExhibitedHigh Levels of Spontaneous and Asked-For Prosocial Behaviors

    The correlations between frequency ofspontaneous and asked-for behaviors andvarious other social behaviors are presentedin Table 6. Children high in spontaneousprosocial responding, in comparison to chil-dren w ho exhibited fe w spontaneous behav-

    iors, had many social contacts with peers,were not dependent (in terms of asking oth-ers for help), and tended to respond posi-tively to others' spo ntaneou s (girls onl y) andasked-for (especially boys) behaviors. Chil-dren (especially boys) who exhibited highlevels of asked-for prosocial behavior, incomparison with less compliant children,tended to ask adul ts fo r help, w ere unlikelyto defend toys, and were relatively un like lyto respond in a posit ive manner to peers'prosocial be havio rs. Fu rthe r, according totests fo r differences between correlat ionsfrom correlated samples, the correlations ofspontaneous and asked-for prosocial behav-ior to many of the above correlates differedsignificantly (see Table 6). 2

    DiscussionAccording to the data, children, especiallyboys, received few positive reactions fromteachers for prosocial behaviors. In contrast,it was not un com m on for children to elicitpositive reactions from the peer recipient ofa prosocial action; however, children who

    2 The tests for differences between correlations pre-sented in Table 6 were computed with th e formula foundin Ferguson (1976) . However, since there is debate re -garding th e appropriateness of this and several othersimilar statistics (Steiger, 1980), th e tests were recom-puted using the formula presented by Steiger (1980,Formula /2). Th e t values computed with Steiger's sta-tistics were extremely similar to those computed withFerguson's f o rmul a .

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    8/10

    780 E I S E N B E R G , C A M E R O N , T R Y O N , A N D DODEZTable 6Relationship Between Prosodal Behaviors (Spontaneous an d Asked-For) and Other Behaviors:Correlations and t tests Between Correlations from Correlated Samples

    Prosocial behaviorSpontaneous

    O t h e r behaviorsNu m b er o f social contactsw i t h peersAsked-for peersAsked-for adul tsVerba l of phys ical defence/n u m b e r of oppor tuni t iesResponds positively to others 'spontaneous prosocialbehaviorsResponds negatively tospontaneous behaviorsRespond s positively to asked-fo r behaviors

    Female

    .38-.28-.63***

    .17

    .63***-.25-.04

    Male

    .33-.31-.33-.11

    -.20.47*.27

    Both

    .47***-.29*-.37**

    .04

    .1 2

    .23

    .33*

    Female

    .1 5.1 7.07-.43

    -.14-.20-.12

    Asked-forMale

    -.15.08.61***-.64***

    -.49*-.14-.49**

    Both

    -.15.1 4.30*-.54***

    -.23-.20-.41**

    / test'

    2.91***1.86*3.25***2.83***

    1.78*3.25***

    Note . Only behaviors fo r which at least one signif icant or m arg ina l ly signif icant correlation w as found are listed." /-test of the difference between correlations (combined sample) for a given behavior with spontaneous versusasked-for prosocial behavior.* p < .10.* * / > < . 0 5 . * * * / > < .01.

    were more prosocial toward peers generallydid not receive a higher proportion of posi-tive feedback from peers than less prosocialchildren. In fact, children who performedmo re asked -for behaviors were significa ntlyless likely to elicit a positive reaction frompeers. Thus th e data do not support th e con-clusion that prosocial children are helpful orgenerous because they receive a greaterpro-port ion of positive peer feedback fo r theirprosocial behavior than do less prosocialpeers. Furth er, although frequ enc y of asked-fo r behavior was associated with higher lev-els of positive reactions from teachers, theamount of teacher feedback was so low t ha tit is unlikely that teachers ' positive reactionsmaintained children's prosocial responding.There are at least tw o possible explana-tions for the fact t ha t children w ho exhibitedmore asked-for behaviors tended to receivefewer positive peer reactions. First, childrenw ho performed many asked-for behaviorsappeared to be relatively compliant, depen-dent , and were perhaps seen as "easy tar-gets" by peers. Specifically, children w hoexhibited many asked-for behaviors werethose w ho were asked to help or share morefrequent ly . Furth er, as is appa rent from the

    data in Table 6, boys who exhibited highfrequencies of asked-for behaviors weresomewhat more likely to ask adults for as-sistance, and were unlikely to defend toysfrom peers. These boys may have beenviewed negatively by peers since their be-havior did not conform wit h the indepe ndent,dominant masculine stereotype.A second reason why children w ho exhib-ited much asked-for behavior m ay have re-ceived few er positive reactions tha n less com-pliant children is because they tended to notrespond positively to others' behaviors (seeTable 6), and according to the data (Table4), children receive th e type of reactions theygive. More specifically, boys who exhibitedmany asked-for behaviors were unlikely toreact positively to others' spontaneous pro-social behaviors, and children who did notreact positively to others' spontaneous be-haviors were relatively unlikely to receivepositive reactions for asked-for behaviors.Because children who performed rela-tively many asked-for behaviors elicitedfewer positive reactions than children whoexhibited fewer asked-for behaviors, onewonders w hy these children exhibit as muchasked-for behaviors as they do. One expla-

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    9/10

    PRO SO CIAL BEH AVIO R 781nation is that performance of asked-for pro-social behaviors serves a utilitarian purposefor the child. For example, in accordancewith an avoidance learnin g paradigm , com-pliance with a request fo r help or sharingcan prevent interpersonal conflict an d alsomay be easier tha n noncomp liance. Fu rther ,since less dom inan t children pe rfor m m oreasked-for behaviors than dominant children(Eisenberg-Berg & Gial lanza , Note 1) , com-pliance with others' requests may be one wayin wh ich less dom inant children can functionsmoothly in interactions with more dom inantpeers.The type of reaction elicited by a child'sprosocial behavior seemed to be at least asclosely related to the child's social respon-siveness as to frequency of performing socialbehaviors. As was discussed above, childrenwho engaged in freq ue nt positive social in -teractions with peers and teachers elicitedmore positive reactions w hen they performedasked-for prosocial beh aviors th an less socialchildren. Further, there seemed to be a cor-respondence between type of reaction givenand type received. Ch ildren w ho reacted pos-itively to others' spontaneous prosocial be-haviors received more positive feedback fo rboth spontaneous and asked-for behaviorsthan less responsive children. Perhaps pro-portion of positive responding to others'asked-for behaviors was not a good predictorof peer feedback because reactions to asked-for behaviors are actua lly responses to a self-initiated rather tha n other-initiated situa-tion. It is likely tha t positive reaction to an-other's self-initiated (spontaneous) behavioris viewed by peers as m ore unam biguou slypositive than a positive reaction from a childwho had just induced a peer to comply witha request.It is interesting to hypothesize regardingthe implications of the findings describedabove. If positive, socially responsive chil-dren tend to elicit more positive feedbacktha n unre spon sive, less social children, thesechildren may gradually become more andmore positive as they are reinforced fo r pos-itive behaviors; whereas less responsive chil-dren become more nonresponsive in their in -teractions with peers. In other words, apattern of interactions may emerge at anearly age whereby more expressive social

    children are reinforced fo r being positive andsocial much more frequently than are lessexpressive children. Thus, small initial dif-ferences in style of interaction may beshaped into m uch larger differences by peerfeedback. Because peers ca n socialize ag -gressive behaviors (Patterson et al. , 1967),it is likely that peers play a role in shapingpositive interaction styles.The f requency of preschoolers' prosocialresponding in the present study was some-wha t lower tha n in some (Strayer, W areing,& Rushton , 1979; Yarrow & W axier , 1976)but not all (Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979)research. Differences in strictness of opera-tionalization of the concept of prosocial be-havior likely account for the variabil i ty infrequency data (cf . Eisenberg-Berg, Cam -eron, Tryon, & Dodez, Note 2).The difference between th e pat tern of cor-relational findings for asked-for and spon-taneous behaviors has important implica-tions. Children w ho performed relat ivelyhigh levels of spontaneous prosocial behav-iors tended to differ in characteristics fromchildren who frequently performed asked-forbehaviors. Further, patterns of reinforce-ment for the two types of behavior differed.Thus, it is likely that these tw o modes ofprosocial behaviors represent very differentbehaviors, reflect different sets of environ-mental circumstances, and are consistentwith different goals and m otives (cf. Eisen-berg-Berg et al., Note 2). Given the possi-bility of major differences in these tw o typesof behaviors, both researchers and theoristsmight benefit from attending to the spon-taneous/asked-for dist inction.Finally, i t should be noted that the num-ber of subjects in the present study was fairlysmall, an d some measures of behavior wererelatively instable. Clearer patterns of find-ings m ay result from larger-scale natural-istic research.

    Reference Notes1. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Giallanza, S. Components ofsuccessful proprietary behavior among preschoolchildren. Unpublished manuscript, 1980. (Availablefrom Nancy Eisenberg , Depar tment of Psychology,Arizona State University, Tempo, Ariz. 85281.)2. Eisenberg-Berg, N., Ca me ron , E., Tryon, K., &Dodez, R. Prosocial behavior in the preschool years:

  • 8/3/2019 Developmental Psychology 1981 Eisenberg-Berg

    10/10

    782 EISENBERG, C A M E R O N , TRYON, AND DODEZMethodological and conceptual issues. Paper pre-sented at the International Conference on the De-velopment an d Maintenance of Prosocial Behavior,Warsaw, Poland, July 1980.

    ReferencesAndersen, H. H. Domination an d integration in the so-cial behavior of young children in an experimentalplay situation. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1939,21, 287-385.Barton, E. J., & Ascione, F. R. Sharing in preschoolchildren: Facilitation, stimulus generalization, re-sponse generalization, an d maintenance. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 417-430.Barton, E. J., Olszewski, M . J., & Madsen, J. J. Theeffects of adult presence on prosocial behavior of pre-school children. Child Behavior Therapy, 1979, /,

    271-286.Charleswo rth, R., & Hartu p, W . W. Positive social re-inforcement in the nursery school peer group. ChildDevelopment, 1967, 38 , 993-1002.Doland, D. J., & Adelberg, K. The learning of sharingbehavior. Child Development, 1967, 38 , 695-700.Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. The relationship ofpreschooler's reasoning about prosocial moral con-flicts to prosocial behavior. C hild D evelopm ent, 1979,S O , 356-363.Ferguson, G. A. Statistical analysis in psycho logy andeducation (4th ed.). New York: M cGraw -Hill, 1976.Gelfand, D., Har tmann , D. P., Cromer, C. C., Smith,C. L., & Page, B. C. The effects of institutionalprompts and praise on children's donations. ChildDevelopment, 1975, 46 , 980-983.Hicks, L. E. Some properties of ipsative, norm ative, andforced-choice normative measures. PsychologicalBulletin, 1970, 74 , 167-184.Ko h n , M. The child as a determinant of his peers' ap-proach to him. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1966,709, 91-100.

    Leiter, M. P. A s tudy of reciprocity in preschool p laygroups. Child Development, 1977, 48 , 1288-1295.Mussen, P., & Eisenberg-Berg, N. The roots of caring,sharing, and helping. San Francisco: Freeman, 1977.Patterson, G. R., Littman, R. A., & Bricker, W. As-sertive behavior in children: A step toward a theoryof aggression. Monographs of the Society for Re-search in Child Development, 1967, 32 , (5, Serial No.113).Rogers-Warren, A., & Baer, D. M. Correspondencebetween saying and doing: Teaching children to sharean d praise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1976, 9, 335-354.Rogers-Warren, A., Warren , S. F., & Baer, D. M. Acomponent analysis: Modeling, self-reporting, andreinforcement of self-reporting in the development ofsharing. Behavior Modification, 1977, /, 307-322.Serbin, L. A., Tonick, I. J., & Sternglanz, S. H. Shapingcooperative cross-sex play. C hild D evelopm ent, 1977,48 , 924-929.Staub, E. Positive social behavior and morality: So-cialization and development. New York: AcademicPress, 1979.Steiger, J. H. Tests for comparing elements of a cor-relation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 87,245-251.Strayer, F. F., Wareing, S., & Rushton, J . P. Socialconstraints on natu rally occurring preschool altruism.Ethology and Sociobiology, 1979, /, 3-11.W arren, S. F., Rogers-Warren, A., & Baer, D. M. Therole of offer rates in controlling sharing by youngchildren. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1976, 9, 491-497.Yarrow, M . R ., & Waxier, C. Z. Dimensions an d cor-relates of prosocial behavior in young children. ChildDevelopment, 1976, 47 , 240-260.

    Received F e b r u a r y 19, 1981