spinrad eisenberg fabes spinrad2006 1

646

CHAPTER 11

Prosocial Development

NANCY EISENBERG, RICHARD A. FABES, and TRACY L. SPINRAD

PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS OFPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 647

PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES 648Psychoanalytic Theory 648Behaviorism and Social Learning Theory 649Cognitive Developmental Theory 649Current Conceptual Emphases: Positive Psychology and

Positive Youth Development 650BIOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 650Evolutionary Explanations 651Heritability of Prosocial Tendencies 652Neurophysiological Underpinnings of Prosocial

Responding 653DEVELOPMENTAL TRENDS IN THE EMERGENCE

OF PROSOCIAL TENDENCIES 654Theory 654Empirical Studies of the Development of

Prosocial Behavior 655Moderators of Age Trends across Childhood

and Adolescence 658Processes Potentially Related to Changes with Age in

Prosocial Responding 659CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 662Laboratory or Adult- and Self-Report Studies 662Naturalistic Observational Research 663Moral Reasoning, Values, and Beliefs about

Social Responsibility 664SOCIALIZATION WITHIN AND OUTSIDE

THE FAMILY 665Demographic Features of Families and

Family Members 665

Parental Socialization Style and Practices 666Other Familial and Extrafamilial Inf luences 678COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCOGNITIVE CORRELATES

OF PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 683Intelligence, Cognitive Capacities, and

Academic Achievement 683Perspective Taking and Understanding of Emotion 683Person Attributions and Expressed Motives 685Moral Reasoning 685EMPATHY-RELATED EMOTIONAL RESPONDING 686DISPOSITIONAL AND PERSONALITY

CORRELATES OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 688Consistency of Prosocial Behavior 688Sociability and Shyness 689Social Competence and Socially Appropriate Behavior 689Aggression and Externalizing Problems 690Assertiveness and Dominance 691Self-Esteem and Related Constructs 691Values and Goals 692Religiosity 692Regulation 693Emotionality 694THE ROLE OF RELATIONSHIP HISTORY IN

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 695SEX DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN’S

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 696AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF

PROSOCIAL ACTION 698CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS 700Methodological Issues 700Conceptual and Content-Related Directions 701REFERENCES 702

Writing of this chapter was supported by a grant from the Na-tional Institute of Mental Health to Nancy Eisenberg andTracy Spinrad and by grants from the National Science Foun-dation and the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Prosocial behavior—voluntary behavior intended to ben-efit another—is of obvious importance to the quality ofinteractions between individuals and among groups.However, scientists did not devote much attention toprosocial development prior to 1970, perhaps because

Development to Richard A. Fabes. Appreciation also is ex-pressed to Carolyn Zahn-Waxler for comments on earlierdrafts of this manuscript.

the consequences of aggression, criminality, and im-morality had greater salience for society.

Prosocial behaviors may be performed for a host ofreasons including egoistic, other-oriented, or practicalconcerns (Boxer, Tisak, & Goldstein, 2004; Eisenberg,1986). Of particular importance is the subgroup of

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 646

Philosophical Roots of Prosocial Behavior 647

prosocial behaviors labeled altruism. A common defini-tion of altruism is “intrinsically motivated voluntary be-havior intended to benefit another”—acts motivated byconcern for others or by internalized values, goals, andself-rewards rather than by the expectation of concreteor social rewards or the avoidance of punishment (Eisen-berg & Mussen, 1989). However, because it usually isimpossible to differentiate between altruistically moti-vated actions and actions motivated by less noble con-cerns, it is necessary to focus on the broader domain ofprosocial behaviors.

Emotion plays a particularly important role in the de-velopment of prosocial values, motives, and behaviors.Especially relevant are empathy-related emotions. Defi-nitions of empathy vary; we define it as an affectiveresponse that stems from the apprehension or compre-hension of another’s emotional state or condition, andwhich is identical or very similar to what the other per-son is feeling or would be expected to feel.

It is necessary to differentiate empathy from re-lated vicarious emotional responses, particularlysympathy and personal distress. Sympathy is an affec-tive response that frequently stems from empathy, butcan derive directly from perspective taking or othercognitive processing including retrieval of informa-tion from memory. It consists of feeling sorrow orconcern for the distressed or needy other (rather thanfeeling the same emotion as the other person is expe-riencing or is expected to experience). Personal dis-tress also frequently stems from exposure to another’sstate or condition; however, it is a self-focused, aver-sive emotional reaction to the vicarious experiencingof another’s emotion (e.g., discomfort, anxiety; seeBatson, 1991; Eisenberg, Shea, Carlo, & Knight,1991). As discussed later, empathy and sympathyhave been strongly implicated in prosocial develop-ment and action. Thus, these vicarious emotional re-actions are discussed to some degree throughout thechapter.

In the initial sections of this chapter, we brief lydiscuss philosophical perspectives on prosocial devel-opment, as well as several grand psychological theo-ries that have inf luenced the field. Then the empiricalliterature related to prosocial responding in childrenis reviewed. Because there have been few recent stud-ies on the role of situational factors such as cost andbenefits, situational skills, or mood inductions onprosocial behavior, these topics are not reviewed (seeEisenberg & Fabes, 1998, for a review). In the final

sections of the chapter, a model for integrating thefactors believed to relate to prosocial responding ispresented brief ly, and gaps in the field and future di-rections are discussed.

In this chapter, we review many of the major topicsin the literature on prosocial development. Due tospace constraints, we have sometimes built on previ-ously published reviews. We generally have empha-sized topics of central importance to prosocialdevelopment and issues that have emerged in the pastdecade or two. Further, we have confined our coverageto a somewhat narrow definition of prosocial respond-ing. For example, the literature on cooperation, thepersonality trait of agreeableness, or the allocation ofrewards generally is not emphasized, although some in-vestigators of prosocial behavior included cooperationas well as other types of prosocial behavior in theirindex of prosociality (in these cases, we sometimeshave included the study with other citations, but oftenrefer to it in listings under “also see . . .”). Again due tospace limitations, we often cite the more recent studieswhen there are numerous reports pertaining to a givenissue. Interested readers can refer to the earlier versionof this chapter in the fifth edition of this Handbook(1998) to obtain additional citations, especially refer-ences prior to 1990.

PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS OFPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Philosophical concepts of prosocial behavior and sym-pathy often have their roots in religious doctrine. Thecommandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy-self ” is a basic tenet in Judaism and Christianity. Simi-larly, the parable of the Good Samaritan, who pitiedand helped an injured man (Luke 10:29–37), often iscited as an example for Christians. In Buddhism, the viapositiva outlines the virtues necessary to reach Nirvana(ultimate happiness), including dana (giving), metta(kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), and karuna(compassion).

Given the influence of religion in philosophy, it is notsurprising that philosophers have discussed the originsof prosocial and moral behaviors for centuries. Of par-ticular relevance, philosophers have debated whetherany human action is truly unselfish and, relatedly, thedoctrine of ethical egoism (i.e., whether it is unreason-able to behave in a manner contrary to one’s own self-interest). According to Thomas Hobbes (1651/1962), a

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 647

648 Prosocial Development

vocal advocate of egoism and self-love, selfishnessmight produce helping, but the motivation for suchprosocial action would primarily be to relieve thehelper’s own distress. He also believed that the only mo-tivation for cooperative action lay in the fear of someoutside agent.

Later philosophers began to refute the doctrine ofethical egoism. Rousseau (1773/1962) believed thathuman nature was basically good and that humans havean innate sensitivity toward others. In his view, if indi-viduals were able to develop this natural state of nobilityand sensitivity, a strong sense of moral obligation toothers and concern for the common good would develop.He believed society corrupts this innate moral nature.

Kant (1785/1956) also refuted the doctrine of ethicalegoism and argued that if an action is one’s duty, that isreason enough to do it, independent of one’s own inter-ests. According to Kant, prosocial and moral behaviorand values involve one’s will and self-control, and stemfrom universal, impartial principles that are totally de-tached from emotion.

Nagel (1970) differentiated between pure rational al-truism and behavior motivated by sympathy, love, orother emotions. In his view, the involvement of affect inthe helping process tainted its purity. In contrast, DavidHume (1748/1975) argued that moral emotions such assympathy, benevolence, and concern for humanity arefundamental incentives of human action and that proso-cial behaviors often are based on these incentives. Sus-ceptibility to sympathy and empathy was viewed as aninnate human propensity. Similarly, sympathy and re-lated affective responses were core elements of A.Smith’s (1759/1982) moral and social system. Smith be-lieved that sympathy was an innate endowment, insti-gated by the perception of others’ conditions and thedesire to see them happy for purely altruistic reasons.For Smith, sympathy was not solely a primitive aware-ness of others’ suffering; it was a complex capacity in-fluenced by awareness of aspects of the situation or theperson involved.

Lawrence Blum (1980) has been particularly vocal inrefuting some of Kant’s ideas about the role of emotionin morality. He pointed out that rational processes donot always produce moral action and that the sense ofduty (viewed by Kant as rational) is no more immune tothe distorting and weakening effects of personal feel-ings than is sympathy for another. Blum further sug-gested that because emotions such as sympathy andempathy promote perspective taking and understanding

of others, they sometimes produce rationality and may,in addition, induce more and higher quality prosocialbehavior than does rationality. Similarly, Slote (2001,2004) argued that caring is a true virtue that is involvedin moral judgment and that empathy is essential to thedevelopment of morally based caring about others. Re-latedly, current writings on “altruistic (or compassion-ate) love” (which correlates with sympathy; L.G.Underwood, 2001) and agape (altruistic love universal-ized to all humanity; Post, 2001) in theology and philos-ophy are relevant to the notions of selfless love and toextending caring to people outside one’s ingroup.

In summary, philosophers have viewed people as pri-marily egoistic, primarily noble and generous, or some-where in between. Philosophical debate about the natureand existence of altruism is alive and well in contempo-rary psychology, particularly in social (e.g., Batson &Powell, 2003) and evolutionary (Konner, 2002) psychol-ogy. However, it is often difficult to discriminate peo-ple’s motives and conceptions of their prosocialbehavior. Thus, philosophical concerns are not highlysalient in developmental work and are reflected primar-ily in work on moral judgment influenced by cognitivedevelopmental theory.

PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES

As might be expected, the grand theories that have hadconsiderable influence on developmental psychologyhave affected thinking about prosocial development,particularly in the past. Thus, pertinent ideas in psycho-analytic theory, behaviorism and social learning theory,and cognitive developmental theory are discussedbriefly. In addition, recent work on prosocial behaviorhas been influenced by minitheories such as Hoffman’stheoretical contributions to understanding empathy(1982, 2000) and socialization (1970, 1983) andGrusec’s (e.g., Grusec & Goodnow, 1994) and Staub’s(1979, 1992, 2003) thinking about socialization. Someof these conceptual frameworks are referred to brieflylater in this chapter.

Psychoanalytic Theory

In Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, children are born withinnate, irrational sexual and aggressive impulses di-rected toward self-gratification (the id). They develop a

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 648

Psychological Theories 649

conscience (superego) at about age 4 to 6 years as ameans of resolving the conflict between their own hos-tile and sexual impulses and their fears of parental hos-tility or the loss of parental love. The superego is theoutcome of the process of identification, by which chil-dren internalize their same-sex parents’ values and in-troject these values. Once children develop a superego,they may behave prosocially to avoid the guilt inflictedby the conscience for not doing so or based on the inter-nalization of values consistent with prosocial behavior(e.g., Freud, 1933/1968). In many versions of psychoan-alytic theory, guilt, self-destructive tendencies, and sex-ual strivings underlie altruism (Fenichel, 1945; Glover,1968). Prosocial actions often are defense mechanismsused by the ego (the rational part of personality) to dealwith the irrational demands of the superego.

However, Freud and other psychoanalysts sometimeshave acknowledged more positive roots of altruism.Freud (1930) asserted, “Individual development seemsto us a product of the interplay of two trends, the striv-ing for happiness, generally called ‘egoistic,’ and theimpulse toward merging with others in the community,which we call ‘altruistic’ ” (1930, p. 134). Other theo-rists such as Ekstein (1978) have built on Freud’s em-phasis on the importance of the early mother-childrelationship for the development of empathy, identifica-tion, and internalization.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of psychoanalyticwork to theory on prosocial responding is the constructof identification. Social learning theorists in the 1960sand 1970s adapted this construct to refer to children’sinternalization of parents’ norms, values, and standardsas a consequence of a positive parent-child relationship(e.g., Hoffman, 1970). This theoretical perspective hada significant impact on the early work on the socializa-tion of altruism.

Behaviorism and Social Learning Theory

Early behaviorists posited that children learn primarilythrough mechanisms such as conditioning. This per-spective is reflected in some of the relatively early workon the role of reinforcement and punishment in promot-ing prosocial behavior (e.g., Hartmann et al., 1976) andin work concerning the development of empathy throughconditioning (Aronfreed, 1970).

Social learning theorists allowed internal cognitiveprocesses to play a greater role. For example, contingen-cies need not actually occur; people can vicariously

learn the likely consequences of a behavior through ob-servation and verbal behavior. Imitation is viewed as acritical process in the socialization of moral behaviorand standards (Bandura, 1986).

In current cognitive social learning theory, the inter-play of cognition and environmental influences in moraldevelopment is complex. According to Bandura (1986;also see Hoffman, 2000), moral rules or standards of be-havior are fashioned from information from a variety ofsources such as intuition, others’ evaluative social reac-tions, and models. Based on experience, people learnwhat factors are morally relevant and how much value toattach to each one. Socializers provide informationabout behavioral alternatives, expectations, and possiblecontingencies for different courses of action; modelmoral behaviors; reinforce and punish children for vari-ous actions; and influence the development of self-evaluative reactions (e.g., guilt). Moreover, thought,behavior, and environmental events all interact and in-fluence one another, and the individual’s attentional andregulatory processes play a role in the learning of moralbehavior. Moral and prosocial functioning are thought tobe governed by self-reactive responses (e.g., selfprocesses such as self-sanctions, personal agency) andother self-regulatory processes rather than by dispas-sionate abstract reasoning (Bandura, 2002). Addition-ally, the regulation of affect has an important influenceon prosocial behavior. Support for this argument hasbeen found: Perceived self-efficacy in the regulation ofpositive affect was related to perceptions of empathicefficacy, which in turn were related to prosocial behav-ior (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pas-torelli, 2003). Thus, perceived self-efficacy to managebasic affective states plays a pivotal role in the causalprocesses determining the likelihood of empathic re-sponding and prosocial behavior.

Cognitive Developmental Theory

The cognitive developmental perspective on morality, asrepresented by the work of Piaget (e.g., 1932/1965) andKohlberg (e.g., 1969, 1984), concerns primarily the de-velopment of moral reasoning and other social cognitiveprocesses rather than moral behavior. Kohlberg de-scribed moral development as an invariant, universal,and hierarchical sequence of stages progressing as afunction of sociocognitive development (e.g., perspec-tive taking). Kohlberg emphasized the contributions ofcognition, particularly perspective taking, to morality

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 649


and minimized (but did not fully neglect) the contribu-tions of emotion and socialization (Kohlberg, 1969).Moreover, because of Piaget’s and Kohlberg’s assump-tion that young children have limited perspective-takingabilities, investigators influenced by cognitive develop-mental work assumed for years that other-orientedprosocial behavior was not likely to emerge until theearly school years.

The cognitive developmental perspective is discussedby Turiel (Chapter 13, this Handbook, this volume). Itsprimary relevance for this chapter is that Kohlberg’stheory influenced Eisenberg’s (e.g., Eisenberg, 1986)work on prosocial moral reasoning. However, althoughEisenberg views sociocognitive development as playingan important role in the development of prosocial moralreasoning, she does not view all stages of prosocial rea-soning (especially the higher ones) as universal or as in-volving the hierarchical integration of lower stages.Rather, environmental and emotional factors are be-lieved to play a considerable role in the development anduse of prosocial moral reasoning. Thus, Eisenberg’s con-ception of moral reasoning differs considerably from thetraditional cognitive developmental perspective.

Current Conceptual Emphases: PositivePsychology and Positive Youth Development

Positive psychology and positive youth psychology arenot fully developed theories, but perspectives that re-cently have influenced the study of prosocial behavior.Although prosocial behavior was a popular topic ofstudy in the 1970s and early 1980s, interest declined inthe late 1980s and the 1990s. Since the late 1990s, therehas been a resurgence of interest in the positive aspectsof human development, spurred by the positive psychol-ogy movement. This movement is an effort to counteractthe focus on negative aspects of psychological function-ing (e.g., problems with psychological adjustment) andhighlight human strengths. As summarized by Seligmanand Csikszentmihalyi (2000), the field of positive psy-chology concerns subjective experiences (e.g., well-being, optimism), positive personal traits (e.g., thecapacity for love, interpersonal skills, forgiveness, wis-dom), and “civic virtues and the institutions that moveindividuals toward better citizenship: responsibility,nurturance, altruism, civility, moderation, tolerance,and work ethnic” (p. 1). Similarly, the positive youth de-velopment perspective is a strength-based conception ofadolescence that highlights plasticity in development

and the “potential for systematic change inbehavior . . . as a consequence of mutually influentialrelationships between the development person and his orher biology, psychological characteristics, family, com-munity, culture, physicial and designed ecology, and his-torical niche” (Lerner et al., 2005, p. 13; also seeLerner, Dowling, & Anderson, 2003).

Although prosocial behavior has not been a primarytopic of interest for those researchers most associatedwith the positive psychology movement, some psycholo-gists (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003a; Eisenberg & OtaWang, 2003) have argued that interpersonal and rela-tional strengths such as sympathy, compassion, coopera-tion, tolerance, and altruism are important topics ofinvestigation for those investigators concerned with pos-itive psychological development. In fact, prosocial andempathic development are discussed in some books onpositive psychology (e.g., Aspinwall & Staudinger,2003b; Lopez & Snyder, 2003), and the positive psy-chology movement has stimulated renewed interest inprosocial behavior and sympathy by including the topicin various books and conferences. Similarly, caring isviewed as one of five components of positive youth de-velopment (along with competence, confidence, connec-tion, and character); thus, some relevant researchcontains measures of sympathy or related constructs(e.g., Lerner et al., 2005).

Now that the conceptual roots of work on prosocialresponding have been reviewed briefly, we turn to thereview of the empirical literature. We first examine the-ory and empirical work on developmental trends inprosocial responding, followed by discussion of the po-tential origins of prosocial behavior (biological, cul-tural, and socialization). Next we consider thesociocognitive, empathy-related, dispositional, and situ-ational correlates of prosocial behavior. In the final sec-tions, age and sex differences in prosocial behavior areconsidered.

BIOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OFPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

In examining the major theoretical and empirical ap-proaches to understanding the determinants of prosocialbehaviors, most efforts have been directed at identifyingthe situational, social, and individual factors that affectthe degree to which prosocial behavior is learned andenhanced (see M.S. Clark, 1991; Eisenberg, 1986, forreviews and examples). Relatively little of the empirical

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 650

Biological Determinants of Prosocial Behavior 651

work on prosocial behavior has focused on the geneticand neurohormonal substrates of such behavior. Thelack of empirical work is somewhat surprising given theattention that genetic, evolutionary, and neurohormonalfactors have received in the literature on antisocial, ag-gressive, and criminal behavior (see Ellis & Hoffman,1990). As noted by Eisenberg, Fabes, and Miller (1990),some of the biological factors that affect antisocial be-havior are also likely to account for variations in proso-cial behavior and therefore warrant consideration in anymajor review of prosocial behavior and development.

Evolutionary Explanations

Prosocial actions such as helping and sharing have fre-quently been noted among nonhuman animals (e.g.,E. O. Wilson, 1975, 1978). Various social insects (suchas certain honeybees, ants, and wasps) frequently sacri-fice their own lives while defending their hives or nestsfrom intruders. Similarly, some birds give off a warningcall that informs other birds of a predator’s presence.The call, however, occasionally helps predators locatethe call giver, thereby resulting in its capture and death.

Sharing and cooperation also have been observedamong nonhuman animals (Trivers, 1971; Wilson,1975), as have consoling behaviors and empathy amongchimpanzees (Preston & de Waal, 2002). Van Lawick-Goodall (1968) reported that chimpanzees often handover portions of their catch to other chimpanzees whobeg for food. Similarly, certain wild African dogs thatlive in packs share the prey they catch with members ofthe pack who stay behind to guard the pups. Common toall these examples is that in some way one animal has im-proved the chances of one or more animals reaching somesort of goal (protection, feeding, care of young, etc.).

Explanations have been proposed to explain theprosocial actions of animals. Wilson (1975, 1978) andothers (e.g., Barash, 1977) have advanced the notion ofkin selection, which is a broadened view of natural selec-tion. They argue that through self-sacrificing or cooper-ative actions, the prosocial animal increases theprobability that its relatives, who share its genes, willsurvive and reproduce. Thus, even if the prosocial ani-mal dies, its genes will be passed on to the next genera-tion by its surviving relatives. The genes selected for byevolution contribute to their own perpetuation, regard-less of the individual carrying the animal’s genes.

The percentage of shared or common genes is hypoth-esized to be an important determinant of altruism dis-

played among species members—more altruism wouldbe expected to be directed toward more closely relatedkin than toward distant kin or those who are unrelated(Hastings, Zahn-Waxler, & McShane, 2005). Thus, forkin selection to be effective (in an evolutionary sense),altruists must be able to distinguish between individualswho are their kin and those who are not. Rushton and as-sociates (Rushton, Russell, & Well, 1984) proposed thatthat there is an innate ability to recognize someone whois genetically similar. Evidence from the study of a widevariety of species supports the conclusion that certainanimals may be genetically programmed to identifytheir own kin (Alberts, 1976; Leon, 1983). Evidence fora similar genetic predisposition in humans is much lessclear-cut (Fabes & Filsinger, 1988). There is, however,evidence that humans are more willing to assist otherswho are genetically related to themselves (Bar-Tal, Bar-Zohar, Greenberg, & Hermon, 1977) and that the degreeof biological relatedness is positively associated withwillingness to help (Cunningham, 1985/1986). In addi-tion, the more valuable the helpful act is, the more likelyit is to come from kin (Borgida, Conner, & Manteufel,1992; Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1985). People also arelikely to seek out and assist others who are similar tothemselves (Eisenberg, 1983; Rushton et al., 1984). Be-cause individuals who share proximity and who arephysically similar are likely to share more genes thandissimilar others, the predisposition to help others whoare similar may enhance the survival of persons likely toshare genes with the altruist.

In many species (including humans), prosocial be-havior also is extended toward nonrelatives. Hall andDeVore (1965) described the tendency for baboons toform alliances and fight as a unit in aggressive encoun-ters. Female bluebirds occasionally provide foster par-enting to young birds deserted by their mothers (Hayes,Felton, & Cohen, 1985).

Trivers (1971, 1983) uses the term reciprocal altru-ism to explain instances of prosocial behavior that aredirected to recipients so distantly related to the organ-ism performing the altruistic act that kin selection canbe ruled out. Trivers argues that under certain condi-tions natural selection favors these altruistic behaviorsbecause in the long run they benefit the organism per-forming them. Cleaning symbiosis is a case in point.Both host and cleaner benefit from the relationship(e.g., the host is cleaned of parasites and the cleaner isfed and sometimes protected). There also apparentlyhas been selection for the host to avoid eating one’s

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM 51


cleaner (Trivers, 1971). These behaviors cannot be ex-plained by kin selection because they are performed bymembers of one species for the benefit of members ofanother species.

Another evolutionary explanation of prosocial behav-ior is that of group selection (Wynne-Edwards, 1962).According to this view, altruism among group membersmay benefit the survival of the group. Thus, groups withaltruistic members are less likely to become extinct thangroups comprised of nonaltruistic members. This per-spective, however, has not received strong support(Boorman & Leavitt, 1980). Group selection worksvery slowly and it would take an exceedingly long timefor an entire group to become extinct. In the short run,selfish members would have a competitive edge over al-truistic members (Krebs & Miller, 1985). Altruisticmembers would thus die out long before the group does.Thus, the forces underlying group selection do not ap-pear compatible with the evolution of a group with al-truistic members.

In summary, evolutionary perspectives on prosocialbehavior suggest that these behaviors result from evolu-tionary forces (Sober & Wilson, 1998). Prosocial behav-iors may have been selected because they (a) increaseindividuals’ survival to reproductive age, (b) increasethe reproductive capacity of the individual, and (c) in-crease either or both of these tendencies in other mem-bers of the species that likely carry the same genes.Inherent in this argument is that evolutionary forces fa-voring altruistic behaviors often come into conflict withthose forces that favor behaviors maximizing the sur-vival of the individual. Out of this complex interplay ofcompeting forces comes the potential to act prosociallyand to account for individual differences in prosocial re-sponding (Hofer, 1981).

Heritability of Prosocial Tendencies

Twin studies have been used to examine the genetic con-tribution to individual differences in prosocial respond-ing. In these studies, if the correlation between scoreson prosocial responding is higher for identical twinsthan for fraternal twins, the difference is attributed togenetic effects to the degree that common environmen-tal sources are assumed to be roughly equal for the twotypes of twins.

In twin studies involving adults’ self-reports ofprosocial tendencies, researchers have found that ge-netic factors accounted for between 40% and 70% of the

variance in twins’ altruism, empathy, and nurturance(Hastings et al., in press). Most of the remaining vari-ance was accounted for by idiosyncratic differences inthe environments of the twins rather than by their sharedenvironment (Rushton, Fulker, Neale, Nias, & Eysenck,1986; also see Davis, Luce, & Kraus, 1994), although inone study of adults, the variance in prosocial behaviorwas linked primarily to shared and nonshared environ-ment (Krueger, Hicks, & McGue, 2001). It is likely thatthe common shared variance decreases with age (Scarr& McCartney, 1983; Scourfield, John, Martin, &McGuffin, 2004).

W. Johnson and Krueger (2004) examined the heri-tability of middle-aged adults’ personality traits thatlikely relate to prosocial qualities. Using twin data,they found that about 50% of the variance in extraver-sion and neuroticism was explained by genetic influ-ences; however, this was not the case for agreeableness,openness, and conscientiousness. Agreeableness is be-lieved to contribute to, or overlap with, prosocial ten-dencies (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). Thus, althoughgenetics appears to contribute to children’s prosocialtendencies, genetically informed studies also provideevidence for the role of the environment in the origins ofprosocial behavior.

Relatively few twin studies involve children, and thestrength of the heredity estimates has varied somewhatacross studies. In one study of 5- to 16-year-olds, the es-timate for the genetic contribution was about 52% forparental reports, but considerably higher for teachers’reports of prosocial behavior (Scourfield et al., 2004). Inanother study, Zahn-Waxler and colleagues (Plominet al., 1993; Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, & Emde, 1992;Zahn-Waxler, Schiro, Robinson, Emde, & Schmitz,2001) examined twins’ behavioral reactions to simula-tions of distress in others. Estimates of heritability indi-cated a significant genetic component for empathicconcern, prosocial acts, and maternal reports of proso-cial acts at 14 months of age, albeit the variance ac-counted for was much less than 50% for all but maternalreports (indicating that environmental factors also con-tributed to prosocial development). At 20 months, em-pathic concern (sympathy) and prosocial acts continuedto evidence significant genetic contributions. Active in-difference also showed significant genetic influence at14 months; however, there was no evidence of heritabil-ity for self-distress at either 14 or 20 months (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1992). Plomin et al. (1993) found noevidence of genetic influence on change in a composite

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 652

Biological Determinants of Prosocial Behavior 653

index of children’s empathy from 14 to 20 months ofage, although genetic factors partially accounted for sta-bility over time in empathy.

In follow-ups in which additional twins were added tothe sample, empathic concern continued to show evi-dence of genetic influence at 24 and 36 months, whereasprosocial acts and indifference did so only at 36 months.Mothers’ reports of children’s prosocial behaviorshowed a genetic influence only at 14 months; it waspredicted by shared environmental variance at olderages (Zahn-Waxler et al., 2001). Moreover, there is evi-dence that heritable differences may account for tod-dlers’ empathy-related responding toward an unfamiliaradult, whereas shared environmental influences accountfor concern toward the mother (Robinson, Zahn-Waxler,& Emde, 2001). The differences in the findings reportedat earlier and older ages may have been due to thesmaller sample in the assessments conducted in the 2ndyear of life. Regardless, the magnitude of any genetic in-fluences on these observed measures of concern gener-ally were modest. Moreover, Robinson and colleaguesfound there was no significant genetic variance in chil-dren’s positive reactions to others’ distress at 14months; it was moderately strong at 20 months and dis-appeared again at 24 months (Robinson, Emde, & Cor-ley, 2001). Thus, there appears to be considerablevariability in heritability estimates across age and mea-sures of prosocial responding.

The role of genetic and environmental influences inchildren’s prosocial tendencies has also been tested inother types of genetically informed studies. In a studyof stepfamilies, Deater-Deckard, Dunn, et al. (2001)found that most of the variance in adults’ reports of chil-dren’s (mostly preschool and school age) prosocial be-havior was due to environmental (not genetic) factors,especially aspects of the environment that were notshared by the children, although there was significantvariance for shared environmental effects. Moreover, ina study involving only identical pre-school-age twins,Deater-Deckard, Pike, et al. (2001) obtained additionalevidence of the role of nonshared environment (e.g., ma-ternal supportive and punitive behaviors) in predictingchildren’s prosocial behavior.

Other evidence relevant for examining the role of ge-netics in prosocial behavior is found in studies of chil-dren with certain genetic abnormalities. Williamssyndrome, caused by a microdeletion of part of the longarm of chromosome 7, is associated with a specific per-sonality profile that includes highly sociable, empathic,

sympathetic, and prosocial interpersonal behavior(Mervis & Klein-Tasman, 2000), perhaps even more sothan for normal children or those with some other disor-ders such as Prader-Willi or fragile X syndrome (Joneset al., 2000; see Semel & Rosner, 2003). Thus, the highlyspecific and sensitive social profile of individuals withWilliams syndrome suggests that hemizygous deletionof one or more genes is involved in biasing (but not de-termining) development toward these components ofprosocial behavior.

Neurophysiological Underpinnings ofProsocial Responding

Behavioral genetics research provides information re-garding the presence and size of genetic contributions toprosocial behavior, but does not identify the conditionsor processes of organism-environment interactionthrough which genotypes are transformed into pheno-types. Research and theory on the neurologicalprocesses may provide a mechanism for mediation be-tween genetics and overt behavior (see Hastings et al.,2005, for a recent review). Panksepp (1986) suggestedthat brain opioids influence the degree to which socialcontact is reinforcing and that f luctuations in brain opi-oids and the underlying emotive systems affect altruis-tic behavior. Panksepp also hypothesized that duringsocial interactions (which are affected by brain opi-oids), animals may become better attuned to the emo-tions of their conspecifics and thereby become betterable to alleviate their distress when it occurs.

Panksepp asserted that all mammalian helping behav-ior arises from the “nurturant dictates of brain systemsthat mediate social bonding and maternal care” (1986,p. 44). This view is consistent with that of MacLean(1985), who argued that the basis for altruism lies inmaternal behavior, affiliation, and play, which are medi-ated in part by the limbic system of the brain. MacLeanfurther suggested that the prefrontal neocortex, whichdeveloped relatively recently in evolution and is mostdistinctive in humans, provides the basis for concern forothers and a sense of responsibility and conscience.

There have been direct attempts to identify the neu-ral roots of prosocial behavior and emotions. It has beenargued that the perceptual bases of empathy may be“mirror neurons”—neurons that fire not only when amonkey executes an action but also when it observes an-other monkey or human performing the same action(Gallese, 2001). In addition, Decety and Chaminade

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 653


(2003) used positron emission tomography neuroimag-ing (i.e., PET scanning) to demonstrate that the neuralstructures known to be involved in emotional responding(e.g., amygdala and the adjacent orbitofrontal cortexand the insula) were activated when people listened tosad stories designed to elicit sympathy; listening to neu-tral stories did not cause similar neural activation. In-creased neural activity was also found in the corticalregions involved in shared motor representations (e.g.,dorsal premotor cortex, right inferior parietal lobule)—areas of the brain thought to be important when takingthe perspective of others (Ruby & Decety, 2001).

Other researchers have highlighted the importanceof frontal cortical activity in sympathetic responses.Harmon-Jones, Vaughn-Scott, Mohr, Sigelman, andHarmon-Jones (2004) found that anger provocation in-creased left frontal cortical activity and decreased rightactivity; however, high levels of sympathetic responseswere found to eliminate these effects. Moreover, Es-linger and colleagues (1998, Eslinger, Eastin, Grattan, &Van Hoesen, 1996) studied individuals with front le-sions and found that when the lesion was in the dorsolat-eral front system, deficits in cognitive aspects ofempathy resulted. In contrast, when lesions were in theorbitofrontal system, deficits in the more emotional as-pects of empathy resulted. Such findings suggest thatcomplex neural responses likely are involved in proso-cial actions and reactions, a conclusion that is consistentwith Panksepp’s (1986) assertion that it may be unreal-istic to assume that functional unitary brain circuits willbe discovered for global constructs such as altruism,sympathy, and prosocial behavior.

In summary, it is likely that biological factors playsome role in individual differences in empathy andprosocial behavior. However, much of the relevant re-search on biological mechanisms comes from work withnonhumans, and existing behavioral genetics work islimited in quantity and scope. Moreover, it is unclearwhether some of the aforementioned biological corre-lates of empathy or prosocial behavior play a causal rolein individual differences among people in prosocial ten-dencies (e.g., they may simply be correlates or conse-quences of empathy). Pertinent theory is speculative andunderdeveloped. Finally, there is evidence that the envi-ronment plays a critical role in prosocial development,even in the behavioral genetics research. The key to un-derstanding human prosocial behavior lies in determin-ing how biological factors, prior environmentalinfluences on the child, and the current context jointlyaffect prosocial behavior and development (with the in-

fluence of biology being probabilistic rather than deter-ministic; Wachs, 1994).

DEVELOPMENTAL TRENDS IN THEEMERGENCE OF PROSOCIAL TENDENCIES

According to both theory and empirical findings, proso-cial behavior and empathy emerge early in life. In thissection, we first briefly review Hoffman’s theory of thedevelopment of prosocial behavior, and we then examineage changes in prosocial behavior and empathy-relatedresponding.

Theory

Hoffman (1982, 2000) proposed a four-level theoreticalmodel that delineates the role of infants’ and children’saffect and cognitive sense of self-awareness and self-other differentiation in the emergence of prosocial be-havior. Specifically, he outlined the developmental shiftover time from self-concern in response to others’ dis-tress to empathic concern (i.e., sympathy) for othersthat results in other-oriented prosocial behavior.

In Hoffman’s first stage, newborns and infants dis-play rudimentary empathic responses that are mani-fested as “global empathy.” Hoffman argues that theyoung infant has not acquired a sense of self-other dif-ferentiation (at least in regard to emotional states) andexperiences empathic distress through one or more ofthe simpler modes of empathy (e.g., based on reactivecrying, conditioning, mimicry). Because young infantscannot differentiate their own distress from that of an-other, they often experience self-distress in response toanother’s distress, as evidenced in their reactive cryingin response to the sound of another’s cry (viewed as asimple form, or precursor, of global empathy). Begin-ning around the end of the 1st year of life, infants expe-rience egocentric empathic distress and are thought toseek comfort for themselves when exposed to others’distress. At this level, infants have begun developing asense of self as separate from others; however, thissense is quite immature (i.e., they cannot fully differen-tiate between their own distress and that of another).Thus, the infant is likely to respond to empathic and ac-tual distress situations in the same way.

Early in the 2nd year of life, toddlers begin to makehelpful advances toward a victim of distress (i.e., pat-ting, touching). Around the same age, they may inter-vene by hugging, giving physical assistance, or getting

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 654

Developmental Trends in the Emergence of Prosocial Tendencies 655

someone else to help (Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow,1982). Hoffman labels this level quasi-egocentric em-pathic distress. According to Hoffman (2000), toddlersin this developmental period can differentiate betweenself and other, although they still do not distinguish wellbetween their own and another’s internal states.Nonetheless, toddlers can experience empathic concernfor another, rather than solely seek comfort for them-selves. They also can and sometimes do try to comfortanother person, but such prosocial behavior is likely toinvolve giving the other person what the toddlers them-selves find comforting. Empathy at this level differsfrom the previous stage because toddlers are not purelyegocentric and are more likely to respond with appropri-ate empathic affect.

Stern (1985) has argued that young children developa subjective self capable of recognizing the subjectivityof the other earlier than stated by Hoffman (2000). Al-though this issue has not been resolved, the affect at-tunement (“a recasting or restatement of a subjectivestate,” p. 161) or emotional resonance between parentand child discussed by Stern—albeit believed to belargely out of the child’s conscious awareness—may fos-ter the early development of affective empathy, espe-cially if parents are empathic in their interactions.

Sometime during the 2nd year of life, children enterthe period of veridical empathic distress. According toHoffman (1982, 2000), this stage marks the period inwhich children are increasingly aware of other people’sfeelings and are capable of understanding that otherpeople’s perspectives and feelings may differ from theirown. Thus, prosocial actions reflect an awareness of theother person’s needs (versus the egocentric empathy ofthe previous stage), and children can be more accuratein their empathic responses and help others in less ego-centric ways. Moreover, with the development of lan-guage, children are able to empathize and sympathizewith a wider range of emotions than previously. How-ever, according to Hoffman, children’s empathic re-sponses are restricted to another’s immediate, orsituation-specific, distress.

As children develop more sophisticated perspective-taking skills and the ability to think abstractly, the abil-ity to experience empathic responses even when theother person is not physically present (e.g., if they hearor read about someone in distress) emerges (Hoffman,1982). Moreover, by mid to late childhood, children canempathize with another person’s general condition orplight. Further, the adolescent is capable of compre-hending and responding to the plight of an entire group

or class of people, such as the impoverished or the polit-ically oppressed. Thus, Hoffman (1982) proposed thatwith increasing cognitive maturation, children are bet-ter able to respond with concern to others’ distress.

Empirical Studies of the Development ofProsocial Behavior

In this section, we review empirical studies that provideinsight into the development of prosocial tendencies. Toorganize these, we review them according to the ages ofthe participants in the study.

Infancy and Childhood

Compared with research in older children, adolescents,and adults, research examining prosocial behavior inyoung children is relatively limited. Nonetheless, thereis some empirical support for Hoffman’s theory. Thereis evidence that newborn infants exhibit some form ofglobal empathy as displayed by their reactive crying inresponse to the cries of another infant (Martin & Clark,1982; Sagi & Hoffman, 1976). Of particular interest, in-fants exhibit more distress in response to another in-fant’s crying than to their own (Dondi, Simion, &Caltran, 1999), suggesting that they are biologically pre-disposed to experience a rudimentary form of empathy.However, some researchers have questioned the inter-pretation of these findings (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983);for example, infants may simply find a novel cry to bemore aversive than their own cry.

Around 6 months of age, infants will sometimes re-spond to the cry of another infant by crying, but they fre-quently ignore it or merely orient toward the peer (Hay,Nash, & Pederson, 1981). By 38 to 61 weeks of age, in-fants sometimes react to others’ distress by orientingand distress cries, but they occasionally display positiveaffect, such as smiling or laughing (Zahn-Waxler &Radke-Yarrow, 1982).

Thus, it appears that infants are responsive to others’emotional signals. In a study in which mothers ex-pressed sadness or joy in view of their 9-month-old in-fants, the infants displayed more negative emotionalexpressions and tended to avert their gaze away fromtheir mothers in the sadness condition and expressedmore joy when they viewed their mothers’ expressionsof joy (Termine & Izard, 1988). Moreover, studies of so-cial referencing show that infants not only are respon-sive to others’ emotional signals, but also make use ofthem to guide their own behavior in an ambiguous situa-tion (see Saarni, Mumme, & Campos, 1998; Saarni

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 655


et al., Chapter 5, this Handbook, this volume). Moreover,during the 2nd year of life, toddlers display the ability todiscuss their own and others’ emotions and show signif-icant improvements in this skill between 18 and 36months of age (Bretherton, Fritz, Zahn-Waxler, &Ridgeway, 1986). These findings demonstrate that veryyoung children are affected by the emotions they ob-serve in others.

Around 12 to 18 months of age, infants clearly reactto others’ negative emotions (often with orienting anddistress reactions) and sometimes react to others’ dis-tress with concerned attention and prosocial behavior,including positive contact and verbal reassurance(Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, et al., 1992). These patternshave been found in interactions with mothers (Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, et al., 1992), siblings (Dunn, 1988),peers (Denham, 1986; Howes & Farver, 1987), andstrangers (Johnson, 1982).

In one of the earliest studies of children’s sympathyand prosocial behavior, Lois Murphy (1937) found thatpreschool children reacted to another’s distress in a va-riety of ways. Children’s responses ranged from sympa-thy and prosocial initiations to egocentric andunsympathetic reactions, such as laughing, aggression,or ignoring. These findings have been replicated in othersamples with young children (Radke-Yarrow & Zahn-Waxler, 1984; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1982;Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, & Chapman,1992). Moreover, researchers have found that respon-siveness to peers’ distress in naturalistic settings is rela-tively infrequent among toddlers and preschoolers(Caplan & Hay, 1989; Howes & Farver, 1987; Phinney,Feshbach, & Farver, 1986). In a naturalistic study ex-amining toddlers’ responses to peers’ distress in daycare, Lamb and Zakhireh (1997) found that toddlers re-sponded to a peer’s distress with prosocial behavior inonly 11 out of 345 incidents. Factors that appear to re-late to children’s prosocial responding include whether apeer’s distress persists for a long period or if the partic-ular peer is one who infrequently becomes distressed(Caplan & Hay, 1989).

As proposed by Hoffman (1982, 2000), prosocial be-haviors have been associated with indices of cognitivedevelopment. Toddlers who display evidence of self-recognition (indicating a self-other distinction) tend tobe relatively empathic and are likely to display prosocialbehaviors (Bischof-Koehler, 1991; Johnson, 1982; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, et al., 1992; Zahn-Waxler,Schiro, et al., 2001). Further, children’s perspective tak-ing (as indexed by their hypothesis testing, e.g., at-

tempts to label or understand why the other is dis-tressed] or social referencing) in the 2nd year of life andat ages 4 to 5 has been positively related to their proso-cial behaviors (Kiang, Moreno, & Robinson, 2004;Zahn-Waxler, Cole, Welsh, & Fox, 1995; Zahn-Waxler,Robinson, et al., 1992). Similarly, preschool children’semotion knowledge has been positively related to proso-cial behavior toward adults who express negative emo-tion (Denham & Couchoud, 1991) and toward youngersiblings (Garner, Jones, & Palmer, 1994).

Other types of prosocial behavior besides sympa-thetic or comforting responses to others’ distress havebeen examined in young children. The tendency to giveobjects to other people is common in early childhood,and young children have been observed sharing objectswith parents, other adults, siblings, and peers (Hay,1994). Object sharing seems to emerge around 8 monthsof age and is increasingly evident during the next year(Hay & Rheingold, 1983). In general, prosocial behaviorhas been found to increase in the early years of life(Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1982; Zahn-Waxler,Robinson, et al., 1992; 2001). For example, Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, et al. (1992, 2001) and Robinsonet al. (2001) studied toddlers’ empathy-related respond-ing to an experimenter and the mother feigning injuriesat 14, 20, 24, and 36 months of age. They found an in-crease with age in empathic concern, hypotheses test-ing, and prosocial behavior. Van der Mark, vanIjzendoorn, and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2002) alsofound an increase in empathy/prosocial responding(combined) from 16 to 22 months when toddlers’ moth-ers were distressed. Further, Lamb and Zakhireh (1997)found that age was positively related to toddlers’ proso-cial behavior toward peers.

Moreover, nonempathic responses (e.g., self-orienteddistress reactions) seem to decrease in the second and3rd year of life (Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, et al.,1992; Zahn-Waxler et al., 2001). Toddlers’ indifferencetoward another’s distress has been found to decline from14 to 20 months of age and then increase between 24 and36 months (Zahn-Waxler et al., 2001). Nonetheless, withincreasing age, preschoolers are more likely to respondto others’ distress with empathy and prosocial behaviors(Hastings, Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, Usher, & Bridges,2000; Lennon & Eisenberg, 1987; Phinney et al., 1986).

Although many empirical studies have demonstratedthe hypothesized increase in prosocial behavior overtime, Hay (1994; Hay, Caplan, Castle, & Stimson, 1991)proposed a developmental model which predicted thatprosocial action would emerge in the 2nd year of life and

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 656


decline after that. She argued that after the age of 2,prosocial action becomes more regulated such that it isshown to some but not to all potential recipients (e.g.,prosocial actions become increasingly differentiatedbased on gender and personality). In one study withgirls and boys in three age cohorts (18 to 24 months, 24to 30 months, and 30 to 36 months), Hay found the hy-pothesized decline in sharing with peers between 18 and24 months of age; however, the trend was not reliablethereafter. In addition, the tendency to share was morestable with older toddlers (24- to 36-month-olds) thanwith younger toddlers (18- to 24-month-olds; Hay, Cas-tle, Davies, Demetriou, & Stimson, 1999). The fact thatHay and colleagues studied sharing with only familiarpeers—and in fact “best friends”—may have con-tributed to the pattern observed; most studies have notinvolved this type of sharing context. Additionally, themeaning of prosocial behavior may differ across child-hood. At young ages, children may exchange toys as partof simple play or to communicate with their friend aboutthe objects they are using (e.g., to show the peer some-thing about a toy or to interest the peer in it).

To bring coherence to the many studies of age-relatedchange in prosocial behavior, Eisenberg and Fabes(1998) conducted a meta-analysis of relevant studies.Overall, there were significant increases in prosocial be-havior within both the infant ( less than 3 years of age)and the preschool (3 to 6 years) age groups (effect sizes= .24 and .33). In addition, there were increases inprosocial behavior when comparing the preschool groupwith either the childhood or adolescent age groups.However, there was no difference between the infancyand preschool periods, perhaps due to the relativelysmall number of studies that compared these age groups(n = 11). In addition, school-age children were higher inprosocial behavior than preschoolers (effect size = .30).

In the meta-analysis, prosocial behavior generallyincreased across the preschool and school years (alsosee Benenson, Markovits, Roy, & Denko, 2003). How-ever, some of the findings were based on relativelysmall samples, particularly for comparisons of theyoungest children in these samples. We also recognizethat the findings of our meta-analysis were basedlargely on cross-sectional data and on aggregations ofdata from studies that varied greatly in their qualityand methodologies.

Despite possible age-related changes in children’sprosocial behavior, there appears to be considerable in-terindividual stability in children’s levels of prosocialresponding. Côté, Tremblay, Nagin, Zoccolillo, and Vi-

taro (2002) examined the continuity of trajectories forhelpfulness across early elementary school (measuredannually from age 6 to age 12 years). Generally, childrenwho entered kindergarten with specific levels of help-fulness finished primary school at similar levels. Theobserved degree of stability in these trajectories wasimpressive considering that ratings of helpfulness wereprovided by independent raters (i.e., different teachersat different years).

Adolescence

Age Trends. Prosocial tendencies appear to in-crease from childhood into adolescence. According toEisenberg and Fabes’s (1998) meta-analysis, adolescentstend to be higher in prosocial behavior than childrenaged 7 to 12 years, albeit on sharing/donating, but notinstrumental helping or comforting. Both young adoles-cents (13 to 15 years) and older adolescents (16 to 18years) were higher than elementary school students intheir prosocial tendencies (Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, &Laible, 1999). Although there was not an overall in-crease in prosocial responding across adolescence (fromage 12 to 17 or 18), prosocial behavior increased in ado-lescence for the few studies of sharing/donating (but nothelping), and in experimental /structured studies (butnot naturalistic/correlational studies; see Eisenberg &Fabes, 1998; also see Jacobs et al., 2004). Thus, adoles-cents exhibit more prosocial behavior than do youngerchildren; however, this pattern was noted only for par-ticular types of studies. Moreover, helping of victims ofaggression may actually decline across adolescence(Lindeman, Harakka, & Keltikangas-Jærvinen, 1997;also see Pakaslahti, Karjalainen, & Keltikangas-Jærvi-nen, 2002).

In the meta-analysis, prosocial behavior directedtoward adults did not change with age in adolescence.This finding may primarily reflect findings in thefamily setting. Investigators have found nonlinear age-related changes or no consistent change in adolescents’and parents’ reports of adolescents’ parent-directedprosocial behaviors (e.g., Eberly & Montemayor, 1998,1999; also see Keith, Nelson, Schlabach, & Thompson,1990), as well as a decline in helpfulness towardparents between fifth and ninth grades (Eberly et al.,1993).

Based on Hoffman’s theory, one would expect anage-related increase in empathy-related responding dur-ing adolescence, especially in situations in which empa-thy or sympathy is directed toward abstract groups (e.g.,deprived groups). In studies conducted before about

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 657


1986, findings regarding age trends in empathy-relatedresponding in adolescence were inconsistent, althoughthere was some evidence of an increase from childhoodinto adolescence (e.g., Saklofske & Eysenck, 1983; seeLennon & Eisenberg, 1987). Since 1987, there has beenadditional longitudinal evidence of an increase in empa-thy-related responding from 9th to 10th grade, espe-cially for sympathetic concern, and of a decline inpersonal distress (Davis & Franzoi, 1991). In a cross-sectional study, Strayer and Roberts (1997b) also foundthat both reported empathic sadness and facial con-cerned reactions to evocative videotapes (perhaps in-dicative of sympathy) increased with age fromchildhood into adolescence (although there was no agedifference in affective matching of the emotion in thefilm). However, some investigators who have conductedcross-sectional studies have obtained mixed evidence ofsympathy increasing between 6th and 12th grade (Ol-weus & Endresen, 1998) or have found little change insympathy or personal distress from 8th to 11th grades(Karniol, Gabay, Ochion, & Harari, 1998). Finally, alongitudinal study (Eisenberg, Cumberland, Guthrie,Murphy, & Shepard, 2005) did not find change in sym-pathy from age 15 to 16 into the 20s, although personaldistress declined with age. Thus, there may be a modestincrease in sympathy with age, especially in early tomid-adolescence, although it is not clear that sympathyincreases in mid- and late-adolescence.

The Potential Effects of Adolescents’ Participa-tion in Prosocial Service. A type of prosocial behav-ior that appears to be much more common inadolescence than at younger ages is volunteering. Ap-proximately half of all adolescents engage in some typeof community service or volunteer activity (NationalCenter for Education Statistics, 1997). Volunteerism isan interesting type of prosocial behavior because it gen-erally is sustained over some period of time (rather thanperformed only once) and is expected to have some en-during effect on youths’ prosocial, civic, and personaldevelopment.

Although motives for volunteering vary and aresometimes self-related rather than altruistic (Clary &Snyder, 1999), investigators have found that high schoolstudents who volunteer appear to benefit from the expe-rience. Of these studies, few have used random assign-ment (for an exception, see Allen, Philliber, Herrling, &Kuperminc, 1997), although most have included a com-parison control group or a pre/post design (see Moore &

Allen, 1996; Yates & Youniss, 1996a). In general, re-searchers have found volunteering is associated with in-creases in adolescents’ self-esteem and self-acceptance,moral development, and belief in one’s personal respon-sibility to help (Conrad & Hedin, 1982; see Switzer,Simmons, Dew, Regalski, & Wang, 1995, for similar re-sults for a required helping program), as well as concernfor social issues and future intended service (Metz,McLellan, & Youniss, 2003).

In a panel design of youth volunteers and nonvolun-teers in which the initial levels of variables correlatedwith volunteering were controlled, volunteering was re-lated to gains in subsequent intrinsic work values andthe anticipated importance of community involvement(Johnson, Beebe, Mortimer, & Snyder, 1998). There isalso evidence that service participation (voluntary ornot) is related to decreases in course failure, truancy,suspension from school, school dropout, disciplinaryproblems, and pregnancies, as well as with improvedreading skills (see Allen, Kuperminc, Philliber, &Herre, 1994; Allen et al., 1997; Calabrese & Schumer,1986; Moore & Allen, 1996; Switzer et al., 1995; alsosee Eccles & Barber, 1999). Finally, in a prospectivelongitudinal study, volunteer work negatively predictedsubsequent arrests, even when controlling for the effectsof antisocial propensities, prosocial attitudes and behav-ior, and commitment to conventional lines of action(Uggen & Janikula, 1999). Quality of the program (e.g.,allowing adolescents autonomy and choice, being chal-lenging and enjoyable), length of the program (programs12 weeks or more tend to be more successful thanshorter programs), and age of adolescents (in some pro-grams, older youth benefited more) all appear to affectpotential benefits of volunteering (Moore & Allen,1996). Thus, participation in service activities—a com-mon adolescent activity—is related to both prosocialand other developmental outcomes.

Moderators of Age Trends across Childhoodand Adolescence

Viewed more generally, the extant literature appears tosupport the conclusion that as children get older, theyexhibit more sympathy and prosocial behavior. Thistrend does not hold, however, for children of all ages orfor all measures of prosocial behavior (see Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, & Chapman, 1983; Zarbatany,Hartmann, & Gelfand, 1985). In fact, in the previouslymentioned Eisenberg and Fabes (1998) meta-analysis,

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 658


age differences in prosocial behavior sometimes variedas a function of study characteristics. These differencesdid not vary as a function of type of prosocial behaviorfor studies conducted with young children; moreover,across the remaining age group comparisons (involvingolder children), the magnitude of age differences wasrelatively constant in size when the type of prosocial be-havior was sharing, comforting, or an aggregated index.In contrast, the magnitude of the age-related effect sizefor instrumental helping varied more across the olderage group comparisons. The magnitude of this effectsize was relatively high when the type of prosocial be-havior was instrumental help for the childhood versuspreschool and childhood versus childhood comparisonsand relatively low for the adolescent versus childhoodand the adolescent versus adolescent comparisons.

The magnitude of the effect sizes differed signifi-cantly by the method of data collection (e.g., obser-vation, self-report, other-report) only for childhood/preschool, childhood/childhood, and adolescent /child-hood comparison groups. For both the childhood/preschool and childhood/childhood age comparisongroups, effect sizes for age differences were signifi-cantly higher when prosocial tendencies were measuredwith observations or self-reports than when assessedwith reports obtained from other people. For the adoles-cent versus childhood comparisons, effect sizes weresignificantly higher when measured with observationalor other report methods rather than with self-reportmethods.

For all age-comparison groups, effect sizes weregreater in experimental /structured designs than in natu-ralistic/correlational designs (although the differencewas not significant for infant /infant and preschool /pre-school comparisons). Finally, the magnitude of the ef-fect size differed significantly by the target of theprosocial behavior, but this was true only for child-hood/preschool, childhood/childhood, and adolescent /adolescent comparison groups. In the first two agecomparison groups, effect sizes were larger when thetarget was an adult and lowest when the target was un-known/unspecified (with child targets in between). Incontrast, for the adolescent /adolescent comparison, theeffect size was greater when the target was a child com-pared with an adult.

There also were differences in the procedures usedto measure prosocial behavior in different age groups.Instrumental help was relatively unlikely to be used as ameasure of prosocial behavior with children under 7

years of age. Moreover, naturalistic/correlational de-signs were relatively likely to be used with youngerchildren, whereas experimental /structured designs weremore often used with older children. Additionally,adults were likely to be used as targets of children’sprosocial behavior in studies with the youngest and old-est age groups, whereas children were likely to be thepotential recipients of prosocial behavior for childrennot at the age extremes. Thus, age-related differences inprosocial behavior may have varied as a function of dif-ferences in study characteristics that differed acrossage groups.

To explore this possibility, we examined age differ-ences in prosocial behavior while controlling for studycharacteristics (through hierarchical regression analy-ses). Age differences in prosocial behavior were foundto be smaller as the mean age of the sample increased, asthe sample size increased, and in studies published morerecently. Moreover, although type of prosocial behaviorwas related to effect sizes for age prior to controlling forstudy characteristics, effect sizes were not affected bytype of prosocial measure (instrumental help, sharing/donating, aggregated, comforting) after partialling outother study characteristics. However, after controllingfor study characteristics (and not before), a larger in-crease in prosocial behavior with age was found whenprosocial behavior was measured with self- or other-re-ports rather than with observations.

In brief, the findings of our meta-analysis suggestedthat age differences in prosocial behavior differed inmagnitude as a function of the specific age comparison,the measure of prosocial behavior, and the type of analy-sis. However, combining across all studies and studycharacteristics, we still found a significant, positive ef-fect size for age differences in prosocial behavior. Thus,our data support the conclusion that as children getolder, prosocial behaviors generally are more likely tooccur, although there may be variation within agegroups and for various measures and methods.

Processes Potentially Related to Changes withAge in Prosocial Responding

For some theorists, the primary source of the increase inprosocial and altruistic behavior across age is sociocog-nitive development, including understanding and decod-ing others’ emotions, evaluative processes (evaluatingbehaviors and situations in terms of moral standards),and planning processes (Krebs & Van Hesteren, 1994).

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 659


Aspects of socioemotional responding (e.g., moral emo-tions, regulatory capacities) also partially account forage-related changes in prosocial behavior (Hart, Burock,London, & Atkins, 2003).

Sociocognitive Processes

As noted by Krebs and Van Hesteren (1994) and Hoff-man (1982), attention to the needs of others transformsegoistic affect to other-oriented affect, rendering it in-creasingly altruistic. Throughout infancy and childhood,children develop an increasingly refined understandingof others’ emotional states and cognitive processes, andare better able to decode other people’s emotional cues(see Eisenberg, Murphy, & Shepard, 1997, for a review).As is discussed later, such perspective taking and re-lated sociocognitive skills are associated with prosocialresponding. Moreover, with age, children are morelikely to have the social experience necessary to per-ceive another’s need in social contexts in which overtcues of distress are ambiguous or subtle (see Pearl,1985), and to distinguish real versus apparent emotionalstates (Gosselin, Warren, & Diotte, 2002). In addition,younger children appear to weigh costs to the self morethan do older children when deciding whether to assistothers (see Eisenberg, 1986) and are less attuned to thebenefits of prosocial behavior (Lourenco, 1993; Perry,Perry, & Weiss, 1986). These age-related differences inthe analysis of costs and benefits likely contribute toage-related differences in prosocial behavior.

Moreover, numerous researchers have suggested thatthe quality of children’s motivation for assisting otherschanges with age (e.g., Eisenberg, 1986; Erdley & Asher,1999; Krebs & Van Hesteren, 1994). Bar-Tal, Raviv, andLeiser (1980) proposed that children’s helping behaviordevelops through six stages that differ in quality of moti-vation. The first three stages involve helping behaviorsthat are compliant and in which the child anticipates thegain of material rewards (or the avoidance of punish-ment). The next two stages involve compliance with so-cial demands and concern with social approval andgeneralized reciprocity. The final stage represents truealtruism in which helping is an end in itself.

Bar-Tal and colleagues found some support for theirhypothesized developmental changes in children’s mo-tives for helping. For example, older children tend to as-sist more often than do younger children in contexts inwhich the effects of compliance and rewards or costsare minimized (Bar-Tal, Raviv, et al., 1980; see Bar-Tal, 1982; Eisenberg, 1986). Although Bar-Tal and col-

1 Here and throughout the chapter, the abbreviation “cf.,”meaning “compare with,” signifies “contrast with.” It indi-cates that contrary findings were obtained in a study. “Alsosee” generally indicates that the results in the listed studiesare also relevant to discussion of the issue at hand.

leagues sought to delineate a developmental sequence inprosocial motivation, the data concerning this issue areinconclusive (i.e., it is unclear whether all their pro-posed stages actually emerge in the specified order; seeEisenberg, 1986). Nonetheless, children’s reported mo-tives for their prosocial behavior change in ways thatgenerally are consistent with Bar-Tal’s stages. Althougheven preschoolers sometimes give simple other-orientedand pragmatic reasons for their peer-directed prosocialactions (Eisenberg, Lundy, Shell, & Roth, 1985; Eisen-berg, Pasternack, Cameron, & Tryon, 1984), re-searchers generally have found a decrease with age inself-oriented, hedonistic reasons for helping and an in-crease in other-oriented, internalized, and altruisticmotives and reasons for prosocial behavior (e.g., Bar-Tal, Raviv, et al., 1980; see Bar-Tal, 1982; Eisenberg,1986; cf. Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1983).1 Thus, in general,the evidence of developmental change in children’s mo-tives for assisting others is relatively compelling (seeEisenberg, 1986).

Like Bar-Tal (1982), Krebs and Van Hesteren (1994)proposed age-related forms of altruism, ranging fromegocentric and exchange stages (e.g., egocentric accom-modation and instrumental cooperation, Stages 1 and 2,respectively), to concern with others’ evaluation and be-having in a socially acceptable manner (Stage 3), to al-truism motivated by the desire to fulfill an internalizedsense of social responsibility (e.g., conscientious altru-ism, Stage 4). The higher level adult stages are moti-vated by the desire to uphold self-chosen, internalizedutilitarian values (e.g., maximizing benefits to all; au-tonomous altruism, Stage 5), the goal of fostering maxi-mally balanced and integrated social relationships (e.g.,upholding the rights of all people, including the self; in-tegrated altruism, Stage 6), and the goal of universallove stemming from a cosmic feeling of oneness with theuniverse and a selfless ethic of responsible love, service,and sacrifice that is extended to others without regardfor merit (universal self-sacrificial love, Stage 7). Ofcourse, children or adolescents would not be expected toobtain the higher level stages. Although Krebs and hiscolleagues have not explicitly tested the validity of theirstages, their position is supported in the data collected

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 660


by other investigators concerned with the developmentof moral reasoning, prosocial behavior, and empathy.

Age-related changes in children’s evaluativeprocesses and prosocial-relevant goals are reflected inchildren’s prosocial moral reasoning (i.e., reasoningabout moral dilemmas in which one person’s needs orwants conflict with those of others in a context whereauthorities, laws, rules, punishment, and formal obliga-tions play a minimal role). In research on prosocialmoral reasoning, individuals typically are presentedwith hypothetical moral conflicts (e.g., about helping aninjured child rather than going to a social event), andtheir reasoning about the conflicts is elicited.

Based on both cross-sectional and longitudinal re-search, Eisenberg and her colleagues have identified anage-related sequence of children’s prosocial reasoning.Preschool and early elementary school students tend touse primarily hedonistic reasoning or needs-oriented(primitive empathic) prosocial reasoning. Hedonisticreasoning decreases sharply in elementary school andincreases slightly in adolescence. Needs-oriented rea-soning increases until mid-childhood and then levels offin use. In elementary school, children’s reasoning beginsto reflect concern with others’ approval and enhancinginterpersonal relationships, as well as the desire to be-have in stereotypically “good” ways. However, such rea-soning (particularly approval-oriented reasoning)appears to decline somewhat in high school.

Beginning in late elementary school or thereafter,children begin to express reasoning reflecting abstractprinciples, internalized affective reactions (e.g., guilt orpositive affect about the consequences of one’s behaviorfor others or living up to internalized principles and val-ues), and self-reflective sympathy and perspective tak-ing. Thus, although children and adolescents sometimesverbalize immature modes of reasoning, children’smoral reasoning becomes more abstract, somewhat lessself-oriented, and increasingly based on values, moralprinciples, and moral emotions with age (Carlo, Eisen-berg, & Knight, 1992; Carlo, Koller, Eisenberg, De-Silva, & Frohlich, 1996; Eisenberg, Carlo, Murphy, &Van Court, 1995; Eisenberg-Berg, 1979; also see Hartet al., 2003; Helwig & Turiel, 2003). As discussed later,these age-related changes are linked to prosocial behav-ior; thus, the processes reflected in children’s moralreasoning likely play some role in the age-related in-crease in quantity and quality of prosocial behavior.However, these processes may include age-relatedchanges in goals and values, as well as in the sociocog-

nitive skills required for high-level moral reasoning (seeEisenberg, 1986).

Sociocognitive processes may underlie the develop-ment of children’s prosocial behaviors, but engaging inthese processes does not ensure the enacting of proso-cial actions. Eisenberg and Fabes (1992) suggested thatindividuals who are well regulated are relatively likelyto engage in costly, other-oriented prosocial behavior.Because regulatory capacities likely increase with age(Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004), wewould expect older children, relative to younger ones, tobe more likely to respond sympathetically and withprosocial behavior in emotionally evocative situations.Support for the hypothesized relations between chil-dren’s prosocial tendencies and their behavioral andemotional regulation is discussed later.

Age Changes in Empathy-Related Responding

Developmental change in both children’s emotion regu-lation and in their sociocognitive skills (e.g., Hoffman,1982, 2000) would be expected to contribute to age-re-lated changes in prosocial behavior, in part by influenc-ing children’s tendencies to respond empathically orsympathetically. Lennon and Eisenberg (1987), in a re-view of the literature, found that age differences in em-pathy varied with the specific index of empathy used. Ingeneral, self-report of empathy/sympathy was positivelyassociated with age in preschool and elementary schoolyears. Facial /gestural indices appeared to be either in-versely related or unrelated to age in the early schoolyears, perhaps due to increases with age in children’sability to mask their emotions. As discussed, more re-cent studies show some evidence (albeit mixed) for in-creased empathy-related responding in adolescence.

Eisenberg and Fabes (1998) conducted a separatemeta-analysis of age differences in empathy (rather thanprosocial behavior) in studies published since 1983 andfound an overall unweighted effect size of .24 (favoringolder children). Moreover, they found that effect sizes inempathy varied significantly by method; they were sig-nificant and larger for observational and self-report in-dices than for nonverbal (facial /physiological) orother-report measures (for which the effect sizes werenot significant).

Vitaglione and Barnett (2003) found evidence thatempathic anger on behalf of a victimized person moti-vates desires to help. As children develop the ability toempathize with others, empathic anger may increasinglymotivate prosocial behavior.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 661


Changes in Experience-Based Competence

Developmental changes in children’s experience-basedcompetencies also affect their ability to engage in proso-cial behavior. Peterson (1983) found that when childrenwere specially trained on relevant tasks, age-related in-creases in helping evaporated. The data in our meta-analysis (see Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) also suggestedthat experience-based developmental competencies maycontribute to age-related differences in prosocial behav-ior. For example, age differences in prosocial behaviorwere relatively pronounced when the index of prosocialbehavior was instrumental helping. Older children mayprovide more direct, instrumental assistance becausethey possess greater physical and social competencethan do younger children.

Summary

Developmental changes in prosocial behavior are com-plex and are influenced by methodological factors.Moreover, the precise developmental mechanisms in-volved in producing these changes are not yet fully expli-cated and likely involve cognitive, social,motivational /emotional, and physical processes and ca-pabilities. The next wave of research should includestudies devoted to identifying when and how age-relatedchanges in the sociocognitive, emotional, and regulatorycapabilities jointly affect prosocial responding.

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OFPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Research on the cultural bases of prosocial respondingprovides insights into the role of the social environ-ment—in contrast to strictly biological factors—inprosocial development. People in different cultures maydiffer somewhat genetically from one another, but thesedifferences are unlikely to fully account for any largecultural differences found in human social behavior.

Research in non-Western cultures suggests that soci-eties vary greatly in the degree to which prosocial andcooperative behavior are normative, and such differ-ences appear to affect prosocial development. In fieldstudies of individual cultures, some writers have de-scribed societies in which prosocial and communal val-ues and behaviors are (or were in the past) highly valuedand common, such as the Aitutaki (a Polynesian islandpeople; Graves & Graves, 1983), the Javanese (e.g., Mul-

der, 1996; Williams, 1991), and the Papago tribe in Ari-zona (Rohner, 1975; see Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Incontrast, other social and behavioral scientists have de-scribed cultures in which prosocial behaviors were rareand cruelty or hostility was the norm, such as the Ik ofUganda (Turnbull, 1972) or the Alorese (on an islandeast of Java; Rohner, 1975). Moreover, societal experi-ments such as the communally oriented kibbutzim in Is-rael (see Nadler, Romek, & Shapira-Friedman, 1979)support the view that subcultural variations can have asubstantial impact on prosocial values and behavior.

The perceived practical value of prosocial behaviorvaries across cultures; such differences may affect evenearly socialization. It has been reported that in somecultures such as in West Africa, prosocial behavior isencouraged as early as infancy (e.g., infants are offeredobjects and then encouraged to return the gifts) to en-courage sharing and exchange norms believed to bindthe social group together (Nsamenang, 1992).

In many cases, reports of cultural differences inprosocial responding are based on single-culture studiesand qualitative data (or mere observation/inference).Empirical studies of prosocial behaviors and valuessometimes include only one culture, sometimes more.Although the results of the empirical research generallyare consistent with qualitative cultural studies in high-lighting the importance of culture in prosocial develop-ment, little is known about cross-cultural differences inactual (rather than reported) prosocial actions directedtoward those who are not part of the child’s family orcommunity. Nor is it clear what factors mediate or mod-erate the cultural factors that have been found.

Laboratory or Adult- and Self-Report Studies

Much of the work on cross-cultural and subculturalvariation in prosocial behavior is embedded in the re-search on cooperation, competition, and reward-alloca-tion behavior. In many studies, the measure ofcooperation involved overt self-gain; this work is not re-viewed. However, researchers consistently have foundthat children from traditional rural and semi-agricul-tural communities and from relatively traditional sub-cultures (e.g., Mexican American children) are morecooperative than children from urban or Westernizedcultures (see Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989).

In other studies, children were asked to make a seriesof choices concerning the distribution of objects (i.e.,chips) to the self and a peer when giving the peer more

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 662

Cultural Determinants of Prosocial Behavior 663

chips did not change the child’s own yield. Brazilianchildren (Carlo, Roesch, Knight, & Koller, 2001) andMexican American children generally give more to thepeer than do Euro-American children (Kagan & Knight,1981; Knight, Nelson, Kagan, & Gumbiner, 1982), andthe difference for Mexican Americans increases in mag-nitude from age 5 to 6 years to age 8 to 9 years (Knight& Kagan, 1977b). Sometimes, however, there have beenno significant differences between Mexican or MexicanAmerican children and Euro-American children in theselection of options in which the peer could receivemore chips than the child (e.g., Kagan & Knight, 1981;Knight, Nelson, Kagan, & Gumbiner, 1982). The ten-dency to choose more for the peer than for the self isstronger in second- than in third-generation MexicanAmerican children (Knight & Kagan, 1977a), suggest-ing that acculturation is associated with a decline inprosocial tendencies. Consistent with the latter finding,de Guzman and Carlo (2004) found that acculturationwas negatively related to Hispanic adolescents’ self-reported prosocial behavior.

In another variation on allocation tasks, some of thechoices allow children to give more to the peer at a costto the self. Mexican American or Mexican children stilltend to give more prize chips overall to a peer than doEuro-American children (e.g., Knight, Kagan, & Buriel,1981). Mexican American children with a stronger eth-nic identity have been found to display more concernwith others’ outcomes on this type of task (Knight,Cota, & Bernal, 1993). On a similar task, Cook IslandPolynesian children were more generous than were NewZealand city and rural children of European origin(Graves & Graves, 1983).

In other studies, cross-national or cross-cultural dif-ferences in sharing or helping have been examined. Fewconsistent differences have been found among Western,industrialized countries such as Germany, Russia, Aus-tralia, and the United States (e.g., Kienbaum & Tromms-dorff, 1999; Russell, Hart, Robinson, & Olsen, 2003),although young Italian adolescents report more prosocialbehavior than Hungarian youth, who report more thanCzech youth (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Cermak,& Rosza, 2001). In studies within North and SouthAmerica, Mexican rural children and Euro-Americancity children were equally likely to help a peer in a non-competitive context (Kagan & Madsen, 1972) and Mexi-can American and Euro-American children did notdiffer in anonymous sharing of candy with an unspeci-fied classmate (Hansen & Bryant, 1980). In contrast,

U.S. first graders shared candy more than did Colom-bian children of the same age, although some (but notall) of this sharing was passive (i.e., they allowed a peerto take the candies; Pilgrim & Rueda-Riedle, 2002).

More consistent cross-group differences might befound when comparing Eastern and Western cultures.Although Trommsdorff (1995) did not find a differencein German and Japanese 5-year-olds’ prosocial behaviorwith a distressed peer, Stewart and McBride-Chang(2000) found that Asian second graders (from a range ofethnic groups) were more likely than Western Caucasianchildren in Hong Kong to donate gifts for participatingin the study to other children in the classroom who couldnot participate. Similarly, Rao and Stewart (1999) foundthat Asian (Chinese Hong Kong and Indian) kindergart-ners shared more food with a peer than had been foundin a sample in the United States, and Asian childrenwere more likely to do so spontaneously and to allow thepeer to take some food. Thus, in initial small studies, itappears that Asian children are more likely to engage inprosocial behavior than are Western Caucasian children.This finding may be due to the greater focus on main-taining good relationships with group members (and onthe interrelatedness of self and other) in at least someAsian cultures, compared with Western cultures(Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Naturalistic Observational Research

Systematic observation of prosocial behavior in differ-ent cultures is rare. In the classic study by Whiting andWhiting (1975), prosocial behavior was operationalizedas a composite index of offering helping (includingfood, toys, and helpful information), offering support,and making helpful suggestions. Cultures in which chil-dren scored relatively high on prosocial behavior(Kenya, Mexico, Philippines) tended to differ from theother three cultures (Okinawa, India, and the UnitedStates) on several dimensions. In prosocial cultures,people tended to live together in extended families, thefemale role was important (with women making majorcontributions to the economic status of the family),work was less specialized, and the government was lesscentralized. Further, children’s prosocial behavior wasassociated with early assignment of chores and takingon responsibility for welfare of family members and thefamily’s economic well-being (also see Whiting & Ed-wards, 1988). Similar to Whiting’s data on chores andfamily structure, Graves and Graves (1983) found that

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 663


Aituaki (Polynesian) children, particularly girls, fromurban settings performed fewer chores and were lessprosocial than were children raised in traditional ex-tended families.

Consistent with some of the aforementioned labora-tory research on Asian and Western children’s prosocialbehavior, Stevenson (1991) found that the observed inci-dence of sharing, comforting, and helping in Taiwanese,Japanese, and U.S. kindergarten classes was lowest inthe United States (albeit relatively high in all groups).Stevenson and others have argued that Chinese andJapanese societies generally put great emphasis on so-cializing children to be responsible and prosocial towardothers in their group (e.g., the family, the classroom,and the society; also see Hieshima & Schneider, 1994).Privileges and social acknowledgment in the classroomare dependent on group rather than on individual ac-complishments. Researchers have also suggested thatJapanese mothers traditionally use empathic sensitivityin their parenting to promote their children’s empathywith them and with others’ needs (Lebra, 1994;Trommsdorff & Kornadt, 2003). However, parentalvaluing of prosocial behavior appears to have declinedfrom the 1950s and 1960s to the 1980s in the People’sRepublic of China (Lee & Zhan, 1991), so it is unclearwhether the findings would be replicated today in Asiancountries that are undergoing rapid cultural transitions.

Moral Reasoning, Values, and Beliefs aboutSocial Responsibility

Cultural norms regarding the importance of harmonyamong people and social responsibility differ acrosscultures and subcultures. Miller and her colleaguesfound that Hindu Indians held a broader and more strin-gent duty-based view of social responsibility than didpeople in the United States. Hindu Indians, school-ageand adult, tended to focus more than North Americanson responsiveness to others’ needs when discussingmoral conflicts and viewed interpersonal responsibili-ties as at least as important as justice-related obligations(Miller & Bersoff, 1992). In contrast, people in theUnited States tended to view interpersonal responsive-ness and caring as less obligatory and more of a personalchoice, particularly if the other’s need was moderate orminor, or if friends or strangers (rather than parents andchildren) were potential recipients (Miller, Bersoff, &Harwood, 1990). Adults in the United States, for exam-ple, were more likely than Indian adults to report thattheir liking of a needy sibling or colleague affected their

moral responsibility to help that person (Miller &Bersoff, 1998). Both groups, however, reported feelingless obligation to help people on the other side of theworld than those in their own town. Miller and Bersoff(1992; Baron & Miller, 2000) argued that a personalmorality of interpersonal responsiveness and caring(such as that in the United States) is linked to a strongcultural emphasis on individual rights and autonomy.

The research on prosocial and caring-related moralreasoning is a body of work relevant to an understandingof cross-cultural variation in cognitions about prosocialbehavior. Among industrial Western cultures, relativelyfew cross-cultural differences in prosocial or caring-related reasoning have been noted, although minor dif-ferences have been found (see Eisenberg, Boehnke,Schuhler, & Silbereisen, 1985; Eisenberg, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Fuchs, 1990; Skoe et al., 1999). More-over, the reasons that German, Polish, Italian, andAmerican adolescents attribute to themselves for help-ing or not helping were somewhat similar, although somedifferences have been found (Boehnke, Silbereisen,Eisenberg, Reykowski, & Palmonari, 1989). In general,however, the similarities in the care- or prosocial-related moral reasoning or prosocial self-attributions ofindividuals from Western cultures are much greater thanthe differences.

The prosocial-related moral reasoning of childrenand adults from non-Western or less industrial culturesmay differ considerably from that of people from West-ern cultures, especially with age; however, the pattern isnot very consistent. Carlo et al. (1996) found thatBrazilian urban adolescents used less internalized (i.e.,higher level) prosocial moral reasoning than did adoles-cents from the United States, although their reasoningwas similar otherwise. Kumru, Carlo, Mestre, and Sam-per (2003) found that Turkish adolescents scored higherthan Spanish adolescents on mid-level modes of proso-cial moral reasoning (i.e., needs-oriented and stereo-typic), whereas Spanish adolescents scored higher onboth lower (hedonistic and approval oriented) andhigher (internalized) types of moral reasoning. Whenjustifying hypothetical moral decisions involving oth-ers’ needs, Ma (1989) found that English adolescentswere more oriented to their own survival and less to be-longingness and to affective and altruistic motives thanwere Chinese adolescents from Hong Kong and main-land China. However, Stewart and McBride-Chang(2000) found no differences in Western Caucasian andAsian (mostly Chinese) second graders’ moral reason-ing; and Japanese children’s prosocial moral reasoning

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 664

Socialization Within and Outside the Family 665

resembled that of children from urbanized Western cul-tures (although there are some differences; Munekata &Ninomiya, 1985). In the one study of a nonindustrial,traditional sample, Tietjen (1986) found that althoughyounger Maisen children from Papua New Guinea dif-fered little in their prosocial moral reasoning from chil-dren in Western cultures, Maisen adults’ moralreasoning was less sophisticated than that of Westernadults. Maisen adults’ reasoning, however, was probablyappropriate for a small traditional society in which oth-ers’ physical and psychological needs, costs for proso-cial behavior, and pragmatic concerns are paramount toeveryday life.

Making cross-cultural comparisons can be difficultbecause cultures differ considerably in their valuing ofdifferent types of prosocial action. Hindu Indiansviewed prosocial behavior performed because of reci-procity considerations as more moral than did Americanadults (Miller & Bersoff, 1994). Further, Middle East-ern third graders in Israel seemed to value requestedacts of consideration more, and spontaneous acts less,than did Israeli Jewish children of Western heritage (Ja-cobsen, 1983). Thus, Westerners may value prosocialacts that appear to be based on endogenous motivationmore than do people from traditional cultures whereaspeople from traditional cultures value prosocial actionsthat reflect responsiveness to others’ stated needs andreciprocal obligations.

SOCIALIZATION WITHIN AND OUTSIDETHE FAMILY

Family structure, socialization within the family, andsocialization by peers and in the schools may augment orcounteract cultural influences. However, the existing re-search has limitations, including an overreliance on par-ents’ reports of the child’s prosocial proclivities and oftheir own socialization practices or style, the use ofvery brief observations to measure behavior (which maynot be generalizable), and a dearth of data from fathersand from minority and non-Western populations. It islikely that the relations of aspects of parental controland punitiveness to developmental outcomes (includingprosocial and moral development) vary somewhat acrosscultures (Trommsdorff & Kornadt, 2003). Further, mostof the work is correlational; thus, causal relations cannotbe ascertained. The prevailing view of socialization isthat the parent-child relationship is complex, bidirec-

tional, and transactional in influence (Bugental &Grusec, Chapter 7, this Handbook, this volume), and thisrelation is embedded in the macro environment (e.g.,family, neighborhood, culture). However, this complex-ity generally is not reflected in the existing empirical re-search on the socialization of prosocial behavior.

Demographic Features of Families andFamily Members

Intuitively, one might expect children’s prosocial behav-ior to be related to the socioeconomic status (SES) oftheir families. Poorer children might be expected tohorde scarce resources or, due to increased demand forparticipation in caregiving chores, to be relatively help-ful and likely to comfort others in distress (see Whiting& Whiting, 1975).

Findings are inconsistent about the relation of indicesof socioeconomic status such as family income orparental education to most types of prosocial behavior(Laible, Carlo, & Raffaelli, 2000; see Eisenberg &Fabes, 1998). However, many of the relevant studies in-clude relatively few study participants. In a large studyin England, factors such as social support for parents,favorable housing, and fewer transitions in maternalpartner relationships, in addition to higher maternal ed-ucation, higher family income, and low levels of finan-cial problems, were associated with higher levels ofmother-reported prosocial behavior for school-age chil-dren (but less so for 4-year-old younger siblings; Dunnet al., 1998). Furthermore, findings are consistent foradolescents’ volunteering behavior. In a large study ofvolunteerism among at-risk adolescents, family povertywas negatively associated with males’ involvement involunteering and community activity (Lichter, Shana-han, & Gardner, 2002); a similar relation was obtainedfor both sexes in another large study involving a morerepresentative sample (Hart, Atkins, & Ford, 1998) andin other studies on volunteering in the United States(Huebner & Mancini, 2003; Lichter et al., 2002; Na-tional Center for Education Statistics, 1997; Uggen &Janikula, 1999; Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates, 1999)and Hong Kong (Chou, 1998). Nonetheless, most ofthese relations are modest in magnitude.

Findings on the relation of family structure and fam-ily size to prosocial behavior are mixed. Rehberg andRichman (1989) found that preschool boys from father-absent homes comforted (but did not help) a peer morethan did girls and boys from two-parent homes. Otherresearchers have not found effects of father absence on

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 665


measures of prosocial responding (Call, Mortimer, &Shanahan, 1995; Dunn et al., 1998), and some re-searchers have found that adolescents in two-parentfamilies volunteer more than those in one-parent homes(Huebner & Mancini, 2003; Keith et al., 1990; Lichteret al., 2002; Youniss et al., 1999). Investigators havefound that family size and prosocial behavior or sympa-thy are unrelated (e.g., Chou, 1998; Gelfand, Hartmann,Cromer, Smith, & Page, 1975); that children in a largefamily volunteer more (Zaff, Moore, Papillo, &Williams, 2003); and that children with siblings are lesslikely to help in an emergency situation (Staub, 1971b)or to comfort a peer (Rehberg & Richman, 1989). Staubspeculated that children from small families are moreself-assured and, consequently, are more likely to takeinitiative and intervene spontaneously to help someoneelse. In contrast, children in larger families, perhaps dueto the need to engage in chores, are particularly likely tolearn everyday helping and sharing behaviors. Consis-tent with this reasoning, Weissbrod (1976) found thatlarge family size was related to slower helping in anemergency but higher levels of generosity.

Findings concerning ordinal position are few andlimited in scope. Firstborn children, particularly girls,have been found to be more willing than their peers togive commodities to peers (Sharma, 1988) and to inter-vene in an emergency (Staub, 1971b). Moreover, oldersiblings, compared with younger siblings, more often be-have prosocially in sibling interactions (Bryant &Crockenberg, 1980; Dunn & Munn, 1986; Furman &Buhrmester, 1985; Stoneman, Brody, & MacKinnon,1986; Whiting & Whiting, 1975), perhaps due in part totheir older age (rather than ordinal position per se) andtheir greater engagement in chores and caregiving thatprovide opportunities for prosocial behavior (de Guz-man, Edwards, & Carlo, 2005). Other investigators havefound no relation between birth order and measures ofprosocial responding (e.g., Gelfand et al., 1975; Rhein-gold, Hay, & West, 1976) or sympathy (Wise & Cramer,1988), or have obtained mixed findings (Eisenberg,Fabes, Karbon, Murphy, Carlo, et al., 1996). In general,older children seem to be somewhat more prosocial, es-pecially in their actual (rather than reported) prosocialbehavior and in interactions with younger children.

Parental Socialization Style and Practices

Many investigators have examined the relations of par-enting style and a range of specific socialization prac-

tices to children’s prosocial behavior and empathy/sym-pathy.

Parental Warmth and Quality of theParent-Child Relationship

Intuitively, it would seem that warm, supportive social-izers would rear prosocial children. However, supportfor this assumption is mixed. In some studies, a positiverelation between an index of maternal warmth/supportor sensitivity (often versus negativity) and children’sand adolescents’ prosocial or empathic/sympathetic re-sponding has been obtained, at least for some measures(Asbury et al., 2003; Bryant & Crockenberg, 1980;Deater-Deckard, Dunn, et al., 2001; Dunn et al., 2002;Eberly et al., 1993; Eberly & Montemayor, 1998; Kianget al., 2004; Janssens & Dekovic, 1997; Janssens & Ger-ris, 1992; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996; Laible & Carlo,2004; Lerner et al., 2005; Robinson, Zahn-Waxler, &Emde, 1994; Strayer & Roberts, 2004b; Zahn-Waxleret al., 1979; also see Shek & Ma, 2001). In contrast,other investigators have failed to obtain evidence of a re-lation between parental warmth (or rejection) and chil-dren’s prosocial behavior or empathy/sympathy (Eberly& Montemayor, 1999; Iannotti et al., 1992; Kienbaum,Volland, & Ulich, 2001; Koestner et al., 1990; Stewart &McBride-Chang, 2000; Turner & Harris, 1984) or havefound very different relations of parental support withchildren’s prosocial behavior and sympathy (Carlo,Roesch, & Melby, 1998). Sometimes the relation ofparental warmth to children’s prosocial responding hasbeen weak and only significant through mediation; forexample, Zhou et al. (2002) found that the relation ofparental warmth to elementary school students’ facialand self-reported empathy was indirect through its posi-tive relation with parental expressions of positive emo-tion in contexts involving others’ emotions (especiallyothers’ positive emotions).

Support for the role of parental nurturance or warmthcan be gleaned from several other bodies of data. Par-ents’ report of children’s helpfulness is higher for ado-lescents who share more time and activities with theirparents (Eberly & Montemayor, 1998) and when fathersin two-parent families are more involved in child care(Bernadett-Shapiro et al., 1996). A study in which par-enting was assessed with observations (Kochanska, For-man, & Coy, 1999) found that maternal responsivity(contingent, appropriate responding) to their infants at 9(but not 14) months predicted higher levels of toddlers’empathy/prosocial responsiveness at 22 months (cf. van

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 666


der Mark et al., 2002). Moreover, Spinrad (1999) foundthat observed maternal sensitivity to their infants at 10months was positively related to toddlers’ concerned at-tention at 18 months of age to adults’ feigned distress.Further, Clark and Ladd (2000) found that parental con-nectedness (including mutual parent-child positive en-gagement, warmth, intimacy, and happy emotional tone,as well as reciprocity) was positively related to kinder-gartners’ teacher-reported prosocial tendencies.

There also is limited evidence that children with se-cure attachments to their mothers at a young age aremore sympathetic at 3.5 years of age (Waters, Hay, &Richters, 1986) and display more prosocial behavior andconcern for others at approximately age 5 years (Ian-notti et al., 1992; Kestenbaum, Farber, & Sroufe, 1989).In a study with 22-month-old children, the relation be-tween attachment and empathy/sympathy was positivebut weak and somewhat inconsistent (Van der Market al., 2002). Moreover, adolescents’ reports of attach-ment to their parents have been associated with Turkishearly adolescents’ empathy/ sympathy/perspective tak-ing (Kumru & Edwards, 2003), middle or late adoles-cents’ sympathy/perspective taking and prosocialbehavior (Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, 2004; Markiewicz,Doyle, & Brendgen, 2001), and parents’ reports of ado-lescents’ helpfulness (Eberly & Montemayor, 1998), al-beit not in all studies (de Guzman & Carlo, 2004; Eberly& Montemayor, 1999), and not across 2 years’ time(Laible, Carlo, & Raffaelli, 2000). Because securely at-tached offspring tend to have sensitive and warm par-ents, the finding of a relation between the security ofchildren’s attachments and their prosocial tendencies isindirect support for an association between parentalwarmth and children’s prosocial development.

Why might children with warm parents and secureattachments be more prosocial? Waters et al. (1986)suggested that children with secure attachments differ-entially attend to their parent, are positively oriented tothe parent, are familiar with and reproduce parents’ ac-tions, and are responsive to parental control and wish toavoid parental censure. These tendencies would be ex-pected to enhance the effectiveness of parents’ attemptsto encourage prosocial behavior. Staub (1992) also ar-gued that the quality of early attachments is importantto the development of a sense of connection to othersand positive valuing of other people—two characteris-tics with conceptual links to intrinsically based caringfor other people (also see Oliner & Oliner, 1988).Nonetheless, in families in which the child or parent has

significant psychological problems, the link between at-tachment and prosocial behavior or empathy/sympathymay vary in a complex manner (e.g., Radke-Yarrow,Zahn-Waxler, Richardson, Susman, & Martinez, 1994).

It is likely that the degree of association betweenchildren’s prosocial responding and parental warmth ismoderated by other socialization practices. Dekovic andJanssens (1992) found that democratic parenting, in-volving parental warmth and support, combined with in-ductions, demandingness, and the provision ofsuggestions, information, and positive comments, wasassociated with Dutch children’s prosocial behavior asreported by teachers and peers (also see Janssens &Dekovic, 1997). Similarly, Robinson et al. (1994) foundthat mothers who were relatively negative and control-ling had children who tended to decrease rather than in-crease in empathy from 14 to 20 months of age (forthose moderate or high in empathy at 14 months). More-over, as discussed in the section on modeling, socializ-ers who are nurturant and model prosocial behaviorseem to promote costly prosocial behavior in children(e.g., Yarrow & Scott, 1972; Yarrow, Scott, & Waxler,1973). Nurturance may serve as a background or contex-tual variable that enhances the child’s receptivity toparental influence, including parental inductions,preachings, and moral standards (Hoffman, 1970).

Inductions

A disciplinary practice of particular importance in thestudy of prosocial behavior is parental induction (i.e.,verbal discipline in which the socializer gives explana-tions or reasons for requiring the child to change his orher behavior; Hoffman, 1970). Hoffman (2000) arguedthat inductions are likely to promote moral developmentbecause they induce an optimal level of arousal forlearning (i.e., elicit the child’s attention, but are un-likely to disrupt learning). Further, inductions are notlikely to be viewed as arbitrary by the child and therebyinduce resistance; rather, they focus children’s attentionon the consequences of their behavior for others, therebycapitalizing on children’s capacity to empathize and ex-perience guilt. Hoffman further suggested that overtime, inductive messages are experienced as internal-ized because the child plays an active role in processingthe information (which is encoded and integrated withinformation contained in other inductions) and the focusis on the child’s action and its consequences rather thanon the parent as the disciplinary agent. Thus, over time,children are likely to remember the causal link between

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 667


their actions and consequences for others rather than theexternal pressure or the specific disciplinary context.

Investigators usually have tried to assess the degreeto which parents use inductions as a general mode ofdiscipline, not simply to promote prosocial behavior (asfor experimental studies on preaching). Inductions varyin their content: They can appeal to justice, includingfairness of the consequences of the child’s behavior foranother; appeal to legitimate authorities; or provide mat-ter-of-fact, nonmoralistic information. In addition, in-ductions may be focused on the consequences of thechild’s behavior for either the parent or for the otherperson involved in the situation (often called peer-ori-ented inductions). Hoffman (1970b) argued that peer-oriented inductions are likely to be most effectivebecause they are most apt to induce sympathy.

There is support for an association between parentaluse of inductions and children’s prosocial tendencies,although significant findings often have been obtainedfor one sex, age, or socioeconomic status group, or forone measure of prosocial behavior (or empathy/sympa-thy), and not another. Nonetheless, positive associationshave been found in studies in which the type of reason-ing was not specified (Bar-Tal, Nadler, & Blechman,1980; Dlugokinski & Firestone, 1974; Feshbach, 1978;Janssens & Gerris, 1992; Oliner & Oliner, 1988; cf.Trommsdorff, 1991), as well as in those in whichparental inductions focused on peers’ or others’ feelingsor states (Hoffman, 1975; Karylowski, 1982; Krevans &Gibbs, 1996; Stanhope, Bell, & Parker-Cohen, 1987).Victim-oriented discipline seems to enhance the level ofchildren’s interpersonal understanding (e.g., perspec-tive taking), which is associated with higher guilt, in-cluding concern about harm to another (De Veer &Janssens, 1994). Further, inductions that emphasize howothers (including the parent) react to children’s behaviorhave been found to predict higher levels of prosocial be-havior (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). Stewart and McBride-Chang (2000) found that parental emphasis on theeffects of the child’s misbehavior in the family and whatothers think of the child was positively related to theanonymous donations of Asian children in Hong Kong.

The tone in which inductions are delivered often maycontribute to their effectiveness, particularly withyoung children. Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, and King(1979) noted that maternal use of affectively chargedexplanations, particularly those that included moraliz-ing, was associated with toddlers’ prosocial behavior inthe second and 3rd years of life. Explanations deliveredwithout affect were not effective, perhaps because the

toddlers were unlikely to attend or to think that theirmother was serious. Similarly, Miller, Eisenberg, Fabes,Shell, and Gular (1989) found that inductions regardingpeers were positively related to children’s sad reactionsto viewing others in distress and, when delivered bymothers with affective intensity, to low levels of facialdistress (an index of personal distress rather than sym-pathy). However, parental inductions delivered in situa-tions involving relatively high degrees of anger,particularly inductions that are guilt-inducing, seem tobe associated with low levels of preschoolers’ parent-di-rected prosocial behavior (Denham, Renwick-DeBardi,& Hewes, 1994).

The configuration of parenting practices appears toinfluence the effectiveness of inductions. They arelikely to be more effective at promoting prosocial be-havior or empathy when verbalized by parents who typ-ically do not use power-assertive (punitive) techniques(Hoffman, 1963; also see Dlugokinski & Firestone,1974) or are part of a pattern of democratic or authori-tative parenting (Dekovic & Janssens, 1992; Janssens &Gerris, 1992).

Some of the inconsistency in the findings on induc-tions may stem from a failure by researchers to assesscritical dimensions of parental messages. Grusec andGoodnow (1994) argued that internalization of parentalmessages likely depends on children’s accurate percep-tion of the message (including its content, the rules im-plied in the message, and the parent’s intentions andinvestment in the message) and children’s acceptance ofit. They suggested that the clarity, redundancy, and con-sistency of the message, as well as its fit to the child’sdevelopmental level, influence children’s accurate per-ception of the message. Children are more likely to ac-cept the message if they perceive it as appropriate, findit motivating (e.g., if it arouses empathy or insecurity),and believe that the value inherent in the message is self-generated. Grusec and Goodnow also hypothesized thatparental responsivity or past willingness to comply withthe child’s wishes promotes the child’s willingness tocomply with the parent’s wishes. Thus, it may be pro-ductive to examine the clarity of parents’ messages andvariables related to children’s acceptance of the mes-sage as moderators of the relation between parental in-ductions and children’s prosocial behavior.

Power-Assertive, Punitive Techniques of Discipline

Researchers generally have found that socializers’ useof power-assertive techniques of discipline such as phys-ical punishment or deprivation of privileges is either un-

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 668


related (e.g., Janssens & Gerris, 1992; Kochanska et al.,1999; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow & King, 1979) ornegatively related to children’s prosocial behavior (As-bury, Dunn, Pike, & Plomin, 2003; Bar-Tal, Nadler,et al., 1980; Deater-Deckard, Dunn, et al., 2001; Dlu-gokinski & Firestone, 1974; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996),empathy (Janssens & Gerris, 1992; Krevans & Gibbs,1996), or sympathy (Spinrad et al., 1999). Likewise, apunitive, authoritarian parenting style has been unre-lated (Iannotti, Cummings, Pierrehumbert, Milano, &Zahn-Waxler, 1992; Russell et al., 2003, for mothers;also see Diener & Kim, 2004) or negatively related(Dekovic & Janssens, 1992; Hastings et al., 2000; Rus-sell et al., 2003, for fathers) to children’s prosocial be-havior and sympathy, and its negative relation withsympathy may increase with age (Hastings et al., 2000).Moreover, physical abuse of children has been linked tolow levels of children’s empathy and prosocial behavior(Howes & Eldredge, 1985; Main & George, 1985; Miller& Eisenberg, 1988; see Koenig, Cicchetti, & Rogosch,2004, for mixed findings).

Nonetheless, there is a difference between the occa-sional, measured use of power-assertive techniques inthe context of a positive parent-child relationship andthe use of punishment as the preferred, predominantmode of discipline. Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe re-ported that the punishment they had received from theirparents was not a routine response and was linked tospecific behaviors rather than used gratuitously (Oliner& Oliner, 1988). Further, Miller et al. (1989) found thatmaternal report of using physical techniques (includingphysical punishment) was positively associated withpreschoolers’ empathic sadness when viewing others indistress, but only for children whose mothers also usedrelatively high levels of inductive discipline (cf. Hoff-man, 1963).

Punishment can induce immediate compliance withsocializers’ expectations for prosocial behavior if thesocializer monitors the child’s behavior (Morris, Mar-shall, & Miller, 1973), particularly if the contingencybetween lack of prosocial behavior and punishment isspecified (Hartmann et al., 1976). However, these ef-fects often extinguish when punishment is removed(Hartmann et al., 1976), and children tend to attributeprosocial behavior induced by power-assertive tech-niques to external motives such as fear of detection orpunishment (Dix & Grusec, 1983; Smith, Gelfand, Hart-mann, & Partlow, 1979). Nonetheless, social disap-proval, unlike material punishment (e.g., fines for nothelping), has been positively associated with children’s

attributing their own donating to internal motives(Smith et al., 1979). Thus, it is possible that social dis-approval (verbal punishment) can be used to enhance in-ternally motivated prosocial behavior; indeed, maternalexpressions of disappointment have been linked togreater prosocial behavior (Stewart & McBride-Chang,2000). Although most middle-class mothers in Westerncultures such as the United States rarely use punishment(especially physical punishment) to induce helping or inresponse to children’s failure to help (Grusec, 1991;Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979), this may be less true in Asiansocieties (see Stewart & McBride-Chang, 2000).

Appropriate versus Inappropriate Parental Control

Perhaps the critical issue when thinking about parentalpunishment and control is whether the degree of powerasserted by the parent is perceived as excessive and ar-bitrary versus reasonable in the given context or culture.Parental demands and expectations for socially respon-sible and moral behavior (often expressed in an authori-tative parenting style) have been associated withsocially responsible and prosocial behavior (e.g.,Dekovic & Janssens, 1992; Janssens & Gerris, 1992;Janssens & Dekovic, 1997; Lidner-Gunnoe, Hethering-ton, & Reiss; 1999), adolescents’ endorsement of caringvalues (Pratt, Hunsberger, Pancer, & Alisat, 2003), andcaring moral reasoning (Pratt, Skoe, & Arnold, 2004).In contrast, strict, rejecting control has been linked tolow levels of sympathy (Laible & Carlo, 2004). Some-what related, in Western cultures, parental emphasis onadolescents’ autonomy also has been linked with proso-cial development (Bar-Tal, Nadler, et al., 1980; Prattet al., 2004); this relation may hold less in early child-hood (Clark & Ladd, 2000). In Asian cultures that em-phasize parental training and filial piety (Stewart et al.,1998), training of this sort was associated with anony-mous prosocial behavior, whereas restrictive control wasmarginally, negatively related (Stewart & McBride-Chang, 2000). Other researchers have found a positiveassociation between appropriate parental control (ratherthan leniency) and children’s empathy (Bryant, 1987) orgirls’ (but not boys’) sympathy years later in adulthood(Koestner, Franz, & Weinberger, 1990). Analogously,parental monitoring of adolescents’ activities was posi-tively related to adolescents’ volunteerism in large sur-vey research (Huebner & Mancini, 2003; Zaff et al.,2003). For middle-class families, parental demands forprosocial behavior appear to be part of a child-rearingpattern in which mature behavior is expected (Green-berger & Goldberg, 1989). In contrast, parental valuing

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 669


of mere compliance, which often may lead to arbitraryovercontrol, has been linked to low levels of children’sprosocial behavior with mothers and peers (Eisenberg,Wolchik, Goldberg, & Engel, 1992).

Parental Emphasis on Prosocial Values

Because parents who hold prosocial values would be ex-pected to teach and model prosocial behavior, it is rea-sonable to expect a relation between parental prosocialvalues and children’s prosocial behavior. Parents’ reportsof holding prosocial values have been associated withpeer nominations of fifth graders’ prosocial behavior (in-cluding prosocial behavior, guilt, and rule-following;Hoffman, 1975) and older adolescents’ caring moral rea-soning (Pratt et al., 2004; also see Eisenberg, Wolchik,et al., 1992). Although some investigators have found noevidence of a relation between parental emphasis onprosocial responding (reported or observed) and chil-dren’s prosocial behavior or empathy (Turner & Harris,1984), others have obtained mixed (Bryant & Crocken-berg, 1980) or positive relations (Trommsdorff, 1991)(also see section on modeling and preachings).

Perhaps the most compelling evidence for the impor-tance of parental prosocial values comes from studies ofadults who have displayed unusual acts of altruism. Res-cuers in Nazi Europe often recalled learning values ofcaring from their parents or the other most influentialperson in their lives (Oliner & Oliner, 1988; also seeHart & Fegley, 1995; London, 1970). Rescuers reportedthat their parents felt that ethical values were to be ex-tended to all human beings. Interestingly, rescuers didnot differ from nonrescuers in reported exposure to non-prosocial values such as honesty or equity. However,real-life moral exemplars often solidify their values oreven develop new moral values in adulthood when inter-acting with other adults who discuss value-related issuesand jointly engage in moral activities with the individual(Colby & Damon, 1992). Thus, it is likely that the so-cialization of other-oriented values, even if it begins inone’s family of origin, is a continuing dynamic process.

Modeling

Because of the importance of modeling in social learn-ing theory (e.g., Bandura, 1986), numerous researchershave examined whether children’s prosocial behaviorvaries as a function of exposure to prosocial versus self-ish models. Much of the relevant research has been con-ducted in laboratory studies using strangers or briefacquaintances as models and donating as the index of

prosocial behavior. Thus, the generalizability of much ofthe laboratory research to real-life settings involving fa-miliar models and to other types of prosocial actions canbe questioned. The experimental laboratory literature issupplemented by a smaller body of work, often correla-tional in design, in which real-life situations and famil-iar models have been used; and similar results have beenobtained in these studies.

In the prototypic laboratory study of modeling proso-cial behavior, children earn prizes, tokens, or money bywinning a game, view or do not view a model, and thenare provided an opportunity to donate to needy childrenor to children who did not get to play the game. Becausethis topic was reviewed in considerable detail in Eisen-berg and Fabes (1998) and there have been few newstudies since 1998, this work is briefly summarizedhere. In general, children who view a generous model orhelpful model are more generous or helpful than thoseexposed to a control condition (often a model who hadno opportunity to donate; e.g., Rice & Grusec, 1975;Rushton & Littlefield, 1979; Rushton & Teachman,1978) or a selfish model (e.g., Bryan & Walbek, 1970;Rushton, 1975). Further, multiple models may be moreeffective than inconsistent models for inducing preciseimitation of donating (Wilson, Piazza, & Nagle, 1990).

In most laboratory studies of modeling, prosocial be-havior is modeled only once; thus, it is impressive thatsome investigators have obtained evidence of general-ization to new behaviors or settings (Midlarsky &Bryan, 1967; Rushton, 1975), although others have not(Rushton & Littlefield, 1979; Rushton & Teachman,1978). Further, investigators have found effects of mod-eling days to months later (Israel & Raskin, 1979; Rice& Grusec, 1975; Rushton, 1975; Rushton & Littlefield,1979; Wilson et al., 1990).

Adults who control valued resources (Grusec, 1971)appear to be relatively powerful models, as are modelsperceived as competent (Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker,1979). Moreover, nurturant prosocial models whomchildren have just met seem to promote prosocial behav-ior when the prosocial behavior is not costly and issomething they probably want to do (e.g., help when theyhear someone in distress; Weissbrod, 1976; also seeStaub, 1971a). In contrast, when prosocial behavior in-volves self-denial (e.g., donations), short-term exposureto a warm model seems to have little effect or may evenreduce donating behavior (Grusec, 1971; Midlarsky &Bryan, 1967; Weissbrod, 1976). Thus, short-term non-contingent warmth seems to disinhibit children to do as

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 670


they please, including assisting distressed others as wellas keeping valued commodities for themselves. How-ever, in the classroom context in which warmth probablyis not entirely noncontingent, preschool children modelthe prosocial behaviors and nurturance of adults withwhom they have had a relatively extended nurturant re-lationship (Yarrow & Scott, 1972; Yarrow et al., 1973).

In addition to the laboratory studies, investigatorshave examined whether children appear to model real-life socializers such as parents. In the first 2 years oflife, children do not seem to consistently model mater-nal sharing or helping of a distressed person (Hay &Murray, 1982; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979). However,mothers’ modeling of helping behaviors (such as partic-ipation in household chores) seems to enhance the likeli-hood of 1- and 2-year-olds helping with similar tasks(Rheingold, 1982). Moreover, the data on real-life altru-ists suggest an effect of parental modeling. Youth volun-teerism has been found to be related to the degree towhich their parents volunteer; moreover, the types ofvoluntary activities chosen by youths tend to be similarto those of their parents (e.g., in providing a social ser-vice or working for a cause; Keith et al., 1990; McLellan& Youniss, 2003; National Center for Education Statis-tics, 1997; also see Hart & Fegley, 1995; Janoski &Wilson, 1995; Stukas, Switzer, Dew, Goycoolea, &Simmons, 1999).

Consistent with the notion that parental modelingfosters children’s prosocial tendencies, sympatheticparents, who likely model sympathy, tend to have same-sex elementary school children who are helpful (Fabes,Eisenberg, & Miller, 1990) or prone to sympathy ratherthan to egoistic personal distress (Eisenberg, Fabes,Carlo, Troyer, et al., 1992; Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller,Carlo, & Miller, 1991; Eisenberg & McNally, 1993;Fabes et al., 1990). In contrast, links between parentalempathy (rather than sympathy) and children’s empathyhave been mixed, with some researchers obtaining posi-tive relations (Barnett, Howard, King, & Dino, 1980;Strayer & Roberts, 2004b; Trommsdorff, 1991) and oth-ers obtaining no relations or inconsistent correlations(e.g., Bernadett-Shapiro, Ehrensaft, & Shapiro, 1996;Strayer & Roberts, 1989). Some parents prone to empa-thy may become overly aroused and personally dis-tressed, which would be expected to lead to lower levelsof helping in many contexts. Multiple mechanisms, in-cluding the heritability of emotionality related to sym-pathy or other characteristics, could explain thesignificant findings that have been obtained.

In regard to high-cost real-life helping behavior,Rosenhan (1970) found that Caucasian civil rights ac-tivists in the late 1950s and 1960s who were highly in-volved and committed to the cause despite considerabledanger and cost reported that their parents were bothnurturant and actively involved in working for altruisticand humanitarian causes. In contrast, individuals whowere less involved and committed reported that theirparents preached prosocial values but often did not prac-tice altruism. Further, rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europedescribed their parents as having acted in accordancewith strong moral convictions (London, 1970; Oliner &Oliner, 1988).

The data from studies of adult altruists are not onlycorrelational in design but involve retrospective data.Even if people’s recall of parental practices were unbi-ased and accurate, it is possible that their altruismstemmed from family factors other than modeling, suchas optimal discipline or exposure to prosocial cultural orcommunity values. Nonetheless, research findings onparents of prosocial offspring converge with the experi-mental laboratory findings that implicate modeling inthe development of prosocial tendencies.

Preachings

The verbalizations of adults relevant to prosocial behav-ior have been examined in nondisciplinary contexts ( lab-oratory situations in which the adult is not responding tothe child’s misbehavior), as well as in disciplinary situa-tions (e.g., inductions). In studies of the effects ofpreachings or exhortations, the preacher states whatshould be done (sometimes in regard to his or her ownearnings that can be donated), but does not directly andexplicitly direct the child to assist. Often the preacheralso gives reasons that one should or should not assist.Preachers may verbalize to themselves, as if thinkingthrough the issue (Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979),or direct their preaching to the child (e.g., Bryan & Wal-bek, 1970; Rushton, 1975). Preachings often are norma-tive in content, with the preacher stating what should bedone and stating either prosocial or selfish norms (e.g.,“It’s a nice thing [not such a nice thing] to give to thecrippled children”; Bryan & Walbek, 1970). In a neutralcontrol group, the preacher typically would make nor-matively neutral statements such as “This game is fun.”

Most researchers have found no effects, or inconsis-tent effects, of normative preachings by nonparentaladults on children’s donating behavior (e.g., Bryan &Walbek, 1970; cf. Zarbatany, Hartmann, & Gelfand,

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 671


1985). However, normative preachings seem to fostergenerosity if the preacher promoting donating is an adultwho is likely to have direct power over the children(Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979). In addition, empa-thy-inducing preachings that emphasize the emotionalconsequences of assisting for the recipients of aid havebeen found to elicit more donating in private than doneutral control preachings (Dlugokinski & Firestone,1974; Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979; Perry,Bussey, & Freiberg, 1981; Smith, 1983) or punitive,threatening preachings (Perry et al., 1981). Empathy-in-ducing preachings also have been found to enhance theeffort and success of children in elementary schoolwhen helping a peer (Ladd, Lange, & Stremmel, 1983)and have been related to prosocial behavior in anothersetting or at a later date (Grusec, Saas-Kortsaak, &Simutis, 1978; Smith, 1983).

Not all researchers have found effects of empathy-in-ducing preachings. The wording in some studies mayhave led the children to believe that the adult or the ben-eficiary would be angry at them for not helping, whichmight evoke reactance rather than empathy (McGrath &Power, 1990), or compliance rather than internalization.Preachings seem to work best if children feel that theyhave a choice of whether to assist and if the preachingshighlight the positive outcomes of helping for another(Grusec, Saas-Kortsaak, & Simutis, 1978; McGrath,Wilson, & Frassetto; 1995). Further, the results of onestudy suggest that empathic preachings are effective pri-marily for children who have been exposed to inductivediscipline at home (rather than a relatively high degreeof power assertion; Dlugokinski & Firestone, 1974).

Prompts and Directives

Children who are instructed or prompted to help orshare tend to do so (Gelfand et al., 1975; Hay & Murray,1982; Israel & Raskin, 1979), and the effects of direc-tive instructions have been found to persist over 11 days(Israel & Brown, 1979) or 4 weeks (Israel & Raskin,1979). Direct requests for prosocial behavior may beparticularly important for younger children because oftheir limited abilities to understand others’ emotionsand situational cues (Denham, Mason, & Couchoud,1995). However, there is evidence that constraining di-rectives are less effective with older children than withyounger ones (White & Burnam, 1975), particularlyover time (Israel & Raskin, 1979; cf. Israel & Brown,1979). Highly constraining instructions may induce re-actance; moreover, after the early years, children areunlikely to attribute forced behavior to internal reasons

and, consequently, may not enact prosocial behavior inan unsupervised setting (see McGrath & Power, 1990).

Reinforcement for Prosocial Behavior

Consistent with learning theory, concrete (Fischer,1963) and social (Eisenberg, Fabes, Carlo, et al., 1993;Gelfand et al., 1975; Grusec & Redler, 1980; Rushton &Teachman, 1978; cf. Mills & Grusec, 1989) reinforce-ments have been found to increase children’s prosocialbehavior, at least in the immediate context. Further,parental reports of reinforcement for children’s sympa-thetic and prosocial behavior have been associated withgirls’ (but not boys’) concerned or sad reactions to oth-ers in distress (Eisenberg, Fabes, Carlo, et al., 1992).

Although concrete rewards may induce prosocial be-havior in the given context, the long-term effect of con-crete rewards may be negative. Consistent with Lepper’s(1983) notion that the provision of concrete rewards un-dermines intrinsic motivation (and also may induce chil-dren to attribute their prosocial actions to externalmotivation), Szynal-Brown and Morgan (1983) foundthat third-grade children who were promised tangiblerewards if the younger children they tutored did wellwere less likely to engage in teaching activities during asubsequent free-choice period than were tutors whowere not promised rewards for teaching. Those childrenpromised rewards that were not contingent on the pupil’slearning were between the aforementioned two groups inregard to teaching, but did not differ significantly fromeither. Further, Fabes, Fultz, Eisenberg, Plumlee, andChristopher (1989) found that the use of material re-wards for school children’s helping behavior under-mined their subsequent, anonymous prosocial behaviorduring a free-choice situation, particularly for childrenwhose mothers valued the use of rewards. Moreover,mothers who felt relatively positive about using rewardsreported that their children were less prosocial than didmothers who were less enthusiastic about the use of re-wards. Rewards may be salient for these children and,consequently, they may be particularly likely to attrib-ute their initial prosocial behavior to the external reward(rather than to an internal motive).

The effects of social reinforcement may vary as afunction of type of praise and the age of the child. Foryoung children, reinforcement for prosocial behaviordoes not seem to increase prosocial tendencies in an-other setting or over time and may even undermine it(Eisenberg, Wolchik, et al., 1992; Grusec, 1991). More-over, praise that attributes the children’s positive behav-ior to their dispositional kindness or internal motives

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 672


(e.g., because they enjoy helping others) appears to bemore effective than praise that simply labels the act aspositive (Grusec & Redler, 1980; Mills & Grusec, 1989;dispositional attribution is a special type of praise andis discussed in the following subsection). Grusec andRedler (1980) found that social reinforcement for proso-cial actions (without an internal attribution) increasedelementary school children’s prosocial behavior in theimmediate context; however, it was associated with thegeneralization of prosocial behavior to a different,anonymous situation only for 10-year-old children (notfor 5- or 8-year-olds). Grusec and Redler (1980) hypoth-esized that older children may interpret reinforcementfor a specific action as having implications for a varietyof situations, whereas younger children do not viewpraise for a given act as having broader relevance.

Provision of Attributions or Dispositional Praise

Elementary school children are likely to behave in aprosocial manner on a subsequent occasion if they ini-tially are induced to behave prosocially and are providedwith internal attributions (i.e., dispositional praise) fortheir actions (e.g., “I guess you’re the kind of personwho likes to help others whenever you can. Yes, you area very nice and helpful person”; Grusec & Redler,1980). Children provided with such praise are morehelpful or generous even weeks later than are childrenwho are provided with no attribution (Grusec, Kuczyn-ski, et al., 1978; Grusec & Redler, 1980; Holte, Jam-ruszka, Gustafson, Beaman, & Camp, 1984; cf.Eisenberg, Cialdini, McCreath, & Shell, 1987) or withone attributing prosocial behavior to the fact that theadult experimenter expected such behavior (Grusec,Kuczynski, Rushton, & Simutis, 1978).

The provision of internal attributions is believed tofoster a prosocial self-image that then results in en-hanced prosocial behavior (Grusec & Redler, 1980).However, support for this supposition is mixed (e.g.,Holte et al., 1984; Mills & Grusec, 1989). If changes inchildren’s self-concepts mediate the effects of disposi-tional attributions, the provision of internal attributionswould not be expected to be effective until children havesome understanding of personality traits and their sta-bility. Consistent with this logic, Grusec and Redler(1980) found that the provision of internal attributionswas effective in enhancing prosocial behavior both im-mediately and long term (e.g., a week or more later) formiddle and later elementary school children, but not forkindergartners. Further, Eisenberg, Cialdini, McCreath,and Shell (1989) found that children in elementary

school who were induced to engage in prosocial behaviorand provided with internal attributions were more help-ful if they demonstrated the ability to label traits accu-rately. Thus, it is possible that an understanding of traitsis essential if internal attributions are to foster chil-dren’s prosocial behavior.

Learning by Doing (and the Foot-in-the-Door Effect)

Children’s participation in prosocial activities seems tofoster prosocial behavior at a later time, although boyssometimes may exhibit some reactance in the short-term(Staub, 1992). This pattern of findings has been ob-tained using both experimental procedures (Staub, 1979;although effects may be stronger for older children;Eisenberg, Cialdini, et al., 1987) and in research linkingprosocial proclivities to participation in householdchores (perhaps particularly those that benefit others;Graves & Graves, 1983; Rehberg & Richman, 1989;Whiting & Whiting, 1975; cf. Gelfand et al., 1975). Insome cultures, guided participation (Rogoff, 2003) maybe a major way in which children are socialized into avariety of activities, including prosocial ones (Whiting& Whiting, 1975).

In a study of 9- and 14-year-old children, Grusec,Goodnow, and Cohen (1996) found that routine (but notrequested) participation in household chores was relatedto youths’ prosocial behavior in the family, but primar-ily for older youth and girls. Routine participation inchores was not related to helping strangers. Thus, ifchores benefit a delimited group of individuals, anyprosocial tendencies fostered may not extend to thosebeyond that group.

Participation in organized youth activities and non-voluntary service required by school programs also hasbeen linked to prosocial behavior, especially subsequentvolunteerism or intentions to volunteer (Metz &Youniss, 2003; Stukas, Switzer, et al., 1999; Youniss &Metz, 2004). In addition, adolescents’ and young adults’participation in voluntary community service some-times has been linked to greater feelings of commitmentto helping others (Yates & Youniss, 1996b; see discus-sion of these programs in the section on adolescence).Of particular interest, Youniss and Metz (2004) foundthat required school-based service was related to in-creased volunteerism and intentions to volunteer for stu-dents who were less inclined to participate; it had littleeffect for those students who quickly completed theirrequirement and went on to participate in voluntary ac-tivities. In contrast, Stukas, Snyder, and Clary (1999)found that mandatory volunteerism undermined college

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 673


students’ future intentions to volunteer only for individ-uals who otherwise would not have been volunteering(i.e., they felt that their service was solely due to exter-nal force) or for those who had the preexisting beliefthat they would not freely choose to engage in any volun-teer activities. For most students who are not generallyopposed to volunteer service activities and do not focuson external pressures to engage in such activities,mandatory service participation seems likely to in-crease prosocial responding.

The findings on the effects of practice and compul-sory service activities are similar to those obtained bysocial psychologists studying compliance (i.e., the“foot-in-the-door” effect) in adulthood. Although theprocesses underlying the findings for adults are not en-tirely clear (Burger, 1999; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004),a common explanation is that engaging in the initialprosocial behavior changes the actor’s self-perceptionsabout his or her own prosocial disposition or the actor’sattitude about helpfulness. A self-concept explanation isconsistent with Eisenberg, Cialdini, et al.’s (1989) find-ing that the effects of an initial helping experience wereprimarily for children with a rudimentary understandingof trait labels (because an understanding of traits is nec-essary for a stable self-concept) and with Eisenberg,Cialdini, et al.’s (1987) finding that practice had an ef-fect only for children old enough to understand consis-tency in personality. However, there is little directevidence that a more sophisticated understanding of thestability of personality is necessary for the foot-in-the-door effect to be effective.

It also is possible that engaging in prosocial activitiesenhances subsequent prosocial behavior because the ex-perience provides empathic rewards, helping skills, andsocial approval. Further, investigators have argued thatservice activities can promote identity formation, asense of personal competence and civic responsibility,and the adoption of prosocial norms, as well as opportu-nities to learn about systems of meaning (e.g., about so-ciety, social injustice; McLellan & Youniss, 2003; Yates& Youniss, 1996a, 1996b, 1998).

Emotion Socialization

Parental practices that help children to cope with theirnegative emotion in a constructive fashion tend to beassociated with children’s sympathy (rather than per-sonal distress) and prosocial behavior. This may bepartly because children who cannot adequately copewith their emotions tend to become overaroused and ex-

perience a self-focused, aversive response (i.e., per-sonal distress) when confronted with another’s distress,whereas children who can regulate their emotions tendto experience sympathy (Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy,et al., 1994, 1996).

For example, Buck (1984) hypothesized that punitivereactions by parents when children exhibit negativeemotion result in children’s increased arousal when theyexperience negative emotion, as well as in attempts tohide such feelings. Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, Carlo,and Miller (1991) found that mothers who emphasizedto their sons the need to control their own negative emo-tions (e.g., sadness and anxiety) had sons who exhibitedfacial and physiological (skin conductance and heartrate) markers of distress when they viewed a sympathy-inducing film, but reported low distress in reaction tothe film. Thus, these boys seemed prone to experiencedistress when confronted with others’ distress, but ap-peared not to want others to know what they were feel-ing. In contrast, same-sex parents’ restrictiveness inregard to emotional displays that could be hurtful to oth-ers (e.g., gasping at a disfigured person) has been posi-tively related to elementary school children’s reports ofdispositional and situational sympathy (Eisenberg,Fabes, Schaller, Carlo, & Miller, 1991). Parents whodiscourage their children from expressing emotionshurtful to others may educate their children about the ef-fects of emotional displays on others. However, maternalrestrictiveness in regard to the display of hurtful emo-tions was associated with distress in kindergarten girls,perhaps because mothers who were restrictive in this re-gard with kindergarten girls were less supportive in gen-eral. Thus, for younger children, such maternalrestrictiveness may reflect age-inappropriate restric-tiveness or low levels of support (Eisenberg, Fabes,et al., 1992).

Parents can also demonstrate methods of coping withemotions or encourage the use of certain means of cop-ing. Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, Carlo, and Miller (1991)found that boys whose parents encouraged them to dealinstrumentally with situations causing their own sadnessor anxiety were relatively likely to experience sympathyrather than personal distress in empathy-inducing con-texts. Further, parents’ encouragement of direct problemsolving as a way to cope with emotion has been associ-ated with the amount that girls (but not boys) comfort acrying infant (Eisenberg, Fabes, Carlo, et al., 1993).

Mothers’ discussions of their own and their chil-dren’s emotions also seem to relate to children’s vicari-

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 674


ous emotional responding. When mothers verballylinked the events in an empathy-inducing film with chil-dren’s own experiences, children exhibited heightenedvicarious emotional responding of various sorts (sad-ness, distress, and sympathy). Further, mothers’ refer-ences to their own sympathy and sadness and theirstatements about perspective taking or the film protago-nist’s feelings or situation were associated with boys’reports of sympathy and sadness (Eisenberg, Fabes,Carlo, et al., 1992). In addition, mothers’ reports of try-ing to find out why their child is feeling badly, helpingtheir children talk about negative emotions, and listen-ing to their children when they are anxious or upset havebeen associated with girls’ comforting of an infant(Eisenberg, Fabes, Carlo, et al., 1993). Similarly,Belden, Kuelbli, Pauley, and Kindleberger (2003) foundthat mothers’ questions about their children’s emotionalreactions, states of mind, or interpretations about themotivation for a good deed performed by their child inthe past were positively correlated with children’s self-reported empathy. Moreover, Denham and Grout (1992)found that preschoolers’ prosocial behavior at school waspositively related to mothers’ tendencies to explain theirown sadness, and Kojima (2000) found that young chil-dren’s prosocial behaviors with their siblings were posi-tively related to the degree to which their mothers madereference to the sibling’s actions and emotional states.

The positive association between parental discussionof emotion and prosocial tendencies has not been foundin all studies (Eisenberg, Losoya, et al., 2001; Garner,Jones, Gaddy, & Rennie, 1997; Eisenberg, Fabes,Schaller, Carlo, & Miller, 1991). Trommsdorff (1995)found that German and Japanese mothers who focusedon their child’s emotions in stressful situations by ver-balizing or matching their emotions had 5-year-olddaughters who were prone to experience distress ratherthan sympathy when exposed to another’s sadness.Trommsdorff suggested that girls who experience toostrong a degree of empathy from their caretaker may ex-perience more distress in empathy-inducing contexts be-cause of less developed self-other differentiation.Another possibility is that some mothers may over-arouse their children by focusing too much on distress,with the consequence that the children do not learn toregulate their distress.

It is likely that the manner in which mothers talkabout emotional events partially accounts for the de-gree and valence of the relation between maternal emo-tion-related verbalizations and children’s empathy-

related and prosocial responding. Fabes, Eisenberg,Karbon, Bernzweig, et al. (1994) found that mothers’displays of positive rather than negative emotion whiletelling their kindergarten-age children empathy-induc-ing stories were associated with children’s sympathy,low personal distress, and relatively high helpfulnesson a behavioral task. Mothers displayed more of thispositive expressiveness with kindergartners if theyviewed their child as reactive to others’ distresses.Thus, it appeared as if mothers were reacting to charac-teristics of their children (i.e., age and emotional vul-nerability) and were attempting to buffer younger andvulnerable children from emotional overarousal (alsosee Zhou et al., 2002). In contrast, for second-gradechildren, helpfulness, as well as sympathy and low per-sonal distress (assessed with physiological and facialmeasures), were positively associated with a maternalstyle that combined warmth with directing the child’sattention to the stories. For older children, buffering ofnegative emotion may not be necessary, whereas it maybe important to direct the child’s attention to others ina way that does not induce reactance.

In brief, findings are consistent with the view thatparental practices that help children regulate their nega-tive emotion to avoid becoming overaroused may fostersympathy and prosocial behavior rather than personaldistress. However, there may be a fine line between theparental practices that help children regulate and under-stand their own emotion and the practices that overlyfocus children’s attention on negative emotion. More-over, the effects of parental emotion-related practiceslikely are moderated by individual differences in chil-dren’s emotional reactivity, regulation, and other as-pects of temperament and personality.

Expression of Emotion and Conflict in the Home

Frequency and valence of emotion expressed in thehome appear to be linked to children’s prosocial behav-ior, albeit in a complex manner. Parental expression ofpositive emotion in the family tends to be positively cor-related with children’s prosocial tendencies (Denham &Grout, 1992; Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, Miller, et al.,1991; Garner, Jones, & Miner, 1994), a finding that isconsistent with the modest associations between proso-cial behavior and parental support, warmth, and sympa-thy. However, researchers sometimes have found norelations between familial or maternal positive emotionand children’s sympathy (Eisenberg, Fabes, Carlo,Troyer, et al., 1992) or prosocial behavior (Denham &

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 675


Grout, 1993). These weak relations may be due to therelation between parental positive expressivity andprosocial behavior or sympathy being quadratic or mod-erated by children’s dispositional regulation. Valienteet al. (2004) found that moderate (compared with low orhigh) levels of parental positive expressivity were mosthighly, positively related to children’s sympathy.

Culture also may moderate the relation betweenparental expression of positive emotion and children’ssympathy. Unlike in the United States, Eisenberg,Liew, and Pidada (2001) did not find a relation be-tween these two constructs in Indonesia. This findingmay not be surprising given that anthropological andsociological reports indicate that the expression of highlevels of emotion—positive or negative—is discouragedin that culture.

At first glance, findings about negative emotion inthe home appear inconsistent and puzzling. Conflict inthe family has been positively associated with prosocialbehavior toward family members. Even very young chil-dren exposed to parental conflict sometimes try to com-fort or help their parents, and this tendency increaseswith age in the early years (Cummings, Zahn-Waxler, &Radke-Yarrow, 1984). Further, siblings (but not peers)exposed to conflict between their mother and anotheradult seem to try to buffer the stress for one another(Cummings & Smith, 1993). Young children are morelikely to respond with prosocial behavior toward a par-ent, as well as with anger, distress, and support-seeking,if familial conflict is frequent (Cummings, Zahn-Waxler& Radke-Yarrow, 1981) or is physical in nature (Cum-mings, Pellegrini, & Notarius, 1989).

Other investigators have examined the relation ofprosocial tendencies to reported prevalence of hostile,negative emotion in the home environment or maternalsimulations of anger situations. Some investigators havenot found significant relations between mothers’ reportsof dominant negative affect or their own anger directedtoward the child and children’s observed prosocial be-haviors (Garner & Estep, 2001; Garner, Jones, & Miner,1994; also see Hastings et al., 2000). In contrast, Den-ham and her colleagues found that preschoolers’ real-lifeprosocial reactions to their peers’ emotional displayswere negatively related to mothers’ reports of the fre-quency of their own anger at home (Denham & Grout,1992) and intense maternal simulations of anger (whenenacting events in a photograph; Denham et al., 1994),and were positively related to mothers’ reports of the ra-

tional expressions of anger (Denham & Grout, 1992).Similarly, high levels of familial or maternal dominantnegative emotion (e.g., anger) have been linked to lowlevels of sympathetic concern and high levels of per-sonal distress, both in the United States (Crockenberg,1985; Eisenberg, Fabes, Carlo, et al., 1992) and in In-donesia (Eisenberg, Liew, & Pidada, 2001).

To summarize, Cummings and his colleagues foundthat exposure to conflict involving one or both parents,including ongoing conflict in the home, was related toincreased prosocial reactions toward children’s mothersand siblings (but not peers; Cummings & Smith, 1993);whereas in other studies, reports and displays of mater-nal anger and externalizing emotion tend to be associ-ated with low levels of peer-directed prosocial behaviorand sympathy, as well as high levels of personal distress.Perhaps exposure to adult conflict undermines chil-dren’s emotional security and induces distress, resultingin children coping in ways that are likely to minimizethe stress in their social environment (see Davies &Cummings, 1994). Because children frequently cannotreadily escape from conflict in the home, they may at-tempt to alleviate their distress by intervening and com-forting family members. However, children exposed tohigh intensity or ongoing parental anger may becomeoveraroused by others’ negative emotions and experi-ence self-focused personal distress in reaction to oth-ers’ negative emotion (see Eisenberg et al., 1994). If thiswere true, they would be expected to try to escape fromdealing with others’ distress if possible. Exposure tohigh levels of anger and conflict may induce attempts bychildren to minimize self-related negative emotional(and physical) consequences of conflict but likely doesnot foster the capacity for sympathy or other-oriented(rather than self-oriented) prosocial behavior.

Another reason for the inconsistency in the generalpattern of findings for parental expression of dominant(assertive) negative emotion may be that the relation be-tween parental expression of dominant negative emotionin the family and children’s sympathy appears to bequadratic, with moderate levels of expressivity beingmost highly associated with children’s sympathy (Va-liente et al., 2004). Valiente and colleagues also found aquadratic relation such that children’s personal distresswas higher for mean and high levels of parental negativeexpressivity than for low parental negative expressivity.In addition, the relation of parental negative expressivityto children’s sympathy appears to be moderated by chil-

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 676


dren’s regulation. Valiente and colleagues found a signif-icant negative relation between situational sympathy andparents’ negative expressivity, but only for children highin regulation. Furthermore, for children who were mod-erate or low in regulation, dispositional personal distresswas relatively high regardless of the level of parental ex-pression of negative emotion, whereas for well-regulatedchildren, personal distress was low when parents ex-pressed little negative emotion but increased with thelevel of parental expression of negative emotion.

Negative emotions need not always be harsh and dom-inant; often emotions such as sadness, fear, and loss areexpressed in the home. The findings about the relationbetween the children’s exposure to parents’ softer nega-tive emotions and their prosocial tendencies are incon-sistent. In studies of children from typical families,maternal report of such submissive negative emotion hasbeen negatively related to children’s caregiving toward ayounger sibling (Garner, Jones, & Miner, 1994), posi-tively related to girls’ (but not boys’) sympathy in theUnited States (Eisenberg, Fabes, Carlo, Troyer, et al.,1992), and negatively related to Indonesian children’ssympathy (Eisenberg, Liew, & Pidada, 2001). Further,preschoolers’ prosocial reactions to peers’ emotionshave been related to mothers’ low rather than high inten-sity enacted sadness (Denham et al., 1994). In contrast,children’s peer-oriented prosocial actions have not beensignificantly related to frequency of mothers’ reportedexpressions of sadness or tension at home in front oftheir child (Denham & Grout, 1992) or mothers’ reportsof experiencing internalizing negative emotions (Den-ham & Grout, 1993).

Findings about maternal depression are also mixed.Maternal depression has been linked to lower levels ofchildren’s prosocial behavior in general (Dunn et al.,1998), to lower mother- (and, to a lesser degree, teacher-) reported prosocial behavior but higher child-reportedprosocial behavior (Hay & Pawlby, 2003), and to higherempathy or prosocial behavior for some children in somecircumstances (Radke-Yarrow et al., 1994; Zahn-Waxler, Cummings, McKnew, & Radke-Yarrow, 1984).Perhaps what is important is whether such emotion isdealt with constructively in the home and if childrenlearn ways to manage emotions such as sadness so thatthey are likely to experience sympathy rather than per-sonal distress when exposed to others’ negative emo-tion. Denham and Grout (1992) found that mothers’reported expressions of tension or fear and sadness at

home were positively related to children’s peer-orientedprosocial behavior if mothers expressed their tension ina positive manner or explained their sadness.

Summary of Research on Adults’ Socialization-Relevant Practices, Beliefs, and Styles

A constellation of parental practices, beliefs, and char-acteristics, as well as the emotional atmosphere of thehome, seems to be related to children’s prosocial devel-opment. The findings generally are consistent withStaub’s (1992, 2003) assertion that the development ofprosocial behavior is enhanced by a sense of connectionto others (e.g., through attachment and a benign socialenvironment), exposure to parental warmth (which fos-ters a positive identity and sense of self as well as at-tachment), adult guidance, and participation inprosocial activities. Moreover, parents’ coaching andother behaviors that teach children to understand andregulate their emotions also are likely related to sympa-thetic capacities.

Although it is likely that the social environment ofchildren, especially their parents’, has a causal effect onprosocial behavior and empathy-related responding,heredity may partially account for such relations, espe-cially when predicting aspects of prosociality based onthe experience of empathic emotion (see Caspi &Shiner, Chapter 6, this Handbook, this volume). It is pos-sible that prosocial, sympathetic parents have prosocialchildren because of shared genetic predispositions to-ward regulation and emotionality. Moreover, biologi-cally based dispositions (e.g., as partly reflected intemperament) undoubtedly play a major role in em-pathic and prosocial functioning. However, Plomin et al.(1993) found that nonshared (unique) environmental ex-perience accounted for some consistency and for thesubstantial degree of change in twins’ empathy over theearly years of life. Similarly, as discussed, there is evi-dence of shared and especially unshared environmentalvariance in the prediction of empathy-related respond-ing and prosocial behavior (e.g., Deater-Deckard, Dunn,et al., 2001; Zahn-Waxler et al., 2001). For example, dif-ferences in parenting (i.e., warmth versus harsh parent-ing) partly explain differences in the prosocial behaviorof monozygotic twins, especially for parents who treattheir twins quite differently (Asbury et al., 2003; alsosee Deater-Deckard, Pike, et al., 2001). Further, geneticexplanations cannot account for findings in experimentalstudies in which parents were not involved (e.g., many of

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 677


the studies on modeling, preaching, attributions forhelping, directives, and learning by doing). In brief, al-though biological factors, including genetics, play amajor role in prosocial development, environmental fac-tors also play an important role and undoubtedly interactwith biological factors.

Most researchers who have studied socialization cor-relates of prosocial responding have taken into accountonly the effects of parental behaviors and characteristicson children; the role of the children’s behavior and char-acteristics in the socialization process has been virtuallyignored. Yet, as was demonstrated by Valiente et al.(2004), it is highly likely that children’s personality andtemperament influences interact with parental charac-teristics and beliefs in determining the quality of theparent-child relationship and parental socialization ef-forts. Consistent with the possibility of child effects,adults use more reasoning about the consequences of ac-tions and less bargaining with material rewards to induceprosocial behavior for children who are responsive andattentive than for children who are not (Keller & Bell,1979). The role of the child and dyadic processes (e.g.,mutual parent-child responsivity) in the socialization ofprosocial behaviors is a key topic for further attention.

Other Familial and Extrafamilial Inf luences

People and institutions other than parents in children’senvironments are potential socializers of children’sprosocial actions. Research on the role of nonparentalinfluences is still in the rudimentary stages, and re-searchers studying environmental influences seldomhave simultaneously examined multiple familial models(including multiple family members) or multiple typesof potential socializers (e.g., peers and the school con-text). (For a discussion of the effects of television, seeHuston & Wright, 1998).

Siblings

Because siblings are familiar and relatively uninhibitedwith one another, they would be expected to play a con-siderable role in the development of children’s social un-derstanding and interpersonal skills, including prosocialbehavior (Dunn & Munn, 1986). Even 1- to 2-year-oldchildren exhibit prosocial behavior toward their siblings(Dunn & Kendrick, 1982). Preschool-age children enactrelatively high rates of comforting behavior to dis-tressed younger siblings (Howe & Ross, 1990; Stewart &Marvin, 1984), but show relatively low rates of respon-

siveness to unfamiliar younger children (Berman &Goodman, 1984).

Because older siblings often act as caregivers toyounger siblings, the sibling relationship provides chil-dren with opportunities to learn about others’ needs andcaring effectively for others. In addition, children withsupportive sibling relationships may be less preoccupiedwith their own feelings of distress, so that they are bet-ter able to attend to and understand the feelings andneed states of others—promoting prosocial behavior andaction (Sawyer et al., 2002). The link between the pres-ence of siblings and prosocial behavior is not alwaysconsistent, and it has been argued that the quality of thesibling relationship may be more predictive of children’spositive behavior than the mere presence of siblings inthe home (Cutting & Dunn, 1999).

As suggested, the child’s ordinal position in the sib-ling dyad likely affects opportunities and expectationsfor prosocial behavior. Older children are more likely toenact prosocial behaviors directed toward younger sib-lings and younger siblings accept reciprocal roles by dis-playing high rates of compliance and modeling (Dunn &Munn, 1986; Stoneman et al., 1986). Moreover, there isevidence that older sisters are particularly likely to en-gage in prosocial interactions with their siblings(Sawyer et al., 2002; Stoneman et al., 1986; Whiting &Whiting, 1975; cf. Brody, Stoneman, & MacKinnon,1986). Due to gender roles, older girls may be expectedto help, comfort, and teach younger siblings. Tucker andcolleagues (Tucker, Updegraff, McHale, & Crouter,1999) found that older siblings’ personal qualities andsibling relationship experiences were related to the em-pathy of younger sisters, but not younger brothers. Byearly adulthood, people are less defensive about accept-ing aid from a sister, particularly from an older sister,than from a brother (especially a younger brother;Searcy & Eisenberg, 1992).

Siblings’ prosocial behavior may be related in degree,although the data are sparse and inconsistent. In a studyof Japanese children, siblings’ prosocial behaviors to-ward one another were positively related (Kojima,2000). In contrast, Dunn and Munn (1986) found littlecorrelation between older and younger siblings’ proso-cial behavior (also see Bryant & Crockenberg, 1980), al-though younger siblings’ cooperation and prosocialbehavior were positively related to older siblings’ givingand cooperation 6 months later. Furthermore, in thatstudy, siblings who expressed negative affect in a highpercentage of their interactions were relatively unlikely

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 678


to behave prosocially with one another (cf. Stillwell &Dunn, 1985, using a small sample).

Characteristics of siblings may affect the degree ofprosocial behavior between them. For example, siblingrelationships in families of children with autism werecharacterized by less intimacy, prosocial behavior, andnurturance than those that occur between typically de-veloping siblings or a typical child and a sibling withDown syndrome (Kaminsky & Dewey, 2001). Childrenwith autism rarely seek out others for comfort, affec-tion, or help, decreasing the likelihood that siblings re-spond in a helpful and affectionate way (Knott, Lewis,& Williams, 1995). Thus, when one sibling has diffi-culty initiating, maintaining, or promoting positive in-teractions, prosocial and nurturing sibling interactionsare likely to be negatively affected.

Because sibling relationships are embedded in thefamily, it is not surprising that mothers’ behaviors arelinked to prosocial behavior between siblings. Whenmothers discussed their newborn’s feelings and needswith an older sibling, the older child was more nurturanttoward the infant. Further, friendly interest in the infantpersisted and predicted prosocial behavior toward theyounger sibling 3 years later (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982).Kojima (2000) found that Japanese mothers’ referencesto the actions or emotional states of a sibling were posi-tively correlated with the other child’s prosocial inter-actions with that sibling. In another study, nurturantmaternal responsiveness to young daughters’ needs waspositively related to younger siblings’ comforting andsharing with their older sibling. In contrast, mothers’unavailability was associated with older daughters’prosocial behavior toward their younger sibling (Bryant& Crockenberg, 1980). The latter finding is similar toBrody et al.’s (1986) finding that maternal valuing of aseparate life from children was associated with oldersiblings’ helping and managing their younger sibling.Perhaps older siblings, especially daughters, are ex-pected to take a nurturant helping role when the motheris unavailable relatively often.

Because sibling caregiving provides children with op-portunities to learn about others’ perspectives and emo-tions, children with sibling caregiving experience maydevelop relatively mature perspective-taking skills andtherefore respond relatively appropriately and effec-tively in caregiving situations (see section on perspec-tive taking). Stewart and Marvin (1984) found a positiverelation between perspective taking and sibling caregiv-ing; however, Howe and Ross (1990) did not find this re-

lation (although perspective taking was related tofriendly behavior between siblings). In addition, Garner,Jones, and Palmer (1994) found that emotional role-tak-ing skills, but not cognitive perspective taking, pre-dicted sibling caregiving behavior. Perspective takingabout emotions may be a more relevant skill for siblingcaregiving than is cognitive perspective taking, al-though the latter has been emphasized in most studies ofperspective taking and sibling interactions. A relationbetween perspective taking and siblings’ prosocial be-havior may be partly because high perspective-takingsiblings are especially likely to be asked by parents totake care of younger siblings (Stewart & Marvin, 1984).

In summary, sibling interactions may be an importantcontext for learning caregiving behaviors (particularlyfor older siblings) and the development of perspectivetaking. However, little is known about the ways in whichthe larger familial context moderates the development ofprosocial responding in the sibling relationship.

Peer Influences on Prosocial Development

Developmental theorists frequently have tied the acqui-sition of morality to processes inherent in social interac-tions with peers (Piaget, 1932/1965). These theoristshave argued that because peer interactions involve theassociation with equals and, frequently, cooperation,reciprocity, and mutuality, peer interaction may providean optimal atmosphere for the acquisition of conceptsand behaviors reflecting justice, kindness, and concernfor another’s welfare (Youniss, 1980). Consistent withthis view, Tesson, Lewko, and Bigelow (1987) found thatprosocial themes pertaining to issues such as reciproc-ity, sincerity and trust, helping and solving problems,and sensitivity to others’ feelings were prominent in 6-to 13-year-old children’s reports of the social rules theyused in peer relationships. Additionally, having at leastone reciprocated friendship has been related to higherlevels of prosocial behavior (Wentzel, Barry, & Cald-well, 2004).

Researchers also have found that the quality of chil-dren’s prosocial behavior directed toward peers andadults differs somewhat, particularly at younger ages.When asked to give examples of kindness directed to-ward peers, 6- to 14-year-olds tended to cite giving andsharing, playing, physical assistance, understanding, andteaching. In contrast, they cited primarily being good orpolite, doing chores, and obeying in regard to kindnesstoward adults (Youniss, 1980). Further, preschoolersprovide more authority- and punishment-related reasons

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 679

Cecillia

Note

Teoreticienii din psihologia dezvoltării au subliniat frecvent existența unei legături între achiziționarea unor caracteristici morale și interacțiunile sociale cu colegii (Piaget, 1932/1965; apud Eisenberg, Fabes, Spinrad, 2006). Acești teoreticieni au adus aceste argumente deoarece interacțiunile cu colegii implică relații de egalitate și, frecvent, cooperare, reciprocitate și mutualitate. De asemenea, interacțiunile cu colegii pot creea o atmosferă optimă pentru achiziția unor concepte și comportamente care reflectă corectitudinea, bunătatea și grija pentru bunăstarea celuilalt (Youniss, 1980, apud Eisenberg, Fabes, Spinrad, 2006).

Cecillia

Highlight

Cecillia

Highlight

Cecillia

Highlight

Tesson, Lewko și Bigelow (1987, apud Eisenberg, Fabes și Spinrad, 2006) subliniază faptul că temele prosociale care fac referire la aspecte ca reciprocitatea, sinceritatea și încrederea, întrajutorarea, rezolvarea de probleme și sensibilitatea la nevoile celorlalți au fost proeminente la copiii cu vârsta cuprinsă între 6 și 13 ani în ceea ce privește regulile sociale utilizate de ei în relațiile cu colegii. În plus, cei care au cel puțin o relație de reciprocitate în acest sens au un nivel mai ridicat al comportamentului prosocial (Wentzel, Barry și Caldwell, 2004 apud Eisenberg, Fabes și Spinrad, 2006).

Cecillia

Highlight

Cercetătorii subliniază ideea potrivit căreia calitatea comportamentului prosocial direcționată spre colegi și adulți diferă într-un anumit fel, mai ales la vârstele mici. Când au fost solicitați să dea exemple de acte de bunătate direcționate către colegii, copiii cu vârsta cuprinsă între 6 și 14 ani au dat răspunsuri ca a dărui și a împărți, a se juca, a înțelege și a învăța. În contrast, ei au dat răspunsuri ca a fi bun sau politicos, a face treburile casei și a asculta în legătură cu bunătatea față de adulți (Youniss, 1980, apud Eisenberg, Fabes și Spinrad, 2006).


for complying with adults’ than peers’ requests, andmore other-oriented or relational (friendship, liking)motives for complying with peers’ requests (Eisenberg,Lundy, et al., 1985). With age, children appear to beslightly more likely to define kindness toward adults in amanner similar to peer-directed kindness; that is, as in-volving acts demonstrating concern rather than compli-ance (Youniss, 1980). Thus, peer interactions mayprovide a context that is conducive to the development ofprosocial behavior motivated by other-oriented concernsrather than compliance, particularly for prosocial ac-tions directed toward individuals outside the family.

Other research also is consistent with the notion thatpeer interactions are important for the development ofempathy, sympathy, and an other-orientation. Accordingto maternal reports, infants and toddlers cry more in re-sponse to cries of peers than of adults (Zahn-Waxler,Iannotti, & Chapman, 1982). Children observed adultscry relatively infrequently, and when they did, they gen-erally did not cry. When children cried in response toadults’ distress, it usually was in reaction to angry inter-actions such as fights between parents. Moreover, proso-cial behavior (when it occurred) was enacted more oftenin response to a child’s than to an adult’s distress.

Peers also may affect prosocial development becauseof their roles as models. Adolescents who volunteer arerelatively likely to have friends who feel it is importantto engage in activities such as sports, clubs, or schoolevents (Huebner & Mancini, 2003), to do well in school,and to be involved in community and volunteer work(Zaff et al., 2003). In contrast, adolescents are relativelyunlikely to report the intention to volunteer if they be-long to a crowd that places a high value on having fun(Youniss, Mclellan, & Mazer, 2001; also see Pugh &Hart, 1999). Although such data are only correlationaland do not demonstrate causality, prosocial peer modelssometimes have been found to be effective in elicitingprosocial behavior in the laboratory (e.g., Owens & As-cione, 1991). Familiarity and liking of peer models maybe important factors in influencing children’s prosocialbehavior: Peers may have greater identification with fel-low peers and may experience more freedom to try outnew behaviors with peers than they do with adults. How-ever, findings in this regard are sparse and are not read-ily interpretable (see Owens & Ascione, 1991). In onestudy, children with a history of receiving social rein-forcement from peers were more likely to model the do-nating behavior of a peer from whom they had received

frequent rewards than the behavior of a nonrewardingpeer. In contrast, children with a history of infrequentpeer reinforcement imitated the prosocial behavior of anonrewarding rather than a rewarding peer (Hartup &Coates, 1967). Thus, characteristics of the child and thepeer model influence whether children imitate peers’prosocial actions.

Peers sometimes respond in a reinforcing manner topeers’ prosocial actions (Eisenberg, Cameron, Tryon, &Dodez, 1981), and such reinforcement may affect chil-dren’s prosocial behavior. Eisenberg et al. (1981) foundthat preschool girls (but not boys) who engaged in rela-tively high levels of spontaneous prosocial behaviorwere those who received marginally more positive rein-forcement for their prosocial actions from peers. How-ever, preschoolers (especially boys) who were high incompliant (requested) prosocial actions received lowlevels of positive reinforcement for their compliantprosocial actions. Sociable children were particularlylikely to receive positive peer reactions when they en-acted compliant prosocial actions, and children who re-sponded positively to other children’s spontaneousprosocial behaviors were likely to receive positive peerreactions for their own spontaneous and compliantprosocial behavior. Thus, children who were more socia-ble and positive may have elicited the most peer rein-forcement when they engaged in prosocial behavior. Acyclical process may occur in which socially competentchildren elicit more positive peer reactions for prosocialbehavior, which in turn increases their prosocial behav-ior (with the reverse process occurring for children lowin social skills).

Related to this cyclical process, Fabes, Martin, andHanish (2002) analyzed the degree to which low- andhigh-prosocial children (i.e., those at least 1 standarddeviation below or above the mean in teacher-reportedprosociality) interacted with each other. Rarely werelow and high prosocial children observed interactingwith each other (about 5% of the time). Fabes et al. re-ferred to this as a type of “prosocial segregation.” Ofimportance, the more exposure that preschool childrenhad to prosocial peers at the beginning of the schoolyear, the greater the degree of positive peer interactionslater in the school year. In a longitudinal extension ofthese analyses, Fabes, Moss, Reesing, Martin, and Han-ish (2005) found that exposure to prosocial peers was re-lated to heightened prosocial behavior 1 year later. Inaddition, Wentzel et al. (2004) found that students with

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 680


initially low levels of prosocial behavior relative to thoseof their friends improved when exposed to their moreprosocial peers, and students with initially higher levelsof prosocial behavior decrease their levels of prosocialbehavior when exposed to their less prosocial peers.Such findings demonstrate the potential potency ofpeers as influences on subsequent likelihood of proso-cial and positive behavior and development.

Peer interactions seem to provide unique opportuni-ties for prosocial behavior, and peer responses in suchcontexts may influence the type and degree of potentialprosocial responses. The role of peer interaction in olderchildren’s and adolescents’ prosocial behavior has sel-dom been examined and little is known about the degreeto which the effects of peers are moderated by othervariables (e.g., the nature of interactions with other so-cializers and characteristics of the child, the peer group,or the context) or the exact processes that underlie suchinfluences.

School Programs

Children likely receive considerable moral education andtraining in school, but little is known about the effects ofschool experiences on children’s prosocial behavior.

One avenue for examining the potential impact of theschool context on children’s prosocial behavior is to as-sess the natural occurrence of prosocial behavior in theclassroom. Hertz-Lazarowitz (1983; Hertz-Lazarowitz,Fuchs, Sharabany, & Eisenberg, 1989) found that natu-rally occurring prosocial behaviors in school classrooms(Grades 1 to 12) were relatively rare (only 1.5% to 6.5%of total behaviors). Similarly, researchers usually havenoted low frequencies of prosocial behavior in preschoolclasses, although estimates vary considerably with theoperationalization of prosocial behavior (e.g., Caplan &Hay, 1989; Denham & Burger, 1991; Eisenberg et al.,1981; Fabes et al., 2002; Strayer, Wareing, & Rushton,1979). Further, in studies of preschoolers, teachersrarely reinforced (Eisenberg et al., 1981) or encouraged(Caplan & Hay, 1989) children’s prosocial behavior.

Findings such as these suggest that the typical class-room environment may not be conducive to eliciting fre-quent prosocial interactions among children. Salient andunambiguous expectations regarding prosocial behaviormay be necessary to elicit more spontaneous prosocialactions in the classroom. Moreover, structuring classesto provide children with opportunities to help othersmay promote prosocial behavior. Bizman, Yinon,

Mivtzari, and Shavit (1978) found that Israeli kinder-gartners enrolled in classes that contained younger peerswere more altruistic than those enrolled in classes thatwere homogeneous in age. Further, elementary schoolIsraeli students in active classrooms in which coopera-tion and individualized learning were emphasizedhelped peers more than students in traditional class-rooms (Hertz-Lazarowitz et al., 1989).

Some investigators have tried to assess the effects ofpreschool and day care on children’s prosocial develop-ment by comparing children who attend preschool withthose who do not (e.g., are reared at home). Clarke-Stewart (1981) suggested that attendance at group daycare has a temporarily accelerating effect on social de-velopment and found that prosocial behavior was higherfor children with nonparental care. However, evidence insupport of this contention is equivocal. Schenk andGrusec (1987) found that home-care children were morelikely than day-care children to behave prosocially insituations involving an adult stranger, whereas the twogroups were similar on helping unknown children. Otherresearchers have produced results indicating that out-of-home care per se does not have any reliable or consistenteffects on children’s emerging prosocial development(Austin et al., 1991).

Although differences between home versus groupcare children may be limited, quality of the caregivingsituation likely moderates the degree and type of influ-ence preschools have on children’s prosocial behaviorand attitudes (Love et al., 2003). Quality of the day careor preschool environment has been associated with chil-dren’s self-regulation (Howes & Olenick, 1986), empa-thy and social competence (Vandell, Henderson, &Wilson, 1988), considerateness (Phillips, McCartney, &Scarr, 1987), and positive peer-related behaviors (in-cluding prosocial behaviors; Broberg, Hwang, Lamb, &Ketterlinus, 1989). Moreover, warm, supportive interac-tions with teachers have been associated with preschoolchildren’s modeling of teachers’ prosocial actions(Yarrow et al., 1973), sympathetic-prosocial reactions todistress (Kienbaum, Volland, & Ulich, 2001), and posi-tive interactions among students in the elementaryschool classroom (Serow & Solomon, 1979). In addition,Howes, Matheson, and Hamilton (1994) found that chil-dren classified as securely attached to their current andfirst preschool teachers were rated as more considerateand empathic with unfamiliar peers than were childrenclassified as having an insecure relationship (especially

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 681


ambivalent) with their teachers. Contemporaneousteacher-child relationships better differentiated peer-re-lated outcomes for children than did contemporaneousmaternal attachment relations or day-care history. Thus,degree and type of influence exerted by school experi-ences, as well as durability of effects on prosocial re-sponding, probably varies as a function of quality of carereceived and the child’s relationship with the teacher (aswell as quality of care received from parents at home).

Based on the previously described literature concern-ing the socialization of prosocial attitudes and behavior,some investigators have attempted to design school-based programs aimed at fostering prosocial respond-ing. Solomon and colleagues (Solomon, Battistich,Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000; Solomon, Watson,Delucchi, Schaps, & Battistich, 1988) developed a pro-gram (The Child Development Project, henceforth re-ferred to as the CDP) in which teachers were trained tomaintain positive personal relationships with their stu-dents by using a child-centered approach to classroommanagement that emphasized inductive discipline andstudent participation in rule-setting. Other aspects ofthe program were designed to promote social under-standing, highlight prosocial values, and provide helpingactivities; however, these program components wereviewed as playing a more limited, supportive role in theprogram (Battistich, Watson, Solomon, Schaps, &Solomon, 1991).

Across 5 consecutive years of implementation(kindergarten through fourth grade), students in theprogram classrooms, compared with control classes,generally scored higher on ratings of prosocial behavior.These patterns held when both teachers’ general compe-tence and students’ participation in cooperative activi-ties were controlled, suggesting that program effects onchildren’s prosocial behavior were not due simply to dif-ferences in teacher-initiated cooperative interactions orto more efficiently organized and managed classrooms(Solomon et al., 1988).

Children enrolled in the program (but not children inthe control group) evidenced the highest ratings forprosocial behavior and harmony in kindergarten. Thus,it appears that the impact of this program was greatestwhen first introduced. The degree to which program ef-fects generalized beyond the immediate classroom envi-ronment was unclear (Battistich et al., 1991). However,the teachers in the program had only 1 year of experi-ence in implementing the program and the effects mayhave been more sustained given additional time for

teachers to develop their techniques and fully integratethe program into the ongoing routine of the classroom.

In another longitudinal test of the effects of the CDP,the program was used with a cohort of students whobegan in kindergarten and continued through eighthgrade (Solomon, Battistich, & Watson, 1993). Of partic-ular interest, measures of prosocial reasoning and con-flict resolution were obtained each year. Comparisonstudents reasoned higher than CDP children at kinder-garten, but CDP students reasoned at higher levels fromfirst grade on, although the within-year difference wassignificant only in second grade. In general, CDP stu-dents also evidenced higher conflict resolution scoresthan comparison students (indicating consideration ofothers’ needs and a reliance on compromise and shar-ing). Program effects appeared to be greater when com-bined across years (effects were not consistentlysignificant within years). However, the CDP initiallywas implemented in schools with mostly advantagedCaucasian children. More recently, the CDP was imple-mented in six school districts over a 3-year period, withtwo additional schools in each district serving as com-parison groups (Battistich, Schaps, Watson, Solomon, &Lewis, 2000; Solomon et al., 2000). For those schoolsthat made significant progress in implementing the pro-gram, students showed positive gains in personal, so-cial, and ethical values, attitudes, and motives, and areduction of substance abuse and other problem behav-iors (also see Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson, &Schaps, 1995).

Other school-based programs have been designed topromote empathy. Although some seem to have beenminimally effective (e.g., Kalliopuska & Tiitinen,1991), Feshbach and Feshbach (1982) found that empa-thy training significantly increased incidents of proso-cial behavior in schoolchildren. Moreover, the use ofcooperative educational techniques in classroom activi-ties has been found to promote acceptance of others(Johnson & Johnson, 1975), as well as cooperation andprosocial behavior (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Sharan, 1983;Hertz-Lazarowitz, Sharan, & Steinberg, 1980).

Some researchers have developed school-based pro-grams that include a formal curriculum component. As-cione (1992) studied the effects of a humane educationprogram when used with first, second, fourth, and fifthgraders for nearly 40 hours over the school year. Therewas relatively little evidence of an immediate effect foryounger children, although there was an effect on hu-mane attitudes a year later (Ascione & Weber, 1993).

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 682

Cognitive and Sociocognitive Correlates of Prosocial Development 683

Humane attitudes were enhanced for the fourth gradersin the immediate posttest and for fourth and fifthgraders a year later. Human-directed empathy increasedfor fourth and fifth graders on both the initial and 1-year posttests.

In summary, although prosocial behavior often maynot be directly promoted in the classroom, quality earlyschooling and supportive relationships between chil-dren and their teachers have been associated with thedevelopment of prosocial tendencies. Moreover, school-based programs designed to enhance prosocial values,behaviors, and attitudes in children can be effective infostering children’s prosocial attitudes and behaviors.However, most programs have involved relatively weakand short interventions that may not be adequate forsome groups of children. Variation in instructionamong teachers within a treatment group often is prob-lematic, as is the application of these programs to largeand diverse samples. These issues are critical if onehopes to argue that such programs are cost-effectiveand impactful, especially in contexts where resourcesand time are limited.

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCOGNITIVECORRELATES OF PROSOCIALDEVELOPMENT

Numerous theorists have hypothesized that cognitiveand sociocognitive skills, particularly perspective tak-ing and moral reasoning, foster prosocial responding(Batson, 1991; Eisenberg, 1986; Hoffman, 1982). More-over, although not discussed, it is likely that certaintypes of prosocial experiences provide experiences thatenhance children’s sociocognitive skills (see Eisenberg,1986, for a review of children’s understanding of, andattributions about, their own and others’ kindness).

Intelligence, Cognitive Capacities, andAcademic Achievement

Because cognitive abilities may underlie the ability todiscern others’ needs or distress as well as the capacityto devise ways to respond to others’ needs, it would belogical to expect a modest relation between measures ofintelligence and prosocial responding, particularlyprosocial behavior involving sophisticated cognitiveskills. Some investigators have obtained modest to mod-erate positive correlations between measures of intelli-

gence (e.g., IQ, vocabulary or reading skills, languagedevelopment, developmental level) and self-reported(Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003; Cas-sidy, Werner, Rourke, Lubernis, & Balaraman, 2003;Hart et al., 1998; Ma & Leung, 1991; also see Goodman,1994) or other measures of prosocial behavior (Krebs &Sturrup, 1982; Slaughter, Dennis, & Pritchard, 2002;van der Mark et al., 2002; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1982; alsosee Lourenco, 1993, Zaff et al., 2003). Grade point aver-age also has been linked to prosocial goals and behavior(Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zim-bardo, 2000; Huebner & Mancini, 2003; Johnson et al.,1998; Uggen & Janikula, 1999; Wentzel, 2003; Zeldin &Topitzes, 2002; also see Lichter et al., 2002), as haveteachers’ ratings of school performance combined withgrades (e.g., Welsh, Parke, Widaman, & O’Neil, 2001).In addition, there is some support for a positive relationbetween scores on achievement tests and children’s em-pathy (Feshbach, 1978) or sympathy (Wise & Cramer,1988), and between academic self-efficacy and proso-cial behavior (Bandura et al., 2001, 2003). Not surpris-ingly, given the array of measures used, someresearchers have found no significant relations betweentests of intelligence (or scholastic ability) and children’sprosocial behavior (e.g., Jennings, Fitch, & Suwalsky,1987; Turner & Harris, 1984) or have obtained mixed orinconsistent relations with prosocial behavior (e.g.,Strayer & Roberts, 1989) or sympathy (Wise & Cramer,1988). Intelligence and academic skills likely are asso-ciated with certain types of prosocial responding orprosocial behavior in some contexts.

Perspective Taking and Understanding of Emotion

As noted, it is commonly assumed that perspective-tak-ing skills increase the likelihood of individuals identify-ing, understanding, and sympathizing with others’distress or need (e.g., Batson et al., 2003; Eisenberg,Shea, et al., 1991; Feshbach, 1978; Hoffman, 1982).Hoffman (1982) proposed that improvement in youngchildren’s perspective taking is critical to children’sabilities to differentiate between their own and others’distress and to accurately understand others’ emotionalreactions. These skills are believed to foster empathyand sympathy and, consequently, more and higher qual-ity prosocial behavior.

Information about others’ internal states can be ob-tained by imagining oneself in another’s position orthrough processes such as accessing stored knowledge,

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 683

Cecillia

Note

În acest sens numeroase teorii au la bază ipoteza potrivit căreia abilitățile cognitive și sociocognitive, mai exact capacitatea de a lua decizii și raționamentul moral, întrețin răspunsurile prosociale (Batson, 1991; Eisenberg, 1986; Hoffman, 1982 apud, Eisenberg, Fabes & Spinrad, 2006). Mai mult decât atât se pare că diverse tipuri de experiențe prosociale furnizează sporirea abilităților sociocognitive ale copiilor (Eisenberg, 1986 Eisenberg, Fabes & Spinrad, 2006).

Cecillia

Note

Deoarece abilitățile cognitive subliniază într-o oarecare măsură abilitatea de a discerne între nevoile și suferințele celorlalți la fel de bine ca și capacitatea de a concepe diferite modalități de a răspunde la nevoile celorlalți, este logic să ne aștepăm la o relație modestă între nivelul de inteligență și comportamentul prosocial. Unii cercetători au obținut corelații pozitive între nivelul de inteligență (IQ, vocabular sau abilități de citit, dezvoltarea limbajului, nivelul de dezvoltare) și unele aspecte ale comportamentului prosocial (Krebs & Sturrup, 1982; Slaughter, Dennis, & Pritchard, 2002; van der Mark et al., 2002; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1982 apud Eisenberg, Fabes & Spinrad, 2006).


mental associations, and social scripts or deduction(Karniol, 1995). Children also may have “ theories”about others’ internal states that they use to infer howothers feel (see Eisenberg, Murphy, & Shepard, 1997).For convenience, and because it generally is difficult toidentify the processes underlying performance on per-spective-taking tasks, the term perspective taking isused to refer to the ability to engage in any of theseprocesses when they result in knowledge about others’internal states.

Researchers have found an association between per-spective taking (broadly defined, and including an un-derstanding of theory of mind) and prosocial behavior(including comforting skills) or empathy/sympathy, al-though findings sometimes have been obtained for onlysome of the examined associations (e.g., Bengtsson,2003; Bengtsson & Johnson, 1992; Bosacki, 2003; Carloet al., 2003; Cassidy et al., 2003; Charbonneau & Nicol,2002; Denham et al., 1994; Denham, Blair, et al., 2003;Denham & Couchoud, 1991; Dekovic & Gerris, 1994;;Eisenberg, Carlo, et al., 1995; Eisenberg, Zhou, &Koller, 2001; Estrada, 1995; Garner & Estep, 2001;Garner, Jones, & Miner, 1994; Ginsburg et al., 2003;Kumru & Edwards, 2003; Litvack-Miller, McDougall,& Romney, 1997; Roberts & Strayer, 1996; Slaugheret al., 2002; Strayer & Roberts, 2004b; also see Eisen-berg & Fabes, 1998; Matsuba & Walker, 2005). Al-though no such association has been found in a minorityof studies (e.g., Astington & Jenkins, 1995; Hughes,White, Sharpen, & Dunn, 2000; Lalonde & Chandler,1995; Peterson, 1983; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1982), to ourknowledge, perspective taking seldom has been signifi-cantly negatively related to children’s prosocial behav-ior (e.g., Barrett & Yarrow, 1977; Lemare & Krebs,1983 for low assertive boys only). Moreover, the matchbetween children’s facial reactions and reported reac-tions to empathy-inducing stimuli (believed to reflectemotional insight) has been positively related to theirempathy (Roberts & Strayer, 1996), whereas young ado-lescents’ self-understanding has been associated withhigh levels of prosocial behavior (Bosacki, 2003).

Positive findings were obtained in many studies al-though most researchers used single measures of per-spective-taking abilities or prosocial behavior ratherthan more reliable indexes created by aggregation acrossmeasures. The association does not seem to be duemerely to increases in both perspective taking andprosocial behavior with age; often the age range of thestudy participants was narrow or findings were main-

tained when age was controlled (e.g., Garner, Jones, &Palmer, 1994; see Underwood & Moore, 1982). Asmight be expected, the relation seems to be strongerwhen there is a match between the type of perspective-taking skills assessed and the type or level of under-standing likely to promote prosocial behavior in thegiven context (Carlo, Knight, Eisenberg, & Rotenberg,1991). In some circumstances, perspective-taking skillsmay be unimportant because prosocial actions are en-acted in a relatively automatic fashion due to either theirlow cost or the compelling, crisis-like nature of the situ-ation. In other contexts, prosocial behavior likely is mo-tivated by any number of factors other than knowledgeof another’s internal states.

Some people may take others’ perspectives but lackthe motivation, skills, or social assertiveness required totake action. Thus, the relations of measures of perspec-tive taking or emotion understanding with prosocial re-sponding are likely moderated by other variables.Perspective taking has been linked to prosocial behaviorfor children who are socially assertive (Barrett &Yarrow, 1977; Denham & Couchoud, 1991), but not forchildren who are less assertive. Similarly, the relation ofperspective taking to prosocial behavior sometimes hasbeen mediated or moderated by children’s empathic/sympathetic responding (Barnett & Thompson, 1985;Roberts & Strayer, 1996). In one study, children whodonated money to help a child who had been burnedwere those who not only evidenced relatively sophisti-cated perspective-taking skills, but also were sympa-thetic and understood units and value of money (Knight,Johnson, Carlo, & Eisenberg, 1994). In another, per-spective taking was not directly related to reportedprosocial behavior; it was indirectly related through itsprediction of both sympathy and moral reasoning(Eisenberg, Zhou, & Koller, 2001).

In summary, children with higher perspective-takingskills generally are somewhat more prosocial, particu-larly if their perspective-taking abilities are relevant tothe prosocial task and if they have the social skills (e.g.,assertiveness) and emotional motivation (e.g., sympa-thy) to act on the knowledge obtained by perspectivetaking. Perspective-taking skills may be involved in dis-cerning others’ needs, providing sensitive help, andevoking the affective motivation for prosocial action(i.e., sympathy, empathy, or guilt). Moreover, it is likelythat children with well-developed perspective-takingabilities have more opportunities to be prosocial; for ex-ample, older siblings with better perspective-taking

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 684

Cecillia

Note

În concluzie, copiii care au o abilitate generală ridicată de a ține cont de punctul de vedere al celorlalți sunt oarecum, potrivit studiilor, mai orientați spre un comportament prosocial, în special dacă această abilitate este relevantă în sarcini cu caracter prosocial și dacă ei au abilități sociale (de exemplu asertivitate) sau motivație emoțională (de exemplu simpatia). A ține cont de opinia celorlalți implică capacitatea de a discerne nevoile celorlalți, găsesc mai multe oportunități de a se comporta prosocial (Stewart & Marvin, 1984 apud Eisenberg, Fabes & Spinrad, 2006).

Cognitive and Sociocognitive Correlates of Prosocial Development 685

skills are more frequently asked by their mothers toprovide caregiving to younger siblings (Stewart & Mar-vin, 1984).

Person Attributions and Expressed Motives

Although children sometimes may report socially desir-able motives or may have little access to their motives(see Eisenberg, 1986, for a discussion of these issues),there appears to be some relation between children’s ex-pressed motives and the quantity (e.g., Bar-Tal, Raviv,et al., 1980) or quality (i.e., maturity; see Bar-Tal,1982) of their prosocial behavior (see Eisenberg, 1986,for a review). As discussed by Eisenberg (1986), it is un-clear whether children’s motives influence their proso-cial responding or if children formulate motives posthoc to the execution of behavior based on self-observation. In support of the former explanation, Smithet al. (1979) found that individual differences in ex-pressed internality of motives were associated with do-nating, whereas environmental contingencies (e.g.,rewards and punishments) that might influence post hocevaluations were not. In any case, it is likely that peoplehave greater access to their cognitive processes (includ-ing motives) when a task is not so overlearned that it canbe performed in a mindless manner. Therefore, it isprobable that expressed motives are more accurate forprosocial acts that are not performed automatically; thatis, when the potential benefactor must consider whetherto assist. At this time, data to test this idea are not avail-able (see, however, Eisenberg & Shell, 1986).

Moral Reasoning

In general, investigators have hypothesized that thereshould be some link between children’s moral reasoningand their behavior. Krebs and Van Hesteren (1994) as-serted: “[A]dvanced stages give rise to higher quantitiesof altruism than less advanced stages because they giverise to greater social sensitivity, stronger feelings of re-sponsibility, and so on. . . . We propose that advancedstage-structures give rise for forms of altruism that are(1) purer (i.e., more exclusively devoted to enhancing thewelfare of others, as opposed to the self ) and (2) deeper(i.e., that benefit others in less superficial and less tran-sient ways) than less advanced structures” (p. 136).

Prosocial actions can be motivated by a range of con-siderations, including altruistic, pragmatic, and evenself-oriented concerns; this attenuates the degree to

which one might expect associations between generallevel of moral reasoning and observed prosocial actions.However, prosocial behavior motivated by a particulartype of factor (e.g., sympathy) is likely to be correlatedwith the types or levels of reasoning reflecting that fac-tor, although not necessarily with an individual’s overalllevel of reasoning.

In published studies involving child participants,prosocial behavior has been inconsistently related to as-pects of Piaget’s scheme of moral judgment (e.g., inten-tionality, distributive justice), but generally (albeit notconsistently) positively related to Kohlbergian prohibi-tion- and justice-oriented moral reasoning (or modifiedversions thereof; see Eisenberg, 1986; Eisenberg &Fabes, 1998; Underwood & Moore, 1982). However,there appears to be a stronger correspondence betweenmoral reasoning and prosocial behavior if the moral rea-soning dilemma concerns reasoning about prosocial be-havior rather than another type of behavior. Levin andBekerman-Greenberg (1980) found that the strength ofthe positive relation between reasoning about sharingand actual prosocial behavior was somewhat greater ifthe dilemma and sharing task were similar in content.Moreover, when researchers have assessed children’smoral reasoning about dilemmas involving helping orsharing behavior, generally moral reasoning has been as-sociated in the predicted manner with at least some mea-sures of prosocial behavior (e.g., Carlo & Randall, 2002;Eisenberg, Carlo, et al., 1995; Eisenberg, Miller, et al.,1991; Eisenberg, Zhou, & Koller, 2001; Janssens &Dekovic, 1997; Kumru et al., 2003; Larrieu & Mussen,1986; Stewart & McBride-Chang, 2000; also see Eisen-berg, 1986, and Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998, for reviews).In addition, children who reason at developmentally ma-ture levels are less likely than children who reason atlower levels to say they would discriminate betweenpeople close to them and others when deciding whetherto help (Eisenberg, 1983; also see Ma, 1992).

Types of reasoning that reflect an other- versus self-orientation or are developmentally mature for the agegroup are most likely to predict prosocial responding.Hedonistic reasoning and needs-oriented reasoning (i.e.,rudimentary other-oriented reasoning) tend to be nega-tively and positively related, respectively, to prosocialbehavior (e.g., Carlo et al., 1996; Carlo et al., 2003;Eisenberg, Boehnke, et al., 1985; Eisenberg, Carlo,et al., 1995; Eisenberg, Miller, et al., 1991; Eisenberg &Shell, 1986). In addition, sometimes a mode of reason-ing that is relatively sophisticated for the age group

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 685

Cecillia

Note

În general, cercetătorii au promovat ideea potrivit căreia ar trebui să existe o legătură la copii între raționamentul moral și comportamentul lor. Krebs și Van Hesteren (1994, apud Eisenberg, Fabes, Spinrad, 2006) afirmau că: Stadiile avansate ridică nivelul de altruism față de cele mai puțin avansate deoarece conduc spre o mai mare sensibilitate socială, sentimente mai puternice de responsabilitate. Acțiunile prosociale pot fi motivate de un rang de considerație, incluzând altruismul, pragmatismul și chiar preocupările orientate spre sine; acestea atenuează măsura în care se așteaptă să existe asociații între nivelul generala al raționamentului moral și acțiunile prosociale observate. Totuși, comportamentul prosocial motivat de un factor particular (de exemplu simpatia) este de preferat a fi corelat cu tipuri sau niveluri ale raționamentului care evidențiază acel factor (Eisenberg, Fabes, Spinrad, 2006). În studiile realizate pe copii, comportamentul prosocial nu a fost relaționat cu aspecte ale stadiilor de judecată morală propuse de Piaget (de exemplu intenționalitatea, dreptatea echitabilă), dar în general a fost relaționat cu stadii propuse de Kohlberg: de interzicere și de justiție dreaptă (Eisenberg, 1986; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Underwood & Moore, 1982). Cercetările evidențiază o corespondență puternică între raționamentul moral și comportamentul prosocial dacă dilemele privind raționamentul moral fac referirea la comportamente prosociale mai degrabă decât la orice alt tip de comportament (Eisenberg, Fabes, Spinrad, 2006). Raționamentul hedonistic și raționamentul orientat spre nevoi tinde să fie relaționat negativ și pozitiv cu comportamentul prosocial (Carlo et al., 1996; Carlo et al., 2003; Eisenberg, Boehnke, et al., 1985; Eisenberg, Carlo, et al., 1995; Eisenberg, Miller, et al., 1991; Eisenberg & Shell, 1986; apud Eisenberg, Fabes, Spinrad, 2006).


(Carlo & Randall, 2002; Miller, Eisenberg, Fabes, &Shell, 1996; Schenk & Grusec, 1987) has been signifi-cantly associated with prosocial behavior. It is possiblethat the relation of moral reasoning and prosocial behav-ior increases with age across adolescence (Pratt et al.,2004) because moral reasoning becomes more matureand internalized with age (Eisenberg, 1986).

The nature of the enacted prosocial behavior alsoseems to be a critical variable. Higher level self-reported internalized prosocial moral reasoning tends tobe positively correlated with adolescents’ reports of al-truistic prosocial actions and helping in emotional andanonymous situations, whereas lower level reasoning(i.e., approval-oriented or hedonistic) tends to be relatedpositively to reported public helping and negatively toaltruism or helping in emotional or dire circumstances(Carlo, Hausmann, et al., 2003). In observational stud-ies, prosocial moral reasoning most often has been sig-nificantly positively related to preschoolers’spontaneous sharing behaviors rather than helping be-haviors (which, in these studies, generally entailed littlecost) or prosocial behaviors performed in compliancewith a peer’s request (Eisenberg et al., 1984; Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979). In fact, preschoolers’ spontaneousprosocial behaviors predict a prosocial, sympathetic ori-entation across childhood and into early adulthood(Eisenberg, Guthrie, et al., 1999, 2002).

In laboratory studies involving elementary or highschool students, prosocial moral reasoning more fre-quently has been associated with prosocial actions thatincur a cost (e.g., donating or volunteering time afterschool) than with those low in cost (e.g., helping pick updropped paper clips; Eisenberg, Boehnke, et al., 1985;Eisenberg, Shell, et al., 1987; Eisenberg & Shell, 1986;also see Miller et al., 1996). Eisenberg and Shell (1986)hypothesized that low-cost behaviors are performedrather automatically, without much cognitive reflection,moral or otherwise. In contrast, moral reasoning islikely to be associated with children’s prosocial behav-ior in situations involving a cost because considerationof the cost may evoke cognitive conflict and morally rel-evant decision making.

It also is likely that other variables moderate the re-lation between moral judgment and prosocial behavior,particularly for lower level modes of reasoning (athigher levels, moral principles may be sufficient moti-vation to help). Sympathetic responding is a likely mod-erator. Consistent with this view, Miller et al. (1996)found that preschoolers who reported sympathy for hos-

pitalized children and who were relatively high in useof needs-oriented reasoning were especially likely tohelp hospitalized children at a cost to themselves. Af-fective motivation such as sympathy (and perhaps guilt)often may be necessary to spur the individual to action.Thus, it is important to identify moderators and media-tors of the relation between moral reasoning and proso-cial responding.

EMPATHY-RELATED EMOTIONALRESPONDING

As noted, psychologists (e.g., Eisenberg, 1986; Fesh-bach, 1978; Hoffman, 1982; Staub, 1979) and philoso-phers (Blum, 1980; Hume, 1748/1975; Slote, 2004) haveproposed that prosocial behavior, particularly altruism,often is motivated by empathy or sympathy. Links be-tween empathy or sympathy and prosocial behavior havebeen presumed to exist both within specific contexts(e.g., Batson, 1991; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990) and at thedispositional level (i.e., people with a dispositional ten-dency toward empathy/sympathy are expected to be al-truistic in general; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987).

Although many psychologists have assumed that em-pathy plays a role in prosocial behavior, in a meta-ana-lytic review, Underwood and Moore (1982) found thatempathy was not significantly related to prosocial be-havior. Many of the studies they reviewed were con-ducted with children, and most involved a particulartype of measure—the picture/story measure of empathy.With this type of measure, children are presented with aseries of short vignettes, usually illustrated (rather thanvideotaped), about children in emotionally evocativecontexts (e.g., when a child loses his or her dog). Aftereach vignette, the child is asked, “How do you feel?” ora similar question. If children say they felt an emotionsimilar to that which the story protagonist would be ex-pected to feel, they typically are viewed as empathizing.

The validity of this sort of measure has been ques-tioned, in part because these measures were not veryevocative (see Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Lennon,Eisenberg, & Carroll, 1983). In fact, the degree of asso-ciation between measures of empathy-related respond-ing and prosocial behavior appears to vary as a functionof the measure of empathy. In a meta-analytic review ofthe literature, Eisenberg and Miller (1987) found no sig-nificant relation between prosocial behavior and pic-ture/story measures (or children’s self-reportedreactions to enactments or videotapes of others in dis-

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 686

Empathy-Related Emotional Responding 687

tress or need). In contrast, there were significant posi-tive associations with prosocial behavior for some non-self-report measures of empathy-related responding andself-report measures for older adolescents and adults. Atthe time of the Eisenberg and Miller review, there werefew published studies including facial or physiologicalmeasures or the use of questionnaires with children inpreschool or early elementary school.

In recent years, it has become clear that it is essentialto differentiate among empathy-related emotional reac-tions. Batson (1991) hypothesized that sympathy (as de-fined at the beginning of this chapter, although labeled“empathy” by Batson) is intimately linked with other-oriented motivation and, consequently, with other-ori-ented, altruistic helping behavior. In contrast, personaldistress is viewed as involving the egoistic motivation ofalleviating one’s own distress; therefore, it is expectedto motivate prosocial behavior only when the easiestway to reduce one’s own distress is to reduce the other’sdistress (e.g., when one cannot easily escape contactwith the empathy-inducing person).

Consistent with his theorizing, Batson and his col-leagues, in laboratory studies with adults, have foundthat sympathy is more likely to be positively associatedwith helping than is personal distress when it is easy forpeople to escape contact with the person needing assis-tance (see Batson, 1991). In a series of studies, Eisen-berg, Fabes, and their colleagues obtained similarfindings with children. In their studies, children’sprosocial behavior was as anonymous as possible andchildren did not have to interact in any way with theneedy other(s) if they did not want to do so. Eisenberget al. (1994) have argued that people tend to experiencepersonal distress when they are physiologically over-aroused, whereas they experience sympathy when theyexperience moderate vicarious arousal. Thus, the re-searchers hypothesized that high levels of autonomicarousal would be associated with personal distress,whereas the reverse would be true for sympathy (exceptwhen low arousal is likely an index of no empathy-re-lated responding, especially to a mild stimulus). In addi-tion, heart rate deceleration tends to occur whenindividuals are oriented to information in the environ-ment outside the self; this is another reason one mightexpect an association between experiencing sympathyand heart rate deceleration. Across studies in whichchildren were shown empathy-inducing videotapes, chil-dren who exhibited facial or physiological (i.e., heartrate deceleration or lower skin conductance) markers of

sympathy tended to be relatively prosocial when givenan opportunity to assist someone in the film or peoplesimilar to those in the film (e.g., hospitalized children).In contrast, children who exhibited evidence of personaldistress (higher heart rate or skin conductance) tendedto be less prosocial (Eisenberg, Fabes, et al., 1993;Eisenberg, Fabes, et al., 1990; Eisenberg, Fabes, Kar-bon, Murphy, Carlo, et al., 1996; Eisenberg, Fabes,Miller, et al., 1989; Fabes, Eisenberg, Karbon,Bernzweig, et al., 1994; Fabes, Eisenberg, Karbon,Troyer, & Switzer, 1994; Miller et al., 1996). Self-report measures in these studies tended to be less con-sistently related to children’s prosocial behaviors (seeEisenberg & Fabes, 1990). Fabes, Eisenberg, and Eisen-bud (1993) also found that skin conductance (a markerof personal distress) predicted girls’ (but not boys’) lowdispositional (rather than situational) helpfulness (i.e.,parental ratings of helpfulness rather than prosocial be-havior in the same context). Moreover, facial reactionsof sympathy have been linked to prosocial behavior inanother context (Eisenberg, Fabes, et al., 1990; Eisen-berg, McCreath, & Ahn, 1988).

As one would expect, not all markers of sympathy orpersonal distress in Eisenberg, Fabes, and their col-leagues’ research predicted prosocial behavior in allstudies (or sometimes for both sexes; e.g., Eisenberg,Fabes, Karbon, Murphy, Carlo, & Wosinski, 1996;Miller, Eisenberg, et al., 1996). In addition, heart ratemarkers of reactions to empathy-inducing films pre-dicted prosocial behavior within, but not across, con-texts (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes, et al., 1990). Nonetheless,the overall pattern of findings is consistent. Further,other investigators have obtained similar findings.Zahn-Waxler and her colleagues found that sympatheticconcern and prosocial actions seemed to co-occur in thebehavior of children aged 14 and 26 months (Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, & Emde, 1992; Zahn-Waxler et al.,2001) and 4 to 5 years (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1995), al-though self-distress in reaction to another’s emotion(Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, & Emde, 1992) and arousal(Zahn-Waxler et al., 1995) were unrelated to prosocialbehavior in toddlers (also see Trommsdorff, 1995).Zahn-Waxler et al. (1995) also found (a) children’s heartrate deceleration during exposure to sadness (at thepeak interval) was associated with 3 of 4 measures ofprosocial responding, and (b) behavioral /facial mea-sures of concerned attention were positively related toprosocial behavior directed toward the target of concern.Similarly, Volling (2001) found that preschoolers who

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 687


turned their backs or moved away from a distressedyounger sibling were also more likely to display personaldistress reactions. Trommsdorff and Friedlmeier (1999)reported that German children’s facial sympathy waspositively correlated with intensity of observed helping,unless they were distracted by another task.

Preschoolers’ personal distress reactions also havebeen positively related to the children’s tendency to en-gage in compliant, requested prosocial behaviors inother contexts (Eisenberg et al., 1988; Eisenberg, Fabes,et al., 1990). Compliant prosocial behavior, in contrastto spontaneously emitted prosocial behavior, has beencorrelated with low assertiveness, low levels of positivepeer reinforcement, low levels of positive response topeers’ prosocial actions, and low levels of social inter-action. Children high in compliant prosocial responding,especially boys, seem to be nonassertive and perhapsare viewed as easy targets by their peers (Eisenberget al., 1981; Eisenberg et al., 1988; Larrieu, 1984). Un-like frequency of spontaneous sharing, young children’scompliant prosocial behaviors generally do not predicttheir sympathy at older ages, although there are a fewcorrelations of compliant sharing with self-reportedmeasures evident in adolescence and early adulthood(Eisenberg, Guthrie, et al., 1999, 2002). It is likely thatyoung children who exhibit high levels of compliant be-havior with peers are relatively low in social compe-tence and emotion regulation, and engage in requestedprosocial behaviors as a means of curtailing unpleasantsocial interactions.

Studies since Eisenberg and Miller’s (1987) reviewsupport the view that questionnaire measures tappingempathy (Albiero & Lo Coco, 2001; Eisenberg, Miller,et al., 1991; Eisenberg, Shell, et al., 1987; Hoffner &Haefner, 1997; cf. Stewart & McBride-Chang, 2000),sympathy (Eisenberg, Carlo, et al., 1995; Eisenberg,Miller, et al., 1991; Estrada, 1995; Knight et al., 1994;Litvack-Miller et al., 1997), sympathy and empathycombined (e.g., Krevans & Gibbs, 1996), or empathicself-efficacy (i.e., perceived ability to experience empa-thy/sympathy; Bandura et al., 2003) are positively re-lated to some measures of children’s prosocial behaviorin Asian (e.g., in Japan; Asakawa, Iwawaki, Mondori, &Minami, 1987), mid-Eastern (Kumru & Edwards,2003), or European samples (Bandura et al., 2003), aswell as in North American samples. Relations betweendispositional empathy or sympathy and prosocial behav-ior seem to be most consistent for self-reported or rela-tively costly prosocial behavior (Eisenberg, Miller,et al., 1991; Eisenberg, Shell, et al., 1987). Findings for

self-reported empathy are not highly consistent (e.g.,Larrieu & Mussen, 1986; Strayer & Roberts, 1989; alsosee Roberts & Strayer, 1996). However, empathy ques-tionnaires often contain items that may reflect personaldistress or sympathy in addition to empathy. Children’sself-reported personal distress on questionnaires tendsnot to be related to children’s prosocial behavior (e.g.,Eisenberg, Carlo, et al., 1995; Eisenberg, Miller, et al.,1991; Litvack-Miller et al., 1997), although a weak neg-ative relation was obtained with adolescents (Estrada,1995). It may be that questionnaire measures of personaldistress, which have been adapted from work withadults, are not optimal for children.

In brief, recent research findings are consistent withthe conclusion that sympathy and sometimes empathy(depending on its operationalization) are positively re-lated to prosocial behavior, whereas personal distress,particularly as assessed with nonverbal measures, isnegatively related (or unrelated for self-reports) toprosocial behavior. As might be expected, there is moreevidence of associations within contexts than acrosscontexts, although children with a sympathetic disposi-tion appear to be somewhat more prosocial in generalthan are other children. In addition, there is evidencethat the relation of sympathy to prosocial behavior ismoderated by dispositional perspective taking (Knightet al., 1994) and moral reasoning (Miller et al., 1996).Thus, it is important to identify dispositional and situa-tional factors that influence when and whether empa-thy-related situational reactions and dispositionalcharacteristics are related to prosocial behavior.

DISPOSITIONAL AND PERSONALITYCORRELATES OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Some, but not all, aspects of personality likely have asubstantial genetic basis. Thus, some of the research onpersonality correlates (particularly those viewed as partof temperament, such as negative emotionality) is rele-vant to an understanding of the constitutional bases ofprosocial behavior and empathy. Moreover, informationon the personality correlates of prosocial behavior couldprovide clues to the environmental origins of prosocialbehavior when there is evidence of a link between agiven aspect of personality and socialization.

Consistency of Prosocial Behavior

The assertion that there are personality correlates ofprosocial behavior implies a more basic assumption: that

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 688

Dispositional and Personality Correlates of Prosocial Behavior 689

there is some consistency in children’s prosocial re-sponding. Consistency of the existence of an altruistic(or moral) personality has been an issue of debate formany years and continues to be discussed in the socialpsychological literature (see Batson, 1991; Eisenberg,Guthrie, et al., 2002). The empirical findings are re-viewed in some detail in other sources (Eisenberg &Fabes, 1998; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997) and, conse-quently, are merely summarized briefly here.

Although findings differ considerably across mea-sures of prosocial responding and age, there is evidenceof modest consistency across situations and time. Evi-dence of consistency is weakest in studies of infants andpreschoolers (e.g., Dunn & Munn, 1986; Eisenberget al., 1984; Strayer & Roberts, 1989), but sometimesmodest or even compelling evidence of consistency hasbeen obtained (e.g., Denham et al., 1994; Gill &Calkins, 2003; Kienbaum et al., 2001; Robinson et al.,2001; van der Mark et al., 2002). Although nonsignifi-cant correlations have been obtained in some studies(e.g., Koenig et al., 2004), positive relations among mea-sures of prosocial or empathy-related responding, acrosssituations, raters, or time, often have been obtained instudies of elementary school children (e.g., Dekovic &Janssens, 1992; Hastings et al., 2000; Rushton & Teach-man, 1978; Strayer & Roberts, 1997b; Tremblay, Vitaro,Gagnon, Piche, & Royer, 1992, Vitaro, Gagnon, & Trem-blay, 1990, 1991; Warden, Cheyne, Christie, Fitz-patrick, & Reid, 2003; Welsh et al., 2001) andparticularly adolescents (Davis & Franzoi, 1991; Eberly& Montemayor, 1999; Eisenberg, Carlo, et al., 1995;Goodman, 2001; Savin-Williams, Small, & Zeldin,1981; Wentzel, 2003). Given the diversity of motiveslikely to be associated with prosocial- and empathy-re-lated responses, it is impressive that investigators fre-quently have found significant relations acrosssituations or time, even if many are modest in size.

Sociability and Shyness

Sociability, which likely has a temperamental basis (seeKagan & Fox or Rothbart & Bates, Chapter 3, thisHandbook, this volume), appears to influence if andwhen children assist others. In preschool and beyond,children who are prone to participate in activities atschool (Jennings et al., 1987), who tend to approachnovel people and things (Stanhope et al., 1987), and whoare sociable and low in shyness, social anxiety, or socialwithdrawal are somewhat more likely to help than areother children (Diener & Kim, 2004; Eisenberg, Fabes,

Karbon, Murphy, Carlo, & Wosinski, 1996; Hart et al.,2003; Howes & Farver, 1987; Inglés, Hidalgo, Mendéz,& Inderbitzen, 2003; Russell et al., 2003; Silva, 1992;cf. Farver & Branstetter, 1994). Moreover, behavioralinhibition at age 2 years has been associated with lowerempathy and prosocial behavior, especially withstrangers (Young, Fox, & Zahn-Waxler, 1999). In onestudy, however (Volling et al., 2004), preschoolers whowere high in social fear were relatively likely to providecaregiving to a young sibling during a separation frommother, perhaps because they were especially likely toexperience their sibling’s distress and were not inhibitedin interactions with the sibling.

There is some reason to believe that early adolescentshigh in evaluative concerns are more prosocial and lessaggressive toward others (if one controls for depression;Rudolph & Conley, 2005). Perhaps children and youthprone to social anxiety are particularly likely to engagein prosocial behavior with those they know; they alsomay be more easily socialized to comply with adults’expectations for prosocial behavior. In one of the fewother studies of adolescents, social anxiety was posi-tively correlated with dispositional personal distress butnot sympathy (Davis & Franzoi, 1991).

Sociability is particularly likely to be associatedwith the performance of prosocial behaviors that arespontaneously emitted (rather than in response to a re-quest for assistance; Eisenberg et al., 1981; Eisenberget al., 1984; Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979) or directedtoward an unfamiliar person in an unfamiliar setting(rather than a familiar person at home; Stanhope et al.,1987; Young et al., 1999). Further, extroversion (whichincludes an element of sociability) was related to ele-mentary school children’s helping in an emergency whenanother peer was present (but not when the child wasalone) and to helping that involved approaching the otherperson; introverts tended to help in ways that did not in-volve approaching the injured individual (Suda & Fouts,1980). Thus, sociable children seem to be more proso-cial than their less social peers when assisting anotherinvolves social initiation or results in social interaction.

Social Competence and SociallyAppropriate Behavior

Because prosocial behavior is socially appropriate inmany contexts, it is not surprising that children’s proso-cial behavior often is correlated with indexes of sociallyappropriate behavior. Although not all researchers haveobtained significant results (e.g., Sawyer et al., 2002),

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 689


prosocial children tend to be viewed by adults as so-cially skilled and constructive copers (Cassidy et al.,2003; Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, et al., 1996; Eisen-berg, Guthrie, et al., 1997; Eisenberg, Fabes, Karlo,Murphy, Wosinski, et al., 1996; Inglés et al., 2003; Pe-terson, Ridley-Johnson, & Carter, 1984) and are high insocial problem-solving skills (Marsh, Serafica, &Barenboim, 1981; also see Warden & Mackinnon,2003), positive social interaction with peers (Farver &Branstetter, 1994; Howes & Farver, 1987; also see War-den & Mackinnon, 2003), developmentally advancedplay (Howes & Matheson, 1992), and cooperation (e.g.,Dunn & Munn, 1986; Jennings et al., 1987). In addition,sympathy and empathy have been correlated (sometimesover years) with enacted or adult-reported socially com-petent behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1995; Eisenberg,Fabes, Murphy, Karbon, et al., 1996; Murphy, Shepard,Eisenberg, Fabes, & Guthrie, 1999; see Eisenberg &Miller, 1987) or with self-reports of number of friends(Coleman & Byrd, 2003).

Consistent with the link between socially appropriatebehavior and prosocial behavior, preschoolers’ prosocialand sympathetic responding have been linked to havinga close friend or more friends (Clark & Ladd, 2000;Coleman & Byrd, 2003; Farver & Branstetter, 1994;McGuire & Weisz, 1982; Sebanc, 2003; cf. Huebner &Mancini, 2003), supportive peer relationships (de Guz-man & Carlos, 2004; Laible et al., 2000; Sebanc, 2003;Lerner et al., 2005), the receipt of prosocial actionsfrom peers (Persson, in press), less conflict with friends(Dunn, Cutting, & Fisher, 2002), low levels of peer vic-timization (Johnson et al., 2002; cf. Coleman & Byrd,2003), and being popular (rather than rejected) withpeers (Caprara et al., 2000; Clark & Ladd, 2000; Cole-man & Byrd, 2003; Dekovic & Gerris, 1994; Dekovic &Janssens, 1992; Denham, Blair, et al., 2003; Eisenberg,Fabes, Murphy, et al., 1996; Hampson, 1984; Keane &Calkins, 2004; Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Jærvinen,2001; Ramsey, 1988; Slaugher et al., 2002; Tremblayet al., 1992; Warden et al., 2003; Welsh et al., 2001;Wentzel, 2003; Wilson, 2003; also see Haselager, Cil-lessen, Van Lieshout, Riksen-Walraven, & Hartup,2002; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Pakaslahti et al.,2002; cf. McGuire & Weisz, 1982). Stability of rejectionby peers in early elementary school is predicted by lowlevels of children’s prosocial behavior (Vitaro et al.,1990); children’s skill at comforting predicts whetherchildren are rejected, neglected, or accepted by peers(Burleson et al., 1986); and nonsupportive goals orstrategies in hypothetical help-giving situations are

linked to having few and lower quality friends (Rose &Asher, 2004). Clark and Ladd (2000) obtained concur-rent relations consistent with the hypothesis that chil-dren’s prosocial tendencies mediate the relationbetween a positive, warm parent-child relationship andchildren’s peer acceptance and number of mutualfriends. In addition, mature prosocial moral reasoninghas been positively correlated with sociometric status,as well as with teachers’ reports of social competenceand low levels of acting-out behavior (Bear & Rys,1994). Thus, children who are prosocial tend to havepositive relationships and interactions with peers.

Degree of social competence or popularity also mayaffect the types of prosocial behavior children prefer toperform. Hampson (1984) found that popular prosocialadolescents tended to engage in peer-related prosocialbehavior, whereas less popular helpers preferred non-peer-related tasks. Peer acceptance may affect chil-dren’s comfort level when helping peers; alternatively,people who prefer to help in ways that do not involve so-cial contact with peers may be less popular due to theiravoidant behavior.

Aggression and Externalizing Problems

Prosocial children are relatively likely to evaluate ag-gression negatively (Nelson & Crick, 1999) and are lowin aggression and externalizing problems (e.g., Capraraet al., 2000; Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Pastorelli, 2001;Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997; Diener & Kim, 2004;Denham, Blair, et al., 2003; Goodman, 1994; Hugheset al., 2000; Inglés et al., 2003; Keane & Calkins, 2004;Ma & Leung, 1991; Muris, Meesters, & van den Berg,2003; Nagin & Tremblay, 2001; Uggen & Janikula,1999; Warden et al., 2003; Welsh et al., 2001; Wilson,2003; also see Haselager et al., 2002; Silva, 1992;Slaughter et al., 2002; Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates,1999). Relations are found across time: Hay and Pawlby(2003) found that externalizing problems at age 4 pre-dicted low levels of prosocial behavior at age 11. Fur-thermore, sympathy (Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, et al.,1996; Laible, Carlos, & Raffaelli, 2000; Murphy et al.,1999; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1995) and empathy (Albiero& Lo Coco, 2001; Braaten & Rosen, 2000; Cohen &Strayer, 1995; Endresen & Olweus, 2001; Strayer &Roberts, 2004a; Warden & Mackinnon, 2003; see Miller& Eisenberg, 1988, for a review) have been linked to lowlevels of externalizing problem behaviors (including ag-gression or ADHD). Children’s and adolescents’ self-reported delinquency and externalizing problem

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 690


behaviors also have been negatively related to their self-reported empathic efficacy (Bandura et al., 2001, 2003).

The relation of prosocial responding to aggressionlikely varies depending on the actor’s motive for engag-ing in prosocial behavior. Although prosocial actionsthat involve a positive affective response to an individ-ual and those not motivated by personal gain tend to benegatively related to adolescents’ reports of aggression(and their belief that aggression is acceptable), reportsof prosocial actions performed for personal gain havebeen positively related to reported aggressive actionsand the acceptance of aggression (Boxer et al., 2004).

The relation between aggressiveness and prosocialbehavior may be more complex in the early years than atolder ages. Gil and Calkins (2003) found that aggressivetoddlers displayed more evidence of empathy or concernthan less aggressive toddlers. Moreover, Yarrow et al.(1976) found a positive correlation between prosocialand aggressive behavior for preschool boys (but notgirls) below the mean in exhibited aggression, whereasthere was a negative relation between prosocial behaviorand aggression for boys above the mean in aggression.For those young children who are relatively nonaggres-sive overall, aggression often may be indicative of as-sertiveness rather than hostility or the intent to harmanother (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Moreover, thelack of regulation reflected in aggression may allowyoung children to approach and exhibit concern towardan unfamiliar adult (the measure of concern used by Giland Calkins, 2003).

Thus, a negative relation between aggression andprosocial tendencies may develop with age. AlthoughHastings and colleagues (2000) did not find a relationbetween concern for others and the behavior problems of4- to 5-year-olds, children with clinical behavior prob-lems decreased in their concern and were reported byboth mothers and themselves to be relatively low in con-cern by age 6 to 7 years. Moreover, greater concern at 4to 5 years predicted a decline in the severity of external-izing problems over the 2 years. Thus, the inverse rela-tion between sympathy and externalizing problemsseems to begin consolidation during the preschool toearly school years.

Assertiveness and Dominance

Assertiveness and dominance also have been associatedwith frequency and type of children’s prosocial behav-iors. Assertive children (e.g., those who issue commandsor defend their possessions) are relatively high in sym-

pathy versus personal distress reactions (Eisenberg,Fabes, et al., 1990) and prosocial behavior (Barrett &Yarrow, 1977; Denham & Couchoud, 1991; Inglés et al.,2003; Larrieu & Mussen, 1986), particularly sponta-neously emitted (unrequested) instances of helping andsharing (Eisenberg et al., 1984; cf. Eisenberg et al.,1981). A certain level of assertiveness may be necessaryfor many children to spontaneously approach othersneeding assistance. In contrast, nonassertive, nondomi-nant children tend to be prosocial in response to a re-quest (Eisenberg et al., 1981; Eisenberg et al., 1984;Larrieu, 1984), apparently because they frequently areasked for help or sharing (probably due to their compli-ance; Eisenberg, McCreath, & Ahn, 1988; Eisenberget al., 1981). Children who are not simply assertive butseek to dominate others may be low in prosocial behav-ior (Krebs & Sturrup, 1984).

Self-Esteem and Related Constructs

It appears that there is a positive relation between chil-dren’s self-esteem and their prosocial tendencies, butmore so for older than for younger children. In studies ofpreschoolers and elementary school children, investiga-tors typically have found no evidence of a relation be-tween self-reports of self-esteem or self-concept andmeasures of prosocial behavior (Cauley & Tyler, 1989;Rehberg & Richman, 1989). In studies of children infourth grade to high school, investigators generally havefound that prosocial children have a positive self-concept (Laible & Carlo, 2004; Larrieu & Mussen,1986; Rigby & Slee, 1993; also see Jacobs et al., 2004;cf. Huebner & Mancini, 2003; Karafantis & Levy,2004), are high in self-efficacy (Bandura et al., 2001,2003; Lichter et al., 2002; Sugiyama, Matsui, Satoh,Yoshimi, & Takeuchi, 1992), and tend to have prosocialself-schemas (that affect donating when children areself-aware; Froming, Nasby, & McManus, 1998). John-son et al. (1998) found that girls, but not boys, withhigher academic and positive self-esteem in ninth gradewere more likely to volunteer in grades 10 to 12. Perhapsyoung children’s self-reports do not adequately tap rele-vant dimensions of their self-concepts. However, it isalso possible that young children’s self-concept often isnot based on enduring characteristics that are relevant toprosocial responding (see Harter, Chapter 9, this Hand-book, this volume).

It also is probable that the relation between self-concept or self-esteem and prosocial behavior varies asa function of the psychological significance or quality of

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 691


the prosocial act. Children who are anxious or emotion-ally unstable may enact prosocial behaviors to ingrati-ate, avoid disapproval, or prevent overreactivity to socialdistress. In fact, there is some evidence that boys whoare particularly high in prosocial behavior performed orpromised in a public context are anxious, inhibited, andemotionally unstable (Bond & Phillips, 1971; O’Con-nor, Dollinger, Kennedy, & Pelletier-Smetko, 1979).Similarly, Jacobs et al. (2004) found that although so-cially confident adolescents were relatively high in self-reported prosocial activities, so were anxiousadolescents. Youth who had a low social self-concept butwere not worried about their standing with peers werelower in prosocial activities than the socially confidentor anxious adolescents.

The association between older children’s self-conceptions and prosocial behavior probably is bidirec-tional in causality. Children who feel good aboutthemselves may be able to focus on others’ needs be-cause their own needs are being met; further, they mayfeel that they have the competencies needed to assist oth-ers. In addition, it has been argued that involvement inactivities that help others may foster the development ofself-efficacy (Yates & Youniss, 1996b). It is reasonableto assume that the performance of socially competentbehavior, including prosocial behavior, and children’sself-concept are complexly related during development.

Values and Goals

An important component of the self is one’s values.Colby and Damon (1992) noted two morally relevantcharacteristics that were dramatically evident in adultmoral exemplars: (1) exemplars’ certainty or excep-tional clarity about what they believed was right andabout their own personal responsibility to act in waysconsistent with those beliefs; and (2) the unity of selfand moral goals, that is, the central role of exemplars’moral goals in their conceptions of their own identityand the integration of moral and personal goals.

Consistent with Colby and Damon’s findings, Hartand Fegley (1995) found that adolescents who demon-strated exceptional commitments to care for others wereparticularly likely to describe themselves in terms ofmoral personality traits and goals and to articulate the-ories of self in which personal beliefs and philosophieswere important. Moreover, Pratt et al. (2003) found thatadolescents who were more actively involved in commu-nity helping activities reported closer agreement with

parents about the importance of moral values for the self2 years later than did their less involved peers.

More generally, there is evidence that prosocial be-havior is positively associated with measures of moralfunctioning, including other-oriented values and beliefs(Dlugokinski & Firestone, 1974; Janoski, Musick, &Wison, 1998; Larrieu & Mussen, 1986); social responsi-bility, responsibility goals, or low levels of irresponsi-bility (Savin-Williams et al., 1981; Wentzel, 2003);integrative goals (i.e., concern with the maintenanceand promotion of other individuals or social groups;Estrada, 1995); guilt or need for reparation (Capraraet al., 2001; Chapman, Zahn-Waxler, Cooperman, &Iannotti, 1987); and low levels of moral disengagement(Bandura et al., 2001). Further, adolescents sometimescite moral values and responsibility for others as rea-sons for enacting prosocial behaviors (e.g., Carlo, Eisen-berg, & Knight, 1992; Eisenberg, Carlo, et al., 1995).Thus, it appears that older children and adolescents whohave internalized moral (including altruistic) values andwho view morality as central to their self-concept areparticularly likely to be altruistic. In addition, prosocialtendencies appear to be linked to relational rather thaninstrumental goals (Nelson & Crick, 1999) and to col-laborative goals in the school environment (Cheung, Ma,& Shek, 1998).

In addition, empathic or sympathetic youth not onlyexhibit values and a social conscience (Lerner et al.,2005), but also may be more likely than less responsiveyouth to extend their prosocial behaviors to membersoutside their own group. Empathic youth are more likelythan their less empathic peers to say that they are com-fortable being near children who are different fromthem and who might be viewed negatively (e.g., a childwho is depressed, immature, aggressive, overweight, ordoing poorly academically; Bryant, 1982; cf. Strayer &Roberts, 1997a). Similarly, sympathetic youth value di-versity (Lerner et al., 2005), and school children feelless interpersonal distance from those with whom theyempathize/sympathize (Strayer & Roberts, 1997a; see,however, Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002). Inclu-sive reactions such as these would be expected to en-hance prosocial behavior directed toward out-groupmembers (Oliner & Oliner, 1988).

Religiosity

Religiosity (as measured by attending religious services)has been positively related to participation in volunteer

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 692


activities during adolescence (Huebner & Mancini,2003; Lichter et al., 2002) and predicts subsequent vol-unteering behavior in early adulthood (Zaff et al., 2003).Similarly, going to a Catholic or church-based school(but not being Catholic; Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates,1999) predicted adolescents’ community service(Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1999). Because involve-ment in church and other community-based youthgroups is related to doing volunteer service (McLellan& Youniss, 2003), it is likely that religious institutionsprovide opportunities for organized prosocial activities.In addition, Youniss, McLellan, and Yates (1999) arguedthat involvement in church-sponsored services makes itmore likely that youth will internalize or adopt the reli-gious rationales provided for engaging in service. Moregenerally, a religious identity, if it involves moral over-tones, has been linked with a prosocial personality (Fur-row, King, & White, 2004). At this time, it is unclearwhether prosocial behavior is differentially linked toidentification with, or acceptance of, various religions.

Regulation

In studies involving adult-reported or behavioral mea-sures of self-regulation (generally defined in terms ofprocesses involved in modulating emotional states andbehaviors; Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Sadovsky, in press),prosocial children tend to be relatively well regulated,as well as low in impulsivity (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes,Karbon, Murphy, Wosinski, et al., 1996; Eisenberg,Fabes, Karlo, Murphy, Wosinski, et al., 1996; Eisen-berg, Guthrie, et al., 1997; Moore, Barresi, & Thomp-son, 1998; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994; Silva,1992; Thompson, Barresi, Moore, 1997; Wilson, 2003;also see Deater-Deckard, Dunn, et al., 2001). The asso-ciation between regulation and prosociality is not sur-prising because engaging in prosocial actions oftenrequires regulated behavior and emotion (e.g., control-ling one’s own negative emotion) or involves actions thathelp regulate others’ emotions (Bergin, Talley, &Hamer, 2003). In fact, degree of regulation is a strongerpositive predictor of prosocial behavior for childrenprone to negative emotions such as anger (Diener &Kim, 2004; also see Eisenberg, Guthrie, et al., 1997).

Similarly, sympathy has been associated with highlevels of children’s regulation (Eisenberg & Fabes,1995; Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, Karbon, et al., 1996;Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, et al., 1996; Eisenberg, Liew,& Pidada, 2001; Murphy et al., 1999), whereas personal

distress sometimes has been associated with low regula-tion (Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, Maszk, et al., 1994,Ungerer et al., 1990; Valiente et al., 2004; cf. Eisenberg& Fabes, 1995). The few findings for empathy aremixed, some positive (Sneed, 2002), some not(Saklofske & Eysenck, 1983). In addition, resilient chil-dren, who may be viewed as optimally regulated, tend tobe prosocial and empathic (Atkins, Hart, & Donnelly,2005; Eisenberg, Guthrie, et al., 1997; Strayer &Roberts, 1989; also see Hart et al., 1998). In contrast,boys with ADHD were found to be lower on empathythan boys without a diagnosis of ADHD. Because chil-dren diagnosed with ADHD have low attentional con-trol, these children may be at a disadvantage for thedevelopment of empathy and prosocial behavior(Braaten & Rosen, 2000).

It appears that well-regulated children can modulatetheir vicarious arousal and, consequently, focus their at-tention on others’ emotions and needs rather than ontheir own aversive vicarious emotion (Trommsdorff &Friedlmeier, 1999). Consistent with this idea, Bengtsson(2003) found that Swedish elementary school studentswho were high in self-reported empathy and teacher-re-ported prosocial behavior tended to experience moder-ate (rather than high) levels of threat and to modulatethe emotional significance of empathy-eliciting stimulithrough cognitive restructuring (which can be viewed asa mode of emotion regulation). Moreover, well-regu-lated children would be expected to be relatively likelyto sustain their attentional focus on others and to sup-press any tendencies to try to avoid contact with dis-tressed or needy individuals.

Findings for measures of physiological emotional reg-ulation are somewhat inconsistent and may vary as afunction of age of the child or evocativeness of the em-pathy-inducing situation. In the relevant studies, physio-logical emotion-related regulation often is assessedwith higher heart rate variance, high vagal tone, or vagalsuppression. These intercorrelated measures, especiallythe latter two, are viewed as reflecting emotion-relatedphysiological regulation based on the control ofparasympathetic functioning by the vagal nerve (Porgeset al., 1994; see Rothbart & Bates, Chapter 3, this Hand-book, this volume). Such measures have been positivelyrelated with elementary school students’ observed com-forting (Eisenberg, Fabes, Karbon, Murphy, Carlo, &Wosinski, 1996) and dispositional sympathy (Fabeset al., 1993), although findings for girls have been posi-tive for maternal report of girls’ sympathy (Fabes et al.,

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 693


1993), but negative for girls’ self-reported sympathy(and positive for boys’ sympathy; Eisenberg, Fabes,Murphy, Karbon, Smith, et al., 1996).

Moreover, contrary to expectations, toddlers’ vagalsuppression in response to a crying infant was negativelyrelated to observed concern in response to an adultfeigning distress to an injury (Gill & Calkins, 2003).Similarly, Zahn-Waxler et al. (1995) found that pre-school children’s concerned reactions during the sametype of feigned injury task were negatively related totheir vagal tone. The same children’s vagal tone wasweakly negatively related to teacher- (but not parent- orchild-reported) prosocial behavior 2 years later (Hast-ings et al., 2000). Gill and Calkins suggested that a pos-itive relation between concern and physiologicalregulation might develop with age. Alternatively, it maybe difficult to differentiate between personal distressand sympathy with some of the measures (e.g., reactionsto feigned distress) typically used with younger chil-dren. It is not clear whether the complex pattern of find-ings is due to age-related factors, to differences in themeasures of prosocial behavior used with younger andolder children, or to other moderating factors.

Emotionality

Children who are emotionally positive—a characteristicthat may be viewed as partly an outcome of emotionalregulation—also tend to be prosocial (Denham, 1986;Denham & Burger, 1991; Eisenberg et al., 1981; Garner& Estep, 2001; also see Bandura et al., 2003; cf. Braaten& Rosen, 2000; Denham, Blair, et al., 2003; Farver &Branstetter, 1994) and empathic/sympathetic (Eisen-berg, Fabes, Murphy, Karbon, et al., 1996; Robinsonet al., 1994; also see Eisenberg et al., 1994; cf. Volling,Herrera, & Poris, 2004). In contrast, the data pertainingto the relation between negative emotionality and proso-cial responding are more complex. Prosocial behaviorgenerally (albeit sometimes for one sex or the other) hasbeen negatively related to negative emotionality, includ-ing anger, fear, anxiety, or sadness (Bandura et al.,2001; Denham, 1986; Denham & Burger, 1991; Diener& Kim, 2004; Eisenberg, Fabes, Karbon, Murphy,Wosinski, et al., 1996; Hoffner & Haefner, 1997; Ma &Leung, 1991, Tremblay et al., 1992; Volling et al., 2004;Wentzel & McNamara, 1999; also see Caprara, Bar-baranelli, Pastorelli, et al., 2001; Strayer & Roberts,2004a, 2004b; cf. Denham & Burger, 1991; Farver &

Branstetter, 1994; Hart et al., 2003), albeit not for somemeasures of depression or internalizing problems (Ban-dura et al., 2003; Goodman, 1994; Hay & Pawlby, 2003;Muris et al., 2003). In addition, intensity of emotionalresponding in general may be negatively related toprosocial tendencies (Garner & Estep, 2001). However,relations of negative emotionality (intensity and/or fre-quency) to empathy/sympathy have been negative(Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, Karbon, et al., 1996; Eisen-berg, Fabes, Shepard, et al., 1998; Murphy et al., 1999;Roberts & Strayer, 1996, for anger; Strayer & Roberts,2004a; van der Mark et al., 2002), nonsignificant(Braaten & Rosen, 2000; Denham, Blair, et al., 2003),and positive (Saklofske & Eysenck, 1983), althoughpositive findings have been obtained primarily whennegative emotionality was measured during the earlyyears and related to empathy (or mixed empathy andsympathy) rather than sympathy (Howes & Farver,1987; Robinson et al., 1994; Rothbart et al., 1994).There also is some evidence that children who are ex-tremely worried about the well-being of family membersare relatively prosocial (Hay & Pawlby, 2003).

Thus, in general, prosocial behavior and sympathy orempathy have been linked to dispositional positiveemotionality. Further, low negative emotionality hasbeen consistently associated with children’s prosocialbehavior, but not young children’s empathy/sympathy.The inconsistencies in findings may be partly due toboth type and intensity of the negative emotion experi-enced and type of measure. Relations between negativeemotionality and empathy/sympathy or prosocial be-havior seem to be negative especially for externalizingtypes of emotions (e.g., anger) rather than depression,anxiety, or dysphoric emotions (e.g., Laible et al., 2000;Strayer & Roberts, 2004a). Children’s anger and frus-tration seem to be salient to adults and, like aggression,covary inversely with prosocial behaviors and empathy-related emotions.

In addition, intensity of negative emotion may be re-lated to whether people experience sympathy or per-sonal distress, which, in turn, predicts prosocialbehavior. Eisenberg et al. (1994) proposed that situa-tional emotional overarousal due to empathy is associ-ated with personal distress, whereas moderate empathicresponding is associated with sympathy (also see Hoff-man, 1982). If people can maintain their vicarious emo-tional reactions at a tolerable range, they are likely tovicariously experience the emotion of needy or dis-

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 694

The Role of Relationship History in Prosocial Behavior 695

tressed others, but are relatively unlikely to becomeoverwhelmed by the emotion and, consequently, self-focused. In contrast, people who are overaroused by vi-carious negative emotion are expected to experiencethat emotion as aversive and as a distressed, self-focused reaction (personal distress). Consistent withthis view, general negative emotional arousal has beenfound to result in a self-focus (Wood, Saltzberg, &Goldsamt, 1990), and empathically induced distress re-actions are associated with higher skin conductance re-activity than is sympathy (Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller,Carlo, & Miller, 1991; Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller,Miller, et al., 1991).

Based on this line of reasoning, Eisenberg and col-leagues argued that individual differences in the dispo-sitional tendency to experience sympathy versuspersonal distress vary as a function of dispositional dif-ferences in both typical level of emotional intensity andindividuals’ abilities to regulate their emotional reac-tions. People high in effortful regulation (e.g., who havecontrol over their ability to focus and shift attention) arehypothesized to be relatively high in sympathy regard-less of their emotional intensity. Well-regulated peoplewould be expected to modulate their negative vicariousemotion and to maintain an optimal level of emotionalarousal that has emotional force and enhances attention,but is not so aversive and physiologically arousing that itengenders a self-focus. In contrast, people low in theability to regulate their emotion, especially if they areemotionally intense, are hypothesized to be low in dis-positional sympathy. Further, measures of tendencies todisplay anger and frustration probably partly reflect lowregulation and high emotional reactivity and, conse-quently, would be expected to relate to personal distressand low prosocial behavior.

Modest support has been obtained for these ideas. Asnoted, regulation has been linked to high sympathy andlow personal distress. Further, low and moderate levelsof negative emotional intensity, but not high levels, havebeen associated with situational concern (Eisenberg &Fabes, 1995) and children who experience more nega-tive emotion than that of the stimulus person elicitingempathy (i.e., become overaroused) are relatively low inempathy/sympathy (Strayer, 1993). In addition, there islimited evidence that unregulated children are low insympathy regardless of their level of emotional intensitywhereas, for moderately and highly regulated children,level of sympathy increases with level of emotional in-

tensity (Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, Karbon, et al., 1996;also see Eisenberg et al., 1998).

Thus, there is initial support for the notion that emo-tional intensity (including intensity of both positive andnegative emotions) interacts with regulation in predict-ing children’s sympathy, although the pattern of rela-tions is complex and depends on the type of regulation.For children in mid-elementary school, behavioral regu-lation was positively related to dispositional sympathyfor boys who were average or high, but not low, in thetendency to experience emotions intensely. In contrast,attentional regulation predicted high dispositional sym-pathy (for both sexes) only for children low in generalemotional intensity. For children low in emotional inten-sity, attentional control may be important in helpingchildren focus on and process others’ emotions andneeds (Eisenberg et al., 1998).

Positive relations between some measures of negativeemotionality and empathy/sympathy in the literaturealso may be due to empathic or sympathetic peoplebeing relatively likely to express or report their emo-tions (see Roberts & Strayer, 1996), in empathy-induc-ing contexts (Roberts & Strayer, 1996; also seeEisenberg, Losoya, et al., 2001). In future work on em-pathy-related reactions, it will be useful to differentiateamong types of negative emotion (e.g., externalizingand internalizing emotions), between expressed (i.e.,observable) and experienced emotion, and between indi-viduals’ general emotional intensity and the intensity ofsolely negative emotions.

THE ROLE OF RELATIONSHIP HISTORYIN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

The degree to which children are prosocial frequentlydepends on the identity and characteristics of the poten-tial recipient. Children prefer to help people who arerelatively important in their lives, such as family mem-bers (e.g., Killen & Turiel, 1998; Rheingold et al., 1976;van der Mark et al., 2002; Young et al., 1999). In adoles-cence, help is as likely or more likely to be directed to-ward known peers as toward known, nonfamilial adults(e.g., Zeldin, Savin-Williams, & Small, 1984). More-over, children often share or help friends or liked peersmore than less liked peers (Buhrmester, Goldfarb, &Cantrell, 1992) or acquaintances (Buhrmester et al.,

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 695


1992; Farver & Branstetter, 1994; Pilgram & Rueda-Riedle, 2002; Rao & Stewart, 1999). In fact, children asyoung as age 4 or 5 years or in elementary school reportmore sympathy toward the plight of a friend or likedpeer than toward an acquaintance (Costin & Jones,1992). Prosocial behavior among friends appears to bemotivated by not only liking and concern (Costin &Jones, 1992), but also loyalty, consideration of reciproc-ity obligations, and the fact that friends more often askfor sharing or help (Birch & Billman, 1986).

Sometimes children are equally prosocial to friendsand other peers or even help or share less with friends(Berndt, Hawkins, & Hoyle, 1986). In studies in whichchildren have had to choose between friends andstrangers, children apparently sometimes assisted peo-ple they did not know well to eliminate inequities be-tween a stranger and a friend because they believed thattheir friend would understand, they wanted to gain theunknown person’s approval or friendship, or they werecompeting with the friend (Berndt, 1982; Staub & No-erenberg, 1981).

SEX DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN’SPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Based on stereotypic gender roles, females generally areexpected and believed to be more responsive, empathic,and prosocial than males, whereas males are expected tobe relatively independent and achievement oriented(e.g., Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974). Further,cross-cultural work has verified that gender differencesin prosocial responding are not limited to only a few cul-tures and may develop with age. Whiting and Edwards(1973) found that helpfulness and support giving gener-ally were greater for girls than boys across six differentcultures, although these differences were significant forolder but not younger children. More recent work con-firms the cross-cultural tendency of girls to be moreprosocial than boys (e.g., Carlo, Reoesch, Knight, &Koller, 2001; Russell et al., 2003).

Despite the prevailing view that females are moreprosocial than males, findings vary depending on theage of the actor and the type of prosocial behavior. Eaglyand Crowley (1986) conducted a meta-analysis of sexdifferences in older adolescents’ and adults’ helping be-havior and found that men helped more than women,particularly in situations involving instrumental and

chivalrous assistance. Sex differences in helping wereinconsistent across studies and were successfully pre-dicted by various attributes of the studies. Carlo et al.(2003) also found sex differences varied with type of re-ported prosocial behavior: Adolescent girls were morelikely to report altruistic and emotional prosocial behav-iors than were boys; boys were more likely to reportprosocial tendencies in public situations; and no sex dif-ferences were found in situations involving anonymousor compliant prosocial behavior or helping in dire cir-cumstances. Becker and Eagly (2004) examined extremeforms of prosocial behavior—heroism—and found thatmen were overrepresented in some forms of heroism(e.g., Carnegie Hero Fund medalists who engaged inlife-risking rescue actions), but in other heroic actions(organ donors, peace corps volunteers, holocaust res-cuers), the percentage of women was at least equal toand, in several cases, higher than that found for men.Such findings suggest that the qualities associated withdifferent types of prosocial behavior (e.g., the role ofrisk taking in extremely dangerous heroic acts) morelikely explain differences in males’ and females’ ten-dencies to engage in prosocial actions than a general sexdifference model of prosociality per se.

Eisenberg and Fabes (1998) reported a meta-analysisof sex differences in children’s prosocial behavior in-volving 259 studies yielding a total of 450 effect sizes(M age = 7.93 years). Only one effect size was used persample (i.e., when different variables were used for asingle sample, one was selected randomly). For both thefull and partial sample of effect sizes, the mean un-weighted effect size was modest (.18) and favored girls.Although effect sizes were significant for all types ofprosocial behavior and for various design, method, or re-cipient characteristics, they varied in strength by thetype of prosocial behavior studied. Sex differences weresignificantly greater when prosocial responding wasmeasured with self-reports or reports from others thanwith observational methods. The effect size also wassignificantly greater for aggregated indices or indicesreflecting kindness/consideration than for indices re-flecting instrumental help, comforting, or sharing, andin correlational /naturalistic studies than in structured/experimental studies. However, the latter two differ-ences disappeared when study characteristics werecontrolled in regression analyses, probably because self-report measures have been used disproportionately inassessment of kindness/consideration and aggregated in-

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 696

Sex Differences in Children’s Prosocial Behavior 697

dices, and in observational /correlational studies. In ad-dition, sex differences in prosocial behavior were signif-icantly greater when the target was an adult or wasunspecified than when the target was another child.

When controlling for other study or participant vari-ables, the sex difference in prosocial behavior wasgreater for larger samples and when the age span ofstudy participants was relatively small. Instrumentalhelp also was significantly less predictive of sex differ-ences in prosocial behavior than were other types ofprosocial indices.

These findings support Eagly and Crowley’s (1986)conclusion that sex differences in adults’ prosocial be-havior vary as a function of the qualities of the studies.In contrast to Eagly and Crowley’s findings for adultsand older adolescents (combined), Eisenberg and Fabes(1998) found that girls tended to be more prosocial thanboys. The finding that the sex difference was weakestfor instrumental helping is particularly interesting be-cause many of the studies in the adult literature in whichmen helped more were assessments of instrumentalhelping (Eagly & Crowley, 1986).

With increasing age, sex differences in prosocial be-havior tended to get larger (see Eisenberg & Fabes,1998; Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, & Laible, 1999). How-ever, the effect for age in the meta-analysis was elimi-nated once other study qualities were controlled,probably because type of study was associated with age,with older children involved in more naturalistic/corre-lational studies.

Since the Eisenberg and Fabes’ meta-analysis, inves-tigators have continued to find sex differences in reportsof children’s prosocial behaviors (e.g., Bosacki, 2003;Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Pastorelli, 2001). Peers, espe-cially girls, are more likely to nominate girls as beingprosocial and to nominate boys as being bullies (Wardenet al., 2003; Warden & Mackinnon, 2003). Fewer differ-ences have been found in some observational studies(Fabes, Martin, & Hanish, 2002; contrast with Zahn-Waxler et al., 2001). To some degree, sex differences inself- and other-reported prosocial behavior may reflectpeople’s conceptions of what boys and girls are sup-posed to be like rather than how they actually behave.Parents emphasize prosocial behaviors and politenessmore with their daughters than with their sons (Power &Parke, 1986). Moreover, peers, parents, and teacherstend to perceive girls as more prosocial than either be-havioral or self-reported data indicate (Bond & Phillips,

1971; Shigetomi, Hartmann, & Gelfand, 1981). Further-more, parents have been found to attribute girls’ actionsto inborn factors significantly more often than boys’ ac-tions; whereas boys’ prosocial actions are more likely tobe viewed as due to environmental factors (Gretarsson &Gelfand, 1988). These findings are consistent with theview that girls’ reputations for prosocial behavior aregreater than the actual sex difference. In addition, chil-dren may self-socialize their prosocial tendencies bymeans of having their thoughts, emotions, and behav-ioral scripts conform to parents’, teachers’, and peers’expectations (Maccoby, 1998). Nonetheless, there is asmall sex difference favoring girls even in observationalstudies (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998), so there likely issome truth to the stereotype.

Sex differences in the literature may also be due, inpart, to biases in measures of prosocial behavior.Zarbatany, Hartmann, Gelfand, and Vinciguerra (1985)argued that measures used to evaluate children’s proso-cial tendencies include a disproportionate number ofsex-biased items favoring girls (items pertaining tofeminine activities). They found that masculine items(e.g., helping get a cat out of a tree) elicited endorse-ments for boys, and feminine-related and neutral itemselicited endorsements for girls. Masculine items likelyincluded acts of instrumental helping, the category forwhich there was the smallest sex difference favoringgirls (when study characteristics were controlled) in themeta-analysis.

Findings about sex differences in empathy and sym-pathy, like those for prosocial behavior, vary with themethod used to assess empathy-related responding. Asmentioned, Eisenberg and Lennon (1983; also seeLennon & Eisenberg, 1987), in a meta-analytic review,found large differences favoring girls for self-reportmeasures of empathy/sympathy, especially question-naire indices. No gender differences were found whenthe measure of empathy was either physiological or un-obtrusive observations of nonverbal behavior. In work inwhich sympathy and personal distress have been differ-entiated, investigators have obtained similar findings,although they occasionally have found weak (but signif-icant) sex differences in facial reactions (generally fa-voring females; see Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, &Miller, 1989) and in observational assessments of youngchildren using developmentally appropriate stimuli suchas puppets to elicit distress (Kienbaum et al., 2001) orfeigned distress (Zahn-Waxler et al., 2001). Eisenberg

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 697


and Lennon (1983) suggested that the general pattern ofresults was due to differences among measures in thedegree to which both the intent of the measure was obvi-ous and people could control their responses. Sex differ-ences were greatest when demand characteristics werehigh (it was clear what was being assessed) and individ-uals had conscious control over their responses (i.e.,self-report indices were used); gender differences werevirtually nonexistent when demand characteristics weresubtle and study participants were unlikely to exercisemuch conscious control over their responding (i.e., phys-iological indices). Thus, when gender-related stereo-types are activated and people can easily control theirresponses, they may try to project a socially desirableimage to others or to themselves.

Eisenberg and Fabes (1998; Fabes & Eisenberg,1996) also conducted a follow-up meta-analysis of em-pathy/sympathy data published since Eisenberg andLennon’s (1983) first review and found an overall un-weighted effect size (favoring girls) of .34. Relativelylarge effect sizes were found in self-report studies (sig-nificantly larger than in the studies involving othermethods) and in studies in which the targets of the em-pathic response were unspecified or unknown individu-als. Moreover, sex differences were larger for olderchildren. When sex differences were examined bymethod, significant sex differences favoring girls wereobtained for self-report indices (weighted effect size of.60) and observational measures (in which a combina-tion of behavioral and facial reactions usually wereused, .29). The gender difference in observed reactions,especially for young children, suggests that there is areal, albeit modest, difference in children’s empathy. Nosex differences were obtained for nonverbal facial andphysiological measures. Further, the sex difference inself-reported empathy/sympathy increased with meanage of the sample (beta = .24). Sex differences in re-ported empathy may increase as children become moreaware of, and perhaps are more likely to internalize,sex-role stereotypes and expectations into their self-image (Karniol et al., 1998).

Although there are no sex differences in prosocialmoral reasoning in young children, in later elementaryschool and beyond, girls use more of some relatively so-phisticated types of prosocial moral reasoning, whereasboys sometimes verbalize more of less mature types ofreasoning (Eisenberg, Carlo, et al., 1995; Eisenberg,Miller, et al., 1991; also see Jaffee & Hyde, 2000).Moreover, in adolescence, femininity is positively re-

lated to internalized prosocial moral reasoning (but alsorelated to hedonistic reasoning for males; Carlo et al.,1996). It is unclear the degree to which these sex differ-ences, which generally are relatively weak, are due toreal differences in moral reasoning or to differences inthe ways that adolescent males and females view them-selves and desire to be viewed by others.

In summary, although girls appear to be more proso-cial than boys, the issue of sex differences in prosocialresponding and their origins is far from resolved. It isdifficult to determine the degree to which the sex differ-ence reflects a difference in moral or other-orientationversus other factors (e.g., self-presentation). It also isunclear whether the sex difference changes with age.Although age was related to the prosocial effect size inthe univariate analysis in our meta-analysis, there wasno effect of age when study characteristics were con-trolled. There is a need to better assess the developmen-tal trajectory of the sex differences and to investigatethe origins of sex differences in prosocial behavior.

AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OFPROSOCIAL ACTION

Based on the available evidence, prosocial action ap-pears to be the outcome of multiple individual (includ-ing biological) and situational factors. A simplifiedmodel of the major variables believed to contribute tothe performance of prosocial behavior (and steps in theprocess itself ) is depicted in Figure 11.1 (see Eisenberg,1986, for extended discussion of this model). Thisheuristic model can be used to integrate many of thetopics discussed in this chapter.

In our model, biological factors are viewed as havingan effect on both the child’s individual characteristics(e.g., sociocognitive development, empathy, sociability)and parental interactions with the child (i.e., socializa-tion experiences). The child’s individual characteristicsand socialization experiences affect one another and, to-gether with objective characteristics of the situation(see Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998, for a review of situationalinfluences), influence how the child interprets events in-volving another’s need or distress in a specific context.For example, individual differences in perspective tak-ing and in decoding skills, which likely are influencedby socialization experiences as well as heritability (e.g.,genetic effects on intelligence), may affect whether achild notices another’s distress, as might the clarity of

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 698

An Integrative Model of Prosocial Action 699

Figure 11.1 Heuristic model of prosocial behavior. Adapted from Altruistic Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior, by N. Eisen-berg, 1986, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

AntecedentSociocognitiveDevelopment,Dispositional

Characteristics,and PersonVariables

AntecedentTemporary

Affective States

MotivationallyRelevant Situational

Evaluations andEmotional Reactions

RelevantPersonal

Characteristics

Biology Interpretation of,and Attention to,

the Situation(Including

Needy Others)

Identification ofHelping Actionsand Recognition

of Ability to Engagein These Actions

Hiearchy ofPersonal Goalsin the Specific

Situation

Intentionto Assist

ProsocialAction

Consequences(Including

Self-Evaluation)

Socialization Characteristicsof the Situation

Changes inSituation or

Person Over Time

the distressed other’s nonverbal and verbal cues of emo-tion (a situational factor). Moreover, socialization influ-ences and person variables likely interact; as discussed,Valiente et al. (2004) found that parental expressivity re-lated differently to children’s sympathy and personaldistress depending on the children’s regulation. It also islikely that antecedent characteristics interact when pre-dicting children’s prosocial tendencies; examples werediscussed in our review (e.g., between regulation andemotional intensity, or between perspective taking andsympathy; Diener & Kim, 2004; Eisenberg, Fabes, Kar-bon, et al., 1996; Knight et al., 1994).

How the child interprets the situation logically leadsto and affects the child’s identification of prosocial ac-tions and the child’s recognition of his or her ability toengage in these actions. A temporary state such as thechild’s mood may determine his or her attention to, orinterpretation of, a situation (see Eisenberg & Fabes,1998). Level of arousal seems to alter the ways in which

people interpret others’ verbal statements and facial ex-pressions (Clark, Milberg, & Erber, 1983).

In addition, a child who feels capable of assistingmust then decide whether he or she intends to assist. Thechild’s emotional reactions (e.g., sympathy or personaldistress), relationship with the other person (which af-fects the child’s emotional reactions and perceived costsand benefits of assisting), and attributions about thecause of the other’s need or distress (e.g., whether theneedy person is responsible for his or her situation) areexamples of motivationally relevant situational evalua-tions and emotional reactions that can play a role in thisdecision. The decision of whether to engage in prosocialaction also is affected by antecedent person variablessuch as individual differences in concern about socialapproval, values, personal goals, and self-identity in re-gard to the trait of altruism (see Figure 11.1).

In the given context, the various relevant moral andnonmoral factors—be they perceived costs and benefits,

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 699


values, sympathetic emotion, or other factors—influ-ence the individual’s relative hierarchy of goals in theparticular situation. Often goals, needs, or values con-flict in a situation and must be prioritized. This order-ing of personal goals undoubtedly varies acrossindividuals and across situations for a given person (seeFigure 11.1). In a situation in which important peopleare present, social approval needs may be salient (par-ticularly for people who value such approval). In an-other situation in which there are material costs forassisting, valuing of the object to be shared or donatedwill be particularly relevant for some people (but notothers who do not value the commodity). Moreover, ifthe situation evokes an emotional reaction such as sym-pathy or personal distress, then other- or self-relatedgoals linked to those emotional reactions will be salientand perhaps activated.

The values, goals, and needs that underlie personalgoals and their relative importance (in general and inspecific contexts) change with age (e.g., Bar-Tal, Raviv,et al., 1980). An individual’s values, goals, and needs,as expressed in his or her prosocial moral reasoning,provide some insight into the child’s typical hierarchy ofgoals, needs, and values (i.e., one’s general hierarchyrather than one’s hierarchy in a specific context), al-though, as noted, different factors will be particularlysalient in different situations (see Eisenberg, 1986). Be-cause other-oriented values based in part on perspectivetaking, sympathetic reactions, or the capacity for ab-stract principles increase with age (Eisenberg, 1986),one would expect prosocial moral goals to rank higherin the hierarchies of older children than in those ofyoung children.

Thus, the hierarchy of an individual’s goals or priori-ties in the particular situation is viewed as determiningwhether the child wants to assist, as well as the intentionto assist. However, even if the child intends to perform aprosocial behavior, he or she may not be able to do sodue to the lack of relevant personal competencies (phys-ical, psychological, or material) needed to intervene orprovide appropriate helping skills. In addition, the situa-tion may change, as might the potential benefactor’s sit-uation, prior to the actual helping opportunity. Forexample, the potential benefactor may receive help fromsomeone else before the child can assist.

Finally, there are consequences of engaging in proso-cial behavior or choosing not to do so. Children who helpmay develop new helping competencies or sociocogni-tive skills that can be applied in future situations. Assist-

ing another also may affect socializers’ efforts to pro-mote the child’s prosocial behavior and the degree towhich an individual develops a prosocial self-concept(e.g., Eisenberg, Cialdini, et al., 1987). These conse-quences are reflected in the future in terms of the child’songoing dispositional or person variables (see Figure11.1), as well as in the range of the child’s prosocial-rel-evant personal competencies. Thus, there is a cycle bywhich children’s prosocial behavior (or the lack thereof )has consequences for future prosocial responding.

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

As is evident in this review, there is considerable re-search on antecedents and correlates of children’sprosocial responding. This work has provided a rudi-mentary understanding of the factors that may fosterprosocial action, although in many cases, it is prematureto confidently assume causation. Many of the deficien-cies in the research on prosocial development noted in1998 still exist. Although there is more research onsome topics (e.g., volunteering, personality/person cor-relates), the field would benefit from new emphases inmethods, conceptual frameworks, and empirical foci.

Methodological Issues

In this chapter, we have discussed a few of the mediatorsand moderators of the bivariate relations associatedwith the development of prosocial behavior obtained inthe empirical literature. There is initial evidence thatregulation mediates the relation between parental ex-pression of negative emotion and children’s sympathy(Eisenberg, Liew, & Pidada, 2001) and that sympathyand prosocial moral reasoning mediate the relation ofperspective taking to prosocial behavior (Eisenberg,Zhou, & Koller, 2001). A greater focus on mediationwould enhance our understanding of the processes re-lated to prosocial development and behavior. Little isknown about factors that mediate the relations ofparental inductions or assignment of responsibilities tochildren and their prosocial behavior or empathy-relatedresponding. Consistent with Hoffman’s (2000) thinking,inductions may affect perspective taking and empathy,which then foster prosocial action. Additionally, certaintypes of interactions with peers or teachers may pro-mote children’s understanding of others’ emotions and

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 700

Challenges and Future Directions 701

mental states in a manner that in turn fosters sympathy.Sympathy may act as a mediator of the relation of manyenvironmental influences or genetic predispositions(e.g., regulation) to children’s prosocial behavior. Exam-ination of such mediational processes requires that in-vestigators refine their conceptual explanations and gobeyond looking at global associations to focus on pro-cess-oriented explanations.

In contrast, a focus on moderation forces investiga-tors to think about the ways in which predictors ofprosocial responding interact in their potential influ-ence. The strength of many predictors of prosocial re-sponding (e.g., perspective taking or parental use ofinductions) likely varies based on factors such as sex,age, general parenting style, cultural experiences, per-sonality predispositions, or children’s susceptibility toexperience empathy or sympathy. We live in a multivari-ate world, and behavior is, in general, and in regard toprosocial behavior in specific situations, determined bynumerous additive and interacting factors. For example,as mentioned, Knight et al. (1994) found that childrenwho donated to needy children were not only high inperspective taking, but also high in sympathy and under-stood the commodity to be donated (money; also seeEisenberg, Zhou, & Koller, 2001, who found that sympa-thy and perspective taking jointly predicted prosocialmoral reasoning). As noted, parental expression of emo-tion and children’s regulation also interact when pre-dicting children’s empathy-related responding (Valienteet al., 2004). Based on the work of Kochanska (1995),who found that children’s temperament moderated therelations between maternal gentle discipline and mea-sures of conscience, it is likely that temperament affectsthe relations of parental practices to children’s prosocialtendencies. In addition, it is important to go beyondmoderational models to examine the ways in which con-figurations of numerous variables (e.g., child-rearingpractices) predict prosocial outcomes.

Most of the research on prosocial development con-tinues to be correlational. To better examine issues ofcausality, longitudinal designs and structural equationmodeling can be used to test causal hypotheses (al-though structural modeling can only assess if a causalsequence is consistent with the data and does not provecausality). Longitudinal data are especially importantfor testing mediated relations; concurrent data provide aweak test of causal, mediated relations. Further, experi-mental research designs could be used more frequentlyto test causal assumptions. Although experimental de-

signs usually (but need not) require relatively artificiallaboratory situations, researchers have tended to shyaway from experiments in the past decade or two. Yetexperiments, especially those performed in more natu-ral settings (e.g., at school), can be valuable in testingideas about causality. Interventions and prevention pro-grams provide a rigorous test of causal relations.

A multimethod approach in the design of studies alsois necessary because different methods address some-what different questions, including questions aboutcausality. Moreover, all methods of measurement havelimitations, but these differ for different measures.Thus, the convergence of findings across methods in-creases one’s confidence in the veracity of the findings.In addition, as illustrated by the results of the Eisenbergand Fabes (1998) meta-analyses, certain types ofmethod tend to be used with certain ages of children,and this may undermine our ability to understand thedevelopment of prosocial behavior.

Conceptual and Content-Related Directions

The study of prosocial behavior would benefit fromgreater integration with conceptual work on related is-sues. Prosocial behavior can be considered in a mannersimilar to most interpersonal behaviors—in terms of itssocial appropriateness and social and personal outcomesboth in specific situations and in the long term. In many,but not all, settings, prosocial behavior is a socially ap-propriate behavior; indeed, prosocial behaviors fre-quently are used in measures of social competence.Thus, conceptual work on social competence and the de-velopment of interpersonal competence in attachmentand peer relationships is relevant to the understanding ofprosocial development. Moreover, research on moralemotions such as guilt, moral cognitions, and the devel-opment of an egoistic or antisocial orientation could beused to a greater degree than in the past to inform our un-derstanding of prosocial behavior, particularly altruism.

As an example, we have seen that individual differ-ences in children’s emotionality and their ability to reg-ulate emotional arousal appear to be related to whetherchildren experience sympathy or egoistic, personal dis-tress in helping contexts. Moreover, enactment of proso-cial behaviors often involves not only emotionalregulation, but also behavioral regulation, particularly ifprosocial action requires self-denial. Thus, developmen-tal change and individual differences in children’s abili-ties to inhibit their behavior, delay gratification, and

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 701


activate behavior when desirable are of considerable im-portance to understanding prosocial development. Envi-ronmental factors associated with optimal regulationand moderate levels of emotional reactivity likely fosterprosocial responding, including sympathy. Thus, thegrowing bodies of literature on the socialization of emo-tion and coping, as well as cultural influences on emo-tion and its regulation, are highly relevant to acomprehensive perspective on prosocial development. Abetter understanding of these issues may be especiallyuseful in delineating the emergence of sympathy andprosocial tendencies in the first years of life when chil-dren’s regulatory skills are changing rapidly.

Work on prosocial behavior too often has been iso-lated from work on related topics, and greater integra-tion across content domains would have broad benefits.This situation has improved somewhat in the pastdecade, especially in the literature on peer relationshipsand social competence. We have tried to make furtherinroads in that direction in this chapter, although our at-tempts were limited by the need to cover much materialin a restricted space. Moreover, prosocial behaviors canbe characterized as attractors (“absorbing” states thatpull the behavior of the system from other potentialstates) that affect the organization of individual andgroup behaviors (Martin, Fabes, Hanish, & Hollensetin,in press). As such, integration of concepts from dynamicsystems may lead to new insights in research and theo-rizing about prosocial behavior and development.

Advances in some fields of the behavioral sciencesare just beginning to provide methods and data that caninform our understanding of prosocial development. De-velopments in brain-scanning procedures are providingnew venues for studying emotion, attention, and deci-sion making and, hence, processes related to sympathyand prosocial behavior. This technology may providenew insights on the role of emotion and attentionalprocesses in prosocial decision making, although it isunlikely to provide in-depth information relevant to therole of antecedent biological and environmental influ-ences on prosocial development.

Finally, not only has the field of prosocial behaviorbeen relatively intellectually isolated from relevant liter-ature on other topics, but investigators studying other is-sues (e.g., psychopathology, information processing,peer relationships, academic success) also have not at-tended sufficiently to findings in the domain of prosocialdevelopment. The broader field of developmental sci-

ences would benefit if the boundaries among contentareas, as well as across disciplines, were more permeable.

REFERENCES

Alberts, J. R. (1976). Olfactory contributions to behavioral develop-ment in rodents. In R. L. Doty (Ed.), Mammalian olfaction, re-productive processes, and behavior (pp. 67–95). New York:Academic Press.

Albiereo, P., & Lo Coco, A. (2001). Designing a method to assessempathy in Italian children. In A. C. Bohart & D. J. Stipek (Eds.),Constructive and destructive behavior: Implications for family,school, and society (pp. 205–223). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Allen, J. P., Kuperminc, G., Philliber, S., & Herre, K. (1994). Program-matic prevention of adolescent problem behaviors: The role of auton-omy, relatedness, and volunteer service in the teen outreachprogram. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 617–638.

Allen, J. P., Philliber, S., Herrling, S., & Kuperminc, G. P. (1997).Preventing teen pregnancy and academic failure: Experimentalevaluation of a developmentally based approach. Child Develop-ment, 64, 729–742.

Aronfreed, J. (1970). The socialization of altruistic and sympatheticbehavior: Some theoretical and experimental analyses. In J.Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior(pp. 103–126). New York: Academic Press.

Asakawa, K., Iwawaki, S., Mondori, Y., & Minami, H. (1987, July).Altruism in school and empathy: A developmental study of Japa-nese pupils. Paper presented at the International Society for theStudy of Behavioral Development, Tokyo, Japan.

Asbury, K., Dunn, J. F., Pike, A., & Plomin, R. (2003). Nonshared en-vironmental inf luences on individual differences in early behav-ioral development: A monozygotic twin differences study. ChildDevelopment, 74, 933–943.

Ascione, F. R. (1992). Enhancing children’s attitudes about the hu-mane treatment of animals: Generalization to human-directedempathy. Antrozoos, 5, 176–191.

Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. V. (1993, March). Children’s attitudesabout the humane treatment of animals and empathy: One-yearfollow up of a school-based intervention. Paper presented at the bi-ennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,New Orleans, LA.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (2003a). Introduction. InL. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology ofhuman strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions fora positive psychology. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (2003b). A psychology ofhuman strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions fora positive psychology. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Astington, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (1995). Theory of mind developmentand social understanding. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 151–165.

Atkins, R., Hart , D., & Donnelly, T. M. (2005). The association ofchildhood personality type with volunteering during adolescence.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 145–162.

Austin, A. M. B., Braeger, T., Schvaneveldt, J. D., Lindauer, S. L. K.,Summers, M., Robinson, C., et al. (1991). A comparison of help-

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 702

References 703

ing, sharing, comforting, honesty, and civic awareness for chil-dren in home care, day care, and preschool. Child and Youth CareForum, 20, 183–194.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A so-cial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise ofmoral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101–119.

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pas-torelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy indiverse sphere of psychosocial functioning. Child Development,74, 769–782.

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Re-galia, C. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms gov-erning transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 80, 125–135.

Barash, D. P. (1977). Sociobiology and behavior. New York:Elsevier/North-Holland.

Barnett , M. A., & Thompson, S. (1985). The role of perspective tak-ing and empathy in children’s Machiavellianism, prosocial be-havior and motive for helping. Journal of Genetic Psychology,146, 295–305.

Baron, J., & Miller, J. G. (2000). Limiting the scope of moral obliga-tions to help: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Cross-Cul-tural Psychology, 31, 703–725.

Barrett , D. E., & Yarrow, M. R. (1977). Prosocial behavior, social in-ferential ability, and assertiveness in young children. Child Devel-opment, 48, 475–481.

Bar-Tal, D. (1982). Sequential development of helping behavior: Acognitive-learning approach. Developmental Review, 2, 101–124.

Bar-Tal, D., Bar-Zohar, Y., Greenberg, M. S., & Hermon, M. (1977).Reciprocity behavior in the relationship between donor and recip-ient and between harmdoer and victim. Sociometry, 40, 293–298.

Bar-Tal, D., Nadler, A., & Blechman, N. (1980). The relationship be-tween Israeli children’s helping behavior and their perception onparents’ socialization practices. Journal of Social Psychology,111, 159–167.

Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Leiser, T. (1980). The development of altru-istic behavior: Empirical evidence. Developmental Psychology,16, 516–524.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psycho-logical answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, at-titudes and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatizedgroup motivate one to help the group. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 28, 1656–1666.

Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., Carpenter, A., Dulin, L., Harjusola-Webb, S., Stocks, E. L., et al. (2003). “. . . As you would havethem do unto you”: Does imagining yourself in the other’s placesimulate moral action? Personality and Social Psychology Bul-letin, 29, 1190–1201.

Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behav-ior. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:Vol. 5. Personality and social psychology (pp. 463–484). NewYork: Wiley.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., & Lewis, C.(2000). Effects of the child development project on students’drug use and other problem behaviors. Journal of Primary Preven-tion, 21, 75–99.

Battistich, V., Watson, M., Solomon, D., Schaps, E., & Solomon, J.(1991). The child development project: A comprehensive programfor the development of prosocial character. In W. M. Kurtines &J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and develop-ment: Vol. 3. Application (pp. 1–34). New York: Erlbaum.

Bear, G. G., & Rys, G. S. (1994). Moral reasoning, classroom behav-ior, and sociometric status among elementary school children. De-velopmental Psychology, 30, 633–638.

Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. (2004). The heroism of women andmen. American Psychologist, 59, 163–178.

Belden, A., Kuebli, J., Pauley, D., & Kindleberger, L. (2003, April).Predicting children’s empathy from family talk about past gooddeeds. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society forResearch in Child Development, Tampa, FL.

Benenson, J. F., Markovits, H., Roy, R., & Denko, P. (2003). Behav-ioural rules underlying learning to share: Effects of developmentand context. International Journal of Behavioral Development,27, 116–121.

Bengtsson, H. (2003). Children’s cognitive appraisal of others’ dis-tressful and positive experiences. International Journal of Behav-ioral Development, 27, 457–466.

Bengtsson, H., & Johnson, L. (1992). Perspective taking, empathy, andprosocial behavior in late childhood. Child Study Journal, 22, 11–22.

Bergin, C., Talley, S., & Hamer, L. (2003). Prosocial behaviors of youngadolescents: A focus group study. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 13–32.

Berman, P. W., & Goodman, V. (1984). Age and sex differences inchildren’s responses to babies: Effects of adults’ caretaking re-quests and instructions. Child Development, 55, 1071–1077.

Bernadett-Shapiro, S., Ehrensaft , D., & Shapiro, J. L. (1996). Fatherparticipation in childcare and the development of empathy insons: An empirical study. Family Therapy, 23, 77–93.

Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in earlyadolescence. Child Development, 53, 1447–1460.

Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Hoyle, S. G. (1986). Changes infriendship during a school year: Effects on children’s and adoles-cents’ impressions of friendship and sharing with friends. ChildDevelopment, 57, 1284–1297.

Birch, L. L., & Billman, J. (1986). Preschool children’s food sharingwith friends and acquaintances. Child Development, 57, 387–395.

Bischof-Kohler, D. (1991). The development of empathy in infants.In M. E. Lamb & H. Keller (Eds.), Infant development: Perspec-tives from German-speaking countries (pp. 245–273). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Bizman, A., Yinon, Y., Mivtzari, E., & Shavit , R. (1978). Effects ofthe age structure of the kindergarten on altruistic behavior. Jour-nal of School Psychology, 16, 154–160.

Blum, L. A. (1980). Friendship, altruism and morality. London: Rout-ledge & Kegan Paul.

Boehnke, K., Silbereisen, R. K., Eisenberg, N., Reykowski, J., &Palmonari, A. (1989). The development of prosocial motivation:A cross-national study. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology,20, 219–243.

Bond, N. D., & Phillips, B. N. (1971). Personality traits associatedwith altruistic behavior of children. Journal of School Psychol-ogy, 9, 24–34.

Boorman, S. A., & Leavitt , P. R. (1980). The genetics of altruism.New York: Academic Press.

Borgida, E., Conner, C., & Manteufel, L. (1992). Understanding kid-ney donation: A behavioral decision-making perspective. In S.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 703


Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Helping and being helped(pp. 183–212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bosacki, S. L. (2003). Psychological pragmatics in preadolescents:Sociomoral understanding, self-worth, and school behavior. Jour-nal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 141–155.

Boxer, P., Tisak, M. S., & Goldstein, S. E. (2004). Is it bad to be good?An exploration of aggressive and prosocial behavior subtypes inadolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 91–100.

Braaten, E. B., & Rosen, L. A. (2000). Self-regulation of affect in At-tention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and non-ADHDboys: Differences in empathic responding. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 68(2), 313–321.

Bretherton, I., Fritz, J., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Ridgeway, D. (1986).Learning to talk about emotions: A functionalist perspective.Child Development, 57, 529–548.

Broberg, A., Hwang, C., Lamb, M., & Ketterlinus, R. D. (1989).Child care effects on socioemotional and intellectual competencein Swedish preschoolers. In J. S. Lande, S. Scarr, & N. Gunzen-hauser (Eds.), Caring for children: Challenge to America(pp. 49–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & MacKinnon, C. E. (1986). Contribu-tions of maternal child-rearing practices and play contexts to sib-ling interactions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,7, 225–236.

Bryan, J. H., & Walbek, N. H. (1970). The impact of words anddeeds concerning altruism upon children. Child Development,41, 747–757.

Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adoles-cents. Child Development, 53, 413–425.

Bryant, B. K. (1987). Mental health, temperament, family, andfriends: Perspectives on children’s empathy and social perspec-tive taking. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and itsdevelopment (pp. 245–270). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bryant, B. K., & Crockenberg, S. B. (1980). Correlates and dimen-sions of prosocial behavior: A study of female siblings with theirmothers. Child Development, 51, 529–544.

Buhrmester, D., Goldfarb, J., & Cantrell, D. (1992). Self-presentationwhen sharing with friends and nonfriends. Journal of Early Ado-lescence, 12, 61–79.

Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: Amultiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psy-chology Review, 3, 303–325.

Burleson, B., Applegate, J. L., Burke, J. A., Clark, R. A., Delia, J. G.,& Kline, S. L. (1986). Communicative correlates of peer accep-tance in childhood. Communication Education, 35, 349–361.

Calabrese, R. L., & Schumer, H. (1986). The effects of service activ-ities on adolescent alienation. Adolescence, 21, 675–687.

Call, K. T., Mortimer, J. T., & Shanahan, M. J. (1995). Helpfulnessand the development of competence in adolescence. Child Devel-opment, 66, 129–138.

Caplan, M. Z., & Hay, D. F. (1989). Preschoolers’ responses to peers’distress and beliefs about bystander intervention. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 30, 231–242.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zim-bardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s academicachievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302–306.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Cermak, I., & Rosza,S. (2001). Facing guilt: Role of negative affectivity, need for repa-

ration, and fear of punishment in leading to prosocial behaviourand aggression. European Journal of Personality, 15, 219–237.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Prosocial be-havior and aggression in childhood and pre-adolescence. In A. C.Bohart & D. J. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive and destructive behav-ior: Implications for family, school, and society (pp. 187–203).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., & Knight, G. P. (1992). An objective mea-sure of adolescents’ prosocial moral reasoning. Journal of Re-search on Adolescence, 2, 331–349.

Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A.(2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure ofprosocial tendencies for adolescents. Journal of Early Adoles-cence, 23, 107–134.

Carlo, G., Knight, G. P., Eisenberg, N., & Rotenberg, K. (1991). Cog-nitive processes and prosocial behavior among children: The roleof affective attributions and reconciliations. Developmental Psy-chology, 27, 456–461.

Carlo, G., Koller, S. H., Eisenberg, N., DaSilva, M. S., & Frohlich,C. B. (1996). A cross-national study on the relations amongprosocial moral reasoning, gender role orientations, and prosocialbehaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 231–240.

Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure ofprosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Ado-lescence, 31, 31–44.

Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C., Knight, G. P., & Koller, S. H. (2001). Be-tween- or within-culture variation? Culture groups as a moderatorof the relations between individual differences and resource alloca-tion preferences. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 559–579.

Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C., & Melby, J. (1998). The multiplicative rela-tions of parenting and temperament to prosocial and antisocial be-haviors in adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 266–290.

Cassidy, K. W., Werner, R. S., Rourke, M., & Zubernis, L. S. (2003).The relationship between psychological understanding and posi-tive social behaviors. Social Development, 12, 198–221.

Cauley, K., & Tyler, B. (1989). The relationship of self-concept toprosocial behavior in children. Early Childhood Research Quar-terly, 4, 51–60.

Chapman, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Cooperman, G., & Iannotti, R.(1987). Empathy and responsibility in the motivation of chil-dren’s helping. Developmental Psychology, 23, 140–145.

Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2002). Emotional intelligenceand prosocial behaviors in adolescents. Psychological Reports,90, 361–370.

Cheung, P. C., Ma, H. K., & Shek, D. T. L. (1998). Conceptions ofsuccess: Their correlates with prosocial orientation and behaviourin Chinese adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 31–42.

Chou, K. L. (1998). Effects of age, gender, and participation in vol-unteer activities on the altruistic behavior of Chinese adolescents.Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159, 195–201.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social inf luence: Complianceand conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.

Clark, K. E., & Ladd, G. W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomysupport in parent-child relationships: Links to children’s socioe-motional orientation and peer relationships. Developmental Psy-chology, 36, 485–498.

Clark, M. S. (1991). Review of personality and social psychology:Prosocial behavior (Vol. 12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 704

References 705

Clark, M. S., Milberg, S., & Erber, R. (1984). Effects of arousal onjudgments of others’ emotions. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 46, 551–560.

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1981). Observation and experiment: Comple-mentary strategies for studying day care and social development.In S. Kilmer (Ed.), Advances in Early Education and Day Care(Vol. 2, pp. 227–250). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer:Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 8, 156–159.

Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered andcomparison youth. Developmental Psychology, 32, 988–998.

Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives ofmoral commitment. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Free Press.

Coleman, P. K., & Byrd, C. P. (2003). Interpersonal correlates of peervictimization among young adolescents. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 32, 301–314.

Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1982). The impact of experiential educationon adolescent development. In D. Conrad & D. Hedin (Eds.),Youth participation and experiential education. New York: Ha-worth Press.

Costin, S. E., & Jones, D. C. (1992). Friendship as a facilitator ofemotional responsiveness and prosocial interventions amongyoung children. Developmental Psychology, 28, 941–947.

Côté, S., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., & Vitaro, F.(2002). The development of impulsivity, fearfulness, and helpful-ness during childhood: Patterns of consistency and change in thetrajectories of boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 43, 609–618.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational an overtaggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33, 579–588.

Crockenberg, S. (1985). Toddlers’ reactions to maternal anger. Mer-rill-Palmer Quarterly, 31, 361–373.

Cummings, J. S., Pellegrini, D. S., & Notarius, C. I. (1989). Chil-dren’s responses to angry adult behavior as a function of maritaldistress and history of interparent hostility. Child Development,60, 1035–1043.

Cummings, E. M., & Smith, D. (1993). The impact of anger betweenadults on siblings’ emotions and social behavior. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1425–1433.

Cummings, E. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1981).Young children’s responses to expressions of anger and affectionby others in the family. Child Development, 52, 1274–1282.

Cummings, E. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1984). De-velopmental changes in children’s reactions to anger in the home.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 63–74.

Cunningham, M. R. (1985/1986). Levites and brother’s keepers: Asociobiological perspective on prosocial behavior. Humboldt Jour-nal of Social Relations, 13, 35–67.

Cutting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (1999). Theory of mind, emotion under-standing, language, and family background: Individual differ-ences and interrelations. Child Development, 70, 853–865.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conf lict and childadjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bul-letin, 116, 387–411.

Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. (1991). Stability and change in adoles-cent self-consciousness and empathy. Journal of Research in Per-sonality, 25, 70–87.

Davis, M. H., Luce, C., & Kraus, S. J. (1994). The heritability ofcharacteristics associated with dispositional empathy. Journal ofPersonality, 62, 369–391.

Deater-Deckard, K., Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., Davies, L. Golding,J., & the ALSPAC Study Team. (2001). Using the stepfamily ge-netic design to examine gene-environmental processes in child andfamily functioning. Marriage and Family Review, 33, 131–156.

Deater-Deckard, K., Pike, A., Petrill, S. A., Cutting, A. L., Hughes,C., & O’Connor, T. G. (2001). Nonshared environmentalprocesses in social-emotional development: An observationalstudy of identical twin differences in the preschool period. Devel-opmental Science, 4, F1–F6.

Decety, J., & Chaminade, T. (2003). Neural correlates of feeling sym-pathy. Neuropsychologia, 41, 127–138.

De Guzman, M. R. T., & Carlo, G. (2004). Family, peer, and accul-turative correlates of prosocial development among Latino youthin Nebraska. Great Plains Research, 14, 185–202.

De Guzman, M. R. T., Edwards, C. P., & Carlo, G. (2005). Prosocialbehaviors in context: A study of the Gukuyu children of Ngecha,Kenya. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 542–558.

Dekovic, M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1994). Developmental analysis ofsocial cognitive and behavioral differences between popular andrejected children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,15, 367–386.

Dekovic, M., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1992). Parents’ child-rearingstyle and children’s sociometric status. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 28, 925–932.

Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emo-tion in preschoolers: Contextual validation. Child Development,57, 194–201.

Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K.,Auerbach-Major, S., et al. (2003). Preschool emotional competence:Pathway to social competence. Child Development, 74, 238–256.

Denham, S. A., & Burger, C. (1991). Observational validation of rat-ings of preschoolers’ social competence and behavior problems.Child Study Journal, 21, 185–291.

Denham, S. A., & Couchoud, E. A. (1991). Social-emotional predic-tors of preschoolers’ responses to adult negative emotion. Journalof Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 595–608.

Denham, S. A., & Grout, L. (1992). Mothers’ emotional expressive-ness and coping: Relations with preschoolers’ social-emotionalcompetence. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Mono-graphs, 118, 75–101.

Denham, S. A., & Grout, L. (1993). Socialization of emotion: Path-way to preschoolers’ emotional and social competence. Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, 17, 205–227.

Denham, S. A., Mason, T., & Couchoud, E. A. (1995). Scaffoldingyoung children’s prosocial responsiveness: Preschoolers’ re-sponses to adult sadness, anger, and pain. International Journal ofBehavioral Development, 18, 489–504.

Denham, S. A., Renwick-DeBardi, S., & Hewes, S. (1994). Emotionalcommunication between mothers and preschoolers: Relations withemotional competence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 488–508.

de Veer, A. J. E., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1994). Victim-orientateddiscipline, interpersonal understanding, and guilt. Journal ofMoral Education, 23, 165–182.

Diener, M. L., & Kim, D. Y. (2004). Maternal and child predictors ofpreschool children’s social competence. Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 25, 3–24.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 705


Dix, T., & Grusec, J. E. (1983). Parental inf luence techniques: An at-tributional analysis. Child Development, 54, 645–652.

Dlugokinski, E. L., & Firestone, I. J. (1974). Other centeredness andsusceptibility to charitable appeals: Effects of perceived disci-pline. Developmental Psychology, 10, 21–28.

Dondi, M., Simion, F., & Caltran, G. (1999). Can newborns discrimi-nate between their own cry and the cry of another newborn in-fant? Developmental Psychology, 35, 418–426.

Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Dunn, J., Cutting, A., & Fisher, N. (2002). Old friends, new friends:Predictors of children’s perspective on their friends at school.Child Development, 73, 621–635.

Dunn, J., Deater-Deckard, K., Pickering, K., O’Connor, T. G., Gold-ing, J., & the ALSPAC Study Team. (1998). Children’s adjustmentand prosocial behaviour in step-, single-parent, and non-stepfam-ily settings: Findings from a community study. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 39, 1083–1095.

Dunn, J., & Kendrick, D. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy, and under-standing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1986). Siblings and the development of proso-cial behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development,9, 265–284.

Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: Ameta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psy-chological Bulletin, 100, 283–308.

Eberly, M. B., & Montemayor, R. (1998). Doing good deeds: An exami-nation of adolescent prosocial behavior in the context of parent-ado-lescent relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 403–432.

Eberly, M. B., & Montemayor, R. (1999). Adolescent affection andhelpfulness toward parents: A 2-year follow-up. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 19, 226–248.

Eberly, M. B., Montemayor, R., & Flannery, D. J. (1993). Variation inadolescent helpfulness toward parents in a family context. Journalof Early Adolescence, 13, 228–244.

Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering,basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular in-volvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 10–43.

Eisenberg, N. (1983). Children’s differentiations among potential re-cipients of aid. Child Development, 54, 594–602.

Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisenberg, N., Boehnke, K., Schuhler, P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (1985).The development of prosocial behavior and cognitions in Germanchildren. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 69–82.

Eisenberg, N., Cameron, E., Tryon, K., & Dodez, R. (1981). Social-ization of prosocial behavior in the preschool classroom. Develop-mental Psychology, 17, 773–782.

Eisenberg, N., Carlo, G., Murphy, B., & Van Court, P. (1995). Proso-cial development in late adolescence: A longitudinal study. ChildDevelopment, 66, 1179–1197.

Eisenberg, N., Cialdini, R., McCreath, H., & Shell, R. (1987). Consis-tency-based compliance: When and why do children become vulner-able? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1174–1181.

Eisenberg, N., Cialdini, R. B., McCreath, H., & Shell, R. (1989).Consistency-based compliance in children: When and why doconsistency procedures have immediate effects? Journal of Behav-ioral Development, 12, 351–367.

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., &Shepard, S. A. (2005). Age changes in prosocial responding and

moral reasoning in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal ofResearch in Adolescence, 15, 235–260.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization,assessment, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation andEmotion, 14, 131–149.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and thedevelopment of social competence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Reviewof personality and social psychology: Vol. 14. Emotion and socialbehavior (pp. 119–150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1995). The relation of young chil-dren’s vicarious emotional responding to social competence, reg-ulation, and emotionality. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 203–228.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. (1998). Prosocial development. In W.Damon (Editor-in-Chief ) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook ofchild psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality devel-opment (5th ed., pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Speer, A. L., Switzer, G., Kar-bon, M., et al. (1993). The relations of empathy-related emotionsand maternal practices to children’s comforting behavior. Journalof Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 131–150.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Troyer, D., Speer, A. L., Kar-bon, M., et al. (1992). The relations of maternal practices andcharacteristics to children’s vicarious emotional responsiveness.Child Development, 63, 583–602.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Karbon, M., Murphy, B. C., Carlo, G., &Wosinski, M. (1996). Relations of school children’s comfortingbehavior to empathy-related reactions and shyness. Social Devel-opment, 5, 330–351.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Karbon, M., Murphy, B. C., Wosinski,M., Polazzi, L., et al. (1996). The relations of children’s disposi-tional prosocial behavior to emotionality, regulation, and socialfunctioning. Child Development, 67, 974–992.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Miller, P. A. (1990). The evolutionaryand neurological roots of prosocial behavior. In L. Ellis & H.Hoffman (Eds.), Crime in biological, social, and moral contexts(pp. 247–260). New York: Praeger.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Fultz, J., Mathy, R. M.,Shell, R., et al. (1989). The relations of sympathy and personaldistress to prosocial behavior: A multimethod study. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57, 55–66.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Shell, C., Shea, R., & May-Plumlee, T. (1990). Preschoolers’ vicarious emotional respondingand their situational and dispositional prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 507–529.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Maszk, P.,Smith, M., et al. (1994). The relations of emotionality and regula-tion to dispositional and situational empathy-related responding.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 776–797.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B. C., Karbon, M., Smith, M., &Maszk, P. (1996). The relations of children’s dispositional empa-thy-related responding to their emotionality, regulation, and so-cial functioning. Developmental Psychology, 32, 195–209.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., Carlo, G., & Miller, P. A.(1991). The relations of parental characteristics and practices tochildren’s vicarious emotional responding. Child Development,62, 1393–1408.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., & Miller, P. A. (1989). In-tercorrelations and developmental changes in indices of empathy.In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), New directions in child development (Vol.44, pp. 86–126). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 706

References 707

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., Miller, P. A., Carlo, G.,Poulin, R., et al. (1991). Personality and socialization correlatesof vicarious emotional responding. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 61, 459–470.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Jones, J.,& Guthrie, I. K. (1998). Contemporaneous and longitudinal pre-diction of children’s sympathy from dispositional regulation andemotionality. Developmental Psychology, 34, 910–924.

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard,S. A., Zhou, Q., et al. (2002). Prosocial development in earlyadulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 82, 993–1006.

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Murphy, B. C.,Holgren, R., et al. (1997). The relations of regulation and emo-tionality to resiliency and competent social functioning in ele-mentary school children. Child Development, 68, 295–311.

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumber-land, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and development ofprosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study. Child Development,70, 1360–1372.

Eisenberg, N., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Fuchs, I. (1990). Prosocialmoral judgment in Israeli kibbutz and city children: A longitudi-nal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 273–285.

Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Gender differences in empathyand related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.

Eisenberg, N., Liew, J., & Pidada, S. (2001). The relations of parentalemotional expressivity with the quality of Indonesian children’ssocial functioning. Emotion, 1, 107–115.

Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., Reiser, M.,Murphy, B. C., et al. (2001). Parental socialization of children’sdysregulated expression of emotion and externalizing problems.Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 183–205.

Eisenberg, N., Lundy, N., Shell, R., & Roth, K. (1985). Children’s jus-tif ications for their adult and peer-direct compliant (prosocial andnonprosocial) behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 21, 325–331.

Eisenberg, N., McCreath, H., & Ahn, R. (1988). Vicarious emo-tional responsiveness and prosocial behavior: Their interrela-tions in young children. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 14, 298–311.

Eisenberg, N., & McNally, S. (1993). Socialization and mothers’ andadolescents’ empathy-related characteristics. Journal of Researchon Adolescence, 3, 171–191.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1987). The relation of empathy to proso-cial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119.

Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Shell, R., McNalley, S., & Shea, C.(1991). Prosocial development in adolescence: A longitudinalstudy. Developmental Psychology, 27, 849–857.

Eisenberg, N., Murphy, B., & Shepard, S. (1997). The development ofempathic accuracy. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy(pp. 73–116). New York: Guilford Press.

Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior inchildren. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenberg, N., & Ota Wang, V. (2003). Toward a positive psychology:Social developmental and cultural contributions. In L. G. Aspin-wall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths:Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psy-chology (pp. 117–129). Washington, DC: APA Books.

Eisenberg, N., Pasternack, J. F., Cameron, E., & Tryon, K. (1984).The relation of quality and mode of prosocial behavior to moralcognitions and social style. Child Development, 155, 1479–1485.

Eisenberg, N., Shea, C. L., Carlo, G., & Knight, G. (1991). Empathy-related responding and cognition: A “chicken and the egg”dilemma. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moralbehavior and development: Vol. 2. Research (pp. 63–88). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisenberg, N., & Shell, R. (1986). The relation of prosocial moraljudgment and behavior in children: The mediating role of cost.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 426–433.

Eisenberg, N., Shell, R., Pasternack, J., Lennon, R., Beller, R., &Mathy, R. M. (1987). Prosocial development in middle childhood:A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 24, 712–718.

Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004).Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment,and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and appli-cations (pp. 259–282). New York: Guilford Press.

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Sadovsky, A. (in press). Empathy-re-lated responding in children. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.),Handbook of moral development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisenberg, N., Wolchik, S., Goldberg, L., & Engel, I. (1992). Parentalvalues, reinforcement, and young children’s prosocial behavior: Alongitudinal study. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153, 19–36.

Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., & Koller, S. (2001). Brazilian adolescents’prosocial moral judgment and behavior: Relations to sympathy,perspective taking, gender-role orientation, and demographiccharacteristics. Child Development, 72, 518–534.

Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1979). The development of children’s prosocialmoral judgment. Developmental Psychology, 15, 128–137.

Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Geisheker, E. (1979). Content of preachingsand power of the model /preacher: The effect on children’s gen-erosity. Developmental Psychology, 15, 168–175.

Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. (1979). The relationship ofpreschooler’s reasoning about prosocial moral conf licts to proso-cial behavior. Child Development, 50, 356–363.

Ekstein, R. (1978). Psychoanalysis, sympathy, and altruism. In L. G.Wispe (Ed.), Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological andsociological principles (pp. 165–176). New York: Academic Press.

Ellis, L., & Hoffman, H. (1990). Views of contemporary criminolo-gists on causes and theories of crime. In L. Ellis & H. Hoffman(Eds.), Crime in biological, social, and moral contexts(pp. 50–58). New York: Praeger.

Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2001). Self-reported empathy in Nor-wegian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends, and relationshipto bullying. In A. C. Bohart & D. J. Stipek (Eds.), Constructiveand destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, and so-ciety (pp. 147–165). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Erdley, C. A., & Asher, S. R. (1999). A social goals perspective onchildren’s social competence. Journal of Emotional and Behav-ioral Disorders, 7, 156–167.

Eslinger, P. J. (1998). Neurological and neuropsychological bases ofempathy. European Neurology, 39, 193–199.

Eslinger, P. J., Easton, A., Grattan, L. M., & Van Hoesen, G. W.(1996). Distinctive forms of partial retrograde amnesia afterasymmetric temporal lobe lesions: Possible role of the occipi-totemporal gyri in memory. Cerebral Cortex, 6, 530–539.

Essock-Vitale, S., & McGuire, M. (1985). Women’s lives viewedfrom an evolutionary perspective: Pt. 2. Patterns of helping.Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 155–173.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 707


Estrada, P. (1995). Adolescents’ self-reports of prosocial responsesto friends and acquaintances: The role of sympathy-related cogni-tive, affective, and motivational processes. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 5, 173–200.

Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Kupanoff, K., & Laible, D. (1999). Early ado-lescence and prosocial /moral behavior: Pt. 1. The role of individ-ual processes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 5–16.

Fabes, R. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1996). An examination of age and sexdif ferences in prosocial behavior and empathy. Unpublished manu-script , Arizona State University at Tempe.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., & Eisenbud, L. (1993). Behavioral andphysiological correlates of children’s reactions to others’ distress.Developmental Psychology, 29, 655–663.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Karbon, M., Bernzweig, J., Speer, A. L.,& Carlo, G. (1994). Socialization of children’s vicarious emo-tional responding and prosocial behavior: Relations with mothers’perceptions of children’s emotional reactivity. DevelopmentalPsychology, 30, 44–55.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Karbon, M., Troyer, D., & Switzer, G.(1994). The relations of children’s emotion regulation to their vi-carious emotional responses and comforting behavior. Child De-velopment, 65, 1678–1693.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1990). Maternal correlatesof children’s vicarious emotional responsiveness. DevelopmentalPsychology, 26, 639–648.

Fabes, R. A., & Filsinger, E. E. (1988). Odor communication and par-ent-child interaction. In E. Filsinger (Ed.), Biosocial perspectiveson the family (pp. 93–118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Eisenberg, N., May-Plumlee, T., & Christo-pher, F. S. (1989). The effects of reward on children’s prosocialmotivation: A socialization study. Developmental Psychology,25, 509–515.

Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2002, October). The roleof sex segregation in young children’s prosocial behavior and dis-position. Paper presented at the Groningen Conference on Proso-cial Dispositions and Solidarity, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Fabes, R. A., Moss, A., Reesing, A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D.(2005, October). The ef fects of peer prosocial exposure on thequality of young children’s social interactions. Data presented atthe annual conference of the National Council on Family Rela-tions, Phoenix, AZ.

Farver, J. A. M., & Branstetter, W. H. (1994). Preschoolers’ proso-cial responses to their peers’ distress. Developmental Psychology,30, 334–341.

Fenichel, O. (1945). The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. NewYork: Norton.

Feshbach, N. D. (1978). Studies of empathic behavior in children. InB. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research(Vol. 8, pp. 1–47). New York: Academic Press.

Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (1982). Empathy training and theregulation of aggression: Potentialities and limitations. AcademicPsychology Bulletin, 4, 399–413.

Fischer, W. F. (1963). Sharing in preschool children as function ofamount and type of reinforcement. Genetic Psychology Mono-graphs, 68, 215–245.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents (J. Riviere, Trans.).London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1968). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. Lon-don: Hogarth. (Original work published 1933)

Froming, W. J., Nasby, W., & McManus, J. (1998). Prosocial self-schemas, self-awareness, and children’s prosocial behavior. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 766–777.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of thepersonal relationships in their social networks. DevelopmentalPsychology, 21, 1016–1024.

Gallese, V. (2001). The “Shared Manifold” Hypothesis: From mirrorneurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 33–50.

Garner, P. W., & Estep, K. M. (2001). Emotional competence, emo-tion socialization, and young children’s peer-related social com-petence. Early Education and Development, 12, 29–48.

Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., Gaddy, G., & Rennie, K. M. (1997). Low-income mothers’ conversations about emotions and their chil-dren’s emotional competence. Social Development, 6, 37–52.

Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., & Miner, J. L. (1994). Social competenceamong low-income preschoolers: Emotion socialization practicesand social cognitive correlates. Child Development, 65, 622–637.

Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., & Palmer, D. J. (1994). Social cognitivecorrelates of preschool children’s sibling caregiving behavior. De-velopmental Psychology, 30, 905–911.

Gelfand, D. M., Hartmann, D. P., Cromer, C. C., Smith, C. L., & Page,B. C. (1975). The effects of instructional prompts and praise onchildren’s donation rates. Child Development, 46, 980–983.

Gill, K. L., & Calkins, S. D. (2003). Do aggressive/destructive tod-dlers lack concern for others? Behavioral and physiological indi-cators of empathic responding in 2-year-old children.Development and Psychopathology, 15, 55–71.

Ginsburg, H. J., Ogletree, S. M., Silakowski, T. D., Bartels, R. D.,Burk, S. L., & Turner, G. M. (2003). Young children’s theories ofmind about empathic and selfish motives. Social Behavior andPersonality, 31, 237–244.

Glover, E. (1968). The birth of the ego. London: Allen & Unwin.

Goodman, R. (1994). A modified version of the Rutter Parent Ques-tionnaire including extra items on children’s strengths: A researchnote. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1483–1494.

Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths andDifficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy ofChild and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345.

Gosselin, P., Warren, M., & Diotte, M. (2002). Motivation to hideemotion and children’s understanding of the distinction betweenreal and apparent emotions. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163.

Graves, N. B., & Graves, T. D. (1983). The cultural context of proso-cial development: An ecological model. In D. L. Bridgeman (Ed.),The nature of prosocial development (pp. 243–264). New York:Academic Press.

Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A di-mension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Greenberger, E., & Goldberg, W. A. (1989). Work, parenting, and thesocialization of children. Developmental Psychology, 25, 22–35.

Gretarsson, S. J., & Gelfand, D. M. (1988). Mothers’ attributions re-garding their children’s social behavior and personality charac-teristics. Developmental Psychology, 24, 264–269.

Grusec, J. E. (1971). Power and the internalization of self denial.Child Development, 42, 93–105.

Grusec, J. E. (1991). Socializing concern for others in home. Devel-opmental Psychology, 27, 338–342.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental disci-pline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A recon-

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 708

References 709

ceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 30, 4–19.

Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Cohen, L. (1996). Household workand the development of concern for others. Developmental Psy-chology, 32, 999–1007.

Grusec, J. E., Kuczynski, L., Rushton, J. P., & Simutis, Z. M. (1978).Modeling, direction instruction, and attributions: Effects on al-truism. Developmental Psychology, 14, 51–57.

Grusec, J. E., & Redler, E. (1980). Attribution, reinforcement, andaltruism: A developmental analysis. Developmental Psychology,16, 525–534.

Grusec, J. E., Saas-Kortsaak, P., & Simutis, Z. M. (1978). The role ofexample and moral exhortation in the training of altruism. ChildDevelopment, 49, 920–923.

Hall, K. R. L., & DeVore, I. (1965). Baboon social behavior. In I. De-Vore (Ed.), Primate behavior: Field studies of monkeys and apes(pp. 53–110). New York: Holt , Rhinehart , & Winston.

Hampson, R. B. (1984). Adolescent prosocial behavior: Peer groupand situational factors associated with helping. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 46, 153–162.

Hansen, B. K., & Bryant, B. K. (1980). Peer inf luence on sharing be-havior of Mexican-American and Anglo-American boys. Journalof Social Psychology, 110, 135–136.

Harmon-Jones, E., Vaughn-Scott , K., Mohr, S., Sigelman, J., & Har-mon-Jones, C. (2004). The effect of manipulated sympathy andanger on left and right frontal cortical activity. Emotion, 4, 95–101.

Hart , D., Atkins, R., & Ford, D. (1998). Urban America as a contextfor the development of moral identity in adolescence. Journal ofSocial Issues, 54, 513–530.

Hart , D., Burock, D., London, B., & Atkins, R. (2003). Prosocial ten-dencies, antisocial behavior, and moral development. In A. Slater& G. Bremmer (Eds.), An introduction to developmental psychol-ogy (pp. 334–356). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hart , D., & Fegley, S. (1995). Altruism and caring in adolescence:Relations to self-understanding and social judgment. Child Devel-opment, 66, 1346–1359.

Hartmann, D. P., Gelfand, D. M., Smith, C. L., Paul, S. C., Cromer,C. C., Page, B. C., et al. (1976). Factors affecting the acquisitionand elimination of children’s donation behavior. Journal of Exper-imental Child Psychology, 21, 328–338.

Hartup, W. W., & Coates, B. (1967). Imitation of a peer as a functionof reinforcement from the peer group and rewardingness of themodel. Child Development, 38, 1003–1016.

Haselager, G. J. T., Cillessen, A. H. N., Van Lieshout, C. F. M., Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2002). Heterogeneity amongpeer-rejected boys across middle childhood: Developmental path-ways of social behavior. Developmental Psychology, 38, 446–456.

Hastings, P. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., & McShane, K. (2005). We are, bynature, moral creatures: Biological bases of concern for others. InM. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development(pp. 483–516). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hastings, P. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J., Usher, B., & Bridges,D. (2000). The development of concern for others in children withbehavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 36, 531–546.

Hay, D. F. (1994). Prosocial development. Journal of Child Psychol-ogy and Psychiatry, 35, 29–71.

Hay, D. F., Caplan, M. Z., Castle, M. Z., & Stimson, C. A. (1991).Does sharing become “rational” in the second year of life? Devel-opmental Psychology, 27, 987–993.

Hay, D. F., Castle, J., Davies, L., Demetriou, H., & Stimson, C. A.(1999). Prosocial action in very early childhood. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40, 905–916.

Hay, D. F., & Murray, P. (1982). Giving and requesting: Social facili-tation of infants’ offers to adults. Infant Behavior and Develop-ment, 5, 301–310.

Hay, D. F., Nash, A., & Pedersen, J. (1981). Responses of 6-month-oldsto the distress of their peers. Child Development, 52, 1071–1075.

Hay, D. F., & Pawlby, S. (2003). Prosocial development in relation tochildren’s and mothers’ psychological problems. Child Develop-ment, 74, 1314–1327.

Hay, D. F., & Rheingold, H. L. (1983). The early appearance of somevalued behaviors. In D. L. Bridgeman (Ed.), The nature of proso-cial development: Interdisciplinary theories and strategies(pp. 73–94). New York: Academic Press.

Hayes, D. J., Felton, R. R., & Cohen, R. R. (1985). A natural occur-rence of foster parenting by a female mountain bluebird. Auk,102, 191–193.

Helwig, C. C., & Turiel, E. (2003). Children’s social and moral reason-ing. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of child-hood social development (pp. 476–490). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1983). Prosocial behavior in the classroom.Academic Psychology Bulletin, 5, 319–338.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Fuchs, I., Sharabany, R., & Eisenberg, N.(1989). Students’ interactive and non-interactive behaviors in theclassroom: A comparison between two types of classrooms in thecity and the kibbutz in Israel. Contemporary Educational Psychol-ogy, 14, 22–32.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Sharan, S. (1984). Enhancing prosocial be-havior through cooperative learning in the classroom. In E. Staub,D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), Developmentand maintenance of prosocial behavior: International perspectiveson positive morality (pp. 423–443). New York: Plenum Press.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Sharan, S., & Steinberg, R. (1980). Classroomlearning style and cooperative behavior of elementary school chil-dren. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 97–104.

Hieshima, J. A., & Schneider, B. (1994). Intergenerational effects onthe cultural and cognitive socialization of third- and fourth-gen-eration Japanese Americans. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 15, 319–327.

Hobbes, T. (1962). Leviathan (M. Oakeshotte, Ed.). New York: Dut-ton. (Original work published 1651)

Hofer, M. A. (1981). The roots of human behavior. San Fran-cisco: Freeman.

Hoffman, M. L. (1963). Parent discipline and the child’s considera-tion for others. Child Development, 34, 573–588.

Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Moral development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),Carmichael’s manual of child development (Vol. 2, pp. 261–359).New York: Wiley.

Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Altruistic behavior and the parent-child rela-tionship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 937–943.

Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 40, 121–137.

Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empa-thy and guilt. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocialbehavior (pp. 281–313). New York: Academic Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes in moralinternalization. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup(Eds.), Social cognition and social development: A sociocultural

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 709


perspective (pp. 236–274). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implicationsfor caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffner, C., & Haefner, M. J. (1997). Children’s comforting offrightened coviewers: Real and hypothetical television-viewingsituations. Communication Research, 24, 136–152.

Holte, C. S., Jamruszka, V., Gustafson, J., Beaman, A. L., & Camp,G. C. (1984). Inf luence of children’s positive self-perceptions ondonating behavior in naturalistic settings. Journal of School Psy-chology, 22, 145–153.

Howe, N., & Ross, H. S. (1990). Socialization, perspective-taking, andthe sibling relationship. Developmental Psychology, 26, 160–165.

Howes, C., & Eldredge, R. (1985). Responses of abused, neglected,and non-maltreated children to the behaviors of their peers. Jour-nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 261–270.

Howes, C., & Farver, J. (1987). Toddlers’ responses to the dis-tress of their peers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-ogy, 8, 441–452.

Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Sequences in the developmentof competent play with peers: Social and social pretend play. De-velopmental Psychology, 28, 961–974.

Howes, C., Matheson, C. C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1994). Maternal,teacher, and child care history correlates of children’s relation-ships with peers. Child Development, 65, 264–273.

Howes, C., & Olenick, M. (1986). Family and child care inf luenceson toddlers’ compliance. Child Development, 57, 202–216.

Huebner, A. J., & Mancini, J. A. (2003). Shaping structured out-of-school time use among youth: The effects of self, family, andfriend systems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 453–463.

Hughes, C., White, A., Sharpen, J., & Dunn, J. (2000). Antisocial,angry, and unsympathetic: “Hard-to-manage” preschoolers’ peerproblems and possible cognitive inf luences. Journal of Child Psy-chology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 169–179.

Hume, D. (1975). Enquiry into the human understanding (P. Nidditch,Ed.). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. (Original work pub-lished 1748)

Huston, A. C., & Wright, J. C. (1998). Mass media and children’s de-velopment. In W. Damon, I. S. Sigel, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, 5th ed., pp. 999–1058). NewYork: Wiley.

Iannotti, R. J., Cummings, E. M., Pierrehumbert, B., Milano, M. J., &Zahn-Waxler, C. (1992). Parental inf luences on prosocial behav-ior and empathy in early childhood. In J. M. A. M. Janssens &J. R. M. Gerris (Eds.), Child rearing: Inf luence on prosocial andmoral development (pp. 77–100). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Inglés, C. J., Hidalgo, M. D., Mendez, F. X., & Inderbitzen, H. M. (2003).The Teenage Inventory of Social Skills: Reliability and validity ofthe Spanish translation. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 505–510.

Israel, A. C., & Brown, M. S. (1979). Effects of directiveness of in-structions and surveillance on the production and persistence ofchildren’s donations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,27, 250–261.

Israel, A. C., & Raskin, P. A. (1979). Directiveness of instructionsand modeling: Effects on production and persistence on chil-dren’s donations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 135, 269–277.

Jacobs, J. E., Vernon, M. K., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Relations betweensocial self-perceptions, time use, and prosocial or problem behav-ior during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 45–62.

Jacobsen, C. (1983). What it means to be considerate: Differences innormative expectations and their implications. Israel Social Sci-ence Research, 1, 24–33.

Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orienta-tion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 703–726.

Janoski, T., Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (1998). Being volunteered? Theimpact of social participation and pro-social attitudes on volun-teering. Sociological Forum, 13, 495–519.

Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995). Pathways to volunteerism: Fam-ily socialization and status transmission models. Social Forces,74, 271–292.

Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Dekovic, M. (1997). Child rearing, prosocialmoral reasoning, and prosocial behaviour. International Journal ofBehavioral Development, 20, 509–527.

Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1992). Child rearing, em-pathy and prosocial development. In J. M. A. M. Janssens &J. R. M. Gerris (Eds.), Child rearing: Inf luence on prosocial andmoral development (pp. 57–75). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Jennings, K. D., Fitch, D., & Suwalsky, J. T. (1987). Social cognitionand social interaction in 3-year-olds: Is social cognition truly so-cial? Child Study Journal, 17, 1–14.

Johnson, D. B. (1982). Altruistic behavior and the development of theself in infants. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 379–388.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together andalone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, H. R., Thompson, M. J. J., Wilkinson, S., Walsh, L., Bald-ing, J., & Wright, V. (2002). Vulnerability to bullying: Teacher-reported conduct and emotional problems, hyperactivity, peerrelationship difficulties, and prosocial behaviour in primaryschool children. Educational Psychology, 22, 553–556.

Johnson, M. K., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J. T., & Snyder, M. (1998). Vol-unteerism in adolescence: A process perspective. Journal of Re-search on Adolescence, 8, 309–332.

Johnson, W., & Krueger, R. F. (2004). Genetic and environmentalstructure of adjectives describing the domains of the big fivemodel of personality: A nationwide U.S. twin study. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 38, 448–472.

Jones, W., Bellugi, U., Lai, Z., Chiles, M., Reilly, J., Lincoln, A.,et al. (2000). Hypersociability in Williams syndrome. In U. Bel-lugi & M. St. George (Eds.), Linking cognitive neuroscience andmolecular genetics: New perspectives from Williams syndrome.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(Suppl. 1), 30–46.

Kagan, S., & Knight, G. P. (1981). Social motives among Anglo-American and Mexican-American children: Experimental and pro-jective measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 93–106.

Kagan, S., & Madsen, M. C. (1972). Experimental analyses of coop-eration and competition of Anglo-American and Mexican chil-dren. Developmental Psychology, 6, 49–59.

Kalliopuska, M., & Tiitinen, U. (1991). Inf luence of two develop-mental programs on the empathy and prosociability of preschoolchildren. Perceptual and Motor skills, 72, 323–328.

Kiang, L., Moreno, A. J., & Robinson, J. L. (2004). Maternal per-ceptions about parenting predict child temperament, maternalsensitivity, and children’s empathy. Developmental Psychology,40, 1081–1092.

Kaminsky, L., & Dewey, D. (2001). Sibling relationships of chil-dren with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disor-ders, 31, 339–410.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 710

References 711

Kant, E. (1956). Groundwork of the metaphysics of moral law. Lon-don: Hutchinson. (Original work published 1785)

Karafantis, D. M., & Levy, S. R. (2004). The role of children’s laytheories about the malleability of human attributes in beliefsabout and volunteering for disadvantaged groups. Child Develop-ment, 75, 236–250.

Karniol, R. (1995). Developmental and individual differences in pre-dicting others’ thoughts and feelings: Applying the transforma-tion rule model. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Review of personality andsocial psychology: Vol. 15. Social development (pp. 27–48). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Karniol, R., Gabay, R., Ochion, Y., & Harari, Y. (1998). Is gender orgender-role orientation a better predictor of empathy in adoles-cence? Sex Roles, 39, 45–59.

Karylowski, J. (1982). Doing good to feel good versus doing good tomake others feel good: Some child-rearing antecedents. SchoolPsychology International, 3, 149–156.

Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Predicting kindergarten peersocial status from toddler and preschool problem behavior. Jour-nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 409–423.

Keith, J. G., Nelson, C. S., Schlabach, J. H., & Thompson, C. J.(1990). The relationship between parental employment and threemeasures of early adolescent responsibility: Family-related, per-sonal, and social. Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 399–415.

Keller, B. B., & Bell, R. Q. (1979). Child effects on adult’s method ofeliciting altruistic behavior. Child Development, 50, 1004–1009.

Kestenbaum, R., Farber, E. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Individualdifferences in empathy among preschoolers: Relation to attach-ment history. New Directions in Child Development, 44, 51–64.

Kienbaum, J., & Trommsdorff, G. (1999). Social development ofyoung children in different cultural systems. International Journalof Early Years Education, 7, 241–248.

Kienbaum, J., Volland, C., & Ulich, D. (2001). Sympathy in the con-text of mother-child and teacher-child relationships. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 25, 302–309.

Killen, M., & Turiel, E. (1998). Adolescents’ and young adults’ eval-uations of helping and sacrificing for others. Journal of Researchon Adolescence, 8, 355–375.

Knight, G. P., Cota, M. K., & Bernal, M. E. (1993). The socializationof cooperative, competitive, and individualistic preferencesamong Mexican American children: The mediating role of ethnicidentity. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15, 291–309.

Knight, G. P., Johnson, L. G., Carlo, G., & Eisenberg, N. (1994). Amultiplicative model of the dispositional antecedents of a proso-cial behavior: Predicting more of the people more of the time.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 178–183.

Knight, G. P., & Kagan, S. (1977a). Acculturation of prosocial andcompetitive behaviors among second- and third-generation Mex-ican-American children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,8, 273–284.

Knight, G. P., & Kagan, S. (1977b). Development of prosocial andcompetitive behaviors in Anglo-American and Mexican-Americanchildren. Child Development, 48, 1385–1394.

Knight, G. P., Kagan, S., & Buriel, R. (1981). Confounding effects ofindividualism in children’s cooperation-competition social mo-tive measures. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 167–178.

Knight, G. P., Nelson, W., Kagan, S., & Gumbiner, J. (1982). Cooper-ative-competitive social orientation and school achievement

among Anglo-American and Mexican-American children. Con-temporary Educational Psychology, 7, 97–106.

Knott , F., Lewis, C., & Williams, T. (1995). Sibling interaction ofchildren with learning disabilities: A comparison of autism andDown’s syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,6, 965–976.

Kochanska, G. (1985). Children’s temperament, mothers’ discipline,and security of attachment: Multiple pathways to emerging inter-nalization. Child Development, 66, 597–615.

Kochanska, G., Forman, D. R., & Coy, K. C. (1999). Implications ofthe mother-child relationship in infancy for socialization in thesecond year of life. Infant Behavior & Development, 22, 249–265.

Koenig, A. L., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2004). Moral develop-ment: The association between maltreatment and young children’sprosocial behaviors and moral transgressions. Social Develop-ment, 13, 87–106.

Koestner, R., Franz, C., & Weinberger, J. (1990). The family originsof empathic concern: A 26-year longitudinal study. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58, 709–717.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-develop-mental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Hand-book of socialization theory and research (pp. 325–480). NewYork: Rand McNally.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psy-chology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kojima, Y. (2000). Maternal regulation of sibling interactions in thepreschool years: Observational study in Japanese families. ChildDevelopment, 71, 1640–1647.

Konner, M. (2002). Some obstacles to altruism. In S. G. Post & L. G.Underwood (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love: Science, philoso-phy, and religion in dialogue (pp. 192–211). Oxford, England: Ox-ford University Press.

Krebs, D., & Miller, D. (1985). Altruism and aggression. In G.Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology(pp. 1–71). New York: Random House.

Krebs, D. L., & Sturrup, B. (1982). Role-taking ability and altruisticbehavior in elementary school children. Journal of Moral Educa-tion, 11, 94–100.

Krebs, D. L., & Van Hesteren, F. (1994). The development of altruism:Toward an integrative model. Developmental Review, 14, 103–158.

Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents’ use of inductive disci-pline: Relations to children’s empathy and prosocial behavior.Child Development, 67, 3263–3277.

Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M., & McGue, M. (2001). Altruism and anti-social behavior: Independent tendencies, unique personality cor-relates, distinct etiologies. Psychological Science, 12, 397–402.

Kumru, A., Carlo, G., Mestre, V., & Samper, P. (2003, April). Proso-cial moral reasoning and prosocial behavior among Turkish andSpanish adolescents. Paper presented at the biennial meeting ofthe Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL.

Kumru, A., & Edwards, C. P. (2003, April). Gender and adolescentprosocial behavior within the Turkish family. Poster presented atthe biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Devel-opment, Tampa, FL.

Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of mater-nal and paternal support and control to adolescent social compe-tence, self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent Research,19, 759–782.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 711


Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., & Raffaelli, M. (2000). The differential rela-tions of parent and peer attachment to adolescent adjustment.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 45–59.

Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem: The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and so-cial behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 703–716.

Ladd, G. W., Lange, G., & Stremmel, A. (1983). Personal and situa-tional inf luences on children’s helping behavior: Factors that me-diate helping. Child Development, 54, 488–501.

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s percep-tions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment.Developmental Psychology, 38, 635–647.

Lalonde, C. E., & Chandler, M. J. (1995). False belief understand-ing goes to school: On the social-emotional consequences ofcoming early or late to a first theory of mind. Cognition andEmotion, 9, 167–185.

Lamb, S., & Zakhireh, B. (1997). Toddlers’ attention to the distressof peers in a day care setting. Early Education and Development,8, 105–118.

Larrieu, J., & Mussen, P. (1986). Some personality and motivationalcorrelates of children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of GeneticPsychology, 147, 529–542.

Larrieu, J. A. (1984, March). Prosocial values, assertiveness, and sex:Predictors of children’s naturalistic helping. Paper presented atthe biennial meeting of the Southwestern Society for the Researchin Human Development, Denver, CO.

Lebra, T. S. (1994). Mother and child in Japanese socialization: AJapan-United States comparisons. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R.Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child develop-ment (pp. 259–274). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lee, L. C., & Zhan, G. Q. (1991). Political socialization and parentalvalues in the People’s Republic of China. International Journal ofBehavioral Development, 14, 337–373.

Lemare, L., & Krebs, D. (1983). Perspective-taking and styles of(pro) social behavior in elementary school children. AcademicPsychology Bulletin, 5, 289–298.

Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences inempathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Em-pathy and its development (pp. 195–217). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lennon, R., Eisenberg, N., & Carroll, J. (1983). The assessment ofempathy in early childhood. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 4, 295–302.

Leon, M. (1983). Chemical communication in mother-young inter-action. In J. Vandenbergh (Ed.), Pheromones and reproduction inmammals (pp. 39–75). New York: Academic Press.

Lepper, M. R. (1983). Social-control processes and the internaliza-tion of social values: An attributional perspective. In E. T. Hig-gins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition andsocial development: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 294–330).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005).Positive youth development: A view of the issues. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 25, 10–16.

Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2003). Positiveyouth development: Thriving as a basis of personhood and civilsociety. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 172–180.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E.,Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, partici-pation in community youth development programs, and commu-

nity contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from thefirst wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journalof Early Adolescence, 25, 17–71.

Levin, I., & Bekerman-Greenberg, R. (1980). Moral judgment andmoral reasoning in sharing: A developmental analysis. GeneticPsychological Monographs, 101, 215–230.

Lichter, D. T., Shanahan, M. J., & Gardner, E. L. (2002). Helping oth-ers? The effects of childhood poverty and family instability onprosocial behavior. Youth & Society, 34, 89–119.

Lindner-Gunnoe, M., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999).Parental religiosity, parenting style, and adolescent social respon-sibility. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 199–225.

Lindeman, M., Harakka, T., & Keltikangas-Jærvinen, L. (1997). Ageand gender differences in adolescents’ reactions to conf lict situa-tions: Aggression, prosociality, and withdrawal. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 26, 339–351.

Litvack-Miller, W., McDougall, D., & Romney, D. M. (1997). Thestructure of empathy during middle childhood and its relationshipto prosocial behavior. Genetic, Social, and General PsychologyMonographs, 123, 303–324.

London, P. (1970). The rescuers: Motivational hypotheses aboutChristians who saved Jews from the Nazis. In J. Macaulay & L.Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 241–250).New York: Academic Press.

Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Positive psychological assess-ment: A handbook of models and measures. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Lourenco, O. M. (1993). Toward a Piagetian explanation of the devel-opment of prosocial behaviour in children: The force of negationalthinking. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 91–106.

Love, J. M., Harrison, L., Sagi-Schwartz, A., van Ijzendoorn, J. H.,Ross, C., Ungerer, J. A., et al. (2003). Child care quality mat-ters: How conclusions can vary with context. Child Development,74, 1003–1021.

Ma, H. K. (1989). Moral orientation and moral judgment in adoles-cents in Hong Kong, mainland China, and England. Journal ofCross Cultural Psychology, 20, 152–177.

Ma, H. K. (1992). The relation of altruistic orientation to human re-lationships and moral judgment in Chinese people. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 27, 377–400.

Ma, H. K., & Leung, M. C. (1991). Altruistic orientation in children:Construction and validation of the child altruism inventory. Inter-national Journal of Psychology, 26, 745–759.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming to-gether. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

MacLean, P. D. (1985). Brain evolution relating to family, play andthe separation call. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 405–417.

Main, M., & George, C. (1985). Responses of abused and disadvan-taged toddlers to distress in agemates: A study in the day care set-ting. Developmental Psychology, 21, 407–412.

Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A. B., & Brendgen, M. (2001). The quality ofadolescents’ friendships: Associations with mothers’ interper-sonal relationships, attachments to parents and friends, and proso-cial behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 429–445.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implica-tions for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Re-view, 48, 224–253.

Marsh, D. T., Serafica, F. C., & Barenboim, C. (1981). Interrelation-ships among perspective taking, interpersonal problem solving

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 712

References 713

and interpersonal functioning. Journal of Genetic Psychology,138, 37–48.

Martin, G. B., & Clark, R. D. (1982). Distress crying in neonates:Species and peer specificity. Developmental Psychology, 18, 3–9.

Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., & Hollenstein, T. ( inpress). Social dynamics in the preschool. Developmental Review.

Matsuba, M. K., & Walker, L. J. (2005). Young adult moral exem-plars: The making of self through stories. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 15, 275–287.

McGrath, M. P., & Power, T. G. (1990). The effects of reasoning andchoice on children’s prosocial behaviour. International Journal ofBehavioural Development, 13, 345–353.

McGrath, M. P., Wilson, S. R., & Frassetto, S. J. (1995). Why someforms of inductive reasoning are better than others: Effects ofcognitive focus, choice, and affect on children’s prosocial behav-ior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 347–360.

McGuire, K. D., & Weisz, J. R. (1982). Social cognition and behav-ior correlates of preadolescent chumship. Child Development,53, 1478–1484.

McLellan, J. A., & Youniss, J. (2003). Two systems of youth service:Determinants of voluntary and required youth community ser-vice. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 47–58.

Mervis, C. B., & Klein-Tasman, B. P. (2000). Williams syndrome:Cognition, personality, and adaptive behavior. Mental Retarda-tion and Developmental Disabilities Research Review, 6, 148–158.

Metz, E., McLellan, J., & Youniss, J. (2003). Types of voluntary ser-vice and adolescents’ civic development. Journal of Adolescent Re-search, 18, 188–203.

Metz, E., & Youniss, J. (2003). A demonstration that school-based re-quired service does not deter, but heightens, volunteerism. Politi-cal Science and Politics, 36(2), 281–286.

Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J. H. (1967). Training charity in children.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 408–415.

Miller, J. G., & Bersoff, D. M. (1992). Culture and moral judg-ment: How are conf licts between justice and interpersonal re-sponsibilities resolved? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 62, 541–554.

Miller, J. G., & Bersoff, D. M. (1994). Cultural inf luences on themoral status of reciprocity and the discounting of endogenous mo-tivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 592–602.

Miller, J. G., & Bersoff, D. M. (1998). The role of liking in percep-tions of the moral responsibility to help: A cultural perspective.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 443–469.

Miller, J. G., Bersoff, D. M., & Harwood, R. L. (1990). Perceptionsof social responsibilities in India and in the United States: Moralimperatives or personal decisions? Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 58, 33–47.

Miller, P., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggres-sion and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin,103, 324–344.

Miller, P. A., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Shell, R. (1996). Rela-tions of moral reasoning and vicarious emotion to young chil-dren’s prosocial behavior toward peers and adults. DevelopmentalPsychology, 32, 210–219.

Miller, P. A., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shell, R., & Gular, S.(1989). Socialization of empathic and sympathetic responding. InN. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of empathy and related vi-carious responses: New Directions in child development(pp. 65–83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mills, R. S. L., & Grusec, J. (1989). Cognitive, affective, and behav-ioral consequences of praising altruism. Merrill-Palmer Quar-terly, 35, 299–326.

Moore, C., Barresi, J., & Thompson, C. (1998). The cognitive basis of fu-ture-oriented prosocial behavior. Social Development, 7, 198–218.

Morris, W. N., Marshall, H. M., & Miller, R. S. (1973). The effect ofvicarious punishment on prosocial behavior in children. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 15, 222–236.

Moore, C. W., & Allen, J. P. (1996). The effects of volunteering onthe young volunteer. Journal of Primary Prevention, 17, 231–258.

Mulder, N. (1996). Inside Indonesian society: Cultural change in In-donesia. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pepin Press.

Munekata, H., & Ninomiya, K. (1985). Development of prosocialmoral judgments. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology,33, 157–164.

Muris, P., Meesters, C., & van den Berg, F. (2003). The Strengths andDifficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Further evidence for its relia-bility and validity in a community sample of Dutch children andadolescents. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 1–8.

Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., &Guthrie, I. K. (1999). Contemporaneous and longitudinal rela-tions of dispositional sympathy to emotionality, regulation, andsocial functioning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 66–97.

Murphy, L. B. (1937). Social behavior and child personality: An ex-ploratory study of some roots of sympathy. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Nadler, A., Romek, E., & Shapira-Friedman, A. (1979). Giving in thekibbutz: Pro-social behavior of city and Kibbutz children as af-fected by social responsibility and social pressure. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 10, 57–72.

Nagel, T. (1970). The possibility of altruism. Oxford, England:Clarendon Press.

Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Parental and early childhoodpredictors of persistent physical aggression in boys from kinder-garten to high school. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 389–394.

National Center for Education. (1997). 1996 National Household Edu-cation Survey: Student participation in community service activity.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (NCES 97–331)

Nelson, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Rose-colored glasses: Examin-ing the social information-processing of prosocial young adoles-cents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 17–38.

Nsamenang, A. B. (1992). Human development in cultural context: Athird-world perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

O’Connor, M., Dollinger, S., Kennedy, S., & Pelletier-Smetko, P.(1979). Prosocial behavior and psychopathology in emotionallydisturbed boys. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49, 301–310.

Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Res-cuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York: Free Press.

Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. M. (1998). The importance of sex-of-stimulus object: Age trends and sex differences in empathic re-sponsiveness. Social Development, 7, 370–388.

Owens, C. R., & Ascione, F. R. (1991). Effects of the model’s age,perceived similarity, and familiarity on children’s donating. Jour-nal of Genetic Psychology, 152, 341–357.

Pakaslahti, L., Karjalainen, A., & Keltikangas-Jærvinen, L. (2002).Relationships between adolescent prosocial problem-solvingstrategies, prosocial behaviour, and social acceptance. Interna-tional Journal of Behavioural Development, 26, 137–144.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 713


Pakaslahti, L., & Keltikangas-Jærvinen, L. (2001). Peer-attributedprosocial behavior among aggressive/preferred, aggressive/non-preferred, non-aggressive/preferred, and non-aggressive/non-preferred adolescents. Personality and Individual Dif ferences,30, 903–916.

Panksepp, J. (1986). The psychobiology of prosocial behaviors: Sepa-ration distress, play, and altruism. In C. Zahn-Waxler, E. M.Cummings, & R. Iannotti (Eds.), Altruism and aggression: Biolog-ical and social origins (pp. 19–57). Cambridge, England: Cam-bridge University Press.

Pearl, R. (1985). Children’s understanding of others’ need for help:Effects of problem explicitness and type. Child Development,56, 735–745.

Perry, D. G., Bussey, K., & Freiberg, K. (1981). Impact of adults’ ap-peals for sharing on the development of altruistic dispositions inchildren. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 127–138.

Perry, L. C., Perry, D. G., & Weiss, R. J. (1986). Age differences inchildren’s beliefs about whether altruism makes the actor feelgood. Social Cognition, 4, 263–269.

Persson, G. E. B. (in press). Young children’s prosocial and aggres-sive behaviors and their experiences of being targeted for similarbehaviors by peers. Social Development.

Peterson, L. (1983). Inf luence of age, task competence, and responsi-bility focus on children’s altruism. Developmental Psychology,19, 141–148.

Peterson, L., Ridley-Johnson, R., & Carter, C. (1984). The supersuit:An example of structured naturalistic observation of children’saltruism. Journal of General Psychology, 110, 235–241.

Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child-care qualityand children’s social development. Developmental Psychology,23, 537–543.

Phinney, J., Feshbach, N., & Farver, J. (1986). Preschool children’sresponses to peer crying. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,1, 207–219.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: FreePress. (Original work published 1932)

Pilgrim, C., & Rueda-Riedle, A. (2002). The importance of social con-text in cross-cultural comparisons: First graders in Columbia andthe United States. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 283–295.

Plomin, R., Emde, R. N., Braungart , J. M., Campos, J., Kagan, J.,Reznick, J. S., et al. (1993). Genetic change and continuity from14 to 20 months: The MacArthur Longitudinal Twin Study. ChildDevelopment, 64, 1354–1376.

Porges, S. W., Doussard-Roosevelt , J. A., & Maiti, A. K. (1994).Vagal tone and the physiological regulation of emotion. Mono-graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2/3,Serial No. 240), 167–186, 250–283.

Post, S. G. (2001). The tradition of agape. In S. G. Post & L. G. Un-derwood (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love: Science, philosophy,and religion in dialogue (pp. 51–64). Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.

Power, T. G., & Parke, R. D. (1986). Patterns of early socialization:Mother- and father-infant interaction in the home. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 6, 331–341.

Pratt , M. W., Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., & Alisat , S. (2003). Alongitudinal analysis of personal values socialization: Correlatesof a moral self-ideal in late adolescence. Social Development,12, 563–585.

Pratt , M. W., Skoe, E. E., & Arnold, M. L. (2004). Care reasoning de-velopment and family socialization patterns in later adolescence:

A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Behavioral De-velopment, 28, 139–147.

Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate andproximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–72.

Pugh, M. J., & Hart , D. (1999). Identity development and peer groupparticipation. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Develop-ment, 84, 55–70.

Radke-Yarrow, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1984). Roots, motives, andpatterns in children’s prosocial behavior. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal,J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), Development and mainte-nance of prosocial behavior: International perspectives on positivebehavior (pp. 81–99). New York: Plenum Press.

Radke-Yarrow, M. R., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M. (1983). Chil-dren’s prosocial dispositions and behavior. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 469–546).New York: Wiley.

Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Richardson, D. T., Susman, A.,& Martinez, P. (1994). Caring behavior in children of clinicallydepressed and well mothers. Child Development, 65, 1405–1414.

Ramsey, P. G. (1988). Social skills and peer status: A comparison oftwo socioeconomic groups. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 185–202.

Rao, N., & Stewart, S. M. (1999). Cultural inf luences on sharer andrecipient behavior: Sharing in Chinese and Indian preschool chil-dren. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 219–241.

Rehberg, H. R., & Richman, C. L. (1989). Prosocial behaviour in pre-school children: A look at the interaction of race, gender, andfamily composition. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-ment, 12, 385–401.

Rheingold, H. L. (1982). Little children’s participation in thework of adults, a nascent prosocial behavior. Child Develop-ment, 53, 114–125.

Rheingold, H. L., Hay, D. F., & West, M. J. (1976). Sharing in thesecond year of life. Child Development, 47, 1148–1158.

Rice, M. E., & Grusec, J. E. (1975). Saying and doing: Effects on ob-server performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,32, 584–593.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relationamong Australian children and implications for psychologicalwell-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 33–42.

Roberts, W., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy, emotional expressive-ness, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 449–470.

Robinson, J. L., Emde, R. N., & Corley, R. P. (2001). Dispositionalcheerfulness: Early genetic and environmental inf luences. InR. N. Emde & J. K. Hewitt (Eds.), Infancy to early childhood: Ge-netic and environmental inf luences on developmental change(pp. 163–177). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, J. L., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Emde, R. N. (1994). Patterns ofdevelopment in early empathic behavior: Environmental and childconstitutional inf luences. Social Development, 3, 125–145.

Robinson, J. L., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Emde, R. N. (2001). Relationshipcontext as a moderator of sources of individual difference in em-pathic development. In R. N. Emde & J. K. Hewitt (Eds.), Infancyto early childhood: Genetic and environmental inf luences on de-velopmental change (pp. 257–268). Oxford, England: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Lon-don: Oxford University Press.

Rohner, R. P. (1975). They love me, they love me not. New Haven, CT:HRAF Press.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 714

References 715

Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (2004). Children’s strategies and goals inresponse to help-giving and help-seeking tasks within a friend-ship. Child Development, 75, 749–780.

Rosenhan, D. L. (1970). The natural socialization of altruistic auton-omy. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helpingbehavior (pp. 251–268). New York: Academic Press.

Rothbart , M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Tempera-ment and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quar-terly, 40, 21–39.

Rousseau, J. J. (1962). Emile. New York: Columbia University Press.(Original work published 1773)

Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2001). Effect of subjective perspective takingduring simulation of action: A PET investigation of agency. Na-ture and Neuroscience, 4, 546–550.

Rudolph, K. D., & Conley, C. S. (2005). The socioemotional costs andbenefits of social-evaluative concerns: Do girls care too much?Journal of Personality, 73, 115–137.

Rushton, J. P. (1975). Generosity in children: Immediate and long-term effects of modeling, preaching, and moral judgment. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 459–466.

Rushton, J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neale, M. C., Nias, D. K. B., &Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Altruism and aggression: The heritabilityof individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 50, 1192–1198.

Rushton, J. P., & Littlefield, C. (1979). The effects of age, amount ofmodeling, and a success experience on 7- to 11-year-old chil-dren’s generosity. Journal of Moral Education, 9, 55–56.

Rushton, J. P., Russell, R. J. H., & Wells, P. A. (1984). Genetic simi-larity theory: Beyond kin selection altruism. Behavior Genetics,14, 179–193.

Rushton, J. P., & Teachman, G. (1978). The effects of positive rein-forcement, attributions, and punishment on model induced altruismin children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 322–325.

Russell, A., Hart , C. H., Robinson, C. C., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Chil-dren’s sociable and aggressive behaviour with peers: A compari-son of the United States and Australia, and contributions oftemperament and parenting style. International Journal of Behav-ioral Development, 27, 74–86.

Saarni, C., Mumme, D. L., & Campos, J. J. (1998). Emotional devel-opment: Action, communication, and understanding. In W.Damon (Editor-in-Chief ) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook ofchild psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality devel-opment (5th ed., pp. 237–309). New York: Wiley.

Sagi, A., & Hoffman, M. L. (1976). Empathic distress in the new-born. Developmental Psychology, 12, 175–176.

Saklofske, D. H., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1983). Impulsiveness andventuresomeness in Canadian children. Psychological Reports,52, 147–152.

Savin-Williams, R. C., Small, S. A., & Zeldin, R. S. (1981). Domi-nance and altruism among adolescent males: A comparison ofethological and psychological methods. Ethology and Sociobiol-ogy, 2, 167–176.

Sawyer, K. S., Denham, S., DeMulder, E., Blair, K., Auerbach-Major,S., & Levitas, J. (2002). The contribution of older siblings’ reac-tions to emotions to preschoolers’ emotional and social compe-tence. Marriage and Family Review, 34, 183–212.

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own envi-ronments: A theory of genotype ➝ environment effects. Child De-velopment, 54, 424–435.

Schenk, V. M., & Grusec, J. E. (1987). A comparison of prosocial be-havior of children with and without day care experience. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 231–240.

Scourfield, J., John, B., Martin, N., & McGuffin, P. (2004). The devel-opment of prosocial behaviour in children and adolescents: A twinstudy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 927–935.

Searcy, E., & Eisenberg, N. (1992). Defensiveness in response toaid from a sibling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,62, 422–433.

Sebanc, A. M. (2003). The friendship features of preschool children:Links with prosocial behavior and aggression. Social Develop-ment, 12, 249–268.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychol-ogy: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Semel, E., & Rosner, S. R. (2003). Understanding Williams syndrome:Behavioral patterns and interventions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Serow, R. C., & Solomon, D. (1979). Classroom climates and stu-dents’ intergroup behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology,71, 669–676.

Sharma, V. (1988). Effect of birthorder, age and sex on helping be-haviour of children. Indian Journal of Psychometry and Educa-tion, 19, 91–96.

Shek, D. T. L., & Ma, H. K. (2001). Parent-adolescent conf lict andadolescent antisocial and prosocial behavior: A longitudinal studyin a Chinese context. Adolescence, 36, 545–555.

Shigetomi, C. C., Hartmann, D. P., & Gelfand, D. M. (1981). Sex dif-ferences in children’s altruistic behavior and reputations for help-fulness. Developmental Psychology, 17, 434–437.

Silva, F. (1992). Assessing the child and adolescent personality: A decadeof research. Personality and Individual Dif ferences, 13, 1163–1181.

Skoe, E. E. A., Hansen, K. L., March, W.-T., Bakke, I., Hoffmann, T.,Larsen, B., et al. (1999). Care-based moral reasoning in Norwe-gian and Canadian early adolescents: A cross-national compari-son. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 280–291.

Slaugher, V., Dennis, M. J., & Pritchard, M. (2002). Theory of mindand peer acceptance in preschool children. British Journal of De-velopmental Psychology, 20, 545–564.

Slote, M. (2001). Morals from motives. Oxford, England: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Slote, M. (2004). Autonomy and empathy. Social Philosophy and Pol-icy Foundation, 21, 293–309.

Smith, A. (1982). A theory of moral sentiments. Indianapolis, IN: Lib-erty Classics. (Original work published 1759)

Smith, C. L. (1983). Exhortations, rehearsal, and children’s prosocialbehavior. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 5, 261–271.

Smith, C. L., Gelfand, D. M., Hartmann, D. P., & Partlow, M. E. Y.(1979). Children’s causal attributions regarding help giving.Child Development, 50, 203–210.

Sneed, C. (2002). Correlates and implications for agreeableness inchildren. Journal of Psychology, 136, 59–67.

Sober, E., & Wilson, D. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psy-chology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Watson, M. (1993, March). A longitu-dinal investigation of the ef fects of a school intervention programon children’s social development. Paper presented at the biennialmeeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, NewOrleans, LA.

Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C.(2000). A six-district study of educational changes: Direct and

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 715


mediated effects of the Child Development Project. Social Psy-chology of Education, 4, 3–51.

Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., Delucchi, K. L., Schaps, E., & Battis-tich, V. (1988). Enhancing children’s prosocial behavior in theclassroom. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 527–554.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal At-tributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes andmasculinity-femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents inPsychology, 4(43, Ms. No. 617).

Spinrad, T. L. (1999, April). Toddlers’ vicarious emotional responsesand prosocial behaviors: The role of infant temperament and ma-ternal behavior. Paper presented at the Society for Research inChild Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Spinrad, T. L., Losoya, S., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard,S. A., Cumberland, A., et al. (1999). The relation of parental af-fect and encouragement to children’s moral emotions and behav-iour. Journal of Moral Education, 28, 323–337.

Stanhope, L., Bell, R. Q., & Parker-Cohen, N. Y. (1987). Tempera-ment and helping behavior in preschool children. DevelopmentalPsychology, 23, 347–353.

Staub, E. (1971a). A child in distress: The inf luence of nurturanceand modeling on children’s attempts to help. Developmental Psy-chology, 5, 124–132.

Staub, E. (1971b). The use of role playing and induction in chil-dren’s learning of helping and sharing behavior. Child Develop-ment, 42, 805–817.

Staub, E. (1979). Positive social behavior and morality: Vol. 2. Social-ization and development. New York: Academic Press.

Staub, E. (1992). The origins of caring, helping, and nonaggression:Parental socialization, the family system, schools, and culturalinf luence. In P. M. Oliner, L. Baron, L. A. Blum, Krebs, D. L., &Smolenska, M. Z. (Eds.), Embracing the other: Philosophical, psy-chological, and historical perspectives on altruism (pp. 390–412).New York: New York University Press.

Staub, E. (2003). The psychology of good and evil: Why children,adults, and groups help and harm others. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Staub, E., & Noerenberg, H. (1981). Property rights, deservingness,reciprocity, friendship: The transactional character of children’ssharing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,40, 271–289.

Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A viewfrom psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. New York:Basic Books.

Stevenson, H. W. (1991). The development of prosocial behavior inlarge-scale collective societies: China and Japan. In R. A. Hinde& Groebel, J. (Eds.), Cooperation and prosocial behaviour(pp. 89–105). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Stewart, R. B., & Marvin, R. S. (1984). Sibling relations: The role ofconceptual perspective-taking in the ontogeny of sibling caregiv-ing. Child Development, 55, 1322–1332.

Stewart, S. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2000). Inf luences on chil-dren’s sharing in a multicultural setting. Journal of Cross-Cul-tural Psychology, 31, 333–348.

Stewart, S. M., Rao, N., Bond, M. H., Fielding, R., McBride-Chang,C.,& Kennard, B. D. (1998). Chinese dimensions of parenting:Broadening Western predictors and outcomes. International Jour-nal of Psychology, 33, 345–358.

Stillwell, R., & Dunn, J. (1985). Continuities in sibling relationships:Patterns of aggression and friendliness. Journal of Child Psychol-ogy and Psychiatry, 26, 627–637.

Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., & MacKinnon, C. E. (1986). Same-sexand cross-sex siblings: Activity choices, roles, behavior, and gen-der stereotypes. Sex Roles, 15, 495–511.

Strayer, F. F., Wareing, S., & Rushton, J. P. (1979). Social constraintson naturally occurring preschool altruism. Ethology and Sociobi-ology, 1, 3–11.

Strayer, J. (1993). Children’s concordant emotions and cognitions inresponse to observed emotions. Child Development, 64, 188–201.

Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (1989). Children’s empathy and role tak-ing: Child and parental factors, and relations to prosocial behav-ior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 227–239.

Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (1997a). Children’s personal distance andtheir empathy: Indices of interpersonal closeness. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 20, 385–403.

Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (1997b). Facial and verbal measures ofchildren’s emotions and empathy. International Journal of Behav-ioral Development, 20, 627–649.

Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004a). Empathy and observed anger andaggression in 5-year-olds. Social Development, 13, 1–13.

Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004b). Children’s anger, emotional ex-pressiveness, and empathy: Relations with parents’ empathy,emotional expressiveness, and parenting practices. Social Devel-opment, 13, 229–254.

Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of“mandatory volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer. Psychologi-cal Science, 10, 59–64.

Stukas, A. A., Jr., Switzer, G. E., Dew, M. A., Goycoolea, J. M., &Simmons, R. G. (1999). Parental helping models, gender, andservice-learning. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in theCommunity, 18, 5–18.

Suda, W., & Fouts, G. (1980). Effects of peer presence on helpingin introverted and extroverted children. Child Development,51, 1272–1275.

Sugiyama, K., Matsui, H., Satoh, C., Yoshimi, Y., & Takeuchi, M.(1992). Effects of self-efficacy and outcome expectation on ob-servational learning of altruistic behavior. Japanese Journal ofPsychology, 63, 295–302.

Switzer, G. E., Simmons, R. G., Dew, M. A., Regalski, J. M., & Wang,C. (1995). The effect of a school-based helper program on adoles-cent self-image, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Early Adoles-cence, 15, 429–455.

Szynal-Brown, C., & Morgan, R. R. (1983). The effects of reward ontutor’s behaviors in a cross-age tutoring context. Journal of Exper-imental Child Psychology, 36, 196–208.

Termine, N. T., & Izard, C. E. (1988). Infants’ responses to theirmothers’ expressions of joy and sadness. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 24, 223–229.

Tesson, G., Lewko, J. H., & Bigelow, B. J. (1987). The social rulesthat children use in their interpersonal relations. Contributions ofHuman Development, 18, 36–57.

Thompson, C., Barresi, J., & Moore, C. (1997). The development offuture-oriented prudence and altruism in preschoolers. CognitiveDevelopment, 12, 199–212.

Tietjen, A. (1986). Prosocial reasoning among children and adults in aPapua, New Guinea society. Developmental Psychology, 22, 861–868.

Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Gagnon, C., Piche, C., & Royer, N.(1992). A prosocial scale for the preschool behaviour question-naire: Concurrent and predictive correlates. International Journalof Behavioral Development, 15, 227–245.

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. QuarterlyReview of Biology, 46, 35–57.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM 6

References 717

Trivers, R. L. (1983). The evolution of cooperation. In D. L. Bridge-man (Ed.), The nature of prosocial development (pp. 95–112).New York: Academic Press.

Trommsdorff, G. (1991). Child-rearing and children’s empathy. Per-ceptual Motor Skills, 72, 387–390.

Trommsdorff, G. (1995). Person-context relations as developmentalconditions for empathy and prosocial action: A cross-culturalanalysis. In T. A. Kindermann & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Developmentof person-context relations (pp. 189–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Trommsdorff, G., & Friedlmeier, W. (1999). Motivational conf lictand prosocial behaviour of kindergarten children. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 23, 413–429.

Trommsdorff, G., & Kornadt, H.-J. (2003). Parent-child relations incross-cultural perspective. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook ofdynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 271–306). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Tucker, C. J., Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C.(1999). Older siblings as socializers of younger siblings’ empathy.Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 176–198.

Turnbull, C. M. (1972). The mountain people. New York: Simon& Schuster.

Turner, P. H., & Harris, M. B. (1984). Parental attitudes and pre-school children’s social competence. Journal of Genetic Psychol-ogy, 144, 105–113.

Uggen, C., & Janikula, J. (1999). Volunteerism and arrest in the tran-sition to adulthood. Social Forces, 78, 331–362.

Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altru-ism. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 143–173.

Underwood, L. G. (2001). The human experience of compassionatelove: Conceptual mapping and data from selected studies. In S. G.Post & L. G. Underwood (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love: Sci-ence, philosophy, and religion in dialogue (pp. 72–88). Oxford,England: Oxford University Press.

Ungerer, J. A., Dolby, R., Waters, B., Barnett , B., Kelk, N., & Lewin,V. (1990). The early development of empathy: Self-regulation andindividual differences in the first year. Motivation and Emotion,14, 93–106.

Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Cumber-land, A., & Losoya, S. H. (in press). Prediction of children’s em-pathy-related responding from their effortful control and parents’expressivity. Developmental Psychology.

Vandell, D. L., Henderson, V. K., & Wilson, K. S. (1988). A longitu-dinal study of children with day-care experiences of varying qual-ity. Child Development, 59, 1286–1292.

Van der Mark, I. L., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranen-burg, M. J. (2002). Development of empathy in girls during thesecond year of life: Associations with parenting, attachment, andtemperament. Social Development, 11, 451–468.

Van Lawick-Goodall, J. (1968). A preliminary report on expressivemovements and communication in the Gombe Stream chim-panzees. In P. Jay (Ed.), Primates (pp. 313–374). New York: Holt ,Rhinehart , & Winston.

Vitaglione, G. D., & Barnett , M. A. (2003). Assessing a new dimen-sion of empathy: Empathic anger as a predictor of helping andpunishing desires. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 301–324.

Vitaro, F., Gagnon, C., & Tremblay, R. E. (1990). Predicting stablepeer rejection from kindergarten to grade 1. Journal of ClinicalChild Psychology, 19, 257–264.

Vitaro, F., Gagnon, C., & Tremblay, R. E. (1991). Teachers’ andmothers’ assessment of children’s behaviors from kindergarten to

grade 2: Stability and change within and across informants. Jour-nal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 325–343.

Volling, B. L. (2001). Early attachment relationships as predictors ofpreschool children’s emotion regulation with a distressed sibling.Early Education and Development, 12, 185–207.

Wachs, T. D. (1994). Genetics, nurture and social development: Analternative viewpoint. Social Development, 3, 66–70.

Warden, D., Cheyne, B., Christie, D., Fitzpatrick, H., & Reid, K.(2003). Assessing children’s perceptions of prosocial and anti-social behavior. Educational Psychology, 23, 547–567.

Warden, D., & Mackinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial bullies, bullies, andvictims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy,and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Develop-mental Psychology, 21, 367–385.

Waters, E., Hay, D., & Richters, J. (1986). Infant-parent attachmentand the origins of prosocial and antisocial behavior. In D. Olweus,J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocialand prosocial behavior: Research, theories, and issues(pp. 97–125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Weissbrod, C. S. (1976). Noncontingent warmth induction, cognitivestyle, and children’s imitative donation and rescue effort behav-iors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 274–281.

Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Widaman, K., & O’Neil, R. (2001). Linkagesbetween children’s social and academic competence: A longitudi-nal analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 463–481.

Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Sociometric status and adjustment in middleschool: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 5–28.

Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendship inmiddle school: Inf luences on motivation and school adjustment.Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203.

Wentzel, K. R., & McNamara, C. C. (1999). Interpersonal relation-ships, emotional distress, and prosocial behavior in middleschool. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 114–125.

White, G. M., & Burnam, M. A. (1975). Socially cued altruism: Ef-fects of modeling, instructions, and age on public and private do-nations. Child Development, 46, 559–563.

Whiting, B. B., & Edwards, C. P. (1973). A cross-cultural analysis ofsex differences in the behavior of children aged 3 through 11.Journal of Social Psychology, 91, 171–188.

Whiting, B. B., & Edwards, C. P. (1988). Children of dif ferent worlds.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. M. (1975). Children of 6 cul-tures: A psychocultural analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Williams, W. (1991). Javanese lives: Men and women in modern In-donesian society. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Wilson, B. J. (2003). The role of attentional processes in children’sprosocial behavior with peers: Attention shifting and emotion.Developmental and Psychopathology, 15, 313–329.

Wilson, C. C., Piazza, C. C., & Nagle, R. J. (1990). Investigation ofthe effect of consistent and inconsistent behavioral example uponchildren’s donation behaviors. Journal of Genetic Psychology,151, 361–376.

Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Wise, P. S., & Cramer, S. H. (1988). Correlates of empathy and cogni-tive style in early adolescence. Psychological Reports, 63, 179–192.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 717


Wood, J. V., Saltzberg, J. A., & Goldsamt, L. A. (1990). Does affectinduce self-focused attention? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 58, 899–908.

Wynne-Edwards, V. C. (1962). Animal dispersion in relation to socialbehaviour. New York: Hafner.

Yarrow, M. R., & Scott , P. M. (1972). Imitation of nurturant and non-nurturant models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,23, 259–270.

Yarrow, M. R., Scott , P. M., & Waxler, C. Z. (1973). Learning con-cern for others. Developmental Psychology, 8, 240–260.

Yarrow, M. R., Waxler, C. Z., Barrett , D., Darby, J., King, R., Pickett ,M., et al. (1976). Dimensions and correlates of prosocial behaviorin young children. Child Development, 47, 118–125.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996a). Community service and political-moral identity in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence,6, 271–284.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996b). A development perspective on com-munity service in adolescence. Social Development, 5, 85–111.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1998). Community service and politicalidentity development in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues,43, 495–512.

Young, S. K., Fox, N. A., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1999). The relations be-tween temperament and empathy in 2-year-olds. DevelopmentalPsychology, 35, 1189–1197.

Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development: A Sulli-van-Piaget perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Mazer, B. (2001). Voluntary service,peer group orientation, and civic engagement. Journal of Adoles-cent Research, 16, 456–468.

Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., Su, Y., & Yates, M. (1999). The role ofcommunity service in identity development: Normative, uncon-ventional, and deviant orientations. Journal of Adolescent Re-search, 14, 248–261.

Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1999). Religion, communityservice, and identity in American Youth. Journal of Adolescence,22, 243–253.

Youniss, J., & Metz, E. (2004). Longitudinal gains in civic develop-ment through school-based required service. Manuscript submit-ted for publication.

Zaff, J. F., Moore, K. A., Papillo, A. R., & Williams, S. (2003). Im-plications of extracurricular activity participation during ado-lescence on positive outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research,18, 599–630.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P. M., Welsh, J. D., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Psy-chophysiological correlates of empathy and prosocial behaviors inpreschool children with problem behaviors. Development andPsychopathology, 7, 27–48.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Cummings, E. M., McKnew, D., & Radke-Yarrow,M. (1984). Altruism, aggression, and social interactions inyoung children with a manic-depressive parent. Child Develop-ment, 55, 112–122.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Iannotti, R., & Chapman, M. (1982). Peers andprosocial development. In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peerrelationships and social skills in childhood (pp. 133–162). NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1982). The development ofaltruism: Alternative research strategies. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 109–137). New York:Academic Press.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. A. (1979). Childrearing and children’s prosocial initiations toward victims of dis-tress. Child Development, 50, 319–330.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. (1983). Early altru-ism and guilt. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 5, 247–259.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M.(1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psy-chology, 28, 126–136.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J., & Emde, R. N. (1992). The developmentof empathy in twins. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1038–1047.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Schiro, K., Robinson, J. L., Emde, R. N., & Schmitz,S. (2001). Empathy and prosocial patterns in young MZ and DZtwins: Development and genetic and environmental inf luences. InR. N. Emde & J. K. Hewitt (Eds.), Infancy to early childhood(pp. 141–162). New York: Oxford University Press.

Zarbatany, L., Hartmann, D. P., & Gelfand, D. M. (1985). Why doeschildren’s generosity increase with age: Susceptibility to experi-menter inf luence or altruism? Child Development, 56, 746–756.

Zarbatany, L., Hartmann, D. P., Gelfand, D. M., & Vinciguerra, P.(1985). Gender differences in altruistic reputation. Developmen-tal Psychology, 21, 97–101.

Zeldin, R. A., Savin-Williams, R. C., & Small, S. A. (1984). Dimen-sions of prosocial behavior in adolescent males. Journal of SocialPsychology, 123, 159–168.

Zeldin, S., & Topitzes, D. (2002). Neighborhood experiences, com-munity connection, and positive beliefs about adolescentsamong urban adults and youth. Journal of Community Psychol-ogy, 30, 647–669.

Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S. H., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M.,Guthrie, I. K., et al. (2002). The relations of parental warmth andpositive expressiveness to children’s empathy-related respondingand social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development,73, 893–915.

dam3_c11.qxd 1/13/06 3:02 PM Page 718