User:MGMT90018 2015S2 prosocial orientation/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prosocial Orientation refers to "a set of dispositional attitudes, cognitions and behaviours that successfully potentiate social interactions”. [1] People who have a "prosocial orientation" prefer strategies that generate win-win situations. When dealing with other people, they believe that it is better if everyone comes out even in a situation.

Specifically, those with a prosocial orientation are known to maximise joint outcomes and are more willing to cooperate than those who are ‘proself’. [2] Prosocially oriented individuals are more motivated to work with others towards ‘win-win’ scenarios. An individual with a prosocial orientation also thinks about the rights and wellbeing of others, has empathy and care for others, comforts, shares and cooperates with others and behaves in a way that benefits other individuals (prosocial behaviour), regardless of motivation. [3][4]

One study categorises this dispositional tendency into two factors: other-oriented empathy and helpfulness [5]. Other-oriented empathy is the propensity to feel empathy and concern for others through cognition and affect. Evidence found that positive community involvement and volunteering in adolescence improves prosocial development with aspirations in young people to be kinder, more caring and altruistic: the idea that by doing prosocial, one becomes prosocial. [5][6] Helpfulness is a behavioural tendency measurement based on past experiences. [5] Through the use of a Prosocial Personality Battery (PSB) for testing, their results state that there may be two kinds of helpers in adults and adolescence alike: those who help to assist others in need (more empathy-motivated), and those who help because of what helping does for themselves (more self-efficacy motivated). This idea shows the dynamic forms that prosocial orientation can result in. Research has also shown that they are likely to show more self restraint. [7]

Related Concepts[edit]

Literature in the area use the terms prosocial nature, prosocial disposition, prosocial propensity, prosocial value orientation interchangeably to mean prosocial orientation. There are also a number of other terms not synonymous, yet closely linked in meaning to prosocial orientation. For example, a ‘prosocial’ is an individual who exhibits a prosocial orientation. [8] It can be understood then that prosocials prefer outcomes involving mutual cooperation. [9] This is because they care for others outcomes and their rationality type is more socially aligned. [10]

Another related term is that of prosocial behaviour. This type of behaviour involves activities such as helping, cooperating and comforting. [11] More broadly defined, prosocial behaviour includes actions that benefit others or society itself. [12] Against commonly held opinions, prosocial behaviour does not always indicate a prosocial orientation towards others. [13] Some individuals may be motivated to behave prosocially for their own personal benefit, rather than for the wellbeing of others. [3]

Social value orientation, whilst in relation, has a different meaning to prosocial orientation. Social value orientations can be described as the pre-defined preferences one holds for specific patterns of outcomes for himself and others. [14] It is the extent to which an individual holds preferences concerning themselves or others. [10] Unlike prosocial orientation with a defined focus towards others, social value orientation is a broad term use to describe a range of dispositions. Two examples of social value orientations are individualist (the aim to maximise one’s own outcome) and competitors (the aim to maximise one’s own outcome in comparison to others). These two social value orientations are in direct contrast to prosocial orientation with a more proself outlook. [15]

Empathy is shown to be related to having a prosocial orientation. [13] Definitively, empathy is an affective response to hold the same or a similar emotional state as another through understanding what that other person is or is expected to feel. [16] Additionally, empathy has been described as an aspect of a prosocial personality disposition. [13] It has also been stated that empathy and prosociality are needed together for an individual to express compassion. [17] Compassion is understood to be an emotional connection that links one to those in suffering. [18] This emotion leads to prosocial motivation [19] and strongly compels the individual to undertake actions that alleviate the suffering of others. [20]

History[edit]

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection [21] suggests that prosocial orientation may have evolved in some organisms. This may be due to the fact that it improves the reproductive fitness of organisms that benefit from living in a community. [21] Humans are said to be one such example, as living isolated from other tribes puts their survival in danger. [22]

Prosocial orientation is considered to be a trait that aids in the ability of humans to work as fully functioning members of a tribe. [22] Over time, humans have evolved to be one of the most prosocial species of all organisms. [22] Contemporary Neo-Darwinism models of evolution agree that prosocial orientation exists in humans, as genetically based predispositions to act prosocially have been found. [23] These genetically based predispostions have been linked to the evolutionary success of humans by some studies. [23]

One major selective force that may have helped establish a prosocial orientation in humans is the necessity of cooperative hunting. [24] Studies have found that those who are able to cooperate in group tasks, such as hunting, have better chances of surviving and therefore reproducing, placing them at an evolutionary advantage. Literature suggests that such tribal advantages may have caused prosocial orientation to be represented differently in proceeding generations, resulting in an increase in prevalence over time. [22]

Studies have speculated that culture may have also acted as an influence to its genetic evolution, as those who regularly acted to assist the welfare of their group were more successful in reproduction. [22] Other human activities such as sharing food, gathering and serial monogamy may have been conserved to benefit the overall group, alternatively leading to the predominance of a prosocial orientation in humans. [22] There was also an advantage to be altruistically prosocial (people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the group), as during tribal wars the tribe with the more altruistic population had an advantage, that would further lead to an expansion of a prosocial orientation. [23]

Types of Prosocial Orientations[edit]

A women displaying altruism by delivering food portions to a homeless individual in need.

According to Van Lange and Liebrand [25], cooperation, altruism, equality and maximin social value orientations are qualities that aid in predicting prosocial orientation and therefore prosocial behaviour. Cooperation involves actions that maximise one's own outcomes as well as another person's outcomes. Cooperation involves relationships within and between groups, and mainly focuses on trust, with the expectation of reciprocity. [26] One study observed that students who have a collaborative or task orientation approach in the classroom are expected to be more prosocial in attitude and behaviour than those with an ego orientation, due to the focus on caring for others and not just themselves. Those with this cooperative nature regard success as working effectively and productively with one or more collaborators, increasing positive responses to others as a result. [27] Ego orientation however, was found to be negatively correlated with prosocial orientation due to having a significantly stronger focus on self rather than others, with preferences for individual tasks and judged themselves as superior in competence and thus performance in different settings. Altruism is another social value orientation that predicts prosocial orientation and is considered to be intrinsically motivated. Altruism is a voluntary type behaviour that maximises another person's outcomes while disregarding one's own outcomes. [28] One study found that having unselfish, altruistic motivations are strong predictors, alongside other prosocial behaviour, for fostering life satisfaction and positive affect in elderly age. [29] Altruism includes the belief that the welfare and treatment of others is the most important, with perspective and empathy significant characteristics of altruism and thus, prosocial orientation. Equality involves actions that minimise the difference between one's own and another person's outcome. [30] It emphasises fairness and results in reciprocity. Maximin involves actions that maximise the outcomes for the individual who has the lowest outcomes, with a helpfulness and collaboration approach influencing one to have a stronger prosocial orientation. [31]

Causes of Prosocial Orientation[edit]

Young children demonstrating prosocial behaviour through sharing a drink.

Research has found that an individuals upbringing has a significant effect on the outcome of an individual’s social value orientation outcome. It has been noted that children between the ages of 3 and 4 showed signs of prosocial behaviours and are spontaneous in nature. It suggests that as a child develops, their social value orientation changes due to the surrounding influences and environment. [32] Studies indicate that many factors affect a child’s social value orientation and that from young children to young adults social value orientation can swing from one extreme to the other. [33]

Parenting practices have been observed and studied in order to map how a child's prosocial orientation alters. Parents who demonstrated prosocial behaviours were more likely to influence their children into a prosocial value orientation than those who do not demonstrate prosocial behaviours. [34] Children who had a disadvantaged childhood are more likely to have less of a prosocial orientation and therefore act less prosocially. [35] Alongside parenting, another strong influence that was found on the development of prosocial orientation is that of peers, which becomes more important in adolescence. Peers who demonstrated delinquent behaviours disrupted the development of others prosocial orientation, however, peers who showed social desirability had a positive influence on prosocial orientation. [36] Mimicking the behaviour of friends is normal as peers are often seen to be prosocial models. [37] One particular study of adolescents in Hong Kong found that prosocial students attributed their behaviour to the positive influence that their friends had on them. Moreover, results indicate that better academic achievement also had a significant increase in prosocial orientation. [38]

Environmental and genetic factors in the past have both been thought to be linked to prosocial orientation, however it wasn't determined which of these two factors was the main cause. In 2007, studies were done using twins who did not share the same environmental conditions in order to determine which factor played a stronger role. [39] The results indicated that both factors had a strong effect on the child's prosocial orientation with 55% being attributed to genetics and 45% being attributed to non-shared environmental factors. [39] Even with a prosocial orientation, a person's actions can change depending on the scenario. For example, if a person acts kindly to another the other is most likely to respond similarly and vice versa. [23]

Findings around the effect of gender and prosocial orientation are mixed and perhaps require more clarification. One empirical study inferred that girls exhibited more cooperative and generous tendencies, although this was quickly attributed to the typical cultural upbringing of females. [36] In a study featuring much younger children, boys displayed a lower vagal tone that indicated more prosocial behaviour than girls who were associated with shyness. [40] This was loosely explained by stereotypes within the school context where boys are confronted with more situations in which they can choose conflict or show compassion. Furthermore, displaying shy or passive behaviour is more positively rewarded in young girls leading to less socially-oriented development. However, other studies have shown results that are in contrast with this gender difference.   

Measuring Prosocial Orientation[edit]

Prosocial orientation is typically measured through monitoring interactions between two or more individuals depending on the type of behaviour that one is researching. Many studies have used questionnaires that ask subjects to rate their feelings towards others. In some cases the design is not to use these answers to directly measure prosocial orientation but rather have constructed an environment in which the subjects themselves are being measured. For example, one study when determining the relationship between power and prosocial orientation, a group of students were assigned to different types of seats to fill out a questionnaire on racial issues. Whilst some students were placed in ordinary school chairs, others were seated behind a Professor's desk in the Professor's chair - designed to evoke a higher sense of power in their answers. [41]

In a study concerned with determining the degree to which people expected their own social value orientation to be prevalent in others, prosocial orientation was measured by the classification of responses into six categories. Participants were asked to make 36 decisions regarding an amount of money they would distribute to themselves and another individual and their responses dictated their categorisation into the Individualism, Altruism, Equality, Cooperation, Competition or Maximin classifications. [25] Those deemed to be prosocially oriented had responses in the Altruism, Equality, Cooperation and Maximin categories, whereas those whose responses were classified as Individualism and Competition were considered to possess a proself orientation[25].

In another study that was conducted to understand the neuroanatomical basis of prosocial orientation, the researchers defined the orientation as being the presence of two psychological dimensions. [1] In this study, prosocial orientation was measured as the presence of “the tendencies to process cues of social reinforcement and to respond to other people’s needs” [1], which correlate with the Agreeableness and Extraversion personality traits of the Big Five Model [1].

Prosocial orientation has also been measured through physical responses such as respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) [42]. RSA is a physiological reaction used to register empathetic behaviour towards others [42]. Activation of the vagus nerve when interacting with others stimulates facial and vocal muscles causing individuals to display signs of agreeableness and attentiveness such as nodding or strong eye contact [42]. RSA has also been proven to release oxytocin in the body when individuals feel warmth or trust towards those they interact with. In one experiment, subjects resting heart rate was taken before being measured during interactions with strangers. Fluctuation in the heart rate (an indicator of RSA) was then compared with their post-experiment evaluations of how strongly they would like to continue speaking with that person. [41]

Conditions and Moderators[edit]

Studies indicate that a prosocial disposition is not evident across all individuals but is moderated by particular social contexts or one's self-perception. Power distance is seen to be a factor of prosocial orientation. For example, research into workplaces with a prescribed hierarchy indicated that high-powered workers displayed more empathetic behaviour than those in a lower status. [43] Yet, whilst these authors concluded this as evidence of a direct correlation, further investigation suggests that high power status merely allows some individuals to focus on goals that are aligned to prosocial behaviour. [41] Results indicate that amongst high powered individuals, those with 'communal social orientation' selflessly focused on helping their subordinates because of their own privileged status owed to them. Conversely, those who displayed 'exchange social orientation' maintained a more transactional approach to colleagues ensuring that they themselves benefited equally from the resources they distributed. [44] These conclusions suggest that power does not facilitate prosocial orientated behaviour insofar that it enables some high-powered individuals to act empathetically to those below them.   

As prosocial orientation is often relational, in that it is measured through interaction with another, studies suggest that this is conditional on who the subject is interaction with. One notable study examined how race affected prosocial behaviour in response to affirmative action policies allowing more African-Americans into senior roles in a traditionally white-dominated workforce. [45] The design of the experiment measured the presence of 'helping behaviour' between black and white subjects whilst controlling for their status in the company (subordinate/supervisor) and also perceived job competency (low ability/high ability). Results suggested an inherent reluctance by White people to be helpful towards Black people in a superior role in the company. [45] In contrast, Black subjects exhibited help to their White colleagues on the basis of their ability to perform the job. This suggests that prosocial orientation is somewhat influenced by the ethnicity of the other but is typically centred around the subject's views on inherent racial superiority.   

The effects of familial socialisation during one's formative years has been explained as being crucial to the development of prosocial behaviour. However, one area of study that has had little research is how this has been moderated by culture which appears to have a profound effect given the context of where each study was performed. For example, one study performed in China found that girls exhibited a stronger sense of prosocial orientation. [38] This was attributed to the culturally normative behaviour for Chinese girls to be taught to be more caring and conforming than boys. However results in Western studies have been proven different and factors such as gender differences are largely inconclusive. [40] This raises more questions as to the true nature of socialisation and whether gender, family or school have less bearing on prosocial orientation because of how contingent it is on culture. Such a gap in research exists that can cross-examine different cultures with these three causes of prosocial orientation.   

Effects of Possessing a Prosocial Orientation[edit]

Individual to Individual[edit]

Evidence has shown that people with a prosocial orientation can possess increased levels of certain traits, which are considered beneficial to themselves and others around them and usually arise from socialisation during childhood and learning development. [46][47][48] The first of these traits is that individuals with a prosocial orientation have been found to be more trusting of others. [46] The result of this trust, along with other prosocial tendencies, is often reciprocity[46]. Reciprocity is when another responds to positive actions with additional positive actions, colloquially known as returning the favour. [49]

The second tendency is that people with a prosocial orientation are more empathetic towards those around them or at least higher levels of empathy are shown in some form. [47] Additionally, one study found that individuals who were placed in positions of power or made to feel as such, were able to more accurately determine the feelings of another, therefore concluding that power increased empathetic accuracy. [47] Due to this effect, it was noted within this study that those with a prosocial orientation provide a more supportive work environment for others, as these individuals are able to detect opportunities to emotionally assist employees in lower positions of power than their own, through having strong empathetic and caring abilities. [47] However, personal distress can result from empathetic arousal when exposed to another person’s state or situation. Personal distress can negatively affect the individual’s state of mind for a certain amount of time, a detriment to having a social orientation. [50]

The third tendency is that people with a prosocial orientation have increased levels of compassion, altruism and tolerance. [51] One study found that children who possessed a prosocial orientation were more generous, empathetic, and helpful to others. [48] As a result, these children were found to be more popular, well-adjusted and connected within their society and throughout schooling than those who did not possess this quality as much. [48]

Many studies have also found that those with a prosocial orientation expect more cooperation from others than those with an individualist or competitive social value orientation. [7] Additionally, prosocial individuals are more likely to have certain assumptions about others whom they perceive as intelligent. Research has shown that those with a prosocial orientation are likely to assume that an unintelligent other will have a less collaborative attitude, as they attribute a positive relationship between rationality and cooperation. [7] Therefore, the findings suggest that they perceive others who do not cooperate and collaborate with others as less intelligent than themselves. Furthermore, research suggests that prosocially oriented individuals see intelligence and honesty as co-occurring, and therefore are likely to assume that an intelligent other will be more sincere and truthful. [52]

When choosing a partner, research also found that women are more likely to be attracted to men who have prosocial tendencies, being rated more highly as physically and sexually attractive, more socially desirable and desirable as partners than men who were non-prosocial, with dominance an underlying influence in forming the attraction. [53] One particular study conducted in 1986 discovered that the single most important attribute in a potential partner was the disposition towards kindness and understanding, which both genders ranked highly [54]. This is seen as more conducive to those with prosocial tendencies, making it an advantageous characteristic in appealing to the opposite sex.

Individual to Team[edit]

Evidence has shown that people with a prosocial orientation can have a wide ranging effect on a team and its outcomes. [55][56] Firstly, individuals with a prosocial orientation can positively impact a team through their tendency to assist others on their own volition, instead of waiting until their assistance is absolutely necessary or instructed by a superior. [55] This results in team members with a prosocial orientation being considered a more valuable team member by their peers. [55] Another study found that not only can this proactive behaviour result in greater team cohesion, but also has knock on effects to the speed at which problems are identified and therefore solved, which can result in a far more efficient and effective team environment. [57]

Secondly, in a negotiation setting, the natural desire for equal and fair outcomes can mean that team members who are prosocially orientated are likely to demand less and concede more than those with a pro-self orientation, meaning that they are willing to sacrifice their own interests in order to achieve the best outcome for the team and company. [58] A study has shown however, that when in contact with other teams or out-groups, individuals who have a prosocial orientation have found to assist their own teams to a greater degree, in an attempt to give them a competitive advantage. [58] However whilst attempting to do this, these individuals are more likely to become strong contributors to unproductive conflicts with these aforementioned out-groups. [56] Thus, prosocially orientated employees are likely to display parochial altruism. [56] Parochial altruism is characterised by the display of self-sacrificing, altruistic behaviours towards one's own group, paired with hostility toward members of a competing group, which can cause potential conflict in a workplace. [56]

Individual to Organisation[edit]

Within an organisational setting, there is evidence to support the notion that employees who possess a prosocial orientation will have a greater concern for the goals of other departments than non-prosocial orientated employees. [59] This trait is believed to have flow on effects for interdepartmental negotiations, as these employees will be more likely to show problem solving behaviour, resulting in an outcome that benefits the entire organisation, rather than individual departments. [59] This idea is supported by research that links prosocial orientation with organisational citizenship behaviour [60], a concept that reflects an employee's desire to undertake tasks that benefit the organisation, which they are not required to perform under their current employee agreement. [61] The downside to this behaviour however, is that there can be negative impacts to the employee's own allocated tasks, as they are too focused on the unassigned voluntary tasks. [61]

Prosocial Rule Breaking[edit]

This orientation can also result in prosocial rule breaking, where employees feel they must violate organisational rules to perform their job in a responsible and effective manner. [62] In other words, employees with a more prosocial orientation are more likely to go against company policy that they feel isn't in the best interests of the organisation. [62] This form of rule breaking has been identified to occur for three reasons: to help other members of the organisation, to improve work performance or to increase the level of customer service provided. [62] Despite the good intentions of prosocial rule breaking, research has found that its implementation often results in other employees giving prosocial rule breakers a more negative performance rating. [63] This performance rating drop has been theoretically linked to attribution theory, where these other employees are drawing dispositional inferences about the prosocial rule breakers, discounting any situational factors. [63] A hypothetical example of this would be when a waiter gives a free dessert to calm a customer, breaking organisational policy. To the waiter, the situational factors would have logically demanded for such an action, but to a third party employee, this action could be linked to the waiter's disposition, which subsequently results in a lowered opinion of the original employee's performance. [63]

Individual to Environment[edit]

It has been found that an individual's social value orientation has an effect on one's behavior around energy conservation. [64] Prosocially orientated individuals conserve more energy than their individualistic and competitive counterparts in terms of food, housing and mobility. [64] For example, prosocially oriented individuals tend to prefer travelling by means of public transportation more than competitors and individualists who favor driving. [65] Energy consciousness is believed to motivate this energy efficient behaviour, as by nature, prosocials consider repercussions of their actions on others, which is considered a beneficial approach long term. [64]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d Coutinho, Joana F.; Sampaio, Adriana; Ferreira, Miguel; Soares, José M.; Gonçalves, Oscar F. (2013-03-20). "Brain correlates of pro-social personality traits: a voxel-based morphometry study". Brain Imaging and Behavior. 7 (3): 293–299. doi:10.1007/s11682-013-9227-2. ISSN 1931-7557.
  2. ^ Declerck, Carolyn H.; Boone, Christophe; Kiyonari, Toko (2010-03-01). "Oxytocin and cooperation under conditions of uncertainty: The modulating role of incentives and social information". Hormones and Behavior. 57 (3): 368–374. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.01.006.
  3. ^ a b Penner, Louis A., Barbara A. Fritzsche, J. Philip Craiger & Tamara R. (2014-03-05). Measuring the prosocial personality. Vol. 10. New York, NY: Psychology Press. pp. 147–163.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TL. (2006). "Prosocial Orientation: Social, emotional, and personality development". Handbook of Child Psychology 3.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ a b c Penner, Louis A., Barbara A. Fritzsche, J. Philip Craiger & Tamara R. (1995). ""Measuring the prosocial personality 10"". New York, NY: Psychology Press. pp. 147–163.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Hastings, P. D., T. Utendale, W. T & Sullivan, C. (2007). Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research: The Socialization of Prosocial Development. New York: Guilford Publications. pp. 654–655.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ a b c Van Lange, Paul A. M.; Liebrand, Wim B. G. (1991-07-01). "Social value orientation and intelligence: A test of the goal prescribes rationality principle". European Journal of Social Psychology. 21 (4): 273–292. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420210402. ISSN 1099-0992.
  8. ^ Van Lange, Paul AM, Michaéla Schippers, and Daniel Balliet (2010-06-20). "Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering". Personality and individual differences. Retrieved 12 September 2015.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ Simpson, Brent (2004-12-01). "Social Values, Subjective Transformations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas". Social Psychology Quarterly. 67 (4): 385–395. doi:10.1177/019027250406700404. ISSN 0190-2725.
  10. ^ a b Boone, Christophe; Declerck, Carolyn; Kiyonari, Toko (2010-10-01). "Inducing Cooperative Behavior among Proselfs versus Prosocials: The Moderating Role of Incentives and Trust". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 54 (5): 799–824. doi:10.1177/0022002710372329. ISSN 0022-0027.
  11. ^ Eggum, Natalie D.; Eisenberg, Nancy; Kao, Karen; Spinrad, Tracy L.; Bolnick, Rebecca; Hofer, Claire; Kupfer, Anne S.; Fabricius, William V. (2011-01-01). "Emotion understanding, theory of mind, and prosocial orientation: Relations over time in early childhood". The Journal of Positive Psychology. 6 (1): 4–16. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.536776. ISSN 1743-9760. PMC 3328349. PMID 22518196.
  12. ^ Twenge, Jean (2007-01). "Social Exclusion Decreases Prosocial Behavior". Journal of personality and social psychology. 92 (1): 56–66. Retrieved 2015-09-15. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ a b c Eisenberg, Nancy; Guthrie, Ivanna K.; Murphy, Bridget C.; Shepard, Stephanie A.; Cumberland, Amanda; Carlo, Gustavo (1999-11-01). "Consistency and Development of Prosocial Dispositions: A Longitudinal Study". Child Development. 70 (6): 1360–1372. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00100. ISSN 1467-8624.
  14. ^ McClintock, Charles G. "Social Values: Their Definition, Measurement and Development". Journal of Research and Development in Education. 12 (1): 121–37.
  15. ^ Van Lange, Paul A. M.; Bruin, Ellen M. N. De; Otten, Wilma; Joireman, Jeffrey A. (1997-01-01). "Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 73 (4). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733.
  16. ^ Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TL (2006). Prosocial orientation. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3. New York, NY: Wiley. pp. 646–718.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ Knafo, Ariel; Zahn-Waxler, Carolyn; Hulle, Carol Van; Robinson, JoAnn L.; Rhee, Soo Hyun (2008-01-01). "The developmental origins of a disposition toward empathy: Genetic and environmental contributions". Emotion. 8 (6). doi:10.1037/a0014179.
  18. ^ Lazarus, Richard S. (1991-01-01). "Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion". American Psychologist. 46 (8). doi:10.1037/0003-066x.46.8.819.
  19. ^ Gilbert, Paul (2004-08-02). Compassion: Conceptualisations, Research and Use in Psychotherapy. Routledge. ISBN 9781135877897.
  20. ^ Omoto, A. M., Malsch, A. M., & Barraza, J. A. (2009). Compassionate acts: Motivations for and correlates of volunteerism among older adults. Chichester, UK: Blackwell. ISBN 9781444303087.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1859-11-1). On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: Murray. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
  22. ^ a b c d e f Simpson, Jeffry A.; Beckes, Lane (2010). "Evolutionary perspectives on prosocial behavior". Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (PDF). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. pp. 35–53. ISBN 1-4338-0835-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cite error: The named reference ":16" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  23. ^ a b c d Penner, Louis A.; Dovidio, John F.; Piliavin, Jane A.; Schroeder, David A. (2005-01-01). "Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives". Annual Review of Psychology. 56 (1): 365–392. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141. PMID 15709940.
  24. ^ Kurzban, Robert (2003). Biological foundations of reciprocity. In E. Ostrom & J. Walker (Eds.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 105–127.
  25. ^ a b c Iedema, Jurjen; Poppe, Matthijs (1995-09-01). "Perceived consensus of one's social value orientation in different populations in public and private circumstances". European Journal of Social Psychology. 25 (5): 497–507. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250503. ISSN 1099-0992.
  26. ^ Penner, L., Dovodio, J., Piliavin, J., & Schroeder, D. (September 10, 2004). "Prosocial behaviour: Multilevel Perspectives". Annual Review of Psychology. doi:10.1146. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check |doi= value (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ^ Chung Cheung, Ping (1998). "Conceptions of success: their correlates with prosocial orientation and behaviour in Chinese adolescents". Journal of Adolescence. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 56 (help)
  28. ^ Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A. Cumberland, A. & Carlo, G. (November–December 1999). "Child Development: Consistency and Development of Prosocial Dispositions: A Longitudinal Study". Wiley.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ^ Kahana, E., Bhatta, T., Lovegreen, L. D., Kahana, B. & Midlarsky, E. (February 3, 2014). "Altruism, Helping, and Volunteering: Pathways to Well-Being in Late Life". J Aging Health. doi:10.1177/0898264312469665. Retrieved 17/09/2015. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. ^ Iedema, Jurjen; Poppe, Matthijs (1994-12-01). "The Effect of Self-Presentation on Social Value Orientation". The Journal of Social Psychology. 134 (6): 771–782. doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9923012. ISSN 0022-4545. PMID 7869705.
  31. ^ Iedema, Jurjen; Poppe, Matthijs (1994-12-01). "The Effect of Self-Presentation on Social Value Orientation". The Journal of Social Psychology. 134 (6): 771–782. doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9923012. ISSN 0022-4545. PMID 7869705.
  32. ^ Fujisawa, Keiko K.; Kutsukake, Nobuyuki; Hasegawa, Toshikazu (2008-03-01). "Reciprocity of prosocial behavior in Japanese preschool children". International Journal of Behavioral Development. 32 (2): 89–97. doi:10.1177/0165025407084055. ISSN 0165-0254.
  33. ^ Barry, Carolyn McNamara; Padilla-Walker, Laura M.; Madsen, Stephanie D.; Nelson, Larry J. (2007-10-30). "The Impact of Maternal Relationship Quality on Emerging Adults' Prosocial Tendencies: Indirect Effects via Regulation of Prosocial Values". Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 37 (5): 581–591. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9238-7. ISSN 0047-2891.
  34. ^ Carlo, Gustavo; McGinley, Meredith; Hayes, Rachel; Batenhorst, Candice; Wilkinson, Jamie (2007-06-01). "Parenting Styles or Practices? Parenting, Sympathy, and Prosocial Behaviors Among Adolescents". The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 168 (2): 147–176. doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.2.147-176. ISSN 0022-1325. PMID 17936970.
  35. ^ Brian Brown, J.; Lichter, Daniel T. (2006-01-01). "Childhood Disadvantage, Adolescent Development, and Pro-Social Behavior in Early Adulthood". Advances in Life Course Research. Constructing AdulthoodAgency and Subjectivity in Adolescence and Adulthood. 11: 149–170. doi:10.1016/S1040-2608(06)11006-0.
  36. ^ a b Ma, Hing Keung; Cheung, Ping Chung; Shek, Daniel T. L. (2007-01-01). "The relation of prosocial orientation to peer interactions, family social environment and personality of Chinese adolescents". International Journal of Behavioral Development. 31 (1): 12–18. doi:10.1177/0165025406073504. ISSN 0165-0254.
  37. ^ Handbook of Child Psychology. doi:10.1002/9780470147658. ISBN 9780470147658.
  38. ^ a b Ma, Hing Keung; Shek, Daniel T. L.; Cheung, Ping Chung; Lee, Royce Y. P. (1996-09-01). "The Relation of Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior to Personality and Peer Relationships of Hong Kong Chinese Adolescents". The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 157 (3): 255–266. doi:10.1080/00221325.1996.9914863. ISSN 0022-1325. PMID 8756890.
  39. ^ a b Hur, Yoon-Mi; Rushton, J. Philippe (2007-12-22). "Genetic and environmental contributions to prosocial behaviour in 2- to 9-year-old South Korean twins". Biology Letters. 3 (6): 664–666. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0365. ISSN 1744-9561. PMC 2117382. PMID 17725970.
  40. ^ a b Eisenberg, Nancy; Fabes, Richard A.; Murphy, Bridget; Maszk, Pat; Smith, Melanie; Karbon, Mariss (1995-10-01). "The Role of Emotionality and Regulation in Children's Social Functioning: A Longitudinal Study". Child Development. 66 (5): 1360–1384. doi:10.2307/1131652.
  41. ^ a b c Côté, Stéphane; Kraus, Michael W.; Cheng, Bonnie Hayden; Oveis, Christopher; Löwe, Ilmo van der; Lian, Hua; Keltner, Dacher (2011-01-01). "Social power facilitates the effect of prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (2). doi:10.1037/a0023171.
  42. ^ a b c Beauchaine, Theodore (2001-06-01). "Vagal tone, development, and Gray's motivational theory: Toward an integrated model of autonomic nervous system functioning in psychopathology". Development and Psychopathology. null (02): 183–214. doi:null. ISSN 1469-2198. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help)
  43. ^ Overbeck, Jennifer R.; Park, Bernadette (2006-03-01). "Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: Flexibility of powerholders' social attention". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 99 (2): 227–243. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.003.
  44. ^ Chen, Serena; Lee-Chai, Annette Y.; Bargh, John A. (2001-01-01). "Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80 (2). doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.2.173.
  45. ^ a b Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel L. (1981-09-01). "The Effects of Race, Status, and Ability on Helping Behavior". Social Psychology Quarterly. 44 (3): 192–203. doi:10.2307/3033833.
  46. ^ a b c Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran; Mestelman, Stuart; Nainar, Khalid; Shehata, Mohamed (2009-06-01). "The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity". Journal of Economic Psychology. 30 (3): 368–380. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2008.12.003.
  47. ^ a b c d Cote, Stephane (April 4, 2011). "Social Power Facilitates the Effect of Prosocial Orientation on Empathic Accuracy". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0023171.
  48. ^ a b c Rydell, Ann-Margret; Hagekull, Berit; & Bohlin, Gunilla (1997). "Measurement of two social competence aspects in middle childhood". Developmental Psychology. Retrieved 16/09/2015. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 56 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  49. ^ Falk, Armin; Fischbacher, Urs (2006-02-01). "A theory of reciprocity". Games and Economic Behavior. 54 (2): 293–315. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001.
  50. ^ Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TL. Prosocial orientation. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, Eisenberg N, editors. (2006). "Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development". Wiley; New York: 2006. {{cite journal}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  51. ^ Eggum, Natalie D.; Eisenberg, Nancy; Kao, Karen; Spinrad, Tracy L.; Bolnick, Rebecca; Hofer, Claire; Kupfer, Anne S.; Fabricius, William V. (2011-01-01). "Emotion understanding, theory of mind, and prosocial orientation: Relations over time in early childhood". The journal of positive psychology. 6 (1): 4–16. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.536776. ISSN 1743-9760. PMC 3328349. PMID 22518196.
  52. ^ Van Lange, Paul A. M.; Kuhlman, D. Michael (1994-01-01). "Social value orientations and impressions of partner's honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67 (1). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.126.
  53. ^ Jensen-Campbell, L., Graziano, W., & West, S. G. (1995). "Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  54. ^ Buss, D. M. & Barnes, M. (1986). "Preferences in Human Mate Selection". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  55. ^ a b c Bierhoff, Hans-Werner (2005-07-26). Prosocial Behaviour. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781135471125.
  56. ^ a b c d Abbink, Klaus; Brandts, Jordi; Herrmann, Benedikt; Orzen, Henrik (2012-10-01). "Parochial altruism in inter-group conflicts". Economics Letters. 117 (1): 45–48. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.083.
  57. ^ Crant, J. Michael (2000-06-01). "Proactive Behavior in Organizations". Journal of Management. 26 (3): 435–462. doi:10.1177/014920630002600304. ISSN 0149-2063.
  58. ^ a b Aaldering, Hillie; Greer, Lindred L.; Van Kleef, Gerben A.; De Dreu, Carsten K. W. (2013-03-01). "Interest (mis)alignments in representative negotiations: Do pro-social agents fuel or reduce inter-group conflict?". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Social Dilemmas. 120 (2): 240–250. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.001.
  59. ^ a b Nauta, Aukje; De Dreu, Carsten K. W.; van der Vaart, Taco (2002-03-01). "Social value orientation, organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem-solving behavior". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23 (2): 199–213. doi:10.1002/job.136. ISSN 1099-1379.
  60. ^ Penner, Louis A.; Midili, Alison R.; Kegelmeyer, Jill (1997-06-01). "Beyond Job Attitudes: A Personality and Social Psychology Perspective on the Causes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior". Human Performance. 10 (2): 111–131. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_4. ISSN 0895-9285.
  61. ^ a b Bolino, Mark C.; Klotz, Anthony C.; Turnley, William H.; Harvey, Jaron (2013-05-01). "Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 34 (4): 542–559. doi:10.1002/job.1847. ISSN 1099-1379.
  62. ^ a b c Can I Help You? Employee Prosocial Rule Breaking as a Response to Organizational Mistreatment of Customers. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being. Vol. 13. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 2015-06-01. pp. 1–31. doi:10.1108/s1479-355520150000013001.
  63. ^ a b c Dahling, Jason J.; Chau, Samantha L.; Mayer, David M.; Gregory, Jane B. (2012-01-01). "Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 33 (1): 21–42. doi:10.1002/job.730. ISSN 1099-1379.
  64. ^ a b c Sütterlin, Bernadette; Brunner, Thomas A.; Siegrist, Michael (2013-08-01). "Impact of social value orientation on energy conservation in different behavioral domains". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 43 (8): 1725–1735. doi:10.1111/jasp.12128. ISSN 1559-1816.
  65. ^ Van Vugt, Mark; Meertens, Ree M.; Van Lange, Paul A. M. (1995-02-01). "Car Versus Public Transportation? The Role of Social Value Orientations in a Real-Life Social Dilemma1". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 25 (3): 258–278. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01594.x. ISSN 1559-1816.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MGMT90018_2015S2_prosocial_orientation/sandbox&oldid=682670532"