1. Participants and Procedures
Sociocognitive and Socioemotive Traits as Predictors of Prosocial Behavior in Late Adolescence: A Cross-Cultural Study
L. Diego Conejo1,2, Gustavo Carlo1, Zehra Gülseven1 & Sarah L. Pierotti1
1Department of Human Development and Family Science, University of Missouri – Columbia
2 University of Costa Rica
Table 1. Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics for the study variables
Abstract
Methods
Previous research has shown that perspective taking and empathic concern are linked to prosocial behavior. However, the mechanisms by which each of these factors affect prosocial behavior are not well understood. This study explores the possible mediation effect of moral reasoning in these relations with a cross-cultural design. Participants were late adolescents from United States and Costa Rica. The results showed that there were no specific group effects and that moral reasoning mediated the effects of empathic concern on prosocial behavior. Costa Ricans showed higher levels of altruistic helping and lower levels of perspective taking and empathic concern than US participants.
Participants and Procedures
325 European American US students (US; 260 women, mean age = years, SD = 1.01)
244 students from Costa Rica (CR; 122 women, mean age = years, SD = 1.79)
Percentage of mothers with at least a bachelor degree = 69% (US), 46% (CR)
Participants were contacted at large public universities in Missouri (US) and in San José (CR).
Data collection took place in groups. The US participants responded to paper and pencil questionnaires, whereas CR participants were administered an online version of the questionnaires in a computer lab.
Measures
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI, Davis, 1983). Participants’ tendencies to experience emotional states of compassion, warmth and concern for other people were measured using the empathic concern subscale from the IRI (7 items; Cronbach’s α = .76 (US) and .79 (CR)). Perspective taking measures participants’ abilities to adopt others’ points of view in everyday situations (7 items; Cronbach’s α = .76 (US) and .79 (CR)).
Prosocial Moral Reasoning (PROM, Carlo et al., 1992). This measure assesses prosocial moral reasoning through 5 stories designed to invoke a conflict between the actor’s needs and wants and those of others; two types were used, internalized (Cronbach’s α = .87 (US) and .79 (CR)), and hedonistic (Cronbach’s α = .82 (US) and .76 (CR)).
Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM). Carlo and Randall (2002) developed this measure to be used with late adolescents and measure how likely they are to engage in six different types of prosocial behavior. In this study we used the public (4 items; Cronbach’s α = .85 (US) and .74 (CR)), and altruistic (5 items; Cronbach’s α = .64 (US) and .69 (CR)) subtypes. This scale assesses prosocial behaviors across a variety of situations and motivations.
Results
The configural multi-group path model demonstrated an appropriate goodness of fit, 2(2) =.42, p = .810, AGFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, and RMSEA = .00 ( ).
The comparison tests contrasting the full-constrained model and the one freely estimating different paths for each group indicated that there were no group differences in the path coefficients, Δ2(12)= 12.44, p =
The model assuming no group differences was retained (see Figure 1 and Table 1 for descriptive statistics), as it showed adequate goodness of fit, 2(14) = 12.86, p = .537, AGFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, and RMSEA =.00 ( ).
The effects of empathic concern on both types of helping were significantly mediated by moral reasoning. The effect on altruistic helping was significantly mediated by internalized moral reasoning, z = -0.03, p = 0.049, and the effect on public helping was significantly mediated by hedonistic moral reasoning, z = 0.04, p = 0.02.
There were significant mean differences for perspective taking, Δ2(1)= , p < .001; altruism, Δ2(1)= 32.14, p < .001; and empathic concern, Δ2(1)= 57.53, p < .001 (see table 1 for descriptive statistics).
Introduction
Scholars have theorized and shown that empathic concern (the ability of experiencing other people’s affective states), perspective taking (the ability to adopt others’ points of view), and prosocial moral reasoning (cognitive styles used in prosocial situations), are positively related to prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 2006).
Furthermore, perspective taking and empathic concern can also facilitate higher-level prosocial moral reasoning, which might mediate the relations between both perspective taking and empathic concern and prosocial behaviors.
Conversely, lower-level, hedonistic moral reasoning is more likely to be linked with less prosocial behaviors or more related to selfish forms of prosocial behavior (Carlo et al., 2003).
Although there is supportive evidence for such expectations, cross-cultural studies testing the generalizability of these relations are lacking. Hypotheses:
For both culture groups, internalized moral reasoning will be positively related to altruistic helping but negatively related to public prosocial behaviors.
For both culture groups, hedonistic moral reasoning will be negatively related to altruistic prosocial behavior but positively related to public helping.
For both culture groups, moral reasoning will act as mediator of the relation between perspective taking and empathic concern and prosocial behavior.
Figure 1. Path model showing the relations between perspective taking and empathic concern and prosocial
behavior mediated by prosocial moral reasoning
Discussion
Research has shown that both perspective taking and empathic concern are important precursors of prosocial behavior (Carlo et al., 2003). The present study is consistent with those previous results and extends the literature by exploring the possible mediation effects of moral reasoning in these relations.
The findings from this study suggest that empathic concern has an indirect effect on altruistic and public helping through moral reasoning. The mechanisms by which each type of helping is affected are different, however. For altruistic prosocial behavior, the effect was mediated by internalized moral reasoning, whereas for public helping, the mediator was hedonistic moral reasoning.
Furthermore, the negative relation between internalized moral reasoning and altruistic helping and the positive link between this type of moral reasoning and public helping expand previous findings about the links between moral reasoning and prosocial behaviors that were not specific for different types of helping (e.g., Kumru et al., 2012).
Note. *** = < .001, * = < .05, + = < .06. Only significant paths are shown. Significant mediated effects are represented
by a dotted line.
For further information contact Diego Conejo at