Humans are social creatures, but are they also prosocial creatures who seek to further the well-being of others? This handbook approaches this question through the lens of development and explores what is known about the roots, early pathways, and processes underlying prosociality, as well as its consequences. Prosociality matters because it helps secure social cohesion, inclusiveness, and peace (Malti & Dys, Reference Malti and Dys2018). Evidence all over the world suggests that prosociality not only is beneficial for the target but also helps increase the joy, purpose, and meaning in life of its enactors (Aknin et al., Reference Aknin, Dunn, Helliwell, Biswas-Diener, Nyende, Barrington-Leigh, Burns, Kemeza, Ashton-James and Norton2013; Hui et al., Reference Hui, Ng, Berzaghi, Cunningham-Amos and Kogan2020; Memmott-Elison et al., Reference Memmott-Elison, Holmgren, Padilla-Walker and Hawkins2020; Van Tongeren et al., Reference Van Tongeren, Green, Davis, Hook and Hulsey2016). Prosocial acts that are truly aimed to benefit others for nonselfish reasons have the power to transcend in-group boundaries and may express the possibility that altruism genuinely exists (Staub, Reference Staub, Carlo and Edwards2005), thus helping to elucidate century-old questions about human nature. Given these evident benefits for individuals and societies, it is accurate to say that prosociality can be considered one of the highest virtues, and, as such, in-depth understanding of its development and how to nurture it deserves close attention.
The main purpose of this introductory chapter is to provide the reader with an understanding of what prosociality is, distinguish it from related constructs, and describe core theories on prosocial development. We begin by defining prosociality. Then, we review selected historical attempts to understand human prosociality, and we explore historical turning points in early theorizing on prosociality. We then briefly discuss prominent mechanisms that have been studied to deepen understanding of the origins and processes underlying prosociality.
Conceptualizing Prosociality
Any attempt to conceptualize prosociality needs to acknowledge the breadth and complexity of the term. Indeed, the various chapters of this volume address prosociality using a range of different definitions, elaborated in each chapter. On the most general level, prosociality is an umbrella term and includes other-oriented emotions, cognitions, motives, and behaviors. The development of prosociality describes the processes of continuity and change in these elements, along with mechanisms that may potentially underlie these patterns, across the lifespan.
Prosocial Behaviors
Overt prosocial behavior has been defined as voluntary behavior intended to benefit another (Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Spinrad, Knafo-Noam, Lamb and Coll2015). As such, the motive underlying prosocial behavior is opaque and may involve, in addition to other-oriented motives (e.g., caring), more self-oriented motivations as well (e.g., showing off or anticipating reciprocity; see Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, VanSchyndel and Spinrad2016). Prosocial behavior is multifaceted and complex, and various subtypes of prosocial behavior have been distinguished in the literature, such as helping, sharing, cooperating, comforting, and inclusion (see Padilla-Walker & Carlo, Reference Padilla-Walker and Carlo2014). These subtypes can differ in terms of costs, degree of other-orientedness, and complexity. They also represent responses to different needs of the other (e.g., instrumental need, unmet material desire, emotional distress; see Dunfield, Reference Dunfield2014). Some researchers consider the subtypes of prosocial behavior as relatively distinct, pointing to the varying ages of onset of different behaviors, their different underlying brain processes, and the absent or only modest associations between them (e.g., Dunfield et al., Reference Dunfield, Kuhlmeier, O’Connell and Kelley2011; Paulus et al., Reference Paulus, Kühn-Popp, Licata, Sodian and Meinhardt2013). In contrast, personality-oriented paradigms consider various prosocial behaviors as expressions of one, more general disposition to be prosocial (e.g., Knafo-Noam et al., Reference Knafo-Noam, Uzefovsky, Israel, Davidov and Zahn-Waxler2015). Indeed, some degree of consistency across various types of prosocial behavior has been documented (e.g., in 18-month-olds: Newton et al., Reference Newton, Thompson and Goodman2016, and across childhood: Malti et al., Reference Malti, Ongley, Peplak, Chaparro, Buchmann, Zuffianò and Cui2016a). Taken together, it appears that individual differences in prosocial behavior cannot be fully accounted for by either the distinctive or the global approach alone (Davidov et al., Reference Davidov, Vaish, Knafo‐Noam and Hastings2016); both perspectives are needed to describe the complex phenomenon of prosociality.
Prosocial Emotions
Prosocial emotions include other-oriented emotions such as empathy and sympathy (Eisenberg, Reference Eisenberg2000), ethical guilt feelings, gratitude, respect, and appreciation for the ethical qualities of another (Malti et al., Reference Malti, Peplak and Zhang2020). The empirical literature has predominantly focused on the development of empathy, and empathy-related emotional responses such as sympathy, and has investigated it as a central motive underlying prosocial behaviors. We therefore discuss prosocial emotions as a mechanism of prosociality below.
Prosocial Cognitions
Prosocial cognitions include other-oriented thoughts, evaluations, reasoning, and perspective-taking skills in the prosocial domain, as well as other-oriented values and perceived norms. Similar to prosocial emotions, other-oriented reasoning patterns have often been studied to better understand how such prosocial cognitions develop, and how they relate to overt prosocial action, such as specific other-oriented behaviors, as well as to prosocial emotions, both concurrently and across time (see Carlo et al., Reference Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen and Randall2003, Reference Carlo, Knight, McGinley, Goodvin, Roesch, Sokol, Müller, Carpendale, Young and Iarocci2010). Thus, prosocial cognitions are often treated as an antecedent or correlate of prosocial behavior, although longer-term studies across diverse contexts are still needed to deepen our knowledge regarding developmental relations between prosocial cognitions and behaviors.
In summary, conceptualizations of prosociality and its development have predominantly focused on overt prosocial action, which includes various behavioral subtypes, while other-oriented emotions and cognitions have predominantly been studied as causes, antecedents (motives), and correlates of prosocial behavior. Prosociality has also been examined as an antecedent, and linked to various outcomes, including virtues, health, thriving, and relationship quality (see Schroeder & Graziano, Reference Schroeder and Graziano2015). Figure 1.1 provides an overview of the components of prosociality across development, as well as select subtypes that have received attention in contemporary theorizing and empirical research on prosocial development in the first two decades of life.
Figure 1.1 Components, correlates, and consequences of prosociality across development.
Conceptual Differentiations
It is also important to clarify the relationships between prosociality and other, related concepts. We briefly discuss three pertinent issues. First, it is noteworthy to mention that some traditions have viewed prosocial tendencies as the opposite of antisocial tendencies, considering these behavioral expressions as two sides of a single dimension: while the one pole reflects intentions to harm others, the opposing pole reflects intentions to benefit them (for a review, see Eisner & Malti, Reference Eisner, Malti, Lamb and Lerner2015). However, this approach is problematic. An absence of antisocial behavior does not guarantee that children (or adults) would show helping or caring for others – they can also do neither. Moreover, children (and adults) could show both antisocial and prosocial behaviors, for example, toward different targets or even toward the same target in different situations. The two tendencies may also be motivated by selfish reasons (e.g., a child’s desire to appear strong to others, or susceptibility to peer pressure), suggesting they are not necessarily opposite poles. Consequently, the distinctiveness of the two constructs has been highlighted: while there is certainly overlap, both conceptually and empirically, the absence of prosocial behavior does not translate into elevated aggression, and vice versa (see Obsuth et al., Reference Obsuth, Eisner, Malti and Ribeaud2015).
Second, recent accounts in developmental psychology have elaborated on the development of kindness as a prosocial virtue. Kindness, broadly defined, involves acts marked by compassion and a genuine, deep concern for both others and the self (Schopenhauer, 1840/Reference Schopenhauer and Lütkehaus2007). As such, it reflects a particular sensitivity and an appreciation of the dignity of every human being and a lived other-orientedness and care of the self (Malti, Reference Malti2021; Schweitzer, Reference Schweitzer1966). The motive for its expression is genuinely altruistic, seeking to increase the well-being of another, which, as noted above, is not true for all expressions of prosociality. Kindness as such implies a potential to transcend in-group boundaries. Even when kindness is directed toward the self (e.g., through self-care), it reflects other-orientedness because it necessitates an understanding of the relationship of oneness represented by the I and Thou (Buber, Reference Buber1923). Because it involves more complex cognitive capacities needed to reflect on the self and others, it occurs developmentally later than prosocial behaviors (Malti, Reference Malti2021). In other words, kindness is a considerate stance toward life, which creates meaning and purpose. As such, it may be a consequence of earlier expressed prosociality, the establishment of a virtue that is part of an individual’s character. Nevertheless, prosocial behaviors do not always lead to, or stem from, such a kindness stance, indicating that the two concepts overlap only partially.
Third, the relationship between prosociality and morality also merits attention. Morality has multiple definitions, but it invariably involves rules regarding what individuals ought to do, and ought not to do, in order to treat others with dignity, fairness, equality, and justice (e.g., Killen & Smetana, Reference Killen, Smetana, Lamb and Lerner2015). Moral expectations influence social norms regarding the prosocial treatment of others, and thereby help guide social interactions accordingly. However, the overlap between prosocial behavior and morality is only partial. Thus, prosocial behavior is sometimes seen merely as desirable behavior, rather than as a moral obligation (although this also depends on culture as well as features of the situation, e.g., Miller & Bersoff, Reference Miller and Bersoff1998). Moreover, although empathy is an important motivator of prosociality, it has been argued that empathy can sometimes interfere with morality, by introducing biases that conflict with equality, fairness, or other principles (Bloom, Reference Bloom2017; Decety & Cowell, Reference Decety and Cowell2014). Prosocial behavior can also have the unintended outcome of making the targets of help feel negatively, or it may stem from a motivation to preserve existing power dynamics (Nadler, Reference Nadler, Schroeder and Graziano2015) or other egoistic motivations (Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, VanSchyndel and Spinrad2016). Thus, the relation between morality and prosociality is a complex one (see also Chapter 12 in this volume).
Historical Perspectives
Depictions of other-oriented motives, values, and behaviors trace back to written history. The study of prosociality has long-standing traditions across many disciplines, including philosophy, literature, and religious studies. Fundamental questions about the caring and empathic side of human nature are vital parts of ancient ethics and continue to constitute part of an ongoing debate about how to live an ethically good life and how to become a virtuous person. Caring orientation and a kind outlook on others and the community constitute ideal characteristics of a virtuous person in many cultures across the world. For example, both Western and Eastern ancient philosophical traditions have discussed prosociality in the context of virtue ethics (Aristotle, Reference Ross1959; Confucius, 1855). While there are remarkable differences, the ability to control the self and follow ethical codes in order to act considerately and regard the greater good are common humanistic ideas in both Confucianism (or Ruism) and ancient Greek philosophy.
Moreover, all the major religions of the world and many philosophical attempts across Eastern and Western traditions prescribe other-oriented values and ethical principles of nurturance and care. For example, the Golden Rule, which dictates treating others as one wishes to be treated (and in some variations, loving the other as one loves the self), is a central tenet in all major religions (Schumann, Reference Schumann2020). However, because religions include additional central principles that may at times run counter to prosociality, the question of whether and when religiosity promotes prosociality continues to be the subject of theoretical and scientific debate (see McKay & Whitehouse, Reference McKay and Whitehouse2015; Schumann, Reference Schumann2020).
Thus, as evident, the idea that humans can develop kind and caring capacities has evolved relatively early across cultures. In contrast, the use of the term “prosocial behavior” emerged more recently in psychology. Coined by psychologists as an antonym for antisocial behavior (Batson, Reference Batson, Kruglanski and Stroebe2012), the term originated at a time when social scientists were in search of peace and harmony, in light of events that erupted in collective violence, such as the Holocaust, and campaigns for social justice and change, such as the civil rights movement.
Theories on prosociality have been developed in different disciplines, including psychology, evolutionary biology, economics, and religious studies, to name a few. In the following, we restrict ourselves to a brief review of early psychological theories of prosociality and its development in childhood and adolescence (see also Chapter 2 in this handbook for a comprehensive review of developmental theories of prosociality; additional theoretical frameworks are also reviewed in other chapters of this volume).
Developmental models of prosociality view prosocial behavior as occurring through a complex interplay between the child, their socialization experiences, and their biological characteristics (Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Spinrad, Knafo-Noam, Lamb and Coll2015). Psychological theorists have explained the emergence, trajectories, and consequences of prosocial behaviors in childhood and adolescence. Most of these models focus on the pathways of prosocial development, and the more proximal socialization and psychological factors in the occurrence of prosociality. What are the early roots of these accounts?
Psychoanalysis, Attachment Theory, and Prosociality
Early attempts to understand prosocial orientations from a clinical lens evolved with the emergence of psychoanalysis and related theories. These approaches attempted to understand neurosis and flourishing in the context of the infant-mother relationship and its influence on the process of typical and atypical development as it unfolds. According to psychoanalytic theories of object relations, the way mothers and infants interact is fundamental for healthy growth and development (Klein, Reference Klein1933), thus emphasizing the interpersonal component of prosocial development.
Taking the meaning of early emotional bonds one step further, attachment theory, with its focus on the quality of the caregiver-child relationship, provided a framework for the study of prosociality and its development (see Ainsworth & Bell, Reference Ainsworth and Bell1970; Bowlby, Reference Bowlby1969). Accordingly, the quality of the caregivers’ response to the child’s needs over time, particularly when the child needed help, comfort, and support, leads to the formation of inner representations of others, the self, and the world. These mental models, or internal working models, affect the way the person feels, thinks, and connects with the social world, and thus can fundamentally influence whether and how prosocially the individual behaves (Mikulincer & Shaver, Reference Mikulincer, Shaver, Schroeder and Graziano2015). Thus, early attachment relationships are thought to serve as prototypes for subsequent relationships, shaping the ways the individual responds to others. Although these internal models are not immutable to change (e.g., in response to new experiences and relationships), they are also not easy to alter as they are rooted in early, preverbal experiences with one’s caregivers. Thus, in the broadest sense, other-oriented, prosocial behaviors and emotions reflect internalized representations of caring others experienced in early attachment relationships (Ainsworth, Reference Ainsworth1985).
Social Learning Theory and Prosociality
According to social learning accounts, children learn social behaviors, including prosocial ones, through the observation and imitation of others’ behavior (a process termed “modeling”) and through the consequences that follow their own and others’ behavior (Bandura, Reference Bandura1973; Bandura & Walters, Reference Bandura and Walters1963). Children have an active role in whether they choose to adopt a previously observed behavior. Thus, children learn to behave prosocially by observing others’ (i.e., models’) prosocial behavior, and either imitate it or not at a later time, as a function of personal and contextual factors. Moving beyond strict behavioral theories, social learning theory assumes that the respective behavioral response is influenced by affect and cognitive processes (Rosenhan, Reference Rosenhan1972). This may help explain costly prosocial tendencies that come without tangible rewards within this theoretical framework, as implicit or internal rewards (including pertinent emotions and thoughts) may be operative. Moreover, according to Bandura (Reference Bandura1973), the environment and a child’s behavior mutually affect each other. In sum, social learning theory offers fundamental insights into central learning mechanisms that can cause, stabilize, and nurture prosocial behaviors in children and adolescents.
Despite having received a wide variety of criticisms, attachment theory and social learning theory are foundational for modern approaches to the study of prosociality in childhood and adolescence. Each of these early theoretical accounts substantially influenced, and continues to shape, current conceptualizations of the origins, antecedents, correlates, and consequences of human prosociality in the first two decades of life. For instance, recent accounts seek to identify synergies between psychoanalysis and attachment theory through the integration of common concepts, such as the capacity to trust as a foundation for attachment and mentalization (Fonagy, Reference Malti and Dys2018).
Other prominent theoretical approaches to prosociality also exist. These include evolutionary and comparative approaches (see Chapters 2 and 6 in this handbook), biological models (Chapters 3–5 in this handbook), and socialization theories (Chapters in Part III in this handbook). Contemporary models often adopt an integrative perspective, which addresses the complex interplay between biological characteristics and multiple socialization experiences across development, in more nuanced ways than the early theories.
Applied Approaches
Various clinical perspectives have applied core principles of prosociality, such as empathic understanding, to the practice of psychotherapy across the lifespan. For instance, humanistic existential approaches emphasized warm, optimistic, authentic therapy as a way to help children reach their potential (Moustakas, Reference Moustakas1966; Rogers, Reference Rogers and Koch1959). Recent applied-developmental perspectives emphasize contexts and mechanisms that can support and nurture prosociality. For example, school-based social-emotional learning programs, community-based interventions, and positive youth development approaches argue that enhancing components of prosociality, such as empathic concern or the ability to regulate and cope with conflict, can help children and adolescents engage in prosocial behaviors, protect them from becoming angry and engaging in aggression, and nurture character development and civic engagement (Colby & Damon, Reference Colby and Damon1992; see the chapters in Part IV of this handbook). These accounts are important because they point to the direct and indirect psychological processes and mechanisms through which environmental support can nurture other-oriented responding in children and youth and help them reach their full potential for prosociality.
Mechanisms of Prosociality
This handbook provides a rich review of prosocial development across different age periods (see Chapters 7–10). The origins and development of prosociality depend on a wide range of biological factors, socialization experiences, and individual processes (Brownell, Reference Brownell2016). Early research in the 1970s and 1980s focused on antecedents of, and processes involved in, prosocial behavior (Eisenberg, Reference Eisenberg1986). The past two decades showed somewhat less emphasis on mechanistic models of prosociality from a developmental lens and somewhat more focus on consequences and outcomes. Here we briefly review foundational psychological mechanisms that have been identified as important in the emergence and development of prosociality (see Davidov et al., Reference Davidov, Vaish, Knafo‐Noam and Hastings2016; Malti & Dys, Reference Malti and Dys2018). These include affective processes (empathy/sympathy, ethical guilt), social-cognitive processes (processing and evaluation of social information), and regulatory processes (emotional self-regulation). Mechanisms and antecedents of prosociality are also reviewed at length in the chapters comprising Part II of this handbook.
Central Psychological Processes as Mechanisms of Prosociality
We focus on three types of psychological processes that have received considerable attention in the recent empirical literature: children’s other-oriented and self-conscious emotions (i.e., empathy/sympathy and ethical guilt), their processing and evaluation of social information, and their emotional self-regulation (Malti et al., Reference Malti, Sette, Dys, Scott, Buchmann and Kosslyn2016c). Developmental scientists have theorized that early affective processes play a substantial role in the development of prosocial behaviors and orientations (Eisnberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Spinrad, Knafo-Noam, Lamb and Coll2015). Considerable research has focused on emotions and social evaluations in response to situations that call for prosocial action, to generate new information on the foundations of early prosocial behaviors and their development. Specifically, emotional responses may facilitate prosociality through affective concern for others (e.g., empathy/sympathy; Hoffman, Reference Hoffman2000) or affective consequences for the self (e.g., guilt; Malti et al., 2016d). Moreover, according to social information processing frameworks, the way children process and evaluate information in social encounters affects the range of their behavioral repertoire and how a behavioral response is selected (Dodge et al., Reference Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey and Brown1986). Last, the expression of prosociality is also influenced by how children manage their emotional states and associated physiological arousal (Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Spinrad, Knafo-Noam, Lamb and Coll2015). We address each of these processes next.
Empathy/Sympathy and Ethical Guilt
Investigators have studied children’s other-oriented and self-conscious emotions – such as sympathy and ethical guilt – and their links to prosocial behaviors (see also Chapter 13 in this handbook). Empathy and sympathy are emotional reactions reflecting caring and concern for others, and they provide a strong motivation for acting prosocially (e.g., trying to help or comfort distressed others) across the lifespan (Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Spinrad, Knafo-Noam, Lamb and Coll2015). Empathic concern for others in distress emerges early in human ontogeny, even before children can show clear prosocial action. Infants’ responses to others’ distress during the first year of life include concerned facial expressions and vocalizations, and these early manifestations of empathy predict subsequent prosocial behavior during the second year of life (Davidov et al., Reference Davidov, Zahn-Waxler, Roth-Hanania and Knafo2013; Davidov et al., Reference Davidov, Paz, Roth-Hanania, Uzefovsky, Orlitsky, Mankuta and Zahn-Waxler2021; see also Chapters 2 and 7 of this handbook). Across childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, empathy/sympathy for others in distress continues to promote prosocial behavior, both in specific situations and when assessed as a more general individual characteristic (Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Spinrad, Knafo-Noam, Lamb and Coll2015; see also Chapters 6–11).
Early precursors of ethical guilt, such as distress following a perceived transgression, emerge in the toddler years (Kochanska et al., Reference Kochanska, Koenig, Barry, Kim and Yoon2010; ). During early childhood (around 3–5 years of age), children begin to anticipate ethical guilt in response to transgressions, including the omission of prosocial duties, which predicts their sharing (Ongley & Malti, Reference Ongley and Malti2014) and other prosocial behaviors (Malti & Krettenauer, Reference Malti and Krettenauer2013). Using a 6-year longitudinal design, Malti and colleagues (2016d) found that both sympathy and ethical guilt can motivate different types of prosocial behavior across early to middle childhood. Meta-analytic reviews have provided evidence for the positive effects of sympathy and ethical guilt on prosocial behaviors in children and adolescents, with effect sizes in the small to moderate range (e.g., Eisenberg & Miller, Reference Eisenberg and Miller1987; Malti & Krettenauer, Reference Malti and Krettenauer2013).
Processing and Evaluating Social Information
Children’s processing and evaluations of acts involving prosocial issues have been studied in relation to prosocial behaviors (see also Chapter 14 of this handbook). Even infants appear to possess capacities to form rudimentary social evaluations. For example, 6-month-old infants prefer those who help over those who impede another’s goals (Van De Vondervoort & Hamlin, Reference Van de Vondervoort and Hamlin2016), and infants as young as 9 months show an awareness of others’ social goals and needs (Köster et al., Reference Köster, Ohmer, Nguyen and Kärtner2016). Other social-cognitive aspects associated with prosociality, such as fairness expectations, have been shown to develop as early as 6–16 months of age (Ziv & Sommerville, Reference Ziv and Sommerville2016), and toddlers prefer equal allocation of resources over unfair distribution (Gummerum et al., Reference Gummerum, Hanoch, Keller, Parsons and Hummel2010). In addition, the ways in which children process situational features of social dilemmas is related to their prosocial behaviors. For example, 2-year-old children who focused their attention toward self-serving cues, such as attractive toys, rather than other-oriented cues, such as the emotional state of other children, were less likely to cooperate with peers during play at age 3 (Blandon & Scrimgeour, Reference Blandon and Scrimgeour2015). As well, using eye tracking, Dys and colleagues (Reference Dys, Zuffianò, Orsanska, Zaazou and Malti2022) tested if attending to other-oriented cues versus self-serving cues related to children’s kind and selfish emotions among 4- to 8-year-olds. The study showed that greater attention to other-oriented versus self-serving cues was related to more kind emotions. These results highlight the role of attention in promoting prosocial emotions.
Recent research has also examined how evaluations regarding group membership and group dynamics can influence prosocial behaviors (see also Chapter 21 of this handbook). In some cases, prosocial behavior has been shown to depend on the group status of the other person (the target of assistance). For example, Yu and colleagues (Reference Yu, Zhu and Leslie2016) explored associations between group status (an in-group member [friend] and an out-group member [stranger]) and children’s sharing behavior. While 3- to 4-year-olds did not treat strangers and friends differently, older children showed in-group favoritism. As well, Peplak and colleagues (Reference Peplak, Song, Colasante and Malti2017) found that 4- and 8-year-olds alike expressed in-group bias when making decisions about including or excluding in-group versus out-group peers. And Sierksma and colleagues (Reference Sierksma, Spaltman and Lansu2019) showed that 9- to 12-year-old children were more likely to accept prosocial lying in favor of in-group members compared with out-group members.
Emotional Self-Regulation
Another important determinant of prosocial behaviors is emotional self-regulation, which can heighten empathic feelings and prosocial tendencies in children (Hepach et al., Reference Hepach, Vaish, Grossmann and Tomasello2016; Miller et al., Reference Miller, Nuselovici and Hastings2016). Emotional self-regulation refers to processes used to manage one’s own experiences and expression of emotions and related physiological arousal. The link between emotional self-regulation and prosociality is theoretically expected given that engaging in prosocial behavior requires balancing one’s own needs and desires with others’ needs and controlling one’s own impulses to be able to focus on a needy other (Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Spinrad, Knafo-Noam, Lamb and Coll2015). Indeed, children with high levels of sympathy and prosocial behavior tend to be well regulated (Beauchaine et al., Reference Beauchaine, Gatzke-Kopp, Neuhaus, Chipman, Reid and Webster-Stratton2013; Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Pidada and Liew2001; Laible et al., Reference Laible, Carlo, Panfile, Eye and Parker2010; Scrimgeour et al., Reference Scrimgeour, Davis and Buss2016; Trommsdorff & Friedlmeier, Reference Trommsdorff and Friedlmeier1999). Thus, there is supportive evidence that physiological arousal and emotional-self regulation affect the development of prosocial behavior (see also Chapters 5 and 13 of this handbook).
Summary and Conclusions
Prosociality is essential for flourishing societies, as it is an essential contributor to individuals’ and groups’ well-being, tolerance, and peace. In this introductory chapter, we provided a brief overview of fundamental conceptualizations of prosociality, broadly defined, as well as its distinction from other related phenomena, such as antisociality, kindness, and morality. We also briefly discussed historical accounts that have been influential in contemporary theorizing on human prosociality and its development, with a focus on two early psychological theories: attachment theory and social learning theory. Last, we summarized selected essential psychological mechanisms of prosociality.
In conclusion, this selected review illustrates that prosociality is a multifaceted, complex phenomenon. Thus, prosociality includes multiple subtypes and encompasses different behavioral, emotional, and cognitive manifestations. Moreover, prosocial behaviors can be underlain by different motivations, and different manifestations of prosociality typically converge only in part. Furthermore, the development of prosociality implicates biological, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and sociocultural processes. Given this complexity, the study of prosociality and its development is a rich field. Early theorizing has been critically advanced through socialization models, biological theories, and sociological and economic approaches to the origins, pathways, and mechanisms of prosociality. The research on prosociality has been likewise diverse, encompassing a wide range of different methodological and assessment approaches (see Chapter 17). This handbook seeks to shine a light on this important complexity and, by doing so, help uncover major themes and promote an integrative understanding of prosocial development.
To this end, Part I of the handbook addresses developmental theories of prosociality, biological mechanisms of prosociality (including genes, the brain, and peripheral physiological systems), and prosocial development in our closest primate relatives and in human ontogeny across infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. The chapters of Part II focus on different antecedents and mechanisms of prosociality, including motivations, morality and values, emotions, social-cognitive development, temperament, and gender, as well as the assessment of prosociality across development. Part III addresses the roles played by different socialization agents in the development of prosociality, including parents, siblings, peers and friends, in-group and out-group contexts, schools, communities and neighborhoods, media, and culture. Finally, the chapters of Part IV focus on various applied approaches to the nurturing of prosociality, including in families, schools, civic engagement and community-based approaches, positive youth development, as well as integrative approaches and implications for policy. The final chapter highlights key challenges and priorities for the future of prosociality research. The handbook concludes with personal observations of a scientist whose rich career has advanced knowledge of prosocial development in important ways, providing her recollections and reflections on the field (see Afterword).
The theoretical and empirical approaches reviewed in this handbook underscore that both socialization factors and genetic/biological dispositions, as well as their interplay over time, account for inter-individual differences in prosocial orientations, thus helping to shed light on why it is that some individuals may develop stronger prosocial tendencies than others. The models also contribute to an explanation of how psychological characteristics and the ways we perceive and interpret social interactions with others can underlie the formation of inter-individual and intra-individual differences in prosociality.
The past two decades have seen an increase in the study of the origins and early expressions of prosociality (Davidov et al., Reference Davidov, Vaish, Knafo‐Noam and Hastings2016). As this handbook indicates, many theoretical advances have been made, and deeper and broader knowledge has been gained to understand the causes and mechanisms of prosociality. Likewise, the field of prosociality has gained substantial knowledge on the conditions and individual factors associated with increases in prosocial tendencies, related consequences, and associated positive outcomes. In addition, recent developmental research has to some extent increasingly investigated the motives of prosociality, again with a focus on the early years. Better understanding of when various types of prosocial behavior develop, as well as how and why they develop, can provide critical support to enhance current efforts to nurture prosociality and associated positive long-term outcomes in children (Domitrovich et al., Reference Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley and Weissberg2017; Malti et al., Reference Malti, Chaparro, Zuffianò and Colasante2016b). Ultimately, moving this research agenda forward will help identify what it takes to become kind and transcend our own personal needs, desires, and concerns and truly attend to the needs of others. The present handbook seeks to advance this goal.
