Prosociality components, self-reinforcing mechanism and the moderating role of culture
Isabela Lara Uquillas (Student ID: 11391162)
Supervisor: Disa Sauter Co-assessor: Rui Sun
MSc in Brain and Cognitive Sciences Track Cognitive Neuroscience
2 Abstract
In this review, we seek to provide an overview of the major components that are
characterized in the literature in relation to prosociality. We also aim to shed light on the characterization of prosocial behaviors as being self-reinforced intrinsically and externally through an overarching contextual modulator: culture. In this endeavor, prosociality will be described along multiple levels of analysis including evolutionary, biological, individual and contextual interpersonal perspectives. Following these characterizations, the case for a self-reinforcing mechanism of prosociality is presented. The self-self-reinforcing mechanism presented is shown to promote and encourage prosocial behaviors intrinsically and extrinsically. Finally, the argument will focus on culture which seems to be a macro level overarching moderator for prosociality and the self-reinforcing mechanism presented. This amalgamation of components results in prosocial behavior around the world. In spite of this trove of knowledge, there are still hurdles and shortcomings which should be addressed and will be mentioned for clarity and further research before concluding.
3 Introduction
Prosociality has been argued to be the secret to human survival over millennia and has been characterized across multiple levels and domains, from the characteristics of cultural behavior and trends to the research of its molecular, biological and neural substrates (Hare, 2017; Penner et al., 2005). Like many other species, we have benefitted from the ability to cooperate with one another (Leimgruber et al., 2014) and some argue our friendliness towards conspecifics is what allowed our species to thrive and ultimately drove human evolution forward (Hare, 2017). There is evidence suggesting prosocial behavior is a
widespread phenomenon, and some would even classify it as a universal construct (Aknin et al., 2013). Although many definitions have been applied to prosociality, the most prevalent and overarching one seems to be that prosociality encompasses all activities that aid, improve or are advantageous to others or society (Dovidio, 1984). Despite the apparent importance of prosociality in our evolutionary and survival history, there is still much we do not know about it such as our understanding of its underlying mechanisms nor of culture’s role in eliciting prosocial behavior. Hence, this paper sets out to synthesize the currents state of knowledge in regards to prosociality, the strong evidence suggesting a self-reinforcing mechanism within the individual as well as the moderating effect of culture on it.
Prosociality
In this endeavor, it is essential to define what is meant by prosociality and how it will be evaluated. Prosociality is often an umbrella term used to characterize a host of wide-ranging behaviors; however, there is still debate on what behaviors it comprises as well as their taxonomy. According to Dunfield, prosociality can be classified as multiple behaviors according to the negative state they aim to overcome (Dunfield, 2014). Dunfield (2014) argues that there are different subtypes of prosocial behavior which are helping, sharing and comforting in response to negative states which are an instrumental need, unmet material desire, and emotional distress respectively. Each of these subtypes is first elicited at different developmental stages in childhood such that they are increasingly other-oriented by age 5. Dunfield (2014) observes that their developmental trajectory shows helping behavior being elicited first, followed by sharing behavior and finally comforting behaviors are expressed last. A different taxonomy is offered by Penner and colleagues who argue that prosociality can be defined according to the multiple levels in which it can be observed (Penner et al., 2005). According to Penner et al., (2005), prosocial behavior can take place between groups of people, individuals, and even whole populations; moreover, it takes a different form at
4
each of these levels. Furthermore, Penner and colleagues argue that it is important to take into account what motivates prosocial behavior in order to better understand and interpret
findings. To illustrate this, they describe different emotional and biological motivators which could be driving prosocial behaviors in different ways (Penner et al., 2005).
The motivation for prosocial behavior is particularly important as a characterization of behaviors is oftentimes defined by differences in the motivational domain. The clearest example of this is altruism. Altruism is defined as providing for someone else without expecting anything in return. It is often contrasted to cooperation in which all parties involved benefit from the exchange. Prosocial acts, most often than not, come at a personal cost, that is, to help someone you must sacrifice something yourself. This sacrifice can be tangible (e.g., donating money) or abstract (e.g., volunteering time) and must help someone else as the definition of prosociality assumes. Extreme examples are observed when people put themselves in mortal danger and suffer long-term consequences for someone else’s sake, as is the case with peacekeepers in war zones (Gray et al., 2004; Dirkzwager et al., 2003). For altruism to take place, sacrifice is not only necessary but also there must not be any
retribution for it; this clashes with most theories of prosociality which assume a reward for acting prosocial. Following that definition of altruism, it is also difficult to quantify and draw the line between what can be considered retribution. Although many volunteers in war-torn areas receive no money in return, they can obtain rewards in form of gratitude, prestige, honor, and pride. The latter forms of reward are harder to quantify and operationalize which poses a problem for research into what is seemingly a selfless act. Moreover, many argue that there is always an intrinsic reward mechanism for helping others which negates the existence of disinterested helping altogether (de Waal, 2008; Maner et al., 2002).
Due to the ongoing debate on what prosociality consists of, as well as the existence of altruism and its differences with other subtypes of prosocial behavior, this paper will not make any distinctions amongst subtypes and will henceforth refer to prosociality as an umbrella term. We will use Dovidio’s definition that prosociality encompasses all activities that aid, improve or are advantageous to others or society (Dovidio, 1984) and will add caveats to it such that a prosocial action must be intentional and incur a cost on the prosocial agent. To be clear, this cost does not need to be tangible but can be abstract, hence, it does not exclude altruism but rather assumes that there are a cost and benefit to all actions regardless of the action itself. Due to this, we will disregard motivational components, cost/benefit relations and utility functions which would present a challenge in terms of
5
quantification and assessment of experimental studies. These overarching distinctions will allow us to take full advantage of the literature available which often disregards these distinctions or quantifies them in non-comparable terms.
Empathy
In the literature, there is a strong focus on the relationship between prosociality and empathy from which we will draw upon. Literature on altruism has developed a strong hypothesis regarding the relation of prosocial behavior with empathy which will be used, supported and further expanded to all of prosociality throughout the rest of the argument presented. In altruism research, the empathy-altruism hypothesis was first proposed in 1987 by Eisenberg and Miller. Since then, it has been further corroborated through psychological, economic and naturalistic studies (Klimecki et al., 2016; Bethlehem et al., 2017; Persson & Kajonius, 2016). It explains that altruism and further forms of prosociality are mediated by empathy. The more empathy a person feels for another, the more likely that person will be willing to help another (i.e. be prosocial). This has been supported by not just altruism but also with helping and cooperating behavior.
Evidence that differing levels of empathy for others result in changes in prosociality is prominent in discussions of prosociality and is consistent with the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. It has been observed that there are high correlations between empathy and prosociality, in which higher empathy predicts more altruistic behavior (Klimecki et al., 2016). This holds true for different types of empathy as well. Empathy for psychological distress as well as empathy for social pain, measured using self-report questionnaires, increased the likelihood of prosociality taking place (Masten et al., 2011). A potential explanation for why empathy would have such an important role in prosocial behavior was described by Dunfield (2014). He proposes that being able to represent and understand another person’s distress will cause an observer distress of their own and therefore the
observer will try to address, amend or reduce the source of discomfort in an act that would be classed as prosocial (Dunfield, 2014). Hence, the more empathic a person is, the better they will be able to understand another’s pain and the more distress it will cause them; therefore, highly empathic individuals will try to help the other more often than someone with low empathy. Alas, there is a strong case to be made for the relation between empathy and prosociality from which we will draw upon and strengthen as the argument progresses.
6 Culture
Although it has been argued that prosociality is a human universal (Aknin et al., 2013), there is evidence that culture plays a role in modulating the appearance and
performance of prosocial behaviors in such a way that it dampens of enhances its likelihood. It has been widely shown that all children attain a similar level of social competence and prosocial behavior regardless of culture during their early years (Dunfield, 2014). There is also evidence that culture strengthens the relation between prosocial behaviors and empathy (Trommsdorf et al., 2007) and that the relationship between culture and prosocial behaviors differ across cultures and countries (Luria et al., 2015). We believe that this nuance can be due to an apparent modulating role of culture on the self-reinforcing mechanism which will be described later on.
Aim
By further synthesizing findings on prosociality, we aim to elaborate a thorough account of the components of prosociality, its apparent self-reinforcing mechanism and how culture can moderate its functioning. For this purpose, prosociality will be defined as any behavior in which a person helps another, is performed intentionally and at a cost. This definition will, therefore, include helping and cooperation behaviors as well as altruism. Using this definition, different components of prosociality will be explored through an overview of the relevant literature and will be described according to their respective levels of analysis. Namely, prosociality will be explored starting from a biological and molecular standpoint and progress towards a more holistic and interpersonal level. We will delve into each component’s involvement in creating what seems like a self-reinforcing mechanism for prosociality and will culminate by discussing the macro-effect of culture on prosociality.
Components of Prosociality Biological Component
The first component of prosociality to be described in this argument consists of the biological basis and correlates that have been described in the literature regarding
prosociality. Throughout this section, we will describe and elaborate on the ample evidence of the existence of biological correlates and drivers of prosocial behavior. The apparent importance and early appearance of prosociality in human evolutionary history will also be discussed since prosociality in the literature has often been linked to evolutionary
7
evolutionary argument, we will also elaborate on prosociality in other species to better understand the evolutionary path of prosocial behavior. Finally, we will conclude this section by discussing the chemical induction of prosociality observed through experimental means as well as the physiological changes that take place in the individual after performing a
prosocial action.
As was mentioned previously, there is evidence pointing towards the evolutionary importance of prosociality in humans. It has been noted that prosociality takes place around the world and some would argue constitutes a human universal (Aknin et al., 2013).
Moreover, there is evidence of prosocial behaviors as early as 18 months of age in infants (Dunfield, 2014). The notion that prosociality is elicited universally and at an early age points towards the importance of prosociality and suggests that it is hard-wired in humans and hence is most likely an evolutionary adaptation. In order to test these claims, it is important to observe the behavior of interest in close evolutionary relatives and in model organisms. The logic being that if a behavior arises from evolutionary history, then other organisms with a close evolutionary history to humans (e.g. primates) would elicit that behavior as well. Similarly, it is important to also look at model organisms (e.g. rats) which are often used in the lab to model human behaviors and allow for highly controlled experiments.
In terms of prosocial behavior in other species, there is a wide array of evidence supporting an evolutionary path of prosociality. Apes seem to lack the ability to share psychological states with conspecifics as well as the ability to share and act upon a common goal (Tomasello et al., 2005). Moreover, prosocial behaviors taking place is contingent on different conditions between primates and humans (Claidiere et al., 2015). Prosociality has also been shown to take place more often in humans than in other primates (Jaeggi, et al., 2010). Despite these differences, Leimgruber and colleagues show that there is a biological tendency to pay it forward based on previous interactions in both capuchin and human children (Leimgruber et al., 2014). Similarly, examples of prosociality such as resource donation (Claidiere, et al., 2015) have been observed in chimpanzees, capuchin monkeys, and humans. Likewise, empathy has been observed in other primates in response to harm signals (Sheskin & Santos, 2012). The importance and evolutionary trajectory of prosociality can be further observed in human development. The observation of prosociality in human infants as early as 14 months old speaks to the evolutionary importance of prosociality itself in humans (Warneken &Tomasello, 2007). It is worth noting that this does not suggest that human and primate prosociality is identical, nor does it speak to the behaviors themselves. The fact that
8
there is similar evidence between non-human primates and humans seems to suggest that prosociality is older than their evolutionary divergence and that contingencies for prosocial behavior to take place developed in a species-specific manner.
Besides evidence that prosociality is maintained across primate species, it also seems to be the case that prosociality is empathy driven and preserved as a motivator across species (Decety et al., 2016). This is consistent with the empathy-altruism hypothesis described previously by which more prosociality takes place when there is more empathy felt for another. There is evidence that there are empaths and aggressors in rat models. Namely, there seems to be a clear tendency in some rats to participate in prosocial behaviors whereas others do not engage in these behaviors (Hernandez-Lallement et al., 2016). The notion that it is not just humans and primates who have prosocial tendencies but also distant relatives such as rats is remarkable. On the other hand, for far more evolutionary distant, colonial organisms such as ants arguably display prosocial behaviors within their colonies but do so as a form of evolutionary fixed behavior to enhance kin selection and inclusive fitness (Hamilton, 1972; Queller &Strassman, 1998). Namely, by cooperating to ensure your kin survive, you improve your own likelihood to pass on genes (i.e. fitness) even if these shared genes represent only a fraction of your genetic makeup. These behavioral parallels could be argued to be a product of convergent evolution (i.e. two current products of evolution which followed different evolutionary paths and arose due to different evolutionary pressures). For an evolutionary argument to hold, it is essential for there to be molecular and mechanistic evidence pointing away from convergence and towards a shared evolutionary history.
There is evidence of a relationship between prosociality and oxytocin, a neuropeptide, which suggests a shared evolutionary history. Oxytocin is often referred to as the love or cuddle hormone and has been related to bonding behaviors, often classed as prosocial. This relationship between oxytocin and prosociality seems to be highly maintained in nonhuman mammals including primates, rodents, ungulates (e.g. pigs), carnivores, and bats (Smith et al., 2017). Similarly, an example of how oxytocin affects prosocial behavior can be observed in cats, where the frequency and amount of interactive activity with a conspecific are associated with oxyreceptor polymorphisms (Arahori et al, 2016). In humans, the relation between prosociality and oxytocin has been widely documented (see Li et al., 2015). On the other hand, social insects do not resort to oxytocin but to other chemical substrates for
communication (Billen, 2006). Hence it seems that prosocial behavior in ants and humans is due to convergent evolution, whereas prosocial behavior in nonhuman mammals is due to a
9
shared biological substrate from a common ancestor. A shared biological mechanism among multiple mammals likely shows that oxytocin is shared among evolutionary branches and likely stems from an important and distant evolutionary adaptation.
The particular ways in which prosociality is affected by oxytocin have been also studied in humans. It is believed that specific oxytocin receptors (oxyreceptors) affect prosociality by enhancing perspective taking and empathic concern which results in an increase in prosocial behaviors (Christ et al., 2016). Additionally, it seems that specific oxyreceptor genotypes are particularly attuned to increase empathy in humans (Gong et al., 2017) which could potentially have a high impact on prosociality. Finally, oxyreceptors have also been observed to influence what are believed to be higher level functions such as
prosocial evaluations and thoughts on morality (Shang et al., 2017). All these findings are consistent and suggest that oxytocin and its receptors have an enhancing effect on prosocial behavior taking place in humans.
Besides the strong evidence between oxytocin and prosociality, there are other biological substrates which seem to affect prosociality but whose contribution still remains unclear. An example of this is the relation between vagus nerve activity and prosociality. There is evidence that vagal activity relates to prosocial traits, emotions, and perception (Kogan et al., 2014). Corroborating this trend, vagal activity has been observed to predict compassion (Stellar et al., 2015), which in turn is a good predictor of prosociality. However, when the vagus nerve is stimulated there seem to be no changes in prosocial behavior (Sellaro et al., 2015). This apparent contradiction seems to suggest there are other
mechanisms at play such as the vagal nerve interactions with its innervations. That is to say, the vagus nerve and its innervations might have other sources of input which could affect and confound the reactions observed, therefore eliciting this apparent contradiction between both mentioned studies. Therefore more research is needed before being able to conclusively ascertain the role of the vagus nerve on prosocial behaviors and tendencies.
Biological substrates of prosociality are also researched and ascertained using tests of causality, such as drug and chemical manipulations. These allow us to better understand the mechanisms underlying prosociality and their biochemical processing. The most used drug manipulation has been to test oxytocin and its positive effects on prosociality (MacDonald & MacDonald, 2010), however, there are other drugs which have also allowed us to understand the mechanism underlying prosocial behavior and grasp the complexity of it. Psilocybin, a
10
hallucinogen that activates specific serotonin receptors, shows emotional but no cognitive changes in empathy (Pokorny et al., 2017) which has been found to be related to prosocial behaviors and tendencies. Likewise, MDMA has been shown to increase empathy and
increase the likelihood of prosocial behavior (Hysek et al., 2013). Studies such as these could lead to a better understanding of the role of serotonin and other substances on prosociality. Additionally, they would shed light on the potentially different types of empathy and their biochemical pathways. Slowly and more recently there is raising awareness towards the importance and value of manipulations studies such as those mentioned above to understand complex processes.
Research has also turned towards the host of physiological changes that take place when prosociality is enacted (see Miller, 2018). One of the most used measures of
physiological change is skin conductance. Skin conductance measures the galvanic skin response, that is, automatic activation of the sympathetic nervous system. There is evidence that suggests that empathy with others is mediated by how much another’s skin conductance level matches your own (Hein et al., 2011). Particularly, Hein and colleagues showed that skin conductance responses towards another’s pain could predict the empathic responses and the likelihood of prosocial behaviors taking place in the future (2011). Evidence like this seems to suggest that matching your behavior with someone else, even if done unconsciously through skin conductance, increases empathy and prosociality. Another component of the sympathetic nervous system, heart rate variability in relation to breathing (i.e. respiratory sinus arrhythmia), was also shown to indirectly predict prosocial behavior and sympathetic concern in children (Miller et al., 2016). Hence, these studies, among others, show that prosocial behaviors are reflected in the individual’s autonomic internal physiological processing.
All in all, there is growing evidence that prosocial tendency is deeply rooted in biological systems as observed in their evolutionary and biological parallels with other species. The tendency towards prosocial behaviors has been documented in primates, new world monkeys, and multiple model animals. Furthermore, there is evidence that these similarities are not just behavioral but also mechanistic and biochemical. The relationship between oxytocin and prosociality has been widely documented across species, furthermore, other drug manipulations have shown effects on empathy and prosocial behavior. Moreover, physiological changes brought about by prosociality seem to support the notion that
11
prosociality relies on an evolutionary remnant with complex mechanistic internal interactions.
Individual component
Similarly to biological processes, there has been a lot of interest in the individual’s processing of prosocial behavior. Like is the case many other psychological and behavioral constructs, research has been conducted into correlates of prosocial behavior and individual differences variables. In addition to this, there is also evidence that a person’s perception of their immediate environment will affect how they react to the situation at hand and how likely they are to behave prosocially. A person’s individual differences (e.g. personality), as well as their perception of a situation, are important to the process of prosociality because they will determine the individual’s predisposition to behave prosocially in a given situation. Furthermore, evidence that predisposition differences in preference for acting selfishly or not can be observed as early as preschool in human children (Trommsdorff et al., 2007). These individual differences show that tendencies for acting prosocially can be observed throughout life and starting at an early age.
The most commonly studied aspect of prosociality is how it relates to personality correlates (see Habashi et al., 2016). There is strong evidence of correlation effects for multiple personality scales between populations (Zhao et al., 2016). Zhao and colleagues used two popular measures of personality: the HEXACO personality inventory and the Big Five personality scale (2016). The HEXACO scale measures components Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience through a self-report questionnaire (Lee & Ashton, 2004). In a similar way, a self-report questionnaire is used to measure openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism in the Big Five personality scale (McCrae & Costa, 1999). Zhao and colleagues found that prosocial behaviors such as egalitarianism, generosity, and reciprocity correlated with elements from the HEXACO scale and the Big Five scales using behavioral paradigms (Zhao et al., 2016). In terms of the HEXACO scale, they found that honesty-humility did not predict generous behavior whereas tendencies towards subscales of irritability and anger predicted lower generosity (Zhao et al., 2016). On the other hand, their findings in the Big Five scale show that subfactors of agreeableness are uniquely and broadly associated with prosocial behavior across all behavioral measures used (Zhao et al., 2016). Counter to this, other studies show conflicting results where the honesty-humility scale of the HEXACO scale does predict prosociality (Hilbig et al., 2014). In addition to agreeableness
12
being related to prosociality by Zhao and colleagues (2016). Others argue there is also
evidence that conscientiousness is positively correlated with prosocial behavior (Courbalay et al., 2015) something which Zhao and colleagues (2016) did not observe. Likewise, others report that it is not Conscientiousness but rather Openness to Experience which correlates with prosociality (Kline et al., 2017). This comes to show how omnibus personality tests and models show discrepancies that have yet to be consolidated in the field. Moreover, there seems to be a pattern and relationship between personality and prosocial behaviors even if particular traits are still highly debated and/or if the relationship observed requires further research to be fully understood
Besides personality inventories, researchers have also observed correlations of prosociality with other personality variables. Multiple examples of prosociality and trait empathy were mentioned previously in this argument, however, there has also been research into other personality traits and their correlates with prosociality. For example,
self-transcendence values and empathic self-efficacy have been shown to predict prosociality as well (Caprara et al., 2012). Self-transcendence value refers to how much emphasis an individual places on accepting and worrying about others whereas empathic self-efficacy is used to describe the feeling of confidence with empathic situations (Caprara et al., 2012). Similarly, prosociality has shown to be related to environmental conservation behavior (Kaiser & Byrka, 2011). In their study, Kaiser and Byrka observed that people considered highly engaged in environmental conservation behavior were also most likely to engage in prosocial behavior (2011). These correlations evince that although there are differences on the specific factors involved, there is a common thread that personality and individual traits affect prosocial behavior.
In addition to psychological variables, there is evidence that gender also affects prosocial tendencies. Particularly, there is evidence that women are more prosocial than men in all age groups (Caprara & Steca, 2005). In addition, research has shown that although men and women represent empathy in the same areas of the brain, their psychological
interpretations of empathy are different (Christov-Moore et al., 2014). Empathy can be represented as a pre-conscious mechanism which facilitates mentalizing and understanding another’s internal state (affective empathy) whereas empathy can also refer to the conscious process of understanding and making a judgment call on another’s internal state (cognitive empathy). Christov-Moore and colleagues found that these two forms of empathy are more prominent depending on an individual’s sex, namely that women exhibit more affective
13
empathy whereas mean exhibited more cognitive empathy, consistently across life-spans (Christov-Moore et al., 2014). Furthermore, there can be interactions between gender and personality traits which result in changes to a person’s likelihood to behave prosocially (Pursell et al., 2008). These differences could also explain why people from different genders have differing sensitivities to different cues in their environment (Espinosa & Kovarik, 2015). For instance, research has shown that social or emotional cues significantly increased the likelihood of behaving prosocially in women but not men (Espinosa & Kovarik, 2015). Differences in gender effects on prosociality can also be observed earlier in life. In a study by Weller and Lagattuta, children were shown videos of prosocial behaviors enacted by
characters and the children’s judgment of prosociality would differ based on the gender of the characters shown (2014). Particularly, children showed a preference for characters who helped another of the same gender as the character itself (Weller & Lagattuta, 2014). Gender differences and their effects in the internal processing of prosociality and empathy point towards the complexity of the observed phenomena and the importance of further research to better understand these interactions.
Like in the case of gender, there are other individual differences not as fully characterized but that could warrant more research. An example of this is the effect that personal beliefs affect a person’s inclination towards prosociality. For instance, there is evidence that priming god concepts in people with monotheistic beliefs increase prosocial behaviors (Shariff &Norenzayan, 2007). Furthermore, the feeling of appreciation for beauty and excellence is also a good predictor for prosociality (Martinez-Marti et al., 2016) although the mechanism leading to this finding is still unknown. There is also evidence that a person’s sweet tooth is related to prosocial tendencies, personality and behavior (Meier et al., 2012); however, an attempted replication of said study resulted in no meaningful relationship (Ashton et al., 2014) and therefore this relationship is in question. These might be related to personality correlates discussed earlier such as humility and agreeableness as well as gratitude; however, there is no current evidence to relate the findings with personality correlates as of the time of writing this paper and therefore it is purely speculation.
Individual differences, whether they are personality or individual traits and
orientations, seem to have an effect or relationship with prosociality even if that connection is still tenuous or not fully understood. There are many individual difference variables that seem to play a part in prosocial behavior. A person’s individual traits and their gender all provide a predisposition for acting prosocially. Particular personality traits, such as openness and
14
honesty-humility (Zhao et al., 2016), have been shown to be positively related to prosociality. Similarly, there is evidence suggesting that women are more likely to be prosocial than men (Caprara & Steca, 2005). Furthermore, there are still some traits or characteristics that influence prosociality which we do not fully understand yet. Regardless, many of these correlational findings are robust and seem to suggest that individual difference variables play an important role in eliciting prosocial behaviors. Given that, prosocial behaviors all take place within a social context which is as important as individual differences and biology in the process of provoking and facilitating prosocial behaviors.
Social Components
A person’s personal predisposition that comes to be due to biological and individual traits affect the likelihood of prosociality taking place, however, in order to gain a better understanding of the behavior itself, it is also important to better understand the immediate context in which prosociality is likely to take place. Penner and colleagues defined
prosociality as a multilevel multi-domain behavior (Penner et al., 2005). This definition is particularly relevant when discussing the contextual effects of prosociality. The social identities and relationships of the interacting participants, as well as the immediate
surroundings of the interaction, have been found to affect the likelihood of prosociality taking place. Understanding all these factors will provide a better picture of prosocial behavior and its overarching environmental components. First of all, we will look at how social processes affect prosociality. These social processes take place within the individual person performing the prosocial behavior but also the person receiving it. Not only that, they also involve social processes, context as well as their relationship. One important social aspect of a social
interaction is the perceived differences between the self and other. Likewise, it is important to consider the involved individual’s social identities and the power relationship between them. Additionally, considering the interaction itself is also of importance. An example of this is the power balance between actors and whether the prosocial act is likely to be reciprocal.
Moreover, contextual environmental cues have also been shown to affect the likelihood of a person performing a prosocial action. Overall, it seems that contextual and social cues are germane to the production and selection of prosocial behavior.
In order to understand social interactions, it is paramount to identify the role identity plays in the behavior and interaction taking place. Social identities aid in navigating the world and dictating our behavior, they are the roles we take in every interaction with another individual. Hence it follows that a person will be more or less prosocial depending on their
15
social identity in a given interaction. Additionally, recipients’ characteristics and identity are also of importance, as both an actor and a recipient are needed for prosociality to take place. Evidence of this was previously introduced, when it was mentioned that even for human children the gender of helper and recipient matter to children’s judgment of prosociality (Weller & Lagattuta, 2014). Similarly, it has been found in adults that when the actor’s gender and moral identity match the recipient’s, the actor’s tendency towards prosocial behavior increases (Winterich et al., 2009). In this case, moral identity refers to how
important it is for an individual’s identity to behave morally. These findings corroborate the notion that identity, like gender identity or moral identity, affect prosociality and that certain roles are more likely to result in prosociality taking place.
Role identities are often a product of group membership because group membership is one of the ways in which identity is formed in humans and societies. It follows then that ascription to these groups (i.e. ingroup membership) would also lead to changes in prosocial behavior. Alternatively, by choosing a group to belong to, an individual must also choose which groups to not belong to (i.e. outgroup) which could also affect prosocial behavior changes. Changes in behavior depending on in-group and out-group memberships have been observed namely, research has shown that if the recipient was considered to be from an ingroup there was a higher likelihood of generosity to take place than if the recipient was from an outgroup (Duclos, 2014). This has been further corroborated by evidence that seems to show that neural responses to ingroup and outgroup suffering are different and that they predict the likelihood of helping (Hein et al., 2010). Similarly, evidence seems to show that ingroup favoritism for helping also affects the corresponding neural correlates (Telzer et al., 2015). Further examples of this are how people are more willing to give individualized help (e.g. time) to in-group than outgroup members (May & Monga, 2013). The effect of ingroup and outgroup membership has on prosociality has also been shown experimentally where outgroup perspective taking can affect empathy rating and increase the likelihood of helping behavior (Mashuri et al., 2013). This effect is also corroborated by the identifiability effect by which if a person is able to identify members of an outgroup they will also be more likely to help members of said outgroup (Kogut & Ritov, 2017). These findings corroborate and support the effect of group membership on prosocial behavior and its elicitation.
Furthermore, the effect of group membership has also been studied in the context of self-other differences, which have been consistently shown to affect the tendency to be prosocial. Self-other differences refer to how similar or dissimilar an individual is perceived
16
to be by the self, in this case, the prosocial actor. In these terms, outgroups would be considered to have greater other differences whereas in-groups would have less self-other differences. This characterization is consistent with the findings described previously. This notion has also been supported in the literature. For instance, Oveis and colleagues (2010) observed that self-other similarity positively affects compassion and pride; both of which have been found to affect prosocial behavior (Michie, 2009; Goetz et al., 2010). Hence, it would seem there is a strong and well-documented effect of group membership and its encompassing self-other differences on the elicitation of prosocial behaviors.
These findings support the notion that empathy drives prosocial behavior and people find it easier to empathize with a similar other. Likewise, it could be the case that prosocial behavior is dampened due to decreasing empathy from perceiving a larger self-other difference. It has been further observed that people are more likely to see differences with their outgroup and similarities with their in-group (Sturmer & Snyder, 2010). This observer bias could explain the actor’s bias favoring their ingroup and the differences in helping behavior present. Moreover, outgroup members tend to be dehumanized whereas ingroup members tend to be humanized (Vaes et al., 2012). The process of dehumanization has been shown to decrease empathy towards a dehumanized other (Čehajić, et al., 2009), which in turn could exacerbate differences in prosocial behavior. These findings converge on the notion that a more dissimilar recipient will elicit lower levels of empathy, regardless of whether their dissimilarity is due to their perceived diminished individuality, humanity and similarity with the giver. Ultimately, it can be argued that increased self-other differences will result in a lower frequency or magnitude of prosociality towards a recipient due to the decreased empathy conferred to them.
There is also evidence that differential behavior towards similar and dissimilar others is an evolutionary mechanism. As has been mentioned previously, there seems to be a strong connection between empathy and prosociality as such we expect to be able to observe this link in group relations which are often built on empathy. Evolutionary theories have sprouted to explain this phenomenon as an adaptive behavior. According to this definition, people are more likely to help similar others due to kin selection and inclusion selection. In this context, you are likely to help similar others because you have some degree of biological similarity to them (kin selection) or at least are socially related to them (inclusion selection). Hence, helping others would ultimately help an individual from an evolutionary standpoint. This has been shown in the literature with evidence that people are more likely to help people with
17
whom they have closer ties than those with more distant and weak relations (Aknin et al., 2011). There has also been evidence of the opposite taking place, for example, social
exclusion (the opposite of inclusion selection) has been shown to decrease prosocial behavior (Twenge et al., 2007). Furthermore, a prosocial action can be considered a signal of
prosociality or desired cooperation to those observing the behavior. Following this logic, it has been argued in the literature that helping a dissimilar other would result in a prosocial signal to others which could make it more likely for the prosocial action to be reciprocated (van Leeuwen & Tauber, 2010). Ultimately, a prosocial action would not just result in a benefit for the recipient but could also improve the prosocial actor’s chances of being reciprocated therefore aid the prosocial actor’s survival.
This link between prosocial behavior and group affiliation strengthens the notion of prosociality being an evolutionary mechanism as well as the role of empathy as a strong mediator for prosociality. Despite this, there is still evidence lacking regarding the specifics and interactions between groups and prosociality. Eisenberg and colleagues argue that prosociality and empathy-related responding haven’t been clearly characterized in terms of intergroup relations (Eisenberg et al., 2010). This issue is further elaborated upon by van Leeuwen and Tauber who discuss the effects that intergroup dynamics, such as intergroup relations, can affect the likelihood of prosociality taking place across groups (van Leeuwen & Tauber, 2011). That being said, characterizing dynamic relations between groups has proven to be difficult due to their inherent variable nature (van Leeuwen & Tauber, 2011). Although there are trends that are well-established and corroborated, it is important to note that there is still much to be investigated in terms of intergroup power relations, their effect on prosocial tendencies, and the mechanisms by which particular groups interact and differ from one another.
Besides the effect of group membership on prosocial behavior, it is important to note the context and interaction between giver and recipient particularly during the events leading up to the (potential) prosocial act as well as the immediate aftermath. There is evidence that people who play prosocial games before a potential prosocial interaction will be more likely to behave prosocially (Gentile et al., 2009). Even in terms of the event itself, the affective component of the request for help, if present, can affect the likelihood that people will respond to it. Research suggests that empathy towards requests made by recipients perceived to be happy by the prosocial actors promoted prosociality whereas requests made by
18
Similarly, help requests that convey disappointment result in more prosociality than angry ones (van Doorn et al., 2015). Likewise, the immediate aftermath of a prosocial act will increase the likelihood of a person performing it again. This has been particularly observed when gratitude is involved. There is ample evidence that people are more likely to help when gratitude has been shown by the recipient (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Grant & Gino, 2010). There is also evidence that gratitude might be a trigger for prosociality in and of itself (Layous et al., 2017). These findings seem to corroborate a recent meta-analysis by Ma and colleagues which shows that gratitude enhances prosociality (Ma et al., 2017). The
aforementioned findings show that the request for help as well as the immediate aftermath of the action (e.g. gratitude) affect the expression of prosociality.
Finally, the interactions that give rise to prosocial behavior take place in a social and physical context which can also help enhance or reduce the frequency of prosocial behaviors. One of the most studied aspects of this phenomenon is the bystander effect. Originally observed in 1968 by Darley and Latane, the bystander effect is when someone is in dire need and yet no one stops to help, presumably due to diffusion of responsibility amongst
bystanders (Darley & Latane, 1968; Hortensius & de Gelder, 2014). Furthermore, research has shown that differences in reaction to a recipient’s pleas based on the number of
bystanders can be detected in differential brain activation (Hortensius & de Gelder, 2014). The presence of bystanders can also affect prosociality through other mechanisms, one of which is the fear of embarrassment. There is evidence that fear of embarrassment lowers prosocial tendencies (Zoccola et al., 2011). Fear of embarrassment has been further hypothesized to be what drives the differences that social status has on prosociality.
Particularly, the social identities, power dynamics, and responsibilities an individual takes on could influence the likelihood of embarrassment taking place (e.g. not meeting expectations) and therefore exacerbating the potential to act prosocially or not. This hypothesis has been tested by researchers, who found that a higher status individual is less likely to help someone from a lower status (Piff et al., 2010). The relation between embarrassment and prosociality has also been successfully modeled in relation to empathy by Bethell and colleagues (2014). Their research shows that embarrassment decreases helping behaviors whereas empathy increases it, which matches the aforementioned arguments (Bethell et al., 2014). These findings match those observed in a meta-analysis which lists the aforementioned as factors influencing the bystander effect and hence the likelihood of helping (Fischer et al., 2011)
19
which can be affected by the number of bystanders, fear of embarrassment and social status among others.
With an ever-changing context and environment, it is only natural that certain
situations would moderate the expression of prosocial behavior. It was previously mentioned that there is evidence that outgroups can be dehumanized for the person observing them (Čehajić, et al., 2009), this can lead to larger self-other differences, lower empathy and therefore a lower likelihood of prosocial behaviors. In contrast, there is evidence that positive intergroup contact can lead to humanizing outgroups (Capozza et al., 2013; Saguy et al., 2015) and therefore can enhance the likelihood of prosocial behaviors. Also, in terms of group dynamics, the saliency of the group to which an individual belongs can vary from one context to another and therefore its effects will too (Umaña-Taylor, 2004). Hence, an
individual’s perceived ingroup-outgroup differences will change depending on the given situation and so will that individual’s likelihood to behave prosocially. This has been
supported empirically, researchers observed that group membership can modulate the effect of the bystander effect such that if an individual considers that someone in need is part of their ingroup they will be more likely to help them than if the other were part of an outgroup (Levine et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2008). Additionally, research has shown that prosocial behavior can reflect negatively on a group (Sheperd et al., 2013) due to the implications that something wrong has taken place and therefore can lead to shame, guilt or anger.
Furthermore, group values can also affect the effect of prosociality on the individual, as shyness and fear of negative evaluation can hinder helping behaviors (Piff et al., 2010). In addition, there is also evidence that prosocial contagion takes place in groups (Fowler & Christakis, 2010). Hence, if an individual in a group is more likely to help, then there will most likely be a decreased sense of shyness and a negative evaluation for performing a prosocial act as a group and others will likely join. Prosocial behaviors, like many other interactions, are complex and depend on a wide range of variables, despite this, there is evidence that there are ways and correlates that would enable prosocial behavior to take place more often.
Overall, the importance of social processes has been observed and documented in the literature. The way a person perceives another is likely to affect their tendencies towards prosocial behavior; similarly, the effect other people have on the interaction has been widely observed in the form of the bystander effect. Additionally, there is evidence that background music can influence prosociality namely mood and helping behavior (Ganser & Huda, 2010)
20
which furthers the idea that context, surroundings and even the interactions between the individuals involved can affect prosociality. With this in mind, it is important to note that contextual narratives can also affect people’s donation tendencies. Narratives have been shown to be particularly important for international aid schemes. Research has shown that people who believe the aid given is being wasted or is ineffective will stop donating, despite data suggesting that the aid provided is actually beneficial to the recipients (Moreira, 2005; Dalgaard et al., 2004). This is only one example of how a contextual narrative created by society can affect individual’s behavior, however, when scaled up it is possible to see how culture itself as a large-scale contextual variable would affect prosocial behaviors as well. Therefore, culture will be further discussed in depth later as it is a macro-scale moderator for the processes that comprise prosociality in the individual.
Prosociality’s Self Reinforcement Loop
Besides all the components that engender prosociality from the giver’s perspective, there is also a multitude of effects of prosocial actions. These outcomes of prosociality tend to be positive for both the giver (i.e. prosocial actor) and the recipients and have been observed at both physical and emotional levels. There is also interest in how these benefits offset the costs of prosocial behavior in order to arrive at the decision to act prosocially. All in all, these findings converge on the notion that the desirability of prosociality’s benefits, together with the avoidance of detrimental costs, result in a self-reinforcement loop that increases the propensity to act prosocially.
One of the most researched areas of prosociality is the beneficial effects it has on the person performing the prosocial behavior. One of the main findings and study methods for the physical benefits of prosociality is that of cardiac health, which has recently been found to improve as a function of charitable donations (Whillans et al., 2016). These positive effects of prosociality are also maintained in non-human mammals as there is evidence that
prosociality and caregiving reduce inflammatory response in animal models (Brown & Brown, 2015). This relation with animal models further supports the aforementioned theory that prosocial behavior is an evolutionary adaptation. Mechanisms proposed for these positive effects are that helping buffers against negative affect (Grant & Sonnentag, 2010); however, the exact molecular and chemical mechanisms by which this happens still remain unclear and warrant further research.
21
Positive effects of prosociality have also been found in psychological health. There is evidence that mental health seems to improve after altruistic social interest behaviors are performed (Schwartz et al., 2003). Similarly, there is evidence that helping improves the well-being of the prosocial actor (Weinsteing & Ryan, 2010). These are just a few examples of the ways in which prosociality seems to aid and improve health in the person performing the prosocial action (see Post, 2011; Post, 2005). Moreover, there is strong evidence that there is a positive feedback loop between prosociality and happiness (Aknin et al., 2012). This is supported by findings that pursuing a concrete prosocial goal maximizes happiness (Rudd et al., 2014). Furthermore, it has recently been proposed by Layous and colleagues that there is a positive self-reinforcing feedback look triggered by positive activities, kindness, and wellbeing (Layous et al., 2017).
In evaluating the claims that there is positive self-reinforcing feedback loop
enhancing and driving prosocial behavior, it is important to consider that there might also be downsides to prosocial actions. All prosocial behavior carries a cost to the helper. Helping another involves giving away time and/or resources to someone else. It has previously been shown that if there are limitations on energy resources then people will be less helpful towards others (DeWall et al., 2008). Also, when someone decides to be prosocial beyond their means, this often results in detrimental affective states (Lanaj et al., 2016). Similarly, helping outgroup members can potentially result in negative feelings (Stürmer & Snyder, 2010). In extreme cases, it can be dangerous to be prosocial and result in long-lasting
psychological consequences such as PTSD. Studied examples of this are peacekeepers (Gray et al., 2004; Dirkzwager et al., 2003) and Ebola crisis respondents (Das & Gardezi, 2015).
In all the previously mentioned instances, there is a cost to pay for being prosocial. These costs can dissuade people from prosocial behavior, but these examples also show that prosociality also blooms in adversity. More importantly, there is growing evidence that a high cost of prosociality need not be such a bad thing. First of all, it is important to note that the cost of prosociality is relative and depends on how representative it is to the recipient and the giver (Piff et al., 2010). Piff and colleagues elaborate on this idea and explain that the value of a donation changes according to the perspective and economic class of both the giver and the recipient. That is to say, a donation’s value is relative for both the giver and the recipient. If a person with plenty of resources gives away a little of them to a recipient, the recipient might perceive this gift to be of more or less value depending on how many resources the recipient has himself. If the recipient has plenty of resources, then like the giver he might
22
perceive the gift to be small, whereas if the recipient has little to none resources then he might perceive the gift to be large. The differences in perception for prosocial behavior would explain some of the behavior towards prosociality due to the ease of giving away when you are not lacking, however, this perk will only decreasing the net cost of an action by a limited amount. In parallel, Olivola and Shafir have reported that an increase in the cost of helping can increase the value and meaning of action (2013). Their findings suggest that an increased cost will also increase the benefit of an action on the recipient and therefore the gap between the cost of acting prosocially and its benefits decreases. Moreover, Gneezy and colleagues also provide evidence for why the high cost of prosocial behavior would be beneficial (2012). They argue that a costly prosocial action sends a clear signal to others of a prosocial personality and therefore observers are more likely to reciprocate. Following this logic, prosocial behavior that isn’t costly enough will not send a strong enough signal resulting in less consistent interactions. Hence, there is evidence to suggest that costly prosocial interactions can also result in increased benefits despite their inherent high cost.
In addition to the cost of performing the action itself, there is also a cost of not performing it. This concept, cost of inaction, has recently come to the forefront and is highlighted by the sociocultural appraisals, values and emotions framework of prosociality (Keltner et al., 2014) which lists it as a component. Cost of inaction is often characterized as guilt and shame for not helping another (Erlandson et al., 2016). This anticipated guilt for not helping has also been identified as a strong motivation to help others in order to avoid that negative feeling (Lindsey et al., 2007). The finding that guilt has these effects also
corroborates what was predicted by the Normative Activation Model (de Groot & Steg, 2009) which poses that behavior is guided by personal norms, awareness of consequences, and ascription of responsibility. According to this model, a person will behave prosocially if they activate all three of these such that their norm is to help others when the consequences of not helping others are detrimental and they have the responsibility to do so. If someone would fail to do so, they would not be responsible nor acting according to the norm. In accordance, Bedford and Hwang (2003) have found that moral identity and morality are affected by guilt and shame. Hence the need to help others when responsible and in accordance to personal norms and moral identities would also serve as motivation to perform prosocial behaviors in order to avoid the guilt and shame they would be exposed to if they did not act prosocially.
Based on the previous evidence, it is highly plausible that prosociality is fueled by a reinforcing loop. That is to say, prosociality breeds prosociality and continues a
self-23
sustaining cycle. The mechanism by which this takes place is supported by evidence that prosocial behaviors seem to have a wide range of benefits (e.g. health, psychological, social and tangible rewards) which in turn make it more likely for an individual to act prosocially in the future and reinforce the selection of prosocial behavior. That being said, it is important to note that some benefits to prosociality have been found to be related to introspection of the action and not inherent to the activity itself (Sonnentag & Grant, 2012). Furthermore, it is not only the benefits which serve as reinforcement of prosocial behaviors but also the aversion towards inaction which contribute to the use of prosocial behaviors. Altogether, it seems the cost of acting prosocially is offset by the benefits of acting prosocially and the aversion towards inaction. Since the cost of inaction and the benefits of acting prosocially are often intrinsic and large, the cost of the prosocial behavior will more likely than not be superseded and therefore the prosocial behavior will likely be carried out in many circumstances.
Culture as Moderator
Now that we have observed that prosociality itself can lead to prosociality, it is important to analyze how cultural variables have been observed to affect the expression of prosocial behaviors. All the scenarios in which prosociality takes place are shaped and understood through a particular cultural lens that is favored by the person or in which the interaction takes place. Previous research has shown that a culture’s characteristics can be used as an accurate predictor of when different types of help would take place, such as volunteering and spontaneous helping (Aydinli et al., 2016; Cho & Shavitt, 2015). These differences of culture as a modulator have even been observed in prosocial differences across infants of different cultures. Kärtner and colleagues have observed that culture-dependent variables would predict prosociality at 19 months of age in toddlers from Berlin but not those from Dehli (Kärtner et al., 2010). Furthermore, they harp on the notion that whereas
prosociality is expressed in both toddler samples, the internal processing to attain prosociality was different between samples with the toddlers from Berlin engaging in more empathically motivated prosociality (i.e. understand the other’s negative mental state and help them) and those from Dehli engaging in what the authors term situational motivated prosocial behavior (i.e. observe behaviors reflective of a negative mental state and help them) (Kärtner et al., 2010). It is important to note that whereas the behavioral processes and actions that the toddlers engaged with were similar, the authors argue that their internal processing is what changes and further hypothesize about the roles mothering plays in said interplay. Finally, there is evidence that these differences remain over time and have been further qualified in preschoolers from four different cultures (Trommsdorff et al., 2007). Trommsdorff and
24
colleagues showed that children from south-eastern Asian backgrounds engaged in more self-focused distress than those from western cultures; along the same lines, children from south-east Asian countries engaged in less prosocial behaviors than those from western countries (Trommsdorff et al., 2007). Finally, they also observed a positive correlation between sympathy and prosocial behavior as well as a negative correlation between self-focused distress and prosocial behavior which is consistent with other findings described previously. Perhaps more importantly, Trommsdorff and colleagues found that these correlations are moderated by culture (2007). Alas, there is evidence that culture shapes internal processing as well as behaviors and tendencies related to prosociality from an early age.
As exemplified, the context in which interactions take place, as well as each
individual’s set of beliefs and norms which originate from their cultural factors, can affect the likelihood of prosociality taking place. Prosociality is impacted in different ways and because culture encompasses much of the personal and social components of human interaction these impacts are varied and diverse. There is evidence that there are geographical and cultural differences in the prevalence of particular individual difference traits. Additionally, these individual differences have also been tied to biological and genotypic differences between cultures. Moreover, power relations and salience of particular group differences differ between cultures which in turn affect the likelihood if perceiving someone as different and therefore affect the likelihood of prosocial behaviors. Finally, cultural norms often permeate interactions including gratitude displays, help-seeking behaviors and even expectations of help which are involved in reinforcing prosociality. Overall, the effect of culture affects all the previously mentioned components and is likely one of the most powerful moderators of prosocial behavior.
Culture themselves have traits that foster or dampen prosociality. One of the most tangible differences across cultures depends on its geographic and political component often reflected by a country’s monetary wealth. Aydinly and colleagues argue that if a country, with presumably a cultural identity, has more wealth, to begin with, then more members of a said culture are likely to give it away according to their cultural principles (Aydinly et al., 2013). This is similar to what was discussed previously about the relative value of a donation depending on resource availability of the giver and the recipient (Piff et al., 2010). In this case, by scaling up what was found by Piff and colleagues, it would follow that a country with excess resources would more easily give them away than one that was lacking those resources and needed them for themselves. Consistent with what is derived from Piff and
25
colleagues’ findings, there is evidence that wealthier cultures and countries have different prosocial behaviors. Particularly, that the amount of charitable giving depends on wealth (Einolf, 2017). This notion has been supported by Aydinly and colleagues who have modeled helping behaviors across explicit and implicit helping (2013). In their model, they explain and formalize their evidence that there are national differences in spontaneous and formally planned help, such that nations who prioritize the collective group are more likely to help others spontaneously as opposed to formal help (e.g. volunteering) which is normally more prominent in nations who prioritize the individual (Aydinly et al., 2013). Along the same lines, it is also important to take into account wealth when considering that prosocial
behaviors and acts are evaluated according to the impact they have on the recipient (Aknin et al., 2011); hence, the same donation can have a different inherent value dependent on wealth. This relation was also explored and tested by Piff and colleagues, who found that recipients with fewer resources considered donations to be larger (2010). By that logic, a prosocial act (e.g. a donation) to a recipient will lower resources than the giver will most likely be
evaluated better because of the high impact it will have on the recipient. It is important to understand and note that the patterns observed in individual behaviors using individual wealth (Piff et al., 2010) have also been observed and hold true when scaled up to a cultural and national level where wealth can also be used to predict and better understand prosocial behaviors.
Furthermore, cultural norms and values have been shown to affect the frequency and nature of expression in prosocial behaviors. There is evidence that national culture and prosocial behaviors vary across cultures and countries (Luria et al., 2015). This is often attributed to the differing expectations that different cultural groups have in terms of prosociality. One of the most commonly analyzed constructs relating to these differences is that of collectivism and individualism. Collectivism is often referred to as a preference and prioritization of the collective well-being within a culture whereas it is contrasted by individualism which is the preference and prioritization of the individual within a culture. Evidence in this domain suggests that people in collectivistic cultures are more likely to help than are those in individualistic cultures (Levine et al., 2001). Collectivistic cultures often expect their members to be prosocial, hence prosocial behaviors are common due to this internalized norm (Prochazka & Vaculík, 2011). Conversely, there is evidence that
individualistic cultures will exhibit the opposite effect by which there are fewer instances of spontaneous helping due to the lack of a prosocial expectation from the cultural environment
26
(Cho& Shavitt, 2015). Alternatively, there is evidence that seems to show that these differences could be due to the operationalization of prosociality such that collectivistic societies engage in more spontaneous helping whereas individualistic societies tend towards organized formal forms of prosociality (e.g. volunteerism) (Aydinly et al., 2013). Evidence regarding collectivism and individualism in cultures and their prosocial tendencies show that there is an inalienable relation between these constructs.
Besides collectivism and individualism, other cultural constructs have also been related to prosocial behavior tendencies. An example of this is religiousness, which has been shown to promote prosociality by priming god concepts to a monotheistic sample (Shariff &Norenzayan, 2007). Another example is the concept of generalized trust which refers to trust towards society as a whole, including its members and institutions. Some cultures exhibit more generalized trust than others (Bjørnskov, 2007) which has been shown to be positively related to volunteering and charitable giving (Taniguchi et al., 2014). Finally, some cultures differ in negative affect avoidance which makes these cultures more guilt averse and therefore more likely to act prosocially when it could lead to guilty feelings (Koopman-Holm & Tsai, 2015). All these different constructs have been shown to relate to prosocial behavior and embedded in cultures to enhance prosocial behavior.
Cultural values, such as the ones previously described are often reflected in norms and social symbols and expression. There is substantial evidence that shows basic emotional expressions have universal commonalities (Kohler et al., 2004; Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002); however, complex emotions important to a prosocial exchange can have variations resulting in differences and expressions that can result in unclear nonverbal cues to others (Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008). These differences in emotional expression can also be found in gratitude signals. The impact and importance of gratitude were previously described as well as its role in enhancing the self-reinforcement loop of prosociality; issues arise when gratitude is conveyed in different ways among individuals from different cultures. There is evidence that gratitude expressions can be conveyed more effectively by native speakers than non-native speakers of a language (Cui, 2012). Moreover, there is evidence that facial cues of altruistic intent in itself are not universal but rather culturally specific as observed in a sample of Japanese expressions on French individuals (Tognetti et al., 2018). Overall, there seems to be the case that gratitude and altruism signals differ among cultures (Merçon-Vargas et al., 2017) and therefore need to be taken into account in cross-cultural interactions to avoid botching prosocial intent; however, these differences and their effects on prosociality haven’t
27
been thoroughly characterized and hence many remain untested and many specifics remain unclear.
Like is often the case when studying cultural factors, correlational relationships are observed across cultures in order to better understand the underlying causes that might be affecting prosociality. Often times, this is done in the form of individual personality inventories averaged across entire countries which give a good overview of the personality traits common in that particular nation and which can later be correlated with behavior. Using such methods, it has been observed that descriptions of self along the Big Five personality factors differs between countries and contexts (Schmitt et al., 2007). This is particularly important given the importance of Big Five factors such as agreeableness and openness which have been shown to relate to prosociality. On the other hand, evidence of the
discrepancies and low construct validity of the Big Five amongst different cultures has been previously reported and could be partially responsible for the observed differences (Gurven et al., 2013). Even if the Big Five were not suited for characterizing the differences between cultures properly, there is further evidence that there are cross-cultural differences in empathic concern and perspective changing (Chopik et al., 2017). Empathic concern and perspective taking could potentially affect the perceived self-other differences such as to foster or hamper prosocial behaviors. It is important to note that geographic variations in empathy have also been found within a single country (USA) and this has been further associated with certain regions having higher volunteer rates (Bach et al., 2017) and hence the phenomena of differing prosocial tendencies cannot be always characterized in terms of countries but seems to be better suited to cultural orientations. The evidence provided shows that culture’s effect on prosociality can be observed from individual’s from which
information can be extrapolated to better understand the collective that is a culture and a nation.
The effect of group membership and group dynamics described earlier can also differ between cultures. These differences in group dynamics within cultures can be observed through the effects that helping has on the prosocial actor. The effects on the individual as was described previously is one of the most important components of the prosociality self-reinforcement mechanism as these benefits provide the self-reinforcement component to perpetuate prosocial behaviors. Although these benefits seem to be self-sustaining within each individual, they can be exacerbated by cultural contexts through group memberships and group dynamics. More broadly, there is evidence that culture is a moderator of benefits such
