Introduction Methods Methods Results Discussion Future Directions ...
Undergraduate Category: Interdisciplinary Topics, Centers and Ins7tutes Degree Level: Bachelor of Science Abstract ID# 1366
Prosocial behavior across context Eliza Gendron, Jacqueline Schnitzer, Kevin Luo, Paul Condon, Christy Wilson-‐Mendenhall, Karen Quigley, Lisa Feldman BarreR
Real-‐world Prosocial Responding ● Par7cipants arrived and took the last remaining seat in a wai7ng area; the other seat was occupied by a confederate (see Figure 1). ● A second confederate arrived in the wai7ng area using a pair of crutches and a walking boot. ● Prosocial behavior was measured by whether or not the par7cipant gave up his or her seat (Condon et al., 2013)
Introduction ● Prosocial behavior and compassion are important contributors to wellbeing, integrity, and personal growth (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). ● Tradi7onally, people have relied on self-‐report methods to understand individual differences in prosociality. ● Tradi7onal measures involve retrospec7ve repor7ng, which requires par7cipants to aggregate experiences over 7me and tends to reflect beliefs about the self, rather than momentary experience or specific behaviors in a given context (Connor & BarreR, 2012). ● It is unclear how well retrospec7ve reports of prosociality correspond with actual prosocial behavior. Self-‐reported measures are prone to social desirability biases (Van De Mortel, 2008). ● Researchers typically examine prosocial behavior by examining decisions in economic games in the lab. However, these measures may be prone to similar desirability pressures. ● The current study aimed to examine the ability of self-‐reports and decisions in economic games to predict individual differences in real-‐world prosocial behavior. ● Hypothesis 1 We hypothesized that the self-‐report measure would predict prosocial behavior in the economic game due to its monitored controlled laboratory se[ng, which may expose the par7cipant to social desirability pressures. ● Hypothesis 2 We also hypothesized that par7cipants who demonstrated more prosocial behavior in a real-‐world se[ng would also donate more money in an economic game.
Methods
Par6cipants ● Forty three par7cipants (35 female and 8 male) ranging from 18 to 27 years (M = 19.9 years, SD = 2.41 years) from the Boston area were recruited to par7cipate in a study on personality and emo7on. ● Twenty par7cipants par7cipated in the Fall por7on of the study, while twenty three par7cipated in the Spring por7on. All par7cipants completed the same procedures, with the excep7on of one addi7onal task completed by the Fall par7cipants. Procedures ● Par7cipants arrived for an ini7al lab visit to complete a variety of tasks designed to assess prosocial responding. Par7cipants later returned for a second lab visit. This poster only reports analyses from data collected in the first visit.
References
1. Condon, P., Desbordes, G., Miller, W. B., and DeSteno, D. (2013). Medita7on increases compassionate responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2125-‐2127. 2. Conner, T. S., & BarreR, L. (2012). Trends in ambulatory self-‐reports: The role of momentary experience in psychosoma7c medicine. Psychosoma3c Medicine, 74, 327–337. 3. Leiberg, S., Klimecki, O., & Singer, T. (2011). Short-‐term compassion training increases prosocial behavior in a newly developed prosocial game. PLoS ONE, 6(3), e17798. 4. Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking It: Social Desirability Response Bias in Self-‐report Research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40-‐48. 5. Weinstein, N. & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous mo7va7on for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-‐being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222-‐244. 6. Weng, H. Y., Fox, A. S., Shackman, A. J., Stodola, E. D., Caldwell, J. Z. K., Olson, M. C., . . . Davidson, R. J. (2013). Compassion training alters altruism and neural responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1171-‐1180.
Results
Methods
Abstract: Prosocial behavior and compassion are important contributors to wellbeing, integrity, and personal growth. Researchers typically examine prosocial behavior by examining decisions in economic games in the lab. However, these measures may be prone to social desirability pressures, and it is unclear to what extent they are associated with prosocial behaviors in real-‐ world social interac7ons. In the current research, we examined the ability of self-‐reports and decisions in economic games to predict individual differences in real-‐world prosocial behavior. Par7cipants completed a variety of tasks, including a measure of prosocial responding in a real-‐world staged interac7on and measures of generosity in standard economic games. Par7cipants also completed self-‐report trait measures related to empathic concern and compassion. Results showed that self-‐reported empathic concern did not predict generosity in the economic games. However, those who behaved prosocially in a real-‐world scenario also acted more generously in the economic game. Social desirability may have uniquely impacted par7cipants' responses on the empathic concern scale, as the responses did not correlate with generosity in the economic games. Measures of generosity in the economic games appear to generalize to real-‐world behavior in ecological se[ngs that do not involve financial exchange. These measures appear to capture prosocial tendencies that are not dependent on one specific context.
Figure 1. Character to the furthermost right represents true par7cipant si[ng next to a confederate
Third-‐party Helping Game ● ● ● ● ●
Par7cipants played a game with other par7cipants with the chance to earn money. Par7cipants first observed an unfair economic transfer from Player A to Player B (see Figure 2). Par7cipants were given $5 in the role of Player C and decided how much to transfer to Player B. In a second trial, par7cipants played asPlayer A and decided how much to transfer to Player B. Prosocial behavior was measured by the par7cipant’s dona7on of their own endowment (Weng et al, 2013).
● In the crutch paradigm, 65% of par7cipants (N=28) did not give up their seat, whereas 35% of par7cipants (N=15) did give up their seat. ● Hypothesis 1: Contrary to our predic7on, self-‐reported empathic concern did not correlate with generosity in the economic games, either as Player C, r = .043, ns, or as Player A, r = .19, ns. ● Hypothesis 2: Contrary to our predic7on, those who gave up their seat in the crutch paradigm did not act more generously in the third-‐party helping game, as Player C or Player A (See Figures 4a and 4b). A non-‐significant trend showed more generosity among those who gave up their seat.
t(41) = 1.59, p = .12 t(41) = 1.04, p =.31 Figure 4a. Helping response and dona7on as Player C Figure 4b. Helping response and dona7on as Player A ● Fall Par7cipants: There was no correla7on between behavior in the third-‐party helping game and behavior in the online video game: Player C, r(18) = .34, p = .142; Player A, r(18) = .09, p = .721
Figure 2. (a) Par7cipant took role of Player C and observed unfair economic transfer (b) Par7cipant, as Player C, decided how much of their endowment to donate to Player B. Zurich Prosocial Game (Fall Par6cipants Only) ● Par7cipants played an online video game under the guise of a live se[ng including a second player. ● Par7cipants were told they could earn up to $5 in performance. ● Helping behavior was measured by whether or not par7cipants gave up keys to help another player unlock gates that blocked their path to the treasure (Leiberg et al, 2011).
Self-‐reported Empathic Concern ● Following the behavioral tasks, par7cipants completed a self-‐report measure of disposi7onal empathic concern by responding to items from the Interpersonal Reac7vity Index-‐Empathic Concern subscale (Davis, 1983). This scale measures par7cipants tendency to respond to others’ suffering with concern.
Discussion ● Contrary to our first hypothesis, self-‐reported empathic concern did not predict generosity in the economic game. ● Contrary to our second hypothesis, par7cipants who gave up their seat did not give more money in the economic game than those who did not give up their seat. ● However, results show a trend in the predicted direc7on that those who gave up their seat were more likely to give more money as player C, but not as player A. ● Social desirability may have impacted par7cipants’ responses on the empathic concern scale, as the responses could not accurately predict generosity in the economic games. ● Measures of generosity in the economic games may not generalize to real-‐world behavior in person-‐ to-‐person interac7ons. Alterna7vely, economic games migth indicate a different form of prosocial concern, such as concern for fairness.
Future Directions
● Given the nature of retrospec7ve reports, future research will use ambulatory assessment to examine the ability of momentary self-‐report measures of compassion to examine individual differences in prosocial outcomes. ● It is unclear how these different measures of prosocial responding relate to health and wellbeing (cf. Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Future research will examine how well different measures of prosocial responding predict individual differences in wellbeing (e.g., physiological reac7vity and recovery from stress).
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the Mind and Life Ins7tute. We would like to thank the larger research assistant team for their assistance in collec7ng the data.
Prosocial behavior across context Eliza Gendron, Jacqueline Schnitzer, Kevin Luo, Paul Condon, Christy Wilson-‐Mendenhall, Karen Quigley, Lisa Feldman BarreR
Real-‐world Prosocial Responding ● Par7cipants arrived and took the last remaining seat in a wai7ng area; the other seat was occupied by a confederate (see Figure 1). ● A second confederate arrived in the wai7ng area using a pair of crutches and a walking boot. ● Prosocial behavior was measured by whether or not the par7cipant gave up his or her seat (Condon et al., 2013)
Introduction ● Prosocial behavior and compassion are important contributors to wellbeing, integrity, and personal growth (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). ● Tradi7onally, people have relied on self-‐report methods to understand individual differences in prosociality. ● Tradi7onal measures involve retrospec7ve repor7ng, which requires par7cipants to aggregate experiences over 7me and tends to reflect beliefs about the self, rather than momentary experience or specific behaviors in a given context (Connor & BarreR, 2012). ● It is unclear how well retrospec7ve reports of prosociality correspond with actual prosocial behavior. Self-‐reported measures are prone to social desirability biases (Van De Mortel, 2008). ● Researchers typically examine prosocial behavior by examining decisions in economic games in the lab. However, these measures may be prone to similar desirability pressures. ● The current study aimed to examine the ability of self-‐reports and decisions in economic games to predict individual differences in real-‐world prosocial behavior. ● Hypothesis 1 We hypothesized that the self-‐report measure would predict prosocial behavior in the economic game due to its monitored controlled laboratory se[ng, which may expose the par7cipant to social desirability pressures. ● Hypothesis 2 We also hypothesized that par7cipants who demonstrated more prosocial behavior in a real-‐world se[ng would also donate more money in an economic game.
Methods
Par6cipants ● Forty three par7cipants (35 female and 8 male) ranging from 18 to 27 years (M = 19.9 years, SD = 2.41 years) from the Boston area were recruited to par7cipate in a study on personality and emo7on. ● Twenty par7cipants par7cipated in the Fall por7on of the study, while twenty three par7cipated in the Spring por7on. All par7cipants completed the same procedures, with the excep7on of one addi7onal task completed by the Fall par7cipants. Procedures ● Par7cipants arrived for an ini7al lab visit to complete a variety of tasks designed to assess prosocial responding. Par7cipants later returned for a second lab visit. This poster only reports analyses from data collected in the first visit.
References
1. Condon, P., Desbordes, G., Miller, W. B., and DeSteno, D. (2013). Medita7on increases compassionate responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2125-‐2127. 2. Conner, T. S., & BarreR, L. (2012). Trends in ambulatory self-‐reports: The role of momentary experience in psychosoma7c medicine. Psychosoma3c Medicine, 74, 327–337. 3. Leiberg, S., Klimecki, O., & Singer, T. (2011). Short-‐term compassion training increases prosocial behavior in a newly developed prosocial game. PLoS ONE, 6(3), e17798. 4. Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking It: Social Desirability Response Bias in Self-‐report Research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40-‐48. 5. Weinstein, N. & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous mo7va7on for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-‐being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222-‐244. 6. Weng, H. Y., Fox, A. S., Shackman, A. J., Stodola, E. D., Caldwell, J. Z. K., Olson, M. C., . . . Davidson, R. J. (2013). Compassion training alters altruism and neural responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1171-‐1180.
Results
Methods
Abstract: Prosocial behavior and compassion are important contributors to wellbeing, integrity, and personal growth. Researchers typically examine prosocial behavior by examining decisions in economic games in the lab. However, these measures may be prone to social desirability pressures, and it is unclear to what extent they are associated with prosocial behaviors in real-‐ world social interac7ons. In the current research, we examined the ability of self-‐reports and decisions in economic games to predict individual differences in real-‐world prosocial behavior. Par7cipants completed a variety of tasks, including a measure of prosocial responding in a real-‐world staged interac7on and measures of generosity in standard economic games. Par7cipants also completed self-‐report trait measures related to empathic concern and compassion. Results showed that self-‐reported empathic concern did not predict generosity in the economic games. However, those who behaved prosocially in a real-‐world scenario also acted more generously in the economic game. Social desirability may have uniquely impacted par7cipants' responses on the empathic concern scale, as the responses did not correlate with generosity in the economic games. Measures of generosity in the economic games appear to generalize to real-‐world behavior in ecological se[ngs that do not involve financial exchange. These measures appear to capture prosocial tendencies that are not dependent on one specific context.
Figure 1. Character to the furthermost right represents true par7cipant si[ng next to a confederate
Third-‐party Helping Game ● ● ● ● ●
Par7cipants played a game with other par7cipants with the chance to earn money. Par7cipants first observed an unfair economic transfer from Player A to Player B (see Figure 2). Par7cipants were given $5 in the role of Player C and decided how much to transfer to Player B. In a second trial, par7cipants played asPlayer A and decided how much to transfer to Player B. Prosocial behavior was measured by the par7cipant’s dona7on of their own endowment (Weng et al, 2013).
● In the crutch paradigm, 65% of par7cipants (N=28) did not give up their seat, whereas 35% of par7cipants (N=15) did give up their seat. ● Hypothesis 1: Contrary to our predic7on, self-‐reported empathic concern did not correlate with generosity in the economic games, either as Player C, r = .043, ns, or as Player A, r = .19, ns. ● Hypothesis 2: Contrary to our predic7on, those who gave up their seat in the crutch paradigm did not act more generously in the third-‐party helping game, as Player C or Player A (See Figures 4a and 4b). A non-‐significant trend showed more generosity among those who gave up their seat.
t(41) = 1.59, p = .12 t(41) = 1.04, p =.31 Figure 4a. Helping response and dona7on as Player C Figure 4b. Helping response and dona7on as Player A ● Fall Par7cipants: There was no correla7on between behavior in the third-‐party helping game and behavior in the online video game: Player C, r(18) = .34, p = .142; Player A, r(18) = .09, p = .721
Figure 2. (a) Par7cipant took role of Player C and observed unfair economic transfer (b) Par7cipant, as Player C, decided how much of their endowment to donate to Player B. Zurich Prosocial Game (Fall Par6cipants Only) ● Par7cipants played an online video game under the guise of a live se[ng including a second player. ● Par7cipants were told they could earn up to $5 in performance. ● Helping behavior was measured by whether or not par7cipants gave up keys to help another player unlock gates that blocked their path to the treasure (Leiberg et al, 2011).
Self-‐reported Empathic Concern ● Following the behavioral tasks, par7cipants completed a self-‐report measure of disposi7onal empathic concern by responding to items from the Interpersonal Reac7vity Index-‐Empathic Concern subscale (Davis, 1983). This scale measures par7cipants tendency to respond to others’ suffering with concern.
Discussion ● Contrary to our first hypothesis, self-‐reported empathic concern did not predict generosity in the economic game. ● Contrary to our second hypothesis, par7cipants who gave up their seat did not give more money in the economic game than those who did not give up their seat. ● However, results show a trend in the predicted direc7on that those who gave up their seat were more likely to give more money as player C, but not as player A. ● Social desirability may have impacted par7cipants’ responses on the empathic concern scale, as the responses could not accurately predict generosity in the economic games. ● Measures of generosity in the economic games may not generalize to real-‐world behavior in person-‐ to-‐person interac7ons. Alterna7vely, economic games migth indicate a different form of prosocial concern, such as concern for fairness.
Future Directions
● Given the nature of retrospec7ve reports, future research will use ambulatory assessment to examine the ability of momentary self-‐report measures of compassion to examine individual differences in prosocial outcomes. ● It is unclear how these different measures of prosocial responding relate to health and wellbeing (cf. Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Future research will examine how well different measures of prosocial responding predict individual differences in wellbeing (e.g., physiological reac7vity and recovery from stress).
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the Mind and Life Ins7tute. We would like to thank the larger research assistant team for their assistance in collec7ng the data.
