Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Sep 2:5:958.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00958. eCollection 2014.

A construct divided: prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes

Affiliations
Review

A construct divided: prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes

Kristen A Dunfield. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

The development and maintenance of prosocial, other-oriented behaviors has been of considerable recent interest. Though it is clear that prosocial behaviors emerge early and play a uniquely important role in the social lives of humans, there is less consensus regarding the mechanisms that underlie and maintain these fundamental acts. The goal of this paper is to clarify inconsistencies in our understanding of the early emergence and development of prosocial behavior by proposing a taxonomy of prosocial behavior anchored in the social-cognitive constraints that underlie the ability to act on behalf of others. I will argue that within the general domain of prosocial behavior, other-oriented actions can be categorized into three distinct types (helping, sharing, and comforting) that reflect responses to three distinct negative states (instrumental need, unmet material desire, and emotional distress). In support of this proposal, I will demonstrate that the three varieties of prosocial behavior show unique ages of onset, uncorrelated patterns of production, and distinct patterns of individual differences. Importantly, by differentiating specific varieties of prosocial behavior within the general category, we can begin to explain inconsistencies in the past literature and provide a framework for directing future research into the ontogenetic origins of these essential social behaviors.

Keywords: emotional development; prosocial behavior; social-cognitive development.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Categorization of prosocial behavior based on the varieties of negative state the child must identify and overcome. An effective intervention will only occur when all three components can be successfully resolved. Different varieties of prosocial behavior show independent developmental trajectories because of the unique social cognitive demands.

References

    1. Anderson C., Kilduff G. J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18 295–298 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01655.x - DOI
    1. Baumard N., André J. B., Sperber D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: the evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behav. Brain Sci. 36 59–78 10.1017/S0140525X11002202 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Behne T., Carpenter M., Call J., Tomasello M. (2005). Unwilling versus unable: infants’ understanding of intentional action. Dev. Psychol. 41 328–337 10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.328 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blake P. R., McAuliffe K. (2011). “I had so much it didn’t seem fair”: eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity. Cognition 120 215–224 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.04.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bloom P. (2013). Just Babies. New York: Crown

LinkOut - more resources