Social Psychology Research

Comparing effects of situationally relevant and irrelevant prosocial behavior on mood in students of Tehran universities

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mohammad erfan Memarian 1
Jalil Fathabadi 2
Omid Shokri 3

1 Clinical psychology MSc, department of educational sciences & psychology, Shahid Beheshti university

2 Associate professor, Department of psychology, Shahid Beheshti University

3 Assistant professor, Department of psychology, Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract
Past studies indicate that prosocial behavior enhances mood. Most of these studies have only investigated mood enhancement in the specific situation that has triggered empathy; while prosocial behavior does not necessarily take place in the same situation. The goal of this study is to investigate the enhancement effect of prosocial behavior on mood between empathy-triggering situation and an unrelated situation. 60 students studying in universities of Tehran participated in this experiment. After inducing empathy & primary mood measurement, the first group conducted a situationally relevant prosocial behavior, the second group conducted a situationally irrelevant prosocial behavior, & the third group participated in a control task. Afterward, the mood of participants was measured again. After controlling for pre-test scores, prosocial behavior did not have a significant effect on negative affect (P = 0/47); but had a significant effect on positive affect (P = 0/011). Pairwise comparisons revealed that situationally irrelevant prosocial behavior enhanced positive affect more than the control task (P=0/009). Lower estimation of prosocial behavior’s success, uncertainty about improvement of the receiver’s situation, and dual perspective taking may contribute to stability of negative affect. The lack of significant difference between related prosocial behavior and control groups, and the difference between unrelated prosocial behavior and control group, can be understood by predictions of how unsuccessful prosocial behaviors are to be. This suggests that mood enhancement due to prosocial behavior is more about success of prosocial behavior rather than improving welfare of empathy subjects.

Keywords

Prosocial behavior
mood
Altruistic behavior
Empathy
  • آقایوسفی، علیرضا؛ مصطفائی، علی؛ زارع، حسین و ایمانی فر، حمیدرضا. (۱۳۹۴). رابطه رفتار جامعه‌پسندی و گرایش‌های مطلوب اجتماعی در زنان با پنج عامل شخصیتی کاستا و مک‌کری. فصل‌نامه زن و جامعه، (۲)۶، ۸۴-۶۷.
  • بخشی‌پور، ‌عباس و دژکام، ‌محمود (1384). تحلیل عاملی تأییدی مقیاس عاطفه مثبت و منفی. روانشناسی, (۴)۳۶, ۳۵۱-۳۶۵.
  • ترکمن ‌ملایری، مهدی و شیخ الاسلامی، راضیه. (1396). تبیین علی رفتار جامعه‌پسند نوجوانان بر اساس فلسفه فراهیجانی مادر و هیجانات اخلاقی. پژوهش‌های روانشناسی اجتماعی, 7(28), ۲۲-۱.
  • صفاری‌نیا، مجید؛ آقایوسفی، علیرضا وایمانی فر، حمیدرضا. (۱۳۹۵). پیش‌بینی‌کننده‌های شخصیتی و خلقی جامعه‌پسندی. مطالعات و تحقیقات اجتماعی در ایران، (۲)۵، ۲۷۲-۲۵۵.
  • رجبی, غلامرضا. (1384). ویژگی‌های روان سنجی مادّه‌های فرم کوتاه پرسشنامه افسردگی بک. فصل نامه روان شناسان ایرانی، (۴)۱.
  • نظام، حمیدرضا و رضایی، سعید. (۱۳۹۷). طراحی برنامه مهارت‌های همدلی مبتنی بر شناخت اجتماعی و بررسی اثربخشی آن بر رفتار جامعه‌پسند کارکنان خدمات فرودگاهی. پژوهش‌های روان‌شناسی اجتماعی، شماره ۲۹، ۱۳۱-۱۱۷.

 

 

  • Aknin, L. B., Van de Vondervoort, J. W., & Hamlin, J. K. . (2018). Positive feelings reward and promote prosocial behavior. Current opinion in psychology, 20, 55-59.
  • Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press, USA.
  • Batson, C. D., & Weeks, J. L. (1996). Mood effects of unsuccessful helping: Another test of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2), 148-157.
  • Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Stocks, E. L. (2011). Four forms of prosocial motivation: Egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism. In D. Dunning, Social motivation (pp. 104-116). Psychology Press.
  • Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., & Stocks, E. L. (2015). The Empathy–Altruism Hypothesis. In The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 259-268).
  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337-365.
  • Cameron, C. D., Harris, L. T., & Payne, B. K. (2016). The emotional cost of humanity: anticipated exhaustion motivates dehumanization of stigmatized targets. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(2), 105-112.
  • Cameron, D., Hutcherson, C., Ferguson, A., Scheffer, J., Hadjiandreou, E., & Inzlicht, M. (2017). Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs.
  • Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. F. (2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 604-627.
  • Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Shepard, S. A. (2005). Age changes in prosocial responding and moral reasoning in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of research on adolescence , 15(3), 235-260.
  • Glomb, T. M., Bhave, D. P., Miner, A. G., & Wall, M. (2011). Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 191-223.
  • Hodges, S. D., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2007). Balancing the empathy expense account: Strategies for regulating empathic response. Empathy in mental illness, 389-407.
  • Hodges, S. D., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Regulating the costs of empathy: the price of being human. The Journal of socio-economics, 30(5), 437-452.
  • Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Social psychology: Unraveling the mystery. Boston: Pearson.
  • Maibom, H. L. (2014). Empathy and morality (pp. 20). Oxford University Press (UK).
  • Matsumoto, Y., Yamagishi, T., Li, Y., & Kiyonari, T. (2016). Prosocial behavior increases with age across five economic games. PloS one, 11(7), e0158671.
  • Oxley, J. (2011). The moral dimensions of empathy: Limits and applications in ethical theory and practice, (pp. 18). Springer.
  • Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. . (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annu. Rev. Psychol. , 56, 365-392.
  • Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current directions in psychological science, 16(4), 207-212.
  • Schroeder, D. A., & Graziano, W. G. (Eds.). (2015). Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. Oxford Library of Psychology.
  • Stocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., & Decker, S. K. (2009). Altruism or psychological escape: Why does empathy promote prosocial behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5), 649-665.
  • Stürmer, S., & Snyder, M. (Eds.) . (2009). The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping, (pp.36-37). John Wiley & Sons, p.
  • Watson, D., & Vaidya, J. (2012). Mood measurement: Current status and future directions. In Handbook of psychology, (pp. 349-375).
  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063.
  • Xie, X., Liu, H., & Gan, Y. (2011). Belief in a just world when encountering the 5/12 Wenchuan earthquake. Environment and Behavior, 43(4), 566-586.
  • Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: a motivated account. Psychological bulletin, 140(6), 1608.
Social Psychology Research
Volume 9, Issue 36
Winter 2020
Pages 21-38

XML
PDF 677.85 K
Supplementary File
2 (8).pdf

Home

Article Processing Charges

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us