Abstract
Background:
Prosocial behaviors are considered important moral and social behavior. Various researchers have found that prosocial behavior increases well-being; research is scarce on the effects of prosocial behavior on psychological well-being, positive and negative affect among adults.
Aim:
The present study investigated the relationship between prosocial behavior, psychological well-being, and positive and negative affect on adults.
Materials and Methods:
The study included 80 adults (19–25 years) males and females. Snowball and incidental sampling method is used for data collection. The tools used for the study are the Prosocial Personality Battery, Ryff's psychological well-being scale, and the positive and negative affect scale.
Results:
A positive correlation was found between prosocial behavior and psychological well-being (0.396 which is significant at 0.01 level). A positive correlation was also observed between prosocial behavior and positive affect (0.274 which is significant at 0.01 level). A negative correlation was found between prosocial behavior and negative affect (−0.191 which is significant at 0.05 level).
Conclusion:
People involved in Prosocial behavior showed a positive correlation with Psychological well-being and positive affect and a negative correlation with negative affects.
Keywords: Positive and negative affect, prosocial behavior, psychological well-being
Prosocial behavior is a behavior that includes cooperating, helping, comforting, sharing, and giving.[1,2] It is an important aspect of decent and ethical behavior and is necessary for keeping positive social relationships and supporting social change. There is some misconception between Prosocial behavior and altruism. Prosocial behavior is those acts where people willingly and deliberately behave in a way that provides help to others. Altruism is an additional definite method of helping behavior that profits others but is not anticipated to have any personal advantage. Some psychologists maintain that we are naturally inclined to help other people. Developmental psychologists and social scientists believe that prosocial behavior is also a biological or inherent function of a human being rather than only learned or nurtured functioning. Many religions emphasize the acts which help other human or animal beings. In religious practice, prosocial behaviors are considered social norms. The evolutionary perspective claims that we are biologically inclined to help. Various psychologists propose that there are numerous causes why people are involved in prosocial acts. In many cases, such behaviors in children are taught by parents such as acting kindly and helping others. Parents often model prosocial behavior in children by developing the ethical and social attitudes appropriate to the culture.
Situational factors also emerged as an important aspect of prosocial behavior. The bystander effect is interesting research that shows the situational factors of helping.[3] People who feel socially responsible are more likely to help than people who do not feel social responsibility.[4]
It was also observed that people with larger levels of empathy are more helpful to other people.[5] Researchers have also studied prosocial behavior and its effects on people. According to research conducted, it was found that altruism and general well-being had a significant positive correlation. They have not observed any gender differences regarding helping behavior.[6]
In general, well-being is considered important for a healthy life, psychological well-being has also been an important part of healthy functioning. Psychological well-being states to a positive mental level such as satisfaction and happiness. It is about living well, a combination of feeling good and functioning well. The researcher described psychological well-being from two aspects, hedonic and eudaimonic. Hedonic well-being refers to the subjective feeling of happiness. Eudaimonic well-being refers to the purposeful aspect of psychological well-being. In one study a significant relationship between Psychological well-being and Spirituality and a non-significant relationship between prosocial behavior and Psychological Well-being was observed.[7]
An experimental study was conducted on 142 highly anxious people to demonstrate that engaging in kind acts generates positive affect in socially anxious people. Participants were randomly assigned to different conditions and a post-test was taken after 4 weeks. The result showed that participants involved in helping acts displayed increased relationship satisfaction. This study was the first to demonstrate positive affect can be increased in socially anxious people with the help of prosocial behavior.[8] Another study found that prosocial behavior and positive affect reinforce each other in daily life. Especially in people high on neuroticism effect of prosocial behavior on positive affect was strong.[9] While various studies have shown prosocial behavior has a significant impact on a person's life, it does not only enhance one's psychological well-being it also has its effects on a person's emotions. The present study was focused on understanding the combined results of prosocial behavior and its effects on psychological well-being and positive and negative affect.
Empirical evidence has suggested that prosocial behavior leads to increased psychological well-being. Also, prosocial behavior prompts positive emotions and minimizes negative emotions.
There is a paucity of Indian studies in this area. Also, the tools used in the present research are different from the previous researchers. Previous studies do not include the variables together as the present study, hence within the same sample, the relationship of prosocial behavior on psychological well-being as well as on positive and negative affect experienced by people have not been seen. Importantly previous researchers have not focused on the age range between 19 and 25 years (young adults) which is thought to be a very important phase of life as it can be said as a more productive and career-focused phase, which is the focus of attention of the present research. To fill up the gap in the existing studies and to get more understanding of the topic, present study was undertaken to study the association between prosocial behavior, psychological well-being, and positive affect.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in the Psychology Department of a College. Before starting the study permission from the institutional ethical committee was obtained. Informed consent was taken from every participant.
Participants
For the study a total of 80 males and females participated. All the participants were between the age range of 19–25 years (young adults) residing in Pune city during the research. The Incidental Sampling and Snowball sampling methods were adopted to select the sample. Data has been collected from the people who were involved in any kind of prosocial or helping behavior within the last 15–20 days.
Instruments
Demographic information regarding age, gender, and locality has been taken from every participant. Also, participants were asked to mention what helping activity they have been involved in the last 15–20 days.
Prosocial personality battery
To assess prosocial behavior among adults a Prosocial Personality Inventory was used. It is a self-report measure consisting of 30 items and responses range from 1 to 5 (Strongly disagree–Strongly agree). The test majors two factors, other-oriented empathy and helpfulness. The coefficient of alpha and test-retest reliability of the scale is 0.64–0.77, respectively, showing satisfactory reliability. For validity, the scale has been correlated with various correlates such as the social desirability scale, and cognitive, affective, and behavioral tests. It was found that the factors involved are a good predictor of prosocial behavior.[10]
Psychological well-being scale (PWB)
Psychological well-being is measured with the help of the PWB. It is a self-report measure that consists of 42 items. This is the Likert scale. It includes six dimensions. Test-retest coefficient ranged from 0.81 to 0.85 which shows good reliability of the scale. To assess the validity each of these dimensions was correlated with several existing measures of psychological well-being. The scale showed good validity in each dimension.[11]
Positive and negative affect scale short form (PANAS SF)
Positive and negative affects in the present study were measured with the help of the (PANAS-SF) form, which is a shortened version of the original PANAS. It is a 20-item scale that includes 10 positive and 10 negative adjectives for mood. Participants have to indicate their responses on a Likert scale. The alpha reliabilities are ranging from. 86 to. 90 for PA and from. 84 to. 87 for NA. Both positive and negative scales have outstanding convergent and discriminant relationships with longer methods of the basic mood factors.[12]
Procedure
For the data collection, the snowball sampling method was used, in which Google forms were formed by the researcher. This form was forwarded to the people with the help of social media such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram. A criterion for inclusion which is the age range 19–25 and Locality Pune was mentioned in the form and participants forwarded these forms to one another based on the criteria. Also, the incidental method of sampling was used in which the researcher collected the responses individually from the students who were present at the college campus on that particular day.
Statistical analysis
To analyze the data statistical software SPSS 16 (IBM, Armonk, USA) was used. To test the normality of the distribution Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is used to test whether the obtained distribution is a normal distribution or not. The one sample K-S test for the sample of 80 indicated that the scores on prosocial behavior, psychological well-being, and positive and negative affect follow the normal distribution curve, and hence the Pearson product moment-correlation method was used to see the correlation of the variables involved in the study.
RESULTS
Descriptive analysis
Table 1 indicates that in Prosocial Behavior the mean is 99.98 and the standard deviation (SD) is 9.69. The minimum score a person gets is 81, while the maximum score is 126. The average score of the sample is the grade of average. On psychological well-being, the mean is 171.52 and the SD is 21.25. The lowest score a person gets is 104, while the extreme score is 226. The average score of the sample is on the grade of average. On positive affect mean is 36.57 and the SD is 6.15. The lowest score a person gets is 21, while the extreme score is 49. The average score of the sample is on the grade High. On the negative affect, the mean is 24.82 and the SD is 7.0885. The minimum score is 12, while the maximum score is 44. The average score of the sample is on the grade average. The skewed distribution is positive in the sample for Prosocial behavior, positive affect, and negative affect. In the sample skewed distribution is negative for psychological well-being, Kurtosis distribution is positive (leptokurtic) for Prosocial behavior, and Psychological well-being and negative for positive affect and negative affect.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of scores on the prosocial behavior scale, PWB, and positive and negative affect scale (n=80)
| Variables | Min | Max | M | SD | Grade | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prosocial Behavior | 81.0 | 126.0 | 99.988 | 9.6960 | Average | 0.310 | 0.072 |
| Psychological Well-being | 104.0 | 226.0 | 171.525 | 21.2555 | Average | −.248 | 0.585 |
| Positive Affect | 21.0 | 49.0 | 36.575 | 6.1557 | High | 0.171 | −.451 |
| Negative Affect | 12.0 | 44.0 | 24.825 | 7.0885 | Average | 0.301 | −.223 |
Inferential analysis
A positive correlation was found between prosocial behavior and psychological well-being (0.396 which is significant at 0.01 level). A positive correlation was also observed between prosocial behavior and positive affect (0.274 which is significant at 0.01 level). A negative correlation was found between prosocial behavior and negative affect (−0.191 which is significant at 0.05 level).
DISCUSSION
According to the results presented in Table 2, positive correlation has been found between prosocial behavior and psychological well-being. This proves that engaging in prosocial behavior can lead to increased psychological well-being. Some studies have found a positive correlation between prosocial behavior and well-being.[13] Prosocial behavior is positively correlated with positive indicators of psychological well-being and is not significantly related to negative outcomes.[14] It was also noted that helping other people is connected with a higher level of mental health.[15]
Table 2.
Pearson product moment-correlation of the variables in the study (n=80)
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prosocial Behavior | - | |||
| Psychological Well-being | 0.396** | - | ||
| Positive Affect | 0.274** | 0.415** | - | |
| Negative Affect | −.191* | −.354** | −.308** | - |
*significant at the 0.05 level. ** significant at the 0.01 level
A significant correlation between Prosocial behavior and Positive affect was proved in the present study. This concludes that indulging in prosocial or helping behavior can help a person experience positive emotions. Prosocial behavior and positive affect reinforce each other in daily life.[9] Positive affect can be increased in socially anxious people with the help of prosocial behavior.[8] Altruistic activities are a predictor of positive affect.[16]
A negative correlation between Prosocial behavior and negative affect has been found significant and partially accepted at a 0.05 level of significance in the present study. Prosocial behavior reduces but does not fully eliminate the negative affect on daily functioning.[17] Altruistic activities are a predictor of positive affect but not negative affect.[16] Among these researches one research supports the hypothesis while other research does not support the hypothesis, this can be because the group of a sample of the present research is different from the sample of the previous research also the tools used are different. Thus this research gives a different knowledge and understanding of the relationship between prosocial behavior and negative affect.
Limitations
The sample size was very small. The sample was taken by incidental and snowball sampling, not by random sampling method. The gender difference was not considered in the present research.
CONCLUSION
The current study proved a significant relationship between Prosocial behavior and Psychological well-being as well as positive affect. In addition, there was a negative relationship between prosocial behavior and negative affect.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Eisenberg N, editor, editor. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1982. The Development of Prosocial Behavior. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Eisenberg N, Fabes RA. Prosocial development. In: Damon W, , Eisenberg N, , editors. Handbook of Child Psychology. 5th. Vol. 3. New York, NY: Wiley; 1998. pp. 701–78. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Darley JM, Latane B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1968;8:377–83. doi: 10.1037/h0025589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rushton JP. Evaluating research eminence in psychology: The construct validity of citation counts. Bull Bri Psychol Soc. 1984;37:33–6. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bierhoff HW, Klein R, Kramp P. Evidence for the altruistic personality from data on accident research. J Pers. 1991;59:263–80. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ashwini UR, Indumathy J. Altruism and general well-being among adults. Int J Res Soc Sci. 2018;8:528–40. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Vinothkumar M. Adolescence psychological well-being about spirituality and pro-social behavior. Indian J Posit Psychol. 2015;6:361–6. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Alden LE, Trew JL. If it makes you happy: Engaging in kind acts increases positive affect in socially anxious individuals. Emotion. 2013;13:64–75. doi: 10.1037/a0027761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Snippe E, Jeronimus BF, Aan Het Rot M, Bos EH, de Jonge P, Wichers M. The reciprocity of prosocial behavior and positive affect in daily life. J Pers. 2018;86:139–46. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Penner LA, Fritzsche BA, Craiger JP, Freifeld TR. Measuring the prosocial personality. Adv Pers Assess. 1995;10:147–63. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57:1069. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:1063. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lauri MA, Calleja SS. Prosocial behavior and psychological well-being. In: Vella S, , Falzon R, Azzopardi A, , editors. Perspectives on Wellbeing. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill; 2019. pp. 46–62. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kahana E, Bhatta T, Lovegreen LD, Kahana B, Midlarsky E. Altruism, helping, and volunteering: Pathways to well-being in late life. J Aging Health. 2013;25:159–87. doi: 10.1177/0898264312469665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Schwartz C, Meisenhelder JB, Ma Y, Reed G. Altruistic social interest behaviors are associated with better mental health. Psychosom Med. 2013;65:778–85. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000079378.39062.d4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Dulin PL, Hill RD. Relationships between altruistic activity and positive and negative affect among low-income older adult service providers. Aging Ment Health. 2003;7:294–9. doi: 10.1080/1360786031000120697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Raposa EB, Laws HB, Ansell EB. Prosocial behavior mitigates the negative effects of stress in everyday life. Clin Psychol Sci. 2016;4:691–8. doi: 10.1177/2167702615611073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]