- Email: [email protected]
Dimensionality in adolescent prosocial tendencies: Individual differences in serving others versus serving the self
Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Dimensionality in adolescent prosocial tendencies: Individual differences in serving others versus serving the self Mary B. Eberly-Lewis ⇑, Taryn M. Coetzee 1 Oakland University, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 2 November 2014 Received in revised form 23 February 2015 Accepted 24 February 2015 Available online 13 March 2015 Keywords: Adolescents Prosocial behavior Empathy Need for approval Narcissism
a b s t r a c t The purpose of the present research was to determine whether adolescents prosocial tendencies can be distinguished by serving others versus serving the self, and, further, to support that distinction through their associations with empathic (empathic concern, perspective taking, personal distress) versus egoistic traits (need for approval, narcissism, psychopathy). Empathy was hypothesized to be linked to interpersonal and high-cost prosocial contexts, whereas egoistic traits were hypothesized to be linked to contexts offering self-aggrandizement. High school students (n = 272; 15–18 years) completed questionnaires online. Results revealed that empathy and concerns about others’ approval associated positively with emotional responsivity, dire, compliancy, and anonymous prosocial tendencies. Concerns about approval also predicted public and opportunistic tendencies. Egoistic traits related to adolescents’ public and opportunistic prosocial behavior. Findings demonstrate an individual difference by context variation, supporting the multidimensionality of prosocial behavior and its underlying motives. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Recent research on adolescent prosocial behavior – voluntary behavior intended to benefit another (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006) – recognizes prosocial behavior as multidimensional rather than unidimensional (Carlo & Randall, 2001, 2002; Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014). Thus, individual differences predicting prosocial tendencies should vary by the underlying dimensional nature of the prosocial tendency. Some proclivities to act prosocially might be driven by a focus on others’ plights through empathic experiences (Batson & Shaw, 1991). Other prosocial situations highlight self-enhancement (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003; Carlo & Randall, 2001), such that concern about obtaining others’ approval, narcissism, and psychopathy are linked to acting prosocially. Understanding this distinction may elucidate why youth are more or less prosocial or why they might act prosocially in some situations but not in others. The purpose of the present research was to determine whether underlying dimensions in adolescents’ tendencies to act prosocially can be distinguished as
⇑ Corresponding author at: Oakland University, Department of Psychology, 208 Pryale House, Rochester Hills, MI 48309-4401, USA. Tel.: +1 1 (248) 370 2314. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.B. Eberly-Lewis), [email protected] (T.M. Coetzee). 1 Present address: Michigan State University, Schools of Human Resources and Labor Relations, South Kedzie Hall, 368 Farm Lane, Room S403, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.032 0191-8869/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
opportunities to serve others or serve the self, and to further support that distinction through associations with other-oriented versus egoistic individual differences. Adolescents encounter a variety of situations in which they have opportunities to act prosocially (Carlo, 2006; Carlo et al., 2003). They show gradual improvements in empathy-related abilities, such as, empathic concern, especially for boys (van der Graff et al., 2014), perspective-taking (Miklikowska, Duriez, & Soenens, 2011; van der Graff et al., 2014), and mitigation of personal distress, (Kanacri, Pastorelli, Eisenberg, Zuffianò, & Caprara, 2013). Adolescents highly value peer evaluations and acceptance (Brown & Larson, 2009), heightening self-consciousness and selffocus often witnessed in pretentious self-concern – qualities akin to narcissism (Barry & Kauten, 2014). Narcissism often is linked with psychopathic qualities, such as callousness, impulsivity, and manipulativeness. These traits may prompt some youth to view prosocial contexts as opportunistic situations for self-aggrandizement and validating their superiority over others (Krauten & Barry, 2014; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Taken together, empathy, approval needs, and narcissism provide a basis for distinguishing among tendencies for prosocial behavior. 1.1. Predictors of different prosocial behavior tendencies Empathy is a cognitive and affective response in relation to another’s emotional state or circumstance (Eisenberg et al., 2006). It is founded on perspective taking, that is, the ability to
2
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
perceive a situation from another’s viewpoint, and empathic concern, defined as an affective reaction where individuals feel ‘‘sympathy and concern for unfortunate others’’ (Davis, 1983, p. 114). Together, they facilitate prosocial behavior with the goal of benefitting or reducing others’ distress without expectations for reward (Batson & Shaw, 1991; Carlo, 2006). Empathic concern and perspective-taking are fundamental in other-oriented prosocial tendencies. Personal distress is another empathic response where the actor is emotionally or empathically overwhelmed. It tends to be inversely related or unrelated to prosocial responding in youth (Eisenberg et al., 2006). With age, adolescents are able to mitigate distress, allowing them to act rather than avoid helping (Miklikowska et al., 2011). In the present research, we expected that empathy and perspective-taking would be linked positively to prosocial tendencies that serve others, such as emotional responsiveness, anonymous acts, emergency intervention, and compliancy. Personal distress was hypothesized to be inversely related or unrelated. For prosocial opportunities that are selfserving, empathy, perspective-taking, and personal distress were not expected to be linked. In contrast to empathy, which requires an other-directed focus, adolescents also are viewed as egocentric. Youth tend to have heightened concerns about the opinions of others for feelings of self worth, especially peers (Brown & Larson, 2009; Rudolf, Caldwell, & Conley, 2005). Behaving prosocially can be an impression management strategy to gain approval or avoid disapproval (Carlo et al., 2003; Rudolf et al., 2005). We speculated that adolescents who were more concerned about disapproval would tend to act prosocially in contexts where they are in direct contact with a beneficiary; that is, where feedback is immediate, inaction would violate norms, or peer rejection is possible. In comparison, youth who focused on gaining positive approval would be more likely to behave prosocially in public and feel entitled to such recognition. Focus on peer approval is normative in adolescence as it reflects a desire to act in socially desirable ways that reward and maintain positive interactions (Brown & Larson, 2009; Rudolf et al., 2005). Over-reliance, however, is consistent with an individual difference perspective of narcissism (Barry & Kauten, 2014; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Thomaes, Bushman, De Castro, & Stegge, 2009). According to this perspective, narcissistic tendencies reflect a dynamic self-regulatory process where individuals organize their social environment to maintain ostentatious and idealized self-views. Individuals reporting higher narcissism engage in selfenhancement strategies to maintain self-importance, superiority, entitlement, and power (Gebauer, Sedikides, Verpanken, & Maio, 2012). Narcissistic individuals believe they are more deserving than others and become caught in a perpetual cycle of seeking recognition, admiration, and self-affirmation (Morf, Horvath, & Torchetti, 2011). Tactics might include being callous, manipulative, and impulsive in order to ensure their ‘‘top dog’’ self-view. Engaging in prosocial behavior in particular contexts may offer strategic opportunities for narcissistic adolescents to enhance specialness beyond normative concerns about peer approval. In the present study, narcissism and psychopathy were expected to predict prosocial tendencies in contexts that were opportunistic and self-promoting. 1.2. Summary of hypotheses We investigated whether patterns of personality qualities would be linked in different ways to adolescents’ prosocial tendencies. Specifically, (H1) Prosocial tendencies was expected to factor into two dimensions – those that serve others and those that serve the self; (H2) empathy and perspective-taking were hypothesized to link positively to other-serving tendencies, but would be
inversely or unassociated with prosocial tendencies that procure self-benefit. Links with personal distress were not hypothesized given extant research. (H3) Avoidance of disapproval was expected to be linked to prosocial tendencies in which disappointing others was immediate and possible, and need for approval was hypothesized to be related positively to self-oriented prosocial proclivities. (H4) Narcissistic tendencies were hypothesized to be linked positively with self-serving prosocial tendencies. Narcissism and psychopathic traits, however, were not expected to be related to prosocial behaviors in contexts that serve others. 2. Method 2.1. Participants High school students (n = 132 males, n = 184 females) equally distributed across the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades completed questionnaires in-class and via a secure website. Of the in-classroom participants (n = 316), 272 adolescents (MAge = 16.27 years; 62% female) completed the online questionnaires used in the present study. The sample was recruited from one high school in a suburban area of the Midwest. Most participants were European American (87%) and from intact families (81%). Approximately 64% of mothers and 73% of fathers had earned college and/or professional degrees; median family annual income category was $110–$120K. 2.2. Procedure Data were collected in two parts. First, in a classroom setting, students completed demographic information and one survey, after which they were given an instruction sheet with a unique identification number and login information to a secure survey website. Second, they were asked to complete surveys online within 2 weeks. Extra credit was provided for participation. 2.3. Measures 2.3.1. Prosocial behavior Participants’ prosocial behavior was measured using the 23item Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM; Carlo & Randall, 2002) consisting of six subscales, each assessing different prosocial tendencies: emotional responsivity – 4 items (‘‘It makes me feel good when I can comfort someone who is very upset.’’), dire – 3 items (‘‘I tend to help people who are in a real crisis or need.’’), compliant – 2 items (‘‘When people ask me to help them, I don’t hesitate.’’); anonymous – 5 items (‘‘I tend to help needy others most when they do not know who helped them.’’), public – 4 items (‘‘I can help others best when people are watching me.’’), and altruism (5 – items). Items for the altruism scale were scored in a direction reflecting ‘opportunistic’ tendencies (‘‘I think that one of the best things about helping others is that it makes me look good’’). In several studies, psychometric evaluation of the PTM has shown that six factors best represent its structure. The PTM has demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity (McGinley, Opal, Richaud, & Mesurado, 2014). Participants indicated the degree to which each item was like him/her, where ‘‘1 = not at all like me’’ through ‘‘5 = just like me.’’ Higher mean scores represent higher prosociality. 2.3.2. Empathy The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) assessed trait-like empathy. Three of the IRI subscales were used in the current study: empathic concern (‘‘I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me’’), perspective-taking
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
(‘‘I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective’’), and personal distress (‘‘In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease’’). Participants responded to 21 items (7 items per subscale) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘1 = does not describe me well’’ to ‘‘5 = describes me very well.’’ Higher mean scores represented higher levels of empathic concern, personal distress, and perspective taking. 2.3.3. Need for approval The Need for Approval Questionnaire (Rudolf et al., 2005) is an 8-item measure used to determine the extent to which children and adolescents base their self-views on peers’ approval or disapproval. Specifically, need for approval (4 items) measures individuals’ positive self-views based on peer approval (eg., ‘‘I feel like a good person when other kids like me.’’) whereas the concern about disapproval (4 items) measures individuals’ negative self-views founded on peer disapproval (‘‘I feel like I am a bad person when other kids don’t like me.’’). Participants rated items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = ‘‘Not at All’’ to 5 = ‘‘Very Much.’’ In its development (Rudolf et al., 2005), confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor latent structure with each factor demonstrating adequate internal consistency. Discriminant and construct validity analyses also supported the two dimensions. Higher scores represented greater approval concerns. 2.3.4. Narcissism and psychopathy Narcissistic qualities were examined using two scales: The Childhood Narcissism Scale (CNS: Thomaes, Stegge, Bushman, Olthof, & Denissen, 2008) and the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory – Short Form (YPTI-SF; van Baardewijk et al., 2010). The CNS is comprised of 10 items assessing the degree to which youth endorse a grandiose, entitled self (‘‘I am a great example for other kids to follow’’). It employs a rating scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘not at all true’’ to 4 = ‘‘completely true.’’ The CNS was cross-validated in two studies supporting a single factor structure, and it showed acceptable test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity (Thomaes et al., 2008). Higher mean scores represent greater endorsement of narcissism. The YPTI-SF assesses impulsivity (‘‘It often happens that I talk first and think later’’; 6 items), callousness (‘‘To feel guilty and remorseful about things you have done that have hurt other people is a sign of weakness’’; 6 items), and manipulativeness (‘‘When I need to, I use my smile and my charm to use others’’; 6 items). Similar to the long-form (van Baardewijk, Stegge, Andershed, Thomaes, Scholte, & Vermeiren, 2008), the short-form also was best represented by a three factor model (van Baardewijk et al., 2010). Psychometrically, the short-from YPI had acceptable internal reliability, concurrent validity with the longform YPI, and construct validity. Participants rated each item on a scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘does not apply’’ to 4 = ‘‘applies very well.’’ Higher mean scores represent construct endorsement. 3. Results 3.1. Plan of analyses First, to determine whether the six prosocial tendencies would factor into two dimensions (H1), a second order components analyses with an orthogonal rotation (Verimax) was used. Second, bivariate correlational analyses were calculated to examine patterns of relationships among individual differences as well as in relation to prosocial tendencies (H2, H3, H4). Third, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to determine the degree to which specific forms of empathy (Step 1), concern about approval (Step 2), and narcissistic inclinations (Step 3) accounted
3
for unique variance in adolescents’ prosocial tendencies (H2, H3, H4) controlling for variability in previous steps, respectively.
3.2. Components analysis Results of the components analysis for the PTM subscales revealed a two-factor solution accounting for 62.33% of the variance. Subscales had eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Factor 1 (36.7% of variance) included those tendencies soliciting a focus on others’ experiences, namely, Dire (.84), Emotional Responsivity (.82), Compliant (.74), and Anonymous (.48); Opportunistic and Public had loadings less than .15. Factor 2 (25.6% of variance) consisted of self-oriented contexts: Opportunistic (.87) and Public (.86); Dire, Emotional Responsivity, Compliant, and Anonymous loaded less than .10.
3.3. Correlational analyses Correlation coefficients among prosocial tendencies and measures of interpersonal responsiveness, concerns about approval, and narcissistic tendencies are presented in Table 1. Generally, emotional responsivity, dire, and compliance were linked positively to empathic qualities and approval concerns but were not linked with narcissism and psychopathy. Anonymous prosocial behavior was linked only to perspective taking. Public and opportunistic prosocial tendencies were linked negatively to empathy but positively with narcissism and psychopathy. In addition, empathic concern and perspective-taking were positively related, and approval concerns, narcissism, and psychopathy also were positively correlated. Inverse relationships were revealed between empathy constructs and narcissistic qualities (including psychopathy).
3.4. Hierarchical regression analyses Table 2 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses, with the exception of results for anonymous prosocial behavior – perspective-taking exclusively accounted for variance b = .31, Model R2 = .11, F(10, 253) = 3.04, p < .05. Overall, for emotional responsivity, dire, and compliance, empathy (that is, empathic concern, perspective-taking, and personal distress) accounted for variance in Step 1. Approval needs accounted for additional variance in Step 2. Importantly, qualities associated with narcissism did not. Upon closer examination of the semi-partial correlations in Step 1, empathic concern and perspective taking each contributed unique variance to all three prosocial tendencies. Personal distress contributed unique variance in dire. In Step 2, need for approval was positively related to dire and compliance, whereas concerns about disapproval was linked to emotional responsivity and dire tendencies. For public and opportunistic prosocial tendencies, each step in the hierarchical regressions added significant variance to the overall model. Within Step 1, the less adolescents felt empathic concern for others, the more likely they were to report public and opportunistic behavior. Personal distress also accounted for unique variance in opportunistic situations; the more youth experienced distress, the more likely they were opportunistic. Step 2 revealed that the higher scores on public and opportunistic tendencies associated with approval from others. Concerns about disapproval accounted for significant variance only in opportunistic tendencies. In Step 3, being narcissistic and impulsive predicted public prosocial tendencies, whereas narcissism and callousness predicted opportunistic inclinations.
4
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
Table 1 Correlations among prosocial tendencies, empathy, needs for approval, and narcissistic traits.
* ** ***
Measures
1
2
3
1. Emotional responsivity 2. Dire 3. Compliant 4. Anonymous 5. Public 6. Opportunistic 7. Empathic concern 8. Perspective taking 9. Personal distress 10 Need for approval 11. Concern for disapproval 12. Narcissism 13. Impulsivity 14. Callous 15. Manipulativeness Mean SD Cronbach a
.61*** .48*** .17** .14* .07 .42*** .32*** .03 .26*** .25*** .04 .10 .19** .01 3.61 .80 .74
.44*** .33*** .15* .02 .28*** .24*** .16** .19** .14* .10 .01 .00 .11 3.52 .81 .70
.22*** .05 .10 .48*** .31*** .02 .22*** .09 .09 .06 .14* .00 3.94 .86 .79
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.22*** .32*** .01 .31*** .11 .07 2.71 .74 .74
.50*** .25*** .25*** .06 .16** 3.71 .89 .85
.15* .27*** .14* .10 2.49 1.10 .88
.19** .32*** .57*** 2.25 .60 .84
.20*** .32*** 2.14 .60 .71
.53*** 1.78 .67 .78
2.17 .75 .82
.03 .04 .08 .28*** .01 .03 .04 .02 .06 .06 .03 3.07 .78 .83
.53*** .22*** .11 .01 .28*** .23*** .44*** .23*** .31*** .37*** 2.34 .89 .83
.35*** .24*** .13* .27*** .31*** .48*** .28*** .44*** .43*** 2.37 .83 .77
.44*** .12 .11 .01 .12* .00 .54*** .18** 3.81 .66 .78
.09 .04 .04 .06 .29*** .23*** .18** 3.32 .72 .74
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
Table 2 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting prosocial tendencies from empathic concern, narcissism, psychopathy, and concern about approval. Predictor variables
1. Control variables Gender 2. Interpersonal responsivity Empathic concern Perspective-taking Personal distress 3. Concern about approval Approval Disapproval 4. Narcissism & psychopathy Narcissism Impulsivity Callousness Manipulativeness Total R2 Model F Model df * ** ***
Emotional responsivity
Dire
DR 2
b
DR2
.04 .17⁄⁄⁄
.20
.00 .13⁄⁄⁄
.31*** .18** .02 .08**
b .01
.07⁄⁄⁄
.01
b
DR2
.02⁄ .23⁄⁄⁄
.14*
.03⁄⁄ .04⁄
.43*** .13* .06 .04⁄⁄⁄
.15* .17* .02
.03 .10 .06 .02
Public
DR2
.32⁄⁄⁄ .13⁄ .17**
.12 .23***
.30⁄⁄⁄ 10.74 (10, 253)
Compliant
.01 .16⁄⁄⁄
.10
.09⁄⁄⁄
.13⁄⁄⁄
.17* .17⁄⁄⁄
.27*** .12* .01 .11 .30⁄⁄⁄ 11.00 (10, 253)
b
.32*** .10 .19**
.20*** .12
.09 .06 .12 .06 .31⁄⁄⁄ 11.11 (10, 253)
.16**
.11⁄⁄⁄
.02
.22⁄⁄⁄ 7.02 (10, 253)
DR2
b
.18** .02 .05
.18** .04
.02 .12 .91 .07
Opportunistic
.30*** .06 .13* .10 .43⁄⁄⁄ 19.38 (10, 253)
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
4. Discussion In the present study, our objective was to show that dimensionality in adolescents’ prosocial tendencies would be supported through patterned associations with empathic versus egoistic individual differences. Results revealed that adolescents’ prosocial tendencies fell into two domains – serving others, where youth apprehend the needs of beneficiaries – and self-serving propensities where youth might gain personal benefit. Further evidence for these dimensions emerged in the patterns of association with personality traits. Empathy was positively associated with tendencies toward serving others and inversely linked with self-benefitting tendencies. Adolescents’ need for approval was linked positively to both types of prosocial inclinations. Narcissism and psychopathic qualities were linked positively to public and opportunistic prosocial behavior, but unrelated to other-serving tendencies. The first hypothesis (H1) proposing that adolescents’ prosocial tendencies would be distinguished by a focus on the beneficiary, namely, other versus self – was supported by the components
analysis (Carlo & Randall, 2002). Consistent with prior work (See McGinley et al., 2014), four of the subscales, namely, Emotional Responsivity, Dire, Compliant, and Anonymous loaded highly on one factor. Whereas the subscales were originally interpreted to represent situations (McGinley et al., 2014), we contend that they also represent service to others, that is, focusing on beneficiaries’ needs and circumstances. The second factor was comprised of the ‘‘public’’ and ‘‘opportunistic’’ subscales and represented selfbenefitting opportunities and attitudes. Historically, associations resulting from the use of the ‘‘altruism’’ subscale and variables of interest were inconsistent (McGinley et al., 2014). In part, the inconsistency may be psychometric. The suggested scoring of the scale requires that all ‘‘altruism’’ items are reversed (Carlo & Randall, 2002). Whether the antithesis of doing something prosocial to ‘‘look good’’ or ‘‘get some benefit’’ truly represents altruism (selfless and costly acts to benefit another) is unclear. Thus, we chose to score the ‘‘altruism’’ items in the direction that they were worded and labeled the subscale as ‘‘opportunistic.’’ Finding that the ‘‘opportunistic’’ subscale loaded highly with ‘‘public’’ and that
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
the two subscales were highly correlated (r = .53) indicated that our scoring approach was suitable and may offer an alternative approach for future research. The next set of hypotheses addressed whether patterns of individual differences would corroborate the other versus self serving distinction (H2, H3, H4); these expectations were confirmed in the present study. First, empathy, in general, was positively related to other-serving tendencies and inversely related to self-serving tendencies supporting our second hypothesis. As the only correlate of anonymous prosocial behavior, perspective-taking implies that adolescents must to be able to perceive the needs of beneficiaries and the means by which needs are alleviated in order to take action, thereby demonstrating a ‘‘match’’ between social cognitive skills and the nature of the prosocial behavior (Carlo, Knight, McGinley, Goodvin, & Roesch, 2010). Empathic concern and perspective-taking were linked uniquely and positively to responding to another’s emotional distress, helping in dire situations, and complying with another’s request. The correlations between empathic concern and emotional responsivity (r = .42) and compliance (r = .48) are particularly noteworthy. Adolescents in direct contact would more directly witness another’s emotional distress or circumstance, eliciting other-focused, empathically concerned and personally responsible behavior (Carlo et al., 2003). In the case of helping in an emergency situation, adolescents’ ability to mitigate feelings of personal distress, in addition to reporting empathic concern and perspective-taking abilities, allow them to set aside personal concerns and focus on helping in those situations (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Other-focused prosocial contexts highlight the dual role of perspective-taking and empathic-concern. As predicted (H2), empathic concern was inversely related to public and opportunistic prosocial tendencies. The bivariate analyses revealed moderately strong inverse relationships between empathic concern and opportunistic prosocial tendencies in addition to less perspective taking and heightened personal distress. Youth high in narcissistic traits tend to be unconcerned about others’ experiences; they strive less for intimacy and more for admiration (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Thomaes et al., 2009). These results affirm the idea that what appears to be prosocial can also be hedonistically strategic with little or no other-focused motives. Third, we hypothesized that concerns about disapproval would be linked to tendencies toward serving others, while a focus on gaining approval would be linked with self-serving opportunities (H3). Although correlation coefficients were less than .30, concerns about disapproval and approval were linked to emotional responsivity, dire, public, and opportunistic prosocial tendencies, with concerns of disapproval uniquely associated with other-serving tendencies and need for approval related to self-serving tendencies in the regression analyses. Taken together, these findings suggest that adolescents are concerned about peers’ evaluations when acting prosocially. Some prosocial tendencies that are motivated by approval also may be influenced by social mores and serve purposes for maintaining relationships (Amato, 1990; Eisenberg et al., 2006). Given the significance of peer acceptance and impression management in mid-adolescence (Brown & Larson, 2009), the motivation to avoid disapproval or gain approval might enhance prosocial tendencies. Alternatively, the narcissism dynamic selfregulatory model would propose that narcissistic youth would be attuned to and reliant on the adoration of others’ approval. Future research is warranted that would examine more closely needs for approval as correlates of prosocial behavior. Consistent with the fourth hypothesis (H4), narcissistic tendencies were linked with public and opportunistic prosocial behavior but not with other-serving tendencies. These results were consonant with the self-regulatory model of narcissism (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Behaving prosocially in public, which has the potential for an admiring audience can enhance one’s self image
5
(Carlo & Randall, 2001, 2002; Krauten & Barry, 2014), and it offers strategic management of others’ impressions leading to deceiving ‘‘the self into seeing its own grandiosity’’ (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001, pg. 183). In fact, the bivariate analyses showed that narcissism was most strongly linked to public (r = .44) and opportunistic (r = .48) tendencies. Moreover, opportunistic youth also endorsed being more manipulative (r = .43) and callous (r = .44). Such moderately strong patterns of individual differences demonstrate that prosocial behavior can be utilized as a way to obligate others and ‘‘look good’’ for one’s own self gain. Several limitations of the present study must be acknowledged. First, the study design was cross-sectional and single informant which is vulnerable to method variance. Longitudinal research employing multiple informants would be beneficial to determine whether personality qualities are associated with corresponding change in prosocial tendencies over time. Second, generalizability must also be cautioned as the sample was comprised of affluent, Western European adolescents. Third, the Childhood Narcissism Scale (Thomaes et al., 2008) is unidimensional and taps grandiosity and entitlement. Future research employ a multifaceted measure of narcissism assesses sub-types (grandiose, vulnerable, and autonomous/non-pathological). If autonomous or non-pathological narcissistic tendencies bolster adolescents as they negotiate their ontogenetic challenges, future research needs to examine more thoroughly the mechanisms by which it may support prosocial engagement, undermine such activities, or are used as interpersonal strategies toward fulfilling hedonistic needs. 5. Conclusions Encouraging prosocial behavior in adolescents is desirable given its benefits for youth and for the society at large (Carlo, 2006). In the present study, dimensionality in adolescents’ prosocial tendencies was represented by serving others or the self. The way in which empathic characteristics and narcissistic qualities were linked confirmed this delineation. Need for approval and avoidance of disapproval were associated with adolescent prosocial tendencies, but the emergent patterns were not as clear cut. Still, given the ontogenetic period, examining the ways in which need for approval is linked with adolescent prosocial tendencies is worthy of future consideration. Recognizing that adolescent prosocial behavior is multidimensional and is associated with particular personality traits suggest that prosocial socialization requires a more nuanced and individualistic approach. Adolescents, based on their individual differences, respond to different inducements in developing their prosocial repertoire. References Amato, P. R. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 31–43. Barry, C. T., & Kauten, R. L. (2014). Nonpathological and pathological narcissism: Which self-reported characteristics are most problematic in adolescents? Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 212–219. Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–122. Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed.. Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed.) (vol. 2, pp. 74–103). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Carlo, G. (2006). Care-based and altruistically based morality. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 551–579). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107–134. Carlo, G., Knight, G. P., McGinley, M., Goodvin, R., & Roesch, S. C. (2010). The developmental relations between perspective taking and prosocial behaviors: A meta-analytic examination of the task-specificity hypothesis. In B. W. Sokol, U. Müller, J. I. Carpenter, A. R. Young, & G. Iarocci (Eds.), Self and social regulation:
6
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
Social interaction and the development of social understanding and executive functions (pp. 234–269). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2001). Are all prosocial behaviors equal? A socioecological developmental conception of prosocial behavior. In F. Columbus (Ed.). Advances in psychology research (vol. III, pp. 151–170). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31–44. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.) (vol. 3, pp. 6460718). New York, NY: Wiley. Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Verpanken, B., & Maio, G. R. (2012). Communal narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 854–878. Kanacri, B. P. L., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Zuffianò, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2013). The development of prosociality from adolescence to early adulthood: The role of effortful control. Journal of Personality, 81, 302–312. Krauten, R., & Barry, C. T. (2014). Do you think I’m as kind as I do? The relation of adolescent narcissism with self- and peer-perceptions of prosocial and aggressive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 61–62, 69–73. McGinley, M., Opal, D., Richaud, M. C., & Mesurado, B. (2014). Cross-cultural evidence of multidimensional prosocial behaviors: An examination of the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM). In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Miklikowska, M., Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2011). Family roots of empathy-related characteristics: The role of perceived maternal and paternal need support in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1342–1352.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. Morf, C. C., Horvath, S., & Torchetti, L. (2011). Narcissistic self-enhancement: Tales of (successful?) self-portrayal. In M. D. Alicke & C. Sedikides (Eds.), Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 399–424). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2014). The study of prosocial behavior: Past, present, and future. In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rudolf, K. D., Caldwell, M. S., & Conley, C. S. (2005). Need for approval and children’s well-being. Child Development, 76, 309–323. Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., De Castro, B. O., & Stegge, H. (2009). What makes narcissists bloom? A framework for research on the etiology and development of narcissism. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1233–1247. Thomaes, S., Stegge, H., Bushman, B. J., Olthof, T., & Denissen, J. (2008). Development and validation of the childhood narcissism scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 382–391. van Baardewijk, Y., Andershed, H., Stegge, H., Nilsson, K. W., Scholte, E., & Vermeiren, R. (2010). Development and tests of short versions of the youth psychopathic traits inventory and the youth psychopathic traits inventory-child version. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 122–128. van Baardewijk, Y., Stegge, H., Andershed, H., Thomaes, S., Scholte, E., & Vermeiren, R. (2008). Measuring psychopathic traits in children through self-report. the development of the youth psychopathic traits inventory – child version. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 199–209. van der Graff, J., Branje, S., De Wied, M., Hawk, S., Van Lier, P., & Meeus, W. (2014). Perspective taking and empathic concern in adolescence: Gender differences in developmental changes. Developmental Psychology, 50, 881–888.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Dimensionality in adolescent prosocial tendencies: Individual differences in serving others versus serving the self Mary B. Eberly-Lewis ⇑, Taryn M. Coetzee 1 Oakland University, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 2 November 2014 Received in revised form 23 February 2015 Accepted 24 February 2015 Available online 13 March 2015 Keywords: Adolescents Prosocial behavior Empathy Need for approval Narcissism
a b s t r a c t The purpose of the present research was to determine whether adolescents prosocial tendencies can be distinguished by serving others versus serving the self, and, further, to support that distinction through their associations with empathic (empathic concern, perspective taking, personal distress) versus egoistic traits (need for approval, narcissism, psychopathy). Empathy was hypothesized to be linked to interpersonal and high-cost prosocial contexts, whereas egoistic traits were hypothesized to be linked to contexts offering self-aggrandizement. High school students (n = 272; 15–18 years) completed questionnaires online. Results revealed that empathy and concerns about others’ approval associated positively with emotional responsivity, dire, compliancy, and anonymous prosocial tendencies. Concerns about approval also predicted public and opportunistic tendencies. Egoistic traits related to adolescents’ public and opportunistic prosocial behavior. Findings demonstrate an individual difference by context variation, supporting the multidimensionality of prosocial behavior and its underlying motives. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Recent research on adolescent prosocial behavior – voluntary behavior intended to benefit another (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006) – recognizes prosocial behavior as multidimensional rather than unidimensional (Carlo & Randall, 2001, 2002; Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014). Thus, individual differences predicting prosocial tendencies should vary by the underlying dimensional nature of the prosocial tendency. Some proclivities to act prosocially might be driven by a focus on others’ plights through empathic experiences (Batson & Shaw, 1991). Other prosocial situations highlight self-enhancement (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003; Carlo & Randall, 2001), such that concern about obtaining others’ approval, narcissism, and psychopathy are linked to acting prosocially. Understanding this distinction may elucidate why youth are more or less prosocial or why they might act prosocially in some situations but not in others. The purpose of the present research was to determine whether underlying dimensions in adolescents’ tendencies to act prosocially can be distinguished as
⇑ Corresponding author at: Oakland University, Department of Psychology, 208 Pryale House, Rochester Hills, MI 48309-4401, USA. Tel.: +1 1 (248) 370 2314. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.B. Eberly-Lewis), [email protected] (T.M. Coetzee). 1 Present address: Michigan State University, Schools of Human Resources and Labor Relations, South Kedzie Hall, 368 Farm Lane, Room S403, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.032 0191-8869/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
opportunities to serve others or serve the self, and to further support that distinction through associations with other-oriented versus egoistic individual differences. Adolescents encounter a variety of situations in which they have opportunities to act prosocially (Carlo, 2006; Carlo et al., 2003). They show gradual improvements in empathy-related abilities, such as, empathic concern, especially for boys (van der Graff et al., 2014), perspective-taking (Miklikowska, Duriez, & Soenens, 2011; van der Graff et al., 2014), and mitigation of personal distress, (Kanacri, Pastorelli, Eisenberg, Zuffianò, & Caprara, 2013). Adolescents highly value peer evaluations and acceptance (Brown & Larson, 2009), heightening self-consciousness and selffocus often witnessed in pretentious self-concern – qualities akin to narcissism (Barry & Kauten, 2014). Narcissism often is linked with psychopathic qualities, such as callousness, impulsivity, and manipulativeness. These traits may prompt some youth to view prosocial contexts as opportunistic situations for self-aggrandizement and validating their superiority over others (Krauten & Barry, 2014; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Taken together, empathy, approval needs, and narcissism provide a basis for distinguishing among tendencies for prosocial behavior. 1.1. Predictors of different prosocial behavior tendencies Empathy is a cognitive and affective response in relation to another’s emotional state or circumstance (Eisenberg et al., 2006). It is founded on perspective taking, that is, the ability to
2
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
perceive a situation from another’s viewpoint, and empathic concern, defined as an affective reaction where individuals feel ‘‘sympathy and concern for unfortunate others’’ (Davis, 1983, p. 114). Together, they facilitate prosocial behavior with the goal of benefitting or reducing others’ distress without expectations for reward (Batson & Shaw, 1991; Carlo, 2006). Empathic concern and perspective-taking are fundamental in other-oriented prosocial tendencies. Personal distress is another empathic response where the actor is emotionally or empathically overwhelmed. It tends to be inversely related or unrelated to prosocial responding in youth (Eisenberg et al., 2006). With age, adolescents are able to mitigate distress, allowing them to act rather than avoid helping (Miklikowska et al., 2011). In the present research, we expected that empathy and perspective-taking would be linked positively to prosocial tendencies that serve others, such as emotional responsiveness, anonymous acts, emergency intervention, and compliancy. Personal distress was hypothesized to be inversely related or unrelated. For prosocial opportunities that are selfserving, empathy, perspective-taking, and personal distress were not expected to be linked. In contrast to empathy, which requires an other-directed focus, adolescents also are viewed as egocentric. Youth tend to have heightened concerns about the opinions of others for feelings of self worth, especially peers (Brown & Larson, 2009; Rudolf, Caldwell, & Conley, 2005). Behaving prosocially can be an impression management strategy to gain approval or avoid disapproval (Carlo et al., 2003; Rudolf et al., 2005). We speculated that adolescents who were more concerned about disapproval would tend to act prosocially in contexts where they are in direct contact with a beneficiary; that is, where feedback is immediate, inaction would violate norms, or peer rejection is possible. In comparison, youth who focused on gaining positive approval would be more likely to behave prosocially in public and feel entitled to such recognition. Focus on peer approval is normative in adolescence as it reflects a desire to act in socially desirable ways that reward and maintain positive interactions (Brown & Larson, 2009; Rudolf et al., 2005). Over-reliance, however, is consistent with an individual difference perspective of narcissism (Barry & Kauten, 2014; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Thomaes, Bushman, De Castro, & Stegge, 2009). According to this perspective, narcissistic tendencies reflect a dynamic self-regulatory process where individuals organize their social environment to maintain ostentatious and idealized self-views. Individuals reporting higher narcissism engage in selfenhancement strategies to maintain self-importance, superiority, entitlement, and power (Gebauer, Sedikides, Verpanken, & Maio, 2012). Narcissistic individuals believe they are more deserving than others and become caught in a perpetual cycle of seeking recognition, admiration, and self-affirmation (Morf, Horvath, & Torchetti, 2011). Tactics might include being callous, manipulative, and impulsive in order to ensure their ‘‘top dog’’ self-view. Engaging in prosocial behavior in particular contexts may offer strategic opportunities for narcissistic adolescents to enhance specialness beyond normative concerns about peer approval. In the present study, narcissism and psychopathy were expected to predict prosocial tendencies in contexts that were opportunistic and self-promoting. 1.2. Summary of hypotheses We investigated whether patterns of personality qualities would be linked in different ways to adolescents’ prosocial tendencies. Specifically, (H1) Prosocial tendencies was expected to factor into two dimensions – those that serve others and those that serve the self; (H2) empathy and perspective-taking were hypothesized to link positively to other-serving tendencies, but would be
inversely or unassociated with prosocial tendencies that procure self-benefit. Links with personal distress were not hypothesized given extant research. (H3) Avoidance of disapproval was expected to be linked to prosocial tendencies in which disappointing others was immediate and possible, and need for approval was hypothesized to be related positively to self-oriented prosocial proclivities. (H4) Narcissistic tendencies were hypothesized to be linked positively with self-serving prosocial tendencies. Narcissism and psychopathic traits, however, were not expected to be related to prosocial behaviors in contexts that serve others. 2. Method 2.1. Participants High school students (n = 132 males, n = 184 females) equally distributed across the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades completed questionnaires in-class and via a secure website. Of the in-classroom participants (n = 316), 272 adolescents (MAge = 16.27 years; 62% female) completed the online questionnaires used in the present study. The sample was recruited from one high school in a suburban area of the Midwest. Most participants were European American (87%) and from intact families (81%). Approximately 64% of mothers and 73% of fathers had earned college and/or professional degrees; median family annual income category was $110–$120K. 2.2. Procedure Data were collected in two parts. First, in a classroom setting, students completed demographic information and one survey, after which they were given an instruction sheet with a unique identification number and login information to a secure survey website. Second, they were asked to complete surveys online within 2 weeks. Extra credit was provided for participation. 2.3. Measures 2.3.1. Prosocial behavior Participants’ prosocial behavior was measured using the 23item Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM; Carlo & Randall, 2002) consisting of six subscales, each assessing different prosocial tendencies: emotional responsivity – 4 items (‘‘It makes me feel good when I can comfort someone who is very upset.’’), dire – 3 items (‘‘I tend to help people who are in a real crisis or need.’’), compliant – 2 items (‘‘When people ask me to help them, I don’t hesitate.’’); anonymous – 5 items (‘‘I tend to help needy others most when they do not know who helped them.’’), public – 4 items (‘‘I can help others best when people are watching me.’’), and altruism (5 – items). Items for the altruism scale were scored in a direction reflecting ‘opportunistic’ tendencies (‘‘I think that one of the best things about helping others is that it makes me look good’’). In several studies, psychometric evaluation of the PTM has shown that six factors best represent its structure. The PTM has demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity (McGinley, Opal, Richaud, & Mesurado, 2014). Participants indicated the degree to which each item was like him/her, where ‘‘1 = not at all like me’’ through ‘‘5 = just like me.’’ Higher mean scores represent higher prosociality. 2.3.2. Empathy The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) assessed trait-like empathy. Three of the IRI subscales were used in the current study: empathic concern (‘‘I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me’’), perspective-taking
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
(‘‘I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective’’), and personal distress (‘‘In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease’’). Participants responded to 21 items (7 items per subscale) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘1 = does not describe me well’’ to ‘‘5 = describes me very well.’’ Higher mean scores represented higher levels of empathic concern, personal distress, and perspective taking. 2.3.3. Need for approval The Need for Approval Questionnaire (Rudolf et al., 2005) is an 8-item measure used to determine the extent to which children and adolescents base their self-views on peers’ approval or disapproval. Specifically, need for approval (4 items) measures individuals’ positive self-views based on peer approval (eg., ‘‘I feel like a good person when other kids like me.’’) whereas the concern about disapproval (4 items) measures individuals’ negative self-views founded on peer disapproval (‘‘I feel like I am a bad person when other kids don’t like me.’’). Participants rated items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = ‘‘Not at All’’ to 5 = ‘‘Very Much.’’ In its development (Rudolf et al., 2005), confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor latent structure with each factor demonstrating adequate internal consistency. Discriminant and construct validity analyses also supported the two dimensions. Higher scores represented greater approval concerns. 2.3.4. Narcissism and psychopathy Narcissistic qualities were examined using two scales: The Childhood Narcissism Scale (CNS: Thomaes, Stegge, Bushman, Olthof, & Denissen, 2008) and the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory – Short Form (YPTI-SF; van Baardewijk et al., 2010). The CNS is comprised of 10 items assessing the degree to which youth endorse a grandiose, entitled self (‘‘I am a great example for other kids to follow’’). It employs a rating scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘not at all true’’ to 4 = ‘‘completely true.’’ The CNS was cross-validated in two studies supporting a single factor structure, and it showed acceptable test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity (Thomaes et al., 2008). Higher mean scores represent greater endorsement of narcissism. The YPTI-SF assesses impulsivity (‘‘It often happens that I talk first and think later’’; 6 items), callousness (‘‘To feel guilty and remorseful about things you have done that have hurt other people is a sign of weakness’’; 6 items), and manipulativeness (‘‘When I need to, I use my smile and my charm to use others’’; 6 items). Similar to the long-form (van Baardewijk, Stegge, Andershed, Thomaes, Scholte, & Vermeiren, 2008), the short-form also was best represented by a three factor model (van Baardewijk et al., 2010). Psychometrically, the short-from YPI had acceptable internal reliability, concurrent validity with the longform YPI, and construct validity. Participants rated each item on a scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘does not apply’’ to 4 = ‘‘applies very well.’’ Higher mean scores represent construct endorsement. 3. Results 3.1. Plan of analyses First, to determine whether the six prosocial tendencies would factor into two dimensions (H1), a second order components analyses with an orthogonal rotation (Verimax) was used. Second, bivariate correlational analyses were calculated to examine patterns of relationships among individual differences as well as in relation to prosocial tendencies (H2, H3, H4). Third, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to determine the degree to which specific forms of empathy (Step 1), concern about approval (Step 2), and narcissistic inclinations (Step 3) accounted
3
for unique variance in adolescents’ prosocial tendencies (H2, H3, H4) controlling for variability in previous steps, respectively.
3.2. Components analysis Results of the components analysis for the PTM subscales revealed a two-factor solution accounting for 62.33% of the variance. Subscales had eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Factor 1 (36.7% of variance) included those tendencies soliciting a focus on others’ experiences, namely, Dire (.84), Emotional Responsivity (.82), Compliant (.74), and Anonymous (.48); Opportunistic and Public had loadings less than .15. Factor 2 (25.6% of variance) consisted of self-oriented contexts: Opportunistic (.87) and Public (.86); Dire, Emotional Responsivity, Compliant, and Anonymous loaded less than .10.
3.3. Correlational analyses Correlation coefficients among prosocial tendencies and measures of interpersonal responsiveness, concerns about approval, and narcissistic tendencies are presented in Table 1. Generally, emotional responsivity, dire, and compliance were linked positively to empathic qualities and approval concerns but were not linked with narcissism and psychopathy. Anonymous prosocial behavior was linked only to perspective taking. Public and opportunistic prosocial tendencies were linked negatively to empathy but positively with narcissism and psychopathy. In addition, empathic concern and perspective-taking were positively related, and approval concerns, narcissism, and psychopathy also were positively correlated. Inverse relationships were revealed between empathy constructs and narcissistic qualities (including psychopathy).
3.4. Hierarchical regression analyses Table 2 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses, with the exception of results for anonymous prosocial behavior – perspective-taking exclusively accounted for variance b = .31, Model R2 = .11, F(10, 253) = 3.04, p < .05. Overall, for emotional responsivity, dire, and compliance, empathy (that is, empathic concern, perspective-taking, and personal distress) accounted for variance in Step 1. Approval needs accounted for additional variance in Step 2. Importantly, qualities associated with narcissism did not. Upon closer examination of the semi-partial correlations in Step 1, empathic concern and perspective taking each contributed unique variance to all three prosocial tendencies. Personal distress contributed unique variance in dire. In Step 2, need for approval was positively related to dire and compliance, whereas concerns about disapproval was linked to emotional responsivity and dire tendencies. For public and opportunistic prosocial tendencies, each step in the hierarchical regressions added significant variance to the overall model. Within Step 1, the less adolescents felt empathic concern for others, the more likely they were to report public and opportunistic behavior. Personal distress also accounted for unique variance in opportunistic situations; the more youth experienced distress, the more likely they were opportunistic. Step 2 revealed that the higher scores on public and opportunistic tendencies associated with approval from others. Concerns about disapproval accounted for significant variance only in opportunistic tendencies. In Step 3, being narcissistic and impulsive predicted public prosocial tendencies, whereas narcissism and callousness predicted opportunistic inclinations.
4
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
Table 1 Correlations among prosocial tendencies, empathy, needs for approval, and narcissistic traits.
* ** ***
Measures
1
2
3
1. Emotional responsivity 2. Dire 3. Compliant 4. Anonymous 5. Public 6. Opportunistic 7. Empathic concern 8. Perspective taking 9. Personal distress 10 Need for approval 11. Concern for disapproval 12. Narcissism 13. Impulsivity 14. Callous 15. Manipulativeness Mean SD Cronbach a
.61*** .48*** .17** .14* .07 .42*** .32*** .03 .26*** .25*** .04 .10 .19** .01 3.61 .80 .74
.44*** .33*** .15* .02 .28*** .24*** .16** .19** .14* .10 .01 .00 .11 3.52 .81 .70
.22*** .05 .10 .48*** .31*** .02 .22*** .09 .09 .06 .14* .00 3.94 .86 .79
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.22*** .32*** .01 .31*** .11 .07 2.71 .74 .74
.50*** .25*** .25*** .06 .16** 3.71 .89 .85
.15* .27*** .14* .10 2.49 1.10 .88
.19** .32*** .57*** 2.25 .60 .84
.20*** .32*** 2.14 .60 .71
.53*** 1.78 .67 .78
2.17 .75 .82
.03 .04 .08 .28*** .01 .03 .04 .02 .06 .06 .03 3.07 .78 .83
.53*** .22*** .11 .01 .28*** .23*** .44*** .23*** .31*** .37*** 2.34 .89 .83
.35*** .24*** .13* .27*** .31*** .48*** .28*** .44*** .43*** 2.37 .83 .77
.44*** .12 .11 .01 .12* .00 .54*** .18** 3.81 .66 .78
.09 .04 .04 .06 .29*** .23*** .18** 3.32 .72 .74
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
Table 2 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting prosocial tendencies from empathic concern, narcissism, psychopathy, and concern about approval. Predictor variables
1. Control variables Gender 2. Interpersonal responsivity Empathic concern Perspective-taking Personal distress 3. Concern about approval Approval Disapproval 4. Narcissism & psychopathy Narcissism Impulsivity Callousness Manipulativeness Total R2 Model F Model df * ** ***
Emotional responsivity
Dire
DR 2
b
DR2
.04 .17⁄⁄⁄
.20
.00 .13⁄⁄⁄
.31*** .18** .02 .08**
b .01
.07⁄⁄⁄
.01
b
DR2
.02⁄ .23⁄⁄⁄
.14*
.03⁄⁄ .04⁄
.43*** .13* .06 .04⁄⁄⁄
.15* .17* .02
.03 .10 .06 .02
Public
DR2
.32⁄⁄⁄ .13⁄ .17**
.12 .23***
.30⁄⁄⁄ 10.74 (10, 253)
Compliant
.01 .16⁄⁄⁄
.10
.09⁄⁄⁄
.13⁄⁄⁄
.17* .17⁄⁄⁄
.27*** .12* .01 .11 .30⁄⁄⁄ 11.00 (10, 253)
b
.32*** .10 .19**
.20*** .12
.09 .06 .12 .06 .31⁄⁄⁄ 11.11 (10, 253)
.16**
.11⁄⁄⁄
.02
.22⁄⁄⁄ 7.02 (10, 253)
DR2
b
.18** .02 .05
.18** .04
.02 .12 .91 .07
Opportunistic
.30*** .06 .13* .10 .43⁄⁄⁄ 19.38 (10, 253)
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
4. Discussion In the present study, our objective was to show that dimensionality in adolescents’ prosocial tendencies would be supported through patterned associations with empathic versus egoistic individual differences. Results revealed that adolescents’ prosocial tendencies fell into two domains – serving others, where youth apprehend the needs of beneficiaries – and self-serving propensities where youth might gain personal benefit. Further evidence for these dimensions emerged in the patterns of association with personality traits. Empathy was positively associated with tendencies toward serving others and inversely linked with self-benefitting tendencies. Adolescents’ need for approval was linked positively to both types of prosocial inclinations. Narcissism and psychopathic qualities were linked positively to public and opportunistic prosocial behavior, but unrelated to other-serving tendencies. The first hypothesis (H1) proposing that adolescents’ prosocial tendencies would be distinguished by a focus on the beneficiary, namely, other versus self – was supported by the components
analysis (Carlo & Randall, 2002). Consistent with prior work (See McGinley et al., 2014), four of the subscales, namely, Emotional Responsivity, Dire, Compliant, and Anonymous loaded highly on one factor. Whereas the subscales were originally interpreted to represent situations (McGinley et al., 2014), we contend that they also represent service to others, that is, focusing on beneficiaries’ needs and circumstances. The second factor was comprised of the ‘‘public’’ and ‘‘opportunistic’’ subscales and represented selfbenefitting opportunities and attitudes. Historically, associations resulting from the use of the ‘‘altruism’’ subscale and variables of interest were inconsistent (McGinley et al., 2014). In part, the inconsistency may be psychometric. The suggested scoring of the scale requires that all ‘‘altruism’’ items are reversed (Carlo & Randall, 2002). Whether the antithesis of doing something prosocial to ‘‘look good’’ or ‘‘get some benefit’’ truly represents altruism (selfless and costly acts to benefit another) is unclear. Thus, we chose to score the ‘‘altruism’’ items in the direction that they were worded and labeled the subscale as ‘‘opportunistic.’’ Finding that the ‘‘opportunistic’’ subscale loaded highly with ‘‘public’’ and that
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
the two subscales were highly correlated (r = .53) indicated that our scoring approach was suitable and may offer an alternative approach for future research. The next set of hypotheses addressed whether patterns of individual differences would corroborate the other versus self serving distinction (H2, H3, H4); these expectations were confirmed in the present study. First, empathy, in general, was positively related to other-serving tendencies and inversely related to self-serving tendencies supporting our second hypothesis. As the only correlate of anonymous prosocial behavior, perspective-taking implies that adolescents must to be able to perceive the needs of beneficiaries and the means by which needs are alleviated in order to take action, thereby demonstrating a ‘‘match’’ between social cognitive skills and the nature of the prosocial behavior (Carlo, Knight, McGinley, Goodvin, & Roesch, 2010). Empathic concern and perspective-taking were linked uniquely and positively to responding to another’s emotional distress, helping in dire situations, and complying with another’s request. The correlations between empathic concern and emotional responsivity (r = .42) and compliance (r = .48) are particularly noteworthy. Adolescents in direct contact would more directly witness another’s emotional distress or circumstance, eliciting other-focused, empathically concerned and personally responsible behavior (Carlo et al., 2003). In the case of helping in an emergency situation, adolescents’ ability to mitigate feelings of personal distress, in addition to reporting empathic concern and perspective-taking abilities, allow them to set aside personal concerns and focus on helping in those situations (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Other-focused prosocial contexts highlight the dual role of perspective-taking and empathic-concern. As predicted (H2), empathic concern was inversely related to public and opportunistic prosocial tendencies. The bivariate analyses revealed moderately strong inverse relationships between empathic concern and opportunistic prosocial tendencies in addition to less perspective taking and heightened personal distress. Youth high in narcissistic traits tend to be unconcerned about others’ experiences; they strive less for intimacy and more for admiration (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Thomaes et al., 2009). These results affirm the idea that what appears to be prosocial can also be hedonistically strategic with little or no other-focused motives. Third, we hypothesized that concerns about disapproval would be linked to tendencies toward serving others, while a focus on gaining approval would be linked with self-serving opportunities (H3). Although correlation coefficients were less than .30, concerns about disapproval and approval were linked to emotional responsivity, dire, public, and opportunistic prosocial tendencies, with concerns of disapproval uniquely associated with other-serving tendencies and need for approval related to self-serving tendencies in the regression analyses. Taken together, these findings suggest that adolescents are concerned about peers’ evaluations when acting prosocially. Some prosocial tendencies that are motivated by approval also may be influenced by social mores and serve purposes for maintaining relationships (Amato, 1990; Eisenberg et al., 2006). Given the significance of peer acceptance and impression management in mid-adolescence (Brown & Larson, 2009), the motivation to avoid disapproval or gain approval might enhance prosocial tendencies. Alternatively, the narcissism dynamic selfregulatory model would propose that narcissistic youth would be attuned to and reliant on the adoration of others’ approval. Future research is warranted that would examine more closely needs for approval as correlates of prosocial behavior. Consistent with the fourth hypothesis (H4), narcissistic tendencies were linked with public and opportunistic prosocial behavior but not with other-serving tendencies. These results were consonant with the self-regulatory model of narcissism (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Behaving prosocially in public, which has the potential for an admiring audience can enhance one’s self image
5
(Carlo & Randall, 2001, 2002; Krauten & Barry, 2014), and it offers strategic management of others’ impressions leading to deceiving ‘‘the self into seeing its own grandiosity’’ (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001, pg. 183). In fact, the bivariate analyses showed that narcissism was most strongly linked to public (r = .44) and opportunistic (r = .48) tendencies. Moreover, opportunistic youth also endorsed being more manipulative (r = .43) and callous (r = .44). Such moderately strong patterns of individual differences demonstrate that prosocial behavior can be utilized as a way to obligate others and ‘‘look good’’ for one’s own self gain. Several limitations of the present study must be acknowledged. First, the study design was cross-sectional and single informant which is vulnerable to method variance. Longitudinal research employing multiple informants would be beneficial to determine whether personality qualities are associated with corresponding change in prosocial tendencies over time. Second, generalizability must also be cautioned as the sample was comprised of affluent, Western European adolescents. Third, the Childhood Narcissism Scale (Thomaes et al., 2008) is unidimensional and taps grandiosity and entitlement. Future research employ a multifaceted measure of narcissism assesses sub-types (grandiose, vulnerable, and autonomous/non-pathological). If autonomous or non-pathological narcissistic tendencies bolster adolescents as they negotiate their ontogenetic challenges, future research needs to examine more thoroughly the mechanisms by which it may support prosocial engagement, undermine such activities, or are used as interpersonal strategies toward fulfilling hedonistic needs. 5. Conclusions Encouraging prosocial behavior in adolescents is desirable given its benefits for youth and for the society at large (Carlo, 2006). In the present study, dimensionality in adolescents’ prosocial tendencies was represented by serving others or the self. The way in which empathic characteristics and narcissistic qualities were linked confirmed this delineation. Need for approval and avoidance of disapproval were associated with adolescent prosocial tendencies, but the emergent patterns were not as clear cut. Still, given the ontogenetic period, examining the ways in which need for approval is linked with adolescent prosocial tendencies is worthy of future consideration. Recognizing that adolescent prosocial behavior is multidimensional and is associated with particular personality traits suggest that prosocial socialization requires a more nuanced and individualistic approach. Adolescents, based on their individual differences, respond to different inducements in developing their prosocial repertoire. References Amato, P. R. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 31–43. Barry, C. T., & Kauten, R. L. (2014). Nonpathological and pathological narcissism: Which self-reported characteristics are most problematic in adolescents? Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 212–219. Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–122. Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed.. Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed.) (vol. 2, pp. 74–103). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Carlo, G. (2006). Care-based and altruistically based morality. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 551–579). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107–134. Carlo, G., Knight, G. P., McGinley, M., Goodvin, R., & Roesch, S. C. (2010). The developmental relations between perspective taking and prosocial behaviors: A meta-analytic examination of the task-specificity hypothesis. In B. W. Sokol, U. Müller, J. I. Carpenter, A. R. Young, & G. Iarocci (Eds.), Self and social regulation:
6
M.B. Eberly-Lewis, T.M. Coetzee / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 1–6
Social interaction and the development of social understanding and executive functions (pp. 234–269). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2001). Are all prosocial behaviors equal? A socioecological developmental conception of prosocial behavior. In F. Columbus (Ed.). Advances in psychology research (vol. III, pp. 151–170). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31–44. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.) (vol. 3, pp. 6460718). New York, NY: Wiley. Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Verpanken, B., & Maio, G. R. (2012). Communal narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 854–878. Kanacri, B. P. L., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Zuffianò, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2013). The development of prosociality from adolescence to early adulthood: The role of effortful control. Journal of Personality, 81, 302–312. Krauten, R., & Barry, C. T. (2014). Do you think I’m as kind as I do? The relation of adolescent narcissism with self- and peer-perceptions of prosocial and aggressive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 61–62, 69–73. McGinley, M., Opal, D., Richaud, M. C., & Mesurado, B. (2014). Cross-cultural evidence of multidimensional prosocial behaviors: An examination of the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM). In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Miklikowska, M., Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2011). Family roots of empathy-related characteristics: The role of perceived maternal and paternal need support in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1342–1352.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. Morf, C. C., Horvath, S., & Torchetti, L. (2011). Narcissistic self-enhancement: Tales of (successful?) self-portrayal. In M. D. Alicke & C. Sedikides (Eds.), Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 399–424). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2014). The study of prosocial behavior: Past, present, and future. In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rudolf, K. D., Caldwell, M. S., & Conley, C. S. (2005). Need for approval and children’s well-being. Child Development, 76, 309–323. Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., De Castro, B. O., & Stegge, H. (2009). What makes narcissists bloom? A framework for research on the etiology and development of narcissism. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1233–1247. Thomaes, S., Stegge, H., Bushman, B. J., Olthof, T., & Denissen, J. (2008). Development and validation of the childhood narcissism scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 382–391. van Baardewijk, Y., Andershed, H., Stegge, H., Nilsson, K. W., Scholte, E., & Vermeiren, R. (2010). Development and tests of short versions of the youth psychopathic traits inventory and the youth psychopathic traits inventory-child version. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 122–128. van Baardewijk, Y., Stegge, H., Andershed, H., Thomaes, S., Scholte, E., & Vermeiren, R. (2008). Measuring psychopathic traits in children through self-report. the development of the youth psychopathic traits inventory – child version. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 199–209. van der Graff, J., Branje, S., De Wied, M., Hawk, S., Van Lier, P., & Meeus, W. (2014). Perspective taking and empathic concern in adolescence: Gender differences in developmental changes. Developmental Psychology, 50, 881–888.