The Roles of Perspective Taking,Empathic Concern,and Prosocial Moral Reasoning in the Self-Reported Prosocial Behaviors of Filipino and Turkish Young Adults
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2020
The Roles of Perspective Taking,Empathic Concern,and Prosocial Moral Reasoning in the Self-Reported Prosocial Behaviors of Filipino and Turkish Young Adults
Traditional social cognitive model of prosocial development suggests important links between both sociocognitive and socioemotive traits and prosocial behaviors. The present study examined the relations among perspective taking, empathic concern, prosocial moral reasoning, and public, emotional, compliant, and anonymous prosocial behaviors in Filipino and Turkish young adults to test the generalizability of this traditional model. Participants were 257 college students recruited from state universities in Ankara, Turkey (57 women, 83 men; Mage = 19.26 years, SD = 0.63) and Manila, the Philippines (75 women, 42 men; Mage = 18.41 years, SD = 1.44). Results showed that the relations among perspective taking, empathic concern, prosocial moral reasoning, and four types of self-reported prosocial behaviors were robust across two countries and gender. Perspective taking was positively related to empathic concern, which, in turn, was positively related to emotional and compliant prosocial behaviors. Perspective taking was also positively related to prosocial moral reasoning, which, in turn, was positively related to anonymous and negatively related to public prosocial behaviors. Overall, the findings provide support for the generalizability of traditional model of prosocial development and extend our understanding of prosocial behaviors to two non-Western, collectivist-oriented societies.
AlampayL. P. (2014). Parenting in the Philippines. In SelinH. (Ed.), Parenting across cultures: Childrearing, motherhood and fatherhood in non-western cultures (Vol. 7, pp. 459–474). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7503-9_9
2.
AndresT. D.Ilada-AndresP. B. (1987). Understanding the Filipino. New Day.
3.
BatsonC. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 282–316). McGraw-Hill.
4.
BollenK. A.StineR. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/271084
5.
BrislinR. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Cross-cultural studies. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597608247359
6.
BugayA.DeleviR.MulletE. (2019). Attitude toward women in Turkey: Combined effect of sex, place, and culture. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00273-2
7.
ByrneB. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Taylor & Francis Group.
8.
CarloG. (2014). The development and correlates of prosocial moral behaviors. In KillenM.SmetanaJ. G. (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 208–234). Psychology Press.
9.
CarloG.EisenbergN.KnightG. P. (1992). An objective measure of adolescents’ prosocial moral reasoning. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0204_3
10.
CarloG.McGinleyM.DavisA.StreitC. (2012). Behaving badly or goodly: Is it because of what I feel or think? In MaltiT. (Ed.), New Directions for Youth Development: Adolescent Emotions: Development, Morality, and Adaptation (pp. 75–93). Jossey Bass.
11.
CarloG.MestreM. V.SamperP.TurA.ArmentaB. E. (2010). Feelings or cognitions? Moral cognitions and emotions as longitudinal predictors of prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.010
12.
CarloG.RandallB. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014033032440
13.
CarloG.StreitC.CrockettL. (2018). Generalizability of a traditional social cognitive model of prosocial behaviors to US Latino/a youth. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000188
14.
ChopikW. J.O’BrienE.KonrathS. H. (2017). Differences in empathic concern and perspective taking across 63 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116673910
15.
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
16.
ÇukurC. S.De GuzmanM. R. T.CarloG. (2004). Religiosity, values, and horizontal and vertical individualism—Collectivism: A study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 613–634. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.6.613-634
17.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
18.
DavisA. N.CarloG. (2018). The roles of parenting practices, sociocognitive/emotive traits, and prosocial behaviors in low-income adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 62, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.11.011
19.
EisenbergN. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition and behavior. Erlbaum.
20.
EisenbergN.FabesR. A.SpinradT. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In DamonW. (Series Ed.) & EisenbergN. (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 646–718). John Wiley.
21.
EisenbergN.ZhouQ.KollerS. (2001). Brazilian adolescents’ prosocial moral judgment and behavior: Relations to sympathy, perspective taking, gender-role orientation, and demographic characteristics. Child Development, 72, 518–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00294
22.
EndersC. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
23.
GöregenliM. (1997). Individualist-collectivist tendencies in a Turkish sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 787–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022197286009
24.
GoyalN.MillerJ. G. (2018). The importance of timing in reciprocity: An investigation of reciprocity norms among Indians and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117746239
25.
GrimmS. D.ChurchA. T.KatigbakM. S.ReyesJ. A. S. (1999). Self-described traits, values, and moods associated with individualism and collectivism: Testing IC theory in an individualistic (US) and a collectivistic (Philippine) culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 466–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030004005
26.
GüvençG.AktanT.YalçınM. G. (2010). The relationships between knowledge structures and appraisals of economically disadvantaged adolescents. Applied Psychology, 59, 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00419.x
27.
HeJ.van de VijverF. (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1111
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. (Revised and Expanded 3rd ed.) McGraw-Hill.
32.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
JensenL. A. (2015a). Theorizing and researching moral development in a global world. In JensenL. A. (Ed.), Moral development in a Global World: Research from a Cultural-Developmental Perspective (pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press.
35.
JensenL. A. (2015b). Moral reasoning: Developmental emergence and life course pathways among cultures. In JensenL. A. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Development and Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 230–254). Oxford University Press.
36.
KağıtçıbaşıÇ. (1982). Old-age security value of children: Cross-national socioeconomic evidence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022182131004
37.
KağıtçıbaşıÇ. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In BerryJ. W.SegallM. H.KağıtçıbaşıC. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 3. Social behavior and applications (pp. 1–49). Allyn & Bacon.
38.
KağıtçıbaşıÇ. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 36, 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959
KumruA.CarloG.EdwardsC. P. (2004). Olumlu sosyal davranışların ilişkisel, kültürel, bilişsel ve duyuşsal bazı değişkenlerle ilişkisi. [Relational, cultural, cognitive, and affective predictors of prosocial behaviors]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, [Turkish Journal of Psychology], 19, 109–125.
41.
KumruA.CarloG.MestreM.V.SamperP. (2012). Prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behavior among Turkish and Spanish adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 40, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.2.205
42.
KumruA.de GuzmanM. R. T.CarloG. (2002). Examining the prosocial moral reasoning measure for use with Brazilian, Filipino, and Turkish college students. Poster presented at the 17th biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Ottawa, CA.
43.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self. Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
44.
MillerP. A.KozuJ.DavisA. C. (2001). Social influence, empathy, and prosocial behavior in cross-cultural perspective. In WosinskaW.CialdiniR. B.BarrettD. W.ReykowskiJ. (Eds.), The practice of social influence in multiple cultures. Applied social research series (pp. 63–77). Erlbaum.
45.
MillerJ. G.BlandC.Källberg-ShroffM.TsengC. Y.Montes-GeorgeJ.RyanK.RekhaD.ChakravarthyS. (2014). Culture and the role of exchange vs. communal norms in friendship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.02.006
46.
MilfontT. L.FisherR. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857
NadlerA.RomekE.Shapira-FriedmanA. (1979). Giving in the kibbutz: Prosocial behavior of city and kibbutz children as affected by social responsibility and social pressure. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 10, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022179101004
49.
NgaiS. S. Y.XieL. (2018). Toward a validation of the prosocial tendencies measure among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Child Indicators Research, 11, 1281–1299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9475-6
50.
OysermanD.CoonH. M.KemmelmeierM. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
51.
RodriguesJ.UlrichN.MusselP.CarloG.HewigJ. (2017). Measuring prosocial tendencies in Germany: sources of validity and reliability of the revised prosocial tendency measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2119. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02119
52.
SatorraA.BentlerP.M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
TriandisH. C.BrislinR.HuiC. H. (1988). Cross-cultural training across the individualism-collectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(88)90019-3
57.
TuncelS. D. (2010). Comparing prosocial tendencies of athletes and nonathletes. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 29, 81–85.
58.
WhitingB. B.EdwardsC. P. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior. Harvard University Press.
59.
WhitingB. B.WhitingJ. W. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Harvard University Press.
