China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Studying Brain Function Using Non-human Primate Models
Published in Tian-Le Xu, Long-Jun Wu, Nonclassical Ion Channels in the Nervous System, 2021
In humans, only behavior that is beneficial to others and is done intentionally can be classified as prosocial behavior in psychology. Likewise, the criteria for intentionality in marmoset prosociality has been established, including flexibility, audience effects, and goal directedness. Flexibility refers to the subject’s adjustment of its behavior to specific conditions and the usage of multiple means to achieve a goal. Audience effects refer to 1) behavior that occurs only when potential recipients are present, and 2) behavior is influenced by whether other helpers are present. Goal directedness refers to the persistence of the behavior until the goal is achieved and the distinct reaction shown by the helper when the expected goal is not achieved (74). But is it appropriate to mechanically apply what “intentionality” is in humans to marmosets? Maybe we should establish more sophisticated behavioral paradigms to investigate marmosets’ prosocial behavior in a more naturalistic way instead of creating descriptive and subjective criteria.
Individual-Level Risk and Resilience Factors Associated with Mental Health in Siblings of Individuals with Neurodevelopmental Conditions: A Network Analysis
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2023
Brittany Wolff, Vithor R. Franco, Iliana Magiati, Matthew N. Cooper, Rachel Roberts, Rachel Skoss, Emma J. Glasson
Our systematic review also identified two affective theory of mind factors which may influence sibling outcomes. First, we found empathy may be protective against siblings’ self-reported anxiety and depression (Wolff, et al., 2022b), although the literature is inconclusive (Rum et al., 2022). As cognitive empathy is the affective foundation for prosociality and emotion regulation (N. M. Thompson et al., 2022), it is important to examine. Second, psychosocial interventions for siblings identify parent-child communication as a modifiable protective factor (Wolff et al., 2022a). Given findings indicating siblings of children with NDCs suppress emotions and may not communicate mental health struggles (Green, 2013; Lobato & Kao, 2002), this may be a critical factor assisting families in identifying and supporting sibling mental health difficulties (Haukeland et al., 2020).
The intervening role of anxiety symptoms in associations between Self-Regulation and prosocial behaviors in U.S. Latino/a college students
Published in Journal of American College Health, 2023
Sahitya Maiya, Zehra Gülseven, Sarah E. Killoren, Gustavo Carlo, Cara Streit
Across the family, friends, and strangers models, self-regulation was directly related to emotional, compliant, dire, and anonymous prosocial behaviors. The predictive power of self-regulation across targets of helping suggests self-regulation is dispositionally linked to all prosocial behaviors excluding public and altruistic prosocial behaviors. These findings help extend self-regulation and stress and coping theories to the context of multidimensional prosocial behaviors. Although prior theories posit significant relations between self-regulation and prosocial behaviors,9,21 the present findings extend such theories by showing that such relations are nuanced depending on specific forms of prosocial behavior. Self-regulation could be a proxy for the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral pre-requisites to low-cost helping behaviors that is stable across various relational contexts. Self-regulation acted as a form of proactive coping,22 and was interrelated with higher levels of low-cost prosocial behaviors. The benefits of self-regulation for prosociality have been well-validated in the field of moral development.5,12
Peer crowd affiliations as predictors of prosocial and risky behaviors among college students
Published in Journal of American College Health, 2022
Vimbayi S. Chinopfukutwa, Joel M. Hektner
The Prosociality Scale (PS) was used to assess the degree of participants’ helping, sharing, taking care of others’ needs, and empathizing with others’ feelings.32 Sixteen items (Cronbach’s α = .91) asked participants to rate their prosociality on a 1 (never/almost never) to 5 (almost always/always true) Likert-type scale (for example, “I try to help others”). A composite score of the items was created with higher scores indicating higher levels of prosociality. This measure has been validated across different ages, across different waves of data, and on large samples of respondents in a longitudinal study of participants between ages 18 and 92 years.32 This measure has high construct validity as it can measure individual differences in prosocial responding.32