Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2018
-
(2018): Happy to help?. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 76, S. 320-329. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.014
Abstract: Do acts of kindness improve the well-being of the actor? Recent advances in the behavioural sciences have provided a number of explanations of human social, cooperative and altruistic behaviour. These theories predict that people will be ‘happy to help’ family, friends, community members, spouses, and even strangers under some conditions. Here we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental evidence that kindness interventions (for example, performing ‘random acts of kindness’) boost subjective well-being. Our initial search of the literature identified 489 articles; of which 24 (27 studies) met the inclusion criteria (total N/=/4045). These 27 studies, some of which included multiple control conditions and dependent measures, yielded 52 effect sizes. Multi-level modeling revealed that the overall effect of kindness on the well-being of the actor is small-to-medium (´/=/0.28). The effect was not moderated by sex, age, type of participant, intervention, control condition or outcome measure. There was no indication of publication bias. We discuss the limitations of the current literature, and recommend that future research test more specific theories of kindness: taking kindness-specific individual differences into account; distinguishing between the effects of kindness to specific categories of people; and considering a wider range of proximal and distal outcomes. Such research will advance our understanding of the causes and consequences of kindness, and help practitioners to maximise the effectiveness of kindness interventions to improve well-being. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) zitiert von 1
-
(2018): The moderating role of kindness on the relation between trust and happiness. In: Current Psychology 3 (1). DOI: 10.1007/s12144-018-9886-7
Abstract: A number of studies show that trust enhances both national and individual happiness. However, the mechanism underlying this association remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of kindness in explaining the link between trust and happiness. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the more people believe that they have done for others, the stronger is the link between trust and happiness. Ninety-one students participated in a trust game and then completed measures assessing levels of happiness, trust, and kindness. Results revealed that level of happiness was related to the frequency of acts of kindness and the level of trust showed in a trust game. This finding suggests that while trust alone is associated with happiness, being kind strengthens this relationship. It seems that without prosocial activity people may not derive much happiness from being trusting. Possible explanations for the effects obtained and limitations of the study are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) zitiert von 1
-
(2018): From being nice to being kind. Development of prosocial behaviors. In: Current Opinion in Psychology 20, S. 45-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.036
DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28830006 Abstract: Empirical findings regarding the origins and development of prosocial behaviors from infancy to childhood have generated new information on when young children act prosocially toward others, how prosocial behavior changes across development, and why children do or do not behave prosocially. We discuss recent advances in three areas of research: First, studies have increasingly focused on age-related differences in various prosocial behaviors. Second, psychological underpinnings of prosocial behavior development have contributed to a better understanding of children's motives for prosocial behaviors. Third, dispositional and situational effects on the development of prosocial behaviors have been examined. We discuss consequences of individual differences in prosocial behaviors and provide recommendations for future directions for the study of prosocial behavior development. zitiert von 2
2017
-
(2017): Many kinds of kindness. The relationship between values and prosocial behaviour, S. 75-96. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_4 Abstract: Prosocial behaviour may be defined as behaviour that benefits other people or society. Some psychologists add that it is behaviour that is beneficial to others and does not benefit (or even disadvantages) the agent. These definitions concern the perceived consequences of behaviour, which are somewhat open to interpretation. As a result, there are many classes of behaviour that can be thought of as 'prosocial', with varying degrees of consensus across and within cultures. Displays of everyday kindness towards another human being, helping an elderly lady across the road, for instance, or cooking dinner for a friend, are perhaps almost universally considered prosocial. On the other hand, working in a clinic to provide access to contraceptives, and campaigning to prevent a new runway being built, are behaviours that might be perceived as prosocial by some people, and in some cultures, but as neutral or even antisocial by others. In this chapter, we look at different possible candidates for prosocial behaviour, from the interpersonal to the more political, and compared their relationship to values, across cultures where we can. In looking over the research to date on some of the main relationships between values and prosocial behaviour, Self-Transcendence appears to be a dominant positive motivating force, while Self-Enhancement is rarely associated with any behaviour that may be construed as prosocial. In fact, it is this values dimension, and within it particularly Power that is most solidly associated with antisocial behaviour. The Conservation/Openness-to-Change axis is more context-dependent in its patterns, often neutral and sometimes supporting and sometimes inhibiting both pro- and antisocial behaviour. This chapter has highlighted that prosocial behaviour, is a complex beast. If, by prosocial, we just mean an act of kindness, then we can easily limit ourselves to one class of behaviour and a set of studies that have an over-reliance on narrow experiments where a student is asked if they will come in next week to help their professor in the laboratory. If, by prosocial, we mean behaviour that benefits other people or society, then we have to open ourselves up to the full range of what these behaviours might be, and ask whether they would be considered prosocial in a culture different from our own. We could not consider every class of prosocial behaviour in this chapter, but we have approximated a range by looking at everyday kindness, political activism, pro-environmental behaviour and participation in organised groups that work in the interest of others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) zitiert von 1
2012
-
(2012): Empathy, prosocial behavior, and other aspects of kindness, S. 168-179
Abstract: This chapter deals with a multitude of dispositional variables, all interconnected by virtue of their focus on the benefit of others. We refer to them as the network of kindness. Baldwin and Baldwin (1970, p. 30) defined kindness as 'a motivation that is sometimes inferred from the fact that one person benefits another, provided the circumstances are appropriate.' Thus, kindness involves both the prosocial acts and the underlying motivations. This leads to an important distinction between empathy and prosocial behavior. Empathy is an other-oriented tendency to comprehend and share the (in most definitions, emotional) states of others. Sympathy and compassion that involve concern for others are related constructs (Eisenberg et al., 1999). Prosocial behavior is voluntary behavior (e.g., volunteering, sharing personal resources, providing instrumental help, and supporting others emotionally in times of distress) enacted with the intent of benefiting others (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes, &c Spinrad, 2006). The distinctions and relationships among components of the network of kindness (e.g., altruism and prosocial behavior) have yielded very rich discussions in the literature that are beyond the scope of this chapter. In some cases prosocial behavior involves generosity, a behavior intended to benefit others beyond normative standards of giving, and sometimes it involves altruism, a behavior intended to benefit others at expense to the self.' It is virtually impossible to measure reliably prosocial behaviors that are purely altruistic because even the sense of doing good can be rewarding to the self (Andreoni, 1990). Therefore, prosocial behavior is often measured without strong evidence for the underlying motivation behind it (Eisenberg et al., 1999). Importantly, evolutionary reasoning (de Waal, 2008) and social-psychological research (Batson, 2009; Hoffman, 1988; Van Lange, 2008) both suggest that empathy may in many cases provide the underlying motivation for behaving prosocially. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) zitiert von 12
1982
-
(1982): Einstellungsanderung in Abhangigkeit von Ahnlichkeit, Freundlichkeit, Kompromissbereitschaft und Geschlecht des Diskussionspartners. In: Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie 29 (3), S. 417-441
Abstract: In a dyadic discussion on a decision problem 189 subjects exchanged persuasive arguments and friendly or unfriendly remarks with a partner simulated by a computer program in a 2x2x2x2-design (similar/dissimilar, friendly/unfriendly, feedback on partner's yielding/resisting after the first half of discussion, male/female). For the first part of the discussion it was predicted that similar and friendly partners will be more influential than dissimilar and unfriendly ones, and that unfriendliness of a similar partner will diminish his influence to a higher degree than unfriendliness of a dissimilar partner. None of the predictions were supported by the data. For the seond part of the discussion it was predicted that the partner's willingness to compromise will increase his influence; this was expected to be most prominent with similar and friendly partners. This hypothesis proved to be valid for females only. The unexpected higher order interactions suggest that in social interaction women follow strategies different from those relevant for men. Die Bedeutung von Ahnlichkeit, Freundlichkeit und Kompromissbereitschaft des Diskussionspartners fur Einstellungsanderungen im Diskussionsverlauf wird untersucht. 189 Versuchspersonen tauschten uber Computer-Terminals Argumente und mehr oder weniger freundliche Bemerkungen mit einem simulierten Partner aus, um gemeinsam ein Entscheidungsproblem zu losen. Jede Versuchsperson war einer der 16 Versuchsbedingungen des 2x2x2x2-Versuchsplans zugeordnet. (Partner: ahnlich/unahnlich, freundlich/unfreundlich, kompromissbereit/nicht kompromissbereit gemass Ruckmeldung nach der ersten Diskussionshalfte, Versuchsperson: maennlich/weiblich.) Fur die erste Halfte der Diskussion war vorhergesagt, dass sowohl ein ahnlicher als auch ein freundlicher Partner mehr Einfluss hat als ein unahnlicher und unfreundlicher, und dass sich Unfreundlichkeit eines ahnlichen Partners starker einflussmindernd auswirkt als Unfreundlichkeit eines unahnlichen Partners. Keine dieser Vorhersagen wurde bestatigt. Fur den zweiten Teil der Diskussion war erwartet worden, dass sich Kompromissbereitschaft einflussfordernd auswirkt, und dies insbesondere mit ahnlichen und freundlichen Partnern. Diese Hypothese bestatigte sich nur bei den weiblichen Versuchspersonen. Die unerwarteten Wechselwirkungen hoherer Ordnung lassen vermuten, dass Frauen und Manner in der sozialen Interaktion unterschiedliche Ziele und Strategien verfolgen. zitiert von 5
- <<
- <
- 1