Hence, it seems that the greater the prosocialness levels individuals possess, the more their prosocial self-efficacy will be elevated. From games to giving: social value orientation predicts donations to noble causes. Rev. In this sense, the analysis of such variables as predictors of PSB, and the testing of the potential relations between them, may be pertinent from a theoretical perspective. Search for more papers by this author. Correlations, means, standard deviations and alpha reliabilities of the included and excluded samples for all the study two variables. Soc. Previous studies have shown that exclusion and inclusion can influence the extent to which an individual behaves prosocially (e.g., DeWall and Richman, 2011; Lee and Shrum, 2012), so in Study 2 we tested our model in two different conditions — inclusion and exclusion — adding some variables — rejection sensitivity, anger, and affiliation motivation—which seemed relevant to the context conditions. Liking more means doing more. The desire to maintain social contact motivates individuals to behave in a prosocial and friendly way in order to achieve affiliation (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Zaskodna et al., 2013). Judge, and Seema Sanghi:. Participants completed the scale before solving the online group tasks. (2008). Psychol. “Alternative ways of assessing model fit,” in Testing Structural Equation Models, eds K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), 136–162. H3: Collective prosocial efficacy mediates the relationship between (a) prosocialness and trust, and (b) prosocial self-efficacy and trust. Chow, R. M., Tiedens, L. Z., and Govan, C. (2008). J. Pers. (1980) and the empirical findings of Pearce and Amato (1980). Psychol. |, General Discussion and Concluding Remarks, http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/18927, Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). Psychol. 17, 109–128. We therefore concluded that the manipulation was effective. Negotiator relationships: construct measurement, and demonstration of their impact on the process and outcomes of negotiation. We therefore argue that prosocialness will predict PSB. Prosocial self-efficacy and collective prosocial efficacy are also related. Rev. The total contribution is multiplied by an enhancement factor r and the result is equally distributed between all N members of the group.” In our experiment we used a three-person prisoner’s dilemma and three rounds were played. The potential of this study lies in the fact that it explores a potential model of PSB, including the potential relations between different dispositional and psychosocial variables, exploring not only the effect of those variables on PSB, but also the potential interactions between themselves; interactions that finally led to explain PSB. The relationship between behavior and perceived efficacy — at both individual and collective level —has been widely debated (for a review see Bandura, 2001). doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00064, Bandura, A. Soc. We selected the textbooks to review from a list of the 20 top-selling introductory social psychology textbooks provided by the Executive Editor of McGraw-Hill (M. Georgiev, personal communication Oct. 5, 2011). Trust [α = 0.72, M = 5.22, SD = 1.44, range (1.00-7.00)]. Psychol. Moreover, the exploration of some variables—as rejection sensitivity, anger and affiliation motivation—seems to be particularly relevant in order to explain PSB in the context of social inclusion. 23, 107–134. Veroff, J., and Veroff, J. Soc. Psychol. Psychol. J. Pers. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.993, Feng, J., Lazar, J., and Preece, J. Nezlek, J. In this context we suggest that it would be useful to promote broad, strong social networks. The more sensitive individuals are to social rejection, the more likely they are to feel rather incapable of PSB (Butler et al., 2007), and also to feel that their group is relatively incapable of PSB (Fernández-Ballesteros et al., 2002). The experience and evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and teamwork. 60, 255–285. In rejection-sensitive individuals exclusion elicits hostility (Ayduk et al., 1999) and reduces positive affect (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010b). 19, 527–544. J. Interdiscipl. 17, 245–271. North American Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.09.004. Self-efficacy influences beliefs about the effectiveness of one’s group (Fernández-Ballesteros et al., 2002). Trust fosters closeness and is the starting point for personal relationships (Welch et al., 2005). A structural equations model was developed and tested, integrating causal attributions, induced empathy, and empathic emotions as determinants of helping behavior. doi: 10.1126/science.1189047, Derfler-Rozin, R., Pillutla, M., and Thau, S. (2010). 29, 375–384. J. Interpers. Prosocial collective efficacy [α = 0.94, M = 5.88, SD = 1.05, range (1.00-7.00)]. Goods news-bad news: affective and interpersonal effects. Trust mediated two relationships. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.004, Ayduk, O., Mendoza-Denton, R., Mischel, W., Downey, G., Peake, P., and Rodriguez, M. (2000). Soc. It was a partial mediator of the prosocialness-PSB relationship. This result indicates that a prosocial disposition might lead individuals to behave prosocially, i.e., in congruence with their disposition (Eisenberg et al., 2002; Carlo et al., 2003). Mead, N. L., Stillman, T. F., Vohs, K. D., Rawn, C. D., and Baumeister, R. L. (2010). Romero-Canyas et al. J. Pers. Manual for the Profile of Mood States, San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services. References to studies that did not include enough of an explanation of the study to determine whether or not the helping behavior was spontaneous or planned were not included in the analysis. What Do We Learn from Public Good Games about Voluntary Climate Action? In the present study, we examined the amount of coverage of spontaneous helping behaviors versus planned helping behaviors in the pro-social behavior chapters of introductory social psychology textbooks. (2008, p. 213) states that “cooperators (C) contribute an amount c (‘cost’) to the public good; defectors (D) do not contribute. 58, 425–452. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. J. Cons. Inquiry 75, 453–473. Cervone, D. (2005). 17, 304–313. Negotiat. Helper, J., and Albarracin, D. (2014). The critical ratio for differences between parameters method revealed groups differences in the rejection sensitivity→anger path (ßexclusion = 0.59, p > 0.001; ßinclusion = 0.01, ns; z = 4.05, p > 0.01) and the prosocial collective efficacy efficacy→trust path (ßexclusion = 0.19, p > 0.05; ßinclusion = 0.68, p > 0.001; z = -2.66, p > 0.01). Affiliation motivation is the desire to maintain social contact or a sense of belonging (Veroff and Veroff, 1980); it motivates individuals to pursue positive interpersonal relationships (Zaskodna et al., 2013). 40, 134–151. doi: 10.1177/0956797610362676, Markus, H., and Kitayama, S. (1991). The participants were 93 students (86% women, 14% men; age range: 21-43 years, M = 23.46, SD = 2.94) randomly selected from the University of Cordoba (Spain). 56, 423–452. Before the group tasks, dispositional prosocialness, rejection sensitivity and anger were assessed. Additionally, prosocial self-efficacy directly predicted PSB; the more confident individuals were in their ability to behave prosocially, the more likely they were to behave prosocially. A manipulation check was performed after the experimental manipulation. FIGURE 3. Psychol. “Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!” On gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect and engagement. Bootstrapping analyses were performed with Amos 21 to test hypotheses about mediation of relationships involving PSB (H1, H2, H3, and H4). At this point they were informed that the computer had randomly allocated them to a three-person online group. Applying meta-theory to achieve generalizability and precision in personality science. Individual differences in the rejection-aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: the case of rejection sensitivity. Psychol., 07 January 2016 Annu. Many authors (Maner et al., 2007; Smart Richman and Leary, 2009; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010b; DeWall and Richman, 2011) have argued that rejected individuals tend to behave prosocially only when they see an opportunity to reconnect with others and have the desire to do so. The mediating roles hypothesized were confirmed. Rejection sensitivity impairs self-regulation, and — to an even greater extent — self-efficacy and interpersonal self-efficacy (Downey and Feldman, 1996; Levy et al., 2001; Inzlicht et al., 2006). The CAPS conceives of the individual as a complex processing system, and suggests that the situation and the cognitive, affective, and personality components interact together, leading individuals to behave in a specific way. Moreover, we then apply this model to the context of social exclusion versus social inclusion by adding some variables especially relevant in those contexts. Psychol. It therefore seems important to analyze the motivational determinants of PSB. doi: 10.1177/0190272511422451. Soc. EFA with Varimax rotation confirmed that the scale had a one-factor structure that explained 83.16% of the variance in scores. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while. Similarly, we can wonder about the external validity of the PSB measure, and whether the prisoner’s dilemma game is useful in thinking about real world situations. (2000). Participants in the exclusion context felt more rejected [Mexcl = 4.05, SDexcl = 1.88, rangeexcl (1.00–7.00); and Mincl = 1.43, SDincl = 0.92, rangeincl (1.00–6.00)] and less included [Mexcl = 2.41, SDexcl = 1.83, rangeexcl (1.00–7.00); and Mincl = 5.75, SDincl = 1.37, rangeincl (2.00–7.00)] than participants in the inclusion context. Trust, mood, and outcomes of friendship determine preferences for real versus ersatz social capital. Viol. As predicted, the mean number of studies for spontaneous (s) helping, M = 40. From the lab to the field: envelopes, dictators and manners. 44, 775–782. Collective efficacy in the school context: does it help explain victimization and bullying among Greek Primary and Secondary School students? (2014) showed that being excluded by two people who were stranger to each other made participants feel worse than being excluded by two people who were friends with each other. Psychol. The goodness-of-fit tests revealed that the model was well-fitted [χ2(3, N = 93) = 2.78, p = 0.43; RMSEA = 0.01 (95% CI [0.01,0.17]); CFI = 1.00; GFI = 0.99]. J. Pers. Determinants and consequences of social trust. It has been demonstrated that (1) prosocial tendencies correlate positively with global PSB and negatively with aggression (Carlo et al., 2003), (2) prosocial disposition in childhood is related to PSB in young adulthood (Eisenberg et al., 2002) and (3) that individuals with prosocial orientation engage in more PSB, e.g., donating than individuals with individualistic and competitive orientations (Van Lange et al., 2007). Acad. Anger was assessed before and after the manipulation using a three-item (e.g., ‘angry’) short version of the anger factor of the Profile of Moods States scale (McNair et al., 1971) with responses given on a 7-point Likert scale. Methodological considerations 87 Subject effects 87 Measure of helping 91; We hypothesized that: H3: Trust mediates the relationship between (a) prosocialness and affiliation motivation, and (b) prosocial collective efficacy and affiliation motivation. There is no reason to think that prosocialness, prosocial self-efficacy, collective prosocial efficacy nor trust will not predict PSB in excluded and included contexts to the same extent as in a neutral context. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Affiliation motivation also mediated the relationship between trust and PSB. Prosocial self-efficacy [α = 0.88, M = 6.10, SD = 0.80, range (4.00–7.00)]. (2003) and with the theory that individuals tend to behave in a way which is consistent with their thoughts, beliefs and attitudes (Heider, 1958). Front. (2010a), suggested that the vicious cycle involving rejection sensitivity and exclusion could be interrupted by promoting general self-regulatory skills and experiencing supportive relationships; we suggest that a similar strategy could be used to promote the motivational determinant of PSB. 52, 1008–1018. When rejection-sensitive individuals perceive rejection cues they activate negative self-efficacy beliefs (Ayduk et al., 2000). A new scale for measuring adults’ prosocialness. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.003, Parks, C., Henager, R., and Scamahorn, S. (1996). doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.736, Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., et al. Pers. 82, 993–1006. This is called the ... Another norm that explains helping behavior is the reciprocity norm, which is the implicit societal rule that says people must help those who have helped them. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000198, Hill, C. A. 32, 1232–1245. Many variables have been related to PSB. Received: 02 March 2015; Accepted: 15 December 2015;Published: 07 January 2016. In line with the premise of Shoda and Mischel (2006), the relevance of one or other mediator depends in part on the behavior theorists are interested in predicting and on the context in which this behavior occurs. 91, 91–104. (1999) confirmed the relationship between prosocialness and both self-efficacy and social efficacy. Cyber ostracism: effects of being ignored over the Internet. For example, Klapwijk and Van Lange (2009) found that generosity has an important role in building and maintaining trust; and De Dreu et al. Affiliation motivation mediated four different relationships. Copyright © 2016 Cuadrado, Tabernero and Steinel. After the manipulation the corresponding statistics were M = 2.05, SD = 1.58, range (1.00–7.00); Mincluded = 1.24, SD = 0.54, range (1.00–4.00); Mexcluded = 2.90, SD = 1.84, range (1.00–7.00). Regarding the direct predictors of PSB and in line with previous studies (Rotenberg et al., 2005; Welch et al., 2005) the experiment showed that having confidence in partners’ goodwill encouraged individuals to behave in a prosocial way and conversely participants were less generous to partners they perceived as untrustworthy. (2015) have shown that the prisoner’s dilemma game is related to PSB (giving money to reduce CO2 emissions) in the field. Rejection sensitivity was measured with the six-item Hypersensitivity to Social Rejection scale (Ronen and Baldwin, 2010; e.g., ‘If someone doesn’t seem to like me I think about it for the rest of the day’), with responses given on a 7-point Likert scale. 98, 224–253. Methods 7, 422–445. Motivational determinants of prosocial behavior: what do included, hopeful excluded, and hopeless excluded individuals need to behave prosocially? Impact Factor 2.067 | CiteScore 3.2More on impact ›, Dynamic Personality Science. The direct predictive role of prosocialness was not confirmed; it should, however, be noted that correlation and mediation analyses indicated that — in line with H1 — prosocialness was correlated with PSB and directly predicted it (R = 0.29∗∗; β = 0.29∗∗); although prosocialness was not a direct predictor of PSB in the model the two variables were related, with prosocialness directly predicting PSB. 23, 271–292. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., and Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). De Cremer (1999) showed that high perceived collective efficacy reduced fear and thus enhanced individuals’ trust in the cooperative intentions of others. SAM, social affiliation motivation; PSB, prosocial behavior - sharing resources (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001). We therefore predicted that: H1: Prosocial self-efficacy mediates the relationship between rejection sensitivity and prosocial collective efficacy. In line with previous research and the results of Study 1 we hypothesized that: H2: Anger mediates the relationship between (a) rejection sensitivity and trust, (b) prosocial self-efficacy and trust, and (c) prosocial collective efficacy and trust. In brief, the global aim of our two studies was to analyze the role of some dispositional and psychosocial variables in predicting PSB, and to analyze the relation between those predictors themselves by testing the potential mediating effects of self and collective efficacy, trust, anger and affiliation motivation, in accordance with the CAPS (Mischel and Shoda, 1995; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2001). (2013) argued, individuals with high affiliation motivation behave in a friendly way in order to maintain social contact and avoid exclusion. As study one, this study was exempt from ethical approval procedures and thus was not reviewd nor approve by any institutional review board (ethics committee). As all the variables we investigated were related to PSB practical interventions to increase PSB should be designed to (1) promote a more prosocial disposition, encourage individuals to perceive themselves as capable of PSB, encourage trust in others and increase affiliation motivation and (2) work on negative feelings and on the tendency to dread rejection to reduce their negative impact on PSB. The model was valid for both included and excluded individuals although there were two path differences. Correlation analyses were performed to explore the relationships between all the variables in the study. doi: 10.1177/0272431602239132. EFA with Varimax rotation confirmed that the scale had a one-factor structure that explained 77.43% of the variance in scores. doi: 10.1037/a0015250, Smith, A., and Williams, K. D. (2004). (2001). The validity of our model in the contexts of inclusion and exclusion indicates that psychosocial interventions designed to foster prosocialness, individual and collective prosocial efficacy, trust and affiliation motivation, as well as interventions to decrease negative affect, have the potential to promote PSB in both excluded and included individuals. (p. 344). We also added some supplementary variables of particular relevance to inclusion/exclusion contexts to the model: rejection sensitivity, anger, and affiliation motivation. (2004) showed that in an online context empathic communication increases trust. Ostracism. 88, 736–748. Promotion of prosocial behavior (PSB) — defined as an broad range of acts, including helping behavior, altruism, cooperation and solidarity intended to benefit other people (Weinstein and Ryan, 2010) — in individuals, groups and communities encourages the development of networks that facilitate coexistence, well-being and healthier social and environmental contexts. doi: 10.107/s11109-008-9076–9077, Van Lange, P. A., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T. N., and Vugt, M. V. (2007). Soc. ; (e) Animal Experimentation; (f) Use of biological agents of risk to human health, animal or plant; (g) Use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs); or (h) Release of GMOs. Appl. Trust emerged as a mediator of the relationship between prosocialness and PSB. As indicated in Table 3, the highest correlation coefficient was between prosocialness and prosocial self-efficacy (r = 0.65). Psychol. Nature 454, 213–216. Prosocial self-efficacy fully mediated the relationships between (1) prosocialness and prosocial collective efficacy and (2) prosocialness and PSB. R U There? Psychol. Psychol. Cogn. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77, Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., and Randall, B. Game participation and preservation of the commons: an experimental approach. This pattern of results suggests that affiliation motivation may be a predictor of PSB in both included and excluded individuals and it follows that practitioners should take special care to enhance individuals’ affiliation motivation as a means of fostering PSB. 18:349. doi: 10.1037/gdn0000018, Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., and Garcia, S. (1990). Affiliation motivation: people who need people… but in different ways. 8, 23–74. 1 Department of Psychology, Social Psychology, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain; 2 Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands; Prosocial behavior (PSB) is increasingly becoming necessary as more and more individuals experience exclusion. J. Pers. TABLE 4. Social antecedent and consecuences of interpersonal rejection sensitivity. Psychol. Sex and age were not the principal aim of our study and did not show any significant influence on the other variables of the study, and were thus omitted from all further analyses. Annu. When we help another person, it indicates that we have enough resources that we can afford to give some of them to the recipient; it also indicates that the recipient is dependent on our … Trusting individuals tend to be intrinsically motivated to engage in activities with others whereas less trusting individuals are less likely to want to affiliate (Green and Brock, 1998). As such, the dispositional and psychosocial variables chosen for this study have been commonly related to PSB in previous literature and/or to social exclusion situations. Smart Richman, L., and Leary, R. M. (2009). University of Chicago. We expected that angry individuals would trust their partners less. Bull. There was evidence for all the hypothesized mediation relationships except for the mediation of the relationship between rejection sensitivity and PSB by affiliation motivation. 8, 291–301. Psychol. Would the variables tested in this model still predict PSB? Prosocialness has been associated with self-efficacy. Altruism, benevolence, and generosity — which are strongly associated with prosocialness — have also been found to predict trust (Nooteboom and Six, 2003; Klapwijk and Van Lange, 2009; De Dreu et al., 2010). The model was a good fit to the data [χ2(15, N = 119) = 7.46, p = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.01, 95% CI [0.01,0.02]; CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.98]. Trusting individuals were more likely to desire social contact (Patrick et al., 1997) and in turn more likely to engage in PSB (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Zaskodna et al., 2013). Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R. (1993). It was a partial mediator of the prosocialness-affiliation motivation association. *Correspondence: Carmen Tabernero, carmen.tabernero@uco.es; Esther Cuadrado, esther.cuadrado@uco.es, Front. 74, 341–360. (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Schermelleh-Engel and Moosbrugger, 2003); (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) which is suitable if you have values above 0.97 (Schermelleh-Engel and Moosbrugger, 2003); (c) Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), for which Hoyle (1995) suggests values above 0.9 as appropriate, and Schermelleh-Engel and Moosbrugger (2003) suggest values above 0.95 indicative of good fit. Spontaneous helping involves short term contact with a stranger with no expectation of future interaction, whereas non-spontaneous or planned helping involves time consuming behaviors and repeated interactions with the recipient (Benson et al., 1980; Pearce & Amato, 1980). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. 70, 1327–1343. Available at: https://cyberball.wikispaces.com. Psychol. Method Psychol. Motiv. One would therefore expect rejection sensitivity to be negatively associated with prosocial self-efficacy and collective prosocial efficacy. View all 18, 76–83. (2004) have also demonstrated that rejection sensitivity mediates the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and anger. Academic journal article J. Soc. We selected the top six best selling introductory social psychology text books written by different authors (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2008; Baron, Branscombe, & Byrne, 2008; Baumeister & Bushman, 2011; Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2011; Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2010; Myers, 2010), and 2 randomly chosen texts from the list (Sanderson, 2010; Taylor, Peplau, & Sears, 2006) to review. Rusbult, C. E., and Agnew, C. R. (2010). Eur. Psychol. New York, NY: Routledge. Relationsh. (1998). Prosocial self-efficacy mediated the association between rejection sensitivity and collective prosocial efficacy. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1. Res. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56, Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., and Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). doi: 10.1521/soco.1999.17.2.245, Ayduk,Ö., Gyurak, A., and Luerssen, A. investigation of helping, and indicate methodological issues that need to be addressed in future research. Psychol. Modelling Spatial-Temporal Information, ed. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.1008. Pers. The objective of this study was to analyze the relationships between the various motivational determinants of PSB and devise a predictive model of PSB in a neutral context. Shipley, T. E., and Veroff, J. (1980). Psychol. Bull. In a recent study, Franzen and Pointner (2013) have demonstrated that in lab behavior is related to PSB in the field—these authors used a measure of PSB with a dilemma game similar to the one we have used in this experiment. 23, 531–546. This prediction is based in the rejection sensitivity model of Levy et al. Compass 5, 919–932. 32, 65–85. Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. IMPLICATIONSDEVELOPMENTAL FOR PSYCHOLOGY Our research findings about the social and personality determinants of helping behavior also have implications for developmental psychology. doi: 10.1177/0146167206289729, Lee, J., and Shrum, L. J. Psychol. 79, 748–762. Group Decis. J. Dev. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01695.x, Jones, G. R., and George, J. M. (1998). If we assume that prosocialness includes the tendency to take care of other people (Caprara et al., 2000) then it follows that prosocialness should increase desire for social contact and hence that prosocialness should predict affiliation motivation. 80, 533–544. Moreover, in order to confirm the predictive role of the variables, as well as the hypothesized predictive model of PSB, a path analysis was performed with Amos 21. 31, 307–330. Iannone, N. E., McCarty, M. K., Kelly, J. R., and Williams, K. D. (2014). Affiliation motivation is possibly the most interesting of the mediators we identified. Foundations of cooperation in young children. Efficacy beliefs influence whether individuals think optimistically or pessimistically and their emotional responses (Bandura, 2000). 22, 53–97. Trust and reactions to messages of intent in social dilemmas. 63, 234–246. J. Soc. Sci. In Study 1 we tested this model in a neutral context. B., and Barclay, D. (1997). Psychol. (2006). TABLE 1. J. Pers. Social Traps. To detect multicollinearity we examined the correlation matrix for the independent variables, the VIF and tolerance values for all the constructs (Kline, 2005). AND, OR, NOT, “ ”, ( ), We use cookies to deliver a better user experience and to show you ads based on your interests. Keyword searches may also use the operators We also note that whilst laboratory studies have shown that exclusion at the hands of an out-group is painful (Williams et al., 2000; Smith and Williams, 2004), even if the out-group is despised (Gonsalkorale and Williams, 2007), a study of real life exclusion showed that rejection by people to whom one feels close is more painful that rejection by strangers or acquaintances (Nezlek et al., 2012). Affiliation motivation was also a direct predictor of PSB. Efficacy, emotion and the habit of participation. Butler, J. C., Doherty, M. S., and Potter, R. M. (2007). In order to confirm a predictive model of PSB a path analysis was performed with Amos 21. Moreover, the few differences that emerged in the model between the inclusion and exclusion contexts suggested that in interventions with excluded individuals special care emphasis should be placed on addressing rejection sensitivity and lack of trust. If one is concerned with how a tendency for acting prosocially develops among children it may be helpful to consider what determines prosocial behavior, and what personal characteristics, …