Janet Kleber, Barbara Hartl, Eva Hofmann, Katharina Ingrid Gölly
{"title":"Exploring prosocial behaviors in times of a pandemic: Individuals’ lay perspective versus scientific measurements","authors":"Janet Kleber, Barbara Hartl, Eva Hofmann, Katharina Ingrid Gölly","doi":"10.1111/asap.12441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Humanitarian crises like the Covid-19 pandemic pose significant challenges to society, prompting scientific debate on whether such situations elicit more prosocial or more selfish behavior. Despite the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, current evidence indicates a continued display of various prosocial behaviors. This research aims to enhance the understanding of what constitutes prosocial behavior from both individuals’ lay and scientific perspectives. For this purpose, we analyzed lay perspectives via an open question in a representative survey (<i>N</i> = 446) and qualitatively categorized the reported prosocial behaviors inductively with content analysis. The qualitative content analysis revealed three clusters of prosocial behaviors: promoting the welfare of others, health-protective measures, and supporting society. Additionally, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify the scientific perspective view (i.e., focusing on the empirical measurements) on prosocial behaviors studied during the pandemic. Although behaviors promoting the welfare of others (e.g., donations) were the most commonly studied in the literature review, participants reported more health-protective behavior, such as hand-washing, which was not traditionally considered to be prosocial before the pandemic. The comparison between individuals’ lay and scientific perspectives highlighted some prosocial behaviors that warrant future investigation (e.g., supporting the economy, home office).</p>","PeriodicalId":46799,"journal":{"name":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/asap.12441","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12441","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Humanitarian crises like the Covid-19 pandemic pose significant challenges to society, prompting scientific debate on whether such situations elicit more prosocial or more selfish behavior. Despite the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, current evidence indicates a continued display of various prosocial behaviors. This research aims to enhance the understanding of what constitutes prosocial behavior from both individuals’ lay and scientific perspectives. For this purpose, we analyzed lay perspectives via an open question in a representative survey (N = 446) and qualitatively categorized the reported prosocial behaviors inductively with content analysis. The qualitative content analysis revealed three clusters of prosocial behaviors: promoting the welfare of others, health-protective measures, and supporting society. Additionally, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify the scientific perspective view (i.e., focusing on the empirical measurements) on prosocial behaviors studied during the pandemic. Although behaviors promoting the welfare of others (e.g., donations) were the most commonly studied in the literature review, participants reported more health-protective behavior, such as hand-washing, which was not traditionally considered to be prosocial before the pandemic. The comparison between individuals’ lay and scientific perspectives highlighted some prosocial behaviors that warrant future investigation (e.g., supporting the economy, home office).
期刊介绍:
Recent articles in ASAP have examined social psychological methods in the study of economic and social justice including ageism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, status quo bias and other forms of discrimination, social problems such as climate change, extremism, homelessness, inter-group conflict, natural disasters, poverty, and terrorism, and social ideals such as democracy, empowerment, equality, health, and trust.