Exploring prosocial behaviors in times of a pandemic: Individuals’ lay perspective versus scientific measurements

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
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,&nbsp;Barbara Hartl,&nbsp;Eva Hofmann,&nbsp;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).

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
42
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信