探索大流行时期的亲社会行为:个人的非专业观点与科学测量

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Janet Kleber, Barbara Hartl, Eva Hofmann, Katharina Ingrid Gölly
{"title":"探索大流行时期的亲社会行为:个人的非专业观点与科学测量","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

像Covid-19大流行这样的人道主义危机对社会构成了重大挑战,引发了关于这种情况是否会引发更亲社会或更自私行为的科学辩论。尽管大流行施加了限制,但目前的证据表明,各种亲社会行为仍在继续表现。本研究旨在从个人和科学的角度加深对亲社会行为构成的理解。为此,我们通过代表性调查(N = 446)中的开放性问题分析了外行观点,并通过内容分析对报告的亲社会行为进行了定性分类。定性内容分析揭示了三类亲社会行为:促进他人福利、健康保护措施和支持社会。此外,我们进行了系统的文献综述,以确定大流行期间研究的亲社会行为的科学视角(即侧重于实证测量)。虽然促进他人福利的行为(如捐赠)是文献综述中最常研究的,但参与者报告了更多保护健康的行为,如洗手,而在大流行之前,洗手在传统上并不被认为是亲社会的行为。个人的非专业观点和科学观点之间的比较突出了一些值得未来调查的亲社会行为(例如,支持经济,家庭办公室)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信