A New Scale for Measuring Adults' Prosocialness

Caprara, Gian Vittorio; Steca, Patrizia; Zelli, Arnaldo; Capanna, Cristina

doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77

Cited by 367 publications

(462 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

343

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants rated (1 ="never/almost never true"; 5 = "almost always/always true")their prosociality on a 16-item scale that assesses the degree of engagement in actions aimed at sharing, helping, taking care of others' needs, and empathizing with their feelings (Caprara, Steca, Zelli, &Capanna, 2005;α= .92). These same items, worded in third person, were completed by the informants (α=.96).…”

Section: Aggression Aggression Was Assessed Using the 29-item Buss-pmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the factor structure of the Rosenberg (1965) General Self-Esteem Scale.

Alessandri¹,

Vecchione²,

Eisenberg³

et al. 2015

Psychological Assessment

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its introduction, the Rosenberg General Self-esteem scale (RGSE, Rosenberg, 1965) has been one of the most widely used measures of global self-esteem. We conducted four studies to investigate (a) the goodness of fit of a bifactor model positing a general self-esteem factor (GSE) and two specific factors grouping positive (MFP) and negative items (MFN), and (b) different kinds of validity of the GSE, MFN and MFP factors of the RSGE. In the first study (n= 11,028), the fit of the bifactor model was compared with those of nine alternative models proposed in literature for the RGSE. In Study 2 (n = 357), the external validities of GSE, MFP and MFN were evaluated using objective grade point average data and multi-method measures of prosociality, aggression, and depression. In Study 3 (n = 565), the across-rater robustness of the bifactor model was evaluated. In Study 4, measurement invariance of the RGSE was further supported across samples in three European countries, Serbia (n= 1,010), Poland (n= 699), and Italy (n= 707), and in the United States (n = 1,192). All in all, psychometric findings corroborate the value and the robustness of the bifactor structure and its substantive interpretation. Keywords. Bifactor model; self-esteem; Rosenberg self-esteem scale; method effects; method factors. 3Self-esteem reflects an overall subjective evaluation of personal worth (Marsh & O'Mara, 2008;Rosenberg, 1965). A considerable amount of research has investigated the nature of this construct (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, &Vohs, 2003), which represents one of the most popular individual differences constructs in psychology (see Donnellan, Trzesniewski, & Robins, 2011, for a review). Self-esteem, similar to any other psychological construct, is a latent variable that is not directly observable. Yet individuals' standing on the latent attribute can be inferred through their answers to statements intended to describe internal positive and negative states, such as feelings and emotions about the self (Borsboom, Mellenbergh& van Heerden, 2003).Since its introduction, the Rosenberg General Self-esteem scale (RGSE;Rosenberg, 1965) has been one of the most popular and widely used measures of global self-esteem (Blascovich &Tomaka, 1991;Donnellan et al., 2011;Schmitt &Allik, 2005).According to PsycInfo, the instrument has been cited 3,016 times during the last five years (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014).The scale assesses the "feeling that one is good enough" (Rosenberg, 1965, p. 31), and consists of 10 items with a high degree of face validity. A large body of empirical evidence supports the internal consistency of the instrument (Byrne, 1983), its predictive validity (Kaplan, 1980), and its equivalence over time (Marsh, Scalas, &Nagengast, 2010;Motl & DiStefano, 2002). The popularity of the 10-item RGSE has been due in part to its long history of use, its uncomplicated language, and its brevity (it takes only 1 or 2 minutes to be completed).In addition to its privileged place in the literature, the RGSE offers other...

show abstract

Section: Aggression Aggression Was Assessed Using the 29-item Buss-pmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the factor structure of the Rosenberg (1965) General Self-Esteem Scale.

Alessandri¹,

Vecchione²,

Eisenberg³

et al. 2015

Psychological Assessment

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Variables The independent variables considered in the present research were the following: (a) the sociodemographic and religious variables (age, sex, educational background, socioeconomic status, and professed religion) that were included in the first section of the testing battery; (b) antisocial behavior, measured by a well-known instrument (Elliott et al 1989); (c) pro-social behavior, assessed with the Self-report Scale for Adult Pro-socialness (Caprara et al 2005); (d) religiosity (frequency of religious practices and beliefs or religious experiences) which was measured by the Duke University Religion Index (Durel), (Koenig and Büssing 2010); and (e) spirituality (spiritual practices and spiritual needs), which was assessed by the Parsian-Dunning Religiosity Questionnaire (Diaz-Heredia et al 2012).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the present study, even though CMIN/df = 3.488, p = .000 did not show a good result, other indexes seemed to be more relevant: root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.035; comparison baseline indicators (CFI) = 0.963, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.051. Adults Pro-Socialness Scale (Caprara et al 2005). The Adults Pro-Socialness Scale (APS), a 16-item scale with five Likert type response options (from 1 = never true to 5 = almost true), measured pro-social behavior (sharing, helping, taking care of, and feeling emphatic towards others).…”

Section: Measurement Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pro-Social Behavior: Contributions of Religiosity, Empathic Concern, and Spirituality

Roth¹

2017

Int J Lat Am Relig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study is to examine the relationship between empathy, antisocial behavior, religiosity, and spirituality as causal variables of pro-social behavior. The study has also considered the influence of other variables such as age, sex, religious creed, and ethnicity in a Catholic sample of Bolivian university students. A preliminary conceptual model of empathic concern was proposed based on the studied variables. While the relationship between religiosity and pro-social behavior did not prove to be very sound, the results did show strong ties between pro-social behavior, empathy, and spirituality, revealing how these variables contribute to explaining such behavior. The output of the modeling process indicates (verified through standardized weights) that at least three of the four latent variables included in the model showed a relevant influence on pro-social behavior (empathy, religiosity, and spirituality). Antisocial behavior was dismissed as a source of an endogenous variable explanation. Although the model seems to be acceptable, some adjustments are needed to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the empathy-a pro-social conceptual framework.Keywords Pro-social behavior . Empathic concern . Religiosity . Spirituality Statements such as BDon't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you^, attributed to Buddha, or BLove your neighbor as yourself^of the Christian gospels 1 , or BDo good to others without expecting anything in return^, and many other similar expressions shared by different religions tell us much about the importance that sacred Int J Lat Am Relig (2017) Batson et al. 1993;Yodrabum 2005;Hardy and Carlo 2005) consider the religious experience, the practice of faith, instilling moral thinking, sharing, cooperating, and promoting pro-social behavior as a wide range of actions that seek to benefit one or more people (Batson 1998). On the other hand, there are reasons to believe that individuals are usually generous, cooperative, concerned, and trustworthy, and it is assumed that religious people are more likely to show such attributes. Therefore, religiosity could be considered as a predictor of kindness and understanding as well as emotional pro-social altruism (Hardy and Carlo 2005).However, a growing number of studies question the relationship between religious practices and pro-social behavior, making it necessary to deepen its analysis and review its underlying theoretical assumptions. The existing scientific literature related to this topic is far from having achieved a full agreement on the existence of evidence for such a relationship and, rather, reveals contradictions regarding the influence of religiosity on pro-social behavior.While there is little doubt about the relationship as such, the controversy arises when discussing the causal status of religiosity. This seems to be related to the complexities of the multidimensional nature of the pro-social theoretical construct and the notion of religiosity. For example, it is evident that som...

show abstract

“…La capacidad de autorregulación, los procesos evaluativos y atencionales, la competencia social y el razonamiento moral, son características propias del desarrollo psicológico de los adolescentes. El comportamiento prosocial en este grupo etario se ve estimulado por dichas características evolutivas, favoreciendo tanto el desarrollo como la estabilidad de las conductas prosociales (Caprara, Steca, Zelli, & Capanna, 2005). Entre muchos otros aspectos positivos que conlleva el período de la adolescencia, se menciona a la prosocialidad como un factor protector frente a la depresión (Llorca Mestre et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Apego percibido y conducta prosocial en adolescentes

Balabanian¹,

Lemos²,

Rubilar³

2015

rev.colomb.cienc.soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teniendo en cuenta el rol fundamental del apego parental en el desarrollo de diferentes recursos socio-emocionales, el objetivo de este trabajo fue estudiar si la percepción del apego parental, se relaciona específicamente con la conducta prosocial adolescente. Método: se trabajó con una muestra no probabilística intencional de 285 adolescentes (216 mujeres y 69 varones) de entre 14 y 18 años (M = 15,68; DE = 1,14), de Córdoba, Argentina. Previa autorización de los padres y consentimiento informado, se les administró la versión traducida y validada en Argentina del Cuestionario de Apego Parental de Kenny (1987) y la versión traducida y validada para adolescentes argentinos del Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM) de Carlo & Randall (2002). Se realizó un Análisis Multivariado de Variancia (MANOVA), cuyos resultados indicaron diferencias significativas en el perfil de prosocialidad en función del apego seguro/positivo (F de Hotelling (8.556) = 3.33; p = .001). Los resultados de los análisis univariados correspondientes a cada una de las dimensiones de la conducta prosocial evaluada, se discuten en función de los desarrollos teóricos y empíricos encontrados hasta el momento, encontrando una consistencia general entre los mismos. © Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Sociales.

show abstract

A New Scale for Measuring Adults' Prosocialness

Cited by 367 publications

References 29 publications

On the factor structure of the Rosenberg (1965) General Self-Esteem Scale.

On the factor structure of the Rosenberg (1965) General Self-Esteem Scale.

Pro-Social Behavior: Contributions of Religiosity, Empathic Concern, and Spirituality

Apego percibido y conducta prosocial en adolescentes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About