McGinley Meredith, Pierotti Sarah L, Carlo Gustavo
University of Wisconsin Parkside.
Penn State DuBois.
J Soc Psychol. 2022 Mar 4;162(2):245-261. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2021.1881031. Epub 2021 Feb 2.
The current study sought to determine how prosocial behaviors reflecting various motivations (altruistic and public prosocial behaviors) and situations (i.e., anonymous, compliant, dire, and emotional prosocial behaviors) jointly inform subtypes of prosocial personality groups. Undergraduates ( = 324, age = 19.47 years, 80% female) completed a measure of these six prosocial behaviors (Prosocial Tendencies Measure-Revised). Latent profile analysis results supported a three-group solution: (AH), (PH), and (AI). The AH and AI profiles were defined by elevated altruistic prosocial behaviors, but the AH profile was higher on situational helping and socioemotive and sociocognitive correlates. The PH profile was characterized by elevated public prosocial behaviors and moderate levels of situational helping. These identified profiles support multiple competing ideas of the true nature of prosocial personality, but also introduce the possibility that some individuals idealize motives but fail to engage in behavior.
当前的研究旨在确定反映各种动机（利他和亲社会行为）和情境（即匿名、顺从、危急和情感性亲社会行为）的亲社会行为如何共同构成亲社会人格群体的亚型。本科生（N = 324，年龄 = 19.47岁，80%为女性）完成了一项关于这六种亲社会行为的测量（亲社会倾向测量修订版）。潜在剖面分析结果支持三组解决方案：（AH）、（PH）和（AI）。AH和AI剖面的特征是利他亲社会行为增加，但AH剖面在情境帮助以及社会情感和社会认知相关性方面更高。PH剖面的特征是公共亲社会行为增加以及情境帮助水平适中。这些确定的剖面支持了关于亲社会人格真实本质的多种相互竞争的观点，但也引入了这样一种可能性，即一些人理想化动机但未能付诸行动。
