Hay D F
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, U.K.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1994 Jan;35(1):29-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01132.x.
The foregoing review has been organised in terms of five developmental hypotheses--let us now summarise the evidence bearing on each hypothesis. The first hypothesis, that a general prosocial impulse arises in the first year of life, is well-supported by the data. Some dispute remains about the point at which children are capable of responding sympathetically to companions in distress, with some investigators claiming that this takes place around the time of the second birthday (Kochanska, 1993), others placing this achievement earlier in development (Hoffman, 1975). The second, more controversial hypothesis, that the frequency of prosocial behaviour declines thereafter, is supported by cross-sectional data and by the burgeoning literature on the ways in which prosocial responding comes to be regulated cognitively and emotionally during the preschool years. Actual evidence for a decline and tests of hypotheses that the decline is associated with the acquisition of particular "display rules" and the regulation of empathic responding and guilt requires appropriately designed longitudinal studies. In general, our understanding of the normal course of prosocial development is limited due to the paucity of longitudinal data and the tendency of particular investigators to concentrate on single constructs--empathy, sharing, moral judgement or whatever--and not examine the interrelations of different types of prosocial behaviours in the same sample, tested under the same conditions. It is also not completely clear whether findings about empathic responding in experimental procedures (e.g. Miller et al., 1989) can be used to explain age changes in the selective display of prosocial behaviour under natural conditions. However, it is clear that future studies of prosocial development must examine the contributions of empathy, guilt and children's awareness of moral and conventional standards to children's overt prosocial actions with friends and family members. The contribution of children's close personal relationships, particularly their attachment relationships and close friendships, to prosocial behaviours, deserves increased attention. The third hypothesis was a claim that, during the childhood years, prosocial behaviour becomes differentiated in terms of gender, with females and males showing their prosocial tendencies in qualitatively different ways. Evidence bearing on this point is beset with measurement problems; it seems clear that girls report more empathy and are reputed by others to be more prosocial than boys, but direct observations do not always support such conclusions. Much more information is needed about ways in which boys in particular are prosocial--for example, co-operating with teammates whilst competing against other teams, in athletic contests.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
上述综述是按照五个发展假说进行组织的——现在让我们总结一下支持每个假说的证据。第一个假说认为，一般的亲社会冲动在生命的第一年就会出现，这一假说得到了数据的有力支持。对于儿童何时能够对处于困境中的同伴做出同情反应，仍存在一些争议，一些研究者认为这发生在两岁左右（科查斯卡，1993年），另一些研究者则认为这一成就出现在更早的发展阶段（霍夫曼，1975年）。第二个假说更具争议性，即亲社会行为的频率此后会下降，这一假说得到了横断面数据以及关于学前儿童亲社会反应在认知和情感上如何得到调节的新兴文献的支持。关于亲社会行为下降的实际证据以及关于下降与特定“表现规则”的习得、共情反应和内疚感的调节相关的假说检验，需要精心设计的纵向研究。总体而言，由于纵向数据匮乏，以及特定研究者倾向于专注于单一结构（如同情、分享、道德判断等），而不考察在相同条件下对同一样本中不同类型亲社会行为的相互关系，我们对亲社会发展正常进程的理解是有限的。同样不完全清楚的是，实验程序中关于共情反应的发现（如米勒等人，1989年）是否可用于解释自然条件下亲社会行为选择性表现的年龄变化。然而，很明显，未来关于亲社会发展的研究必须考察共情、内疚以及儿童对道德和常规标准的认知对儿童与朋友和家庭成员的公开亲社会行为的贡献。儿童亲密的个人关系，尤其是他们的依恋关系和亲密友谊，对亲社会行为的贡献值得更多关注。第三个假说是，在童年时期，亲社会行为在性别方面会有所分化，女性和男性以质的不同方式表现出他们的亲社会倾向。关于这一点的证据存在测量问题；似乎很明显，女孩报告的共情更多，而且其他人认为女孩比男孩更具亲社会性，但直接观察并不总是支持这样的结论。对于男孩尤其是如何表现亲社会行为，例如在体育比赛中与队友合作同时与其他队伍竞争，还需要更多信息。（摘要截取至400字）
