The Impact of Perceived Social Mindfulness on Adolescents' Prosocial Behavior

Yuan Bo; Liu Yichang; Ku Tingting

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240514

PDF(1177 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2024, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (5) : 1153-1162. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240514

Social，Personality & Organizational Psychology

The Impact of Perceived Social Mindfulness on Adolescents' Prosocial Behavior

Yuan Bo, Liu Yichang, Ku Tingting

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Adolescence is a crucial period of transition to adulthood that significantly shapes the development of prosocial behavior. Research indicates that prosocial behavior is closely linked to academic performance, self-esteem, and empathy. Understanding the factors that influence adolescents' prosocial behavior and fostering its growth is essential to improving their mental health. Previous studies have shown that perceived social mindfulness influences individuals' prosocial behavior, from being "receivers" to "implementers" of social mindfulness.
Social interactions are not simply unidirectional; they often involve reciprocal behaviors in which individuals who receive assistance help others in return. However, it remains unclear how perceived social mindfulness in previous interactions influences prosocial behavior toward unfamiliar others in subsequent interactions, a phenomenon known as spillover effects. The context of previous interactions may shape expectations, with individuals behaving in ways anticipated to yield certain reinforcements. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether adolescents' perceived levels of social mindfulness affect their prosocial behavior toward unfamiliar others in subsequent interactions and to explore the psychological mechanisms underlying this process.
The current study explored the effects of perceived social mindfulness on prosocial behavior using two experiments, integrating an economic interaction game with cognitive computational modeling, and focusing on adolescents. In Study 1, 90 senior high school students were recruited, with 89 data sets (47 males) were included in the analysis. Participants were divided into two groups based on their perceived social mindfulness levels: 44 in the high perceived social mindfulness group and 45 in the low perceived social mindfulness group. This study used the Social Mindfulness (SoMi) paradigm and the mini-dictator game to investigate whether an individual's perceived level of social kindness in a prior interaction influences their prosocial behavior toward unfamiliar others in subsequent interactions.
To validate the findings of Study 1, Study 2 expanded the sample size and used a binary dictator game to explore the impact of perceived social mindfulness on adolescents' prosocial behavior within two contexts of inequity: advantage and disadvantage. A total of 120 high school students were initially selected, with 119 (63 males) completed the study. Participants were also divided into two groups based on their perceived social mindfulness levels: 60 in the high perceived social mindfulness group and 59 in the low perceived social mindfulness group.
Results showed that adolescents with high perceived social mindfulness exhibited more equitable altruistic choices in subsequent interactions with unfamiliar others compared to those low in perceived social mindfulness. Computational modeling revealed that high perceived social mindfulness increased the propensity to avert unfairness to advantage, but did not influence aversion to unfairness to disadvantage.
These findings advance our understanding of how perceived social mindfulness fosters prosocial behavior and provide valuable insights for promoting such behavior among adolescents. Specifically, the findings offer a foundation for strategies aimed at fostering prosocial behavior in school settings, contributing to the comprehensive, balanced, and healthy development of adolescents and creating a harmonious, positive, and uplifting campus atmosphere.

Key words

adolescents / perceived social mindfulness / prosocial behavior / inequity aversion

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Yuan Bo, Liu Yichang, Ku Tingting. The Impact of Perceived Social Mindfulness on Adolescents' Prosocial Behavior[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2024, 47(5): 1153-1162 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240514

References

[1] 窦凯, 刘耀中, 王玉洁, 聂衍刚. (2018). “乐”于合作: 感知社会善念诱导合作行为的情绪机制. 心理学报, 50(1), 101-114.
[2] 刘嘉. (2019). 社会阶层对社会正念的影响: 合作/竞争的作用 (硕士学位论文).宁夏大学, 银川.
[3] 王怀勇, 许雅梅, 岳思怡, 陈雅姣. (2023). 感知社会善念对信任修复的促进: 社会距离与时间距离的调节作用. 心理科学, 46(1), 113-120.
[4] 袁博, 陈思宇, 董悦, 李伟强. (2023). 不公平感知对普遍信任的影响. 心理科学, 46(3), 693-703.
[5] 赵欣, 李丹丹, 杨向东. (2022). 学龄前儿童社会善念理解的发展与心理理论的关系. 心理学报, 54(8), 892-904.
[6] 周蕾, 李爱梅, 张磊, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2019). 风险决策和跨期决策的过程比较: 以确定效应和即刻效应为例. 心理学报, 51(3), 337-352.
[7] Ahluwalia R., Unnava H. R., & Burnkrant R. E. (2001). The moderating role of commitment on the spillover effect of marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 458-470.
[8] Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. Aldine de Gruyter.
[9] Allen J. P., Philliber S., Herrling S., & Kuperminc G. P. (1997). Preventing teen pregnancy and academic failure: Experimental evaluation of a developmentally based approach. Child Development, 68(4), 729-742.
[10] Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science, 17(4), 319-325.
[11] Brandt, H., & Sigmund, K. (2004). The logic of reprobation: Assessment and action rules for indirect reciprocation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 231(4), 475-486.
[12] Brandt, H., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Indirect reciprocity, image scoring, and moral hazard. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(7), 2666-2670.
[13] Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2014). Evolution of responses to (un)fairness. Science, 346(6207), Article 1251776.
[14] Carlo G., Mestre M. V., McGinley M. M., Tur-Porcar A., Samper P., & Opal D. (2014). The protective role of prosocial behaviors on antisocial behaviors: The mediating effects of deviant peer affiliation. Journal of Adolescence, 37(4), 359-366.
[15] Chalub F. A. C. C., Santos F. C., & Pacheco J. M. (2006). The evolution of norms. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 241(2), 233-240.
[16] Chen, F. D., & Krajbich, I. (2018). Biased sequential sampling underlies the effects of time pressure and delay in social decision making. Nature Communications, 9(1), Article 3557.
[17] Dufwenberg M., Gneezy U., Güth W., & van Damme E. (2001). Direct vs. indirect reciprocity: An experiment. Homo Deconomicus, 18, 19-30.
[18] Engelmann, D., & Fischbacher, U.(2009). Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game. Games and Economic Behavior, 67(2), 399-407.
[19] Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.
[20] Gao X. X., Yu H. B., Sáez I., Blue P. R., Zhu L. S., Hsu M., & Zhou X. L. (2018). Distinguishing neural correlates of context-dependent advantageous-and disadvantageous-inequity aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(33), E7680-E7689.
[21] Gray K., Ward A. F., & Norton M. I. (2014). Paying it forward: Generalized reciprocity and the limits of generosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 247-254.
[22] Greiner, B., & Vittoria Levati, M. (2005). Indirect reciprocity in cyclical networks. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(5), 711-731.
[23] Güth W., Königstein M., Marchand N., & Nehring K. (2001). Trust and reciprocity in the investment game with indirect reward. Homo Oeconomicus, 18, 241-262.
[24] Haroz E. E., Murray L. K., Bolton P., Betancourt T., & Bass J. K. (2013). Adolescent resilience in Northern Uganda: The role of social support and prosocial behavior in reducing mental health problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(1), 138-148.
[25] Loewenstein G. F., Thompson L., & Bazerman M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 426-441.
[26] Ma L. K., Tunney R. J., & Ferguson E. (2017). Does gratitude enhance prosociality?: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 601-635.
[27] Milinski M., Semmann D., & Krambeck H. J. (2002). Reputation helps solve the 'tragedy of the commons'. Nature, 415(6870), 424-426.
[28] Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). The dynamics of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 194(4), 561-574.
[29] Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298.
[30] Ohtsuki, H., & Iwasa, Y. (2004). How should we define goodness?--Reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 231(1), 107-120.
[31] Peysakhovich, A., & Rand, D. G. (2016). Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Science, 62(3), 631-647.
[32] Rankin, D. J., & Taborsky, M. (2009). Assortment and the evolution of generalized reciprocity. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 63(7), 1913-1922.
[33] Roseth, C. J. (2016). Character education, moral education, and moral- character education. In L. Corno & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 213-225). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
[34] Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
[35] van Doesum N. J., van Lange, D. A. W., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1), 86-103.
[36] van Lange, P. A., & van Doesum, N. J. (2015). Social mindfulness and social hostility. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 18-24.
[37] Wedekind, C., & Milinski, M. (2000). Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science, 288(5467), 850-852.
[38] Wilson D. S.(2015). Does altruism exist? Culture, genes, and the welfare of others.Yale University Press.