Article The Structure of Human Prosociality: Differentiating Altruistically Motivated, Norm Motivated, Strategically Motivated, and Self-Reported Prosocial Behavior Anne Bo ¨ ckler 1,2 , Anita Tusche 1,3 , and Tania Singer 1 Abstract Prosocial behavior is crucial for functioning societies. However, its reliable scientific assessment and the understanding of its underlying structure are still a challenge. We integrated 14 paradigms from diverse disciplines to identify reliable and method- independent subcomponents of human prosociality; 329 participants performed game theoretical paradigms and hypothetical distribution tasks commonly used in behavioral economics and completed interactive computer tasks and self-reports typically employed in psychology. Four subcomponents of prosociality were identified by exploratory factor analysis and verified by confirmatory factor analysis in an independent sample: altruistically motivated prosocial behavior, norm motivated prosocial behavior, strategically motivated prosocial behavior, and self-reported prosocial behavior. Altruistically motivated behavior was related to gender, to enhanced cognitive skills, and to reduced negative affect. Our study provides a crucial step toward an overarching framework on prosocial behavior that will benefit future research on predictors, neural underpinnings, and plasticity of human cooperation and prosociality. Keywords altruism, prosocial behavior, social decision-making, interindividual differences, economic games, factor analysis Introduction Societies depend on prosocial behavior of their members, ranging from offering seats to the elderly to taking in refu- gees. Recently, the study of human cooperation and altruism has moved into scientific focus. Disciplines such as econom- ics, psychology, and neuroscience have started to reveal pre- conditions, constraints, and underpinnings of prosocial behavior (e.g., Batson, 2011; Boyd & Richerson, 2009; Fow- ler, 2005; Henrich et al., 2006; Nowak & Sigmund, 2005; Ohtsuki, Hauert, Lieberman, & Nowak, 2006; Rekers, Haun, & Tomasello, 2011; Steinbeis, Bernhardt, & Singer, 2012; Warneken & Tomasello, 2009). Typically, however, these disciplines employ different methods and focus on different facets of prosociality. Economists preferentially use game theoretical paradigms that are based on strict payoff matrices and real monetary earn- ings to operationalize concepts like generosity (e.g., dictator game [DG]; Camerer, 2003), trust (e.g., trust game [TG]; Berg, Dickhaut, & McCabe, 1995), and altruistic punishment (e.g., punishment games; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004). This research has shown, for instance, that people reciprocate favors specif- ically to those who have previously favored them (Falk & Fischbacher, 2006) and invest resources to punish those who behave unfairly (Henrich et al., 2006), findings that indicate the critical role of social norms in interpersonal behavior. In turn, people behave more generously when they can be punished for ungenerous offers, a behavior that has been termed ‘‘strategic’’ (Spitzer, Fischbacher, Herrnberger, Gron, & Fehr, 2007). Psychologists, on the other hand, assess prosociality with self-report measures that ask for people’s inclination to help and support others (e.g., Prosocialness Scale, Caprara, Steca, Zelli, & Capanna, 2005; interpersonal reactivity index [IRI], Davis, 1983) or to behave according to self-interest (e.g., Machiavellianism Scale; Henning & Six, 1977). Also, para- digms involving more ecologically valid interactions are employed, ranging from charitable donations (e.g., Hare, Camerer, Knoepfle, & Rangel, 2010) to investing time to help others (e.g., Latane ´ & Nida, 1981; Leiberg, Klimecki, & 1 Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany 2 Wu ¨rzburg University, Wu ¨rzburg, Germany 3 Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Tech- nology, CA, USA Corresponding Author: Anne Bo ¨ckler, Wu ¨rzburg University, Ro ¨ntgenring 11, 97070 Wu ¨rzburg, Germany. Email: anne.boeckler@uni-wuerzburg.de Social Psychological and Personality Science 1-12 ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1948550616639650 spps.sagepub.com at Universitatsbibliothek on April 6, 2016 spp.sagepub.com Downloaded from