See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/51669559

Prosociality: The contribution of traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs

Article  in  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · September 2011

DOI: 10.1037/a0025626 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
360 7,363

3 authors:

Gian Vittorio Caprara Guido Alessandri

University of Southern Mississippi Sapienza University of Rome
205 PUBLICATIONS   23,508 CITATIONS    203 PUBLICATIONS   6,811 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nancy Eisenberg
Arizona State University
608 PUBLICATIONS   65,471 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Goal setting and Academic achievement View project

Prosocial actions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nancy Eisenberg on 14 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. 102, No. 6, 1289 –1303 0022-3514/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025626

Prosociality: The Contribution of Traits, Values, and Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Gian Vittorio Caprara and Guido Alessandri Nancy Eisenberg

Sapienza University of Rome Arizona State University

The present study examined how agreeableness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy
beliefs predict individuals’ tendencies to engage in prosocial behavior (i.e., prosociality) across time.
Participants were 340 young adults, 190 women and 150 men, age approximately 21 years at Time 1 and
25 years at Time 2. Measures of agreeableness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and
prosociality were collected at 2 time points. The findings corroborated the posited paths of relations, with
agreeableness directly predicting self-transcendence and indirectly predicting empathic self-efficacy
beliefs and prosociality. Self-transcendence mediated the relation between agreeableness and empathic
self-efficacy beliefs. Empathic self-efficacy beliefs mediated the relation of agreeableness and self-
transcendence to prosociality. Finally, earlier prosociality predicted agreeableness and empathic self-
efficacy beliefs assessed at Time 2. The posited conceptual model accounted for a significant portion of
variance in prosociality and provides guidance to interventions aimed at promoting prosociality.

Keywords: prosociality, agreeableness, self-transcendence values, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, longi-

tudinal mediational model

Prosocial behaviors refer to voluntary actions undertaken to
benefit others, such as sharing, donating, caring, comforting, and
helping (Batson, 1998; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Penner,
Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). Whereas the benefits of
these behaviors for the target are quite obvious, findings support
their beneficial effects for actors across the life course and for the
larger society. For example, prosocial children perform better at
school and are less at risk for problem behaviors (i.e., internalizing
and externalizing behavior; Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, &
Caprara, 1999; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zim-
bardo, 2000; Eisenberg et al., 2006; Miles & Stipek, 2006; New-
man, 1991; Vitaro, Brendgen, Larose, & Tremblay, 2005; Went-
zel, McNamara-Barry, & Caldwell, 2004). Moreover, gratitude
and recognition derived from taking care of others’ well-being
nourish positive feelings about oneself and foster others’ accep-
tance as well as support from others when one is in need (Caprara
& Steca, 2005; Keyes, 1998; Midlarsky, 1991; Moen, Dempster-
McClain, & Williams, 1992; Musick, Herzog, & House, 1999;
Oman, Thoresen, & McMahon, 1999; Van Willigen, 2000). Al-
though studies on antisocial behavior have traditionally outnum-
bered studies on prosocial behavior, understanding the origins and
the determinants of the prosocial behaviors appears to be crucial
not only to counter detrimental conduct, such as aggression and
This article was published Online First September 26, 2011.
Gian Vittorio Caprara and Guido Alessandri, Department of Psychology,
Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; Nancy Eisenberg, Department
of Psychology, Arizona State University.
This research was supported in part by grants from the Italian Ministry
of University and Scientific Research (COFIN: 1998, 2000, 2007) and the
Sapienza University of Rome (1998, 2000, 2009).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gian
Vittorio Caprara, Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of
Rome, Via dei Marsi 78, Rome 00185, Italy. E-mail: gianvittorio.caprara@
uniroma1.it
delinquency, but also to promote acceptance and integration of
diversity in societies, to foster innovation through collabora-
tion, to sustain economic development characterized by fairness
and civic mindedness, and ultimately to promote the welfare of
society.
Whereas most researchers have traditionally focused on the
situational determinants of prosocial behavior and the rearing
and socialization practices conducive to prosocial habits (Bat-
son, 1998; Fiske, 2004), few researchers have addressed the
role of personality in predisposing individuals toward prosoci-
ality (Caprara, Alessandri, Di Giunta, Panerai, & Eisenberg,
2010; Eisenberg et al., 2002; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997;
Midlarsky, Fagin Jones, & Corley, 2005; Walker & Frimer,
2007). In reality, some people are more inclined than others to
enact behaviors that benefit others, although the sources and the
nature of individual differences remain to be further investi-
gated. Whereas twin studies indicate that there is a significant
contribution of heredity to prosociality (Knafo & Plomin,
2006a, Knafo & Plomin, 2006b; Knafo & Solomon, 2010), it is
unlikely that individual genes directly cause prosocial behavior.
Instead, their influence must be mediated through psychological
structures.
Individual differences in traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs
have been found to account for significant portions of the vari-
ability in prosociality (i.e., individuals’ enduring tendencies to
enact behaviors such as sharing, helping, caring, and empathy;
Alessandri, Caprara, Eisenberg, & Steca, 2009; Caprara et al.,
2010). Earlier findings have demonstrated the following: (a) such
behaviors can be traced to a common latent dimension called
prosociality, (b) such a tendency is relatively stable, (c) self-
evaluations and others’ evaluations of this tendency converge to a
reasonable extent, and (d), finally, traits, values, and self-efficacy
beliefs all contribute to prosociality and account for a significant
portion of unique variance in the tendency to behave prosocially
(Caprara et al., 2010; Caprara & Steca, 2007).

1289
1290 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG
Traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs all represent strong pre-
dictors of prosociality, although at different levels. Traits reflect
basic potentials predisposing people to respond consistently to
environmental demands. Values are general beliefs about priorities
in life that guide people’s action. Self-efficacy beliefs are judg-
ments people hold about their capacities to deal successfully with
specific situations. Among trait psychologists viewing the Big Five
as a comprehensive framework for delineating major individual
differences in personality, agreeableness has been seen as a major
trait determinant of prosociality (Graziano, Bruce, Sheese, & To-
bin, 2007; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Graziano & Tobin, 2002;
Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassinary, 2000). Highly agreeable
individuals, in comparison to less agreeable individuals, exhibit a
willingness to sacrifice their self-interest in favor of others, re-
spond constructively to interpersonal conflict, cooperate during
group tasks, display self-control, and report positive perceptions of
others (Ahadi & Rothbart, 1994; Cumberland-Li, Eisenberg, &
Reiser, 2004; Finch & Graziano, 2001; Graziano, Hair, & Finch,
1997; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Jensen-Campbell
& Graziano, 2001). Moreover, agreeable individuals are altruistic,
straightforward, trusting, softhearted, modest, and compliant (Gra-
ziano, 1994; McCrae & Costa, 1997, McCrae & Costa, 1999).
Whereas traits are “dimensions of individual differences in
tendencies to show consistent patterns of thought, feelings, and
actions” (McCrae & Costa, 1990, p. 23), values are cognitive
representations of desirable, abstract, trans-situational goals that
serve as guiding principles in people’s life (Schwartz, 1992).
Schwartz’s value theory postulates 10 basic values from universal
requirements of human condition: power, achievement, hedonism,
stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition,
conformity, and security. Each value expresses a distinct motiva-
tional goal. His theory provides an established, comprehensive
taxonomy of guiding principles in people’s life and specifies the
structure of dynamic relation among the values. Moreover, on the
basis of theory and data, Schwartz (1992) grouped these basic 10
values into four broader categories. Openness to change values
(made up by the lower order values of self-direction and stimula-
tion) encourage independence of thought, feeling, and action and
reflect receptiveness to change. These values conflict with conser-
vation values (conformity, tradition, security) that call for submis-
sive self-restriction, preservation of traditional practices, and pro-
tection of stability. Self-transcendence values (universalism,
benevolence) emphasize accepting others as equals and having
concern for their welfare. They conflict with self-enhancement
values (power, achievement) that encourage pursuing one’s own
relative success and dominance over that of others. Finally, hedo-
nism values represent not a sixth category but a set of values that
share elements of both openness to change and self-enhancement
(Schwartz, 1992, Schwartz, 1994, Schwartz, 2005a, Schwartz,
2005b). Although each of the 10 values might be relevant to
prosociality, self-transcendence values—namely, universalism and
benevolence—most frequently have been associated with traits
such as agreeableness and with an enduring tendency to behave
prosocially (Caprara & Steca, 2007; Schwartz, 2010).
Social cognitive scholars contend that self-efficacy beliefs,
namely, the beliefs people hold about their capacity to exert
control over the events that affect their lives, exert a pervasive
influence on personality functioning (Bandura, 1997). Caprara
(2002), in particular, pointed to affective self-regulatory efficacy
beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy beliefs in expressing positive emotions
and self-efficacy beliefs in managing negative emotions) and in-
terpersonal self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., social self-efficacy beliefs
and empathic self-efficacy beliefs) as important determinants of
psychosocial functioning, including prosociality. It is unlikely that
people engage in prosocial actions, especially if these involve
costs, unless they believe they are able both to master the emotions
associated with the recognition of others’ needs and to establish
the relationships and appropriate actions conducive to meeting
those needs. Previous findings support the role of affective and
interpersonal self-efficacy beliefs in sustaining and promoting
individuals’ tendencies to behave prosocially. In particular, em-
pathic self-efficacy beliefs, namely, individuals’ judgments about
their abilities to be sensitive to others’ feelings in situations of
need, have accounted for a significant portion of individual dif-
ferences in prosociality and have entirely mediated the contribu-
tion of affective self-regulatory efficacy beliefs to prosociality
(Alessandri et al., 2009; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino,
& Pastorelli, 2003; Caprara et al., 1999, Caprara et al., 2010).
The previously reviewed findings are consistent with the as-
sumption of contributions by traits, values, and self-efficacy be-
liefs to an enduring tendency to behave prosocially across time and
situations (Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010). Yet the
pathways through which traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs
might contribute to the tendency to behave prosocially merit
further investigation. Traits alone cannot account for all situational
variability in prosociality, especially when the pursuit of another’s
well-being may conflict with other priorities and with one’s own
safety. Nor can values fully account for prosocial behavior when
specific abilities are required to meet others’ needs. It is likely that
agreeableness predisposes individuals to endorse prosocial values.
However, spontaneous altruistic tendencies may or may not turn
into prosocial behaviors, depending on social opportunities, obli-
gations, and competing values and needs. Likewise, whether
prosocial values turn into actual goals and behavioral tendencies
likely depends on people’s capacities and mastery beliefs. People
would be expected to act in accordance with their spontaneous
inclinations and priorities if they believe they are able to do so.
Thus, simultaneous consideration of basic dispositions (i.e., traits),
moral standards (i.e., values), and individuals’ mastery beliefs (i.e.,
self-efficacy beliefs) is needed to achieve a more comprehensive
view of prosociality.
This view is supported by previous studies that have shown how
agreeableness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-
efficacy beliefs jointly predict individuals’ tendencies to behave
prosocially (Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010; Caprara
& Steca, 2007). Earlier within-time findings are consistent with the
view that self-transcendence values affect prosociality either di-
rectly or indirectly through empathic and social self-efficacy be-
liefs (Caprara & Steca, 2007). Recent longitudinal findings suggest
a major role of agreeableness in predicting individuals’ prosocial-
ity and support the role of empathic self-efficacy beliefs in par-
tially mediating the relation between agreeableness and prosocial-
ity (Caprara et al., 2010). However, multiple mediators of the
relation between agreeableness and prosociality have not been
examined using prospective data; nor has prosociality been exam-
ined as a predictor of agreeableness and values.
One goal in the present study was to ascertain whether agree-
ableness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy
 TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY
beliefs represent stronger predictors of prosociality than other do
Big Five traits, other values, or other self-efficacy beliefs, respec-
tively. To achieve this aim, we examined the following: (a) pre-
diction of prosociality from the three target predictors (agreeable-
ness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy
beliefs); (b) whether agreeableness predicted prosociality when
controlling for the other four traits simultaneously (i.e., extraver-
sion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to ex-
perience); (c) whether self-transcendence predicted prosociality
once variance predicted by any of the three remaining broad
categories of values was taken into account (i.e., openness to
change, self-enhancement, and conservation values); and (d)
whether empathic self-efficacy beliefs accounted for a significant
proportion of variance once variance due to social self-efficacy
beliefs was controlled.
Next we examined the conceptual model depicted in Figure 1. In
this model, we examined the double mediation by values and
self-efficacy beliefs of the relation between trait agreeableness and
individual differences in prosociality. In accordance with a vast
literature attesting to a significant genetic component of traits,
including agreeableness (Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996; Jang,
McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998; Loehlin, 1982;
Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998; Riemann, Angleitner, &
Strelau, 1997), we assigned primacy to agreeableness in the pos-
ited set of pathways. This choice is also in accordance with
alternative views of traits as habitual responses resulting from
chronic person–situations interactions that, once crystallized, op-
erate as automatic behavioral tendencies (Cervone & Shoda, 1999;
Higgins, 1999). Because agreeableness is a fundamental and early
appearing aspect of temperament and personality (Caspi & Shiner,
2006; Rothbart & Bates, 2006), influenced by the development of
the early temperamental self-regulative systems of effortful control
(i.e., temperament-based self-regulatory processes based on exec-
utive attention; Caspi, 1998; Cumberland-Li et al., 2004; Rothbart
& Bates, 1998), it seems reasonable that it would affect beliefs
about the self rather than vice versa (Caspi, 1998; Rothbart &
Bates, 2006). Thus, we hypothesized that agreeableness operates
as a primary spontaneous behavioral tendency predisposing indi-
viduals to endorse values and to commit to actions aimed to benefit
others. In particular, we posited that agreeableness is at the incep-
tion of a mediational chain in which prosociality represents the
endpoint and self-transcendence values and empathic self-efficacy
beliefs are mediators.
In positing a mediational model, we reasoned that it is unlikely
that people engage in activities to help others that involve costs or
risk unless they transcend self-interest and assign value to others’
well-being and happiness (Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Omoto & Sny-
Figure 1. Diagrammatical representation of the theoretical model. Solid lines represent direct paths; dotted
lines represent indirect paths.
1291
der, 1995). Values both set the goals to be pursued and promote the
capacities that are needed to achieve those goals. However, even
the best intentions fail when people lack the ability to enact
prosocial actions or believe they are lacking in these capacities. In
particular, confidence in one’s capacity to empathize with others,
namely, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, is crucial to engender ap-
propriate actions aimed at meeting others’ needs for comprehen-
sion, comfort, and support. Self-transcendence values contribute to
creating the mind-set conducive to mastering the emotions and
behaviors associated with empathy and prosocial action. Indeed,
values are intimately tied to the self and influence both perceptions
and behavior (Hitlin, 2003). Accordingly, we hypothesized that
values foster prosociality partly through the promotion of the
perceived empathic skills.
Investigators have found that children’s actual abilities to help
and their knowledge of helping strategies are related to their
prosocial behavior, as are their empathy and sympathy (for re-
views, see Eisenberg, Cialdini, McCreath, & Shell, 1987; Eisen-
berg & Fabes, 1998; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). In
addition, perceived empathic self-efficacy beliefs have been re-
lated to youths’ and adults’ prosocial behavior (Alessandri et al.,
2009; Caprara & Steca, 2005, Caprara & Steca, 2007). Thus, we
expected empathic self-efficacy beliefs to predict individuals’ pro-
pensities for prosocial behavior in young adulthood, an age at
which mature cognitive and emotional functioning and moral
reasoning enhance individuals’ abilities to take others’ perspec-
tives, be sensitive to others’ feelings, and appropriately express
sympathy (Eisenberg, Carlo, Murphy, & Van Court, 1995; Eisen-
berg et al., 2006). Moreover, people with prosocial values are
especially likely to have experience with enacting prosocial be-
haviors and, consequently, to develop a relatively high level of
empathic self-efficacy. However, self-efficacy was not necessarily
expected to fully mediate the relations of agreeableness and values
to prosociality. In accordance with previous findings, agreeable-
ness was hypothesized to directly predict self-transcendence val-
ues and indirectly predict both empathic self-efficacy beliefs and
prosociality. In turn, self-transcendence values were expected to
directly influence empathic self-efficacy beliefs and indirectly
predict prosociality (Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010;
Caprara & Steca, 2005, Caprara & Steca, 2007). Nonetheless,
agreeableness might also have direct relations to empathic self-
efficacy beliefs and prosociality that are not mediated, and self-
transcendence values may have a direct path to prosociality not
mediated by self-efficacy beliefs; these possibilities were also
examined.
Ultimately, we could not exclude the possibility that agreeable-
ness operates as a stage-setting predisposition moderating either
1292 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG
the relations of the other variables (i.e., self-transcendent values or
empathic self-efficacy) to prosocial behavior or change in proso-
cial behavior across time. Thus, the interactions between agree-
ableness and (a) self-transcendence values, (b) empathic self-
efficacy beliefs, and (c) prosociality were also examined.
Various considerations lead to additional predictions regarding
the reciprocity of relations among these variables. Whereas assign-
ing value to others may contribute to the perception of oneself as
an agreeable person capable of meeting others’ needs, self-
transcendence values may be further bolstered by the confidence
people have in their capacity to help and sustain others in needs.
Behaving prosocially may in itself strengthen either people’s re-
ports of their own agreeableness (or the value they assign to
others’ welfare) or the beliefs people hold about their capacities to
help others in need. Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) would
suggest that at least part of one’s tendency to behave prosocially
derives from seeing oneself behaving in that way. It is likely that
engaging in prosocial actions leads people to think of themselves
as prosocial individuals (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Eisenberg et
al., 1987) because these experiences attest to the self’s altruistic
values (see Eisenberg et al., 2006; Staub, 1979). Likewise, engag-
ing habitually in prosocial actions leads to practice and further
strengthens the abilities that are at the basis of empathic self-
efficacy beliefs (Alessandri et al., 2009; Metz & Youniss, 2003;
Staub, 1979; Youniss, McLellan, & Mazer, 2003). Thus, we in-
cluded in the model a direct path from Time 1 prosociality to (a)
Time 2 agreeableness, (b) Time 2 self-transcendence values, and
(c) Time 2 self-efficacy beliefs. In addition, in auxiliary analyses,
we examined paths from Time 1 self-transcendence to Time 2
agreeableness and from Time 1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs to
Time 2 self-transcendence.
The novel contribution of this study, in comparison to relevant
prior studies, is the focus on the transition from adolescence to
adulthood, the use of a large data set containing data gathered at
two time points, the inclusion of values as well as empathic
self-efficacy beliefs as mediators of the relation between agree-
ableness and prosociality, and the inclusion of other informants of
individuals’ prosociality. Prior findings attest to a relation between
empathic self-efficacy beliefs and prosociality among people age
16 at Time 1 (henceforth labeled T1) and 18 at Time 2 (henceforth
labeled T2; Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010). The
present study includes agreeableness and extends the analysis to
young adulthood (Caspi & Shiner, 2005), a transition during which
people have new experiences and interpersonal relationships that
may challenge the size and the nature (i.e., direct or mediated) of
the aforementioned relations. As current literature has come to
appreciate the malleability of personality over the entire course of
life (Caspi & Shiner, 2006; Roberts & Mroczek, 2008; Roberts,
Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006), the present study contributes new
findings regarding the stability and the change of individual dif-
ferences related to different characteristics of personality, such as
trait, values, and self-efficacy beliefs. Moreover, the use of two
waves, in particular, allowed for the consideration of reciprocal
relations among variables and, as was argued by Cole and Maxwell
(2003), provides a more stringent test of mediation than does the
use of only a single time point.
The inclusion of an evaluation of prosociality derived from
another informant in addition to the self-report of prosociality
allowed for a latent construct of prosociality, which is generally
viewed as preferable to a measure resulting from just one infor-
mant. Moreover, it reduces the bias that can occur when all
measures are from the same reporter.
Finally, we examined gender differences in the patterns of
relations and levels of mean change in the key variables. In
accordance with previous findings, women were expected to score
higher than men in agreeableness, self-transcendence values, em-
pathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality, but we had no reason
to expect any gender differences in the posited relations among
these variables (Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara & Steca, 2007).
Likewise, we had no reason to expect a significant increase in the
absolute levels of agreeableness, self-transcendence, empathic
self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality over 2 years (Caprara, Ca-
prara, & Steca, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2006);
researchers have not found clear increases with age during ado-
lescence in prosocial behavior (Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, & Laible,
1999) nor in sympathetic concern during early adulthood (Eisen-
berg, Cumberland, Guthrie, Murphy, & Shepard, 2005). However,
Eisenberg and colleagues noted some change in moral reasoning
about prosocial moral dilemmas in late adolescence and early
adulthood, and such reasoning is believed to reflect values (see
Eisenberg, 1986; Eisenberg et al., 1995, Eisenberg et al., 2002);
thus, it seemed possible that benevolence values and universalism
would change during the transition to adulthood. Finally, we
expected high rank-order stability of agreeableness (Roberts &
DelVecchio, 2000) and moderate to high rank-order stability for
self-transcendence (Vecchione & Caprara, 2009), prosociality
(Eisenberg et al., 2002), and empathic self-efficacy beliefs (Ales-
sandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010), for men and for women.
Method
Participants
The participants were 340 young adults, 190 women and 150
men, ranging in age from 20 to 22 years at T1 (mean age ⫽ 21,
SD ⫽ 0.82), and from 24 to 26 years at T2 (mean age ⫽ 25, SD ⫽
0.81). At T2, about half (46.6%) of the sample was college
students. Of the remaining participants (i.e., 53.4% of the sample),
70% had stable work, 9% worked occasionally, 13% were unem-
ployed, and 7% were searching for a job. The average of postsec-
ondary schooling was 13 years. In general, 94% of participants
were unmarried, whereas only 6% were married, and only 1
participant was divorced. Only 4% of participants had children. All
participants were from Genzano, a residential community near
Rome, and were from families of origin involved in an ongoing
longitudinal study in that community. The families of this com-
munity represent a socioeconomic microcosm of the larger Italian
society: At T1, 14% were in professional or managerial ranks, 25%
were merchants or operators of other businesses, 31% were skilled
workers, 29% were unskilled workers, and 1% were retired. The
socioeconomic heterogeneity of the sample adds to the generality
of the findings. The occupational socioeconomic distribution
matched the national profile (Istituto Italiano di Statistica, 2002).
Most young adults were from intact families (94.8%) and, on
average, from one-child families (about 60% of total sample).
At T2, participants were instructed that, in addition to filling out
self-report questionnaires, they should distribute additional copies
designed for peer ratings to a friend or to someone who knew them
 TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY
very well. These additional 340 informants (190 men, 150 women)
ranged in age from 14 to 44 years (M ⫽ 25.81, SD ⫽ 4.07).1 On
the whole, these raters had known their targets for a mean of 9.45
years (SD ⫽ 6.61). Moreover, each responded to two single
Likert-scale items asking the following: (a) how well they knew
the participant and (b) to what degree they felt emotionally close
to the participant, with possible responses ranging from 1 (not at
all) to 10 (very much). The mean response was 8.46 (SD ⫽1.3) for
the first item and 9.14 (SD ⫽1.14) for the second item. On the
whole, these raters felt close to their target and knew their target
well.
Attrition. Thirty percent of participants (55% men) missed
data collection at T2. The attrition was mainly due to the unavail-
ability of individuals to take part in this phase of the study or, in
some cases, their relocation from the area or our inability to
contact the participant. However, analyses of variance suggested
that the participants included in the final sample at T2 did not
significantly differ from their counterparts (i.e., the participants
who were not available at T2) on any of the variables of interest for
the present study in the initial assessment; nor did the groups differ
in the covariance matrices as tested by the Box-M test for homo-
geneity of covariance matrices.
Procedures
The young adults enrolled in this study were invited to partic-
ipate in the study by phone and received a small payment for
participation (25 euros or an equivalent dinner token). Question-
naires were sent to participants by mail. Consent was obtained and
returned by each participant with the questionnaires. All the en-
velopes were returned by participants directly to a team of two or
three researchers during specifically scheduled meetings in a
school.
Measures
The measures at T1 were all self-report scales and included
measures of traits, values, interpersonal social self-efficacy beliefs,
empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality. These measures
were administered at each time point. At T2, a measure of other-
reported prosocial behavior was included.
Traits. We measured the trait component of personality with
the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Bor-
gogni, 1996). The BFQ contains 132 items that form five domain
scales and 10 “facet” scales, with 12 items on each scale. Respon-
dents indicated agreement with the extent to which each item
described them on a 5-point scale ranging from complete disagree-
ment (1 ⫽ very false for me) to complete agreement (5 ⫽ very true
for me). The BFQ has been validated on large samples of Italian
respondents (Barbaranelli & Caprara, 2000; Caprara et al., 1996;
Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Perugini, 1993) and in cross-
cultural comparisons (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Bermudez, Maslach,
& Ruch, 2000). High correlations between the analogous scales in
the BFQ and the NEO Personality Inventory, in both Italian and
American samples, have confirmed the construct validity of the
five domain scales (Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Maslach, 1997; Ca-
prara et al., 1993). The alpha reliability coefficients at T1 and T2
of the five domain scales were.78 and .77 for Openness, .83 and
.81 for Conscientiousness, .77 and .80 for Energy/Extraversion,
1293
.80 and .81 for Agreeableness, and .89 and .88 for Emotional
Stability. Of note, because five items from the Agreeableness scale
related to empathy (e.g., “I understand when people need my
help”) could overlap in content with items assessing empathic
self-efficacy beliefs, we used only 19 items from the Agreeable-
ness scale. The alpha for the reduced scale was .78 at T1 and .80
at T2. (An example of the items left after dropping the empathy-
related items is, “Usually I’m cordial even to people I dislike.”)
Values. We measured values with the Portrait Values Ques-
tionnaire (PVQ: Schwartz, 2005b; Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann,
Burgess, & Harris, 2001). The PVQ includes 40 short verbal
portraits of different people, each describing a person’s goals,
aspirations, or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a
value. For example, “It is important to him to listen to people who
are different from him. Even when he disagrees with them, he still
wants to understand them” describes a person who holds univer-
salism values as important. The PVQ measures each of the 10
motivationally distinct types of values with three to six items.
These lower order values can be grouped into four higher order
level value types, namely, openness to change, self-enhancement,
conservation, and self-transcendence. For each portrait, respon-
dents indicated how similar the person in the portrait was to
themselves on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (very much like me)
to 6 (not like me at all). With this measure, one infers respondents’
own values from the implicit values of the people they describe as
similar to themselves.
Studies in seven countries have supported the reliability of the
PVQ for measuring the 10 values (Schwartz, 1992, Schwartz,
2005a, Schwartz, 2005b). In the current study, the alpha reliability
coefficients for the four higher order dimensions, at T1 and T2,
respectively, were .86 and .84 for openness to change, .85 and .88
for self-enhancement, .83 and .87 for conservation, and .88 and .76
for self-transcendence.
Empathic self-efficacy beliefs. Perceived empathic self-
efficacy beliefs (Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara, Gerbino, & Delle
Fratte, 2001) were measured with 12 items reflecting one’s per-
ceived capability to sense another person’s feelings and need for
emotional support, to discern emotional expressions, to experience
emotions from another person’s perspective, to respond with em-
pathy to others’ distress and misfortune, and to be sensitive to how
one’s actions affect others’ feelings (e.g., “How well can you
experience how a person in trouble feels?”). In recent research,
positive, moderately high correlations between empathic self-
efficacy beliefs and sympathy or empathy have been found (Ran-
fone, 2008). Participants rated the strength of their self-efficacy
beliefs on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽ not well at all; 5 ⫽ very well),
ranging from perceived incapability to complete self-assurance
in one’s capability. The alpha coefficients at T1 and T2 were
.82 and .84.
Social self-efficacy beliefs. Perceived social self-efficacy
(Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara et al., 2001) was measured by 14
1
We ran additional analyses to ascertain the presence of a significant
relation between informant’s age and other-rated prosociality. No signifi-
cant relation was detected, r(333) ⫽ .012, p ⫽ .83. We also tested plausible
nonlinear effect of ages using polynomial regression and obtained similar
results. Finally, we found that these results did not change when we deleted
all respondents age 19 or younger (N ⫽ 18).
1294 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG
items assessing the perceived capability to express personal opin-
ions in groups, to share personal experiences with others, to invite
people to go out together, to know people in a new situation, and
to help others to integrate into one’s circle of friends (e.g., “I can
share an interesting good experience I had with other people”). The
alpha coefficients for the total sample were .90 at T1 and .89 at T2.
Prosociality. Participants rated their prosociality on a 16-item
scale (1 ⫽ never/almost never true; 5 ⫽ almost always/always
true) 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). The
alpha reliability coefficient was .93 at T1 and .94 at T2. The
psychometric properties of the prosociality scale have been cross-
gender and cross-nationally validated on large samples of respon-
dents (Caprara et al., 2011; e.g., “I try to help others” and “I try to
console people who are sad”). Researchers have also found a
moderately high correlation (r ⫽ .54) between self- and other-
ratings on this prosociality scale, further supporting its validity
(Caprara, Steca, Vecchio, Tramontano, & Alessandri, 2008). Be-
cause the four items related to empathizing with others’ feelings
could overlap with measures of empathic self-efficacy beliefs, we
used only the 12 items that assess the degree of sharing, helping,
and taking care of others’ needs. The alphas for the reduced scale
were .91 at T1 and .90 at T2. The same items were worded in the
third person for the friend-report measure of participants’ proso-
ciality (␣ ⫽ .94 at T2).
Missing Data
There were some missing data for all of the variables. This
situation is common in longitudinal research, due to subject attri-
tion (Hansen, Tobler, & Graham, 1990). Our modeling assumed
that the missing values were “missing at random” (i.e., missing-
ness is related to the observed values for the variables in the data
set but unrelated to unobserved missing values). We examined this
assumption using the MCAR test (Little & Rubin, 2002) as im-
plemented in SPSS 14. This test resulted in a nonsignificant value
(i.e., ␹2 ⫽ 41.91, df ⫽ 36, p ⫽ .20). Thus, we estimated missing
values by using the expectation maximization algorithm. This
procedure is an iterative algorithm that restores the complete data
matrix using maximum-likelihood estimation (Dempster, Laird, &
Rubin, 1977; Little & Rubin, 2002) under the assumption of
multivariate normality. The final sample size for this study was
188 women and 148 men.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Initially, we computed two series of zero-order correlations and
partial correlations. In the first set, each dimension of the Big Five
was correlated with prosociality both within time (i.e., at T1 and at
T2) and across time (i.e., each dimension assessed at T1 was
correlated with prosociality assessed at T2). Then, partial correla-
tion coefficients were obtained, assessing the correlation of agree-
ableness with prosociality after controlling for the remaining four
Big Five simultaneously. The same procedure was repeated for
personal values and self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., self-transcendence
values were correlated with prosociality, partialing all other types
of values). Due to the large number of correlations carried out, the
alpha level was fixed at .001. Finally, we used explorative factor
analysis to investigate whether the items composing the four
variables of interest (i.e., agreeableness, self-transcendence, em-
pathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality) loaded on their re-
spective factors.
Traits. The zero-order correlation between prosociality and
agreeableness was significantly larger than any correlation be-
tween the other four Big Five dimensions and prosociality (e.g., for
men, the correlation of .52 between agreeableness and prosociality
at T1 was larger than the correlation of .26 between energy and
prosociality at T1; see Table 1, correlations of prosociality mea-
sures with traits other than agreeableness), for samples of women
or of men within T1, within T2, and across time. Moreover, the
other four traits (i.e., energy, conscientiousness, emotional stabil-
ity, and openness) were significantly correlated with prosociality
only at p ⬍ .05. We used the Fisher r-to-z transformation (Cohen
& Cohen, 1983) to examine the change in the size of the correla-
tion coefficient when partialing the remaining four subscales of the
Big Five all at once. At T1, the size of the partial correlation (rp)
coefficient between agreeableness and prosociality was not signif-
icantly different from that of the zero-order coefficient (r), for
men, r(148) ⫽ .52 versus rp(148) ⫽ .46, z ⫽ .67, p ⫽ .50, or for
women, r(188) ⫽ .52 versus rp(188) ⫽ .49, z ⫽ .63, p ⫽ .51.
Likewise, no significant change was detected at T2, for men,
r(148) ⫽ .59 versus rp(148) ⫽ .53, z ⫽ .74, p ⫽ .46, or for women,
r(188) ⫽ .56 versus rp(188) ⫽ .54, z ⫽ .28, p ⫽ .78. The same was
true for the cross-time correlation between T1 agreeableness and
T2 prosociality: The zero-order correlation between prosociality
and agreeableness was larger and was the only correlation between
a trait and prosociality significant at p ⬍ .001. Moreover, this
correlation dropped only slightly and nonsignificantly, from
r(148) ⫽ .44, p ⬍ .001, to rp(148) ⫽ .38, z ⫽ .61, p ⫽ .54, for
men, and from r(188) ⫽ .46, to rp(188) ⫽ .41, z ⫽ .59, p ⫽ .55,
for women, when controlling for the other four traits. The same
pattern was found for other-rated prosociality. In addition, agree-
ableness was the only trait showing a significant zero-order cor-
relation (at p ⬍ .01 or .001) with other-rated prosociality. More-
over, examination of the partial correlations showed that the
within-time (T2) correlation between agreeableness and other-
rated prosociality dropped nonsignificantly when simultaneously
partialing relations of prosociality with the remaining Big Five
scales, from r(148) ⫽ .35 to rp(148) ⫽ .31, z ⫽ .38, p ⫽ .60, for
men, and from r(188) ⫽ .35 to rp(188) ⫽ .33, z ⫽ .22, p ⫽ .83, for
women. The cross-time correlation between T1 agreeableness and
T2 other-rated prosociality dropped from r(148) ⫽ .24 to
rp(148) ⫽ .21, z ⫽ .23, p ⫽ .79, for men, and from r(188) ⫽ .28
to rp(188) ⫽ .22, z ⫽ .62, p ⫽ .54, for women. None of other Big
Five related substantially across time with other-rated prosociality
(and the correlations were significantly lower than those between
agreeableness and other-rated prosociality).
Values. The zero-order correlation between self-
transcendence and prosociality was significantly larger than any
correlation between one of the other values (i.e., openness to
change, self-enhancement, and conservation values) and prosoci-
ality (e.g., in the men’s sample, the correlation of .51 between
self-transcendence and prosociality at T1 was larger than the
correlation of .21 between openness to change and prosociality at
T1; see Table 1), for samples of women or of men within T1,
 TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY 1295

Table 1
Comparisons of Correlations of Measures of Agreeableness, Self-Transcendence, Empathic Self-Efficacy, and Prosociality With
Analogous Correlations for Other Traits, Values, and Social Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Men Women

T2 other-rated T2 other-rated
Measure T1 prosociality T2 prosociality prosociality T1 prosociality T2 prosociality prosociality

T1 energy .26ⴱa .18ⴱa ⫺.05b .20ⴱa .18ⴱa .13ⴱa

T1 conscientiousness .25ⴱa .07a .03 b .22ⴱa .22ⴱa .06a
T1 emotional stability .16ⴱa .09a ⫺.05 b .09a .02a .06a
T1 openness .24ⴱa .18ⴱa .05 b .23ⴱa .20ⴱa .14b
T1 openness to change .21ⴱa .16ⴱa .11b .22ⴱa .20ⴱa .17b
T1 self-enhancement .06a .14ⴱa ⫺.04b ⫺.08a .02a ⫺.10a
T1 conservation .24ⴱa .18ⴱa .10b .19ⴱa .17ⴱa .13a
T1 social self-efficacy beliefs .26ⴱa .21ⴱa .13b .20ⴱa .22ⴱa .09a
T2 energy .19ⴱa .22ⴱa .12b .18ⴱa .21ⴱa .16ⴱa
T2 conscientiousness .18ⴱa .22ⴱa .11b .18ⴱa .21ⴱa ⫺.01a
T2 emotional stability .05a .04a .05b .02a .13a .12a
T2 openness .19ⴱa .24ⴱa .09b .17ⴱa .21ⴱa .14b
T2 openness to change .20ⴱa .25ⴱa .05b .15ⴱa .23ⴱa .19b
T2 self-enhancement .12a .15ⴱa ⫺.03b ⫺.09a ⫺.03a ⫺.06a
T2 conservation .20ⴱa .25ⴱa .11b .18ⴱa .21ⴱa .06a
T2 social self-efficacy beliefs .21ⴱa .26ⴱa .13b .19ⴱa .21ⴱa .11a

Note. The sample size was 188 women and 148 men. The values of the correlation for agreeableness are reported in Table 3 and in the text. T1 ⫽ variable
assessed at Time 1; T2 ⫽ variable assessed at Time 2.
a
According to the Fisher r-to-z transformation, the size of the correlation coefficient between the index of prosociality and a given trait is different at p ⬍
.01 from the size of the analogous correlation coefficient linking agreeableness to the same index of prosociality (see text). b According to the Fisher r-to-z
transformation, the size of the correlation coefficient between the index of prosociality and a given trait is different at p ⬍ .01 from the size of the analogous
correlation coefficient linking agreeableness to the same index of prosociality (see text).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.

within T2, and across time. Moreover, the other three values were
significantly correlated with prosociality only at p ⬍ .05. The
association between self-transcendent values and prosociality
dropped only slightly and nonsignificantly at T1, from r(148) ⫽
.51 to rp(148) ⫽ .49, z ⫽ .22, p ⫽ .82, for men, and from r(188) ⫽
.53 to rp(188) ⫽ .47, z ⫽ .38, p ⫽ .71, for women, and at T2, from
r(148) ⫽ .58 to rp(148) ⫽ .52, z ⫽ .73, p ⫽ .46, for men, and from
r(188) ⫽ .58 to rp(188) ⫽ .53, z ⫽ .62, p ⫽ .53, for women, when
simultaneously partialing the three other higher order values. The
same was true for the cross-time correlation between T1 self-
transcendence values and T2 prosociality. Across time, self-
transcendence was the only value that correlated substantially and
significantly with prosociality. Moreover, this correlation dropped
only slightly, from r(148) ⫽ .44, to rp(148) ⫽ .39, z ⫽ .51, p ⫽
.61, for men, and from r(188) ⫽ .50 to rp(188) ⫽ .46, z ⫽ .50, p ⫽
.62, for women, when controlling for the remaining three values
simultaneously. The same pattern was also found for other-rated
prosociality in regard to the zero-order correlations (see Table 1).
None of other higher order values related as highly across time
with other-rated prosociality, and those correlations were signifi-
cantly lower than the correlation between self-transcendence and
other-rated prosociality. Moreover, the within-time (T2 only) cor-
relation between self-transcendence and other-rated prosociality
dropped from r(148) ⫽ .35 to rp(148) ⫽ .33, z ⫽ .19, p ⫽ .84, for
men, and from r(188) ⫽ 33 to rp(188) ⫽ .28, z ⫽ .53, p ⫽ .60, for
women. The cross-time correlation between T1 self-transcendence
and T2 other-rated prosociality dropped from r(148) ⫽ .28 to
rp(148) ⫽ .23, z ⫽ .46, p ⫽ .65, for men, and from r(188) ⫽ .33
to rp(188) ⫽ .27, z ⫽ .56, p ⫽ .57, for women.
Self-efficacy beliefs. The zero-order correlation between
empathic-self-efficacy and prosociality (see Table 1) was signifi-
cantly larger than the correlation between social self-efficacy and
prosociality, either for women or for men at T1, T2, and across
time (see Table 1). Moreover, social self-efficacy was significantly
correlated with prosociality only at p ⬍ .05. The partial correlation
between empathic self-efficacy beliefs and prosociality was only
slightly and nonsignificantly less than the zero-order correlation, at
T1, r(148) ⫽ .63 versus rp(148) ⫽ .53, z ⫽ 1.28, p ⫽ .59, for men,
and r(188) ⫽ .52 versus rp(188) ⫽ .47, z ⫽ .64, p ⫽ .52, for
women, and at T2, r(148) ⫽ .56 versus rp(188) ⫽ .48, z ⫽ .94, p ⫽
.35, for men, and r(188) ⫽ .54 versus rp(188) ⫽ .46, z ⫽ 1.03, p ⫽
.30, for women. The same was true for the cross-time correlation
between T1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs and T2 prosociality.
Indeed, this correlation dropped only slightly, from r(148) ⫽ .52 to
rp(148) ⫽ .47, z ⫽ .56, p ⫽ .57, for men, and from r(188) ⫽ .52
to rp(188) ⫽ .47, z ⫽ .64, p ⫽ .52, for women. Finally, the same
pattern was found for other-rated prosociality in regard to the
zero-order correlations. The within-time (T2) correlation between
empathic self-efficacy beliefs values and other-rated prosociality
dropped from r(148) ⫽ .25 to rp(148) ⫽ .20, z ⫽ .45, p ⫽ .65, for
men, and from r(188) ⫽ .28, to rp(188) ⫽ .25, z ⫽ .31, p ⫽ .76,
for women, and the cross-time correlation between T1 empathic
self-efficacy and T2 other-rated prosociality dropped from
r(148) ⫽ .36 to rp(148) ⫽ .29, z ⫽ .67, p ⫽ .50, for men, and from
r(188) ⫽ .30 to rp(188) ⫽ .26, z ⫽ .37, p ⫽ .71, for women.
Overall, these results corroborate our expectations about the
unique contribution of agreeableness among traits, of self-
1296 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

transcendence among higher order values, and of empathic self-
efficacy beliefs when predicting prosociality.
Construct distinctiveness. In order to investigate the dimen-
sionality of the measures’ items and to avoid any overlap among
these four self-reported measures (i.e., agreeableness, self-
transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality), a
principal-factor analysis with a promax rotation was performed at
each assessment using all the individual items. According to the
scree plots, the two analyses yielded a four-factor structure corre-
sponding to the hypothesized four expected domains of agreeable-
ness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and proso-
ciality at each assessment time. The actual item loadings on the
intended factors ranged from .41 to .83 (M ⫽ .55, SD ⫽ .12) across
the two assessment times, whereas the secondary loading varied
from .00 to .19 (M ⫽ .16, SD ⫽ .05) across the two assessment
times. Factor correlations ranged from .13 to .69 for the two
assessment times. These analyses support the factorial validity of
all the measures, the empirical distinctiveness of the examined
constructs, and the lack of empirical overlap among items mea-
suring the different constructs (as indicated by the low secondary
loadings).
Mean-Level Differences
Repeated-measures analyses of variance were performed to in-
vestigate the effects due to gender and time on participants’ reports
of agreeableness, self-transcendence values, empathic self-efficacy
beliefs, and self-rated prosociality. An analysis of variance with
sex as the independent variable was performed on peer-reported
prosociality assessed at T2. Table 2 includes the means, standard
deviations, and the significance of the main effects of sex and time
and of the interaction between sex and time. At both T1 and T2,
women scored higher than men on all study variables. Only self-
transcendence values exhibited a significant increase from T1 to
T2, whereas all other variables remained stable. No Time ⫻ Sex
interactions were detected.
Correlations Among Variables and Across Times
Table 3 contains the zero-order correlations among agreeable-
ness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and self-
reported and other-rated prosociality within and across time. Pos-
itive and significant correlations among all variables indicated that
high-agreeable individuals tended to be high in self-transcendence,
empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality at both times. High
correlations of all variables across time attest to their high stability.
Self-reports and other-ratings of prosociality were substantially
correlated, providing evidence of convergent validity.
Modeling Strategies
We tested our theoretical model using a two-wave mediational
design, following the suggestions of Cole and Maxwell (2003;
Maxwell and Cole, 2007). Two-wave mediational models are
superior to cross-sectional designs in that they (a) allow one to
better investigate (although not to prove) the likely direction of
causal influence among variables, (b) lessen biases in testing
mediation, and (c) allow for more stringent testing of alternative
models (Cole & Maxwell, 2003; Maxwell & Cole, 2007). In this
model, each variable posited as a mediator was predicted over time
by each variable posited as the predictor (MacKinnon, 2008).
Moreover, autoregressive paths were included so that each across-
time cross-lagged path takes into account the stability of the
predicted variable. The hypothesized influence of agreeableness on
self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality
was represented by the across-time, cross-lagged paths from (a) T1
agreeableness to T2 self-transcendence, (b) T1 agreeableness to
T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and (c) T1 agreeableness to T2
prosociality. Likewise, the paths from T1 self-transcendence to
T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs, from T1 self-transcendence to
T2 prosociality, and from T1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs as-
sessed to T2 prosocial behavior represent the hypothesized flow of
influences. The product between the coefficients associated be-
tween pairs of cross-time cross-lagged paths (e.g., between the
coefficient linking T1 agreeableness to T2 self-transcendence val-
ues and the coefficient linking T1 self-transcendence values to T2
empathic self-efficacy beliefs) provides an estimate of the partial
regression coefficient associated with the mediated effect. For
example, the product of the coefficient associated with the path
linking T1 agreeableness to T2 self-transcendence and of the
coefficient associated with the path linking T1 self-
transcendence with T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs represents
the indirect effect of T1 agreeableness on T2 empathic self-

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Sex Differences for Agreeableness, Self-Transcendence, Empathic Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Prosociality,
and Other-Rated Prosociality at Time 1 and Time 2 Among Men and Women

Time 1 Time 2

Men Women Men Women Sex Time Sex ⫻ Time

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD F(1, 328) ␩2 F(1, 328) ␩2 F(1, 328) ␩2

Agreeableness 3.30 0.31 3.41 0.42 3.33 0.36 3.45 0.41 14.56ⴱ .04 0.07 .00 0.15 .00
Self-transcendence 4.37 0.72 4.67 0.75 4.59 0.64 4.78 0.72 7.46ⴱ .02 7.66ⴱ .02 0.01 .00
Empathic self-efficacy beliefs 3.75 0.54 3.91 0.61 3.74 0.56 3.91 0.55 8.31ⴱ .02 0.10 .00 0.09 .00
Prosociality 3.56 0.62 3.86 0.62 3.59 0.66 3.94 0.60 26.63ⴱ .07 1.23 .01 0.24 .00
Other-rated prosociality 3.64 0.69 3.83 0.70 5.82ⴱ .02

Note. F ⫽ F ratio resulted from repeated-measures analyses of variance; within the parentheses are the degrees of freedom and the number of participants.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
 TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY 1297

Table 3
Correlation Matrix of the Key Variables for Men and Women

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
1. Agreeableness T1 — .57 .46 .54 .64 .44 .24 .46 .28ⴱⴱ
2. Self-transcendence T1 .58ⴱⴱ — .51ⴱⴱ .53ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱ .64ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ
3. Empathic self-efficacy beliefs T1 .48ⴱⴱ .53ⴱⴱ — .57ⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ
4. Prosociality T1 .52ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ .63ⴱⴱ — .46ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱ .68ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ
5. Agreeableness T2 .67ⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱ — .59ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱ
6. Self-transcendence T2 .48ⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱ — .40ⴱⴱ .58ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ
7. Empathic self-efficacy beliefs T2 .25ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱ — .54ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ
8. Prosociality T2 .44ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱ .72ⴱⴱ .59ⴱⴱ .58ⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱ — .45ⴱⴱ
9. Other-rated prosociality T2 .24ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ —

Note. The correlation coefficients below the diagonal are for men; the correlation coefficients above the diagonal are for women. T1 ⫽ variable assessed
at Time 1; T2 ⫽ variable assessed at Time 2.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.

efficacy beliefs. Finally, the predictive effect of prosocial be-
haviors on personality variables was represented by the longi-
tudinal cross-lagged paths from T1 prosocial behavior to (a) T2
agreeableness, (b) T2 self-transcendence values, and (c) T2
empathic self-efficacy beliefs.
Statistical Approach
We tested the hypothesized relations using Mplus 4.01 (Muthén
& Muthén, 2006). According to a multifaceted approach to the
assessment of the model’s fit (Tanaka, 1993), the following criteria
were employed to evaluate the goodness of fit: chi-square likeli-
hood ratio statistic, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit
index (CFI), and the root-mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) with associated confidence intervals. The significance
value of chi-square is sensitive to large sample sizes and easily
produces a statistically significant result (Kline, 1998). We ac-
cepted TLI and CFI values greater than .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999)
and RMSEA values lower than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). In
order to test for possible moderation by sex, we used multiple-
group structural equation modeling. In this approach, the equiva-
lence between the different groups is evaluated by constraints
imposing identical unstandardized estimates for the model’s pa-
rameters (Byrne, 1994). In Mplus, the plausibility of these equality
constraints is examined with the modification indices and the
chi-square difference test between nested models (i.e., constrained
models vs. the baseline unconstrained model; see Bollen, 1989).
Mediated effects were calculated using the procedures outlined by
MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002). Fur-
thermore, we followed the asymmetric confidence interval
method recommended by MacKinnon et al. (2002) to formally
test mediation (Mackinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). The
critical values for the upper and lower confidence limits for
indirect effect were calculated using the program PRODCLIN2
(Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007; MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, &
Lockwood, 2007). There was a three-path mediated effect
tested in this model (i.e., the indirect effect from agreeableness
to prosociality, mediated by self-transcendence values and em-
pathic self-efficacy beliefs). The significance of this path was
evaluated with the joint significance test (Taylor, McKinnon, &
Tein, 2008). The composite mean scores on each scale were
used as the indicator in subsequent models, and all variables
included in the model were treated as single indicator latent
variables by estimating the error terms from reliabilities (Bol-
len, 1989).
Test of Mediation Over Time
We examined the predicted set of relations within the above
presented multiple-group framework and simultaneously esti-
mated for men and women a model that included (a) all the
autoregressive paths (i.e., the paths predicting a variable from
its prior level), as well as the across-time paths from (b) T1
agreeableness to T2 self-transcendence; (c) T1 agreeableness to
T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs; (d) T1 agreeableness to T2
prosociality; (e) T1 self-transcendence to T2 empathic self-
efficacy beliefs; (f) T1 self-transcendence to T2 prosociality;
(g) T1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs to T2 prosociality; (h) T1
prosociality to T2 agreeableness; (h) T1 prosociality to T2
self-transcendence; and (i) T1 prosociality to T2 empathic
self-efficacy beliefs. In addition, all variables within T1 and all
variables withinT2 were allowed to covary. All paths were fixed
to be invariant across sexes.
This model fit the data well, ␹2(45) ⫽ 51.86, p ⫽ .20, CFI ⫽
1.00, TLI ⫽ .99, RMSEA ⫽ .030 (.00 –.061), Akaike information
criterion (AIC) ⫽ 3,930.63. Moreover, the comparison between
this model and an unconstrained model (i.e., a model with no
equality constraints on parameters’ estimations across gender)
resulted in a nonsignificant chi-square difference test, ⌬␹2(27) ⫽
29.09, p ⫽ .36. As shown in Figure 2, in accordance with our
hypotheses, T1 agreeableness predicted T2 self-transcendence val-
ues. T1 self-transcendence values predicted T2 empathic self-
efficacy beliefs, and this latter variable predicted T2 prosociality.
Overall, this part of the two-wave mediational model is consistent
with the view that the personality trait of agreeableness plays a
pivotal role in fostering other-oriented values. Furthermore, the
pattern of results supports the potential role of self-transcendence
in fostering empathic self-efficacy beliefs. Finally, this model
suggests that self-efficacy beliefs play a key role in mediating the
relations of agreeableness and self-transcendent values to proso-
ciality. No direct effect of agreeableness on empathic self-efficacy
across time or of agreeableness and self-transcendence on proso-
1298 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

Figure 2. Two-wave mediation with standardized estimates separately for men and for women. The coeffi-
cients within parentheses are for women. All parameters are significant beyond p ⬍ .05.

ciality across time was significant.2 The paths from T1 prosociality
to T2 agreeableness and from T1 prosociality to T2 empathic
self-efficacy beliefs were also significant (whereas the path from
T1 prosociality to T2 self-transcendence values was not signifi-
cant).
We tested whether the relation between T1 agreeableness on T2
empathic self-efficacy beliefs was mediated through T2 self-
transcendence. The unstandardized indirect effect was significant
(␤ ⫽ .04, z ⫽ 2.13), and the associated confidence interval did not
include zero (lower confidence limit ⫽ .02; upper confidence
limit ⫽ .09). The same pattern was true for the mediated effect of
self-transcendence on prosociality though empathic self-efficacy
beliefs. The unstandardized indirect effect was significant (␤ ⫽
.13, z ⫽ 2.45), and the associated confidence interval did not
include zero (lower confidence limit ⫽ .03; upper confidence
limit ⫽ .28). These results indicate that self-transcendence signif-
icantly mediated the relation between agreeableness and empathic
self-efficacy beliefs and that the latter variable mediated the rela-
tion between self-transcendence and prosociality. Finally, the
three-path mediated effect from agreeableness to prosociality was
evaluated for significance. According to the joint significance test,
there was evidence for mediation because each of the three paths
in the mediated effect was significantly nonzero (Taylor et al.,
2008).
Adding cross-directional paths in the model from T1 self-
transcendence to T2 agreeableness, ⌬␹2(1) ⫽ .17, p ⫽ .69, or from
2
We tested another model including only self-reported prosociality at
T2 and obtained the same results.
 TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY
T1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs to T2 self-transcendence,
⌬␹2(1) ⫽ 3.33, p ⫽ .07, did not improve significantly the fit of the
model, although one of the aforementioned paths was near signif-
icant. Finally, the model accounted for a large proportion of
variability for all variables, with no statistically significant differ-
ences between the sexes (see Figure 2).
We also attempted to test cross-directional paths in the model by
computing an alternative model. This model tested whether T1
self-transcendence predicted T2 agreeableness, T1 agreeableness
predicted T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and T1 empathic self-
efficacy beliefs predicted T2 prosociality (i.e., self-transcendence
3 agreeableness 3 empathic self-efficacy beliefs3 prosociality)
following standard procedures, including all autoregressive paths.
The fit of this model was less acceptable than that of the prior
model. It yielded a significant chi-square, ␹2(50) ⫽ 66.87, p ⫽ .01,
fared less well on the indices of goodness of fit, CFI ⫽ .98, TLI ⫽
.97, and RMSEA ⫽ .041 (.00 –.067), and resulted in a higher AIC
of 3,958.34.
Moderation Analyses
Moderation was investigated using structural equation models
(SEM) and linear regression. First, we built a model in which
agreeableness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy, and
prosociality plus three cross-product interaction terms for (a)
agreeableness and self-transcendence, (b) agreeableness and em-
pathic self-efficacy beliefs, and (c) agreeableness and prosociality
(all assessed at T1) were used as predictors of prosociality at T2
(posited as a latent variable with loadings for self- and other-rated
prosociality). This model did not converge when examined sepa-
rately with the male or female sample, as well as with the entire
sample. We also obtained unidentified models (i.e., models with
many negative error variances or inadmissible parameter esti-
mates) when the interaction terms were used one at time in
separate analyses. Thus, instead of using interaction terms com-
puted from continuous variables, we identified two groups of
participants scoring high (N ⫽ 173) versus low (N ⫽ 155) on
agreeableness based on the median value of agreeableness (3.75)
and ran a multiple-group SEM with both groups simultaneously. In
this model, three variables at T1 (i.e., self-transcendence, empathic
self-efficacy, and prosociality) predicted T2 prosociality (still a
latent variable with loadings for self- and other-rated prosociality).
The unconstrained model fit the data well, ␹2(4) ⫽ 7.31, p ⫽ .29,
CFI ⫽ .99, TLI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .070 (.00 –.015). Constraining
all parameters to be equal (i.e., direct regression paths and cova-
riances among the variables at T1) did not worsen the fit of the
model, ⌬␹2(8) ⫽ 1.82, p ⫽ .99. Thus, level of agreeableness did
not affect the size of the relations between any of the three
predictors and prosociality.
Finally, because of the advantage of using continuous measures
to compute interaction terms, moderation was investigated using
hierarchical linear regression analyses (separately for men and for
women) in which (a) the main effects of T1 agreeableness, T1
self-transcendence, T1 empathic self-efficacy, and T1 prosociality
(entered simultaneously in Step 1) and (b) the interactions of T1
agreeableness with T1 self-transcendence, T1 empathic self-
efficacy, and T1 prosociality (all three entered simultaneously in
Step 2) were used to predict self-rated or other-rated prosociality at
T2. None of the interactions were significant; nor were the inter-
1299
actions of T1 self-transcendence, T1 empathic self-efficacy, and
T1 prosociality with agreeableness significant when examined
separately in different models. Finally, the results did not change
when the regressions were conducted on the entire sample instead
with each sex separately.
Discussion
The results of this study support the importance of integrating
traditions of research on personality (e.g., trait and social cognitive
theories) that previously have been viewed as antagonists to gain
a better understanding of important phenomena such as prosocial
behaviors. In fact, agreeableness, self-transcendence values, em-
pathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality could be considered
layers of a hypothetical architecture of personality in which (a)
agreeableness is a relatively unconditional, broad disposition re-
ferring to what a person “has”; (b) self-transcendence values are
cognitive representations of the desirable referring to what a per-
son “wants”; and (c) empathic self-efficacy beliefs are knowledge
structures referring to what a person “can do.” They operate at an
intermediate level between broad dispositions, such as traits or
values, and specific behavioral tendencies, such as prosociality. In
this regard our reasoning is accordance with previous distinctions
between levels in the architecture of personality made by McAd-
ams (1995) and Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Finch (1997) and
with claims for an integrative approach able to achieve a compre-
hensive view of personality.
Previous findings have shown that agreeableness, self-
transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy beliefs are major
correlates of individual differences in prosociality (Alessandri et
al., 2009; Caprara & Steca, 2005, Caprara & Steca, 2007; Graziano
et al., 2007; Schwartz, 2010). Results of the present study further
corroborate the hypothesis that agreeableness compared to other
traits, self-transcendence compared to other higher order values,
and empathic self-efficacy beliefs compared to social self-efficacy
beliefs are relatively strong predictors of individuals’ tendencies to
behave prosocially.
The results also support the posited conceptual model in which
empathic self-efficacy beliefs are proximal predictors of the ten-
dency to behave prosocially, mediating the predictive contribution
of agreeableness and of self-transcendence, whereas values medi-
ate the prediction by agreeableness of empathic self-efficacy be-
liefs. Indirect effects further support the assumption that the rela-
tions of agreeableness and values to prosociality are mediated by
self-efficacy beliefs. There was no evidence of moderated relations
(i.e., interactions among agreeableness, self-transcendence, and
empathetic self-efficacy beliefs), and the posited mediational
model fit the empirical findings better than did alternative models
including different mediated pathways. For example, the primacy
of values with respect to traits was not supported by alternative
models.
The present findings represent an important extension of prior
work for several reasons. To our knowledge, this is the first study
that simultaneously considered traits, higher order values, and
self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of prosociality across time. Pre-
vious studies considered only pairs of these variables, and only one
study examined traits and self-efficacy beliefs across time (Ca-
prara et al., 2010; Caprara & Steca, 2007). Yet, as Cole and
Maxwell (2003) pointed out, use of only one assessment makes it
1300 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG
extremely difficult to rule out alternative models and to test the
plausibility of various directions of influence among the variables.
We used two waves of data and controlled for the stability of the
variables over time (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Despite the correla-
tional nature of these data, which limits the inference of causality,
the findings in this study are consistent with the view that agree-
ableness plays a role in setting the potential for prosociality,
whereas values provide a means for agreeable tendencies to turn
into prosocial actions. Self-transcendence values rest upon agree-
ableness and act on prosociality through empathic self-efficacy
beliefs. Empathic self-efficacy beliefs may ultimately operate as
pivotal mediators in turning traits and altruistic values into proso-
ciality. Previous studies rested upon self-reports of prosociality,
but we were able to obtain a measure of individuals’ tendencies to
behave prosocially based on both self-reports and other-ratings at
T2. Self-reports and other-ratings of prosociality showed a mod-
erately high degree of convergence at T2. Moreover, T1 self-rated
prosociality was moderately related to other-rated prosociality
assessed years later at T2.
In addition, earlier prosociality significantly predicted later
agreeableness and empathic self-efficacy in accordance with the
idea that behaving prosocially may strengthen people’s reports of
their own agreeableness and their beliefs about their capacities to
meet others’ needs. The conjoint significance of the paths from T1
empathic self-efficacy beliefs to T2 prosociality and from T1
prosociality to T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs suggest that in
emerging adulthood the relations among empathic self-efficacy
beliefs and prosociality are dynamic and reciprocal. Whereas in-
creasing empathic skills may promote prosociality, mastering ex-
periences associated with behaving prosocially may foster em-
pathic skills. This is consistent with Staub’s (1979) suggestion that
helping others can lead people to further behave prosocially and to
further endorse prosocial motives and with evidence of the effects
of engaging in prosocial behavior on future helping and sharing
(e.g., Alessandri et al., 2009; Cialdini et al., 1975; Eisenberg et al.,
1987; Staub, 1979).
The posited model has practical implications, as the pathways
among examined variables might provide direction for interven-
tions aimed to sustain and promote individuals’ inclinations to-
ward prosociality. Whereas one may view traits as difficult targets
to address directly and view values as guides that mostly rest upon
earlier rearing and socialization practices, empathic self-efficacy
beliefs appear crucial for turning traits and values into prosocial
tendencies. Social cognitive theory suggests how to promote self-
efficacy beliefs (through persuasion, modeling, and mastery expe-
riences); moreover, previous findings point to affective self-
regulatory efficacy beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy beliefs in expressing
positive emotions and in managing negative emotions) as crucial
for promoting empathic self-efficacy beliefs (Alessandri et al.,
2009; Caprara et al., 2010). This does not exclude the possibility
that one can take advantage of a personality disposition such as
agreeableness to promote self-transcendence values conducive to
experiences that further strengthen individuals’ capacities and in-
clinations to behave prosocially.
As self-transcendence values increased for men and for women
from T1 to T2, one may hypothesize that values are particularly
sensitive to the changes that occur in the transition from adoles-
cence to adulthood. This is in accordance with empirical studies
showing that values change more in response to life-changing
events than in response to age (Bardi, Lee, Hofmann-Towfigh, &
Soutar, 2009). The mean-level stability of agreeableness, empathic
self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality is in accordance with some
previous findings (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Roberts, Caspi, & Mof-
fit, 2003). Also in accordance with previous findings, (Caprara et
al., 2003; Caprara & Steca, 2005, Caprara & Steca, 2007; Eisen-
berg et al., 2006; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005), at all ages, young
women reported higher agreeableness, self-transcendence values,
empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality than did their male
counterparts. One could argue that due to gender-role socializa-
tion, most women develop relatively high levels of positive inter-
personal abilities, such as empathy or prosociality (Eisenberg et
al., 2006). Although this interpretation is corroborated by the
consistency of the gender differences that have been observed
across time and across method of assessing prosociality, it does not
rule out genetic or other biological and social determinants (in-
cluding presentational biases; Jang et al., 1996, Jang et al., 1998;
Loehlin et al., 1998; Riemann et al., 1997).
The fact that the study involved mostly self-report data may be
viewed as a major limitation. Yet one might claim that no one can
report on a person’s own habits, priorities, and self-efficacy better
than that person. In particular, none is in a better position than
individuals themselves to know and report about their own ten-
dencies to behave prosocially across contexts. Of course, social
desirability is always a source of concern when assessing socially
valued behaviors such as prosociality. Indeed, we did not under-
estimate social desirability and, consequently, used a latent
construct based on the consensus between self-reports and other-
ratings in our models. The significant correlations between self-
reported and other-rated prosociality (both within and across time)
support this consensus; nonetheless, in the future, it would be
useful to obtain multiple measures of other targeted constructs that
are readily assessed by outside observers (e.g., agreeableness). In
future work, it also would be desirable to test the generalizability
of our findings across different populations and in different cul-
tural contexts. The tendencies to pursue others’ well-being may
vary under various life conditions and across social contexts and
cultures (see Eisenberg et al., 2006). Moreover, other individual
differences in personality should be examined to account for
prosociality in specific contexts, when facing specific risks and
costs, particular health or mood conditions, or different trade-offs
among conflicting values.
References
Ahadi, S. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1994). Temperament, development, and
the Big Five. In C. Halverson Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin
(Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from
infancy to adulthood (pp. 189 –207). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alessandri, G., Caprara, G. V., Eisenberg, N., & Steca, P. (2009). Recip-
rocal relations among self-efficacy beliefs and prosociality across time.
Journal of Personality, 77, 1229 –1259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2009.00580.x
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C.
(2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy on diverse spheres of
psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74, 769 –782. doi:
10.1111/1467-8624.00567
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999).
 TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY
Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76, 258 –269. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.258
Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (2000). Measuring the Big Five in self
report and other rating: A multitrait–multimethod study. European Jour-
nal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 31– 43. doi:10.1027//1015-
5759.16.1.31
Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Maslach, C. (1997). Individuation and
the five factor model of personality traits. European Journal of Psycho-
logical Assessment, 13, 75– 84. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.13.2.75
Bardi, A., Lee, J. A., Hofmann-Towfigh, N., & Soutar, G. (2009). The
structure of intra-individual value change. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97, 913–929. doi:10.1037/a0016617
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert,
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol.
2, pp. 282–316). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1– 62). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 136 –162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. (1994). Testing the factorial validity, replication, and invariance
of a measuring instrument: A paradigmatic application based on the
Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29,
289 –311. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2903_5
Caprara, G. V. (2002). Personality psychology: Filling the gap between
basic processes and molar functioning. In C. von Hofsten & L. Bakman
(Eds.), Psychology at the turn of the millennium: Volume 2. Social,
developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 201–224). Hove, England:
Psychology Press.
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, A., Di Giunta, L., Panerai, L., & Eisenberg, N. (2010).
The contribution of agreeableness and self-efficacy beliefs to prosociality.
European Journal of Personality, 24, 36–55. doi:10.1002/per.739
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Bermudez, J., Maslach, C., & Ruch, W.
(2000). Multivariate methods for the comparison of factor structures in
cross-cultural research: An illustration with the Italian Big Five Ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 437– 464. doi:
10.1177/0022022100031004002
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1996). BFQ: Big Five
Questionnaire manuale. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M. (1993). The
“Big Five Questionnaire”: A new questionnaire to assess the five factor
model. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 281–288. doi:
10.1016/0191-8869(93)90218-R
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo,
P. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement.
Psychological Science, 11, 302–306. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00260
Caprara, G. V., Caprara, M. G., & Steca, P. (2003). Personality’s correlates
of adult development and aging. European Psychologist, 8, 131–147.
doi:10.1027//1016-9040.8.3.131
Caprara, G. V., Gerbino, M., & Delle Fratte, A. (2001). Autoefficacia
interpersonale [Interpersonal self-efficacy]. In G. V. Caprara (Ed.), La
valutazione dell’autoefficacia [Self-efficacy evaluation] (pp. 5–50).
Trento, Italy: Erickson.
Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Regalia, C., & Bandura,
A. (1999). Autoefficacia percepita emotiva e interpersonale e buon funziona-
mento sociale [Emotional and interpersonal perceived self-efficacy and social
well-being]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 26, 769–789.
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of
prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 191–217. doi:10.1521/
jscp.24.2.191.62271
1301
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2007). Prosocial agency: The contribution of
values and self-efficacy beliefs to prosocial behavior across ages. Jour-
nal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 218 –239. doi:10.1521/
jscp.2007.26.2.218
Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Vecchio, G., Tramontano, C., & Alessandri, G.
(2008, July). Prosocial agency: Values and self-efficacy beliefs as de-
terminants of prosocial behavior. Paper presented at the International
Congress of Psychology, Berlin, Germany.
Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A new scale for
measuring adult’s prosociality. European Journal of Psychological As-
sessment, 21, 77– 89. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77
Caprara, G. V., Tramontano, C., Steca, P., Di Giunta, L., Eisenberg, N.,
Kupfer, A., & Roth, E. (2011). Prosociality assessment across cultures.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp.
311–388). New York, NY: Wiley.
Caspi, A., & Shiner, R. (2006). Personality development. In N. Eisenberg
(Vol. Ed.) and W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of
child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality develop-
ment (6th ed., pp. 300 –365). New York, NY: Wiley.
Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Social– cognitive theories and the
coherence of personality. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coher-
ence of personality: Social–cognitive bases of personality consistency,
variability, and organization (pp. 3–33). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and
conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591– 621. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., &
Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing
compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 31, 206 –215. doi:10.1037/h0076284
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with
longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation
modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558 –577. doi:
10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
Cumberland-Li, A., Eisenberg, N., & Reiser, M. (2004). Relations of
young children’s agreeableness and resiliency to effortful control and
impulsivity. Social Development, 13, 191–212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2004.000263.x
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likeli-
hood estimation from complete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, 39, 1–38.
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, N., Carlo, G., Murphy, B., & Van Court, P. (1995). Prosocial
development in late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Child Develop-
ment, 66, 1179 –1197. doi:10.2307/1131806
Eisenberg, N., Cialdini, R. B., McCreath, H., & Shell, R. (1987).
Consistency-based compliance: When and why do children become
vulnerable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1174 –
1181. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1174
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Shepard,
S. A. (2005). Age changes in prosocial responding and moral reasoning
in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Research on Adoles-
cence, 15, 235–260. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00095.x
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th
ed., pp. 701–778). New York, NY: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial behavior.
1302 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG
In N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed) and W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and person-
ality development (6th ed., pp. 646 –718). New York, NY: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard,
S. A., Zhou, Q., & Carlo, G. (2002). Prosocial development in early
adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 993–1006. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.993
Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Kupanoff, K., & Laible, D. (1999). Early
adolescence and prosocial/moral behavior I: The role of individual
processes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 5–16. doi:10.1177/
0272431699019001001
Finch, J. F., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Predicting depression from tem-
perament, personality, and patterns of social relations. Journal of Per-
sonality, 69, 27–55. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00135
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social
psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect
the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x
Graziano, W. G. (1994). The development of Agreeableness as a dimen-
sion of personality. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Koshnstamm, & R. P.
Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality
from infancy to adulthood (pp. 339 –354). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graziano, W. G., Bruce, J., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007a).
Attraction, personality, and prejudice: Liking none of the people most of
the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 565–582.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.565
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of
personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
personality psychology (pp. 795– 824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C., & Finch, J. F. (1997). Competitiveness
mediates the link between personality and group performance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1394 –1408. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.73.6.1394
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Finch, J. F. (1997). The self
as a mediator between personality and adjustment. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 73, 392– 404. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.73.2.392
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving
interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820 – 835. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.820
Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: Dimension of
personality or social desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70,
695–727. doi: 10.1111/1467– 6494.05021
Hansen, W. B., Tobler, N. S., & Graham, J. W. (1990). Attrition in
substance abuse prevention research: A meta-analysis of 85 longitudi-
nally followed cohorts. Evaluation Review, 14, 677– 685. doi:10.1177/
0193841X9001400608
Higgins, E. T. (1999). Persons and situations: Unique explanatory principles or
variability in general principles? In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coher-
ence of personality: Social–cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and
organization (pp. 61–93). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links
between two theories of the self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66,
118 –137. doi:10.2307/1519843
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Istituto Italiano di Statistica. (2002). Annuario statistico italiano 2002
[Italian yearbook of statistics 2002]. Rome, Italy: Author.
Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vernon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the Big
Five personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of
Personality, 64, 577–592. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J.
(1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample:
Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 1556 –1565. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.74.6.1556
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a
moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323–362.
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00148
Keyes, C. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61,
121–140, doi:10.2307/2787065
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation mod-
eling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006a). Parental discipline and affection and children’s
prosocial behavior: Genetic and environmental links. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90, 147–164. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.147
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006b). Prosocial behavior from early to middle
childhood: Genetic and environmental influences on stability and
change. Developmental Psychology, 42, 771–786. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.42.5.771
Knafo, A., & Solomon, I. (2010). Genetic and environmental influences on
prosocial behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial
motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp.
149 –167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing
data. New York, NY: Wiley.
Loehlin, J. C. (1982). Are personality traits differentially heritable? Be-
havior Genetics, 12, 417– 428. doi: 0001– 8244/82/0700 – 0417503.00/0
Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & John, O. P. (1998).
Heritabilities of common and measure-specific components of the Big
Five personality factors. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 431–
453. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2225
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis.
New York, NY: Erlbaum.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007).
Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect:
Program PRODCLIN. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 384 –389.
doi:10.3758/BF03193007
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other
intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. doi:
10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of products and resampling
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99 –128. doi:10.1207/
s15327906mbr3901_4
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analysis of
longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23– 44. doi:10.1037/
1082-989X.12.1.23
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person?
Journal of Personality, 63, 365–396. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1995.tb00500.x
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human
universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509 –516. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.52.5.509
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality.
In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed.,
pp. 139 –153). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Metz, E., & Youniss, J. (2003). A demonstration that school-based required
service does not deter, but heightens, volunteerism. Political Science and
Politics, 36, 281–286. doi: 10.1017/ S1049096503002221
Midlarsky, E. (1991). Helping as coping. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial
behavior (pp. 238 – 64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
 TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY
Midlarsky, E., Fagin Jones, S., & Corley, R. P. (2005). Personality corre-
lates of heroic rescue during the Holocaust. Journal of Personality, 73,
907–934. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00333.x
Miles, S. B., & Stipek, D. (2006). Contemporaneous and longitudinal
associations between social behavior and literacy achievement in a
sample of low-income elementary school children. Child Development,
77, 103–117. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00859.x
Moen, P., Dempster-McClain, D., & Williams, R. M. (1992). Successful
aging: A life-course perspective on women’s multiple roles and health.
American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1612–1638. doi:10.1086/229941
Musick, M. A., Herzog, A. R., & House, J. S. (1999). Volunteering and
mortality among older adults: Findings from a national sample. Journals
of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,
54, P173–P180. doi:10.1093/geronb/54B.3.S173
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles,
CA: Author.
Newman, R. S. (1991). Goals and self-regulate learning: What motivates
children to seek academic help? In M. L. Maher & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement: A research annual (Vol. 7, pp.
151–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Oliner, S., & Oliner, P. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews
in Nazi Europe. New York, NY: Free Press.
Oman, D., Thoresen, E., & McMahon, K. (1999). Volunteerism and
mortality among the community-dwelling elderly. Journal of Health
Psychology, 4, 301–316. doi:10.1177/135910539900400301
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation:
Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among
AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
671– 686. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.671
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. E., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005).
Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 56, 365–392. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141
Ranfone, S. (2008). Empatia, autoefficacia empatica e comportamento
prosociale nei giovani-adulti [Empathy, self-efficacy, and prosocial
behavior in young adults] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Sapienza Uni-
versity of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and environ-
mental influences on personality: A study of twins reared together using
the self- and peer report NEO-FFI scales. Journal of Personality, 65,
449 – 475. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00324.x
Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2003). Work experiences and
personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 582–593. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.582
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency
of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of
longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.126.1.3
Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adult-
hood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 31–35. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-
level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis
of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.132.1.1
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series
Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.
Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105–176).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg (Vol.
Ed) and W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th
ed., pp. 99 –166). New York, NY: Wiley.
View publication stats
1303
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:
Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1– 65). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and
contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19 – 45. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
Schwartz, S. H. (2005a). Basic human values: Their content and structure
across cultures. In A. Tamayo & J. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho
[Values and work]. Brası́lia, Brazil: Editora Vozes.
Schwartz, S. H. (2005b). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of
universals in individual human values. In A. Tamayo & J. Porto (Eds.),
Valores e trabalho [Values and work]. Brası́lia, Brazil: Editora Vozes.
Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit
prosocial behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial
motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp.
221–241). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., & Harris, M. (2001).
Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values
with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-
chology, 32, 519 –542. doi:10.1177/0022022101032005001
Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities:
Cross-cultural and multi-method studies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 89, 1010 –1028. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010
Staub, E. (1979). Positive social behavior and morality. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation
models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 10 –39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J. Y. (2008). Tests of the
three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 241–
269. doi:10.1177/1094428107300344
Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000).
Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 656 – 669. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.79.4.656
Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the
life course. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences
and Social Sciences, 55, P308 –P318. doi:10.1093/geronb/55.5.S308
Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of
political participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs.
Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 487– 492. doi:10.1016/
j.paid.2008.11.021
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Larose, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2005). Kinder-
garten disruptive behavior, protective factors, and educational achieve-
ment in early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 617–
629. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.617
Walker, L. J., & Frimer, J. A. (2007). Moral personality of brave and caring
exemplars. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 845– 860.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.845
Wentzel, K. R., McNamara-Barry, C., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in
middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.195
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Mazer, B. (2001). Voluntary service, peer
group orientation, and civic engagement. Journal of Adolescent Re-
search, 16, 456 – 468. doi:10.1177/0743558401165003.
Received November 10, 2010
Revision received April 29, 2011
Accepted August 26, 2011 䡲