Developmental Psycholoi 1981, Vol. 17, No.

6, 77 -782

Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0012-1649/81/1706-0773$00.75

Socialization of Prosocial Behavior in the Preschool Classroom

Nancy Eisenberg, Ellen Cameron, Kelly Tryon, and Renee Dodez
Arizona State University The purpose of the present study was to examine the socialization of prosocial behavior in the classroom and reciprocity in young children's social encounters. The naturally occurring behaviors of 33 preschool children were videotaped in the classroom. Instances of prosocial, defensive, and social behaviors were coded, as well as peer and teacher reactions to prosocial behaviors. Although teachers responded positively to children's prosocial behaviors only a small percent of the time, peers reacted positively a moderate proportion of the time. Children who frequently responded to requests for prosocial behavior received fewer positive reactions from peers than children who complied with requests less often. In contrast, teachers were more likely to react positively to girls who exhibited high levels of "asked-for" (compliant) prosocial behaviors. The type of reactions a child received for prosocial behaviors was related to both the type of reactions given to others' prosocial behaviors and positive sociability. Finally, frequent performance of spontaneous prosocial actions was related to a different pattern of behaviors than was frequency of prosocial behaviors in response to a request.

In the past decade, researchers frequently have studied the socialization of prosocial behavior, that is, behavior intended to benefit another (cf. Mussen & Eisenberg-Berg, 1977; Staub, 1979). Most of their research, however, has focused on one group of socializers, parents. Indeed, there is a major gap in the literature concerning the role of peers and teachers in the development of prosocial behavior (Staub, 1979). This is an unfortunate oversight given the extensive contact between most children and their teachers and peers during the formative years. One way in which peers and teachers may affect a child's prosocial development is through their reactions to the child's prosocial acts. Researchers have demonstrated that peers' and teachers' reactions can shape the development of other social behaviors such as children's aggression (Patterson, Littman, & Bricker, 1967) and cross-sex play (Serbin, Tonick, & Sternglanz, 1977) in the classroom. Further, according to the

results of laboratory studies, children's prosocial behavior can be increased by the provision of social rewards such as praise (Barton, Olszewski, & Madsen, 1979; Doland & Adelberg, 1967; Gelfand, Hartmann, Cromer, Smith, & Page, 1975; Staub, 1979), although the effects of these social rewards in the laboratory vary across individuals and are of questionable longevity (Staub, 1979). Of course, social reactions from significant others in the child's real-life environment over a period of time should have more substantial and enduring consequences. At the present time, there are relatively few data concerning teacher and peer reactions to prosocial behaviors in the classroom. Nevertheless, it is clear that adults in the classroom or in classroom-like settings can enhance sharing behaviors (broadly defined, including exchange of materials during cooperative play) by providing social reinforcement for these behaviors in combination with techniques such as modeling, prompting, and reinforcement for true reports of sharing (Barton & Ascione, 1979; Barton, Olszewski, & Madsen, 1979; RogWe would like to thank the parents, teachers, and ers-Warren & Baer, 1976; Rogers-Warren, children in the Child Study Laboratory. Warren, & Baer, 1977; Warren, RogersRequests for reprints should be sent to Nancy Eisenberg, Department of Psychology, Arizona State Uni- Warren, & Baer, 1976). However, it is not clear how frequently teachers provide posiversity, Tempe, Arizona 85281.
773

774

EISENBERG, CAMERON, TRYON, AND DODEZ

tive feedback (positive reinforcement) for prosocial behaviors in the natural environment. Further, although researchers have found that peers seldom positively reinforce each other's prosocial behaviors with praise or smiling (Barton et al., 1979), researchers have not determined how frequently children provide general positive feedback (including social interaction as well as specific praise and smiling) for peers' prosocial behaviors in the classroom setting. Thus, the first goal of the present research was to determine how frequently children receive positive, negative, or no (neutral) reactions from peers and teachers when they behave in a prosocial manner. The frequency with which teachers and peers provide positive reinforcements (including positive social interaction) for prosocial acts has implications for the understanding of the socialization of prosocial behavior. A second but related goal was to determine if children who are more prosocial receive a higher proportion of positive (or negative) reactions to their prosocial behaviors than do less prosocial children. If this were the case, the data would be consistent with the conclusion that children who frequently act prosocially do so because they receive some type of positive reinforcement (e.g., attention and praise) for doing so. It is also possible that the amount and type of peer and teacher reactions to prosocial behavior are not related to frequency of a child's prosocial responding but to other characteristics of the child. For example, type of feedback received might be associated with the general social responsivity. Indeed, such an assumption is consistent with a substantial amount of research. Among children, those who initiate verbal or physical behaviors towards others are more often the recipients of such actions (Kohn, 1966). Similarly, initiation of positive or negative behavior toward peers and receipt of positive and negative behaviors are positively related (Andersen, 1939; Charlesworth & Hartup, 1967; Leiter, 1977; Staub & Feinberg, 1977, cited in Staub, 1979). For example, Leiter (1977) found that children who responded positively to behaviors initiated by peers received more agreeable re-

actions when they themselves initiated interactions than children who reacted in less positive ways. Thus it is quite possible that responsive, positive children may elicit positive reactions for prosocial acts (as well as many other types of social behaviors) regardless of how often they help or share with others. To summarize, the purpose of the present study was threefold: (a) to determine how frequently children receive positive, negative, or neutral (nonresponsive) reactions when they perform a prosocial behavior in the preschool class; (b) to assess the relationship between type of reaction received for prosocial behaviors and frequency of prosocial responding toward peers; and (c) to determine if type of reaction received is related to general sociability (frequency of positive social contacts) and positivity of feedback directed at peers. Further, we wanted to examine these issues in relation to two different types of prosocial behaviors: those spontaneously emitted and those performed in response to a peer's request for assistance. By addressing these issues, we hoped to learn more about both the socialization of prosocial behavior in the classroom and reciprocity in young children's social encounters. Method Subjects
Participants were 33 preschool children (18 boys, 15 girls) aged 51-63 months in two classes. All were middle-class Caucasians attending the second semester of a preschool. The teachers were eight adults who served as either teachers or teachers' aides in the classroom.

Procedure
The children's naturally occurring behaviors during free play were videotaped during the 1st hour of class (when all the children were indoors). The children were filmed for 15 minutes a session (three times a week) for approximately 9 weeks, until each child was taped for a minimum of 40 minutes (range = 40-176 minutes; M = 103 minutes). Position of the camera was determined by dividing the classrooms into sections and then moving the camera every 5 minutes in a random, predetermined order (with the constraint that each area be recorded during each filming). Throughout the filming, one person ran the camera while another recorded pertinent information regarding events that occurred just outside the camera's range (e.g., if a child outside the

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR camera's range asked a child who was being filmed to share).

775

Results As the first step in the analyses, frequency counts for all categories except reactions to prosocial behaviors were converted to frequencies per minute. Next, the proportions of times that peers responded positively, negatively, or in a neutral manner to a subject's prosocial behavior were computed (e.g., number of prosocial incidents when a subject received a positive response/number of prosocial incidents). Proportions rather than frequencies were used because peers could only respond as frequently as a target child exhibited prosocial behaviors (so more prosocial children had more opportunities to receive various types of feedback). Proportions also were computed for subjects' positive, neutral, or negative reactions to peers' prosocial behaviors and for positive reactions from teachers (negative reactions were so infrequent they were not recorded, and neutral reactions were not coded because it frequently was unclear if a nonresponsive teacher saw a behavior or not). Type of Feedback Received for Prosocial Behavior The proportions of positive, negative, and neutral reactions subjects received from peers for prosocial behaviors are presented in Table 2. Approximately half the time, children elicited no real reaction (a nonresponsive, neutral reaction) when they behaved prosocially. Although the children virtually never received a negative reaction for complying with a request, spontaneous prosocial actions occasionally were followed by negative reactions from the recipient of the behavior. This is probably because a spontaneous prosocial behavior can be misinterpreted (e.g., as an attempt to interfere with the child's ongoing activities), whereas the occurrence of an asked-for behavior is anticipated (indeed initiated) by the potential recipient of aid. Positive feedback, broadly defined (as encompassing social interaction as well as more specific positive reactions, see Table 1), occurred approximately 30% of the time for spontaneous prosocial behaviors (25% for girls, 34% for boys) and 48% of the time for asked-for be-

Coding
All information on the videotapes was coded by two observers (one primary observer and one of two reliability observers). The children's social, prosocial, and defensive behaviors were coded into a variety of categories, as were peers' and teachers' reactions to the children's prosocial behaviors (see Table 1 for definitions of the various behaviors). All instances of the specified behaviors on the videotapes were used as data. However, the only time a child's behavior was coded twice in a critical sequence of events (one involving prosocial behavior or a request for such behavior) was when the child asked a peer for a prosocial behavior and then responded after the peer complied (and these behaviors were not examined in relation to one another). Sociability was coded for each 30-sec interval; during each interval the coders noted the number of peers or adults with whom a child engaged in positive social interactions. In the rare cases in which the object of a child's defensive or prosocial behavior was not on the videotape, notes taken by the observer during filming were consulted. When the two coders disagreed on the coding of an important behavior, they discussed their perspectives, but the primary coder's decision (after reviewing the tape) was used for all analyses. Further, time that each child appeared on the videotapes was recorded.

Reliabilities
Interrater reliability was computed both with Pearson correlation coefficients and as percent of exact agreement between coders (agreements/agreements and disagreements). Further, two sets of interrater reliability measures were computed for each behavior in Table 1, one for each reliability observer with the primary coder. For the Pearson correlation coefficients, the mean interrater reliabilities (averaged across the two sets of coefficients) ranged from .75 to .99, with only impinge (.76) and negative peer feedback (.75) being less than .80 (subjects were the unit of analysis). Agreement on the timing of how long a child was on the tape (computed for a subsample of the data) exceeded .99. Mean percent of exact agreement was greater than 70% for all categories, except impinge (which was 65%). The internal consistency of the measures of behavior was assessed by correlating frequency per minute of a behavior on the odd numbered videotapes with frequency per minute on the even numbered videotapes (tapes were numbered in chronological order). The Pearson correlations (with Spearman-Brown corrections) for spontaneous and asked-for behaviors were of moderate strength, that is, rs(31) = .39 and .37, respectively; ps < .05. Comparable figures for positive, neutral, and negative responding were .26, .19, and .15; correlations for the remaining behaviors ranged from a low of .04 (verbal or physical objection) to .87 (sociability with peers).

776 Table 1

EISENBERO, CAMERON, TRYON, AND DODEZ

Summary of Behavior Categories

Behavior variable Definition Prosocial behaviors (peer-directed) Spontaneous Without specifically being asked verbally or nonverbally, the child gives away or allows another temporary use of an object, attempts to alleviate the emotional distress of another, or attempts to alleviate another's nonemotional needs (e.g., assists by giving information, helps another with a task, offers an object not previously in the giver's possession; these behaviors were not coded as prosocial if they both occurred as part of cooperative play and involved completion of a mutual goal). The child does any of the behaviors listed above in response to a peer's verbal or nonverbal request. Other social behaviors Sociability The child exhibits positive social interactions with peers, including greeting, exchanging information, or simply playing together. These interactions were grouped in two categories: (a) directed at teachers, and (b) directed at peers. The child asks for help or assistance, verbally or nonverbally, from (a) teachers or (b) peers. These are verbal or physical negative reactions to a request for an object or for help (e.g., the child verbally refuses to share, pushes the asker away, or covers the object in question). The child physically tries to take (grab) an object from another child. Reactions to prosocial behaviors Positive The recipient of a prosocial act smiles, approves of the act, thanks the benefactor, reciprocates, initiates social interaction with the benefactor, or sustains interaction with the benefactor. The recipient does not notice the action, acts puzzled, or accepts the object or help with no other reaction. The recipient ignores the benefactor, grabs something from the benefactor, or reacts negatively (e.g., pushes or yells at the benefactor).

Asked-for

Asks for Verbal or physical objection

Impinge

Neutral Negative

haviors (38% for girls, 57% for boys). This girls' spontaneous and asked-for behaviors, cannot be considered to be especially high respectively (see Table 2). Frequently the given that children exhibited positive social teachers did not respond because they were behaviors (sociability) that would be coded not in the vicinity of the child (although the as positive feedback .87 times per minute. adult to child ratio ranged from 1:5 to 4:15). Most of the time teachers did not respond positively when a child behaved in a proso- Correlates of Type of Feedback Received cial manner. Teachers never responded pos- for Prosocial Behavior itively to any of the boys' prosocial behaviors To determine if type of feedback received and reacted positively to 11% and 5% of the for prosocial behavior was related to fre-

Table 2 Observational Measures: Means and Standard Deviations Females Behavior Spontaneous prosocial Asked-for prosocial Sociability peers Sociability teachers Asked-for peers Asked-for teachers Verbal or physical objections/ opportunities to defend Impinge Reactions of peers to spontaneous prosocial behaviors3 Positive Neutral Negative Reactions of peers to askedfor prosocial behaviors" Positive Neutral Negative Positive reaction of teachers to prosocial behaviors" Spontaneous Asked-for Subjects' reactions to prosocial spontaneous behaviors" Positive Neutral Negative Subjects' reactions to askedfor behaviors" Positive Neutral Negative Males Range 0-.055 0-.073 .150-1.14 .360-.920 0-.086 0-.066 0-1.00 0-.051 Combined Range 0-.061 0-.051 .160-1.91 .160-1.180 0-.102 0-.170 0-1.00 0-.028

M
.OJ5 .029

SD

M
.028 .020
1.12 .620

SD

M
.022 .024 .870

SD

Range 0-.061 0-.073 .150-1.91 .160-1.18 0-.102 0-.170 0-1.00 0-.076

.016
.024 .266 .184 .027 .020 .325 .014

.020 .016
.493 .243

.019
.020 .490 .215 .026 .033 .308 .020

.565
.607 .031 .030 .274 .010

.616
.030 .029 .309 .016

.029
.028 .337 .021

.026
.042 .302 .022

.250 .575 .175 .375 .597 .041 .114 .053 .387 .500 .113 .271 .729
0

.373 .442 .334

0-1.00 0-1.00 0-1.00 0-1.00 0-1.00 0-.250 0-1.00 0-.250 0-1.00 0-1.00 0-.750 0-1.00 0-1.00

.335 .440 .231 .570 .430

.321 .254 .242 .457 .457

0-1.00 0-1.00 0-.667 0-1.00 0-1.00

.301 .494 .208 .484 .504 .018 .048 .023 .338 .499

.332 .340 .277 .340 .396

0-1.00 0-1.00 0-1.00 0-1.00 0-1.00 0-.250 0-1.00 0-.250 0-1.00 0-1.00 0-.833 0-1.00 0-1.00 0-.250

.290 .298 .092 .303 .097 .408 .439 .239 .331 .331

0 0 0
.292 .498 .210 .613 .366 .021

0 0 0
.350

0 0 0
0-1.00 0-1.00 0-.833 0^1.00 0-1.00 0-.250

.063 .200 .068 .375

.379

.329 .264 .394 .389 .065

.163
.473 .514 .012

.253
.401 .403 .050

Note. Data are given in frequencies per minute unless specified as proportion. " Proportions.

-o ^J -o

778

EISENBERG, CAMERON, TRYON, AND DODEZ

Table 3 The Relationship Between Relative Frequency of Spontaneous and Asked-For Prosocial Behaviors and Feedback From Peer Recipients and Teachers for These Behaviors Peer feedback Positive Prosocial behavior Spontaneous Asked-for Females
.61* -.26

Teacher feedback Negative Positive Both

.10 .35*

Males
-.28 -.57

Both
.10 -.47**

Females
.14 .33

Males
.20

Females
-.22 .49

Males

Both
.00 .48**

' p < .10. ** p < .05.

quency of prosocial responding, frequencies of asked-for or spontaneous prosocial behavior (per minute) were correlated with measures of feedback (proportions). Since neutral and positive feedback were highly negatively related (correlations for girls and boys ranged from -.67 to -1.00) and one can reduce the ipsative nature of the data by using only two of the three measures of feedback in analyses (Hicks, 1970), only the analyses performed for positive and negative feedback (and not neutral feedback) will be reported. The results are presented in Table 3. Frequencies of various types of peer reactions for spontaneous behaviors did not vary significantly according to how frequently a child performed this type of behavior. However, children who frequently performed asked-for behaviors (especially males) received fewer positive reactions from peers than less compliant children. Finally, although teachers were more likely to respond positively to the asked-for behaviors of girls

who frequently performed such behaviors than girls who exhibited fewer asked-for behaviors, teachers' reinforcement of these behaviors was infrequent (5% of the time). The correlations in Table 3 were only slightly reduced when the effects of sociability of the subject were partialed out (although the correlation between negative reactions and frequency of asked-for behaviors dropped to below the .10 level of significance).1 To examine for reciprocity in peer reactions, type of reaction given by a particular child was correlated with type of response received from peers. Proportion of negative reactions given was unrelated to proportion of negative reactions received. However, as is presented in Table 4, the proportion of positive feedback received by a child was
1 It is important to note that the frequency of performing asked-for behaviors and the number of times that children were asked to do so were highly correlated, K31) = .95, p < .001.

Table 4 Simple and Partial Correlations Between Subjects' and Peers' Reactions to Children's Prosocial Behaviors Peers' reactions Positive to spontaneous Subjects' reactions Positive to spontaneous Positive to asked-for Females
.59* (.57*) -.19 (-.35)

Positive to asked-for Both

.43*

Males
.38 (.38) .15 (.14)

Females
.61* (.34) .54 (.35)

Males
.51* (.55*) .17 (.01)

Both
.51**

(.44**) .18
(.12)

(.54***)
.34

(.07)

Note. Correlations in parentheses are correlations for which the effects of sociability have been partialed out. * p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01.

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

779

Table 5 Pearson Correlations Between Sociability and Type of Feedback Received for Prosocial Behaviors
Sociability With peers Peer feedback to subject Negative > spontaneous behaviors Positive _ spontaneous behaviors Negative . asked-for behaviors
Positive > asked-for

With teachers Both Females

.01

Females

Males

Males

Both

.04 .23 .23

.69**

.32 .05
.57**

.22 .16
-.11
.62****

-.07 -.29

-.20
.68 .33

-.42

.33
.53***

behaviors

.38*

Note. Empty cells indicate correlations could not be computed due to lack of variation for the variables. * p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. **** p < .001.

related to type of reaction emitted by the child, particularly with relation to the child's spontaneous prosocial behaviors. Children who were positive in response to others' spontaneous prosocial behaviors received positive reactions, whereas nonresponsiveness begot nonresponsiveness. This pattern of results essentially was retained even when the effects of sociability were partialed out of the correlations. Type of feedback received for prosocial behavior also was related to the child's sociability frequency of positive social contacts (see Table 5). Children who received positive feedback from peers for asked-for behaviors were relatively social with both peers and teachers. Girls who were social with adults also tended to elicit negative reactions from peers for their asked-for prosocial actions. Thus, children who received expressive feedback (positive or negative) for asked-for behaviors were those who engaged in frequent social interactions with both teachers and peers. Characteristics of Children who Exhibited High Levels of Spontaneous and AskedFor Prosocial Behaviors The correlations between frequency of spontaneous and asked-for behaviors and various other social behaviors are presented in Table 6. Children high in spontaneous prosocial responding, in comparison to children who exhibited few spontaneous behav-

iors, had many social contacts with peers, were not dependent (in terms of asking others for help), and tended to respond positively to others' spontaneous (girls only) and asked-for (especially boys) behaviors. Children (especially boys) who exhibited high levels of asked-for prosocial behavior, in comparison with less compliant children, tended to ask adults for help, were unlikely to defend toys, and were relatively unlikely to respond in a positive manner to peers' prosocial behaviors. Further, according to tests for differences between correlations from correlated samples, the correlations of spontaneous and asked-for prosocial behavior to many of the above correlates differed significantly (see Table 6).2 Discussion According to the data, children, especially boys, received few positive reactions from teachers for prosocial behaviors. In contrast, it was not uncommon for children to elicit positive reactions from the peer recipient of a prosocial action; however, children who
2 The tests for differences between correlations presented in Table 6 were computed with the formula found in Ferguson (1976). However, since there is debate regarding the appropriateness of this and several other similar statistics (Steiger, 1980), the tests were recomputed using the formula presented by Steiger (1980, Formula /2). The t values computed with Steiger's statistics were extremely similar to those computed with Ferguson's formula.

780
Table 6

EISENBERG, CAMERON, TRYON, AND DODEZ

Relationship Between Prosodal Behaviors (Spontaneous and Asked-For) and Other Behaviors: Correlations and t tests Between Correlations from Correlated Samples
Prosocial behavior Spontaneous Other behaviors Number of social contacts with peers Asked-for peers Asked-for adults Verbal of physical defence/ number of opportunities Responds positively to others' spontaneous prosocial behaviors Responds negatively to spontaneous behaviors Responds positively to askedfor behaviors Female Male Both .47*** -.29* -.37**
.04 .12

Asked-for Female Male

-.15

Both
-.15 .14 .30*

/ test' 2.91*** 1.86* 3.25*** 2.83***

.38
-.28 -.63***

.33
-.31

-.33 -.11 -.20 .47*

.27

.15 .17 .07

-.43 -.14 -.20 -.12

.08 .61***
-.64***
-.49*

.17
.63***
-.25 -.04

-.54***
-.23 -.20

1.78*

.23
.33*

-.14

-.49**

-.41**

3.25***

Note. Only behaviors for which at least one significant or marginally significant correlation was found are listed. " /-test of the difference between correlations (combined sample) for a given behavior with spontaneous versus asked-for prosocial behavior. *p< .10. * * / > < . 05. ***/>< .01.

were more prosocial toward peers generally did not receive a higher proportion of positive feedback from peers than less prosocial children. In fact, children who performed more asked-for behaviors were significantly less likely to elicit a positive reaction from peers. Thus the data do not support the conclusion that prosocial children are helpful or generous because they receive a greater proportion of positive peer feedback for their prosocial behavior than do less prosocial peers. Further, although frequency of askedfor behavior was associated with higher levels of positive reactions from teachers, the amount of teacher feedback was so low that it is unlikely that teachers' positive reactions maintained children's prosocial responding. There are at least two possible explanations for the fact that children who exhibited more asked-for behaviors tended to receive fewer positive peer reactions. First, children who performed many asked-for behaviors appeared to be relatively compliant, dependent, and were perhaps seen as "easy targets" by peers. Specifically, children who exhibited many asked-for behaviors were those who were asked to help or share more frequently. Further, as is apparent from the

data in Table 6, boys who exhibited high frequencies of asked-for behaviors were somewhat more likely to ask adults for assistance, and were unlikely to defend toys from peers. These boys may have been viewed negatively by peers since their behavior did not conform with the independent, dominant masculine stereotype. A second reason why children who exhibited much asked-for behavior may have received fewer positive reactions than less compliant children is because they tended to not respond positively to others' behaviors (see Table 6), and according to the data (Table 4), children receive the type of reactions they give. More specifically, boys who exhibited many asked-for behaviors were unlikely to react positively to others' spontaneous prosocial behaviors, and children who did not react positively to others' spontaneous behaviors were relatively unlikely to receive positive reactions for asked-for behaviors. Because children who performed relatively many asked-for behaviors elicited fewer positive reactions than children who exhibited fewer asked-for behaviors, one wonders why these children exhibit as much asked-for behaviors as they do. One expla-

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

781

nation is that performance of asked-for prosocial behaviors serves a utilitarian purpose for the child. For example, in accordance with an avoidance learning paradigm, compliance with a request for help or sharing can prevent interpersonal conflict and also may be easier than noncompliance. Further, since less dominant children perform more asked-for behaviors than dominant children (Eisenberg-Berg & Giallanza, Note 1), compliance with others' requests may be one way in which less dominant children can function smoothly in interactions with more dominant peers. The type of reaction elicited by a child's prosocial behavior seemed to be at least as closely related to the child's social responsiveness as to frequency of performing social behaviors. As was discussed above, children who engaged in frequent positive social interactions with peers and teachers elicited more positive reactions when they performed asked-for prosocial behaviors than less social children. Further, there seemed to be a correspondence between type of reaction given and type received. Children who reacted positively to others' spontaneous prosocial behaviors received more positive feedback for both spontaneous and asked-for behaviors than less responsive children. Perhaps proportion of positive responding to others' asked-for behaviors was not a good predictor of peer feedback because reactions to askedfor behaviors are actually responses to a selfinitiated rather than other-initiated situation. It is likely that positive reaction to another's self-initiated (spontaneous) behavior is viewed by peers as more unambiguously positive than a positive reaction from a child who had just induced a peer to comply with a request. It is interesting to hypothesize regarding the implications of the findings described above. If positive, socially responsive children tend to elicit more positive feedback than unresponsive, less social children, these children may gradually become more and more positive as they are reinforced for positive behaviors; whereas less responsive children become more nonresponsive in their interactions with peers. In other words, a pattern of interactions may emerge at an early age whereby more expressive social

children are reinforced for being positive and social much more frequently than are less expressive children. Thus, small initial differences in style of interaction may be shaped into much larger differences by peer feedback. Because peers can socialize aggressive behaviors (Patterson et al., 1967), it is likely that peers play a role in shaping positive interaction styles. The frequency of preschoolers' prosocial responding in the present study was somewhat lower than in some (Strayer, Wareing, & Rushton, 1979; Yarrow & Waxier, 1976) but not all (Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979) research. Differences in strictness of operationalization of the concept of prosocial behavior likely account for the variability in frequency data (cf. Eisenberg-Berg, Cameron, Tryon, & Dodez, Note 2). The difference between the pattern of correlational findings for asked-for and spontaneous behaviors has important implications. Children who performed relatively high levels of spontaneous prosocial behaviors tended to differ in characteristics from children who frequently performed asked-for behaviors. Further, patterns of reinforcement for the two types of behavior differed. Thus, it is likely that these two modes of prosocial behaviors represent very different behaviors, reflect different sets of environmental circumstances, and are consistent with different goals and motives (cf. Eisenberg-Berg et al., Note 2). Given the possibility of major differences in these two types of behaviors, both researchers and theorists might benefit from attending to the spontaneous/asked-for distinction. Finally, it should be noted that the number of subjects in the present study was fairly small, and some measures of behavior were relatively instable. Clearer patterns of findings may result from larger-scale naturalistic research. Reference Notes
1. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Giallanza, S. Components of successful proprietary behavior among preschool children. Unpublished manuscript, 1980. (Available from Nancy Eisenberg, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempo, Ariz. 85281.) 2. Eisenberg-Berg, N., Cameron, E., Tryon, K., & Dodez, R. Prosocial behavior in the preschool years:

782

EISENBERG, CAMERON, TRYON, AND DODEZ Leiter, M. P. A study of reciprocity in preschool play groups. Child Development, 1977, 48, 1288-1295. Mussen, P., & Eisenberg-Berg, N. The roots of caring, sharing, and helping. San Francisco: Freeman, 1977. Patterson, G. R., Littman, R. A., & Bricker, W. Assertive behavior in children: A step toward a theory of aggression. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1967, 32, (5, Serial No. 113). Rogers-Warren, A., & Baer, D. M. Correspondence between saying and doing: Teaching children to share and praise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 335-354. Rogers-Warren, A., Warren, S. F., & Baer, D. M. A component analysis: Modeling, self-reporting, and reinforcement of self-reporting in the development of sharing. Behavior Modification, 1977, /, 307-322. Serbin, L. A., Tonick, I. J., & Sternglanz, S. H. Shaping cooperative cross-sex play. Child Development, 1977, 48, 924-929. Staub, E. Positive social behavior and morality: Socialization and development. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Steiger, J. H. Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 87, 245-251. Strayer, F. F., Wareing, S., & Rushton, J. P. Social constraints on naturally occurring preschool altruism. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1979, /, 3-11. Warren, S. F., Rogers-Warren, A., & Baer, D. M. The role of offer rates in controlling sharing by young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 491-497. Yarrow, M. R., & Waxier, C. Z. Dimensions and correlates of prosocial behavior in young children. Child Development, 1976, 47, 240-260.

Methodological and conceptual issues. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Development and Maintenance of Prosocial Behavior, Warsaw, Poland, July 1980.

References
Andersen, H. H. Domination and integration in the social behavior of young children in an experimental play situation. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1939, 21, 287-385. Barton, E. J., & Ascione, F. R. Sharing in preschool children: Facilitation, stimulus generalization, response generalization, and maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 417-430. Barton, E. J., Olszewski, M. J., & Madsen, J. J. The effects of adult presence on prosocial behavior of preschool children. Child Behavior Therapy, 1979, /, 271-286. Charlesworth, R., & Hartup, W. W. Positive social reinforcement in the nursery school peer group. Child Development, 1967, 38, 993-1002. Doland, D. J., & Adelberg, K. The learning of sharing behavior. Child Development, 1967, 38, 695-700. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. The relationship of preschooler's reasoning about prosocial moral conflicts to prosocial behavior. Child Development, 1979, SO, 356-363. Ferguson, G. A. Statistical analysis in psychology and education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. Gelfand, D., Hartmann, D. P., Cromer, C. C., Smith, C. L., & Page, B. C. The effects of institutional prompts and praise on children's donations. Child Development, 1975, 46, 980-983. Hicks, L. E. Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 167-184. Kohn, M. The child as a determinant of his peers' approach to him. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1966, 709, 91-100.

Received February 19, 1981