Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2012, Vol. 102, No.

6, 1289 1303

2011 American Psychological Association 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
Sapienza University of Rome

Nancy Eisenberg
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 selftranscendence to prosociality. Finally, earlier prosociality predicted agreeableness and empathic selfefficacy 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, longitudinal 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, & Zimbardo, 2000; Eisenberg et al., 2006; Miles & Stipek, 2006; Newman, 1991; Vitaro, Brendgen, Larose, & Tremblay, 2005; Wentzel, McNamara-Barry, & Caldwell, 2004). Moreover, gratitude and recognition derived from taking care of others well-being nourish positive feelings about oneself and foster others acceptance as well as support from others when one is in need (Caprara & Steca, 2005; Keyes, 1998; Midlarsky, 1991; Moen, DempsterMcClain, & Williams, 1992; Musick, Herzog, & House, 1999; Oman, Thoresen, & McMahon, 1999; Van Willigen, 2000). Although studies on antisocial behavior have traditionally outnumbered 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 1289

delinquency, but also to promote acceptance and integration of diversity in societies, to foster innovation through collaboration, 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 (Batson, 1998; Fiske, 2004), few researchers have addressed the role of personality in predisposing individuals toward prosociality (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 investigated. 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 variability 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) selfevaluations 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).

1290

CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

Traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs all represent strong predictors 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 peoples action. Self-efficacy beliefs are judgments 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, & Tobin, 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, respond 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 (Graziano, 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 peoples life (Schwartz, 1992). Schwartzs 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 motivational goal. His theory provides an established, comprehensive taxonomy of guiding principles in peoples 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 stimulation) encourage independence of thought, feeling, and action and reflect receptiveness to change. These values conflict with conservation values (conformity, tradition, security) that call for submissive self-restriction, preservation of traditional practices, and protection 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 ones own relative success and dominance over that of others. Finally, hedonism 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 valuesnamely, universalism and benevolencemost 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 interpersonal 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, empathic 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 differences in prosociality and have entirely mediated the contribution 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 assumption of contributions by traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs 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 anothers well-being may conflict with other priorities and with ones 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, obligations, and competing values and needs. Likewise, whether prosocial values turn into actual goals and behavioral tendencies likely depends on peoples 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 selfefficacy 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 directly or indirectly through empathic and social self-efficacy beliefs (Caprara & Steca, 2007). Recent longitudinal findings suggest a major role of agreeableness in predicting individuals prosociality and support the role of empathic self-efficacy beliefs in partially mediating the relation between agreeableness and prosociality (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 examined as a predictor of agreeableness and values. One goal in the present study was to ascertain whether agreeableness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy

TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY

1291

beliefs represent stronger predictors of prosociality than other do Big Five traits, other values, or other self-efficacy beliefs, respectively. To achieve this aim, we examined the following: (a) prediction of prosociality from the three target predictors (agreeableness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy beliefs); (b) whether agreeableness predicted prosociality when controlling for the other four traits simultaneously (i.e., extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience); (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 posited set of pathways. This choice is also in accordance with alternative views of traits as habitual responses resulting from chronic personsituations interactions that, once crystallized, operate 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 executive 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 individuals to endorse values and to commit to actions aimed to benefit others. In particular, we posited that agreeableness is at the inception 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-

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 ones capacity to empathize with others, namely, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, is crucial to engender appropriate actions aimed at meeting others needs for comprehension, 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 childrens actual abilities to help and their knowledge of helping strategies are related to their prosocial behavior, as are their empathy and sympathy (for reviews, see Eisenberg, Cialdini, McCreath, & Shell, 1987; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). In addition, perceived empathic self-efficacy beliefs have been related 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 propensities for prosocial behavior in young adulthood, an age at which mature cognitive and emotional functioning and moral reasoning enhance individuals abilities to take others perspectives, be sensitive to others feelings, and appropriately express sympathy (Eisenberg, Carlo, Murphy, & Van Court, 1995; Eisenberg et al., 2006). Moreover, people with prosocial values are especially likely to have experience with enacting prosocial behaviors 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, agreeableness was hypothesized to directly predict self-transcendence values 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 selfefficacy beliefs and prosociality that are not mediated, and selftranscendence 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 agreeableness operates as a stage-setting predisposition moderating either

Figure 1. Diagrammatical representation of the theoretical model. Solid lines represent direct paths; dotted lines represent indirect paths.

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 prosocial behavior across time. Thus, the interactions between agreeableness and (a) self-transcendence values, (b) empathic selfefficacy beliefs, and (c) prosociality were also examined. Various considerations lead to additional predictions regarding the reciprocity of relations among these variables. Whereas assigning value to others may contribute to the perception of oneself as an agreeable person capable of meeting others needs, selftranscendence 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 peoples reports 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 ones 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 selfs altruistic values (see Eisenberg et al., 2006; Staub, 1979). Likewise, engaging habitually in prosocial actions leads to practice and further strengthens the abilities that are at the basis of empathic selfefficacy beliefs (Alessandri et al., 2009; Metz & Youniss, 2003; Staub, 1979; Youniss, McLellan, & Mazer, 2003). Thus, we included 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 agreeableness 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 differences 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 informant. 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, empathic 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, Caprara, & Steca, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2006); researchers have not found clear increases with age during adolescence in prosocial behavior (Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, & Laible, 1999) nor in sympathetic concern during early adulthood (Eisenberg, 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 (Alessandri 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 unemployed, and 7% were searching for a job. The average of postsecondary 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 community 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

1293

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 unavailability 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 homogeneity of covariance matrices.

Procedures
The young adults enrolled in this study were invited to participate in the study by phone and received a small payment for participation (25 euros or an equivalent dinner token). Questionnaires were sent to participants by mail. Consent was obtained and returned by each participant with the questionnaires. All the envelopes 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 otherreported prosocial behavior was included. Traits. We measured the trait component of personality with the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Borgogni, 1996). The BFQ contains 132 items that form five domain scales and 10 facet scales, with 12 items on each scale. Respondents indicated agreement with the extent to which each item described them on a 5-point scale ranging from complete disagreement (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 crosscultural 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; Caprara 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,

.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 Agreeableness scale. The alpha for the reduced scale was .78 at T1 and .80 at T2. (An example of the items left after dropping the empathyrelated items is, Usually Im cordial even to people I dislike.) Values. We measured values with the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ: Schwartz, 2005b; Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess, & Harris, 2001). The PVQ includes 40 short verbal portraits of different people, each describing a persons 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 universalism 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, respondents 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 selfefficacy beliefs (Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara, Gerbino, & Delle Fratte, 2001) were measured with 12 items reflecting ones perceived capability to sense another persons feelings and need for emotional support, to discern emotional expressions, to experience emotions from another persons perspective, to respond with empathy to others distress and misfortune, and to be sensitive to how ones 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 selfefficacy beliefs and sympathy or empathy have been found (Ranfone, 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 ones 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
We ran additional analyses to ascertain the presence of a significant relation between informants age and other-rated prosociality. No significant 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).
1

1294

CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

items assessing the perceived capability to express personal opinions 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 ones 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 crossgender and cross-nationally validated on large samples of respondents (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 otherratings on this prosociality scale, further supporting its validity (Caprara, Steca, Vecchio, Tramontano, & Alessandri, 2008). Because 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 prosociality ( .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 attrition (Hansen, Tobler, & Graham, 1990). Our modeling assumed that the missing values were missing at random (i.e., missingness 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 implemented 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 correlation coefficients were obtained, assessing the correlation of agreeableness 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, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality) loaded on their respective factors. Traits. The zero-order correlation between prosociality and agreeableness was significantly larger than any correlation between 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 measures 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 stability, 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 correlation 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 significantly 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, agreeableness was the only trait showing a significant zero-order correlation (at p .01 or .001) with other-rated prosociality. Moreover, examination of the partial correlations showed that the within-time (T2) correlation between agreeableness and otherrated 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 selftranscendence 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 prosociality (e.g., in the mens 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 Measure T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 energy conscientiousness emotional stability openness openness to change self-enhancement conservation social self-efficacy beliefs energy conscientiousness emotional stability openness openness to change self-enhancement conservation social self-efficacy beliefs T1 prosociality .26a .25a .16a .24a .21a .06a .24a .26a .19a .18a .05a .19a .20a .12a .20a .21a T2 prosociality .18a .07a .09a .18a .16a .14a .18a .21a .22a .22a .04a .24a .25a .15a .25a .26a T2 other-rated prosociality .05b .03 b .05 b .05 b .11b .04b .10b .13b .12b .11b .05b .09b .05b .03b .11b .13b T1 prosociality .20a .22a .09a .23a .22a .08a .19a .20a .18a .18a .02a .17a .15a .09a .18a .19a Women T2 prosociality .18a .22a .02a .20a .20a .02a .17a .22a .21a .21a .13a .21a .23a .03a .21a .21a T2 other-rated prosociality .13a .06a .06a .14b .17b .10a .13a .09a .16a .01a .12a .14b .19b .06a .06a .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). 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 selftranscendence values and T2 prosociality. Across time, selftranscendence 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 significantly lower than the correlation between self-transcendence and other-rated prosociality. Moreover, the within-time (T2 only) correlation 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 significantly 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 selfefficacy beliefs when predicting prosociality. Construct distinctiveness. In order to investigate the dimensionality of the measures items and to avoid any overlap among these four self-reported measures (i.e., agreeableness, selftranscendence, 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 corresponding to the hypothesized four expected domains of agreeableness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality 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 measuring the different constructs (as indicated by the low secondary loadings).

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 acrosstime 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 assessed to T2 prosocial behavior represent the hypothesized flow of influences. The product between the coefficients associated between pairs of cross-time cross-lagged paths (e.g., between the coefficient linking T1 agreeableness to T2 self-transcendence values 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 selftranscendence with T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs represents the indirect effect of T1 agreeableness on T2 empathic self-

Mean-Level Differences
Repeated-measures analyses of variance were performed to investigate 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 selftranscendence 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 agreeableness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and selfreported and other-rated prosociality within and across time. Pos-

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 Men Variable Agreeableness Self-transcendence Empathic self-efficacy beliefs Prosociality Other-rated prosociality M 3.30 4.37 3.75 3.56 SD 0.31 0.72 0.54 0.62 Women M 3.41 4.67 3.91 3.86 SD 0.42 0.75 0.61 0.62 M 3.33 4.59 3.74 3.59 3.64 Men SD 0.36 0.64 0.56 0.66 0.69 Time 2 Women M 3.45 4.78 3.91 3.94 3.83 SD 0.41 0.72 0.55 0.60 0.70 Sex F(1, 328) 14.56 7.46 8.31 26.63 5.82 2 .04 .02 .02 .07 .02 Time F(1, 328) 0.07 7.66 0.10 1.23 2 .00 .02 .00 .01 Sex Time F(1, 328) 0.15 0.01 0.09 0.24 2 .00 .00 .00 .00

Note. F F ratio resulted from repeated-measures analyses of variance; within the parentheses are the degrees of freedom and the number of participants. 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. Agreeableness T1 Self-transcendence T1 Empathic self-efficacy beliefs T1 Prosociality T1 Agreeableness T2 Self-transcendence T2 Empathic self-efficacy beliefs T2 Prosociality T2 Other-rated prosociality T2 1 .58 .48 .52 .67 .48 .25 .44 .24 2 .57 .53 .51 .52 .65 .44 .44 .28

3 .46 .51 .63 .39 .43 .51 .52 .36

4 .54 .53 .57 .48 .49 .44 .72 .34

5 .64 .50 .38 .46 .61 .34 .59 .35

6 .44 .64 .43 .47 .59 .38 .58 .35

7 .24 .41 .51 .45 .37 .40 .56 .25

8 .46 .50 .52 .68 .56 .58 .54 .44

9 .28 .33 .30 .30 .35 .33 .28 .45

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. p .01.

efficacy beliefs. Finally, the predictive effect of prosocial behaviors on personality variables was represented by the longitudinal cross-lagged paths from T1 prosocial behavior to (a) T2 agreeableness, (b) T2 self-transcendence values, and (c) T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs.

included in the model were treated as single indicator latent variables by estimating the error terms from reliabilities (Bollen, 1989).

Test of Mediation Over Time Statistical Approach

We tested the hypothesized relations using Mplus 4.01 (Muthe n & Muthe n, 2006). According to a multifaceted approach to the assessment of the models fit (Tanaka, 1993), the following criteria were employed to evaluate the goodness of fit: chi-square likelihood ratio statistic, TuckerLewis 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 accepted 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 multiplegroup structural equation modeling. In this approach, the equivalence between the different groups is evaluated by constraints imposing identical unstandardized estimates for the models parameters (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). Furthermore, 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 empathic 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 We examined the predicted set of relations within the above presented multiple-group framework and simultaneously estimated 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 selfefficacy 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 values. T1 self-transcendence values predicted T2 empathic selfefficacy 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 prosociality. 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 coefficients 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 significant). We tested whether the relation between T1 agreeableness on T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs was mediated through T2 selftranscendence. 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 significantly mediated the relation between agreeableness and empathic self-efficacy beliefs and that the latter variable mediated the relation 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 selftranscendence to T2 agreeableness, 2(1) .17, p .69, or from
We tested another model including only self-reported prosociality at T2 and obtained the same results.
2

TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY

1299

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 significant. Finally, the model accounted for a large proportion of variability for all variables, with no statistically significant differences 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 selfefficacy 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.

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, empathic 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 referring to what a person has; (b) self-transcendence values are cognitive representations of the desirable referring to what a person 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 McAdams (1995) and Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Finch (1997) and with claims for an integrative approach able to achieve a comprehensive view of personality. Previous findings have shown that agreeableness, selftranscendence 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 tendency to behave prosocially, mediating the predictive contribution of agreeableness and of self-transcendence, whereas values mediate the prediction by agreeableness of empathic self-efficacy beliefs. Indirect effects further support the assumption that the relations 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. Previous studies considered only pairs of these variables, and only one study examined traits and self-efficacy beliefs across time (Caprara et al., 2010; Caprara & Steca, 2007). Yet, as Cole and Maxwell (2003) pointed out, use of only one assessment makes it

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 empathic 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 separately 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 estimates) when the interaction terms were used one at time in separate analyses. Thus, instead of using interaction terms computed 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 covariances 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 selfefficacy, 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-

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 correlational nature of these data, which limits the inference of causality, the findings in this study are consistent with the view that agreeableness 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 agreeableness 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 prosociality. 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 moderately 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 peoples 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 increasing empathic skills may promote prosociality, mastering experiences associated with behaving prosocially may foster empathic skills. This is consistent with Staubs (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 interventions aimed to sustain and promote individuals inclinations toward 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 selfefficacy beliefs (through persuasion, modeling, and mastery experiences); moreover, previous findings point to affective selfregulatory 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 inclinations 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 adolescence 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, & Moffit, 2003). Also in accordance with previous findings, (Caprara et al., 2003; Caprara & Steca, 2005, Caprara & Steca, 2007; Eisenberg 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 socialization, most women develop relatively high levels of positive interpersonal 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 (including 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 persons 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 tendencies 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 underestimate social desirability and, consequently, used a latent construct based on the consensus between self-reports and otherratings in our models. The significant correlations between selfreported 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 cultural 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). Reciprocal relations among self-efficacy beliefs and prosociality across time. Journal of Personality, 77, 1229 1259. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.2009.00580.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 multitraitmultimethod study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 31 43. doi:10.1027//10155759.16.1.31 Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Maslach, C. (1997). Individuation and the five factor model of personality traits. European Journal of Psychological 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, 913929. 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. 282316). 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. 201224). 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, 3655. 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 Questionnaire. 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, 281288. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90218-R Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Prosocial foundations of childrens academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302306. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00260 Caprara, G. V., Caprara, M. G., & Steca, P. (2003). Personalitys correlates of adult development and aging. European Psychologist, 8, 131147. 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 dellautoefficacia [Self-efficacy evaluation] (pp. 550). Trento, Italy: Erickson. Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Regalia, C., & Bandura, A. (1999). Autoefficacia percepita emotiva e interpersonale e buon funzionamento sociale [Emotional and interpersonal perceived self-efficacy and social well-being]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 26, 769789. 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, 191217. 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. Journal 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 determinants 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 adults prosociality. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 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. 311388). 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 development (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 coherence of personality: Socialcognitive bases of personality consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 333). 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 childrens agreeableness and resiliency to effortful control and impulsivity. Social Development, 13, 191212. doi:10.1111/j.14679507.2004.000263.x Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood estimation from complete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 39, 138. Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenberg, N., Carlo, G., Murphy, B., & Van Court, P. (1995). Prosocial development in late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 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 Adolescence, 15, 235260. 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. 701778). New York, NY: Wiley. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial behavior.

1302

CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG 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:10.1037/00223514.74.6.1556 Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323362. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00148 Keyes, C. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121140, doi:10.2307/2787065 Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006a). Parental discipline and affection and childrens prosocial behavior: Genetic and environmental links. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 147164. 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, 771786. doi:10.1037/00121649.42.5.771 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? Behavior 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, 83104. 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, 365396. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.1995.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:10.1037/0003066X.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, 281286. doi: 10.1017/ S1049096503002221 Midlarsky, E. (1991). Helping as coping. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 238 64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

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. 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, 9931006. 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, 516. doi:10.1177/ 0272431699019001001 Finch, J. F., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Predicting depression from temperament, personality, and patterns of social relations. Journal of Personality, 69, 2755. 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, 233239. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x Graziano, W. G. (1994). The development of Agreeableness as a dimension 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, 565582. 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 Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 392 404. doi:10.1037/00223514.73.2.392 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, 695727. 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 longitudinally 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 coherence of personality: Socialcognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 6193). 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. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. 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, 577592. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x

TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY Midlarsky, E., Fagin Jones, S., & Corley, R. P. (2005). Personality correlates of heroic rescue during the Holocaust. Journal of Personality, 73, 907934. 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, 103117. 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 womens multiple roles and health. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 16121638. 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, P173P180. doi:10.1093/geronb/54B.3.S173 Muthe n, L. K., & Muthe n, B. O. (2006). Mplus users 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. 151183). 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, 301316. 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 Psychology, 56, 365392. 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 masters thesis). Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and environmental 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, 582593. 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, 325. doi:10.1037/ 0033-2909.126.1.3 Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 3135. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x Roberts, B. W., Walton, K., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of meanlevel change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 125. 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. 105176). 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.

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]. Bras lia, 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]. Bras lia, 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. 221241). 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 Psychology, 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. Journal 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). Kindergarten disruptive behavior, protective factors, and educational achievement 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, 195203. 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 Research, 16, 456 468. doi:10.1177/0743558401165003.

Received November 10, 2010 Revision received April 29, 2011 Accepted August 26, 2011