SPECIAL REPORT (1983)

The Socialization and Development of Empathy and Prosocial Behavior

by Nancy Eisenberg, Ph. D. Arizona State University

The National Association for Humane and Environmental Education Box 362 East Haddam, CT 06423
Youth Education Division of The Humane Society of the United States

How does one teach children to be more empathic and altruistic toward others? This is an important question for parents, teachers, and other socializers. Unfortunately, the answer is not simple. This is due, in part, to the fact that all positive behaviors are not the same. Indeed, different positive behaviors may be performed by the same person for very different reasons, and the motives underlying a single prosocial act may vary dramatically across actors. Most socializers who wish to promote positive behaviors really want to enhance only one type of positive responding--altruistic behavior. According to many psychologists, altruistic behaviors are voluntary and intentional actions that benefit another, and are not motivated by he desire to obtain external rewards (e.g., material or social rewards) (Eisenberg, 1982; Staub, 1978; Underwood & Moore, 1982). In contrast, the term prosocial behavior generally is used to refer to actions that intentionally benefit another, regardless of motive. Thus, a prosocial behavior such as sharing may be performed for altruistic reasons; e.g., it may be he result of either empathizing with another or the desire to live up to internalized values. Alternatively, such a behavior may be due to nonaltruistic motives such as the desire for rewards or social approval. Unfortunately, when we observe a prosocial behavior, we often cannot ascertain the actor's motives for his or her behavior. This makes it difficult to determine which socialization practices are related to the development of altruistic behaviors versus nonaltruistically motivated prosocial behaviors. Moreover, because actions that are performed for nonaltruistic reasons may sometimes be precursors of learning to behave altruistically (Perry & Perry, 1983), the issue of determining which child-rearing practice enhance altruistic responding is even more complex. Despite the fact that we are far from having all the answers, it is possible to make some reasonable recommendations based upon the available empirical research. It should be emphasized, however, that the study of the socialization of empathic and altruistic, reactions has become popular only in the last 15 years, and that we are still learning about this process. Moreover, it is important to realize that most of the existing research pertains to the socialization of prosocial behavior directed toward other human beings. The degree to which the findings concerning human recipients can be generalized to animal recipients is unclear. There are certainly many people who are kinder to people than to animals, or vice versa, so it is unlikely that children simply generalize to animals those patterns of prosocial behavior learned with regard to humans. Nonetheless, it is logical to assume that some of the same procedures that have been found to promote human-directed altruism also can be used to enhance kind treatment of animals. What are some of the techniques that appear to be associated with prosocial behaviors (including altruistic behaviors) in children? Philosophers and psychologists alike have long asserted that empathy is an important determinant of positive behaviors, at least in some circumstances Aronfreed, 1970; Batson & Coke, 1981; Hoffman, 981 1982; Hume, 1739/1966; Staub, 1978). Thus, it is not surprising that socialization techniques that seem to enhance prosocial responding often are procedures that capitalize on the child's capacity for empathy (i.e., the individual's ability or tendency to experience, vicariously the emotions of others in a manner that is not inconsistent with the perceived welfare of another). It is my opinion that empathy-inducing techniques are a powerful tool for teaching prosocial responsiveness, a tool that is underutilized by socializers. Some of the child-rearing techniques that include (or sometimes include) empathy-inducing procedures will now be reviewed, followed by a discussion of other techniques that can be used to enhance the development of prosocial behavior in children. Inductions When a child has done something wrong (or has committed a sin of omission), adults often discipline the child. There are many possible modes of discipline, including physical punishment, withdrawal of privileges, threats, and withdrawal of love (e.g., telling the child that you do not love him or her anymore). The disciplinary technique that has proved to be most useful with regard to the promotion of prosocial behavior is the use of reasoning. Reasoning in the service of discipline frequently has been labeled as "inductions" (Hoffman, 1970, 1977). When using inductions, adults often, but not always, point out the consequences of he child's behavior for another (e.g., "See, you made Jerry cry."), thereby increasing the probability that the child will empathize with the victim or needy other. Although the research concerning inductions is not entirely consistent, according to the bulk of the literature, the use of inductions by socializers frequently is associated with enhanced prosocial development among preschoolers and elementary school children (Bar-Tal, Nadler, & Blechman, 1980; Baumrind, 1971; Dlugowski & Firestone, 1974; Feshbach, 1973; Hoffman & Saltzstein 1967; Karylowski, 1982; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979). The effectiveness of inductions has been demonstrated for children as young as 1 - 2 years of age; Zahn-Waxler and her colleagues (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979) found that mothers who reported using inductions and who said that these inductions were administered with effective force (i.e., emotion) had children who exhibited relatively high levels of prosocial behavior toward others.

According to one study, inductions are associated with prosocial development only if verbalized by socializers who typically do not use power-assertive (punitive) techniques (Hoffman, 1963). Indeed, inductive techniques seem to be more effective for children who have had a history of inductive discipline than for those with a history of power-assertive discipline (Dlugowski & Firestone, 1974). Inductions that refer to the needs of others may be especially effective for promoting positive behavior (Hoffman, 1970). Moreover, the use of inductions that focus attention on the harm done by the child or that encourage the child to consider the victim's feelings and to make reparation has been associated with children's considerateness and helpfulness (Hoffman, 1975). It is possible that parental inductions are more effective for younger than older school-aged children. In a recent follow-up of a longitudinal study we are conducting (Eisenberg, Pasternack, & Lennon, 1983b), we asked the children's mothers how they would respond when the child was asked to help another and refused to do so. Maternal reporting of the use of inductive techniques was associated with 7-to-8-year-olds' prosocial responding. It was not, however, related to assisting at age 9-to-10. Although much more data are needed before any firm conclusions are drawn, it is quite possible that inductive techniques, as well as other techniques, are not equally effective for children of all ages. It is likely that inductive techniques are effective for a variety of reasons (Hoffman, 1970, 1977; Staub, 1979). First, by directing the child's attention to others affective states and the consequences of their behaviors for others, socializers who use inductions may encourage the child to cognitively take the role of others (put himself or herself in the other's shoes) and empathize with others. Second, inductive techniques, unlike power-assertive techniques (physical punishment, deprivation of privileges, threats), implicitly communicate to the child that he or she is responsible for his or her behavior, and that morality is internally rather than externally motivated. Third, an optimal learning situation may be created by the use of inductive discipline. When inductions are used, children are unlikely to be too angry or too afraid of punishment to attend to either what the parent has said or to the consequence of their own behaviors. Moreover, socializers who use inductions provide children with reasoning that they can generalize to future situations. In addition, socializers who reason with the child provide a rational, controlled, and concerned model for imitation. Moral Exhortations (Preachings) In an attempt to modify or influence children's behaviors socializers sometimes symbolically model prosocial behavior (say that they are going to act in a prosocial manner) or discuss the merits of helpfulness. Such verbalizations frequently have been labeled preachings or exhortations, and represent attempts to influence an individual's future behavior, not a disciplinary response to prior behavior. In the early studies on the effects of exhortations, researchers found that when adults' preachings to children contained merely references to prosocial norms (e.g., "We should share our tokens with Bobby"), their preachings did not enhance the children's subsequent anonymous donating (Bryan, Redfield, & Mader, 1971; Bryan & Walbek, 1970a, 1970b). Based on this research, some persons concluded that children's prosocial behaviors are not influenced by what others say (Bryan, 1975). More recently, however, researchers have found that preachings can affect children's behaviors, but that the effectiveness of preachings varies as a function of their content. Children's sharing is enhanced by appeals that provide symbolic modeling, that is, which include a description of what the model intends to do (Grusec & Skubiski, 1970; Rice & Grusec, 1975), or include reasons for assisting that are likely to evoke an "empathic" response (Burleson & Fennelly, 1981; Dressel & Midlarsky, 1978; Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979; Midlarsky & Bryan, 1972; Perry, Bussey, & Freiberg, 1981; Sims, 1078). In contrast, preachings that are power assertive in content (involve threats of disapproval; Perry et al., 1981) or refer to self-oriented reasons for sharing (Burleson & Fennelly, 1981) are relatively ineffective. Examples of the laboratory studies concerning the effects of different modes of preaching are two studies conducted by Elizabeth Geisheker and myself (Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979). Third-and/or fourth-grade children were exposed to a videotaped adult model who played a game, won a prize (money), and then had an opportunity to donate to UNICEF. The adult approached the donation box, and verbalized either an empathic, normative, or neutral preaching. The empathic and normative preachings were as follows: Empathic: Well now, I think that people should share with the poor children. They would be so happy and excited if they could buy food and toys. After all, poor children have almost nothing. If everyone would help these children maybe they wouldn't look so sad (there was a UNICEF poster of despondent children next to the donation box). Normative: Well now, I think that people should share with the poor children. It's really good to donate to poor boys and girls. Yes, we should give some money to others poorer than ourselves. Sharing is the right thing to do.

In the neutral condition, the adult merely discussed the game After the preachings, the videotape blurred so that the children could not see whether the adult donated. In both studies, exposure to the empathic preachings was followed by more donating by the children (after they played the game and won money) than was exposure to the neutral preachings. Normative preachings were associated with an intermediate amount of sharing, an amount that did not differ statistically from the amount donated by children exposed to neutral preachings. Thus, only the empathic preachings were associated with significant increases in children's prosocial responding. The influence of preaching can be relatively durable, that is can last over a 3- (Grosse et al., 978a) or even 8(Rushton, 1975) week period. Moreover, although some researchers have found that the immediate effects of modeling (exhibiting prosocial acts) are stronger than the immediate effects of preachings, the relative influence of preachings (in comparison to modeling) apparently increases over time Grosse et al., 1978a; Rushton, 1975) Modeling One of the various socialization techniques that appears to promote prosocial behavior but cannot be viewed as directly tapping the child's empathic proclivities is modeling. Modeling refers to providing examples of behaviors for others to imitate Much of the research on modeling has been laboratory work in which children's imitation of an unfamiliar adult's prosocial behavior or selfishness has been assessed. However, children's imitation of known socializers, as well as the association between parental generosity or helpfulness and children's prosocial responding, also has been assessed. In general, investigators have found that people (including children) who have viewed a generous model are more generous themselves than are people who have not viewed a prosocial model (e.g., Bryan & Walbek, 1970a, 1970B; Canale, 1977; Elliot & Vasta, 1970; Grusec, Saas-Kortsaak, & Simutis, 1978b; Grusec & Skubiski, 1970; Harris, 1970; Israel & Raskin, 1979; Kipper & Yinon, 1978; Midlarsky & Bryan, 1972; Rice & Grusec, 1975; Rushton & Teachman, 1978; Sims, 1978) or who have viewed a stingy model (Dressel & Midlarsky, 1978; Harris, 1971; Lipscomb, Larrieu, McAllister, Bregmah, 1982; Presbie & Coiteaux, 1971; Rushton, 1975; White & Burnam, 975). In the limited research concerning helping rather than donating behavior, similar effects have been found for preschoolers' and kindergarteners' imitation of models (Staub, 1971b; Yarrow, Scott, & Waxler, 1973). Moreover, the effects of observing a prosocial model have been found to persist over time, i.e., for days or even months (Elliot & Pasta, 1970; Grosse et al., 1978b; Midlarsky & Bryan, 1975; Rice & Grosse, 1975; Rushton, 1975; Rushton & Littlefield 1979; White, 1972; not Rushton & Teachman, 1978), and have been shown to generalize to somewhat new and different situations (Elliot & Pasta 1970; Grosse et al., 1978b; Rushton, 1975; Narrow et al., 1973; but not Rushton & Littlefield, 1979, or Rushton & Teachman, 1978). The results of nonlaboratory research involving parents and children are consistent with the findings from experimental studies. For example, Rutherford & Mussen (1968) found that preschool boys who viewed their fathers as models of generosity and compassion (in doll play) shared more than boys who perceived their fathers as less prosocial. Furthermore, Zahn-Waxler et al. (1979) found that 1-to-2-year-olds who exhibited more prosocial reactions toward others in distress had mothers who demonstrated empathic (prosocial) parenting. In addition, in studies of adult altruists who were involved in civil rights activities (the Freedom Riders, Rosenhan, 1969, 1970) or in attempts to rescue Jews from the Nazis (London, 1970), researchers have found that participation in altruistic causes is related to individuals' reports that their parents modeled altruism during childhood. Despite the preponderance of evidence indicating that children do imitate prosocial others, it also is clear that modeling is not always effective in enhancing prosocial behaviors (e.g., Baront, 1981; Lipscomb et al., 1982; Rogers-Warren, Warren, & Baer, 1977; White, 1972) and that some models are imitated more than others (e.g Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979; Grusec, 1971 Yarrow, Scott, & Waxler, 1973). In general, children are somewhat more likely to imitate powerful and/or competent models (Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979; Grusec, 1911). Moreover, nurturance by the model is related to children's imitation of prosocial behavior, albeit in a complex manner. It appears that noncontingent nurturance (unconditional constant nurturance) is interpreted by children as indicating permissiveness and, consequently, that children do as they please after contact with noncontingent nurturant models (i.e., do not assist if there is a material cost to doing so) (Grusec, 1971; Grusee & Skubiski, 1970; Rosenhan & White, 1967; Weissbord, 1980). However, when adult nurturance is part of an on-going relationship and is not entirely unconditional (which generally is the case in real life), it appears that nurturance increased the effectiveness of a prosocial model (Yarrow et al., 1973).

Television as a model. We sometimes forget that television personalities are models for our children. Given that as true, it should not be surprising that children's prosocial behaviors can be influenced by TV programming (Ahammer & Murray, 1979; Baran, Chase & Courtwright, 1979; Coastes, Pusser, & Goodman, 1976; Collins & Getz, 1976; Cosgrove & McIntyre, 1977; Friedrich & Stein, 1973, 1975; Paulson, 1974; Rubinstein, Lievert, Neale, & Paulos, 1974; Sprafkin, Liebert, & Paulos, 1975; see Stein & Friedrich, 1975). In most studies concerning this issue, children's prosocial behaviors have increased in frequency subsequent to brief exposures to prosocial television programs such as "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" (Friedrick & Stein, 1975) or "Lassie" (Sprafkin et al., 1975). In research in which prosocial programming has not been associated with enhanced prosocial responding, other positive outcomes such as a reduction in aggression (Bankart & Anderson, 1979) or an increase in positive social interactions with peers and adults Friedrich-Cofer, HustonStein, Kipnis, Susman, & Clewett, 1979) occasionally have been noted. Programs with prosocial themes differ considerably in their content (Coates & Pusser, 1975) and their effectiveness with regard to enhancing prosocial development (Coates et al., 1976). Moreover, the effectiveness of prosocial programming may be enhanced by adult directed activities such as providing verbal labels for relevant activities in the programs or encouraging children to take the roles of the television protagonists (Friedrich & Stein, 1975). The effects of exposure to filmed models are probably considerably weaker than those from exposure to real-life models. When one considers the effect of television on a range of naturally occurring positive behaviors studied outside of the laboratory, prosocial programming does have an effect, but the effect is not very potent (Friedrich & Stein, 1975; Friedrich-Cofer et al., 1979) and may not generalize to new settings (Paulson, 1975). Nonetheless, brief exposure to prosocial television content has been associated with increments in prosocial behavior several days (Coates et al., 1976) and even two weeks (Friedrich & Stein, 973 later. Thus, although filmed models may have less influence on prosocial responding than do live models, it is likely that prolonged viewing of prosocial programming could result in substantial and enduring changes in children's prosocial behavior. Direct Instructions and the Assignment of Responsibility Another technique that seems to affect the development of prosocial behavior is direct instruction, i.e., the use of verbal prompts, instructions, or commands by socializers to induce subsequent prosocial behaviors. Whereas preachings are used to provide information regarding what children ought to do and, perhaps, why they ought to behave in specified manner, direct instructions are similar to commands in that they are used to communicate what the child is expected to do. Constraining, directive instructions (e.g., "What I'd like you to do is give some of the pennies you win to them each time you win five") appear to increase children's donating behaviors significantly more than do either permissive instructions (e.g., "You may give some of the pennies you win to them if you like, but you don't have to") Brown & Israel, 1980; Israel & Brown, 1979; Israel & Raskin, 1979; Weissbrod, 1980; White & Burnam, 1975) or instructions to behave greedily (Dressel & Midlarsky, 1978; Weissbrod, 1980). Directive, constraining instructions have been shown to influence both private and public sharing (Israel & Brown, 1979; White & Burnam, 1975) and have been found to influence prosocial behavior for at least a week's time (Isreal & Brown, 1979; Isreal & Raskin, 1979). However, it appears that the superiority of constraining instructions (in comparison to permissive instructions) may decrease with age during elementary school (Israel & Raskin, 1979; White &-Burnam, 1975), especially with regard to long-term effectiveness (Israel & Raskin, 1979). Moreover, simple prompts that are not especially constraining, e.g., "Maybe it would be nice if you helped that girl get her marble back once or twice," can enhance donating for some children (Gelfand Hartmann, Cromer, Smith & Page, 1975). Rehearsal or practice in performing prosocial behaviors is another technique that seems to be useful for promoting prosocial tendencies (Barton, 1981; Barton & Ascione, 1979; Barton & Osborne, 1978; Staub, 1975, 1979; Rosenhan & White, 1967; White, 1972). Children who were assigned responsibility to teach others or who were induced to participate in prosocial activities subsequently displayed more prosocial behavior in some situations (e.g., Staub, 1975, 1979). Similarly, assigning a specific child the responsibility for others seems to enhance prosocial behavior (Maruyama, Fraser, & Miller, 1982; Peterson, 1983; Staub, 1970). In fact, in cross-cultural research, Whiting and Whiting (1073, 1975) found that children from cultures in which youngsters are routinely assigned responsibilities for assisting others are more prosocial than children from other cultures. There are numerous possible reasons why prosocial behavior is enhanced by procedures that require assisting others. One reason may be that children who engage in prosocial acts come to think of themselves as "helpful" people, and, consequently, may act more, prosocially in the future. Over a period of time, children may forget that their positive

behaviors were at first externally imposed, and may begin to view themselves as prosocial people (Perry & Perry, 1983). A second reason may be that children often are reinforced in the performance of prosocial activities that are directed or required by adults (rewards could be material, social, or internal i.e., feelings of competence or empathic rewards). Third, when children assist others, they may be provided with opportunities to cognitively take the role of others and to learn about others' feelings and perspectives. This learning could lead to greater prosocial responsiveness in future situations. Finally, children who are directed to engage in prosocial activities may learn new prosocial behaviors that they can repeat in future helping situations. Power-assertive, Punitive Techniques of Discipline In general, socializer's use of power-assertive techniques of discipline (physical punishment, deprivation of privileges, threats of either of these) has been found to be either unrelated (Mussen, Rutherford,Harris, & Keasey, 1970; Olejnik & McKinney, 1973; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979) or negatively related (Bar-Tal et al., 1980; Dlugowski & Firestone, 1974) to children's prosocial development. It should be noted, however, that there is a difference between the occasional use of power-assertive techniques in the context of a positive parent-child relationship, and the use of punishment as the preferred, predominant mode of discipline. When power-assertive techniques are used in a measured and rational manner by parents who generally are warm and supportive, set high standards, and usually use nonpower-assertive disciplinary techniques such as reasoning, children tend to be socially responsible and positive (Baunrind, 1971). In contrast, it appears that the frequent use of power-assertive techniques, especially by hostile, cold socializers, is negatively related to prosocial development, and may hinder the effectiveness of other socialization techniques that usually promote prosocial development (Hoffman, 1963). It should be noted that prosocial responding in a specific setting (or a specific prosocial response) can be either enhanced or diminished by punishment (depending if generosity or selfishness is punished; e.g., Hartmann, Gelfand, Smith, Paul, Cromer, Page, & LaBenta, 1976; Morris, Marshall, & Milley, 1973; Rushton & Teachman, 1978). However, there is, as yet, little evidence that punishment for selfishness has long-term, generalizable effects. Nevertheless, because social disapproval, unlike material punishment (e.g., fines for not helping), has been associated with children's attributing their own donating to internal motives (Smith, Gelfand, Hartman, & Partlow, 1979), it is possible that social disapproval (verbal punishment) can be used to enhance internally motivated prosocial behavior. It should be emphasized, however, that most mothers infrequently use punishment (especially physical punishment) to induce helping and/or in response to children's failure to assist others (Grusec, 1982; Grusec, Dix & Mills, 1982; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979) Prosocial development may be undermined by the frequent use of power-assertive techniques for several reasons (Hoffman, 1970; Staub 1979). Punitive socializers provide children with hostile rather than positive models for imitation. Moreover, frequent use of punishment is likely to elicit hostility from the child, hostility that may diminish the likelihood that he or she will want to please or attend to the parent. Furthermore, children who are repeatedly exposed to power-assertive discipline may learn that the reason for behaving positively is external (to avoid punishment), not internal (e.g. guilt, sympathy). Indeed, children attribute helping induced by power-assertive techniques (Dix & Grusec, 1983; Smith et al., 1979) to external motives. Finally, socializers who use predominantly power-assertive techniques neither tap the child's ability to empathize with others nor create an optimal learning environment. When threatened with punishment, children are unlikely to orient to others' needs, and may be so aroused that they are unable to attend to the consequences of their behavior or to relevant information provided by socializers. Reinforcement Many parents and teachers are aware of the fact that behaviors that are reinforced or rewarded are more likely to be repeated than are behaviors that are not rewarded. This seems to be true, at least in the short run, for prosocial behaviors. Positive reinforcement appears to increase the frequency of prosocial acts (e.g., Bryan, Redfield, & Mader, 1971; Fisher, 1963; Grusec & Redler,1980; Warren, Rogers-Warren, & Bear, 1976) and cooperation (Altman, 1971; Arzin & Lindsley, 1956; Mithoug & Burgess, 1968; Slaby & Crowley,1977; Vogler, Masters, & Merrill, 1970). Both material (Azrin & Lindsley, 1956; Fischer 1963; Warren et al., 1976) and social reinforcement (e.g., social approval; Bryan et al., 1971; Gelfand, Hartmann, Cromer, Smith, & Page, 1975; Grusec & Redler, 1980; Rushton & Teachman, 1978) have been found to be effective in inducing prosocial behavior, at least for some children (Doland & Adelberg, 1967). Significant effects have been noted both when reinforcement was the sole means of influence (e.g., Arzin & Lindsley, 1956; Grusec & Redler, 1980, Warren, Rogers-Warren, & Baer, 1976) and when reinforcement has been combined with training procedures such as prompts, modeling, practice, or didactic instructions (e.g., Barton & Ascione, 1979; Gelfand et al.,

1975; Rogers-Warren & Baer, 1976; Rushton & Teachman, 1978; Warren et al., 1976). Moreover, children seem to become more generous after exposure to a model who appears to derive internal affective satisfaction from giving (vicarious affective reinforcement), that is, who accompanies his or her prosocial acts with statements such as "I feel wonderful" (Bryan, 1971; Midlarsky & Bryan, 972; Ruston, 1975; Rushton & Owen, 1975). Although positive reinforcement apparently enhances the frequency of prosocial behavior immediately subsequent to the reinforcement, it is not clear whether or not the effects of reinforcement are enduring and generalize to new situations. In most research in which reinforced (or vicariously reinforced) prosocial behaviors generalized to new settings or have been enduring, reinforcement was used in combination with modeling and other techniques (e.g., Barton, 1981; Barton & Ascione, 1979; Rogers-Warren & Baer, 1976; Rushton, 1975; Rushton & Teachman, 1978). Even in these studies, trained behaviors sometimes did not generalize (Rushton & Teachman, 978) or only one behavior generalized (Barton & Ascione, 1979). In one of the few studies in which reinforcement was not combined with other training procedures and data on generalizability and durability of reinforced behaviors were obtained, Grusec and Redler (1980) found that reinforced prosocial behaviors generalized for 10-year-olds, but reinforcement was not associated with new prosocial behaviors or prosocial responding in a different situation for 5- and 8-year-olds. It is not clear how frequently socializers actually reinforce children's prosocial behavior. One researcher has reported parents "frequently" praised young children's helping behaviors (Rheingold, 1981). However, Grusec (1982) found that socializers almost never reinforce 4- and 7-year-old children's prosocial acts with material rewards, and that adults smiled, thanked warmly, hugged the child, or praised the child approximately 35% of the time he or she acted in a prosocial manner. With regard to teachers, Eisenberg, Cameron, Tryon, and Dodez (1981) noted that teachers reinforced preschool girls' prosocial behaviors less than 10% of the time, and never responded positively to boys' helping or sharing. Children were reinforced by peers approximately 30% of the time for spontaneous prosocial behaviors, and 48% of the time for requested prosocial behaviors. Eisenberg et al. defined reinforcement broadly (positive social interaction was considered reinforcement); when reinforcement is defined more narrowly (as praise or smiling), peers seldom positively reinforce prosocial behavior: (Barton, Olszewski, & Madsen, 1979). The effectiveness of real-life socializers' positive reinforcements has seldom been studied. Reinforcing reactions from peers and teachers seem to be more highly related to preschoolers' level of sociability and to their tendency to reinforce others' prosocial behaviors than to frequency of preschoolers' own prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg et al. 1981). Moreover, according to one of the few relevant studies, parental reports of the use of reinforcements for good behaviors were unrelated to 4-year-olds' generosity (Olejnik & McKinney, 973). Thus, at this time, not only the degree of use but also the effectiveness of reinforcement procedures in the socialization of prosocial behavior in real-life settings is unclear. The Role of Socializers' Nurturance and Emotional Support Intuitively, it would seem that warm and supportive socializers would rear prosocial children. Nonetheless, the relation between socializers' warmth and children's prosocial development is not as straightforward as one might expect. In many studies concerning the relation of socializer's nurturance to prosocial development, nurturant and supportive behavior has been only weakly or inconsistently associated with high levels of prosocial behavior in children (Feshbach, 1975; Hoffman & Saltzstein, 1967; Rugherford & Mussen, 1968). However, in many of these studies, parental nurturance was not assessed directly, that is, measures of parental behaviors were based on parental or child report of socializers' warmth. When socializers' nurturance has been observed or controlled experimentally, the relation of socializers nurturance and support to children's prosocial behavior has been found to be somewhat stronger and clearer (e.g., Bryant & Crockenberg, 1980; Yarrow et al., 1973; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979). For example, Bryant and Crockenberg (1980) found that observed maternal responsiveness to their children's needs was positively related to daughter's sharing and comforting behaviors with siblings, and negatively related to disparagement and competitive reactions with siblings. Although socializers' nurturance and support (especially when measured with observations) does seem to be somewhat positively associated with children's prosocial tendencies, it is likely that the degree of association is moderated by other socialization practices. Baumrind (1971) found that parents who are warm but are low in control of their children and do not set high standards (permissive parents) have sons (but not daughters) who are relatively low in social responsibility. It is likely that nurturance acts as a background or contextual variable that functions to orient the child positively toward the parent and enhances the child's receptivity to parental influence, including parental inductions, preachings, and moral standards (Hoffman, 1970). In brief, it appears that warmth combined with a high degree of parental permissiveness does not foster prosocial behavior involving self-denial, whereas nurturance combined with directive child-rearing practices setting of standards, inductions, etc.) foster the development of prosocial behaviors.

Prosocial Moral Judgment Thus far I have discussed the relation between child-rearing practices and prosocial behavior. However, as was mentioned previously, not all prosocial behaviors are altruistic; different individuals perform prosocial behaviors for different reasons and a single individual's prosocial behaviors may be motivated by different concerns at different times. Consequently, an important question is which child-rearing procedures are associated with higher level prosocial moral reasoning (i.e., reasoning about moral conflicts in which the individual must choose between satisfying his or her own wants or needs or those of another). For a number of years, my students and I have been studying varieties of reasoning used by children to justify prosocial or selfish solutions to moral dilemmas, and the manner in which children's reasoning concerning prosocial acts changes with age. We have found that there are somewhat systematic changes in reasoning with age (e.g., Eisenberg, Lennon, & Roth, in press: Eisenberg, Pasternack, & Lennon, 1983b; Eisenberg-Berg, 1979; Eisenberg-Berg & Neal, 1981, see Eisenberg 1982). Young children use much hedonistic, self-oriented reasoning, as well as needs-oriented (primitive empathic) reasoning to justify the decision to help or not help when resolving a hypothetical moral dilemma. In elementary school, hedonistic reasoning decreases with age whereas children's judgments begin to reflect approval-oriented considerations and the desire to behave in stereotypically "good" ways. Moreover, needs-oriented reasoning increases in frequency from preschool to the school years. In high school, adolescents sometimes verbalize reasoning reflecting abstract principles (concerning altruism and justice) or internalized emotional reactions (e.g., guilt or positive affect relating to living up to one's principles), and frequently mention self-reflective empathic reasons, as well as other less advanced forms of reasoning. Level of reasoning about prosocial moral conflicts has been moderately, positively related to quantity of prosocial behavior (see Eisenberg, 1982). The relation tends to hold primarily for more costly prosocial acts rather than for lowcost helping behaviors (Eisenberg, Pasternack, Cameron, & Tryon, 1982a; Eisenberg et al., 1983b; Eisenberg- Berg & Hand, 1979). Thus, child-rearing practices that enhance the level of moral judgement should also be associated with frequency of prosocial responding (as well as with the quality of the motive underlying prosocial behavior). In the last two follow-ups of a longitudinal study, my students and I have examined the relation between prosocial moral judgement and maternal child-rearing practices. For 5-to-6-year-olds, we have found that level of reasoning was related to maternal report of nonrestrictive, empathic maternal practices. At 7 to 8 years of age, nonrestrictive, nonauthoritatian practices were associated with higher level moral judgement, whereas empathic, supportive practices we no longer related to level of reasoning. At 9 to 10 years of age, relatively few relations between reasoning and maternal practices were evident. Maternal emphasis on autonomy was positively related to an emphasis on autonomy, but only for girls. In general, then, maternal lack of overprotection and emphasis on autonomy were positively related to level of reasoning, although the strength of the association decreased during the elementary school years. However, in another study conducted with 9th, 11th, and 12th graders, adolescent females' reports of maternal emphasis on autonomy, achievement, and competition rather than overprotection were related to higher level moral judgement. Moreover, for females, paternal coldness and father/daughter conflict were also positively related to prosocial reasoning. For boys, there was some relation between maternal supportiveness and emphasis on the importance of autonomy and responsibility and level of reasoning (Eisenberg, 1977). In brief, the way in which children think about prosocial behaviors, that is, their reasoning about why one should or should not help, seems to be especially related to parental practices that are nonrestrictive and, at a later age, encourage the development of autonomy. Apparently, parental practices with these characteristics allow the child to question decisions and make decisions, behaviors that are believed to enhance the level of moral judgement (Kohlberg, 1969; Leahy, 1981). It is interesting that low levels of maternal overprotection also have been found to be positively related to children's helping behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 1983b). Finally, it is important to note that empathic reasoning was a major type of reasoning throughout childhood, a finding consistent with the conclusion that empathic concerns frequently mediate prosocial behavior. Summary of the Socialization Literature In summary, there are a variety of child-rearing procedures that apparently contribute to prosocial development. However, the effectiveness of each practice is probably a function, in part, of both the total configuration of socialization techniques to which a child is exposed and the affective environment in which the socialization practices take place. Inductive discipline, empathic preachings, the modeling of positive behaviors, and assignment of responsibility all enhance prosocial development, especially if used by nuturant socializers (e.g., Baumrind, 1967, 1971; Hoffman, 1963;

Yarrow et at., 1973). Although socializers' practices undoubtedly influence children's prosocial development, it is also true that socializers' choices of child-rearing techniques are affected by a given child's behaviors (Grusec et al., 1983; Grusec & Kuczynski, 1980; Zahn-Waxler & Chapman, 1981). For example, Keller and Bell (1979) found that adults tended to use reasoning techniques to induce helping behavior for children who attended to them and answered promptly but used material rewards in an attempt to promote helping in children who did not attend to the adult. In brief, cause and effect in the association between socialization practices and children's prosocial development is unlikely to be unidirectional; the role of individual differences among children in the socialization process cannot be ignored.

References Ahammer, I.M., & Murray, J.P. 1979. Kindness in the kindergarten: The relative influence of role playing and prosocial television in facilitating altruism. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2, 133-157. Altman, K. 1971. Effects of cooperative response acquisition on social behavior during free play. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 12, 387-395. Aronfreed, J. 1970. The socialization of altruistic and sympathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental analyses. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (eds.) , Altruism and helping behavior New York: Academic Press Azrin, N.H., & Lindsley, O.R. 1956. The reinforcement of cooperation between children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 100-102. Bankart, C.P., & Anderson, C.K. 1979. Short-term effects of prosocial television viewing on play of preschool boys and girls. Psychological Reports, 44, 935-941. Baran, S.J., Chase, L.J., & Courtright, J.A. 1979. Television as a facilitator of prosocial behavior: "The Waltons" Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 277-284. BarTal, D., Nadler, A., & Blechman N. 1980. The relationship between Israeli children's helping behavior and their perception on parents' socialization practices. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 159-167. Barton, E.J. 1981. Developing sharing: An analysis of modeling other behavioral techniques. Behavior Modification, 5, 386-398. Barton, E.J., & Ascione, F.R. 1979. Sharing in preschool children facilitation, stimulus generalization, response generalization and maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 417-430. Barton, E.J., Olszewski, M.J., & Madsen, J.J. 1979. The effects of adult presence on the prosocial behavior of preschool children. Child Behavior Therapy, 1, 271-286. Barton, E.J., & Osborne, J.G. 1978. The development of classroom sharing by a teacher using positive practice. Behavior Modification, 2, 231-250. Batson, D., & Coke, J.S. 1981. Empathy: A source of altruistic motivation for helping? In J.P. Rushton & R.M. Sorrentino (eds.) Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baumrind, D. 1967. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychological Monographs, 75, 43-88. Baumrind, D. 1971. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 1, 1-103. Brown, M.S., & Israel, A.C. 1980. Effects of instructions, self-instructions and discipline on children's donating.

Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Montreal, September. Bryan, J.H. 1975. You will be well advised to watch what we do instead of what we say. In D.J. DePalma & J.M. Foley (eds.), Moral development: Current theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum. Bryan, J.H., Redfield, J., & Mader, S. 1971. Words and deeds about altruism and the subsequent reinforcement power of the model Child Development, 42, 1501-1508. Bryan, J.H., & Walbek, N.H. 1970. Preaching and practicing generosity: Children's actions and reactions. Child Development, 41, 329-353. (a) Bryan, J.H., & Walbek, N.H. 1970. The impact of words and deeds concerning altruism upon children. Child Development, 41, 747-757. (b) Bryant, B.K. & Crockenberg, S.B. 1980. Correlates and dimensions of prosocial behavior: A study of female siblings with their mothers. Child Development, 51, 529-544. Burleson, B.R., & Fennelly, D.A. 1981. The effects of persuasive appeal form cognitive complexity on children's sharing behavior. Child Study Journal, 11, 75-90. Canale, J.R. 1977. The effect of modeling and length of ownership in sharing behavior of children. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 87-191. Coates, B., & Pusser, H.E. 1975. Positive reinforcement and punishment in "Sesame Street" and "Mister Rogers". Journal of Broadcasting, 19, 143-151. Coates, B., Pusser, H.E., & Goodman, I. 1976. The influence of Sesame Street and Mister Roger's Neighborhood on children's social behavior in the pre-school. Child Development, 52, 138-144. Collins, W.A., & Getz, S.K. 1976. Children's social responses following modeled reactions to provocation: Prosocial effects of a television drama. Journal of Personality, 44, 488-500. Cosgrove, J.M., & McIntyre, C.W. 1977. The impact of prosocial television on young children's behavior: The influence of "Mister Rogers Neighborhood." Southeastern Review, 3, 26-29. Dix, T., & Grusec, J.E. 1983. Parental influence techniques: An attributional analysis. Child Development, 54, 645-652. Dlugokinski, E.L., & Firestone, I.J. 1974. Other centeredness and susceptibility to charitable appeals: Effect of perceived discipline. Child Development, 10, 21-28. Doland, D.J., & Adelberg, K. 1967. The learning of sharing behavior. Child Development, 38, 695-700. Dressel, S., & Midlarsky, E. 1978. The effect of model's exhortations, demands and practices on children's donation behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 132, 211-223. Eisenberg, N. 1977. The development of prosocial moral judgment and its correlates (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 4753B. University Microfilms No. 77-444, 184) Eisenberg, N. 1982. The development of reasoning regarding prosocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (ed.), The development of prosocial behavior. New York: Academic Press. Eisenberg, N., Cameron, E., Tryon, K., & Dodez, R. 1981. Socialization of prosocial behavior in the preschool

classroom. Developmental Psychology, 17, 773-782. Eisenberg, N., Lennon, R., & Roth, K. In press. Prosocial development in childhood: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology. Eisenberg, N., Pasternack, J.F., & Lennon, R. 1983. Prosocial development in middle childhood. Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University. (a) Eisenberg, N., Pasternack, J.F., Cameron, E., & Tryon, K. 1983. The relation of quantity and mode of prosocial behavior to moral cognitions and social style. Manuscript submitted for review, Arizona State University. (b) Eisenberg, N. 1979. Development of children's prosocial moral judgement. Developmental Psychology, 15, 128-137. Eisenberg, N., & Geisheker, E., 1979. Content of preachings and power of the model/preacher: The effect on children's generosity. Developmental Psychology, 15, 168-175. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M., 1979. The relationship of preshoolers' reasoning about prosocial moral conflicts to prosocial behavior. Child Development, 50, 356-363. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Neal, C. 1981. The effects of person of the protagonist and costs of helping on children's moral judgement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 17-23. Elliot, R., & Vasta, R. 1970. The modeling of sharing: Effects associated with vicarious reinforcement, symbolization, age, and generalization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 10, 8-15. Feshbach, N. 1973. The relationship of child rearing factors to children's aggression, empathy and relative positive and negative social behaviors. Paper presented at the Conference on the Determinants and Origins of Aggressive Behavior, Monte Carlo, Monaco, July. Feshbach, N.D. 1975. The relationship of child-rearing factors to, children's aggression, empathy, and related positive and negative behaviors. In J. deWit & W.W. Hartup (eds.), Determinants and, origins of aggressive behavior. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Fisher, W.F. 1963. Sharing in preschool children as a function of amount and type of reinforcement., Genetic Psychology Monographs, 58, 215-245. Friedrich, L.K., & Stein, A.H. 1973. Aggressive and prosocial television programs and the natural behavior of preschool children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38, (4, Serial No. 151), 1-64. Friedrich-Cofer, L.K., Huston-Stein, A., Kipnis, D.M., Susman, E.J., & Clewet, A.S. 1979. Environmental enhancement of prosocial television content: Effects on interpersonal behavior, imaginative play, and self-regulation in natural settings. Developmental Psychology, 5, 637-646. Gelfand, D.M., Hartmann, D.P., Comer, C.C., Smith, C.L., & Page, B.D. 1975. The effects of instructional prompts and praise on children's donation rates. Child Development, 46, 980-983. Grusec, J.E. 1971. Power and internalization of self-denial. Child Development, 42, 93-105. Grusec, J.E. 1982. The socialization of altruism. In N. Eisenberg (ed.), The development of prosocial behavior. New York: Academic Press. Grusec, J.E., Dix, T., & Mills, R. 1982. The effects of type severity, and victim of children's transgressions on maternal discipline. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 14, 276-289.

Grusec, J.E., & Kuczynski, L. 1980. Directions of effect in socialization: A comparison of the parent's versus the child's behavior as determinants of disciplinary practices. Developmental Psychology, 16, 1-9. Grusec, J.E., Kuczynski, L., Rushton, J.P., & Simutis, Z.M. 1978. Modeling, direct instruction, and attributions: Effects on altruism. Developmental Psychology, 14, 51-57. (a) Grusec, J.E., & Redler, E. 1980. Attribution, reinforcement, and altruism: A developmental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16, 625-634. Grusec, J.E., Saas-Kortsaak, P., & Simutis, Z.M. 1978. The role of example and moral exhortation in the training of altruism. Child Development, 49, 920-923. (b) Grusee, J.E., & Skubiski, L. 1970. Model nurturance, demand characteristics of the modeling experiment and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 352-359. Harris, M.B. 1970. Reciprocity and generosity: Some determinants of sharing behavior. Child Development, 41, 313-328. Harris, M.B. 1971. Models, norms and sharing. Psychological Reports, 29, 147-153. Hartmann, D.P., Gelfand, D.M., Smith, C.L., Paul, S.C., Cromer, C.C., Page, B.C., & LeBenta, D.V. 1976. Factors affecting the acquisition and elimination of children's donating behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 21, 328-338. Hoffman, M.L. 1963. Parent discipline and the child's consideration for others. Child Development, 34, 573-588. Hoffman, M.L. 1970. Moral development. In P.H. Mussen (ed.), Carmichael's manual of child development, New York: Wiley. Hoffman, M.L. 1975. Altruistic behavior and the parent-child relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 937-943. Hoffman, M.L. 1977. Moral internalization: Current theory and research. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press. Hoffman, M.L. 1981. Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Personality_and Social Psychology, 40, 121-137. Hoffman, M.L. 1982. Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In N. Eisenberg (ed.), The development of prosocial behavior. New York: Academic Press. Hoffman, M.L., & Saltzstein, H.D. 1967. Parent discipline and the child's moral development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 45-57. Hume, D. 1966. Enquiries concerning the human understanding and concerning principles of morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Originally published, 1739) Isreal S.C., & Raskin, P.A. 1979. Directiveness of instructions, and modeling: Effects on production and persistence on children's donations. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 135, 269-277. Isreal, A.C., & Brown, M.S., 1979. Effects of directiveness of instructions and surveillance on the production and persistence, of children's donations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 27, 250-261. Karylowski, J. 1982. Doing good to feel good vs. doing good to make others feel good. School Psychology

International, 3,139-156. Keller, B.B., & Bell, R.Q. 1979. Child effects on adult's method of eliciting altruistic behavior. Child Development, 50, 1004-1009. Kipper, D.A., & Yinon, Y. 1978. The effects of modeling with expressed conflict on children's generosity. Journal of Social Psychology, 106, 277-278. Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D.A. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. New York: Rand McNally. Leahy, R.L. 1981. Parental practices and the development of moral judgment and self-image disparity during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 17, 580-594. Lipscomb, T.J., Larrieu, J.A., McAllister, H.A.,& Bregman, N.J. 1982. Modeling and children's generosity: A developmental perspective. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 275-282. London, P. 1970. The rescuers: Motivational hypotheses about Christians who saved Jews from the Nazis. In J. Macauley & L. Berkowitz (eds.), Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press. Maruyama, G., Fraser, S.C., & Miller, N. 1982. Personal responsibility and altruism in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 659-664. Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J.H. 1972. Affect expressions and children's imitative altruism. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 195-203. Mithaug, E.D., & Burgess, R.L. 1968. The effects of different reinforcement contingencies in the development of social cooperation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 6, 402-426. Morris, W.N., Marshall, H.M., & Miller, R.S. 1973. The effect of vicarious punishment on prosocial behavior in children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 222-236. Mussen, P., Rutherford, E., Harris, S., & Keasey, C.B. 1970. Honesty and altruism among preadolescents. Developmental_Psychology, 3, 169-194. Olejnik, A.B., & McKinney, J.P. 1973. Parental value orientation and generosity in children. Developmental Psychology, 8, 311. Paulson, F.L. 1973. Teaching cooperation on television: An evaluation of Sesame Street social goals program. Communication Review, 22, 220-246. Perry, D.G., Bussey, L., & Freiberg, K. 1981. Impact of adult's appeals for sharing on the development of altruistic dispositions in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52, 127-138. Perry, D.G., & Perry, L.C. 1983. Social learning, causal attribution, and moral internalization. In J. Bisanz, G.L. Bisanz, & R. Kail (eds.), Advances in cognitive development: Learning with children (Vol. 4). New York: Springer-Verlag. Peterson, L. 1983. Influence of age, task competence, and responsibility focus on children's altruism. Developmental Psychology, 19, 141-148. Presbie, R.J., & Coiteaux, P.F. 1971. Learning to be generous or stingy: Imitation of sharing behavior as a function of model generosity and vicarious reinforcement. Child Development, 42, 1033-1038.

Rice, M.E., & Grusec, J.E. 1975. Saying and doing: Effects on observer performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 584-593. Rogers-Warren, A., & Baer, D.M. 1976. Correspondence between saying and doing: Teaching children to share and praise. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 9, 335-354. Rogers-Warren, A., Warren, S.F., & Baer, D.M. 1977. A component analysis: Modeling, self-reporting, and reinforcement of self-reporting in the development of sharing. Behavior Modification, 1, 307-322. Rosenhan, D.L. 1969. Some origins of concern for others. In P. Mussen, J. Langer, & M. Covington (eds.), Trends and issues in developmental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Rosenhan, D.L. 1970. The natural socialization of altruistic autonomy. J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (eds.), Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press. Rosenhan, D.L., & White, G.M. 1967. Observation and rehearsal as determinants of prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 424-431. Rubinstein, E.A., Liebert, R.M., Neale, J.M., & Poulos, R.W. 1974. Assessing television's influence on children's prosocial behavior. Rushton, J.P. 1975. Generosity in children: Immediate and long-term effects of modeling, preaching, and moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 459-466. Rushton, J.P., & Littlefield, C. 1979. The effects of age, amount of modeling, and a success experience on seven-to eleven-year-old children's generosity. Journal of Moral Education, 2, 55-56. Rushton, J.P., & Owen, D. 1975. Immediate and delayed effects of TV modeling and preaching on children's generosity. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 309-310. Rushton, J.P., & Teachman, G. 1978. The effects of positive reinforcement, attributions, and punishment on model induced altruism in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 322-325. Rutherford, E., & Mussen, P. 1968. Generosity in nursery school boys. Child Development, 39, 755-765 Sims, S.A. 1978. Sharing by children: Effects of behavioral example, introduction, and resources. The Journal of Psychology, 100, 57-65. Slaby, R.G., & Crowley, C.G. 1977. Modification of cooperative and aggression through teacher attention to children's speech. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23, 442-458. Smith, C.L., Gelfand, D.M., Hartmann, D.P., & Partlow, M.P. 1979. Children's causal attributions regarding help-giving. Child Development, 50, 203-210. Sprafkin, J.M., Liebert, R.M., & Poulos, R.W. 1975. Effects of a prosocial example on children's helping. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 119-126. Staub, E. 1970. A child in distress: The effects of focusing responsibility on children on their attempts to help. Developmental Psychology, 2, 152-153. Staub, E. 1971. A child in distress: The influence of nurturance and modeling on children's attempts to help. Developmental Psychology, 5, 124-132.

Staub, E. 1975. To rear a prosocial child: Reasoning, learning by doing, and learning by teaching others. In D. DePalma & J. Folley (eds.), Moral development: Current theory and research. Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Staub, E. 1978. Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press. Staub, E. 1979. Positive social behavior and morality: Socialization and development (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press. Stein, A.H., & Friedrich, L.K. 1975. Impact of television on children and youth. In E.M. Hetherington (ed.), Review of child development research (Vol. 5). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Underwood, B., & Moore, B. 1982. Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 143-173. Vogler, R.E., Masters, W.M., & Merrill, G.S. 1970. Shaping cooperative behavior in young children. Journal of Psychology, 74, 181-186. Warren, S.F., Warren-Rogers, A., & Baer, D.M. 1976. The role of offer rates in controlling sharing by young children. Journal of Applied Behavior_Analysis, 9, 491-497. Weissbrod, C.S. 1976. Noncontingent warmth induction, cognitive style, and children's imitative donation and rescue effort behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 274-281. Weissbrod, C.S. 1980. The impact of warmth and instructions in donation. Child Development, 51, 279-281. White, G.M. 1972. Immediate and deferred effects of model observations and guided and unguided rehearsal on donating and stealing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 139-141. White, G.M., & Burnam, M.A. 1975. Socially cued altruism: Effects, of modeling, instructions, and age on public and private donations. Child Development, 46, 559-563. Whiting, B.B., & Whiting, J.W.M. 1975. Children of six cultures: A psychocultural analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Press. Whiting, J.W.M., & Whiting, B.B., 1973. Altruistic and egotistic behavior in six cultures. In L. Nader & T. Maretzki (eds.), Cultural illness and health. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Yarrow, M.R., Scott, P.M., & Waxler, C.Z., 1973. Learning concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 8, 240-260. Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M., 1981. The effects of children's misbehaviors on parents' methods of discipline. Unpublished manuscript, National Institute of Mental Health. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R.A. 1979. Child rearing and children's prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 50, 319-330.