According to Dunfield’s (2014) framework, pro-social behavior comprises of three subtypes: helping, sharing and comforting. The negative state that a pro-social behavior targets is what forms the basis of this categorization. Accordingly, alleviating a negative state mark by an instrumental need requires helping behavior, while an unmet material desire requires sharing behavior, and emotional distress requires comforting (Dunfield, 2014). Identifying these subtypes is helpful for conceptual clarity, for disentangling the socio-cognitive skills underlying pro social behaviors, and for a complete understanding of the developmental trajectory of pro-sociality.
One concern, however, regards ecological validity. How distinct are the three subtype of pro-social behavior really? Imagine a daily life event, were a friend loses their wallet. You may response to their negative state by helping them look for their wallet, by sharing some of your money with them, or by comforting them and showing sympathy. In such real life examples, the negative state is largely intermeshed and thus, there is often more than one “right” way to response. This is particularly so when considering the interference of emotional distress, which is nearly impossible to detach from instrumental needs or unmet material desires.
In fact, most empirical studies have incorporated emotional distress, while testing helping and/ or sharing behavior (but see Kenward and Gredeback, 2013). The widely used out-of-reach instrumental helping tasks (e.g.,
…show more content…
More severe, persistent forms affect 5%-10% of children in developed western countries (Rutter, et al., 2008) and are linked to future adult crime, drug & alcohol misuse, unemployment, poor physical health and mental disorders (Cohen, 1998; Moffit, et al., 2002; Odgers, et al., 2007) It is estimated that a high risk youth could cost the public $1.7-2.3 million over their lifetime (Cohen,