Content uploaded by Arthur Brief
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arthur Brief on Apr 17, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Prosocial Organizational Behaviors
Author(s): Arthur P. Brief and Stephan J. Motowidlo
Source:
The Academy of Management Review
, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 710-725
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258391
Accessed: 26-09-2016 14:24 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258391?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The
Academy of Management Review
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
o Academy of Management Review, 1986, Vol. 11, No. 4, 710-725.
Prosocial Organizational Behaviors
ARTHUR P. BRIEF
New York University
STEPHAN J. MOTOWIDLO
Pennsylvania State University
The construct of prosocial organizational behavior is defined and 13
specific forms are described. They vary according to whether they
are functional or dysfunctional for organizational effectiveness, pre-
scribed or not prescribed as part of one's organizational role, and
directed toward an individual or organizational target. Potential pre-
dictors and determinants drawn from the social psychological litera-
ture suggest an agenda for research in organizational settings.
Acts such as helping, sharing, donating, co-
operating, and volunteering are forms of pro-
social behavior. They are positive social acts car-
ried out to produce and maintain the well-being
and integrity of others. During the 1960s and early
1970s, considerable attention was devoted to
these behaviors by a number of behavioral and
social scientists (e.g., Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963;
Campbell, 1965; Gouldner, 1960; Latane & Dar-
ley, 1970). With a few exceptions, however,
organizational scientists only recently have be-
gun to include ideas related to prosocial behav-
ior in studies of behavior in work organizations.
Prosocial behavior has important implications
for organizations. This is illustrated by Katz's
(1964) description of behavioral patterns thought
to be necessary for effective organizational func-
tioning. One pattern represents joining and
staying in the organization. A second represents
meeting or exceeding specific standards of per-
formance. The third, which reflects part of what
we mean by prosocial behavior, represents
behaviors that go beyond specified role require-
ments, behaviors such as cooperating with co-
workers, taking action when necessary to pro-
tect the organization from unexpected danger,
suggesting ways to improve the organization,
deliberate self-development and preparation for
higher levels of organizational responsibility, and
speaking favorably about the organization to
outsiders. This third pattern is especially interest-
ing because it is clearly vital for organizational
survival, yet difficult or impossible to prescribe
as part of an individual's formal job and role
requirements. Consequently, it represents one
form of prosocial behavior; it represents ways in
which an individual can act spontaneously and
voluntarily to promote the organization's in-
terests.
The concept of prosocial organizational behav-
ior is broader than this. It includes several other
types of behavior with different consequences
for individual and organizational effectiveness
which accordingly are also important objects of
study for organizational scholars. The purposes
of this paper are to identify different kinds of
prosocial organizational behavior, describe their
likely antecedents and consequences for individ-
ual and organizational effectiveness, and sug-
gest research questions to guide further study of
prosocial behavior in organizations. It should be
noted here that the prosocial construct evokes a
rich array of broad ethical and philosophical
issues. They include questions such as whether,
710
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
in some absolute sense, people should behave
prosocially because it is morally correct or bene-
ficial to society-at-large and how one should
deal with conflicts which arise when a prosocial
act toward one individual is simultaneously an
antisocial act toward another. This paper only
touches on some of these issues while focusing
upon narrower questions associated with the
causes and consequences of various prosocial
expressions in work organizations.
Kinds of Prosocial Organizational Behavior
There is no clear consensus on a precise defi-
nition of prosocial behavior (e.g., Sorrentino &
Rushton, 1981; Wispe, 1972). In general, however,
prosocial behavior is behavior which the actor
expects will benefit the person or persons to
whom it is directed. This definition emphasizes
the expected consequences of the act; others,
however, have defined prosocial behavior more
restrictively according to the actor's motives (e.g.,
Berkowitz, 1972; Krebs, 1970). The restriction typi-
cally includes the stipulation that the actor per-
forms the behavior voluntarily without expect-
ing to receive material or social rewards in return
(e.g., Walster & Piliavin, 1972). This restriction
defines a particular form of prosocial behavior-
altruism. However, Rushton (Sorrentino & Rush-
ton, 1981) argued that this is too narrow and sug-
gested that the motives behind a prosocial act
should be determined empirically instead of pre-
sumed by definition.
As a working definition to guide research on
prosocial behavior in organizational settings, the
present authors suggest the following: Prosocial
organizational behavior is behavior which is (a)
performed by a member of an organization, (b)
directed toward an individual, group, or organi-
zation with whom he or she interacts while carry-
ing out his or her organizational role, and (c)
performed with the intention of promoting the
welfare of the individual, group, or organization
toward which it is directed. This definition is
deliberately broad. It is designed to encompass
a wide range of behavior with important implica-
tions for organizational functioning which have
in common the central notion of intent to benefit
others.
There are several important distinctions be-
tween different kinds of prosocial organizational
behavior. First, some prosocial behaviors are
organizationally functional because they contrib-
ute to the accomplishment of organizational
objectives; others are dysfunctional. Examples
of prosocial behavior embraced by Katz's (1964)
description of behavioral patterns necessary for
organizational functioning are clearly organiza-
tionally functional. The organization is more likely
to thrive when its members cooperate with each
other, act to protect the organization from unanti-
cipated hazards, speak favorably about the orga-
nization to others, and so forth, because these
behaviors enhance the organization's ability to
survive and reach its goals. There are other
expressions of prosocial behavior, though, that
can detract from organizational effectiveness. For
example, organizational members who help
co-workers achieve personal goals that are in-
consistent with organizational objectives, who
deliberately falsify records to protect others from
deserved organizational censure, or who render
services to clients in ways contrary to organiza-
tional interests are performing prosocial acts but
not in ways that contribute to organizational
success. In fact, such acts often make it more
difficult for the organization to be effective.
A second distinction is between prosocial
behaviors that are role prescribed and those that
are extra-role (Katz, 1964). Role prescribed pro-
social behaviors are organizationally specified
as a formal part of the individual's role or job.
The clearest examples are jobs in the helping
professions such as counseling and psychother-
apy (Lenrow, 1978), but there are many less obvi-
ous examples, too. For instance, the retail sales
clerk who is instructed to be courteous and help-
ful to customers, the member of a research and
development team who is instructed to support
and cooperate with others working on the same
project, and the executive who is assigned re-
sponsibility for mentoring a new, young mem-
ber of the management team illustrate role-
prescribed prosocial behaviors. In general, they
711
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
are positive social behaviors which are stated as
performance requirements and are therefore
likely to be explicitly articulated in such docu-
ments as goal statements, performance appraisal
forms, and job descriptions.
This category of prosocial organizational be-
havior recognizes that in some contexts, acts such
as helping, sharing, and cooperating are legiti-
mate dimensions of job performance. Organ
(1977) argued that behaviors like these often are
regarded by managers as even more important
than exceptional productivity. "In numerous
situations, outstanding performance or produc-
tivity, beyond some minimally acceptable level,
is of relatively little interest to organizational
officials. They may be more desirous of such
things as regular attendance, predictability, fol-
lowing the rules, 'not making waves,' avoidance
of hassles, cooperation, and generalized tenden-
cies toward compliance. Certainly such behav-
iors represent the glue which holds collective
endeavors together . . ." (p. 50). Borman and his
associates (Borman, Motowidlo, & Hanser, 1983;
Borman, Motowidlo, Rose, & Hanser, 1984) used
similar ideas to expand the definition of perfor-
mance in a military context. They suggested that
effectiveness of soldiers includes more than just
performing required technical tasks and they pre-
sented a model of the effectiveness of soldiers,
which includes elements such as cooperation,
comradery, and boosting unit morale. The ele-
ments overlap substantially with the notion of
role-prescribed prosocial behavior developed
here.
Extra-role prosocial behaviors are positive
social acts which are not formally specified role
requirements; they are not specifically assigned
to individuals as activities to be performed as
part of the job. Although role-prescribed pro-
social behavior usually is at least believed to be
organizationally functional, extra-role prosocial
behavior can be either functional or dysfunc-
tional. Functional extra-role behaviors include
behaviors like those mentioned by Katz (1964)-
cooperating with others, protecting the organiza-
tion from unexpected danger, suggesting orga-
nizational improvements, and so forth. Dysfunc-
tional extra-role behaviors that are prosocial acts
might include helping co-workers or clients in
ways that benefit them personally but that are
costly for the organization and that accordingly
detract from organizational efficiency.
A third important distinction involves the tar-
gets to which prosocial acts are directed. Often,
the targets are individuals with whom organiza-
tional members interact while performing their
jobs and the prosocial acts are performed with
the intention of benefitting the target directly.
The target might be either a co-worker (i.e.,
supervisor, peer, or subordinate) or a consumer
(i.e., customer or client) of organizational prod-
ucts and services. In addition, however, Staw
(1983, 1984) put forth arguments which suggest
that prosocial behavior need not be restricted to
actions toward individuals but can include ac-
tions toward the organization as a unit. He
described such prosocial organizational acts as
voluntary service to the organization (e.g., con-
scientious committee work in universities), coop-
eration with organizational procedures, extra
effort toward organizational goals, and expres-
sions of loyalty. This means that individuals
would be donating time, energy, and other per-
sonal resources and, in this sense, sacrificing
some portion of their own interests for the good
of the organization. While prosocial acts toward
individuals can be either functional or dysfunc-
tional for the organization, prosocial acts toward
the organization are nearly always functional.
Acts toward both kinds of targets can be either
role-prescribed or extra-role.
Although useful as a general map of the con-
ceptual domain, these three distinctions do not
necessarily define clearly separable sets of be-
havior. For example, a prosocial act might not
have only functional or only dysfunctional conse-
quences-it might be functional for organiza-
tional effectiveness in some ways, and dysfunc-
tional in others. Similarly, the target is not neces-
sarily only the individual or only the organiza-
tion. Someone might act prosocially toward an
individual with the intent of benefitting both the
individual and the organization simultaneously.
Nevertheless, the present authors were able to
712
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
draw upon these distinctions as a general frame-
work for identifying 13 specific kinds of prosocial
organizational behavior.
1. Assisting co-workers with job-related mat-
ters. One of the components of citizenship be-
havior, altruism, as described by Smith, Organ,
and Near (1983) includes prosocial acts toward
other individual members of the organization.
These are acts such as "helps others who have
been absent," "orients new people even though
it is not required," "helps others who have heavy
work loads," and "assists (the) supervisor with
his or her work" (p. 657). They are primarily
discretionary, extra-role behaviors intended to
benefit individual subordinates, peers, or super-
visors by helping them perform job-related ac-
tivities. But some such prosocial behaviors also
might be role-prescribed, as in the example of a
person who is required formally to help co-
workers, orient newcomers, or assist the super-
visor. Whether extra-role or role-prescribed,
prosocial acts like these are usually organiza-
tionally functional.
2. Assisting co-workers with personal matters.
Prosocial organizational behavior also might be
directed toward other individuals in the organi-
zation with the intent of helping them with per-
sonal matters such as family problems, emotional
upsets, or avoiding censure for committing errors
or for breaking organizational rules. This kind of
prosocial behavior is primarily extra-role and can
be either organizationally functional or dysfunc-
tional, depending on whether the momentary
interests of the target who is being helped are
consistent or inconsistent with larger organiza-
tional objectives.
3. Showing leniency in personnel decisions.
A third kind of prosocial behavior toward indi-
vidual organizational members involves person-
nel decisions such as hiring, performance ap-
praisal, and compensation. In this case, the
prosocial behavior takes the form of leniency so
that the target is favored undeservedly in the
hiring, performance appraisal, or compensation
decision. Because the organization's best inter-
ests usually are served when such decisions are
made accurately and fairly, this prosocial behav-
ior is generally dysfunctional for organizational
effectiveness.
4. Providing services or products to consum-
ers in organizationally consistent ways. Many
work organizations such as retail stores, banks,
hospitals, educational institutions, public service
agencies, and travel agencies distribute prod-
ucts or services to consumers in personal, face-
to-face transactions. Members of such organiza-
tions who deal directly with consumers are in a
position to act more or less prosocially, with either
positive or negative consequences for the organi-
zation. One type of prosocial behavior toward
individual consumers involves simply providing
services or products in organizationally consis-
tent ways. For this to be prosocial, the organiza-
tional member must believe that the consumer
genuinely can be helped by, and will benefit
from, the products or services of the organization.
Merely providing the service without thinking
about the consumer's needs and interests and
selling products with a cynical conviction that
they actually will not benefit the consumer are
not prosocial acts. Prosocially providing organi-
zational goods and services to consumers in orga-
nizationally consistent ways is organizationally
functional and usually role-prescribed, although
in some cases the genuine concern for con-
sumers' best interests, which is a necessary con-
dition if such acts are to be considered prosocial,
might be extra-role.
5. Providing services or products to consum-
ers in organizationally inconsistent ways. A sec-
ond type of prosocial behavior toward consum-
ers is providing goods or services in organiza-
tionally inconsistent ways. Customers or clients
might be helped by providing goods or services
in a manner that is detrimental for the organiza-
tion. For instance, a sales clerk might offer an
item for less than the authorized price or might
discourage the customer from buying it by delib-
erately emphasizing its negative features. Simi-
larly, the organizational member might attempt
to provide a service by ignoring important or-
ganizational rules and procedures and thereby
713
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
help the client, but at a net cost to the or-
ganization. Prosocial acts like these are gener-
ally dysfunctional for the organization.
6. Helping consumers with personal matters
unrelated to organizational services or products.
This is a third form of prosocial behavior toward
consumers. Organizational members who deal
with consumers often have an opportunity to pro-
vide personal services such as giving directions,
making change for telephones or vending ma-
chines, or simply listening sympathetically and
providing informal counsel on personal mat-
ters to consumers when such acts have nothing
to do with the goods and services which the orga-
nization officially provides. These are extra-role
acts and can be organizationally functional or
dysfunctional depending on whether they inter-
fere with other role-prescribed activities and
whether consumers who are helped in these
ways subsequently become more likely to trans-
act business with the organization.
Interactions like those just described with sub-
ordinates, peers, supervisors, customers, and
clients are prosocial behaviors directed toward
individuals as targets. Other prosocial behav-
iors are directed more broadly toward the orga-
nization as a whole.
Recent theoretical and conceptual work on
organizational commitment (Mowday, Porter, &
Steers, 1982), citizenship behavior (Smith et al.,
1983; Bateman & Organ, 1983), and whistle-
blowing (Dozier & Miceli, 1985; Staw, 1984) con-
cerns behavioral patterns that are related closely
to prosocial behavior directed toward the organi-
zation. According to Mowday et al. (1982), organi-
zational commitment consists of "(a) a strong
belief in and acceptance of the organization's
goals and values; (b) a willingness to exert con-
siderable effort on behalf of the organization; and
(c) a strong desire to maintain membership in
the organization" (p. 27). These components of
organizational commitment indicate dispositions
toward prosocial behavior; organizationally com-
mitted individuals "are willing to give something
of themselves in order to contribute to the organi-
zation's well-being" (p. 27).
Citizenship behavior also is related to prosocial
behavior toward the organization. Smith et al.
(1983) suggested that citizenship behavior con-
sists of two components, one made up largely of
prosocial acts toward individuals and the other,
which was labeled "generalized compliance,"
made up largely of acts performed "for the sake
of the system rather than for specific individuals"
(p. 662). The generalized compliance factor in-
cluded items such as "punctuality," "attendance
at work is above the norm," "does not take unnec-
essary time off," and "does not spend time in
idle conversation" (p. 657). Smith et al. suggested
that citizenship behavior is a form of prosocial
behavior. Therefore, generalized compliance,
which is a form of citizenship behavior, repre-
sents prosocial acts directed toward the organi-
zation.
Whistle-blowing is the act of revealing an
improper organizational practice to someone
who might be able to correct it (Dozier & Miceli,
1985). Staw (1984) pointed out that if the organiza-
tional wrongdoing is brought openly to the atten-
tion of persons outside the organization, to per-
sons in the media, for instance, or in Federal
regulatory agencies, the whistle-blowing act can
be regarded as threatening to the organization.
Because such an act could be interpreted as an
effort to harm the organization, it would not be a
prosocial act directed toward the organization.
(But it still might be a prosocial act with other
organizations, individuals, or even society-at-
large as the target intended to benefit.) On the
other hand, if the wrongdoing is revealed to per-
sons within the organization, to persons either at
higher levels of authority or in more organiza-
tionally central positions, it could be more read-
ily interpreted as an effort to benefit the organiza-
tion and is accordingly more clearly a prosocial
act directed toward the organization.
Behavioral components of organizational com-
mitment, citizenship behavior, and whistle-
blowing point to several kinds of specific pro-
social behaviors directed toward the organiza-
tion as the intended beneficiary. They are usu-
ally organizationally functional and extra-role,
714
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
although some conceivably might be role-pre-
scribed as well.
7. Complying with organizational values, pol-
icies, and regulations. Compliance appears in
notions of organizational commitment (Mowday
et al., 1982) and citizenship behavior (Smith et
al., 1983). It includes acts such as internalizing
and behaving according to the organization's
core values and goals, adhering to major poli-
cies and procedures despite temptations to short-
cut or avoid them when they appear personally
inconvenient, accepting and living by implicit or
explicit norms which define acceptable organi-
zational conduct, and following rules and regu-
lations for day-to-day matters such as atten-
dance, work hours, and the use of organizational
resources. Such acts are prosocial because they
reflect an overall acceptance of the organization
and a willingness to subordinate personal idio-
syncracies and preferences in role-related mat-
ters for its benefit. They are usually functional,
except when the values, policies, or regulations
are themselves not in the organization's best
interests.
8. Suggesting procedural, administrative, or
organizational improvements. Attempting to
change aspects of the organization or the way it
operates to help it become more successful is
another prosocial expression. An organizational
member might suggest changes for improvement
in job design, production procedures, adminis-
trative procedures, management practices, or-
ganizational structure, or organizational strategy.
Although they might seem inconsistent with acts
of compliance, they are still prosocial because
they are carried out with the intent of helping
the organization. They are functional to the
degree the suggested changes actually do facili-
tate the achievement of organizational objectives
without too much disruption or cost associated
with the implementation of change.
9. Objecting to improper directives, proce-
dures, or policies. Sometimes, an organizational
member sees an urgent need for change -be-
cause, for example, a particular directive, proce-
dure, or policy might be unethical, illegal, or
otherwise disastrous for the organization's long-
term interests-but is unable to suggest or bring
about the change directly. He or she might resort
to blowing the whistle and taking the matter to
another individual or agency who is in a posi-
tion to take corrective action. If done with the
intent of sincerely helping the organization,
instead of trying to hurt or destroy it, dissenting
in this way is also a prosocial act. It is clearly not
an act of compliance with the particular directive,
procedure, or policy under objection, but still
might represent compliance with more funda-
mental organizational values and policies which
oppose the objectionable practice. Consequently,
dissension and whistle-blowing often can be
functional for organizational effectiveness, at
least in the long run.
10. Putting forth extra effort on the job. Besides
compliance, a second aspect of organizational
commitment (Mowday et al., 1982) is "a willing-
ness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organization" (p. 27). The job is one obvious focus
for this effort. Citizenship behavior also includes
elements related to conscientiousness and effort
on the job, elements such as "does not spend
time in idle conversation" and "does not take
extra breaks" (Smith et al., 1983). Actions which
represent extra effort, diligence, perseverance,
and conscientiousness in the performance of
one's job comprise another category of prosocial
behavior because they are performed for the
benefit of the organization, often at some per-
sonal expense.
1 1. Volunteering for additional assignments.
Related to extra job effort, acts of volunteering
for additional assignments which might or might
not be job-related also often are performed with
the intention of helping the organization. They
include volunteering for activities such as com-
mittee assignments, speaking engagements, and
job-related projects as well as simply taking
action when necessary to correct nonstandard
conditions, to remove obstacles to smooth the
way for organizational processes, and to protect
the organization from unexpected dangers.
715
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
12. Staying with the organization despite tem-
porary hardships. Organizational loyalty is an-
other form of prosocial behavior. One expres-
sion of loyalty involves staying with the organiza-
tion even during periods when temporary set-
backs create uncomfortable or inconvenient
conditions for members. This is a facet of organi-
zational commitment (Mowday et al., 1982) and
is clearly organizationally functional.
13. Representing the organization favorably
to outsiders. A second way to express loyalty is
by defending and speaking well of the organiza-
tion to outsiders. Actions like these can enhance
the organization's reputation in the eyes of out-
side constituencies such as the financial and
investment community, the marketplace, and the
labor market. This makes it easier for the organi-
zation to obtain funding, to market its products
or services, and to attract a qualified labor force.
Accordingly, these are prosocial acts directed
toward the organization, with functional conse-
quences for organizational effectiveness.
As mentioned, prosocial organizational behav-
iors are associated with both functional and dys-
functional consequences for the organization.
Some of the potential functional consequences
are (a) more effective job performance, if organi-
zational members perform the prosocial role
requirements of their own jobs or if they help
other individuals perform their jobs more effec-
tively, (b) improved communication and coordi-
nation between individuals and units, if prosocial
acts toward individuals foster more interpersonal
trust and understanding, (c) improved job satis-
faction and morale among persons who have
been treated prosocially by others, (d) improved
satisfaction of customers and clients, which might
incline them to return to the same organization
later for other products or services, and (e)
improved organizational efficiency in general, if
people act prosocially toward the organization
with commitment, good citizenship, and respon-
sible dissent. Some potential dysfunctional con-
sequences are (a) ineffective job performance, if
people spend too much time on extra-role pro-
social activities such as attending to personal
concerns of others at the expense of their own
job activities, (b) poor personnel decisions, if
supervisors show leniency in hiring, performance
appraisal, or compensation at the expense of
accuracy and objective fairness, and (c) organi-
zational inefficiency, if organizational members
whose interests are at odds with those of the
organization are prosocially assisted or if con-
sumers or clients are provided services or prod-
ucts in organizationally inconsistent ways.
Antecedents of Prosocial Behavior
Although psychologists' interest in prosocial
behavior can be traced back to the turn of the
century (McDougall, 1908), it was not until the
mid-1960s that these behaviors became a major
focus of psychological research (Rushton & Sor-
rentino, 1981). There are now many books which
review various facets of a large and diverse psy-
chological literature on prosocial behavior (e.g.,
Hornstein, 1976; Latane & Darley, 1970; Ma-
caulay & Berkowitz, 1970; Rushton & Sorrentino,
1981; Staub, 1974, 1979; Staub, Bar-Tal, Kary-
lowski, & Reykowski, 1984; Wispe, 1978). A sum-
mary of some highlights of this literature, organ-
ized around two general themes, individual ante-
cedents and contextual antecedents of prosocial
behavior, follows.
Individual antecedents. There has been a
great deal of debate about whether humans are
biologically disposed to behave prosocially (e.g.,
Campbell, 1965, 1979; Dawkins, 1976; Simon,
1983; Wilson, 1978; Wispe & Thompson, 1976).
Hoffman (1981) drew together a range of socio-
biological and psychological evidence support-
ing that altruism, at least, is genetically a part of
human nature. He proposed that empathy, the
ability to experience another person's emotions
vicariously, is the genetically influenced trait
which underlies altruism.
Is there a prosocial personality? The answer to
this question is not straightforward and several
scholars disagree markedly (e.g., Gergen, Ger-
gen, & Meter, 1972; Krebs, 1970, 1978; Latane &
Darley, 1970; Underwood & Moore, 1982). On
716
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
balance, however, it seems that the answer is a
tentative "yes. " According to Rushton (1981), indi-
viduals with strongly prosocial tendencies have
internalized higher and more universal stan-
dards of justice, social responsibility, and modes
of moral reasoning and are more empathic to
the feelings of others; they are, therefore, better
able to see the world from their emotional and
motivational perspective. Empirical support
comes from studies by Berkowitz and Lutterman
(1968), Eisenberg-Berg (1979), Krebs and Rosen-
wald (1977), Mehrabian and Epstein (1972), Staub
(1974), and Willis and Goethals (1973). (See
Rushton, 1984, for a recent review.) A particu-
larly promising measure of empathy is Mehra-
bian and Epstein's (1972) Questionnaire Mea-
sure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE) (cf., Chlopan,
McCain, Carbonell, & Hagen, 1985). The QMEE
is a reasonably reliable (e.g., Adams, Schranen-
veldt, & Jenson, 1979) and valid predictor of help-
ing behavior (e.g., Barnett, Howard, King, &
Dino, 1984). Therefore, it might prove useful in
studies of prosocial behavior in work organiza-
tions.
Of course, other personal characteristics also
might be related to prosocial organizational
behavior. Smith et al. (1983) reviewed literature
suggesting that prosocial behavior is positively
correlated with individual differences in extra-
version, "belief in a just world," and educational
level, while it is negatively correlated with neu-
roticism. They reported results showing that neu-
roticism and educational level do indeed corre-
late significantly in the expected directions with
the altruism component of citizenship behavior.
Mowday et al. (1982) summarized results of
several studies about personal correlates of
organizational commitment. They concluded that
commitment varies with age, tenure, gender,
achievement motivation, sense of competence,
and belief in the Protestant work ethic. Because
the behavioral implications of organizational
commitment are similar in some respects to
prosocial behavior, these same personal charac-
teristics also might predict prosocial behavior, at
least those forms of prosocial behavior that are
directed toward the organization.
Besides variables such as empathy, neuro-
ticism, and educational level, mood is another
personal characteristic that has been studied in
connection with prosocial behavior. Social psy-
chologists have shown that positive moods pro-
mote prosocial behavior (e.g., Aderman, 1972;
Cunningham, Steinberg, & Grev, 1980; Isen,
Clark, & Schwartz, 1976; Isen & Levin, 1972;
Rosenhan, Salovey, & Hargis, 1981; Rosenhan,
Salovey, Karylowski, & Hargis, 1981). Isen,
Shalker, Clarke, and Karp (1978) explained this
effect by suggesting that people in a good mood
tend to recall more effectively positive informa-
tion from memory and think about effectively
positive events and experiences. As a result, they
become xnore likely to perform acts associated
with positive affect, acts such as helping others.
In turn, these acts tend to enhance and maintain
the positive moods which stimulated them.
Factor analyses of measures of self-reported
mood suggest two dimensions-positive affect
and negative affect (Watson & Tellegen, 1985).
Consequently, positive and negative moods may
be independent (Diener & Emmons, 1985; Warr,
Barter, & Brownbridge, 1983) and can have dif-
ferent patterns of correlation with other variables.
This might explain some of the apparently incon-
sistent findings in the prosocial literature. As
mentioned, positive moods regularly have been
shown to promote prosocial behavior. Negative
moods, however, do not consistently have the
opposite effect. Negative moods sometimes de-
crease prosocial behavior and sometimes in-
crease prosocial behavior (Clark & Isen, 1982).
Cialdini and his associates have advanced a
"negative state relief" model in an attempt to
clarify matters (Baumann, Cialdini, & Kenrick,
1981; Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973; Cialdini
& Kenrick, 1976; Kenrick, Baumann, & Cialdini,
1979). They argued that helping others is some-
times seen as a way to elevate one's mood, so
that depressed or unhappy people sometimes
deliberately try to engage in prosocial behavior
in the hope it will make them feel better. How-
ever, empirical evidence does not always sup-
port this idea (Thompson, Cowan, & Rosenhan,
1980).
717
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Three studies in the organizational literature
have used job satisfaction as a surrogate for
mood with the assumption that positive and
negative moods in the work situation are reflected
in self-reports of job satisfaction, and have exam-
ined the relation between job satisfaction and
prosocial organizational behavior. Smith, Organ,
and Near (1983) found that job satisfaction corre-
lated .31 (p < .01 ) with the altruism component of
organizational citizenship behavior and .21 (p <
.01 ) with the generalized compliance component.
Bateman and Organ (1983) reported a correla-
tion of .41 (p < .01) between job satisfaction and
supervisory ratings of overall citizenship behav-
ior which "tapped a variety of behaviors such as
compliance, altruism, dependability, house-
cleaning, complaints, waste, cooperation, criti-
cism of and coping with others, and punctuality"
(1983, p. 589). And finally, Motowidlo (1984)
reported a correlation of .27 (p < .01) between
job satisfaction and supervisory ratings of con-
sideration which included "behaviors such as
listening to others, showing awareness and con-
cern for the needs and feelings of others, tact,
emotional control, and acceptance of criticism"
(p. 914). These results are consistent with results
of social psychological research on the effects of
mood on prosocial behavior and show that sim-
ilar effects can be observed in work organiza-
tions.
Contextual Antecedents. Several aspects of the
organizational context and work environment
likely determine or, at least, covary with expres-
sions of prosocial organizational behavior. They
include factors such as reciprocity norms, group
cohesiveness, role models, reinforcement con-
tingencies, leadership style, organizational
climate, stressors, contextual determinants of
organizational commitment, and anything else
that might affect moods and feelings of satisfac-
tion or dissatisfaction.
Gouldner (1960) and others (e.g., Blau, 1968;
Homans, 1961; Lerner, 1975) discussed societal
norms of reciprocity which guide prosocial ac-
tion. He argued that in part such norms dictate
that people should help those who have helped
them. Berkowitz and Daniels (1963) extended the
concept of reciprocity to encompass any depen-
dent other, not just the individual in the exchange
relationship with the benefactor. They labeled
this extension the social responsibility norm.
Although some evidence suggests that such a
norm exists (Berkowitz, Klanderman, & Harris,
1964; Pruitt, 1968), other evidence suggests it does
not always affect behavior (Piliavin, Dovidio,
Gaertner, & Clark, 1981; Schopler & Thompson,
1968). (See Berkowitz, 1972, for a review.) Instead,
the norm seems to affect behavior only under
certain circumstances (Schwartz, 1968, 1973,
1977).
Organ (1977) argued that principles of equity
theory can help explain relations between job
satisfaction and job performance through mech-
anisms of social reciprocity. Assuming norms of
reciprocity, increased job performance might be
seen as a way to reciprocate interpersonal re-
wards from supervisors or other officials from
the organization. Since interpersonal rewards
probably lead to feelings of satisfaction, this
would explain the correlation sometimes found
between job satisfaction and job performance.
Organ described three boundary conditions
which qualify this effect. First, persons receiving
interpersonal rewards must not feel their behav-
ioral freedoms are unreasonably constrained
because of any manipulative intentions, for
instance, on the part of the benefactor. Second,
the benefactor must be seen as voluntarily pro-
viding the rewards; the rewards should not be
seen as compelled by external factors. And third,
if interpersonal rewards are provided regularly
and frequently, recipients might come to view
them more as "rights" than as "privileges," and
therefore might not feel obligated to reciprocate.
The nature of the relationship between two
individuals also influences the likelihood that one
will behave prosocially toward the other (Clark,
1981; Clark & Mills, 1979). Hornstein (1976, 1978)
argued that people become more emotionally
involved when someone in their "we group" is
in trouble and are more motivated to help them.
Thus, the cohesiveness of a group partly deter-
mines the probability of prosocial acts by one
member of the group toward another. The degree
718
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
to which two persons share similar opinions and
beliefs (Sole, Morton, & Hornstein, 1975) and
styles of dress (Emswiller, Deaux, & Willits, 1971)
is another factor that affects prosocial behavior
from one to the other. Finally, the potential
recipient's pleasantness (Gross, Wallston, &
Piliavin, 1975) and physical attractiveness (Ben-
son, Karabenick, & Lerner, 1976) also increase
the chances that others will treat him or her
prosocially.
Another relevant stream of research points to
the importance of observational learning and
modeling as determinants of prosocial behavior
(e.g., Bryan & Test, 1967; Helson, Morton, &
Blake, 1958; Rosenbaum, 1956; Rosenbaum &
Blake, 1955; Rosenhan & White, 1967; White,
1972). According to Aderman and Berkowitz
(1970), prosocial models serve to (a) remind what
is appropriate in a situation, (b) show how to be
helpful, (c) reduce inhibitions against acting
prosocially, and (d) inform about the conse-
quences of acting prosocially. It is expected,
therefore, that supervisors and co-workers who
behave prosocially in the work context often are
role models who have the effect of stimulating
others around them to behave prosocially, too.
Prosocial behavior also can be influenced and
shaped by reinforcement contingencies (Skinner,
1978). Perhaps because altruism and prosocial
behavior frequently (but inappropriately) have
been considered the same thing, the social
psychological literature on the effects of en-
vironmentally mediated rewards is relatively
sparse. These rewards have been discussed con-
ceptually in various normative decision-making
models, but have not been studied very often
empirically (e.g., Schwartz & Howard, 1981,
1984). The data that are available, however, indi-
cate that positive reinforcement promotes pro-
social behavior (Moss & Page, 1972). Therefore,
organizational reward systems should have
strong effects on prosocial organizational be-
havior. Both formal and informal mechanisms of
social reinforcement should have such effects.
Organizational climate (Schneider, 1975) is a
more general concept which captures many of
the elements mentioned in connection with reci-
procity norms, cohesiveness, reinforcement con-
tingencies, and prosocial role models. An organi-
zational climate characterized by warmth,
friendliness, supportiveness, and cooperation is
probably one in which there are strong norms of
reciprocity, high levels of group cohesiveness,
formal and informal reinforcement contingencies
which reward prosocial acts, and role models
behaving prosocially. Schneider suggested that
an organization's climate affects the behavior of
its members because they try to "adapt to achieve
some kind of homeostatic balance with their psy-
chological environment" (1975, p. 453). Accord-
ingly, a warm, friendly, supportive, and coopera-
tive climate-that is, a prosocial climate
probably induces individuals to behave more
prosocially.
Similarly, leadership style may be another
organizational variable that affects prosocial
organizational behavior (Smith et al., 1983).
Leaders who practice a style high in consider-
ation are likely to be seen as prosocial role
models. In addition, because they provide rela-
tively high levels of interpersonal rewards, they
establish some of the conditions necessary for
the operation of reciprocity norms. As bene-
factors, they dispense interpersonal and social
rewards. Therefore, the recipients are likely to
feel obligated to "return the favor" and behave
prosocially toward them, provided the bound-
ary conditions described by Organ (1977) have
been satisfied.
Organizational stressors make up yet another
category of contextual factors that influence
prosocial organizational behavior. Cohen (1980)
reviewed studies of the postexposure effects of
stressors such as noise, electric shock, and task
load and concluded that, among other things,
they affect interpersonal sensitivity. "This in-
cludes a decrease in helping, a decrease in the
recognition of individual difference, and an
increase in aggression" (p. 95). A recent study
by Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning (in press)
illustrates these effects in a work setting. They
showed that nurses to whom stressful events
719
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
occurred more frequently are rated by their
co-workers and supervisors as less considerate,
tolerant, and sensitive toward patients and co-
workers.
Mowday et al. (1982) discussed several contex-
tual antecedents of organizational commitment
that also might affect prosocial behavior. They
include role-related factors such as job scope,
role contact, and role ambiguity and structural
factors such as formalization, functional depen-
dence, decentralization, worker ownership, and
participation in decision making. These factors
may be important determinants of prosocial acts
directed toward the organization.
It should be noted that some of these contex-
tual variables also can affect prosocial behavior
through their effects on mood. Role models,
organizational climates, leadership styles,
stressors, and, in fact, any other aspect of the
job and organizational environment that influ-
ences mood states or feelings of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction might affect prosocial behavior.
Job and organizational factors that elevate moods
also are likely to increase the probability of
prosocial organizational behavior.
Implications for Research and
Management
The theoretical and empirical literature re-
viewed in this paper point to four broad areas of
research necessary to advance the study of
prosocial organizational behaviors and help
practitioners manage them more effectively in
work settings.
1. What are the basic, underlying dimensions
of prosocial organizational behavior? The analy-
sis presented here suggests 13 different ways in
which people can act prosocially in organiza-
tions, but they probably covary to form a smaller
number of underlying factors. People who fre-
quently act prosocially in some ways are also
likely to act prosocially in other ways. More infor-
mation about the factor structure of prosocial
behavior should help identify relatively indepen-
dent dimensions which might have quite differ-
ent patterns of antecedents and consequences.
Smith et al. (1983) found that two dimensions
account reasonably well for the pattern of covar-
iation in their set of 16 items designed to mea-
sure citizenship behavior. One, which they
labeled "altruism, " includes prosocial acts toward
individual co-workers and the other, "general-
ized compliance," includes prosocial acts toward
the organization. This suggests that these two
types of prosocial behavior are sufficiently inde-
pendent to be distinguished conceptually and
analytically. However, with the broader set of
prosocial organizational behaviors identified in
this paper, further research might help define a
more fine-grained factor structure which would
be hierarchically subsumed, perhaps, under the
two-factor solution identified by Smith et al.
(1983).
2. What are the personal correlates of pro-
social organizational behavior? Several individ-
ual characteristics have been suggested as ante-
cedents of prosocial behavior, including em-
pathy, extraversion, social responsibility, neuro-
ticism, educational level, age, achievement
motivation, the protestant work ethic, and mood.
If it is reasonable to distinguish between prosocial
acts toward individuals and toward the organi-
zation as a whole, it is expected that some of
these variables predict one form of prosocial
behavior better than the other. Empathy, for
example, might be a useful predictor of prosocial
behavior toward individuals, but not of prosocial
behavior toward the organization. Achievement
motivation and the protestant work ethic might
predict prosocial behavior toward the organiza-
tion, but not prosocial behavior toward indi-
viduals. Because of the similarity between the
behavioral implications of organizational com-
mitment and prosocial behavior toward the
organization, the commitment attitude is also a
good candidate for a predictor of prosocial be-
havior toward the organization, but not of pro-
social behavior toward individuals. Mood, on
the other hand, might predict both types of
prosocial behavior. This list of individual charac-
teristics is a good starting point for additional
work on personal correlates of prosocial organi-
zational behavior and their potential differential
720
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
usefulness in predicting some type of prosocial
acts but not others.
3. What organizational conditions, practices,
structural characteristics, and so forth, affect the
incidence of prosocial behavior in organizations?
Among the contextual factors identified as poten-
tial determinants of prosocial behavior are reci-
procity norms, group cohesiveness, role models,
reinforcement contingencies, leadership style,
organizational climate, stressors, job scope, role
conflict, role ambiguity, formalization, functional
dependence, decentralization, worker owner-
ship, and participation in decision making.
Again, some of these may be more important as
determinants of prosocial acts toward individu-
als while others may affect prosocial acts toward
the organization. Organizational climate and
leadership style, for example, probably influence
prosocial acts toward individuals. On the other
hand, variables like formalization, decentraliza-
tion, and worker ownership probably influence
prosocial acts toward the organization as a
whole. There is also the possibility that prosocial
behavior might affect some of the same contex-
tual variables which are presumed here to affect
prosocial behavior. A supportive climate, for
instance, might lead to an increase in prosocial
behavior which, in turn, might lead to a more
supportive climate.
4. How can prosocial organizational behav-
iors be managed so that the incidence of organi-
zationally functional prosocial acts will increase
and the incidence of organizationally dysfunc-
tional prosocial acts will decrease? First, a care-
ful study of the consequences of different types
of prosocial organizational acts must be made to
answer this question. In general, however, it
seems that prosocial behaviors directed toward
the organization are likely to be functional. The
organization is simply more likely to be effective
when its members act with the deliberate inten-
tion of helping it systemically. Prosocial acts
toward individuals, however, are not always
organizationally desirable. Once more is learned
about organizational conditions and practices
that affect this type of prosocial act, practitioners
should use this knowledge to increase the likeli-
hood of prosocial behaviors such as compliance,
extra effort on the job, expressions of loyalty,
and so on. Then, after conditions have been
established to stimulate prosocial acts toward the
organization, the next step would be to stimulate
prosocial acts toward individuals. If people are
behaving prosocially toward the organization as
a whole, they should be more likely to choose to
perform prosocial acts toward individuals that
are organizationally functional and avoid those
that are dysfunctional and inconsistent with the
organization's objectives.
In closing, the present authors recognize that
the concept of prosocial behavior is heavily
value-laden. There is a temptation to view pro-
social as good and antisocial as bad. It would be
a mistake, however, to design administrative and
organizational interventions exclusively around
a vague sense that all types of prosocial behav-
ior are good and, therefore, should be encour-
aged in work organizations. Prosocial acts di-
rected toward individuals are not necessarily in
the best interests of the organization. Yet, in many
ways, some kinds of prosocial behavior are emi-
nently desirable. They reflect a humane concern
for conditions of work, a sensitivity and consider-
ation for individual welfare, and a more pro-
found dedication to organization objectives than
can be stipulated in any job description. The
present authors do not advocate wholesale return
to so-called "human relations" practices, but do
believe that some types of prosocial behavior
are important elements of individual perfor-
mance in work organizations. Being effective at
work means more than performing tasks well.
Part of what else it means includes some forms
of prosocial behavior. For this reason, a better
understanding of prosocial patterns of activity in
organizations should lead to improvements in
administrative strategy and organizational de-
sign that can help organizations become more
effective and at the same time help individuals
lead more fulfilled lives.
721
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
References
Adams, G. R., Schranenveldt, F. D., & Jenson, G. P. (1979)
Sex, age, and perceived competency as correlates of
empathetic ability in adolescence. Adolescence, 12, 811 -
818.
Aderman, D. (1972) Elation, depression, and helping behav-
ior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24,
91- 101.
Aderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. (1970) Observational set,
empathy, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 14, 141-148.
Barnett, M. A., Howard, J. A., King, L. M., & Dino, G. A.
(1981) Helping behavior and the transfer of empathy. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 125-132.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983) Job satisfaction and
the good soldier: The relationship between affect and
employee "citizenship." Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 26, 587-595.
Baumann, D. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (1 98 1) Altru-
ism as hedonism: Helping and self-gratification as equiva-
lent responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 40, 1039-1046.
Benson, P. L., Karabenick, S. A., & Lemer, B. M. (1976) Pretty
pleases: The effects of physical attractiveness, race, and
sex on receiving help. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 12, 409- 415.
Berkowitz, L. (1972) Social norms, feelings, and other factors
affecting helping and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp.
63-108). New York: Academic Press.
Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. (1963) Responsibility and depen-
dency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66,
429-437.
Berkowitz, L., Klanderman, S. B., & Harris, R. (1964) Effects
of experimenter awareness and sex of subject and experi-
menter on reactions to dependency relationships. Socio-
metry, 27, 327-337.
Berkowitz, L. & Lutterman, K. G. (1968) The traditional socially
responsible personality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32,
169-185.
Blau, P. M. (1968) Social exchange. In D. L. Sills (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 7,
pp. 452-457). New York: MacMillan.
Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J., & Hanser, L. M. (1983) A
model of individual performance effectiveness: Thoughts
about expanding the criterion space. In N. K. Eaton & J. P.
Campbell (Chairs), Integrated Criterion Measurement for
Large Scale Computerized Selection and Classification,
Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.
Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J., Rose, S. R., & Hanser, L. M.
(1984) Development of a model of soldier effectiveness.
Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions Research Institute.
Bryan, J. H., & Test, M. A. (1967) Models and helping: Natu-
ralistic studies in aiding behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 6, 400-407.
Campbell, D. T. (1965) Ethnocentric and other altruistic
motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on
motivation (pp. 283-311). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1979) Comments on the sociobiology of eth-
ics and moralizing. Behavioral Science, 24, 37-45.
Chlopan, B. E., McCain, M. L., Carbonell, J. L., & Hagen,
R. L. (1985) Empathy: Review of available measures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 635-653.
Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., &Vincent, J. E. (1973) Transgres-
sion and altruism: A case for hedonism. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 9, 502-516.
Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (1976) Altruism as hedonism:
A social developmental perspective on the relationship of
negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 34, 907-914.
Clark, M. S. (1981) Noncomparability of benefits given and
received: A cue to the existence of friendship. Social Psy-
chology Quarterly, 44, 375-381.
Clark, M. S., & Isen, A. M. (1982) Toward understanding the
relationship between feeling states and social behavior.
In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psy-
chology (pp. 73-108). New York: Elsevier-North Holland.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979) Interpersonal attention in
exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24.
Cohen, S. (1980) Aftereffects of stress on human performance
and social behavior: A review of research and theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 82-108.
Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980) Want-
ing to and having to help: Separate motivations for posi-
tive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 38, 181-192.
Dawkins, R. (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1 985) The independence of posi-
tive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 1105-1117.
Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. (1985) Potential predictors of
whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 823-836.
722
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1979) Relationship of prosocial oral rea-
soning to altruism, political liberalism, and intelligence.
Developmental Psychology, 15, 87-89.
Emswiller, T., Deaux, K., & Willits, J. E. (1971) Similarity, sex,
and requests for small favors. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 1, 284-291.
Gergen, K., Gergen, M., & Meter, K. (1972) Individual orien-
tations to prosocial behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 28,
(3), 105-130.
Gouldner, A. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary
statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Gross, A. E., Wallston, B. S., & Piliavin, I. M. (1975) Benefi-
ciary attractiveness and cost as determinants of responses
to routine requests for help. Sociometry, 38, 131-140.
Helson, H., Morton, J. S., & Blake, R. R. (1958) Petition sign-
ing as adjustment to situational and personality factors.
Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 3-10.
Hoffman, M. L. (1981) Is altruism part of human nature?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 121-137.
Homans, G. C. (1961) Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hornstein, H. A. (1976) Cruelty and kindness: A new look at
aggression and altruism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Hornstein, H. A. (1978) Promotive tension and prosocial
behavior: A Lewinian analysis. In L. Wispe (Ed.), Altruism,
sympathy, and helping: Psychological and sociological
principles (pp. 177-207). New York: Academic Press.
Isen, A. M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1976) Duration of
the effect of good mood on helping: "Footprints on the
sands of time." Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 34, 385-393.
Isen, A. M., & Levin, A. F. (1972) Effect of feeling good on
helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 21, 384-388.
Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clarke, M., & Karp, L. (1978) Affect,
accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: A cog-
nitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36, 1-12.
Katz, D. (1964) The motivational basis of organizational
behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131-146.
Kenrick, D. T., Baumann, D. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (1979) A step
in the socialization of altruism as hedonism: Effects of neg-
ative mood on children's generosity under public and pri-
vate conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 37, 747-755.
Krebs, D. L. (1970) Altruism-an examination of the concept
and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 73,
258-302.
Krebs, D. (1978) A cognitive-developmental approach to
altruism. In L. Wispe (Ed.), Altruism, sympathy, and
helping: Psychological and sociological principles (pp.
141-164). New York: Academic Press.
Krebs, D. L., & Rosenwald, A. (1977) Moral reasoning and
moral behavior in conventional adults. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 23, 77-87.
Latan6, B., & Darley, J. (1970) The unresponsive bystander:
Why doesn't he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lenrow, P. (1978) Dilemma of professional helping: Continui-
ties and discontinuities with folk helping roles. In L. Wispe
(Ed.), Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and
sociological principles (pp. 263-290). New York: Academic
Press.
Lerner, M. J. (1975) The justice motive in social behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 1-19.
Macaulay, J., & Berkowitz, L. (Eds.) (1970) Altruism and help-
ing behavior: Social psychological studies of some ante-
cedents and consequences. New York: Academic Press.
McDougall, W. (1908) An introduction to social psychology.
London: Methven.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972) A measure of emotional
empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543.
Moss, M. K., & Page, R. A. (1972) Reinforcement and helping
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 360-371.
Motowidlo, S. J. (1984) Does job satisfaction lead to consider-
ation and personal sensitivity? Academy of Management
Journal, 27, 910-915.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J., & Manning, M. (in press) Occu-
pational stress: Its causes and consequences for job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982) Employee-
organization linkages. New York: Academic Press.
Organ, D. W. (1977) A reappraisal and reinterpretation of
the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy
of Management Review, 2, 46-53.
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D.,
III. (1981) Emergency intervention. New York: Academic
Press.
Pruitt, D. G. (1968) Reciprocity and credit building in a labo-
ratory dyad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 8, 143-147.
Rosenbaum, M. (1956) The effects of stimulus and background
factors on the volunteering response. Journal of Abnor-
mal and Social Psychology, 53, 118-121.
Rosenbaum, M., & Blake, R. R. (1955) Volunteering as a func-
tion of field structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 50, 193-196.
723
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Rosenhan, D. L., Salovey, P., & Hargis, K. (1981) The joys of
helping: Focus of attention mediates the impact of positive
affect on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 40, 899-905.
Rosenhan, D. L., Salovey, P., Karylowski, J., & Hargis, K.
(1981) Emotion and altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M.
Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social,
personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 223-
248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenhan, D. L., & White, G. M. (1967) Observation and
rehearsal as determinants of prosocial behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 423-431.
Rushton, J. P. (1981) Television as a socializer. In J. P. Rushton
& R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior:
Social, personality, and developmental perspectives (pp.
91-107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rushton, J. P. (1984) The altruistic personality: Evidence from
laboratory, naturalistic, and self-report perspectives. In E.
Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.),
Development and maintenance of prosocial behavior:
International perspectives on positive morality (pp. 271-
290). New York: Plenum.
Rushton, J. P., & Sorrentino, R. M. (Eds.) (1 98 1) Altruism and
helping behavior: Social personality and developmental
perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schneider, B. (1975) Organizational climates: An essay.
Personnel Psychology, 28, 447-479.
Schopler, J., & Thompson, V. D. (1968) Role of attribution
processes in mediating amount of reciprocity for a favor.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 243-250.
Schwartz, S. (1968) Words, deeds, and the perception of con-
sequences and responsibility in action situations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 232-242.
Schwartz, S. H. (1973) Normative explanations of helping
behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 349-364.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977) Normative influences on altruism. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-
chology (Vol. 10, pp. 222-279). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1981) A normative decision-
making model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino
(Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality,
and developmental perspective (pp. 189-211). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1984) Internalized values
as motivators of altruism. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J.
Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), Development and
maintenance of prosocial behavior: International perspec-
tives on positive morality (pp. 229-255). New York: Plenum.
Simon, H. A. (1983) Reason in human affairs. Stanford: Stan-
ford University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1978) The ethics of helping people. In L. Wispe
(Ed.), Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and
sociological principles (pp. 249-262). New York: Academic
Press.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983) Organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Sole, K., Morton, J., & Hornstein, H. A. (1975) Opinion similar-
ity and helping: Three field experiments investigating the
bases of promotive tension. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 11, 1-13.
Sorrentino, R. M., & Rushton, IJ. P. (1981) Altruism and help-
ing behavior: Current perspectives and future possibilities.
In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and
helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental
perspectives (pp. 425-439). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Staub, E. (1974) Helping a distressed person: Social person-
ality, and stimulus determinants. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp.
294-341). New York: Academic Press.
Staub, E. (1979) Positive social behavior and morality (Vol.
2). Socialization and development. New York: Academic
Press.
Staub, E., Bar-Tal, D., Karylowski, J., & Reykowski, J. (Eds.)
(1984) Development and maintenance of prosocial be-
havior: International perspectives on positive morality.
New York: Plenum.
Staw, B. M. (1983) Motivation research versus the art of fac-
ulty management. The Review of Higher Education, 6,
301-321.
Straw, B. M. (1984) Organizational behavior: A review and
reformulation of the field's outcome variables. In M. R.
Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psy-
chology (Vol. 35, pp. 627-666) Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews, Inc.
Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1980)
Focus of attention mediates the impact of negative affect
on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
38, 291-300.
Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982) Perspective-taking and
altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 143-173.
Walster, E., & Piliavin, J. A. (1972) Equity and the innocent
bystander. Journal of Social Issues, 28(3), 165-189.
Warr, P., Barter, J., & Brownbridge, G. (1983) On the inde-
pendence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 44, 644-651.
724
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985) Toward a consensual struc-
ture of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235.
White, G. M. (1972) Immediate and deferred effects of model
observation and guided and unguided rehearsal on
donating and stealing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 21, 139-148.
Willis, J. A., & Goethals, G. B. (1973) Social responsibility
and threat to behavioral freedom as determinants of altru-
istic behavior. Journal of Personality, 41, 376-384.
Wilson, E. 0. (1978) On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Wispe, L. G. (1972) Positive forms of social behavior: An
overview. Journal of Social Issues, 28(3), 1-19.
Wispe, L. G. (Ed.) (1978) Altruism, sympathy, and helping:
Psychological and sociological principles. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Wispe, L. G., & Thompson, J. N., Jr. (1976) The war between
the words: Biological versus social evolution and some
related issues. American Psychologist, 31(5), 341-384.
Arthur P. Brief (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, Madi-
son) is Professor of Management and Organizational
Behavior at New York University. Correspondence
regarding this article may be sent to him at: Tisch
Hall, New York University, 40 W. 4th St., New York,
NY 10003.
Stephan J. Motowidlo (Ph.D., University of Minnesota)
was Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior
at Pennsylvania State University when the research
for this paper was completed. He is now at the Person-
nel Decisions Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN.
725
This content downloaded from 128.110.184.42 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:24:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
