Search

Prosociality is fundamentally important for societies. As people from different nations and cultures become increasingly interconnected due to globalization and migration, it is vital to understand the drivers of cross-national and cross-cultural prosociality. Contributing to this endeavor, this dissertation presents empirical studies that examine contextual factors for prosociality in cross-national and cross-cultural interactions. After providing an overview of theoretical models and empirical evidence for prosociality (Chapter 2 and 3) as well as a critical reflection of the methodology (Chapter 4), the studies are presented (Chapter 5). The first study focuses on prosociality between individuals from five different nations (Chile, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, USA). The second study investigates host citizens’ prosociality towards refugees in Germany. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, a further study analyzes potential changes in prosociality before vs. during a crisis. The studies yield the following results: I) People are more prosocial towards the national in-group vs. out-group; hence, prosociality is rooted in a common social identity. However, in-group favoritism is not fixed but rather can be redirected to local cultural out-groups by making a common living environment salient. II) Individuals also act prosocially towards national and cultural out-group members – the degree of prosociality depends on certain out-group characteristics (e.g., closeness, similarity). III) Prosociality increased significantly during vs. before the COVID-19 crisis in Germany; prosociality is thus sensitive to changes in the external context. The results are discussed regarding their significance for existing theories, methodological limitations, and political implications to promote cross-national and cross-cultural prosociality.

Norm enforcement may be important for resolving conflicts and promoting cooperation. However, little is known about how preferred responses to norm violations vary across cultures and across domains. In a preregistered study of 57 countries (using convenience samples of 22,863 students and non-students), we measured perceptions of the appropriateness of various responses to a violation of a cooperative norm and to atypical social behaviors. Our findings highlight both cultural universals and cultural variation. We find a universal negative relation between appropriateness ratings of norm violations and appropriateness ratings of responses in the form of confrontation, social ostracism and gossip. Moreover, we find the country variation in the appropriateness of sanctions to be consistent across different norm violations but not across different sanctions. Specifically, in those countries where use of physical confrontation and social ostracism is rated as less appropriate, gossip is rated as more appropriate. Little is known about people's preferred responses to norm violations across countries. Here, in a study of 57 countries, the authors highlight cultural similarities and differences in people's perception of the appropriateness of norm violations.

In two pre-registered and fully incentivized studies (N = 501), we investigate prosocial behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Based on a comparison with pre-pandemic data, Study 1 shows that individuals' general prosociality measured with a (context-independent) Social Value Orientation Slider changed significantly before vs. during the early stage of the pandemic towards increased prosociality. In addition, we identified pandemic-specific context factors for prosocial behavior measured by a series of Dictator games with different recipients. Allocations in the Dictator game increased with the giver's responsibility and the recipients' vulnerability to the virus. Study 2 replicates and extends this finding in a sample representative for the adult German population in terms of age and gender. We show that, for different actors (self, recipient, politicians), different dimensions of responsibility (responsibility to help, responsibility for the problem cause, and for the solution) are associated with prosocial behavior. Contrary to what could be expected from diffusion of responsibility, prosocial behavior increased not only when individuals themselves felt responsible to help but also when they perceived politicians to be responsible to help. Assigning responsibility for the cause of the COVID-19 crisis to recipients and politicians was associated with a decrease in prosocial behavior. However, responsibility for the solution had no influence. We discuss implications for public policies.

Positive contact between members of different groups reduces prejudice and increases cooperation, findings known as intergroup contact effects. Yet in real-world settings not only positive, but also negative intergroup contact occurs, which have opposing effects. To date little is known about whether and how an individual's valenced history of intergroup contact influences contact effects and how this dynamic change happens during specific instances of intergroup contact. A pilot study examined the psychological impact of a novel paradigm to assess intergroup contact using a behavioral game. We then conducted two studies, which allowed us to observe a sequence of up to 23 in- and outgroup interactions and their behavioral outcomes in a continuous prisoner's dilemma behavioral game (N = 116, 2,668 interactions; N = 89, 1,513 interactions). As expected, participants showed a clear ingroup bias in expectations and cooperation. Furthermore, the quality of contact history moderated contact effects. Specifically, intergroup contact following a positive history of intergroup contact had a stronger effect on intergroup expectations than contact following a negative history thereof. Findings are discussed in view of the importance of considering the valenced history of intergroup contact, as well as new research questions on intergroup contact that can be addressed with this novel contact paradigm.

Positive contact between members of different groups reduces prejudice and increases cooperation, findings known as intergroup contact effects. Yet in real-world settings not only positive, but also negative intergroup contact occurs, which have opposing effects. To date little is known about whether and how an individual's valenced history of intergroup contact influences contact effects and how this dynamic change happens during specific instances of intergroup contact. A pilot study examined the psychological impact of a novel paradigm to assess intergroup contact using a behavioral game. We then conducted two studies, which allowed us to observe a sequence of up to 23 in- and outgroup interactions and their behavioral outcomes in a continuous prisoner's dilemma behavioral game (N = 116, 2,668 interactions; N = 89, 1,513 interactions). As expected, participants showed a clear ingroup bias in expectations and cooperation. Furthermore, the quality of contact history moderated contact effects. Specifically, intergroup contact following a positive history of intergroup contact had a stronger effect on intergroup expectations than contact following a negative history thereof. Findings are discussed in view of the importance of considering the valenced history of intergroup contact, as well as new research questions on intergroup contact that can be addressed with this novel contact paradigm.