Prosocial development.

The foregoing review has been organised in terms of five developmental hypotheses--let us now summarise the evidence bearing on each hypothesis. The first hypothesis, that a general prosocial impulse arises in the first year of life, is well-supported by the data. Some dispute remains about the point at which children are capable of responding sympathetically to companions in distress, with some investigators claiming that this takes place around the time of the second birthday (Kochanska, 1993), others placing this achievement earlier in development (Hoffman, 1975). The second, more controversial hypothesis, that the frequency of prosocial behaviour declines thereafter, is supported by cross-sectional data and by the burgeoning literature on the ways in which prosocial responding comes to be regulated cognitively and emotionally during the preschool years. Actual evidence for a decline and tests of hypotheses that the decline is associated with the acquisition of particular "display rules" and the regulation of empathic responding and guilt requires appropriately designed longitudinal studies. In general, our understanding of the normal course of prosocial development is limited due to the paucity of longitudinal data and the tendency of particular investigators to concentrate on single constructs--empathy, sharing, moral judgement or whatever--and not examine the interrelations of different types of prosocial behaviours in the same sample, tested under the same conditions. It is also not completely clear whether findings about empathic responding in experimental procedures (e.g. Miller et al., 1989) can be used to explain age changes in the selective display of prosocial behaviour under natural conditions. However, it is clear that future studies of prosocial development must examine the contributions of empathy, guilt and children's awareness of moral and conventional standards to children's overt prosocial actions with friends and family members. The contribution of children's close personal relationships, particularly their attachment relationships and close friendships, to prosocial behaviours, deserves increased attention. The third hypothesis was a claim that, during the childhood years, prosocial behaviour becomes differentiated in terms of gender, with females and males showing their prosocial tendencies in qualitatively different ways. Evidence bearing on this point is beset with measurement problems; it seems clear that girls report more empathy and are reputed by others to be more prosocial than boys, but direct observations do not always support such conclusions. Much more information is needed about ways in which boys in particular are prosocial--for example, co-operating with teammates whilst competing against other teams, in athletic contests.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)