Reciprocity and prosocial behavior in democratic dynamic

Titolo Rivista RIVISTA DI PSICOLOGIA CLINICA
Autori/Curatori Cinzia Novara, Gioacchino Lavanco, Luis Gomez-Jacinto
Anno di pubblicazione 2024 Fascicolo 2024/1
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 19 P. 81-99 Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/rpc1-2024oa18429
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Prosocial behavior (CP) currently presents some conceptual overlaps with the construct of reciprocity, understood here as a lubricant of democratic dynamics. The proposed study is based on a research agreement between the Universities of Palermo and Malaga, to test the relationship between CP and reciprocity and the multiple dimensions that intervene on the two constructs at the individual, interpersonal and community level. A structural equation model (with the Lisrel method) was used to assess whether the principle of equity, belief in a just world, sense of community and neighborhood norm increase CP and whether this together with worldview and social trust, in turn, increase positive reciprocity and decrease negative reciprocity. The analyses presented are partial and concern the sample of Palermo, consisting of 307 subjects, residing in the eight districts of the city. From the analysis of the data, the parameters of the model are satisfactory even if the effect of the sense of community is not significant.

Prosocial behavior (CP) currently presents some conceptual overlaps with the construct of reciprocity, understood here as a lubricant of democratic dynamics. The proposed study is based on a research agreement between the Universities of Palermo and Malaga, to test the relationship between CP and reciprocity and the multiple dimensions that intervene on the two constructs at the individual, interpersonal and community level. A structural equation model (with the Lisrel method) was used to assess whether the principle of equity, belief in a just world, sense of community and neighborhood norm increase CP and whether this together with worldview and social trust, in turn, increase positive reciprocity and decrease negative reciprocity. The analyses presented are partial and concern the sample of Palermo, consisting of 307 subjects, residing in the eight districts of the city. From the analysis of the data, the parameters of the model are satisfactory even if the effect of the sense of community is not significant.

Parole chiave:; prosocial behavior; reciprocity; social trust; normative aspects; predictive model; democratic dynamics

  1. Gneezy, U. & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay Enough or Don’t Pay at All. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791-810.
  2. Gray, A., Jackson, D. N. & McKinlay, J. B. (1991). The relation between dominance, anger, and hormones in normally aging men: Results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 53, 375-385.
  3. Heyman, G. D., Dweck, C. S. & Cain, K. M. (1992). Young children’s vulnerability to self-blame and helplessness: Relationship to beliefs about goodness. Child Development, 63, 401-415. DOI: 10.4103/jehp. jehp_327_20
  4. Hombrados-Mendieta, I., Gomez-Jacinto, L., Domínguez-Fuentes, J. M. & García-Leiva, P. (2013). Sense of community and satisfaction with life among immigrants and the native population. Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 601-614.
  5. Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1981). LISREL V [Computer software]. Scientific Software.
  6. Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  7. Keyes, C. L. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121-140.
  8. Kobayashi, T., Ikeda, K. I. & Miyata, K. (2006). Social capital online: Collective use of the Internet and reciprocity as lubricants of democracy. Information, Community & Society, 9(5), 582-611. DOI: 10.1080/ 13691180600965575
  9. Lam, C. M. (2012). Prosocial involvement as a positive youth development construct: a conceptual review. Scientific World Journal, 2012, 769158. DOI: 10.1100/2012/769158
  10. Lavanco, G. & Varveri, L. (2008). Psicologia del mutamento sociale. FrancoAngeli.
  11. Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Perkins, D.D., Pastore, M., Santinello, M. & Mazzardis, S. (2012). Perceived neighborhood social resources as determinants of prosocial behavior in early adolescence. American journal of community psychology, 50, 37-49. DOI: 10.1007/s10464-011-9470-x
  12. Lietaer, B. (2001). The Future of Money. Random House.
  13. Mannarini, T. & Arcidiacono, C. (2021). Psicologia di comunità: linee guida per una professionalità al servizio dei bisogni del singolo, del-le organizzazioni e delle collettività. Rivista di Psicologia Clinica, 16(2), 54-59.
  14. Marta E. & Scabini E. (2003). Young volunteers. Committed, growing and making grow. Giunti.
  15. Marta, E., Scabini, E. (2012). Psicologia del volontariato. Carocci.
  16. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. DOI: 10.2307/258792
  17. Moghaddam, F. M. (2016). The psychology of democracy. American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/14806-000
  18. Mussen, P., Esenber-Berg, N. (1985). Le origini della capacità di interessarsi, dividere ed aiutare. Bulzoni.
  19. Novara, C., Martos-Méndez, M. J., Gómez-Jacinto, L., Hombrados-Mendieta, I., Varveri, L. & Polizzi, C. (2023). The influence of social support on the wellbeing of immigrants residing in Italy: Sources and functions as predictive factors for life satisfaction levels, sense of community and resilience. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 92,101743. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2022.101743
  20. Novara, C., Moscato, G., Gomez, L., Hombrados-Mendieta, I, Varveri, L. Rochira, A. & Garro, M. (2021). Life Satisfaction and Psychological Distress of African Immigrants in Italy and Spain: The Protective Role of Social Support and Sense of Community. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies. DOI: 10.1080/15562948.2021.1995923
  21. Novara, C., Varveri, L. (2021). Per una comunità immunizzata. Il modello di reciprocità, gratuità e fiducia per una transizione sociale. In L. Varveri (a cura di), Pandemie e benessere: resilienza trasformativa e cambiamenti possibili. Palermo University Press.
  22. Oceja, L. & Salgado, S. (2013). Why do we help? World change orientation as an antecedent of prosocial action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 127-136.
  23. Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W. & McMillan, D. W. (2008). Validation of a brief sense of community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 61-73.
  24. Polanyi, K. (1957). The great transformation (vol. 45). Beacon Press.
  25. Prilleltensky, I. (2003). Understanding and overcoming oppression: Towards psychopolitical validity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 195-202.
  26. Quinn, A. & Schlenker, B.R. (2002). Can accountability produce independence? Goals as determinants of the impact of accountability on conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 472-483.
  27. Raddon, M. B. (2003). Community and money: Men and women making change. Black Rose.
  28. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
  29. Riggio, G. (2024). Che cosa ci tiene uniti?. Il Pellegrino.
  30. Salfi, D., Barbara, G. (1994). Possiamo davvero apprendere a stare be-ne con gli altri? La risposta è la prosocialità. In B. Catarinussi (a cura di), Altruismo e solidarietà. Aspetti e problemi del comportamento prosociale. FrancoAngeli.
  31. Salvatore, S., Fini, V., Mannarini, T., Veltri, G. A., Avdi, E., Battaglia, F. & Kadianaki, I. (2018). Symbolic universes between present and future of Europe. First results of the map of European societies’ cultural milieu. PloS One, 13(1), e0189885. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189885
  32. Schedler, A. (2021). Democratic Reciprocity. Journal Political Philos, 29, 252-278. DOI: 10.1111/jopp.12232
  33. Serva, B. M. A & Fuller, M. A. (2004). The effects of trustworthiness perceptions on the formation of initial trust: implications for MIS student teams. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15 (4), 383-395.
  34. Stanca, L. (2009). Measuring indirect reciprocity: Whose back do we scratch?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 190-202.
  35. Stanca, L., Bruni, L. & Corazzini L. (2007). Testing theories of reci-procity: Does motivation matter? Working Paper, 109, Economics Department, University of Milan-Bicocca.
  36. Volpato, C. (2019). The psychological roots of inequality. Ed. Laterza.
  37. Zamagni S. (2006). L’economia come se la persona contasse: verso una teoria economica relazionale. Working paper, 32, 1-28.
  38. Zani B. (2005). Quali possibili basi per “comunità possibili”. Occupiamoci di identità, reciprocità e fiducia. Psicologia di comunità, 1, 31-40.
  39. Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A. & Custers, R. (2003). Automatic normative behavior in environments: the moderating role of conformity in activating situational norms. Social Cognition, 21(6), 447-464. DOI: 10.1521/soco.21.6.447.28687
  40. Abbink, K., Irlenbusch, B. & Renner, E. (2000). Themo on lighting game: An experimental study on reciprocity and retribution. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42(2), 265-277.
  41. Alberti, C. (2018). Our means. In R. E. Manzetti (ed.), Strong desires for democracy. Rosenberg & Sellier.
  42. Amerio P. (2004). Problemi umani in comunità di massa. Einaudi.
  43. Bartolotta, M. (2012). Volunteers in the age of individualism. Identikit, gender and motivations for prosocial behaviour of young people (Tutor: Prof. Giovanni Ciofalo, Co-tutor: Prof. Gaia Peruzzi. A.Y. 2012/2013) https://tesidottorato.depositolegale.it/static/PDF/web/viewer.jsp.
  44. Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: is it ever altruistic? Advances in experimental social psychology, 20, 65-122.
  45. Becker, Lawrence C. (1986). Reciprocity. University of Chicago Press.
  46. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
  47. Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (1994). Testing structural equation models. Sage.
  48. Brooks, T. (2012). Reciprocity as mutual recognition. The Good Society, 21 (1): 21-35.
  49. Bruni, L. & Faldetta, G. (2012). Il dono ‒ Le sue ambivalenze e i suoi paradossi. Un dialogo interdisciplinare. Di girolamo Editore.
  50. Caprara, G. V., Capanna, C., Steca, P. & Paciello, M. (2005). Measure and determinants of prosociality. A cognitive social approach. Italian Journal of Psychology, 32, 287-307. DOI: 10.1421/20313
  51. Cattarinussi, B. (1994). Altruismo e solidarietà. Riflessioni su prosocialità e volontariati. FrancoAngeli.
  52. Cialdini, R. B. & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social Norms, Conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (eds.), The handbook of social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 151-192). McGraw–Hill.
  53. Cochard, F., Nguyen Van, P. & Willinger, M. (2004). Trusting behavior in a repeated investment game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55(1), 31-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2003.07.004
  54. Dalbert, C., Lipkus, I. M., Sallay, H. & Goch, I. (2001). A just and an unjust world: Structure and validity of different world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 561-577.
  55. Davey, L. M., Bobocel, D. R., Son Hing, L. S. & Zanna, M. P. (1999). Preference for the Merit Principle Scale: An Individual Difference Measure of Distributive Justice Preferences. Social Justice Research, 12(3), 233-240. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022148418210
  56. Delgado-Márquez, B.L. et al. (2012). The dynamic nature of trust transfer: Measurement and the influence of reciprocity. Decision Support Systems 54, 226-234. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  57. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational Processes Affecting Learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
  58. Dzuka, J. & Dalbert, C. (2000). Well-being as a psychological indicator of health and in old age. Studia Psychologia, 42, 61-70.
  59. Edlund, J. E., Brad, J. Sagarin & Brian, S. J. (2007). Reciprocity and the belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 589-596. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.007
  60. Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.). Handbook of Child Psychology. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (pp. 701-778), Wiley.
  61. Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J. & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who Takes the most Revenge? Individual Differences in Negative Reciprocity Norm Endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 787-799. DOI: 10.1177/0146167204264047
  62. Fisher, A. & Sonn, C. (eds.). Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implication (pp. 205-222). New York: Plenum. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0719-2_11
  63. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Social capital and the global economy. Foreign Aff., 74, 89. DOI: 10.2307/20047302
  64. Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 795-817.

Cinzia Novara, Gioacchino Lavanco, Luis Gomez-Jacinto, Reciprocity and prosocial behavior in democratic dynamic in "RIVISTA DI PSICOLOGIA CLINICA" 1/2024, pp 81-99, DOI: 10.3280/rpc1-2024oa18429