7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

1/15

Prosociality: The Contribution of Traits, Values, and Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Gian Vittorio Caprara and Guido AlessandriSapienza University of Rome

Nancy EisenbergArizona State University

The present study examined how agreeableness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy

beliefs predict individuals tendencies to engage in prosocial behavior (i.e., prosociality) across time.

Participants were 340 young adults, 190 women and 150 men, age approximately 21 years at Time 1 and

25 years at Time 2. Measures of agreeableness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and

prosociality were collected at 2 time points. The findings corroborated the posited paths of relations, with

agreeableness directly predicting self-transcendence and indirectly predicting empathic self-efficacy

beliefs and prosociality. Self-transcendence mediated the relation between agreeableness and empathic

self-efficacy beliefs. Empathic self-efficacy beliefs mediated the relation of agreeableness and self-

transcendence to prosociality. Finally, earlier prosociality predicted agreeableness and empathic self-

efficacy beliefs assessed at Time 2. The posited conceptual model accounted for a significant portion of

variance in prosociality and provides guidance to interventions aimed at promoting prosociality.

Keywords: prosociality, agreeableness, self-transcendence values, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, longi-

tudinal mediational model

Prosocial behaviors refer to voluntary actions undertaken to

benefit others, such as sharing, donating, caring, comforting, and

helping (Batson, 1998; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Penner,

Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). Whereas the benefits of

these behaviors for the target are quite obvious, findings support

their beneficial effects for actors across the life course and for the

larger society. For example, prosocial children perform better at

school and are less at risk for problem behaviors (i.e., internalizing

and externalizing behavior; Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, &

Caprara, 1999; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zim-

bardo, 2000; Eisenberg et al., 2006; Miles & Stipek, 2006; New-man, 1991; Vitaro, Brendgen, Larose, & Tremblay, 2005; Went-

zel, McNamara-Barry, & Caldwell, 2004). Moreover, gratitude

and recognition derived from taking care of others well-being

nourish positive feelings about oneself and foster others accep-

tance as well as support from others when one is in need (Caprara

& Steca, 2005; Keyes, 1998; Midlarsky, 1991; Moen, Dempster-

McClain, & Williams, 1992; Musick, Herzog, & House, 1999;

Oman, Thoresen, & McMahon, 1999; Van Willigen, 2000). Al-

though studies on antisocial behavior have traditionally outnum-

bered studies on prosocial behavior, understanding the origins and

the determinants of the prosocial behaviors appears to be crucial

not only to counter detrimental conduct, such as aggression and

delinquency, but also to promote acceptance and integration of

diversity in societies, to foster innovation through collabora-

tion, to sustain economic development characterized by fairness

and civic mindedness, and ultimately to promote the welfare of

society.

Whereas most researchers have traditionally focused on the

situational determinants of prosocial behavior and the rearing

and socialization practices conducive to prosocial habits (Bat-

son, 1998; Fiske, 2004), few researchers have addressed the

role of personality in predisposing individuals toward prosoci-

ality (Caprara, Alessandri, Di Giunta, Panerai, & Eisenberg,

2010; Eisenberg et al., 2002; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997;

Midlarsky, Fagin Jones, & Corley, 2005; Walker & Frimer,

2007). In reality, some people are more inclined than others to

enact behaviors that benefit others, although the sources and the

nature of individual differences remain to be further investi-

gated. Whereas twin studies indicate that there is a significant

contribution of heredity to prosociality (Knafo & Plomin,

2006a, Knafo & Plomin, 2006b; Knafo & Solomon, 2010), it is

unlikely that individual genes directly cause prosocial behavior.

Instead, their influence must be mediated through psychological

structures.

Individual differences in traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs

have been found to account for significant portions of the vari-ability in prosociality (i.e., individuals enduring tendencies to

enact behaviors such as sharing, helping, caring, and empathy;

Alessandri, Caprara, Eisenberg, & Steca, 2009; Caprara et al.,

2010). Earlier findings have demonstrated the following: (a) such

behaviors can be traced to a common latent dimension called

prosociality, (b) such a tendency is relatively stable, (c) self-

evaluations and others evaluations of this tendency converge to a

reasonable extent, and (d), finally, traits, values, and self-efficacy

beliefs all contribute to prosociality and account for a significant

portion of unique variance in the tendency to behave prosocially

(Caprara et al., 2010; Caprara & Steca, 2007).

This article was published Online First September 26, 2011.

Gian Vittorio Caprara and Guido Alessandri, Department of Psychology,

Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; Nancy Eisenberg, Department

of Psychology, Arizona State University.

This research was supported in part by grants from the Italian Ministry

of University and Scientific Research (COFIN: 1998, 2000, 2007) and the

Sapienza University of Rome (1998, 2000, 2009).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gian

Vittorio Caprara, Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of

Rome, Via dei Marsi 78, Rome 00185, Italy. E-mail: gianvittorio.caprara@

uniroma1.it

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2011 American Psychological Association2012, Vol. 102, No. 6, 1289 1303 0022-3514/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025626

1289

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

2/15

Traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs all represent strong pre-

dictors of prosociality, although at different levels. Traits reflect

basic potentials predisposing people to respond consistently to

environmental demands. Values are general beliefs about priorities

in life that guide peoples action. Self-efficacy beliefs are judg-

ments people hold about their capacities to deal successfully with

specific situations. Among trait psychologists viewing the Big Fiveas a comprehensive framework for delineating major individual

differences in personality, agreeableness has been seen as a major

trait determinant of prosociality (Graziano, Bruce, Sheese, & To-

bin, 2007; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Graziano & Tobin, 2002;

Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassinary, 2000). Highly agreeable

individuals, in comparison to less agreeable individuals, exhibit a

willingness to sacrifice their self-interest in favor of others, re-

spond constructively to interpersonal conflict, cooperate during

group tasks, display self-control, and report positive perceptions of

others (Ahadi & Rothbart, 1994; Cumberland-Li, Eisenberg, &

Reiser, 2004; Finch & Graziano, 2001; Graziano, Hair, & Finch,

1997; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Jensen-Campbell

& Graziano, 2001). Moreover, agreeable individuals are altruistic,

straightforward, trusting, softhearted, modest, and compliant (Gra-

ziano, 1994; McCrae & Costa, 1997, McCrae & Costa, 1999).

Whereas traits are dimensions of individual differences in

tendencies to show consistent patterns of thought, feelings, and

actions (McCrae & Costa, 1990, p. 23), values are cognitive

representations of desirable, abstract, trans-situational goals that

serve as guiding principles in peoples life (Schwartz, 1992).

Schwartzs value theory postulates 10 basic values from universal

requirements of human condition: power, achievement, hedonism,

stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition,

conformity, and security. Each value expresses a distinct motiva-

tional goal. His theory provides an established, comprehensive

taxonomy of guiding principles in peoples life and specifies the

structure of dynamic relation among the values. Moreover, on thebasis of theory and data, Schwartz (1992) grouped these basic 10

values into four broader categories. Openness to change values

(made up by the lower order values of self-direction and stimula-

tion) encourage independence of thought, feeling, and action and

reflect receptiveness to change. These values conflict with conser-

vation values (conformity, tradition, security) that call for submis-

sive self-restriction, preservation of traditional practices, and pro-

tection of stability. Self-transcendence values (universalism,

benevolence) emphasize accepting others as equals and having

concern for their welfare. They conflict with self-enhancement

values (power, achievement) that encourage pursuing ones own

relative success and dominance over that of others. Finally, hedo-

nism values represent not a sixth category but a set of values that

share elements of both openness to change and self-enhancement

(Schwartz, 1992, Schwartz, 1994, Schwartz, 2005a, Schwartz,

2005b). Although each of the 10 values might be relevant to

prosociality, self-transcendence valuesnamely, universalism and

benevolencemost frequently have been associated with traits

such as agreeableness and with an enduring tendency to behave

prosocially (Caprara & Steca, 2007; Schwartz, 2010).

Social cognitive scholars contend that self-efficacy beliefs,

namely, the beliefs people hold about their capacity to exert

control over the events that affect their lives, exert a pervasive

influence on personality functioning (Bandura, 1997). Caprara

(2002), in particular, pointed to affective self-regulatory efficacy

beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy beliefs in expressing positive emotions

and self-efficacy beliefs in managing negative emotions) and in-

terpersonal self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., social self-efficacy beliefs

and empathic self-efficacy beliefs) as important determinants of

psychosocial functioning, including prosociality. It is unlikely that

people engage in prosocial actions, especially if these involve

costs, unless they believe they are able both to master the emotionsassociated with the recognition of others needs and to establish

the relationships and appropriate actions conducive to meeting

those needs. Previous findings support the role of affective and

interpersonal self-efficacy beliefs in sustaining and promoting

individuals tendencies to behave prosocially. In particular, em-

pathic self-efficacy beliefs, namely, individuals judgments about

their abilities to be sensitive to others feelings in situations of

need, have accounted for a significant portion of individual dif-

ferences in prosociality and have entirely mediated the contribu-

tion of affective self-regulatory efficacy beliefs to prosociality

(Alessandri et al., 2009; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino,

& Pastorelli, 2003; Caprara et al., 1999, Caprara et al., 2010).

The previously reviewed findings are consistent with the as-

sumption of contributions by traits, values, and self-efficacy be-

liefs to an enduring tendency to behave prosocially across time and

situations (Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010). Yet the

pathways through which traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs

might contribute to the tendency to behave prosocially merit

further investigation. Traits alone cannot account for all situational

variability in prosociality, especially when the pursuit of anothers

well-being may conflict with other priorities and with ones own

safety. Nor can values fully account for prosocial behavior when

specific abilities are required to meet others needs. It is likely that

agreeableness predisposes individuals to endorse prosocial values.

However, spontaneous altruistic tendencies may or may not turn

into prosocial behaviors, depending on social opportunities, obli-

gations, and competing values and needs. Likewise, whetherprosocial values turn into actual goals and behavioral tendencies

likely depends on peoples capacities and mastery beliefs. People

would be expected to act in accordance with their spontaneous

inclinations and priorities if they believe they are able to do so.

Thus, simultaneous consideration of basic dispositions (i.e., traits),

moral standards (i.e., values), and individuals mastery beliefs (i.e.,

self-efficacy beliefs) is needed to achieve a more comprehensive

view of prosociality.

This view is supported by previous studies that have shown how

agreeableness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-

efficacy beliefs jointly predict individuals tendencies to behave

prosocially (Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010; Caprara

& Steca, 2007). Earlier within-time findings are consistent with the

view that self-transcendence values affect prosociality either di-

rectly or indirectly through empathic and social self-efficacy be-

liefs (Caprara & Steca, 2007). Recent longitudinal findings suggest

a major role of agreeableness in predicting individuals prosocial-

ity and support the role of empathic self-efficacy beliefs in par-

tially mediating the relation between agreeableness and prosocial-

ity (Caprara et al., 2010). However, multiple mediators of the

relation between agreeableness and prosociality have not been

examined using prospective data; nor has prosociality been exam-

ined as a predictor of agreeableness and values.

One goal in the present study was to ascertain whether agree-

ableness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy

1290 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

3/15

beliefs represent stronger predictors of prosociality than other do

Big Five traits, other values, or other self-efficacy beliefs, respec-

tively. To achieve this aim, we examined the following: (a) pre-

diction of prosociality from the three target predictors (agreeable-

ness, self-transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy

beliefs); (b) whether agreeableness predicted prosociality when

controlling for the other four traits simultaneously (i.e., extraver-sion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to ex-

perience); (c) whether self-transcendence predicted prosociality

once variance predicted by any of the three remaining broad

categories of values was taken into account (i.e., openness to

change, self-enhancement, and conservation values); and (d)

whether empathic self-efficacy beliefs accounted for a significant

proportion of variance once variance due to social self-efficacy

beliefs was controlled.

Next we examined the conceptual model depicted in Figure 1. In

this model, we examined the double mediation by values and

self-efficacy beliefs of the relation between trait agreeableness and

individual differences in prosociality. In accordance with a vast

literature attesting to a significant genetic component of traits,

including agreeableness (Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996; Jang,

McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998; Loehlin, 1982;

Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998; Riemann, Angleitner, &

Strelau, 1997), we assigned primacy to agreeableness in the pos-

ited set of pathways. This choice is also in accordance with

alternative views of traits as habitual responses resulting from

chronic personsituations interactions that, once crystallized, op-

erate as automatic behavioral tendencies (Cervone & Shoda, 1999;

Higgins, 1999). Because agreeableness is a fundamental and early

appearing aspect of temperament and personality (Caspi & Shiner,

2006; Rothbart & Bates, 2006), influenced by the development of

the early temperamental self-regulative systems of effortful control

(i.e., temperament-based self-regulatory processes based on exec-

utive attention; Caspi, 1998; Cumberland-Li et al., 2004; Rothbart& Bates, 1998), it seems reasonable that it would affect beliefs

about the self rather than vice versa (Caspi, 1998; Rothbart &

Bates, 2006). Thus, we hypothesized that agreeableness operates

as a primary spontaneous behavioral tendency predisposing indi-

viduals to endorse values and to commit to actions aimed to benefit

others. In particular, we posited that agreeableness is at the incep-

tion of a mediational chain in which prosociality represents the

endpoint and self-transcendence values and empathic self-efficacy

beliefs are mediators.

In positing a mediational model, we reasoned that it is unlikely

that people engage in activities to help others that involve costs or

risk unless they transcend self-interest and assign value to others

well-being and happiness (Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Omoto & Sny-

der, 1995). Values both set the goals to be pursued and promote the

capacities that are needed to achieve those goals. However, even

the best intentions fail when people lack the ability to enact

prosocial actions or believe they are lacking in these capacities. In

particular, confidence in ones capacity to empathize with others,

namely, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, is crucial to engender ap-

propriate actions aimed at meeting others needs for comprehen-sion, comfort, and support. Self-transcendence values contribute to

creating the mind-set conducive to mastering the emotions and

behaviors associated with empathy and prosocial action. Indeed,

values are intimately tied to the self and influence both perceptions

and behavior (Hitlin, 2003). Accordingly, we hypothesized that

values foster prosociality partly through the promotion of the

perceived empathic skills.

Investigators have found that childrens actual abilities to help

and their knowledge of helping strategies are related to their

prosocial behavior, as are their empathy and sympathy (for re-

views, see Eisenberg, Cialdini, McCreath, & Shell, 1987; Eisen-

berg & Fabes, 1998; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). In

addition, perceived empathic self-efficacy beliefs have been re-

lated to youths and adults prosocial behavior (Alessandri et al.,

2009; Caprara & Steca, 2005, Caprara & Steca, 2007). Thus, we

expected empathic self-efficacy beliefs to predict individuals pro-

pensities for prosocial behavior in young adulthood, an age at

which mature cognitive and emotional functioning and moral

reasoning enhance individuals abilities to take others perspec-

tives, be sensitive to others feelings, and appropriately express

sympathy (Eisenberg, Carlo, Murphy, & Van Court, 1995; Eisen-

berg et al., 2006). Moreover, people with prosocial values are

especially likely to have experience with enacting prosocial be-

haviors and, consequently, to develop a relatively high level of

empathic self-efficacy. However, self-efficacy was not necessarily

expected to fully mediate the relations of agreeableness and values

to prosociality. In accordance with previous findings, agreeable-ness was hypothesized to directly predict self-transcendence val-

ues and indirectly predict both empathic self-efficacy beliefs and

prosociality. In turn, self-transcendence values were expected to

directly influence empathic self-efficacy beliefs and indirectly

predict prosociality (Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010;

Caprara & Steca, 2005, Caprara & Steca, 2007). Nonetheless,

agreeableness might also have direct relations to empathic self-

efficacy beliefs and prosociality that are not mediated, and self-

transcendence values may have a direct path to prosociality not

mediated by self-efficacy beliefs; these possibilities were also

examined.

Ultimately, we could not exclude the possibility that agreeable-

ness operates as a stage-setting predisposition moderating either

Figure 1. Diagrammatical representation of the theoretical model. Solid lines represent direct paths; dotted

lines represent indirect paths.

1291TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

4/15

the relations of the other variables (i.e., self-transcendent values or

empathic self-efficacy) to prosocial behavior or change in proso-

cial behavior across time. Thus, the interactions between agree-

ableness and (a) self-transcendence values, (b) empathic self-

efficacy beliefs, and (c) prosociality were also examined.

Various considerations lead to additional predictions regarding

the reciprocity of relations among these variables. Whereas assign-ing value to others may contribute to the perception of oneself as

an agreeable person capable of meeting others needs, self-

transcendence values may be further bolstered by the confidence

people have in their capacity to help and sustain others in needs.

Behaving prosocially may in itself strengthen either peoples re-

ports of their own agreeableness (or the value they assign to

others welfare) or the beliefs people hold about their capacities to

help others in need. Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) would

suggest that at least part of ones tendency to behave prosocially

derives from seeing oneself behaving in that way. It is likely that

engaging in prosocial actions leads people to think of themselves

as prosocial individuals (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Eisenberg et

al., 1987) because these experiences attest to the selfs altruistic

values (see Eisenberg et al., 2006; Staub, 1979). Likewise, engag-

ing habitually in prosocial actions leads to practice and further

strengthens the abilities that are at the basis of empathic self-

efficacy beliefs (Alessandri et al., 2009; Metz & Youniss, 2003;

Staub, 1979; Youniss, McLellan, & Mazer, 2003). Thus, we in-

cluded in the model a direct path from Time 1 prosociality to (a)

Time 2 agreeableness, (b) Time 2 self-transcendence values, and

(c) Time 2 self-efficacy beliefs. In addition, in auxiliary analyses,

we examined paths from Time 1 self-transcendence to Time 2

agreeableness and from Time 1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs to

Time 2 self-transcendence.

The novel contribution of this study, in comparison to relevant

prior studies, is the focus on the transition from adolescence to

adulthood, the use of a large data set containing data gathered attwo time points, the inclusion of values as well as empathic

self-efficacy beliefs as mediators of the relation between agree-

ableness and prosociality, and the inclusion of other informants of

individuals prosociality. Prior findings attest to a relation between

empathic self-efficacy beliefs and prosociality among people age

16 at Time 1 (henceforth labeled T1) and 18 at Time 2 (henceforth

labeled T2; Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010). The

present study includes agreeableness and extends the analysis to

young adulthood (Caspi & Shiner, 2005), a transition during which

people have new experiences and interpersonal relationships that

may challenge the size and the nature (i.e., direct or mediated) of

the aforementioned relations. As current literature has come to

appreciate the malleability of personality over the entire course of

life (Caspi & Shiner, 2006; Roberts & Mroczek, 2008; Roberts,

Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006), the present study contributes new

findings regarding the stability and the change of individual dif-

ferences related to different characteristics of personality, such as

trait, values, and self-efficacy beliefs. Moreover, the use of two

waves, in particular, allowed for the consideration of reciprocal

relations among variables and, as was argued by Cole and Maxwell

(2003), provides a more stringent test of mediation than does the

use of only a single time point.

The inclusion of an evaluation of prosociality derived from

another informant in addition to the self-report of prosociality

allowed for a latent construct of prosociality, which is generally

viewed as preferable to a measure resulting from just one infor-

mant. Moreover, it reduces the bias that can occur when all

measures are from the same reporter.

Finally, we examined gender differences in the patterns of

relations and levels of mean change in the key variables. In

accordance with previous findings, women were expected to score

higher than men in agreeableness, self-transcendence values, em-pathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality, but we had no reason

to expect any gender differences in the posited relations among

these variables (Alessandri et al., 2009; Caprara & Steca, 2007).

Likewise, we had no reason to expect a significant increase in the

absolute levels of agreeableness, self-transcendence, empathic

self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality over 2 years (Caprara, Ca-

prara, & Steca, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2006);

researchers have not found clear increases with age during ado-

lescence in prosocial behavior (Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, & Laible,

1999) nor in sympathetic concern during early adulthood (Eisen-

berg, Cumberland, Guthrie, Murphy, & Shepard, 2005). However,

Eisenberg and colleagues noted some change in moral reasoning

about prosocial moral dilemmas in late adolescence and early

adulthood, and such reasoning is believed to reflect values (see

Eisenberg, 1986; Eisenberg et al., 1995, Eisenberg et al., 2002);

thus, it seemed possible that benevolence values and universalism

would change during the transition to adulthood. Finally, we

expected high rank-order stability of agreeableness (Roberts &

DelVecchio, 2000) and moderate to high rank-order stability for

self-transcendence (Vecchione & Caprara, 2009), prosociality

(Eisenberg et al., 2002), and empathic self-efficacy beliefs (Ales-

sandri et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2010), for men and for women.

Method

Participants

The participants were 340 young adults, 190 women and 150

men, ranging in age from 20 to 22 years at T1 (mean age 21,

SD 0.82), and from 24 to 26 years at T2 (mean age 25, SD

0.81). At T2, about half (46.6%) of the sample was college

students. Of the remaining participants (i.e., 53.4% of the sample),

70% had stable work, 9% worked occasionally, 13% were unem-

ployed, and 7% were searching for a job. The average of postsec-

ondary schooling was 13 years. In general, 94% of participants

were unmarried, whereas only 6% were married, and only 1

participant was divorced. Only 4% of participants had children. All

participants were from Genzano, a residential community near

Rome, and were from families of origin involved in an ongoing

longitudinal study in that community. The families of this com-

munity represent a socioeconomic microcosm of the larger Italian

society: At T1, 14% were in professional or managerial ranks, 25%

were merchants or operators of other businesses, 31% were skilled

workers, 29% were unskilled workers, and 1% were retired. The

socioeconomic heterogeneity of the sample adds to the generality

of the findings. The occupational socioeconomic distribution

matched the national profile (Istituto Italiano di Statistica, 2002).

Most young adults were from intact families (94.8%) and, on

average, from one-child families (about 60% of total sample).

At T2, participants were instructed that, in addition to filling out

self-report questionnaires, they should distribute additional copies

designed for peer ratings to a friend or to someone who knew them

1292 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

5/15

very well. These additional 340 informants (190 men, 150 women)

ranged in age from 14 to 44 years (M 25.81, SD 4.07).1 On

the whole, these raters had known their targets for a mean of 9.45

years (SD 6.61). Moreover, each responded to two single

Likert-scale items asking the following: (a) how well they knew

the participant and (b) to what degree they felt emotionally close

to the participant, with possible responses ranging from 1 (not atall) to 10 (very much). The mean response was 8.46 (SD 1.3) for

the first item and 9.14 (SD 1.14) for the second item. On the

whole, these raters felt close to their target and knew their target

well.

Attrition. Thirty percent of participants (55% men) missed

data collection at T2. The attrition was mainly due to the unavail-

ability of individuals to take part in this phase of the study or, in

some cases, their relocation from the area or our inability to

contact the participant. However, analyses of variance suggested

that the participants included in the final sample at T2 did not

significantly differ from their counterparts (i.e., the participants

who were not available at T2) on any of the variables of interest for

the present study in the initial assessment; nor did the groups differ

in the covariance matrices as tested by the Box-M test for homo-

geneity of covariance matrices.

Procedures

The young adults enrolled in this study were invited to partic-

ipate in the study by phone and received a small payment for

participation (25 euros or an equivalent dinner token). Question-

naires were sent to participants by mail. Consent was obtained and

returned by each participant with the questionnaires. All the en-

velopes were returned by participants directly to a team of two or

three researchers during specifically scheduled meetings in a

school.

Measures

The measures at T1 were all self-report scales and included

measures of traits, values, interpersonal social self-efficacy beliefs,

empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality. These measures

were administered at each time point. At T2, a measure of other-

reported prosocial behavior was included.

Traits. We measured the trait component of personality with

the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Bor-

gogni, 1996). The BFQ contains 132 items that form five domain

scales and 10 facet scales, with 12 items on each scale. Respon-

dents indicated agreement with the extent to which each item

described them on a 5-point scale ranging from complete disagree-

ment (1 very false for me) to complete agreement (5 very true

for me). The BFQ has been validated on large samples of Italian

respondents (Barbaranelli & Caprara, 2000; Caprara et al., 1996;

Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Perugini, 1993) and in cross-

cultural comparisons (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Bermudez, Maslach,

& Ruch, 2000). High correlations between the analogous scales in

the BFQ and the NEO Personality Inventory, in both Italian and

American samples, have confirmed the construct validity of the

five domain scales (Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Maslach, 1997; Ca-

prara et al., 1993). The alpha reliability coefficients at T1 and T2

of the five domain scales were.78 and .77 for Openness, .83 and

.81 for Conscientiousness, .77 and .80 for Energy/Extraversion,

.80 and .81 for Agreeableness, and .89 and .88 for Emotional

Stability. Of note, because five items from the Agreeableness scale

related to empathy (e.g., I understand when people need my

help) could overlap in content with items assessing empathic

self-efficacy beliefs, we used only 19 items from the Agreeable-

ness scale. The alpha for the reduced scale was .78 at T1 and .80

at T2. (An example of the items left after dropping the empathy-related items is, Usually Im cordial even to people I dislike.)

Values. We measured values with the Portrait Values Ques-

tionnaire (PVQ: Schwartz, 2005b; Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann,

Burgess, & Harris, 2001). The PVQ includes 40 short verbal

portraits of different people, each describing a persons goals,

aspirations, or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a

value. For example, It is important to him to listen to people who

are different from him. Even when he disagrees with them, he still

wants to understand them describes a person who holds univer-

salism values as important. The PVQ measures each of the 10

motivationally distinct types of values with three to six items.

These lower order values can be grouped into four higher order

level value types, namely, openness to change, self-enhancement,conservation, and self-transcendence. For each portrait, respon-

dents indicated how similar the person in the portrait was to

themselves on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (very much like me)

to 6 (not like me at all). With this measure, one infers respondents

own values from the implicit values of the people they describe as

similar to themselves.

Studies in seven countries have supported the reliability of the

PVQ for measuring the 10 values (Schwartz, 1992, Schwartz,

2005a, Schwartz, 2005b). In the current study, the alpha reliability

coefficients for the four higher order dimensions, at T1 and T2,

respectively, were .86 and .84 for openness to change, .85 and .88

for self-enhancement, .83 and .87 for conservation, and .88 and .76

for self-transcendence.

Empathic self-efficacy beliefs. Perceived empathic self-

efficacy beliefs (Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara, Gerbino, & Delle

Fratte, 2001) were measured with 12 items reflecting ones per-

ceived capability to sense another persons feelings and need for

emotional support, to discern emotional expressions, to experience

emotions from another persons perspective, to respond with em-

pathy to others distress and misfortune, and to be sensitive to how

ones actions affect others feelings (e.g., How well can you

experience how a person in trouble feels?). In recent research,

positive, moderately high correlations between empathic self-

efficacy beliefs and sympathy or empathy have been found (Ran-

fone, 2008). Participants rated the strength of their self-efficacy

beliefs on a 5-point scale (1 not well at all; 5 very well),

ranging from perceived incapability to complete self-assurancein ones capability. The alpha coefficients at T1 and T2 were

.82 and .84.

Social self-efficacy beliefs. Perceived social self-efficacy

(Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara et al., 2001) was measured by 14

1 We ran additional analyses to ascertain the presence of a significant

relation between informants age and other-rated prosociality. No signifi-

cant relation was detected, r(333) .012, p .83. We also tested plausible

nonlinear effect of ages using polynomial regression and obtained similar

results. Finally, we found that these results did not change when we deleted

all respondents age 19 or younger (N 18).

1293TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

6/15

items assessing the perceived capability to express personal opin-

ions in groups, to share personal experiences with others, to invite

people to go out together, to know people in a new situation, and

to help others to integrate into ones circle of friends (e.g., I can

share an interesting good experience I had with other people). The

alpha coefficients for the total sample were .90 at T1 and .89 at T2.

Prosociality. Participants rated their prosociality on a 16-itemscale (1 never/almost never true; 5 almost always/always

true) that assesses the degree of engagement in actions aimed at

sharing, helping, taking care of others needs, and empathizing

with their feelings (Caprara, Steca, Zelli, & Capanna, 2005). The

alpha reliability coefficient was .93 at T1 and .94 at T2. The

psychometric properties of the prosociality scale have been cross-

gender and cross-nationally validated on large samples of respon-

dents (Caprara et al., 2011; e.g., I try to help others and I try to

console people who are sad). Researchers have also found a

moderately high correlation (r .54) between self- and other-

ratings on this prosociality scale, further supporting its validity

(Caprara, Steca, Vecchio, Tramontano, & Alessandri, 2008). Be-

cause the four items related to empathizing with others feelings

could overlap with measures of empathic self-efficacy beliefs, we

used only the 12 items that assess the degree of sharing, helping,

and taking care of others needs. The alphas for the reduced scale

were .91 at T1 and .90 at T2. The same items were worded in the

third person for the friend-report measure of participants proso-

ciality ( .94 at T2).

Missing Data

There were some missing data for all of the variables. This

situation is common in longitudinal research, due to subject attri-

tion (Hansen, Tobler, & Graham, 1990). Our modeling assumed

that the missing values were missing at random (i.e., missing-

ness is related to the observed values for the variables in the dataset but unrelated to unobserved missing values). We examined this

assumption using the MCAR test (Little & Rubin, 2002) as im-

plemented in SPSS 14. This test resulted in a nonsignificant value

(i.e., 2 41.91, df 36, p .20). Thus, we estimated missing

values by using the expectation maximization algorithm. This

procedure is an iterative algorithm that restores the complete data

matrix using maximum-likelihood estimation (Dempster, Laird, &

Rubin, 1977; Little & Rubin, 2002) under the assumption of

multivariate normality. The final sample size for this study was

188 women and 148 men.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Initially, we computed two series of zero-order correlations and

partial correlations. In the first set, each dimension of the Big Five

was correlated with prosociality both within time (i.e., at T1 and at

T2) and across time (i.e., each dimension assessed at T1 was

correlated with prosociality assessed at T2). Then, partial correla-

tion coefficients were obtained, assessing the correlation of agree-

ableness with prosociality after controlling for the remaining four

Big Five simultaneously. The same procedure was repeated for

personal values and self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., self-transcendence

values were correlated with prosociality, partialing all other types

of values). Due to the large number of correlations carried out, the

alpha level was fixed at .001. Finally, we used explorative factor

analysis to investigate whether the items composing the four

variables of interest (i.e., agreeableness, self-transcendence, em-

pathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality) loaded on their re-

spective factors.

Traits. The zero-order correlation between prosociality andagreeableness was significantly larger than any correlation be-

tween the other four Big Five dimensions and prosociality (e.g., for

men, the correlation of .52 between agreeableness and prosociality

at T1 was larger than the correlation of .26 between energy and

prosociality at T1; see Table 1, correlations of prosociality mea-

sures with traits other than agreeableness), for samples of women

or of men within T1, within T2, and across time. Moreover, the

other four traits (i.e., energy, conscientiousness, emotional stabil-

ity, and openness) were significantly correlated with prosociality

only at p .05. We used the Fisher r-to-z transformation (Cohen

& Cohen, 1983) to examine the change in the size of the correla-

tion coefficient when partialing the remaining four subscales of the

Big Five all at once. At T1, the size of the partial correlation ( rp)

coefficient between agreeableness and prosociality was not signif-

icantly different from that of the zero-order coefficient (r), for

men, r(148) .52 versus rp(148) .46, z .67, p .50, or for

women, r(188) .52 versus rp(188) .49, z .63, p .51.

Likewise, no significant change was detected at T2, for men,

r(148) .59 versus rp(148) .53, z .74, p .46, or for women,

r(188) .56 versus rp(188) .54, z .28, p .78. The same was

true for the cross-time correlation between T1 agreeableness and

T2 prosociality: The zero-order correlation between prosociality

and agreeableness was larger and was the only correlation between

a trait and prosociality significant at p .001. Moreover, this

correlation dropped only slightly and nonsignificantly, from

r(148) .44, p .001, to rp(148) .38, z .61, p .54, for

men, and from r(188) .46, to rp(188) .41, z .59, p .55,for women, when controlling for the other four traits. The same

pattern was found for other-rated prosociality. In addition, agree-

ableness was the only trait showing a significant zero-order cor-

relation (at p .01 or .001) with other-rated prosociality. More-

over, examination of the partial correlations showed that the

within-time (T2) correlation between agreeableness and other-

rated prosociality dropped nonsignificantly when simultaneously

partialing relations of prosociality with the remaining Big Five

scales, from r(148) .35 to rp(148) .31, z .38, p .60, for

men, and from r(188) .35 to rp(188) .33, z .22, p .83, for

women. The cross-time correlation between T1 agreeableness and

T2 other-rated prosociality dropped from r(148) .24 to

rp(148) .21, z .23, p .79, for men, and from r(188) .28

to rp(188) .22, z .62, p .54, for women. None of other Big

Five related substantially across time with other-rated prosociality

(and the correlations were significantly lower than those between

agreeableness and other-rated prosociality).

Values. The zero-order correlation between self-

transcendence and prosociality was significantly larger than any

correlation between one of the other values (i.e., openness to

change, self-enhancement, and conservation values) and prosoci-

ality (e.g., in the mens sample, the correlation of .51 between

self-transcendence and prosociality at T1 was larger than the

correlation of .21 between openness to change and prosociality at

T1; see Table 1), for samples of women or of men within T1,

1294 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

7/15

within T2, and across time. Moreover, the other three values were

significantly correlated with prosociality only at p .05. The

association between self-transcendent values and prosociality

dropped only slightly and nonsignificantly at T1, from r(148) .51 to rp(148) .49, z .22, p .82, for men, and from r(188)

.53 to rp(188) .47, z .38, p .71, for women, and at T2, from

r(148) .58 to rp(148) .52, z .73, p .46, for men, and from

r(188) .58 to rp(188) .53, z .62, p .53, for women, when

simultaneously partialing the three other higher order values. The

same was true for the cross-time correlation between T1 self-

transcendence values and T2 prosociality. Across time, self-

transcendence was the only value that correlated substantially and

significantly with prosociality. Moreover, this correlation dropped

only slightly, from r(148) .44, to rp(148) .39, z .51, p

.61, for men, and from r(188) .50 to rp(188) .46, z .50, p

.62, for women, when controlling for the remaining three values

simultaneously. The same pattern was also found for other-rated

prosociality in regard to the zero-order correlations (see Table 1).

None of other higher order values related as highly across time

with other-rated prosociality, and those correlations were signifi-

cantly lower than the correlation between self-transcendence and

other-rated prosociality. Moreover, the within-time (T2 only) cor-

relation between self-transcendence and other-rated prosociality

dropped from r(148) .35 to rp(148) .33, z .19, p .84, for

men, and from r(188) 33 to rp(188) .28, z .53, p .60, for

women. The cross-time correlation between T1 self-transcendence

and T2 other-rated prosociality dropped from r(148) .28 to

rp(148) .23, z .46, p .65, for men, and from r(188) .33

to rp(188) .27, z .56, p .57, for women.

Self-efficacy beliefs. The zero-order correlation between

empathic-self-efficacy and prosociality (see Table 1) was signifi-

cantly larger than the correlation between social self-efficacy and

prosociality, either for women or for men at T1, T2, and acrosstime (see Table 1). Moreover, social self-efficacy was significantly

correlated with prosociality only at p .05. The partial correlation

between empathic self-efficacy beliefs and prosociality was only

slightly and nonsignificantly less than the zero-order correlation, at

T1, r(148) .63 versus rp(148) .53, z 1.28, p .59, for men,

and r(188) .52 versus rp(188) .47, z .64, p .52, for

women, and at T2, r(148) .56 versus rp(188) .48, z .94, p

.35, for men, and r(188) .54 versus rp(188) .46, z 1.03, p

.30, for women. The same was true for the cross-time correlation

between T1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs and T2 prosociality.

Indeed, this correlation dropped only slightly, from r(148) .52 to

rp(148) .47, z .56, p .57, for men, and from r(188) .52

to rp(188) .47, z .64, p .52, for women. Finally, the samepattern was found for other-rated prosociality in regard to the

zero-order correlations. The within-time (T2) correlation between

empathic self-efficacy beliefs values and other-rated prosociality

dropped from r(148) .25 to rp(148) .20, z .45, p .65, for

men, and from r(188) .28, to rp(188) .25, z .31, p .76,

for women, and the cross-time correlation between T1 empathic

self-efficacy and T2 other-rated prosociality dropped from

r(148) .36 to rp(148) .29, z .67, p .50, for men, and from

r(188) .30 to rp(188) .26, z .37, p .71, for women.

Overall, these results corroborate our expectations about the

unique contribution of agreeableness among traits, of self-

Table 1

Comparisons of Correlations of Measures of Agreeableness, Self-Transcendence, Empathic Self-Efficacy, and Prosociality With

Analogous Correlations for Other Traits, Values, and Social Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Measure

Men Women

T1 prosociality T2 prosociality

T2 other-rated

prosociality T1 prosociality T2 prosociality

T2 other-rated

prosociality

T1 energy .26 a .18 a .05b .20 a .18 a .13 a

T1 conscientiousness .25 a .07a .03 b .22 a .22 a .06a

T1 emotional stability .16 a .09a .05 b .09a .02a .06a

T1 openness .24 a .18 a .05 b .23 a .20 a .14b

T1 openness to change .21 a .16 a .11b .22 a .20 a .17b

T1 self-enhancement .06a .14 a .04b .08a .02a .10a

T1 conservation .24 a .18 a .10b .19 a .17 a .13a

T1 social self-efficacy beliefs .26 a .21 a .13b .20 a .22 a .09a

T2 energy .19 a .22 a .12b .18 a .21 a .16 a

T2 conscientiousness .18 a .22 a .11b .18 a .21 a .01a

T2 emotional stability .05a .04a .05b .02a .13a .12a

T2 openness .19 a .24 a .09b .17 a .21 a .14b

T2 openness to change .20 a .25 a .05b .15 a .23 a .19b

T2 self-enhancement .12a .15 a .03b .09a .03a .06a

T2 conservation .20 a .25 a .11b .18 a .21 a .06a

T2 social self-efficacy beliefs .21 a .26 a .13b .19 a .21 a .11a

Note. The sample size was 188 women and 148 men. The values of the correlation for agreeableness are reported in Table 3 and in the text. T1 variableassessed at Time 1; T2 variable assessed at Time 2.aAccording to the Fisher r-to-z transformation, the size of the correlation coefficient between the index of prosociality and a given trait is different at p .01 from the size of the analogous correlation coefficient linking agreeableness to the same index of prosociality (see text). b According to the Fisher r-to-ztransformation, the size of the correlation coefficient between the index of prosociality and a given trait is different at p .01 from the size of the analogouscorrelation coefficient linking agreeableness to the same index of prosociality (see text).

p .05.

1295TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

8/15

transcendence among higher order values, and of empathic self-

efficacy beliefs when predicting prosociality.

Construct distinctiveness. In order to investigate the dimen-

sionality of the measures items and to avoid any overlap among

these four self-reported measures (i.e., agreeableness, self-

transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality), a

principal-factor analysis with a promax rotation was performed ateach assessment using all the individual items. According to the

scree plots, the two analyses yielded a four-factor structure corre-

sponding to the hypothesized four expected domains of agreeable-

ness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and proso-

ciality at each assessment time. The actual item loadings on the

intended factors ranged from .41 to .83 (M .55, SD .12) across

the two assessment times, whereas the secondary loading varied

from .00 to .19 (M .16, SD .05) across the two assessment

times. Factor correlations ranged from .13 to .69 for the two

assessment times. These analyses support the factorial validity of

all the measures, the empirical distinctiveness of the examined

constructs, and the lack of empirical overlap among items mea-

suring the different constructs (as indicated by the low secondary

loadings).

Mean-Level Differences

Repeated-measures analyses of variance were performed to in-

vestigate the effects due to gender and time on participants reports

of agreeableness, self-transcendence values, empathic self-efficacy

beliefs, and self-rated prosociality. An analysis of variance with

sex as the independent variable was performed on peer-reported

prosociality assessed at T2. Table 2 includes the means, standard

deviations, and the significance of the main effects of sex and time

and of the interaction between sex and time. At both T1 and T2,

women scored higher than men on all study variables. Only self-

transcendence values exhibited a significant increase from T1 to

T2, whereas all other variables remained stable. No Time Sex

interactions were detected.

Correlations Among Variables and Across Times

Table 3 contains the zero-order correlations among agreeable-

ness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and self-

reported and other-rated prosociality within and across time. Pos-

itive and significant correlations among all variables indicated that

high-agreeable individuals tended to be high in self-transcendence,

empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality at both times. High

correlations of all variables across time attest to their high stability.

Self-reports and other-ratings of prosociality were substantially

correlated, providing evidence of convergent validity.

Modeling Strategies

We tested our theoretical model using a two-wave mediational

design, following the suggestions of Cole and Maxwell (2003;

Maxwell and Cole, 2007). Two-wave mediational models are

superior to cross-sectional designs in that they (a) allow one to

better investigate (although not to prove) the likely direction of

causal influence among variables, (b) lessen biases in testing

mediation, and (c) allow for more stringent testing of alternative

models (Cole & Maxwell, 2003; Maxwell & Cole, 2007). In this

model, each variable posited as a mediator was predicted over time

by each variable posited as the predictor (MacKinnon, 2008).

Moreover, autoregressive paths were included so that each across-time cross-lagged path takes into account the stability of the

predicted variable. The hypothesized influence of agreeableness on

self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality

was represented by the across-time, cross-lagged paths from (a) T1

agreeableness to T2 self-transcendence, (b) T1 agreeableness to

T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and (c) T1 agreeableness to T2

prosociality. Likewise, the paths from T1 self-transcendence to

T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs, from T1 self-transcendence to

T2 prosociality, and from T1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs as-

sessed to T2 prosocial behavior represent the hypothesized flow of

influences. The product between the coefficients associated be-

tween pairs of cross-time cross-lagged paths (e.g., between the

coefficient linking T1 agreeableness to T2 self-transcendence val-

ues and the coefficient linking T1 self-transcendence values to T2empathic self-efficacy beliefs) provides an estimate of the partial

regression coefficient associated with the mediated effect. For

example, the product of the coefficient associated with the path

linking T1 agreeableness to T2 self-transcendence and of the

c o ef f ic i en t a s so c ia t ed w i th t h e p a th l i nk i n g T 1 s e lf -

transcendence with T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs represents

the indirect effect of T1 agreeableness on T2 empathic self-

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Sex Differences for Agreeableness, Self-Transcendence, Empathic Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Prosociality,

and Other-Rated Prosociality at Time 1 and Time 2 Among Men and Women

Variable

Time 1 Time 2

Sex Time Sex TimeMen Women Men Women

M SD M SD M SD M SD F(1, 328) 2 F(1, 328) 2 F(1, 328) 2

Agreeableness 3.30 0.31 3.41 0.42 3.33 0.36 3.45 0.41 14.56 .04 0.07 .00 0.15 .00Self-transcendence 4.37 0.72 4.67 0.75 4.59 0.64 4.78 0.72 7.46 .02 7.66 .02 0.01 .00Empathic self-efficacy beliefs 3.75 0.54 3.91 0.61 3.74 0.56 3.91 0.55 8.31 .02 0.10 .00 0.09 .00Prosociality 3.56 0.62 3.86 0.62 3.59 0.66 3.94 0.60 26.63 .07 1.23 .01 0.24 .00Other-rated prosociality 3.64 0.69 3.83 0.70 5.82 .02

Note. F Fratio resulted from repeated-measures analyses of variance; within the parentheses are the degrees of freedom and the number of participants.p .05.

1296 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

9/15

efficacy beliefs. Finally, the predictive effect of prosocial be-

haviors on personality variables was represented by the longi-

tudinal cross-lagged paths from T1 prosocial behavior to (a) T2agreeableness, (b) T2 self-transcendence values, and (c) T2

empathic self-efficacy beliefs.

Statistical Approach

We tested the hypothesized relations using Mplus 4.01 (Muthen

& Muthen, 2006). According to a multifaceted approach to the

assessment of the models fit (Tanaka, 1993), the following criteria

were employed to evaluate the goodness of fit: chi-square likeli-

hood ratio statistic, TuckerLewis index (TLI), comparative fit

index (CFI), and the root-mean-square error of approximation

(RMSEA) with associated confidence intervals. The significance

value of chi-square is sensitive to large sample sizes and easily

produces a statistically significant result (Kline, 1998). We ac-cepted TLI and CFI values greater than .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999)

and RMSEA values lower than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). In

order to test for possible moderation by sex, we used multiple-

group structural equation modeling. In this approach, the equiva-

lence between the different groups is evaluated by constraints

imposing identical unstandardized estimates for the models pa-

rameters (Byrne, 1994). In Mplus, the plausibility of these equality

constraints is examined with the modification indices and the

chi-square difference test between nested models (i.e., constrained

models vs. the baseline unconstrained model; see Bollen, 1989).

Mediated effects were calculated using the procedures outlined by

MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002). Fur-

thermore, we followed the asymmetric confidence interval

method recommended by MacKinnon et al. (2002) to formally

test mediation (Mackinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). The

critical values for the upper and lower confidence limits for

indirect effect were calculated using the program PRODCLIN2

(Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007; MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, &

Lockwood, 2007). There was a three-path mediated effect

tested in this model (i.e., the indirect effect from agreeableness

to prosociality, mediated by self-transcendence values and em-

pathic self-efficacy beliefs). The significance of this path was

evaluated with the joint significance test (Taylor, McKinnon, &

Tein, 2008). The composite mean scores on each scale were

used as the indicator in subsequent models, and all variables

included in the model were treated as single indicator latent

variables by estimating the error terms from reliabilities (Bol-

len, 1989).

Test of Mediation Over Time

We examined the predicted set of relations within the above

presented multiple-group framework and simultaneously esti-

mated for men and women a model that included (a) all the

autoregressive paths (i.e., the paths predicting a variable from

its prior level), as well as the across-time paths from (b) T1

agreeableness to T2 self-transcendence; (c) T1 agreeableness to

T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs; (d) T1 agreeableness to T2

prosociality; (e) T1 self-transcendence to T2 empathic self-

efficacy beliefs; (f) T1 self-transcendence to T2 prosociality;

(g) T1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs to T2 prosociality; (h) T1prosociality to T2 agreeableness; (h) T1 prosociality to T2

self-transcendence; and (i) T1 prosociality to T2 empathic

self-efficacy beliefs. In addition, all variables within T1 and all

variables withinT2 were allowed to covary. All paths were fixed

to be invariant across sexes.

This model fit the data well, 2(45) 51.86, p .20, CFI

1.00, TLI .99, RMSEA .030 (.00.061), Akaike information

criterion (AIC) 3,930.63. Moreover, the comparison between

this model and an unconstrained model (i.e., a model with no

equality constraints on parameters estimations across gender)

resulted in a nonsignificant chi-square difference test, 2(27)

29.09, p .36. As shown in Figure 2, in accordance with our

hypotheses, T1 agreeableness predicted T2 self-transcendence val-ues. T1 self-transcendence values predicted T2 empathic self-

efficacy beliefs, and this latter variable predicted T2 prosociality.

Overall, this part of the two-wave mediational model is consistent

with the view that the personality trait of agreeableness plays a

pivotal role in fostering other-oriented values. Furthermore, the

pattern of results supports the potential role of self-transcendence

in fostering empathic self-efficacy beliefs. Finally, this model

suggests that self-efficacy beliefs play a key role in mediating the

relations of agreeableness and self-transcendent values to proso-

ciality. No direct effect of agreeableness on empathic self-efficacy

across time or of agreeableness and self-transcendence on proso-

Table 3

Correlation Matrix of the Key Variables for Men and Women

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Agreeableness T1 .57 .46 .54 .64 .44 .24 .46 .282. Self-transcendence T1 .58 .51 .53 .50 .64 .41 .50 .33

3. Empathic self-efficacy beliefs T1 .48 .53 .57 .38 .43 .51 .52 .304. Prosociality T1 .52 .51 .63 .46 .47 .45 .68 .305. Agreeableness T2 .67 .52 .39 .48 .59 .37 .56 .356. Self-transcendence T2 .48 .65 .43 .49 .61 .40 .58 .337. Empathic self-efficacy beliefs T2 .25 .44 .51 .44 .34 .38 .54 .288. Prosociality T2 .44 .44 .52 .72 .59 .58 .56 .459. Other-rated prosociality T2 .24 .28 .36 .34 .35 .35 .25 .44

Note. The correlation coefficients below the diagonal are for men; the correlation coefficients above the diagonal are for women. T1 variable assessedat Time 1; T2 variable assessed at Time 2.

p .01.

1297TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

10/15

ciality across time was significant.2 The paths from T1 prosociality

to T2 agreeableness and from T1 prosociality to T2 empathic

self-efficacy beliefs were also significant (whereas the path from

T1 prosociality to T2 self-transcendence values was not signifi-

cant).

We tested whether the relation between T1 agreeableness on T2

empathic self-efficacy beliefs was mediated through T2 self-

transcendence. The unstandardized indirect effect was significant

( .04, z 2.13), and the associated confidence interval did not

include zero (lower confidence limit .02; upper confidence

limit .09). The same pattern was true for the mediated effect of

self-transcendence on prosociality though empathic self-efficacy

beliefs. The unstandardized indirect effect was significant (

.13, z 2.45), and the associated confidence interval did not

include zero (lower confidence limit .03; upper confidence

limit .28). These results indicate that self-transcendence signif-

icantly mediated the relation between agreeableness and empathic

self-efficacy beliefs and that the latter variable mediated the rela-

tion between self-transcendence and prosociality. Finally, the

three-path mediated effect from agreeableness to prosociality was

evaluated for significance. According to the joint significance test,

there was evidence for mediation because each of the three paths

in the mediated effect was significantly nonzero (Taylor et al.,

2008).

Adding cross-directional paths in the model from T1 self-

transcendence to T2 agreeableness, 2(1) .17, p .69, or from

2 We tested another model including only self-reported prosociality at

T2 and obtained the same results.

Figure 2. Two-wave mediation with standardized estimates separately for men and for women. The coeffi-

cients within parentheses are for women. All parameters are significant beyond p .05.

1298 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

11/15

T1 empathic self-efficacy beliefs to T2 self-transcendence,

2(1) 3.33, p .07, did not improve significantly the fit of the

model, although one of the aforementioned paths was near signif-

icant. Finally, the model accounted for a large proportion of

variability for all variables, with no statistically significant differ-

ences between the sexes (see Figure 2).

We also attempted to test cross-directional paths in the model bycomputing an alternative model. This model tested whether T1

self-transcendence predicted T2 agreeableness, T1 agreeableness

predicted T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and T1 empathic self-

efficacy beliefs predicted T2 prosociality (i.e., self-transcendence

3 agreeableness 3 empathic self-efficacy beliefs3 prosociality)

following standard procedures, including all autoregressive paths.

The fit of this model was less acceptable than that of the prior

model. It yielded a significant chi-square, 2(50) 66.87, p .01,

fared less well on the indices of goodness of fit, CFI .98, TLI

.97, and RMSEA .041 (.00.067), and resulted in a higher AIC

of 3,958.34.

Moderation AnalysesModeration was investigated using structural equation models

(SEM) and linear regression. First, we built a model in which

agreeableness, self-transcendence, empathic self-efficacy, and

prosociality plus three cross-product interaction terms for (a)

agreeableness and self-transcendence, (b) agreeableness and em-

pathic self-efficacy beliefs, and (c) agreeableness and prosociality

(all assessed at T1) were used as predictors of prosociality at T2

(posited as a latent variable with loadings for self- and other-rated

prosociality). This model did not converge when examined sepa-

rately with the male or female sample, as well as with the entire

sample. We also obtained unidentified models (i.e., models with

many negative error variances or inadmissible parameter esti-

mates) when the interaction terms were used one at time inseparate analyses. Thus, instead of using interaction terms com-

puted from continuous variables, we identified two groups of

participants scoring high (N 173) versus low (N 155) on

agreeableness based on the median value of agreeableness (3.75)

and ran a multiple-group SEM with both groups simultaneously. In

this model, three variables at T1 (i.e., self-transcendence, empathic

self-efficacy, and prosociality) predicted T2 prosociality (still a

latent variable with loadings for self- and other-rated prosociality).

The unconstrained model fit the data well, 2(4) 7.31, p .29,

CFI .99, TLI .97, RMSEA .070 (.00.015). Constraining

all parameters to be equal (i.e., direct regression paths and cova-

riances among the variables at T1) did not worsen the fit of the

model, 2(8) 1.82, p .99. Thus, level of agreeableness did

not affect the size of the relations between any of the three

predictors and prosociality.

Finally, because of the advantage of using continuous measures

to compute interaction terms, moderation was investigated using

hierarchical linear regression analyses (separately for men and for

women) in which (a) the main effects of T1 agreeableness, T1

self-transcendence, T1 empathic self-efficacy, and T1 prosociality

(entered simultaneously in Step 1) and (b) the interactions of T1

agreeableness with T1 self-transcendence, T1 empathic self-

efficacy, and T1 prosociality (all three entered simultaneously in

Step 2) were used to predict self-rated or other-rated prosociality at

T2. None of the interactions were significant; nor were the inter-

actions of T1 self-transcendence, T1 empathic self-efficacy, and

T1 prosociality with agreeableness significant when examined

separately in different models. Finally, the results did not change

when the regressions were conducted on the entire sample instead

with each sex separately.

Discussion

The results of this study support the importance of integrating

traditions of research on personality (e.g., trait and social cognitive

theories) that previously have been viewed as antagonists to gain

a better understanding of important phenomena such as prosocial

behaviors. In fact, agreeableness, self-transcendence values, em-

pathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality could be considered

layers of a hypothetical architecture of personality in which (a)

agreeableness is a relatively unconditional, broad disposition re-

ferring to what a person has; (b) self-transcendence values are

cognitive representations of the desirable referring to what a per-

son wants; and (c) empathic self-efficacy beliefs are knowledge

structures referring to what a person can do. They operate at an

intermediate level between broad dispositions, such as traits or

values, and specific behavioral tendencies, such as prosociality. In

this regard our reasoning is accordance with previous distinctions

between levels in the architecture of personality made by McAd-

ams (1995) and Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Finch (1997) and

with claims for an integrative approach able to achieve a compre-

hensive view of personality.

Previous findings have shown that agreeableness, self-

transcendence values, and empathic self-efficacy beliefs are major

correlates of individual differences in prosociality (Alessandri et

al., 2009; Caprara & Steca, 2005, Caprara & Steca, 2007; Graziano

et al., 2007; Schwartz, 2010). Results of the present study further

corroborate the hypothesis that agreeableness compared to other

traits, self-transcendence compared to other higher order values,and empathic self-efficacy beliefs compared to social self-efficacy

beliefs are relatively strong predictors of individuals tendencies to

behave prosocially.

The results also support the posited conceptual model in which

empathic self-efficacy beliefs are proximal predictors of the ten-

dency to behave prosocially, mediating the predictive contribution

of agreeableness and of self-transcendence, whereas values medi-

ate the prediction by agreeableness of empathic self-efficacy be-

liefs. Indirect effects further support the assumption that the rela-

tions of agreeableness and values to prosociality are mediated by

self-efficacy beliefs. There was no evidence of moderated relations

(i.e., interactions among agreeableness, self-transcendence, and

empathetic self-efficacy beliefs), and the posited mediational

model fit the empirical findings better than did alternative models

including different mediated pathways. For example, the primacy

of values with respect to traits was not supported by alternative

models.

The present findings represent an important extension of prior

work for several reasons. To our knowledge, this is the first study

that simultaneously considered traits, higher order values, and

self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of prosociality across time. Pre-

vious studies considered only pairs of these variables, and only one

study examined traits and self-efficacy beliefs across time (Ca-

prara et al., 2010; Caprara & Steca, 2007). Yet, as Cole and

Maxwell (2003) pointed out, use of only one assessment makes it

1299TRAITS, VALUES, SELF-EFFICACY, AND PROSOCIALITY

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

12/15

extremely difficult to rule out alternative models and to test the

plausibility of various directions of influence among the variables.

We used two waves of data and controlled for the stability of the

variables over time (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Despite the correla-

tional nature of these data, which limits the inference of causality,

the findings in this study are consistent with the view that agree-

ableness plays a role in setting the potential for prosociality,whereas values provide a means for agreeable tendencies to turn

into prosocial actions. Self-transcendence values rest upon agree-

ableness and act on prosociality through empathic self-efficacy

beliefs. Empathic self-efficacy beliefs may ultimately operate as

pivotal mediators in turning traits and altruistic values into proso-

ciality. Previous studies rested upon self-reports of prosociality,

but we were able to obtain a measure of individuals tendencies to

behave prosocially based on both self-reports and other-ratings at

T2. Self-reports and other-ratings of prosociality showed a mod-

erately high degree of convergence at T2. Moreover, T1 self-rated

prosociality was moderately related to other-rated prosociality

assessed years later at T2.

In addition, earlier prosociality significantly predicted later

agreeableness and empathic self-efficacy in accordance with the

idea that behaving prosocially may strengthen peoples reports of

their own agreeableness and their beliefs about their capacities to

meet others needs. The conjoint significance of the paths from T1

empathic self-efficacy beliefs to T2 prosociality and from T1

prosociality to T2 empathic self-efficacy beliefs suggest that in

emerging adulthood the relations among empathic self-efficacy

beliefs and prosociality are dynamic and reciprocal. Whereas in-

creasing empathic skills may promote prosociality, mastering ex-

periences associated with behaving prosocially may foster em-

pathic skills. This is consistent with Staubs (1979) suggestion that

helping others can lead people to further behave prosocially and to

further endorse prosocial motives and with evidence of the effects

of engaging in prosocial behavior on future helping and sharing(e.g., Alessandri et al., 2009; Cialdini et al., 1975; Eisenberg et al.,

1987; Staub, 1979).

The posited model has practical implications, as the pathways

among examined variables might provide direction for interven-

tions aimed to sustain and promote individuals inclinations to-

ward prosociality. Whereas one may view traits as difficult targets

to address directly and view values as guides that mostly rest upon

earlier rearing and socialization practices, empathic self-efficacy

beliefs appear crucial for turning traits and values into prosocial

tendencies. Social cognitive theory suggests how to promote self-

efficacy beliefs (through persuasion, modeling, and mastery expe-

riences); moreover, previous findings point to affective self-

regulatory efficacy beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy beliefs in expressing

positive emotions and in managing negative emotions) as crucial

for promoting empathic self-efficacy beliefs (Alessandri et al.,

2009; Caprara et al., 2010). This does not exclude the possibility

that one can take advantage of a personality disposition such as

agreeableness to promote self-transcendence values conducive to

experiences that further strengthen individuals capacities and in-

clinations to behave prosocially.

As self-transcendence values increased for men and for women

from T1 to T2, one may hypothesize that values are particularly

sensitive to the changes that occur in the transition from adoles-

cence to adulthood. This is in accordance with empirical studies

showing that values change more in response to life-changing

events than in response to age (Bardi, Lee, Hofmann-Towfigh, &

Soutar, 2009). The mean-level stability of agreeableness, empathic

self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality is in accordance with some

previous findings (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Roberts, Caspi, & Mof-

fit, 2003). Also in accordance with previous findings, (Caprara et

al., 2003; Caprara & Steca, 2005, Caprara & Steca, 2007; Eisen-

berg et al., 2006; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005), at all ages, youngwomen reported higher agreeableness, self-transcendence values,

empathic self-efficacy beliefs, and prosociality than did their male

counterparts. One could argue that due to gender-role socializa-

tion, most women develop relatively high levels of positive inter-

personal abilities, such as empathy or prosociality (Eisenberg et

al., 2006). Although this interpretation is corroborated by the

consistency of the gender differences that have been observed

across time and across method of assessing prosociality, it does not

rule out genetic or other biological and social determinants (in-

cluding presentational biases; Jang et al., 1996, Jang et al., 1998;

Loehlin et al., 1998; Riemann et al., 1997).

The fact that the study involved mostly self-report data may be

viewed as a major limitation. Yet one might claim that no one can

report on a persons own habits, priorities, and self-efficacy better

than that person. In particular, none is in a better position than

individuals themselves to know and report about their own ten-

dencies to behave prosocially across contexts. Of course, social

desirability is always a source of concern when assessing socially

valued behaviors such as prosociality. Indeed, we did not under-

estimate social desirability and, consequently, used a latent

construct based on the consensus between self-reports and other-

ratings in our models. The significant correlations between self-

reported and other-rated prosociality (both within and across time)

support this consensus; nonetheless, in the future, it would be

useful to obtain multiple measures of other targeted constructs that

are readily assessed by outside observers (e.g., agreeableness). In

future work, it also would be desirable to test the generalizabilityof our findings across different populations and in different cul-

tural contexts. The tendencies to pursue others well-being may

vary under various life conditions and across social contexts and

cultures (see Eisenberg et al., 2006). Moreover, other individual

differences in personality should be examined to account for

prosociality in specific contexts, when facing specific risks and

costs, particular health or mood conditions, or different trade-offs

among conflicting values.

References

Ahadi, S. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1994). Temperament, development, and

the Big Five. In C. Halverson Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin

(Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from

infancy to adulthood (pp. 189207). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Alessandri, G., Caprara, G. V., Eisenberg, N., & Steca, P. (2009). Recip-

rocal relations among self-efficacy beliefs and prosociality across time.

Jou rna l of Pe rso nal it y, 77, 12291259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2009.00580.x

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:

Freeman.

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C.

(2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy on diverse spheres of

psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74, 769782. doi:

10.1111/1467-8624.00567

Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999).

1300 CAPRARA, ALESSANDRI, AND EISENBERG

7/22/2019 psp-102-6-1289

13/15

Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 76, 258269. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.258

Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (2000). Measuring the Big Five in self

report and other rating: A multitraitmultimethod study. European Jour-

nal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 3143. doi:10.1027//1015-

5759.16.1.31

Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Maslach, C. (1997). Individuation and

the five factor model of personality traits. European Journal of Psycho-

logical Assessment, 13, 7584. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.13.2.75

Bardi, A., Lee, J. A., Hofmann-Towfigh, N., & Soutar, G. (2009). The

structure of intra-individual value change. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 97, 913929. doi:10.1037/a0016617

Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert,

S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol.

2, pp. 282316). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances

in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 162). New York, NY:

Academic Press.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New

York, NY: Wiley.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model

fit. In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equationmodels (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrne, B. (1994). Testing the factorial validity, replication, and invariance

of a measuring instrument: A paradigmatic application based on the

Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29,

289311. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2903_5

Caprara, G. V. (2002). Personality psychology: Filling the gap between

basic processes and molar functioning. In C. von Hofsten & L. Bakman

(Eds.), Psychology at the turn of the millennium: Volume 2. Social,

developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 201224). Hove, England:

Psychology Press.

Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, A., Di Giunta, L., Panerai, L., & Eisenberg, N. (2010).

The contribution of agreeableness and self-efficacy beliefs to prosociality.

European Journal of Personality, 24, 3655. doi:10.1002/per.739

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Bermudez, J., Maslach, C., & Ruch, W.

(2000). Multivariate methods for the comparison of factor structures incross-cultural research: An illustration with the Italian Big Five Ques-

tionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 437464. doi:

10.1177/0022022100031004002

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1996). BFQ: Big Five

Questionnaire manuale. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M. (1993). The

Big Five Questionnaire: A new questionnaire to assess the five factor

model. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 281288. doi:

10.1016/0191-8869(93)90218-R

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo,

P. (2000). Prosocial foundations of childrens academic achievement.

Psychological Science, 11, 302306. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00260

Caprara, G. V., Caprara, M. G., & Steca, P. (2003). Personalitys correlates

of adult development and aging. European Psychologist, 8, 131147.

doi:10.1027//1016-9040.8.3.131

Caprara, G. V., Gerbino, M., & Delle Fratte, A. (2001). Autoefficacia

interpersonale [Interpersonal self-efficacy]. In G. V. Caprara (Ed.), La

valutazione dellautoefficacia [Self-efficacy evaluation] (pp. 550).

Trento, Italy: Erickson.

Caprara, G. V.,Scabini, E.,Barbaranelli, C.,Pastorelli,C., Regalia, C.,& Bandura,

A. (1999). Autoefficacia percepita emotiva e interpersonale e buon funziona-

mento sociale [Emotional and interpersonal perceived self-efficacy and social

well-being]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 26, 769789.

Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of

prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 191217. doi:10.1521/

jscp.24.2.191.62271

Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2007). Prosocial agency: The contribution of

values and self-efficacy beliefs to prosocial behavior across ages. Jour-

nal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 218239. doi:10.1521/

jscp.2007.26.2.218

Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Vecchio, G., Tramontano, C., & Alessandri, G.

(2008, July). Prosocial agency: Values and self-efficacy beliefs as de-

terminants of prosocial behavior. Paper presented at the International

Congress of Psychology, Berlin, Germany.Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A new scale for

measuring adults prosociality. European Journal of Psychological As-

sessment, 21, 7789. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77

Caprara, G. V., Tramontano, C., Steca, P., Di Giunta, L., Eisenberg, N.,

Kupfer, A., & Roth, E. (2011). Prosociality assessment across cultures.

Manuscript submitted for publication.

Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W.

Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp.

311388). New York, NY: Wiley.

Caspi, A., & Shiner, R. (2006). Personality development. In N. Eisenberg

(Vol. Ed.) and W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of

child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality develop-

ment (6th ed., pp. 300365). New York, NY: Wiley.Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Socialcognitive theories and the

coherence of personality. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coher-

ence of personality: Socialcognitive bases of personality consistency,

variability, and organization (pp. 333). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and

conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591621. doi:10.1146/

annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., &

Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing

compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 31, 206 215. doi:10.1037/h0076284

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with

longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equationmodeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558577. doi:

10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558

Cumberland-Li, A., Eisenberg, N., & Reiser, M. (2004). Relations of

young childrens agreeableness and resiliency to effortful control and

impulsivity. Social Development, 13, 191212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

9507.2004.000263.x

Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likeli-

hood estimation from complete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of

the Royal Statistical Society, 39, 138.

Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Hills-

dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisenberg, N., Carlo, G., Murphy, B., & Va