The Hero program: Development and initial validation of an intervention program to promote prosocial behavior in adolescents

Abstract

This article has a dual purpose. First, it proposes to investigate adolescents’ opinion and acceptance of the new online program called “Hero.” Second, this article studies the program’s effectiveness in promoting prosocial behavior. The sample included 51 men and women participants between the ages of 12 and 16 (average age 15.02; SD = 1.07; 49% men). All of the adolescents attended high school and belonged to a middle socioeconomic status. The results indicated that the majority of the users enjoyed participating in the Hero program and thought that it was easy to use and useful, that what they learned could be transferred to daily life, and that they would recommend the program to other adolescents. Moreover, the Hero intervention was effective in promoting prosocial behavior toward strangers and family members but not in promoting prosocial behavior toward friends.

Keywords

Empathy forgiveness gratitude online intervention positive emotion prosocial behavior

Introduction

This article presents the development of the Hero program, an intervention program that promotes prosocial behavior in adolescents. Despite the fact that several intervention programs for prosociality exist, the one we present has two peculiarities: First, it is the first virtual intervention program for prosociality; second, it intends to develop prosocial behavior through the promotion of empirically related variables, such as empathy, emotional recognition, positive emotions, gratitude, and forgiveness as well as prosociality itself (Karremans, Van Lange, & Holland, 2005; Ma, Tunney, & Ferguson, 2017; Marsh, Kozak, & Ambady, 2007; Yost-Dubrow & Dunham, 2017).

Prosocial behavior

The terms “helping others” and “prosocial behavior” are often used indistinctly. However, these concepts are not equivalent. Lam (2012) suggests that helping others is a broader concept that implies any type of interpersonal support, whereas prosocial behavior involves actions prone to better the situation of the beneficiary. One of the most frequently used definitions of prosocial behavior is the one proposed by Eisenberg, Fabes, and Spinrad (2006), who define it as all voluntary, social, and positive acts that are intended to help or benefit another person or group of people (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006).

There are different ways to approximate prosocial behavior. It can be considered and evaluated as a whole, uniquely and globally (Caprara & Pastorelli, 1993), or from a multidimensional perspective that identifies different manifestations of this behavior. Previous researches stated that global prosocial behavior assessment is limited because different types of prosocial acts are associated with different sociocognitive, socioemotional, and situational variables (Carlo & Randall, 2002; McGinley & Carlo, 2007).

Carlo and Randall (2002) address this multidimensionality by identifying different motivations (extrinsic and intrinsic) to perform prosocial behavior (Carlo & Randall, 2002; Richaud, Mesurado, & Cortada, 2012). Other authors address the relational context of helping others between the benefactor and the beneficiary. These latter studies indicate that a person acts in a different manner if the object of the prosocial behavior is a family member, a friend, or a stranger (Padilla-Walker, Dyer, Yorgason, Fraser, & Coyne, 2015).

Prosociality benefits individual functioning and favors interpersonal relations. On an individual level, studies show that it promotes the acceptance and integration of diversity (Caprara, Alessandri, & Eisenberg, 2012), protects the appearance of unadaptive behavior (Taylor, Eisenberg, Spinrad, Eggum, & Sulik, 2013), and intensifies the sense of transcendence, enhancing the meaning of people’s own existence (Van Tongeren, Green, Davis, Hook, & Hulsey, 2016). On a social level, it positively correlates with the development of social abilities, favoring integration into the community and psychosocial adaptation in children and adolescents (Lam, 2012) and inhibiting aggressive behaviors (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schoeder, 2005). Therefore, the importance of promoting the development of these behaviors, especially in children and adolescents, through appropriate programs of intervention becomes apparent.

Social–emotional predictors of prosocial behavior

Over the past few years, many investigations have been developed with the objective of identifying social–emotional variables that are associated with the promotion of prosocial behavior and the prevention of aggressive behavior (Blair, 2018; Mesurado et al., 2014; Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011). However, it is important to note that some scholars argue that prosocial and aggressive behaviors are not “two sides of the same coin.” Indeed, selfish prosocial acts (e.g., helping someone with the goal of having something in return) are positively related to aggression, while selfless prosocial acts (e.g., selfless helping) are negatively related to it (McGinley & Carlo, 2007).

Despite evidence that cross-cultural differences exist in relation to reported levels of prosocial behavior, some psychological mechanisms and processes that strengthen this behavior may be common (Ding & Lu, 2016; Mesurado et al., 2014). In general, emotions help people prosper in the complex social and cultural environments in which they live, contributing to social connection and interpersonal comprehension (Baumeister & Lobbestael, 2011). Previous investigations have identified social–emotional factors that are related to the promotion of prosocial behavior, such as empathy, emotional recognition and positive emotions, gratitude, and forgiveness (Karremans et al., 2005; Ma et al., 2017; Marsh et al., 2007; Yost-Dubrow & Dunham, 2017).

Empathy is one of the principle variables related to prosociality, as demonstrated in different cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (Mesurado, Richaud, & Rodriguez, 2018; Padilla-Walker, Carlo, & Memmott-Elison, 2017). Batson (2009) defined the empathy as understanding of the emotional state of other person. Other authors stated that empathy includes the understanding of thoughts, feelings, and mental states of others (cognitive component of empathy) and the capacity to feel the same as others are feeling (emotional component of empathy or sympathy) (Davis, 1983; Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Eisenberg et al. (2006) have established that sympathy (emotional component of empathy, i.e., a sorrow for someone else’s unfortunate situation) is a more proximal precursor to prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). However, other studies have shown that both components of empathy are positively associated with different types of prosociality (Davis, Carlo, Streit, & Crockett, 2018). Specifically, Mesurado and colleagues (2018) have shown that emotional component of empathy is related to prosocial behavior toward family members and friends, while cognitive aspects are related to prosocial behavior toward strangers. In addition, a recent meta-analysis developed by Ding and Lu (2016) showed that in the majority of cases, empathy was significantly associated with prosocial behavior in studies of different cultures.

Moreover, previous studies have shown a link between emotional recognition and prosociality (Marsh et al., 2007). More precisely, these studies show that participants who recognized fear with greater precision tended to make more financial donations, spent more time helping a victim in need, provide more prosocial judgment, and feel more positive about others (Marsh et al., 2007). Other experiments have shown that expressions of anger from the aid recipient can mitigate prosocial behaviors, whereas emotional expressions of sadness stimulate them (van Doorn, van Kleef, & van der Pligt, 2015).

Positive emotions are emotional experiences in which pleasure or well-being predominates (Lucas, Diener, & Larsen, 2003). Fredrickson (2001) says that positive emotions promote the engagement with adaptive activities and “broaden people’s thought-action repertoires, encouraging them to discover novel lines of thought or action” (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002, p. 1). Baumeister and Leary (1995) found that positive emotions are generally associated with the development and strengthening of social links, whereas negative emotions are related to socially harmful, disruptive, and threatening links. Moreover, other empirical researchers have shown that different positive emotions, such as joy, serenity, satisfaction (Richaud & Mesurado, 2016), interest (Rodriguez, Mesurado, & Moreno, 2018), awe (Piff, Dietze, Feinberg, Stancato, & Keltner, 2015), and pride (Michie, 2009), are positively related to prosocial behavior. Additionally, positive mental state is strongly related to prosocial behavior toward stranger than prosocial behavior toward family and friend (Mesurado & Richaud, 2017; Mesurado, Richaud, & Rodriguez, 2018). Another previous longitudinal research, including a large sample of participants, has shown that people who reported higher level of well-being invest more hours in volunteer service work helping strangers (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001). Furthermore, experimental studies found that higher levels of happiness increase the likelihood of engaging in spending money on others (prosocial spending) (Aknin, Dunn, & Norton, 2012). Indeed, people feel more positive emotions when spend money for close people (family or friends) than acquaintances. However, there was no significant difference in positive emotions spending money on a family member or friend (Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn, & Norton, 2011).

Another social–emotional variable linked to prosociality is gratitude. We can find cross-sectional (Cuello, 2015; Kim & Lee, 2013; Tian, Chu, & Huebner, 2016) as well as longitudinal (Froh, Bono, & Emmons, 2010) empirical evidence that endorses this relation (Grant & Gino, 2010; Yost-Dubrow & Dunham, 2017). For Froh, Bono, and Emmons (2010, p. 152), gratitude is a positive mental state that emphasizes “the transmission of a gift” through a positive action. As such, gratitude works as a link in the dynamic between giving and receiving; hence, it plays a principle role in the social interactions framework promoting prosocial behavior. Moreover, an experimental study has found that gratitude induction activity is related to offering emotional support or helps someone with personal problems (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Other experimental studies have shown recall of an incident when another person did something for you that was very kind is more associated with in the moment kindness motives toward close friends and family than toward strangers and enemies (Exline, Lisan, & Lisan, 2012). Also, participants tended to respond with prosocial reciprocation toward close relationship partners (i.e., close friends and siblings) than toward acquaintances (Cohen, 2012). Additionally, a recent meta-analytic review has shown that there is a clear link between gratitude and prosocial behavior (Ma et al., 2017).

Last, forgiveness “is the process by which thoughts, emotions and negative behaviors towards an offender are transformed to thoughts, emotions and more positive prosocial thoughts” (Norman, 2017, p. 47). At the same time, some authors believe that “forgiveness is a prosocial act” (Tsuang, Eaves, Nir, Jerskey, & Lyons, 2005, p. 247) that contributes positive emotions and that it is essential for the well-being of adolescents in the long run (Fredrickson, 2001; Rana, Hariharan, Nandinee, & Vincent, 2014; Worthington, 2005). Therefore, forgiveness is considered psychologically beneficial, not only for the offender but also for the one who is forgiving. Some investigations indicate that people who have a greater tendency to forgive, unlike those who tend not to forgive, are more likely to provide donations to charity activities and participate in volunteer activities (Karremans et al., 2005). Moreover, other empirical researches have found that forgiveness promotes high level of overall prosocial behavior (Han, 2015; Riek & DeWit, 2018; Schimel, Wohl, & Williams, 2006) and conciliatory behaviors, while it inhibits avoidance behavior in close relationships (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997).

Interventions in prosocial behavior

The literature indicates that prosocial behavior is a relatively “malleable” variable that can be fostered through proper educational actions (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Eisenberg et al., 2006). Several authors maintain that it is important to promote prosociality in children and adolescents to contribute to healthy and positive growth (Kanacri et al., 2014; Lam, 2012). Adolescence is a stage of life in which it is propitious to develop and enhance multiple resources and competencies (Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Therefore, it is a vital stage to encourage social interest in others.

There are several intervention programs aimed to promote prosocial behavior in children as well as in adolescents. Each has different structures, characteristics, and durations (Caprara, Kanacri, Zuffianò, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2015; Garaigordobil, 2008; O’Hare, Biggart, Kerr, & Connolly, 2015; Romersi, Martínez-Fernández, & Roche, 2011). For example, CEPIDEA (Italian acronym of promoting prosocial and emotional skills to counteract externalizing problems in adolescence) is a program designed to promote prosocial behavior in early adolescence (average age 12). This program includes four components: sensitization to prosocial values, development of emotion regulation skills, development of perspective-taking skills, and finally improvement of interpersonal communication skills. CEPIDEA uses two different types of intervention strategies: 16 prosocial sessions (delivered once a week during school hours by researchers group, e.g., they use role playing, case analysis, etc.) and 21 prosocial lessons (delivered by the teacher during classes, e.g., history) (Caprara et al., 2014). Another, intervention program for early adolescence was developed by Garaigordobil (2008). This intervention program consists of cooperative games dispensed in 2-hr weekly sessions which involve two or three activities (e.g., dramatization, drawing, etc.) and debates about them (time for reflection and dialogue). The intervention is delivered by the class teacher with an observer. Finally, Minim Program of Prosocial Improvement is an intervention developed by Romersi, Martínez-Fernández, and Roche (2011) to promote prosocial behavior in adolescents (average age 15). This program includes 12 sessions delivered once a week during school hours by the researchers group. The activities include discussions about videos, prosocial brainstorming of conflict resolution in the playground and in other contexts of interpersonal relationships, and so on.

A recent meta-analysis studied the effectiveness of different programs that had as their direct goal the promotion of prosocial behavior. As a secondary effect, the authors analyzed these programs’ effectiveness in the inhibition of aggressive behaviors. The same analysis found that intervention programs were effective in the promotion of prosocial behavior as well as in the inhibition of aggressive behaviors (Mesurado, Guerra, Richaud, & Rodriguez, 2018).

Despite the diversity of intervention programs for prosociality, most of them share a special feature, face-to-face implementation (Mesurado, Guerra, Richaud, & Rodriguez, 2018). With the advent of technology, innovative interventions can be developed that may enhance the extent and achievements of existing programs. A good example is the Earth of Well-Being program, which is intended to promote well-being in adults (Baños et al., 2014). This program is a self-applied platform that includes three modules: “Park of wellbeing,” “Wellbeing through nature” (aimed to induce positive emotions as joy and relaxation), and “The book of life” (a personal diary aimed to recall positive and significant moments of the participants).

Computerized intervention programs, in addition to offering massive distribution of the intervention, allow the use of new and attractive digital resources that are very familiar to young people, which make them friendlier and more likely to encourage enthusiasm and compromise from adolescents with regard to the intervention. Interventions oriented to increasing well-being through the Internet seem promising and do not involve the need to train professionals in these approaches (Rose, 2014). Although their effects are modest, studies confirm the acceptance and effectiveness of online applications (Drozd, Mork, Nielsen, Raeder, & Bjørkli, 2014; Schueller & Parks, 2012). Among the advantages that online interventions offer, it is worth mentioning that once the interventions have been conducted, they require very little effort to maintain (Martínez-Martí, Avia, & Hernández-Lloreda, 2014). They are available 24 hr a day and 7 days a week, which overcomes space–time impediments (Rose, 2014). Thus, they can widely proliferate (Morris & Picard, 2014), reaching populations that would be impossible to reach any other way.

Present study

Based on the empirical evidence mentioned previously, the Hero program was developed to promote prosocial behaviors through the promotion of five-related social–emotional variables (empathy, emotional recognition, positive emotions, gratitude, and forgiveness) as well as the direct promotion of prosocial behavior itself. These five socioemotional variables were selected because they were pliable, they have been supported by effective strategies for stimulation, and they are social values shared by different cultures (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). An intervention with these characteristics was selected with the intention of achieving changes, not only behavioral but also in the subjacent aspects of adolescents with the objective of obtaining long-lasting effects.

This publication has a dual purpose: First, it proposes to investigate adolescents’ opinion and acceptance of the new online program called “Hero”; second, it studies the program’s effectiveness in promoting prosocial behaviors.

Method

Participants

The sample included 51 men and women participants between the ages of 12 and 16 (average age 15.02; SD = 1.07; 49% men). All of the adolescents attended high school and belonged to a middle socioeconomic status. To measure the socioeconomic status of participants, we administered the Graffar Scale in the Spanish version of Mendez Castellano (1994), which is based on the study of the social characteristics of the family: the father’s occupation, the mother’s level of education, the main source of the family’s income, and housing conditions. In the first phase of the evaluation, the family is attributed with a score for each of the four criteria on a 5-point scale. In the second phase, the sum of the results indicates the family strata. Families with the highest levels (I and II strata) belong to the highest level of welfare, while families in the lower strata (IV and V strata) belong to relative poverty and extreme or critical poverty. This study included families with middle socioeconomic level class (III stratum by Mendez Castellano, 1994).

Procedure

The diffusion of the invitation to participate in the intervention program was performed through an Argentinean university. The advertising said that we needed adolescents between 12 and 16 years old to test a new online program to promote social engagement. The advertising also said that to improve this program, we wanted to know adolescents’ opinions about the online activities and the program design.

The participants and their parents signed informed consent prior to the adolescents initiating the intervention program. The entire process consisted of eight sessions (delivered once a week): one face-to-face session and seven online sessions. Each adolescent received a message from WhatsApp weekly that announced when the new session was available. The participants accessed the system from their homes.

At the first, in the face-to-face session, the characteristics of the program were explained, for example, numbers of sessions, types of activities, time required for each session, and technological requirements as having a computer, Internet access, camera, and microphone. Then, everyone who agreed signed the informed consent (see Appendix 1).

At the second session, the participants filled out the prosocial behavior toward different targets, described below. Subsequently, in the following five intervention sessions, the adolescents participated in the Hero program for approximately 30 min. At the end of each session, they completed a brief questionnaire consisting of five questions. Last, a week after concluding the intervention, the participants were asked to complete the prosocial behavior toward different target scales once again in addition to a brief questionnaire inquiring about their acceptance and the perceived usefulness of the Hero program. The adolescents did not receive any compensation for their participation.

Instruments

Prosocial behavior toward different targets

To study adolescents’ prosocial behavior, a modified version of the Kindness and Generosity subscale (Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011), extracted from the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), was used. The measure has 27 items, 9 items for each prosocial target (sample items include “I help people I do not know even if it is not easy for me” and “I always listen to my friends talk about their problems”) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = not like me at all to 5 = very much like me. Cronbach’s αs in the present sample were .82 for prosocial behavior toward friends, .70 for prosocial behavior toward strangers, and .87 for prosocial behavior toward family.

Questionnaire at the end of each intervention

At the end of every module of the intervention, the participants were presented with five statements and were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed. The statements that were used were as follows: (1) the activity encouraged me to help others (prosociality), (2) the activity helped me to understand others (empathy), (3) in comparison to how I was before conducting this activity, I now find myself happier/more cheerful (positive emotions), (4) the activity helped me feel more grateful toward life (gratitude), and (5) the activity helped me want to forgive the people who have wronged me (forgiveness).

Acceptance and perceived usefulness of the Hero program

Similar to previous investigations (Baños et al., 2014), four ad hoc questions were designed to examine the participants’ perceptions of the program’s acceptance, perceptions of its user-friendliness and its usefulness, the possibility of transferring the activities performed in the program to their daily life, and whether they would recommend its use. The questions that were used were as follows: (1) Did you enjoy participating in Hero? (acceptance), (2) Was it easy to use? (convenience), (3) Were the program activities useful? (usefulness), (4) Do you think that what you learned in Hero could be transferred to your daily life? (transference), and (5) Would you recommend participating in Hero to other adolescents? (recommendation). The participants were presented with two answers, 1 = no, 2 = yes, and were asked why.

Hero program description

Hero is a self-administered online program that includes five modules (represented in the shape of islands; see Figure 1). Each of these islands promotes prosociality in an indirect manner, stimulating well-known variables related to prosocial behavior, such as empathy, emotional recognition, gratitude, forgiveness, and positive emotions; last, it works on prosociality perse. Each module has a duration of approximately 30 min. The participant is guided by a “Sensei” who wants to engage with the adolescent and help him through the different activities or games that are presented. Each activity has an assigned score, and the adolescent gains more points as he advances in the program. The program provides different avatar options for the adolescent to represent himself/herself in the program. When Hero is initiated, the avatar that represents the adolescent gets on a boat that heads to the different islands. Participants can visit only one island per session, they cannot repeat the session or activities. The islands were presented in the following sequence: empathy, gratitude, positive emotions, forgiveness, and prosocial behavior. It is not possible to change the sequence of the islands or activities.

Figure 1.

Screenshot of the Hero program.

Empathy island

This module contains a brief psychoeducational video that explains to the adolescent what empathy is and its importance in people’s life and society. The video tries to make adolescents reflex and think about the point of view of the other person in different events and to feel sorrow for people in need or other person who need emotional support. Afterward, the adolescent is presented with activities likely to motivate empathy and emotional recognition. To exercise emotional recognition, a selection of photos of Latin American children (validated by The Child Affective Facial Expression set) is used (LoBue & Thrasher, 2015). A series of photos of children expressing different emotions are presented to the adolescents, and they have to choose the correct emotion expressed by the child in the photo. The system provides an immediate feedback indicating the correct answer in case the adolescent fails in the answer.

Gratitude island

This module consists of the participants watching a brief psychoeducational video that explains what gratitude is and the benefits it provides. A second video is then played that is about a gratitude experiment, in which the benefits for well-being are identified. After the video, different strategies aimed at promoting gratitude are used (e.g., writing a book about their life and remembering people and situations for which they are grateful as well as filming a video thanking a particular person). These effective strategies are well known and have been utilized in previous studies (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).

Positive emotions island

This module includes a psychoeducational video about well-being. The program then stimulates relaxation through different scenery images that are accompanied by calm and soothing music (Baños et al., 2014). Subsequently, two activities are suggested to the adolescents with the aim of focusing on positive aspects in different contexts through the selection of positive words and photos that express positive emotions. The intention is to promote a positive bias (Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2008). Positive (e.g., love) and negative (e.g., hate) words appear randomly on the screen and the participant is asked to click only on positive words. The second activity consists of presenting a series of photos where most of them express negative emotions and only one expresses joy, and the adolescent must discover it and click on it.

Forgiveness island

This module includes a psychoeducational video about forgiveness and two activities. The first activity intends to help the teenagers contemplate and identify situations in which they have offended another person and have experimented with being forgiven by them. The second activity proposes an inverse approach in which the participants are asked to identify a person who has offended them and, after the situation and offender have been identified, to write a letter expressing their forgiveness.

Prosocial behavior island

This is the last module and includes, like the previous modules, a psychoeducational video about the importance of solidarity for the well-being of society. Then, the Sensei directs a video about discussions of helping someone at any one point and committing to a continuous social action that implies a greater personal cost, which can be economical as well as time-consuming. Last, several social initiatives are presented that have been developed in different nongovernmental organizations and foundations, and the contact details for each organization are included. The intention is to stimulate the adolescents to get in touch with some of these organizations.

Results

Acceptance and perceived usefulness of the Hero program

The opinions of the adolescents regarding the use of Hero are shown in Table 1. The majority of the users enjoyed participating in the Hero program and thought that it was easy to use and useful, that what they learned could be transferred to daily life, and that they would recommend the program to other adolescents.

Table 1.

Acceptance and perceived usefulness of Hero program expressed as percentages.

	Acceptance		Convenience		Usefulness		Transference		Recommendation
	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Hero Program (%)	87.1	12.9	100	—	87.1	12.9	81	19	74.2	25.8

Table 2 shows the opinions of the adolescents regarding the effectiveness of each module, or “island,” to promote the desire to help (prosociality), understanding others (empathy) as well as fomenting gratitude, positive emotions, and forgiveness. The vast majority of the participants thought that the activities of the Hero program promoted these psychoemotional variables as well as prosocial behavior.

Table 2.

Adolescents’ perception regarding the effectiveness of each module or “islands” to promote prosociality and social–emotional variables expressed as percentages.

	Empathy		Gratitude		Forgiveness		Positive emotion		Prosociality
	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Empathy island (%)	94	6	94	6	86	14	98	2	94	6
Gratitude island (%)	98.1	1.9	96.3	3.7	94.4	5.6	96.3	3.7	98.1	1.9
Forgiveness island (%)	98.1	1.9	98.1	1.9	98.1	1.9	98.1	1.9	98.1	1.9
Positive emotions island (%)	94.4	5.6	96.3	3.7	94.4	5.6	94.4	5.6	94.4	5.6
Prosocial behavior island (%)	94.4	5.6	96.3	3.7	90.7	9.3	94.4	5.6	92.6	7.4

Effectiveness of the Hero program to promote prosocial behavior

A repeated measures design (multivariate analysis of variance) was conducted to test the intervention’s effects on the three types of prosocial behavior (prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family) using covariables such as age and gender. The results demonstrated significant differences between the pretest and posttest measures of prosocial behavior, Wilk’s λ = .79, F(3, 48) = 4.14, p < .01, η = 21, but no differences between gender and age were found. Univariate tests indicated relevance in two of the three dimensions of prosocial behavior studied: prosocial behavior toward strangers, F(1, 50) = 8.20, p < .01, η = .14, and prosocial behavior toward family members, F(1, 50) = 9.13, p < .01, η = .15; however, no significant difference was found in prosocial behavior toward friends, F(1, 50)= .55, p = .42. In summary, the results indicated that the Hero intervention was effective in promoting prosocial behavior toward strangers and family members but not in promoting prosocial behavior toward friends (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Mean values of prosocial behavior toward different target across pretest and posttest evaluation. Note. SD in parentheses. SD = standard deviation. *p < .01.

Discussion

Given the known benefits of prosocial behavior at the individual as well as the social level, it is considered beneficial to health professionals, educators, and families to promote this behavior, especially during the key stages of development, such as childhood and adolescence.

Adolescence is a complex stage of development. Adolescents need to learn how to manage new emotional and social experiences as well as adapt to new demands of the environment. An intervention that intends to develop prosocial behavior through the promotion of empathy, emotional recognition, positive emotions, gratitude, and forgiveness as well as prosociality itself might contribute to well adjustment of adolescent. In addition, engaging in prosocial acts during adolescence may help to promote prosocial behaviors in adulthood (Hardy & Carlo, 2011; Padilla-Walker, Carlo, & Memmott-Elison, 2017).

Moreover, evidence suggests that when earlier interventions are made, better prognoses in development can be expected, given the plasticity that children and adolescents have (Mesurado, Guerra, Richaud, & Rodriguez, 2018). Indeed, other authors indicate that teenagers are sensitive to interventions on positive relations (January, Casey, & Paulson, 2011).

Thus, it is of great importance to implement intervention programs that enable this task and provide valid stimulation tools. This may be one of the reasons, in the last few years, for the interest in developing intervention programs for prosociality. Previous studies indicate that although some programs existed before the year 2000, it was after 2000 and onward, with additional growth in the year 2010, that different investigators in different parts of the world started developing intervention alternatives (Mesurado, Guerra, Richaud, & Rodriguez, 2018). However, despite the existence of several intervention programs for prosociality, these interventions are scarce (Mesurado, Guerra, Richaud, & Rodriguez, 2018).

The Hero program emerges as an alternative to existing programs, differentiating itself by the fact that it is a self-administered online program that uses a familiar technology for the new generation. From the results obtained in the first pilot study of the Hero program, it can be claimed that the program had a high level of acceptance among its users. An aspect that stands out is that all of the adolescents perceived that the program was easy to use, an aspect of great importance for self-administered programs because they may not be implemented with the presence of an instructor. This finding further confirms that the instructions of the “Sensei” within the program were clear and sufficient, so that the adolescents understood the sequence and the instructions of the tasks. The majority of the adolescents who participated in the program perceived that the activities were useful and could be transferred to their daily life. These are the key aspects to stimulate users’ adherence to the system and to achieve its effectiveness in real contexts of interpersonal interactions. Moreover, adolescents in general perceived that this program should be recommended to children their age.

Regarding the adolescents’ insight into the effectiveness of the activities proposed in each of the islands or modules that constitute Hero to promote prosociality as well as each of the social–emotional variables that underline this conduct, high levels of perceptions of effectiveness were found.

This finding contributes to the hypothesis of the existence of an interrelation between the variables and reinforces the idea that the stimulation of empathy, positive emotions, emotional recognition, gratitude, and forgiveness (important variables in prosociality) contributes to the development of prosocial behavior in adolescents.

When investigating the effectiveness of the program to promote prosocial behaviors aimed toward the different targets, it was found that the program was effective to promote prosocial behaviors toward other members of the family and toward strangers, but it was not effective to promote prosocial behaviors toward friends. This could be because none of the activities developed within the program makes direct reference to friends. The activities seek to evoke empathy, gratitude, and forgiveness situations that are linked to others, but the adolescent must identify or “personify” the target of this emotion or situation. It is likely that adolescents identify more easily with people of their own family group or even with strangers than with their group of friends.

An important aspect is that the explained variance of the program in the promotion of prosocial behaviors was approximately 21%, a value that coincides with the average effectiveness of the on-site intervention programs discussed in a recent meta-analysis (Mesurado, Guerra, Richaud, & Rodriguez, 2018). The development of the Hero program does not intend to replace on-site interventions, but it may serve as a complement to them. However, it may also act as a resource for adolescents who find it difficult to access interventions with specialized professionals, either because of distance or a lack of economic resources.

Limitations and further investigations

This article presents the first empirical evidence about the acceptance, usefulness, and effectiveness of the Hero program. However, it presents several limitations that need to be considered in further studies. First, it is necessary to increase the number of participants in the program, include a control group and select the participants of each group randomly so that the effectiveness of the program can be ascertained and to control the possible modifications that may be encountered in prosociality by the sole effect of the evolutionary development of adolescents. A second aspect to be included in future studies is a follow-up evaluation of the modifications of the prosocial behaviors that should occur 3–6 months after the completion of the intervention program. This is due to the known fact that the effects of the intervention decrease with time. A third aspect that could be included is a pre- and post-measure test of aggressive behaviors to study whether the Hero program is effective not only to promote prosocial behaviors but also to mitigate disruptive behaviors, such as aggressive behaviors. These tests could also include pre- and post-measure tests of each of the social–emotional variables that are suggested by the program to study the effects of the Hero program on these variables.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Federico Favale, Federico Ruiz, José Illi, Joaquín Nacht, Luciano Sartor, Nicolás Burroni, Santiago Fuentes, Tomás Battolla, and Alejo Blasco, who collaborated in the development and design of the program. Moreover, the authors would also like to thank psychology students of Austral University who collaborated in the recruitment of the participants.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Austral University under Grant T-80020170200003UA-17.

Open research statement

This research was not preregistered. The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: bmesurado@austral.edu.ar or mesuradob@gmail.com.

Appendix 1

References

Aknin

L. B.

Dunn

E. W.

Norton

M. I.

(2012). Happiness runs in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 347–355. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9267-5

Aknin

L. B.

Sandstrom

G. M.

Dunn

E. W.

Norton

M. I.

(2011). It’s the recipient that counts: Spending money on strong social ties leads to greater happiness than spending on weak social ties. PloS One, 6, e17018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017018

Bandura

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

Baños

R. M.

Etchemendy

Farfallini

García-Palacios

Quero

Botella

(2014). EARTH of well-being system: A pilot study of an information and communication technology-based positive psychology intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 482–488. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.927906

Batson

C. D.

(2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In Decety

Ickes

(Eds.), Social neuroscience. The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

Baumeister

Leary

(1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Baumeister

R. F.

Lobbestael

(2011). Emotions and antisocial behavior. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 22, 635–649. doi:10.1080/14789949.2011.617535

Blair

R. J. R.

(2018). Traits of empathy and anger: Implications for psychopathy and other disorders associated with aggression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 373, 20170155. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0155

Caprara

G. V.

Alessandri

Eisenberg

(2012). Prosociality: The contribution of traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1289–1303. doi:10.1037/a0025626

10.

Caprara

G. V.

Kanacri

B. P. L.

Gerbino

Zuffiano

Alessandri

Vecchio

… Bridglall

(2014). Positive effects of promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence: Evidence from a school-based intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 386–396. doi:10.1177/0165025414531464

11.

Caprara

G. V.

Kanacri

B. P. L.

Zuffianò

Gerbino

Pastorelli

. (2015). Why and how to promote adolescents’ prosocial behaviors: Direct, mediated and moderated effects of the CEPIDEA school-based program. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2211–2229. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0293-1

12.

Caprara

G. V.

Pastorelli

(1993). Early emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression: Some methodological aspects. European Journal of Personality, 7, 19–36. doi:10.1002/per.2410070103

13.

Carlo

Randall

B. A.

(2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31–44. doi:10.1023/A:1014033032440

14.

Cohen

A. D.

(2012). Does gratitude promote reciprocity in response to all benefits, or just those rendered by novel relationship partners? Testing the role of gratitude in the establishment of reciprocal relationships (Doctoral dissertation). University of Miami, Miami, USA.

15.

Cuello

(2015). Evaluación de las emociones positivas, las habilidades sociales y la empatía en la niñez tardía. Su relación con los comportamientos prosociales y agresivos [Evaluation of positive emotions, social skills and empathy in late childhood. Its relationship with prosocial and aggressive behaviors] (Doctoral Dissertation). Universidad Católica Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

16.

Davis

A. N.

Carlo

Streit

Crockett

L. J.

(2018). Considering economic stress and empathic traits in predicting prosocial behaviors among US Latino adolescents. Social Development, 27, 58–72.

17.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.

18.

Ding

(2016). Association between empathy and prosocial behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 24, 1159–1174. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.01159

19.

Drozd

Mork

Nielsen

Raeder

Bjørkli

C. A.

(2014). Better days—A randomized controlled trial of an internet-based positive psychology intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 377–388. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.910822

20.

Eisenberg

Mussen

P. H.

(1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Spinrad

T. L.

(2006). Prosocial behavior. In Eisenberg

(Vol. Ed) Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 646–718). New York, NY: Wiley.

22.

Emmons

R. A.

McCullough

M. E.

(2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377

23.

Exline

J. J.

Lisan

A. M.

Lisan

E. R.

(2012). Reflecting on acts of kindness toward the self: Emotions, generosity, and the role of social norms. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 45–56. doi:10.1080/17439760.2011.626790

24.

Fredrickson

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden and build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.

25.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Joiner

(2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological science, 13, 172–175.

26.

Froh

J. J.

Bono

Emmons

(2010). Being grateful is beyond good manners: Gratitude and motivation to contribute to society among early adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 144–157. doi:10.1007/s11031-010-9163-z

27.

Garaigordobil

(2008). Assessment of the effects of a cooperative play programme for children aged 10–11 years on social adaptation and on the perception that parents, teachers and peers have of children’s prosocial behaviors. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 31, 303–318.

28.

Grant

A. M.

Gino

(2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 98, 946–955.

29.

Han

S. Y.

(2015). Effects of adolescent self-conscious emotion, empathy, and forgiveness on prosocial behavior by gender and age. Journal of Korean Home Management Association, 33, 117–131. doi:10.7466/JKHMA.2015.33.5.117

30.

Hardy

S. A.

Carlo

(2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action? Child Development Perspectives, 5, 212–218. doi:10.1111/cdep.2011.5.issue-3

31.

January

A. M.

Casey

R. J.

Paulson

(2011). A meta-analysis of classroom-wide interventions to build social skills: Do they work? School Psychology Review, 40, 242–256.

32.

Kanacri

B. P. L.

Zuffiano

Gerbino

Vecchio

(2014). Un modelo para la promoción del comportamiento prosocial en el contexto educativo: el programa CEPIDEAS. En V. Mestre, P. Samper y A. M. Tur-Porcaro (Coords.), Desarrollo prosocial en las aulas. Propuestas para la intervención (pp. 211–230). Valencia: Tirant Humanidades.

33.

Karremans

J. C.

Van Lange

P. A.

Holland

R. W.

(2005). Forgiveness and its associations with prosocial thinking, feeling, and doing beyond the relationship with the offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1315–1326. doi:10.1177/0146167205274892

34.

Kim

Lee

J. S.

(2013). Is satisfaction enough to ensure reciprocity with upscale restaurants? The role of gratitude relative to satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 118–128. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.06.009

35.

Lam

C. M.

(2012). Prosocial involvement as a positive youth development construct: A conceptual review. The Scientific World Journal, 1–8. doi:10.1100/2012/769158

36.

Lerner

R. M.

Almerigi

J. B.

Theokas

Lerner

J. V.

(2005). Positive youth development a view of the issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 10–16. doi:10.1177/0272431604273211

37.

LoBue

Thrasher

(2015). The Child Affective Facial Expression (CAFE) set: Validity and reliability from untrained adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1532. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01532

38.

Lucas

R. E.

Diener

Larsen

R. J.

(2003). Measuring positive emotions. In Lopez

S. J.

Snyder

C. R.

(Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 201–218). Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.

39.

L. K.

Tunney

R. J.

Ferguson

(2017). Does gratitude enhance prosociality? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 601–635. doi:10.1037/bul0000103

40.

Marsh

A. A.

Kozak

M. N.

Ambady

(2007). Accurate identification of fear facial expressions predicts prosocial behavior. Emotion, 7, 239–251. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.239

41.

Martínez-Martí

M. L.

Avia

M. D.

Hernández-Lloreda

M. J.

(2014). Appreciation of beauty training: A web-based intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 477–481. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.920512

42.

McCullough

M. E.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr Rachal

K. C.

(1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.

43.

McGinley

Carlo

(2007). Two sides of the same coin? The relations between prosocial and physically aggressive behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 337–349.

44.

Mendez Castellano

(1994). Sociedad y estratificación: Método graffar-Méndez Castellano. Caracas: Fundacredesa, 1–206.

45.

Mesurado

Guerra

Richaud

M. C.

Rodriguez

L. M.

(2018). Effectiveness of prosocial behavior interventions: A meta-analysis. In Gargiulo

(Ed.), Psychiatry and neuroscience update (Vol. III). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.

46.

Mesurado

Richaud

M. C.

(2017). The relationship between parental variables, empathy and prosocial-flow with prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 843–860.

47.

Mesurado

Richaud

M. C.

Rodriguez

L. M

. (2018). The varying roles of parents and the cognitive-emotional variables regarding the different types of adolescent prosocial behavior. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. doi:10.1177/0265407518780365

48.

Mesurado

Richaud

M. C.

Mestre

M. V.

Samper-García

Tur-Porcar

Morales Mesa

S. A.

Viveros

E. F.

(2014). Parental expectations and prosocial behavior of adolescents from low-income backgrounds: A cross-cultural comparison between three countries Argentina, Colombia, and Spain. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1471–1488. doi:10.1177/0022022114542284

49.

Michie

(2009). Pride and gratitude: How positive emotions influence the prosocial behaviors of organizational leaders. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 393–403. doi:10.1177/1548051809333338

50.

Morris

R. R.

Picard

(2014). Crowd-powered positive psychological interventions. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 509–516. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.913671

51.

Norman

(2017). Forgiveness: How it manifests in our health, well-being, and longevity. Master of Applied Positive Psychology (MAPP) Capstone Projects. University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons.

52.

O’Hare

Biggart

Kerr

Connolly

P. A.

(2015). Randomized controlled trial evaluation of an after-school prosocial behavior program in an area of socioeconomic disadvantage. The Elementary School Journal, 116, 1–29. doi:10.1086/683102

53.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Christensen

K. J.

(2011). Empathy and self-regulation as mediators between parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 545–551. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00695.x

54.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

Memmott-Elison

M. K.

(2017). Longitudinal change in adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence. doi:10.1111/jora.12362

55.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Dyer

W. J.

Yorgason

J. B.

Fraser

A. M.

Coyne

S. M.

(2015). Adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward family, friends, and strangers: A person-centered approach. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 135–150. doi:10.1111/jora.12102

56.

Penner

L. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

Piliavin

J. A.

Schroeder

D. A.

(2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141

57.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

58.

Piff

P. K.

Dietze

Feinberg

Stancato

D. M.

Keltner

(2015). Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 883–899. doi:10.1037/pspi0000018

59.

Rana

Hariharan

Nandinee

Vincent

. (2014). Forgiveness: A determinant of adolescents’ happiness. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 5, 1119–1123. Retrieved from http://www.iahrw.com/index.php/home/journal_detail/19#list

60.

Richaud

M. C.

Mesurado

(2016). Las emociones positivas y la empatía como promotores de la conducta prosocial e inhibidores de la conducta agresiva [Positive emotions and empathy as promotors of prosocial behavior and inhibitors of aggressive behavior]. Acción Psicológica, 13, 31–42.

61.

Richaud

M. C.

Mesurado

Cortada

A. K.

(2012). Analysis of dimensions of prosocial behavior in an Argentinean sample of children. Psychological Reports, 111, 687–696. doi:10.2466/10.11.17.PR0.111.6.687-696

62.

Riek

B. M.

DeWit

C. C.

(2018). Differences and similarities in forgiveness seeking across childhood and adolescence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1119–1132. doi:10.1177/0146167218760797

63.

Rodriguez

L. M.

Mesurado

Moreno

J. E

. (2018). Ethics position, empathy and prosocial behaviour model. Its contribution to prevention and psychotherapeutic approaches of antisocial disorders. In Gargiulo

(Ed.), Psychiatry and neuroscience update (Vol. III). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.

64.

Romersi

Martínez-Fernández

Roche

(2011). Efectos del programa mínimo de incremento prosocial en una muestra de estudiantes de educación secundaria [The effects of the minim program of prosocial improvement on a high school students sample]. Anales de psicología, 27, 135–146.

65.

Rose

R. D.

(2014). Self-guided multimedia stress management and resilience training. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 489–493. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.927907

66.

Roth

J. L.

Brooks-Gunn

(2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94–111. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0702_6

67.

Schimel

Wohl

M. J.

Williams

(2006). Terror management and trait empathy: Evidence that mortality salience promotes reactions of forgiveness among people with high (vs. low) trait empathy. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 214–224. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9040-y

68.

Schueller

S. M.

Parks

A. C.

(2012). Disseminating self-help: Positive psychology exercises in an online trial. Journal of medical Internet Research, 14, e63. doi:10.2196/jmir.1850

69.

Seligman

M. E.

Steen

T. A.

Park

Peterson

(2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

70.

Taylor

Z. E.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Eggum

N. D.

Sulik

M. J.

(2013).The relations of ego-resiliency and emotion socialization to the development of empathy and prosocial behavior across early childhood. Emotion, 13, 822–931. doi:10.1037/a0032894

71.

Thoits

P. A.

Hewitt

L. N.

(2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 115–131.

72.

Tian

Chu

Huebner

E. S.

(2016). The chain of relationships among gratitude, prosocial behavior and elementary school students’ school satisfaction: The role of school affect. Child Indicators Research, 9, 515–532. doi:10.1007/s12187-015-9318-2

73.

Tsuang

M. T.

Eaves

Nir

Jerskey

B. A.

Lyons

M. J.

(2005). Genetic influences on forgiving. In Worthington

L. E.

Jr . (Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 245–258). New York, NY: Routledge.

74.

Van Doorn

E. A.

van Kleef

G. A.

van der Pligt

(2015). How emotional expressions shape prosocial behavior: Interpersonal effects of anger and disappointment on compliance with requests. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 128–141. doi:10.1007/s11031-014-9421-6

75.

Van Tongeren

D. R.

Green

J. D.

Davis

D. E.

Hook

J. N.

Hulsey

T. L.

(2016). Prosociality enhances meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 225–236. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1048814

76.

Wadlinger

H. A.

Isaacowitz

D. M.

(2008). Looking happy: The experimental manipulation of a positive visual attention bias. Emotion, 8, 121–126. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.121

77.

Worthington

L. E.

Jr . (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York, NY: Routledge.

78.

Yost-Dubrow

Dunham

(2017). Evidence for a relationship between trait gratitude and prosocial behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 32, 397–403. doi:10.1080/02699931.2017.1289153