Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: In a fast-changing society that is currently dealing with multiple global crises, prosocial behavior is an important building stone for mutual trust. Prosocial behavior is defined as behavior directed to benefitting others (Crone & Achterberg, 2022; El Mallah, 2020). It can be directed to close others such as friends and family members, or to distant others, such as unknown individuals who are deserving or in need (Carlo & Padilla‐Walker, 2020; Sweijen et al., 2022). Prosocial behavior presents itself in the form of helping, sharing, caring, comforting, giving, and altruism (Crone & Achterberg, 2022; El Mallah, 2020). Adolescence is a particularly important time for developing prosocial behavior and trust, as the social environment changes rapidly and social relationships outside of family context become increasingly important (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Crone & Dahl, 2012; Crone & Fuligni, 2020; Lam et al., 2014; Sweijen et al., 2022). Among adolescents, prosocial behavior develops through social experiences and by adapting to their rapidly changing social environment (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Crone & Dahl, 2012; Crone & Fuligni, 2020). Prior research showed that adolescents’ prosocial behavior relies on advanced reasoning methods such as considering others’ perspectives and differentiating between in- and out-group members (Crone & Fuligni, 2020). The ability to take others’ perspectives develops during adolescence and forms the foundation of both close relationships (in-group), as well as connections to larger societal groups consisting of strangers (out-group) (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Crone & Dahl, 2012; Crone & Fuligni, 2020). Prosocial behavior has been found to positively influence many factors of adolescents’ life such as better well-being, academic outcomes, physiological and psychological health, and less frequent antisocial behavior (Carlo & Padilla‐Walker, 2020). Giving is an important building block in reciprocal prosocial interactions (van de Groep, Zanolie, & Crone, 2020). Giving involves considering consequences and comparing outcomes for both self and others (Güroğlu et al., 2014). Giving behavior can be studied by employing the experimental Dictator Game in which one person distributes resources (e.g., coins) between themselves and a recipient (van de Groep, Zanolie, & Crone, 2020). The second player is the receiving target of the giving behavior and can be a close other (e.g., friend, family member), a distant other (e.g., an unknown peer), or an experimental target with an unknown social distance. Giving behavior in adolescence differs from giving behavior in childhood as prosocial decisions increasingly rely on situational contexts (Güroğlu et al., 2014; van de Groep, Zanolie, & Crone, 2020). Mirroring adolescents’ stronger in-group-out-group differentiation, studies using the Dictator Game indicate that with increasing age, adolescents show more giving behavior towards close others compared to distant others (Buhrmester et al., 1992; Carlo & Padilla‐Walker, 2020; Güroğlu et al., 2014; Telzer et al., 2015; van de Groep, Zanolie, & Crone, 2020). Indeed, giving behavior has been found to be positively correlated to perspective taking abilities and one’s sensitivity to social reward (Güroğlu et al., 2014; Kwak & Huettel, 2016; van de Groep, Zanolie, & Crone, 2020; Will & Güroğlu, 2016), suggesting that the development of perspective taking and social reward processing partially accounts for the developmental increase in target differentiation. Additionally, adolescents’ reciprocal relationships increasingly rely on general trust placed in others or interpersonal trust (Güroğlu, 2021; Sweijen et al., 2023). Trust is defined as the willingness to be vulnerable to actions of others while expecting a future reciprocation that is not guaranteed (Reiter et al., 2023; van de Groep, Meuwese, et al., 2020). As trust involves a risk, adolescents’ trust behavior differs and effectively adapts depending to the receiving counterpart (Burke et al.; Crone & Fuligni, 2020; Fett et al., 2014; Sijtsma et al., 2023; Sweijen et al., 2023). Moreover, inter-individual differences in trust behaviour in adolescents have also been identified. Previously, adolescents’ trust behavior was, similar to giving behavior, shown to increase with age due to decreased social risk aversion (Hula et al., 2021; Reiter et al., 2023; Sijtsma et al., 2023). Gender differences in trust have also been reported with adolescent girls generally showing less trust than adolescent boys, possibly due to gender-differences in risk-taking behavior (Hula et al., 2021; Lemmers-Jansen et al., 2017; Sijtsma et al., 2023). Trust can also be attributed to broader entities such as institutions including the government, the news, social media, and health care facilities. Institutional trust has been found to play an important role in adolescents’ lives as higher institutional trust has been linked to compliance with the law, support of social norms, and increased participation in civic activities (Finkenauer et al., 2023; Van Lange, 2015). Additionally, lower levels of institutional trust have been linked with more school dropout (Finkenauer et al., 2023). The typical broadening of adolescents’ social environment came to a halt at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic with adolescents reporting decreased opportunities for prosocial actions (Sweijen et al., 2022; van de Groep, Zanolie, et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic represented a time of national crises that required drastic adaptations of society’s organization (De Figueiredo et al., 2021). People were affected by the pandemic and its associated restrictions in many ways; including socially, economically, physically, psychologically, and emotionally (De Figueiredo et al., 2021). Although children and adolescents were less prone to suffer from severe illness (Shen et al., 2020), the COVID-19 pandemic drastically impacted the course of their daily lives (Branje, 2023; Branje & Morris, 2021; De Figueiredo et al., 2021). The lockdowns, the closure of schools, the absence of outdoor activities, and the distancing measures diminished adolescents’ opportunities to interact with friends and peers (Branje, 2023; Branje & Morris, 2021; De Figueiredo et al., 2021). Despite the social restrictions, previous studies showed adolescents sought opportunities to act prosocially such as providing emotional support during the COVID-19 pandemic (Sweijen et al., 2022). Simultaneously, institutions had to combat the spreading of misinformation (Eurofound, 2022). Governments were obliged to expedite informing and convincing citizens of the need for restrictive measures and the importance of vaccinations (Eurofound, 2022). Hence, institutional trust was and remains of large importance (Eurofound, 2022). Research showed that during the start of the lockdown, the implementation of the COVID-19 lockdown measures in the Netherlands increased the population’s (aged 16+) trust in institutions such as in the government and science (Oude Groeniger et al., 2021). This was especially true among groups with highest risk of serious health outcomes (e.g. people aged 65+, people with poor self-assessed health) (Oude Groeniger et al., 2021). In other European countries, similar trends were seen where trust in government increased by the implementation of lockdown measures (Devine et al., 2021). As the COVID-19 measures and restrictions lasted, research showed that institutional trust among late adolescents in the Netherlands decreased following the initial increase at the beginning of the pandemic (Bi et al., 2022). As the world recovers from the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, adolescents’ opportunities to engage in social activities and learn through social experiences have returned. However, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the post-pandemic period on adolescents and their prosocial behavior remain unknown. Studies focusing on the early stages of the pandemic assessed giving behavior using the Pandemic Dictator Game adapted to contain COVID-19 related targets such as a medical doctor, a COVID-19 patient, and an individual with a poor immune system to examine ecologically valid targets (van de Groep, Zanolie, et al., 2020). At the very early start of the pandemic (May 2020 to April 2020), Van de Groep, Zanolie, Green, et al. (2020) employed the Pandemic Dictator Game which revealed adolescents’ higher levels of giving to COVID-19 related targets as they were perceived as more in need or deserving than a friend (familiar other) (van de Groep, Zanolie, et al., 2020). In a second study, using a larger sample, it was again observed that individuals gave more to COVID-19 related targets than to friends and unfamiliar others during the pandemic (Sweijen et al., 2022). However, that generosity to COVID-19 related targets decreased over the course of a year (from 2020 to 2021), while generosity to friends and unfamiliar others remained relatively stable. Considering the pandemic lasted until spring 2023, with the restrictions loosening in 2022, the further development of adolescents’ prosocial giving behavior during and following the COVID-19 pandemic has yet to be uncovered. As an extension to the work of van de Groep et al. (2020) and Sweijen et al. (2022), the current study aims to assess how adolescents’ giving behavior developed throughout and following the COVID-19 pandemic. This study makes use of eight survey waves collected throughout the pandemic starting two months after the beginning of the pandemic, May 2020, until December 2023 in the longitudinal Urban Rotterdam study. Data were collected every six months. The Pandemic Dictator Game consisted of three COVID-19 related targets (medical doctor, COVID patient, individual with poor immune system), a close target in the form of a friend, and a distant target in the form of an unfamiliar peer, which allows an effective comparison of experimental giving behavior (van de Groep, Zanolie, et al., 2020). Starting from the fifth wave (May 2022) onwards, two additional targets were included: a vaccinated individual and a non-vaccinated individual. Research Question 1: Do adolescents show differences in giving towards different targets? What is the influence of their age and gender? We aim to reproduce and extend the findings of van de Groep et al. (2020) and Sweijen et al. (2022) regarding prosocial giving behavior using the Dictator Game. Specifically, we aim to test for differential giving behavior towards different targets including a friend, an unknown peer, and COVID-19 associated targets including a medical doctor, a patient suffering from COVID-19 and an individual with a poor immune system. Two additional COVID-19 associated targets were introduced from wave 5 onwards consisting of a vaccinated individual and a non-vaccinated individual. For this research question, we will combine data from all waves, but not yet examine the longitudinal time effects. Additionally, we will examine the influence of adolescents’ age and gender on their giving behavior. Hypothesis 1.1. We hypothesize that across all timepoints, adolescents will give more to familiar others and less to unfamiliar others. However, we hypothesize that if adolescents perceive unfamiliar others as in need or deserving (e.g. the patient suffering from COVID-19, the individual with a poor immune system, and the medical doctor), they will give more to unfamiliar others than familiar others (van de Groep, Zanolie, et al., 2020). Starting at the fifth wave continuing to the eighth, we test two competing hypotheses concerning additional targets who are vaccinated and who are not vaccinated. If participants give more to people in need, it can be expected that participants will give more to targets who are not vaccinated given that they are more vulnerable to illness than those who are vaccinated. If participants give more to those they perceive as complying to societal norms, it can be expected that they will give more to targets who are vaccinated, given that they comply with government rules more than those who are not vaccinated. Hypothesis 1.2. We hypothesize that older adolescents will show less target differentiation compared to younger adolescents across all waves, extending previous findings reported on the first three waves by (Sweijen et al., 2022). Hypothesis 1.3. Given that prior studies reported that adolescent girls generally give more than males, regardless of target (Espinosa & Kovářík, 2015; Meuwese et al., 2015; Padilla‐Walker, Carlo, & Memmott‐Elison, 2018; van de Groep, Zanolie, & Crone, 2020), we hypothesize that female participants will give more than male participants across targets (Espinosa & Kovářík, 2015; Meuwese et al., 2015; Padilla‐Walker et al., 2018; van de Groep, Zanolie, & Crone, 2020). Research Question 2: Does giving behavior towards COVID-19 related targets decline over time during and after the COVID-19 pandemic? Our second aim is to investigate the development of giving behavior towards COVID-19 related targets throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and after the removal of the restrictions. Whereas previous studies indicate that giving towards those targets was relatively high in the early stage of the pandemic (van de Groep, Zanolie, et al., 2020), there are reasons to expect that generosity has been declining in its later stages. For instance because adolescents perceive them as decreasingly in need or deserving as compared to the beginning of the pandemic (Sweijen et al., 2022). Hypothesis 2. The levels of giving towards COVID-19 related targets will decline over time. Research Question 3: How is giving behavior related to institutional trust? At the third and seventh measurement waves, adolescents’ institutional trust was assessed. As it can be expected that many people are more likely to associate the COVID-19 related target ‘a medical doctor’ stronger with formal institutions than all other targets (a friend, an unknown peer, a COVID patient, an individual with a poor immune system, a vaccinated other, and a non-vaccinated other), we will examine whether giving towards the first is more strongly shaped by participants’ institutional trust than giving towards the latter at each timepoint separately. Hypothesis 3. The levels of giving towards the COVID-19 related target ‘a medical doctor’ is more strongly positively affected by participants’ institutional trust than giving towards other targets (a friend, an unknown peer, a COVID patient, and an individual with a poor immune system).