Difficult times like wars, disasters, pandemics show us the essence of who we are collective as human beings. As the coronavirus pandemic swept across the world at the beginning of 2020, it caused widespread concern, fear, and stress, all of which are natural and normal reactions to the changing and uncertain situation. It is remarkable to see many examples of civic engagements even in that climate when the thread is real and fear is common. It brought the question of why people act prosocially to the fore once again. Prosocial behavior covers a broad range of actions intended to benefit others. This includes, but is not limited to, comforting, cooperation, sharing, helping, charitable giving, and volunteering. As such, prosocial behavior usually entails some (small or even large) cost for the actor, such as spending resources, time, effort or sometimes even incurring physical harm. This raises a fundamental question. Why, when their own welfare is so clearly at stake, do people help others?

Prosocial behavior has long posed a challenge to social scientists. Researchers seek to understand why people engage in helping behaviors even it can be costly to the actor. There are a number of reasons why people engage in prosocial behavior. Those were defined as “prosocial motives” defined by emphatic/ altruistic concerns, evolutionary influences, reciprocal benefits, internalized principles, or egoistic reasons.

Several studies ( Eisenberg, 1983 ; Van Lange et al., 1997 ; Ashton, Lee, & De Vries, 2014 ; Dovidio et al., 2017 ) examined diverse prosocial motives, and found significant associations with moral development, cognitive development, personality, and socialization mechanisms. Most of the scholars investigated whether situational or dispositional factors were better predictors of prosocial actions and there are numerous variables related with prosocial behavior. Although unification of the models and causal predictions of these theories are intact, complexity of the prosocial behavior require amalgamated models by the integration of different theoretical perspectives ( Batson, 2011 ). Recent studies support this proposition as multivariate models of prosocial motives are more common nowadays and they have broader social implications. For that instance, beyond the egoism—altrusim debate, this study also examined collectivistic prosocial motives and moral motivation principlism (ultimate goal of upholding a moral principle) as predictors of prosocial behavior.

The aim of this study is to understand prosocial behaviors from an integrated perspective. We propose a framework that integrates two constructs for predicting prosocial behaviors: prosocial motives and values. There is very limited research on the mechanisms linking prosocial motives to prosocial behaviors and attitudes ( Carlo & Pierotti, 2020 ). Because the motivations for prosocial actions are usually unclear, sometimes even to the actors, but especially to observers, it is difficult to study prosocial motivation ( Eisenberg, VanSchyndel, & Spinrad, 2016 ). In that sense, personal values, a highly relevant topic with prosocial behavior context could shed light on the understanding of how prosocial actions can derive from varied motives. Individuals are more likely to persist at goals consistent with their values. For this reason, the congurity of motives and values could be more coherent in predicting behavior.

We believe that each prosocial motive will trigger a different value priority in explaining prosocial behavior. Prosocial motives could interact as moral agents with personal values and regulate value-behavior congruities. To test these assumptions, we will propose a discriminative model by analysing the direct and indirect effects of two coherent variables “prosocial motives” and “personal values” predicting prosocial behavior.

The definition of the variables and theoretical framework of the study are described in the following sections.

When we try to evaluate prosocial behavior, we have to remember that the underlying causes and motivations for the actor may be different, even though their action may appear the same to an outside observer. Why is it so important to understand all of these different reasons, then? Prosocial motives are the driving force behind all aspects of those behaviors, including their intensity, duration, and persistence. It is crucial to analyze the underlying motives of prosocial behaviors in order to comprehend the efficacy of the actions taken.

There are various ways to categorize prosocial motives. Psychology offers a wide range of theories to understand the factors behind helping behaviors. Several theories have been proposed to define prosocial motivation, some of these hypothesis’s center on the evolutionary roots of prosocial motivation, while others center on moral development, social learning, and behavior psychology. On the basis of Batson’s (2011) taxonomy, we examined three unique motives based on various prosocial motivation theories ( Figure 1 ). These theories differ from one another based on the ultimate goal that directs them; We consider four possible forms of prosocial motivation; altruism (benefiting others), egoism (benefiting oneself), collectivism (benefiting a group), and principlism (i.e., to uphold a specific moral principle). Each of these is proposed to have a different ultimate goal. Each of these motives explains how people are motivated to behave in ways that help them attain certain outcomes. In this section, we will define these prosocial motives and establish a model to use these motives to predict prosocial behavior;

Altruism can be defined as protecting or promoting the welfare of another person. Considering the related literature, two types of altruism exist. Evolutionary altruism refers to an action that aids the survival of a species at the expense of the altruistic individual, whereas psychological altruism is acting without regard for one’s own self-interest out of compassion for the well-being of others. Sober and Wilson (1998) pointed out that it is important to distinguish between evolutionary altruism and psychological altruism. Evolutionary psychology views the evolution of altruism as a strategy to increase cooperativeness toward people in the same group or even toward members of outgroups ( Costantini et al., 2019 ). This approach is related to reciprocal altruism theory ( Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981 ; Trivers, 1971 ). Evolutionary-based theories define altruistic prosocial behavior as motivated by the norm of reciprocity, which is an obligation to return a favor with a favor. A tendency towards reciprocity implies that people will feel obliged to respond if someone helps them. When people do not reciprocate, they feel guilty, and when others do not reciprocate, they may feel anger. This is an implicit premise of reciprocity. However, evolutionary-based theories cannot adequately explain why humans help without expecting anything in return other than reproductive fitness. Therefore, we measured these concepts as “kin selection” and “reciprocity” on dimensions distinct from psychological altruism.

This research examines altruism with the aim of predicting a person’s prosocial actions by analysing their conscious choices from both a moral and individual perspective at the psychological level. Altruism is the most intriguing and controversial form of prosocial motivation for behavioural and social scientists because if it exists, it means that we have the potential of placing the interest of others ahead of our own. Several theories have been developed based on a psychological perspective, such as the empathic altruism theory ( Batson, 1990 ), the empathic joy theory ( Smith, Keating, & Stotland, 1989 ), and the negative-state relief model ( Cialdini et al., 1987 ). It is possible to conclude, on the basis of these theories, that social psychologists working at the meso level have defined altruism in terms of motivation. Examining motivations is crucial when trying to understand pro-social actions. A selfish person’s helping behavior, for example, is motivated by a desire to avoid the discomfort they anticipate experiencing as a result of the situation, whereas an altruistic person’s is motivated by a desire to prioritize the welfare of the individual in need. An egoist helps to make him/her feel better, while an altruist helps out of empathetic concern to make the distressed person in need feel better. The ultimate goal of these motives, then, is either to improve one’s own situation or to promote the welfare of another person.

Over the course of the past two decades, a significant number of research have been carried out to explore the impacts of egoistic explanations and altruistic motives on pro-social actions, and the findings have been quite startling. Logical and psychological distinctions between egoism and altruism are reviewed. The egoistic explanation(s) for each study predicted a different pattern of outcomes than did the empathy-altruism hypothesis. The consistency of these results with the predictions of the empathy-altruism hypothesis provides support for a pluralistic model of prosocial motivation that incorporates both altruism and egoism.

According to their respective definitions, altruism and egoism share many similarities. All three terms describe a person’s emotional state, focus on what drives that condition, and aim to improve that person’s well-being. These shared characteristics set the stage for elucidating a key distinction: Whose interests are being prioritized here, exactly? Is it someone else’s or one’s own? Only when people feel empathy toward other people, will they be willing to help those around them, regardless of any benefits they may receive in return. When the ultimate goal is self-benefit, the motivation is egoistic. This is true regardless of how pleasant or noble the ensuring behaviour may be for others.

Humans are clearly capable of helping others as an instrumental means to benefit themselves. Many self-benefits can motivate helping. These motives could either be gaining material, social or self-rewards (payments, gifts, esteem, enhanced self-image), avoiding material, social and self-punishments (fines, guilt, sanctions for norm violations) or reduction of aversive arousal such as escaping a distressing situation ( Dovidio et al., 2010 ; Batson, 2011 ).

Values convey what is important to us in our lives. Values are guiding principles and motivational goals that have an important influence on behavior. The more important a value is to us, the more we strive to fulfill this motivational goal by behaving accordingly ( Bardi & Schwartz, 2003 ). The Schwartz Theory of values is currently the most widely accepted and studied theory by social and cross-cultural psychologists for understanding individual differences in values. Values are distinguished from one another by the motivational goals that they express. The values theory defines ten broad values according to the motivation that underlies each of them. Schwartz (2006) divided this structure into four higher-order values, organized on two orthogonal bipolar dimensions where the poles reflect opposing motivations. On the first dimension, self-enhancement values (power and achievement), which focus on the pursuit of self-interest, oppose self-transcendence values (universalism and benevolence), which express concerns for the welfare and interests of others. On the second dimension, openness-to-change values (stimulation, self-direction, and hedonism), which focus on the autonomy of thought and action and pursuit of change through new ideas, experiences, and actions, oppose conservation values (conformity, tradition, and security), which emphasize resistance to change and conform to social norms. Openness to change and self-enhancement incorporate individual interest, while their opposites, conservation, and self-transcendence incorporate social interest ( Schwartz, 2012 ). So understanding the value priorities of one-self is important as predicting her/his actions and relating specific values with relevant behaviors. Roccas and Sagiv (2010) argued that ‘one of the reasons for the interest in the identification of personal values is their effects on behavior’ and that ‘personal values are associated with a large variety of behaviors’.

Prior research has indicated relations between the four higher-order values and prosocial behavior. In many studies, self-transcendence values were the most related variable that explains pro-social behavior ( Rechter & Sverdlik, 2016 ; Caprara & Steca, 2007 ). This is convenient with the definition of universalism and benevolence, as the more people value others’ welfare, the more they strive to develop abilities to help others. Self-transcendence values direct attention to others’ needs whereas self-enhancement focuses on the gain/promotion of oneself. Therefore, in most studies, self-enhancement values relate negatively to pro-social behavior ( Daniel et al., 2015 ; Sagiv, Sverdlik, & Schwarz, 2011 ). However, past studies did not find consistent associations between openness-to-change and conservation values, and prosocial behavior ( Daniel, Dys, Buchmann, & Malti, 2014 ).

Also, there is a considerable amount of research that indicates discrepancies and the absence of correlations/causalities between values and helping, volunteering behavior. That may be due to associations being dependent on context and the specific prosocial behavior that is examined ( Sanderson & McQuilkin, 2017 ).

In this study, we try to understand how different motivations underlying pro-social behavior interact with values. Values are shaped not just by individual cognitive processes, but also by societal environment and the social influence. Hence, linking motives to values can provide a more relevant explanation for any behavior. Numerous motives might influence a single act and for this reason it is challenging to interpret the true motivation behind the act. Values, in that sense provide a framework about how and in which circumstances each prosocial motive will be activated. Differentiation of each motive is based on the identification of a unique ultimate goal; For egoism, the ultimate goal is self-benefit; for kin selection (collectivism), it is to increase group welfare; for emphatic concern, to increase one or more other individuals’ welfare; for principlism, to uphold one or more moral principles. We believe that each prosocial motive will trigger a different value priority on explaining prosocial behaviors. For that reason, pro-social motives could interact as moral agents with life values and regulate value-behavior congruities. From this point of view, we propose;

We have presented a comprehensive model utilizing life values, and found evidence that two-dimensional joint structure of interactions between values and prosocial motives were consistent defining prosocial behavior. These findings indicated a significant increase of prosocial behavior in context where identical life values and motives converge. Prior research has indicated relations between the four higher order values and prosocial behavior. Specifically, self-enhancement values relate negatively and self-transcendence values relate positively to prosocial behavior among adults. On the other hand, motivations for prosocial actions typically are unclear, sometimes even to actors but especially for observers.

The results revealed that self-enhancement values only explains prosocial behavior when interacted with ego centered motives. Within the ego-based group likely intensified more than those in the principle-based and empathetic-based groups. The slope of the self-oriented group exceeded that of the other groups, and only the coefficients of the self-oriented group were significant due to the conditional effect of the focal predictor. We also examined the interaction between self-enhancement values and principle-based and emphatic-based motives, comparing the scores with those of other groups and finding no significant results.

Another important conclusion is that previous studies did not find consistent associations between conservation values and prosocial behavior ( Daniel, Dys, Buchmann, & Malti, 2014 ). In this study, when we included traditional values alone in the regression, no significant effect was observed. When we separated the groups, the impact of traditional values on helping behavior became more clear. Prosocial motives based on kin selection and principlism alter the impact of conservative values predicting helping behavior. The motive value congruity is again relevant. Demands of human nature and requirements of societal functioning are especially relevant with conservation values. Both in terms of their social acceptance and their role as moral sense for people, these values provide a stronger explanation for benevolent acts in cultures where traditional values are prevalent. Batson (2011) distinguished between altruistic and moral motivations. According to him, moral motivation emerges from the ultimate objective of adhering to a moral principle, which he referred to as “principlism.” This study also provides evidence that principlism defines helping behavior stronger when combined with conservative values whereas empathic altruism defines prosocial acts stronger when combined with self transcendence values. Again, within different groups, whereas prosocial motives were based on empathic altruism and egoism, conservation values are insignificant in predicting helping behavior.

Another crucial finding from the foregoing discussions is the increase in active helping behavior related to self-transcendence values is only significant in groups with emphatic/altruistic motives. Benevolence values may increase perception of need, empathic concern, and perspective taking in relation to members of one’s ingroup; universalism may do the same in relation to outgroup members and strangers. Furthermore, self-enhancement values may diminish the perception of need and empathy, and consequently, the likelihood of helping behavior. Recent studies also indicate a positive correlation between Universalism and benevolence values and a negative correlation between power and achievement values with indexes of empathic concern and perspective-taking ( Silfver, Helkama, Lonngvist, & Verkasalo, 2008 ). Based on these results, what psychological factors contribute to congruity through a combination of specific values and motivations that result in significant prosocial behaviors?

There have been minimal empirical findings that ascertain the similarities and variances in values and motives. Although motives and values seem to be similar concepts at first glance, they have fundamentally different cognitive and psychosocial mechanisms. Biernat (1989) conceptualized them as distinct and independent personality constructs, one nonconscious, the other conscious, each predictive of a different type of achievement-related behavior. Motives would predict operant or spontaneous behaviors, while values would predict respondent or stimulus-driven behaviors. Motives energize, orient, and select behavior that is, they make one active in pursuing a goal, sensitive to cues relating to a goal, and quick to learn what is necessary to reach a goal ( McClelland, 1985 ). Values do not serve these functions, but they can influence self-conscious behavioral choices and evaluations of other people. A final distinction between motives and values is that they predict different kinds of behaviors ( deCharms et al., 1955 ). Motives predict “operant” behaviors, what people will spontaneously do while values predict “respondent” behaviors, what people cognitively decide should be done. The distinctions imply that each value or motive construct is likely to produce a distinct effect. This could be a theoretical explanation of how each value or motive construct will culminate in a different consequence.

To conclude, in this paper, we have revealed a systematic pattern of relations between personal values and prosocial motives. This study differentiated values based on whether they focus on “self” or “other” dependent motives to explain prosocial behaviors. Individuals are more likely to persist at goals consistent with their values. For this reason, the congruity of motives and values could be more coherent in predicting behavior. Further research through extensive contextual models of value and motive interactions will enhance the understanding of the intensity, distinction, and intention behind prosocial behaviors.