In 1938, Superman debuted as the world’s first costumed, alter-egoed, super-powered hero.¹ Captivating audiences with logic-defying stories of public service (and his unique fashion choices), Superman brought new life to long-standing values of selflessness and social justice.

While the powers of levitation, mind-reading, and invisibility remain confined to our wildest imaginations (for now), our admiration of heroic deeds is very much based in reality. Prosocial behaviors describe actions that intentionally benefit the well-being of other individuals or groups of people.² Like the name suggests, prosocial behaviors help create positive relationships and strengthen social bonds. Whether it’s giving a stranger directions or comforting a close friend, such acts are a foundational piece of our social lives. Without cooperation and helpfulness, communities and societies as we know them wouldn’t exist. 

Prosociality is closely linked to altruism, which is the motivation to help others regardless of personal gain. While the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are subtly different. Prosocial behavior is largely defined by its positive consequences, while altruism has more to do with our motivations than the physical outcomes of our actions.^3,4 Take, for example, volunteering for a local charity. The act of volunteering itself is a prosocial behavior, while the desire to help others is altruism at its core. Importantly, prosocial behaviors are not necessarily altruistic; we might also help others out of self-interest, such as volunteering to improve our own social reputation.

Given its vital role in daily interactions, it’s no surprise that prosocial behaviors begin early in life. Prosociality is most often studied in the field of developmental psychology, since researching the development of prosocial behaviors tells us important information about how and why we act prosocially throughout the rest of our lives. Researchers and child psychologists commonly use prosocial acts such as helping and sharing to track emotional development.⁵ These achievements are more than worthy of displaying on the refrigerator; considering other people’s needs is an important developmental milestone that shapes the rest of our social lives. 

Altruism: The motivation to improve another person’s well-being without personal gain or interest, even at a cost to our own well-being.

Empathy: The ability to understand and share in another person’s emotional experiences. 

Evolutionary Psychology: The study of behavior, decision-making, and thought processes within the context of evolutionary biology, pioneered by Charles Darwin. This approach aims to explain psychological traits through the lens of how they optimize our chances of survival.⁷

Antisocial Behavior: Behaviors that hurt, repel, or violate others. Characterized by hostility and disregard for social norms, antisocial behavior refers to actions that disrupt social bonds.⁸

Innate: Traits and abilities we are born with. Prosocial behaviors are one of many “nature vs. nurture” debates in psychology, since they seem to be partially innate (nature) and partially shaped by learned experiences (nurture). 

Social Norms: Informal rules and conventions that dictate what “good” or “normal” behavior looks like. Social norms can encourage prosocial behavior or can perpetuate harmful assumptions by constraining what prosociality looks like. 

The Bystander Effect: The phenomenon where individuals are less likely to act prosocially in an emergency situation when other witnesses are present. Each witness alone believes that other witnesses will help a victim, leading to collective inaction.

The study of prosocial behavior largely focuses on its origins, namely the question: are prosocial behaviors learned or present at birth? Beginning in the late 1830s, evolutionary biologists such as Charles Darwin explained physical and biological traits through natural selection, where features advantageous for survival are more likely to be passed down through generations. Although they might have used different terms, these early scientists would likely theorize that prosocial behaviors are innate instincts that serve a survival purpose: allowing our ancestors to share food, protect each other from predators, and nurse each other back to health.

Before Darwin’s time, prosociality had long been a hot topic of philosophical inquiry, headlining major debates such as “Are Humans Innately Good or Evil?” Just as evolutionary biologists, many prominent thinkers tended to favor the “innately good” side, with supporters including Roman statesman Cicero and Enlightenment-era philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Cicero believed humans are born with virtue and a desire to provide justice for others.³¹ Meanwhile, Rousseau’s principal political philosophy held that humans are born with a drive to reduce others’ suffering, only to be corrupted by societal influences.⁹

Charles Darwin

Arguably the most influential biologist in history, who created the theory of evolutionary change through natural selection. Based on his observations of various animal species, Darwin’s work is still overwhelmingly accepted as the leading evidence-based explanation for biological diversity and evolution on Earth.²⁹

Edward O. Wilson

Regularly monikered the “Darwin of the 21st Century,” an American biologist, naturalist, and ecologist known for creating the field of sociobiology, which investigates the biological basis of social behaviors.^13,15 Wilson documented prosocial behaviors in multiple animal and insect species, suggesting that prosociality is innate and advantageous to survival. Also, Wilson is regarded as the world’s leading authority on ants.

Bibb Latané and John Darley

American social psychologists who originated and studied the bystander effect. Their work followed the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese, which gained nationwide media attention after law enforcement discovered that numerous neighbors witnessed and failed to intervene or alert authorities in the attack.^4,12

Nancy Eisenberg

An American psychologist who studied the development of prosocial behaviors throughout childhood and adolescence. Eisenberg developed a stage-wise theory of prosocial development, linking positive behaviors to emotional development (e.g., learning to feel empathy) and moral reasoning (e.g., “considering other people when distinguishing right from wrong”).¹⁴ 

The ability and desire to support others is a cornerstone of our social lives. Prosocial behaviors have significant and diverse impacts across our lifespans, supporting workplace environments, youth development, and population health. 

Workplace satisfaction, performance, and leadership

Whether with clients or colleagues, we’re in good company at work. Prosocial behaviors in the workplace improve employee satisfaction, promote effective collaboration, and facilitate conflict resolution by making individuals feel respected, valued, and supported.¹⁶ This might look like offering a new hire advice in the break room, complimenting a colleague on a successful project, or participating in team-building activities. While not directly tied to performance metrics or job descriptions, these day-to-day interactions help us feel good and perform better in the workplace. 

Prosociality is not limited to employees; leadership and organizations as a whole can offer prosocial perks to improve outcomes for their teams and customers alike. These might be outlined in formal corporate policies: official mentorship programs, community service initiatives, philanthropy, and so on. Or, prosociality can be more subtle, such as public acknowledgements on a job well done or providing personalized support. Prosocial behaviors can be particularly critical in high-stress, high-stakes fields such as healthcare. Strong interpersonal relationships can help build resilience and mitigate stress-related medical errors, leading to better patient outcomes, lower provider burnout, and financial savings.²⁷ 

Youth development

Prosocial behaviors have the power to change our life trajectories, especially during childhood and adolescence. Being on both the giving and receiving end of prosocial interactions helps adolescents feel a sense of belonging and acceptance, improves self-esteem, and is associated with better mental health overall.¹⁷ School and structured activities (like sports, clubs, and arts) are often the center of children’s social lives, strengthening social skills such as inclusion and collaboration. Take, for instance, a soccer team. Young athletes work together toward a common goal (literally) and learn prosocial behaviors such as encouraging their teammates and helping each other up on the field. This makes the game more enjoyable, builds confidence, and helps youth feel like they’re part of something larger than themselves.

We carry these lessons with us for a lifetime, even if we don’t realize it, holding onto prosocial behaviors we learned when we were young. For instance, research has shown that a significant number of individuals who volunteer as adolescents continue to do so in adulthood.¹⁸ Another study of community involvement in high schoolers found that youth participating in prosocial activities were less likely to struggle with substance use and performed better academically.¹⁹ Academic performance and substance use in adolescence have significant impacts on occupational achievement, social relationships, and mental health in adulthood. The ripple effect of prosocial development in youth can be seen across our lifespans, affecting our material, social, and emotional conditions far into the future.

Population health

Prosociality doesn’t just make us nicer to be around; it makes us healthier, too. The individual effects are well-documented, where people who volunteer and engage in prosocial activities tend to live longer lives, have healthier immune and cardiovascular systems, and can manage stress and anxiety more effectively.²⁰ Prosocial behaviors have been found to lower cortisol, our body’s stress hormone, and reduce inflammation, which both contribute to many serious health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and cancer.

Public health researchers are also calling attention to the collective need for prosociality, partly driven by the examples of helping behaviors (or lack thereof) seen in the COVID-19 pandemic.²¹ Add on additional distress with the persistence of climate change, social inequalities, economic instability, and more—it’s becoming increasingly clear that prosociality is a must-have, not just a “nice-to-have.” Researchers are investigating ways to reap the necessary benefits of prosocial behaviors at a community or population scale, studying strategies from digital mobile programs to school-based meditation lessons that emphasize kindness and compassion. So far, the results are promising; these strategies have been linked to improved cardiovascular health, lower cholesterol levels, decreases in distress and loneliness, and more. 

Although prosocial behaviors can help us achieve happier, healthier, more connected lives, they also carry risks of reinforcing harmful biases and social norms. Not to mention, we still haven’t fully figured out what motivates prosocial behaviors from an individual or evolutionary perspective, or how much the motivation behind helping actually matters. 

A murky legacy

Remember Edward O. Wilson, one of the most renowned natural scientists in history? While undeniably influential, Wilson’s theories on prosocial behaviors have garnered many controversies and critics. In Sociobiology: The New Synthesis and several subsequent works, Wilson boldly wondered whether many social behaviors, including aggression, xenophobia, and altruism, could be linked to genetic factors, taking the limits of his research in animals to the extreme.²² Some social scientists and evolutionary biologists pushed back, arguing that Wilson’s theories perpetuated scientific racism—the pseudoscientific school of thought which misuses scientific evidence to justify racism and discrimination, often forwarding arguments that racial inequities are genetic and scientifically justified.²³ By the time Wilson published his research, scientific racism was largely disproven (although its legacy likely persists to this day). 

Wilson vehemently denied these claims that characterized his work as racist, stating publicly that a truly scientific investigation of sociobiology provides no justification for discrimination. Indeed, Wilson never explicitly wrote about racial superiority in reference to his theories, nor did he make any definitive conclusions about the genetics of prosocial behavior across races or cultures. Still, he faced intense backlash and even had ice water dumped on him amidst accusations of racist beliefs.^15,22 Today, many still disagree on whether Wilson’s work was problematic. However, the controversy as a whole reminds us to take a nuanced and critical approach to thinking about differences in prosocial behavior across races, genders, and cultures. 

Norms: harmful or helpful?

The idea of prosocial behavior sounds pretty great in theory, but what does it actually mean to “benefit” someone or to “improve” their well-being? Who decides what that looks like, and what kind of behaviors are prosocial? The short answer is: it’s complicated. The longer answer involves many factors, likely including evolutionary biology, individual context, and, of course, social norms. Norms can, and often do, support prosocial behavior by making altruistic acts a normal part of our everyday lives. However, norms amplified into strict rules can constrain prosocial behaviors, rather than supporting them.

One example of this is gendered expectations surrounding prosocial behavior. In many cultures and societies, women are expected to perform more emotional labor, while men are expected to be stronger and more independent.^24,30 These norms often translate into behavior, as people align themselves with what is expected of them. For example, research indicates that women’s prosocial behaviors tend to focus more on relationships with others, while men’s are more agentic (assertive, masterful, dominant).²⁴ Relational behaviors often involve providing emotional support and empathy (e.g., comforting someone), while agentic behaviors might involve protecting another person or helping them across the street. Thus, social norms reinforce themselves, encouraging certain behaviors and making them more normal within a society.

However, this cycle often turns gender norms into rigid expectations that punish noncompliance. Prosocial behaviors might reinforce harmful stereotypes, potentially making it difficult for men to seek emotional support from one another or for women to advocate for themselves or others in difficult situations for fear of ridicule, embarrassment, or retaliation.³⁰ 

What’s in it for me?

Although prosocial behavior and altruism are different, even researchers are often unclear about what the difference is.³ Further, many researchers who use one or both of the terms don’t provide their own definitions, so it’s sometimes difficult to pick out what they’re actually talking about. For instance, sometimes altruism is referred to as a subtype of prosocial behavior, while other times, altruism just refers to the motivation itself, independent of the action.³ These inconsistencies can make the study of prosocial behavior confusing, and the lack of standardized vocabulary can obstruct researchers from building on each other’s research and drawing new conclusions.

Let’s revisit our volunteering example. We’ve briefly discussed how prosocial behavior refers to the act of volunteering itself, whether it’s picking up litter in a beach clean-up or serving meals in a soup kitchen. Altruism would be the unselfish desire to volunteer to help other people. Now, consider a high school student who might need community service hours to graduate or build their resume. If they volunteer, they’re still behaving prosocially since their actions are benefiting other people, but it wouldn’t be entirely altruistic since it’s partially in service of themselves as well. On the other hand, if you accidentally drop a coin on the street that someone else later picks up, we still wouldn’t consider that a prosocial act, even though it benefited someone else, since it wasn’t intentional.

But what’s the big deal in defining these terms outside of research? Does it really matter what someone’s motivations are for donating money, volunteering, or other prosocial behaviors if they’re still doing it at the end of the day? We still don’t know for certain, and the answer definitely changes depending on the context. The reality is, many of the kind and compassionate actions we intentionally do can be a mix of altruism and self-interest, and that’s okay. 

Antibiotic resistance

Our health is almost always social in some aspects, and we often depend on other people’s decisions to stay healthy. From flu and cold season to vaccines to pollution, many of our health decisions mix self-protection and prosociality; we likely get a flu shot to avoid getting the flu ourselves and to protect those around us. 

Antibiotic resistance illustrates another way that our individual health choices can have an impact on others. When antibiotics are overprescribed or not taken as directed (for example, stopping early when you feel better), some bacteria may survive and evolve resistance. These drug-resistant strains can then spread, making standard treatments less effective—or even useless—for everyone.

Antibiotic resistance is a significant global health challenge, making infections increasingly difficult to treat and leading to over one million deaths per year.²⁸ Even though new, stronger drugs are being developed, one of the most important strategies for addressing antibiotic resistance is prosocial behavior and cooperation to prevent resistant antibiotics from evolving at all. Finishing our dose and following our doctor’s instructions are prosocial behaviors; we’re taking actions to protect other people even though we feel fully recovered.

A 2024 study investigated how prosocial behaviors and altruism contribute to attitudes on antibiotic resistance.²⁵  Participants were asked to imagine that they had a bacterial infection and a doctor was prescribing antibiotics, then answered questions on which treatment they would prefer, given information about its cost, frequency, and contribution to antibiotic resistance. More altruistic people preferred treatment options with lower contributions to antibiotic resistance, underscoring the involvement of concern for others in motivating prosocial behaviors. Additionally, altruism was associated with education and health literacy, suggesting that health education programs and awareness campaigns leveraging prosociality could meaningfully address antibiotic misuse. 

Real-life superheroes

In many ways, superheroes are exaggerated representations of everyday prosocial and altruistic values, inspiring viewers with riveting stories of life-threatening acts carried out for public good. But could their influential powers be more direct? A group of researchers examined the effects of priming—the subconscious influence of past stimuli—on prosocial behaviors. The twist? The participants were primed with images of superheroes to test whether heroic imagery makes us more prosocial.

The researchers used a common experimental set-up for priming, where participants completed tasks in a room where a superhero poster was hanging on the wall. Participants were asked to describe their surroundings but told the poster was for a different study, ensuring that their brains were processing the visual but not consciously aware of its relevance. They were then asked to fill out prosociality scales and, after “completing” the study early, were invited to help the experimenter with another study in the remaining time. To get a baseline, experimenters also ran the same experiment with a poster of a bicycle instead of a superhero, which was considered a neutral stimulus. 

Amazingly, people primed with superhero imagery were more likely to help researchers with their “other” study than people exposed to the bicycle. Subtle hints towards heroic imagery have a noticeable impact on our helping behavior, perhaps subconsciously reminding us of their service and selflessness. While these results aren’t necessarily saying we should carry around photos of Superman to inspire prosociality, they do show us that our voluntary prosocial behaviors might be subject to subconscious processes, for better or for worse. 

Are We Innately Selfish? What the Science Has to Say

Still curious about the philosophical debate surrounding prosocial behavior? In this article, Tony Jiang delves into the science of selflessness and how cynical philosophers may have gotten human nature wrong. 

Harnessing Social Norms for Social Good

What’s more prosocial than saving another person’s life? In this article, Paul Deutchman discusses social distancing in the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrating how we can leverage social norms to encourage prosocial behaviors during a global health crisis.

1. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2025). Superman. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Superman-fictional-character 
2. Wu, Y. E., & Hong, W. (2022). Neural basis of prosocial behavior. Trends in Neurosciences, 45(10), 749–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2022.06.008
3. Pfattheicher, S., Nielsen, Y. A., & Thielmann, I. (2022). Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021
4. Batson, C. D. (2012). A history of prosocial behavior research. In A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 243–264). Psychology Press.
5. Hammond, S. I., & Brownell, C. A. (2016). Prosocial Development Across the Lifespan. In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/prosocial-behaviour 
6. Comicsblogg. (2012, April 26). Superman#66 (1950) “Do good unto others and every man can be a Superman!” - superman (Clark Kent) – @comicsblogg on Tumblr. Tumblr. https://www.tumblr.com/comicsblogg/21827409412/superman66-1950-do-good-unto-others-and 
7. Kenrick, D.T. (2019). Evolutionary psychology. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/evolutionary-psychology
8. Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2009). Developmental origins of early antisocial behavior. Development and psychopathology, 21(4), 1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457940999006X
9. Bertram, C. (2023, April 21). Jean Jacques Rousseau. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/ 
10. Cicero, M. T. (2016). On duties (; B. P. Newton, Trans.). Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501705977
11. Heidbreder, E. (1939). William McDougall and social psychology. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 34(2), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056726
12. Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: the parable of the 38 witnesses. The American Psychologist, 62(6), 555–562.
13. Hölldobler, B. (2022). Edward O. Wilson (1929–2021). Nature : International Weekly Journal of Science, 601(7893), 317. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00078-7
14. Chutabhakdikul, N. (2020). Development of Prosocial Behavior. Science of Learning Portal. https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org/articles/development-of-prosocial-behavior/ 
15. Montgomery, S. (2022, January). Edward O. Wilson: A brilliant legacy with a dark warning. Global Policy Journal. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/04/01/2022/edward-o-wilson-brilliant-legacy-dark-warning 
16. Hart R. (2024). Prosocial behaviors at work: Key concepts, measures, interventions, antecedents, and outcomes. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 14(1), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010078
17. Lam C. M. (2012). Prosocial involvement as a positive youth development construct: a conceptual review. TheScientificWorldJournal, 2012, 769158. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/769158
18. Oesterle, S., Johnson, M. K., & Mortimer, J. T. (2004). Volunteerism during the Transition to Adulthood: A Life Course Perspective. Social Forces, 82(3), 1123–1149.
19. Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Stone, M. R. (2001). Whatever Happened to the Jock, the Brain, and the Princess? Young Adult Pathways Linked to Adolescent Activity Involvement and Social Identity. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(5), 429–455.
20. Ibanez, A., Matallana, D., & Miller, B. (2023). Can prosocial values improve brain health?. Frontiers in neurology, 14, 1202173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2023.1202173
21. Kubzansky, L. D., Epel, E. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2023). Prosociality should be a public health priority. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(12), 2051–2053. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01717-3
22. Zimmer, C. (2021, December). E.O. Wilson, a pioneer of evolutionary biology, dies at 92. The New York Times. https://www-nytimes-com.translate.goog/2021/12/27/science/eo-wilson-dead.html?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=es&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=tc 
23. National Human Genome Research Institute. (n.d.). Scientific racism. Genetics Glossary. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Scientific-Racism 
24. Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. The American Psychologist, 64(8), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644
25. Ancillotti, M., Huls, S. P. I., Krockow, E. M., & Veldwijk, J. (2024). Prosocial Behaviour and Antibiotic Resistance: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment. The Patient, 17(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00666-3
26. Van Tongeren, D. R., Hibbard, R., Edwards, M., Johnson, E., Diepholz, K., Newbound, H., Shay, A., Houpt, R., Cairo, A., & Green, J. D. (2018). Heroic Helping: The Effects of Priming Superhero Images on Prosociality. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2243. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02243
27. Fryburg D. A. (2023). Kindness Isn't Just about Being Nice: The Value Proposition of Kindness as Viewed through the Lens of Incivility in the Healthcare Workplace. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 13(6), 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13060457
28. Murray, C. J., Ikuta, K. S., Sharara, F., Swetschinski, L., Robles Aguilar, G., Gray, A., Han, C., Bisignano, C., Rao, P., Wool, E., Johnson, S. C., Browne, A. J., Chipeta, M. G., Fell, F., Hackett, S., Haines-Woodhouse, G., Kashef Hamadani, B. H., Kumaran, E. A. P., McManigal, B., et al. (2022). Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet (London, England), 399(10325), 629–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0
29. Lotzof, K. (n.d.). Charles Darwin: History’s most famous biologist. Natural History Museum. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/charles-darwin-most-famous-biologist.html 
30. Croft, A., Atkinson, C., Sandstrom, G., Orbell, S., & Aknin, L. (2020). Loosening the GRIP (Gender Roles Inhibiting Prosociality) to Promote Gender Equality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(1), 66-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320964615 
31. Woolf, R. (2022, January 14). Cicero. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cicero/#:~:text=It%20is%2C%20in%20the%20first,from%20other%20creatures%20(1.30).