Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2005, pp.

191-217
CAPRARA AND
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
STECA ACROSS AGES

SELF–EFFICACY BELIEFS AS DETERMINANTS OF

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR CONDUCIVE TO LIFE
SATISFACTION ACROSS AGES
GIAN VITTORIO CAPRARA
University of Rome, “La Sapienza”

PATRIZIA STECA
University of Milan, “Biocca”

The present study tested the posited structural path of influence through which per-
ceived self–efficacy of affect regulation operates in concert with perceived inter-
personal self–efficacy to determine prosocial behavior, which in turn influences
satisfaction with life in four age groups. A strong sense of efficacy in the regulation
of positive and negative affect was associated with a high perceived efficacy in the
management of social relationships and in empathic engagement in others’ emo-
tional experiences. Interpersonal self–efficacy directly affected prosocial behavior
and entirely mediated the influence of affective self–efficacy on it. As predicted,
prosocial behavior directly influenced life satisfaction, showing a higher path of in-
fluence for the oldest group as compared to the other ones. The structural model
provided a better fit for the data than did alternative models.

The literature on well–being and quality of life shows that people gener-
ally feel happy and satisfied with their lives. People judge their lives as
more positive than negative across cultures, regardless of their socioeco-
nomic status, and despite functional disabilities (Chwalisz, Diener, &

This study was partially supported by grants from MURST–Cofin (2000–2002) to Gian
Vittorio Caprara.
The article was prepared while Gian Vittorio Caprara was a Fellow at The Swedish
Collegium for Advanced Study in the Social Sciences, Uppsala, academic year 2001–2002.
We thank Laura Carstensen, Albert Bandura, Daniel Cervone, and Rocío
Fernández–Ballesteros for their comments on the early draft of the present article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gian Vittorio Caprara,
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology 2, University of Rome “La Sapienza,”
via dei Marsi, 78 – 00185 Rome, Italy; E-mail: [email protected].

191
192 CAPRARA AND STECA

Gallagher, 1988; Diener & Diener, 1996; Veenhoven, 1993). The fact that
the documented correlation between objective life conditions and sub-
jective happiness is small has been called the paradox of well–being
(Filipp, 1996; Staudinger, Fleeson, & Baltes, 1999). The paradox seems
more apparent in research on aging and well–being because, despite the
difficulties of aging (e.g., physical deterioration, deaths of old friends
and relatives), older people do not report concomitant decreases in most
aspects of well–being. Numerous studies using cross–sectional data
have found negligible age differences in life satisfaction and other forms
of subjective well–being. (For a complete review, see Diener & Suh,
1998). Some studies have even found an increase in feelings of well–be-
ing among older adults, in that they report less anxiety (Lawton, Kleban,
& Dean, 1993) and have a better balance of positive to negative affect
(Ryff, 1989).
Central questions among life–span researchers concern how people
may maintain a high level of subjective well–being throughout their
lives, and what are the specific personal and social processes that may
contribute to feelings of well–being at different stages of life. In the pres-
ent study, we intend to explore age differences in life satisfaction and to
verify the role played in its promotion by prosocial behavior in concert
with self–efficacy beliefs related to affective and interpersonal domains
of functioning.
Our argument draws upon two primary assumptions, which lead to
two main hypotheses. First, we assume that the capacity to benefit others
contributes to life satisfaction because it is critical to maintaining mutually
rewarding relationships with others. Accordingly, prosocial behavior
should prove particularly beneficial at ages when people’s well–being de-
pends greatly upon support from others. Because being able to recipro-
cate tends to make people less dependent upon the benevolence of others,
the capacity to benefit others is a valuable resource, especially when one
most needs others’ support. Second, we assume that caring about others’
well–being is not just a matter of good character, but rather that it implies
a belief in one’s capacity to deal effectively with oneself and others, both
emotionally and at the level of relationship. Thus, we hypothesize that (1)
prosocial behavior contributes to life satisfaction, especially when aging
increases the importance of support from others; and (2) the more people
believe that they are able to handle their affect and their relationships
effectively, the more they are inclined to behave prosocially.

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Prosocial behavior refers to voluntary actions undertaken to benefit oth-
ers. It includes a variety of behaviors, such as sharing, donating, caring,
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 193

comforting, and helping. It is often associated with altruism because

both pursue others’ good and may imply common components such as
empathy and sympathy (Batson, 1998; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998;
Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio, & Piliavin, 1995).
Because the importance of a willingness and ability to benefit others is
quite obvious for the quality of social interactions between individuals
and among groups, prosocial behavior has long been the domain of philo-
sophical speculations on human nature, reason, and morality. Some, like
Thomas Hobbes, advocated egoism and self–love as essential traits of hu-
man nature that are compatible only with an instrumental view of
prosocial behavior. Others, like Jean Jacques Rousseau, conceived of be-
nevolence and sensitivity toward others as an innate disposition that risks
being corrupted and lost because of society. For others, like Adam Smith,
both altruistic and egoistic attitudes are components of human nature that
underlie the possibility of human society (Sills, 1968).
One may still recognize the echoes of these debates in the context of ear-
lier reflections on personality development and adjustment. Whereas
Sigmund Freud and most of his followers focused on the instrumental,
compensatory, and/or defensive aspects of prosocial behavior, Abraham
Maslow advocated for the capacity to love, to care, and to transcend con-
tingent self–interest as essential to full actualization (Hall & Lindzey,
1978). In reality, the study of prosocial behavior “is still in its adoles-
cence,” as recently stated by Eisenberg and Fabes (1998, p. 702).
Over the past several decades, various arguments have been proposed
in support of the biological value of altruistic–prosocial behavior, on the
assumption that evolutionary selection operates at the group level
rather than mainly through individuals. Individual sacrifices are often
required to preserve the pool of genes that maximize the capacity of the
species to adapt to the changing environments (Wilson, 1975, 1978). Fur-
thermore, as potential costs of giving aid to others are compensated in
the form of help from them, reciprocal altruism has gained survival
value in predisposing individuals to behave altruistically, and to expect
that others will act altruistically toward them (Trivers, 1971).
Both heritability and stability coefficients of personality dimensions
associated with prosocial behavior, such as “agreeableness” or “friend-
liness,” may offer some support for the hypothesis that the tendency to
behave prosocially is part of our genetic endowment (Costa & McCrae,
1997; Lohelin, 1992).
Evolutionary hypotheses, however, are difficult to prove. The value to
be assigned to heritability coefficients is controversial, and the processes
and mechanisms by which heredity shapes prosocial–altruistic disposi-
tions, like any other main personality dimension, are still to be uncov-
ered (Caprara & Cervone, 2000).
194 CAPRARA AND STECA

Rather, there is abundant evidence indicating that culture, socializa-

tion practices, and experience play a critical role in setting the conditions
and functions of prosocial behavior, and then in predisposing individu-
als to its different forms. Indeed, the ways the well–being of others is
given meaning and is pursued reflect values, norms, beliefs, aspirations,
and habits that vary significantly across cultures and social contexts. So-
cial psychologists have pointed to the role played by social norms of rec-
iprocity, responsibility, and justice in prescribing whom to help, as well
as when and how, and to the influence of situations in fostering or dis-
couraging altruistic behavior (Taylor, Peplau, & Sears, 2000). Develop-
mental psychologists focused first on the effect that learning, cognitive
development, and moral development exert on prosocial behavior, and
then on the emotional experiences, interpersonal relations, and repre-
sentations of selves and others that are conducive to benefiting others
(Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Mussen & Eisenberg, 2001). However, the
diverse empirical findings need to be integrated.
Other areas of study contiguous to prosocial behavior, such as aggres-
sion and hostility, have received much more attention in response to ur-
gent demands for the prevention and control of antisocial behaviors.
However, it seems increasingly questionable how effective control can
be exerted over conduct that represents an impediment to social life
without resorting to the potentials and resources that each individual
may deploy in alternative behaviors that are conducive to both personal
well–being and social adjustment.
In reality, too little attention has been paid to the functions and posi-
tive outcomes that giving, sharing, and helping may have for people
who act in these ways. Findings from developmental research show
that prosocial behavior is positively correlated with a variety of indi-
vidual characteristics that attest to social competence and good ad-
justment in children and adolescents (see Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Other findings attest to the robust contributions of early prosocial be-
havior to children’s developmental trajectories in the social and aca-
demic domains, in warding off depression and transgressive behav-
ior, and in promoting academic achievement (Bandura, Barbaranelli,
Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli,
Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001; Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, &
Caprara, 1999). Prosocial behavior in third–grade children had a
strong positive impact on academic achievement and social prefer-
ences 5 years later. On the other hand, early aggression appeared to
have no significant effect on either outcome, whereas early academic
achievement had a lesser positive impact on later performance than
did prosocial behavior (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, &
Zimbardo, 2000).
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 195

Most research has been conducted on children and adolescents, and it

primarily continues to target early development; however, the advan-
tage of prosocial behavior over the course of a lifetime, although likely,
is merely conjectural. Indeed, few have tried to extend their inquiries
over the course of life and to investigate how the higher need of the el-
derly to be helped and cared for by others can be balanced by individu-
als’ capacity to succor and benefit others.
Midlarsky (1991; Midlarsky & Kahana, 1994) proposed the view that
prosocial behavior is a strategy for coping that may benefit elders in
terms of (a) providing distraction from one’s troubles; (b) enhancing the
sense of meaning and value in one’s life; (c) increasing perceived compe-
tence; (d) improving mood and positive emotions; and (e) promoting so-
cial integration. These benefits are particularly relevant to elderly peo-
ple, who are usually seen as the recipients of help, because they may
contrast with the stereotype of old people as the “hands” that receive
more than they give.
In fact, the elderly may be quite effective in providing assistance to
others (Bengtson, 1985; Kahana & Midlarsky, 1983; Midlarsky &
Hannah, 1989) and may draw considerable benefit from doing so in
terms of self–esteem and positive affect (Dulin, 2000; Wentowski, 1981).
It is likely that the more people need the help of others, the more the abil-
ity to reciprocate is a resource that allows them to maintain balance in
their relationships. This leads to a better understanding of the personal
determinants of prosocial behavior, namely, the psychological struc-
tures that set the conditions that promote and regulate prosocial
behavior.

AFFECTIVE AND INTERPERSONAL SELF–REGULATORY

EFFICACY

Among cognitive structures that attest to the functioning of an inte-

grated self–system capable of conferring unity, continuity, and direct-
ness to the actions of individuals, none is more pervasively influential
than self–efficacy beliefs, people’s belief in their capacity to exert control
over the events that affect their lives. Unless people believe that they can
produce desired results by their actions, they have little incentive to un-
dertake activities or to persevere in the face of adversity.
Findings from diverse lines of research have documented the influen-
tial role of self–efficacy beliefs in various domains of functioning, such
as learning, work, sports, health, social adjustment, and well–being (for
a review, see Bandura, 1997, 2001). Perceived self–efficacy proved to
play a pivotal role in self–regulation, both in affecting actions directly
196 CAPRARA AND STECA

and through its impact on cognitive, motivational, decisional, and

affective determinants.
Although much prior research centered on the effects of self–efficacy
beliefs on cognitive processes, motivation, and performance, recent re-
search has broadened and extended analyses of the functional proper-
ties of perceived self–efficacy to the regulation of one’s affective life and
interpersonal relations, and their impact on psychosocial functioning
and well–being (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli,
2003; Caprara, 2002; Caprara, Scabini, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Regalia,
& Bandura, 1999).
Although the management of affect and interpersonal relations is de-
cisive for social adjustment and well–being in most theories of personal-
ity, development, and clinical practice, different conceptual models
have been proposed concerning the underlying structures and process,
and the modes in which affect and interpersonal relations are mutually
related and operate through and over behavior (Caprara & Cervone,
2000). To address these issues, an agentic model has been proposed (Fig-
ure 1) that assigns causal priority to the capacity to deal with one’s own
affects over the capacity to deal effectively with interpersonal relation-
ships, which in turn determines psychosocial functioning. The better a
person is able to deal effectively with his or her own emotions, the more
successfully he or she will be able to deal with relationships, and the
more he or she will be able to perform effectively across the diverse
contingencies of life (Caprara, 2002).
Theoretically, the model draws on social cognitive theory and relies
upon two assumptions: (a) The capacity to handle relations effectively
with others is decisive for individual achievement, because it generally
depends on shared experience and reliance on others’ talents; and (b) the
capacity to share positive affect and to moderate negative affect is deci-
sive for handling positive relations with others.
In agreement with social cognitive theory, the model conceives of the
sense of self–efficacy as the most proximal determinant of individual ca-
pacity to master the various domains of affective and relational experi-
ence. In practice, the model refers to affects, relationships, and actions
contextually situated, and is compatible with manifold individual com-
binations of them. One may be effective in dealing with certain emo-
tions, relationships, and behaviors in one domain, but much less able to
do so in others. Certain people may be more capable of dealing with their
affects than with their relations, or vice versa; certain people may be
better able to deal with certain emotions than with others, or with certain
relationships better than with others. The posited direction of influence
from affect to relationships to performance is a concession to a rational-
istic adult–centric view of human agency that does not exclude signifi-
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 197

Emotional Interpersonal Psychosocial

Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Functioning

FIGURE 1. Conceptual model of the path of influence exerted by efficacy beliefs across do-
mains of functioning.

cant variations across developmental stages, and that does not

underestimate the reciprocal determinism among affect, relations, and
actions.
The model has been empirically corroborated in a longitudinal study
showing that a strong sense of efficacy in managing negative affect due
to anger, rejection, and distressful preoccupation and a strong sense of
efficacy in expressing positive affect due to joy and pride are accompa-
nied by robust belief in one’s own interpersonal efficacy beliefs. These
beliefs, in turn, positively affect prosocial behavior and counter depres-
sion, delinquency, loneliness, and shyness. The posited causal model fit
the empirical data over time better than did alternative models (Bandura
et al., 2003; Caprara et al., 1999; Caprara, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli, in
press; Caprara, Steca, Cervone, & Artistico, 2003).
In the present study, we draw upon the same theoretical reasoning
and conceptual model to focus on the influence that the belief in affective
and interpersonal self–efficacy exerts on prosocial behavior, which is
conducive to life satisfaction. A growing body of literature on personal
well–being has also shown that both negative and positive emotions
play a central role in influencing the quality of interpersonal relation-
ships, as well as in affecting physical and mental health, coping with
life’s difficulties, facilitating subjective well–being, and enhancing
longevity.
Whereas the negative effects of negative affect on health, relation-
ships, and longevity are well established (Booth–Kewley & Friedman,
1987; Fraser–Smith, Lesperance, & Talajic, 1995; Kawachi, Sparrow,
Vokonas, & Weiss, 1994; Salovey, 1992; Smith, 1992; Watson, 1988, 2000),
it is relatively new for positive affect to be credited with a positive effect.
Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001) “broaden–and–build” theory suggests that
certain positive emotions, such as joy, interest, and love, all share the
ability to broaden people’s momentary thought–action repertoires and
198 CAPRARA AND STECA

to build enduring personal resources, not only at the physical and intel-
lectual levels, but also at the social and psychological levels. Recent lon-
gitudinal studies suggest that optimism and the experience and expres-
sion of positive emotions are associated with positive long–term
outcomes and a longer life (Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen, 2001; Harker &
Keltner, 2001; Maruta, Colligan, Malinchoc, & Offord, 2000; Peterson,
Seligman, Yurko, Martin, & Friedman, 1998).
The expression of positive emotions constitutes a signal of friendliness
and sociability that favors mutuality and helping behavior (Frijda &
Mesquita, 1994; Isen, 1987; Keltner & Kring, 1998). The experience and
expression of positive emotions also promotes engagement with others,
cooperation among individuals and groups, and positive intimate rela-
tionships (Berry & Willigham, 1997; Carstensen, Gottman, & Levenson,
1995; Cunningham, 1988; Isen, 1987; Watson, Clark, McIntyre, &
Hamaker, 1992). Over time the repeated experience and expression of
positive affect accompanied by proper strategies to manage negative af-
fect contributes to satisfying and lasting interpersonal relations that pro-
mote individual well–being by direct and indirect pathways. In addi-
tion, a vast literature attests to the importance of interpersonal relations
in the formation of personal identity and in the promotion of health and
well–being over the entire life span (Caprara & Cervone, 2000).
Whatever the various emphases placed by different theoretical ap-
proaches on the influence of interpersonal relationships in the develop-
ment and functioning of individuals, there is no doubt that they play a
critical role in mediating feelings and cognitions, and in setting the con-
ditions for actions. In short, they make life worth living (Bateson, 1972;
Hinde, 1997; Sullivan, 1953).
Contemporary developments that extend the early conceptualiza-
tions of Vygotsky (1934/1962), Ainsworth (1967), and Bowlby (1969,
1973, 1980) further emphasize the importance of early interpersonal re-
lationships in the development of cognition (Rogoff, 1998; Van Geert,
1998), affect (Sroufe, 1996), and relational bonds (Bartholomew, 1993;
Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Most research on affect has focused on the fre-
quency of different emotional experiences, and most research on inter-
personal relations has centered on the quality of relational experiences
and their outcomes. To our knowledge, the systematic study of mastery
in emotional and interpersonal experiences and the study of the influ-
ence that the belief in self–efficacy exerts on the management of affect
and interpersonal emotions are mostly due to social cognitive theory. A
number of findings have demonstrated the impact of self–efficacy be-
liefs on the successful handling of family, school, work, and social rela-
tionships (Bandura, 1997). New studies on affective self–regulatory be-
lief (Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara et al., 1999, 2003) have broadened
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 199

earlier interest in anxiety and dysfunctional modes of coping (Bandura,

1997; Williams, 1995).
Drawing upon these premises and capitalizing upon previous find-
ings, the present study has been conceived with the aim of investigating
how self–efficacy beliefs in managing negative and positive affects act in
concert with other more interpersonally oriented efficacy beliefs to pro-
mote prosocial behavior and to contribute to life satisfaction at different
ages. People’s belief in their capacity to express and assert constructively
their own opinions and views in challenging interpersonal situations, to
enter into new and rewarding acquaintanceships, and to be actively en-
gaged in group activities strongly influences the quality of social trans-
actions and the degree of life satisfaction. Moreover, the belief in their ca-
pacity to understand the points of views and feelings of others, and to be
actively and supportively involved in the emotional life of others, is no
less important in fostering harmonious relationships. It is worth noting
that although a number of findings have attested to the impact of per-
ceived social efficacy in various domains of functioning (Bandura, 1977),
only two previous studies have focused on empathic efficacy (Bandura
et al., 2003; Caprara, Capanna, Steca, & Paeiello, in press), despite the
vast literature attesting to the importance of empathy in promoting posi-
tive relationships, in countering transgressive conduct, and in fostering
prosocial behavior (Feshbach & Feshbach, 1986; Hoffman, 2001; Mussen
& Eisenberg, 2001; Stephan & Finlay, 1999).

THE STRUCTURAL MODEL

Figure 2 summarizes schematically the direct and mediated paths of in-

fluence in the posited structural model.
The perceived self–efficacy to regulate positive and negative affect in-
fluences prosocial behavior mediationally by its impact on social and
empathic self–efficacy. Perceived self–efficacy to manage positive affect
supports these interpersonal forms of perceived efficacy, whereas per-
ceived self–inefficacy to regulate negative affect undermines them. Per-
ceived social and empathic efficacy, in turn, directly influence prosocial
behavior; high levels of these two forms of interpersonal efficacy are as-
sociated with prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior, in turn, contrib-
utes directly to life satisfaction and completely mediates the paths of in-
fluence of self–efficacy beliefs on it. Although we presume that the
different paths of influence are significant for all the age groups, we hy-
pothesize that the influence of prosocial behavior on life satisfaction is
higher for older adults than for other age groups.
200
FIGURE 2. Posited causal structure through which perceived self-efficacy for affect regulation operating in concert with interpersonally oriented ef-
ficacy beliefs influences prosocial behavior, which in turn influences life satisfaction.
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 201

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The participants in this study were 259 men and 253 women, ranging in
age from 20 to 87. They were recruited by an Italian national survey and
were divided into four age groups: young adults (n = 135, mean age =
27.30, SD = 5.51 ), adults (n = 120, mean age = 44.21, SD = 4.02), mid-
dle–aged adults (n = 130, mean age = 56.70, SD = 4.53) and elderly adults
(n = 127, mean age = 73.13, SD = 5.13).
The participants varied widely in demographic and socioeconomic
background. Twenty-three percent were unmarried, 63% were married,
3% were divorced, and 11% were widows or widowers. Education
ranged from 5 to 18 years; generally, elderly adults had a lower level of
education than the other age groups; the level was higher for men in the
older age groups and higher for women in the younger ones. Seventeen
percent were in the professional or managerial ranks, 23% were mer-
chants or employees in various types of businesses, 5% were workers,
11% were students, 17% were housewives, 25% were retired, and 2%
were unemployed.

MEASURES
Participants completed a set of scales measuring the variables of theoret-
ical interest.
Affective Self–Regulatory Efficacy. Affective self–regulatory efficacy
was measured by 17 items concerning the perceived capability to man-
age one’s emotional life (Caprara & Gerbino, 2001). Perceived self–effi-
cacy to manage positive affect was measured by 8 items in terms of the per-
ceived ability to express liking and affection toward others, to express
enthusiasm and enjoyment, and to feel satisfaction at personal accom-
plishments. The sample item, “I can feel gratified over achieving what I
set out to do” assessed perceived efficacy to express satisfaction. Per-
ceived self–efficacy to regulate negative affect was assessed by 9 items in
terms of the perceived capability to manage negative affect in the face of
anxiety–arousing threats, anger provocation, rejection, and disrespect,
and to control worry when things go wrong. “I can get over irritation
quickly for wrongs I have experienced” was a sample item.
Interpersonal Self–Regulatory Efficacy. Interpersonal self–regulatory ef-
ficacy was measured by 24 items concerning the perceived ability to man-
age one’s interpersonal relationships (Caprara, Gerbino, & Delle Fratte,
2001). Perceived social self–efficacy was measured by 14 items in terms of the
perceived capability to express personal opinions in groups, to share per-
sonal experiences with others, to invite people to go out together, to know
202 CAPRARA AND STECA

people in a new situation, and to help others to integrate into one’s circle of
friends. “I can share an interesting good experience I had with other peo-
ple,” was a sample item. Perceived empathic self–efficacy was measured by
10 items in terms of the perceived ability to sense another person’s feelings
and need for emotional support, to experience emotions from another per-
son’s perspective, to respond empathetically to others’ distress and misfor-
tune, and to be sensitive to how one’s actions affect the feelings of others.
The sample item, “I can experience how a person in trouble feels,” assessed
perceived empathic capability for distress.
Participants rated the strength of their self–efficacy beliefs on 5–point
scales ranging from 1 = perceived incapability to 5 = complete self–assurance.
A principal components factor analysis with Oblimin rotation revealed
a four–factor structure, corresponding to the posited four domains of
self–efficacy functioning, each representing a single factor. The alpha
reliability coefficients for the self–efficacy factor scales were uniformly
high for each age group. The coefficients were .82, .86, .90, and .80 for
managing positive affect; .85, .85, .87, and .81 for regulating negative af-
fect; .89, .91, .93, and .87 for social efficacy; and .82, .89, .89, and .87 for
empathic efficacy.
Prosocial Behavior. Participants rated their prosocialness on a 16–item
scale (with 5–point response) that assessed their degree of helpfulness,
sharing, consoling, supportiveness, and cooperativeness (Caprara et al.,
in press; Caprara, Steca, Zellli, & Capanna, in press). “I try to help oth-
ers” and “I try to console people who are sad” are sample items. Factor
analysis revealed a single factor structure; the alpha reliability coeffi-
cients for the four age groups were .90, .93, .90, and .91.
Satisfaction with Life . Participants rated their life satisfaction on the
five–item Satisfaction With Life scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Grif-
fin, 1985). Participants rated on a 7–point scale the extent to which they
feel generally satisfied with life. “In most ways my life is close to my
ideal” and “So far I have gotten the important things I want in my life”
are sample items. The alpha reliability coefficients for the four age
groups were .86, .91, .88, and .82.
Participants also completed a brief Physical Health scale composed of
six items that measure the frequency of some health-related behaviors.
The response format varies from 1 = never in my life to 5 = more than fif-
teen times during the past year. “I has been sick for more than two days”
and “I had a general checkup” are sample items.

RESULTS
Before conducting the analyses, we examined the data for univariate
and multivariate variables’ distributions, using the procedure devised
 TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations of the Different Variables for Men and Women in the Four Age Groups

Age 20–36 Age 37–50 Age 51–65 Age 65

Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Self–efficacy to manage
positive affect 4.03 (.44) 4.06 (.48) 3.78 (.54) 3.95 (.50) 3.78 (.57) 3.96 (.60) 3.82 (.47) 3.90 (.52)
Self–efficacy to regulate
negative affect 3.18 (.50) 2.75 (.54) 3.16 (.51) 2.88 (.56) 3.19 (.51) 2.80 (.61) 2.81 (.61) 2.98 (.51)

203
Social self–efficacy 3.65 (.49) 3.43 (.57) 3.24 (.58) 3.22 (.59) 3.27 (.62) 3.20 (.73) 3.15 (.50) 3.16 (.63)
Empathic self–efficacy 3.70 (.44) 3.67 (.40) 3.57 (.54) 3.76 (.45) 3.59 (.44) 3.65 (.57) 3.38 (.55) 3.57 (.51)
Prosocial behavior 3.53 (.57) 3.57 (.48) 3.42 (.57) 3.67 (.61) 3.62 (.47) 3.68 (.57) 3.30 (.67) 3.46 (.62)
Satisfaction with life 4.78 (1.16) 4.51 (1.40) 4.63 (1.40) 4.72 (1.48) 5.05 (1.27) 5.04 (1.26) 4.91 (1.43) 4.66 (1.15)
204 CAPRARA AND STECA

by Tabachnik and Fidell (1989), and eliminated participant outliers from

subsequent analyses. Table 1 presents the means and variances for the
different variables in the four age groups.
For each variable, the data were analyzed with a 2 (men and women) ×
4 (young, young adults, middle–aged adults, old–aged adults) analysis
of variance. The degrees of freedom for all of the F values were 7 and 504.
When significant effects were obtained, the Tukey honestly significant
difference procedure was used to interpret effects involving more than
two groups.
Women were more prosocially oriented than men in all age groups (F
= 7.147; p < .01). Young people, compared to other groups, displayed a
stronger sense of efficacy to express positive affect (F = 1.066; p = < .01),
and of social efficacy (F = 1.898; p < .01). Elderly adults showed a lower
sense of empathic efficacy compared to other groups (F = 4.268; p < .01)
and were less prosocially oriented than middle–aged adults (F = 4.8; p <
.01). A significant Sex × Age interaction was found for self–efficacy in
managing negative affect (F = 8.043; p < .001). With age, the perceived
ability to control negative affect appeared to decrease in men, whereas it
increased in women. No significant gender or age differences were
found for life satisfaction.
Table 2 displays the matrix of relationships among the various forms
of perceived self–efficacy, prosocial behavior, and life satisfaction.
The different forms of perceived self–efficacy are highly and posi-
tively related to each other. They also display strong positive associa-
tions with prosocial behavior and a lower but significant correlation
with life satisfaction. A positive association between prosocial behavior
and life satisfaction was also found.
To exclude the possibility of physical health’s effect on the relation-
ships between variables, we calculated partial correlations between
variables controlling for health. No differences were found between cor-
relations and partial correlations, either for the total sample or for the
different ages, so we can say that physical health does not influence the
relationships between variables.

PATTERN OF INFLUENCES
We tested the posited structural model on the covariance matrix with the
EQS program (Bentler, 2001). To test age differences in the posited paths,
we analyzed the structural model by using the multiple groups model
approach, which estimated simultaneously the same pattern of relation-
ships among variables in the four age groups. In this approach, equiva-
lence among different samples is evaluated by constraints that impose
identical estimates for the model’s parameters (Byrne, 1994;
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 205

TABLE 2. Correlation Matrix of the different variables, for the total sample

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Self–efficacy to manage
positive affect —
2. Self–efficacy to regulate
negative affect .20*** —
3. Social self–efficacy .60*** .29*** —
4. Empathic self–efficacy .55*** .30*** .45*** —
5. Prosocial behavior .43*** .20*** .40*** .60*** —
6. Satisfaction with life .24*** .27*** .20*** .23*** .25*** —

*p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001.

Scott–Lennox & Scott–Lennox, 1995). In EQS, the plausibility of these

equality constraints is examined with the Lagrange Multipliers (LM)
test (Bentler, 2001). For each of the constraints specified, the LM test pro-
vides evidence that the constraint applies to the populations involved.
In the present study, the equality constraints were imposed on path
coefficients across the age groups.
Figure 3 presents the results of the path analyses, using the different
self–efficacy beliefs and prosocial behavior as predictors of life satisfac-
tion for the four age groups. The figure includes all of the path coeffi-
cients that are significant at and beyond the .05 level.
The perceived self–efficacy to regulate positive and negative affect is
accompanied by both high social and high empathic efficacy. Perceived
self–efficacy to manage positive affect contributed more strongly to each
of the latter spheres of perceived efficacy.
A strong sense of social and empathic efficacy strongly contributes to
variance of prosocial behavior and entirely mediates the impact on it of
perceived self–efficacy to manage both positive and negative affect.
Satisfaction with life is directly affected by prosocial behavior, and
also receives a nonspecified path of influence of self–efficacy to regulate
negative affect. Prosocial behavior entirely mediates the impact of
self–efficacy beliefs in regulating positive affect and of interpersonal
self–efficacy beliefs on life satisfaction. Its direct path on life satisfaction
is significant for all the age groups, but higher for elderly adults com-
pared to those of the other groups. No significant differences were found
for the paths of influence among the four age groups.
The refined model that includes the significant nonspecified relation
between self–efficacy to regulate negative affect and life satisfaction pro-
vided a good fit for the empirical data, as shown by different good-
206
FIGURE 3. Path analysis of the pattern of influences through which perceived self-efficacy to regulate positive and negative emotions acting in con-
cert with social and empathic self-efficacy affects prosocial behavior, which in turn influences life satisfaction. The first path coefficient on each of
the structural links is for young adults, the second is for adults, the third is for middle-aged adults, and the fourth is for elderly adults. All the path
coefficients are significant above the p < .05 level.
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 207

ness–of–fit indices. These tests yielded a nonsignificant chi square, χ2

(233, 512) = 256.90, a non–normed fit indices (NNFI) of .99, a compara-
tive fit index (CFI) of .99, and a root–mean–square error of
approximation (RMSEA) of .017.
The model accounted for 14%, 10%, 13%, and 25% of the variance of
life satisfaction, respectively, for young, young adults, middle–age
adults, and elderly adults. The model also accounted for 34%, 37%, 42%,
and 27% of the variance of prosocial behavior for the four age groups.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS

Although the refined model provided an excellent fit for the empirical
data, plausible alternative models were also tested. One structural
model gave causal primacy to prosocial behavior, affecting the various
forms of self–efficacy beliefs, which in turn affect life satisfaction. This
model provided a poorer fit to the data. It yielded a significant chi
square, χ2 (248, 512) = 474.789, p < .001, and fared less well on the other
indices of goodness of fit, with an NNFI = .91, a CFI = .92, and an RMSEA
= .042.
A second plausible model reversed the direction of causation, with life
satisfaction influencing prosocial behavior, which in turn influences the
different forms of efficacy beliefs. Even this model provided a poorer fit
for the data. It yielded a significant chi square, χ2 (249, 512) = 489.254, p <
.001, and fared less well on the other indices of goodness of fit, with an
NNFI = .91, a CFI = .92, and an RMSEA = .044.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

These findings substantially corroborate the assumptions and hypothe-

sis on which we premised our study. Previous findings have docu-
mented the role of prosocial behavior in promoting and maintaining the
long–term peer acceptance and academic achievement of children in the
transition from infancy to adolescence (Caprara et al., 2000). The present
findings, while documenting the assumed association between
prosocial behavior and life satisfaction across ages, show that the contri-
bution of prosocial behavior is more consistent among young adults and
older adults than among adults and middle–aged adults, and is most
relevant in the older adults than in any other group.
More broadly, the results of the present study match both our assump-
tion that the contribution of prosocial behavior is particularly influential
when people’s well–being mostly depends upon others’ support and
208 CAPRARA AND STECA

our hypothesis that prosocial behavior contributes to adults’ well–be-

ing, particularly in aging when others’ support is most likely needed.
It remains for further investigation to determine whether the same
reasoning and hypothesis should apply to the higher contribution of
prosocial behavior to life satisfaction in young adults as to the other two
adult groups. In this regard, the prolonged dependency of young Italian
adults on parental support, as suggested by youth unemployment of
over 20%, and the fact that over 30% of young adults in their 30s still live
with their parents, leaves no doubt about their need for support
(Cherlyn, Scabini, & Rossi, 1997).
It is worth noting that both the young adult and the elderly adult
groups are not more inclined to behave prosocially than the other adult
groups, but that their life satisfaction benefits more from behaving
prosocially. However, our findings leave no doubt about the signifi-
cant contribution of prosocial behavior to the life satisfaction of the el-
derly. In this regard, our findings corroborate the early claims of
Midlarsky (1991; Midlarsky & Kahana 1994) and in fact go beyond her
recommendation that we view prosocial behavior as an effective be-
havioral and coping strategy by recognizing that it is particularly bene-
ficial for the elderly.
Our findings, which draw on social cognitive theory, elucidate the
personal determinants of prosocial conduct and provide directions for
interventions aimed at developing, implementing, and promoting be-
haviors that are conducive to life satisfaction. The same conceptual
model that proved valid for explaining prosocial behavior in young ado-
lescents (Bandura et al., 2003) is corroborated across four age groups, at-
testing to the influential role that affective self–regulatory efficacy be-
liefs exert on interpersonal efficacy beliefs, which in turn affect prosocial
behavior. The posited structural model fits the empirical data across
ages better than any alternative model. The posited path of influence has
been corroborated across ages, with the exception of perceived efficacy
in the management of negative affect, whose influence on life satisfac-
tion is both direct and indirect through empathic and social efficacy and
through prosocial behavior. Perceived self–efficacy to manage negative
affect and to express positive affect contributes to both social self-effi-
cacy and empathic self–efficacy, which in turn contribute to prosocial
behavior conducive to life satisfaction.
The direct link between perceived efficacy in the management of nega-
tive affect and life satisfaction was not anticipated in the posited model,
but it is not completely surprising. Indeed, a direct path of influence has
been found from perceived efficacy in the management of negative af-
fect to depression, shyness, and loneliness, in addition to the indirect
path of influence through the mediation of interpersonal social efficacy
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 209

(Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara et al., in press). Because depression, loneli-

ness, and shyness are all negatively correlated with life satisfaction, it is
reasonable to suppose that perceived efficacy to manage negative affect,
as a robust deterrent to despondency, is a particularly influential
determinant of well–being.
The direct link between self–regulatory negative affect beliefs and life
satisfaction deserves special attention in connection with the percentage
of prosocial behavior variance explained by the model and with the con-
tribution of the latter to life satisfaction. Although the path coefficient
linking self–regulatory negative affect belief is higher in the older group
than in any other group, the percentage of explained variance of
prosocial behavior is lower in the older group than in any other group.
Yet prosocial behavior contributes more to life satisfaction in the older
group than in any other group. In all likelihood, self–regulatory nega-
tive efficacy and prosocial behavior together contribute more to life sat-
isfaction in old age than at any other age. In this regard, our findings pro-
vide new elements to the current debates on the role that emotions and
interpersonal relations play in successful aging. They confirm the lack of
difference in life satisfaction across ages; on the other hand, they show us
new ways in which affect and interpersonal self–regulatory structures
and mechanisms contribute to life satisfaction through prosocial
behavior.
Various studies suggest that maintenance of and improvement in
emotional functioning may continue into middle and old age
(Carstensen, Pasupathi, Mayr, & Nesselroade, 2000; Levenson,
Carstensen, Freisen, & Ekman, 1991), and others demonstrate that older
people continue to express great satisfaction with their social relation-
ships, even in late life (Carstensen, 1992; Diener & Suh, 1997; Field &
Minkler, 1988; Ryff, 1989). Our findings indicate that the beliefs people
hold about their capacity to function well emotionally influence their be-
liefs about their capacity to function well interpersonally and socially,
both these beliefs being critical in promoting behaviors conducive to life
satisfaction. Furthermore, perceived efficacy in management of nega-
tive affect proved to be associated with life satisfaction not only
indirectly but also directly.
Further relevant findings of the present study concern significant gen-
der differences. Females score higher than males in prosocial behavior,
in agreement with all previous findings (Bandura et al., 1996, 1999, 2001,
2003; Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Pastorelli, 2001; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
The perceived self–efficacy to master negative affect decreases in men,
but increases in women in old age, attesting to increasing resiliency in
women and to greater emotional vulnerability in men with aging. This is
contrary to previous findings from a younger population, which indi-
210 CAPRARA AND STECA

cated higher self–efficacy in expressing positive affect and lower self–ef-

ficacy in managing negative affect among women than among men
(Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara & Gerbino, 2001). It is, however, consis-
tent with women’s greater longevity and better general health in old age
(Barer, 1994; Crose, 1997; Wylie, 1984).
In this regard, our findings highlight important age differences re-
garding self–efficacy beliefs about management of affect and interper-
sonal relations. Whereas young adults displayed a stronger sense of
self–efficacy in expressing positive affect and in habitual social transac-
tions compared to other groups, older adults displayed a lower sense of
empathic efficacy compared to other groups.
In this study, we have not assessed the frequency of experienced
emotions, but the beliefs people hold about their capacity to manage
positive and negative emotions successfully. Thus, our findings cannot
be compared with other findings that report more positive and less
negative affect (or neuroticism) in older people than in midlife and
youngest subjects (Carstensen et al., 2000; Diener & Diener, 1996;
Eysenck, 1987; McCrae et al., 1999; Mroczek & Kolarz, 1998). However,
we can note that findings from other studies show a negative relation-
ship between negative affect (and emotional instability) and self–effi-
cacy beliefs in the management of negative emotions, and a positive re-
lationship between positive affect and self–efficacy beliefs in
expressing positive emotions (Caprara & Gerbino, 2001) one cannot ex-
clude a kind of divergence between the frequency of habitual feelings
and behaviors and the beliefs people hold about their capacity to mas-
ter them, nor can one rule out the possibility that relationships between
mastery beliefs and the frequency of emotional experience may change
over a lifetime, or be different across different conditions of life or
cultures (McCrae et al., 1999).
Studies report that in comparison with younger adults, older adults dis-
play more efficient expressive systems (Levenson et al., 1991; Malatesta &
Kalnok, 1984), a comparable subjective intensity of positive and negative
emotions in everyday life (Carstensen et al., 2000), and better emotional
regulation (Gross, Carstensen, Tsai, Skorpen, & Hsu, 1997; Lawton et al.,
1993; Lawton, Kleban, Rejagopal, & Dean, 1992). Other studies suggest
that the salience of emotions may even increase with age, such that emo-
tional experience may be more complex in later years (Carstensen et al.,
2000). Emotional material is also more central in memory tasks
(Carstensen & Turk–Charles, 1994), in storytelling (Pasupathi, Henry, &
Carstensen, in press) and in cognitive representations of other people
(Carstensen & Fredrickson, 1998; Fredrickson & Carstensen, 1990).
Our findings do not contradict these findings; rather they include af-
fective self–regulatory efficacy among the variables that should be taken
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 211

into account, thus adding new elements that may help to promote suc-
cessful aging. Nor do our findings contradict other findings concerning
the importance of interpersonal relations for successful aging.
It may seem surprising that older adults score lower in empathic
self–efficacy compared to other groups. Although one might expect
more charitable wisdom from the elderly, awareness of one’s own vul-
nerability may recommend prudence in identifying with the misery of
others so that succor does not turn into contagion. As proposed by the
“model of selective optimization with compensation” (Baltes & Baltes,
1990) and by socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1991, 1992,
1995), the capacity to select activities and relations to maximize social
and emotional gains and minimize social and emotional risks is particu-
larly decisive in preserving healthy functioning in old age. In particular,
socioemotional selectivity theory predicts that as age increases and time
is perceived as more limited, there is a change in emotional and interper-
sonal experiences connected to a new balance of interpersonal goals.
Those related to the acquisition of knowledge assume less relevance,
and emotionally meaningful goals are increasingly pursued. The selec-
tion of social partners becomes characterized by a greater engagement in
smaller, but more emotionally centered, social networks; this allows an
efficacious way to avoid negative emotional states and to optimize posi-
tive ones (Carstensen, 1991, 1992, 1995; Carstensen, Isaacowitz, &
Charles, 1999). In agreement with these approaches, our findings point
to the great contribution of prosocial behavior to life satisfaction.
As time goes on and as social choices are made with increasing selec-
tivity, with less emphasis on the novelty of activities and situations, and
with more concern for the quality of relationships, the capacity to have
restricted and selected groups of significant others becomes increas-
ingly important. However, it is unlikely that people are able to have re-
warding relationships, even if few in number, unless they are able to cul-
tivate these relationships with mutual trust, confidence, and support. It
is likely that the more restricted the number of relationships, the more
important the investment one puts into them; and the more satisfaction
one derives from them, the more important becomes the capacity to
nourish them. This probably explains the considerable amount of vari-
ance in life satisfaction accounted for by caring, sharing, and helping in
old age, in comparison with other ages. Nevertheless, we have the im-
pression that this has not been fully appreciated in the literature on
successful aging.
Obviously, some people are more inclined than others to behave
prosocially, and some situations foster prosocial behavior more than
others, because the value assigned to prosocial behavior in its various
forms may significantly change across cultures. Our findings show that
212 CAPRARA AND STECA

it contributes to life satisfaction mostly in old age and indicate that it is

unlikely that people behave prosocially if they are not convinced to be
able to master their affect and relations. Social cognitive theory provides
much evidence that self–efficacy can be promoted and maintained
through guided mastery experiences, and provide direction to extend
one’s own control throughout life.
Our findings show not only that relational and emotional experiences
continue to play a central role in old age, but also that they may gain a
more central role in promoting good personal functioning and a satisfy-
ing life. In applying a model that predicts that the combined action of
emotional and interpersonal self–efficacy beliefs and prosocial behavior
promotes life satisfaction, we hypothesize that this relationship will
become stronger with age.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. (1967). Infancy in Uganda. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspective on successful aging: The
model of selective optimization with compensation. In P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes
(Eds.), Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences (pp. 1–34). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self–efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psycho-
logical Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self–efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psy-
chology (Vol. 52, pp.1–26). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of
self–efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Impact of
affective self–regulatory efficacy on diverse spheres of functioning. Child Develop-
ment, 74, 1–14.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001).
Sociocognitive self–regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 125–135.
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self–efficacy pathways
to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258–269.
Barer, B. (1994). Men and women aging differently. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 38, 29–40.
Bartholomew, K. (1993). From childhood to adult relationships: An attachment perspec-
tive. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Understanding relationship processes: 2. Learning about rela-
tionships (pp. 30–62). London: Sage.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 282–316). Boston: McGraw
Hill.
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 213

Bengtson, V. (1985). Diversity and symbolism in grandparental roles. In V. Bengtson & J.

Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood (pp. 11–25). Beverly Hills, CS: Sage.
Bentler, P. M. (2001). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software, Inc.
Berry, D. S. & Willigham, J. S. (1997). Affective traits, responses to conflict, and satisfaction
in romantic relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 71, 796–809.
Booth–Kewley, S. & Friedman, H. S. (1987). Psychological predictors of hearth disease: A
quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 343–362.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. 3: Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic
Books.
Byrne, B. (1994). Testing the factorial validity, replication, and invariance of a measuring
instrument: A paradigmatic application based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 289–311.
Caprara, G.V. (2002). Personality psychology: Filling the gap between basic processes and
molar functioning. In C., von Hofsten & L., Bakman (Eds.), Psychology at the turn of
the Millennium: Volume 2: Social, developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 201–224).
Hove, East Sussex UK: Psychology Press.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C. & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Prosocial behavior and aggression in
childhood and pre–adolescence. In A. C. Bohart & D. J. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive
and Destructive Behavior, (pp. 187–203). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A. & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Prosocial
foundation of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302–305.
Caprara, G.V., Capanna, C., Steca, P. & Paciello, M., (in press). Misura e determinanti
personali della prosocialità (Assessment and personal determinants of prosocial
behavior). Giornale Italiano di Psicologia.
Caprara, G.V. & Cervone, D. (2000). Personality. Determinants, dynamics, and potentials.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Caprara, G.V. & Gerbino, M. (2001). Autoefficacia Emotiva Percepita: la capacità di
regolare l’affettività negativa e di esprimere quella positiva (Affective perceived
self–efficacy: the capacity to regulate negative affect and to express positive affect).
In G.V., Caprara (Ed.), La valutazione dell’autoefficacia (Self–efficacy assessment), (pp.
35–50). Trento, Italy: Edizioni Erickson.
Caprara, G. V., Gerbino, M. & Barbaranelli, C. (in press). Correlati e determinanti personali
della timidezza e della solitudine nell’adolescenza (Personal correlates and deter-
minants of shyness and loneliness in adolescence). Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo.
Caprara, G. V., Gerbino, M., & Delle Fratte, A. (2001). Autoefficacia Interpersonale (Inter-
personal self–efficacy). In G.V., Caprara (Ed.), La valutazione dell’autoefficacia
(Self–efficacy assessment) (pp. 87–104). Trento, Italy: Edizioni Erickson.
Caprara G.V., Scabini E., Barbaranelli C., Pastorelli C., Regalia C., & Bandura A. (1999).
Autoefficacia percepita emotiva e interpersonale e buon funzionamento sociale
(Perceived emotional and interpersonal self–efficacy and psychosocial well–being).
Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 4, 769–789.
Caprara, G.V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (in press). A new scale for measuring
adults’ prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Socioemotional selectivity theory: Social activity in life–span con-
text. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 11, 195–217.
214 CAPRARA AND STECA

Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for

socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338.
Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life–span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 151–155.
Carstensen, L. L., & Fredrickson, B. F. (1998). Influence of HIV status and age on cognitive
representations of others. Health Psychology, 17, 494–503.
Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in
long–term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10, 140–149.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory
of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.
Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Mayr, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2000). Emotional experi-
ence in everyday life across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 79, 644–655.
Carstensen, L. L., & Turk–Charles, S. (1994). The salience of emotion across the adult life
span. Psychology and Aging, 9, 259–264.
Chwalisz, K., Diener, E., & Gallagher, D. (1988). Autonomic arousal feedback and emo-
tional experience: Evidence from the spinal cord injured. Journal of Social and Person-
ality Psychology, 54, 820–828.
Cherlyn, A. J., Scabini, E., & Rossi, G. (Eds.). (1997). Still in the nest: Delayed home leaving
in Europe and the United States [special issue]. Journal of Family Issues, 18, 6.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Longitudinal stability of adult personality. In R. Ho-
gan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 269–290).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Crose, R. (1997). Why women live longer than men ... and what men can learn from them. San
Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Cunningham, M. R. (1988). What do you do when you’re happy or blue? Mood, expectan-
cies, and behavioral interests. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 309–331.
Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and
longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80, 804–813.
Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7, 181–185.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indi-
cators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.
Diener, E., & Suh, M. E. (1998). Subjective well–being and age: An international analysis. In
K. W. Schaie & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics: Vol.
17. Focus on emotion and adult development (pp. 304–324). New York: Springer.
Dulin, P. L. (2000). Altruism as a predictor of positive and negative affect among older
adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Editor in Chief)
& N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality. Handbook of Child
Psychology: (pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley.
Eysenck, H. J. (1987). Personality and aging: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Social Be-
havior and Personality, 3, 11–21.
Feshbach, S., & Feshbach, N. D. (1986). Aggression and altruism: A personality perspec-
tive. In C. Zahn–Waxler, E. M. Cummings, & R. Iannotti (Eds.), Altruism and aggres-
sion: Biological and social origins (pp. 189–217). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Field, D., & Minkler, M. (1988). Continuity and change in social support between
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 215

young–old and old–old or very–old age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sci-

ences, 48, 100–106.
Filipp, S. H. (1996). Motivation and emotion. In J. E. Birren, (Ed.); S. K. Warner (Ed.); et–al.
The handbooks of aging: Handbook of the psychology of aging: (4th ed., pp. 218–235). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fraser–Smith, N., Lesperance, F., & Talajic, M. (1995). The impact of negative emotions on
prognosis following myocardial infarction: Is it more than depression? Health Psy-
chology, 14, 388–398.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2,
300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The
broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Carstensen, L. L. (1990). Choosing social partners: How old age and
anticipated endings make people more selective. Psychology and Aging, 5, 335–347.
Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. (1994). The social roles and functions of emotions. In S.
Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual in-
fluence (pp. 51–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Tsai, J., Skorpen, C. G., & Hsu, A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion and ag-
ing: Experience, expression and control. Psychology and Aging, 12, 590–599.
Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of personality (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expression of positive emotion in women’s college year-
book pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adult-
hood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112–124.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research
on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1–22.
Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. Cambridge, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Hoffman, M. L. (2001). Toward a comprehensive empathy–based theory of prosocial
moral development. In A. C. Bohart & D. J. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive & destructive
behavior (pp. 61–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. Advances in Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 20, 203–253.
Kahana, E., & Midlarsky, E. (1983). Perspectives on helping in late life: Conceptual and em-
pirical directions. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 5, 351–361.
Kawachi, I., Sparrow, D., Vokonas, P., & Weiss, S. (1994). Symptoms of anxiety and risk of
coronary heart disease. Circulation, 89, 1992–1997.
Keltner, D., & Kring, A. (1998). Emotion, social function, and psychopatology. Review of
General Psychology, 2, 320–342.
Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., & Dean, J. (1993). Affect and age: Cross–sectional compari-
sons of structure and prevalence. Psychology and Aging, 8, 165–175.
Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., Rejagopal, D., & Dean, J. (1992). Dimensions of affective ex-
perience in three age groups. Psychology and Aging, 7, 171–184.
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., Freisen, W. V., & Ekman, P. (1991). Emotion, physiology
and expression in old age. Psychology and Aging, 6, 28–35.
Lohelin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Malatesta, C. Z., & Kalnok, M. (1984). Emotional experience in younger and older adults.
Journal of Gerontology, 39, 301–308.
Maruta, T., Colligan, R. C., Malinchoc, M., & Offord, K. P. (2000). Optimists vs pessimists:
Survival rate of medical patients over a 30–year period. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 75,
140–143.
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P. T., De Lima, M. P., Simoes, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A.,
Marusic, I., Bratko D., Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Chae, J., & Piedmont, R. L.
216 CAPRARA AND STECA

(1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cul-
tures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 466–477.
Midlarsky, E. (1991). Helping as coping. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp.
238–264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Midlarsky, E., & Hannah, M. E. (1989). The generous elderly: Naturalistic studies of dona-
tions across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 4, 346–351.
Midlarsky, E., & Kahana, E. (1994). Altruism in later life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mroczek, D., & Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A de-
velopmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 1333–1349.
Mussen, P., & Eisenberg, N. (2001). Prosocial development in context. In A. C. Bohart & D.
J. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive and destructive behavior (pp. 103–126). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Pasupathi, M., Henry, R. M., & Carstensen, L. L. (in press). Age and ethnicity differences in
storytelling to young children: Emotionality, relationality, and socialization. Psy-
chology and Aging.
Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., Yurko, K. H., Martin, L. R., & Friedman, H. S. (1998).
Catastrophizing and untimely death. Psychological Science, 9, 127–130.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & D. Kuhn
& R. S. Siegker (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2: Cognition, perception,
and language (5th ed., pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Beyond Ponce de Leon and life satisfaction: New directions in quest of
successful aging. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 35–55.
Salovey, P. (1992). Mood–indiced self–focused attention. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 699–707.
Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of help-
ing and altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw Hill.
Scott–Lennox, J. A., & Scott–Lennox, R. D. (1995). Sex–race differences in social support
and depression in older low–income adults. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 199–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sills, D. L. (1968). International encyclopedia of social sciences. New York: The Macmillan
Company & The Free Press.
Smith, T. W. (1992). Hostility and health: Current status of a psychosomatic hypothesis.
Health Psychology, 11, 139–150.
Sroufe, A. (1996). Emotional development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staudinger, U. M., Fleeson, W., & Baltes, P. B. (1999). Predictors of subjective physical
health and global well–being: Similarities and differences between the United
States and Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 305–319.
Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations.
Journal of Social Issues, 55, 729–743.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychology. New York: Norton.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper &
Row.
Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2000). Social psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46,
35–57.
Van Geert, P. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic development mechanisms: Piaget,
Vygotsky, and beyond. Psychological Review, 105, 634–677.
Veenhoven, E. (1993). Happiness in nations. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Risbo.
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ACROSS AGES 217

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language (Trans.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original
work published 1934)
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative
affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1020–1030.
Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford.
Watson, D., Clark, L., McIntyre, C., & Hamaker, S. (1992). Affect, personality, and social ac-
tivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 1011–1025.
Wentowski, G. (1981). Reciprocity and the coping strategies of older people. Gerontologist,
21, 600–609.
Williams, S. L. (1995). Self–efficacy, anxiety, and phobic disorders. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.),
Self–efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 69–107).
New York: Plenum.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology, the new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wylie, C. M. (1984). Contrasts in the health of elderly men and women: An analysis of re-
cent data for whites in the United States. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 32,
670–675.