SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Doğu Karadeniz Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2

Examination of Prosocial Behaviors of Social Work Department Students According to Some Variables

Sosyal Hizmet Bölümü Öğrencilerinin Prososyal Davranışlarının Bazı Değişkenlere Göre İncelenmesi

Ömer Faruk Cantekin(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5096-3233
Fatma Arpacı(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6619-6358
Zeynep Tezel(KIRIKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6421-5965
Pages
139–149
Publication Date
2025-07-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was determined that there was a moderate, positive and significant relationship between prosociality and altruism [r(351)= 0.491; p<0.01] and generosity [r(351)= 0.300; p<0.01], and a high, positive and significant relationship between prosociality and forgiveness [r(351)= 0.625; p<0.01].

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was planned and conducted to examine the prosocial behaviors of the social work students in terms of certain variables.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It was conducted on 351 students selected by simple random sampling method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was determined that there was a moderate, positive and significant relationship between prosociality and altruism [r(351)= 0.491; p<0.01] and generosity [r(351)= 0.300; p<0.01], and a high, positive and significant relationship between prosociality and forgiveness [r(351)= 0.625; p<0.01].
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:sosyal hizmet · prososyal davranış · üniversite öğrencileri

Abstract

This study was planned and conducted to examine the prosocial behaviors of the social work students in terms of certain variables. It was conducted on 351 students selected by simple random sampling method. The “Demographic Information Form” and the “Turkish Prosociality Scale” were used in data collection. The arithmetic mean of the prosociality scale was calculated as 109.29±14.22 (moderately high). It was determined that the students scored higher in the areas of helpfulness (38.07±3.59), philanthropy (25.82±7.82), generosity (21.51±3.82) from the prosociality subscales; and lower in the areas of altruism (13.72±3.51) and forgiveness (13.56±4.16). The total prosociality score and subscale score averages of the male students, except for helpfulness and generosity, were found to be higher than the average scores of the female students. However, prosociality did not show a significant difference according to gender, age group and income perception (p>0.05). In the subscale of philanthropy, as the situation of openly discussing all kinds of issues and ideas in the family increases, the average scores increase and a relationship is observed between the groups (p<0.01). In the subscales of prosociality total score average (p<0.01), philanthropy (p<0.01), philanthropy (p<0.01) and forgiveness (p<0.01), a significant difference is observed according to the extremely strong sense of solidarity and unity in the family (p<0.01). It was determined that there was a moderate, positive and significant relationship between prosociality and altruism [r(351)= 0.491; p<0.01] and generosity [r(351)= 0.300; p<0.01], and a high, positive and significant relationship between prosociality and forgiveness [r(351)= 0.625; p<0.01].

Özet

Bu araştırma, sosyal hizmet öğrencilerinin prososyal davranışlarını belirli değişkenler açısından incelemek amacıyla planlanmış ve yürütülmüştür. Basit rastgele örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen 351 öğrenci üzerinde çalışma yürütülmüştür. Veri toplamada “Demografik Bilgi Formu” ve “Türkçe Prososyallik Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Prososyallik ölçeğinin aritmetik ortalaması 109,29±14,22 (orta derecede yüksek) olarak hesaplanmıştır. Öğrencilerin prososyallik alt ölçeklerinden yardımseverlik (38,07±3,59), yardımseverlik (25,82±7,82), cömertlik (21,51±3,82) alanlarında daha yüksek; fedakarlık (13,72±3,51) ve affedicilik (13,56±4,16) alanlarında ise daha düşük puan aldıkları belirlenmiştir. Erkek öğrencilerin yardımseverlik ve cömertlik dışındaki toplam prososyallik puanı ve alt ölçek puan ortalamaları, kız öğrencilerin puan ortalamalarından yüksek bulunmuştur. Ancak prososyallik cinsiyete, yaş grubuna ve gelir algısına göre anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemiştir (p>0,05). Hayırseverlik alt boyutunda ailede her türlü konu ve fikri açıkça tartışabilme durumu arttıkça ortalama puanlar artmakta ve gruplar arasında ilişki görülmektedir (p<0,01). Prososyallik toplam puan ortalaması (p<0,01), yardımseverlik (p<0,01), yardımseverlik (p<0,01) ve affedicilik (p<0,01) alt boyutlarında ailede dayanışma ve birlik duygusunun son derece güçlü olmasına göre anlamlı bir fark görülmektedir (p<0,01). Prososyallik ile fedakarlık [r(351)= 0,491; p<0,01] ve cömertlik [r(351)= 0,300; p<0,01] arasında orta düzeyde, pozitif ve anlamlı bir ilişki, prososyallik ile affedicilik arasında ise yüksek düzeyde, pozitif ve anlamlı bir ilişki [r(351)= 0,625; p<0,01] saptanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Cantekin, Ö. F., Arpacı, F., Tezel, Z. (2025). Examination of Prosocial Behaviors of Social Work Department Students According to Some Variables. Doğu Karadeniz Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.59312/ebshealth.1657384

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Andreoni, J., Nikiforakis, N., & Stoop, J. (2021). Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment. Nature communications, 12(1), 4266.
  2. Ayten, A., & Korkmaz, S. (2019). The relationships between religiosity, prosociality, satisfaction with life and generalised anxiety: A study on Turkish Muslims. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 22(10), 980-993.
  3. Bosc, M. (2000). Assessment of social functioning in depression. Comprehensive psychiatry, 41(1), 63–69.
  4. Brief, A. P., Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial Organizational Behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710-725.
  5. Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., Randall, B. R. (2003). "Sociocognitive and Behavioral Correlates of a Measure of Prosocial Tendencies for Adolescents", Journal of Early Adolescence, 23 (1), s. 107-134.
  6. Davidov, M., Vaish, A., Knafo-Noam, A., and Hastings, P. D. (2016). The motivational foundations of prosocial behavior from a developmental perspective–evolutionary roots and key psychological mechanisms: introduction to the special section. Child Dev. 87, 1655–1667.
  7. Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. American psychologist, 64(8), 644.
  8. Eisenberg, N. and Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1): 91–119.
  9. Eisenberg, N., Mussen, P. H. (1989). The Roots of Prosocial Behavior in Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Espinosa, M. P., & Kovářík, J. (2015). Prosocial behavior and gender. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 9, 88.
  11. Freedman, J., Sears, D., Carlsmith, J. (1976). Social Psychology, Prentice Hill.
  12. Hepach, R., Vaish, A., and Tomasello, M. (2013). A new look at children’s prosocial motivation. Infancy 18, 67–90.
  13. Ho, T. Q., Nguyen, L. T., Grote, U., Sonobe, T., & Nguyen, T. T. (2024). Gender and generosity: How contribution information triggers solidarity behavior during a crisis. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 112, 102275.
  14. Jain, A., & Pandey, N. (2024). Family Relationships, Cultural Orientation on Decisional and Emotional Forgiveness in Indian Young Adults. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(2), 147-152.
  15. Kamas, L., & Preston, A. (2021). Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 92, 101654.
  16. Kanacri, B. P. L., Pastorelli, C., Zuffiano, A., Eisenberg, N., Ceravolo, R., & Caprara, G. V. (2014). Trajectories of prosocial behaviors conducive to civic outcomes during the transition to adulthood: The predictive role of family dynamics. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1529-1539.
  17. Kılınç, M., Yiğit, V., & Doğanşah, Y. (2020). Sağlik Çalişanlarinda Örgütsel Muhalefet ve Örgütsel Prososyal Davranişlar Arasindaki İlişkinin Tespit Edilmesine Yönelik Bir Araştirma. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(12), 143-158.
  18. Lampridis, E., & Papastylianou, D. (2017). Prosocial behavioural tendencies and orientation towards individualism–collectivism of Greek young adults. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(3), 268–282.
  19. Li, J., Liu, T., Dong, L., Li, G., & Cai, Z. (2024). Gender‐related institutional environments, gender pay gap/equality and prosocial behaviors: A cross‐national meta‐analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
  20. Li, Z., Yu, C., Cao, Y., Nie, Y., Tu, W., Liu, B.,. & Chen, P. (2024). The association between parent–child attachment and prosocial behavior: A longitudinal study. Current Psychology, 43(3), 2432-2441.
  21. Macchia, L., & Whillans, A. V. (2022). The link between income, income inequality, and prosocial behavior around the world. Social Psychology.
  22. Matsumoto, Y., Yamagishi, T., Li, Y., & Kiyonari, T. (2016). Prosocial behavior increases with age across five economic games. PloS one, 11(7), e0158671.
  23. Mesurado, B., & Richaud, M. C. (2017). The relationship between parental variables, empathy and prosocial-flow with prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 843-860.
  24. Moran, D., Liu, V., & Taylor, L. (2024). Who, how, and when do children help? A systematic review of children's outgroup prosocial behavior. Political Psychology, 45, 119-155.
  25. Nurkan, A. (2020). Yetişkinlerin spiritüel iyi oluş düzeyleri ile bağlanma stilleri ve olumlu sosyal davranış düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi (Master's thesis, İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eğitim Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı).
  26. Penner, L.A., Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A.; Schroeder, D.A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392.
  27. Pollerhoff, L., Reindel, D. F., Kanske, P., Li, S. C., & Reiter, A. M. (2024). Age Differences in Prosociality Across the Adult Lifespan: A Meta-Analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 105843.
  28. Rosenhan, D. L. (1978). Toward Resolving the Altruism Paradox: Affect, Self- Reinforcement, and Cognition. L. Wispe içinde, Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociological Principles (pp:101-113). New York:Academic Press.
  29. Sevilla, G. D. (2024). Family Functioning as Correlates to Prosocial Behavior and Aggression: Basis for an Enhanced Guidance Program. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(1), 104-114.
  30. Sprecher, S.ve Fehr, B. (2005). "Compassionate Love For Close Others And Humanity", Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22 (5), s. 629-51.
  31. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Dewall, N. C., Ciarocco, N. J., Bartels, M. J. (2007). "Social Exclusion Decreases Prosocial Behavior", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, s. 56-66.
  32. Ural A.ve Kılıç, İ. (2005). Bilimsel Araştırma Süreci ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi, Ankara: Detay Yay.
  33. Uzmen, F. S. (2001). Okulöncesi Eğitim Kurumlarına Devam Eden Altı Yaş Çocuklarının Prososyal Davranışlarının Resimli Çocuk Kitapları İle Desteklenmesi, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  34. Wang, Y., Yang, C., Zhang, Y., & Hu, X. (2021). Socioeconomic status and prosocial behavior: The mediating roles of community identity and perceived control. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(19), 10308.
  35. Wenner, J. R., & Randall, B. A. (2016). Predictors of prosocial behavior: Differences in middle aged and older adults. Personality and individual differences, 101, 322-326.
  36. Yildiz, S., Taştan B. İ., Yıldırım, F. (2012). “Kişilik Tipi İle Olumlu Sosyal Davranış Arasındaki İlişki: Marmara Üniversitesi Öğrencileri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 26 (1), s. 215-233.
  37. YÖK Atlas. (2023). Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Hizmet bölümüne yerleşenlerin cinsiyet dağılımları. 13.10.2024 tarihinde https://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr/lisans.php?y=104190334 adresinden erişilmiştir.
  38. Yoo, H., Feng, X., & Day, R. D. (2013). Adolescents’ empathy and prosocial behavior in the family context: A longitudinal study. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42, 1858-1872.
  39. Li, Z., Yu, C., Cao, Y., Nie, Y., Tu, W., Liu, B.,. & Chen, P. (2024). The association between parent–child attachment and prosocial behavior: A longitudinal study. Current Psychology, 43(3), 2432-2441.