The Prosocial Personality Battery (PSB)

Abstract

The Prosocial Personality Battery (PSB) is a psychological inventory designed to measure stable individual differences that predispose individuals toward engaging in prosocial behavior, such as sustained volunteerism and helping actions. Developed by Penner and colleagues, the PSB adopts a multidimensional approach, assessing various cognitive and affective components underlying helping tendencies. The version most commonly cited, particularly in research concerning volunteerism, is the 30-item version (Penner, 2002), which is derived from the full scale originally established in 1995. This instrument operationalizes the prosocial personality construct through seven distinct subscales that load onto two primary factors: Other-Oriented Empathy and Helpfulness.

The original PDF containing the scale key and scoring instructions for the 30-item version can be downloaded here: https://www.med.wayne.edu/fam/faculty/pdfs/30itempsbkey.pdf.

Keywords

Prosociality, Altruism, Volunteerism, Helping Behavior, Empathy, Moral Reasoning, Personality Assessment, Social Responsibility, Psychological Scale.

Authors

Louis A. Penner, B. A. Fritzsche, J. P. Craiger, T. S. Freifeld.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Prosocial Personality Battery (PSB) is to provide a comprehensive and psychometrically sound measure of the latent personality traits that predict engagement in prosocial behavior. Specifically, the scale was developed to move beyond single measures of constructs like altruism or empathy and instead capture the complex interactionist perspective of the prosocial disposition.

The scale is frequently utilized in research settings to distinguish between individuals who exhibit high levels of helping behavior and those who do not, particularly in contexts requiring sustained effort, such as long-term volunteer commitment. By assessing both affective (e.g., Empathic Concern) and cognitive (e.g., Perspective Taking, Moral Reasoning) dimensions, the PSB offers nuanced insights into the motivational basis for helping others.

Construct

The PSB measures the prosocial personality, which is theoretically structured around two overarching factors: Other-Oriented Empathy and Helpfulness. These factors incorporate seven underlying subscales that capture different facets of an individual’s tendency to focus on and respond to the welfare of others.

The seven individual scales computed within the PSB are:

• Social Responsibility (SR): Measures the acceptance of one’s duty to help others, regardless of external circumstances.
• Empathic Concern (EC): Reflects the affective component of empathy, involving feelings of warmth, compassion, and concern for others in distress.
• Perspective Taking (PT): Reflects the cognitive component of empathy, involving the ability to adopt the psychological viewpoint of another person.
• Personal Distress (PD): Measures self-focused anxiety and discomfort resulting from observing another person’s distress. (This component is negatively related to prosocial tendencies and is reversed in the total Helpfulness score).
• Other-Oriented Moral Reasoning (O): Measures decision-making based on concern for the welfare of others.
• Mutual Concerns Moral Reasoning (M): Measures decision-making based on fairness, justice, and meeting the needs of all involved parties.
• Self-reported Altruism (SRA): Measures past frequency of engagement in various helping behaviors.

Validity

While the source content does not explicitly state specific validity coefficients (e.g., convergent or discriminant validity), it provides strong evidence for the structural validity of the scale. The factor structure of the 30-item version (2002) was reported to replicate the original structure established by Penner et al. (1995) almost perfectly, indicating strong construct validity across different versions of the instrument.

The replicated factor structure supports the theoretical model that the prosocial personality is comprised of distinct but related components, which collectively predict sustained helping behaviors. The consistent factor loadings across studies suggest that the items reliably group together according to the intended theoretical dimensions of empathy, moral reasoning, and behavioral actions.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Coefficient Alpha for the seven individual scales, based on a sample size of N = 1111. The reliability coefficients demonstrate acceptable to good internal consistency across the subscales, particularly for the key affective and behavioral components.

The reported Coefficient Alpha values are:

• Social Responsibility: .65
• Empathic Concern: .67
• Perspective Taking: .66
• Personal Distress: .77
• Mutual Moral Reasoning: .64
• Other Oriented Reasoning: .77
• Self-reported Altruism: .73

Factor Analysis

The scale is structured around a robust two-factor model, which was originally established in Penner et al. (1995) and replicated in the subsequent 30-item version (2002). These two factors represent the core dimensions of the prosocial personality:

1. Factor 1: Other-Oriented Empathy
2. Factor 2: Helpfulness

Other-Oriented Empathy is computed as the sum of scores on five subscales: Social Responsibility (SR), Empathic Concern (EC), Perspective Taking (PT), Other-Oriented Moral Reasoning (O), and Mutual Concerns Moral Reasoning (M). Helpfulness is computed as the sum of scores on Personal Distress (PD) (reversed) and Self-reported Altruism (SRA). The reversal of the PD score ensures that higher scores on the Helpfulness factor consistently represent higher prosocial tendencies.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Psychological Inventory

Format: 30 items, administered via paper-and-pencil or digitally.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population (typically used with adult and student samples).

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults.

Population Details: The reliability statistics were derived from a sample size of N = 1111 for the 30-item version.

Test Methodology: Items are responded to using two different 5-point Likert-type scales, depending on the subscale being measured (Agreement Scale for SR, Empathy, and Moral Reasoning; Frequency Scale for Self-Reported Altruism). Response options range from 1 to 5.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Social Psychology, Personality Traits, Empathy Scale, Volunteer Motivation, Psychological Assessment, Helping Intentions, Social Responsibility.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Louis A. Penner, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Communication and Behavioral Oncology Program, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Professor, Family Medicine, Wayne State University, 5th Floor, Hudson Webber Cancer Research Center, 4100 John R., Detroit, Michigan 48201.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was first detailed in its comprehensive form in 1995, with the 30-item version being published and recommended for use in 2002. The author explicitly requests that users notify him if they utilize the scale, suggesting academic use is permitted but tracking is desired. No information regarding commercial fees is provided, implying typical academic use permissions.

Reference’s

• Penner‚ L. A. (2002). The Causes of Sustained Volunteerism: An Interactionist Perspective. Journal of Social Issues‚ 58‚ 447-468.
• Penner‚ L. A.‚ Fritzsche‚ B. A.‚ Craiger‚ J. P.‚ & Freifeld‚ T. S. (1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. In J. N. Butcher‚ & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.) Advances in personality assessment‚ (Vol. 12). Hillsdale‚ NJ: Erlbaum.

Items of the The Prosocial Personality Battery (PSB)

Below are a number of statements that may or may not describe you‚ your feelings‚ or your behavior. Please read each statement carefully and blacken in the space on your answer sheet that corresponds to choices presented below.

There are no right or wrong responses

1= Strongly Disagree‚ 2= Disagree‚ 3= Uncertain‚ 4= Agree‚ 5= Agree Strongly

Social Responsibility (Items 1-7)

1. When people are nasty to me‚ I feel very little responsibility to treat them well. (R)
2. I would feel less bothered about leaving litter in a dirty park than in a clean one. (R)
3. No matter what a person has done to us‚ there is no excuse for taking advantage of them.
4. With the pressure for grades and the widespread cheating in school nowadays‚ the individual who cheats occasionally is not really as much at fault. (R)
5. It doesn’t make much sense to be very concerned about how we act when we are sick and feeling miserable. (R)
6. If I broke a machine through mishandling‚ I would feel less guilty if it was already damaged before I used it. (R)
7. When you have a job to do‚ it is impossible to look out for everybody’s best interest. (R)

EMPATHY SCALE (Items 8-19)

8. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the “other person’s” point of view. PT (R)
9. When I see someone being taken advantage of‚ I feel kind of protective towards them. EC
10. I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective. PT
11. Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal. EC (R)
12. If I’m sure I’m right about something‚ I don’t waste much time listening to other people’s arguments. PT (R)
13. When I see someone being treated unfairly‚ I sometimes don’t feel very much pity for them. EC (R)
14. I am usually pretty effective in dealing with emergencies. PD (R)
15. I am often quite touched by things that I see happen. EC
16. I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. PT
17. I tend to lose control during emergencies. PD
18. When I’m upset at someone‚ I usually try to “put myself in their shoes” for a while. PT
19. When I see someone who badly needs help in an emergency‚ I go to pieces. PD

PART 2:

Below are a set of statements‚ which may or may not describe how you make decisions when you have to choose between two courses of action or alternatives when there is no clear right way or wrong way to act. Some examples of such situations are: being asked to lend something to a close friend who often forgets to return things; deciding whether you should keep something you have won for yourself or share it with a friend; and choosing between studying for an important exam and visiting a sick relative. Read each statement and blacken in the space on your answer sheet that corresponds to the choices presented below.

1= Strongly Disagree‚ 2= Disagree‚ 3= Uncertain‚ 4= Agree‚ 5= Agree Strongly

MORAL REASONING (Items 20-25)

20. My decisions are usually based on my concern for other people. O
21. My decisions are usually based on what is the most fair and just way to act. M
22. I choose alternatives that are intended to meet everybody’s needs. M
23. I choose a course of action that maximizes the help other people receive. O
24. I choose a course of action that considers the rights of all people involved. M
25. My decisions are usually based on concern for the welfare of others. O

Below are several different actions in which people sometimes engage. Read each of them and decide how frequently you have carried it out in the past. Blacken in the space on your answer sheet which best describes your past behavior. Use the scale presented below.

1= Never‚ 2= Once‚ 3= More than Once‚ 4= Often‚ 5= Very Often

SELF-REPORTED ALTRUISM (Items 26-30)

26. I have helped carry a stranger’s belongings (e.g.‚ books‚ parcels‚ etc.).
27. I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a line (e.g.‚ supermarket‚ copying machine‚ etc.)
28. I have let a neighbor whom I didn’t know too well borrow an item of some value (e.g.‚ tools‚ a dish‚ etc.).
29. I have‚ before being asked‚ voluntarily looked after a neighbor’s pets or children without being paid for it.
30. I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street.