How do Personality Factors Associate with Prosocial Behavior? The Mediating Role of Empathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to examine the relationships between empathy, prosocial behaviour, and personality factors among Saudi undergraduate students. In total, 394 Saudi undergraduates participated in the study, which employed the prosocial behaviour scale (PBC), international personality item pool (IPIP), and Toronto empathy questionnaire (TEQ). The Pearson correlation analysis was used to investigate the associations between the research variables, while process macro analysis used to examine whether empathy mediates the association between agreeableness and prosocial behaviour. The research findings indicate that personality factors are related to empathy. Saudi undergraduates who show higher degrees of empathy would also show high degrees of prosocial behaviours. In addition, personality factors were similarly associated with prosocial behaviour. The results also show that empathy mediates the relationship between prosocial behaviour and agreeableness. The results of this study expand the existing literature review on prosocial behaviour by explaining how personality factors influence prosocial behaviour through the mediation role of empathy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".