Fig 1.
Overview of the longitudinal Brainlinks study, aimed at investigating the predictors and consequences of being prosocial in adolescence.
The current study focuses on comparing pre- (i.e., T1, T1.5, and T2) to peri-COVID-19-pandemic behavior, as well as understanding adolescents peri-pandemic giving behavior.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of giving, empathy (i.e., perspective-taking and empathic concern), general contributions to society, opportunities for prosocial actions,, mood (i.e., vigor and tension), altruistic and dire prosociality, and social value orientation prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fig 2.
Levels of perspective-taking and empathic concern at T1, T2, and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Adolescents showed higher levels of perspective-taking but lower levels of empathic concern during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before. Results are displayed separately for the sample without attrition (i.e., consisting of individuals who show no attrition over time, N = 36) and the sample with attrition (i.e., consisting of all available data per time point, regardless of whether participants showed attrition, N = 36 to 53).
Fig 3.
Levels of opportunities for prosocial actions (emotional support) prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Timing pre-pandemic measures: T1: May–October 2018; T1.5: between T1 and T2; and T2: August 2019 –January 2020; pandemic measures (i.e., week 1, 2, and 3): March 30 –April 17, 2020. Results are displayed separately for the sample without attrition (i.e., consisting of individuals who show no attrition over time, N = 36) and the sample with attrition (i.e., consisting of all available data per time point, regardless of whether participants showed attrition, N = 36 to 53).
Fig 4.
Levels of vigor and tension prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Timing pre-pandemic measures: 2018 –January 2020; pandemic measures (i.e., week 1, 2, and 3): March 30 –April 17, 2020. Results are displayed separately for the sample without attrition (i.e., consisting of individuals who show no attrition over time; N = 36) and the sample with attrition (i.e., consisting of all available data per time point, regardless of whether participants showed attrition, N = 36 to 53).
Fig 5.
Giving to an unfamiliar peer, friend, individual with a poor immune system, individual with COVID-19, and doctor working on a hospital.
Giving was assessed on day 1 (i.e., March 30, 2020) and 15 (i.e., April 17, 2020). Giving to all targets differed significantly from each other on day 1, as indicated by Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons, p’s < .010. There were no differences in giving between day 1 and 15. Results are displayed separately for the sample without attrition (i.e., consisting of individuals who show no attrition over time; N = 36) and the sample with attrition (i.e., consisting of all available data per time point, regardless of whether participants showed attrition, N = 36 to 53).
Table 2.
Pearson correlations between age and giving to different targets on day 1 and 15, as measured during the daily diaries study.