International Journal Educational Psychology

Volume 13, Issue 3, 24th October 2024, Pages 167 – 183

The Author(s) 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11704

Moral Values as Mediators in the Relationship

between Prosocial Behaviour and Social
Responsibility among University Students
Natalia Reig-Aleixandre1, Belén Obispo-Díaz1, Teresa de Dios- Alija1 & Carmen de la Calle-
Maldonado1
1) Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Spain

Abstract
Universities must confront social challenges and prepare their students to be future socially
responsible professionals. This research considers social responsibility in depth and examines
how it can be promoted among university students. Specifically, it analyses whether prosocial
behaviour and moral values are predictor variables, and to study whether moral values are a
mediator variable between prosocial behaviour and university student social responsibility.
Non-probabilistic convenience sampling was used in a Spanish university (N = 193; 115
females; Mage = 19). Three scales were applied: the University Student Social Responsibility
scale, the Prosocial Tendencies Measures scale and the Importance of Personal and
Professional Values scale. The results of the regression models showed that prosocial
behaviour and moral values both contributed significantly to the model (F (2,196) = 41.979; p <
.001), predicting 30.2% of university student social responsibility. In the mediation model,
total effects between the variables were observed, as was an indirect effect of prosocial
behaviour on social responsibility mediated by moral values (β = .07; t = 3.80; p < .001). This
suggests that university programmes that seek to help the community and enable people to
discover values will more effectively be able to develop social responsibility.

Keywords
Social education, student social responsibility, prosocial behaviour, moral values, higher
education, social responsibility
To cite this article: Reig-Aleixandre, N., Obispo-Diaz, B., De Dios-Alija, T., & De la Calle-
Maldonado, C. (2024). Moral Values as Mediators in the Relationship between Prosocial
Behaviour and Social Responsibility among University Students. International Journal of
Educational Psychology, 13(3), pp. 167-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11704
Corresponding author(s): Natalia Reig-Aleixandre
Contact address: natalia.reig@ufv.es
International Journal Educational Psychology
Volumen 13, Número 3, 24 de octubre de 2024, Páginas 167 – 183
Autor(s) 2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11704
Los Valores Morales como Mediadores de la
Relación entre la Conducta Prosocial y la
Responsabilidad Social en el/la Universitario/a
Natalia Reig-Aleixandre1, Belén Obispo-Díaz1, Teresa de Dios- Alija1 y Carmen de la Calle-
Maldonado1
1) Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, España
Resumen
La universidad debe asumir los retos sociales y preparar a sus estudiantes como futuros/as
profesionales socialmente responsables. Esta investigación tiene el objetivo de profundizar en
la responsabilidad social y estudiar cómo se puede promover en los/las universitarios/as. En
concreto, pretende analizar si la conducta prosocial y los valores morales son variables
predictoras, así como estudiar si los valores morales son una variable mediadora entre la
conducta prosocial y la responsabilidad social del/la estudiante universitario/a. Se accedió a
una muestra (N = 193; 115 mujeres; Medad = 19) a través de un muestreo no probabilístico
incidental en una universidad española. Se les aplicó tres escalas: la escala Responsabilidad
Social del Estudiante Universitario, la escala Medida de Tendencias Prosociales y la escala
Importancia de los Valores Personales y Profesionales. Los resultados de los modelos de
regresión mostraron que tanto la conducta prosocial como los valores morales aportan
significativamente al modelo (F (2,196) = 41.979; p<.001), prediciendo un 30.2% de la
responsabilidad social del/la universitario/a. En el modelo de mediación se observaron
efectos totales entre las variables, así como un efecto indirecto de la conducta prosocial sobre
la responsabilidad social mediado por los valores morales (β=.07; t=3.80; p<.001). Esto lleva
a pensar que los programas de la Universidad que busquen la ayuda a la comunidad y
permitan el descubrimiento de los valores conseguirán desarrollar más eficazmente la
responsabilidad social.
Palabras clave
Educación social, responsabilidad social del universitario, conducta prosocial, valores
morales, educación superior, responsabilidad social
Cómo citar este artículo: Reig-Aleixandre, N., Obispo-Diaz, B., De Dios-Alija, T., & De la
Calle-Maldonado, C. (2024). Moral Values as Mediators in the Relationship between
Prosocial Behaviour and Social Responsibility among University Students. International
Journal of Educational Psychology, 13(3), pp. 167-183.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11704
Correspondencia Autores(s): Natalia Reig-Aleixandre
Dirección de contacto: natalia.reig@ufv.es
169 IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 13(3)

igher education should offer students a profound understanding of the social

H challenges that occur in their close environment and internationally. Far from turning
its back on these situations, it must accept the position of leadership that falls on it in
order to confront global challenges: climate change, international peace, public health and
orem
dialogue between cultures. UNESCO at the World Conference on Higher Education (2009)
noted the university’s role of serving the community, encouraging it to focus on
interdisciplinary aspects and promote active citizenship among its students to contribute
ipsum
towards consolidation of human rights, peace, and sustainability. The third World Higher
Education Conference (2022) recognises young people at university as agents of social
dolor
change in their student stage and in their future as professionals.
Since the Covid-19 pandemic, social responsibility has become an even more necessary
and unavoidable topic. During the pandemic, being responsible in following the rules of the
sit
World Health Organization and national rules not only guaranteed individual’s own health,
but also had a notable impact on society. This experience has elicited reflections on the
amet,
important role of individual responsibility for society as a whole.
Higher education has a prominent role in the education of more responsible citizens. De la
consect
Calle et al. (2020) studied university student social responsibility (USSR) with the aim of
analysing the efficacy of programmes that promote this attitude–behaviour in students.
eturWith the aim of studying in depth what it means to be socially responsible, the present
article proposes an analysis of the possible relationship with other variables such as moral
values or prosocial behaviour. It seeks to clarify the foundations of social responsibility in
adipisci
university students, what favours it, what is an obstacle to it and what blocks it. This will
provide help for higher-education institutes, especially university extension ones, to
implement
ng elit, and evaluate projects that have this goal.
Moral values are qualities that are embedded in things, people, and actions. They have a
cognitive aspect, given that people are capable of recognising them and differentiating them,
sed do
and an affective aspect, as they are immediately admired and, even, embraced (Obispo-Díaz,
2022). Ultimately, they are a yardstick when choosing and directing our actions. Values are
not studied or learned but rather are discovered personally and experientially (López-Quintás,
eiusmo
2017). Education must foster the discovery of values in all of its stages (Ruiz-Massieu, 2017),
especially higher education, which is a special space for it (Colina-Gonzalvo & Delgado-
d
Freire, 2018; Gibbs, 2019). Obispo-Díaz (2022) offers a scale that rigorously condenses the
diversity of values.
tempor
Prosocial behaviour can be understood as the set of voluntary behaviours that seek to
benefit others or society as a whole, such as helping, donating, cooperation, and volunteering,
among other types of behaviour (Schroeder & Graziano, 2015; Pfattheicher et al., 2022). It
incididu
appears to be established that these behaviours reduce aggressiveness and antisocial
behaviour (Carlo, et al., 2010; Hoffman, 2000). They are desirable and beneficial for society
nt ut et al., 2006), and they provide a feeling of gratification for those who do them,
(Eisenberg
indeed these people often also have better health (Yang et al., 2020).
The ontological concept of responsibility refers to how a person takes responsibility for
labore
her actions. It is moral because it questions the values or antivalues that the individual
questions when deciding to perform a given action. Responsibility is based on an
et
individual’s capacity to decide freely and with reflection. It relates to factors such as will and

dolore

magna
Reig-Aleixandre et al. – Moral Values as Mediators 170

ethical principles but also to variables such as space and time (Jonas, 1995). A responsible
person must become aware of the importance of her actions, not just in the present but also
for the future, to be able to answer for the impact of her actions and for their impact on nature
and society in three senses: social, economic and environmental (De Dios, 2018).
The analysis proposed in this research defines social responsibility as a person’s
commitment to the global society she is part of in respect to her decisions and actions.
Various previous studies have considered how university student social responsibility is
shaped (García-Ramos et al., 2016a; García-Ramos et al., 2016b). We start from the results
obtained in them to undertake an investigation that aims to analyse whether moral values are
mediators of the relationship between prosocial behaviour and student social responsibility.
In so doing, we seek to provide help for higher-education institutions and, in particular
university extension departments, when they develop their training and community-help
programmes.

Background to the Research

Thus far, we have not found any studies that analyse the foundations of social responsibility:
what makes one young university student more responsible than another and how moral
values or prosocial behaviour influence this. Nor have we found studies that connect these
three variables.
• Nonetheless, scientific evidence can be found that considers
• the relationship between moral values and prosocial behaviour,
• the relationship between the sense of responsibility and prosocial behaviour.

The Relationship Between Moral Values and Prosocial Behaviour

A variety of factors explain prosocial behaviour, and empathy is one of the most studied of
them. This directly affects behaviour and social interaction. The capacity for empathy is a
positive predictor of an individual’s prosocial behaviour. Highly empathetic individuals
display more prosocial behaviour. They are more attentive to the feelings and needs of others,
which is also closely linked to avoiding feelings of guilt (Dovidio et al., 2017). However,
empathy is not enough to explain the complexity of prosocial behaviour. Some theoretical
models go further and postulate that this behaviour is also the consequence of the internalised
moral value that one should help others, especially those who are in need (principle of care)
(Bekkers & Ottoni‐Wilhelm, 2016). Theoretical analysis predicts that empathy is more
strongly associated with help in response to the needs of close people such as family
members and members of one’s group, while values are associated with the help response for
more distant people, such as individuals from a larger group or even strangers (Stürmer et al.,
2005). The study by Bekkers and Ottoni‐Wilhelm (2016) corroborates this hypothesis: when
prosocial behaviour benefits distant people and helping them requires planning, this planning
is put in motion by values and the principle of care.
Some studies have suggested that while it seems clear that a lack of self-control can
facilitate a tendency to transgress social norms, it has been proven that people who have a
high moral identity display fewer egotistical impulses when they cannot exercise self-control
171 IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 13(3)

(Muraven & Slessareva, 2003). These findings suggest that working on moral values might
be an effective way to improve prosocial behaviour (Joosten et al., 2015). In this way, it has
been confirmed that inducing moral values in employees can improve their prosocial
behaviour (Joosten et al., 2015). Other studies have found that while anxiety or social threats
(Karakashian et al., 2006) reduce the will to help, having a clear moral identity increases help
(Reed & Aquino, 2003).
Süssenbach et al. (2019) investigate the relationship between moral foundations (Haidt,
2007) and prosocial behaviour, regarding these foundations as the content of individuals’
morality (Graham et al., 2013). They identify three binding foundations (loyalty, authority
and purity) and three individualising foundations (care, justice and liberty). Their research
confronted participants with suffering and unjust living conditions and analysed how this
inspired prosocial behavioural tendencies. They found that not only empathy but also values
such as caring for others and defending justice led individuals towards prosocial behaviour,
both in their intention to help and in the specific search for how to do so. On this basis, we
could assume that people who emphasise questions of harm and equity in their moral
judgements are more prosocial in general than people who see these problems as less
important.
Finally, Shields et al. (2018), reversing the order of the relationship, in other words,
considering how prosocial behaviour relates to moral values, researched the relationship
between prosocial behaviour and appreciation of moral values in a population of athletes
from the USA. They found that prosocial behaviour correlates positively with a greater
appreciation of values and antisocial behaviour correlates negatively with appreciation of
them.

The Relationship Between Responsibility and Prosocial Behaviour

Ramey et al. (2022), in a longitudinal study over a period of 15 years, analysed the
relationship of social responsibility in the potential shaping of community-help behaviour and
its development in the different stages of life. Their findings help to understand the role of
social responsibility and moral influences on the formation of attitudes and community-help
behaviours.
Jiang et al. (2021) analysed the mediating role of social responsibility with the aim of
investigating how prosocial behaviour has helped improve the mental health of young people
in China in the difficult situation of the Covid-19 pandemic. When people are threatened by
natural disasters of health crises, prosocial behaviour can be a positive factor in improving
individual mental health. Prosocial behaviour can promote individual satisfaction with life,
happiness, mental health and other psychological states. As well as promoting individual
mental health, prosocial behaviour can also reduce individual levels of depression and
anxiety. The first studies show that in the context of the pandemic, prosocial behaviour can
be positively predicted (Ding & Liu, 2016). The higher the level of empathy, the more
prosocial a person’s behaviour will be. According to the empathy–altruism hypothesis, when
an individual empathises with others, she experiences emotions that awaken her pure
altruistic motivation, animating her to help others regardless of the cost. People can also
display prosocial behaviour to avoid feelings of guilt when they encounter the suffering of
Reig-Aleixandre et al. – Moral Values as Mediators 172

others (Stilwell & Thomas, 2001). However, empathy is insufficient to explain prosocial
behaviour during the pandemic, and so we analyse the role of social responsibility as a
mediator between empathy and this behaviour. Jiang et al. (2021) showed that social
responsibility plays a mediating role in the influence of empathy on prosocial behaviour.
People who feel the pain of the victim and also feel a responsibility to the group or the person
in need display more prosocial behaviour than others.
Research from Germany has analysed how prosocial behaviour increases when people
perceive a high degree of moral obligation or personal responsibility to help others. It shows
that the people who value responsibility more and attribute this value to themselves not only
have the intention to help but also that these desires translate into real prosocial behaviour
(Hellmann et al., 2021). In this sense, there is a large amount of literature that shows a
relationship between an individual’s perceived responsibility and her prosocial behaviour
(Bruttel & Stolley, 2018; Erlandsson et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2020).

In Conclusion

Numerous studies analyse the relationship between moral values and prosocial behaviour.
Values explain certain community-help behaviours that empathy could not explain
sufficiently (Bekkers & Ottoni‐Wilhelm, 2016). Moral identity helps to strengthen this
behaviour when faced with the internal or external difficulties that the subject might
experience (Muraven & Slessareva, 2003). Values such as justice and care stand out above
other values (Süssenbach et al., 2019). There is also considerable research that analyses the
relationship between social responsibility and prosocial behaviour. There are several pieces
of evidence showing that prosocial behaviour and community help increase as the perception
of one’s own responsibility increases (Hellmann et al., 2021). Furthermore, the role of
responsibility in mediating between empathy and prosocial behaviour has been considered in
depth (Jiang et al., 2021). Both lines of research belong to social psychology. Our study
relates to the field of education. It derives from the experience of promoting social
responsibility in university students over more than two decades and from the need to find
new pedagogical pathways. Hence the need to analyse values and prosocial behaviour as
possible variables that explain responsibility.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of this study is to analyse, at least in an exploratory way, whether moral values
mediate in the relationship between prosocial behaviour and university student social
responsibility. To do so, we set the following specific objectives:

1. To analyse whether social responsibility is related to prosocial behaviour and values;

2. To determine whether prosocial behaviour and moral values to some extent explain
social responsibility, and finally;
3. To determine whether moral values mediate the relationship between prosocial
behaviour and social responsibility.
173 IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 13(3)

In addition, and with the aim of evaluating the effect of gender as a variable on these
objectives, we performed analyses taking into account whether the participants were male or
female.

Method

Participants

The research population consisted of university students from the Universidad Francisco de
Vitoria (Madrid). Non-probabilistic convenience sampling was used to select the sample.
Teachers on the Social Responsibility module (a core second-year module in all of the
university degrees of the university where the study was carried out) collaborated to facilitate
access to the sample.
The final sample comprised 193 students from the Universidad Francisco de Vitoria. Of
the total sample, 59.6% were women and 40.4% men. The mean age of the sample was 19.27
years (SD: 1.07). In addition, students from the faculty of Law, Business and Government
(76.7%) were predominant, followed by ones from the faculty of Communication Sciences
(18.7%), and finally, the faculties of Experimental Sciences (5%) and from the Higher
Polytechnic School (4%). Furthermore, 97.4% of the students were in the second year, and
2.6% from the third, fourth and sixth years. Finally, 95.3% had completed a period of
volunteering before taking the Social Responsibility module.
The inclusion criteria were being enrolled at the Universidad Francisco de Vitoria during
the 2021–2022 academic year and having taken the Social Responsibility module. The
principal exclusion criterion was that the students were in the first year or were from higher
years but had not completed the Social Responsibility module.

Instrument and Variables

To evaluate the degree of social responsibility, the University Student Social Responsibility
(USSR) scale, validated by García-Ramos et al. (2016a), was used. This scale originally
displayed adequate internal consistency values (α: .923). It comprises 10 items evaluated on a
Likert-type scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being the lowest level of agreement and 6 the highest. In
the sample from the present study, a slightly lower value than the original scale was obtained,
although the consistency is considered adequate (α: .851; ω: .865).
Prosocial behaviour was evaluated using the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM) scale,
created and validated by Carlo and Randall (2002). This features 23 items in six sub-scales:
public prosocial behaviour (4 items), emotional prosocial behaviour (4 items), emergency
prosocial behaviour (3 items), altruistic prosocial behaviour (5 items), anonymous prosocial
behaviour (5 items) and compliant or obedient prosocial behaviour (2 items). The scale has
good reliability (α: .73). The answer scale ranged from 1 (does not describe me at all) to 5
(describes me a lot). Carlo and Randall (2002) created this multidimensional scale because
they were unconvinced that prosocial behaviour was an overarching behavioural category
(Rodrigues et al. 2017). The PTM was translated into Spanish and validated by Richaud et al.
Reig-Aleixandre et al. – Moral Values as Mediators 174

(2012). We found the following indicators of reliability in the study sample: α: .637 and ω:
.756.
The Importance of Personal and Professional Values (IPPV) scale, designed and validated
by Obispo-Díaz (2022), was also used. This scale comprises fourteen items and two criterion
items. Its aim is to evaluate the importance university students place on moral values.
Responses to the items were given using a Likert-type scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being not at
all important and 6 very important. The original version of the scale displayed adequate
internal consistency (α: .884). Similar values were obtained with the study sample (α: .893;
ω: .897).
It should be noted that a dimension was included that collected sociodemographic data
from the students, such as: gender (male or female), age, the faculty in which they were
studying (Experimental Sciences, Communication Science, Law, Business and Government,
and the Higher Polytechnic School), their year (first, second, third and fourth) and, finally,
whether they had done a period of volunteering prior to the application of the scale. These
variables allowed for the description of the sample.

Procedure

Data collection took place in April and May 2022. Students filled in the complete research
protocol through a link to the Jotform online platform. They had all previously given
informed consent after being informed of the research objectives.

Data Analysis

The reliability of the scales used in this study was estimated. Cronbach's Alpha (α) and
Omega (ω) statistics were used to estimate the internal consistency of the scales used. Alpha
was used as a traditional psychometric statistic and Omega was used as a statistic that
provides a value not influenced by the sample size. For the analysis and interpretation of
these data, we based ourselves on the indications given by George and Mallery (2003), Abad,
et al. (2011) and García Ramos (2012). The Pearson correlation coefficient test, multiple
linear regression analysis and a causal model for mediation were performed to respond to the
specific objectives. The normality of the variables was estimated. Significant values were
obtained in the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests. However, given the sample
size and the minimal effect of non-normality (Tejedor, 1979), the use of parametric tests was
considered appropriate. Regarding linear regression, the assumptions were tested using the
Durbin–Watson, VIF and Tolerance tests. With regards to the mediation model, the structure
of Model 4 was defined with 10,000 bootstrap samples and a confidence interval of 95%. The
assumptions had previously been tested. To interpret the model, we followed the directions
given by Fernández-Muñoz and García-González (2017). Furthermore, all of these analyses
were replicated with both men and women.
175 IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 13(3)

Results

In general, in the whole sample, a significant and positive relationship was observed between
social responsibility and prosocial behaviour (Rxy = .331; p < .001) and with the importance
of moral values (Rxy =.498; p < .001). This correlation was also significant and positive when
prosocial behaviour was related to moral values (Rxy = .217; p < .001) albeit to a lesser
extent.
In women, a significant and positive relationship was also observed between social
responsibility and prosocial behaviour (Rxy = .198; p < .01) and with the importance of moral
values (Rxy .331; p < .001). In contrast, there was no significant and positive relationship
between prosocial behaviour and values (p = .153). In men, as with the sample as a whole, all
of the relationships were significant and positive. Specifically, between social responsibility
and prosocial behaviour (Rxy = .517; p < .001) and importance of moral values (Rxy = .575;
p < .001), there was a moderate but relevant relationship and between prosocial behaviour
and moral values (Rxy = .287; p < .05) it was significant and medium.
In the results of the regression models, we observed that both in the sample as a whole (F
(2,196) = 41.979; p < .001) and by gender (women: F (2,114) = 8.473; p < .001; men: F (2,77) =
32.755; p < .001) prosocial behaviour and moral values both contributed significantly to the
model. Table 1 displays the information from the proposed regression models.

Table 1
Results of the regression models
R2 Durbin-
Sample Variable R2 Beta Tolerance VIF
changes Watson
Prosocial behaviour .107** .173
Total .302 .957 1.045 2.034
Moral values .195** .358
Prosocial behaviour .039* .103
Female .116 .977 1.024 2.213
Moral values .092** .286
Prosocial behaviour .268** .294
Male .466 .918 1.090 1.800
Moral values .199** .334
Note. ** Significant at .01; * Significant at .05

In the sample as a whole, prosocial behaviour and moral values explain 30.2% of
university student social responsibility. Their contribution is slightly lower with women,
explaining only 11.6%. In contrast, for men, the contribution of prosocial behaviour and
moral values is higher than for the sample as a whole (46.6%). In the three models, it was
apparent that moral values contribute more to the models than prosocial behaviour does.
Finally, and taking the information above as a reference point, the results of the analysed
mediation models are presented. The first model, shown in Figure 1, corresponds to the total
sample. Figure 2 shows the model for the sample of women and, finally, despite the
limitation of the sample size, the model for the sample of men was estimated as a pilot test
(Figure 3)
Reig-Aleixandre et al. – Moral Values as Mediators 176

Figure 1
Estimated mediation model in the whole sample

In the previous model, a significant total effect of prosocial behaviour on university

student social responsibility could be observed (β = .24; t = 4.82; p < .001).
In addition, there was a significant direct effect of the prosocial behaviour and moral
values variables on university student social responsibility (β = .17; t = 3.80; p < .001).
Finally, an indirect effect of prosocial behaviour on university student social responsibility
mediated by moral values was observed (β = .07; t = 3.80; p < .001). The results of the Sobel
test were also presented, according to which the proposed mediation model was partial and
significant (z = 2,72; p < .01).
The second mediation model presented only considered the sample of women.

Figure 2
Estimated mediation model in women

In this case, only one direct significant effect was found. This was the effect of moral
values on university student social responsibility (β = .29; t = 3.45; p < .001). Consequently,
the mediation model was not significant.
Finally, the third mediation model only took into account the opinions of men.
177 IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 13(3)

Figure 3
Estimated mediation model in men

Moral values
a3 = .30* (in men) b3 = .33**

University Student
Prosocial behaviour Social
.10 (.29**)
(in men) Responsibility
(in men)

In model three, a significant total effect of prosocial behaviour on university student social
responsibility could be observed (β = .39; t = 5.27; p < .001).
In addition, there was a significant direct effect of prosocial behaviour and moral values
on university student social responsibility (β = .29; t = 4.35; p < .001).
Finally, an indirect effect of prosocial behaviour on university student social responsibility
mediated by moral values was observed (β = .10; t = 4.35; p < .001). The results of the Sobel
test were also presented, according to which the proposed mediation model was partial and
significant (z = 2.30; p < .05).

Discussion

The principal conclusions in relation to the proposed objectives are set out below.
With regards to the first specific objective, significant relationships between the variables
used were observed. These showed that the greater the level of prosocial behaviour, the
greater the social responsibility and the greater the importance placed on moral values. It
should be noted that the correlations were more intense in men. Regarding the second
objective, it was found that prosocial behaviour and moral values explain university student
social responsibility. In the three models appraised, it can be seen that the importance placed
on moral values makes a greater contribution to the models than prosocial behaviour does.
Moreover, the weight of the variables for men is slightly greater than it is for women. The
lower weight of these variables in women could be due to the weight of other variables of an
emotional nature (identification, empathy, self-care and care). Finally, regarding the third
objective, a partial mediation of moral values in the relationship between prosocial behaviour
and social responsibility of university students was observed. This model changes according
to gender. In women, we only found that moral values influence social responsibility; we did
not observe any mediation by them in the relationship between prosocial behaviour and social
responsibility. However, in men the model is significant. That is to say, in men social
responsibility is greater when it is influenced by prosocial behaviour and the importance of
Reig-Aleixandre et al. – Moral Values as Mediators 178

moral values. Specifically, as the level of prosocial behaviour increase and the level of
importance placed on moral values increases, their level of social responsibility rises.
In relation to the first and second conclusion, our results agree with those of Bekkers et al.
(2016) who conclude that empathy does not imply suffering to explain prosocial behaviour,
but that appreciation of the moral value of help plays an important role when developing this
type of behaviour. Our results also agree with the results of Muraven and Slessareva (2003),
which confirm that moral values help people have prosocial behaviour when circumstances
impede or hinder the exercise of suitable self-control in their own behaviour.
Our results also ratify the conclusions of Süsssenbach et al. (2019) by affirming that the
appreciation of values (especially those of caring and of defence of justice) not only leads
people to have the intention to help, but they also put into action the specific form of doing
so. Shields et al. (2018) find in a population of athletes that there is a positive correlation
between appreciation of values and prosocial behaviour. In this sense, our study confirms
their results in a general university population.
From a pedagogical position, we can affirm, like Joosten et al. (2015), that supporting the
discovery and entrenchment of moral values results in acquisition of prosocial behaviour, in
other words, a series of behaviours that benefit the social fabric one way or another.
The present study also backs the results of Hellman et al. (2021), as it finds that social
responsibility not only translates into a prosocial attitude, but that it also leads to the
formation of behaviours that help the community. At the same time, it corroborates the
conclusions of Bruttel and Stolley (2018) and Yang et al. (2020), in which there is also a
significant and positive correlation between these two variables.
This research is innovative because of its finding that 30.2% of university student social
responsibility can be explained by prosocial behaviour and moral values. And also, its
conclusion that moral values partially mediate the relationship between prosocial behaviour
and social responsibility. These results are of interest for social psychology when studying
the relationship between these three variables, as they explain a significant percentage of
social responsibility and, in particular, they confirm the mediating role of moral values. All of
this paves the way for subsequent research into the relationship between socialisation
variables in the field of positive psychology. In particular we emphasise that the conclusions
of this study offer numerous pedagogical clues for training professionals with a social and
civic commitment.
The complementary studies, which analyse the effect of gender as a variable, are
surprising as the results for women and men have differed from the start. For women, there is
no significant correlation between prosocial behaviour and moral values. And, while, it can
be appreciated that moral values influence social responsibility for men and women alike, no
mediation by values in the relationship between prosocial behaviour and social responsibility
is observed in women. These data were not predictable from other results, which show a
higher level of social responsibility in women than in men (Bustamante & Navarro, 2007;
Navarro et al., 2010; Reig-Aleixandre et al., 2021). Women also displayed a greater concern
for values than men did (Beltrán et al., 2005; Villa & Villa, 2007). This means that while
women have greater social responsibility, it is minimally explained by prosocial behaviour
and values. However, 46.6% of social responsibility in men is explained by these two
variables. This leads us to ask: What variables can predict social responsibility in women?
179 IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 13(3)

Why is there such a difference between the results for men and for women? Could empathy
be a strong predictor variable for social responsibility in women (Sommerlad et al., 2021)?
These questions place us at the starting point for further research.

Conclusion

There is deep reflection on how universities should be outstanding agents in knowledge and
actions to tackle the social ills that afflict our time, not just through their participation as
institutions, but also in forming a socially responsible citizenry. This study is in response to
the need to analyse what social responsibility comprises and what the predictor variables and
mediator variables might be. As a result of doing this, appropriate educational interventions
could be incentivised and the already existing initiatives could be evaluated.
The results of this research show that both prosocial behaviour and the importance placed
on values are predictor variables for social responsibility. Moral values are also a mediator
variable between prosocial behaviour and social responsibility that we attempt to transmit to
university students.
This study has a number of pedagogical implications. The volunteering and social
cooperation programmes, initiatives to help those at risk of social exclusion, programmes to
care for the environment, etc. that many universities have are undoubtedly an expression of
prosocial behaviour and directly promote university student social responsibility. Formative
interventions (modules, programmes, university extension initiatives) that are aimed at
enabling students to discover the importance of moral values also increase their social
responsibility. The community-help programmes that are run in universities are predicted to
boost student social responsibility more when they are supported by interventions that
promote the discovery of values. Similarly, the programmes that in themselves provide a
space for the discovery of values are predicted to be more successful in the development of
university student social responsibility. These programmes and interventions all generally
involve a significant investment of time and money in higher-education institutions and are
implemented with the desire to benefit society and improve the social conscience of the
students.
The limitations of this research include the need for a larger and more representative
sample that would allow us to generalise the results to the population. However, this research
is an interesting exploratory study that should be followed up in greater depth.
Future studies could include empathy as another variable in the study of these three
variables, given its important role in relation to prosocial behaviour and social responsibility.
It would also be of interest to carry out studies with the aim of analysing the differences
observed between women and men in relation to the mediating role of values. Similarly, it
would be important to investigate other variables that might mediate between prosocial
behaviour and social responsibility.
Reig-Aleixandre et al. – Moral Values as Mediators 180

References

Abad, F., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V. y García, C. (2011). Medición en ciencia sociales y de la
salud. Síntesis.
Bekkers, R., & Ottoni‐Wilhelm, M. (2016). Principle of care and giving to help people in
need. European Journal of Personality, 30(3), 240-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2057
Beltrán, F.J., Torres, I., Beltrán, A. y García, F.J. (2005). Un estudio comparativo sobre
valores éticos en estudiantes universitarios, Enseñanza e Investigación en Psicología,
10(2), 397-415. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/292/29210213.pdf
Bruttel, L., & Stolley, F. (2018). Gender differences in the response to decision power and
responsibility—framing effects in a dictator game. Games, 9(2), 28.
https://doi.org/10.3390/g9020028
Bustamante, M. J., y Navarro, G. (2007). Auto-atribución de comportamientos socialmente
responsables de estudiantes de carreras del área deficiencias sociales. Revista perspectivas,
18, 45-63. https://doi.org/10.29344/07171714.18.1226
Carlo, G., Knight, G.P., McGinley, M., Zamboanga, B.L. & Jarvis, L.H. (2010). The
multidimensionality of prosocial behaviors and evidence of measurement equivalence in
Mexican American and European American early adolescents. Journal of research on
adolescence. 20, 334-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00637.x
Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for
late adolescents. Journal of youth and adolescence, 31(1), 31-44.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014033032440
Colina-Gonzalvo, O. y Delgado-Freire, O. (2018). La importancia de los valores éticos
aplicados a la enseñanza universitaria. Opuntia Brava, 9(2), 265-277.
https://brumario.usal.es/permalink/34BUC_USAL/edmht/cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org
_article_5ff4c0a64f8a4278a49041eaa2ff373e
De Dios Alija, T. (2018). Responsabilidad de la persona y sostenibilidad de las
organizaciones. Madrid: Editorial UFV.
https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/4498412
De la Calle Maldonado, C., García-Ramos, J.M., De Dios Alija, T., & Valbuena Martínez, C.
(2020). Synthetic indexes to measure university student social responsibility. Archivos
Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 28 (189). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4705
Ding, F., & Lu, Z. (2016). Association between empathy and prosocial behavior: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(8), 1159.
https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.01159
Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A., Schroeder, D.A. & Penne, L.A. (2017). The Social Psychology
of Prosocial Behavior. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315085241
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial Development. In N.
Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social,
emotional, and personality development (pp. 646–718). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-08776-011
Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived
impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion
181 IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 13(3)

dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 127, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.003
Fernández-Muñoz, J.J., y García-González, J.M. (2017). El análisis de mediación a través de
la macro/interfaz Process para SPSS. REIRE Revista d'Innovació i Recerca en Educació,
10(2), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1344/reire2017.10.218109
García Ramos, J.M. (2012). Fundamentos pedagógicos de la evaluación. Síntesis.
García-Ramos, J.M., De la Calle, C., Valbuena, C., y De Dios-Alija, T. (2016a). Hacia la
validación del constructo. Responsabilidad Social del estudiante universitario. Bordón,
Revista de Pedagogía, 68 (1) 153-170. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2016.68303
García-Ramos, J. M., De la Calle-Maldonado, C., Valbuena-Martínez, M. C., y de Dios Alija,
T. (2016b). La formación en Responsabilidad Social y su impacto en diversas carreras
universitarias. Revista de Investigación educativa, 34(2), 435-
451. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.34.2.244271
George, D. y Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step. A simple guide and
reference. Allyn y Bacon.
Gibbs, P. (2019). Duties Before Rights: A Notion of the University of the Future. In Gibbs,
P., Jameson, J., Elwick, A. (Eds.), Values of the University in a Time of Uncertainty.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15970-2_3
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013).
Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In P. Devine and A.
Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55-130).
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998-1002.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651
Hellmann, D. M., Dorrough, A. R., & Glöckner, A. (2021). Prosocial behavior during the
COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. The role of responsibility and
vulnerability. Heliyon, 7(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08041
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and
justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805851
Jiang, Y., Yao, Y., Zhu, X., & Wang, S. (2021). The Influence of College Students' Empathy
on Prosocial Behavior in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Mediating Role of Social
Responsibility. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.782246
Jonas, H. (1995). El principio de responsabilidad: ensayo de una Ética para la civilización
tecnológica. Herder.
Joosten A, van Dijke M, Van Hiel A, De Cremer D (2015). Out of Control!? How Loss of
Self-Control Influences Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Power and Moral Values. PLoS
ONE 10(5): e0126377. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126377
Karakashian, L. M., Walter, M. I., Christopher, A. N., & Lucas, T. (2006). Fear of negative
evaluation affects helping behavior: The bystander effect revisited. North American
Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 13-32.
https://intranet.newriver.edu/images/stories/library/stennett_psychology_articles/Fear_of_
Negative_Evaluation_Affects_helping_Behavior_-_The_Bystander_Effect_Revisited.pdf
Reig-Aleixandre et al. – Moral Values as Mediators 182

López-Quintás, A. (2017). Cómo educar en ética por vía de descubrimiento. Edetania.

Estudios y propuestas socioeducativas, (51), 27-43.
https://revistas.ucv.es/edetania/index.php/Edetania/article/view/85
Muraven M. & Slessareva E. (2003). Mechanisms of self-control failure: Motivation and
limited resources. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(7), 894–906.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029007008
Navarro, G., Boero, P., Jiménez, G., Tapia, L., Hollander, R., Escobar, A., y Espina, Á.
(2010). Universitarios y responsabilidad social. Calidad en la Educación, (33), 101-121.
https://doi.org/10.31619/caledu.n33.140
Obispo-Díaz, B. (2022). La formación integral en el ámbito universitario: un estudio
empírico sobre la importancia de los valores y las actitudes ético-profesionales (Doctoral
dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid). https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/69773/
Pfattheicher, S., Nielsen, Y. A., & Thielmann, I. (2022). Prosocial behaviour and altruism: A
review of concepts and definitions. Current opinion in psychology, 44, 124-129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021
Ramey, H. L., Lawford, H. L., Pancer, S. M., Matsuba, M. K., & Pratt, M. W. (2022).
Trajectories of Youth's Helping From Adolescence into Adulthood: The Importance of
Social Relations and Values. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(1-2), 134-
144. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12551
Reed, A., & Aquino, K. F. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard
toward out-groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(6), 1270-1286.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1270
Reig-Aleixandre, N., Obispo-Díaz, B., & de la Calle Maldonado, C. (2021). Responsabilidad
social del estudiante universitario: Un estudio sobre el efecto del sexo y de la realización
de voluntariado. In Innovación en la docencia e investigación de las ciencias sociales y de
la educación,1388-1405. Dykinson.
Richaud, M. C., Mesurado, B., & Cortada, K. (2012). Analysis of dimensions of prosocial
behavior in an Argentinean sample of children. Psychological Reports., 111, 687–696.
https://doi.org/10.2466/10.11.17.PR0.111.6.687-696
Rodrigues, J., Ulrich, N., Mussel, P., Carlo, G., & Hewig, J. (2017). Measuring prosocial
tendencies in Germany: Sources of validity and reliability of the revised prosocial
tendency measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2119.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02119
Ruiz-Massieu, A. (2017). Importancia de los valores humanos en la educación. Daena:
International Journal of Good Conscience, 12(3), 345-356
http://www.spentamexico.org/v12-n3/A21.12(3)345-356.pdf
Schroeder, D. A., & Graziano, W. G. (Eds.). (2015). The field of prosocial behavior: An
introduction and overview. In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 3–34). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.32
Shields, D. L., Funk, C. D., & Bredemeier, B. L. (2018). Relationships among moral and
contesting variables and prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport. Journal of Moral
Education, 47(1), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1350149
183 IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 13(3)

Sommerlad, A., Huntley, J., Livingston, G., Rankin, K. P., & Fancourt, D. (2021). Empathy
and its associations with age and sociodemographic characteristics in a large UK
population sample. PloS one, 16(9), e0257557.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257557
Stilwell, B. M. & Thomas, C. R. (2001). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for
Caring and Justice. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
40(5), 614–615. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200105000-00026
Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The
moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7),
943-956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206287363
Süssenbach, P., Rees, J. & Gollwitzer, M. (2019). When the going gets tough, individualizers
get going: On the relationship between moral foundations and prosociality. Personality
and Individual Differences, 136(10), 122-131 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.019
Tejedor, F. (1979). El término de error experimental en los modelos estadísticos de análisis
de varianza. Condiciones subyacentes en el ANVA referidas a la variable aleatoria.
Revista Española de Pedagogía, 145(38), 97-112. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23764080
UNESCO. (2009). La nueva dinámica de la Educación Superior y la investigación para el
cambio social y el desarrollo. Conferencia Mundial sobre la Educación Superior.
Comunicado de Prensa. http://www.unesco.org/education/WCHE2009/comunicado_es.pdf
UNESCO. (2022). World Conference on Higher Education
https://www.unesco.org/es/education/higher-education/2022-world-conference
Villa, A. & Villa, O. (2007). El aprendizaje basado en competencias y el desarrollo de la
dimensión social en las universidades, Educar, 40,15-48.
https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Educar/article/view/119469
Yang, C., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., Liu, Y., & Chen, H. (2020). The effect of sense of
community responsibility on residents’ altruistic behaviour: Evidence from the dictator
game. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(2),
460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020460