Abstract A recent proposal defines prosociality in terms of intentional behaviour that successfully benefits another. We suggest, however, that prosociality would be better defined more simply in terms of the intention to benefit another, regardless of whether a benefit really occurs, for three reasons: (i) the construct of “benefit” is itself difficult to operationalize, (ii) an intention-based definition is no less conservative than the proposed outcome-based one, and (iii) an outcome-based definition overlooks plausible cases of intended but unsuccessful prosocial actions as well as the psychological consequences of such actions. Amending the working definition of prosociality to be centred on intentions, not outcomes, would make it more useful as a tool for comparative and developmental research.
Li et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: