Childhood adversity and later life prosocial behavior: A qualitative comparative study of Irish older adult survivors
Results of a scientific study on the link between experiences of childhood adversity and later life prosocial behaviour in two groups of Irish survivors (institutional abuse survivors and familial abuse survivors); conducted within the scope of the National Research Programme 76 (NRP 76): “Welfare and Coercion – Past, Present and Future”.
This study was led by Dr. Shauna Rohner (formerly Mc Gee), under the direction of Principal Investigators PD Dr. Myriam V. Thoma and Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Maercker; in collaboration with Prof. Dr. Alan Carr, Clodagh Cogley, and other researchers.
Background
Prosocial behaviour is generally understood as voluntary actions or behaviours that are intended to help or benefit other people. There are several possible processes involved in prosocial behaviour, including emotional processes (e.g., empathy, socialisation), goals and motivational processes (e.g., egoistic or altruistic motives), or social/situational/personal processes (e.g., social norms, prosocial traits). It is likely that prosocial behaviour develops early in a person’s life. Therefore, disruptions in upbringing and caregiving, such as adverse childhood experiences, could negatively influence the development of prosocial behaviour. However, some studies have shown that those who experienced adversity in childhood may display a tendency towards prosocial behaviour. This could be in the form of helping and volunteer behaviours, which in turn may be linked to increased well-being. Possible motives for this prosocial behaviour include: (1) helping others as a form of coping or posttraumatic growth; (2) helping due to situational demands or social norms; and (3) helping due to positive emotions or empathy. However, there are still many open questions about the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and prosocial behaviour, particularly the influence of the context in which the adverse childhood experiences occur.
Aim of the Study
This study aimed to explore the connection between adverse childhood experiences and later life prosocial behaviour in two groups of Irish older adults in order to identify prosocial mechanisms or processes. By assessing Irish survivors from two adversity contexts (i.e., institutional abuse and familial abuse) the study design allowed for an investigation of individual, cultural, and contextual processes related to prosocial behaviour.
Data Collection and Participants
People could participate in this study if they were Irish individuals aged 50 years or older with a history of childhood abuse/neglect within institutional care or a familial context. Interviews lasting 60-120 minutes were conducted to gather information on the person’s experiences of childhood adversity, coping, resilience, and healthy ageing. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed into written text for analysis. A total of 29 interviews were conducted with two survivor groups. One group was 17 survivors of childhood adversity in an institutional context (10 females, 7 males), aged between 50 and 77 years old (average age = 60.7 years). The other group was 12 survivors of childhood adversity in a familial context (11 females, 1 male), aged between 51 and 72 years (average age = 57.4 years).
Findings
Engagement in Prosocial Behaviour
Approximately 59% (10/17) of institutional survivors and 83% (10/12) of familial survivors engaged in later life prosocial behaviour, categorised into three themes: (1) Prosocial engagement, (2) Volunteering, and (3) Social/caring professions. Prosocial engagement referred to actions taken for the benefit of individuals or society, including the general disposition to help others, participation in charitable events, or commitment to a particular cause. Volunteering referred to voluntary, unpaid (or minimally compensated) activities for the benefit of individuals, a group, or community. Social/caring professions referred to jobs that focus on helping or enhancing the well-being of others, such as nurses, teachers, or counsellors. Some survivors reported that their adverse experiences in childhood directly influenced their choice of career to help or care for others.
Mechanisms Associated with Prosocial Behaviour
Five main themes identified mechanisms or processes associated with prosocial behaviour, with three themes found in both groups: (1) Enhanced empathy, (2) Self-identity, and (3) Amelioration. Additionally, the theme Compassion fatigue was found only for familial survivors, and the theme Denouncing detrimental social values was found only for institutional survivors.
1. Enhanced empathy. This describes the increased ability to recognise what another person is feeling and the associated emotional response. It included an enhanced sensitivity to the suffering of others as a result of what they had been through in their own childhood and the prosocial offer of support or help.
2. Self-identity. Participant’s self-perceptions were shaped by their adverse childhood experiences and were linked to their current prosocial attitudes and activities. This included being someone who cares for others, is strong/resilient, and helps those who are weaker. It also included complex self-perceptions, such as being a people-pleaser (e.g., as a result of their childhood experiences and attempts to avoid further abuse).
3. Amelioration. This refers to engaging in prosocial behaviour to lessen the consequences of their adverse childhood experiences. It included finding meaning and gaining a sense of purpose from drawing on their experiences to help other survivors.
4. Compassion fatigue. Several familial survivors, particularly those in social/caring professions, reported feeling drained or exhausted form (excessive) prosocial engagement, which sometimes prevented further prosocial actions. It included feeling too empathetic and absorbing the negative feelings of other people.
5. Denouncing detrimental social values. Institutional survivors engaged in prosocial activities that were distanced from / opposed to the (often religious) detrimental social norms and values of their childhood. This included being a good person (not necessarily a religious person) or engaging in advocacy activities to break the silence on taboo topics, such as domestic violence and child abuse.
Conclusion
The results of this study helped to shed light on the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and later life prosocial behaviour in Irish older adults who experienced institutional or familial abuse and neglect. In both survivor groups, prosocial behaviour was driven by the need to turn the negative experiences into positive action, by finding a sense of purpose and making meaning from their adversities. Prosocial attitudes and actions were also linked to the (lack of) support and coping strategies from childhood, which influenced the motivation to help others in later life. The group-specific results highlight the need to consider the adversity context, in addition to individual characteristics and socio-cultural influences, when looking at the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and later life prosocial behaviour. Further research into these complex prosocial processes could help to inform the development of targeted interventions to promote prosocial responding and positive outcomes for survivors of adverse childhood experiences.