Identifying the Prosocial Orientations That Influence Choice of University Studies in the Social Field for Sustainable Educational Integration

Abstract

For sustainable educational integration, universities are tasked with the aim of educating specialists who are chosen based on particular criteria in order to promote sustainable development. In the domain of social work, it is crucial to take into account young individuals who express a desire to pursue studies in this field and who have prosocial orientations and tendencies. This research was based on the application of a Prosocial Orientation Questionnaire on a group of 238 students (M—2.4 years, 89.5% female) using questions with a purpose, but also a scale for measuring prosocial tendencies (PTM). The findings regarding the prosocial guidelines highlighted the role of the family in the multidimensional development of prosocial behaviour (PSB), but also the involvement in voluntary activities. The results revealed a high association with the six scales of PTM, with higher values being obtained for three dimensions (Compliant, Dire, Emotional) that show a stronger development. Assessing prosocial orientations and tendencies can help select a career and pursue university courses in the social field. The use of these instruments provides evidence of the effectiveness of PTM in assessing prosocial tendencies and supports the idea that PSB is multidimensional. This is demonstrated by the correlations observed in young individuals pursuing a social career.

1. Introduction

The European Union has sustainable development at the forefront of its concerns, which is in line with the Sustainable Development Goals stipulated by the United Nations [1]. In the 17 objectives proposed by the United Nations for the 2030 Agenda, a series of principles for sustainable economic, environmental, and social development are provided, and each state must implement its own universal and sustainable systems at national level, which reflect the parties’ commitment to sustainable development [2]. The significance of social protection systems in alleviating extreme poverty and providing access to social work programmes for marginalised groups, particularly children, young people, and the elderly, is statistically demonstrated in ‘Goal 1—No poverty’ and ‘Goal 2—Zero hunger’. Therefore, it is imperative for each state to establish durable social protection systems in order to guarantee the inclusion of marginalised populations in support programmes. The training of professionals to support the establishment of a social protection system based on expertise and professional knowledge aligns with these sustainable development objectives. Also, in Goal 4—Quality education, for sustainable educational integration, we must consider young individuals interested in studying in the social field. This should be based on their prosocial orientations and adherence to social values, which are fundamental for their future practice in this field [1].

By examining A. Comte’s scientific positivism, we can use knowledge and study to advance from the realm of the physical to the realm of the social. This approach aims to establish the boundaries of what ‘we know’ and ‘we do’ [3]. Educational systems are intricate systems that encompass various levels, players, and institutions, all of which have an impact on sustainability and pose challenges for academics [4]. Choosing an academic field of study can sometimes be difficult if you are not prepared for the profession in which you are going to develop. The occupation of a social worker requires a range of inherent and acquired qualities that enable one to thrive in this field. Educational institutions serve the dual purpose of imparting knowledge and fostering the development of students’ value system [5,6].

In this study, we aim to outline a strategy for selecting social work candidates based on their prosocial orientations and multidimensional prosocial behaviours (PSB). Therefore, universities can implement a sustainable education system, based on appropriate strategies for the selection and professional orientation of candidates as future specialists in social work. The use of established methodologies for vocational counselling and selection, together with a set of prosocial principles, can lead to successful and long-term professional integration.

The objectives of this study were:

• Identifying the prosocial tendencies of young individuals pursuing academic study in the social domain;
• An examination and assessment of multidimensional PSB types, measured by prosocial tendencies, which could serve as a career orientation strategy for sustainable education and sustainable professional integration in the social system.

2. Orientation towards a Career in the Social Field and Development of Prosocial Behaviour

2.1. The Choice of University Studies in the Social Field

An individual’s work orientation is the perspective they have about their work and how they relate to it: ‘what purpose or function work serves for the person, what work means to them, and its significance’ [7]. People might relate to their work in three different ways: as jobs, careers, or callings. The primary variations are as follows: individuals who work are solely focused on the financial rewards they receive from their jobs; they are not looking for or seeking any other kind of recognition. Instead of being an aim in itself, employment serves as a means for people to obtain the resources they need in order to enjoy their time off from the job. Employees’ primary goals and interests are not reflected in their work [8]. People with careers, on the other hand, are more emotionally invested in their work and recognise their accomplishments not just in terms of financial gain but also in terms of moving up the occupational ladder. This progression frequently results in improved social status, more authority within one’s field of work, and greater worker self-esteem. Ultimately, those who have a calling discover that their life and work are inextricably linked. When someone has a calling, they work for the personal fulfilment that comes from their employment, not for money gain or career progress. The people who feel they are called to accomplish in their professional aspect are typically viewed as socially valuable, a final purpose, and it could involve activities that may or may not be enjoyable [8]. It is notably stated by Elangovan et al. [9] that this calling outlook is said to be characterised by as ‘prosocial intention—a desire to make the world a better place’, though Hart and Hart [7] agree that it is acknowledged that it is not without self-oriented goals or objectives, such as a sense of purpose, personal significance, and meaningful work.

Individuals’ self-concepts of career development pose a continuing challenge to traditional career models and educational systems, universities. Prior research has examined the factors that influence an individual’s perception of career success, but there is less understanding of how having a proactive career orientation affects subjective career success [10]. As defined career construction theory, an individual’s ability to adapt is crucial for acquiring resources or achieving desired outcomes. The process of adaptation is guided by one’s goals, which align their internal demands with external chances [11]. Proactive career orientation means an individual’s personal purpose to adapt and focus on their own possibilities in career development [12]. By actively seizing these opportunities, individuals can achieve career success [13,14]. Parental duties as regarded in relation to their children’s professional development based on the strategies employed by parents can have a significant influence on the achievement of their children’s professional decisions [14]. While the act of selecting a career path is commonly seen as an individual’s decision, it is important to acknowledge that societal factors significantly impact career choices. Certain social groups are more inclined than others to view science as unsuitable for themselves [15]. There is still a lack of female representation in the field of natural science, and similar patterns have been observed for certain minority groups [16], though, as our study shows, more women are interested in the social work field than men. The readiness to embark on a professional career is a crucial factor in terms of occupational dedication [17,18]. Religiosity can also impact professional selection and advancement, specifically in terms of work orientation types and work engagement [19].

2.2. Development of Prosocial Behaviour

Certain kinds of behaviour pertain a firm positive conduct that could be understood in the framework of PSB. There is a bit of confusion whether people would choose to behave in a positive prosocial manner and concerns surround the conditions and influences that lead towards constructive behaviour. Personal characteristics combined with the environment would lead people to enhance the PSB. Cognitive developmental psychologists argue that a child’s social behaviour is determined by its own existing personality combined with socialising influences and experiences. Piaget and Kohlberg postulated that the level of an individual’s cognitive development of moral reasoning determines whether particular events or aspects of the environment will be processed, how they will be processed, and what effects this will have on a person. A person’s level of development and environment jointly affect change [20]. These joint factors (characteristics of a child and environment) influences and determine learning or change in a child’s personality and social behaviour [20]. Positive social behaviours are defined by helpfulness, kindness, generosity, cooperation, altruism, empathy, and sympathy. These types of behaviours promote human welfare that society needs and values. A certain valuable educational process targets the development of empathy, cooperation, helping and trust. The humanistic-moral values that prescribe compassion, sympathy for other people, cooperation and helping, openness and trust provide constant input on developing a PSB. The nature of the PSB would vary across cultures. At the same time, socialisation in the family, personal experiences in life and even heredity impact how much an individual chooses to express their prosocial development. A growing body of research suggests that various prosocial actions may each have their own specific social and developmental implications [21,22].

There are already a number of different kinds of PSB assessment tools available. Some authors developed a logical-rational examination of the categorization model for this review. These measures within this framework can be logically categorised based on the information’s source: (1) self-assessment or self-report instruments, where the person evaluating their own behaviours; (2) peer-assessment measures, where peers evaluate the behaviour of individuals; and (3) other people-assessment instruments, such as evaluations from parents, teachers, etc. [23].

The most common type of these instruments are self-assessment measures, which are widely available in the literature. For instance, the 40-item Teenage Inventory of Social Skills (TIIS) [24] assesses both prosocial and antisocial behaviour. The 15-item Prosocial Behaviour Scale (PSB) [25] measures pleasantness, trust, and altruistic behaviour. With 23 questions altogether, the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM) [26] is a longer scale that evaluates the multidimensionality of prosocial behaviours. It classifies prosocial behaviour into six categories: altruism, public, direct, emotional, compliant, and anonymous. Consisting of 17 items, the Prosocial Scale for Adults (PSA) [27] divides actions and emotions into four categories: sharing empathy, caring, and helping others. The seven items on the Prosocial Behaviour Questionnaire [28] are designed to measure the behaviours of teenagers who participate in NGOs. Another scale tailored to teenagers is the Prosocial Skills Scale for Teenagers [29]. It includes 20 items and measures four aspects: perspective-taking, solidarity, aid responsiveness, and help altruism.

Altruism falls within the prosocial conduct category [30]. Altruism is defined variously by authors from various disciplines [31]. Altruism is one of the motivations underpinning helping, according to psychology. It has been described as a specific kind of helping in which the benefactor helps a person without expecting any compensation from outside sources while incurring a personal cost in doing so [32]. Prosocial actions aim to help others, but ‘they do not exclude the possibility that they may benefit the giver as well as the receiver’ [7].

Formal assistance, voluntary or informal activities, deeds of compassion, and caring for others are all examples of helping others. Numerous psycho-social theories highlight the importance of social skill development, self-care, and awareness of others in order to create a society where everyone is accepted. These behaviours are part of a prosocial attitude that is more likely to be internalised if it is observed and taught from an early age [33]. Consistency in behaviour could range from an inferior approach to a very high approach determined by individuals’ own traits. If an individual is strongly interested and goal orientated, their involvement would be higher, considering their individual skills and ability to face the prosocial activity. The interests associated with carrying out a certain job are referred to as the intrinsic dimension. The need for security and social recognition are referred to as the extrinsic dimension. The focus is on identifying one’s own purpose in life and taking charge of it. This shift alters the perspective from seeing work as the primary function of life to perceiving work as an essential component of everyone’s life [33].

Biology, following the manifestations of life to its most obscure origins, has managed to show us the overwhelming significance of instinct—which is an unconscious will in adapting to the environment. Individual life like social life is governed by impulses, instincts, sub- and unconscious tendencies, passions, clearer or more obscure, by deeply affective beliefs, rather than by reasoning or intelligence.

The majority of teenagers practice PSB, or actions that assist others. Teenagers’ positive social actions have drawn more attention in recent years, particularly when it comes to figuring out what makes teenager exhibit those behaviours frequently. The creation of effective intervention programs targeted at reducing dangerous and antisocial behaviours will require knowledge of positive social development. According to some studies, people who regularly participate in altruistic helping—behaviours primarily intended to benefit others with little regard for self-consequences—are more prone to sympathy, higher-level moral reasoning, and perspective taking, assign a sense of social obligation to themselves, and display fewer aggressive behaviours [34]. Defining volunteerism involves encompassing a dynamic given by social, historical, and political factors. It may go without saying that, for example, factors such as status or financial security can diminish or transform PSB into various attitudes [35]. In Romania, youngsters do not benefit from professional guidance with regards to career choice; therefore, their sole advice and influence comes from their own family and immediate entourage. Hence, volunteering acts seem to be a good source for youngsters as inceptive to job orientation.

The social environment determines in detail both the form and content of the deliberation that precedes the decision; and the direction and intensity of the decision; and, above all, the transition to execution and its methods. There is a debate about the power of this social determinism over individual will. The top sociologists agree that it comes from the affection or feelings that society awakens in the individual consciousness. So-called collective representations become a powerful engine of individual behaviour—often to the point of coming into opposition with the instinct of individual preservation—through the intensity of the feelings that are grafted onto them by the very fact of their social origin. Through this intensity of collective life, which is the generator of such an effervescence of individual psychic activity, PSB occurs, which explains how humanity is led in the development of its course more by the heart, as Auguste Comte expressed it, than by intelligence. The prosocial and moral behaviours that result from sociocognitive and socioemotive abilities are in turn connected to them [36,37,38].

Individual differences in prosocial actions in youngsters’ behaviour are undoubtedly influenced by the interaction of these and other personal and social environmental changes. Based on their work [39], researchers noticed that adolescents’ altruistic prosocial tendencies were negatively related to hedonistic and approval-focused prosocial moral reasoning. Conversely, they found a positive correlation with sympathy, stereotypical, and internalized prosocial moral reasoning among middle and early adolescents, utilizing revised prosocial tendency measures. A middle adolescent’s altruistic prosocial tendencies, however, were positively correlated with vocabulary scores, whereas personal suffering and approval-oriented prosocial moral reasoning were adversely correlated. Altruism and responsibility were linked to observe their behaviour.

Many youngsters have more opportunities to help others anonymously (e.g., by contributing money), to engage in compliant aiding, and in emergency situations as a result of wealth growth, employment prospects, and higher social mobility. However, despite some research on the correlates of these latter PSBs in childhood (particularly compliant and anonymous types of helping) and in college students (particularly helping in emergency situations [40,41], little is known about the traits of young adolescents who help in those situations. Employing the prosocial tendency measures on high school students and mediating prosocial values (kindness), [41] demonstrated the association between altruism and religiosity in their research on the subject. In his research into college students using prosocial tendency measures, Hardy [41] demonstrated how prosocial reasoning might predict altruistic prosocial conduct. But prosocial identity and empathy did not significantly predict it.

2.3. Multidimensionality of Prosocial Behaviour

According to Carlo and Randall and based on prior research, four types of prosocial behaviours need to be considered: altruistic PSB, compliant PSB, emotional PSB, and public PSB [26].

2.3.1. Altruistic Prosocial Behaviours

Leda Cosmides and anthropologist John Tooby have a rationalistic approach to altruism [42]. They argue that altruism is an algorithm reasoning mechanism which calculates how to behave to maximise fitness when dealing with others. Based on Cosmides and Tooby’s approach, the mind of humans has adapted over the years, leading to the social and moral being of today. They claim that people’s social engagement developed and has shown to be an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS).

Conversely, though, we have the approach of the primatologist and ethologist Frans de Waal, which states that that altruism is based on empathic imagination (based on the theoretical traditions of Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, Edward Westermarck). The two perspectives on altruism might seem opposite, but they certainly share unequivocal traits of human life. Batson C.D. in his book The Altruism Question (1991) conducted experimental research into the relation between empathy and altruism and he considers whether helping has egoistic or altruistic motives. He argues that a person chooses to help based on their capacity to feel empathy. Based on his psychosocial experimental investigations into the relation between empathy and altruism, he states that there is a connection between empathy and willingness to help: the collective evidence from these studies demonstrates that there is a definite correlation between empathy and helping behaviour. Experiencing empathy for an individual in distress enhances the probability of providing assistance to alleviate their predicament [40]. As Goldman concludes, ‘empathy seems to be a prime mechanism that disposes us toward altruistic behaviour’ [43]. According to Adam Smith, the ability to care for other people stems from our own capacity to put ourselves in their shoes, to view their own situation from their own perspective. This leads to ‘sympathy’, which Smith does not imply is compassion, but the capacity to imagine what the other person is going through. This is later coined as ‘empathy’ [44].

According to Carlo, Eisenberg, Troyer, Switzer, Speer (1991) [45], those who frequently lend a hand in emotionally taxing situations are also more sympathetic and have greater degrees of moral reasoning and perspective taking. According to research on adolescents, those who frequently engage in helping behaviours in front of others are most concerned with winning others’ approval [26]. As a result, it was anticipated that prosocial moral reasoning that is approval-oriented would be significantly and favourably related to public prosocial behaviours. One of the most intriguing actions is creating a pictorial version of the Prosocial Reasoning Test [46] for children between the ages of seven and eight. This particular tool assesses how an individuals’ reason in situations where the solution could potentially change how they behave. The findings distinguish between many styles of reasoning, including hedonistic, need-oriented, approval-focused, stereotyped, and internalised reasoning. As a result, it evaluates hypothetical outcomes and situations that situate the issue within various ethical debates [47]. It entails a prosocial effort to establish a connection to a larger context to further the common good, ‘as such, self-transcendence is a set of values and a state of mind that can prompt the motivation to engage with social activism’ [48]. Romanian society is becoming more and more aware of volunteering. Studies demonstrate that a growing number of people undertake volunteer activities (29% of young people in Romania participated in voluntary activities, according to the study). The communist period still offers diverse perceptions on volunteering, Romania being tributary to some political barriers from the past, in full change in norms and moral values [35,44]. Memories of the era when volunteering meant performing patriotic work (mandatory communist unpaid work) are still fresh in our hearts and minds. Volunteering is still viewed differently and occasionally negatively, despite changes in the socio-political framework and social dynamics’ propensity to impose universal ideals.

2.3.2. Compliant and Emotional Prosocial Behaviours

When referring to a compliant PSB we have in mind ‘helping others in response to a verbal or nonverbal request’ [45].

Frans de Wall regards human life as a shared life where we help each other without expecting anything in return, as human beings have a natural tendency to form attachments to fellow men with the sole purpose of helping, without expecting anything in return, except the pleasure of seeing it [49]. We have a natural spontaneous response to care for others without expecting anything in return. It is the emotions that humans feel that trigger the PSB, pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others allowing the alterity principle made to conceive it in a very lively manner [49]. Our emotions, either based on past events or new ones triggered by the present moment, play a decisive role in the decision-making process of emotional PSB. We care for and are considerate to others not necessarily because we make a previous calculus but based on a spontaneous response. At times, ‘our spontaneous responsiveness to each other can be reflected in how we think of others’ [50]. Negative and irritative outbursts come with the same spontaneity as we are humans, and the flow of emotions overwhelms us constantly. As Carlo says, emotional moments ‘would be expected to be strongly associated with sympathy responding and other-oriented personal tendencies (e.g., perspective taking, higher level, empathic modes of moral reasoning)’ [41,46].

2.3.3. Public Prosocial Behaviours

Public prosocial conduct is lending support in public, Hardy argues [41]. Therefore, assistance is probably driven, at least in part, by a desire to increase one’s self-worth and win other people’s respect and approval. However, studies have shown that PSB and social desirability concerns are not inherently contradictory. Prosocial actions carried out in front of an audience are probably driven, at least in part, by a desire to increase one’s self-worth and win the respect and approval of others (such as parents and peers). Additionally, assisting others is more likely to happen when it is performed in front of others. It was postulated that public PSB would be positively correlated with approval-oriented moral reasoning modes and social desirability, or the propensity to show oneself in a positive manner, as adolescents frequently worry about gaining acceptance from others. Studies on PSB are frequently altered to change whether or not other people watch the possible prosocial act [51]. Although researchers have noted that social desirability concerns are not always incompatible with PSB, their findings have demonstrated that helping performed in front of others is occasionally linked to self-oriented objectives [52]. Furthermore, it was anticipated that public prosocial actions would have a negative relationship (or no relationship at all) with better moral reasoning abilities and other-oriented (e.g., perspective-taking, sympathy).

Young people develop prosocial conduct and sociocognitive skills early in life through socialising institutions, their immediate family, school, and friendship groups. The family fosters an atmosphere that is favourable to a person’s growth, orientation, and professional career choice, and the professional choice is in line with personal values.

A recent study [53] of how maternal and paternal parenting practices relate to various forms of PSB in adolescents from Hong Kong found a synergistic role between parenting practices and PSB with a direct relationship. Additionally, the intensity of these relationships varies depending on the gender of the adolescents. The impact of the wider cultural context on development, as described in the bioecological paradigm, was put forward by Bronfenbrenner [54].

The Indonesian researchers discovered a notable association between authoritarian parenting and empathy, specifically in connection to PSB. Consequently, the authoritarian approach is positively linked to teenage prosocial conduct as children who receive attention, discipline, and real affection from their parents and family members are more likely to display favourable social behaviours [55]. Other studies have highlighted students’ creative self-efficacy and creative ideation in direct relationship with parents’ influence for general creativity [56]. Students’ academic achievement [57,58], cognitive growth [59], and subjective well-being [60] are all impacted by creativity, which is demonstrated by creative ideational behaviours. According to theories of creativity, both environmental and human factors influence creativity [56].

The study was based on the following hypotheses:

• Young people who choose an academic field of social study are based on social values and prosocial orientations formed mainly by the family;
• The assessment of prosociality tendencies, manifested by young people in multidimensional PSB, might serve as a career orientation strategy for a sustainable education and sustainable professional integration.

3. Methodology

The purpose of the research was to highlight that the choice of an academic field of social study is based on the orientations and PSB, formed mainly by the family in the development process and are in correlation with the social values and pro-social tendencies required by a sustainable education and a sustainable professional integration.

3.1. Participants and Procedure

To carry out the research, we called on students from the social field, at the Bachelor’s Social Work Program specialisation (only from the University of Bucharest, Romania), N = 238, most students are between 18–22 years old. Students who willingly participated between January and April 2022 were informed about this research during their classes and received more instructions in the introduction section of the online instrument, which they subsequently completed. The students’ participation in this research was voluntary, and at the applied seminars they were informed about the purpose of the research and the issues related to non-involvement in the research were clarified, if they do not want to participate and complete the research instruments, they will not be affected on academic assessments. The students were guaranteed the confidentiality and anonymity of their information, as well as the use of the research findings for scientific objectives.

By completing and sending over the questionnaire to the researchers, the participants consented to participate in this sociological study; participants did not receive any compensation for completing the research instruments.

3.2. Measures

For this study, we created a questionnaire called the Prosocial Orientation Questionnaire (POQ), which consists of three components. These components can be found in Appendix A. The questionnaire was built on several dimensions (3) to see the sources of prosocial orientation in the formation of PSB and the choice of the field of study in social work. Analysing different ways of measuring PSB [23], it was decided to use a self-assessment tool (self-report) of PSB, being the most suitable for study population, students in the field of social work, who have already chosen a field of study. The development of a questionnaire has low costs of time and money, it is easier to administer, it ensures the anonymity of the respondents, and the analysis of the answers is simpler, compared to other research tools that can be applied [61]. Validation of the wording, content and construction of the instrument was verified in a pilot study on a group of 20 students (within an applied seminar), including the translation from the English language, so as not to lose the original meaning. The tool development encompassed:

• Questions regarding profession: the desire to work in the field of social work the origin of the documentation regarding the selection of the field of study, the completion of voluntary internships prior to selecting the academic field of study, by specifying certain institutions from a list (9), the various motivations that served as the foundation for the volunteer internships (7 beneficial factors). In analogy of Likert scale in the responses, ranging from 1, indicating a minimal degree of correspondence, to 5, indicating a substantial degree of correspondence.
• Questions designed to assess the external factors influencing the development of PSB and the inclination towards studying social work, the frequency of encountering and becoming familiar with PSB, and the role of civil society in promoting community well-being. In analogy of Likert scale in the responses, with options such as: ‘1—active role, 2—reduced role, 3—insignificant role’ or ‘1—frequent, 2—sometimes, 3—very rarely’.
• The third component consisted of a Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM), developed by G. Carlo and B. A. Randall (2002) [26], which was translated in Romanian. This measure assessed six distinct categories of PSB, organised into subscales: public (items 1,3,5,13), anonymous (8,11,15,19,22), dire (6,9,14), emotional (2,12,17,21), compliant (7,18) and altruism 4,10,16,20,23) (see Appendix A—Questionnaire, III part). The items were intermingled to enhance the objectivity of the responses. A higher score on a certain form of PSB signifies a stronger inclination towards that specific behaviour. During the analysis of the responses, a Likert scale was employed, consisting of five points ranging from (from 1—I do not find myself at all, to 5—I find myself to a great extent). The translation of the instrument was conducted by English teachers participating in this programme, and subsequently analysed by Social Work Programme instructors holding bachelor’s degrees. The purpose of this process was to ensure that the instrument was appropriately adapted to facilitate accurate comprehension among students who are native Romanian speakers. It was important to maintain the fluidity and original meaning of the instrument as proposed by the authors, which involved translating and back-translating the content. For instance, for Public scale we used expressions adapted to the Romanian language; Item 1: I can help others best when people follow me/they look at me. Item 3: When there are other people around me and watching me act, it’s easier for me to help those in difficulty/in need. (original: When other people are around, it is easier for me to help needy others.)

The questionnaires were sent to the participants via email (N = 238) and all data were collected via Google Docs. The empirical data from the research were processed using The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Software, version 20, using descriptive statistics. Several statistical analyzes were performed for each part of the applied questionnaire. Next, descriptive statistics and correlation analyzes were performed (M., SD, skewness, kurtosis). We used the Pearson’s r coefficient as a criterion for analysing the linear dependence of two or more variables. We used 238 students from the field of study—social work, to analyse the validity of the scale through the method of confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency and relationships with other factors. Secondly, to examine if there are associations between the factors that can influence PSB and if there are statistically significant differences, we performed the ANOVA test, where high values of F would represent important arguments in the analysis of the orientation factors and in the prosocial tendencies of the studied population correlations and highlighting scales (Cronbach’s Alpha, Pearson, ANOVA, Friedman’s Test, etc.).

4. Results

The study’s findings align with the intended research objectives and hypotheses. In

Table 1. Demographic information of participants.

Age	N	%
19–20 years	162	68.1
21–22 years	40	16.8
23–24 years	4	1.7
over 25 years	32	13.4
Gender
Female	213	89.5
Male	25	10.5
Environment of Origin
Urban	145	60.9
Rural	93	39.1
Total	238	100

, we present the demographic characteristics of the participants (N = 238), with M_age = 21.41 years, and the percentage of the female population (89.5%) reflects the female share of those who choose a career in the social field (see Table 1).

Table 2. Items of POQ 1–5 and descriptive characteristics.

Items	Frequency (n = 238)		%	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Q1. The intention to practice in the social work field after completing the studies	To a very large extent and to a large extent	178	74.8	4.14	0.929	−0.822	0.004
	In relative measure and small measure	60	25.2
Q2. Sources of information on the academic field of study in social work	Knowledgeable friends	101	42.4	3.93	1.452	−0.875	0.038
	Faculty websites	61	25.6
	Mass media	35	14.7
	High school teachers	33	13.9
	Public or private social work institutions	4	1.7
	Other	4	1.7
Q3. Involvement in volunteer internships prior to choosing the academic field of study in social work	Yes	131	55	1.45	0.498	0.204	−1.975
	No	107	45
Q4. Types of social protection programs/services in which they were involved as volunteers	Social services (children, elderly, disabled)	88	37	1.31	2.044	2.071	3.330
	Organizations that promote human rights, equal opportunities	8	3.4
	Ecological organizations, environmental protection	9	3.8
	Health organizations (hospitals, clinics, etc.)	2	0.8
	Community actions regarding housing, unemployment, poverty	4	1.7
	Religious organizations	7	2.9
	Scouts, guides, other youth groups	11	4.6
	Organizations in the field of culture, music, art	2	0.8
	Other	0	0
Q5. The rationale of participating in volunteer internships within various social organisations	The desire to help those in need	107	45	1.13	1.475	2.057	3.994
	The possibility to test my altruistic qualities	9	3.8
	The possibility of checking the future job	7	2.9
	The desire to complete the CV	5	2.0
	The possibility/desire to go abroad	1	0.4
	The desire to meet new people and make friends	2	0.8
	Other

displays the results of the initial section of the questionnaire. The skewness values fall within the range of 2. Similarly, the kurtosis values for all the data except items 4 and 5 are also within the range of 2. (Please refer to Table 2 for further details.)

Upon completing their university education, students are eager to secure employment, as this grants them access to the social protection system in Romania. Most individuals aspire to work in the specific field they are currently training for. The primary sources of documentation for selecting an academic discipline in social work were friends, followed by material obtained from faculty websites, which furnished them with compelling reasons for choosing the subject. Urban residents undertook volunteer activities to assess their altruistic and prosocial abilities, while also becoming more acquainted with such behaviour in public settings. In Romania, the development of NGOs in the field of social work has mainly been achieved in the urban environment; this is due to access to infrastructure, an aspect that allows the provision of these public, private social work services. Prior to their academic studies, students mostly engaged in voluntary activities by participating in programmes given by certain institutions that provided social services for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. The primary driving force behind the selection of voluntary internships was the aspiration to assist individuals facing hardship (from n = 131–81.6%).

Table 3. Items of POQ 6–8 and descriptive characteristics.

Items	Frequency (n = 238)		%	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Q6. The perception of the role of civil society in promoting community well-being	Active	106	44.5	1.61	0.597	0.394	−0.673
	Reduced	118	49.6
	Insignificant	14	5.9
Q7. The perception of the school’s role in the formation of PSB	Active	118	49.6	1.59	0.648	0.637	−0.589
	Reduced	99	41.6
	Insignificant	21	8.8
Q8. Family involvement in the formation process of PSB	Frequently	123	51.7	1.61	0.696	0.716	−0.673
	Sometimes	86	36.1
	Rarely	29	12.2

presents the results for the second section of the questionnaire, which focused on external factors influencing the development of PSB. The skewness and kurtosis values obtained were within the range of ± 1 (see Table 3).

We achieved a satisfactory alignment with the empirical data for all aspects. The family plays a significant role (51.7%) in the development of PSB. The majority of students considered the family to be the most crucial factor in shaping PSB and participation in volunteer activities, as opposed to school (49.6%) and civil society (44.5%), which showed insignificant levels of influence.

In their 2002 study, G. Carlo and B. A. Randall [26] raised concerns about the analysis of PSB at a broad, universal level. They demonstrated that there are distinct categories of PSB that can be impacted by numerous individual characteristics and have diverse situational associations. The reasons are derived from studies conducted on several demographic cohorts, starting with teenagers from older age brackets and adults, and subsequently include adolescents from younger and middle age groups [39].

In their initial work, G. Carlo and B. A. Randall (2002) [26] introduced a tool that encompasses four distinct categories of PSB: altruistic PSB, compliant PSB, emotional PSB, and public PSBs. Based on the research, the authors developed a scale consisting of six categories to measure individual variations in PSB among late teens. We also used this tool in our own study to examine the particular patterns of prosocial tendencies in multidimensional prosocial behaviours in Romania.

Applying the PTM—23 item scale (G. Carlo and B. A. Randall, 2002 [26]) to the six types of PSB, we obtained high internal consistency and reliability; Cronbach alpha test, mean and SD for each subscale: (1) Public, α = 0.784, M = 2.47, SD = 1.3; (2) Emotional, α = 0.743, M = 4.28, SD = 0.91; (3) Altruism, α = 0.781, M = 2.37, SD = 1.26; (4) Dire, α = 0.697, M = 4.2, SD = 0.91; (5) Compliant, α = 0.767, M = 4.46, SD = 0.79; (6) Unanimous α = 0.840, M = 3.42, SD = 1.28. Using a series of descriptive statistics for the subscales, we obtained skewness values between ±2, except for item 2; for kurtosis of all data were between ±2, except items 2, 7, 18 (see

Table 4. Descriptive characteristics of PTM’s items.

Item	Skewness	Kurtosis
Item 1	−0.283	−1.023
Item 2	−2.463	7.046
Item 3	0.413	−1.138
Item 4	−0.041	−1.249
Item 5	0.745	−0.614
Item 6	−1.380	1.368
Item 7	−1.653	3.389
Item 8	−0.626	−0.807
Item 9	−1.393	1.670
Item 10	0.403	−0.933
Item 11	−0.564	−0.769
Item 12	−1.645	2.603
Item 13	1.262	0.925
Item 14	−0.722	0.146
Item 15	−0.420	−0.756
Item 16	0.754	−0.344
Item 17	−0.781	−0.147
Item 18	−1.604	2.553
Item 19	−0.387	−0.712
Item 20	1.041	0.168
Item 21	−1.080	0.671
Item 22	0.210	−1.043
Item 23	1.052	0.189

). The values obtained for both indices (skewness, kurtosis) are acceptable and fall between −2 and +2 and demonstrate univariate normal distribution [62]. Other authors consider normal values for skewness between ±3 and kurtosis is between ±7 and ±10 [63,64].

The highest scores when applying PTM with Mean values above 4, were obtained for three of the six types of PSB and reflect greater tendencies towards them: Compliant (M = 4.46), Emotional (M = 4.28), Dire (M = 4.2), followed by values above the average of 3 for Unanimous (M = 3.42) and values above 2 for the other types: Public (M = 2.47) and Altruism (M = 2.37), where 5 is the maximum value that could have been obtained. The values obtained from representative questions for certain types of PSB are relevant; in each subscale, there are items that have values towards the maximum (see Figure 1; Appendix B). As in other research, emotions are associated with empathic responses, personal tendencies oriented towards others, empathic modes of reasoning [46,51].

Correlation between PTM Subscales

For relevance, we used the Pearson coefficient, which had significant, positive values in the correlation of the dimensions that reflect the innate side, PTM-altruism (5 items) with PTM-saying (3 items), Altruism (5 items), and Anonymity (5 items): values between r = 0.500 and r = 0.709, positive, good correlations: Public and Altruism: r = 0.137 and r = 0.658; Public and Direct, r = 0.268 and r = 0.626. Within the subscales, r had generally positive values, above the mean, r = 0.246 to r = 0.709; PTM-compliant (I7 and I18) = positive correlation with PTM-altruism, r = 0.624 (where p = 0.000 and p < 0.05). The negative correlations had small weights, with values between r = −0.010 and −0.131; examples: PTM-Altruism does not correlate with PTM-Compliance (3 items). PTM-Emotional and Altruism had negative values; they are not supported: I2 (Emotional) with I5 and 13 from S. Public: r = −0.038, p = 0.000; r = −0.089, p = 0.000; I16, I20, I23 (Altruism) with Emotional (I2): r = −0.041, p = 0.000; r = −0.061, p = 0.000; r = −0.120, p = 0.000 (see

Table 5. Relationship between PTM’s subscales.

	Public					Emotional				Altruism					Dire			Compliant		Anonymous
Pearson Correlation	I1		I3	I5	I13	I2	I12	I17	I21	I4	I10	I16	I20	I23	I6	I9	I14	I7	I18	I8	I11	I15	I19	I22
Public	I1	1
	I3	0.535 **	1
	I5	0.321 **	0.547 **	1
	I13	0.313 **	0.512 **	0.653 **	1
Emotional	I2	0.144 *	0.129 *	−0.038	−0.089	1
	I12	0.254 **	0.182 **	0.051	0.074	0.500 **	1
	I17	0.328 **	0.287 **	0.234 **	0.181 **	0.246 **	0.430 **	1
	I21	0.295 **	0.256 **	0.155 **	0.131 *	0.403 **	0.485 **	0.524 **	1
Altruism	I4	0.211 **	0.370 **	0.544 **	0.339 **	0.131 *	0.078	0.250 **	0.217 **	1
	I10	0.270 **	0.395 **	0.457 **	0.538 **	0.003	0.134 *	0.301 **	0.115 *	0.305 **	1
	I16	0.229 **	0.378 **	0.583 **	0.622 **	−0.041	0.084	0.222 **	0.084	0.284 **	0.447 **	1
	I20	0.267 **	0.486 **	0.637 **	0.654 **	−0.061	0.031	0.197 **	0.146 *	0.344 **	0.453 **	0.600 **	1
	I23	0.137 *	0.346 **	0.519 **	0.658 **	−0.120 *	0.074	0.147 *	0.069	0.276 **	0.375 **	0.574 **	0.606 **	1
Dire	I6	0.205 **	0.205 **	0.089	0.044	0.466 **	0.368 **	0.376 **	0.377 **	0.174 **	0.107	0.022	0.004	−0.027	1
	I9	0.258 **	0.220 **	0.083	0.083	0.507 **	0.626 **	0.447 **	0.513 **	0.146 *	0.182 **	0.062	0.036	0.072	0.540 **	1
	I14	0.254 **	0.303 **	0.151 **	0.194 **	0.268 **	0.433 **	0.503 **	0.438 **	0.147 *	0.216 **	0.191 **	0.104	0.137 *	0.406 **	0.377 **	1
Compliant	I7	0.181 **	0.118 *	−0.057	−0.082	0.478 **	0.389 **	0.243 **	0.328 **	0.017	0.017	−0.118 *	−0.150 *	−0.131 *	0.563 **	0.502 **	0.311 **	1
	I18	0.210 **	0.169 **	−0.002	−0.074	0.434 **	0.348 **	0.305 **	0.292 **	0.125 *	0.060	−0.022	0.010	−0.044	0.520 **	0.406 **	0.313 **	0.624 **	1
Anonymous	I8	0.158 **	0.139 *	0.053	0.095	0.270 **	0.291 **	0.319 **	0.332 **	0.164 **	0.201 **	0.074	0.139 *	0.097	0.360 **	0.387 **	0.306 **	0.348 **	0.365 **	1
	I11	0.230 **	0.214 **	0.174 **	0.174 **	0.211 **	0.420 **	0.409 **	0.414 **	0.081	0.341 **	0.197 **	0.164 **	0.142 *	0.318 **	0.448 **	0.409 **	0.340 **	0.306 **	0.575 **	1
	I15	0.230 **	0.217 **	0.112 *	0.143 *	0.250 **	0.272 **	0.453 **	0.331 **	0.106	0.246 **	0.119 *	0.114 *	0.047	0.296 **	0.330 **	0.502 **	0.243 **	0.267 **	0.424 **	0.652 **	1
	I19	0.211 **	0.183 **	0.153 **	0.117 *	0.194 **	0.282 **	0.383 **	0.370 **	0.108 *	0.233 **	0.076	0.163 **	0.102	0.238 **	0.324 **	0.326 **	0.280 **	0.307 **	0.483 **	0.709 **	0.614 **	1
	I22	0.179 **	0.149 *	0.185 **	0.280 **	0.193 **	0.138 *	0.241 **	0.247 **	0.165 **	0.210 **	0.262 **	0.307 **	0.287 **	0.188 **	0.239 **	0.244 **	0.167 **	0.171 **	0.495 **	0.365 **	0.435 **	0.418 **	1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

).

Several correlations were identified when analysing the orientation gained by specific occurrences in the development of PSB. Q1, when measured using PTM-Public, shows a negative correlation with Pearson coefficient values ranging from r = −0.041 to r = −0.120. The intention to have a job in social work after the completion of studies does not have an influence on the PTM-Public dimension, with a correlation coefficient ranging from r = −0.004 to r = −0.165. Similarly, Q1, when measured using PTM-altruism, also shows negative values with correlation coefficients of r = −0.042 and r = −0.109. This suggests that the intention to work in social work and altruism are not supported. Students are motivated to secure employment upon the completion of their undergraduate degree. By examining the connection between individuals engaged in volunteer activities (55%) and PTM-Public, in relation to their living environment, we discovered strong positive correlations with values of r = 0.318 and r = 0.653. Similarly, when examining the correlation between Q3 and PTM-altruism in relation to the living environment, we found a significant positive correlation with values of r = 0.029 and r = 0.073 (p = 0.01).

The external factors of PSB, including family, school, and civil society, showed a correlation with PTM-altruism, which consists of 5 items: α = 0.677 and ANOVA, with Friedman’s Chi-Square: χ² = 388.888, p < 0.001. Using PTM-altruism in the correlation with Q8, α = 0.739, in the ANOVA analysis, we obtained χ² = 258.554, p < 0.001; for the correlation with Q3 with PTM-altruism, α = 0.746, with Friedman’s Chi-Square: χ² = 299.624, p < 0.001.

Some 49.6% of students regarded the school as actively contributing to the development of PSB, while 41% saw its function as diminished. In contrast, 49.6% believed that civil society played a reduced role in promoting community well-being, while 44.5% saw it as actively involved. Aspects highlighted by the negative correlation with PTM-altruism: values for r = −0.027 and r = −0.046, (p = 0.01). Analysing the percentage of those involved in volunteer activities (Q3–55%) with PTM-altruism, α = 0.711, the correlation is positive, r = 0.005 and r = 0.052 (p = 0.01), according to ANOVA, with Friedman’s Chi-Square: χ² = 364.256, p < 0.001 (see Appendix C,

Table A1. ANOVA-PTM Scale.

Subscale	ITEMS		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
P U B L I C	I1	Between Groups	3.085	1	3.085	1.732	0.189
		Within Groups	420.411	236	1.781
		Total	423.496	237
	I3	Between Groups	4.191	1	4.191	2.065	0.152
		Within Groups	478.889	236	2.029
		Total	483.080	237
	I5	Between Groups	0.032	1	0.032	0.018	0.892
		Within Groups	411.317	236	1.743
		Total	411.349	237
	I13	Between Groups	0.578	1	0.578	0.461	0.498
		Within Groups	295.846	236	1.254
		Total	296.424	237
E M O T I O N A L	I2	Between Groups	0.080	1	0.080	0.185	0.667
		Within Groups	101.651	236	0.431
		Total	101.731	237
	I12	Between Groups	0.330	1	0.330	0.438	0.509
		Within Groups	177.809	236	0.753
		Total	178.139	237
	I17	Between Groups	4.188	1	4.188	3.595	0.059
		Within Groups	274.988	236	1.165
		Total	279.176	237
	I21	Between Groups	0.101	1	0.101	0.094	0.759
		Within Groups	253.046	236	1.072
		Total	253.147	237
A L T R U I S M	I4	Between Groups	0.996	1	0.996	0.514	0.474
		Within Groups	457.781	236	1.940
		Total	458.777	237
	I10	Between Groups	1.156	1	1.156	0.662	0.417
		Within Groups	412.239	236	1.747
		Total	413.395	237
	I16	Between Groups	0.008	1	0.008	0.005	0.943
		Within Groups	362.316	236	1.535
		Total	362.324	237
	I20	Between Groups	0.931	1	0.931	0.633	0.427
		Within Groups	346.800	236	1.469
		Total	347.731	237
	I23	Between Groups	0.278	1	0.278	0.201	0.654
		Within Groups	326.382	236	1.383
		Total	326.660	237
D I R E	I6	Between Groups	5.386	1	5.386	7.599	0.006
		Within Groups	167.273	236	0.709
		Total	172.660	237
	I9	Between Groups	1.721	1	1.721	2.129	0.146
		Within Groups	190.716	236	0.808
		Total	192.437	237
	I14	Between Groups	3.980	1	3.980	4.029	0.046
		Within Groups	233.179	236	0.988
		Total	237.160	237
C O M P L I A N T	I7	Between Groups	0.441	1	0.441	0.761	0.384
		Within Groups	136.790	236	0.580
		Total	137.231	237
	I18	Between Groups	0.000	1	0.000	0.000	0.987
		Within Groups	158.895	236	.673
		Total	158.895	237
A N O N Y M O U S	I8	Between Groups	0.900	1	0.900	0.503	0.479
		Within Groups	422.465	236	1.790
		Total	423.366	237
	I11	Between Groups	0.008	1	0.008	0.005	0.944
		Within Groups	380.047	236	1.610
		Total	380.055	237
	I15	Between Groups	8.256	1	8.256	5.364	0.021
		Within Groups	363.240	236	1.539
		Total	371.496	237
	I19	Between Groups	4.566	1	4.566	3.106	0.079
		Within Groups	346.917	236	1.470
		Total	351.483	237
	I22	Between Groups	4.496	1	4.496	2.481	0.117
		Within Groups	427.794	236	1.813
		Total	432.290	237

and

Table A2. (a,b,c,d): Correlations Altruism-PTM with questions regarding prosocial orientation.

Q6,Q7,Q8 and ALTRUISM-PTM; ANOVA with Friedman’s Test
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	Friedman’s Chi-Square	Sig
Between People		676.624	237	2.855
Within People	Between Items	466.210 a	7	66.601	388.888	0.000
	Residual	1531.040	1659	0.923
	Total	1997.250	1666	1.199
Total		2673.874	1903	1.405
Grand Mean = 2.09
a Kendall’s coefficient of concordance W = 0.174.
b. Q8 and ALTRUISM-PTM; ANOVA with Friedman’s Test
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	Friedman’s Chi-Square	Sig
Between People		878.239	237	3.706
Within People	Between Items	317.978 a	5	63.596	258.554	0.000
	Residual	1145.522	1185	0.967
	Total	1463.500	1190	1.230
Total		2341.739	1427	1.641
Grand Mean = 2.25
a Kendall’s coefficient of concordance W = 0.136.
c. Q3 and ALTRUISM- PTM; ANOVA with Friedman’s Test
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	Friedman’s Chi-Square	Sig
Between People		867.406	237	3.660
Within People	Between Items	370.291 a	5	74.058	299.624	0.000
	Residual	1100.375	1185	0.929
	Total	1470.667	1190	1.236
Total		2338.073	1427	1.638
Grand Mean = 2.22
a Kendall’s coefficient of concordance W = 0.158.
d. Q3,Q6 and ALTRUISM-PTM: ANOVA with Friedman’s Test
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	Friedman’s Chi-Square	Sig
Between People		750.739	237	3.168
Within People	Between Items	445.664 a	6	74.277	364.256	0.000
	Residual	1301.479	1422	0.915
	Total	1747.143	1428	1.223
Total		2497.882	1665	1.500
Grand Mean = 2.13
a Kendall’s coefficient of concordance W = 0.178.

(a–d)).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Discussion

The selection of university training programmes in the social area is connected to the direction and development of prosocial values and inclinations, which are observed in different PSB. Evaluating one’s prosocial orientations and tendencies can assist in selecting a career in the social sector and determining which university courses to pursue for specialisation.

The family plays a significant role in the development of PSB, as emphasised by many students. It is widely recognised that the family is instrumental in transmitting prosocial values. This finding is further supported by other studies, which have found a clear link between parental practices and various forms of PSB in adolescents. The research findings emphasised the significance of volunteering in the development of PSB, indicating a positive relationship between those engaged in such programmes and their inclination towards prosocial inclinations, as measured by several forms of behaviour, including PTM-altruism and PTM-Public.

The residential setting exhibited a favourable correlation with PTM-altruism, as individuals residing in urban areas had the opportunity to encounter numerous non-governmental organisations, associations, and foundations. This exposure facilitated their engagement in volunteer endeavours, thereby allowing them to assess prosocial values and inclinations, as well as acquaint themselves with the distinctive activities associated with this domain.

School and civil society can contribute to the development and advancement of altruistic principles. However, over 50% of the students polled viewed the functions of these two institutions as reduced and insignificant. This perception is reinforced by a negative link with PTM-altruism, as indicated by five specific items. The motivation for engaging in voluntary activities prior to studying social work was primarily driven by a strong desire to provide aid and support to individuals facing hardships. This value can be linked to Christian principles, specifically personal religious beliefs, where the concept of ‘love thy neighbour’ can serve as an indicator of altruistic behaviour [53]. According to the latest census in Romania, the majority of individuals (72.59%) identified themselves as followers of the Orthodox church. Therefore, it may be inferred that the concept of ‘love thy neighbour’, which involves assisting those facing challenges, is likely instilled within families [54]. Within the family unit, children undergo emotional socialisation, when they engage in interpersonal transactions to express and manage their emotions. During the developmental process, children engage with various environments that contribute to their socialisation, such as school, peer groups, and civil society. However, the most reliable indicators of emotional socialisation can be observed in the reciprocal relationship between parents and children [55].

The connection between happiness and sharing emotions is closely linked to PSB and can serve as a way to enhance children’s emotional and social skills. Girls exhibit a higher propensity than boys to express their emotions to their classmates [56]. These findings can also be attributed to the gender disparity in the field of study of social work at university level, where females are overrepresented. This trend is also evident in the group of respondents, with girls accounting for 89.5%. Available national data [54] indicate a significant predominance of female social workers in Romania. Some 86.5% of individuals employed in this field are women. Examining the gender disparity is a promising field of investigation for future research, while also acting as a limitation in the current study.

The study conducted by Carlo et al. [65] examined the relationship between PSB and factors such as parental inductions, sympathy, and prosocial moral reasoning. The study focused on Mexican-American and European-American adolescents and found no significant differences between the two ethnic groups in terms of the development of prosocial strength. However, it was observed that sympathy had an indirect association with all types of PSB, while prosocial moral reasoning was specifically associated with altruistic, anonymous, and public PSB.

With respect to the PTM subscales, there was consistent evidence of validity and significant correlations with other factors. These findings align with the results obtained by Carlo et al. [24], who also designed the instrument for use with students (M = 19.9 years).

And other studies that had students from Greek universities (N = 484) as their study population highlighted that social sciences students, female, had more positive attitudes towards PSB, compared to the male population. The same instrument PTM scale was applied, which was associated with other factors such as individualism–collectivism (Auckland’s Individualism Collectivism Scale), and the correlation analysis indicated high positive values between 4 types of PSB: altruism, emotional, compliant, and anonymous with the type of behaviour—collectivism [66].

Applying the same scale—PTM scales, on Iranian students (N = 182) with the aim of validating this instrument, in correlation with other factors (empathy, religiosity and social desirability), revealed positive and significant correlations for three subscales (Emotional, Anonymous, Altruism) with Empathy and negative relationships between Public and Empathy. There were no differences between the two genders, but religion was highlighted in the correlation with Compliant and Anonymous [67]. Hardy (2006) [68] similarly emphasized this outcome in his study involving students (N = 91, Mage = 21.89), where PSB showed a positive correlation with both empathy and prosocial identity. Other studies (Hardy and Carlo, 2005) that analysed PSB also on adolescents (N = 142, M_age = 16.8) did not find a positive relationship between religiosity and Public, Dire and Emotional PSB, but Altruistic, Compliant, and Anonymous PSBs were positively associated [69].

5.2. Conclusions

The prosocial orientations identified in young people studying in the social field were directly related to the family, which is responsible for transmitting prosocial values. Involvement in volunteering activities influences the choice of the field of study and a career, aspects highlighted by the values obtained in correlation with items from the PTM scale, such as PTM-altruism and PTM-Public. The environment of residence is directly related to the formation of PSB, as young people from the urban environment were more familiar with the social field, being involved in social campaigns, compared to those from the rural environment. The measurement of prosocial tendencies revealed high values for three of the six types of PSB highlighted in the PTM scale: Compliant, Emotional, and Dire (where M had values above 4.20 to 5, which represented the maximum value). The current study reveals positive correlations among the subscales that support direct PSB: Compliant and Dire; Anonymous and Compliant; Anonymous and Dire; Emotional and Compliant; Emotional and Dire; Public and Dire; and Altruism and Public.

The findings of this study offer evidence of the effectiveness of the PTM in evaluating prosocial tendencies. This supports the idea that PSB is multidimensional, as postulated by Carlo and Randall (2002) [26], and is demonstrated by the correlations observed in young individuals pursuing a social career. Furthermore, other research conducted with the same instrument yielded comparable outcomes, for instance, when examining Iranian University students while considering additional factors such as cultural background [67]. Van Langen et al. have demonstrated that emotions and empathy (cognitive and affective) are directly related to PSB [70].

The cognitive and prosocial development of young individuals begins early on, through several means (such as family, school, friend groups, etc.) and continues throughout their entire lives. The family remains the most important institution in the prosocial orientation of young people, creating a conductive environment for prosocial development, orientation, and career choice, and the choice of university studies is in line with these factors. The use of these tools in assessing prosocial orientations and tendencies will also consider the correlation with other factors: internal factors related to the individual, and external factors related to family, community, and cultural influences.

5.3. Practical Implications

The selection of an academic discipline in the social sciences should align with one’s social ideals and patterns of prosocial conduct that have been developed during childhood through many influences such as family, school, university, peer groups, and job. The orientations and prosocial tendencies of young individuals who have opted to pursue further education and specialise in the social field can be assessed using the employed instruments. The results of the assessment indicate high values on specific scales. We suggest adopting techniques to assess prosocial orientations and tendencies while considering various options for career orientation in school and long-term professional integration.

The development of PSB, based on social values, altruism, and empathy, taking into account national, cultural-specific, and professional contexts, can serve as fundamental indicators for guiding one’s professional orientation towards a social field of study at the university level, as well as for pursuing and remaining in the practice of the profession (in the social domain).

The research results show that the tools can be used in the process of counselling and vocational guidance of future candidates for university studies in the social field (social work), by evaluating prosocial orientations and tendencies. Thus, if professional development and training is based on a series of prosocial values and trends (previously evaluated), the chances of a sustainable professional integration increase, by entering the system of protection and social services of well-trained and motivated professionals. Staying in the profession is a challenge, both for professionals and for social work systems, which for sustainable development must rely on the expertise of professionals (social workers, in our case). For a sustainable educational integration (Goal 4—Quality education), we must have a human resource that is motivated, oriented towards the social field, thus contributing to the development of the social work system (‘Goal 1—No poverty’ and ‘Goal 2—Zero hunger’) [1,2].

5.4. Limitations and Future Lines of Research

The subjects participating in the study were predominantly female. The investigation of this subject matter was undertaken with a focus on gender disparity, so presenting a viable avenue for future scholarly inquiry. Furthermore, we suggest expanding the sample population in future studies to include students from various higher education institutions, such as those in technical and sports fields. This will enable the examination of a broader range of external factors, in addition to internal factors, that contribute to the development of PSB. The use of suitable measuring instruments, specifically the Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviour in Sports Scale (PABSS) in its German version, yielded varying outcomes based on gender and participation in different sports disciplines, including football, rugby/soccer, hockey/football, basketball, and handball [71].

Research results could be attributed to a specific geographic area or the use of these tools. Expanding the geographical areas of study but also the research tools, such as the influence of personality factors [72], could lead to more general results.

We will continue the current research taking into account some additional factors: more diverse samples made up of undergraduate students from high schools with a technical profile, where the male population is in greater proportion (compared to girls) and is oriented towards technical university fields. Another proposal would be to examine other additional factors that can influence PSB, such as contact with social work services, by evaluating the prosocial orientation of young people from vulnerable backgrounds, beneficiaries of social services provided by professionals in the social protection system.