Findings from Canadians’ Prosocial Behaviours Study

A healthy democracy depends not only on governments, laws, and institutions, but also on citizens’ willingness to support others and strengthen community life. Prosocial behaviours (such as giving, volunteering, voting, donating blood, and so on) help hold society together. Where prosocial behaviours are strong, communities are more resilient, cooperative, and able to absorb social strain. When they are weaker, more pressure falls on public systems, formal services, and already-stretched charities.

Sector3Insights’ recent research survey, sponsored by GIV3, was designed to understand what drives prosocial behaviours in Canada and where policy needs to focus to strengthen it.  The central conclusion from the research is that prosocial behaviour is not driven by goodwill alone. It is socially produced. It grows more readily where people are connected to others, embedded in communities, supported by strong norms of helping, and able to see generosity as part of what people like them do.

Canadians who are more connected tend to have higher well-being and much stronger prosocial behaviour. One especially important insight is that prosocial behaviour is linked less to soft sentiment alone and more to real embeddedness in civic and social life. People who are involved in groups, organizations, neighbourhoods, faith communities, clubs, and other forms of social participation are much more likely to give, volunteer, and help others. In this sense, connectedness functions less like a private feeling and more like social infrastructure.

Well-being also matters. Many Canadians are not doing equally well, with wide variations in happiness, loneliness, financial security, and their sense of control over life. Stronger well-being is associated with stronger connectedness and stronger prosocial behaviour. Still, the study suggests that connectedness is the more direct bridge to generosity and civic action. This distinction matters strategically: strengthening prosocial behaviour may depend less on improving individual emotional condition alone and more on rebuilding belonging, participation, connectedness, and social embeddedness.

The study also shows that although Canadians act prosocially, only a minority are active across many of the social behaviours that matter. That is, prosocial behaviours appear broad but often are shallow in reality. This suggests room for improvement. Furthermore, Statistics Canada data implies that several prosocial behaviours are waning in Canada (e.g. lower giving incidence, lower number of volunteered hours).

Social norms and prosocial values are among the most important differentiators when looking at generosity. The key divide is not simply whether people believe helping others is good. Many do. The more important question is whether they see helping, giving, and supporting charities as part of their own responsibility. This is about our strength of obligation instead of just being empathetic.  Attitudes such as “supporting charities is a conscious obligation I have for myself,” “everyone has a responsibility to help,” and “I was raised to help others” are powerful correlates of higher prosocial behaviour. By contrast, where people believe social problems are mainly the responsibility of government rather than people like themselves, prosocial behaviour is weaker.

Religiosity is another important theme. More religious Canadians tend to have stronger giving norms, a stronger sense of obligation, and higher prosocial behaviour, especially in giving and volunteering. But the deeper insight is not that private belief, spirituality, or divinity alone causes generosity. Religion appears to matter because it creates a durable social-moral environment where generosity is taught, repeated, modeled, expected, and reinforced. Religious service attendance appears to be a particularly strong predictor of giving, while spirituality often works more indirectly through values, obligation, and identity. The practical lesson is not that governments should encourage Canadians to be more religious, but that a more secular society must ask how other institutions can perform similar functions for their members, creating experiences which relate to greater generosity by stronger belonging, repetition, visibility, expectation, mentoring, and moral formation.

Of course, financial capacity also matters, especially for the amount people give. Older Canadians, wealthier households, and those with stronger savings tend to give more. But generosity cannot be reduced to economics. A person with greater resources but no felt obligation may give less than someone with fewer resources but stronger social norms of generosity.

For charities, the message is clear: generosity should not be treated as purely transactional. Fundraising is not only about better asks or stronger evidence of need. It is also about creating belonging, participation, social proof, and rebuilding the norms that sustain giving over time. This is wider than what individual fundraisers can do alone.

For policymakers, connectedness, volunteering infrastructure, civic spaces, community associations, and youth service should be seen as part of Canada’s social infrastructure. The task is not simply to ask more of Canadians, but to strengthen the social foundations that make prosocial behaviour more likely.

Many countries are developing programs and policies to nurture greater connectedness.  We need more of the same in Canada.  Otherwise, the declines in connectedness, especially through religiosity, threaten our prosocial behaviours for the future.  This will be further exacerbated by the passing of Baby Boomers (who hold stronger prosocial values and social norms than younger Canadians).

Free access to the full report here.

John Hallward is the President of GIV3, a charity working to strengthen capacity of the social sector, and is President of Sector3Insights, a social enterprise developing insights for the empowerment of non-profits.

Source: Canadians’ Prosocial Behaviours Study (GIV3 + Sector3Insights)

The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily represent those of CharityVillage.com or any other individual or entity with whom the authors or website may be affiliated. CharityVillage.com is not liable for any content that may be considered offensive, inappropriate, defamatory, or inaccurate or in breach of third-party rights of privacy, copyright, or trademark.