The prolonged period of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing might have had a negative effect on the attentiveness of people to the needs of others, including prosocial tendencies. That poses a question about the dynamics and stability of providing help to others within the period of “late pandemic” – the period of ongoing vaccinations against COVID-19 and attempts from the governments to stop the restrictions in order to at least partially return to normal patterns of work and leisure. After a period of prolonged uncertainty and having limited access to the social support networks, it is important to monitor how the “late pandemic” period influences the way people intend to help others, and how they actually do. The problem is valid not only because of the effects of the social distancing but also due to the next shift of coming back to the pre-pandemic patterns of personal and work life (e.g., increased social contacts, in-site work, etc.). The aim of the project is to (1) investigate the dynamics of how people express their prosociality in the "late pandemic" period (2022-2023): their preference for donating money versus time, and supporting proximal (e.g., neighbourhood, local community issues) versus distal (general, global) causes in these prosocial actions, (2) to test which types of predictors (connected to endocentric, exocentric/intrinsic or ipsocentric motives to help, and to the temporal conflict between short- and long-term interest) are best for each of these expressions of personality, and which are responsible for their stability over the “late pandemic” period; (3) to find out the dispositional- and state-level predictors of these varied expressions of prosociality. To realize the aim of the current project, we will employ two ways of investigation: (1) a longitudinal, panel-based, 2-wave study on prosocial tendencies and their predictors on the dispositional level; aiming to explore the dynamics of prosocial tendencies in time, with regard to the phase of the “late pandemic”. The sample will comprise N = 800 at the first measurement, to account for the expected dropout – ca. 50% in the second measurement; (2) a micro-longitudinal, daily diary 2-week study to explore the dynamics of prosocial tendencies in individuals with the same predictors as tested in Study 1, but understood at a state level. The 2-week measurements will be also conducted twice, parallel to the panel-based study. The initial sample will comprise N = 150 to account for the predicted dropout = ca. 50% in the second measurement. We have chosen these methodologies given that both personality dispositions and emotional states/daily experiences can be responsible for prosocial tendencies. The first wave will be conducted two years after the outbreak of the pandemic and ca. a year after the beginning of the vaccination program in Poland (ca. March 2022), constituting a "late" period of the pandemic. The second wave will take place a year afterward to capture changes that may occur due to the attempts to return to normality. In both of the planned studies, we will take into account the tendency to donate money versus donate time (volunteer or spend time on helping), as well as the actual amounts of donated money/time, with the type of charitable cause. The hypothesized predictors of the prosocial tendencies/behaviors will follow the tradition of understanding motives for altruism as endocentric, exocentric/intrinsic, and ipsocentric. We will take into account dispositional/state: psychological well-being, including self-esteem (endocentric motive), multidimensional empathy (exocentric/intrinsic motive), perceived and received social support (ipsocentric motive). We will also examine the short- versus long-term interest for prosocial behaviors, operationalized by present and future time perspectives. The studies can have an impact by contributing to the knowledge about the “late pandemic”. They will also empirically test an integrative path model explaining prosociality patterns, and widen the growing body of studies on yet under-researched aspects of linkages between prosociality and time perspectives. Given the longitudinal character of the studies, they may overcome the limitation of cross-sectionality, by testing the causal relationships between the examined constructs, both understood as dispositions and being general (Study 1 and 2) and as states, experienced on a daily basis (Study 2).