Human Relationships - Focus on prosocial behavior

Prosocial Behavior

Prosocial behavior is any voluntary action intended to benefit or help others, such as helping, sharing, comforting, or cooperating.

Altruism

Altruism is a type of prosocial behavior where an individual helps another without expecting any personal benefit or reward, and sometimes even at a personal cost.

The Case of Kitty Genovese - Bystanderism

The Kitty Genovese case became a pivotal event in the study of bystanderism and the bystander effect.

Incident: Date: March 13, 1964. Location: Kew Gardens, Queens, New York.

Kitty Genovese, a 28-year-old woman, was attacked and murdered outside her apartment building. She was assaulted by a man named Winston Moseley, who repeatedly attacked her over a period of about 30 minutes.

The media initially reported that 38 witnesses saw or heard the attack but did nothing to help or call the police.

Public Reaction: The story of the 38 witnesses who failed to intervene sparked outrage across the country and led to widespread public interest in understanding why people fail to act in emergencies when others are present.

Subsequent Findings: Later investigations revealed that the number of actual witnesses was likely lower than reported (around 12 to 15), and not all of them were aware of the severity of the attack. Some witnesses may have thought someone else had already called the police, which reflects the diffusion of responsibility — a key concept in the bystander effect.

Psychological Impact: The case was a major catalyst for the study of bystanderism and led to experiments by psychologists like Darley and Latané (1968), who explored the bystander effect — the tendency for people to be less likely to help in an emergency when there are other people present.

Darley and Latané - Bystanderism, Ethical Considerations

Aim: To investigate whether the number of bystanders present affects a person’s likelihood to help in an emergency situation.

Procedure: Participants: 72 university students (59 female, 13 male).

• Each participant was placed alone in a room and asked to take part in a discussion via an intercom about college life.

• They believed the discussion included:

  • Group of 2 (just them and 1 other),

  • Group of 3 (1 other participant and 1 bystander),

  • Group of 6 (4 bystanders).

• During the discussion, one of the "participants" (a recording) pretended to have a seizure, speaking unclearly and eventually falling silent.

• Researchers measured:

  • Whether the participant helped.

  • How quickly they helped.

Results: Group of 2 (only them and victim):

• 85% helped.

• Most helped quickly.

• Group of 3:

  • 62% helped.

• Group of 6:

  • Only 31% helped.

  • Help was significantly delayed.

Conclusion: Demonstrates diffusion of responsibility — the more bystanders present, the less likely individuals are to act. Participants assumed someone else would help. Clearly supports the bystander effect as first theorized after the Kitty Genovese case.

Ethical Considerations: An important ethical consideration in Darley and Latané (1968) is the use of deception. Participants were misled to believe they were having a real conversation with other individuals and that one of them was experiencing a genuine medical emergency (a seizure). This deception was necessary to avoid demand characteristics and to simulate a realistic bystander scenario. However, it raises ethical concerns regarding informed consent, as participants were not fully aware of the nature of the study beforehand. Additionally, the situation could have caused emotional distress, as some participants may have felt guilt, anxiety, or confusion when they believed someone was in danger and they did not help quickly. Although participants were debriefed afterward, and no physical harm occurred, the study highlights the ethical trade-off between experimental realism and participant well-being in psychological research.

Batson et al. (1981) - Elaine, Electric Shocks, Prosocial Behavior, Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, #LabExperiment

Aim:
Batson et al. (1981) aimed to investigate whether empathy leads to altruistic helping behavior or whether people help to reduce their own distress in an emergency situation.

Procedure:
The study involved college students who were asked to watch a video of a woman named Carol who had been in a car accident and was now in a wheelchair. Participants were told that Carol needed help catching up with her schoolwork.

• The participants were assigned to two groups:

  • High-empathy group: Participants were asked to imagine how Carol felt and put themselves in her position.

  • Low-empathy group: Participants were asked to focus on the facts of Carol’s situation.

• After watching the video, participants were given the opportunity to help Carol by agreeing to take notes for her for the rest of the semester. Some participants were given an escape option (i.e., they could leave the study without helping), while others were not.

Results:

• The results revealed that participants in the high-empathy condition were more likely to help Carol, even when they had the opportunity to escape the situation (i.e., when there was no personal cost for not helping).

• Participants in the low-empathy condition were less likely to help, especially when they could easily escape the situation.

Conclusion:
Batson et al. concluded that empathy plays a crucial role in altruistic behavior. When participants felt a high level of empathy for Carol, they were motivated to help her to alleviate her distress, rather than simply to reduce their own discomfort. The study supports the empathy-altruism hypothesis, which suggests that empathy can lead to altruistic helping behavior, independent of self-interest.

Link to Cognitive Approach:

The study is related to the cognitive approach because it emphasizes the role of cognitive processes in decision-making. Specifically, participants had to cognitively evaluate the situation, including assessing their feelings of empathy toward the victim and deciding whether to act based on their emotional response. This aligns with the cognitive approach's focus on how mental processes, such as empathy, influence behavior. The participants' decisions to help were guided by their cognitive interpretations of the victim's situation and their emotional responses to her distress.

Link to Prosocial Behavior:

This study directly relates to prosocial behavior by examining how factors like empathy drive individuals to act in ways that benefit others, even at a cost to themselves (i.e., helping Carol with no reward). The study provides evidence for altruistic helping behavior, showing that when people feel empathy, they are more likely to engage in prosocial actions without expecting anything in return. This aligns with the concept of altruism, a key form of prosocial behavior.

Ethical Considerations:

1. Deception:
   The participants were deceived about the true purpose of the experiment. They were told that the study was about how people respond to others in need, but it was actually designed to investigate the empathy-altruism hypothesis. While this is common in psychological experiments, it raises concerns about the participants' ability to provide fully informed consent.

2. Emotional Distress:
   The study involved showing a video of a woman who was visibly distressed and in a difficult situation. This could have caused emotional discomfort for some participants, particularly those in the high-empathy condition. Although the distress was not extreme, researchers must consider the potential emotional effects on participants when designing such experiments.

3. Right to Withdraw:
   Participants were given the opportunity to withdraw from the experiment if they wished, which is a key ethical principle. However, the subtle emotional manipulation of empathy and distress may have made it difficult for some participants to easily withdraw without feeling guilty or like they were letting someone down.

Bystanderism

Bystanderism refers to the phenomenon where individuals do not offer help to a person in need when other people are present, often due to diffusion of responsibility or social influence (e.g., the bystander effect).

Piliavin et al. (1969) - Bystanderism, Cognitive Approach

Aim:
Piliavin et al. (1969) aimed to investigate the factors influencing helping behavior in real-life emergencies. Specifically, they wanted to understand how the type of victim (drunk or ill), the location of the emergency, and the presence of other bystanders affect the likelihood of intervention.

Procedure:
The study took place on the New York City subway with passengers who were unaware they were part of an experiment. It was a field experiment, where actors (confederates) simulated an emergency on a train, and the researchers observed how passengers reacted. Two types of victims were used: a drunk victim who pretended to be drunk, lying on the floor with a bottle in his hand, and an ill victim who appeared to collapse with a seizure-like condition. The study manipulated the independent variables, which included the type of victim (drunk vs. ill), the presence of an ally (a second confederate who either helped or did nothing), and the number of bystanders (the number of people in the subway car at the time). The dependent variable was the rate of intervention, including how many people helped, how quickly they did so, and how many did not help at all.

Results:
The ill victim was more likely to receive help than the drunk victim, with about 95% of people helping the ill victim compared to around 50% for the drunk victim. The more people present in the subway car, the less likely anyone was to help, supporting the idea of diffusion of responsibility. Help was quicker when the victim was perceived as innocent (ill), suggesting people are more likely to help if they feel the victim’s situation is not self-inflicted.

Conclusion:
Piliavin et al. concluded that the bystander effect, where individuals are less likely to help when others are present, is influenced by factors like the victim’s perceived responsibility, the urgency of the situation, and the number of bystanders. People are more likely to help in emergencies when the victim seems helpless and innocent (e.g., the ill victim) than when the victim's behavior is viewed as self-inflicted (e.g., the drunk victim).

Link to Cognitive Approach of Prosocial Behavior:
The findings from Piliavin et al. (1969) are relevant to the cognitive approach to prosocial behavior because the decision to help or not is a cognitive process. The bystander effect is rooted in the cognitive evaluation of the situation. People cognitively assess whether the victim deserves help (e.g., Is the person ill or drunk?), decide whether the situation is the victim’s fault (attribution of responsibility), and experience cognitive processes like diffusion of responsibility, where they feel others will act, thus reducing their own likelihood of helping.

Ethical Considerations:
The participants were unaware they were part of an experiment, which is a form of deception, though necessary to ensure natural behavior. Some participants may have been distressed seeing someone seemingly collapse, though no lasting harm occurred as the situation was staged.

Levine et al. (2001) - Sociocultural, Research Methods, Cross-cultural, 23 cities worldwide, 3 ways #FieldExperiments

Aim: Levine et al. (2001) aimed to investigate cultural differences in prosocial behavior. Specifically, the study sought to understand how people in different cultures respond to emergencies and whether certain cultural values influenced the likelihood of helping behavior.

Procedure: The researchers conducted a field experiment across 23 cities worldwide, including cities from North America, South America, Europe, and Asia, to observe how helping behavior varied across different cultures. The experiment involved three emergency situations: a man accidentally dropping a pen, a blind person needing help crossing the street, and a victim with a hurt leg struggling to walk. In each case, a confederate staged the emergency and waited to see if a bystander would help. The researchers recorded the likelihood of intervention, the speed at which people helped, and whether bystanders helped at all. The study was designed to assess how cultural context influenced prosocial behavior, with specific attention to how the number of bystanders and the environmental setting might affect the likelihood of offering assistance. The study focused on cities with varying levels of individualism and collectivism, observing how people in each cultural setting responded to the staged emergencies.

Results:
The results showed that helping behavior varied significantly across cultures:

• Cities in collectivist cultures (e.g., Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City) tended to show higher levels of prosocial behavior, particularly when helping required immediate action.

• In individualistic cultures (e.g., New York, Copenhagen), helping was less frequent, particularly when there were more bystanders present.

• The blind person task received the highest level of help across all cities, while the pen drop and hurt leg situations showed less assistance.

• The environmental conditions, such as the density of people (crowded vs. less crowded environments), also influenced the rate of helping. In larger, more densely populated cities, people were less likely to help compared to smaller, less crowded locations.

Conclusion:
Levine et al. concluded that cultural factors significantly influence prosocial behavior, with people from collectivist cultures being more likely to help strangers in need. The study supports the idea that prosocial behavior is shaped by sociocultural norms, suggesting that cultural values and environmental factors affect how individuals interpret and react to situations that require assistance.

Link to Sociocultural Approach: Levine et al.'s study fits within the sociocultural approach to understanding behavior. The study emphasizes how cultural norms and values affect the likelihood of helping others, supporting the idea that behavior is shaped by the social context in which individuals live. In collectivist cultures, where interdependence and helping others are highly valued, prosocial behavior is more frequent. In contrast, in more individualistic societies, people are less likely to intervene because of a cultural emphasis on self-reliance and autonomy. The study highlights the importance of understanding prosocial behavior through the lens of cultural influences and group dynamics.

Link to Research Methods: Levine et al.'s study used a field experiment methodology, allowing the researchers to observe real-world helping behavior in natural settings. The advantage of using a field experiment was that it provided high ecological validity, as the participants' behavior was observed in genuine, everyday situations. This helps to generalize the findings to real-world scenarios. However, field experiments also have limitations, such as a lack of control over variables, making it difficult to establish clear cause-and-effect relationships. The study also involved systematic observation of helping behavior, making it more naturalistic and less likely to be influenced by demand characteristics, where participants may alter their behavior because they are aware they are being studied.

Feshbach and Feshbach - Promoting Prosocial behavior, Children in elementary school, empathy training #FieldExperiment

Aim:
The aim of Feshbach and Feshbach’s (1982) study was to investigate whether empathy training could promote prosocial behavior in children. Specifically, they sought to determine if teaching children to understand and respond to others' emotions would lead to increased helping behaviors and social cooperation.

Procedure:
The study involved elementary school children, who were randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. The experimental group received empathy training, which included activities designed to help children recognize and respond to the emotions of others. These activities included role-playing exercises and discussions about different emotional situations. After completing the training, both groups were observed during natural interactions with their peers to measure prosocial behaviors, such as helping, sharing, and showing concern for others in distress.

Results:
The results showed that children who received the empathy training displayed significantly higher levels of prosocial behavior compared to the control group. Specifically, they were more likely to help peers in need, share resources, and show empathy and concern for others' emotions.

Conclusion:
Feshbach and Feshbach concluded that empathy training is an effective method for promoting prosocial behavior in children. By increasing children’s ability to empathize with others, the study suggested that empathy plays a critical role in motivating individuals to act in ways that benefit others, fostering a more cooperative and compassionate environment.

Dawkins (1976) - Biological, Selfish Gene Theory, Kin selection, Evolution, #TheoreticalModeling

Aim:
Richard Dawkins’ (1976) study, particularly in his book The Selfish Gene, aims to explain prosocial behavior from a biological perspective. Dawkins proposed that behaviors such as altruism and prosocial actions can be understood through the concept of kin selection, suggesting that individuals may act in ways that benefit others, especially relatives, because it increases the chances of their own genes being passed on to future generations.

Procedure:
While Dawkins’ study is more of a theoretical framework rather than an empirical research study, it applies the evolutionary theory to the understanding of prosocial behavior. Dawkins introduced the idea of the selfish gene—the concept that genes, rather than individuals, are the fundamental units of natural selection. In this view, prosocial behavior can be explained by the fact that individuals act to promote the survival of their genes, particularly in kin or close relatives. By helping relatives, an individual increases the chances that their shared genes are passed on to the next generation.

Dawkins used theoretical examples from the animal kingdom, as well as human behavior, to explain how behaviors that seem altruistic on the surface can be understood through the lens of kin selection. The concept of inclusive fitness was central to his argument, meaning that individuals increase their genetic success not only through their own offspring but by helping close relatives raise offspring that share their genes.

Results:
The results of Dawkins’ theoretical framework suggest that altruistic behaviors can be seen as genetically motivated rather than purely selfless. According to Dawkins, behaviors such as helping family members, even at a cost to oneself, are driven by the genetic benefit of ensuring that genes shared with relatives survive and are passed on. This biological view of prosocial behavior challenges traditional psychological explanations, offering a genetic perspective on why people act altruistically.

Conclusion:
Dawkins concluded that prosocial behavior is not simply about individual morality or learned behavior, but can be understood through the evolutionary theory of kin selection. By acting altruistically, individuals may increase the survival of their own genetic material, even at a personal cost. Dawkins’ work introduced the concept that biological instincts could explain why humans and animals sometimes display prosocial behaviors, particularly toward those who share their genes. His framework, while theoretical, has influenced how researchers consider the biological factors behind prosocial actions.

Crokett et al. (2010) - Biological approach, Serotonin, Moral Decision-Making, Emotions #LabExperiment

Aim: Crockett et al. (2010) aimed to investigate the role of serotonin, a neurotransmitter, in regulating prosocial behavior. The study sought to understand whether serotonin influences people’s willingness to act altruistically or to engage in prosocial behavior, particularly in situations involving moral decision-making.

Procedure:
The researchers conducted an experimental study with a sample of healthy adults. Participants were divided into two groups: one group received a dose of serotonin-enhancing medication (known as a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, or SSRI), while the other group received a placebo. After the drug or placebo was administered, participants were asked to make decisions in moral dilemmas that involved prosocial behavior. For example, in a typical moral dilemma, participants were asked whether they would sacrifice one person to save a larger group, a situation that involves a trade-off between individual well-being and collective benefit. These types of dilemmas are used to gauge prosocial tendencies, such as helping others and acting in the interest of the greater good.

The goal was to observe whether increased serotonin levels would affect participants’ decisions in these scenarios, particularly in terms of how they balance personal sacrifice versus helping others.

Results:
The results indicated that participants who were given the serotonin-enhancing medication were more likely to make decisions that involved greater prosocial behavior, such as acting in ways that benefitted the larger group even at a personal cost. This suggests that increased serotonin levels may encourage individuals to make more altruistic decisions or prioritize the welfare of others over their own immediate interests.

Whiting & Whiting (1975) - Sociocultural, children from 6 countries #ObservationalStudy

Aim:
Whiting and Whiting (1975) aimed to investigate the influence of cultural factors on prosocial behavior, specifically examining how children from different cultures engage in helping behaviors. The study sought to understand how social and environmental influences shaped prosocial actions and how these behaviors varied across cultures with different social structures and expectations.

Procedure:
The researchers conducted a cross-cultural study in which they observed children from six different countries: the United States, Mexico, the Philippines, Kenya, Japan, and India. The children were from various cultural backgrounds, with differing levels of individualism and collectivism. Whiting and Whiting collected data by observing the children’s interactions in their natural environments, particularly focusing on situations where they could display helping behaviors. These observations took place in settings like the home, school, and community, where the children were interacting with family members, peers, and adults.

The researchers specifically looked at how social roles (such as gender roles and family responsibilities) and family structure influenced children’s willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors like helping with household tasks, assisting family members, or aiding peers in distress.

Results: Whiting and Whiting found significant cultural differences in prosocial behavior. In collectivist cultures (such as those in Kenya and the Philippines), children were more likely to engage in prosocial actions, as these societies emphasized family responsibilities, community cooperation, and mutual assistance. In contrast, children from individualistic cultures (such as the United States and Japan) displayed less frequent prosocial behavior, as these societies prioritized personal autonomy and self-reliance over communal helping. The study also revealed that gender roles played a significant role, with girls being more likely to engage in nurturing and helping behaviors, while boys were often socialized to focus on independent activities.

Conclusion:
Whiting and Whiting concluded that cultural values and socialization practices significantly influence prosocial behavior. Children raised in cultures that emphasize cooperation, interdependence, and social responsibility are more likely to engage in helping behaviors, while children from cultures that emphasize individual achievement and self-reliance tend to show less frequent prosocial actions. The study provided strong evidence for the sociocultural approach to prosocial behavior, showing that cultural norms and societal expectations shape how individuals act in social situations.