L7: Prosocial Behaviour

Describe prosocial behaviour and critically evaluate social, evolutionary and biological perspectives on why we behave prosocially Explain and appraise the bystander effect and models of bystander behaviour: the bystander calculus model and Latané and Darley’s Cognitive Model Define and illustrate perceiver and recipient centred determinants of helping Describe the potential effects of receiving help

prosocial behaviour

accts that are positively viewed by society

Wispe, 1972: prosocial behaviour, consequences

• positive social consequences

• contributes to physical/psychological wellbeing of another

Eisenberg et al., 1996: what is prosocial behaviour

• voluntary

• intended to benefit others

types of prosocial behaviour 

• altruistic

• helpful

helping behaviour

acts that intentionally benefit some else/group

altruism

acts that benefit another person rather than one’s self; performed w/o expectation of one’s own gain

difference between altruism and helping behaviour

helping- expect to receive smth in return for help given

altruism- do not expect to receive anything in return

what shld true altruism be?

selfless

issue w altruism

• shld be selfless

• difficult to prove selflessness

• sometimes private rewards associated with acting prosocially e.g. feeling good

what marked the beginning of prosocial behaviour research

the murder of Kitty Genovese

The Kitty Genovese Murder

• kitty was home when attacked

• kitty tried to fight off her attacker and screamed and shouted for help

• 37 ppl openly admitted to hearing her screaming but failed to act

two perspectives on why and when people help

• biological & evolutionary

• social psychological

biological & evolutionary perspectives on why and when ppl help

• mutualism

• kin selection

social psychologicsl perspectives on why and when ppl help

• social norms

• social learning

biological & evolutionary perspective

• humans have an innate tendency to help others to pass our genes to the next generation

• helping kin improves their survival rates

• prosocial behaviour as a trait that potentially has evolutionary survival value

• animals also engage in prosocial behaviour

mutualism

prosocial behaviour benefits the co-operator as well as others; a defector will do worse than a co-operator

kin selection

prosocial behaviour is biased towards blood relatives because it helps their own genes

kin selection study procedure/measures

• asked to rank how likely to help on a four point scale

• degree of kinship measured

• healthy or sick

• everyday or life or death

kin selection: relatedness measure

degree of kinship, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8

kin selection study: asked how likely to help depending on…

• degree of kinship

• the person is healthy or sick

• the situation is everyday or life or death

helping likeliness order for each condition (sick/healthy, everyday/life or death). in order of most to least likely to help.

1. sick x everyday

2. health x life or death

3. sick x life or death

4. healthy x everyday

kinship and helping likeliness in each condition (sick/healthy, everyday/ life or death)

closer kinship → more related → more likely to help 

same in all conditions

label A

sick/ everyday

label B

healthy/ life or death

label C

sick/ life or death

label D

healthy / everyday

explain kin selection results in terms of evolutionary theory

• consistent with it

• closer to u → more likely to help bc improve success of genetic line

• everyday → more likely to help the sick bc healthy can fend for themselves

• life or death → more likely to help healthy bc they have better chance of survival and reproductive success → improve success of continuing genetic line

limitations of the biological and evolutionary perspective

• does not explain why help non-relatives, like friends or even strangers

• little empirical evidence- cannot assess evolutionary processes in lab, can’t manipulate how related etc, so all based on anecdotes/observation

• does not explain why wld help in some circumstances but not others- e.g. familial violence, abuse

• social learning theories ignored. Alternative accounts propose prosocial behaviour is learned, not innate (Eisenberg)

Lay et al., 2020: social psychological accounts

social guidelines that establish what most people do in a certain context and what is socially acceptable

what do social norms do

play a key role in developing and sustaining prosocial behaviour (e.g. not littering); these are learned rather than innate

how are norms enforced

conforming → social acceptance → rewarded

violate → social rejection → punished

how many social norms explain why people engage in prosocial behaviour

3

three social norms that may explain why people engage in prosocial behaviour

1. reciprocity principle

2. social responsibility

3. just-world hypothesis

reciprocity principle

Gouldner, 1960

we should help people who help us

if sm1 helps us, we feel we need to return favour and help them if they need

social responsibility norm

Berkowitz, 1972

we should help those in need independent of their ability to help us

just-world hypothesis

Lerner and Miller, 1978

world is just and fair place

if come across anyone undeservedly suffering we help them to restore our belief in a just world

Zahn- Waxler et al., 1992

childhood is a critical period during which we learn prosocial behaviour

how do children learn prosocial behaviour

1. giving instructions

2. using reinforcement- rewarding behaviour

3. exposure to models

giving instructions (Grusec et al., 1978): children learning prosocial behaviour

• telling children to be helpful works

• telling children what is appropriate establishes an expectation and guide for later life

• tho if a child is told to be good but preacher is inconsistent then is pointless

how we respond to distress in others is…

related to how we learn to share, and how we learn to provide comfort etc

reinforcement: children learning prosocial behaviour

• when young children are rewarded → more likely to help again

• if not rewarded or are punished → less likely to offer help

Rushton and Teachman (1978) study

Rushton and Teachman (1978)

• reinforcement and rewarding for learning to be helpful

• children aged 8-11 observed adult playing game

• adult seen to donate tokens won in the game to a worse off child

• conditions of positive reinforcement, no consequences and punishment

• vicarious reinforcement

• children donated higher tokens when positive than no or punish

• effect seen immediately and 2 weeks later

exposure to models: children learning prosocial behaviour

Rushton (1976)

• concluded from review modelling is more effective in shaping behaviour than reinforcement

Gentile et al., (2009) study

what did Rushton (1976) conclude

modelling more effective in shaping behaviour than reinforcement

Gentile et al., 2009: study

• children aged 9-14 assigned to play prosocial, neutral, or violent video games

• playing video games w prosocial content increased short term helping behaviour and decreased hurtful behaviour in puzzle game

SLT

bandura 1973

• if a person observes a person and models behaviour, not just mechanical imitation

• it is knowledge of what happens to model that determines whether observer will help or not

Hornstein (1970): what was study investigating

SLT of prosocial/helping behaviour

Hornstein (1970)

• conducted experiment where people observed model returning lost wallet

• model appeared either pleased to be able to help, displeased at helping, or no strong reaction

• later p came across lost wallet

• those who observed pleasant condition helped most, those who observed negative helped least

• modelling is not just imitation

observing outcomes → learning thru vicarious experience

bystander effect

• apathy

• people less likely to help in an emergency when they are with others than when they are alone

study on bystander effect

Latane and Darley 1968

Latane and Datane, 1968: bystander effect: procedure

• emergency situations whilst completing questionnaire

- presence of smoke in the room

- or another p suffering a medical emergency

• presence of others: confederates who do not intervene, other naiive ps, or alone

Latane and Datane, 1968: bystander effect: findings

• very few intervened in presence of others

• esp when others did not intervene

what did Latane and Darley’s study lead them to do

develop cognitive model, explaining deciding whether or not to help

Latane and Darley’s cognitive model

• deciding whether or not to help

attend to what is happening + define event as emergency + assume responsibility + decide what can be done = give help

Latane and Darley’s cognitive model: steps

1. attend to what is happening- notice event and register that help may be required

2. define event as emergency- more likely to define if ppl beenn hurt, r in serious condition, or condition quickly deteriorating

3. assume responsibility- do we accept personal responsibility, may depend on how competent/ confident feel, may worry make things worse and so less likely to help

4. decide what can be done- do we call 999, intervene, actively help etc if safe to do so. if end up deciding nothing can be done, less likely to help

once all, in order, been fulfilled → help

various processes in these steps can lead to bystander effect

processes contributing to bystander effect

1. diffusion of responsibility

2. audience inhibition

3. social influence

diffusion of responsibility

tendency of an individual to assume that others will take responsibility

if everyone thinks someone else will help, then noone does

audience inhibition

other onlookers may make individual feel self-conscious about taking action

people do not want to appear foolish by overreacting

social influence (bystander effect)

other people provide a model for action

if they are unworried, the situation may seem less serious

testing the processes underlying bystander apathy effect- study

Latane and Darley, 1976

Latane and Darley 1976: conditions

• testing processes underlying bystander apathy effect

five conditions:

1. control: alone, cannot be seen by or see others

2. diffusion of responsibility: aware of another p but cannot see them

3. diffusion of responsibility + social influence: aware of another p, can see the p in monitor, cannot be seen themselves

4. diffusion of responsibility + audience inhibition: aware of another p but cannot see them, but can be seen themselves

5. diffusion of responsibility + social influence + audience inhibition: aware of other p, can see other p, aware other p can see them

Latane and Darley 1976: findings

• help most when alone, control

• help most when alone and most at 60s then plateu

• less likely to help the more processes are at play

bystander calculus model

Piliavin et al., 1981

1. physiological processes- empathetic response

2. labelling the arousal- cognitive processes

3. evaluating consequences of helping

bystander calculus model: stage 1

physiological processes

• in order to help, must have empathetic response to someone in distress/needing help

• emotional arousal

• greater arousal → more likely to help (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977)

• emphatic concern is triggered when we believe we are similiar to victim and can relate to them, we are more likely to help person (Batson & Coke, 1981)

three stages of bystander calculus model

1. physiological processes; 2. labelling the arousal; 3. evaluating the consequences of helping

bystander calculus model: stage 2

labelling the arousal

• label this arousal as an emotion (e.g. distress, anger, fear)

• personal distress at seeing someone else suffer- helping behaviour motivated by desire to reduce own negative emotional experience

• involves cognitive processes

label arousal as emotion → reduce own negative emotional experience by helping

bystander calculus model: stage 3

evaluating consequences of helping

• cost benefit analysis

costs of helping:

• time and effort (Darley and Batson, 1973)

• personal risk

costs of not helping:

• empathy costs → not helping can cause distress to a bystander who empathises with the victim

• personal costs of not helping victim can cause distress (e.g. feeling guilt or blame)

• used to create cost benefit matrix of helping behaviour in an emergency

• low cost of helping + high cost of not helping = most likely ot help directly

• high cost of helping + low cost of not helping = most likely to ignore victim

Pilavin’s cost-benefit matrix of helping behaviour in an emergency

cost of helping = COH

cost of not helping = CONH

low CONH + low COH = determined by norms

low CONH + high COH = ignore victim

high CONH + low COH = directly help victim

high CONH + high COH = indirectly help victim or lower cost of helping

evidence for bystander calculus model

Shotland and Straw, 1976

Shotland & Straw (1976): procedure experiment 1

• Ps witness a man and a woman fighting

• condition: married couple vs strangers

• measured intervention rate

Shotland & Straw (1976): findings experiment 1

• 65% intervention rate in strangers condiiton

• 19% in married couples condition

Shotland & Straw (1976): explain findings experiment 1

• may be/feel higher costs of helping married couple bc may not want to impose in argument, couple may not want help

• cost of not helping feels lower bc married and know each other so cld just be regular argument

• stranger condition- cost of not helping feels a lot higher

• if they know the strangers and do not help, may feel guilty

• more likely to intervene therefore

contradicting bystander effect: study

• recent Philpot et al., 2020 study

• CCTV recordings

• myth- when people observe ppl in need of help, have tendency not to help. research shows not the case.

• 90% of situations, 3-4 ppl intervened

Philpot et al., (2020): contradicting the bystander effect: study

• CCTV recordings of 219 street disputes in three cities in diff countries- Lancaster, England; Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cape Town, SA

• at least one bystander intervened in 90%

• contrary to previous research, presence of others increased likelihood of helping- opposite of bystander effect

• first large scale test of bystander effect in real life situations

• in Capetown SA → violence, high risk of intervention

• yet similar findings across all three locations, suggests universal phenomenon

Genovese’s murder

• admittance that the story was exaggerated by media

• reporting flawed and grossly exaggerated number of witnesses and what they had percieved

limitations of Philpot et al., 2020 study (comprehensive)

• CCTV- if ppl know it is an area w cctv then might be more likely to help bc lower risk as being recorded

• Areas w cctv are likely policed/ monitored more so again, potentially lower risk

• Ethical issues- using ppl without their permission

• CCTV- no audio, cannot tell relationship between ppl

• CCTV- miss if ppl r texting/calling police etc

• Do not know if variables in common informing why ppl help

• Cannot see if ppl r discussing whether or not to help and then deciding too

• Cannot see how many ppl in area

• Likely areas that are well lit/ central- again, more supervision, ppl less likely to do super dangerous things

• Contexts missed- helping ppl in non-conflict situations, e.g. medical emergencies, crossing roads, etc

• Not done non-western cultures

• Ps may know being observed by CCTV and therefore intervene

• Contexts- demographic, P information, police trust in area, etc

• Only 219 footage across 3 cities in diff countries, need larger data

• Contexts- only cities. Cities often policed, street lights etc. what abt rural areas? Safety of diff city areas?

• Public areas where social desirability/ compliance present as in public → what abt in less public areas or when cannot see who else is intervening?

• Ambiguity?

Philpot 2020 study: strengths (comprehensive)

• Real, external validity, very high ecological validity

• Large amount of data in comparison to lab amounts

• Harder to manipulate

• Real life situations, video evidence, objective

• Less demand characteristics, social desirability bias- do not know being observed for this study (although may know being observed)

• Different countries

Philpot 2020 study: strengths

1. large scale test of bystander effect using real life scenarios- high ecological validity

2. effect consistent across three diff countries- one with slight diff context (Capetown)

Philpot 2020 study: limitations

1. only cities, mostly western

2. interventions defined broadly so cld capture range of diff things

3. lack of audio

perceiver centred determinants of helping

1. personality

2. mood

3. competence

recipient centred determinants of prosocial behaviour

1. group membership

2. responsibility for misfortune

personality

• perceiver centred determinant of helping

• is there such thing as an altruistic personality?

• Bierhoff, Klein & Kramp, 1991

Bierhoff, Klein & Kramp, 1991: personality

• ppl who helped in traffic accident vs those who did not help

• helpers and non helpers distinguished on: (helpers scored higher on):

1. norm of social responsibility

2. internal locus of control

3. greater dispositional empathy

• evidence correlational and not clear whether personality traits cause helping behaviour

mood

• perceiver centred determinant of helping

• individuals who feel good → more likely to help someone in need

• Holloway et al., 1977: receiving good news → increased willingness to help

• Isen (1970): teachers who were more successful on task → more likely to contribute later to fundraising event

• those who did well donated 7x more than others

• mood effects may be short lived

• Isen, Clark, Schwartz 1976: increased willingness to help stranger only within first 7mins of positive mood induction

• may be re how good positive mood induction technique is

• moods change quickly and instantly

• may only engage in helping behaviour for as long as moods are good

feeling competent

• perceiver centred determinant of helping

• feeling competent to deal with emergency → more likely that help will be given

• shld take feeling competent into consideration, esp when looking at cognitive model and step of assuming responsibility

• feel competent → more likely to assume responsibility → more likely to help

• awareness that ‘i know what i am doing’ (Korte, 1971)

• specific kinds of competence have increased helping in diff contexts

• certain skills perceived as relevant to some emergencies (Shotland and Heinhold, 1985)

Midlarsky & Midlarsky, 1976: competence + helping

people more willing to help others move electrically charged objects if they were told they had a high tolerance for electric shocks

Schwartz & David: 1985

people more likely to help recapture dangerous lab rat if they were told they were good at handling rats

group membership

• receiver centred determinant of prosocial behaviour

• social identity theory applied to helping behaviour

• same or similar social group to us → more likely to help

• studies by Levine

Levine et al., 2005: study 1

• group membership and prosocial behaviour

• 45 man u fans

• ps directed to take short walk, witness emergency incident

• group membership manipulated

• confederate wears man u, liverpool fc, or plain sports top

• rate of helping confed measured

• man u fans more likely to help man u fans than liverpool or non supporter

helping behaviour increased for in group members

Levine et al., 2005: study 2

• group membership and prosocial behaviour

• same design as study 1

• ps told taking part in study abt football fans

• focusing on positives of being football fan

• measured helping behaviour to confed wearing man u, liverpool fc, or plain top

• equally likely to help confed wearing man u or liverpool fc top

• those wearing plain top less likely to be helped

broadening boundaries of social categories may increase helping behaviour

responsibility for misfortune

• recipient centred determinant of prosocial behaviour

• ppl generally more likely to help ppl who are not responsible for their misfortune (e.g.- just-world hypothesis_

Turner DePalma et al., 1999: procedure

• responsibility for misfortune

• 98 Ps read booklet abt fictional disease

• disease either cause by genetic anomality or action of individual or no information given

• measured Ps belief in just world

• offered 12 helping options with differing commitment levels

Turner DePalma et al., 1999: findings

• responsibility for misfortune

• helping behaviour significantly increased when believe P not responsible for their illness

• ppl w high belief in just world helped more only when patient believed to be not responsible for illness

potential effects of receiving help- what is being looked at

• the recipient

• do people always want help

Wakefield, Hopkins, Greenwood (2012): study

• female students made aware that women stereotyped by men as dependant, and then placed in situation where need help

• asked to solve set of anagrams

• those made aware of dependency stereotype less willing to seek help than control

• those that did seek help felt worse the more help they sought

receiving help can be interpreted negatively if it confirms a negative stereotype about the recipient

therefore help may be rejected if reinforces negative stereotype

receiving help: backfire

• prosocial behaviour can backfire

• on tiktok, random acts of kindness

• people subject to kindness can feel patronised and dehumanised

prosocial behaviour

acts that are positively viewed by society, includes helping behaviour and altruism

bystander effect

people less likely to help in an emergency when they are surrounded by other people than when they are alone

models to explain bystander effect or situation centred determinants of helping

• bystander calculus model

• latane and darley’s cognitive model

percivver centred determinants of helping

• personality

• mood

• competence