Pro-Social Behaviour

Lecture 1

Pro-Social Behaviour

the whole range of human behaviour valued by society

Helping Behaviour and Altruism

sub-category of pro-social behaviour - person intentionally helps another person/group.

altruism - subcategory of helping behaviour - person helps another to benefit the other person instead of gaining some reward.

Person-Based Factors -Positive Mood

Carlson et al. (1988) - meta analysis of studies show positive mood increases helping.

Isen & Stalker (1982) - ‘warm glow of success’ engenders positive cognitions facilitating pro-social behaviour e.g. teachers’ success on a task = more likely to help with subsequent fundraiser.

Person-Based Factors - Bad Mood

Carlson & Miller (1987) - effects of neg. mood inconsistent.

Anger - motivates aggression. HOWEVER - (Van Doom et al., 2014) highlight anger can motivate justice seeking.

Guilt (Regan et al., 1972) - guilt induced via broken expensive camera. Ps have subsequent chance to help someone. 

• guilt condition - 50% helped

• control condition - 15% helped

people who feel guilty are more likely to help. supported by negative state-relief hypothesis (Cialdini et al., 1982).

Person-Based Factors - Empathy (Batson, 1991)

sensitivity to the emotional states of others. two states of motivation:-

• egoistic - less concerned about others

• altruistic - empathy triggers concern for others

potential helper could escape - egoistic would try to escape, altruistic would stay to help.

Batson et al. (1981)

manipulated empathy by increasing sense of attitudinal similarity or dissimilarity with a victim. also manipulated ease of escape for potential helper.

Ps observe subject receive electric shocks and given opportunity to take their place. given document outlining subject’s interests and values.

low empathy and easy escape condition less likely to help subject.

Situation-Based Factors - Cognitive Model (Latane & Darley)

bystander effect/apathy - everyone looking to others for cues on problem and what to do, resulting in inertia. 

1970 experiment - Ps go to fake interview, smoke pours into room for minutes. Ps either alone, with two other Ps, or with two confederates who take no action.

alone - 75% raise alarm

two other Ps - 38% raise alarm

two confederates - 10% raise alarm

Lack of Intervention - Diffusion of Responsibility

several onlookers = responsibility can be transferred to others. more people = more thinly responsibility is spread.

Lack of Intervention - Audience Inhibition

fear of making public fool of oneself inhibits action.

Lack of Intervention - Social Influence

taking cues for action from other people can lead to pluralistic ignorance = group members systematically misestimate peers’ attitudes, feelings and behaviours.

Latane and Darley’s (1976) Three-in-One Experiment

five conditions:

• alone

• diffusion of responsibility - know person is there, cannot see or hear them

• diffusion + social influence - can see confederate on monitor, knows self cannot be seen

• diffusion + audience inhibition - know other participant can see them, cannot see other person

• diffusion + social influence + audience inhibition - can see each other

results = likelihood of helping reduces as effects stack.

Bystander Effect - Limitations

Latane & Rodin (1969) - apathy less likely if bystanders know each other; elevated if strangers.

Gottleib & Carver (1980) - effect reduced if believe will interact again in future and be held accountable (among strangers).