Lecture 7: Prosocial Behaviour

prosocial behaviour

-acts that are viewed positively by society

-has positive social consequences and contributes the the physical/psychological wellbeing of another person

-voluntary and intended to benefit others

-being helpful and altruistic

-defined by society’s norms

helping behaviour (type of prosocial behaviour)

-acts that intentionally benefit someone else or a group of people

altruism (type of prosocial behaviour)

-acts that benefit another person rather than one’s self

-performed without expectation of one’s own gain

-selfless, but it can be difficult to prove selflessness → private rewards associated with acting pro socially

Kitty Genovese murder (beginnings of prosocial behaviour research) 

-attacked and murdered on her way home

-tried to fight and screamed for help 

-37 people openly admitted to hearing her screaming but failed to act 

theories of prosocial behaviour

-biological and evolutionary perspectives:

• mutualism

• kin selection

-social psychological perspectives:

• social norms

• social learning

biological and evolutionary perspective (theories of prosocial behaviour)

-innate tendency to help others to pass our genes to the next generation

-helping kin improves their survival rates

-prosocial behaviour as a trait potentially has evolutionary survival value

-animals also engage in prosocial behaviour

mutualism (biological and evolutionary perspective)

-prosocial behaviour that benefits the co-operator as well as others

-a defector will do worse than a co-operator

kin selection (biological and evolutionary perspective)

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

-e.g., squirrels giving alarm calls for predators to warn other squirrels even though it puts themself at risk 

evidence for kin selection (biological and evolutionary perspective)

-found interaction between health, kinship and willingness to help

-participants chose between people who varied in kinship in two conditions:

• healthy vs sick individuals

• giving help in a situation that was life or death vs merely everyday

-generally more willing to help closer kin than more distant kin

-preferred to help people who were sick in everyday situation

-preferred to help healthy people in a perilous situation

limitations of the biological evolutionary perspective

-doesn’t explain why we help non-relatives 

-little empirical evidence exists → not possible to assess evolutionary processes in the lab 

-doesn’t explain why we would help in some circumstances but not in others e.g., familial abuse 

-SLT ignored → alternative accounts propose prosocial behaviour is learned, not innate 

norms (social psychological accounts)

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

-play a key role in developing and sustaining prosocial behaviour → learnt rather than innate

-behaving in line with social norms is often rewarded, leading to social acceptance

-violating social norms can be punished and result in social rejection

three social norms (social psychological accounts)

• reciprocity principle

• social responsibility

• just-world hypothesis

reciprocity principle (social psychological accounts)

-we should help people who help us 

social responsibility (social psychological accounts)

-we should help those in need regardless of their ability to help us

just-world hypothesis (social psychological accounts)

-the world is fair and just

-so if we come across anyone who is undeservedly suffering we help them to restore out belief in a just world

learning to be helpful (social psychological accounts)

-childhood is a critical period for learning prosocial behaviour

-children learn prosocial behaviour by:

1. giving instructions

2. using reinforcement

3. exposure to models

giving instructions (children learning prosocial behaviour)

-simply telling children to be helpful works 

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

-have to be consistent when teaching children though, otherwise does not work 

reinforcement (children learning prosocial behaviour)

-when young children are rewarded they are more likely to offer to help again

-if children are not rewarded or they are punished, they are less likely to offer help again

Rushton & Teachman - method (reinforcement)

-children aged 8-11 observe an adult playing a game

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

-conditions:

• positive reinforcement

• punishment

• no consequences

Rushton & Teachman - results (reinforcement)

-found that children donated higher number of tokens when they saw the adult receiving positive reinforcement 

-no consequence or punishment conditions donated less 

exposure to models (children learning prosocial behaviour)

-Rushton review concluded that modelling is more effective in shaping behaviour than reinforcement 

Gentile (modelling)

-children assigned to play prosocial, neutral or violent video games

-playing video games with prosocial content increased short term helping behaviour and decreased hurtful behaviour in a puzzle game

social learning theory (social psychological accounts)

-person observes a person and then models the behaviour

-Bandura argues that the knowledge of what happens to the model determines whether or not the observer will help

-modelling is not just imitation

Hornstein (social learning theory)

-conducted an experiment where people observed a model returning a lost wallet

-model appeared either pleased to help, displeased at helping or no strong reaction

-later the participant came across a ‘lost wallet’

-those who observed the pleasant condition helped the most

-those who observed the negative helped the least

-so modelling is not just imitation

bystander effect

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

Darley & Latane (bystander effect)

-emergency situations whilst completing a questionnaire →

• presence of smoke in the room or another participant suffering a medical emergency

• presence of others → confederates who do not intervene, other participants or alone

-very few people intervened in the presence of others - especially when others did not intervene

cognitive model (Darley & Latane)

-deciding whether or not to help

1. have to attend to what is happening and be aware, not be distracted

2. define the event as an emergency → more likely to happen if people have been hurt, or are in a deteriorating condition

3. assume responsibility → accept personal responsibility, can depend on how competent or confident the bystander feels in that situation

4. have to decide what should be done → less likely to help if they feel they do not have the competency to help

processes contributing to bystander effect

• diffusion of responsibility

• audience inhibition

• social influence

diffusion of responsibility (processes contributing to the bystander effect)

-tendency of an individual to assume that others will take responsibility

audience inhibition (processes contributing to the bystander effect)

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

-people do not want to appear foolish by overreacting

social influence (processes contributing to the bystander effect)

-other people provide a model for action

-if they are unworried the situation may seem less serious 

testing processes underlying bystander effect - method (Latane & Darley)

-five conditions:

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

2. diffusion of responsibility → aware of another participant but cannot see them

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

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

5. diffusion of responsibility + audience inhibition + social influence → aware of another participant, can see them and aware they can be seen themselves

testing processes underlying bystander effect - results (Latane & Darley)

-diffusion of responsibility, social influence and audience inhibition all reduced percentage of people helping

-these processes are additive → the more of these processes involved, the less likely people were to help

bystander calculus model (Piliavin) 

1. physiological processes 

2. labelling the arousal 

3. evaluating the consequences of helping

physiological processes (bystander calculus model)

-emotional arousal

-an empathic response to someone in distress

-the greater the arousal, the greater the chance we will help

labelling the arousal (bystander calculus model)

-we label the physiological arousal as an emotion

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

evaluating the consequences of helping (bystander calculus model)

-cost-benefit analysis

-costs of helping:

• time and effort

• personal risk

-costs of not helping:

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

• personal costs of not helping a victim can cause distress

Shotland & Straw (evidence for bystander calculus model) 

-participants witness a man and a woman fighting 

• condition → married couple vs strangers 

-intervention rate is measured → 

• 65% in strangers condition 

• 19% in married couple condition 

Shotland & Straw - conclusion (evidence for bystander calculus model) 

-more costs to helping the married couple

-cost of not helping married couple is low

-in the stranger condition the cost of helping is higher → may have some costs such as guilt but there is more danger to helping

Philpot (contradicting the bystander effect)

-CCTV recordings of 219 street disputes in three cities in different countries

-England, Amsterdam, South Africa

-at least one bystander intervened in 90% of cases

-contrary to previous research, presence of others increased likelihood of helping

Philpot strengths (contradicting the bystander effect)

-large scale test of bystander effect in real life scenarios → ecological validity

-effects consistent across three different countries → even one with slightly different context (South Africa)

Philpot limitations (contradicting the bystander effect)

-recordings only in cities and western countries 

-intervention was defined very broadly 

-lack of audio 

perceiver centred determinants of helping

-personality

-mood

-competence

personality (perceiver centred determinants of helping)

-people who helped in a traffic accident vs those who did not help

-helpers and non-helpers distinguished on:

• norm of social responsibility

• internal locus of control

• greater dispositional empathy

→ features of an altruistic personality

-evidence is correlational and not clear whether personality traits cause helping behaviour

mood (perceiver centred determinants of helping)

-individuals who feel good are more likely to help someone in need compared to those who feel bad

-those in a good mood are less preoccupied with themselves

-those in a bad mood are more self absorbed, ruminating and less sensitive to the needs of those around them

evidence for mood (perceiver centred determinants of helping)

-receiving good news increased willingness to help 

-teachers who were more successful on a task were 7 times more likely to contribute to a fundraiser 

-but mood effects are short lived → increased willingness to help only within the first 7 minutes of a positive mood induction 

competence (perceiver centred determinants of helping)

-feeling competent to deal with an emergency makes it more likely that help will be given → awareness of knowing what you’re doing

-specific kinds of competence have increased helping in these contexts

-certain skills are perceived as being relevant to some emergencies e.g., first aid training

specific kinds of competence (perceiver centred determinants of helping)

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

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

group membership (recipient centred determinants of prosocial behaviour) 

-Manchester united fans 

-group membership manipulated → confederate wearing a MU, LFC or plain sports top 

-MU fans more likely to help other MU fans than other confederates → helping behaviour increased for in group members 

responsibility for misfortune (perceiver centred determinants of helping)

-people are generally more likely to help people who are not responsible for their misfortune

-just world hypothesis → world is fair, and if we come across anyone who is undeservedly suffering, we help them to restore our belief in a just world

DePalma - method (evidence for responsibility for misfortune)

-read booklet about fictional disease

-disease was either caused by a genetic anomaly, action of the individual or no information was given

-measured participants’ belief in a just world

DePalma - results (evidence for responsibility for misfortune)

-helping behaviour was significantly increased when it was believed that the person was not responsible for the illness 

-people with high belief in a just world helped more only when the patient was believed to not be responsible for their illness 

Wakefield (receiving help)

-female students made aware that women may be stereotyped by men as dependant

-placed in a situation where they needed help

-those made aware of the dependency stereotype were less willing to seek help

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

-shows receiving help can be interpreted negatively if it confirms a negative stereotype