topic 9 - prosocial behaviour

prosocial, helping and altruistic behaviour

• three key dimensions

  • intentionality (Batson & Powell, 2003)

    • prosocial behaviour encompasses actions intended to benefit others

    • most definitions emphasise that both prosocial and altruistic behaviours reflect positive social actions aimed at promoting the welfare of others

    • multiple definitions emphasise the intentional nature of prosocial behaviour

  • costs and benefits (Schroeder & Graziano, 2015)

    • any action that benefits others

    • what matter is positive impact - intended or not

    • altruism - actions incurring cost to actor while benefitting recipient - altruistic behaviour inherently costly

  • social context

    • actions valued by society

    • societal approval

    • can include actions that do not benefit others but are socially approved

motives in prosocial behaviour

• egoistic motives

  • underlying motivation might be self-serving outcome can still benefit community

  • social recognition gained may encourage further prosocial behaviour

  • cycle of positive impact

• empathetic motives

  • when experiencing compassion we are more inclined to engage in acts of kindness

  • deeply rooted in wanting to alleviate suffering of others and promoting well-being

  • lead to genuine connections - community support and cohesion

• moral values

  • principal forms of prosocial behaviour

  • actions guided by commitment of what one thinks is right regardless of personal gain

  • moral compass not only inspires own actions but can also motivate others to follow suit - ripple effect of positive change

evolutionary perspective on PB

• the role of intention

  • largely irrelevant in evolutionary definitions of altruism - focus on general biological principles

• reputation and social dynamics

  • altruistic behaviours can enhance reputation within social group - increased reproductive success

  • individuals more likely to engage in PB when they feel/think they are observed

• psychological motivations

• fitness costs

  • altruism - actions that benefits others at the cost of oneself

  • long term evolutionary implications for reproduction and survival

• kin selection (Hamilton, 1964)

  • does not incur costs in the same way altruistic behaviours might be perceived

  • genetic advantages of aiding relatives - investment in genetic legacy

  • evolutionary pressures shape actions that appear altruistic but are rooted in genetic self-interest

• for many species cooperative actions arise from instinct rather than conscious choice - untypically classified as prosocial in human sense

• humans naturally predisposed to help others - need for connection and cooperation

• relationships = community and support

  • increases likelihood of PB

• reciprocal helping - norm of reciprocity

  • encourages individuals to assist one another

  • enhances trust and collaboration

  • investing in reciprocal relationships = boost chances of receiving help in return → supportive network

biological basis of helping

• identical twins show higher correlation (r = .62) in prosocial behaviour compared to fraternal twins (r = .40) - highlighting genetic influences

• how much altruism is inherited vs. learned - identical environment between twins

• infant preferences (Hamlin et al., 2007, 2010)

  • even infants as young as three months prefer helpful over hurtful individuals

  • preference indicates that foundations of morality may be somewhat innate rather than product of socialisation

• toddler altruism (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006)

  • children as young as two distinguish between accidental and intentional actions in helping

  • ability to asses intentions reveals sophisticated level of moral reasoning - remarkable for a young age

  • toddlers are active participants in moral development

  • altruism may be part of our natural development

learning to be prosocial

• parenting practices

  • positive parenting predicts greater prosocial tendencies, independent of genetic factors (Knafo & Plomin, 2006)

  • interactions between parents and children can influence inclination to help others

  • nurturing environments → more likely to develop empathy

• learning theory: development of prosocial behaviour in three stages:

  • helping for self-gain (instrumental rewards)

    • help others gain something for themselves

  • helping for social rewards (approval)

    • begin to understand value of social approval

    • motivated by desire of social reward

    • being helpful can lead to positive feedback from others

    • social context of helping

  • helping due to internalised values (moral principles)

    • internalised values and moral principles

    • help others because they believe it is the right thing to do

    • helping becomes intrinsic part of identity

• interactions + experiences teach us to be altruistic

role of media

• engaging with prosocial content increases PB over time

  • increase mediated by empathy

    • ability to understand and respond to the emotional state of others

• implications - media acts as a "teacher" influencing personality traits and behaviours over time

  • potential to cultivate empathy and cooperative behaviour

  • can leverage social media in educational developmental contexts to promote positive social interactions and foster more empathetic societies

social exchange theory - Thibault and Kelley

• helping decisions based on cost-benefit analyses

  • people make decisions by weighing up costs against anticipated reward

  • nature of altruism - truly selfless or driven by underlying self-interest

  • willingness to help can fluctuate depending on relative importance of costs and rewards in different contexts/situations

Good Samaritans study

• findings:

  • ill victims helped more frequently (95%) and faster than drunk victims (50%)

    • higher costs - disgust/potential harm

  • slight preference for same-race helping, especially for drunk victims

    • subtle biases

  • no diffusion of responsibility observed - larger groups facilitated faster help

    • heightened emotional arousal

  • delayed help increased bystander discomfort and area exits

  • passengers more likely to leave critical area during drunk trials or if help was delayed

  • comments reflected discomfort and rationalising inaction - social dynamics

• cost-reward model proposed

  • bystanders assess cost against rewards when deciding whether to intervene

• emotional arousal caused by witnessing an emergency drove behaviour - responses aimed at diminishing the discomfort

• complexity of real-life interactions

empathy-altruism hypothesis

• key components: empathic concerns and altruistic motivation

  • feel a deep urge to help someone in distress even when it might cost us something

  • feelings of empathic concern can illicit genuine altruistic motivations

  • goal - alleviate suffering rather than achieve self-serving gains

  • concern focused on welfare on others rather than own distress

  • prompts us to act in other’s best interests

  • altruistic motivation - helping behaviour driven by genuine desire to improve well-being of person in need

    • prioritises need of others above any personal gain

social and emotional triggers of helping pt.1

• similarity and prejudice

  • racial biases affect helping behaviour, especially in high-emergency situations

• emergency severity and bias

  • increased urgency leads to slower response times and reduced help for Black victims, highlighting the impact of aversive racism and arousal-cost-reward models

  • participants placed in staged emergencies - measured quantity and speed of help to black vs. white victims

  • findings - as level of emergency increased the speed and quality of help offered by white participants to black victims decreased relative to their help for white victims

  • white helpers experienced high levels of aversion - directly correlated with slower response times

  • the more urgent the situation the more pronounced the bias became

  • white participants often interpreted emergencies involving black victims as less severe - felt less responsible to help

  • consistent across multiple studies

• rationalizing discrimination

  • helpers are less likely to assist Black victims when they can justify non-helping with non-racial factors, especially in demanding or high-risk situations

  • more pronounced in higher emergency situations

    • when ability to control prejudiced responses is inhibited biases can emerge

social and emotional triggers of helping pt.2

• empathy gap (Bohns and Flynn, 2015; Arceneaux, 2017)

  • occurs when people underestimate the pain and suffering of others - reduced empathetic responses

  • often arises from misunderstanding or misinterpretation of perspectives which can prevent effective cooperation and reduce helping behaviour

  • especially pronounced when victims seem distant or difference to us

  • perceived group differences can exacerbate these empathy gaps especially towards out-group members

• causal attributions (Betancourt, 1990)

  • when someone believes an individual is personally responsible for their suffering it can lower feelings of empathy and the likelihood of helping

  • our beliefs about the causes of suffering can directly influence willingness to help

  • attribution biases can further hinder empathy - framed suffering as self-inflicted

    • especially when observer maintains an objective stance rather than an empathetic perspective

• emotions (Stocks et al., 2009)

  • guilt can increase likelihood of helping

  • communal orientation fosters prosocial tendencies - prioritise need of community and relationship

• gratitude (Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2006)

  • when recipients express gratitude it encourages repeat of helping behaviour

    • positive feedback loop

    • strengthens social bonds

priming PB

• specific cues and contexts can enhance our inclination to engage in altruistic actions

• prosocial behaviour and positive affect reinforce each other (Aknin et al., 2018; Snippe et al., 2018)

  • positive feedback loop - good mood boost willingness to help others k

• priming mortality increase charitable giving (Jonas et al., 2002)

  • contribute to something larger than themselves - positive legacy

• religious values complicate our understanding of prosocial behaviour - religious beliefs can inspire acts of kindness they also influence who we help and why

  • in-group bias (Saroglou et al., 2005) favouring in-group members

    • more inclined to help those within their faith community

    • limit scope of PB

    • preferential treatment rather than universal commitment to helping

  • methodological issues

    • self-reports suggest religious individuals as more prosocial

    • behavioural and experimental methods give a more nuanced and complex picture → main effects attributed to religious processes can be explained by general psychological factors

  • contextual factors (e.g. Stavrova & Siegers, 2014)

    • social reinforcement of religiosity can influence the relationship between religion and PB

    • 2014 study - in countries with low social enforcement religious individuals were more likely to engage in PB

    • societal context can either enhance or inhibit expression of PB among religious and non-religious individuals

why do people fail to help

• diffusion of responsibility hypothesis

  • presence of multiple bystanders diffuses individual responsibility → when more people are present each person feels less compelled to step in assuming someone else will

• inaction also explained by emotional conflict - wanting to help vs. fear of making a mistake

  • can paralyse decision making in critical moments

• presence not characteristics of other bystanders affects response

  • psychological barriers to others

key studies

• Darley and Latané - simulated seizure

• Darley and Latané - white smoke

• Darley and Batson - religious talking giving

evidence for bystander effect

• the bystander effect is strongest in ambiguous or low-danger situations

  • uncertain about necessity of intervention - diffusion of responsibility

  • uncertainty translates to inaction → people look to others for how to respond

• in high-danger situations, bystanders are more likely to act, as the need for help becomes clearer

  • immediate bystanders are more likely to act decisively

  • clear threat distinguished = heightened sense of urgency → can override inhibiting effects typically associated with presence of others

• certain factors can mitigate bystander effect

  • presence of a perpetrator/expectation of physical danger can lead to increased helping behaviour - bystanders may view each other as potential allies → collective responsibility

    • transform dynamics of situation

implicit bystander effect

• Garcia et al. (2002) - demonstrated that merely thinking about being in a group reduced personal accountability and can influence help and behaviours in unrelated tasks

• merely imagining presence of others can lead to decreased helping behaviour even when those imagined others cannot assist - activates diffusion of responsibility

bystander intervention model

• social cues can often influence ambiguity of a situation

  • eg. reactions of others

• need to recognise that inaction of others may be because of uncertainty rather than accurate judgment of the situation

• high risk situations often reduce intervention unless danger is severe and unambiguous

• helping is not an automatic response - must navigate each step

  • barriers at any stage can prevent intervention

• by understanding steps we can develop better strategies to encourage prosocial behaviour and ensure that more people get the help they need

altruistic personality

• rationale - while many people engaged in helping behaviours these actions are not always consistent across personalities or situations

  • sought to clarify whether individual traits indicative of altruistic personality reliably predicted helping behaviour

• explore personality-situation interactions to influence helping behaviours

• address conflicting findings - altruism in easy to escape scenarios vs. egoistic motivations in hard to escape

• altruistic personality is context dependent

  • dispositional traits and situational characteristics jointly influencing prosocial behaviour

  • complex interplay between personality and environment

role of agreeableness

• agreeableness - empathy, cooperativeness, compassion

  • thought to underpin individual propensity to engage in altruistic acts

  • represents broader dispositional framework - may predispose individuals for certain social responses across different situations

• agreeableness predicts helping through link to empathic concern which drives motivation for pro-social behaviour

role of intrinsic motivation

• the internal drive to engage in activities for their own sake rather than for some external reward pressure

  • rooted in personal satisfaction, fulfilment and alignment with one’s values and interests

  • encourages people to help out of genuine concern

• intrinsically motivated prosocial behaviour linked with greater wellbeing and deeper connection with those assisted

  • cycle of positive reinforcement

intrinsic motivation

• autonomous motivation for helping enhances well-being for both helpers and recipients by satisfying basic psychological need

  • self-determination theory

  • autonomous motivation - genuine care or alignment with values

  • helpers who act based on intrinsic motivations experience greater vitality, self-esteem and positive affect

  • recipients perceive help as authentic

  • stronger and authentic relationship

• moral identity centrality drives intrinsic helping behaviours, influenced by situational cues that activate or suppress moral self-concept

  • intrinsic reasons for helping are deeply-tied to self-concept

  • strong moral identity - motivated to act in prosocial ways - align with core identity

  • those with intrinsic motivations for helping are less susceptible to situational factors eg. financial incentives

  • intrinsic helping behaviour are sustained when resonating with individual sense of moral self

• self-giving, donating items symbolic of personal essence, increases perceived generosity of helpers and commitment to causes

  • donating item of personal significance - stronger sense of connection to act - integrating into self-concept

  • seen as more valuable

  • durable connection between helper and cause

  • increases likelihood of sustained engagement over time

political orientation

• religiosity moderates the relationship between political orientation and empathy, showing that empathy differences between liberals and conservatives diminish with higher religiosity

• liberals and conservatives rely on different moral foundations (individualizing vs. binding) in making moral judgments, influencing their prosocial behaviours and social policies

  • liberal more focused on issues of harm and fairness - empathy and justice

  • conservative value more purity, loyalty and authority - group cohesion and societal order

• moral framing (individualizing vs. binding) can shift environmental attitudes and behaviours, with conservatives responding more positively to binding moral frames in pro-environmental messages

  • conservatives respond more to pro-environmental messages framed in binding moral messages

  • liberals maintained pro-environmental attitudes regardless of frame

role of gender

• self-perceptions vs. behaviours

  • women report higher empathy and agreeableness, but men often exhibit more helping behaviour in risky, chivalrous, or public contexts (Eagly & Crowley, 1986)

  • reflects societal expectations

• biological influences

  • women’s "tend-and-befriend" hormonal responses drive affiliative and caregiving prosociality (Taylor, 2006)

• behavioural patterns by type

  • women excel in altruistic, emotional, and compliant behaviours, while men lead in public helping; minimal gender differences in anonymous prosociality (Xiao et al., 2019)

  • dire prosocial behaviour tend to favour women - overlap with emotional involvement

• men encouraged to engage in PB in ways that align with traditional masculine values while women are socialised to be more nurturing and caring

  • may vary by cultural contexts - smaller gaps in more egalitarian societies

bystander intervention recap

• five-step decision model (Latané & Darley, 1970):

  • notice the event – awareness of the situation

  • interpret as an emergency – determining if help is needed

  • assume responsibility – personal accountability for intervention

  • decide how to help – choosing a course of action

  • take action – implementing the decision to intervene

• key concepts:

  • diffusion of responsibility: more bystanders reduce individual accountability

  • ambiguity and pluralistic ignorance: uncertainty leads to reliance on others’ reactions

  • cost-benefit analysis: potential risks and rewards of intervening

  • implicit bystander effect (Garcia et al., 2002): thinking about being in a group can reduce personal accountability, even without others being physically present

• classic studies:

  • smoke-filled room experiment (Latané & Darley, 1968)

  • seizure study (Darley & Latané, 1968)

• key contributions

  • what hinders responsibility and intervention of bystanders

  • the more people are present the more responsibility is diffused and intervention delayed

  • relying on other’s reaction in an emergency due to uncertainty

features of online spaces

• anonymity: online interactions often allow users to remain anonymous or use pseudonyms

  • relevance: reduces personal accountability, influencing whether bystanders choose to intervene

• asynchronicity: online communication can occur at different times (asynchronous), allowing users to respond at their convenience

  • relevance: this feature can lead to delays in intervention, as bystanders may feel less urgency to act when they are not witnessing an event in real-time - may reduce urgency of event

• group dynamics: online platforms often host large groups of users, creating a collective environment

  • relevance: the presence of multiple bystanders can lead to the diffusion of responsibility (assume someone else will take action)

    • cost-benefit interpretation - ambiguity, if no one else responds to a situation you would consider an emergency how justified are you in intervening?

• visibility and permanence: Online content can be easily shared, reshared, and archived, making actions and comments visible to a wide audience

  • relevance: amplifies the impact of bystander actions or inactions, as responses can be scrutinised by others,  affecting their willingness to intervene

    • empowerment when intervening

    • inaction due avoid trolling/harassment

• emotional distance: online interactions can create a sense of detachment from the emotional realities of others

  • relevance: this emotional distance may lead to a lack of empathy, influencing bystanders' decisions to intervene or support victims

challenges for BI online

• notice the event – awareness of the situation

  • content overload can desensitise users to harmful behaviour

• interpret as an emergency – assessing help need

  • lack of emotional cues = ambiguity in severity assessment

  • harmful actions often misinterpreted as typical online interactions

    • harassment/trolling has become extremely common

• assume responsibility – personal accountability

  • anonymity and large group dynamics diffuse responsibility

  • bystanders often expect others to intervene, reducing personal action

• decide how to help – choosing an action

  • options: reporting, supporting victims, or confronting perpetrators

    • impact is not as powerful or immediate as a real-life situation

  • challenge: fear of backlash or platform norms can hinder decisions

• take action – implementing the decision

  • empowerment and platform culture impact intervention likelihood

  • fear of negative consequences often deters action

bullying

• form of interpersonal aggression with three distinct traits (Olweus, 1993)

  • power imbalance in favour of perpetrators

  • repetitive nature

  • direct intention to cause harm or distress

• bullying can be physical, verbal, and/or relational

• cyber-bullying is on the rise with shared and distinct features highlighted...

  • anonymity shifts power dynamics

  • CB repeated via ongoing viewing - visibility and permanence

    • victims know that content is being viewed over and over

  • CB can continue outside of school setting/time

• department of education (2016): 40% of young people were bullied in the last 12 months

teacher intervention in traditional and cyber bullying

• traditional bullying: higher likelihood of teacher intervention compared to cyberbullying

• affective empathy: greater empathy increases chances of noticing, interpreting, and acting on bullying

• perceived seriousness: teachers viewing bullying as serious are more likely to respond

• cyberbullying challenges: teachers feel unprepared, resulting in lower intervention rates

adolescent judgments about bystander intervention online

• gender & grade: females and younger students find cyberbullying less acceptable and are more likely to intervene

• empathy: higher empathy levels lead to a greater likelihood of active intervention

• family dynamics: positive family management and secure attachments correlate with lower acceptability and higher intervention intentions

• racial discrimination: experiences of discrimination from teachers linked to higher acceptability of cyberbullying and lower intervention intentions

challenges in responding to SV

• diverse forms of sexual violence

  • partner, acquaintance, stranger SV

  • sexual violence settings (private v public)

• myths about sexual violence

  • victim blaming

  • doubt and disbelief

  • exonerate perpetrators

  • stereotypes about victims

  • misconstruction of consent

  • real rape stereotypes

  • gendered assumptions

• knowing when but also how to intervene

applying bystander model to SV cases

• bystander intervention approach:

  • engages community members to intervene in potential sexual violence situations

  • focuses on empowering bystanders to act before, during, and after incidents

• continuum of bystander opportunities:

  • reactive situations: interventions during or after an assault

  • proactive situations: actions taken to prevent sexual violence before it occurs

  • risk levels: classifies situations as high-risk (imminent danger) or low-risk (subtle behaviors supporting a culture of violence)

• importance of education