Wk 9 - Prosocial Behaviour

Prosocial Behaviour

 any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person. But this also can sometimes benefit helper

Altruism

the desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper

Darwins theory of evolution: natural selection

favors genes that promote the survival of the individual

Darwins theory of evolution:

Genes that further survival and increase the probability of producing offspring are more likely to be passed on to the next generation

It doesn’t make evolutionary sense..

to risk your own life to help other people.

Kin selection

• The idea that behaviours that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection

• Increase chances genes will be passed along by ensuring that genetic relatives have children

Kin selection: natural selection should favour

altruistic acts directed towards genetic relatives

Burnstein et al (1994) - survey research on kin selection

• People reported that they would be more likely to help genetic relatives than nonrelatives in life- and death-situations, such as house fire

What is consistent with Bernstein et al (1994) results?

Anecdotal evidence from real emergencies

Willingness to help cousins (Jeon & Buss, 2007)

• People more likely to help different cousins depending on the degree of genetic overlap

Willingness to help cousins (Jeon & Buss, 2007) - altruistic act towards cousins differ depending on

 how much we percieve to share genes and this is due to paternity uncertainty

Willingness to help cousins (Jeon & Buss, 2007) - eg

Mother sisters children there is no level of paternity uncertainty

than mothers bro children than fathers sis children and then fathers bro children

How can evolutionary theory explain prosocial behaviours to strangers? It makes sense to be…

prosocial to strangers > group living = increase survival of own genes

How can evolutionary theory explain prosocial behaviours to strangers? It does not make sense to be

altruistic to strangers > risking the self (own genes) for people who do not share your genes

Thibault & Kelly,  1959: social exchange theory

• What we do stems from desire to maximise rewards and minimise costs

Thibault & Kelly,  1959: social exchange theory : Helping can be rewarding

• The norm of reciprocity - increase likelihood of future help/someone will help us when we need it

• Relief by bystander distress - reduces cognitive dissonance which is an uncomfortable state if we think we are kind but then we don’t help someone

• Gain rewards: social approval and increased feelings of self-worth

Thibault & Kelly,  1959: social exchange theory: costs of helping

• Physical danger

• Pain

• Embarrassment

• Time

Social exchange theory argues that true altruism

doesn’t exist because altruism doesn’t include rewards. People help when the benefits outweigh the costs

Empathy

 the ability to put oneself in the shoes of another person and experience events and emotions (eg joy and sadness) the way that person experiences them

Empathy-Altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991)

 when we feel empathy for a person, we will be inclined to help that person for altrustic reasons, regardless of what we have to gain

Altruism vs self-interest (Toi & Batson, 1982) procedure

• Ppt were asked to evaluate recordings of new programmes, of people talking about personal issues at university. They were told they would be paired with one person and they would hear their recording but everyone was paired with the same person

Altruism vs self-interest (Toi & Batson, 1982) in the recording

she mentions she will have to drop out of the degree unless another student can help her

Altruism vs self-interest (Toi & Batson, 1982). Experimenter handed them an envelope

they were told the experimenters haven't read the note. It asks they help her by sharing their psychology notes

Altruism vs self-interest (Toi & Batson, 1982) conditions

two empathy conditions: in low empathy condition they were told to be objective and not care how carol felt. Then high empathy condition

Altruism vs self-interest (Toi & Batson, 1982) manipulated self-interest

 they varied how difficult it would be to not help carol. In high self-interest they were told carol will be returning to class so they have the cost of interacting with her. In low self-interest they were told she would do the work from home

Altruism vs self-interest (Toi & Batson, 1982) high empathy results

same amount of people agree to help carol regardless of if they see carol in class

Altruism vs self-interest (Toi & Batson, 1982) low empathy results

 there was a small percentage that agreed to help carol in low self-interest. With high self-interest they were more likely to help

Why do some people help more than others?

• Altruistic personality

 the qualities that cause an individual to help others in a wide variety of situations

Gender differences in altruism (Early, 2009)

• Men are more likely to engage in heroic acts

• Women are more likely to engage in nurturing long-term relationships

Cultural differences (Levine, 2003) - simpatia

refers to a range of social and emotional traits including being friendly, polite, good-natured, pleasant and helpful towards others

Cultural differences (Levine, 2003) - A high percentage of people…

in countries that value Simpatia engaged in helping behaviour

Who are we most likely to help?

• Empathy-altruism theory:

• We help in-group members due to our empathy, altruism only happens from feeling empathetic

• We help out-group members due to potential for gaining rewards

Who are we most likely to help? Religious people are more likely than non-religious people

to help people in need (if they share their religious beliefs) highlights in-group and potential self-interest

Who are we most likely to help? Religious people are… because religious beliefs increases…

no more likely to help strangers, hostility towards outgroup members

Environmental influences

• People are more likely to help in smaller compared to large towns

• Why?

  • Residential mobility

  • Urban overload hypothesis

Example of the bystander effect

Kitty Genovese’s prolonged murder, many witnesses failed to call police

Latane and Darley (1970) considered why few bystanders helped

The greater the number of bystanders who observe an emergency, the less likely any one is to help

Latane and Darley (1970) found that in terms of

receiving help, there is no safety numbers.

Darley & Latane, 1968 - procedurę

they are on phone calls in a group conversation and they can hear someone have a seizure

Darley & Latane, 1968 - conditions

Different conditions of how many people they thought were in the conversation.

Darley & Latane, 1968 - results for if they thought they were the only person that heard

they were more likely to go get help (85% helped within one minute, 100% intervened within 2 minutes)

Darley & Latane, 1968 - results for if they believed more people heard

they were much less likely to help. When they believed there were 4 other people (30% helped within 1 minute, only 60% helped within 2 minutes)

Define Bystander effect

The greater the number of bystanders who witness an emergency, the less likely any given one of them is to help the victim

Diffusion of responsibility

 the phenomeon wherein each bystander's sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses increase

Darley and Latane (1968) model for emergencies

• If you get passed each step, you move onto the next step

• When you get to the final step that determines if you intervene

Darley and Latane (1968) model for emergencies - stage 1

noticing an event

Stage 1: Darley and Batson (1973) demonstrated that

something as trivial as being in a hurry can make more of a different than what kind of a person someone is

Darley and Batson (1973) - procedure

Asked religious students to give a brief speech at a different cite and All the students on the way to the cite had to walk passed a confederate who was in need of help

Darley and Batson (1973) - manipulation

whether they were running late or no rush

Darley and Batson (1973) - results

Only 10% stopped to help in the rush condition, but if not in hurry 63% stopped to help.

Darley and Batson (1973) - results surprising as

parable is on helping people in need.

Darley and Batson (1973) - seminary students

Seminary students who were the most religious were no more likely to help than those who were the least religious

Darley and Latane (1968) model for emergencies - stage 2

Interpreting the event as an emergency

Stage 2: When other bystanders are present and they are unworried

people are more likely to assume that it is not an emergency.

stage 2: We use… to interpret an ambiguous event at whether it is an emergency

informational social influence

stage 2: pluralistic ignorance

interpreting an event as not an emergency, if nobody looks concerned

stage 2: study where room fills with smoke, if by themselves…, if with confederates that were not concerned

they were worried. did not react to the emergency

Darley and Latane (1968) model for emergencies - stage 3

Assuming responsibility -

stage 3: diffusion of responsibility

• Even if we interpret an event as an emergency, we have to decide that it is our responsibility to do something about it

Darley and Latane (1968) model for emergencies - stage 4

knowing appropriate forms of assistance

Why would we fail stage 4?

• Lack of knowledge and lack of competence - cant offer appropriate help

• Eg lack skills to give CPR

Darley and Latane (1968) model for emergencies - stage 5

Implement decision

How can helping be increased?

• Teaching people about the bystander effect

• Increasing volunteerism