Altruism & Prosocial Behaviour

Altruism & Prosocial Behaviour

Understanding Human Helpfulness

  • Humans tend to exhibit helpful behavior, even at personal risk.

    • Quote: "The good is done, but it is not said. And certain medals hang on the soul, not on the jacket.” – Gino Bartali

    • Historical figures exemplifying this behavior:

    • Oscar Schindler

    • Gino Bartali

The Bystander Effect

  • Example abuse of public perception regarding help:

    • Case of Kitty Genovese (March 1964, New York)

    • 28-year-old Kitty Genovese was attacked, with 38 witnesses present.

    • Alleged inaction by witnesses, leading to societal concerns and research on bystander behavior.

    • Media portrayal misrepresented the situation.

Defining Key Terms

  • Altruism: Any act of voluntary self-sacrifice intended to benefit another person without expectation of reward.

    • Example: Donating a kidney to a stranger.

  • Prosocial Behaviour: Any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person.

Reflecting on Help

  • Personal reflection prompts:

    • Instances of helping others?

    • Instances where others helped you?

    • Emotional responses and motivations behind these actions.

Evolutionary Perspectives on Helping Behaviour

  • Evolutionary theory posits that behaviors or traits develop through natural selection.

  • Altruism's fit within this model is debated:

    • Contemporary theory: altruistic behaviors are adaptive; focus on ‘inclusive fitness’ rather than individual survival.

    • Genes, not individuals, are units of selection.

    • Natural selection favors altruistic actions directed toward kin.

Research by Burnstein et al. (1994)

  • Hypotheses from evolutionary viewpoint:

    • Kinship should influence helping behavior.

  • Study Details:

    • Sample: 292 US undergraduates.

    • Hypothetical scenarios manipulated by:

    • Degree of relatedness (close vs. distant kin).

    • Health of target (good vs. poor).

    • Situation (everyday vs. life-or-death).

  • Findings:

    • Closer kin are helped more than distant kin (e.g., sister vs. niece).

    • Higher likelihood to assist healthy individuals in critical situations.

    • In everyday situations, more assistance given to sick individuals.

Additional Factors in Helping Behaviour

  • Questioning whether genetic relatedness alone accounts for assisting behavior.

  • Consideration of emotional connections and other social influences empowering selfless acts.

Research by Korchmaros & Kenny (2001)

  • Replication of Burnstein et al.’s experiment, with focus on real family connections.

    • Participants: 29 college students.

    • Measurement of emotional closeness with relatives.

    • Findings showcasing correlations:

    • Genetic closeness positively affects willingness to help (

    • Strengthening emotional connection enhances willingness to assist: 0.63 correlation.

Cultural Influences on Helping Behaviour

  • Need for cultural context in evolutionary assumptions of helping behavior.

  • Study by Wu et al. (2016):

    • Participants: 443 Taiwanese & 598 US students.

    • Scenario assessment on whom to help (mother vs. spouse).

  • Findings:

    • In Taiwan's scenarios, mothers prioritized; in the US, spouses prioritized.

Limitations of Evolutionary Explanations

  • Evidence suggests complexity in helping behavior beyond genetics.

  • Need for consideration of contexts such as emotional bonds and cultural norms.

Alternative Perspectives

  • Social Exchange Theory: Behavior is motivated by the desire to maximize rewards and minimize costs:

    • Types of rewards include tangible (money) and intangible (social approval).

    • Negative State Relief Hypothesis: Engagement in mood-enhancing activities reduces helping behavior (Schaller & Cialdini, 1988).

Empathy-Altruism Model (Batson, 1991)

  • Helping behavior contingent on emotional response to a victim's plight:

    • Empathy: Ability to understand and share another person's feelings.

    • Two pathways based on empathetic response:

    • Without empathy: Help only if self-interest is served (akin to social exchange view).

    • With empathy: Help offered regardless of self-interest, even at personal cost.

Study Testing Empathy-Altruism Model (Toi & Batson, 1982)

  • Participants: 84 female undergraduates.

  • Task involved listening to a story about a fellow student who suffered an injury.

  • Two critical conditions:

    • Cost of not helping (low vs. high)

    • Level of empathy (low vs. high).

Results from Toi & Batson (1982)

  • High empathy condition led to significantly higher helping behaviors across scenarios.

  • Demonstrated that empathy overrode cost-benefit analyses in helping decisions.

Further Exploration of Empathy in Helping (Batson et al., 1991)

  • Manipulation regarding opportunity for empathic joy:

    • Participants informed about whether they would receive feedback from those helped.

  • Results showcasing discrepancy in low empathy conditions based on feedback given.

    • High empathy maintained consistent helping regardless of anticipated outcomes.

Summary of Findings

  • Consistent evidence for empathy being a driving force behind altruistic behavior.

  • Encourages the notion of altruism being a pure response independent from other rewards.

When People Help: Situational Influences

  • The influence of others on our decision to help:

    • Case of Kitty Genovese highlights this bystander effect: reluctance to help due to assumptions of others' action.

Bystander Effect Research (Latane & Darley, 1970)

  • Classroom scenario with smoke filling the room.

  • Findings indicated significant variation in help offered based on social context:

    • Alone: 75% sought help.

    • With strangers: 38% sought help.

    • Strangers ignoring smoke: 10% sought help.

Rethinking Bystander Apathy

  • Garcia et al. (2002) highlighted that even merely thinking about others can manifest the bystander effect.

Further Studies on Bystander Dynamics (Levine et al., 2010)

  • Study manipulating identity variables exploring group dynamics.

    • Results indicated that thinking about other women stimulated feelings of identity and communal behavior.

Who 'Deserves' Help? Attribution Theory (Weiner, 1995)

  • Asks participants to gauge the responsibility of help-seekers:

    • Responsibility and Control being crucial aspects.

  • Emotional responses dictated by perceptions of personal control and situational context:

    • High responsibility = anger; low responsibility = empathy.

Victim Responsibility Findings (Schmidt & Weiner, 1988)

  • Variants of scenarios presenting different contexts led to varied emotional responses and helping behavior.

Impact of Identity in Help-Seeking (Levine et al., 2005)

  • The identity of the victim affected perceptions of help-deservingness:

    • Demonstrated bias based on group affiliations (Manchester United vs. Liverpool).

Summary: Drivers of Helping Behaviour

  • Explored through multiple lenses:

    • Evolutionary (inclusive fitness) influences.

    • Social Exchange framework (cost-benefit analyses).

    • Altruistic behaviors fueled by emotional processes (Empathy-Altruism Model).

    • Impact of others’ presence influencing our action through social cues.

    • Attribution of legitimacy to those in need.

    • Highlighting that helping is a socially influenced process.