Prosocial Behaviour Notes

Prosocial behavior: Any behavior that benefits someone else, including cooperative, affectionate, and helpful actions.
Altruism: A type of prosocial behavior that is potentially costly to the individual, driven by a desire to help others rather than seeking personal rewards.
Empathy: The ability to share another's emotions and understand their perspective, often considered essential for altruism.

Young children exhibit empathic concern and prosocial behavior from an early age (13-25 months). Zahn-Waxler et al. (1992).
Prosocial behavior in young children is limited in scope. Instrumental helping is more common than empathic or altruistic helping. Svetlova et al. (2010).
Environmental factors, such as parental warmth, and genetic factors influence individual differences in children’s prosocial behavior. Daniel et al. (2016); Knafo et al. (2011).
Hoffman's stages of empathy development:
- Global empathy (1st year): Infant matches others' emotions.
- Egocentric empathy (12-18 months): Child attempts to console others with what they would find comforting.
- Empathy for feelings (2-3 years onwards): Noting feelings, matching them, and responding non-egocentrically.
- Empathy for life conditions (late childhood): Responding to life situations.

Individuals are motivated to ensure their genes survive.
Inclusive fitness: Natural selection favors organisms that maximize gene replication.
Kin selection: Organisms are selected to favor offspring and genetically related individuals.
Interdependence hypothesis: Altruistic behavior developed when ancestors discovered the benefits of mutualistic collaboration. Tomasello et al. (2012).

People are more willing to help genetic relatives, especially in life-and-death situations. Fellner and Marshall (1981).
Emotional closeness and genetic relatedness both influence the amount sacrificed to help another. Hackman et al. (2015).
Desire for a reputation for altruism also plays a role in helping behavior. Fehr and Fischbacher (2003).

Altruism towards non-relatives explained by reciprocal altruism: "I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine."
Reciprocal altruism is most likely when:
1. The costs of helping are low, and the benefits are high.
2. Individuals can identify and avoid cheaters. Trivers (1971).

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Batson): Empathy for another person leads to an altruistic motivation to increase that person's welfare.
Negative-State Relief Model (Cialdini): Prosocial behavior results from egoism; helping others relieves the stress from encountering a bad situation.

Societies have norms promoting fairness.
Third-party punishment: Punishing those who violate distribution norms, even at a personal cost, to reduce selfishness and increase cooperation. Fehr & Fischbacher (2004).
Third-party punishment is effective in groups with strong social ties and low mobility. Roos et al. (2014).

Collectivistic cultures (e.g., Kenya, Mexico) emphasize group needs, giving children family responsibilities that develop altruism.
Individualistic cultures (e.g., United States) emphasize competition and personal success, reducing cooperation and altruism.
Collectivistic cultures expect more help from others than individualistic cultures. Fijneman et al. (1996).

Television: Studies show that watching prosocial television is associated with increased prosocial behavior. But the effects are short-term. Valkenburg et al. (2016).
Video Games: Greitemeyer & Mügge (2014) stated that playing prosocial video games increased prosocial emotions, cognitions, and behavior and reduced aggressive behavior. Most of the effects were reasonably consistent although relatively small in size.
Parental Influence: Parents promote prosocial behavior by providing clear guidelines, emotional convictions, parental modeling, and empathic/warm parenting. Schaffer (1996).
Genetic Importance: 69% of individual differences in children’s prosociality were due to genetic factors. Knafo-Noam et al. (2015).

The reluctance of bystanders to provide assistance to a victim.
Diffusion of responsibility: When multiple bystanders are present, each feels less personal responsibility. Darley and Latané (1968).
The likelihood of a victim being helped increases when bystanders know each other. Fischer et al. (2011).

Bystanders are more likely to help:
- Victims similar to themselves. Levine (2002).
- "Deserving" victims (e.g., sober rather than drunk). Piliavin et al. (1969).
Bystanders are less likely to intervene in perceived personal matters (e.g., domestic disputes). Shotland & Straw (1976).
Helping depends on prior tasks; those with trivial tasks are more likely to help. Batson et al. (1978).
Bystanders with relevant skills are more likely to assist. Huston et al. (1981).

Provide information about factors inhibiting helping behavior.
The bystander effect is smaller when the situation is dangerous, has a perpetrator present, and the costs of intervention are physical. Fischer et al. (2011).

Piliavin et al.’s (1981) model outlines five stages bystanders go through:
1. Becoming aware of the need for help (attention).
2. Experiencing arousal.
3. Interpreting cues and labeling arousal.
4. Working out rewards and costs.
5. Making a decision and acting.
Dangerous situations lead to faster recognition and heightened arousal, resulting in more assistance.
Costs of helping:
- Physical harm, delay in activities (Piliavin et al., 1969; Batson et al., 1978).
Costs of not helping:
- Ignoring responsibility, guilt, criticism, ignoring similarity (Darley & Latané, 1968; Fischer et al., 2011; Levine, 2002).
Rewards of helping:
- Praise, satisfaction from usefulness (Huston et al., 1981).
Rewards of not helping:
- Able to continue activities (Batson et al., 1978).