Prosocial Behaviour

Social Psychology Prosocial Behaviour 2008 Lecturer: James Neill

Overview Prosocial behaviour vs. altruism Why do we help? Cooperation Forgiveness Obedience Conformity Who helps whom? When do we help? Bystander help Impact of receiving help Increasing helping Reading Baumeister & Bushman (2008): Ch8: Prosocial Behavior

Questions What is prosocial behaviour? Why do people help? Do people mainly help for selfish or altruistic reasons? Thus, are people basically good and helpful, or are they basically selfish? Can we be taught to act in non-natural ways?

Questions Who helps who? Why do humans behave in helpful and cooperative ways - even when it is not in their own self interest to do so? Is there such a thing as genuine altruism? How can we increase helping?

Questions Imagine you encounter a stranger who appears to have collapsed on the street…. What factors would influence your decision whether to help this person or not?

What is prosocial behaviour? "voluntary actions that are intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals" (Eisenberg & Mussen 1989, p. 3)

What is prosocial behaviour? Doing something good for someone or society. Building relationships Helping society to function. Adding to “social capital”

What is prosocial behaviour? Includes: Helping others Obeying rules Conforming to socially acceptable behaviour Cooperating with others

What is prosocial behaviour? Example: Barn raising A way of building social capital.

What is prosocial behaviour? Example: Wikipedia A collaboratively edited encyclopedia. Contributions  social & knowledge capital.

What is prosocial behaviour? Example: Philanthropy Largest philanthropic foundation in the world. Aims to spend all of its ~$40 billion in the next 100 years.

Why is prosocial behaviour important? Culture is more than the sum of its parts (but only if people cooperate and follow the rules) Prosocial behaviour builds relationships Antisocial behaviour destroys relationships

What is antisocial behaviour? Doing something bad to someone or society. Damaging relationships Interfering with society’s functioning. Reducing “social capital”

What is antisocial behaviour? Includes: Hurting others Disobeying rules Socially unacceptable behaviour Conflicting with others

Reasons why people engage in prosocial behaviour Self-interest Social status Reciprocity Conformity (e.g., to fairness) Rule of law Evolutionary Altruism Donating blood

What is altruism? Helping behaviours focused only on the well-being of others (and often at personal cost). Prosocial behaviour  Altruism (because PS may involve self-interest)

Is altruism possible? If altruistic helpers are only helping to make themselves feel good, aren’t they really just being selfish? Does the innate pleasure we get from helping points to the basic goodness of human nature? Is altruism, then, just as natural as selfishness?

Reciprocity Obligation to return in kind what another has done for us Direct reciprocity: Helping someone who may help you later Indirect reciprocity: H elp someone; someone else helps you later Willingness to request or accept help is often predicated on ability to return in kind.

Fairness Norms that promote fairness Equity - each person receives benefits in proportion to what he or she did Equality - everyone gets the same amount, regardless of performance People desire a system based on fairness and social exchange Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening upward comparison

Fairness Following fairness norms helps us build and maintain good relationships with others People become depressed and even suicidal when they feel they are taking and not giving People also become distressed when they outperform others Sensitivity of being the target of a threatening upward comparison Those people we outperform might reject us or retaliate

Fairness Underbenefited Getting less than you deserve Overbenefited Getting more than you deserve Fairness requires balancing

Fairness Underbenefitted people become angry & resentful. Overbenefitted people experience guilt (e.g., survivor guilt). We also pay people back after we have harmed them. This sense of fairness, where we worry both about being overbenefitted & underbenefitted, is unique to humans.

Reciprocity Found in all cultures Found in animals People are only willing to request or accept help if they think they can pay it back.

Social norms Reciprocity - we should help those who help us. Social responsibility - help others who are dependent & in need. Social justice - help only when others deserve our assistance. Cultural difference (e.g., Miller et al., 1990)

Rule of law Everyone in the society is subject to the rule of law that governs the society Boosts the quality of life e.g., positive correlation between happiness and rule of law (Veenhoven, 2004)

Learning theory Classical & operant conditioning. Observational learning - modelling behaviour of parents & media. If models are reinforced for helping -> increased helping in observers e.g., Rushton & Teachman (1978)

Tragedy of the commons Depletion of resources owned collectively Each person acts in his or her self-interest, overlooking the fact that overuse of a resource will in the end may destroy it.

Cooperation Prisoner’s dilemma: Balance tradeoffs b/w cooperation & competition. Cooperation is fragile and easily destroyed. If either person is not cooperative, then cooperation typically breaks down (“bad is stronger than good”)

Hoarding Can be influenced by group and individual differences Decreases when: Identifiable Individuals receive feedback on resource levels Communication & a salient group identity can also decrease hording We’re less likely to hoard when we trust others in the group

Obedience Acting in accord with orders from an authority figure Leader

Obedience Some obedience necessary Blind obedience to authority can be destructive (e.g., Nazi Germany) Led to Milgram’s classic and controversial work on obedience

Milgram's study of obedience Ps recruited for a study on learning One person is the Teacher, the other is the Learner Rigged so that Mr. Wallace is learner Procedure: Teacher shocks Learner for mistakes Shocks  in 15 V increments to 450 (XXX) How far will participant go?

Programmed responses of Mr. Wallace 75 V: moan and grunt 150 V: demand to be released 180 V: cried out that he could no longer stand the pain 330 V: protested that he had a heart condition and insisted that he would not longer take part in the experiment Ominous silence

Programmed responses of the experimenter “ Please go on.” “ The experiment requires that you continue.” “ It is absolutely essential that you continue.” “ You have no other choice, you must go on.”

Milgram’s study of obedience Psychiatrists predicted only 1 in 1,000 would deliver most severe shock 65% delivered the most severe shock (to a screaming victim in obedience to an authority figure.)

Milgram’s study of obedience Highest rates of obedience Experimenter sat next to the participant Victim was in an other room Lowest rates of obedience Experimenter absent and out of sight Victim was next to the participant

Obedience Can be prosocial, is often highly desirable, and can produce good outcomes Sports teams, corporations, groups, traffic Supports group life and helps cultures to succeed

Obedience Milgram’s research represented obedience as a -ve (-ve outcome) Without obedience, society would not function Obedience fosters Social acceptance Group life

Conformity Solomon Asch studies (1955, 1956).

Participate in groups of 7 1 participant all others are confederates Judge which of three lines matches a standard line Asch's line study

Critical trials: all confederates give the wrong answer What does the participant do? Conformity = number of errors that agree with the confederates Asch's line study

75% conformed at least once (37% of critical trials) Conformity  d with group size up to 3 Conformity  if responses given privately Conformity much  if one confederate disagrees Asch's line study

Conformity Going along with the crowd Normative social influence Conformity to be accepted by the group Informational social influence Conformity based on actions of others as evidence about reality

Conformity May be good or bad People conform more when others are watching them Public conformity Going along with the crowd regardless of what one privately believes Private attitude change Altering one’s internal attitude

Conformity Conformity has been given a bad name People will often do foolish, irrational, or bad things in order to conform But conformity is also prosocial People show a strong desire to get along with others

Evolutionary perspectives Innate tendency to help others for evolutionary reasons. e.g., animals exhibit helping behaviour. Kin selection The closer we are genetically the more likely we are to help Life-and-death helping is affected more strongly by genetic relatedness Reciprocal helping - expect to have favour returned

Types of victims, helpers, and need Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama (1994) Participants were asked to imagine scenarios like the following:

There are three people who need you to run a small errand to the shops: A cousin A sister An acquaintance You have time to help only one. Whose errand do you run?

3.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 High (parents, siblings, children) Tendency to Help 2.0 Degree of Relatedness Mod. (grand-parents) Low (first cousins) None (acquaintances) For everyday help , people tended to help close relatives more than non-relatives

There are three people asleep in different rooms of a burning house: A cousin A grandfather An acquaintance You have time to rescue only one. Which do you save?

3.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 High (parents, siblings, children) Tendency to Help 2.0 Degree of Relatedness Mod. (grand-parents) Low (first cousins) The difference became even more pronounced in life-or-death situations None (acquaintances)

BUT humans help strangers and non-kin much more than other animals What are some other reasons people help?

Motivations for helping Egoism Helper wants a return for offering help Negative state relief theory (help to reduce your own distress) Altruism Expects nothing in return for helping Motivated by empathy

Motivations for helping Batson (1994) Egoism Altruism Collectivism Principalism

Volunteer Process Model (Clary & Snyder, 1999) Volunteering serves functions for volunteers. People more likely to continue volunteering (& be satisfied) if their motivations are met.

Volunteerism Six motivations (Clary & Snyder): 1. Values 2. Understanding 3. Enhancement 4. Career 5. Social 6. Protective

Volunteer Functions Inventory (Clary et al., 1998) Values - express important values Understanding - learn about world Enhancement - psychological growth & development Career - gain career related experience Social - strengthen social relationships Protective - reduce negative feelings

De Ropp’s Games Awakening Master Game Salvation Religion Game Knowledge Science Game Beauty Art Game Raise family Householder Game Glory or Victory Moloch Game Fame Cock on Dunghill Wealth Hog in the trough Trophy Game

Forgiveness Ceasing to feel anger toward or seek retribution against someone who has wronged you Forgiveness helps repair relationships Provides health benefits to both parties

Forgiveness When is forgiveness more likely? Minor offense Offender apologises Who is more likely to forgive? Religious people People committed to a relationship Not self-centered or narcissistic

Empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) Is helping ever based on altruistic motives? e.g., Binti 2 emotional components of empathy - personal distress & empathic concern. Emotion experienced depends on perspective taken. Empathic concern -> altruistic motive. Personal distress -> egoistic motive.

Can we distinguish between egoistic & altruistic motives? If empathic concern is low, reduce distress either by helping or escaping If empathic concern is high, only one option - must help.

Empathy-altruism hypothesis  proposition that empathy motivates people to reduce other people’s distress, as by helping or comforting.

Empathy-altruism hypothesis Empathy motivates people to reduce other’s distress If low empathy, people can reduce their own distress by escaping the situation If high empathy, emotional response corresponds to feelings of other person  our distress by  their distress

Negative state relief theory  proposition that people help others in order to relieve their own distress.

Batson's approach Distress Empathy Egoistic Motivation Altruistic Motivation Act to reduce Own distress (help or escape) Help to reduce Other’s distress Other’s Distress

Personal determinants of helping Personality - most personality variables are weak predictors of helping. Competence - those high in appropriate skills more likely to help.

Personal determinants of helping Attributions - influence whether help is given e.g., Just World Hypothesis The self & personal norms - personal norms for helping based on personal values (e.g., religious beliefs) If values central to self-concept, act in consistent ways.

Belief in a just world Life is essentially fair and people generally get what they deserve  Blaming the victim  Fallacy of affirming the consequent People who hold belief in a just world will help if they think those people deserve help

Belief in a just world Belief that the world is fair and that people get what they deserve Just world believers tend to Blame the victim Help others only if they think those people deserve help

Emotion and helping +ve feelings  helping -ve emotions  or  helping Focus on self vs. the victim

Mood Mood - people in good moods more likely to help. Why? Desire to maintain good mood Focus on positive things Positive expectation about helping (e.g., will be rewarded)

Mood When does good mood not lead to helping? Costs of helping are high (e.g., if helping will  good mood) Positive thoughts about other activities that conflict with helping (e.g., on way to a party)

Mood Bad moods   likely to help. Why? Self-focussed Blame others for bad mood Think of personal values that don’t promote helping (put self first) When does bad mood lead to helping? If feeling guilty

Interpersonal determinants of helping Females are more likely to receive help. Beautiful victims. Attractiveness - more likely to help attractive others. e.g., Benson et al. (1976) Similarity - increases attractiveness & empathy.

Interpersonal determinants of helping Closeness - more likely to help those we know. Deservingness - help those we judge as deserving our help. Gender

Gender Males More helpful in broader public sphere, toward strangers and in emergencies. Help women more than men. Females More likely to help in the family sphere, in close relationships, and in situations that require repeated contact. More likely to receive help.

Attraction People are more likely to help attractive individuals than unattractive individuals Airport phone booth study Application of attractive vs. unattractive individual People more likely to send package of attractive individual

Attraction People are more likely to help attractive individuals than unattractive individuals Study done at FSU. Attractive vs. unattractive female victim, asked for money, needed for student health.

Attractiveness Study Conclusions Real donations were much smaller than hypothetical People claim to be more generous and helpful than they really are Attractiveness influenced actual helping but not hypothetical helping Severe victims get more help Pretty women get more help when need is big

Jessica Lynch (2003 rescue) “ Her Iraqi guards had long fled, she was being well cared for - and doctors had already tried to free her.”

Bystander effect People are less likely to help when they are in a group (or presence of others) than when they are alone.

Kitty Genovese On March 13, 1964 Kitty Genovese was attacked by a rapist with a knife outside her apartment in Queens, New York. Her screams for help aroused 38 of her neighbors. Many watched from their windows while, for 35 minutes, she tried to escape. None called the police.

Interpretation study S alone, or 3 Subjects, or S plus two confederates Smoke into room Did subject report? Alone: 75% reported 3 Real Subjects: 38% of groups S + confederates: almost never Explanations indicated different interpretations

Diffusion of responsibility Assumption was that the more bystanders, the more help; maybe backwards? Diffusion of responsibility: Pressure to intervene is divided among everyone who is present

Diffusion of responsibility Experiment: Subject, Victim, and 0, 1, or 4 others complete group discussion Feigned emergency (Seizure) Does subject take action? Alone: 85% Subject and Victim: 62% S, V, and 4 others: 31% Yet no signs of indifference, apathy

Steps to helping Five steps to NOT helping: Bystanders must overcome each step. Crowd can interfere at each step

Steps to helping Notice that something is happening Interpret meaning of event Pluralistic ignorance Taking responsibility for providing help Diffusion of responsibility Know how to help Provide help

Latane & Darley’s cognitive model 5-step decision making process: 1. Do you notice something unusual happening?  YES  2. Is the event interpreted as an emergency ?  YES  3. Do you think you have the responsibility to help?  YES  4. Do you know the appropriate kind of help to give?  YES  5. Do you decide to help ?  YES

Darley & Batson (1973) Seminary students walking across campus to give talk on the Good Samaritan (or career) Late for talk or plenty of time Passed man in doorway groaning & coughing Time pressure: Good Samaritan Study

If plenty of time: > 60% offered help If running late: ~10% help  s ituational forces have a strong influence on whether people help others Following: Samaritan parable: 53% helped; Career message: 29% helped; (but not a significant difference). Time pressure: Good Samaritan Study

Time pressure People in a hurry, help less Even when thinking about helping The more time people had, the more likely they were to help

The decision process in Latane & Darley’s cognitive model + + + Attend to what is happening Define event as emergency Assume responsibility Decide what can be done Give help

Empirical evidence in support of Latane & Darley’s model Latane & Darley (1970) - participants alone more likely to report smoke than those with others. Latane & Rodin (1969) - lone male participants more likely to help ‘lady in distress’ than those in pairs. Darley & Latane (1968) - more bystanders meant less people offered help to someone they thought was having a fit.

What processes underlie bystander apathy? Diffusion of responsibility - assume others will take responsibility e.g., Darley & Latane (1968) Audience inhibition - fear negative evaluation from others if intervene & situation is not an emergency e.g., Latane & Darley (1970), Latane & Rodin (1969) Social influence - look to others as a model for action - normative & informational influence.

Bystander-calculus model Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner & Clark (1981) Bystanders calculate the (perceived) costs & benefits of providing help. 3 stages: 1. Physiological arousal - witnessing an emergency  physiological arousal  greater chance of helping.

Bystander-calculus model 2. Labelling the arousal - is arousal labelled as personal distress or empathic concern? - usually labelled as personal distress. 3. Evaluating the consequences - weigh up costs of helping, choose action that reduces personal distress to lowest cost.

Bystander-calculus model Costs of helping Time & effort: Less likely to help if it involves greater time & effort. Costs of not helping: Empathy costs - bystander experiences distress Personal costs - bystander experiences blame or guilt Greater similarity to victim, the more likely bystander is to help.

How can we increase helping?  distractions  pluralistic ignorance  diffusion of responsibility  concerns about competence to help  audience inhibitions

How can we increase helping?  uncertainties of obstacles Educate about bystander indifference Model helpfulness Teach moral inclusion

Increasing helping behaviour Positive models in the media. Reduce ambiguity, increase responsibility - reduce anonymity Guilt & concern for self-image - use of compliance tactics Attributing helpful behaviour to altruistic motives - overjustification effect Learning about altruism

Summary & conclusions Prosocial behaviour includes conformity, obedience, and cooperating with others, but may also include disobedience. Human culture depends on people following rules. Following the rules of society and culture generally brings immense personal and social benefits. Is altruism unique to humans?

References Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Prosocial Behaviour

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Prosocial Behaviour (20)

More from James Neill (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Prosocial Behaviour

Editor's Notes