Prosocial Behaviour

What is Prosocial Behaviour? “Voluntary actions that are intended to help or benefit another

individual or group of individuals” (Eisenburg & Mussen, 1989) Have to voluntarily want to help someone Includes:

o Helping otherso Obeying ruleso Conforming to social normso Cooperating with others

A related concept: Altruismo A motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard

for one’s self-interests Being selfless in helping another

o Some argue that “true altruism” is not possibleWhy do we help others?

Social-exchange theory:o Helping someone is a Cost-benefit analysiso Aim of human behaviour is to minimize costs and maximize

rewardso Rewards: materialistic goods, social rewards or self-reward

(internal and external)o Costs: time, money, discomfort, inconvenience o If rewards outweigh costs, we help.

Kin selection theory:o Evolutionary perspectiveo People favour those who are genetically similar because they

want their genes to be “passed on”o More likely to help those who are relativeso Increases odds of gene transmissiono More closely people are related the more likely people are

willing to help Reciprocal altruism:

o The incentive for an individual to help in the present is based on the expectation of being the potential receipt of helping behaviours in the future.

o Doing something for a person will make them obligated to help you sometime in the future.

o Key feature here is the future aspect-reciprocity does not need to be immediate

Negative-state relief model:o People help others to reduce personal distresso People experience an empathetic reaction when we see

someone else in distress; uncomfortable

o To reduce our own discomfort, we help the person in distresso Similar to cognitive dissonance

Your negative emotions are based on your own feelings about the person rather than what we’ve done to the person.

We decide to help in order to reduce feelings of distress. If we don’t help it’s because we have found another way to

diffuse such feelings. Empathy-Altruism hypothesis:

o When we see someone in distress, it produces an empathetic response

o This sympathy for another person creates an internal need to reduce that persons distress

Different than negative-state relief model because the internal need to reduce another person’s distress does not stem from personal discomfort, but from general concern for the another person.

o This results in altruistic behaviour o This approach deals with the idea that you have CONCERN for

the person you’re helpingo Not done so you feel better(unlike the negative state relief

model)o This is a new theory

When will we help? If you have an altruistic model

o Someone who behaves in an altruistic fashion you are more likely to act altruistic sometime in the future

o Vicarious learning. If you are not in a rush (Darley & Batson, 1973)

o Those in a hurry are self-centred and so may not see someone in need.

o If they do see them they will rationalize the reason why they didn’t help- it’s not my problem and it has nothing to do with me therefore I don’t have to help or I don’t have time to help but I’m sure someone else will

o ** When doing the reading for this study watch the differences in response when there is a time constraint.

If the victim is similar to ourselves Small towns and rural areas

o Altruism and helpful behaviour is more prevalent in small townso You know everyone and so the kin theory plays here

Empathetic response is strongero Or if you don’t help word may get around and this may ruin your

reputation

o People tend to behave more neighbourly and helpful than those who live in bigger cities

Few bystanderso The more people present the less likely one will help.

Feeling guiltyo Any feelings of guilt whether it is linked to the situation or not

will cause one to help as It helps relieve those negative feelings In a good/bad mood

o Good mood=we interpret events in a sympathetic way+ helping someone can maintain the good mood

We become more self-aware so It makes us more likely to behave in a way that represents out inner vales

o Bad mood-similar to negative relief model Men

o More likely will help in a public setting Women: Private settings

o More likely to make long-term commitments to helping others.When will we NOT help?

The Bystander Effect:o The more bystanders that are present, the less likely any one of

them will act to help (Darley & Latané, 1969).o Results are consistent

Evidence for the Bystander Effect “Lady in distress” experiment (Darley & Latane, 1969)

o Female experimenter escort participant to a room and asks them to wait.

o Participant is either in room alone, with a friend, with a passive confederate, or a stranger.

o Hears the experimenter fall and hurt herself. o ** Measures the % who took action and reaction time**

Results:o 70 % of alone participants and participants waiting with a friend

reactedo 40% of participates paired with a stranger reacted

If they exchanged a few words before this “falling” occurred more likely to help the experimenter.

o Only 7% of participants who were with a passive confederate reacted.

o No significant differences in reaction time.What causes the Bystander Effect?

Diffusion of Responsibility o “Someone else will help”o Don’t feel as much pressure to take action because the

responsibility of action is thought to be spread among all those present.

Someone will do something Socially Acceptable Behaviour (Social Comparison/conformity)

o “If they’re not going to help, then neither should I”. o Look at the reactions of others and take that as a signal that a

response is not needed from you.Another influence that decreases helping

Violent Mediao Comfortably Numb Experiments (Bushman & Anderson, 2009)o Study 1

320 participants (½ male, ½ female) Participants either played a violent or non-violent video

game Later, they overheard a staged fight leading to one person

being injured Hypotheses: The violent game would:

Decrease the likelihood of helping Delay helping Decrease the likelihood of noticing an emergency Decrease the judged severity of the emergency

Results:o 21% of people in the violent condition helped while 25% in the

non-violent condition helped.o When people who played a violent game did decide to help, they

took significantly longer to help than those who played a nonviolent game

73 seconds-violent video gamer 17secs-non-violent game

o people who played a violent game were less likely to report that they heard the fight than those who played a nonviolent game

o people who played a violent game thought the fight was less serious than did those who played a nonviolent game

violent gamer saw the fight/injury as something less serious

The game causes desensitization of violence Response time is slow Awareness of situation is decreased

Study 2o Adults going to see a movie (162)o Confederate: a woman with crutches and bandaged ankle o Confederate dropped crutch outside movie theatre o Researcher measured how long it took people to pick it up for

her Hypothesis:

o Those who had just seen a violent movie would take longer to help the confederate than those who had just seen a nonviolent movie, or had not seen a movie yet.

Results:o (1)Helping delay increased as the number of bystanders

increased However this case was not significant

o (2)Women helped less often than men The tendency was shown but this was not really significant

o (3)Participants who had just viewed a violent movie took over 26% longer to help than participants in the other conditions

Those who viewed the violent movie took their time in helping

Studies accounted points 1 and 2 to the fact that the experiment happened in a natural setting so they couldn’t control the amount of bystanders or the amount of men and women present.

How does violent media reduce helping? Bushman & Anderson

o Desensitization hypothesis media violence decreases helping behavior, perceptions,

and cognitions because:o “People exposed to media violence become comfortably numb

to the pain and suffering of others and are consequently less helpful”

Having frequent exposure to violent media affects one’s ability to:o Notice or attend to the violent event

Desensitization will reduce the chances of a person noticing a violent event

Don’t necessarily pay attentiono Recognize the event as an emergency

Desensitization will reduce the ability to perceive injury and emergencies

o Feel the need of personal responsibility Desensitization results in decreased sympathy; decreased

attitudes to the idea that violence is negative; increased belief that violence is normative

All this decreases feelings of personal responsibility