Lecture 9 -> Prosocial behaviour Flashcards
(21 cards)
Overview
The basic motives for helping
Does altruism exist?
What promotes helping?
Priming social behaviour
Why do people fail to help?
Who is most likely to help?
Definitions
Prosocial behaviour -> an action by an individual is intended to benefit another individual or set of individuals
Basic motives for helping
Functional approach (egoism) -> people’s actions are motivated by some degree of self-interest; egotistic motivations for helping (e.g. benefits you)
Altruistic approach (altruism) -> helping is the result of a desire to help another person purely for the other person’s benefit, regardless of benefit to self
Human nature
Kin selection
- natural selection led to greater tendencies to help close kin that to help those with whom we have little genetic relationship
- innate or culturally learned?
Sociability, attachment and helping
- tendencies for sociability and close attachment formation are the basis for prosocial behaviour
Helping kin vs non-kin
Reciprocal helping
- reciprocity patterns can provide adapter advtanges to invdisuals and groups (nones of reciprocity)
- instinctive drive to help might be indicative of broader evolved tendency to the prosocial
- reciprocal helping can be found in many species (e.g. vampire bats, capuchin monkeys and chimps)
biological basis of helping
- heritability of proximal tendencies (e.g. via twin studies)
- evidence is not definitive
Other non-human social animal studies:
- helping without reward in primates, killer whales, rats
Maybe biology is partly responsible
How do we learn about helping?
Children taught to learn at an early age
- exhibit helping as early as 18 months
Operant conditioning
- receiving praise increases likelihood of helping again
Social or observational learning
- modelling prosocial behaviour
- e.g. from parents, media, etc
Social exchange theory
People help others when benefits outweigh the potential costs
Costs:
- time
- work
- stress
Benefits:
- help
- sex
- companionship
Decision to help
- determined by some quick mental calculations involving consdeirdation of benefits and costs
- influenced by the need to reduce arosual when someone is in distress is seen; can offset by a sense of disgust
- may create a sense of well-being and happiness
Also influenced by our own resources
Hinderances to helping
Time pressure
- negatively affects helping
- effects of myopia (short-sightedness)
When given short timeframe to make decisions
- we tend to priorities our own wellbeing
- assume helping others is too much effort
The role of empathy
Empathy-altruism model
- likelihood of helping others depends others ability to empathise
- Empathy:
~ allows people to understand the distress/emotions of others
~ when empathy is low, people help when benefits high/costs low
~ when empathy is high, people help even with low benefit/high cost
Watson et al. (1981)
- students see “Elaine” very upset by receiving shocks
- emotional empathy with Elaine manipulated
- ease of escape from situation manipulated
- is student willing to receive the shocks in Elaine’s place?
- empathy motivated helping even escape would be easy
Percentage who help:
- low empathy, difficult to escape = 64%
- low empathy, easy to escape = 18%
- high empathy, difficult to escape = 82%
- high empathy, easy to escape = 91%
Mirror neurones
Cells in the brain that activate to mimic others’ behaviour
Help us learn new behaviours, understand behaviour
Linked to empathy (e.g. “imagine yourself in their shoes”)
Is it altruism or egoism?
When people empathise, they feel another person’s pain
- helping reduce their own pain
- egoistic motivation (not altruism)
Research does not provide a great deal of support for the idea that helping is only due to egoistic motivation
- arguments that altruism does exist
- however, it is difficult to prove
The role of prejudice
% who helped:
- same team = 92%
- neutral shirt - 34%
- rival team = 30%
The empathy gap
people underestimate the physical pain and social rejection of others
- this may result in failure to give help
Strategies for closing the gap
- experiencing pain or rejection yourself
- talking in the perceptive of the person in need
- focusing on suffering of single individual when tragedy occurs
The role of causal attributions
Belief about whether a person is responsible for their misfortune affects of helping
- dispositional attributions vs situational attributions
Help is less likely after internal attributions
Groups in need of most help, such as those with substance use disorders, housing and food insecurities elicit disgust rather than empathy
- our brains react as if they are observing objects rather than people
- when dehumanised, we do not apply range of human emotions
Other factors of prosocial behaviour
Guilt
- assigning blame and highkting privilege can promote helping
- may also backfire and lead to backlash
- collective action
Communal feeling of orientation
- a frame of mind in which people don’t distinguish between what’s theirs and what is someone else’s
Priming prosocial behaviour
Pope can be primed with protocol scripts
Positive affect
- a good mood or intense feelings of awe can promote helping
Priming prosocial roles
- people can become more prosocial when they commit themselves to a role defined by helping norms (e.g. friend, nurse)
Effects of mood:
- Good mood -
Path 1 -> increased attention to social environment raised likelihood of noticing needs -> more helping
Path 2 -> desire to remain in good mood -> more helping in ways that maintain good mood, less helping if help would destroy good mood
- Bad mood -
Path 1 -> self-focused attention reduces likelihood of nothing needs -> less helping
Path 2 -> desire to improve mood -> more helping
Reminders of normality
- increase helping when prosocial cultural values primed
- increase charitable giving, volunteerism and blood donations
Reminders of religious values:
- religion typically gives people a set of rules and restrictions that help regulate their behaviour (i.e. “the golden rule”)
Failing to help
Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered (1964)
- new accounts claimed that witnesses heard the attack take place but did not help
- led to the development of the bystander effect
Bystander effect (Darley & Lantané, 1968):
- a person who witnesses another in need is less likely to help when there are others present to witness the events
- the effect increases as the number of bystander gets larger
More like to occur when need to minor (low cost)
Less likely to occur among friends (high benefit)
Pluralistic ignorance:
- we rely on others to identity what to do in a situation but falsely interpret others’ beliefs and feelings, resulting in inaction
- assume we are only one with this perception, so our interpretation of a situation is incorrect, but everyone does this
- collective action
Diffusion of responsibility
- the presence of others prevents any one person from taking responsibility (e.g. for helping)
Strangers receive more help in smaller cities than larger ones
Helping personality?
Individual differences linked ton altruism
- ability to empathise
- strong moral reasoning
- sense of social responsibility
Personality is apparent when situations are ambiguous
- higher altruistic traits predict helping when need for help unclear
The role of political values
Hope do people’s political learnings predict a more prosocial orientation?
- liberals are more likely to vote in favour of social programs; conservatives are more likely to withhold public assistance
Policy decision-making motivational differences
- Liberals: egalitarian values
- conservatives: traditional values and norms
~ social dominance orientations
~ right-wing authoritarianism
The role of gender
Women are higher on measures of
- agreeableness
- empathy
- decoding emotions
- communion
Biology or socialisation
Women are more likely to help in dangerous situations or when norms for chivalry are present
Biology or socialisation?
Other factors of helping
Gender
- women receive more help than men
Victim attractiveness
- more attractive = more help
Similarity
- high similarity = more help
- shared identity
