prosocial behaviour Flashcards
prosocial behaviour
acts that are positively viewed by society
positive social consequences and contributes to the physical/psychological wellbeing of another person
voluntary and intended to benefit others
helping and altruism
helping = intentionally benefiting someone else
altruism = act to benefit another rather than one’s self → without expectation of personal gain
* should be selfless - difficult to prove this, private rewards and motivations
perspectives on prosocial behaviours (2)
biological and evolutionary
social psychological perspectives
biological and evolutionary perspective on prosociality
- innate tendency to help others to pass down genes to next generation
- helping kin improves survival rates
- animals also engage in prosocial behaviour
mutualism = prosocial behaviour benefits co-operator and others → defector will do worse than co-operator
kin selection = prosocial behaviour is biased towards blood relatives as it helps own genes
limitations of biological and evolutionary perspective on prosociality
- doesn’t explain helping strangers
- nurture debate
- limited empirical evidence
- doesn’t explain helping sometimes and not others
- ignores social learning theories
social psychological perspectives on prosociality - social norms + 3 principles/ideas
- help others as we feel like we ought to
- develop and sustains prosocial behaviours → learnt not innate
- behaving in line with norms is rewarded → social acceptance
- violating norms can be punished → social rejection
reciprocity principle = help people who help us
social responsibility = help those in need independent of their ability to help us
just-world hypothesis = world is fair, if we come across someone suffering undeservedly we help them, this restores our belief in a just world
social psychological perspectives on prosociality - 3 stages of children learning to help
giving instructions
telling children to help others and what is appropriate → guide for later life. requires consistent rules
using reinforcement
rewarding behaviour, more likely to offer help again
exposure to models
modelling is more effective in shaping behaviour than reinforcement
study to support using reinforcement to teach children to help
Rushton and Teachman (1978)
* 8-11 year olds observe an adult playing a game
* adult is seen giving tokens they won in the game to a worse off child
* this behaviour is responded to with: positive reinforcement, no consequence, or punishment
* measured how many tokens children donated when they did the game as a result
* positive reinforcement caused most donated, then no consequence, then punishment
study for exposure to models and learning helping behaviours
Gentile et al (2009)
9-14 year olds played video games: prosocial, neutral, or violent
prosocial games increased short term helping behaviour and decreased hurtful behaviour in a puzzle game
social learning theory and helping
idea of helping due to imitation of behaviours → Bandura
Hornstein (1970)
* people observed someone returning a lost wallet
* they look happy, displeased, or no strong reaction
* participant encountered a lost wallet later and those who observed a happy person helping were more likely to help
therefore modelling is not just imitation
bystander effect
people are less likely to help in an emergency when they are with others than alone
latane and darley - study of helping in emergency situations
participants are completing a questionnaire when either smoke enters the room or another participant has a “medical emergency”
either with confederates who don’t intervene or alone
very few intervened in the presence of others - especially when they don’t intervene
latane and darley (1970) - cognitive model of helping - 4 components
4 stages determine giving help - need all of these:
* attend to what is happening
* define event as an emergency
* assume responsibility
* decide what can be done
processes contributing to bystander effect (3)
diffusion of responsibility = tendency to assume others will take responsibility
audience inhibition = other onlookers make individual feel self-conscious about taking action → don’t want to appear foolish by overreacting
social influence = others provide a model for action → if they aren’t worried it seems less serious
latane and darley (1976) - testing 3 processes in bystander effect
method:
5 conditions: involving DoR, SI, and AI
* control - alone
* DoR - aware of other participant but can’t see them
* DoR and SI = aware of another participant, can see them on a monitor but cannot be seen themselves
* DoR and AI = aware of another participant who they can’t see but they can be seen by them
* DoR and AI and SI = aware of another participant, can see them and can be seen by them
results:
most help given when alone - decreases with DoR, SI and AI present → more of them = less helping
more participants helped longer after emergency - same pattern of most not instant helping
bystander calculus model - Piliavin et al (1981) - 3 stages
physiological processes
* empathic response to someone in distress
* greater arousal = greater chance will help
* triggered when we believe we are similar to the victim and can relate → help more
labelling arousal
* label it as an emotion e.g. distress, anger, fear
* personal distress at seeing someone else suffer → motivated by desire to reduce own negative emotional experience
evaluating consequence of helping
cost-benefit analysis:
cost of helping:
* time and effort
* personal risk
cost of not helping:
* empathy costs can cause distress - when you identify and empathise with them
* personal costs - feeling of guilt or blame
matrix is used to determine whether to help
help when cost of helping is low and cost of not helping is high
evidence for bystander calculus model - Shortland and Straw (1976) - married couple vs stranger argument
participants witness a man and woman fighting
conditions = either married couple or strangers
intervention rate measured:
* 65% when they are strangers
* 19% when they are married
due to assuming they are fine if they are married but greater concern if it’s a stranger → cost benefit
contradicting bystander effect - Philpot et al (2020) - CCTV study
CCTV recordings of 219 street disputes in 3 countries
at least one bystander intervened in 90% of cases
contrary to previous research, presence of others increased likelihood of helping
contradicting bystander effect - Philpot et al (2020) - CCTV study - evaluation (2x strength, 3x limitation)
strengths:
* large scale test in real life - ecological validity
* effect consistent across 3 countries: England, Netherlands, South Africa
limitations:
* only in cities - mostly western countries
* intervention is broad → how much do they help?
* lack of audio on CCTV
what are perceiver/recipient centred determinants of prosocial behaviours
factors concerning the person helping and the person being helped which can impact whether helping occurs
altruistic personality study - Bierhoff et al (1991) - people who helped in traffic accidents
studied those who helped or didn’t following traffic accidents
could distinguish between helpers and non-helpers based on:
* norm of social responsibility
* internal locus of control
* greater dispositional empathy
although correlational evidence - not clear whether personality traits played a role
perceiver centred determinants (2)
mood
competence
perceiver centred determinants - mood (3)
feeling good = more likely to help
* receiving good news increased willingness to help
* teachers who were more successful on a task were more likely to contribute later at a school fundraiser
can be short lived
* increased willingness to help a stranger only within first 7 minutes of positive mood induction
perceiver centred determinants - competence (3)
feeling able to help makes helping more likely - know what you are doing
studies:
* more willing to help move electrically charged objects if told they had high tolerance for electric shocks
* more likely to help recapture dangerous lab rats if told they were good at handling rats
certain skills e.g. first aid = more likely to help in an emergency
