8 - prosocial behaviour Flashcards
what are the biological and evolutionary perspectives of pro sociality?
mutualism - prosocial behaviour benefits the co-operator as well as others; a defector will do worse than a co-operator
kin selection - prosocial behaviour is biased towards blood relatives as it helps their own genes
(stevens et al)
what is prosocial behaviour?
- acts that are viewed postivily by society
- has positive social consequences and contributes to wellbeing of others
- voluntary and intended to benefit others
- includes being helpful and altruistic
what is helping behaviour?
acts that intentionally benefit someone else/group
what is altruism?
acts that benefit another person rather than one’s self
- performed without expectation of own gain
- selfless
what are limitations of the biological and evolutionary perspective?
- doesn’t explain why we help non-relatives
- little empirical evidence
- doesn’t explain why we would help in some circumstances but no in others (familial violence)
- ignores social learning
what are social norms that may explain why we engage in prosocial behaviour?
- reciprocity principle
- social responsibility
- just-world hypothesis
what is the reciprocity principle?
we should help people who help us
what is social responsibility?
we should help those in need independent of their ability to help us
what is the just-world hypothesis?
world is just and fair place, if we come across anyone who is undeservedly suffering, we help them to restore our belief in a just world
how do children learn prosocial behaviour?
giving instructions - telling children to be helpful works, telling them what is appropriate forms a guide for later life
using reinforcement - rewarding behaviour, if rewarded they are more likely to help again, if punished less likely to help
exposure to models - Ruston found modelling more effective in shaping behaviour than reinforcement
what is Bandura’s social learning theory?
it is the knowledge of what happens to the model that determines whether or not the observer will help rather than just mechanical imitation
evidence of Bandura’s social learning theory
Hornstein
- people observed a model returning a lost wallet
- model appeared either pleased, displeased or neutral at helping
- later participant came across a lost waller, those who observed pleasant condition helped the most
what is the bystander effect/apathy?
people are less likely to help in an emergency when they are with others than when they are alone
evidence of the bystander effect?
Latane & Darley
- emergency situations whilst completing questionnaire
- very few people intervened in the presence of others, especially when others did not intervene
what is Latin and Darley’s cognitive model?
- attend to what is happening
- define event as emergency
- assume responsibility
- decide what can be done
these things need to happen for someone to give help
what are the processes contributing to the bystander effect?
diffusion of responsibility - individual assumes others will take responsibility
audience inhibition - onlookers may make individual feel self-conscious about taking action
social influence - others provide a model for action, if they are unworried, the situation may seem less serious
what is the bystander calculus model?
Piliavin et al
processes which calculate whether or not we help:
1. physiological processes
2. labelling the arousal
3. evaluating the consequences of helping
what are physiological processes?
- empathetic response to someone in distress
- the greater the arousal, greater chance we help
- triggered when we believe we are similar to victim and can relate to them
what does it mean to label the arousal?
we label arousal as an emotion (e.g. distress)
helping behaviour motivated by desire to reduce own negative emotional experience
how do we evaluate the consequences of helping?
cost benefit analysis
costs of helping:
- time and effort
- personal risk
costs of not helping:
- empathy costs of not help can cause distress to bystander who empathises
- personal cost can cause distress e.g. guilt
what study contradicts the bystander effect?
Philpot et al
- CCTV recordings of 219 street disputes in Lancaster, Amsterdam, Cape Town
- at least 1 bystander intervened in 90% of cases
- presence of others increased likelihood of helping
strengths of Philpot et al?
- large scale test of bystander effect in real life scenarios
- effect consistent across 3 countries
limitations of Philpot et al
- only in cities and mostly western countries
- intervention defined very broadly
- lack of audio
how does personality determine helping?
Bierhoff et al studies people who did and didn’t help in traffic accident
helpers and non-helpers distinguished on:
- the norms of social responsibility
- internal locus of control
- greater dispositional empathy
only correlational
how does mood determine helping?
individuals who feel good are more likely to help someone in need compared to those who feel bad
receiving good news increased willingness to help
but only short-lived: increased willingness to help stranger only within first 7 minutes of positive mood induction
how does competence determine helping?
feeling competent to deal with an emergency makes it more likely help is given
specific kinds of competence increase helping:
- people more willing to help move electrically charged objects if told they have high tolerance for electric shocks
- people more likely to help capture lab rat if told they were good at handling rats
certain skills perceived as relevant to some emergencies e.g. first-aid
what are perceiver centred determinants of helping?
- personality
- mood
- competence
how does group membership determine helping?
more likely to help recipients in same or similar social group to ourselves
category of membership can be avoided as long as in same group e.g. help football fans regardless of club
how does responsibility for misfortune determine helping?
people more likely to help people not responsible for their misfortune - just-world hypothesis
what are recipient centred determinants of prosocial behaviour?
- group membership
- responsibility for misfortune
evidence that receivers don’t always want help
Wakefield et al
female students made aware women stereotyped as dependent and then placed in situation where they needed help
those made aware of dependency stereotype were less willing to seek help
those that did felt worse the more help they sought
