Pro-Social Behaviour

Question 1

Why do people engage in pro-social behaviours?

Answer 1

genuine feelings and motivations to help others
-empathy-altruism hypothesis
or more selfish reasons?

Question 2

Empathy-altruism hypothesis

Answer 2

Batson et al., 1983
- compassion for others and desire to help is behind pro-social behaviour
- once we feel compassion for someone else then we may even be prepared to face considerable personal risk/cost to help another
Batson, 1991
- acknowledges that there may be other forms of more egoistical pro-social behaviours
- but argues that genuine compassion does exist

Question 3

Support for empathy-altruism hypothesis

Answer 3

Batson et al., 1983

• pps watched as confederate received electric shocks
• pps asked if they wanted to receive the electric shocks in place of the confederate
• those presumed to feel more empathy agreed to swap
• study raises important questions as to how altruism and empathy are defined
• empathy - cannot measure empathy before/after using questionnaires about empathy so must use items about people dissimilar to the participant

Question 4

Criticism of empathy-altruism hypothesis

Answer 4

Dovidio et al., 2006
- how is altruistic empathy measured? - even if there are levels within this concept how can one be sure that people are not over-estimating the ‘altruistic’ aspects of their motivation

experiment procedure - may shape pps behaviour by raising a sense of the expected or normative behaviour for the participants

Question 5

Empathic-joy hypothesis

Answer 5

Smith et al., 1989

• motivation for pro-social behaviour lies behind positive emotions from engaging in these behaviours
• motivation comes from knowing there has been a positive impact on someone else leading to positive emotions being experienced
• empathy alone is not sufficient for pro-social behaviour = need to also have had a positive impact on the person being helped

Question 6

Support for empathic-joy hypothesis

Answer 6

Smith et al., 1998

• female college student expressed that she might drop out
• empathy was manipulated by describing woman as similar or dissimilar to pp
• 1/2 pps told they would get feedback about the impact of their advice, other 1/2 were told opposite
• decision to intervene and offer help depended on whether or not they would receive feedback (feedback and empathy = yes, help = yes)
• suggests empathy is necessary but not sufficient
• provide support for model

in effect this model is an extension of the last

Question 7

Competitive altruism

Answer 7

Hardy and Van Vugt, 2006

• alternative model for p/s/b
• human tendency to think well of those who are helpful/engage in p/s/b so this may be a motivating factor

Question 8

Support for competitive altruism

Answer 8

Hardy and Van Vugt, 2006
- are people rated more positively when participants rated status of each other after decision about reward allocation
- not been told reward allocation before judgement then = no bearing on status judgement about person allocating the money
- told reward allocations then status judgement = associated with generosity of the person allocating the money
Flynn et al., 2006
- those who have high self-monitoring are particularly disposed to being net givers in exchange terms
- may make investments in their exchange relationships with an expectation of a valuable return

Question 9

Psychological state and physiological arousal

Answer 9

approach may contradict previous approaches
research in this field both supports the notion that positive mood is associated with helping behaviours and that bad moods are more associated with helping behaviours

Question 10

Current mood - positive mood

psychological state and physiological arousal

Answer 10

POSITIVE MOODS - when happy we have motivation to help others
Levin and Isen, 1975
- those who found money in a phone box were more likely to pick up and post a letter they found on the floor nearby
McMillen et al., 1977
- those with positive feedback for task = more likely to notice and respond to passing female struggling with door
- suggests not only association between good mood and helping behaviour but also mechanism for good model prompting pro-social behaviour

Question 11

Current mood - negative mood

psychological state and physiological arousal

Answer 11

NEGATIVE MOODS - Dovidio, 2006 - differentiation between negative moods is needed
p/s/b may be prompted by some negative mood states but not all
Negative state relief model - negative states (i.e. guilt and sadness) will result in unpleasant negativity - so we engage in p/s/b to try be rid of this negative mood - negative emotions will not always give rise to p/s/b

Question 12

Arousal and pro-social behaviour

Answer 12

Piliavin et al., 1981
- move away from emotions as motivating factors
- look at physiology linked to emotions instead
- watching someone suffer may increased basic physiological and emotional arousal leading to increased p/s/b
Vaughan and Lanzetta, 1980
- suggests that when watching others receive an electric shock, observers show heightened arousal and mirror facial expressions of those in pain
- suggests that arousal, due to emotions, may lead to certain behaviours

Question 13

Evolutionary perspective on pro-social behaviour

Answer 13

earliest forms of this perspective, survival of the fittest, were very opposed to any forms of p/s/b
- newer versions acknowledge that p/s/b does exists
- look at how it functions in evolutionary terms
- some perspectives explain p/s/b as self-serving
Ghiselin, 1974
- p/s/b will only occur if it is in the individual’s immediate self-interest - all helping behaviours are egoistical

kin selection
reciprocal altruism
group selection

Question 14

Kin selection theory

Answer 14

predisposition to help those we are closely related to
ensures survival of our gene pool
p/s/b directed towards those more closely related to us - in helping them we ensure common genes between us and them are passed on
Curry, 1988
Burnstein, 1994

Question 15

Support for kin selection theory

Answer 15

Curry, 1988
- mockingbirds prefer feeding close relative nestlings, even if they are not direct offspring, over unrelated nestlings
- note that birds are very different to humans!
Burnstein et al., 1994
- similar hierarchy above is present in humans
- pps from japan and USA asked who they would go visit in hospital if both unwell at same time - close relative, distant relative or non-relative
- both cultures answered close relative
- pro-social preferences not from culturally specific norms
- found people more likely to help close relatives not past child bearing age compared to those past that age

Question 16

Reciprocal altruism

Answer 16

Trivers, 1972
provides rationale for helping non-relatives
suggested to be adaptive if helping is likely to be reciprocted
Cosmides and Tooby, 1992
- note that when help is given, it is not instantly reciprocated
- has implications for how we judge who is likely to reciprocate our altruism
for the norm of reciprocity to work it needs to be a widely held value

Question 17

Group selection theory

Answer 17

groups with higher proportion of altruistic group members should benefit and therefore survive better than groups consisting of selfish members
co-operation and altruism is responsible for group success
group survival increases thus passing along those altruistic genes too
Criticism:
- if one member is altruistic in giving up their claim to mate then their altruistic genes will not be passed on
- difficult to account for how altruistic genes of individuals within a group may be passed on

Question 18

When do people help?

Answer 18

focus here is on factors within a situation that may make someone more or less likely to help
how the helper perceives the situation in which a person needs help may sometimes lead to p/s/b - but not always

Question 19

Diffusion of responsibility

Answer 19

1964 - case of Kitty Genovese - 38 witnesses but only 1 called police - followed by huge moral panic
Darley and Latane, 1968
- argued the 38 witnesses could not have known what other people were doing
- experiment to see if more bystanders would make any one bystander less likely to help/do so slowly
- 85% pps who thought they were alone acted
- 62% pps who thought another person was aware of the situation called for help
- 31% pps who believed there 4 other people acted
- showed ^ no. of bystanders ^ chance of diffusion of responsibility
- model is useful but doesn’t explain p/s/b/ where large crowds of people still give help
Piliavin et al., 1969 - if someone needs help for a fault that isn’t their own they are more likely to get help than someone who needs help through a fault of their own

Question 20

Attribution and pro-social behaviour

Answer 20

attributions about a situation can influence help being given
Greitmeyer and Rudolph, 2003 - is perceived cause of victim’s situation controllable? less likely to evoke p/s/b
Henry et al., 2004 - welfare recipients or poor?
- poor elicited more help from pps
- welfare recipients evokes a stereotype of someone with personal responsibility for situation
challenge: attribution before helping can be a rationalisation for decision to help - how you attribute may lead to decision to help
challenge: causal explanations are contested and mobilised towards different behavioural responses

Question 21

The just-world hypothesis

Answer 21

Lerner, 1980
- belief that the world is just and fair
- with this belief then you presume that good things happen to good people
- called a bias presumption
Zuckerman, 1975 - strong belief in just-world = more likely to engage in psb before an exam
- belief that good things happen to good people
- contradicted when what happens to us causes us to question in this belief actually making a difference

Question 22

Integrating why and when

The arousal: cost-reward model

Answer 22

Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner and Clark, 1981

• observing a situation with someone in distress result first in a pure physiological arousal response
• we then think about this state of arousal
• we then evaluate the costs and rewards of intervening
• easiest way to measure = HR
• level of arousal associated with nature/severity of event witnessed

Question 23

Support for the arousal: cost-reward model

Answer 23

Darley and Batson, 1973 - Samaritan study

Gaertner and Dovidio, 1977 - response to woman hurt by falling chairs was more likely by those with high HR

Question 24

Criticism of the arousal: cost-reward model

Answer 24

when do people actually make rational calculation of costs/benefits
assumes costs and profits have clear, quantifiable factors
model may be a means of justification after the event rather than cognitive cause of it before the decision to help or not

Question 25

Critique of research into pro-social behaviour - victim selection

Answer 25

some suggestion that victims can select who helps them
Medvene, 1992
- those suffering in college from academic and social problems were more likely to turn to those who had experienced similar problems and coped better than turning to professionals

Question 26

Critique of research into pro-social behaviour - focus on spontaneous help

Answer 26

there is little focus on planned helping
Piliavin and Callero, 1991
- having friends or relatives who gave blood greatly increased the likelihood of an individual giving blood themselves
suggests that where the helping behaviour becomes part of how people identify themselves is much more likely to continue

Question 27

Critique of research into pro-social behaviour - group aspects of pro-social behaviour

Answer 27

group aspects are often ignored
Saucier et al., 2005
- white people will help white and black people in need but significant difference in response when cost of helping is higher than benefit or if situation demands instant response
- aka aversive racism - white people have a prejudice they do not want to admit
Levine et al., 2005
- if football club is salient in individual’s mind then they are less likely to engage in p/s/b for someone of another club
- but if just football supporter is salient in mind then does not matter what club supported they will provide equal help to victim
- suggests not necessarily a discrimination against out-group - just a favouring of in-group

Question 28

Critique of research into pro-social behaviour - social constructionist approach

Answer 28

how are we defining pro-social acts?

how do construct the behaviour of the self and others as pro-social or not through our talk and interactions?

Question 29

Social identity approach

Answer 29

Levine and Manning, 2013
presence of others provides potential for facilitation as well as inhibition of helping
4 key aspects to facilitation of helping
- salience of social identity
- boundaries of social identity
- contents of social identity
- strategic interest of social identity
if bystanders or if in some form of group then you re less likely to help
not always what happens - it’s not a group but a group of collective individuals- if groups has shared norms then more chance of facilitating help

Question 30

Negative mood and p/s/b support

Answer 30

Regan et al., 1972
- those made to feel guilty at seemingly breaking a camera were more likely to later help someone whose groceries fell out their shopping bag
Cialdini et al., 1973
- those made to feel guilt or sadness were less likely to engage in p/s/b if they had been given praise prior to opportunity for p/s/b
- the praise removed the negative mood and also removed the motivation for helping behaviours
- those who did not received praise showed significantly higher likelihood of p/s/b

Question 31

Darley and Batson, 1973 - Samaritan study

Answer 31

• assessed how costs may inhibit pro-social behaviour
• looked at priests about to give seminar on the Good Samaritan
• those running early were the most likely to stop and help a stranger slumped in doorway than those running late or on-time
• for the early group the costs of helping was not a factor
• time is a big factor in p/s/b
  model indicates how perceived outcomes influences likelihood of p/s/b
  to some extent model integrates mood and arousal with situational perception and decision-making approaches (role of situation is a trigger for reaction, reaction made sense of and then rational calculation made)