Prosocial Behavior Flashcards
Prosocial Behavior
actions that benefit other people or society
Bystander Behavior
the way that someone responds when they witness someone else in need of help
Bystander Intervention
when a person who witnesses a person in need offers help
Bystander Apathy
doing nothing when someone is in need of help
Presence of others
(Social Factor) We are more likely to help others when we are alone than when other people are present. If we are alone in an emergency situation we take full responsibility for helping a person because there is no one else who can assist. When other people are present, the responsibility for helping is shared between these people. This is called diffusion of responsibility - we may not help someone because we assume others will.
Cost of helping
(Social Factor) We weigh up the cost and rewards of helping a person in need. In some circumstances we may decide it is too costly to intervene: we may get hurt, inconvenienced, or lose money; in other situations we may decide the cost to us is low. There can also be rewards to helping other such as praise, social recognition, financial reward, or simply avoiding the feelings of guilt. If costs outweigh the rewards, we are less likely to help others.
Similarity to the victime
(Dispositional Factor) When there are similarities between a bystander and the person in need, bystanders are more likely to offer assistance. Characteristics they may share such as gender and age, we find it easier to empathize with them as we think of ourselves if in their situation. This lets us be put in their shoes and imagine how they are feeling. When we help them it benefits ourselves and makes us feel better.
Expertise
(Dispositional Factor) Bystanders are more likely to help others if they believe they have the skills in order to help. People without this expertise may not offer assistance as they do not know how to help and fear causing more harm.
Describe Piliavin’s Subway Study
Aim: Investigate whether the appearance of a a victim would influence helping behavior
Design:
Field experiment in which there was little control of possible extraneous variables, participants were male and female passengers who traveled on the subway in New York City.
Method: an actor pretended to collapse in a train carriage. His appearance was altered. In 38 of the trials he appeared to be drunk; he smelt of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a paper bag. In 65 of the trials he appeared to be sober and carried a walking stick. Observers recorded how often and how quickly the victim was helped
Result: When the victim carried a walking stick, he received help within 70 seconds 95% of the time. When he appeared to be drunk he received help within 70 seconds 50% of the time
Conclusion:
Evaluate Piliavin’s Subway Study
Strength:
Was carried out in a natural setting. Participants did not know they
Limitation:
Piliavin’s research was conducted in America. This is an individualistic culture within which people are expected to help themselves and sort out their own problems. In collectivistic cultures, there is greater emphasis upon support and helping others. This is a weakness of Piliavin’s research as it cannot be generalized to explain bystander behavior in all culture
Limitation:
There is evidence to suggest that people living in rural areas are more helpful than those who live in urban areas, in both emergency and non-emergency situations. This means Piliavin’s study may not be reliably predict bystander behavior outside cities and towns
