Prosocial behaviour Flashcards
Prosocial behaviour
acts that are positively valued by society (contrast: antisocial behaviour)
> has positive social consequences and contributes to physical or psychological well-being of another person
> voluntary, intended to benefit others
> being helpful and altruistic, defined by society’s norm
Helping behaviour
acts that intentionally benefit someone else
> a kind of prosocial behaviour
> may be driven by product promotion eg. in pursuit of long term increase in profit
> can even be antisocial, eg. overhelping > giving help is designed to make others look inferior
Altruism
A special form of helping behaviour, sometimes costly, that shows concern for fellow human beings, and is performed without expectation of
personal gain
> true altruism: selfless, but hard to prove (stem from long term ulterior motive?)
The Kitty Genovese case
a man stabbed and raped a lady > the people in the neighbourhood heard > did not help except one yelled (only yelled)
Diffusion of responsibility
Feeling of responsibility diminishes as the number of bystanders increases
The epileptic seizure study
Proportion of help decreases and time delay to help increases with increasing number of bystanders
bystander effect
people are less likely to help in an emergency when they are with others than when alone
the greater the number, the less likely it is that anyone will help
Pluralistic ignorance
People who are unsure how to act in a situation will use others’ behaviors to guide their actions
Based on Festinger’s social comparison theory, we use other people as guides when we are unsure of the appropriate behavior
smoke-filled room
Bystander-Calculus Model
in attending to an emergency, the bystander calculates the perceived costs and benefits of providing help compared with those associated with not helping
Physiological Arousal
Aroused by suffering and distress of others
Influenced by clarity and emergency (interpretation) of the situation
Intensity
Among those who witness an emergency; Individuals with higher arousal (e.g., faster heart rate) are more likely to help than those with lower arousal (e.g., slower heart rate)
bystander intervention
when an individual breaks out of the role of a bystander and helps another person in an emergency
Empathy costs of not helping
The cost of not helping when feeling empathic concern of the victim
empathy: ability to feel another person’s experience; identifying and experiencing another person’s emotions, thoughts and attitudes
> related to perspective taking empathy:affect / feeling-based
perspective thinking: cognition-based
Piliavin’s view that failing to help can cause distress to a bystander who empathises with a victim’s plight
the more similar the victim is to the bystander > the more likely to help > greater empathy costs of not helping
Personal costs of not helping
Norm of reciprocity
An expectation that people will help those who have helped them
Norm of social responsibility
An expectation that people will help those dependent upon them
Piliavin’s view that not helping a victim in distress can be costly to the bystander
eg. public censure or self-blame
the greater need for help > the bigger personal costs of not helping
Empathy-altruism model
Witnessing others in distress stimulates two reactions:
1. Distress
Is unpleasant and we are motivated to reduce OUR OWN distress
Egoistic motivation: focus on ourselves
- Empathy
Directs attention towards others’ distress and we are motivated to reduce others’s distress
Altruistic motivation: for others
*suggested that altruism is a misnomer because it is motivated by self-interest or egoism
*Patricia Oswald (1996), empathy requires perspective taking
> empathic concern: an element in Batson’s theory of helping behaviour. In contrast to personal distress (which may lead us to flee from the situation), it
includes feelings of warmth, being soft-hearted and having compassion for a person in need
Either distress or empathy can motivate helping behavior
Empathic joy hypothesis
We enjoy others’ relief at being helped
Empathy – feeling the relief that others feel
We help because we want to feel that others are happy, not just to improve our own mood
If we cannot witness the “happy ending”, we may not help
with feedback > more willing to help
reason: empathy (can feel what you feel)
get the joy of your happiness from the feedback
no feedback: denying you from getting the happiness
self-verification: to be a good person
The ultimatum game
Two persons, A & B, share a fixed amount of resource, e.g., $20
Person A makes an allocation, e.g., A gets $15, and B gets: $5
Person B either accepts or rejects the allocation
If B accepts, A and B get what A proposes
If B vetoes, A and B get nothing
most people: $10 and $10
> contradict with the economic theory
> A: did not maximise the gain
> B: (if he vetoes) > rather have nothing than $1
veto: maybe because of dignity problem arises from unfairness
use this game to understand people’s fairness
A: upper hand reality eg: divorce 分家產 reality eg 2: employer vs employee Cathay Pacific did not raise enough money > employees go on strike
Social norms
- Equality norm
- Equity norm
- Needs norm
Equality Norm
Everyone should get the same
Equity Norm
One person’s input-to-output (cost-to-reward) ratio in a relationship should be equal to the other person’s input-to-output ratio
Needs Norm
Those who need more receive more
Social exchange theory
The basic premise is to quantify the gains and losses attached to specific interactions and use the resulting quantification to predict and explain behaviors
It models exchange relationship like acquaintances, business partners in which people
Want to maximize own gain and do not care about the welfare of others
THE Game of Chicken
GOLDEN BALL UK SHOW
The situation can be structured in a behavior matrix
The outcomes for each person in each situation can be quantified by outcome values (the numbers in the corners)
Interdependence
Both persons’ (husband or wife) outcomes are determined by both people’s behavior
People guide their behavior according to the hedonistic principle
Maximize pleasure and minimize pain at a minimal cost
Costs may include opportunity cost
Positive outcome a person must forego because of choosing another behavior (alternative)
Essentially it means choosing the outcome with the highest values, or maximizing your own gain
Prisoner’s dilemma
For each player at the individual level, defection always results in a better outcome than cooperation
defection dominates cooperation
For both players at the collective level, mutual defection results in a worse outcome than mutual cooperation
mutual cooperation is better than mutual defection
The tit-for-tat Strategy
A strategy to play iterative PDG
Cooperate on the first trial
On subsequent trials, imitate the opponent’s response on the previous trial
TFT is a reciprocal strategy
It has been shown that when naive subjects play against TFT for many trials, naive subjects will cooperate eventually (after some 150-200 trials)
TFT is effective in inducing cooperation because it is…
Nice > never the first to defect
Can be provoked and cannot be exploited
Forgiving > return to cooperation if the other person does so
Clear and can easily be understood
Social dilemmas
An extension of PDG to the n-person case
Each person is always better off to defect than to cooperate
However, if everyone chooses to defect, the mutual defection outcome is worse than the mutual cooperation outcome
In a sense, you are choosing between either to maximize your individual gain versus to maximize your group’s interest
2 types of social dilemmas
- public goods
2. tragedy of the commons / common resource pool dilemma
Public goods
Two defining characteristics
1. Jointness of supply
One person’s enjoyment of the public good does not undermine other people’s enjoyment of the public good at the same time, i.e., Plenty of supply for everyone
2. Impossibility of exclusion
Once the PG is provided, regardless of whether you have contributed to the PG, no one can be excluded from enjoying it
The free-rider problem
Enjoying the PG without contributing to it
eg. Public broadcast (TV or radio), recycling, clean air, charities
Criticality
A person is in a critical situation if and only if his or her contribution is required to provide the PG (Rapoport, 1987)
Such a condition can also be described as a necessary (only if) and sufficient (if) condition.
Common resource pool dilemma
Models the conflicts experienced by a group of self interested individuals who share a finite and limited common desirable good
effective:
- discussion
- sequential order: giving structure for the pool
First mover advantage
a firm’s ability to be better off than its competitors as a result of being first to market in a new product category
Sequential protocol
sequential taking resources from with information revealed
Position protocol
Sequential with no information revealed
Simultaneous protocol
making decision at the same time
no first mover advantage
people tend to be more conservative
Cooperation in social dilemmas
- coordination improves cooperation
> the coordination game - communication improves cooperation
> Without communication, people may have unwarranted expectation of others’ behaviors which may hinder cooperation
> Kelly and Stahelski’s triangular hypothesis
triangular hypothesis
competitors hold homogeneous views of others by assuming that most others are competitive, whereas cooperators or pro-social people hold more heterogeneous views by assuming that others are either cooperative or competitive
Implication: if you are competitive, you may mistake others to be competitive as well, even though this may not be right. However your (incorrect) expectation of others being competitive may lead you not to cooperate (false consensus effect)
Effect of discussion in cooperation
Enhanced understanding of the game
Opportunities for coordination of cooperation
Altered expectations of others’ likely behaviors
Enhanced norms of benevolence
Creating local norms of cooperation
Humanizing group members
Promoting group solidarity
Induced commitments to mutually cooperate
