Prosocial behaviour Flashcards
What is prosocial behaviour?
Acts that are positively viewed by society
Has positive social consequences and contribute to the wellbeing of another person (Wispe, 1972)
Voluntary and indented to benefit others (Eisenberg et al, 1996)
Defined by societies norms
Types of prosocial behaviour
Helping behaviour
- Acts that intentionally benefit someone else
- Find £10 and give it to someone else
- Usually expect something back
Altruism
- Acts that benefit someone else rather than ones self
- Performed without expectation of ones own gain > Selfless act
The Kitty Genovese Murder
Beginnings of prosocial behaviour research
37 people openly admitted to hearing her screaming but failed to act
Why didn’t people act?
Why and when do people help?
Biological and evolutionary perspectives (mutualism, kin selection)
Social psychological perspectives (social norms, social learning)
Biological and evolutionary perspective
We help others to pass our genes to the next generation (help kin as we want offspring to survive)
Genetically predetermined to some degree
Prosocial behaviour as a trait that potentially has evolutionary survival value
Animals also engage in prosocial behaviour
Stevens et al (2005)
Mutualism = PSB benefits the co operator as well as others (Cleaner fish clean bigger fish’s mouths at risk of being eaten but get fed)
Kin selection = PSB is biased towards blood relatives because it helps their own genes
Limitations of the biological explanation
- Humans are more complex than animals in terms of relationships
- Doesn’t explain why people help strangers
- Familial violence
- Ignores social influence
Social psychological account - Norms
Norms play a key role in developing PSB and are learnt
Behaving in line with social norms is often rewarded leading to social acceptance
- Reciprocity principle (Gouldner, 1960) = we should help people who help us
- Social responses (Berkowitz, 1972) = We should help those in need regardless of if they help us
- Just world hypothesis (Lerner & Miller, 1978) = World is a just and fair place, need to help undeservedly suffering people to restore out belief in the world
Social psychological accounts : Learning to be helpful
We learn PSB during childhood (Zahn-Waxier et al, 1992)
1) Giving instructions
Telling children to be helpful works (Grusec et al, 1978)
Telling children what is appropriate
Need to be consistent (preacher and child)
2) Using reinforcement
Rewarding behaviour so they are more likely to offer to help again and vice versa
Rushton & Teachman (1978)
Donating child’s toys, positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement or no consequence
Donated more with positive reinforcement > no consequence > punishment
3) Exposure to Models
Rushton (1976)
Modelling is more effective in shaping behaviour than reinforcement
Gentile et al (2009)
Prosocial, violent or natural video games
Prosocial games led to more helpful behaviour
Social Psychological account :SLT
Its the knowledge of what happens to the model that determines whether or not the observer will help
Hornstein (1970)
People observed a model returning a lost model
Model was either pleased, displeased or neutral about helping
Those who observed the pleasant condition helped the most
Modelling is not just imitation
The bystander effect
People are less likely to help in a emergency when they are with others
Latane & Darley (1968)
Emergency situations whilst completing a questionnaire
Smoke
Very few people intervened in the presence of others especially when the others didn’t
Latane and Dareley’s cognitive model
Attend to what is happening
|
Define event as an emergency
|
Assume responsibility
|
Decide what can be done
|
Give help
Processes contributing to the bystander effect
- Diffusion of responsibility = tendency of an individual to assume that others will take responsibility
- Audience inhibition = Other onlookers may make the individual feel self conscious about taking action and people don’t want to look foolish
- Social influence = Others provide a model for action, if they are unworried the situation may seem less serious
Latane & Darley (1976)
5 conditions to see if they influenced peoples ability to help:
- Control (alone)
- Diffusion of responsibility (aware of another but cant see)
- DoR and social influence (Aware, can see them but cant be seem)
- DoR and audience inhibition (aware, cant see them but can be seen)
- All 3 (aware, can be seen and can see)
Found that all 3 reduced ps likelihood to help
Bystander calculus model (Piliavin et al, 1981)
3 processes
1) Physiological processes
An empathic response
The greater the arousal he greater the chance we will help (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977)
Similar to victim
2) Labelling the arousal
We label the arousal as emotion
Personal distress at seeing someone else suffer
Helping to reduce own negative emotional experience
3) Evaluating consequences of helping
Cost benefit analysis
Helping = time and effort (Darley & Baston, 1973) and personal risk
Not helping = Empathy costs, personal costs of not helping a victim can cause distress (guilt or blame)
More likely to help victim if cost for helping is high and not helping is low
Evidence for bystander calculus model (Shotland & Straw, 1976)
Man and woman fighting, either married or strangers
Intervention = 65% in strangers condition but 19% in married
