Unit 5: Prosocial

Behaviour
Dr Juhi Garg
 2 of
Basic Concepts
76
Prosocial behavior
– Broad category of behaviors that includes any action that provides
benefit to others
Following rules in a game
Being honest
Cooperating with others in social situations

• Helping
• Behavior intended to assist another person
• casual helping
• emergency helping
• substantial personal
 3 of
76
• Altruism
• Helping motivated only out of a concern for another’s well being
 4 of
WHY DO WE HELP?
76
Individual differences
Good mood
Guilt
Evolutionary Explanations
Arousal/Cost-Reward reasons
Cognitive Dissonance
 5 of
Individual Differences
76
• Some people generally help more than others

• Some people generally mind their own

business

• Suggests that people differ in their basic

predispositions to help
 6 of
An Altruistic Personality?
76
• Individual differences in empathy predict helping
behavior
• Dimensions of empathy
(Interpersonal Reactivity Index [Davis, 1983, 1996])
• perspective taking
• empathic concern
• personal distress response for others
• fantasy generation (hypothetical imagining)
Cultural Differences in Helping
7 of
76
• Cultural comparisons between Kenya, Mexico, Japan,
India, and the Philippines
• some children socialized to help around the house
• children from Kenya, Mexico, and Philippines socialized to
help in family chores
• These same children scored highest in helpful behaviors
• Individualism-collectivism continuum
• Research comparing U.S. and India on helping attitudes

• For life-threatening situations, both US and India both agreed

that individuals should help others

• But for less serious situations, U.S. viewed helping more as a

matter of choice whereas Indians saw helping as a moral
responsibility
• Reflects Hindu’s emphasis on interdependence, social duty, and
mutual aid
Learning to Help: Instilled Beliefs

• Students who have studied economics, and learned

the principle of self-interest are:

• less likely to contribute to charities

(Frank, Gilovich, & Regan, 1993)

• more likely to exploit a partner in a bargaining game

(Maxwell & Ames, 1981)

• more likely to negotiate for a lopsided payment

(Kahneman et al., 1986).
 10
Good mood of
76
• More likely to help when we are in a good mood
• Isen & Levin (1972), cookies & unexpected dime experiments
• Students in library given cookies more likely to help than control students
• Shoppers in a mall finding dime in coin return slot, drastically more likely to
help than control (90% vs. 4%!)
 11
Guilt of
76
• Guilt may drive us to help
• Specific guilt caused by specific incident
• E.g., accidentally let a door slam in someone’s face

• General guilt
• Once we feel guilty (regardless of the reason), we are more likely to help
– E.g., may be more likely to help in general during the rest of the day after a
prior incident
Evolutionary Explanations

• Survival of your own genes

• May help others more if they are genetically related to
you

• Evidence from animals and humans

• Adult zebras will fight attackers, even lions, in order to
protect their young
Bystander Effect

In the early hours of March 13, 1964, 28-year-old American bar

manager Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her apartment
building in Kew Gardens, a neighborhood in the New York City borough of
Queens.
Winston Moseley, a 28-year-old Manhattan native, was arrested during a
house burglary six days later and, while in custody, confessed to killing her.
At his trial, he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death; this
sentence was later reduced to life imprisonment. Moseley died in prison on
March 28, 2016, at the age of 81, having served 52 years.
Two weeks after printing a short article on the attack, The New York Times
 published a longer report that conveyed a scene of indifference from
neighbors who failed to come to Genovese's aid, claiming that 38 witnesses
saw or heard the attack, but none of them called the police. The incident
prompted inquiries into what became known as the bystander effect or
"Genovese syndrome"
Bystander Effect

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac
What is the Bystander Effect?

• WThe term bystander effect refers to the phenomenon in which

the greater the number of people present, the less likely people
are to help a person in distress.
• When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to
take action if there are few or no other witnesses.
Who is a bystander?

Not involved in
the event (not Witnesses a
a victim or situation
perpetrator)
 What will be your take?????

It’s a lovely sunny day and you are sitting by the river on your own, no
one else is around. Suddenly you hear splashing and screaming for
help. A person is caught in the current and drowning.

You are the bystander. There is no mobile phone signal. You can
swim. There is a life ring on the riverbank.
 Active or prosocial
Passive bystander
bystander
(does nothing)
(INTERVENES)

A bystander can intervene to stop events before they happen or while they are
happening i.e. a bystander can PREVENT the potential outcome as well as deal with an
outcome.
A bystander can intervene to stop events before they happen or while they are
happening i.e. a bystander can PREVENT the potential outcome as well as deal with an
outcome.
WHAT IS AN INTERVENTION?

• Different forms e.g

• Body language signalling disapproval
• Distraction
• Interruption
• Facebook post
• Choosing not to laugh at a joke
• Being supportive to friends
• It’s not all about confrontation!
4 Stages for intervention
1. Notice the event

2. Interpret it as a problem

3. Feel responsible for dealing with it

4. Possess necessary skills to act

(Adapted from Berkowitz, A. (2009) Response Ability: A Complete

Guide to Bystander Intervention, Beck & Co., p.10)
Reasons for non-intervention
1. Social influence / identity

2. Audience inhibition

3. Diffusion of responsibility

4. Fear of retaliation

5. Pluralistic ignorance

(Adapted from Berkowitz, A. (2009) Response Ability: A

Complete Guide to Bystander Intervention, Beck & Co.,
Studies shows that:
91% of
12% women perpetrators
77% students have students of sexual
experienced sexual subjected to assault were
harassment stalking
(Cambridge 2014 p.6) men
(NUS 2011 p.3) (Cambridge 2014
Women aged p.6)

16-24 have
higher risk of
experiencing
domestic
violence (ONS 2013) 7% women students
28.5% students experienced a serious
experienced 85% sexual assault
sexual assault experienced a (NUS 2011 p.3)
(Cambridge 2014 p.6)
negative
impact on
References at end of slide show
their mental
health
(Cambridge 2014 p.6)
Thank you
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYLCy5PVgM

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOUEC5YXV8U&pbjreload=10