SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

UNIT-5 HELPING BEHAVIOUR

prosocial behavior: Actions by individuals that help others with no immediate benefit to
the helper.

Why People Help: Motives for Prosocial Behavior:

1.Empathy-Altruism:
● One explanation of prosocial behavior involves empathy—the capacity to be able
to experience others’ emotional states, feel sympathetic toward them, and take
their perspective.
● we help others because we experience any unpleasant feelings they are
experiencing vicariously, and want to help bring their negative feelings to an end.
● This is unselfish because it leads us to offer help for no extrinsic reason, but it is
also selfish, in one sense, since the behavior of assisting others helps us, too: it
can make us feel better.
● empathy-altruism hypothesis, which suggests that at least some prosocial acts
are motivated solely by the desire to help someone in need (Batson & Oleson,
1991). Such motivation can be sufficiently strong that the helper is willing to
engage in unpleasant, dangerous, and even life-threatening activities.
● research findings indicate that empathy consists of three distinct components:
1. an emotional aspect (emotional empathy, which involves sharing the feelings
and emotions of others),
2. a cognitive component, which involves perceiving others’ thoughts and
feelings accurately (empathic accuracy),
3. empathic concern, which involves feelings of concern for another’s
well-being.
 ● This distinction is important because it appears that the three components are
related to different aspects of prosocial behavior, and have different long-term
effects
● empathic accuracy would help the students respond appropriately to others; this
in turn would lead to better relationships and better adjustment
● Decline in empathy? Reason: increasing exposure to violence in the media and
even in schools may tend to reduce important aspects of empathy. Similarly,
increased emphasis in schools and other settings on building individual
self-esteem may reduce the tendency to focus on others and their needs.

2. Negative-State Relief:
● we help because such actions allow us to reduce our own negative emotions. In
other words, we do a good thing in order to stop feeling bad. The knowledge that
others are suffering, or more generally, witnessing those in need can be
distressing. To decrease this distress in ourselves, we help others.
● This explanation of prosocial behavior is known as the negative-state relief
model:The proposal that prosocial behavior is motivated by the bystander’s
desire to reduce his or her own uncomfortable negative emotions or feelings.

3.Empathic Joy: Helping as an Accomplishment

● it's generally true that it feels good to have a positive effect on other people. This
fact is reflected in the empathic joy hypothesis:The view that helpers respond
to the needs of a victim because they want to accomplish something, and doing
so is rewarding in and of itself.
● It was found that empathy alone was not enough to produce a prosocial
response. Rather, participants were helpful only if there was high empathy and
they also received feedback about their action’s impact on the victim.
4.Competitive Altruism
● This view suggests that one important reason why people help others is that
doing so boosts their own status and reputation and, in this way, ultimately brings
them large benefits, ones that more than offset the costs of engaging in prosocial
actions.
● Research findings confirm that the motive to experience a boost in social status
does lie behind many acts of prosocial behavior—especially ones that bring
public recognition.

5.Kin Selection Theory

● A theory suggesting that a key goal for all organisms including human beings is
getting our genes into the next generation; one way in which individuals can
reach this goal is by helping others who share their genes.
● in general, we are more likely to help others to whom we are closely related than
people to whom we are not related
● reciprocal altruism theory—a view suggesting that we may be willing to help
people unrelated to us because helping is usually reciprocated: If we help them,
they help us, so we do ultimately benefit, and our chances of survival could then
be indirectly increased

6.Defensive Helping:
● Help given to members of outgroups to reduce the threat they pose to the status
or distinctiveness of one’s own ingroup
● Sometimes, however, outgroups achieve successes that threaten the supposed
superiority of one’s own group.one way of removing the threat posed by
out-groups is to help them especially in ways that make them seem dependent
on such help, and therefore as incompetent or inadequate.
 ● Such actions are known as defensive helping because they are performed not
primarily to help the recipients, but rather to “put them down” in subtle ways and
so reduce their threat to the ingroup’s status.

BYSTANDER EFFECT :

● When an emergency arises and someone is in need of help, a bystander may or

may not respond in a prosocial way—responses can range from apathy (and
doing nothing) to heroism.
● In part because of diffusion of responsibility:A principle suggesting that the
greater the number of witnesses to an emergency the less likely victims are to
receive help. This is because each bystander assumes that someone else will do
it
● This is true for helping between strangers, but is less likely to occur for helping
among people who belong to the same groups.we are more likely to help people
we know.
● When faced with an emergency, a bystander’s tendency to help or not help
depends in part on decisions made at five crucial steps:

Bystander effect: 5 crucial steps

The likelihood of a person engaging in prosocial actions is determined by a series of
decisions that must be made quickly in the context of emergency situations.This
requires a series of decisions, and at each step and for each decision many factors
determine the likelihood that we will fail to help.
1.Noticing, or failing to notice, that something unusual is happening.
2. Correctly interpreting an event as an emergency: This tendency for an individual
surrounded by a group of strangers to hesitate and do nothing is based on what is
known as pluralistic ignorance. Because none of the bystanders knows for sure what is
happening, each depends on the others to provide cues.This inhibiting effect is much
less if the group consists of friends rather than stranger

3. Deciding that it is your responsibility to provide help: If responsibility is not clear,

people assume that anyone in a leadership role must take responsibility.

4. Deciding that you have the knowledge and/or skills to act: Even if a bystander
progresses as far as Step 3 and assumes responsibility, a prosocial response cannot
occur unless the person knows how to be helpful. When emergencies require special
skills, usually only a portion of the bystanders are able to help.

5. Making the final decision to provide help: Even if a bystander

passes the first four steps in the decision process, help does not occur unless he or she
makes the ultimate decision to engage in a helpful act. Helping at this final point can be
inhibited by fears (often realistic ones) about potential negative consequences.

CONDITIONS GOVERNING HELPING:

Situational (External) Factors Influence Helping: Similarity and Responsibility

● HELPING PEOPLE WE LIKE We are more likely to help others who are similar to
ourselves than others who are dissimilar. This leads to lower tendencies to help
people outside our own social groups.We are also more likely to help people we
like than those we don’t like, and those who are not responsible for their current
need for help.
 ● HELPING THOSE WHO ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PROBLEMIn
general, we are less likely to act if we believe that the victim is to blame.

Exposure to Live Prosocial Models

the presence of a helpful bystander provides a strong social model, and the result is an
increase in helping behavior among the remaining bystanders. Even the symbolic
presence of one or more helping models can increase prosocial behavior.

Playing Prosocial Video Games:

● some video games, in contrast, involve prosocial actions: characters in the game
help and support one another
● playing prosocial video games might prime prosocial thoughts and
schemas—cognitive frameworks related to helping others. Repeated exposure to
such games might, over time, generate attitudes favorable to prosocial actions,
emotions consistent with them (e.g., positive feelings associated with helping
others), and other lasting changes in the ways in which individuals think that,
together, could facilitate prosocial actions.
● those who played the prosocial game reported more thoughts about helping
others than those who played the neutral game.prosocial video games produces
not merely short-term effects, but ones of a more lasting nature.

Gratitude: How It Increases Further Helping:

● thanks expressed by the recipients of help—has been found to increase
subsequent helping
● Research findings provide strong support for such effects, indicating that when
helpers are thanked by the beneficiaries of their assistance, they are more willing
to help them again—or
● even to help other people.
● First, being thanked may add to the sense of self-efficacy—helpers feel that they
are capable and competent, and have acted effectively (and in good ways).
 Second, it may add to helpers’ feelings of self-worth, their belief that they are
valued by others.
● saying thank you is not only the polite and correct thing to do if you receive help
from another person—it is also an effective strategy for increasing the likelihood
that they will help you again if the need arises

Empathy: An Important Foundation for Helping

● Among the various personal factors that influence helping, the one that appears
to be most important is the tendency to experience empathy toward
others—emotional reactions that are focused on or oriented toward other people,
and include feelings of compassion, sympathy, and concern
● The cognitive component of empathy appears to be a uniquely human quality
that develops only after we progress beyond infancy. Such cognitions include the
ability to consider the viewpoint of another person, sometimes referred to as
perspective taking—the ability to “put yourself in someone else’s shoes.”
● Social psychologists have identified three different types of perspective taking
(Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1997):
(1) You can imagine how the other person perceives an event and how he or she
must feel as a result—taking the “imagine other” perspec-tive. Those who take
this perspective experience relatively pure empathy that motivates altruistic
behavior.
(2) You can imagine how you would feel if you were in that situation—taking the
“imagine self” perspective. Those who take this perspective also experience
empathy, but they tend to be motivated by self-interest, which can interfere with
prosocial behavior.
(3) The third type of perspective taking involves fantasy— feeling empathy for a
fictional character.
● In addition, feelings of elevation—being inspired by others’ kind or helpful acts
increases our own tendency to help.
 ● Positive and negative emotional states can either enhance or inhibit prosocial
behavior, depending on specific factors in the situation and on the nature of the
required assistance.
● Empathy is an important determinant of helping behavior. It is weaker across
group boundaries than within social groups
● How empathy develops? Having a secure attachment style facilitates an
empathic response to the needs of others (Mikulincer et al., 2001). In addi-tion,
parents can be models of empathy and exert powerful effects on their children in
this way, demonstrating concern for the well-being of others and showing
negative reactions to their difficulties or negative feelings.
● Either because of genetic differences or because of different socialization
experiences, women express higher levels of empathy than do men

How Can We Increase Helping?

Reduce Ambiguity, Increase Responsibility
● helping should increase if we can prompt people to correctly interpret an incident and to
assume responsibility.
● Leonard Bickman and his colleagues (1975, 1977, 1979) tested that presumption in a
series of experiments on crime reporting. In each, they staged a shoplifting incident in a
supermarket or bookstore. In some of the stores, they placed signs aimed at sensitizing
bystanders to shoplifting and informing them how to report it. The researchers found that
the signs had little effect. In other cases, witnesses heard a bystander interpret the
incident: “Say, look at her. She’s shoplifting. She put that into her purse.” (The bystander
then left to look for a lost child.) Still others heard this person add, “We saw it. We should
report it. It’s our responsibility.” Both comments substantially boosted reporting of the
crime.
● Robert Foss (1978) surveyed several hundred blood donors and confirmed that personal
appeals for blood donation are much more effective than posters and media
announcements—if the personal appeals come from friends. But even strangers ’ direct
appeals can be surprisingly effective.
● Personalized nonverbal appeals can also be effective
● Mark Snyder and his coworkers (1974; Omoto & Snyder, 2002) found that hitchhikers
doubled their number of ride offers by looking drivers straight in the eye, and that most
AIDS volunteers got involved through someone’s personal influence.
● A personal approach, makes one feel less anonymous, more responsible.
● Henry Solomon and Linda Solomon (1978; Solomon & others, 1981) explored ways to
reduce anonymity. They found that bystanders who had identified themselves to one
 another—by name, age, and so forth—were more likely to offer aid to a sick person than
were anonymous bystanders
● Helpfulness also increases when one expects to meet the victim and other witnesses
again
● Jody Gottlieb and Charles Carver (1980) led University of Miami students to believe they
were discussing problems of college living with other students. (Actually, the other
discussants were tape-recorded.) When one of the supposed fellow discussants had a
choking fit and cried out for help, she was helped most quickly by those who believed
they would soon be meeting the discussants face-to-face. In short, anything that
personalizes bystanders—a personal request, eye contact, stating one’s name,
anticipation of interaction—increases willingness to help
● Personal treatment makes bystanders more self-aware and therefore more attuned to
their own altruistic ideals
● circumstances that promote self-awareness—name tags, being watched and evaluated,
undistracted quiet—should also increase helping
● Self-aware people more often put their ideals into practice

Guilt and Concern for Self-Image

● people who feel guilty will act to reduce guilt and restore their self-worth.
● A Reed College research team led by Richard Katzev (1978) experimented with
guilt-induced helping in everyday contexts. When visitors to the Portland Art Museum
disobeyed a “Please do not touch” sign, experimenters reprimanded some of them:
“Please don’t touch the objects. If everyone touches them, they will deteriorate.”
Likewise, when visitors to the Portland Zoo fed unauthorized food to the bears, some of
them were admonished with, “Hey, don’t feed unauthorized food to the animals. Don’t
you know it could hurt them?” In both cases, 58 percent of the now guilt-laden
individuals shortly thereafter offered help to another experimenter who had “accidentally”
dropped something. Of those not reprimanded, only one-third helped. Guilt-laden people
are helpful people.
● People also care about their public images.
● Cialdini and David Schroeder (1976) offer another practical way to trigger concern for
self-image: Ask for a contribution so small that it’s hard to say no without feeling like a
Scrooge.
● door-in-the-face technique: A strategy for gaining a concession. After someone first
turns down a large request (the door-in-the-face), the same requester counteroffers with
a more reasonable request.
● with door-to-door solicitation, there is more success with requests for small contributions,
which are difficult to turn down and still allow the person to maintain an altruistic
self-image.
● Labeling people as helpful can also strengthen a helpful self-image. After they had made
charitable contributions, Robert Kraut (1973) told some Connecticut women, “You are a
generous person.” Two weeks later, these women were more willing than those not so
labeled to contribute to a different charity
Socializing Altruism

1. TEACHING MORAL INCLUSION

● A first step toward socializing altruism is therefore to counter the natural in-group bias
favoring kin and tribe by personalizing and broadening the range of people whose
well-being should concern us.
● Daniel Batson (1983) notes how religious teachings do this. They extend the reach of
kin-linked altruism by urging “brotherly and sisterly” love toward all “children of God” in
the whole human “family.” If everyone is part of our family, then everyone has a moral
claim on us.
● The boundaries between “we” and “they” fade. Inviting advantaged people to put
themselves in others’ shoes, to imagine how they feel, also helps (Batson & others,
2003).
● To “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” one must take the others’
perspective.

2. MODELING ALTRUISM
● People raised by punitive parents and those with chronic criminals show less empathy
and principled caring. Instead of publicizing rampant crimes, it is better to emphasize
widespread honesty, cleanliness, and abstinence.
● This "prosocial value orientation" leads to individuals including people from other groups
in their circle of moral concern and feeling responsible for others' welfare.
● Television's positive models promote helping, much as its aggressive portrayals promote
aggression.
● Studies have shown that watching prosocial programs instead of neutral programs can
temporarily elevate a viewer from the 50th to the 74th percentile in prosocial behavior,
typically altruism.
● Prosocial video games and listening to prosocial music lyrics also effectively model
prosocial behavior.
● In conclusion, prosocial programs can have a positive effect on attitudes and behavior
among people, promoting empathy and caring for others.

3. LEARNING BY DOING
● Ervin Staub (2005b) has shown that just as immoral behavior fuels immoral attitudes, so
helping increases future helping.
● When children act helpfully, they develop helping-related values, beliefs, and skills.
● Helping also helps satisfy their needs for a positive self-concept.
● On a larger scale, “service learning” and volunteer programs woven into a school
curriculum have been shown to increase later citizen involvement, social responsibility,
cooperation, and leadership (Andersen, 1998; Putnam, 2000).
● Attitudes follow behavior. Helpful actions therefore promote the self-perception that one
is caring and helpful, which in turn promotes further helping.
4. ATTRIBUTING HELPFUL BEHAVIOR TO ALTRUISTIC MOTIVES
● The overjustification effect refers to the belief that when the justification for an act is
more than sufficient, the person may attribute the act to the extrinsic justification rather
than an inner motivation. This can undermine intrinsic motivation and increase the
pleasure in doing good deeds on their own.
● Research has shown that altruism is most effective when the circumstances allow
people to answer the question, "Because help was needed, and I am a caring, giving,
helpful person."
● Rewards can also undermine intrinsic motivation when they function as bribes, but
unanticipated compliments can make people feel competent and worthy.
● Inducing a tentative positive commitment can predispose more people to help in
situations where most don't, as seen in Delia Cioffi and Randy Garner's study.
● Inferring that one is a helpful person can lead to more people showing up to help in
situations where most don't.
● Overall, the overjustification effect highlights the importance of providing just enough
justification to prompt good deeds and fostering an altruistic mindset.
● If we provide people with enough justification for them to decide to do good, but not
much more, they will attribute their behavior to their own altruistic motivation and
henceforth be more willing to help

5. LEARNING ABOUT ALTRUISM

● Experiments with University of Montana students by Arthur Beaman and his colleagues
(1978) revealed that once people understand why the presence of bystanders inhibits
helping, they become more likely to help in group situations.
● The researchers used a lecture to inform some students how bystander inaction can
affect the interpretation of an emergency and feelings of responsibility. Other students
heard either a different lecture or no lecture at all. Two weeks later, as part of a different
experiment in a different location, the participants found themselves walking (with an
unresponsive confederate) past someone slumped over or past a person sprawled
beneath a bicycle. Of those who had not heard the helping lecture, a fourth paused to
offer help; twice as many of those “enlightened” did so.
● Learning about altruism, as you have just done, can also prepare people to perceive and
respond to others’ needs.