Prosocial Behavior: Altruism

 Hearing the rumble of an approaching New York

subway train, Everett Sanderson leapt down onto the
tracks and raced towards the approaching headlights to
rescue Michelle, a four year old who had fallen from
the platform. Three seconds before the train had run
her over, Sanderson flung Michelle into the crowd
above. As the train roared in he himself failed in his
first attempt to jump back to the platform. At the last
instant bystanders pull him to safety (Young, 1977).
Prosocial Behavior
 Prosocial behavior is defined as Action
intended to benefit other.

 Doing something good for someone else or

for society.
 Altruism: a motive to increase another’s
welfare without conscious regard for one’s
self interest.
1. Why do we help?
Why do we help?
 Social Exchange theory

 Social Norms theory

 Evolutionary Theory
Social Exchange Theory
 Human interactions aim to maximize one’s own
rewards and minimize one’s own costs

 Not monitored consciously, but costs and rewards

predict behavior
Social Exchange Theory
Predicting Blood Donation
Donating Not Donating

Costs - needle prick - guilt

- time - disapproval from
- fatigue peers

Benefits - feeling good about - saving time

helping - avoid discomfort and
- free refreshments anxiety
Helping as disguised self –interest

 Motive for helping may be external or internal.

 When external…..We give to get. Thus we are most

eager to help someone attractive to us someone whose
approval we desire (Krebs, 1970).

 The benefit of helping also include internal self-rewards.

 For example: Someone scream outside your window will
cause distress and you may give aid thereby reducing
your distress.
 As Sanderson remarked after saving the child “ if I haven't
tried to save that little girl, if I had just stood there like the
others I would have died inside. I would have been no good
to myself from then on”
 Psychologist Daniel Batson (1991, 1995) theorize
that our willingness to help is influenced by both
self-serving and selfless considerations.

 Egoism Vs Altruism
Altruism versus Egoism
 Altruism: motivation  Egoism: motivation
to increase someone to increase one’s
else’s welfare, own welfare by
expecting nothing in
helping someone
return
else
Motivations for helping
◼ Egoism
– Helper wants a return for offering help
– Negative state relief theory
(help to reduce your own distress)

◼ Altruism
– Expects nothing in return for helping
– Motivated by empathy
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
 Empathy: reacting to another person’s emotional state
by experiencing the same emotional state

 Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis: when we feel empathy

for someone, we will help them out of purely altruistic
motives
Empathy & Altruism vs. Egoism
Experiment by Batson et al., 1981
 Participant meets Elaine (confederate)
 Elaine “loses” coin toss and has to receive series of small
electric shocks during next task
 Participant overhears Elaine explain trauma from
childhood event (electric fence + horseback riding =
bad)
 Experimenter tells her she has to do it anyway
 Participant hears her getting shocked and suffering
Empathy & Altruism vs. Egoism
Batson et al., 1981
 IV 1: Empathy
 Participant told Elaine has similar OR different values and
interests to their own
 Prediction: more likely to help someone who is like you
because can feel more empathy for them
 IV 2: Escape Option
 Participant can leave after watching 2 OR 10 trials
 Prediction: if egoism correct, people will leave after 2
 DV: % people who offered to trade places with Elaine
when asked
 Empathy & Altruism vs. Egoism
% of people who helped Elaine

100 Easy Out (2)

80
Difficult Out (10)

60

40

20

0
High Empathy Low Empathy
Why Do We Help?
Social Norms
 Norms are social expectations.

 They prescribe appropriate behavior.

 Researchers have identified two norms that motivate

altruism.

1. The reciprocity norm (helping others who have helped

you)
2. Social responsibility norm (helping those who are less
fortunate or who need help)
Evolutionary Psychology
 Kin protection
 Reciprocity

Kin Protection

 Favoritism towards those who share our genes

 The idea that evolution has selected altruism towards one’s close
relatives to enhance the survival of mutually shared genes.
Applying Kin Protection
 Imagine an earthquake hit your hometown when you were
home for the summer…

 According to kin protection theory, who would you be most

likely to help first? Second?
 Your neighbour
 Your sister
 Your best friends
 Your cousin
Evolutionary Psychology
Reciprocity

 An organism helps another because it expects help in return.

 Expectation that helping others will increase likelihood that

they will help us in the future
2. When will we help
When Will We Help?
 Situational Influences: Number of Bystanders
 Kitty Genovese Murder
 Murdered 1964 at age 29 Kitty Genovese, picture from The Times article "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder
Didn't Call the Police".

 Queens, New York

 Beaten and brutally murdered in
the parking lot of her building at
3:15am
 At least a dozen people later
admitted they saw parts of the
attack from their windows after
hearing her scream
 No one helped, not even by
calling the police
 Bystander Effect
 The more bystanders witnessing an emergency, the less likely it is
any one of them will help
~in other words~
 People are less likely to offer help when other people are around
than when they’re alone
Research on Bystander Effect

 By 1980, about 4 dozen studies involving almost 6000 people

 90% of those studies showed that lone bystanders were more

likely to help than when one or more other bystanders were
present
Bystander Intervention Study:
Latané & Darley, 1970
 Staged an “emergency” in the lab
 Ps seated in cubicles, communicating with each
other via intercom system
 Experimenter left the room
 Other “participant” began having seizures: “I-I-I-I-
I’m gonna die! H-h-h-h-elp!”
 IV: # of people besides P and Confederate
 0, 1, 4
 DV: If and how quickly Ps helped
Bystander Intervention Study:
Latané & Darley, 1970
Point at which
victim’s voice was
100
Cumulative % of Ps Helping

no longer heard
80

60 P only
P+1
40 P+4
20

0
0 60 120 180 240 300
Number of Seconds from start of Seizure
When Will We Help?
 Situational Influences: Number of Bystanders

 Noticing
 Interpreting
 Assuming responsibility
Latane and Darley’s decision tree

Copyright © 2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

 Presence of other bystanders inhibit helping
if the emergency is ambiguous and other
bystanders are strangers who cannot easily
read one another’s reactions.
 Step 1
Notice Something
is Happening

Emergency!

Distractions
- Sightseeing in other
direction

Self-Concerns
- I’m late for a date!
 Step 2
Interpret as
Step 1 Emergency
Notice Ambiguity
Something - Is she really sick or just
is Happening drunk?

Perceived relationship
between attacker & victim
- They’ll have to resolve
their own family problems

Pluralistic Ignorance
- No one else seems worried
Pluralistic Ignorance
 We look to others for cues about how to behave, while they
are looking to you!
 Leads to collectively misinterpreting the situation.

 Bystander 1: “Should I be worried? She doesn’t look worried.

So I guess it’s not an emergency.”

 Bystander 2: “Should I be worried? He doesn’t look worried.

So I guess it’s not an emergency.”
 Step 3
Take
Responsibility
Step 2
Interpret as
Emergency
Diffusion of Responsibility
- Someone else must have
called 911 by now

Diffusion of Responsibility
Each bystander’s sense of responsibility to help
decreases as the number of witnesses increases.
 Step 4
Decide How to
Step 3 Help
Take
Responsibility

Lack of Competence
- I’m not trained to handle
this, and who would I call?
 Step 5
Provide Help
Step 4
Decide
How to Help Audience Inhibition
- I’ll look like a fool.

Costs exceeds Rewards

- What if I do something
wrong! They’ll sue me!
Audience Inhibition
Failure to help in front of others for fear of feeling
like a fool if one’s offer to help is rejected.
How do People Step 5
Provide Help
Decide to Help? Step 4
Decide How to
Help
Step 3
Take
Responsibility
Step 2
Interpret as
Emergency

Step 1
Notice Something
is Happening

Emergency!
When Will We Help?
Situational Influence: Helping when someone
else does

 Bryan and Test (1967) found that Los Angeles

drivers were more likely to offer help to a female
driver with a flat tyre if a quarter mile earlier they
had witnessed someone else helping another women
change a tire.
 In another experiment they observed that Christmas
shoppers were more likely to drop money in
donation box if they has just seen someone else do
it.
When Will We Help?

Situational Influence: Time Pressure

 Experiment by Darley and Batson on the “ Good

Samartian Parable”
Good Samaritan
 "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to
Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped
him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
By chance a certain priest was going down that way.
When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In
the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place,
and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain
Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When
he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to
him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and
wine.
Good Samaritan
 He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an
inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he
departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the
host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you
spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.
Good Samaritan Study
 Participants: Students studying to become priests
 Task: give a speech in a building across campus
 IV 1: speech was about the Good Samaritan
parable OR about job opportunities
 IV 2: told they were either: completely late for the
talk OR on time OR ahead of schedule
 DV: amount of help given to slumping, groaning,
coughing man on the way
 Good Samaritan Study
Amount of Helping
 Two-third of those who had time stopped to help.

 Batson and his associates (1978) repeated the experiment

with Kansas university students…half were told their
participation were vitally important half were told it was not
essential.

 Those on their way to an unimportant meeting stopped to

help.
When Will We Help?
Personal Influence: Feelings

 Guilt
 Negative Mood

➢ Feel bad do good scenario

➢ Feel good do good
Personal Influence: Feelings
Feed bad do good
 Help to get rid of 
 Negative-state relief hypothesis: People help to alleviate own
sadness and distress
 Adults but not children… why?
Personal Influence: Feelings
Feel good do good

 ☺ lead us to interpret our surroundings, including a person

in need, positively
 Want to maintain ☺
When Will We Help?

Personal influence: Personality traits

 Those high in emotionality, empathy and self-

efficacy re more likely to help.

(Bierhoff & others, 1991; Eisenberg & others, 1991;

Tice & Baumeister, 1985)
 Self-monitoring …………high self-monitoring is helpful if
its socially rewarding.

 Men more often help strangers in potentially dangerous

situations.

 But in safe situations like volunteering for experiment,

working with elderly or children with disabilities women are
more likely to help.
When Will We Help?

Personal influence: Religious faith

 Religious people volunteer more in helping others.

 Those who attend regular services donate more.

Who is most likely to help
someone in particular?
Belief in a Just World
 Belief in a JustWorld: the assumption that life is essentially fair,
that people generally get what they deserve and deserve what
they get

 Leads to Blaming theVictim

Implications for Helping:

 “I will help only if that person deserves my help”
Gender and Helping:
Depends on Situation
When do males tend to be more helpful?
 In public
 Toward strangers
 In emergencies

When do females tend to be more helpful?

 In family sphere
 In long term commitments (e.g., volunteering)
 (tend to have more sympathy and empathy)
Culture and Helping
 Ingroup vs. Outgroup
 Everyone is more likely to help ingroup than outgroup member
Recall
 Western cultures: Individualistic
 Self is distinct from others
 Eastern cultures: Collectivistic
 Self is connected to others
 Culture and Helping
 Helping Ingroup Members
 Collectivists > Individualists

 Helping Outgroup Members

 Individualists > Collectivists
but
 Collectivists less likely than individualists to report having helped
someone out
 Don’t want to stand out as someone who’s seeking praise
3. Whom do we help?
Aspects of the Victim
 Attractiveness
 Gender
 Similarity to Potential Helper
Attractive Victims
 Robust finding in helping literature that attractive people
in need are more likely to be helped than less attractive
people in need

Benson, Karabenick, & Lerner, 1976

 Completed application form, photo, and addressed,
stamped envelope left in airport phone booths
 IV: photo either of attractive or unattractive person
 More likely to mail the application for attractive
applicants than unattractive applicants
Whom do we help
Gender

 Men offer more help when the person in need are females.

 Women offer help equally to males and females (Penners &

others, 1973; West & others, 1975)

 Men more often help attractive women (West & brown, 1975).

 Women are also more likely to seek help.

 Similarity to Potential Helper
 Similarity → Liking → Helping

 Similarity can be based on attire, beliefs (if known)

 Social Identity and Ingroup vs. outgroup

4. How can we increase helping?
How Can We Increase Helping?
 Reduce ambiguity, increase responsibility

 Socializing altruism
 Spread the word; learning about altruism
 Teaching moral inclusion
 Modeling altruism
Spread the Word!
 Learning about the Bystander Effect and barriers to helping
increases the likelihood that people will help someone in
need.

 People who had heard a lecture on the bystander effect were

more likely to help a victim of a bicycle accident 2 weeks later,
in the presence of an unresponsive companion.
Model Helpful Behavior
 If unresponsive bystanders reduce helping, can responsive
bystanders increase helping?
 YES!

 People more likely to give to charity, to help someone with a

flat tire, to agree to donate blood… if they had just seen
someone engage in the same behavior.
Model Helpful Behavior

 Children model others’ behaviors, including prosocial acts

 Parents, teachers, relatives, TV characters

 Effect of seeing adults give generously lasts for weeks

Teach Moral Inclusion
 Increase my ingroup to
include everyone in the
world

 When everyone is included

in “us” (not “them”), they
deserve help regardless of
the ways they differ from
us.