Psychology,

Dr. Scott Revers

  Ethics in Psychology
  Pro-social behaviour

  Theories of Motivation
  The Bystander Effect

  Conclusions
  Pro-social behaviour (broadest term)
◦  Action intended to benefit another
◦  Can be done to gain either external or internal
reward
  Benevolence (slightly narrower term)
◦  Action intended to benefit another, but not to
gain external reward)
  Pure altruism
◦  Action intended to solely benefit another
◦  No external reward to the helper
◦  No internal reward to the helper
  Some argue there is no such thing as pure altruism
Defining Prosocial Behavior
Defining Prosocial Behavior
A basic question that people have asked is
whether people are willing to help when there
is nothing to gain, or if they only help when
there is some benefit for them.
  Evolutionary

  Social Exchange

  Empathy-altruism
 Evolutionary Psychology: Instincts and Genes

Evolutionary Psychology is the attempt to

explain social behaviour in terms of
genetic factors that evolved over time,
according to the principles of natural
selection.
 Evolutionary Psychology: Instincts and Genes

Darwin recognized that altruistic

behaviour posed a problem for his theory:
if an organism acts altruistically, it may
decrease its own reproductive fitness/
survival.
 Evolutionary Psychology: Instincts and Genes

The idea of kin selection is the idea that

behaviours that help a genetic relative are
favoured by natural selection (Bernstein).
[Suggests can pass on genes by helping genetic
relatives have children or by helping their children
survive.]
 Evolutionary Psychology: Instincts and Genes

The norm of reciprocity is the expectation that

helping others will increase the likelihood that
they will help us in the future (‘if you scratch my back…’).
[Suggests reciprocity may increase likelihood of
survival.]
Simon (1990) suggests those who are the best
learners of social norms have a competitive
advantage and one norm is altruism.
  Although theorists can tell a story about
evolutionary reasons for helping, we cannot
know for sure whether helping has an
evolutionary basis.
  Retrospective explanations, no hard evidence.
 Social Exchange: The Costs and Rewards of Helping

Social exchange theory argues that much of what

we do stems from the desire to maximize our
outcomes and minimize our costs.
Like evolutionary psychology, it is a theory based
on self-interest; unlike it, it does not assume that
self-interest has a genetic basis.
 Social Exchange: The Costs and Rewards of Helping
  Helping can be rewarding because
 increases the probability that someone will
help us in return
  relieves the personal distress of the
bystander
  gains us social approval and increased self-
worth.
 Social Exchange: The Costs and Rewards of
Helping

Helping can also be costly (danger, time, money);

thus it decreases when costs are high.
  Adam Grant, Give and Take – argues based
on collation of studies:
  In the short run givers lose out.
  In the long run givers win out.

  “Although some givers get exploited and burn out, the rest achieve
extraordinary results across a wide range of industries."
 Empathy and Altruism: The Pure Motive for
Helping

Batson (1991) is the strongest proponent

of the idea that people often help purely
out of the goodness of their hearts.
 Empathy and Altruism: The Pure Motive for
Helping

He argues that pure altruism is most likely

to come into play when we experience
empathy for the person in need; that is, we
are able to experience events and emotions
the way that person experiences them.
 Empathy and Altruism: The Pure Motive for
Helping

The empathy-altruism hypothesis states

that when we feel empathy for a person, we
will attempt to help purely for altruistic
reasons, that is, regardless of what we have
to gain.
 Emotional Type of Satisfaction
response Motive of motive

Empathic Reduction of
yes Altruistic
concern other’s distress

Perceive other Adopt other’s

needs help perspective

no Personal Reduction of
Egoistic
distress own distress

Based on Bateson, 1991

  Darley and Batson (1973)
◦  40 students from Princeton Theological Seminary
  Researchers asked half of the subjects to
prepare themselves for a brief talk on the
parable of the Good Samaritan and half
were told that they would be asked
questions concerning employment
prospects for seminary students
  Some subjects were put in the “early”
condition…
◦  “It will be a few minutes before they are ready for
you but why don’t you head over there anyway…”
  Some subjects were put in the “on time”
condition…
◦  “They’re just about ready for you…if you leave now
you’ll be right on time”
  Some subjects were put in the “late”
condition…
◦  “They were expecting you a few minutes ago, better
hurry…”
  Before all this was done, subjects were given
a questionnaire intended to measure their
basis for interest in religion…
  They were asked: Did their religious interest
primarily have to do with:
◦  assuring their personal salvation
or
◦  their concern for helping others
  On their way to the next building they passed
a poorly dressed man slumped in a doorway,
head down, eyes closed, not moving…
  As the subject moved past him, the man
coughed twice and began groaning
  Darley and Batson (1973) compared the
strength of a seemingly important
dispositional factor (primarily altruistic or
not) with a relatively small situational variable
(early or late)…
  People in rural setting show more altruistic
responses to situations than urban
environments (Amato, 1983 – willingness to
help stranger study).

  Why?
  People brought up to be more neighbourly in
countryside?
  Milgram (1970)- urban overload hypothesis: people
keep to themselves in cities in order to avoid over-
stimulation.
  It is often difficult to disentangle whether
people are helping for altruistic or egoistic
motives.
◦  If someone feels joy after helping, is that an
egoistic motive?
 Individual Differences: The Altruistic Personality

Aspects of a person’s makeup that lead the

person to help others in a wide variety of
situations defines the altruistic personality.
  Individual Differences: The Altruistic
Personality
Research has found that the extent to which people are
helpful in one situation is NOT highly related to how pro-
social they are in another situation.
*High altruism scores not a good predictor of helping
Personality is not the only determinant of whether people
will help, at least across many situations.
 Individual Differences: The Altruistic
Personality

It appears that different kinds of people are likely

to help in different types of situations.
   Women are universally perceived as kinder, more soft-
hearted, and more helpful.

•  But over 90% of Carnegie Hero awards go to men (for saving, or

attempting to save, the life of another). Why?
•  --Women are more likely to help those they already know.
•  --Men are more likely to help strangers in emergency situations.

From Simpson, 2004

Ex: Men > likely to help w/flat tire or in dangerous
situation. (short-term, strangers)
Women > likely to help take care of a neighbour or
elderly relative. (longer-term, close relationships)
 Individual Differences: The Altruistic
Personality

It appears that different kinds of people are likely

to help in different types of situations.
  Are people more likely to help women or
men? It depends.
◦  Male helpers are more likely to help women than
men.
◦  Female helpers are equally likely to help men and
women.
  Women not only receive more help from
men, but they also SEEK more help.
 Cultural Differences in Pro-social Behaviour

People across cultures are more likely to help

members of their in-group, the group with which
an individual identifies as a member, than
members of the out-group, a group with which
an individual does not identity.
 Cultural Differences in Pro-social Behaviour

People from collectivist cultures are more prone

to help in-group members and less likely to help
out-group members than are people from
individualist cultures.
 The Effects of Mood on Pro-social Behaviour

People who are in a good mood are more

likely to help.
 The Effects of Mood on Pro-social Behaviour

 Good moods can increase helping for three reasons

  good moods make us interpret events in a
sympathetic way
 helping another prolongs the good mood
 good moods increase self-attention and this in turn
leads us to be more likely to behave according to our
values and beliefs (and most of us value altruism).
  When researchers have induced a good mood
(e.g., leaving dimes in the coin return slot of
a pay phone, giving people cookies, etc.),
they find that people in a good mood are
more likely to help than those in a “neutral”
mood.
 The Effects of Mood on Pro-social Behaviour

Negative-state relief hypothesis says that people

help in order to alleviate their own sadness and
distress; it exemplifies a social exchange
approach.
  Kitty Genovese

44
of
76
  Genovese was murdered in a New York street in
1964 at around 3am after returning home from
work in a bar – she was attacked by a man with a
knife
  She tried to escape but her attacker caught her and
repeatedly stabbed her
  Kitty’s scream for help woke 30+ of her neighbours
– many switched on their lights and watched for up
to 30 minutes
  Only one called the police – no one went to her
aid…
  Why did the 30+ other people do nothing?
  Diffusion of responsibility

  Audience inhibition

  Cost-benefit analysis
Diffusion of responsibility

Belief that in a situation where help is

required and others are present. One or more
OTHER people will or should take responsibility for
helping
Leads each individual to feel less responsible for
helping than when alone
b/c assume someone else will take on the
responsibility of helping
Explains why no one helps when many people are
present in a situation where help is required
Audience Inhibition

People may stand back and not help because they

do not want to embarrass themselves or feel
foolish, especially if help is not actually needed

The presence of others at the scene = an audience

and this increases the chances of being
embarrassed or feeling foolish

This can INHIBIT/STOP someone from helping

Cost benefit analysis

Weighing up personal and social costs of helping

against the benefits of helping
BENEFITS = Rewards – monetary reward, feeling
good, increased self esteem or social approval
(cheers from crowds) or thrill of making evening
news
COSTS = effort and time required, risks such as
personal injury

Eg giving a friend a kidney

 The Number of Bystanders: The Bystander Effect
Pluralistic ignorance is the phenomenon whereby
bystanders assume that nothing is wrong in an
emergency because no one else looks concerned.
This greatly interferes with the interpretation of the
event as an emergency and therefore reduces
helping.
  In this study, researchers pumped smoke into a lab while
students filled out a questionnaire…
  Do individuals have a worse chance of being
helped in an emergency in a big city than in a
small town?
  Greater population density is associated with
less helping.
  Pro-social behaviour has produced varying
explanations – evolutionary, social exchange
theories, and altruistic theories.

  For Discussion:
  Given your own experiences what views do you have on
this subject? -
  Are humans self-interested or empathic?
  Is this a cultural question?
  What provides the strongest motives for social good?
  Punishment/reward? (The Broken Glass hypothesis) –
moral integrity? Evolutionary traits?