On the Nature of
Prosocial Behaviors
November 9th, 2006
Guest Speaker: Etienne LeBel
Basic Concepts
• 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 helping
emotional helping
2 of 76
• Altruism
– Helping motivated only out of a concern for
another’s well being
3 of 76
Think of the last time you helped someone
else out?
• Now think of why you think you helped out
that other person?
4 of 76
• Many different ways we can help
AND
• Many different reasons we help
But…..
• May not always know why we help
5 of 76
WHY DO WE HELP?
•
Individual differences
•
Good mood
•
Guilt
•
Evolutionary Explanations
•
Arousal/Cost-Reward reasons
•
Cognitive Dissonance
6 of 76
Individual Differences
• Some people generally help more than others
• Some people generally mind their own business
– Suggests that people differ in their basic
predispositions to help
7 of 76
An Altruistic Personality?
• 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)
8 of 76
Cultural Differences in Helping
• 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
9 of 76
• 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
10 of 76
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).
11 of 76
Good mood
• 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%!)
12 of 76
Guilt
• 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
13 of 76
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
14 of 76
Human Helping and Genes
• Would you lend your car to your brother?
– What about your grandfather?
– What about a cousin?
– What about an attractive stranger?
• Michael Cunningham and his colleagues asked
people whether they would be willing to help
other people in different situations.
15 of 76
Cunningham et al., (1995)
80
Percentage
Volunteering
to Help
60
40
20
0
High
(parents,
siblings,
children)
Mod.
Low
None
(grandparents)
(firstcousins)
(attractive
strangers)
Degree of Relatedness
16 of 76
Evolutionary (cont’d)
• Reproductive Factors
– May be more willing to help others depending on
their reproductive fitness
– Korchmaros & Kenny (2002) investigated this
question
• more likely to help young individuals in life-ordeath situation
• more likely to help old individuals in running
errands
17 of 76
Evolutionary (cont’d)
• Reciprocal Altruism
– help those who aren’t related because it may
increase likelihood others will help us in the future
• Other Genetic Evidence
– Twin research shows prosocial behaviour is partly
inherited
• But this doesn’t tell the whole story…
18 of 76
Costs/benefits of Helping:
Another empirical example
Weyant (1976)
• Students in this study were put into one of the
following conditions:
– happy
– sad
– neutral mood
• Then given an opportunity to help a non-profit
organization.

19 of 76
Weyant (1976)
Costs/benefits of Helping
• The benefits of helping were either:
– Low: help was for Little League
– High: American Cancer Society.
• Costs of helping were either:
– Low: Sit at donations desk
– High: Collect door-to-door.

20 of 76
Benefit
Low High
Cost
Low
High
Happy students helped
more than those in a
neutral mood, with little
regard for costs and
benefits
80
60
% Volunteering
Weyant (1976)
40
20
0
Happy
Neutral
Mood
Sad
Benefit
Low High
Cost
But students in
a sad mood
only helped
when benefits
were high, and
costs were low
Low
High
80
% Volunteering
60
40
20
0
Happy
Neutral
Mood
Sad
Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of Helping
• 3 step process (Pilivian & Dovidio, 1981, 1991)
1) Others’ distress creates uncomfortable arousal in us
2) We are motivated to reduce this arousal
3) Helping others may reduce this arousal
• Evidence showing that we are more likely to help when
we are physiologically aroused
• Sterling & Gaertner (1984): people that did 10 vs. 5
pushups more likely to help person in the lab
23 of 76
Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of Helping
• However, before decision to help (to reduce
arousal), we may consider cost-reward factors
– Costs minus rewards (cost-benefit analysis):
• Costs: e.g., embarrassment, personal danger, feelings
of guilt
• Rewards: e.g., attention, self-esteem increase,
avoidance of shame
– If rewards > costs, may be more likely to help
• E.g., (increased self-esteem + draw desired
attention) - personal danger = help
24 of 76
Predicted Responses For Arousal Model
Low
Costs
For Not
Helping
High
Costs For Helping
Low
High
Will Vary (Depends
Leave the
on Perceived
Situation, Ignore,
Norms for
Denial
Situation)
Direct
Intervention
Indirect
Intervention OR
Redefine Situation
25 of 76
Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of Helping
if Cost of
Helping is
Small
Observation
of Another in
Clear Need
of Aid
Increased
Negative
Emotional
Arousal
if Arousal is
strong
Increased
Chance That
Help Will Be
Offered
if Rewards are
Large
26 of 76
Cognitive Dissonance & Helping
• We may be motivated to help others due to
cognitive dissonance
REMINDER
• Cognitive dissonance generally arises when
there is an inconsistency between our
thoughts and behaviors
– E.g., I’ve just done a boring task
I’ve told this other person that the task was
not boring
27 of 76
Harmon-Jones, Peterson, & Vaughn (2003)
• Participants either empathize (or not) with an
adolescent with cancer (imagine how the cancer
patient felt)
• Participants had to list times when they failed to help
other persons who were in need of help (or
complete demographic survey)
• Then, asked participants how much time and money
they would donate to help the cancer patient
28 of 76
RESULTS: Harmon-Jones, Peterson, & Vaughn (2003)
1.4
1
0.8
past failures to help
control
0.6
$10.00
0.4
$9.00
0.2
$8.00
0
empathy
no empathy
Amount of Money Donated
Number of Hours Volunteered
1.2
$7.00
$6.00
past failures to help
$5.00
control
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$empathy
no empathy
29 of 76
Ruiz and Tanaka (2001)
• Interested in whether helping alleviates the
uncomfortable feeling associated with
cognitive dissonance
REMEMBER
• Generally, individuals will change their attitude
(or behavior) to reduce the cognitive
dissonance
30 of 76
Ruiz and Tanaka (2001)
• Had participants create a pro- or counterattitudinal speech under high choice about
lowering or increasing tuition fees
• Then participants had opportunity to help a
confederate who ostensibly dropped floppy
disks
31 of 76
Results: Ruiz and Tanaka (2001)
Less
attitude
change
4.00
3.90
(strongly
opposed to
tuition
increase)
(less
opposed
to tuition
increase)
3.70
Attitude Change
More
attitude
change
3.80
3.60
help
3.50
no help
3.40
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
dissonance (pro- tuition increase)
no dissonance (anti- tuition increase)
• Participants that experienced cognitive dissonance and
helped showed less attitude change than participants
who experienced dissonance and did not help
32 of 76
Results: Ruiz and Tanaka (2001)
• Suggests that the act of helping reduced the
cognitive dissonance and thus the standard
dissonance-reduction strategy via attitude
change was no longer needed
33 of 76
Situational Factors influencing Helpful
Behaviors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Video Clip (Kitty Genovese)
Bystander Effect & Diffusion of Responsibility
Pluralistic Ignorance
Social Norms
Observational Learning
Blaming the Victim
Recipient’s Reaction of Being Helped
34 of 76
Situational Factors
• Video Clip (Kitty Genovese)
– Approximately 25 minutes
35 of 76
Situational Factors
• Bystander effect:
the tendency of a bystander to be less
likely to help in an emergency if there are
other onlookers present
• Opposite of intuition --> more people around
safer it should be
36 of 76
Possible Explanations for the Bystander Effect
• Diffusion of responsibility
the tendency for each group member to dilute
personal responsibility for acting by spreading it
among all other group members
– Example: Bystanders to an emergency may assume
someone else will call the police.
37 of 76
Bystanders As Sources of Information
• Pluralistic Ignorance
the phenomenon that occurs when
bystanders to an emergency, trying to look
poised, give misleading cues to others that no
help is needed
38 of 76
Latane & Darley (1968)
• Researchers pumped smoke into a lab while
students filled out a questionnaire.
– Some students were left alone.
– Some with 2 other real participants.
– Some with 2 other confederates who pretended
nothing was wrong.
39 of 76
Results: Latane & Darley
Percentage
Reporting
Smoke
(1968)
80
60
40
20
0
Alone
With 2
other real
subjects
With 2 calm
confederates
40 of 76
• Results from Latane & Darley’s (1968) study
suggest that people look to others for
information.
– If no one else seems upset, then it must not be an
emergency.
41 of 76
Social Norms
•
Norm of Reciprocity
•
Norm of Social Responsibility
•
•
Norm of Equity
•
•
You should be a good Samaritan
Fairness should be the criterion that guides helping
Problem…competing norms
– E.g., norm of responsibility and norm of not
intruding in other people’s lives
42 of 76
Modeling Helpful Behavior
• Observing helpful behaviors can influence the
likelihood of our own helping
-implications for the development of helping
in children
43 of 76
Blaming the Victim
• Just World Belief (JWB): the world is a fair
place
– If we believe this and see a bad thing happen to a
good person, we may be more likely to help
– However, this can backfire:
• People may look for reasons to blame victims so
they do not have to offer help and maintain their
JWB
44 of 76
Blaming the Victim (cont’d)
• What would you think if someone came up to
you in a bar and asked you for some money to
make a phone call because his wallet had just
been stolen…?
OR
• What would you think if someone came up to
you in a bar and asked you for some money to
make a phone call because he had just spent
his last money on a beer…?
45 of 76
Blaming the Victim (cont’d)
• Probably more likely to help in former
situation
• We may only help others if we think they did
not bring about their own problems
46 of 76
Recipient’s Reaction of Being Helped
• Sometimes people assume help would be
seen as an unwelcome intrusion.
– e.g.,When a woman fighting with a man shouted:
“I don’t even know you!” - help was more
likely than if she shouted:
– “I don’t know why I married you!”
(Shotland & Straw, 1976)
47 of 76
Latané and Darley’s Model of Helping
• 1) Must Notice the Emergency
– If we’re in a hurry or distracted, more likely to not
notice
• 2) Must Interpret It As Being An Emergency
– More ambiguous the situation, the less likely
people will help
• 3) Must Take Responsibility For Being The
Helper
• 4) Decide How to Help (feel competent)
• 5) Actually help (cost/benefit analysis)
48 of 76
Altruism vs. Egoism Debate
• Altruistic motivation
– we help others as an end in itself
that is, to help them only, without
benefiting ourselves
• Egoistic motivation
– we help others to feel good about
ourselves
49 of 76
Can Anyone Truly Be Altruistic?
• The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
– Empathy can lead to altruistic motives
– Empathy involves
• Taking the others’ perspective
• Feeling their emotion (with compassion)
– Person should not care about their own distress
50 of 76
Study: Batson (1981)
- Participants view Elaine receiving a series of painful
shocks (they stop after two)
- Elaine states that she had a bad experience with
electric shocks; experimenter suggests that they
stop…Elaine says NO
- Asks participants if they wanted to trade places?
• But 4 conditions
(1) Participants learned they were very similar (high empathy)
(2) Participants learned they were dissimilar (low empathy)
(3) Must continue to watch Elaine getting shocked (difficult escape)
(4) Do not have to watch Elaine getting shocked (easy escape)
51 of 76
Batson’s Study: The Setup
Easy Escape
High Empathy
Hard Escape
Asked
To Trade
Places
With
Elaine
Easy Escape
Low Empathy
Hard Escape
52 of 76
Results from Batson’s Study
53 of 76
BUT…….Cialdini and Friends (not so sure)
• Egoistic Account
– People help others to help themselves
– Cialdini’s Negative State Relief Model
• Argues that empathic people help to reduce their
own negative emotions
• Replicated (1987) Batson’s study…with a twist!
54 of 76
Cialdini et al.’s Replication of Batson
• Same as Batson et al.’ experiment
– Except before participants were asked to change
places, their mood was increased
• Logic being that if mood increased, then wouldn’t
need to use help as means to restore mood
– Results…?
55 of 76
Results of Cialdini et al.’s Replication
– High empathy
participants
responded the same
as low empathy
participants
– Thus, evidence that
participants in
Batson’s study
helped for egoistical
purposes!
56 of 76
So who won?
Cialdini et al.
vs. Batson et al.
57 of 76
Evolution and Altruism
• Video clip
DISCLAIMER:
• The views in the following video are not endorsed
by me or any other affiliated member of UWO and
are showed for discussion purposes only
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLQZlwvGCKc
58 of 76
• Is the penguins’ behavior truly altruistic?
• In other words, is the penguin’s behavior
toward their offsprings benefit only the
offsprings?
59 of 76
So, does “pure” Altruism exist?
• Probably to some degree
• The debate continues…
• Regardless of motives for helping, end result is
that helping occurred
• Thus, perhaps we should focus our energies
on identifying the factors that influence
whether people help others or not
60 of 76
Social Dilemmas
• Individual self-interest motives may conflict with
group co-operative motives
– E.g., erosion of natural resources
• Co-operation: collaborative behavior that takes
into account both own and others’ selfinterest
• Form of prosocial behavior
61 of 76
Social Dilemmas
• Definition
– Individual interests conflict with group interests
– Characterized by
(1) Selfish choice produces better immediate outcome
(2) Long term outcome for everyone suffers if individuals
behave selfishly
62 of 76
Tragedy of the Commons
• Fixed resources can become depleted if
everyone seeks to maximize their own outcome
– E.g. common pasture capable of sustaining 100 cows
63 of 76
Common Pasture Example
• 10 farmers with 10 cows each
• “What harm would it do if I add one more cow”?
• But then other farmers might get same idea
• “Oh I’ll just add one more cow”; now 120 cows
• Soon enough, pasture’s resources will be fully
depleted
– In the end, every farmer loses, a tragedy born out of each
individual’s seeking to maximize his/her outcome
64 of 76
Tragedy of the Commons cont’d
• Other examples:
– world’s oceans
– environmental pollution:
• garbage, sewage, carbon monoxide
• Personal contribution hardly enough to cause
noticeable difference, but in the long run, can cause
irreparable harm to all.
• Short-term maximization of self-benefit leads
to long-term cumulative and collective loss!
65 of 76
Social Dilemma Activity
• Need 2 volunteers
• Rules of the game:
– Each turn, you can either “co-operate” or “compete”
Person B
Cooperate
Compete
Cooperate Both
Person A
receive $3
Compete A gets $5
B gets $0
B gets $5
A gets $0
Both
receive $1
66 of 76
Prisoner’s Dilemma
• Forces choice between being cooperative or
selfish
– Both not confess (cooperate), prisoners get 1yr
– One confesses and other doesn’t, 3-mth for
confess and 10 yr for not confess
– Both confess, prisoners get 8yr sentence
• Cooperative choice (not confess) produces
best collective outcome
• Helps us study cooperation and factors that
influence when we cooperate
67 of 76
SUMMARY
• WE MAY HELP (or not help) because of
personal variables:
– Individual differences
– Good mood
– Guilt
– Evolutionary reasons
– Arousal/Cost-Reward reasons
– Cognitive Dissonance
– Don’t notice
68 of 76
SUMMARY
• WE MAY HELP (or not help) because of
situational variables:
– Bystander effect
– Diffusion of responsibility
– Pluralistic ignorance
– Social norms
– Modeling helpful behavior
– Blaming the victim
– Source of disapproval
69 of 76
SUMMARY
• MAY HELP for:
– Altruistic reasons
– Egoistic reasons
END
• Social dilemmas
– Cooperation vs. self-interest
70 of 76