On the Nature of Prosocial Behaviors

Guest Speaker: Etienne LeBel

November 9th, 2006

2 of 76

Basic Concepts

• Helping– Behavior intended to assist another person

• casual helping• emergency helping• substantial personal helping• emotional helping

• 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

3 of 76

• Altruism– Helping motivated only out of a concern for

another’s well being

4 of 76

• Now think of why you think you helped out that other person?

Think of the last time you helped someone else out?

Think of the last time you helped someone else out?

5 of 76

• Many different ways we can helpAND

• Many different reasons we help

But…..

• May not always know why we help

6 of 76

WHY DO WE HELP?

• Individual differences

• Good mood

• Guilt

• Evolutionary Explanations

• Arousal/Cost-Reward reasons

• Cognitive Dissonance

7 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

8 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)

9 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

10 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

11 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).

12 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%!)

13 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

14 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

15 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.

16 of 76

8080

6060

2020

00

Cunningham et al., (1995)

Cunningham et al., (1995)

4040

Percentage Volunteering to Help

Degree of Relatedness

High(parents, siblings, children)

Mod.(grand-parents)

Low(first-cousins)

None(attractive strangers)

17 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-or-death situation • more likely to help old individuals in running errands

18 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…

19 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.

20 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.

8080

6060

2020

00

Happy Happy

% V

olun

teer

ing

% V

olun

teer

ing

4040

MoodMoodNeutralNeutral

BenefitBenefitLowLow HighHigh

CostCost LowLow

HighHighHappy students helped more than those in a neutral mood, with little regard for costs and benefits

Happy students helped more than those in a neutral mood, with little regard for costs and benefits

Sad Sad

Weyant (1976)

8080

6060

2020

00

Happy Happy

% V

olun

teer

ing

% V

olun

teer

ing

4040

MoodMoodNeutralNeutral Sad Sad

BenefitBenefitLowLow HighHigh

CostCost LowLow

HighHigh

But students in a sad mood only helped when benefits were high, and costs were low

But students in a sad mood only helped when benefits were high, and costs were low

23 of 76

Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of HelpingHelping

• 3 step process (Pilivian & Dovidio, 1981, 1991)

1) Others’ distress creates uncomfortable arousal in us

2) We are motivated to reduce this arousal3) 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

24 of 76

Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of HelpingHelping

• 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

25 of 76

Predicted Responses For Arousal Model

Costs For Helping

Costs For Not Helping

Low High

Low Will Vary (Depends on

Perceived Norms for Situation)

Leave the Situation,

Ignore, Denial

High Direct Intervention

Indirect Intervention OR Redefine

Situation

26 of 76

Increased Increased Chance That Chance That Help Will Be Help Will Be

OfferedOffered

Increased Increased Chance That Chance That Help Will Be Help Will Be

OfferedOffered

Observation of Another in Clear Need

of Aid

Increased Negative

Emotional Arousal

if Cost of Helping is

Small

if Rewards are Large

if Arousal is strong

Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of HelpingArousal/Cost-Reward Model of Helping

27 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

28 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

29 of 76

RESULTS: Harmon-Jones, Peterson, & Vaughn (2003)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

empathy no empathy

Nu

mb

er o

f H

ou

rs V

olu

nte

ered

past failures to help

control

$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

$10.00

empathy no empathy

Am

ou

nt

of

Mo

ney

Do

nat

ed

past failures to help

control

30 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

31 of 76

Ruiz and Tanaka (2001)

• Had participants create a pro- or counter-attitudinal speech under high choice about lowering or increasing tuition fees

• Then participants had opportunity to help a confederate who ostensibly dropped floppy disks

32 of 76

• Participants that experienced cognitive dissonance and helped showed less attitude change than participants who experienced dissonance and did not help

Results: Ruiz and Tanaka (2001)

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

dissonance (pro- tuition increase) no dissonance (anti- tuition increase)

Att

itu

de

Ch

ang

e

help

no help

Less attitude change (strongly opposed to tuition increase)

More attitude change

(less opposed to tuition increase)

33 of 76

• Suggests that the act of helping reduced the cognitive dissonance and thus the standard dissonance-reduction strategy via attitude change was no longer needed

Results: Ruiz and Tanaka (2001)

34 of 76

Situational Factors influencing Helpful Behaviors

1. Video Clip (Kitty Genovese)2. Bystander Effect & Diffusion of

Responsibility3. Pluralistic Ignorance4. Social Norms5. Observational Learning6. Blaming the Victim7. Recipient’s Reaction of Being

Helped

35 of 76

Situational Factors

• Video Clip (Kitty Genovese)– Approximately 25 minutes

36 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

37 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.

38 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

39 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.

40 of 76

8080

6060

2020

00

Alone Alone

Percentage Reporting Smoke

Percentage Reporting Smoke

4040

With 2 other real subjects

With 2 other real subjects

With 2 calm confederates With 2 calm confederates

Results: Latane & Darley (1968)

41 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.

42 of 76

Social Norms

• Norm of Reciprocity

• Norm of Social Responsibility• You should be a good Samaritan

• Norm of Equity• 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

43 of 76

Modeling Helpful Behavior

• Observing helpful behaviors can influence the likelihood of our own helping

-implications for the development of helping in children

44 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

45 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…?

46 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

47 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)

48 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)

49 of 76

Altruism vs. Egoism Debate•Altruistic motivation

– we help others as an end in itselfthat is, to help them only, without benefiting ourselves

•Egoistic motivation– we help others to feel good about ourselves

50 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

51 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)

52 of 76

Batson’s Study: The Setup

AskedTo Trade

PlacesWith

Elaine

High Empathy

Low Empathy

Easy Escape

Hard Escape

Easy Escape

Hard Escape

53 of 76

Results from Batson’s Study

54 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!

55 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…?

56 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!

57 of 76

So who won?

Cialdini et al.

Batson et al.

vs.

58 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

59 of 76

• Is the penguins’ behavior truly altruistic?

• In other words, is the penguin’s behavior toward their offsprings benefit only the offsprings?

60 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

61 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’ self- interest

• Form of prosocial behavior

62 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

63 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

64 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

65 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!

66 of 76

Social Dilemma Activity• Need 2 volunteers

• Rules of the game:– Each turn, you can either “co-operate” or “compete”

Both receive $3

B gets $5A gets $0

A gets $5B gets $0

Both receive $1

Person A

Person B

Cooperate

Compete

Cooperate Compete

67 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

68 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

69 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

70 of 76

SUMMARY

• MAY HELP for:– Altruistic reasons– Egoistic reasons

• Social dilemmas– Cooperation vs. self-interest

END