Chapter 9:
Pro-social behaviour: helping others
Prosocial behav: helpful action benefitting others with necessarily providing direct benefits to
person performing act – may even involve risk.
Altruism: behav motivated by unselfish concern for welfare of others.
Responding to an emergency: will bystanders help?
When a stranger is distressed: heroism/apathy?
Heroism: actions involving courageous risk taking to obtain socially valued goal.
Think of ordinary citizens who risk their own lives for others
Complete opposite = apathy = selfishness, unconcern – people fail to perform
Eg case of catherine genovese murdered in full view of people but no one even called the
police
Read pg 382-3 making sense of common sense on if there are more bystanders, will
there be greater chance that they’ll help (answer is no according to study by darley &
latané – ppl experience diffusion of responsibility. They tested bystander effect = the
more ppl there, more time lapsed before giving help)
Diffusion of responsibility: idea that amount of responsibility is assumed by bystanders to
an emergency is shared
Bystander effect: fact that likelihood of prosoc response to emergency is affected by
number of bystanders present
Implicit bystander effect: decrease in helping behav brought about by simply thinking
about being in group
Five crucial steps determine helping v not
Step 1: noticing/failing to notice something unusual is happening
Emergency (e) happens unexpectedly – no sure way to plan/anticipate
Usually you’re thinking about something else when bam! (insert dramatic something) if
we’re awake
Or you may fail to notice e – you’re sleeping, deep in thought, etc
We usually screen out stimuli that’s not relevant to us
* being aware of e doesn’t prompt action – just makes action possible
Study by darley & batson on step 1:
Studied clergy students (future helpers of god) who you’d think would be more helpful
than the average person = the more in a hurry you are, the less likely you are to
help/notice
Step 2: correctly interpreting event as emergency
If you notice e, you only have limited/incomplete info about what’s going on – usually it’s
not one
Caution inhibits us – we tend to hold back & wait for said info
We want to believe most comforting/undemanding/usually accurate interp that no action
is needed
With many people, we may feel embarrassed that we’re making much ado about nothing
– then we do nothing
We rely on soc comparisons to test interps: no panic on faces of others? Okay, it’s a
happy sunny day!
, Pluralistic ignorance: tendency of bystanders in es to rely on what others do/say, even
though none of them is sure about what’s happening/what to do. Usually, they all hold
back = use info to justice failure to act
Study by latané & darley of smoke being pumped into room through vent: more ppl
present, they act cool; only one – left to report prob
Less likely if it’s group of friends than strangers
* ppl who’ve been drinking tend to be more helpful – less inhibited
Step 3: deciding that it’s your responsibility to help
Sometimes it’s obvious that something is wrong & there are often ppl whose job it is to do
specific help (eg policemen, firefighters, paramedics)
* if there’re ppl of authority, they’ve expected to take control
Step 4: deciding that you have necessary knowledge/skills to act
If it gets this far & you want to help, you have to know how to help
Some are simple everyday skills – maj ppl step up; more skilled – min step up
Step 5: making final decision to provide help
You must make ultimate decision to help
Often we’re inhibited by possible – consequences – we weigh up cost
External/internal influ on helping behav
Situational factors that enhance/inhibit helping
Helping those like you
= yes. Any characteristic that affects attraction increases chance of assistance
People most likely to help family/friends
Men likely to help women
Holding similar values = receiving help
Helping those who mimic us
Mimicry: automatic tendency to imitate those we interact with. Being med increases one’s
prosoc tendencies.
Humans mimic each other on various levels = increase in
liking/empathy/rapport/attraction
study on deliberate m = those who med were helpful in picking up dropped pens/give
money away
M plays role in survival/reproductive success – enhances cohesion/safety among animals
in group + imitation is nb aspect of learning/acculturation
Helping those who aren’t responsible for their problem
Cues/ play a role: what can you gather from scene of help?
Less likely to help if they ‘brought it upon themselves’
Exposure to prosoc models increases prosoc behav
If other ppl help/you see evidence of past helping you’re more likely to copy – we need
soc models to follow
Can also come from media (eg lassie, the brady bunch, sesame street, barney)
Emotions and prosoc behav
E state determined by external & internal factors
+ emotions
People more willing to help strangers here
Sense play role in e (pleasant smells = + e = helpfulness)
Pro-social behaviour: helping others
Prosocial behav: helpful action benefitting others with necessarily providing direct benefits to
person performing act – may even involve risk.
Altruism: behav motivated by unselfish concern for welfare of others.
Responding to an emergency: will bystanders help?
When a stranger is distressed: heroism/apathy?
Heroism: actions involving courageous risk taking to obtain socially valued goal.
Think of ordinary citizens who risk their own lives for others
Complete opposite = apathy = selfishness, unconcern – people fail to perform
Eg case of catherine genovese murdered in full view of people but no one even called the
police
Read pg 382-3 making sense of common sense on if there are more bystanders, will
there be greater chance that they’ll help (answer is no according to study by darley &
latané – ppl experience diffusion of responsibility. They tested bystander effect = the
more ppl there, more time lapsed before giving help)
Diffusion of responsibility: idea that amount of responsibility is assumed by bystanders to
an emergency is shared
Bystander effect: fact that likelihood of prosoc response to emergency is affected by
number of bystanders present
Implicit bystander effect: decrease in helping behav brought about by simply thinking
about being in group
Five crucial steps determine helping v not
Step 1: noticing/failing to notice something unusual is happening
Emergency (e) happens unexpectedly – no sure way to plan/anticipate
Usually you’re thinking about something else when bam! (insert dramatic something) if
we’re awake
Or you may fail to notice e – you’re sleeping, deep in thought, etc
We usually screen out stimuli that’s not relevant to us
* being aware of e doesn’t prompt action – just makes action possible
Study by darley & batson on step 1:
Studied clergy students (future helpers of god) who you’d think would be more helpful
than the average person = the more in a hurry you are, the less likely you are to
help/notice
Step 2: correctly interpreting event as emergency
If you notice e, you only have limited/incomplete info about what’s going on – usually it’s
not one
Caution inhibits us – we tend to hold back & wait for said info
We want to believe most comforting/undemanding/usually accurate interp that no action
is needed
With many people, we may feel embarrassed that we’re making much ado about nothing
– then we do nothing
We rely on soc comparisons to test interps: no panic on faces of others? Okay, it’s a
happy sunny day!
, Pluralistic ignorance: tendency of bystanders in es to rely on what others do/say, even
though none of them is sure about what’s happening/what to do. Usually, they all hold
back = use info to justice failure to act
Study by latané & darley of smoke being pumped into room through vent: more ppl
present, they act cool; only one – left to report prob
Less likely if it’s group of friends than strangers
* ppl who’ve been drinking tend to be more helpful – less inhibited
Step 3: deciding that it’s your responsibility to help
Sometimes it’s obvious that something is wrong & there are often ppl whose job it is to do
specific help (eg policemen, firefighters, paramedics)
* if there’re ppl of authority, they’ve expected to take control
Step 4: deciding that you have necessary knowledge/skills to act
If it gets this far & you want to help, you have to know how to help
Some are simple everyday skills – maj ppl step up; more skilled – min step up
Step 5: making final decision to provide help
You must make ultimate decision to help
Often we’re inhibited by possible – consequences – we weigh up cost
External/internal influ on helping behav
Situational factors that enhance/inhibit helping
Helping those like you
= yes. Any characteristic that affects attraction increases chance of assistance
People most likely to help family/friends
Men likely to help women
Holding similar values = receiving help
Helping those who mimic us
Mimicry: automatic tendency to imitate those we interact with. Being med increases one’s
prosoc tendencies.
Humans mimic each other on various levels = increase in
liking/empathy/rapport/attraction
study on deliberate m = those who med were helpful in picking up dropped pens/give
money away
M plays role in survival/reproductive success – enhances cohesion/safety among animals
in group + imitation is nb aspect of learning/acculturation
Helping those who aren’t responsible for their problem
Cues/ play a role: what can you gather from scene of help?
Less likely to help if they ‘brought it upon themselves’
Exposure to prosoc models increases prosoc behav
If other ppl help/you see evidence of past helping you’re more likely to copy – we need
soc models to follow
Can also come from media (eg lassie, the brady bunch, sesame street, barney)
Emotions and prosoc behav
E state determined by external & internal factors
+ emotions
People more willing to help strangers here
Sense play role in e (pleasant smells = + e = helpfulness)
