On the Nature of Prosocial Behaviors

November 9 th , 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.

(grand parents) Low (first cousins) Degree of Relatedness None (attractive strangers) 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-or death 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

60 40 20 80

Cost Low High Benefit Low High Weyant (1976) Happy students helped more than those in a neutral mood, with little regard for costs and benefits

0

Happy Neutral Mood Sad

Cost Low High Benefit Low High

80 60 40 20 0

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

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

Costs For Not Helping Low High Low Costs For Helping High Will Vary (Depends on Perceived Norms for Situation) Leave the Situation, Ignore, Denial Direct Intervention Indirect Intervention OR

Redefine Situation

25 of 76

Observation of Another in Clear Need of Aid Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of Helping if Arousal is strong if Cost of Helping is Small Increased Negative Emotional Arousal 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

1.4

1.2

1 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 RESULTS: Harmon-Jones, Peterson, & Vaughn (2003) empathy no empathy past failures to help control $10.00

$9.00

$8.00

$7.00

$6.00

$5.00

$4.00

$3.00

$2.00

$1.00

$ empathy no empathy past failures to help control 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 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 31 of 76

Less attitude change (strongly opposed to tuition increase) 4.00

3.90

3.80

3.70

3.60

3.50

Results: Ruiz and Tanaka (2001)

help no help More attitude change (less opposed to tuition increase) 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. Video Clip (Kitty Genovese) 2. Bystander Effect & Diffusion of Responsibility 3. Pluralistic Ignorance 4. Social Norms 5. Observational Learning 6. Blaming the Victim 7. 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 (1968)

80

Percentage Reporting Smoke

60 40 20 0

Alone With 2 other real subjects With 2 calm confederates 40 of 76

• Results from Latane & Darley’s (1968) suggest that people look to others for information.

study – 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 • 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 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

Asked To Trade Places With Elaine Easy Escape High Empathy Hard Escape 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

• Video clip Evolution and Altruism 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’ self interest • 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 A

Cooperate Cooperate Both receive $3 Compete A gets $5 B gets $0

Person B

Compete 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