Definition of
Pro social Behavior
Helping behavior
Altruism
behavior with immediate goal to benefit others
provide benefit by addressing a specific need
benefit others without expecting a reward
Evolutionary Theorys for pro social behavior
o Reciprocal altruism/Inclusive fitness theory;
§ Humans are innately selfish
§ Help If it promotes survival of own genes ( helping Kin, Ingroup help, reciprocal helping)
o Empathy- Altruism Hypothesis;
§ Seeing others suffer -> personal distress(Self -directed)+ empathetic involvement (other directed)
· Altruism; helping even though one could deal with personal distress by leaving the situation (empathetic involvement)
§ Components;
High Empathetic emotion -> Altruistic motivation -> helping
Low Empathetic emotion -> helping only if can’t escape situation
§ Exemplar Study; Helping Elain who is scared of electricity
· Similarity matters more(only) when escape is possible
o Similarity -> empathetic emotions -> altruistic motivation
Negative State Relief Model
§ Seeing others suffer -> negative emotions (esp. sadness)
§ Helping in order to reduce emotions (Even if physical escape possibilities are testable, psychological ability to distance the self are hard to take into account)
§ Similarity -> increases negativity of triggered emotions
o Exemplar Experiment ; Helping after empathy is/isn’t triggerd
§ If problem was just observed help was equaly scarce
§ If empathy was triggerd people helped with imagined problem but not a new problem
· Support for Empathy- Altruism Hypothesis
è More empirical support for empathy-Altruism, but hard to prove
o Decision Model of Bystander Behavior (Latane & Darley)
Basics
Describes what needs to happen so a bystander helps
External event -> Awareness +Emergency evaluation + personal Responsibility + Accessible Response = Intervention
“Causes”/Sources of Bystander effect
Awareness/ Emergency evaluation:
o Environment (Emergencys go unnoticed in busy crowds)
o Mood ( happy = more attention to others)
o Pluralisic ignorance ( alone = more likely to help, non activity of others= situation seems less threatening, less action of individual,)
Worthyness of help
o has person caused their state of need themselves?
§ More donation for natural catastrophy than social unrest
Personal Responsibility
o Diffusion of Responsibility (someone has already done this)
§ Bystander Effect Does not apply groups of similar others (friends, fellow students)
Accessible Response/Implementing help
o Audience Inhibition(Fear of showing novel behavior in front of others)
o Self efficacy
Cost-Reward model (Pillavin)
· Bystander Effect did not occur across all situations
§ No Arousal = No Response (bystander effect)
§ Arousal + positive Cost-Reward Calculation= (indirect) help
§ Arousal + negative Cost-Reward Calculation= distortion/escape
§ Very high Arousal = skipping conscious evaluation -> impulsive helping
Revised Cost-Reward model exists bur is very confusing
Social-Excange Theory
§ Perception of consequences of helping/not helping determine help
· Perceived Benefits of helping :
o Gratitude
o Reciprocated help
o Positive social evaluation
o Increase Self-esteem/mood
o Distract from bad mood
· Perceived Costs of helping
o Time
o Effort
o Danger
o Feeling of incompetence
§ -> kinda reversed for not helping
- The Three levels of analysis of pro-social behavior (Penne, Dovidio…)
o Micro (origins of social behavior inside a person)
o Meso (helper-recipient interactions)
o Macro (helping in group contexts)
process of helping behavior In- vs Outroup member
- Ingroup : Increases likelihood of receiving help if same in-group
- Outgroup; Whether help is offered to an outgroup varies
o Ingroup inclusion; victim/prs who needs help is included -> ingroup favoritism
Ingroup norm; creation group-norms that value helping outgroups
Promotional and restricting norms of helping
o Promotional
§ Concern for others
§ Leadership responsibility
§ Other role expectations
o Restricting
§ Familiy privacy
§ Minding own business
§ Social consensus
Influence of Processing modes on Helping
- Superficial processing -> most salient norms/motives decide
o -> impulsive help is likely
- Systematic Help -> Cost and benefits decide
o -> longer lasting commitment & inclusion into self concept
influence of interindividual Differences on helping
o Prosocial Personality;
§ Ability/Tendency to feel Empathy
§ Self efficacy
è Whether personality traits are relevant is decided by situation
Increasing Pro social behavior
- In active Emergency;
o Reducing ambiguity; make Emergency-Situation salient
o Infuse personal responsibility
o Explain how to help
o Promote Identification
- Pre-Emergency;
o Propagate prosocial norms
o Teach about bystander effect (study approves)
o Teach helping behavior (eg first aid)
o Increase internal attribution for helping (helpful self concept ->internal motivation)
Effects of recieving help
o Positive:
§ Reduce suffering
§ Positive relationship (bonding)
o Negative;
§ Feeling of owing a favor
§ Feeling of incompetence
if help =self-esteem threat ->helper evaluation neg
- Nadlers kinds of helping
o Dependency oriented help (give him the fish)
o Autonomy oriented help (give him the rod)
o Defensive helping; higher status groups/ppl offering help to lower status groups/ppl to secure their position
Zuletzt geändertvor 10 Monaten