Pro-social

and an--social behaviour

Pro-social behaviour
Humans are social beings and seek interac-ons with others. They will form many social rela-onships throughout their life-me. The term social rela*onship is dened as the connec-on or associa-on between two or more people, especially with regard to how they think, feel and behave towards each other.

Pro-social behaviour
The term social behaviour can be dened as any behaviour where interac-on occurs between two or more people. Eg: smiling at someone. Social behaviour can be classied as either posi%ve or nega%ve.
Posi%ve social behaviour is referred to as pro-social behaviour. Nega%ve social behaviour is dened as an*-social behaviour.

Pro-social behaviour
Pro-social behaviour is any behaviour intended to help or benet another person, group or society. To determine whether behaviour is pro-social the goal that drives the behaviour is a more important considera-on than the actual outcome of the behaviour. True pro-social behaviour is inten%onal, the individual deliberately tries to provide assistance. Eg. Opening the door for someone when they have their arms full

What is NOT pro-social behaviour?

Suppose that you are driving down a narrow laneway and stop to remove a box that is in the way so you don't damage your car. You place the box on the footpath out of your way and drive o. This ac-on will also benet other motorists who use the laneway. However, your behaviour is not considered to be pro-social because it was not your inten-on to benet other motorists Complete Learning Ac-vity 10.2 Review ques-ons on page 418 of your text books

Factors inuencing pro-social behaviour

In the 1960s and 1970s many research studies were undertaken to iden-fy and be]er understand factors that inuence pro-social behaviour. Many of these studies were prompted by the disturbing case of Ki]y Genovese who was murdered in 1964.

Oh my God, he stabbed mePlease help me!

Please help me Im dyingIm dying
At around 3 am Ki]y was returning home from her job at a bar. She was a]acked by a knife wielding man as she walked across the road from her car to her apartment. She tried to escape but her a]acker caught her and repeatedly stabbed her. Ki]ys screams woke 38 of her neighbours. Many of them switched on their lights and watched at their windows while Ki]y struggled with her a]acker. Only ONE of her neighbours called the police. NONE went to her aid.

Factors inuencing pro-social behaviour

On the basis of research ndings, psychologists have iden-ed a number of factors that inuence the likelihood of pro- social behaviour occurring. These factors include aspects of the situa-on in which help is required, social norms that inform us about our obliga-on to help, and personal factors associated with the individual who has the opportunity to help.

Factors inuencing pro-social behaviour

Psychologists have iden-ed a number of factors that inuence the likelihood of pro-social behaviour occuring. These factors include: aspects of the situa-on in which help is required social norms (social rules) that inform us about our obliga-ons to help personal factors associated with the individual who has the opportunity to help

Situa-onal Factors
Bibb Latane and John Darley (1968) conducted several experiments to help understand why so many people failed to help Ki]y. They iden-ed 3 key factors associated with the specic situa-on that inuences whether people will be prosocial and help. These include whether we no-ce the situa-on, interpret the situa-on as one where help is needed, and whether we are prepared to take responsibility for helping in that situa-on.

No-cing the situa-on

If you were walking through a shopping centre with your friends, would you necessarily no%ce a person who is slumped in front of a store and in need of help? It may be that you are so involved in a conversa%on with your friends that you don't When individuals are on their own they are quicker to no-ce something dierent or unusual than when they are in a group. An explana-on for this is that people in a group are more likely to be focused on their interac-ons with each other than on their surroundings, as compared with when they are alone.

Interpre-ng the situa-on

Many situa-ons in which help may be required are ambiguous or unclear. Therefore, people cannot always be sure that a helping response is appropriate or required. For example, if you saw someone slumped on the steps of a building in the middle of the day, as shown below, would you think they were drunk, injured, ill, upset, aected by an overdose of drugs or simply res-ng? Any one of these interpreta-ons may be correct.

Interpre-ng the situa-on

Research ndings indicate that the less ambiguous the situa-on, the more likely it is that help will be oered. Conversely, the more ambiguous the situa-on the less likely it is that help will be oered.

Clark and Word (1972)

In an experiment Clark and Word (1972) set up an emergency situa-on where there was no ambiguity in the situa-on. An apparent maintenance worker climbed a ladder, pretended to fall of it then pulled the ladder on top of himself. He then grunted loudly and exclaimed oh my back; I cant move! he con-nued to groan with each breath and then he gave a cry for help. In all condi-ons of the experiment 100% of the par-cipants went to help the man.

Clark and Word (1972)

However, in this follow-up experiment, they added ambiguity by removing the verbal cues that an injury had occurred; that is, the vic-m did not say anything or groan aner the fall. Under these circumstances, only 30% of the par-cipants helped

Taking responsibility for helping

Though you may no-ce and correctly interpret a situa-on as one in which help is required, you are unlikely to intervene and help unless you believe it is your responsibility to do so. For example, if you were at a swimming pool and saw a swimmer calling for help in full view of the lifeguard, you would be unlikely to jump in the water to provide help. Instead, you would probably decide that helping a swimmer in distress is the responsibility of the lifeguard

Taking responsibility for helping

In the case of Ki]y Genoveses murder Darley and Latane (1968) hypothesized that the presence of other onlookers aected each individuals sense of responsibility to take ac-on. No one helped because they all believed that someone else would take on the responsibility for helping.

Taking responsibility for helping

Latane and Dabbs (1975) conducted an experiment with 145 confederates who accidently dropped coins or pencils while in a lin. In 1,497 trips in the lin, the confederates were helped 40% of the -me when they were alone with one other person, and helped less than 20% of the -me when there were six other passengers.

Latane Dabbs (1975)

When asked anerwards why they responded as they did, most of the par-cipants who were the only other passenger in the lin referred to their feelings of a personal responsibility for helping. However, only a very small percentage of par-cipants who were in the lin with one or more others indicated any feelings or beliefs of a personal responsibility to oer help. The results demonstrate what psychologists call the bystander eect

The Bystander Eect

The bystander eect is the tendency for individuals to be less likely to help another person in need when other bystanders are present, or believed to be present, as compared to when they are alone. The greater number of bystanders the less likely any of them are to help. Bystander experiment

Reviewing factors inuencing pro-social behaviour

Social Norms
Onen we help others because we believe that we ought to help; for example, we ought to return a lost wallet that we nd and we ought to help a new student nd their way to a classroom. In such cases, our desire to help is inuenced by social norms Social norms are standards, or rules, that govern what people should or should not do in dierent social situa-ons. Two social norms that can inuence us are the reciprocity norm and the social responsibility norm.

Reciprocity norm
The reciprocity norm is based on the reciprocity principle, an unwri]en rule that we should give what we receive or expect to receive. The word reciprocal means to give mutually and the saying Do unto others as you would have them do unto you reects the reciprocity principle. In accordance with the reciprocity principle, the reciprocity norm prescribes that we should help others who help us.

Reciprocity norm
For example, if you help a friend with their Maths homework, you would expect them to return the favour and assist you with another subject when you need help. This expecta%on is both reasonable and socially acceptable. To receive without giving in return goes against or breaks the reciprocity norm.

Social responsibility norm

The social responsibility norm prescribes that we should help those who need help because it is our responsibility or duty to do so. For example, if you stop to assist someone who asks for direc-ons or help a lost child nd their parents on a crowded beach, your helping behaviour is likely to have been inuenced by the social responsibility norm. As a member of a community and wider society, we learn and are led to believe that it is our duty or responsibility to help those in need, without any expecta-on that this help will be reciprocated

Social responsibility norm

It seems, however, that we are selec-ve in the way we apply the social responsibility norm. For example, if someone needs assistance because they are a vic-m of circumstances such as re, ood or burglary, and they have not been responsible for bringing about their hardship, then we are more likely to help and be generous in our help eg. Black Saturday bushres in Victoria on February 7 2009

Reviewing Social Norms

Complete Learning Ac-vity 10.5 Review Ques-ons on page 424.

Personal Factors
There is empirical evidence which suggests various personal factors can inuence pro- social behaviour demonstrated through helping. Such factors include:
our ability to empathize with others the mood we are in when help is needed whether we feel competent to give the help which is required.

Empathy
We are more likely to help someone in need of help if we feel empathy for them. Empathy is the ability to iden-fy with and understand another persons feelings or dicul-es. Empathic people can understand the distress of others, feel concern for them and can imagine what it must be like to be in need of help. When we empathise with someone, we usually want their suering to end and this can be a powerful mo-ve for us to help in some way

Empathy
Research ndings indicate that, in an emergency situa-on where people appear to be in distress, the more distressed and upset bystanders become from observing the distress experienced by others, the more likely they are to provide help (Schroeder & others, 1995; Dovidio, 1984).

Evalua-ng Daniel Bastons Reseach

Mood
Are we more likely to help someone if we are in a good mood or a bad mood? For example, do you believe that you would be more likely to help someone just aOer nding out that you achieved an A+ for an important exam? What if you just had a huge ght with your best friend? Would you be more or less likely to help a stranger who asked for your assistance at that %me? Research studies indicate that a good mood increases helping, whereas a bad mood will some-mes increase and some-mes decrease helping behaviour.

Mood
Because helping makes us feel good, people some-mes help in order to stay in a good mood. People may also help in order to escape from a bad mood. Consequently, people who feel guilty are onen helpful people. Psychologists believe that the posi-ve inuence of mood on helping behaviour results from a number of interrelated factors. Helping can sonen a bad mood and maintain or promote a good mood. Read pp

Mood

Competence
You are holidaying beside the Murray River and observe a swimmer in the middle of the river calling out for help as they are swept downstream. You have no%ced the situa%on, have correctly interpreted it as one in which help is required and have also accepted responsibility for helping. You quickly look around and realise that there is no-one else around. Would you help the swimmer if you didn't know how to swim? you would be extremely unlikely to do this. You would probably realise that diving into a river to rescue someone if you are not a strong swimmer could lead to your own drowning as well as that of the other person

Competence
Clearly, we can't help someone if we don't have the skills required or don't know how. Consequently, our actual or perceived ability to help can inuence whether or not we help in a specic situa-on, as well as the type of help we may oer. Research ndings indicate that people with abili%es or training that are relevant to a situa%on in which help is required are more likely to help. Furthermore, relevant training makes help not only more likely to be oered, but also more likely to be eec-ve

Altruism
Some-mes, pro-social behaviour such as voluntary work for the disabled, dona-ng money to a charity is labelled as altruism. Altruism is a specic kind of pro-social behaviour where the mo-ve to help is totally seless. Altruism refers to pro-social behaviour focused on the wellbeing or benet of others without any thought to personal gain or reward

Altruism- danger?
Some psychologists have argued that altruism also diers from ordinary helping behaviour in that it involves an element of personal risk Consequently, genuine altruism would be demonstrated by a passer-by who, for example, puts themself at risk by running into a blazing house to rescue a stranger trapped inside Most social psychologists adopt the more conven-onal deni-on of altruism, but does not necessarily involve an element of personal risk

Reviewing Altruism
Complete learning ac-vity 10.10 Review ques-ons on page 432 Qs 1-4

Factors inuencing reluctance to help

When so many people failed to help directly or seek help while watching the Ki]y Genovese incident, psychologists were interested to discover not only those factors that lead someone to help, but also those factors that prevent someone from helping. Many other factors have been iden-ed through research studies to explain why people are reluctant to help or do not provide help even when they have the opportunity to do so

Diusion of responsibility
People onen fail to help when others are around because of the diusion of responsibility across all the people who are present. Diusion of responsibility is the belief that, in a situa-on where help is required and others are present, one or more other people will or should take responsibility for helping. When other people are present, responsibility is divided up or spread (diused) across the whole group.

Diusion of responsibility
Thus, diusion of responsibility helps explain why no-one helps when many people are present in a situa-on where help is required. The fact that there are a lot of other people around, actually decreases the likelihood that any one person will help.
In the Genovese murder, the responsibility for helping may have diused across all 38 neighbours who witnessed the event. Ul-mately, responsibility diused to the level where only one person felt any personal responsibility to act

Reviewing Darley and Latane (1968)

Complete Learning Ac-vity 10.13 Data analysis diusion of responsibility on page 433.

Audience inhibi-on
The presence of others at the scene provides an audience and this increases the chance of being embarrassed or feeling foolish. Consequently, these aspects of the situa-on can inhibit, or prevent, someone from helping. This reason for failing to help is called audience inhibi*on

Audience Inhibi-on
Audience inhibi*on can be dened as not helping another human being because of a fear of appearing foolish in the presence of others. It typically leads to bystanders to keep calm in an emergency and check to see how others present are reac-ng. The problem is that if people observe that everyone else is keeping calm they will conclude that no-one else is concerned or upset and therefore help is not needed

Latane and Darley (1968)- smoke-lled room experiment smoke-lled room experiment

Cost-benet analysis
Suppose you had a close friend with kidney failure A kidney transplant would enable them to resume a normal lifestyle and avoid the regular hospital visits. If they asked you to donate one of your kidneys, what would you do?

In making the decision about whether to help, you might weigh up the costs of dona-ng (considera%ons about your own health) against those of not dona-ng (guilt). You may also consider the benets of dona-ng (feeling good about helping someone), compared with not dona-ng (no interrup%ons to your own life)

Cost-benet analysis
A cost-benet analysis involves an individual weighing up the personal and social costs of helping against the benets of helping. Benets of helping may be monetary rewards, the gra-tude of the vic-m, feeling good, and increase in self esteem, social approval, or the thrill of making the news. Costs may include the eort and -me it takes to help, risks such as personal injury, feeling guilty or embarrassed, or loss of resources.

Ethical considera-ons in studies on pro-social behaviour.

Ques-ons are onen raised when performing experiments on pro-social behaviour. For example are par-cipants in these experiments subjected to psychological harm by witnessing someone elses suering? Is it appropriate to deceive unsuspec-ng research par-cipants in order to control variables such as par-cipant expecta-on or the placebo eect?

An--social behaviour
An*-social behaviour is any behaviour that is disrup-ve or harmful to the well being or property of another person or the func-oning of a group or society. It typically involves ac-ons which break the law, rules or social norms concerning personal and property rights of others. At the core of many an--social acts is aggression.

Aggression
In psychology, aggression is dened more precisely than the deni-on used in our everyday language. eg, an asser%ve and persistent sales assistant, whose behaviour might be considered aggressive by customers, may not be considered aggressive according to a psychological deni%on. However, ghts, armed conicts, terrorist bombings, sexual assault, domes%c violence, suicide, racism, harassment, bullying and brutality of all kinds are all considered by psychologists to be demonstra-ons of aggression.

Aggression
Aggression is dened as any behaviour intended to cause physical or pyschological harm to a person (including self), animal or object. For an ac-on to be considered aggressive there must be an inten%on to harm, regardless of whether or not harm is actually done.

Reviewing Aggression

Explana-ons of aggression
Most of the theories on aggression can be organised into one of four perspec-ves or approaches to explaining aggression.
Psychodynamic perspec*ve: aggression in an inner urge or force that builds up within us un-l it needs to be released. Ethological perspec*ve: aggression is ins-nc-ve and has adap-ve and survival func-ons. Biological perspec*ve: aggression has a biological basis and is therefore inuenced by our genes, biochemistry, brain and nervous system Social learning perspec*ve: aggression is a learned behaviour and most of the learning occurs through observing aggressive behaviour and copying what we see.

Biological perspec-ve
Are we all born with genes for aggression? Are we born aggressive, but learn to control our aggression? Psychologists who have studied the rela-onship between the body and behaviour have developed various biologically based theories to explain aggression The biological theories suggest that there are important physiological factors that combine in various ways to inuence whether an aggressive response will be made in a par-cular situa-on.

Biological- Gene-cs
Some biological theories have focused on the role of genes in aggression. Eg., successful a]empts at breeding highly aggressive strains of rats, mice and rabbits in the laboratory suggest that, among these animals at least, individuals can inherit an aggressive tendency (Cologer-Cliord, Simon & Jubilan, 1992).

Biological- Gene-cs
In one study by Finnish psychologist Kirs- Lagerspetz (1979), the most aggressive mice were taken from a group and mated with each other, and the least aggressive mice were also interbred. This procedure was repeated for 26 genera-ons. In the nal group of ospring, the mice that had been bred for aggressive tendencies showed extreme aggression; eg, they immediately a]acked any other mouse placed in their cage. On the other hand, the docile (non-aggressive) group were so placid that when other mice a]acked them they did not ght back or defend themselves in any way.

Biological- Gene-cs
Generally, psychologists believe that our gene-c make-up may make us more likely to become or be an aggressive person, but environmental factors play a crucial role in determining whether or not we do in fact become an aggressive person or are pre- disposed to use aggressive behaviour.

Biological- Neural
Because aggression is a complex behaviour, onen involving thoughts and feelings as well as ac-ons, the brain has a crucial role in aggression. However, psychologists believe that it is unlikely that one par-cular structure or area of the brain is solely responsible for aggression

Biological- Neural
The hypothalamus and the amygdala are two structures located deep within the brain. These structures are made up mostly of neurons, as are all other brain structures. The neurons communicate with each other with signals that are a combina-on of electrical and chemical ac-vity.

Biological- Neural
Neurons that form brain structures can be manipulated using a weak electrical current. Researchers can do this using a device called an electrode. Using an electrode, researchers can ac-vate (switch on) or block (switch o) a brain structure and stop it from func-oning as it normally does.

Biological- Neural
Researchers have found that when the hypothalamus and the amygdala of certain animals are electrically s-mulated, aggressive responses increase, and when the electrical ac-vity is blocked, aggressive responses decrease.

Biological- Biochemical
Aggressive behaviour can result from the presence and ac-vity of certain chemical substances in the body. These substances may occur naturally in the body (such as hormones) or they may be introduced into the body by inges-ng them (such as alcohol and other drugs).

Biological- Biochemical
Biochemical inuences have been used to explain dierences in the incidence of aggressive behaviour between the sexes, as well as dierences between individual males and females. Compared with females, human males tend to behave more aggressively in everyday life and commit more violent crimes. One explana-on for the sex dierence in aggressive behaviour is the diering levels of the hormone testosterone in males and females.

Biological- Biochemical
Experiments with animals have shown that aggressive behaviour increases signicantly when high levels of testosterone are present and low levels of testosterone result in less aggressive behaviour Experiments have also shown that, irrespec-ve of species, when aggressive male animals are castrated (de-sexed), thus reducing their level of testosterone, the animal becomes more placid. However, aner castra-on, if they are injected with testosterone, the animals tend to become aggressive again.

Biological- Biochemical
Various research studies in prisons have found that prisoners who were convicted of violent crimes, such as assault, rape and murder, tended to have a higher level of testosterone In comparison prisoners convicted of non-violent crimes, such as trac oences, fraud or embezzlement had lower testosterone

Biological- Biochemical
Other kinds of chemicals that can increase the frequency of aggressive and other an--social behaviour include alcohol, some prescribed medica-ons and some illegal drugs such as heroin and ice. Research evidence suggests that, even with only a small quan-ty of alcohol in their blood, many people become disinhibited, having less control over their feelings and reac-ons than usual. While many researchers are uncertain why alcohol increases aggressive behaviour, some believe that the drug may aect the amygdala and other areas of the brain involved in aggression

Social Learning perspec-ve

Social learning theories focus on how we learn aggressive behaviour through our interac-ons with others in the course of everyday life. According to social learning theory, one of the main ways in which we learn aggression is from watching other people being aggressive and then copying their aggressive behaviour.

Social learning- Observa-onal learning

Observa*onal learning involves learning by watching someone else's behaviour and the consequences of their behaviour, and then modelling, or imita-ng, the behaviour We are more likely to imitate the behaviour of someone who ma]ers to us or to whom we can relate in some way than that of someone who is not so important.

Social learning- Observa-onal learning

We do not simply observe some behaviour and immediately copy whatever we see, we also observe consequences. If we observe posi-ve, desirable consequences, then we are more likely to imitate and adopt the behaviour. If we observe undesirable consequences, such as the behaviour being punished, then we are less likely to imitate and adopt the behaviour.

Albert Bandura (1973 &1977)

Bandura has iden-ed four condi-ons that are necessary for observa-onal learning to occur:
you must pay a]en-on to the model's behaviour you must remember the model's behaviour you must have the ability to reproduce, or imitate, the behaviour that you observed you must be mo-vated to perform the behaviour.

Albert Bandura (1973 &1977)

According to Bandura, if you observe the model's behaviour being reinforced (e.g. rewarded) then you will be more likely to be mo-vated to reproduce the behaviour. If you observe the behaviour not being reinforced or being punished, then you will be less likely to be mo-vated to reproduce the behaviour.

Albert Bandura (1973 &1977)

Read Banduras experiments on pp Bandura's experiments

Reviewing social-learning
Complete Qs 1,2,4 &5